Now, why should I answer the question as if the condition existed, when it doesn't? That is how a hypothetical is avoided by a person who think it may be possibly damaging to his position.
I'm not interested in positions as such. I'm interested in finding the truth.
I'm asking you to assume the condition exits. That is the nature of a hypothetical. I want to know if, in your opinion, that if this fantasy (as you like to term it) condition exists, would it be a good thing for the Jews existing today.
Go ahead, give me the hypothetical that the northern tribes returned and merged with Judah, and the remnants are all that is left of Israel today, and, even though I don't buy it any more than you buy the other, and I will not avoid the question.
I simply ask you for the same honesty.
[Now, why should I answer the question as if the condition existed, when it doesn't?]
That is how a hypothetical is avoided by a person who think it may be possibly damaging to his position.
No, a 'hypothetical' can rejected if it is seen as irrelevant.
And that is what your hypothetical is since (1), the blood relations of Americans is not going to make them pro-Jewish.
(2)A great Tribulation is going to wipe out most of the Hebrews, so if America was really made of mostly Israelites, it would also be destroyed as well.
So, you view that the Americans (and Western Europe) must be Israelites in order to fulfill Hosea 1 doesn't hold up, if most of them end up being destroyed before the Kingdom is set up.
I'm not interested in positions as such. I'm interested in finding the truth.
If you are interested in finding the truth, you will discuss what I am saying, not what you think that I should be saying.
You really are just arguing with your own preconceived straw man positions.
I'm asking you to assume the condition exits. That is the nature of a hypothetical. I want to know if, in your opinion, that if this fantasy (as you like to term it) condition exists, would it be a good thing for the Jews existing today.
And I told you that it would be irrelevant to the Jews today since it will not protect them from the Tribulation that is going to happen as laid out very clearly in Matthew 24.
The Anti-Christ is going to rule and he will sit in a throne in Jerusalem and the Jews are going to be virtually destroyed and will only be saved at the last moment by Christ's reappearance to destroy the Anti-Christ forces (Rev.19).
So, even if all of Western Europe and America were in fact really, by blood, Israelites, they would only fall under the same destruction.
Go ahead, give me the hypothetical that the northern tribes returned and merged with Judah, and the remnants are all that is left of Israel today, and, even though I don't buy it any more than you buy the other, and I will not avoid the question. I simply ask you for the same honesty.
Why would I give you a hypothetical that wouldn't make any difference even if true?
Instead of dealing with hypothetical, deal with what actually is and will be.
No one is saying that the 10 tribes came back and 'merged' with anyone.
That is a straw man that you have set up, following the theory based on the false assumption that those deportee's from the tribes had to go somewhere as a group.
Thus, you then conclude that since there is no record of them returning to Israel, they must have gone into Western Europe, of which there is also no records, just tenuous references to tribes that had different names and some philological similarities between languages.