Replies

[Inever said that, I said that the Jews were dispersed and did not forget who they are.]

That is your theory. That is also a consensus among certain interest groups, of which you must be one. You have no evidence for it, except a couple ambiguous New Testament passages which just as easily admit to at least one alternate interpretation. You have nothing else at all.

I have history and the New Testament, as well as the Old Testament prophecies that state that the Jews would be dispersed as part of their judgment.

Interest groups?

The presumption is that because nothing was heard of Israel as Israel (the name) they must have been wiped out, which gives lie to one of God's promises for them, and prophecies about them.

No one said that the Israelites were wiped out, only that they reunited with the Southern tribes as individuals and thus, still exist and are known today collectively as Jews.

From the written history (about 23,000 translated tablets, cylinders and other forms) by the people who captured them, they most certainly will have forgotten who they are being place among other peoples. And they most certainly were in vast numbers.

Two more assumptions you have made you cannot prove.

One, that they forgot who they were, when it is possible they kept their traditions alive and eventually returned to the Land on an individual basis.

We see former Assyrian lands mentioned in the 2nd chapter of Acts.

Two, that there were alot of them, considering when their capital city of Samaria fell, it only had 27,000 people in it.

So, once again, your theory is full of assumptions that you cannot prove.

From prior posts, you apparently don't know what "deported" means when applied to Assyrian conquered peoples.

I know what deported means by the Assyrian, it means putting them into a land very much the land they left so they could more easily assimilate.

[ Not hard to prove, they were all over and they were certainly dispersed after the fall of the Temple in 70AD. In the Book of Acts, Paul is going throughout his journey's to the 'Jew first, and then the Gentiles'. ]

First you haven't proved that the numbers of Israel were merged with the Jews. It is simply a presumption upon which you base speculation. And the fall of the Temple in 70AD had what to do with the dispersal of Israel as Judah, specifically? What does the passage of Paul's statement the Gospel is to be teached to the Jew first? You leave out his other words. He also said the good things would come to the Jew first for good behavior and bad things to the Jew first for bad behavior.

First, the fact is that many of the Israelites had returned to Israel as shown by passages in 2Chro. and the fact that Anna of the tribe of Assar was present in Lk 2.

Second, the fall of Jerusalem led to those same Jews being dispersed throughout all of the Roman Empire as slaves.

Third, there was no need for the entire quote, since the point of the quote was that Paul was going to Jews throughout his missionary journeys that entailed the vast Roman Empire.

Had nothing to do with a journey. If you think so, post the passage and explain it. Remember, the line of Judah was to produce Jesus, so God gave them first pass, obviously.

Again, the point is that the Jews/Israelites were scattered throughout Europe.

You can place the interpretation you do on this passage only if you have a prior belief. Any passage, read in the light of a belief, can be shaded toward that belief.

Well, if anyone should know that it would be you and the rest of those who believe your goofy theory!

[ So, Italy is part of Europe. ]

Yes. The most southern part of Italy, closest to Palestine. There is a lot more Europe.

So?

Jews were in Italy and they were in all parts of Europe as well, including Britain, which was part of the Roman Empire.

[ They were also spread throughout the rest of Europe and Asia Minor as shown by the first chapter of Acts where the nations they came from are listed. No, that curse was made on all of the Hebrew people before the split in the Kingdoms. And it pertains to all of the 12 tribes.]

What curse? I said," Your mistake is assuming that Israelites and Judah were one in the same peoples. That notion is not supportable. Beside other contrary facts, the fulfilling of Hosea and Ezekiel would have certainly been recorded, which fulfilling must have happened if, as you claim, Israel returned to Palestine and became "Jews"."

The curse put on them in Deut, long before they were split into two separate kingdoms.

How does this statement apply

[ The only difference is that they were split before the dispersion happened, first to the 10 tribes and then to the last 2 remaining tribes. All 12 tribes returned and were in Israel at the time of Christ and were dispersed again after the fall of the Temple in 70 AD and were not a nation again until 1948. ]

Israel disappeared into history as the name "Israelite". This assumption that is part of your own belief system. If they merged with Judah, they would have to have known who they were, or Judah would not have accepted them, as Judah is certainly aware to this day who they are.

There is no assumption, it is based on fact and Biblical history.

The only one with assumptions is you who cannot understand history and the Bible.

Those 10 tribes were back in Israel after the deportation as seen by Anna being there and the House of Israel being mentioned by both the Lord and Peter.

The problems with the merging with Judah are many, numbers, Assyrian records, prophecy, God's promises to Israel, contrasted against a few passages in the New Testament that are ambiguous.

No, the problem is that you are ignorant of any numbers (you do not know how many Israelites ended up in Assyria), ignorant of Assyrian records (you did not know of Sargan's record of only 27,000 being deported from the Captial of Samaria) and God's promises which state that the Kingdom will be reunited, and it will be, and they will be of the seed of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, not any other race.

I keep asking for something to prove your assertion and each attempt I have been able to explain otherwise. Do you folks (that subscribe to the consensus on your theory) make a habit of organizing your world view on convictions with so little evidence?

You have zero evidence for your theory.

All you know for a fact is the the 10 tribes were deported to Assyria.

Now, name a single other fact that you can cite!

You do not know how many.

You have no prove that those tribes went anywhere as tribes.

Your entire theory is simply a figment of someones imagination.

[ They will not be a Kingdom until the Millennial reign after the Tribulation occurs. ]

I think your distinction between the label for a group of people and the group of people themselves is laughable. Having to use such reasoning usually means you going down the wrong path.

I think your inability to distinguish between simple concepts reveals a childlike intelligence.

[ The Millennium is clearly stated in those verses that were given to you. You just want to deny what you read which refutes your heretical, idiotic theological view. But why let the facts get in the way of a good fable! ]

There has been nowhere that you have produced any evidence that the prophecies of Hosea and Ezekiel have anything to do with the Millennium.

Ofcourse they do, they show when Hosea prophecies will be fulfilled.

The House of Israel cannot be as the sands of the sea, 2/3 of them get destroyed in the Tribulation-you remember the Tribulation-Jacobs trouble (Jer.30:7).

Note the word Jacob, referring to all of the 12 tribes, not just the tribe of Judah.

Matter of fact, you, or anyone else, knows nothing of the physical manifestation of what is called "Millennium". Remember, the Jews had, and have, a fixed idea of what the appearance of the Messiah would be and their viewpoint led them to reject the Master when He actually came.

The Millennial reign is very clearly depicted in Isaiah.

All of Israel had a view of what the Messiah would be like and it was a conquerer to bring in the Millennial reign, not a suffering saviour.

That is why they were looking for a King and not a saviour dying for the sins of the world.

[ No Israelites were in those areas that did not know they were Jews. Stop making up history. ]

Short answer amounting to a statement with no support. Only your belief otherwise makes that statement. Israelites had over 6 centuries to migrate into those regions, and there are records made at the time that indicate they were headed that way.

No, history backs up my view as well as the Bible, with both Christ and Peter referring to the House of Israel.

It is you who have no support for your assumptions and myths.

[ You have zero evidence and no presumption of anything like that happening, not from history, not from prophecy, not from anything in the New Testament. And to keep repeating a lie doesn't make it a truth. No Israelites moved anywhere after the Assyrian captivity except in your fantasy world. ]

,I> History: Assyrian records, 23,000 of them. Prophecy: Hosea and Ezekiel, yet to be fulfilled and obviously not to be applied to a spiritual realm only and do not in any way imply that Christ will be the head of the reunited Judah and Israel. New Testament: clear passages, already posted to you, mentioning the House of Israel as present in the region, but not among the Jews.

There is not a single Assyrian record that states that those 10 tribes moved anywhere.

Now, if you have such a record produce it or stop citing it as a source for something that is false.

I have cited two published historians, one on the history of Assyria which states that those 10 tribes assimilated into the surrounding culture.

Only individuals from those tribes returned to the Land.

As for Hosea, the reading of it is for a future event, when the Israelites will be reunited to the to other 2 tribes in the Millennial reign.

We know this by seeing those tribes listed in the inheritance given in Ezek.48.

So, you are just misreading Hosea, as you do the rest of the Bible.

[ They were either assimilated into the surrounding people or they were joined with the Southern tribes and became intermingled with them and became known as Jews as well. ]

I agree a portion were assimilated into the surrounding people, specifically the Medians. The Assyrian tablets were clear about that. Records were also clear about a portion migrating northward toward Europe. That was 600 years before the birth of Christ. How much multiplication can occur in 600 years?

You have no records of any of the Tribes migrating anywhere-so stop your lying!

But you miss an obvious fact. Even those assimilated with the Medians will still carry the line of Abraham, the covenant, and God's promises thereto.

No, it will be those who are in the lind of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob that will receive the promises.

If some individuals have that racial lineage, then and only then can they be considered in the line of the Hebrew Promises.

All others are Gentiles.

[ Ofcourse there is, they were in Israel when the Lord was there and Peter addresses them in Acts 2 as the House of Israel. James sends out an epistle to the 12 tribes. There is alot more evidence of there assimilation then your myth of the tribes roaming to Europe and then forgetting that they are Hebrews! ]

We have already discussed the passages that you're talking about. Nowhere in those passages is the statement that the House of Israel was there in Palestine, or Rome and Greece, for that matter. the references always distinguish Judah from Israel, never Israel included with Judah.

Hey- it is to the 12 tribes!

What part of the 12 tribes do you not understand?

If you look at a map of the ancient world, you will see all this occurred in a relatively tight region. Only the lack of speedy communication in that day prevented detail from being known, but the essential events would have been known. Jesus refereed to the "lost sheep" of the House of Israel. Judah was right there in front of Him and they weren't "lost".

They were 'lost' in the sense they were -without their sheperd!

And that was for all of the 12 tribes of Israel, not just Judah.

Once again, your inability to understand simple English is showing.

James would have certainly been aware of their existence, as Jesus did direct His disciple to also go to them. But they certainly weren't refereed to as Jews. The southern kingdom and the northern kingdom were captured distinct from one another and remained distinct from one another until Hosea is fulfilled.

And once again, James did not write to the 10 tribes, he wrote to the 12 tribes, and thus, he knew where they were, they spread throughout the Roman Empire-as Jews.

[ Why should I ask any Jew anything since he cannot know what tribe he is from. He has no records to tell him. All the genealogical records were destroyed. ]

Then try to ask one and see what he says. Like I said, I have two friends that know which tribe they are from and they are quite sure. I have one from Levi that has family records kept since the return to Palestine.

There are no official records.

There is DNA testing, but there are no official records.

Ask one then tell him he can't possible know and see what he presents you with. Until you do that, your claim is mere rhetoric.

No my claim is based on fact.

The reason that no one can tell for sure what tribe he is from is because the records were destroyed in Jerusalem and those that survived, later in Alexandria Egypt.

That is why no one can claim any lineage for the Kingship from the tribe of Judah, there are no records to support that claim.

No, many Jews from the tribe of Levi did take the name of Cohn, so they would know what lineage they are based on that last name, but not on the basis of any official records.

[ And there is nothing to indicate that they did not know who they were either. ]

You claim the Jews don't know who they were and their lineage.

I claim that they know that they are Jews, but do not know their particular tribes (with the exception of the Levi's).

Try to grasp the difference.

[ So, if those tribes were in the Roman Empire (which they were) they were intermingled as a people, not as a separate entity, with differing tribes. ]

The Jews remained then and remain to this day separate from any people they find themselves among.

Yes, many do, but not always.

Before the Nazi Holocaust, the Jews were losing their own identity by intermarrying with the Germans.

[ No, go and look it up, you are clearly intellectually a very lazy person. ]

You make the claims, you present the evidence.

I have prevented more evidence in one post then you have in all of yours combined.

All your posts are based on conjecture, not a fact in them.

The writer of this history is either a very lazy person or you have not read what he said.

Well, he said what I said, and it refutes your entire false theory which is based on hot air.

[ It means all the people of the city, which totaled only 27,000. We have already seen that the army had been whittled down to only 10,000 men in an earlier chapter. The Northern Kingdom was a shell of itself when it was finally dispersed, it did not number in the millions as you conjure up in your fertile imagination. ]

Are you aware that deportations over the 25 years or so of the Assyrian occupation of the lands of the northern kingdom were of dissenters only, to other lands to separate them from their home folk? The majority were kept in their land to work it and make tribute the the Assyrian king.

And that would support my view, not yours!

If most of those tribes were left in the land, then there were not millions deported and thus, it would have been easy for individuals of those tribes to make their way back to the land.

This was a policy of Tiglath-pileser III. Did your professor mention any of this?

Yes, he explains the deportations very clearly.

You professor cites about 27,000 deported from a capital in the region. Does he mention how many were left to till the fields? 27,000 were be the trouble makers, a small percentage of the total Israelite population in that one place.

No, Sargon is referring to the captives he took from the Captial city.

So, your intention to get around that number is futile.

Whent that city fell it had only 27,000 people left in it.

Then of those deported and placed among the Medians and 4 generation to replenish their numbers. Between the time of the final destruction of the Assyrian empire and the birth of Christ was over 6 centuries, after mortal threats posed by the Assyrians.

Well, that is nice fantasy history.

Any actual prove?

The deportation occurred in 1Ki.17 and that is the only recorded instance of the deportation.

But it is true many were left in the Land as seen by them going to the South-so your theory is defeated and shown to be nonsense by your own admission.

Lots of babies can be born in 6 centuries.

Yes, and they were born in the land of Israel as well and came to known as Jews.

So all 12 tribes were in the Land when the Lord arrived-by your own admission.

[ Did I say that the 10 tribes were wiped out? They still exist, as Jews. ]

Yes, you did. For the Israelites to have been so few so that their numbers would have no increased the number of Judah in Palestine and the surrounding environs, they would have had to have been wiped out.

What the heck are you babbling about?

The Israelites who went South increased and became known as Jews.

That is how Anna from the tribe of Assar go there.

Your reasoning ability is fatally flawed.

I'm sure that the notion of all Israelites being Jews today is very convenient and attractive to certain agendas, it ignores much historical records and Biblical references, both Old and New Testaments.

No, your theory is the one without any historical evidence and Biblical basis.

As you said, the Israelites were left in the land.

What people the Assyrians did deport did not constitute the majority and thus, the Israelites would have been in the Land when Christ came.

[ You have not provided any facts to anything. As for calling names, if you want to keep posting nonsense and reject the truth, that is what you deserve, rebuke and ridicule. ]

Oh, but I have. From records of the players at the time it happened. You still haven't come up with anything to refute Hosea and Ezekiel, except to try to push the reunion so far into the future, and under condition described in total symbolism, that such a reunion would violate the clear words in those prophecies.

You have not come up with a single fact supporting any exodus that left Assryia and went into Europe.

You are lying through your teeth about Assyrian records saying they did-and you know it.

The prophecies will happen in the future, since the House of Israel, is not yet as the 'sand of the seas' because they are intermingled with the other 2 tribes.

So, try actually providing a single fact to show any actual departure from Assyria by those tribes, which you have no admitted did not make up the majority of the members of the tribes.

Anyone who would say that the Israelites left for Europe before Moses went out of Egypt has a screw loose!

What you, and those who subscribe to that same consensus, see as truth. Last I looked a consensus on anything does nto qualify as truth (I might note the Sun revolving around the Earth was a consensus). So you are nasty merely because of a theory.

Well, since you have no facts to support your nonsense, your theory is simply a myth, and does not even rate to be considered a theory.

[ He did alot more research then you ever did. He actually has historical evidence. And you have-your opinion! ]

Either he certainly didn't peruse the Assyrian writings, or you didn't give him a close read. As indicated above.

He is an expert in Assyrian history, so he, unlike you, actually know the records.

[ How hard is it to look up an old post. Look it up. ]

How hard is it to types "yes" or "no". You are being unreasonable and petty, it seems. I should read through all these words you posted to each other when it would take pressing two keys?

Like I said, look it up.

Is this the spirit with which you are making your other case?

I know the spirit in which you are posting, so stop pretending otherwise.

[ I know the tactics of you bunch of frauds. ]

What is "our" tactics. You are hanging off a consensus opinion with no evidence in the face of written evidence the other way, and you call that supported by those records a "fraud"?

You have no records that support you and stop lying about it!

There is not a single Assyrian record that says a single word about any Israelites leaving Assyria and you know it.

So your tactics are misinformation and lies!

And don't post me about the Assyrian record that has the Israelites in Northern Assyria and having on the garb of the Priesthood.

I want the location of the record that states that the Israelites left the area.

Too many real frauds have been perpetrated among people and have become the status quo. History is littered with them. I don't think you have guilty knowledge, just have been conditioned into a certain belief system before you were shown evidence for it.

What is littered throughout history are frauds and liars like yourself, who make claims without any actual facts to back them up and then rewrite history to make it fit their own warped, distorted view of it.

I have history and the New Testament, as well as the Old Testament prophecies that state that the Jews would be dispersed as part of their judgment. Interest groups?

You have ambiguous passages in the New Testament that can be interpreted exactly the opposite than he way you interpret them. I have offered the alternate interpretations.

You have shown no pivotal history. What history you have shown has been for the purpose of refuting the allegation of vast numbers of Israelites, because vast numbers can't be reconciled with the merging of them with Judah, Judah being 500,000 at the time we are discussing, from about 50,000 that returned from Babylon.

The history you cite misunderstands the practice of Assyrian "deportation", implying that the deportation of a number means that that was all there was and ignores the greater number of Israelites left to work the land for tribute to the Assyrian king. These survived.

The history you cite advances the notion that the Israelites were absorbed into the peoples of other cultures, ignoring that, after of centuries of generations, the progeny carry the seed of Abraham, which was passed under the covenant by blood. Which means the Earth already contains quite a lot of Abraham's seed, possible even covered therewith.

And to your edification and delight, not necessary all European, since this seems to cause you problems. But Europeans, too.

A group that is invested in its belief system based on the principle of "curse and be are cursed, bless and be blessed" is an "interest group" concerned with maintain the status quo.

I personally believe that this was God's protection for the people He charged with bringing the law. The law has been brought. Christ brought the new covenant of faith and belief, as Paul said, Abraham believed and it was imputed to him as righteousness.

No one said that the Israelites were wiped out, only that they reunited with the Southern tribes as individuals and thus, still exist and are known today collectively as Jews.

Any reuniting of Israel with Judah, as you posit, that would not change the demographics drastically, making Judah inundated with other Israelites and cause specific and copious writings describing the event, demands that the Israelites be so few as to make no blip on the cultural radar and not increase the recorded population of Judah significantly.

This would tantamount to "wiped out". The other 10 tribes were millions, and as I have demonstrated by citing Assyrian practices, retained those millions.

Two more assumptions you have made you cannot prove. One, that they forgot who they were, when it is possible they kept their traditions alive and eventually returned to the Land on an individual basis. We see former Assyrian lands mentioned in the 2nd chapter of Acts. Two, that there were alot of them, considering when their capital city of Samaria fell, it only had 27,000 people in it. So, once again, your theory is full of assumptions that you cannot prove.

They did indeed forget who they were, many of them, but not all.

Your point is well taken. But. . .

Isaiah 42:16-19 And I will bring the blind by a way that they knew not; I will lead them in paths that they have not known: I will make darkness light before them, and crooked things straight. These things will I do unto them, and not forsake them. They shall be turned back, they shall be greatly ashamed, that trust in graven images, that say to the molten images, Ye are our gods. Hear, ye deaf; and look, ye blind, that ye may see. Who is blind, but my servant? or deaf, as my messenger that I sent? who is blind as he that is perfect, and blind as the LORD's servant?

Romans 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in.

There were always, always those that held to the ways of the Israelites, even in cohabitation with the Medians. This has been the way of Judah and the way of the rest of the Israelites.

Their capital city had 27,000 that were deported to other lands, a tactic of th Assyrians to remove dissenters from their native supporters. The rest were kept on the land to till the land to produce tribute to the king.

As has been posted, this policy was was started by Tiglath-pileser III.

I know what deported means by the Assyrian, it means putting them into a land very much the land they left so they could more easily assimilate.

First. Assimilation still carries the bloodline of Abraham even through intermarriage. Second. The majority were not deported, and remained in the land as Israelites to produce for the Assyrian king. those that were deported were a fraction.

I see no serious reduction in numbers here.

First, the fact is that many of the Israelites had returned to Israel as shown by passages in 2Chro. and the fact that Anna of the tribe of Assar was present in Lk 2. Second, the fall of Jerusalem led to those same Jews being dispersed throughout all of the Roman Empire as slaves. Third, there was no need for the entire quote, since the point of the quote was that Paul was going to Jews throughout his missionary journeys that entailed the vast Roman Empire.

As is recorded, there were some of the norhtern kingdom that joined the southern kingdom for various reasons during the assault on the northern kingdom by the Assyrians, which were disgusted with the idolatrous practices that caused God to give them over to the Assyrians in the first place.

Jews being in other places than Palestine had no effect on the Israelites already there, and had been there since 612 BC.

Paul was talking about preferences of Judah for being the seed stock for bringing Christ into the world. The progeny of the Israelites tribes were indigenous people by this time. There are remnants of the Hebrew language in English and Welsh, as well as names of geographical features.

Which is contained in Jesus' charging His disciples to carry the Gospel to the lost children of Israel.

They were indeed lost.

Again, the point is that the Jews/Israelites were scattered throughout Europe.

The Israelites were scattered throughout Europe, including Britianm, Wales, Ireland and Scotland. That they were included in Juda is only what you add to it with no proof.

And, your response had nothing to do with my statement, "Had nothing to do with a journey. If you think so, post the passage and explain it. Remember, the line of Judah was to produce Jesus, so God gave them first pass, obviously."

Well, if anyone should know that it would be you and the rest of those who believe your goofy theory!

This your response to my statement, "You can place the interpretation you do on this passage only if you have a prior belief. Any passage, read in the light of a belief, can be shaded toward that belief."

That hits home to you, hence the response.

Note that I don't believe or disbelieve in what you call my "goofy theory". I was introduced to the notion from reading the posts of a prior poster, years ago, that put out this information (I forget the moniker). I was intrigued by the incredibly nasty responses and ad hominem that greeted his ideas. I reaseached his viewpoint and questioned those responses, helping him out in his arguments.

Through this experience, I was attracted to the unbelievable rage that was directed at this concept, even though the notion, if true, would have validated all assistance and support to the Jews in their fledging nation.

This indicated a mindset that transcended all reason and set itself against the very foundation of evangelicals' near automatic need to help Israel.

Think about it. Brothers in the covenant, aware of it or not, will spiritually be attracted to their brothers in need. Yet, here was a total rejection of the foundation of that impulse to assist those brothers.

This smacks of groupthink, led by agenda, nurtured by consensus, in the favor of those who have much to loose.

You are a proponent of that travesty for the only purpose of survival of your beliefs, right or wrong.

You will, by God in Heaven, give the absolute evidence, that leaves no room for alternate interpretations, of the consensus theory there are no Israelites left in the world except the tiny population of what you call Jews, who have given no indication whatsoever that they intend to fulfill God's promises for the Israelites.

So? Jews were in Italy and they were in all parts of Europe as well, including Britain, which was part of the Roman Empire.

I don't understand what your point is. There were representatives of Judah, I'm sure, in a lot of places in that region. This proves that Jews comprehended the vast number of Israelites that migrated to this are 6 centuries prior, how?

The curse put on them in Deut, long before they were split into two separate kingdoms.

Two separate peoples. They were called kingdoms because that is a group name for peoples that followed a common cause.

You position is that the "curse" was lifted when the tiny remnant, from the vast numbers "wiped out" by the Assyrians returned to Palestine, swelling the population by no significant amount?

Oh, yes, you believe that "kingdom" is considered by God as a unique unit having nothing to do with the human beings with souls that compose "it".

There is no assumption, it is based on fact and Biblical history. The only one with assumptions is you who cannot understand history and the Bible. Those 10 tribes were back in Israel after the deportation as seen by Anna being there and the House of Israel being mentioned by both the Lord and Peter.

You keep repeating this as evidence. It is leakage, which has always gone on among the tribes by preference or by marriage. There were a number of the other tribes that joined southern kingdom during the siege of the northern.

I've explained the references to Israel by Jesus, Peter and James. Your interpretation of the reference by Jesus simply make no sense, as I've posted more than once.

Your other references have equally valid interpreted as proving that the House of Israel existed when historians believe it disappeared into antiquity. You cannot use as evidence that which is ambiguous; evidence by its very nature must be unambiguous. Ask any lawyer.

Your sect of thought is apparently the only one that believes Israel merged with Judah.

Yes indeedy, just say NO and it all goes away.

Israel was ten tribes and Judah was two. Do the math.

Good grief, friend, can you not read?

27,000 deported from Samaria were rebellious subjects placed in other communities, and were replaced by other rebellious from other areas. This policy was instituted by Tiglath-pileser III. He did this also to compensate for the deportation of the people in captured territories and the depletion of land values.

All this is in his annals, ("Assyrian Discoveries", George Smith, ISBN: 1931956030 page 281) loosely translated, "People the conquest of my hand in the midst of them I place".

He also ordered that the non rebellious subjects (the vast majority of Israelites in Samaria and other regions) continue to till the land and produce tribute to him as king.

His annals were written in 745 BC. He died in 725 BC. His siege of Israel lasted 23-25 years. How many babies were morn in that time?

He did not kill large numbers of Israelites; he needed them to work and occupy the land, and, God had given over the northern kingdom and its people for depravity and sins. Samaria was just one place of the Israelites.

Consider, during wars in history no huge part of any population need be killed, just defeated, as example all the wars that America fought.

The population of the northern kingdom remained intact, whatever it was, and likewise other northern tribes around the Dead Sea.

The ten tribes has always been in the millions. There is no reason to think less than that was moved among the cities of the Medes (II Kings 17:6).

And this was just those placed among the Medes without counting those that, as groups, spread out to other place at that time, including Turkey, then Europe, while all this was going on.

THEN we had just over a century of the Israelites peacefully among the Medians, (how many babies were born in that time?) THEN 6 centuries after the fall of Assyria until our point in history after the birth of Christ. How many babies were born in that time?

Your assumptions are defeated by sheer numbers.

God's promises were made to the seed of Abraham. "Not mixed" with other peoples' genes is not mentioned, just something you add. The blood of Judah was certainly mixed with the Mongol-Turkish Russian Khazars, wasn't it, not to mention the Edomites?

You have zero evidence for your theory. All you know for a fact is the the 10 tribes were deported to Assyria. Now, name a single other fact that you can cite! You do not know how many. You have no prove that those tribes went anywhere as tribes. Your entire theory is simply a figment of someones imagination.

It is not necessary to prove that "tribes" went anywhere as "tribes". People carry the bloodline of Abraham.

I have spent many posts, including this one, citing historical and Biblical facts, and syllogistic proofs, none of which have been refuted by you. Yet you continue to make this statement. Amazing.

You seem to think that making a statement that I am wrong, that's it's all in my, and others' imagination, that I have presented no facts or credible argument is sufficient to vitiate the argument. Maybe it would if you were a recognized authority, proven by works and research, but you aren't.

You have to provide something more.

Ofcourse they do, they show when Hosea prophecies will be fulfilled. The House of Israel cannot be as the sands of the sea, 2/3 of them get destroyed in the Tribulation-you remember the Tribulation-Jacobs trouble (Jer.30:7). Note the word Jacob, referring to all of the 12 tribes, not just the tribe of Judah.

They show when you would like Hosea's prophecies to be fulfilled. You can show no objective linkage outside the presumptions your sect of thought believes.

Your Jeremiah cite is by no means a linkage to the millennial reign of Christ. It is just an assumption your sect makes in its own mind.

Even if 2/3s of the Israelites (code word: Jacob, as you mention) are wiped out during the tribulation, this is no indication that Hosea won't be fulfilled before that. There is no viable linkage in scripture, except a need on your part to justify your beliefs.

The Millennial reign is very clearly depicted in Isaiah. All of Israel had a view of what the Messiah would be like and it was a conquerer to bring in the Millennial reign, not a suffering saviour. That is why they were looking for a King and not a saviour dying for the sins of the world.

Well, evidently, all of Israel was wrong, wasn't it? I used this as an example of how a preconception of how things will work out bears not relation to how they do work out. Same for your assumptions regarding your millennium.

No, history backs up my view as well as the Bible, with both Christ and Peter referring to the House of Israel. It is you who have no support for your assumptions and myths.

You keep making these unsupported statements, as if by just saying so, that makes it so. I wonder, have you read any of my posts?

There is not a single Assyrian record that states that those 10 tribes moved anywhere.

No, there is not any that says, "The Israelite tribes migrated north to Turkey." Nope, sure doesn't. lol.

Now, if you have such a record produce it or stop citing it as a source for something that is false.

I don't have a scanner, or I would post GIFs showing the plates. Sorry. I guess you'll just have to continue to wonder.

I have cited two published historians, one on the history of Assyria which states that those 10 tribes assimilated into the surrounding culture.

None of what you posted indicates this. And, even if they had, the seed of Abraham would certainly have spread all over the world in two and a half millennia. You do your theory no good by resorting to this assertion.

Only individuals from those tribes returned to the Land.

Millions of individuals, when the population of Judah in Palestine at that time was about 500,000 (plus some assorted that were spotted families in other places).

Just so. . .

As for Hosea, the reading of it is for a future event, when the Israelites will be reunited to the to other 2 tribes in the Millennial reign.

Absolutely, Hosea is not yet fulfilled. But during the reign of Christ is your assumption by belief, which is impressed on every cite you've made to me. Remember, any passage can be no proof if it is ambiguous; it can only be a reflection of one's prior accepted belief.

We know this by seeing those tribes listed in the inheritance given in Ezek.48. So, you are just misreading Hosea, as you do the rest of the Bible.

As I said, you keep throwing out these cites that are interpreted according to your belief, not objective, stand alone evidence of anything. For any one of your sect of belief, that are at least two more that would argue with you from their sect of belief.

You have no records of any of the Tribes migrating anywhere-so stop your lying!

Not only are there outpost reports of groups with those in Israelite garb heading north, there are records describing Israelite resisting tax collecting. Large communities, considering they repelled the tribute takers.

There are number of books and pamphlets that discuss the Assyrian translations; I referred to one in this post. As you tell me to, go find them, or you are "lazy".

No, it will be those who are in the lind of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob that will receive the promises. If some individuals have that racial lineage, then and only then can they be considered in the line of the Hebrew Promises. All others are Gentiles.

The leage is not racial. "Israelite" is no a race.

If the Israelites today with mixed lineage can't be considered to be the seed of Abraham, that pretty much leaves out Judah, yes? Since it is historical they have been diluted by the Khazars and Edomites?

Hey- it is to the 12 tribes! What part of the 12 tribes do you not understand?

Certainly two tribes for Judah and ten tribes for Israel. 2+10=12.

There is no indication that James was talking about the two and the ten be dispersed together. Judah was in Palestine and lower parts of Italy and Greece. Israel was in the rest of Europe and any that remained behind in Mesopotamia/Assyria.

Control your breathing.

They were 'lost' in the sense they were -without their sheperd! And that was for all of the 12 tribes of Israel, not just Judah. Once again, your inability to understand simple English is showing.

Well, they had been "lost" a long time in that case, don't you think? Come on, it's obvious in context He wasn't talking about the Jews.

The House of Judah has always been refereed to separately from the House of Israel.

A little trip down memory lane. . .

II Kings 17:21-23 (circa 525 BC) When he tore Israel away from the house of David, they made Jeroboam son of Nebat their king. Jeroboam enticed Israel away from following the LORD and caused them to commit a great sin. The Israelites persisted in all the sins of Jeroboam and did not turn away from them until the LORD removed them from his presence, as he had warned through all his servants the prophets. So the people of Israel were taken from their homeland into exile in Assyria, and they are still there.

Josephus, Antiquities, Book XI, Chapter 5, Paragraph 2, When Esdras had received this epistle, he was very joyful, and began to worship God, and confessed that he had been the cause of the king's great favor to him, and that for the same reason he gave all the thanks to God. So he read the epistle at Babylon to those Jews that were there; but he kept the epistle itself, and sent a copy of it to all those of his own nation that were in Media. And when these Jews had understood what piety the king had towards God, and what kindness he had for Esdras, they were all greatly pleased; nay, many of them took their effects with them, and came to Babylon, as very desirous of going down to Jerusalem; What you have read so far takes place right after 525 B.C. and then jumps to the present time of Josephus (first century A.D.) but then the entire body of the "people of Israel" remained in that country; wherefore there are but two tribes in Asia and Europe subject to the Romans, while the ten tribes (Israel) are beyond Euphrates till now, and are an immense multitude, and not to be estimated by numbers

And once again, James did not write to the 10 tribes, he wrote to the 12 tribes, and thus, he knew where they were, they spread throughout the Roman Empire-as Jews.

And once again, being dispersed does not mean dispersed together. It does proved the the lost sheep of the House of Israel was known to James, and, as Jesus clearly referred to, they were not with the Jews.

"Jews" started off as, and has always been a reference to the House of Judah. The house of Judah has always been used to refer to the Jews. Never has the House of Israel been used to refer to both.

There are no official records. There is DNA testing, but there are no official records.

Oh, please. Of course there are records. With Judah there has always been records. Stop screwing around, ask them and see what they say.

All DNA testing done to date is very iffy. I wouldn't put any faith in it. There has been, for just one thing, a lot of mixing of people with the Jews. Personal DNA testing is accurate enough for identification of fathers and immediate children, but that's about as far as it goes. Identifying mixed genetic populations over centuries is quite another thing altogether.

The reason that no one can tell for sure what tribe he is from is because the records were destroyed in Jerusalem and those that survived, later in Alexandria Egypt. That is why no one can claim any lineage for the Kingship from the tribe of Judah, there are no records to support that claim. No, many Jews from the tribe of Levi did take the name of Cohn, so they would know what lineage they are based on that last name, but not on the basis of any official records.

I'm sure the Jews you make this case to will find it interesting. Let me know what they say. It's interesting that you yourself use as an example that Judah and Israel was merged by using a gal that knew which tribe she was from.

I claim that they know that they are Jews, but do not know their particular tribes (with the exception of the Levi's). Try to grasp the difference.

Ask some Jews. Tell them to grasp the difference.

I have prevented more evidence in one post then you have in all of yours combined. All your posts are based on conjecture, not a fact in them.

You keep saying this. I guess you figure that someone reading it would not go back and read the conversation, so you can get away with it. You seem to playing to the peanut gallery here. I'm probing a belief held by consensus, seeking its foundation, and I have not been impressed.

Well, he said what I said, and it refutes your entire false theory which is based on hot air.

Well, apparently he hadn't researched the translation of Tiglath-pileser's own writings.

And that would support my view, not yours! If most of those tribes were left in the land, then there were not millions deported and thus, it would have been easy for individuals of those tribes to make their way back to the land.

This was the siege of Israel, lasting about 23 years, until the migration. The rebellious were deported, the others were kept to work the land.

You reference was to make a point about the low numbers of the Israelites, presumably destroyed wholesale by the Assyrians, to attempt to block my point about to large of number of Israelites to merge with Judah in Palestine generations later. Your theory of the merging of Judah and Israel fails with large population numbers of the latter.

God intended to give the Israelites over to a cruel people for their sins. They were suborned without massive casualties, probably because they were already deep in sin and lack the connection with God to produce the moral energy in righteousness to prevail, and so, were conquered with out much loss of life.

The Taylor Prism describes much of this fighting. Apparently there was not very much spirit on the part of the Israelites, which would be consistent with God's intentions.

The point here is, there was essentially the original population of the northern kingdom left intact when they were herded, about 25 years later and dispersed among the Median cities.

No, Sargon is referring to the captives he took from the Captial city. So, your intention to get around that number is futile. Whent that city fell it had only 27,000 people left in it.

The Numrud Prism IV, writen by Sargon II, "I surrounded and deported as prisoners 27,290 of its inhabitants together with their chariots, and the gods in whom they trusted. From them I equipped 200 chariots for my army units, while the rest I made to take up their lot within Assyria. I restored the city of Samaria and made it more habitable than before. I brought into it people from the countries conquered by my hands. My official I set over them as governor and reckoned them as people of Assyria itself."

Sargon II continued the policies of Tiglath-pileser III. He was referring as "countries" the other domains of the northern kingdom.

And, again, we are talking about events that happened more than 7 centuries before the coming of Christ to Palestine, 28 standard generations. From the population viewpoint of Israel merging with Judah, how many babies can be born in 28 generations?

You use the merging of Israel with Judah because it is the only thing that anyone could possibly come up with to explain the lack of known Israelite in the modern world.

It doesn't work with projected populations, not to mention prophecy, scripture and historical writing of the Assyrians themselves.

I'm sorry, I know you are invested in it and on it hangs your belief system, but it just doesn't work.

Well, that is nice fantasy history. Any actual prove? The deportation occurred in 1Ki.17 and that is the only recorded instance of the deportation.

But it is true many were left in the land as seen by them going to the South-so your theory is defeated and shown to be nonsense by your own admission.

Assyria under Tiglath-pileser was around 745 BC when the siege of the norther kingdom started. The House of Israel itself was moved in about 721 BC.

We have records on tablets placing these times. Thats about 109 years under the Assyrians, making babies in Median cities under tribute to the Assyrian king.

In 612 BC Assyria fell as an empire, formally releasing the Israelites, which makes 6 baby making centuries until the birth of Christ.

These times are recorded on hard stone and found in books written from the translation of the Assyrian records. You can ignore them as accurate if you like, but I don't recommend it.

But it is true many were left in the Land as seen by them going to the South-so your theory is defeated and shown to be nonsense by your own admission.

Huh?

What the heck are you babbling about? The Israelites who went South increased and became known as Jews. That is how Anna from the tribe of Assar go there. Your reasoning ability is fatally flawed.

The last I "babbled", my friend, was in my crib about 60 years ago.

In order to not dramatically increase the population of Jews during the time of Christ, which was about 500,000, which the ten tribes of Israel in their usual number would have, and attracted definite attention and much writing thereabout (there is no writing about this event), the tribes of the House of Israel, to be consistent with your theory, would have to essentially wiped out.

This is the third time I've explained this.

No, your theory is the one without any historical evidence and Biblical basis. As you said, the Israelites were left in the land. What people the Assyrians did deport did not constitute the majority and thus, the Israelites would have been in the Land when Christ came.

Some of the Israelites were left in the land. They separated and founded their own towns. There are Assyrian records of fights with them even after Assyria fell.

Remember, in 721 BC the Israelites were moved en mass to the Median cities? I don't doubt it took several years to do it. You get a sense of how long a year is, don't you?

You have not come up with a single fact supporting any exodus that left Assryia and went into Europe. You are lying through your teeth about Assyrian records saying they did-and you know it. The prophecies will happen in the future, since the House of Israel, is not yet as the 'sand of the seas' because they are intermingled with the other 2 tribes. So, try actually providing a single fact to show any actual departure from Assyria by those tribes, which you have no admitted did not make up the majority of the members of the tribes. Anyone who would say that the Israelites left for Europe before Moses went out of Egypt has a screw loose!

I have some evidence. As I said, there are Assyrian outpost reports that track movement of people that bear resemblance to Israel moving toward Turkey. Israel was placed on the northern border of Assyria, so a movement to Turkey is most reasonable.

And I have even more evidence that Israel did no merge with Judah in Palestine.

You seem to demand that I produce an ancient tablet that is written cuneiform that states exactly what I say. You are not reasonable, and you are defending a belief that you are invested in.

You have not even investigated the current translation of the Assyrian tablets and the books written about them, have you?

Intermingled with Judah is a a theory you have and you haven't produced any evidence for. We have 7 centuries for the Israel to migrate all over the place, including staying and integrating with the Medians and Assyrians. 7 centuries are enough to populate the earth, given a sufficiently seed population. This is just math and commonsense, not to mention God's word and promises.

I have given you facts about the translation of the Assyrian tablets. Aren't you even diligent enough to verify they exist? There are numerous books written by people who are interested in what the Assyrians had to say about the Israelite tribes. Don't you want to know what they say?

And I have not even touched on the names of European names of geographical features or the common words in Hebrew and European languages.

We are talking about 7 centuries, my friend. Look at the map of where Assyria was and where its northern border is. It's a friggin month's march to Turkey from there. Where in the hell do you think a vast number of people, having been released for Assyrian captivity, and having mostly forgotten their heritage as God ordained, would go?

I'm not even sure your are credible enough to discuss this with. I'm just repelled by consensus conclusion that is seemly devoid of foundation, other than political or motivated by hatred (the comments you make seem to indicative of hatred), to advance a policy that can be used to make decision on the world stage.

You see, the prophecy that House of Israel will be the "sands of the sea" fits the notion that many of the most populous nations of the Earth have a bloodline that traces back to the seed of Abraham is the simplest and most viable explanation of prophecy.

You cannot defend a merge of Israel with Judah on the basis of population, scripture, history or prophecy. You've tried on all these fronts, but just end up repeating that I am wrong and you are right.

I would say that anyone who relies on a consensus opinion unsupported by hard facts, which opinion serves the purposes of those who advance it, has a screw loose.

Well, since you have no facts to support your nonsense, your theory is simply a myth, and does not even rate to be considered a theory.

I have presented you with innumerable facts, and you have not been able to credibly refute them, nor have you been able to come with any facts of your own.

I really believe that fact is that you want to believe in your position, you for some reason have to. It's hard to try to reason with such a person. But I intend to keep it up.

He is an expert in Assyrian history, so he, unlike you, actually know the records.

Your historian must not be too much of an expert. He has missed 23,000 tablets, plus numerous books written about them. How would you explain that? I guess you picked him because he hasn't been exposed to material that would dispute your theories? Yes?

Like I said, look it up.

Ok. Would you be so kind as to tell which post it was, since you wrote it?

I want the location of the record that states that the Israelites left the area.

British museum. Section of records that constitute missives of Assyrian outposts to the king. That's all I can tell you. I cam across the info years ago. I'll try to trace it down for you, without calling you names and disparaging your character. But you don't even believe Assyrian records exist. LOL.

Do you know, going back and reading the comments you throw in with almost every part of every post, they make you sound like a snarling dog? Go ahead, go back and read what your wrote.

I'm tired of responding to 5 or 6 of your posts. Let's stay with this one, Put all you need to here.