Thank you.
No, nothing more needs to be said.
All of the 12 tribes were represented in the Land, at that time.
So, your constant attempts to deny that fact is simply hot air.
Well, when it refers to the house of Israel, it always refers to the 10 tribes after the division. So once again, you show that you do not know what you are talking about. That's what I said, wasn't? You can't comprehend the House of Judah by referring to the House of Israel, therefore the two houses were not combined, as you believe.
Oh, yes they were, since the House of Judah is referred to in Acts 2 as well by, 'ye men of Judea'
Now, your problem is that you keep thinking of terms of the two houses being combined as Houses, which they are not.
They are combined as a nation, but have yet to be combined together as a Kingdom, which is what the division into 'houses' represented.
[ Individuals from every tribe were in Israel as the time of Christ, how they got there, either by returning or having been left there is irrelevant. ]
Cite where members of every tribe of Israel were in Palestine during Christ. You've cited one, and keep using it over and over.
Acts 2. refers to those lands that the ten tribes were removed to and they are represented there by Jews.
The House if Israel was present in the Land at the time of Christ.
[ Something about that verse you do not understand? 2Chron. 34, 9 And when they came to Hilkiah the high priest, they delivered the money that was brought into the house of God, which the Levites that kept the doors had gathered of the hand of Manasseh and Ephraim, and of all the remnant of Israel, and of all Judah and Benjamin; and they returned to Jerusalem. ]
Chronicles wasn't written during the appearance of Christ, or even sufficiently before. It dated from Adam to 539 BC. this is supposed to prove what?
It is proves (to anyone who can read) that the members of the 10 tribes were still in the land after the deportation by the Assyrians.
[ Those are tribes from the Northern Kingdom listed after the deportation by the Assyrians. ]
And the deportation of the Assyrians were to various cities of the Medes, where those tribes languished over a century.
And many of those same tribe members stayed in the land, as well.
But, I'm talking about a specific recording. If Hosea had been fulfilled in New Testament time, don't you think it would have been written about?
When did I ever say that those passages in Hosea 1:9-10 were fulfilled?
Why do you waste my time?
Why are you wasting band space with your nonsense?
[ That is because they aren't. It is up to you to demonstrate that they are indeed the 'real' Israelites and have forgotten. ]
Obviously, they have.
Obviously?
Well, that is something you actually have to prove, not assert.
You seem to have some problem with finding some ancient writing that records the return of Israel to Palestine in all their numbers. You must, because that leaves 6 centuries for the seed of Abraham to spread out among Europe and the entire middle east, and the world, setting the stage for Hosea, without making God raise up stones to combine with the vanishing remnant of Judah.
And once again, your logic is flawed.
There were enough Israelites left in the land after the deportations to repopulate the land.
We also see some coming back with Ezra and visiting the Land during the Pentecost.
So, no one has to show anything to prove that they were in the Land.
But you have to prove that they actually went somewhere, which you can't.
You only assume that they did, based on your flawed assumptions and logic.
[ And you are missing what the Bible says, that the House of Israel was in Israel when Christ was there. The House of Israel and the House of Judah were both present in the land at the time of Christ.]
And you have no writings stating that Israelites went anywhere as a people, they either went back to the land or assimilated into the surrounding culture. And you cannot prove anything different.
Actually, the fact that House of Israel is mentioned by both the Lord and Peter confirms the fact that they were in the Land.
Also, Anna was there as well.
Now, based on the logic of the issue, it is you who have to show that they actually did go somewhere else, not remain in the Land.
Josephus states that they right were the Assyrian took them and hadn't gone anywhere.
You make these statement, like, by your saying it, makes it true.
Well, at least I have some facts to support my view.
Where is your evidence that they actually moved somewhere?
By your own concession, you have none.
Your belief that they did is based on your own flawed reasoning and inability to read the Bible in simple English.
Actually you said they must have assimilated with the cultures among which they found themselves, when you were being pressure to present evidence of Israel in Palestine.
I said that those deported assimilated into those lands in which they were taken to.
And that was in my first post to you.
When you put forth the reasoning that you had that stated that the only logical conclusion was that the tribes had left and went somewhere else, I stated that you had left out the most obvious alternative, that they had been assimilated into the surrounding culture.
And I cited two published historical works, one on Assyria and one on Israel to support that view.
You had no evidence at all, except empty rhetoric.
The evidence that is available to you indicates the Israel split up. Some remained as troublemakers in the old Assyria and some went to other places, like Europe.
You have supplied no evidence of that at all.
There is no evidence of any of the 10 tribes moving as the 10 tribes-and you know it.
For the life of me I can't see why this so objectionable to you. You have no unambiguous evidence on your side. You are in the silly position of having to limit the disposition of all of Israel to returning to Palestine between 612 BC and the birth of Christ.
Well, I like to have the truth, not myths.
Preferring myths over truth, doesn't seem, however, to be a problem with you B.I. guys.
You haven't revealed any text at all indicating that Israel did that. And if you can't do that, then it has to be presumed that after almost 3 millennia, Abraham's seed has pretty much populated the world, whether from Europe or elsewhere.
No, I don't have to produce any text to prove anything.
Since you are the one making the outrageous claims that 10 tribes moved into Western Europe and then forgot who they were, it is your responsibility to actually prove it, not jus assert it.
And since you cannot, you continue with your appeals to flawed logic and empty rhetoric.
Moreover, it is not the children of Abraham who are considered, for the purposes of the promises, Israelites, it is the children of Isaac and Jacob and the 12 tribes.
So, stop trying to sneak in more untruths.
What ever in the world is your problem with that?
It is not true that's why.
And no Western nations are the 'Israelites'.
The Israelites are the Jews.
[ And let me make this as clear as possible to your befuddled mind, there is no 'Judah' there are only Jews, which are composed of individuals of all 12 tribes, not just the Southern Kingdom. ]
That is your theory unsupported by anything. Show me some record of Israel having returned to Judah in Palestine in all its numbers.
Once again, you make the assumption that some particular numbers are necessary.
The numbers are irrelevant since the promises haven't been fulfilled and won't be until after the Millennial reign of Christ.
So, I don't have to show you anything.
What you have to show is that those tribes actually went somewhere-which you can't.
[ Ofcourse I know the nature of it, it is clearly stated in Scripture. It will happen when the Church is removed and the world goes through the Tribulation, as stated very clearly by the Lord in Matthew 24. After that there will be 1,000 years of perfect environment in which Christ will rule from Jerusalem and all 12 tribes will be represented and have an inheritance, since Christ is the King of the Jews. ]
It is not clearly stated in the scripture. All of it in all prophecies, like, revelation, is entirely in symbolism. As I have said, you, or anyone else, knows what those symbols actually represent in the material world.
Ofcourse it is clearly stated but you just don't want to read what it says.
You think you have some great reasoning ability that means you do not have to actually believe what the scripture says.
Your reasoning ability is quite flawed and limited as is made clear by your inability to grasp fundamental logical fallacies, like begging the question and straw man, which you make constant appeals to.
Lordy, how many times has this Matthew cite been effectively argued against on just this thread.
Actually, you haven't been able to refute Matthew 24 once in these posts.
All of this is a theory that you just happen to believe. Numerous others, probably a majority, do repeatedly beg to differ.
And now an appeal to numbers?
Another logical fallacy!
What do I care about how many believe in what the Bible actually says?
So, my theory is based on what the Bible actually says, not on twisting the words to make them say something else.
[ No, I cited very clear passages in Ezekiel that you just choose to ignore because you are 'wise in your conceits' and 'high and heady minded' You posted Ezekiel but I didn't see where you made your case. There is no mention of the millennial reign of Christ there, nor the reunited nation of Israel choosing Christ as their head.
Well, the reunited tribes are there getting their inheritance.
A rebuilt Temple is there where the waters flow out of it to heal the rivers around it!
Doesn't sound like anything that is going to happen unless the Millennium is going on.
All of that is what you add to it.
No, that is what the passages show.
The Prince sits in the Temple and that would fulfill the Davidic Covenant (Ps.89)
[ Israel did return to Israel as individuals. See 2Chronicles above. Christ and Peter both mention the 'house of Israel' being present and that term is only used for the Northern Kingdom after the split in 1Ki.12. So, what you want proven is that the 10 tribes returned as tribes, but those tribes were present in the land after the deportation by the Assyrians as shown by 2Chronicles 34. Now, what you have to show is that those deported tribes went somewhere and you can't, so stop talking like you can. ]
We have already discussed Israel returning as "individuals" or returning as a "kingdom". The notion of a difference is asinine, and appears to be desperate.
No, it makes alot of sense, since that is what happened.
The Kingdom of Israel hasn't been reformed from the 12 tribes, but the people are together again in the Land and dispersed, known by us as Jews.
Chronicles, as noted, did not prove anything.
Ofcourse it did.
It showed that those same tribes were still in the land even after the Deportation and thus, they did not have tocome back from Assyria.
Christ and Peter noted by implication that the House of Israel was elsewhere.
Quite the contrary.
Christ went to the 'lost house of Israel' and Peter addressed them in Acts 2.
Deportation, again, was in the initial capturing of Israel, therefore had nothing to do with where Israel finally ended up.
We know where the records stated they were settled in.
There is evidence from the Assyrians themselves that some of Israel occupied parts of old Assyria and some left headed north.
Once again, the movement of some Israelites does your theory no good.
You have to show a mass movement of the 10 tribes, not some outpost reports, reports that I have not seen in anything on the Assyrian records.
So, I doubt very much that they actually exist.
But even if they do, they do nothing to support your thesis.
This is contrasted with a total lack of writing recording the northern kingdom's return to Palestine before or during the birth of Christ, as such an event would have been recorded, if not scripturally then by ancient writers who had an interest in those kinds of events.
And once again, there would be no reason for a migration back to the Land by those 10 tribes.
Most were left in the Land after the Assryian deportation.
So, your attempts to appeal to any lack of migration back to the Land by the Assyrian deportee's shows your own inability to think clearly and deal with the available evidence.
[ Already shown it by the scriptures, the term House of Israel being used and the tribes mentioned in 2Chronciles by name. You only reject the evidence because it doesn't fit your warped theory. ]
All you have shown me is a single passages that does not deal with the time period we are discussing.
Clearly you have a hard time dealing with simple facts.
What that passage proves is that the 10 tribes were in fact still in the Land, even after the Deportation by Assyria.
Just like there were still members from the tribe of Judah left in the Southern Kingdom when they were finally deported.
[ You have cited nothing that proves your case. There is nothing in any Assyrian writing that states that those tribes went anywhere as tribes. We know that Jews were in Turkey and all of the Mideast, Asia Minor and Europe. That was the curse of their Diaspora, to be scattered throughout the world. They did not forget they were Hebrews. ]
Keep saying saying that with no backup to prove your words. You didn't even know there were Assyrian writings, so I can't expect you to believe what they say.
There are no Assyrian records that support what you are trying to assert.
There is no record of any of the 10 tribes moving anywhere as a people nor rising up in revolt.
Your constant appealing to them is simply dishonest on your part, since you cannot produce them!
Certainly Jews were spotted here and there among the indigenous population. It is the indigenous population we're discussing, who had 6 centuries to become indigenous. With records that indicated numbers of Israel, free from Assyria, headed that way.
Indigenous?
You mean assimilated
LOL.
Nothing in any record shows any mass movement by the 10 tribes going anywhere into Western Europe.
So, stop your nonsense.
Obviously the seed of Abraham forgot they were Hebrew. How many acknowledge it today? How many acknowledged it then? Whether parts of Israel stayed in the lands of defeated Assyria and parts migrated to Europe, the bloodline of Abraham endured, and they didn't know it then, nor do they now.
You keep using the word, 'obviously' when nothing could be less 'obvious'.
That is what you actually have to prove since it is not obvious at all.
And you show me some work that states that the 10 tribes went somewhere as 10 tribes.
I don't have to show you anything, since we know from history that they were left in the Land and were in the Land when the Lord was there.
[ Those individuals from those tribes were left in the land by Assyria went back into Israel and blended with the other 2 tribes. They will be reunited as a Kingdom in the Millennial reign of Jesus Christ and not before.]
You keep making these flat statements, then no backing them up.
I have backed them with historical and Biblical evidence.
You have not backed up any of your contentions with a single supportable fact.
I already have, what evidence that can possibly be presented nearly three millennia after the fact. You haven't show me any hard evidence, or even unambiguous implication.
You haven't given any evidence.
Evidence is fact not conjecture.
I know you B.I. liars have a hard time grasping the difference.
[ I have the evidence of it from scripture, that one of the promises made by God that He would multiply the House of Israel during the Millennium. Ezek. 36, 10 And I will multiply men upon you, all the house of Israel, even all of it: and the cities shall be inhabited, and the wastes shall be builded: 11 And I will multiply upon you man and beast; and they shall increase and bring fruit: and I will settle you after your old estates, and will do better unto you than at your beginnings: and ye shall know that I am the LORD. 12 Yea, I will cause men to walk upon you, even my people Israel; and they shall possess thee, and thou shalt be their inheritance, and thou shalt no more henceforth bereave them of men. ]
Huh? Where is there any millennial reign of Christ in this?
Check the other scriptures that have been cited, like Ezek.34 where God says He will multiply the people.
I know actually comparing scripture with scripure is a little too much for you guys.
You would rather distort it.
[ Not according to the Scriptures which states that one of the benefits that God brings to the house of Israel is the ending of the heathen nations 'bereaving the [house of Israel]' of men'(vs.12) So where does 'your sand of the sea' argument hold up if the heathen are accused of bereaving the house of Israel of men? It doesn't. The House of Israel will become as the sand of the sea during the Millennial reign, not before. ]
This only assuming that the seed of Abraham, Israel, is not already the sands of the see, now. And it certainly is "'bereaving the [house of Israel]' of men'(vs.12)". And God can end it.
No, it is not assuming anything.
The fact is that the verse undermines your entire contention that the House of Israel must be as the 'sands of the sea' when in fact, the Lord has said that He will keep them relatively small by 'bereaving them of men'
So, once again a simple scripture has exposed your entire false theory.
I mention this to show that your arguments are ambiguous, that is to say, they admit to several equally reasonable interpretations.
No, your attempts at another interpretation fall flat.
Your entire view is based on the idea that the prophecy of Israel must become as the 'sands of the sea' now in order for it to be fulfilled.
And that is not happening now, the Israelites are under judgment now.
None of God's promise requires the millennial reign of Christ to fulfill it. That is just your theory.
No, that is what the scriptures say, (Rom.11)
You flatly state at that reign and not before. Like you know, and there is no way you can, possibly. There is no way I can either, so I use how God brings His works into the world through material means.
That is what God's word states, that the perfect enviroment will not happen until Christ reigns, in the Millennium.
You must rely on metaphysics and symbols which you have no idea what they mean.
No, it is clearly stated in scripture.
[ Nothing you have cited has proven anything that you contend regarding the moving of the 10 tribes. You have cited tablets that have stated what is already well known, that the 10 tribes were in the northern part of Assyria. Not a single shred of evidence that those tribes moved anywhere as tribes-so stop pretending that you did. You only reveal the fact that you are a fraud. ]
I reproduced this in amusement. It is simply a contentless fit on the floor. You waste my time with this.
Well, it is true.
You just repeat what is well known and then go on to assert what you need to prove.
You are a fraud.
[ Oh, I read them, and you say nothing in them that is worth any consideration. There is no a major history on Assyria that would state those 10 tribes left Assyria intact and went into Western Europe. And you know it,but you keep spreading your myths and fables. ]
You know, I rarely say this, but I don't believe you. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't see much evidence of it. You seem to rely on techniques to hold your position.
Well, supply some evidence that says that those tribes left intact and then settled in Western Europe and forgot who they were!
You can't-period.
[ And if they had robes, so what? Once again, more hot air and nonsense. ]
Israelite garb, seen among peoples fleeing the Assyrian meltdown going north? So what?
No one but Israelites wore robes?
My you sure build a thesis from some flimsy evidence.
And how many were seen fleeing?
Oh, that's right you do not actually have any numbers.
[ So? And there were people moving all over the place. What you have to prove is that those people were the Israelites who then moved into Western Europe and forgot who they were. Nothing in those plates indicate that. ]
There are writings and scratched images on tablets that indicate, but after almost 3 millennia, there is nothing to absolutely prove it.
Well, I guess you have to admit then that you have no actual facts to prove your thesis then!
We have records of other people moving around, but we do not have any records of this great event!
But you know that it happened-without any evidence of it happening.
There is where the notion of Israelite bloodlines being spread all over the world, including Europe become prima facie, where you have to overcome the presumption with greater evidence, and you haven't.
You clearly do not understand the rules of evidence.
First, you have to prove that those from the Western European nations have Israelite blood in them.
They do not.
Nothing in the Western nations DNA shows Mideastern blood.
Second, it is not just the children of Abraham that is the issue, it is the children of Issac and Jacob.
We know that Abraham had other children, but they did not get the promises.
The promises flow through Issac, Jacob and the 12 tribes.
Third, you have to show that people from Assyria actually went into the West-which you cannot show.
So, your entire thesis is nothing but a tissue of lies and conjecture built on zero evidence.
You can't even cite an ancient writer that records such an event like the northern kingdom returning to Palestine.
Don't have to, (you really are quite dense), since we know that many were left in the Land after the Deportation.
Which you yourself have admitted.
And those numbers would have increased over 6 centuries as well.
[ The 10 deported tribes either assimilated or moved back into the land on an individual basis. There is no historical evidence of them moving together out of Assyria and into Europe-and then forgetting that they were Hebrews-and you know it! ]
There is written evidence that supports all but returning to Palestine (your assumption), assimilating and migrating elsewhere but not to Palestine, which lends credence to Israel being the sands of the sea.
There is no evidence of them going anywhere from Assyria as a group and you have admitted it-so stop spreading lies.
And the present Jews not being all that's left of Abraham's bloodline. That's the problem you really have isn't it? I can see how you, being Jewish, you would have a problem with that; it takes away some conceptual tools of security and protection.
Why you lousy liar!
I can see that you are nothing but a antisemitic bigot.
I told you that I was not Jewish.
And no one is taking anything away from the Jew, since God has given it to him unconditionally.
But I am glad that your anti-semitism has been exposed.
[ No need for an 'escape', when Assyria fell, the captives fell under Bablyonian captivity and when they fell to the Medes, they were under their control. Moreover, when the Jews went back to Israel, they would have taken back members from those tribes as shown in Ezra who could not state their own genealogy due to the loss of their records. The Southern tribes still had their genealogical records but would lose them in the Fall of Jerusalem. ]
The Assyrians held Israel "captive". That necessitates an "escape".
It does?
Why couldn't they assimilate and become part of the general population over time?
Once again your assertions are based on flawed reasoning.
Didn't you read in the scriptures that the Assyrians placed the northern kingdom in and among the Medes?
And we know that there was alot of movement in those areas after the fall of Assyria.
So, those same Israelites could have moved throughout the empire after is collapse and even returned back to the Land as individuals.
You keep making these statements and providing no backup. These are theories, like the one I'm arguing in favor of.
My 'theory' has historical and Biblical support, yours doesn't.
At least I debate with that understanding. There is no way possible you can know what you say you "know", and what evidence you present is loosely ambiguous, interpreted, among other reasonable interpretations, to conform to your, and your sect's, previously held beliefs.
Your 'theory' is built on zero evidence.
It comes from a flawed view of what Hosea says and then reconstructs history to make it fit that false view.
Your only defense of it lies in the fact that you cannot understand Hosea.
There is no actual evidence to support your view.
[ Oh, stop your nonsense! You have not posted a single record showing any mass exodus by the 10 tribes out of Assyria. And there is not a major history of Assyria that would support your fabrication of the truth. ]
Well? Do you want the titles of some books written by people who have studied the Assyrian tablets with an eye to Israel, or not?
Sure supply the names of the books.
Do they show that there are Assyrian records that show the mass movement of the 10 tribes?
I guess not since you have admitted that you don't have any such evidence.
[ There is evidence that the house of Israel was present in Israel at the time of Christ. And your appeal to the Assyrian records is bogus, since no Assyrian record shows that those tribes went anywhere as the 10 tribes. The entire B.I. theory is built on a lies. ]
Gasp. Lies, lies, lies.
Well, that is all you have!
Show me some ancient writings that record the return of the northern kingdom to merge with Judah.
I don't have to.
Your inability to think clearly has led you to ignore the simple fact that many from those 10 tribes were left in the Land and that is clearly shown by scripture.
So stop being so stupid!
[ There is not a single Assyrian plate that shows any mass exodus by the 10 tribes and you know it. ]
Now, regardless of the books written from study of the Assyrian records, you probably are not so rockheaded to think many of those record weren't about the northern kingdom? Right?
As I said, there is not a single record of any mass exodus-so stop trying to bluff your way out that fact.
You have admitted that yourself.
And, you're right, there is no plate that says, "There was a mass exodus of the previously held northern kingdom of Israel northward to Europe (or whatever the Assyrians called that region)." But there are writings that place peoples in Israelite clothing on that vector. And that's as close as anyone get to such ancient events.
Well, if that is all you have, you have nothing, so stop wasting my time and everyone elses.
You have admitted that there is no actual historial evidence to support your thesis and therefore it is not valid.
My view that those tribes were still in the Land is supported by the scriptures.
On the other hand, you have provided no written evidence whatsoever that records, or even indicates a mass return of the northern kingdom to Palestine at any time.
And once again, I don't have to.
It is amazing how shallow your thinking is!
You clearly have not been well educated, since you have no grasp of what is required to defend a thesis.
[ And you have nothing to prove anything for your idiotic theory. Those tribes did not leave Assyria as unified tribes and there is not a single Assyrian plate that shows that they did-and you know it. So stop spreading lies. ]
I have access to more evidence for the position I'm arguing than you do for your's. All you have, at the end of the day, is a consensus of like believers.
You have just admitted that you have no actual evidence.
What your thesis is based on is your own flawed reasoning and the rejection of the clear facts that contradict your thesis.
I have presented evidence, and logical conclusions, on these many posts, and you have not effectively (to my viewpoint) refuted them (that is to say, I've been able to refute what you have posted as off point or not applicable).
You have not provided the necessary evidence, which is actual proof of any mass movement.
What your argument consists of is straw man and question begging reasoning.
You assume what you need to prove and ignore the facts that show that your thesis has no logical support.
Most of what you do, if one were to isolate the sum total of your sentences, is simply repeat what you believe. As if repetition creates reality, like some liberal.
Actually, that is what you are doing.
I ask you for proof and you give me rhetoric.
You have failed to grasp the simple alternatives that those deportee's did not need to return to the Land as a such.
That the 10 tribes were represented in the Land by those that were left (as stated clearly in Scripture).
You ignore the fact that you have no actual evidence but think your logic overcomes that defect, which it doesn't, since your logic is flawed as well.
[ The effect of the 6 centuries was the assimilation of those 10 tribes into the surrounding culture, not them moving into Western Europe, a theory that you have yet to prove as a fact. ]
But 6 centuries is certainly feasible to migrating north to the European region. Especially when there are writings that spot such migrations with description of clothing, and Turkey is about a months march from where the Israelite were on the northern border of Assyria.
Not in a group large enough to form the nations of Western Europe!
Some individuals may have gone West, but not in the numbers to form a new people, and who forgot who they were.
So, your evidence does not support your theory.
What you have to show is that those 10 tribes moved as a people into Western Europe, forgot who they were and then formed the nation of Western Europe.
This not even to mentioning the plethora of myths and legends of ancient Europe is in line with Israelite names, language and customs. But that seems to be your real problem, isn't it? It's something about European types having the bloodline of Abraham. I admit I'm stumped as to why.
Well, that is all those are myths.
As for being 'stumped' that is not surprising, since you have no conception of wanting the truth.
The European's are not from the Mideast bloodline
More nonsense.
You keep requiring literal words describing exactly the event or you will reject all. This is not reasonable.
Gee, it is not reasonable not to expect facts to support a theory
Well, that it doesn't seem to bother you.
Why let facts get in the way of a good myth!
As for being children of Abraham, why should it make such a big deal for you?
I could less if I were related by blood to Abraham, I am related by faith to his spiritual seed.
[ No, I never said that those low numbers were all that was left. What I said that it certainly was not millions deported, as you were contending. Whatever numbers were deported were relatively small and enough people were left to move to repopulate and remain viable as the 'house of Israel' which were in the land in the time of Christ. So, you have contradicted your own contention that it was necessary for the tribes to remain intact in Assyria or else prophecy couldn't be fulfilled. Even if those deported did not come back, there were still enough remaining from the 10 tribes in the land to keep those tribes alive, as they are today, and mingled together as Jews. ]
You require low numbers because your theory can't deal with large numbers of Israelites returning to Palestine; it upsets the know known demographics of the regions.
I don't require any numbers.
I require actual facts, which you don't have.
So, those left in the land after the deportations would have represented the 10 tribes quite nicely.
More illogical assumptions on your part.
As I've shown very clearly, with written Assyrian policies, that only minorities of the northern kingdom areas under siege were deported, as active dissidents, to other areas, and receiving other deported dissidents in those areas to stabilize land values, and work the land for tribute. That cannot be in dispute. It is recorded.
Yes, which means that many from the 12 tribes were left in the Land and not deported.
So you undercut your entire thesis.
Do you not read my posts? The majority of population of any northern kingdom areas were kept to work the land and pay tribute.
That would refer to the deportees, not those left in the land and not deported.
So, once again you have not advanced your own thesis with any facts.
This was about 25 years, focused around the reign of Tiglath-pileser III, in 745 BC, who died in 725 BC. The Sargon dispersed the tribes, the vast majority of all their numbers left alive. God gave them over for their sins, grazzie?
And what does that have to do with those left in the land-nothing.
What you cite was before the general dispersement of the northern kingdom to areas of the Medians, by Sargon, as noted. Gosh, I get so frustrated having to repeat known facts. Is this one of your techniques?
And I get tired of telling you that you have not stated anything that is already well known.
What you have to show is the actual moving of those deportees.
We know where they ended up-in Northern Assyria, you have to show them going into Western Europe.
You keep saying "as Jews". You have yet to give any evidence at all of that. And I don't require exactly wording, just unambiguous writing, that is, something that can't be interpreted otherwise, not necessarily in those words.
Evidence has been given.
It is from common word usage.
I cited the ISBE as an a reference.
[ No, it is clear you do have a hard time with English. What I was saying is that those tribes remained in the land, so that even after the deportation, there were members of each tribe in the land. ]
They remained in the land, in all their numbers (you had previously said that they were wiped out so that only a small number remained) working the land for tribute around 745 to 721 until, in 721 they were packed up by Sargon and spread among the Medians. How many times do I have to say this?
First, I never said anything about them being wiped out.
That is simply another straw man on your part.
Second, Sargon did not deport those remaining in the land, he deported those from the captial city of Samaria.
Not everyone from the land was deported, that is why those who were put into the land mixed with those that were there to form a mixed race, the Samartians.
This means the vast majority of Israel survived to remain vast numbers when Assyria fell. What about this don't you understand? It comes from historical evidence and writings.
You just admitted that you have no evidence of what became of those in Assyria.
Why don't you stop lying.
[ So, your view that the tribes of the deportation have to be somewhere or else prophecy is overthrown is a false one. Those people who were deported could have become assimilated with the culture and lost their identify as Hebrews and yet, all of the 12 tribes still existed since the members of the 10 tribes were in the Land. ]
Your meaning here escapes me, but assimilated people tend, over time, lose their identities. There were vast numbers of the northern kingdom left for the Assyrian capture and those same numbers + after Assyria fell. There are records of Israelites that settled and for Israelites that left going north. Then we have 6 centuries to populate and assimilate.
Assilimate means to become part of the surrounding culture and remain where they are.
Once again you have no records of anyone going anywhere-so stop pretending you do.
The point is that much of the world's population is evidentially of the bloodline of Abraham, including the European region. And they certainly don't know who they are.
You are an idiot if you think that!
Abraham's bloodline is Mideastern.
[ Could some of the deportees have returned to the land-yes, as individuals, but not as tribes, since they had lost their proof of who they were. ]
Ah, lost proof. How about lost identity, but they would, from your view, have to retain identity because they would have to have that to return to Judah in Palestine.
They could return but could not prove what tribe they came from.
The distinction between an political aggregate abstract term and the people that compose that term continues to escape me.
Well, it is clear that alot 'escapes' you, like facts, reason and truth.
[ So, your entire 'logical' view that the 10 deported tribes must have remained intact and become some other people in order for prophecy to be fulfilled is overthrown. ]
Doesn't appear to be overthrown. You keep ignoring the centuries of time in which the events occur. The evidence leads logically that their blood runs through the greater part of the world's peoples, making Israel the sands of the sea right now.
It is overthrown based on the actual evidence that exists.
It is overthrown by the fact that Abraham's seed are Mideastern.
[ Where is the record of the House of Israel going anywhere else as a body-there is none. And there is no 'numbers' problem except in your own distorted thinking. God doesn't need any particular number, all He needs is all of the tribes to remain in existence. The tribe of Benjamin once got down to only 600 men. More 'question begging' and 'circular reasoning' on your part. ]
Israel didn't go anywhere "as a body". Some stayed and gave the Assyrians trouble. Some migrated north. They did not return to Palestine and merge with Judah, and are comprehended in the low number of the Jews. Their bloodline is now spread all over the world.
Well, that is what you need to prove not just assert.
I presume that Hosea is God's prophet and Hosea is in to numbers.
You are just misreading Hosea.
[ There were no 'great' numbers. You have yourself stated that only the trouble makers were deported, not everyone! And those same Medes show up in Acts 2! Don't you read your own posts! ]
Only the troublemakers were deported. The rest of the population of that area stayed there.
So, you contradict what you have just stated above.
So there were alot of Israelites left in the Land after the deportation.
There were ten tribes in Israel (and only two in Judah). No appreciably hight death rate was sustained by all the areas occupied by the northern kingdom; God gave them over. The Assyrians needed the population to work the land.
And the Assyrians also imported another group of people into the Land as well.
You do the numbers.
I have and they do not add up to your false thesis.
[ Yes, and obviously, they did not flee as a group to Western Europe. ]
It is not necessary for them to flee as a group to Europe (not just western Europe), just a good enough number to allow 6 centuries for them to populate the land. You can make a lot of babies in 6 centuries.
Not if you are going to become the people of Western europe.
Even 6 centuries will not give you enough people unless you are have some real numbers and they have be from all 10 tribes.
Whereas, there is nothing to suggest that any number at all went to Palestine and merged with Judah there.
They didn't have to, many had been left.
[ And those that left, did not go into Western Europe and forget who they were. Nothing in those tablets suggest that. ]
There is only the reported direction of travel. Considering how close to Europe they already were. . .
More conjecture on your part.
[ All those tablets suggest is that people were uprising and there were movement within the Assyrian Empire, not that the 10 tribes had stayed a united kingdom and fought against Assyria and left to move into Western Europe. ]
They did not have to remain a united kingdom, all they had to do is spread the bloodline, which is in Europe. It is silly to suggest it isn't, which is the point to begin with, with which you have a problem. We have people, we have a vector and we have centuries to do the deed.
Well, all 10 tribes would have to represented.
Your theory doesn't hold up regarding the numbers.
Whereas we have no vector at all toward Palestine.
No need to, they were left in the Land.
[ I don't need any! All I need is people from those tribes in the Land, which they were. It doesn't matter if none of the deportees ever made it back, since by your own admission, many Israelites were left in the land when the Assryians deported the 'malcontents'. So, as 2Chroncicles clearly shows, those tribes were in the Land after the Assyrian deportation. The return of the deportees is not necessary for prophecy to be fulfilled. God warned those fled from the South, not to go into Egypt because they would not return, and they didn't. ]
You need something. Piling all those Israelites on Judah in Palestine would screw up the demographics already recorded for that time.
You keep repeating nonsense like it is true.
All that is needed is enough people for all of the 10 tribes to be present.
But all you have is one cite of one gal that belonged to another tribe than Judah, Levi or Benjamin, which came from some who joined Judah when the Assyrians placed Israel under siege. They were already there when Neb rounded Judah up.
Anna shows that the tribe of Aser was present in the Land.
So the tribes were present in the land at the time of Christ.
Then, after T-p II's death Sargon moved them all to be dispersed among the Medians. My mention of those left after the deportees was to make my point that Israel retained numbers, which you claimed previously they didn't.
Enough people were left to represent the tribes.
Sargon only took 27,000.
And, As I showed, Chronicles did not cover the necessary period.
Hey, stupid, it covered the period after the deportation.
So the tribes were in the land after the fall of Samaria.
What is necessary for the prophecy to be fulfilled is lots and lots of Abraham's bloodline, and we have that assumption.
We have not a single fact to support your assumption and the Western people are not from the bloodline of Abraham-which is mideastern.
I mentioned nothing about Egypt.
Who cares.
[ And you have no sense of history, prophecy, logic or truth. The children of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (not just Abraham, who had other children), are Jews and are known as such today. There is no record of them migrating to Europe as the 10 tribes. They entered Europe as Jews and that is what they were known as. ]
You keep saying that and I keep giving you information. I have some record, about as good for events 3 millenia ago as it gets. You have no record at all that Israel returned and merged with Judah.
You have admitted that you have no actual facts, just assumptions based on conjecture.
[ That 'sand of the sea' is for the future, not today. The Hebrews are dispersed throughout the world as was prophesied to them in Deut.38. ]
You have show nothing to indicate it will happen only after the millennial reign of Christ. Obviously, it will happen in the future because it hasn't happened yet.
That is because you cannot read English.
I agree "Hebrew" included both Israel and Judah. Israel includes both Israel and Judah. "Jew" was coined to refer to Judah only, and no other. The House of Israel has never been used to refer to both Israel and Judah. There is no record at all anywhere to mentions Israel returning from Assyria to merge with Judah.
And the term today stands for both, as English usage shows.
If there is, cite it. The event would certainly have captured the attention of the writers of the day; plenty of other events concerning Judah certainly did.
And the event that you describe would have gotten some historical attention as well, but since it didn't happen, it isn't written about.
The word Jew today refers to all Hebrews.
[ Well, then those plates don't support what you are saying, they state that the Hebrews well remembered who they were. So once again you are appealing to evidence that doesn't support your thesis. You are asserting what you need to prove. And then you just jump to to Europe as if you have proven that those 10 tribes were there-and they weren't. So your talk about 'bloodlines' is beside the point, since the 10 tribes never moved into Western Europe as the 10 tribes. They were in Western Europe as Jews, part of the Diaspora. ]
I don't doubt there were some that kept the remnants of the old ways; population always do, but God put them on ice.
There are no Abrahmaic bloodlines in the Western European people.
That is the figment of your warped thinking.
The original point here is that there are plenty of Abraham's seed to fulfill Hosea, instead of all remaining being part of rapidly vanishing Judah.
And your point is a lie based on a myth.
Hosea will be fulfilled in the future.
It didn't matter if people moved as tribes or not, bloodlines comes from people. A "tribe" or "kingdom" is an abstract term; it doesn't have blood.
It matters if it isn't true.
So since you cannot prove your thesis you have to doubletalk.
There is no Abrahamic bloodline in the Western European people.
And all this blood certainly didn't go to Palestine after Assyria.
The bloodline stayed with the Jews and went where they went.
[ Ofcourse I am reading your posts and you have not provided a shred of real evidence to support the thesis that the Israelites moved into Western Europe. ]
Well, yous answers don't seen to indicate you read my posts, or did understand what I posted (reading and comprehension in included in the word "read"). Most of the time you endlessly repeat your beliefs.
I understand that your posts are full of conjecture and lies and are not supported by any actual facts.
[ Well, we know the Levites were there. We know that Anna from the tribe of Asher was there as well. We know that the 'house of Israel' was there, since the Lord went to it and Peter stated they had crucified the Lord. Now, anytime the House of Israel shows up after 1Ki.12, it refers to the Northern Kingdom of 10 tribes. ]
Certainly the Levites were there; they were teachers and priests distributed among all the tribes.
Yes, so they were in the Land with the other tribes.
There's that gal again. Do you have any other people? If Israel returned (10 tribes merged with 2) you have have endless mentions of other tribes.
We have the House of Israel mentioned as a people.
Where is your proof that the Israelites moved into Western Europe-oh that's right you have none.
We know that the House of Israel survived and existed somewhere, but not in Judah's domain. Hey-according to your own statements, they didn't have to 'return' they had remained in the land after the deportation by Assyria. I said some had remained in the lands occupied by Assyria. There were those who had remained in the land when the Babylonians deported the Southern tribe as well. Yes, and. . .? So, we do not need to worry about the deportees, we had those who had remained in the Land after the deportation and thus, the tribes were all present when the Lord was born. This a conclusion that, to me, means you didn't read my posts. And a false theory is one that has no facts. Your theory is false since it is not supported by the Bible, history, or logic. The facts are that all 12 tribes were in Israel at the birth of Christ and were known collectively as Jews, as they are today. Which would be yours, having no record of Israel returning to Palestine. I think I have shown the position I'm arguing is supported by all three. And as the Son of David, He is the King over all of the Tribes of Israel-all else prophecy would not be fufilled (Psa.89). And the point is, everybody.
And once again you have not given any actual evidence of your idiotic view that Israelites went into Western Europe and spread their bloodline.
And Christ comes back to rule everyone as the Son of David.
Now, what I have concluded from your worthless, idiotic posts is that you are an anti-semetic fraud and liar that has not evidence to support your myths.
Thank you.