[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 offered no other interpretations, you have just ignored them.
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.
And you are begging the question.
You haven't proven that great numbers are needed.
That is an assumption on your part that needsto be proven.
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.
So, who doesn't know that?
And those that remained in the land were in the land when the Lord was born, as members of the Northern Tribes.
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.
Proof?
You have none.
First, it isn't the children of Abraham that is the issue since Abraham had a number of children after Issac as well as Ishmael, who formed the Arab race.
So, what you have to do is actually prove something not just talk about it like it was a fact.
No tribes left Assyria and settled in Western Europe.
Stop making up fables.
And to your edification and delight, not necessary all European, since this seems to cause you problems. But Europeans, too.
No, the Europeans are not from the 10 tribes.
That is what you have to prove not jus assert.
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.
No, what the scriptures say is that those who are the children of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob fall under that protection, which no European race does.
Anyone who claims otherwise is trying to steal something given to the Hebrew by God.
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.
And in Romans 9 Paul states that the Jew is still beloved for the fathers sake.
And in Romans 11 he warns Gentiles about thinking that they had replaced the Jew.
[ 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.
Once again, 'begging the question'
You are assuming that a particular number of Israelites have to present, but that is only an unfounded assumption on your part.
All that has to be present is representatives from all the tribes.
So once again, you are assuming and asserting what you need to prove.
This would tantamount to "wiped out". The other 10 tribes were millions, and as I have demonstrated by citing Assyrian practices, retained those millions.
You have not proven anything about millions existing in the Northern Kingdom.
What has been proven is that by the time the Assyrians conquered the Northern Kingdom, its capital had suffered three years of famine and were down to 27,000 people who were deported.
So, again, you make up facts as you go along.
There is not a shred of historical evidence that there were millions of people in the Northern Kingdom!
[ 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.
You can't prove that any forgot who they were.
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.
And none of those verses speak of any Hebrews forgetting that they were Hebrews.
They speak of the rejection of their Messiah!
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.
Meaning that the Hebrews did not forget that they were Hebrews.
The Hebrew Medes were at Pentecost in Acts 2.
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.
Prove?
You have none!
You don't know how many were left in that city after the three year siege, certainly not millions!
As has been posted, this policy was was started by Tiglath-pileser III.
So?
Nowhere does it state that millions were deported.
Once again, that is only an assumption on your part.
[ 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.
First, assimilation occured in that area of the world, not in Europe.
Second, while the majority were not deported, nowhere are millions listed as living in the Land after the deportations.
I see no serious reduction in numbers here.
You have no numbers-period.
[ 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.
There is nothing recorded that stated any of the 10 tribes rising up to help overthrow the Assyrian empire.
Stop pretending there is.
Jews being in other places than Palestine had no effect on the Israelites already there, and had been there since 612 BC.
Yes, and nothing about them going anywhere either.
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.
There is no proof of such a nonsensical claim.
As for the words,
The history of England, like the history of Israel, lends no support to the view that the descendants of Abraham invaded the island. Arthur Cross tells us that the Celts, one of the earliest groups that invaded Britain, first arrived 1,000 years before Christ was born and more than 200 years before the Northern Kingdom fell. Not only that, but from the history of the English language itself it is clear that there is no relation between it and Hebrew, or the English people and the Israelites. Roland G. Kent writes, "The English language, despite its present simplicity and grammatical structure, is of an almost unbelievable complexity in its origins, in fact of a complexity quite unrivaled by any of the better known languages of any period." http://www.theology.edu/journal/volume4/BritishIsraelism.htm
Which is contained in Jesus' charging His disciples to carry the Gospel to the lost children of Israel. They were indeed lost.
They were told to go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. (Mat.15:24)
Again, the point is that the Jews/Israelites were scattered throughout Europe.
A 'point' you have yet to prove.
The Israelites were scattered throughout Europe, including Britianm, Wales, Ireland and Scotland. That they were included in Judea is only what you add to it with no proof.
No, you have no proof that they were in Britain, Wales, Ireland and Scotland.
We have proof that they were in the Land when the Lord was born, since they are addressed as the House of Israel.
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."
And so what?
The Messiah had to come from the line of Judah so they had to be in the land.
But all of the tribes were there as well, since Christ is King of them all.
[ 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.
No, nothing you say 'hits home' because it is nothing but empty rhetoric.
Any passage I cite is based on a clear reading of the passage and comparing scripture with scripture.
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.
And whatever attacks his view got were well deserved, as are the attacks on your posts since they are based on nothing but hot air and myth.
If you spread lies on the Internet expect to get some heat from it.
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.
The rage against this theory comes from the fact that is untrue and that it attempts to steal from the Jew what is rightfully his and make the Gentiles something that they aren't-Hebrews.
This indicated a mindset that transcended all reason and set itself against the very foundation of evangelicals' near automatic need to help Israel.
And your mindset is to ignore scripture, history and believe the lie.
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.
We do not need to be racial brothers to the Jew to aid him, we support him because he is still beloved by God for the 'father's sake' and the promise to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, that God will bless those that bless the Hebrew has never been rescinded.
So we do not need to deal in myths to justify our support for Israel and the Jew.
This smacks of groupthink, led by agenda, nurtured by consensus, in the favor of those who have much to loose.
And your rhetoric sounds like someone who is trying to sound intelligent and well educated but isn't.
You are a proponent of that travesty for the only purpose of survival of your beliefs, right or wrong.
No, I am a proponent of the truth, a foreign concept to you B.I. guys.
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.
The absolute evidence is the fact that whatever numbers of Jews exist are enough for God's purposes.
It is you that has made assertions that millions of Israelites are needed to complete God's Plan, which is untrue, based on a misreading of Hosea 1.
So, since you have no prove of your theory, that no massive numbers of Israelites went anywhere near Western Europe and lost their memory and are now the 'real' 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?
NO, what it proves that there were Jews (all members of the 12 tribes0 scattered throughout Europe and Asia Minor.
They did not forget who they were and become someone else.
[ 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.
Not in Deut they weren't two separate people.
That curse was placed on them as a single people and that was how they were scattered, first the Northern Kingdom and then the Southern, but scattered as a people who were reunited in the land of Israel as a people.
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?
Did I ever say the curse was lifted?
They are not a reunited Kingdom yet.
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".
And where did you get that myth from.
The Millennial kingdom will definitely have live, flesh and blood people in it.
So once again, your ignorance is showing.
[ 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.
The point is that the House of Israel was there in the Land.
Stop trying to duck the evidence.
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.
It makes no sense to you because you don't want to understand the truth.
What makes no sense is the spin you try to put on it.
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.
What historians believe disappeared were the deported ten tribes.
They do not believe that the 12 tribes disappeared, since it is acknowledged the term 'Jew' refers to members of all of the tribes.
You really have a hard time with distinguishing concepts don't you!
Your sect of thought is apparently the only one that believes Israel merged with Judah.
No, Christians believe that Jew means everyone from the 12 tribes.
See the definition given by the ISBE.
Only the B.I. sect think otherwise.
[ 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 Sargon'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. ]
Yes indeed, just say NO and it all goes away.
No, provide some contrary proof and it goes away-but since you have none, it stands as a fact.
Israel was ten tribes and Judah was two. Do the math.
What math?
You don't know how many people of the 10 tribes survived the Assyrian invasions.
So stop pretending that you do.
Good grief, friend, can you not read?
Read what-you haven't provided anything that supports your nonsense.
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.
And so?
What great revelation is this?
We know that the Assyrians moved people around.
So where is your proof that there were millions of Israelites in Assyria if only a fraction were deported?
Any law court would throw out your evidence as proving anything.
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?
And how many died?
How many Israelites were there in the first place?
Do you know-no.
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.
Samaria was under siege for three years, which means quite a few did die!
Moreover, you do not know how many there were to start with!
In fact, you don't know anything!
Nothing you cited proves anything that you contend and if you tried to put it in a thesis it would be rejected at of hand for conjecture and question begging.
You actually have to have some facts to support a thesis!
So, you do not know how many Israelites were deported total.
How many were left.
What happened to the deportees.
You only have assertions based on conjecture.
Consider, during wars in history no huge part of any population need be killed, just defeated, as example all the wars that America fought.
Not during a three year siege when everyone is starving.
Moveover, you have to at least know how many people the Northern Kingdom had to start with-which you don't.
The population of the northern kingdom remained intact, whatever it was, and likewise other northern tribes around the Dead Sea.
Yes, whatever it was.
The Northern Kingdom was not only assaulted by the Assyrian but thy Syrians as well.
So, God had been cutting that Kingdom down in size trying to get their attention before they were finally finished as a Kingdom in 1Ki.12.
So, you know nothing of the actual numbers of the Israelites and yet you want to make assertions on millions of them in Assyria and moving into Western Europe.
LOL!
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).
We do not know that is a fact, that is just another baseless assertion on your part.
More assertions without any factual evidence.
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.
Proof?
Oh, that's right, I forgot, you B.I. guys don't need actual proof, you just assume it so it must be true.
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?
Nice little story.
Proof?
None.
You assert what you need to prove, that there were Israelites moving into Europe who forgot their identity.
Your assumptions are defeated by sheer numbers.
read this very slowly-YOU HAVE NO 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?
The promise was made to the line of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and no other.
When Jews intermarried, they did not form a new race, and forget who they were.
They formed a mixed race, such as the Samartians, who mixed with the Israelites who had not been deported.
[ 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.
Well, the B.I. theory is that the 10 tribes moved as a unit into Europe.
The bloodline to remain Hebrew has to be through Issac and Jacob as well.
That is why Ishmael is not in the promise 'bloodline' even though he is a son 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.
Why you old fraud!
You haven't stated one fact that supports your kook theory.
You have done nothing but assert without any evidence the notion that the Israelites had to be in the millions and then went into Western Europe and forgot they were Hebrews.
You have no evidence regarding the numbers of Israelites who went into Assyria and were left in the land.
Your entire thesis is nothing but question begging and if it were handed to any history teacher he would throw it back at you with an F!
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.
I have supplied two major printed works, one in the history of Assyria and one on Israel, both of which reject your claims.
You have not supplied any facts that support your claims of millions of Israelites going into Assyria and leaving it.
You appeal to the Assyrian plates which do nothing more then tell us what the historians already know and have written about.
Nothing is stated about the 10 tribes after their deportation to Assyria.
You have to provide something more.
I don't have to provide anything since you haven't provided anything to support your thesis.
It is you who has to prove that the Europeans are really Israelites.
You have a very weird view on proving a thesis.
[ 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.
I have already given three citations from Study Bibles and a Commentary regarding Hosea, including Bullinger's note on it.
So, the view that Hosea 1 refers to a future event is seen a number of theologians.
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.
Jeremiah 30:7 is referring to the Tribulation period.
Jer.31 refers to the Millennial reign.
The scripture is clear on it.
You just don't want to believe it.
Jacob's trouble means trouble for all 12 tribes, not just 2!
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.
Well, if that were the case, then the prophecy in verse 11 wouldn't be fulfilled now would it.
Verses 10 and 11 go together, so the mutipication of Israel coincides with the Millennial reign and peace on earth.
[ 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.
Yes, they were wrong, including the Apostles who rebuked Christ when He said He had to be crucified.
They were wrong because they didn't believe what the scriptures said and that is why Christ rebuked those who were walking on the road to Emmaus (Lk.24: 25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:
So when you don't believe what is written, you 'greatly err, not knowing the scriptures'
[ 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?
I have read your posts and they are filled with nothing but baseless assertions and devoid of any real facts.
[ 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.
You have no Assyrian records that state any tribes moved into Turkey.
No, you don'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.
Oh, I don't wonder about it all.
There is no plates that state any such thing about those Israelite deportee's moving anywhere.
So stop lying about it.
[ 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.
What a phony you are!
It isn't the seed of Abraham that is the issue, it is the seed of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. <{> And they have not spread out anywhere except as Jews.
[ 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).
Millions?
Proof?
Oh, that's right, you don't need to have any actually proof, you just say it and it must be so.
Just so. . .
Just so what?
No proof of any millions of people.
[ 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.
And for a theory to be valid it has to have facts to support it, which you don't.
Your view of Hosea is based on an unproven assumption that millions of Israelites existed during the Assyrian captivity and yet, there is no historical record of them and where they went.
Still you will assert that as a fact when you have no evidence of it.
Try bringing that into a law court as evidence.
[ 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.
No, the scripture is very clear in those passages.
But there is no scripture that supports your view that the Israelites would forget who they were and would become other nations.
So, you have no scriptural support for your myth.
[ 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.
Israelite 'garb' you mean robes, which were worn by everyone in the Mideast?
There is no historical evidence that any tribes went anywhere.
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".
I don't have to find them since I know that they do not say anything about those 10 tribes going anywhere.
And you should be ashamed for lying when you know that as well.
[ 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.
Oh, yes it is, it as a race that is in the line of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and follows a very particular blood line.
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?
No, because to prove one is a Jew all one has to show is that one is in that racial lineage.
All 12 tribes, no matter what the mixture would still be considered racial Jews.
They don't have to be 'pure' Jew, but they have to have some Jewish blood, which most Gentiles do not have.
[ 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.
Did James write 10 plus two?
He wrote to the 12 tribes and he knew that they existed in the Roman Empire as Jews.
Talk about rewriting scripture!
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.
And you have some proof of that?
Ofcourse not!
More hot air!
Control your breathing.
Control your hot air.
[ They were 'lost' in the sense they were -without their Shepard! 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.
Ofcourse he was talking about Jews, that is why he called them the 12 tribes.
He could have called them the Israelites and the Jews, but instead he called them the 12 tribes.
The House of Judah has always been refereed to separately from the House of Israel.
Not before 1Ki.12 it wasn't.
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
First, you will note that in Josephus that those in Media are called Jews.
Second, that Josephus knows where the 10 tribes are, they haven't moved anywhere.
{ 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.
And as you just quoted in Josephus, they were in fact called Jews.
The house of Israel was not lost in the sense that it was missing, it was lost in that it had no Shepard (Jn.10)
"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.
Never said the House of Israel referred to both, only that Jew did.
The house of Israel when mentioned does refer to the Northern Kingdom and is referred to by the Lord and Peter as being in the Land.
[ 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.
And you stop lying.
There are no genealogical records of any tribe left.
I don't have to ask anyone, that is an historical fact.
That is why no one can claim to inherit the throne of David, because no one can claim to be in his lineage.
Stop your lying!
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.
There is clearly some indicator that points out a Jew in the DNA.
There are no genealogical records that date back to the 1st century.
[ 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.
The Temple had not been destroyed yet, so there were still records.
You really do have a problem with reading don't you.
[ 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.
And could any Jew prove it what tribe he was from without a break in his genealogy?
No, they couldn't.
[ 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.
I have been impressed by your ability to beg the question.
You state that there were millions of Israelites when the Northern Kingdom fell.
Prove-None.
You state that those same millions of Israelites formed the Western nations-prove.
None.
Your entire theory is based on no one provable fact.
[ 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.
Oh, cut it out.
There is nothing in any Assyrian writing that states anything about how many Israelites there you.
You are blowing smoke.
The published work on Assyria by an expert on the subject stated the opposite,that no one knows what happened to those tribes.
[ 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.
And that would mean that there were not many left now were there.
In fact, Assyria had to import other tribes to make sure the land was inhabited. (2Ki.17).
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.
The population was depleted from war and invasion.
And you have no idea how many people were left.
And stop pretending that you do.
You pull numbers out of nowhere.
Israel could have well been down in the thousands, not the millions.
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.
And do you have any actual proof of this as well?
I never saw one individual make up so much history in my life.
You do not know how high the losses were, or even how many people Israel had before the invasions.
Try putting that into a thesis for a history teacher and see how far that would fly.
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.
LOL!
Really?
Is that why Samaria was able to hold out for three years against the greatest military of it's day?
You are just one assertion after another without a shred of any actual facts.
Fantasy history at its finest.
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.
The fact is that you do not know the population that was deported.
And you have stated that deportations only happened to the malcontents, now you are saying they happen to the entire population?
You have not a single shred of evidence of how many people ended up in Media and how many were left in the Land.
So stop pretending you do.
[ 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.
Yes, and from the quotes, it appears that the entire population of Sameria was deported and it was only 27,000.
So your quotes prove my thesis not yours.
And once again, we know that the tribes were deported, so you aren't telling us anything we don't already know.
What you need to quote is a passage that tells us that millions of Israelites were deported.
Those passages are well known.
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?
The fact is that millions of Israelites were not deported and then moved somewhere else.
Those who were born in those nations they were deported to, either remained there or returned to the Land.
[ Moreover, there is no record of it}
You use the merging of Israel with Judah because it i the only thing that anyone could possibly come up with to explain the lack of known Israelite in the modern world.
I am using the merging of both Israel and Judah because that is what happened and the word Jew refers to all of the tribes of Israel, not just Judah.
It doesn't work with projected populations, not to mention prophecy, scripture and historical writing of the Assyrians themselves.
What doesn't work is making up numbers and history.
There is no record of those tribes leaving Assyria and going anywhere.
So stop pretending there is.
I'm sorry, I know you are invested in it and on it hangs your belief system, but it just doesn't work.
No, what doesn't 'work' are bad historical research and poor reasoning skills.
Which is what your theory consists of.
[ 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.
No one denies that Israelites were in Assyria.
What you have to prove is that they went somewhere as a people and became someone else.
So once again you have cited irrelevant facts which do not give any credence to your view that the Israelite went anywhere as a people.
They reproduced and dispersed as Jews, not as Gentiles.
[ You just throw out nonsense as if it is suppose to 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.
No, you done nothing but babble in all of these posts.
Making assertions about numbers and movements without any evidence.
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.
No, they could have remained in the land where they were born, just as many did when the Southern tribes returned from the Babylonian captivity.
Clearly, many were visiting on Pentecost in Acts 2.
Many Jews remain in America today and are not in Israel.
So once again, you make an unfounded assertion.
This is the third time I've explained this.
And it is the third time it is wrong.
[ 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.
And if they were left in the Land, they would have been there when the Lord was born.
So what happened to the 10 tribes in Assyria is irrelevant to the fact that all 12 tribes existed in Israel at the time of Christ's birth.
You don't have to have every member of the tribe there, just enough for the tribes to be represented.
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?
And a while back you were saying that only the trouble makers were deported, so now it is everyone?
You do like to change around your views.
And once again, the deportation is well known so you are just repeating the same facts.
What you have to prove is the numbers moved, and that those same tribes remained intact and left Assyria and went into Western Europe.
Which you have no proof of.
[ 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.
Movement to Turkey is not the issue, it is the movement into Western Europe.
No one has any problem with Israelites moving around that area of the world, since they are all found there as Jews.
So, your outpost sightings and trackings have nothing to do with the B.I. theory which states that millions of Israelites moved into Western Europe and forgot that they were Hebrews.
You throw out facts that do not prove a single key issue of your theory.
And I have even more evidence that Israel did no merge with Judah in Palestine.
Well, you have admitted that there were those from the Northern Kingdom left in the Land, as there were from the South when they were deported.
So, Israelites were present when the Lord was born and they were then known as Jews, as they are today.
They were stated to be the 'house of Israel', which always refers to those from the Northern tribes.
They were merged as a single people.
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.
No, what I am demanding are facts from any reputable, published work that supports your theory.
You have no evidence of any mass movement by the 10 tribes.
You have no knowledge of the numbers involved in the deportation.
All you have are assumptions on what might have happened, not on what actually did happen.
You have not even investigated the current translation of the Assyrian tablets and the books written about them, have you?
I have investigated them enough to know that there are none that supports your view.
There is not a reputable published work that will state that the 10 tribes had millions of people at its deportation and that they went into Western Europe.
So stop your phony bluffing and pretending that there is some evidence for your nonsense theory-there isn't.
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.
You have not a shred of evidence that those people went anywhere near Western Europe.
Nothing in history supports you.
It is based on nothing more then myth and conjecture and you know it.
The key fact that you have to prove, which you can't is the sufficiently seed population which you have no idea even existed in the numbers necessary.
And then you have to have some record of these millions of people moving out of Assyria into Europe.
You have sightings of small groups, not millions.
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?
Nothing on those tablets support your view!
No numbers are given to give you a sufficient seed population.
No mass movements recorded of millions of people into Western Europe.
Your appeal to those records is a farce and they do not support anything you are asserting.
And I have not even touched on the names of European names of geographical features or the common words in Hebrew and European languages.
And I have already posted a refutation of that canard.
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?
First, you have not given a single verse of scripture to support you contention that the Hebrews were ever to forget their heritage.
Second, what makes you think that they went anywhere.
Josephus, whom you cited, states they are still in those lands when he wrote.
So, once again, you are simply begging the question, without any evidence to support your idiotic view that the western nations are really the Israelites.
Your tablets do not support the view, since they do no give you any numbers, except the 27,000 which we already know about.
No conclusion you have reached is based on any facts.
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.
What I hate are liars.
And those who push the B.I. view are just that.
You have not given a single variable fact to support your contention that the Israelites were in Assyria in large numbers (millions) and then left in the millions to Western Europe without any record of that migration.
And outpost sightings of a few people traveling back and forth is not evidence of that migration.
You assert what you need to prove and then think that because you have proven it in your mind, that you do not have to provide actual historical evidence to back up your claims.
Put up a thesis with the facts you have presented and it would be cut to pieces.
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.
The prophecy that the Houe of Israel will be the 'sands of the sea' fits the promise made in Ezek. 36 when the Lord said He would multipy the house of Isreal.
Your theory that the Gentiles are really the Israelites is simply myth, with not a single solid fact to support it.
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.
Actually, the merging of Israel and Judah is made clear in the usage of the word 'Jew' which stands now for all tribes.
The Biblical evidence supports the fact that all the 12 tribes were in the Land when the Lord was born and are addressed as the House of Judah and the House of Israel.
The historical evidence supports me since Josephus refers to the House of Israel still in the former Assyrian lands, they had not gone anywhere.
What facts do you have?
You have the fact that the Israelites were deported-period.
You have no numbers.
You have no record of any mass movements.
That is what you have to prove, not assert, but prove happened to make your theory even possible.
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.
And I would say that anyone who relies on a theory with no facts to support it is unconcerned about the truth.
[ 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.
You really do live in your own make believe world don't you?
You have not provided a single credible fact regarding numbers of Israelites deported, numbers born, and any mass movement regarding those numbers.
Now those are the facts you need to make your theory viable, not statements about Assyrian outposts and people wearing robes in Turkey!
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.
Well, you keep it as long as you want.
I have no problem dealing with frauds such as yourself.
He is an expert in Assyrian history, so he, unlike you, actually know the records.
Who is?
Well, let him( whooever it is) tell us what the numbers were in the deportation and the evidence of the mass movements.
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?
And any of those 23,000 tablets give you any numbers of the deportation and the evidence of the mass movement you speak of?
My historian could actually read the language and had his work published by a credible publishing firm.
So when you actually get some facts regarding those numbers let me know.
[ Like I said, look it up. ]
Ok. Would you be so kind as to tell which post it was, since you wrote it?
It's in there somewhere.
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.
Oh, I believe the records exist, what doesn't exist is what you are trying to have them say.
There are no Assyrian records of any mass exodus out of the nation by the 10 tribes-and you know it.
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 have very little patience for frauds and con men.
I'm tired of responding to 5 or 6 of your posts. Let's stay with this one, Put all you need to here.
And so you post me a second one?
You can't even be honest for a single post.
You have offered no other interpretations, you have just ignored them. Why don't you read my posts?
You haven't proven that great numbers are needed.
Your theory demands that great numbers of Israelites not return to Palestine.
And those that remained in the land were in the land when the Lord was born, as members of the Northern Tribes.
They were in the land, some in the old Assyrian region and some in Europe. None went to Palestine.
You must show me something that records a return of Israel to become merged with the Jews. Your theory demands low numbers of northern tribes to be merged with Judah, so that today, the 5 million or so Jews are the last remaining seed of Abraham.
All this is to give credence to your position that the reunion prophesied by Hosea must happen in spiritual bodies (the incorruptible) once the dead ove risen for the millennial reign of Christ.
This house of cards only needs one element to be false and the whole thing comes tumbling down. I haven't seen you truly validate any element. Foundational to it, there is no records of Israel returning.
First, it isn't the children of Abraham that is the issue since Abraham had a number of children after Issac as well as Ishmael, who formed the Arab race. So, what you have to do is actually prove something not just talk about it like it was a fact. No tribes left Assyria and settled in Western Europe.
You are correct. The children of Abraham aren't the bloodline. The children of Israel are. The northern kingdom were the children of Israel, and where their blood was passed there is the seed of Abraham.
If the northern tribes did not populate Europe and send their covenant genetics into the Medes and other ancient peoples, they where did they go?
That they merged with Judah would be a fulfillment of Hosea. There is no record. It would have also destroyed the known demographics of the region at that time.
So, where are they? They are the world, after 3 millennia, my friend.
No, the Europeans are not from the 10 tribes. That is what you have to prove not jus assert.
To the extent that any details the happened 3 millennia ago can be "proved", I believe I have "proved" it, that is to say, I have presented enough evidence to make a prima facie case, which you must overcome.
To overcome it you must either show records that the northern tribes returned to Palestine and merged with Judah or explain what happened to them in a way that does not expand their bloodline across the face of the globe in the current day.
All you shown is something from Chronicles, which books cover such a long period (from Adam to circa 539 BC), that pinpoints no time, where specific times are crucial to your argument.
No, what the scriptures say is that those who are the children of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob fall under that protection, which no European race does. Anyone who claims otherwise is trying to steal something given to the Hebrew by God.
Steal? All we Christians are one with Israel, grafted thereto with all the promise, and covered under the new covenant forged by Christ. What would we have to steal?
The Jews, however, don't believe this, so, from their viewpoint and their's only, would there be reference to "stealing".
There is no such thing as a "European race". If you are not clear about that, what else are you not clear about? Let us get this straight. Any current living person whose bloodline includes the lineage of Abraham, however ancient or current, is the seed of Abraham, whether they know it or not.
They would then come under the covenant of God's promises to Israel. I can see how would cause problems with you Jews, can't you, since that is all you have, not accepting the coming of the Messiah when He came?
And in Romans 9 Paul states that the Jew is still beloved for the fathers sake. And in Romans 11 he warns Gentiles about thinking that they had replaced the Jew.
All of Israel is still beloved for the Father's sake.
Who claims to have replaced the Jews? Today is quite some time since Paul, you agree? We aren't talking about nonIsraelites grafted on the vine of the covenant, we're talking about actual lineages spread out over 3 millennia.
We are talking about the seed of Abraham so widespread that "Jew" has no special meaning in the world, as, I suspect, God intended.
Is that what you have a problem with?
You are assuming that a particular number of Israelites have to present, but that is only an unfounded assumption on your part. All that has to be present is representatives from all the tribes.
I think I have already shown that the original pre-Assyrian population of the ten tribes were not significantly decreased because of economic reasons, among other things.
If, as you say, without any records thereof incidentally, they returned to Palestine and merged with Judah, the know
demographics on the regions would have drastically changed. They didn't, because they are known, and a demographic change like that would have records all over the place. You have not come up with any.
If there were only "representatives from other tribes", what happened to the vast majority of the rest? We are talking about 2,700 years ago, and we are talking a number of indications that at least a portion migrated into Europe.
Explain to me, why wouldn't they have migrated northward, since they were a couple months march from Turkey anyway? Why is that impossible, as you seem to think?
After the Assyrian yoke, it seems like a logical move. So, show how it is even unlikely, not to mention impossible.
You have not proven anything about millions existing in the Northern Kingdom. What has been proven is that by the time the Assyrians conquered the Northern Kingdom, its capital had suffered three years of famine and were down to 27,000 people who were deported. So, again, you make up facts as you go along. There is not a shred of historical evidence that there were millions of people in the Northern Kingdom!
The northern kingdom of ten friggin' tribes have always maintained a heavy population, in all and every record we have of their population.
Have you comprehended the "deportation" issue yet? Those were small minority of dissidents who were moved from the land and placed elsewhere, which mean they still existed, and the were 27,000 of them! They rest stayed until Sargon, who them relocated Israel.
I'll keep repeating this until you get it, though it's been at least four times to date.
You can't prove that any forgot who they were.
You can't prove they retained the knowledge, and, since over 3 millennia, they have virtually populated the significant part of the current world (even if none ended up in Europe, which concept you despise), and only the tiny remnants of Judah and Benjamin remember who they were, I'd say that is a very strong presumption that they forgot, don't you?
And none of those verses speak of any Hebrews forgetting that they were Hebrews. They speak of the rejection of their Messiah!
Blindness in part is happened to Israel. The coming of the Messiah, acknowledged or not was no mystery. Only Judah rejected the Christ. Nothing was said about "Hebrews".
Meaning that the Hebrews did not forget that they were Hebrews. The Hebrew Medes were at Pentecost in Acts 2.
The world is inundated with the descendants of Abraham, and few know who they are. Even in the ancient past, when the tribes were worshiping idols and sinning, they were forgetting who they were. By the time they were spread out among other population or migrated and occupied Europe, over 6 centuries, I doubt they even recognized their brotherhood with Judah, as most don't know.
Prove?
Wow, I gave you a direct quote from Tiglath-pileser III's own annals on the prior thread. Are you wasting my time?
You don't know how many were left in that city after the three year siege, certainly not millions!
Millions, in a single city? Don't be silly. But there were 27,000 dissidents deported, which means that was a small percentage of the total population. You said 27,000 was all there was.
First, assimilation occured in that area of the world, not in Europe. Second, while the majority were not deported, nowhere are millions listed as living in the Land after the deportations.
First, this was before the northern tribes were moved to the Medes for their century of Assyrian capture. Migration occurred after that century.
Second, nowhere do we have any census, but we know that the area was prosperous, occupied for generations, has extensive lands in cultivation, and a small percentage of the population were deported as troublemakers, that small percentage being 27,000.
There is nothing recorded that stated any of the 10 tribes rising up to help overthrow the Assyrian empire. Stop pretending there is.
This is the paragraph the above response it to:
"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."
You don't read my posts do you? Why are you wasting my time? This was about there being some other than Judah, Benjamin and Levi in Palestine during the time of Christ, the gal you keep citing.
There is no proof of such a nonsensical claim.
There are a number of English and Welsh words that clearly of Hebrew origin. You got your quote from source that did not explain that, I suppose, or explain it somehow. Anyone can get any validation for their beliefs for anything from the internet.
There are geographical features like the "Danube" and other names of locations that fit with an Israelite past.
But here's what I don't understand. Why do you bark about this so much? Look where many several mixed tribes of Israelites were when the Assyrians fell. They were right below Turkey. Use your commonsense. Why would they go south into the lands of their captors? Why not up into new regions? Explain this impossibility to me.
Also, explain why you find this so offensive. I've asked you this several times and you skip it. I can't help but think that you know you would sound silly and mean if you were to answer honestly.
They were told to go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. (Mat.15:24)
Exactly. The House of Israel, as distinguished from the House of Judah. Neither one has ever included the other.
A 'point' you have yet to prove.
And a point you have to offer another explanation for, the presumption being that the tribes on the norhtern border of Assyria went north instead of south. You haven't even given a rational for them to head the other way back into the overlords they just got free from.
No, you have no proof that they were in Britain, Wales, Ireland and Scotland. We have proof that they were in the Land when the Lord was born, since they are addressed as the House of Israel.
There is very little "proof" for things that happen millennia ago, but it has been apparent I have more than you have. You still haven't shown any records of the mass of Israel reuniting with Judah in Palestine.
We have writings that indicate that some settled in parts of defeated Assyria, and some went north. You have nothing at all that indicates they reunited with Judah.
But all of the tribes were there as well, since Christ is King of them all.
But you have presented no evidence that doesn't have an equally certain alternate interpretation that makes evidence for the opposite way. This has been academically no evidence at all.
And, you have presented no ancient writings that recorded such an event as Israel returning and reuniting with Judah.
No, nothing you say 'hits home' because it is nothing but empty rhetoric.
Blah, blah, blah.
And whatever attacks his view got were well deserved, as are the attacks on your posts since they are based on nothing but hot air and myth.
Well, I'm just shocked that this is your opinion.
The rage against this theory comes from the fact that is untrue and that it attempts to steal from the Jew what is rightfully his and make the Gentiles something that they aren't-Hebrews.
Not proved untrue, and the alternate not proved true.
Steal? Steal what from them? God's love? You mean someone gets God's love and has it, another doesn't, like some zero sum? If there are brothers under the covenant with the Jews, this means the Jews no longer have God promises under the covenant?
Please explain.
We do not need to be racial brothers to the Jew to aid him, we support him because he is still beloved by God for the 'father's sake' and the promise to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, that God will bless those that bless the Hebrew has never been rescinded.
My point is, and has always been, so what if we are? What do the Jews lose? Be specific.
No, I am a proponent of the truth, a foreign concept to you B.I. guys.
I already corrected you once, I'm not a "BI" guy, I depart from them on the replacement of Judah as the royal lineage. I will argue some other presumptions, however. Nobody is always right and nobody is always wrong.
The absolute evidence is the fact that whatever numbers of Jews exist are enough for God's purposes.
Your theory, flowing from your belief system, not God's. You have no idea at all how God intends to resolve anything.
It is you that has made assertions that millions of Israelites are needed to complete God's Plan, which is untrue, based on a misreading of Hosea 1.
Wellll, you know, "sands of the sea" and all that. . .
So, since you have no prove of your theory, that no massive numbers of Israelites went anywhere near Western Europe and lost their memory and are now the 'real' Israelites.
The can be no "proof" of either theory 3 millennia after the fact. There can only be fragments that point one way or the other. I simply have presented more fragments than you have and refuted the one you have presented.
You are in a position of just not wanting to believe it, whereas I much less invested; I am in the Body of Christ and under His law and salvation. While I feel sorry for the Jews, I think it's time for them to wake up from this paranoid nightmare they're caught in.
Have not read anything I've said? Give me some evidence that the seeds of Abraham extant in the world are to "replace" Jews. They are all under the same covenant, my confused friend.
NO, what it proves that there were Jews (all members of the 12 tribes0 scattered throughout Europe and Asia Minor. They did not forget who they were and become someone else.
Again, you assume that all the tribes were represented at that time and place, that Israel had returned and merged with Judah. Surely there must be some writing that records that event.
That curse was placed on them as a single people and that was how they were scattered, first the Northern Kingdom and then the Southern, but scattered as a people who were reunited in the land of Israel as a people.
Yet to be reunited as in Israel as a people. You have already agree that Hosea was to take place in the future. Is this another claim that individual people are different than the group name that can only exist by virtue of the membership of those individuals?
They are not a reunited Kingdom yet.
Capitalizing "kingdom" does not lend any more credence to the notion that such is a living thinking entity with a soul rather than just a aggregate label for the people that belong to it.
It's a pretty silly way to avoid the problem of Hosea being fulfilled and explaining Israel returning and merging with Judah, in my opinion. Regardless, such a mass influx of Israelites into Judah would have noteworthy and inspired much writing; the ancient writers that observed the phenomenon would think Hosea was fulfilled.
The Millennial kingdom will definitely have live, flesh and blood people in it
This is your response to this statement of mine. . .
"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"."
If you don't read my posts, you waste my time and your time.
The point is that the House of Israel was there in the Land.
But you didn't make that point. Here is what you said. . .
"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."
Here is this Anna gal again. Don't you think with such a massive influx of non-Judah Israelites, there would be more, just by sheer numbers?
Also, consider, the writer of the scripture though it worth it to point out she was not of Judah, Benjamin or Levi. This must be because if he didn't, readers would assume she was of one of those three tribes. Why distinguish? Because there was only Judah where she was.
They do not believe that the 12 tribes disappeared, since it is acknowledged the term 'Jew' refers to members of all of the tribes.
Who, specifically acknowledges that? Beyond, I mean, those who already believe in your rap, and where are the records that describe that event, convincing them with first causes and not a prior belief that needs the notion to remain a viable belief?
No, Christians believe that Jew means everyone from the 12 tribes.
I'm a Christian and I don't believe it, nor am I what you call a "B.I.". I know others in the same condition that don't believe it.
Nevertheless, I believe a great many Christians believe it. I also believe that each one has never witnessed the lack of evidence for it and would disbelieve it if they were forced, like I am forcing you, to examine those beliefs.
Except, of course, those, like you, that want and must believe it.
No, provide some contrary proof and it goes away-but since you have none, it stands as a fact.
You know, I read something like this, after numerous postings where I have presented, more than once, evidence and reasoning, and explained in detail the logical and historical fallacies of your statements of belief with little or no return from you.
I am forced to think you are insecure in your certainty, feeling that you have to use strategy and technique instead of fact and rational conclusions to "win" an argument. We are supposed to be searching for the truth here. You don't search for truth with strategy and technique.
You don't know how many people of the 10 tribes survived the Assyrian invasions.
Of course I don't know it and neither do you. I can reason it out pretty well from known information, and have. You apparently haven't been able to reason an lower numbers yourself.
What great revelation is this? We know that the Assyrians moved people around. So where is your proof that there were millions of Israelites in Assyria if only a fraction were deported?
The revelation is that your previous position that most of Israel was killed by the Assyrians was false.
Again, do the math. If a tiny fraction were moved away from there home as troublemakers, and such are always a tiny fraction in any population, ancient or modern, and that number was 27,000.
If the 27,000 was as high as 10%, the total population in that one area would be 270,000. but it was most likely 3% which would be 900,000 in that one area.
Like I said, Do the same math for the regions occupied by the 10 tribes.
Samaria was under siege for three years, which means quite a few did die!
Many people don't die during a siege. Many people die during an armed conflict.
Not during a three year siege when everyone is starving.
That's the purpose of a siege. When people are starving, the object of the siege surrenders.
Proof?
As presented, much more than your proof Israel returned to Palestine and merged with Judah. Since we already know the demographics of Palestine during that period, that assumption is silly.
Since that assumption can't be made with any credibility, you have yet to answer the question, where did they all go?
Nice little story. Proof?
The essence of proof is the time period that passed between the fall of Assyria and the birth of Christ. We know that and I have told you.
read this very slowly-YOU HAVE NO NUMBERS.
But I have the mathematical means to translate known facts into numbers. I just did the math, since you couldn't or wouldn't do it yourself, above in this post.
I haven't seen you show anything that constitutes proof that Israel returned to Palestine and merged with Judah.
The promise was made to the line of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and no other. When Jews intermarried, they did not form a new race, and forget who they were. They formed a mixed race, such as the Samartians, who mixed with the Israelites who had not been deported.
And every yield of intermarriage, whether it be in Europe, the Middle East or anywhere else is in the line of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
But you were saying the Israelite didn't forget who they were.
Well, the B.I. theory is that the 10 tribes moved as a unit into Europe. The bloodline to remain Hebrew has to be through Issac and Jacob as well. That is why Ishmael is not in the promise 'bloodline' even though he is a son of Abraham.
Well as I told you before, I don't subscribe to every little detail of the "British Israelites".
Who mentioned Ishmael? The Israelites were through Issac and Jacob. What are you talking about?
Are you not reading my posts again? If you're not going to, why don't you tell me so I won't waste my time, even though you would be acknowledging that you're just a trained performer with no though behind his tricks.
You haven't stated one fact that supports your kook theory. You have done nothing but assert without any evidence the notion that the Israelites had to be in the millions and then went into Western Europe and forgot they were Hebrews. You have no evidence regarding the numbers of Israelites who went into Assyria and were left in the land. Your entire thesis is nothing but question begging and if it were handed to any history teacher he would throw it back at you with an F!
Blah, blah, blah. Again, you obviously haven't read my posts, nor have you responded to my requests.
I have supplied two major printed works, one in the history of Assyria and one on Israel, both of which reject your claims.
But neither did. One even sought to claim that 27,000 Israleiteswere all there was in Samaria when Sargon relocated the Israelites even though that number were miscreants deported from the larger population by Tiglath-pileser III. This was in his annals, from the the Assyrian tablets, which you historians had never accessed!
I grant you are a Christian, but even knowing that being a Christian must, by its very nature, be conservative, you argue like a liberal.
It is you who has to prove that the Europeans are really Israelites.
I can indicate with evidence that that theory of disposition is likely, for events 3 millennia ago. But you haven't even done that.
You have relied on a consensus opinion of a sect, and have offered no evidence whatsoever that the Jews also included the the northern tribes. I have already given three citations from Study Bibles and a Commentary regarding Hosea, including Bullinger's note on it. So, the view that Hosea 1 refers to a future event is seen a number of theologians.
I read very carefully your posts, unlike you do mine, and I don't see any linkage. I could see how, if you wanted to believe that Hosea would be fulfilled after Christ returns, you could see it that way, by only by prior conviction. None of the text compels that interpretation of itself.
Maybe you should explain instead of just posting some text.
Jeremiah 30:7 is referring to the Tribulation period. Jer.31 refers to the Millennial reign. The scripture is clear on it.
The scripture is anything but clear on it, and it has nothing to do with Hosea's prophecy. This impression is something you put on it from your prior convictions. And there are any number of knowledgeable people who would argue against it, and have done so on this very thread.
None of this stuff is cut and dry. Everybody has an opinion and make a case. You talk like it is universally accepted. The article of this thread is an example.
Well, if that were the case, then the prophecy in verse 11 wouldn't be fulfilled now would it. Verses 10 and 11 go together, so the mutipication of Israel coincides with the Millennial reign and peace on earth.
Goodness. There is nothing in Hosea 1:10-11 that says anything about the millennial reign of Christ. Neither you nor anyone else knows how the reign will come down or where Christians will be in the tribulation, nor even the material manifestation of the tribulation.
Yes, they were wrong, including the Apostles who rebuked Christ when He said He had to be crucified. They were wrong because they didn't believe what the scriptures said and that is why Christ rebuked those who were walking on the road to Emmaus (Lk.24: 25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:
No doubt Christ would rebuke you in your myriad assumptions, too. You probably won't even recognize the tribulation when it happens, looking for something metaphysical.
I'll give you a for instance. Bible: Men will beg for death and shall not be able to find it. Unconscious people on life support equipment right now may well be begging for death but that equipment just purrs right along denying them that release.
This may be fanciful or it may not, but it is an indication you have no idea how the tribulation will play out in the real world.
There is no plates that state any such thing about those Israelite deportee's moving anywhere.
There are plates of people giving homage to the Assyrian king, whose dress show he was Israelite, and of peoples moving past outposts that showed Israelite dress, in this case a robe of a priest.
It isn't the seed of Abraham that is the issue, it is the seed of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. <{> And they have not spread out anywhere except as Jews.
Of course, I mean the descendants of Israel, Huckleberry, what the hell else would I be talking about.
Millions? Proof?
Already, more than once, I have given you evidence and the math. Of course, these things happened almost 3 millenia ago. I think there is enough evidence to make a reasonable man think, but not one invested in his belief system.
You shown no proof that the Israelites merged with Judah. More than one ancient writer should have been moved to record that. Where is it?
Your view of Hosea is based on an unproven assumption that millions of Israelites existed during the Assyrian captivity and yet, there is no historical record of them and where they went.
I think there is a good case for it, and I think I have made it. The only other alternative explanation is that all these Israelite returned from Assyria and joined Judah in Palestine. You have certainly given no evidence for that. As I said such an event would have been written of by more than one ancient writer.
No, the scripture is very clear in those passages.
They are clear when you approach them with a prior belief system to impose on them. You can go out to the Bible and always find something to interpret to support any belief. the Catholic are particularly bad about this.
The meaning must be imposed on the unconditioned mind from its very words, and on any mind that reads them. Your cites don't.
But there is no scripture that supports your view that the Israelites would forget who they were and would become other nations.
There is no scripture that supports a return of Israelites from Assyria and reunited with Judah, and there would certainly be had it happened.
I think I have put up enough evidence and logical conclusions to indicate that much, if not most, of the world's nation is composed of the seeds of Abraham (and Issac and Joseph, if you insist).
Actually, the setup for Hosea is now, and, as I pointed out about the tribulation, the actual fulfilling of Hosea may not be recognizable to those who expect wild miracles and metaphysical manifestations.
Israelite 'garb' you mean robes, which were worn by everyone in the Mideast?
No. I mean robes unique to Israelite priests. And, I have no doubt that there were many that still remembered the old customs and practiced them. You keep forgetting we are talking abut 6 centuries from that point. A lot happens in 6 centuries, dear.
Oh, yes it is, it as a race that is in the line of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and follows a very particular blood line.
Israelite is a religion, is not a race. Passed by blood or not. Anyone can convert to being a Israelite or a Jew. Many have. We have many Jews that are descended from Khazar converts.
You can be so entertaining at times. Not much, though.
No, because to prove one is a Jew all one has to show is that one is in that racial lineage. All 12 tribes, no matter what the mixture would still be considered racial Jews. They don't have to be 'pure' Jew, but they have to have some Jewish blood, which most Gentiles do not have.
But you said the Jews don't know who they are.
And then the descendants of Israelites don't have to be "pure" Israelite to bring Hosea to pass, either.
He wrote to the 12 tribes and he knew that they existed in the Roman Empire as Jews.
And he said this where? This is another passage you cite that has equally valid alternate interpretation, (the other the tribes were know about but no in the region with Judah) especially since no ancient writing at all records a reuniting of the Assyrian Israelites and Judah.
And you have some proof of that? Do you have any proof that Israel return from Assyria and merged with Judah?
Ofcourse he was talking about Jews, that is why he called them the 12 tribes. He could have called them the Israelites and the Jews, but instead he called them the 12 tribes.
Not reading my posts again. My response you're answering above was about Peter saying all of the House of Israel should know that the Judah crucified Jesus.
Not before 1Ki.12 it wasn't.
After Israel separated into two kingdoms, they are forever distinguished from one another.
First, you will note that in Josephus that those in Media are called Jews.
No, he didn't. . .
"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;"
Isn't it apparent that the sentence you are referring to is a continuation of "So he read the epistle at Babylon to those Jews that were there;"
Never said the House of Israel referred to both, only that Jew did. The house of Israel when mentioned does refer to the Northern Kingdom and is referred to by the Lord and Peter as being in the Land.
Jesus and Peter did not refer to them being in the Land (by which you mean in Palestine). Reproduce the versus that specified that here.
You are saying that the House of Judah (known as the Jews) include the House of Israel. Not hardly. You still haven't cited any ancient writing that records Israel being merged with Judah.
There are no genealogical records of any tribe left.
Ask a Jew, and when he says what tribe he belongs to tell he's wrong because there are no records. Tell me his reaction.
Do it, or stop talking about it.
There is clearly some indicator that points out a Jew in the DNA.
No. There's not. Those who purport to have matching software won't release their algorithms. I tried. There is no documentation at all, and the notion of identification of genetic linkages after 3 millennia, especially with all the mixtures during those millennia, there cannot be. Just people trying to plug holes like you are.
And could any Jew prove it what tribe he was from without a break in his genealogy?
Why not ask, then get back to me.
I have been impressed by your ability to beg the question. You state that there were millions of Israelites when the Northern Kingdom fell. Prove-None. You state that those same millions of Israelites formed the Western nations-prove. None. Your entire theory is based on no one provable fact.
The best you can do with events this old is make reasonable conclusion on the limited data. I have done that.
Your only explanation to the northern tribes disappearance is that they merged with Judah. You haven't produced any writings or records of that event. You and I know such an event would have been recorded, probably by more than one ancient writer.
There is nothing in any Assyrian writing that states anything about how many Israelites there you. You are blowing smoke. The published work on Assyria by an expert on the subject stated the opposite,that no one knows what happened to those tribes.
But there is enough data to make reasonable conclusions, as I made above. You have yet to produce support for your theory.
There are lots of works published on Assyria. Your "expert" apparently didn't consult an important resource.
And that would mean that there were not many left now were there. In fact, Assyria had to import other tribes to make sure the land was inhabited. (2Ki.17).
I don't know how you come to that conclusion. The majority were left. I discussed this above.
Assyria traded deported dissidents from one area to another, for obvious reasons. that practice is well used in history.
The population was depleted from war and invasion. And you have no idea how many people were left. And stop pretending that you do. You pull numbers out of nowhere. Israel could have well been down in the thousands, not the millions.
Prove it.
I can do the math based on the probable percentage of dissidents deported, as I did above. "Could well have been" could be equal to "could well have been" millions, but the math done with population and know data suggests the latter. You have no data at all to suggest the former.
And do you have any actual proof of this as well? I never saw one individual make up so much history in my life. You do not know how high the losses were, or even how many people Israel had before the invasions. Try putting that into a thesis for a history teacher and see how far that would fly.
I have evidence that points toward a conclusion. Do you?
If you have to accept large numbers of northern tribes, your whole construct falls.
Is that why Samaria was able to hold out for three years against the greatest military of it's day? You are just one assertion after another without a shred of any actual facts.
They held out against a siege. This is known. Actual battle would have taken the toll you need to have for your theory.
Have you read the translations of the Taylor prism?
The fact is that you do not know the population that was deported. And you have stated that deportations only happened to the malcontents, now you are saying they happen to the entire population? You have not a single shred of evidence of how many people ended up in Media and how many were left in the Land. I think a person that deliberately tries to confuse events has little real support for his belief. Again, this is how liberals argue.
This is probably the fifth time I've explained this. For about 20 years (around 745 to around 721) the northern tribes were besieged by the then Assyrian king. His policy were to deport troublemakers from their home area to another, and import from other areas to that one.
Dissidents deported this was will be, as evidenced by other populations of malcontents, a small percentage of the whole population.
In about 721, the new king, Sargon, gathered up, over time, the whole population of northern Israelites and moved them to Assyria's northern border among the Medians. Look at some maps of the ancient region. He placed them in Median cities. Look at a map to get a sense of how large the Medes was.
Yes, and from the quotes, it appears that the entire population of Sameria was deported and it was only 27,000. So your quotes prove my thesis not yours. And once again, we know that the tribes were deported, so you aren't telling us anything we don't already know. What you need to quote is a passage that tells us that millions of Israelites were deported.
Are you dense?
The fact is that millions of Israelites were not deported and then moved somewhere else. Those who were born in those nations they were deported to, either remained there or returned to the Land.
The fact is they were, by reasonable extrapolation of known population numbers. I believe it was you that posted a verse that said they were placed among the Medians. The Assyrian records themselves state that.
If they returned to the "Land" there would be records of it. If some stayed in the Assyrian land and made cities, which there are Assyrian records of letters the (then) collapsing authority complaining of them successfully repelling tribute collectors, and some moving north (look on a map where Media was located), over nearly 3 millennia they would have virtually covered the globe with seeds of Abraham (and, as you insist, Issac and Jacob).
Just the 6 centuries from the fall of Nineveh and final collapse of the Assyrian empire allowed time to spread and forget who they were.
Six centuries is 24 generations, 2700 years is 108 generations. To give you a benchmark of population growth, did you know that between 1950 and 2000 the population of the Middle East quadrupled? And is expected to double by 2050?
The number of children in a family was vastly greater at the time we are talking about, and the average in modern times was about 4 offspring per.
After Sargon moved the northern tribes to the Medes, they stayed there for about a century, 4 generations.
The known data and reasonable population growths lean against your theory.
I am using the merging of both Israel and Judah because that is what happened and the word Jew refers to all of the tribes of Israel, not just Judah.
You have shown now records of it. And a reasonable extrapolation of population growth precludes it. What else do you have to offer?
What you have to prove is that they went somewhere as a people and became someone else.
I think I've made a good case for it. What have you proved? For events this old, we can only make reasonable assumptions, which I have, and which you have not.
So once again you have cited irrelevant facts which do not give any credence to your view that the Israelite went anywhere as a people. They reproduced and dispersed as Jews, not as Gentiles.
Prove it.
No, they could have remained in the land where they were born, just as many did when the Southern tribes returned from the Babylonian captivity. Clearly, many were visiting on Pentecost in Acts 2. Many Jews remain in America today and are not in Israel. So once again, you make an unfounded assertion.
But they didn't. The northern tribes were moved to the Medes in 721. In 612 Nineveh was destroyed and Assyria fell as an empire. About 590 Judah was captured by the Babylonians. that was 20 years later and the northern tribes were not there. In 550 Cyrus defeated the Babylonians and let Judah go back to the Land (as you call it). The northern tribes were not there.
I'm at a loss as to when you think they returned and merged with Judah.
With the reasonable conclusion from the data and known facts, and the time spans involved, the presumption must be that the major part, or the majority, of the world's population trace their heritage back to Abraham on Issac's side, and therefore are heirs to God's promises under the old covenant.
European and Middle Eastern.
And if they were left in the Land, they would have been there when the Lord was born. So what happened to the 10 tribes in Assyria is irrelevant to the fact that all 12 tribes existed in Israel at the time of Christ's birth. You don't have to have every member of the tribe there, just enough for the tribes to be represented.
Assyria and Media is not the "Land". Turkey and northern Europe is not the "Land". It is recorded history that many of the Sumarians were from other populations moved there by the Assyrian authority.
Your statement is based on assumptions you have not presented an incontrovertible evidence or logic for. There were no populations of norther tribes in Palestine, and you have no records by ancient writers that even mention such an event.
You don't have to have every member of the tribe there, just enough for the tribes to be represented.
Then you would have to explain the vast numbers missing from your theory.
And a while back you were saying that only the trouble makers were deported, so now it is everyone?
Goodness, haven't you gotten that there were numbers of deportation during the siege of northern Israel, for 20 years, and one vast move of all the northern tribes to Media?
Movement to Turkey is not the issue, it is the movement into Western Europe. No one has any problem with Israelites moving around that area of the world, since they are all found there as Jews. So, your outpost sightings and trackings have nothing to do with the B.I. theory which states that millions of Israelites moved into Western Europe and forgot that they were Hebrews.
Movement to Turkey and then stop there? In 6 centuries? Not reasonable.
For the northern tribes to have been known as Jews, you have to provided some ancient writings that record that event.
You still don't seem to have a sense of the time spans involved.
I have investigated them enough to know that there are none that supports your view.
Specifically what tablet translation did you examine? You didn't even know they existed until I told you. And, as an aside, there are no tablets, cylinders or prisms among that 23,000 collection the mentions anything at all about the northern tribes going back south to Palestine.
You have not a shred of evidence that those people went anywhere near Western Europe.
I have, and I have presented it, on prior posts and on this one.
And I have already posted a refutation of that canard.
No, you haven't. You just said no, it's not, and posted some ambiguous statement off the internet. Anyone can find anything on the internet. All you have to do is look at the region and the names of Geographical features, without both hands over your eyes, of course.
First, you have not given a single verse of scripture to support you contention that the Hebrews were ever to forget their heritage.
I don't have to. Population dynamics and historical facts postulate most of the world's population can trace their bloodline back to Israel. Individuals today know nothing about it.
God will reveal it, and He may even now be in that process, hence this very controversy. God does not work instantly.
Second, what makes you think that they went anywhere.
Already have shown you numerous times, and you attempts to refute it have been weak.
Josephus, whom you cited, states they are still in those lands when he wrote.
Above I clearly show your misreading of that excerpt.
What I hate are liars.
Just so. You seem filled with hate to me, just from the gratuitous comments you make. It blinds you.
Your theory that the Gentiles are really the Israelites is simply myth, with not a single solid fact to support it.
Those who have ancestors that were members of the northern tribes would not be gentiles, would they?
Actually, the merging of Israel and Judah is made clear in the usage of the word 'Jew' which stands now for all tribes. The Biblical evidence supports the fact that all the 12 tribes were in the Land when the Lord was born and are addressed as the House of Judah and the House of Israel. The historical evidence supports me since Josephus refers to the House of Israel still in the former Assyrian lands, they had not gone anywhere.
I've already presented the origin of the label "Jew". It is limited to the House of Judah.
You have no biblical evidence except what I have proved is ambiguous. You keep throwing it at me like repetition equals truth.
I've already discussed Josephus misreading above.
I've looked over the rest from here and I've already discussed it above, or in prior posts. Do you have anything new?
I have to say thanks for providing the forum to get all this out, and I have been motivated by you to uncover much else. the notion of the northern tribes being merged with Judah has been floating around out there for a long time. It is educational to know how lacking in foundation it is.
I search for the truth. Do you?
