British-Israelism Utterly Refuted....REFUTED!
BY The British-Israel Church of God
In addition to my argument section in my Book The USA & British in Prophecy. We have notice some various website with their detailed refutation of the doctrine of British-Israelism (The doctrine that the Anglo-Saxon and Celtic related peoples are the lost ten tribes of Israel). On this web page we will refute any of these claims that it is a false doctrine, or that it is cultic and or racist in any way.
Web pages of refutations are:
http://mm91007.tripod.com/book/anglo.htm This site has been thoroughly refuted by http://www.eternalthroneofdavid.com/liaf/refute.htm * Note not all of Eternal Throne of David's web site reflects the views and beliefs of the BICOG.
British-Israel-AVITW - Canada - USA ( A 'Voice' In the Wilderness )
Ambassador Watch Links - "Peter Salemi still promotes the discredited theology of British Israelism" -Answer-No Links or sources provided to prove his position that British-Israelism has been discredited. "One thing to say it, another to PROVE IT!"
Many link Hebert W Armstrong with this doctrine or they say "he popularized it." In whatever way they want to describe it, we will focus on the British-Israel Doctrine and not the doctrines of the World Wide Church of God. I want to make that distinction clear. Many critics of this doctrine believe that it is racist, Imperialistic, and has no biblical or historical foundation whatsoever. These claims are made simply because of bias for so-called orthodox Christianity. Many churches are not willing to give up their precious doctrines for new truth, or just the simple truth of the Bible. They will defend them no matter how wrong it is. The other is ignorance of the evidence that plainly shows the truth of British-Israelism. This is an important Biblical doctrine for the Watchman work, and also for the Covenant promises which are made to the house of Israel and Judah Jeremiah 31:31; Hebrew 8. Does this exclude the gentiles? Absolutely not! Converted to Christ, they are "Abraham's seed" and heirs to the promise Galatians 3:29. Now we will deal with each refutation from these website one by one.
One more quick note, none of these objections to the British-Israel truth are new. These Arguments have been around for at least a century now, so what we are dealing with is nothing out of the ordinary. Douglas C. Nesbit, of the British-Israel World Federation writes, "Many objections raised against aspects of our British Israel Thesis have long since received more than adequate answers by British Israel exponents; answers which were, in fact, formulated more than a generation ago when those objections first appeared. However, the circulation of these objections continues unabated, with no regard to the clarity of our answers, to the point at which one almost grows weary of repeating them! It seems quite obvious to your editor that those who continue to canvass these attacks upon British-Israel teaching among pastors and members of the public are either dishonest purveyors of falsehood, or totally inadequate in scholarship, for they have never, as far as we know, even looked at the answers prepared by British-Israel writers in rebuttal. (Article "OLD OBJECTIONS RESURFACE AD NAUSEAM" British-Israel Web site, emphasis added).
1. The Origin of British-Israelism
Both websites and others claim that the origin of British-Israelism came from a "madman" Richard Brothers. They claim, "he was admitted to a mental asylum, where he remained for eleven years...Brother's taught that the Anglo-Saxons were the 'Ten Lost Tribes of Israel'. He said that the British, Americans, and other Anglo-Saxons were heirs to the promises given to Israel in Scripture."
Answer: Yes Brothers did know of the concept but HE WAS NOT THE ORIGINATOR OF IT. This knowledge of England being Israel was common in his time and actually goes back centuries before Brothers was even born. Thomas Ransom writes, "Since some of our opponents assert that it was a mentally unbalanced lieutenant of the British Navy. Richard Brothers, who discovered British-Israel Truth (he lived 1757-1824) we propose to give evidence that proves it was known centuries before he was born. Therefore. to make Brothers. the founder of British-Israel beliefs, is about as sensible as making Halley the creator of the Comet that bears his name.
"In Brothers' day we find that such intellectual giants as Alexander Cruden. Rev. John Wilson. and Dr. Abbadic of Amsterdam firmly, believed in our Israelitish identity. Cruden, in the preface of his famous Concordance in the earlier editions of his work, 1736, addressed a letter to King George III, drawing his attention to the very pious life of King Hezekiah of Judah. He closed this letter expressing the hope that George III might prove to be a Hezekiah TO OUR BRITISH ISRAEL. This is not in the later editions. WHY?
"In 1723. Dr. Abbadic of Amstcrdam. said to be the greatest scholar of his day, wrote four volumes setting forth his beliefs that the Ten Gothic Tribes that entered Europe were the Ten Tribes of Israel. He said. "Unless the Ten Tribes had flown into the air, or plunged into the depths of the earth they must be sought for and found in the North West. in Great Britain." (The Covenant Report, p.11, emphasis his and Mine). In Brothers' Day AND BEFORE, this knowledge was already around and common place among scholars. Brothers' could of easily taken this knowledge that was common around Britain and its colonies and twisted it, like so many people do even today. To say Brothers' originated this doctrine is totally false, by why do they continue to teach this? In this article by Thomas Ransom he quotes scholars, kings, Barons and Rabbi that all attest to the British-Israel Truth.
2. The Historical Argument
Many opponents of British-Israel claim you cannot prove British-Israel in History or the Bible. Using the Bible as part of the historical record as well they should. The Bible is the best kept historical record of the people called Israel, as well as the New Testament church. Can you prove Biblically and historically that the British are Israel?
Let's quote first the arguments from the web sites to see why they think you cannot prove it from the Bible:
"It is very interesting to observe how the Anglo-Israelist connects the two. For instance, one of their chief texts for a "scriptural intimation" and "strong historical proof" is Gen. 48:1820: "And Joseph said unto his father, not so, my father: for this is the firstborn; put thy right hand upon his head. And his father refused, and said, I know it, my son, I know it: he also shall become a people, and he also shall be great: but truly his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his seed shall become a multitude of nations. And he blessed them that day, saying, In thee shall Israel bless, saying, God make thee as Ephraim and as Manasseh: and he set Ephraim before Manasseh."
"And here is the "intimation"—Ephraim should be called "great" and Great Britain is called Great, therefore Great Britain is Ephraim! On the other hand Manasseh must have a place in the picture, so the United States is Manasseh. That is the very hub of their British-Anglo-Saxon-Israel claim—that Great Britain is Ephraim and the United States is Manasseh. But the whole argument is based upon misquotation. The passage does not say that "Ephraim shall be called great"—it says that "his younger brother shall be greater than he"—that is, Ephraim should be "greater" than Manasseh," which could only mean, according to this theory that England is greater than the United States! Does lend-lease furnish "strong historical proof" on this point? How do Americans like that slant? Really, what might have happened to great Ephraim if little Manasseh had not come to the rescue? He would have been sunk! The theory furnishes very good British propaganda but, without reflecting on the imperial greatness of Britain or the national pride of America, if the glory of either is the hope of Israel it is a mighty poor affair." (Bible.Ca).
Interesting, talk about misquotation, and not adhering to the entire text. Where he gets these quotes from I have no Idea, all my British-Israel books do not interpret the texts that way. Although there are some groups that do believe Ephraim is the USA and Manasseh is Ephraim by a misunderstanding of Deut 33:17, most British-Israelites believe that Ephraim is Britain and Manasseh is the USA.
Notice what the Bible says, "and let them grow into a multitude in the
midst of the earth.
"And when Joseph saw that his father laid his right hand upon the head of Ephraim, it displeased him: and he held up his father's hand, to remove it from Ephraim's head unto Manasseh's head.
"And Joseph said unto his father, Not so, my father: for this is the firstborn; put thy right hand upon his head.
"And his father refused, and said, I know it, my son, I know it: he also shall become a people, and he also shall be great: but truly his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his seed shall become a multitude of nations.
Gen 48:20 And he blessed them that day, saying, In thee shall Israel bless, saying, God make thee as Ephraim and as Manasseh: and he set Ephraim before Manasseh." (Gen 48:16-20).
Plainly the Bible says, that "they" (Ephraim and Manasseh) shall " grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth." They were to be spread all over the world. Then it says that Manasseh "shall become a people." (Strong's # 5971 "Nation). And Manasseh "SHALL BE GREAT." Not Ephraim, but Manasseh was to be "Great." Ephraim would become "greater than he [Manasseh]," and "his seed shall become a multitude of nations." Is this rocket science? No!
Manasseh= A Great People [Nation]
Ephraim= Greater than Manasseh, and a Multitude of Nations
Now where do you find in the world today to "brother" nations, one a great 'company" or multitude of nations and the other a great "nation"? The USA and the British Commonwealth fit this Biblical prophecy.
Was Britain Greater than the USA? Yes! Britain colonized a lot more territory, had a larger army, more commerce and trade, it ruled the seas for hundreds of years. So why is the USA greater than Britain today as the only superpower? The website Bible.ca forgot to quote the latter end of verse 20. "he set Ephraim before Manasseh." Ephraim was to become great FIRST, then Manasseh. God "set" Ephraim to get the blessings first as world power, then Manasseh. History shows that Britain was the global power up til the First world war, then the USA took over as world power. So historically you can apply this prophecy to the USA and the British. But can you historically trace the people of the USA and British to Ephraim and Manasseh. God said in the Prophecy 'his seed" meaning his descendants would become a company of nations. Yes we can.
In his excellent Book, the Tribes by Yair Davidy, a Jew, he actually traces the tribes of Israel, from the Exile of Assyria with old maps by Ptolemey, and others, and traces them step by step to Scandinavia and the British-Israel. The Tribal names of Israel that we find in the book of Numbers he also traces in these migrating tribes in Europe to the Israelites of the Bible.
The Ephraimites and Manassites settled in Iran -Eran Bacteria and other
places in Assyria. These peoples known as the Sacae-Saxons, migrated to the
British Isles and the 'Anglos" that came from East Angla of Assyria actually
came from the Hebrew name for Ephraim "AEGLAH" the "bull-calf" (Jeremiah 31:18)
" have surely heard Ephraim bemoaning himself thus; Thou hast
chastised me, and I was chastised, as a bullock [Aeglah] unaccustomed to the
yoke: turn thou me, and I shall be turned; for thou art the LORD my God."
Manasseh settled in west Britain as the Mercia, the name after "Machir" son of
Manasseh Gen 50:23). These peoples colonized the USA and other that Yair Davidy
traces to Manasseh colonized the USA as well. His book is online for detailed
information on the lineage of the British and American peoples traced back to
Ephraim and Manasseh (Tribes
by Yair Davidy for booklet). So historically you can trace these peoples to
these two tribes. So it makes our nations biblically and Historically ISRAEL!
Now let's take a look at this line of reasoning from Bible.ca
"Another "intimation" which is substituted for an argument is found in the expression "a great nation" or a "multitude" of nations, which Israel should become. But that is surely farfetched, especially since the same thing is said of Ishmael in Gen. 17:20 and Gen. 21:18. Since Ishmael should also become "a great nation" and a "multitude" also, it could be that Englishmen are Ishmaelites instead of Israelites!" (Bible.Ca). No Absolutely Not! Others have no problem applying this to the Arabs. Why does this person have a problem applying the prophecies of Israel to the British? This is a stupid argument.
Here is another stupid argument:
"The British-Israelists assert that "multitude" of people means a "company of nations," and Great Britain is a "company" of nations—therefore Great Britain is Ephraim. But why pick on Britain ? Babylonia, Persia, Grecia and Rome were all a company of nations. Cyrus the Great said that God had given to him all the kingdoms of the earth—2 Chron. 36: 23. Allowing that interpretation any company of nations could be selected to be Ephraim and thereby become Israel." (Bible. Ca).
The British had colonies under British rule and formed by the British, and its population was the British people. It was not the same as Roman or Babylonian rule, where the nations already existed and the Romans or Babylonians ruled over them. Not to mention, the Romans and Babylonians are NOT DESCENDANT FROM ISRAEL. Arguments like this demonstrates the desperation of these authors simply because they just do not want to believe in the Truth of Almighty God. They do not want to give up there precious doctrines knowing that they are in error and don't want to give them up and will do anything to defend them.
Notice another dumb argument.
"But if the expression "his seed" should become "a multitude" of peoples or nations, means Britain, it would of necessity embrace her dominions, for Britain alone is not a "company" of nations. Here the Anglo-Israelist objects—for his theory calls for Anglo-Saxons only. And it is a known fact that Britain's "company" of nations are not Saxons. And those who are England's Saxons are a mixture of Celts, Normans, Picts, Gauls, and even the German Teutons. They all once occupied the whole of Great Britain and amalgamated with the Scots with Germans at the head of it. What a mongrel Israel!
"The actual truth of that matter is that there is more Teutonic blood in king George of England than there is Saxon blood. The house of Este, one of the oldest houses in Italy, married into the houses of Brunswick and Hanover, from which descended the English kings and their line of sovereigns. The house of Hanover is German. It was during the World War I that England changed the house of Hanover into the house of Brunswick, but it remains a fact nevertheless that their line of sovereigns is mixed with Italian and German to a predominating extent. It follows as an irresistible conclusion that the throne of England is in the family of king George and not in the ten tribes of Israel.
"If the British-Israel argument on the "company" of nations is correct, we have British Israel with black and yellow Ephraim; for if they deny that Britain's dominions are the ten tribes also, they have no point on Great Britain's "company of nations" as the "multitude" from Ephraim's seed." (Bible.Ca, emphasis added).
This centuries old argument keeps cropping up and no matter how many times its answered, they continue to use this argument to show we are not Israel because Britain is a mixed race. This is simply not true.
First of all, are the Anglo-Saxons of a German Teutonic stock? In a 1915
article "Are We Cousins to the Germans?" Sir Arthur Keith wrote that "the
Briton and German represent contrasted and opposite types of humanity" (The
Graphic, Dec. 4, p. 720). He explained, "The radical difference in the two
forms leaps to the eye. In the majority of the Briton--English, Welsh, Scottish
and Irish--the hinder part of the head, the occiput, projects prominently
backwards behind the line of the neck; the British head is long in comparison
with its width" (p. 720).
Keith then pointed out that "in the vast majority of Germans," the back of the head is "flattened"--indicating "a profound racial difference. Even in the sixteenth century, Vesalius, who is universally recognized as the 'father of Anatomy,' regarded the flat occiput as a German characteristic.... He came, rather unwillingly, to the conclusion that the vast majority of modern German people differed from the British, Dutch, Dane and Scandinavian in head form.
"The explanation," according to Keith, "is easy. With the exodus of the Franks to France and the Anglo-Saxons to Britain in the fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth centuries of our era, Germany was almost denuded of her long-headed elements in her population."
Did any more of the Scandinavian long-headed type leave? Yes--to America!
Look at the entry on "Germany" in the Britannica: "There have been great
oscillations in the actual emigration by sea. It first exceeded 100,000 soon
after the Franco-German War (1872, 126,000), and this occurred again in the
years 1880 to 1892. Germany lost during these thirteen years more than 1,700,000
inhabitants by emigration. The total number of those who sailed for the United
States from 1820 to 1900 may be estimated at more than 4,500,000....
"The greater number of the more recent emigrants [to the U.S.] was from the agricultural provinces of northern Germany--West Prussia, Posen, Pomerania, Mecklenburg, Schleswig-Holstein and Hanover, and sometimes the emigration reached 1% of the total population of these provinces. In subsequent years the emigration of native Germans greatly decreased" (11th ed., vol. 11).
What is so special about northern Germany? Notice this reference from Ripley's Races of Europe: "Northwestern Germany--Hanover, Schleswig-Holstein, Westphalia--is distinctly allied to the physical type of the Swedes, Norwegians, and Danes. All the remainder of the Empire--no, not even excluding Prussia, east of the Elbe--is less Teutonic in type; until finally in the essentially Alpine broadheaded populations of Baden, Wurttemburg, and Bavaria in the south, the Teutonic race passes from view" (p. 214).
It is generally known that the northern "Low Germans" differ from the southern "High Germans." But there were differences even among the Low Germans.
Another source comments, "A separate study, in the case of Germany at least would seem to indicate that those [immigrants] who went to the U.S.A. in the 1800s were somehow different from those who stayed behind and German officials themselves remarked on such a difference. The claim for such a distinction is based on consideration of physical types, areas-of-origin within Germany, religious orientation and social outlook" (Yair Davidy, The Tribes, Russell-Davis Publishers, p. 430). It seems America's Puritan founders were indeed right in believing that God was sifting a whole nation!
It is clear, then, that the Anglo-Saxon peoples are not Germanic--at least in the modern sense of that term. Neither are the Teutonic peoples of Scandinavia and the rest of Northwest Europe who sprang from the Scythians.
Now what of the Saxons Normans and the Celts, are they all of a different race? The Anglo Saxons who overran the British Isles were in many respects the same as the Celts who were already living there. Notice what Professor Huxley's Racial Origins says: "The invasion of the Saxons, the Goths, the Danes and the Normans changed the language of Britain, but added no new physical element. Therefore we should not talk anymore of Celts and Saxons, for THEY ARE ALL ONE. I never lose an opportunity of rooting up the false idea that the Celts and Saxons are different races." Winston Churchill was of the same opinion (History of the English-Speaking Peoples, vol. 1, preface). Prof Huxley says, The arguments about the difference between the Anglo-Saxon and the Celt are a mere sham and delusion" (Covenant Report, p.4). In Fact, "...the peoples of these [British] Islands are racially the purest stock on the world" (Quote From Colonel G.F.B. Turner "Morning Post.") "Mongrel Israel" I THINK NOT!
The "black and Yellow" Ephraim is just dumb beyond belief. These are British dominions with different races of people living under the British Rule.
What of King George? What this author of Bible.Ca does not realize is,
The Royal Houses in Europe intermarried extensively. The term "divine right of
stemmed from the former awareness of Jacob's and Nathan's prophecy about Judah and David whose descendants
were literally given a "divine right" to rule by God. The Encyclopaedia Britannica states concerning the Divine Right of Kings: "The principle that the kingship is DESCENDIBLE IN ONE SACRED FAMILY...is not only still that of the British Constitution as that of ALL MONARCHIAL STATES...not only that 'legitimate
monarchs derive their authority from...God alone, BUT THAT THIS AUTHORITY IS BY DIVINE ORDINANCE HEREDITARY IN A CERTAIN ORDER OF SUCESSION" (Under "King" subhead 'Divine Right of Kings," p.394, emphasis mine). All the Royal families of Europe are of ONE FAMILY, and as we have proved is the Davidic Family, Read our book Throne of David. Though King George came fromn the House of Hanover in Germany, this Royal family is part of the same family as The Royals in Britain. Also King George was a DESCENDANT OF KING JAMES I of the British Royal Family. Notice what Milner writes in his book The Royal House of Britain an Enduring Dynasty, "First of all, George I's mother, Sophia, was grand-daughter of James I , whose crown came to him very much "by Divine right," the great overruler of all things having blended in his one person the Tudor, Plantagenet, Norman, and Saxon lines of England, through the Tudor line, that of the ancient Kings of Wales and Britain, dignified further by the blood of the Kings of Scotland, and of the "Scots" before that-Caledonian and Irish.
"Secondly, George I's father, Ernest Augustos, Elector of Hanover, was fourteenth in direct male succession from Maud , Empress of Germany and Duchess of Saxony, the daughter of King Henry I I , who was heir of the crowns of A1fred the Great, of William the Conqueror, of Kenneth MacAlpin, and it may be of that also of Godfey , King of Jerusalem" (p.38, emphasis added). Looking at the ancestors of King George, is he more Teutonic or British in his lineage which makes him an Israelite? BRITISH THEREFORE AN ISRAELITE!
Some argue the Tuatha deDanaan who went up to Ireland was a pure myth.
However In his book The Story of the Irish Race states, "De
Jubainville denies a De Danann race to Ireland. He asserts they were
mythological. AlacNeill agrees with him. But many students of the question
disagree with both of these able men. The fact that myths grow around
great people must not lead us to conclude that the people were mythical.
Fortunately Fionn and his Fian fell within historical time when actual
facts, countering the myths that have gathered around them, were set down
; otherwise, by the same process of reasoning, they might have been classed with
the De Danann as an entirely imaginary people" (Seumas
MacManus, p.1 footnote, emphasis added).
3. Racial Argument
These website also claim that racially, the Israelites and the Anglo-Saxons are different. The Israelites are Semitic and the Anglo-Saxons are of Aryan stock therefore cannot be related. Nick Greer writes, "
"First, I'll look at racial types. If the Anglo-Saxons were really lost Israelites, we would expect them to be the same race. They should look like Israelites, have the same skin colours - basically, there should be a genetic connection. However, in his book Races of Mankind: their Origin and Migration, Anthropologist Dr. Calvin Kephart, says that while the Anglo-Saxon people are 'Aryans', the Hebrews are from the 'Turanian' racial family. They are a completely different race!
"In a footnote, he wrote: "Since the original Hebrews were Kassites, of typically Turkic build, i.e., with tawny complexion, of medial height and stocky build, with prominent nose, and brachycephalous, all efforts to identify Aryan Nordic people of Europe as descendants of the Lost Tribes of Israel are doomed to failure. A more futile task is inconceivable". In other words, genetically, the early Anglo-Saxons were not the olive-skinned Israelites of the Lost Tribes." (LOST TRIBES OF ISRAEL - ARE THEY REALLY IN BRITAIN?).
Are the Anglo-Saxons Semitic? For this answer we must go back to Noah and his three sons. From his three sons all the races of the earth can claim descent. Ham, Japheth, and Shem, the Father of the Semites as recorded in Genesis 10. (NOTE: By comparing the known geographic origins of the major racial groups with the ancient locations of the biblically listed descendants of Noah's sons, it is possible to determine which son of Noah fathered which major race.)
Ham is the father of the Negroids-the dark-skinned peoples who inhabited Africa, India, and, anciently, certain eastern Mediterranean countries like Canaan.
Japheth is the father of the Mongoloids-the yellow and brown peoples of Asia and the native Indian tribes of North, Central and South America. Many of the olive-skinned peoples who inhabited the countries of the northern rim of the Mediterranean Sea (e.g. Greeks) are also descendants of Japheth and his sons.
Shem is the father of the Caucasoids-the fair-skinned blonds, red-heads and brunets who are often called the "white" peoples. So the Anglo-Saxon-Celts must have descended from Shem. This makes absolutely perfect sense when you realize that the very name of the Caucasian race is derived from the CAUCASUS MOUNTAINS
Now many get mixed up and say Japheth is the father of the European races, but as Ernest L. Martin writes, "...[The] Shemite tribes (people who were descendants of Shem and including some peoples who came from Abraham) later colonized the whole of southern Europe and replaced the people of JAVAN and his four descendants. JAVAN'S people were pushed mainly into the northern areas of Europe where in turn they migrated farther east into Asia (along with GOMER the firstborn son of JAPHETH and his descendants). Indeed, in prophecies dealing also with the End-Time, we find the people of JAVAN no longer in Europe but they are now associated with TUBAL [Ezekiel 38: & 39 end time prophecy] (another son of JAPHETH) who became an eastern Mongolian type of people...though the name JAVAN still retained it geographical hold on the southern region of Europe, particularly in Greece)...It is not uncommon for people to give a name to a region and then the original people move on to other areas (or are killed off) and the original geographical name becomes associated with completely different people" (Prophetic Geography and the Time of the End, emphasis added). This is exactly what happened in Europe. Japhetic tribes settled but them moved on leaving their names behind, and the Semitic peoples moved in.
Notice the two maps Map 1 of Japheth and Map 2 of Shem in Europe
Ancient Anglo-Saxon historians claim also be be from Shem. "Alfred, king of the Anglo-Saxons [b. 849 A.D.] was... the son [descendant] of Sem [Shem]" (Church Historians of England, vol. 2, p. 443). Notice also: "So the Anglo-Saxons may well have had records of the ancestry of their kings, beginning with Sceaf... and calling Sceaf the son of Noe, born in the Ark, or even identifying him with the Patriarch Shem" (Haigh, Conquest of Britain by the Saxons, p. 115).
What about the Bible. Is there any physical description of an Israelite in the Bible? Absolutely! The Bible clearly describes Abraham and Sarah's descendants as "fair" (Heb. yapheh--Gen. 12:11; 24:16; 26:7; Esther 2:7 KJV). As a youth, King David (a Jew) was "ruddy and of a fair countenance" (1 Sam. 17:42 KJV). Such words could never be used to describe either Hamites or Japhethites. "Ruddy: red; reddish; of the colour of healthy skin in white-skinned peoples" (Chambers Concise Dictionary, 1988, p. 932). Israel's Nazarites are described as being "purer than snow, they were whiter than milk, they were more ruddy in body than rubies" (Lam. 4:7 KJV). What peoples might have "ruby-red cheeks"? These are words that could never apply to darker-skinned peoples. Black, brown, yellow or even olive-skinned Mediterranean-type people could never be called "ruddy in body."
This author also says: "The Old Testament book The Song of Solomon appears to confirm this description of Yhshua. Many theologians are convinced that the 'Husband' in this book has a dual fulfillment in both Solomon and, prophetically, in Yhshua [Jesus] the Messiah: 'My beloved [husband] is white and ruddy...(Song of Solomon 5:10 KJV)''' (R. Weiland, p.342, emphasis theirs). This is the same description of David. And since Jesus is a descendant of David and Solomon, its only logical that Jesus looks or resembles David.
There is a description of Sarah, "In the seventh Dead Sea Scroll, whoever wrote this extolled Sarah's perfection from head to foot and while it was written in prose poem, the description as it appeared in the news media was as follows:
'Her skin was pure white;
'She had long lovely hair;
Her limbs were smooth and rounded (her thighs were shapely;)
'She had slender legs and small feet;
'Her hand were slim and long and so were her fingers.'
"Unfortunately as far as is known, no description of Abraham appears in the Dead Sea scrolls, but as Sarah's description is that of her racial attributes, one can only conclude that Abraham [being a relative of Sarah, see Gen 20:12] would be identical" (R. Weliland, God's Covenant People, p.340, emphasis added).
What color are the majority of today's ethnic Jews--many of whom live in Russia or New York City? White! Many of them could easily pass for British, Scandinavian or other Nordic European types. Notice this quote by Huxley and Haddon in We Europeans, concerning the few Nordic type people in Germany: "Hence their physique... is identical: fierce blue eyes, red hair (rutilae comae), tall frames.... It may be noted that red hair is rare among modern Germans, save among those of Jewish origin" (p. 36)!
Assyrian king receiving the tribute of Jehu, king of
Jehu's physical characteristics are the same as any Caucasian Male of the Scythians, Celts or Anglo-Saxons today
In this book, The Israelites by B. S. J. Isserlin. He shows a carving of an Israelite wearing plaid Garments like the Celts and Scots as well.
Margin note says:
"15 Representations of the king and high-ranking Israelites on seals. (Above, left to right) Shu/ebnaiau (Shebaniahu?), servant of Uzziau (King Uzziah); 'Ushna' ( Ashna ), servant of (King.9haz); Pera `, possibly a high Israelite official; Pekah, perhaps the later ruler of Israel, before he acceded to the throne. (Right) A king of Judah (Manasseh?), handing over the insignia of office -a bow and some arrows-to a newly appointed governor (of Jerusalem). They are all shown in an attire also used by high officials and kings in neighbouring countries; they wear their hair long, or a wig, and may be clean-shaven or bearded. Their dress may be long or short tunics or kilts, sometimes perhaps a short upper tunic above a long one. A long mantle may hang down their backs. They often hold a staff of office topped by an ornamental head, and one seems to carry a long-handled staff over his shoulder. Perhaps it represents the ceremonial key of the major-domo of the royal palace, which was carried thus (cf. Isaiah 22:15, 20-22), though this is not indicated in the inscription." (p.98, emphasis added)
The Behistun Rock
On an old caravan road from Babylon to Ecbatana, the ancient capitol of Median, there is a carving on a mountain side made by Darius the Mede dated at 515 B.C. An English officer named Henry C. Rawlinson deciphered the cuneiform inscriptions on this carved mountain side, called the Behistun Rock. The inscriptions on the Behistun Rock were in three languages, Babylonian (Accadian), Elamite (Susian), and Persian.
Each captive chief is dressed differently, some with short tunics, others with long robes, and still others with the characteristic Hebrew cap, (just like above pictures of the Israelites). These were called the Saka, in the Babylonian the Cimmerians, whom were known to the Greeks as the Celts. Notice the Physical characteristics of all of them, Caucasian Nordic type. These Cimmerians, Scythians are the Captive Israelites as That word Gimiri links back to what the Assyrians called the sons of Omri of the 'house of Israel', that is Khumri, and Cimri, or Cimmerian
|Westminster Historical Atlas To The Bible reproduces an ancient inscription frorn the Ternple of Rarneses III at Medinet Habu in Egypt, and states, Canaanite captives in Egypt being led before the Pharaoh. This relief, which portrays the general appearance of lsraelites as well as Canaanites, is a good representation of the typical Semite of the day. Note the noble, aristocratic features, particularly the finely set noses, and the long hair and beards. It is commonly thought that Israelites had "hooked noses, " but this was originally a Hittite or Armenoid feature. "|
So, the evidence is overwhelming that the Anglo-Saxons are of the Semitic family, therefore can qualify to be Israelites.
Are the Israelites, "Kassites" as the author said of 'Turkish Build?" As we have seen above the Israelites were of more Nordic Type than Turkish, and the family of the Kassites are of "non-semitic origin." "... the Semites, they were a Caucasian people...," (An Anthropologist Looks at the Judeo-Christian Scripture). The Kassites were from the "Cushite" families. Why does this author says the Israelites are from the Kassite clans? Click this link Here and read the reason why and the truth that the Israelites are a NORDIC type of people.
Other sources however show that the Israelites are of a Nordic type.
One such source is C.F. Parker in Israel's Migrations or an Attack Answered states, "The most concrete evidence as to the ethnological characteristics of the true Israelites is to be found in the period c.1400-900 B.C., and when they had been in occupation of the Promised Land for over 500 years. This evidence shows conclusively that the Israelites were of the Nordic type, a fact which has taken the scholarly world completely by surprise ... It is evident that to the element of surprise, not a little confusion has been added, in that the predominating and almost sole type to be found in the lands of Israel's settlement was Nordic, but has wrongly been called "Amorite" by even the highest authorities on the subject. (p.9, emphasis added). These Israelites were as Parker states, "Nordic people [erroneously called "Amorite"] occupied exactly the territory of Israel, even to that [portion of land] on the east of [the] Jordan [River]-a fact which further confirms their identity as Israelites. As we have seen, Sayce identifies these people as similar to the "fair Kelts of an Irish village"; but he also traces them into Britain and Ireland! There is no break in the chain of evidence, and the accuracy of his identification is further established when he remarks: [from The Hittites; p. 16ff., emphasis added].
The author of this website writes, "According to British Israelism the only difference between Israelism and Naziism is the question, who is the master race? The Lyric of Walt Disney, of California, might be recommended at this point as a fitting chorus: "When der Fuehrer say 'Ve iss der master race,' we say 'phewewew' right in der Fuehrer's face!" (Bible.ca).
Of course the old Politically correct race card they pull out. Its ok for the Jews to be all the 12 tribes but its not ok for the Anglo-Saxons to be part of Israel. That invokes the old "master race" theory. Some maintain that Christian Identity groups hold that 'white people are inherently superior, that Blacks and other non-white races are on the same level as animals, and that Jews are descendants of Satan.' This is not true. Like all doctrines, some pervert or twist them.
Proof of the Ten Tribes
Bible.ca wants the British-Israelites to prove that the House of Israel and the House of Judah were separate peoples, two distinct entities. In my book USA & Britain in prophecy I show that proof without a shadow of a doubt. Click here for Booklet.
Bible.ca writes, "It is insisted that the ten tribes are the real Israel, not the Jews of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin—but the ten tribes and the Anglo-Saxons (us) are descendants of the ten tribes, therefore we are Israel. Now, using your thinker, ask yourself the question: When and how did the ten tribes originate? Read 1 Kings 12 and 13. They originated in the rending of the kingdom and went off in apostasy. God's throne and kingdom remained in Judah. God repudiated the kingdom of the ten tribes and sent a prophet out of Judah to denounce their altars. How does it happen now that the apostate ten tribes have the advantage over Judah? Just how and when did the ten tribes fall heir to the throne from Judah?" He gets it partly right, that the kingdom splits in 1 kings 12 and 13. Then he says, "How does it happen now that the apostate ten tribes have the advantage over Judah?" Has not the author of the website read the Bible. Jesus Christ was the one who came to " seek and to save that which was lost." Luke 19:10 Jesus said he was sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel Matthew 10:5 ;15:24. It was Jesus death that brought them back to the fold. Has this author never heard of repentance, and being converted which the British people have done, they went from paganism to Christianity? What advantage? Did he not read the birthright promises in Genesis that promised UNCONDITIONALLY That the birthright was to go to Ephraim and Manasseh?
Then they demand "not mere "scriptural intimations," but direct scriptural answers" Sure no problem. The scriptural answers are in my book USA in Prophecy.
Now Bible,ca gives us a list of proofs we must give to prove our position. He writes,
"First: They must prove that the ten tribes were once lost. If so, how do they know it?
Second: They must prove that they have found these lost tribes. If so, how can they identify them?
Third: They must prove that the British and American people are these lost ten tribes. If so, how shall they prove it? It will not be enough to say they "descended in large part"— that will not fill the order—they must identify them.
Fourth: They must prove that Great Britain is Ephraim and the United States is Manasseh. And having done that they will have only proved that England is greater than the U. S. A., which should throw lend-lease in reverse, start it working the other way, and let our armies come home.
Fifth: They must prove that the ten tribes alone constitute the house of Israel, in which there are no Jews." (Bible.Ca). These same tried old arguments have been around from time and memorial, but for the sake of the truth we will answer them again.
Number 1 "They must prove that the ten tribes were once lost. If so, how do they know it?" Were the ten tribes lost? What does your bible say?
Let's get Jewish Testimony first.
|In Discourses, Argumentative and Devotional, On The Subject of
The Jewish Religion, Rabbi Isaac Leeser confirmed that the two
houses were not reunited following the Babylonian captivity:
The book The Circle of Knowledge, in a section entitled "The Book of Nations," affirmed the separation of Judah and Israel:
Under the heading "TRIBES, LOST TEN," The Jewish Encyclopedia also supports this fact of history:
In an article on How Israel was lost and how we know it, Here is an article by Henry Stough.
What does your Bible say?
A- "The Lord was angry with Israel and removed them out of His sight: there
was none left but the tribe of Judah only." 2 Kings 17 v.18
B. "Thou shalt be called by a new name which the mouth of the Lord shall call." Isaiah 62 v.2
C. "It shall come to pass in that day that a great trumpet shall be blown; and they shall come which were LOST in the land of Assyria." Isaiah 27 v. 13 (marginal rendering)
D. "My people hath been LOST sheep." Jeremiah 50 v.6
E. "I will seek that which was LOST and bring again that which driven away." Ezekiel 34 v. 16
F. "I was not sent but unto the LOST sheep of the house of Israel." Matthew 15 v.24
" For the Son of man is come to seek and to
save that which was LOST." Luke 19:10
The Scripture says Israel was LOST, removed from their land, and to be known by a new name. Dr. Scofield and his seven co-editors of the Scofield Reference Bible wrote: - "From the Assyrian captivity the Ten Tribes NEVER RETURNED." Jews, Protestants, the Bible all seem to agree, the ten tribes were lost. Why don't these people recognize it? Is just plain bias?
Second: They must prove that they have found these lost tribes. If so, how can they identify them?
The second challenge is simple. We have read the prophecies of the Bible of a nation and a company of nation in Genesis 35 and 48. We have traced the people of Britain and America to Ephraim and Manasseh (above) and in my book USA and British in prophecy We have fulfilled many prophecies of US being a servant nation. A missionary people. Possessing the gates of their enemies. To be a "fruitful bow" Genesis 49. To be the "chief of the nations Jeremiah 31:7. Do we need a brick to fall on our head to realized who we are?
"Third: They must prove that the British and American people are these lost ten tribes. If so, how shall they prove it? It will not be enough to say they "descended in large part"— that will not fill the order—they must identify them." We have done so (above)
Fourth: They must prove that Great Britain is Ephraim and the United States is Manasseh. And having done that they will have only proved that England is greater than the U. S. A., which should throw lend-lease in reverse, start it working the other way, and let our armies come home. We have don so (above)
Fifth: They must prove that the ten tribes alone constitute the house of Israel, in which there are no Jews." In my Book USA and British in prophecy pp.23-46 we demonstrate that the house of Israel and Judah are separate nations. And the first time you see the word Jew is in 2 kings 16:6 and the JEWS ARE AT WAR AGAINST ISRAEL.
Look at the New Covenant its with the House of Israel AND THE House of Judah. (Jer 31:31). Two separate groups of people. It is simple all you have to do is read. Over and over again we see in the prophecies the house of Israel and Judah.
Now lets look at some more tired old arguments Bible.Ca makes.
1. The house of Israel was in Babylon with Ezekiel—Ezek. 3 :1-15.
In verse 1 God told Ezekiel to "go speak unto the house of Israel." In verse 5 God said that he should speak "to the house of Israel" only. In verse 11 he was told to speak "to them of the captivity, unto the children of thy people." In verse 15 it identifies them as those who were in Babylon with Ezekiel "that dwelt by the river Chebar"—in Babylon. But everybody knows that the Jews were in the captivity of Babylon, not the ten tribes. So the Jews in Babylon, according to Ezekiel, were the "house of Israel." Ezekiel was commanded to speak to them, but he was told to speak only to the house of Israel, those in Babylon, dwelling by the river Chebar. So it seems that there were quite a number of Jews in the house of Israel, after all, and DESTINY must be wrong about it. Moreover, Ezekiel 37 pictures the "whole house of Israel" in return from the Babylonian captivity. The statement that "in that house there are no Jews" is absurd and displays an ignorance that is appalling on the part of editors and writers of such a magazine as DESTINY." (Bible.ca)
Answer: The "ignorance" I think really lies with the people who put
together this refutation. This is just utter nonsense. Does the author forget
that the house of Israel was taken to this very area when the King of Assyria
took the ten tribes in many waves of invasions from734 B.C. to 666 B.C.? Notice
what the Jameison, Faucette and Brown Commentary says on this verse, "This is
the Hebrew Margin reading. The text is rather, 'I beheld them sitting there' [GESENIUS];
or, 'And those that were settled there,' namely, the older
settlers, as distinguished from the more recent ones alluded to in the previous
clause. The ten tribes had been long since settled on the Chabor
or Habor (2Ki_17:6) [HAVERNICK]." (emphasis added). He was literally
sent to the House of Israel that were settled there many years before the Jews.
When the Babylonian empire conquered the Assyrian empire it of course swallowed
up the ten tribes of Israel in there settled areas, and they were now under the
rule of the King of Babylon. Notice how it makes a CLEAR DISTINCTION between the
Jews and the House of Israel. The book of Ezekiel clearly makes the distinction
between the House of Israel and the House of Judah, "Lie thou also upon thy left
side, and lay the iniquity of the house of Israel upon it:
according to the number of the days that thou shalt lie upon it thou shalt bear
"For I have laid upon thee the years of their iniquity, according to the number of the days, three hundred and ninety days: so shalt thou bear the iniquity of the house of Israel.
"And when thou hast accomplished them, lie again on thy right side, and thou shalt bear the iniquity of the house of Judah forty days: I have appointed thee each day for a year. " (Ezekiel 4;4-6). If Ezekiel can make the distinction why can't Bible.ca?
This argument on the Bible.ca website states, "
"2. The house of Israel returned from Babylon with Ezra, Zerrubbabel and Nehemiah—Ezek. 47:13. "Thus saith the Lord God: This shall be the border, whereby ye shall inherit the land according to the twelve tribes of Israel: Joseph shall have two portions."
Here Ezekiel tells them the portion of all the twelve tribes when they return. Jeremiah said that the house of Israel would return from the north country to dwell again in their land. Jer. 23:8: "But the Lord liveth, which brought up and which led the seed of the house of Israel out of the north country, and from all countries whither I had driven them; and they shall dwell in their own land." Cyrus the Great, king of Persia, made a proclamation in Babylon to all the Jews "throughout all his kingdom" for any who were "of all his people" (God's people) to return. Ezra 1:1-3: "Who is there among you of all his people? his God be with him, and let him go up to Jerusalem, which is in Judah, and build the house of the Lord God of Israel; (he is the God) which is in Jerusalem." This proclamation was addressed to Israel. God had "stirred up the spirit of Cyrus" to make this proclamation. It fulfilled all that Jeremiah had spoken concerning the return of Israel to their land, a blanket fulfillment. If the ten tribes were not included in this proclamation, they were not of "all his people"—not God's people. They all had the opportunity to return, all Israel in Babylon, and those in the "north country"—the ten tribes —and this proves definitely that the distinction which the Anglo-Israelists attempt to make is a false distinction.
After the return to Jerusalem Ezra commanded a sin offering for every tribe of Israel, and he referred to them as "all Israel." Ezra 6 :16-17: "And the children of Israel, the priests, and the Levites, and the rest of the children of the captivity, kept the dedication of this house with joy, and offered at the dedication of this house of God an hundred bullocks, two hundred rams, four hundred lambs; and for a sin offering for all Israel, twelve he goats, according to the number of the tribes of Israel." Why offer for "all Israel" if it was only the Jews who returned from Babylon, and not Israel at all, as Anglo-Israelites assert?
In his printed Radio Addresses, the one of May 22, 1943, the Dr. John Matthews said that "it has been admitted that Ezra and Nehemiah are Jewish books." In the same address he said that "it has also been admitted that in two or three instances Jews and Israel are the same." But DESTINY says that there are "no Jews" in the house of Israel. The Doctor and the Editor had better confer.
Since it is "admitted" that "in two or three instances" Jews and Israel were the same, we now claim the right to demand that they name these two or three instances. And if they are the same in two or three instances, they might explain how many instances Jews and Israel must be the same in order to remain the same. If they are the same a part of the time, and a part of the time they are not the same, then how may we tell when they are the same and when they are not the same? Just how many "instances" does the Bible have to say a thing to prove it to be that way?
Take another look at Ezra. Read Chap. 3:11: "And they sang together by course in praising and giving thanks unto the Lord; because he is good, for his mercy endureth for ever toward Israel. And all the people shouted with a great shout, when they praised the Lord, because the foundation of the house of the Lord was laid." If the Jews and Israel are not the same, why should these Jews who had returned from Babylon, who were not "in the house of Israel" per Anglo-Israelists —why should they be shouting for Israel, if they were not Israel ?
In the book of Ezra they are called Jews eight times and Israel forty times. In Nehemiah they are called Jews eleven times and Israel twenty two times. If these terms are not used interchangeably by Ezra and Nehemiah, how could they have used them interchangeably if they had wanted to do so? If these terms are not used interchangeably, then we have more Israel than Jews in Ezra, and the argument is reversed, for Anglo-Israelists insist, that only the Jews, not Israel, returned to Judah from Babylon. But if the terms "Jews" and "Israel" are used interchangeably, then they are identical, the same in more than "two or three instances," and their whole argument is lost. In the two lists found in Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7, the number of Israel was 12,000 and the number of Judah was 30,000—and the sin offering was made for "all Israel," for "every tribe of Israel." Why? These facts are fatal to the Anglo-Israel theory.
It is pertinent here to inquire, who returned to Palestine. The Anglo-Israelists deny that Israel returned. Only the Jews returned. Israel remained scattered and lost, to be found centuries later in the British Isles. Let us see. In 1 Chron. 9 13 we read: "So all Israel were reckoned by genealogies; and behold, they were written in the book of the kings of Israel and Judah, who were carried away to Babylon for their transgress on . . . And In Jerusalem dwelt of the children of Judah, and of the children of Benjamin, and of the children of Ephraim and Manasseh." Let it be noted that this was after the return, and who is in Jerusalem? First, "all Israel," and they were "reckoned by genealogies," so it must have been true. Second, among them were "children of Judah" and "children of Benjamin," who were Jews, according to Anglo-Israelists. But note: "And of the children of Ephraim and Manasseh." Here are the very ones who the Anglo-Israelists say were "Israel"—and they were there. But they tell us only the Jews were there—not Israel at all. They are dead wrong.
In 713 B.C., during the reign of Hezekiah, Sennacherib, king of Assyria, invaded Judah, took all the fenced cities—2 Kings 18:3—and carried the captives to Assyria. But that is where the ten tribes were—in Assyria. So in this way both Judah and Israel were in Assyria. Later, the proclamation of Cyrus— Ezra 1:13—gave "all the opportunity to return, and all who wanted to return but were not able were given government aid.
Anyone can see what these facts do to the Anglo-Israel theory. That theory contends that Israel was "in the north country" and did not return to Palestine, that the ten tribes subsequently became lost, and never did return, but were traced to the British Isles, and now exist in the British, Anglo-Saxon, Celtic races. The passages cited show that their contention is wrong. These scriptural facts are absolutely fatal to the Anglo-Israel doctrine."(Bible.ca)
This argument has been thoroughly answered in my book in the argument section and its on this webpage at http://www.british-israel.ca/answers.htm Look at arguments numbered 2, 3, 13 on that web page. These prove the House of Israel did NOT return with the House of Judah in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah.
When it comes to Exekiel 40-47 Read the booklet we have on line of Ezekiel temple sacrifices for the explanation of the settlement of the tribes in the promised land. This will show that God wanted to settle them and restore them in the days of Ezekiel but the House of Israel DID NOT REPENT so it did not happen. http://www.british-israel.ca/Ezekiel.htm
Again this next argument by the same author says,
"3. The house of Israel was in Judah during the personal ministry of Christ.—Matt. 10:56.
"These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not. But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel
Here Jesus commanded the twelve to "go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." If "lost" in this passage means that the tribes were physically lost, how could the twelve disciple "go" to them? And if the Jews were "not in the house of Israel," since it is claimed that the ten tribes were not in Judea, but were lost, to whom did the disciples "go," and to whom did they preach? They were specifically told not to go to the Gentiles, and not to go to the Samaritans, so if they did not go to the Jews, to whom were they sent? But if they did go to the Jews, since those to whom they went were the "lost sheep of the house of Israel," it certainly follows that the Jews were "in that house" in fact, the Jews were that house.
Again, if "the lost sheep of the house of Israel" were the ten tribes only, as asserted, then the disciples did not belong to the "house of Israel" themselves, and were therefore forbidden to preach to their own tribe! Of course, "lost sheep" does not mean literal sheep, hence they were not literally lost. The expression "lost sheep of the house of Israel" denotes their spiritual condition.
In Luke 2:36 we are told that Anna was of the tribe of Assher, and she was not lost, and Luke knew the tribe to which she belonged, and I reckon Anna knew it, too. It must be plain to all who regard these facts of scripture that the people of Judah were the lost sheep of the house of Israel, to whom the twelve and the seventy were sent. The house of Israel refers definitely to the Jews in Judea and Galilee. If this is not true, it becomes the task of those who deny it to tell us where they were when the Lord sent his disciples to preach to them.
Ezekiel was sent only to the house of Israel in Babylon, dwelling by the river Chebar. The disciples of Jesus were sent only to the house of Israel, dwelling in Judea and Galilee in the time of Christ. Yet these so called experts on history and ethnology tell us that these tribes were not there, and that no Jews were in the house of Israel: But the house of Israel was in Babylon with Ezekiel. Every tribe of Israel, referred to as "all Israel," is found in Ezra. They are mentioned in the New Testament specifically, and Anna the prophetess was personally said to be one of them. The disciples were sent out by the Lord to preach to them—yet these British-Israel historians, ethnologists, philologists and archtheorists tell us that none were there. "(Bible.ca)
As we have proven above, the ten tribes have not returned to the promise land the bible says they are lost. Physically, out of the promised land and spiritually as well, that is why Jesus said he was "sent to the lost sheep of the House of Israel" (Matthew 15:24). To bring them again back to the faith of God since they were in paganism at that time. It was Jesus mission to go to them. He sent his disciples to them.
Did the disciples go to Britain and Parthia and other places where the ten tribes dwelt? Absolutely read this article for proof http://www.british-israel.ca/Where.htm This author does not realize that this was a prophecy to be fulfilled at a future time for the disciples.
What about Anna the prophetess in the Gospel of Luke. Read our argument # 4 http://www.british-israel.ca/answers.htm for the answer.
What about the Day of Pentecost? Bible.ca writes,
4. The house of Israel was in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost—Acts 2:122.
"The ten tribes were in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost There were "Jews from every nation under heaven" and among them were those who were called "Parthians and Medes." Who were these "Medes" in Jerusalem on Pentecost? Turn to 2 Kings 17:6: "In the ninth year of Hoshea, the king of Assyria took Samaria, and carried Israel away into Assyria, and placed them in Halah and in Habor by the river of Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes." Now read 2 Kings 18:11: "And the king of Assyria did carry away Israel unto Assyria, and put them in Halah and in Habor by the river of Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes." These two passages very plainly show that the ten tribes were carried away into Media and "placed in the "cities of the Medes." But on the day of Pentecost there were "Jews" from "Media," referred to as "Medes." So the ten tribes were present in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost—the very thing that Anglo-Israelism denies.
Checking the numerous verses of Acts 2 bearing on this point, we have the following:
In verse 5 reference is made to "Jews from every nation under heaven." In verse 9 some of them are called "Medes"— "Parthians and Medes." In verse 14 Peter addresses them as "men of Judea." In verse 22 he calls them "Men of Israel."
In verse 36 he labels them as "all the house of Israel." (Bible.ca)
Read our argument #6 at http://www.british-israel.ca/answers.htm for the answer.
The author does not realize that all Israelites are Hebrews. All Jews ARE Israelites. BUT not all Israelites are Jews. The Jews are one tribe out of 12. It was a nickname for the person of Judah [Jew]. This author just does not see this.
"They must prove that "Jews" and "Israel" are never synonymous. Let us look into the uses of these terms in both the Old Testament and New Testament and thus determine if the Anglo-Israel claim of a difference is in fact a true distinction."(Bible.ca)
Then of course talks about Paul calling himself and Jew and an Israelite. Read our argument #1 for that answer at http://www.british-israel.ca/answers.htm
Now the next one Bible.ca writes
"They must prove that God chose the ten tribes over Judah. In Psa. 78:67-68 David says very specifically that God "refused the tabernacle of Joseph" and "chose not the tribe of Ephraim" but "chose the tribe of Judah." When did God change his mind and choose the tribe of Ephraim instead?
We hereby make the challenge for any man to produce the passage that proves God ever chose the Ten Tribes over Judah. We demand that passage.
To the contrary—the exact opposite of that—Isaiah the prophet declared that Ephraim should cease to be a people. Ephraim was forming an alliance against Judah. God said it would not stand, or come to pass, and that Ephraim would be broken, cease to be a separate people and become extinct as a nation. In fulfillment of that prophecy they went into captivity and never came out one people again. Do you ask where is such a prophecy found? I shall read it from Isa. 7:58: "Because Syria, Ephraim and the son of Remaliah hath taken evil counsel against thee (Judah), saying, let us go against Judah and vex it, and let us make a breach therein for us, and set a king in the midst of it . . . Thus saith the Lord God, it shall not stand, neither shall it come to pass . . . For the head of Syria is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is Rezin; and in three score and five years shall Ephraim be broken that it be not a people." This prophecy was spoken by Isaiah in 733 B.C., according to the dates agreed upon by such authorities as Wordsworth, Adam Clarke and Pulpit Commentary. The prophecy was fulfilled in 669 B.C., sixty-five years later, "three score and five years," when Ephraim was carried into captivity. The prophecy is linked with the prophecy that the invasion of Judah by Samaria would fail. That invasion did fail. But the prophet said that Ephraim would cease to be a people. Ephraim did cease to be a people. And it all occurred within the period named—B.C. 783 and B.C. 669—"three score and five years," or sixty-five years. Ephraim never came out of that captivity to exist as a people again.
The trouble with the Anglo-Israelists is that they have a theory, and know a certain trail, but they have no fundamental knowledge of the prophecies or of the Bible as a whole. I seriously doubt if a one of them even knows that Isa. 7 :68 is in the Bible. That passage puts an end to their theory with one stroke —they surely do not know that it is there. On the other hand, if they do, their plight is even worse, for they must repudiate a plain prophecy with the date of its fulfillment, supported by the actual facts of history, in order to uphold a theory and have it their own way." (Bible.ca)
We have no knowledge of the Bible and its prophecies? This has to be the worst and most ignorant display of biblical and historical explanation of what happened to the lost ten tribes I have ever read.
First of all chose Ephraim over Judah for what? I really do not understand
what he is trying to get at here. But if we look at the Psalm, we see it has
nothing to do with choosing favoritism within the tribes of Israel. It all has
to do with choosing where the TABERNACLE was to dwell AMONG THE TRIBES. This is
the choice God made, Notice, "So that he forsook the tabernacle of Shiloh,
the tent which he placed among men;
Psa 78:61 And delivered his strength into captivity, and his glory into the enemy's hand.
Psa 78:62 He gave his people over also unto the sword; and was wroth with his inheritance.
Psa 78:63 The fire consumed their young men; and their maidens were not given to marriage.
Psa 78:64 Their priests fell by the sword; and their widows made no lamentation.
Psa 78:65 Then the Lord awaked as one out of sleep, and like a mighty man that shouteth by reason of wine.
Psa 78:66 And he smote his enemies in the hinder parts: he put them to a perpetual reproach.
Psa 78:67 Moreover he refused the tabernacle of Joseph, and chose not the tribe of Ephraim:
Psa 78:68 But chose the tribe of Judah, the mount Zion which he loved.
Psa 78:69 And he built his sanctuary like high palaces, like the earth which he hath established for ever.
Psa 78:70 He chose David also his servant, and took him from the sheepfolds:
Psa 78:71 From following the ewes great with young he brought him to feed Jacob his people, and Israel his inheritance." Sholoh was in the territory of Joseph Ephraim, and God refused Shiloh because of the sins that happened there with Eli's sons see 1 Sam 2& 3. Then he delievered his strength and glory to the enemy, this was the Philistines when the took the ark 2 Samuel 4&5. Then when the ark returned God "refused the tabernacle of Joseph" that is the tabernacle in Shiloh which was in the land of Joseph. But chose Mount Zion in Judah and built the sanctuary there. This has nothing to do with God favoring one tribe over another. It never says that in the bible.
Notice the Commentary on this verse, "The tabernacle or tent which had been erected at Shiloh. He forsook that as a place where he was to be worshipped; that is, he caused his tabernacle, or his place of worship, to be erected in another place, to wit, on Mount Zion. See Psa_78:68. The name Shiloh means properly a place of rest, and seems to have been given to this place as such a place, or as a place where the ark might abide after its migrations. Shiloh was a city within the limits of the tribe of Ephraim, on a mountain north of Bethel. Here the ark of God remained for many years after it came into the promised land. Jos_18:1; Jdg_18:31; Jdg_21:12, Jdg_21:19; 1Sa_1:3, 1Sa_1:24; 1Sa_2:14; 1Sa_4:3-4. The ark, after it was taken by the Philistines, was never returned to Shiloh, but was deposited successively at Nob 1Sa_21:1-6, and at Gibeon 1Ki_3:4, until David pitched a tabernacle for it on Mount Zion 1Ch_15:1. The meaning here is, that in consequence of the sins of the people, the place of worship was finally and forever removed from the tribe of Ephraim, within whose limits Shiloh was, to the tribe of Judah, and to Mount Zion." (Barnes)
"The Lord, offended with the people, and principally with the priests, who had profaned his holy worship, gave up his ark into the hands of the Philistines. And so true it is that he forsook the tabernacle of Shiloh, that he never returned to it again. See 1Sa_6:1; 2 Samuel 6; 1Ki_8:1; where the several removals of the ark are spoken of, and which explain the remaining part of this Psalm. Because God suffered the Philistines to take the ark, it is said, Psa_78:61 : “He delivered his strength into captivity, and his glory into the enemy’s hand;” and Psa_78:67, that “he refused the tabernacle of Joseph, and chose not the tribe of Ephraim;” for Shiloh was in the tribe of Ephraim the son of Joseph; and God did not suffer his ark to return thither, but to go to Kirjath-jearim, which was in the tribe of Benjamin, from thence to the house of Obed-edom: and so to Zion in the tribe of Judah, as it follows, Psa_78:68." (Clarkes).
Now he is correct to say that the prophecy of Ephraim took place in the 65 year period. We note that in our book USA in prophecy. But to say that Ephraim would cease to be a people any longer, and NOT TO EXIST anymore is simply wrong and goes against many end time prophecies (Gen 49:1) that show Ephraim as a people, a company of NATIONS Gen 48.
Notice at Christ second coming, Isaiah says, " The envy also of Ephraim
shall depart, and the adversaries of Judah shall be cut off: Ephraim shall not
envy Judah, and Judah shall not vex Ephraim." (Isa 11:13). Notice two distinct
tribes Ephraim and Judah existing in the end time.
In Jeremiah 31:9 speaking of the coming back of Israel to the promised land at Jesus second coming spoke of the people saying, "They shall come with weeping, and with supplications will I lead them: I will cause them to walk by the rivers of waters in a straight way, wherein they shall not stumble: for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn." (Jer 31;9). God makes that clear distinction of Israel, then Ephraim and holy to him.
Deut 33:17 an endtime prophecy that clearly teaches that Ephraim and Manasseh
would exist, "His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are
like the horns of unicorns: with them he shall push the people together to the
ends of the earth: and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are
the thousands of Manasseh. " CXlearly Ephraim and Manasseh will exist.
Genesis 49 as well speaks of "joseph" [Ephraim and Manasseh] in the "latter
days" (Gen 49:1), and he is "fruitful bough, even a fruitful bough by a well;
whose branches run over the wall:
Gen 49:23 The archers have sorely grieved him, and shot at him, and hated him:
Gen 49:24 But his bow abode in strength, and the arms of his hands were made strong by the hands of the mighty God of Jacob; (from thence is the shepherd, the stone of Israel:)
Gen 49:25 Even by the God of thy father, who shall help thee; and by the Almighty, who shall bless thee with blessings of heaven above, blessings of the deep that lieth under, blessings of the breasts, and of the womb:
Gen 49:26 The blessings of thy father have prevailed above the blessings of my progenitors unto the utmost bound of the everlasting hills: they shall be on the head of Joseph, and on the crown of the head of him that was separate from his brethren."
So what does it mean that Ephraim would "cease" to be a people? "Here
fortunately were are able to fix approximate dates...were are told that within
65 years, Israel would be broken that it would no longer be 'a people,'
obviously a people in Palestine....Hosea Lo-Ruhamah and Isaiah's three
score and five years prophecy describes the same event...[they] refer to a
complete transportation of the entire nation from Palestine" (The
Assyrian Invasions and the Deportations of Israel, p..13, emphasis added). So
the whole nation was to be transported out of Palestine within the time span of
exactly 65 years and of course within that time the Kingdom of Israel was to be
"broken" with the fall of Samaria the capital. These words were uttered in 734
B.C. 65 years from 734 is 669 B.C. Ephraim was to cease to be a people IN
Palestine NOT a people altogether. Why would God make such tremendous
promises to these tribes then wipe them out off the face of the earth IT
DOES NOT MAKE SENSE and as we have shown in end time prophecies, Ephraim exists
as a people!
As his challenge on his website says, "They must prove that Ephraim was restored as such and reorganized into a nation." I believe we just did.
Again he tries to prove Ephraim does not exist with Hosea's prophecy,
"The prophet Hosea said that Judah would be forgiven but Israel would not be forgiven.—Hos 1:1-11
Verses 1 to 3 of Hos. 1 refer to Israel's sins under the figure of whoredom. Verse 4 very positively states that God would cause to cease the kingdom of the house of Israel." Verse 6 declares that God would "no more have mercy upon the house of Israel" but would "utterly take them away." Verse 7 states that he would "have mercy upon the house of Judah." Verse 11 shows that after the return Israel would not exist as a separate nation, but would become one with Judah, under one head and one nation.
The spiritual application of the prophecy refers to the acceptance of the Gentiles as the people of God as shown by the quotations m numerous places in the New Testament of verses 9 and 10. But the physical application of the prophecy is final —that the ten tribes (Israel or Ephraim) ceased to exist as a separate nation from Judah after the return from the captivity and shall never exist again."
He is correct in this interpretation of prophecy until he gets to verse 11. And its amazing how he does not quote it on his website. It says, "Then shall the children of Judah and the children of Israel be gathered together, and appoint themselves one head, and they shall come up out of the land: for great shall be the day of Jezreel." Notice the two distinct entities of the house of Israel and the House of Judah who are to be reunited at the second coming of Jesus Christ. There two remain separate til the second coming of Christ. Exekiel 37 clearly shows that at the second coming of Jesus, Judah and Israel were to be separate til Christ come and then they will be one in his hand. So the prophecies show that Israel and Judah are separate til the second coming which has not occurred yet.
When it comes to Hosea 1;9-10 does it mean the gentiles in the New Testament? Read pp.103-110 of my book on the USA in prophecy for this amazing truth of prophecy.
Bible.Ca uses this prophecy to prove that the Israelites and Judah were join together at "Babylon" and became one stick in the hand of God. Notice what they say, "2. The prophet Ezekiel said that after the Return there would be no more two nations, neither two kingdoms, but one —Ezek. 37:2122....
Really is that what God meant? That they would be one at the return of Babylon? Why did God say in Isaiah at the second Coming of Jesus, that " the Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people, which shall be left, from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Cush, and from Elam, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea." Now if the Israelites came back with Judah, then should not this prophecy read "THE THIRD TIME?" Instead it reads the "second time." That means Israel DID NOT RETURN TO THE PROMISED LAND IN THE TIME OF BABYLON ONLY THE JEWS RETURNED!
What does Ezekiel 37 actually mean? Read in our argument website, argument #7
for the answer.
Bible.Ca argues "Ninth: They must prove that Israel was promised an earthly king.
A king on earth was not a part of the original promise, and was never made a part of any subsequent promise to Israel. In Hos. 13 :9-11, the prophet declares: "O Israel, thou has destroyed thyself; but in me is shine help. I will be thy king: where is any other that may save thee in all thy cities? And thy judges of whom thou saidst, Give me a king and princes? I gave thee a king in mine anger, and took him away in my wrath." These words cannot be misunderstood—after the Return they should have no king on earth; God would be their king.
The statement of God through Hosea, "I gave them a king in mine anger, and took him away in my wrath," refers to the demand of Israel for an earthly king in the days of Samuel. The record of it is found in 1 Sam. 12:19: "And all the people said unto Samuel, pray for thy servants unto the Lord thy God, that we die not: for we have added unto all our sins this evil, to ask us a king." Here it was a confessed evil that Israel should ask for an earthly king. God told Samuel that in so doing the people had not rejected Samuel, but had rejected God. It was a self confessed sin. Hence, God gave them a king in "anger" and removed him in "wrath," and Hosea said "the iniquity of Ephraim is bound up; his sin is hid."
There are a few questions that push up at this point: 1. If when God was Israel's king, they sinned when they asked for an earthly king, what would it be called now when Christ is king, for Anglo-Israelists and premillennialists to ask for a king on the earth? Would it not be the same sin now in even a greater degree? If Israel rejected the kingship of God in demanding a king on the earth, is it not rejecting the kingship of Christ to demand a king on earth now? And incidentally, if Christ is to be the king over "Israel," according to Anglo-Israelists, they might pause long enough to explain the puzzle of having a Jew king over the Israel nation!"
This is totally NOT true. The promises made to Israel included the line of
Kings. God promised Jacob, " am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply; a nation
and a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy
loins; " (Gen 35:11). "KINGS" plural. How long was this lineage of kings to
last? In the promise to Judah, Israel prophesied, "The sceptre shall not
depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh
come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be." (Gen 49:1). Shiloh
is the 'Messiah" Every Biblical commentary will attest to that fact. So the
sceptre was to last in Judah til the Messiah. That means that there has to be an
earthly king of Judah and more specifically of David ruling over Israel. God
promised, "Thus saith the LORD; If my covenant be not with day and night, and if
I have not appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth;
" Then will I cast away the seed of Jacob, and David my servant, so that I will not take any of his seed to be rulers over the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: for I will cause their captivity to return, and have mercy on them." (Jer 33:25-26). God promised an earthly king over the seed of Israel til Messiah comes. Messiah is not here yet, so there must be a king over Israel. We have proved that the Kings in Britain are those kings and the people of Britain are the Israelites. More on this subject read my book The Throne of David in Prophecy Click Here
What of this prophecy in Hosea? This author seems to be obsessed with the notion that everything ceased at the return of Babylon. This seems to be the crux of his argument. But as we have seen, there is no evidence to support any of his claim, neither HISTORICALLY NOR BIBLICALLY!
In Hosea do you notice how he took the passage out of context? God said, "I gave thee a king in mine anger, and took him away in my wrath." Who is God speaking of? Not David, HE WAS SPEAKING OF SAUL'S FAMILY. God promised David that his seed would always rule over Israel as we have quoted above. NOT SAUL. This is who God is speaking of.
Now when God say, "I will be thy King" it literally should read, "(literally,
“I would be” thy King)" (Barnes Notes). So the verses should read, "I will be
thy king:[ “I would be” thy King)"] where is any other that may save thee in all
thy cities? and thy judges of whom thou saidst, Give me a king and princes?
"I gave thee a king in mine anger, and took him away in my wrath. " Back in the Days of Saul God told Samuel, "for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them." (1 Samuel 8:7). This is the sin of Israel, they rejected God, not about choosing a king. If God was against choosing a king why did God choose David to be King over Israel! Why did God promise Kings of the Line of Judah? This sin that God is speaking of is not the Kingship of Israel, but the sin of the first commandment of rejecting God and trusting in man. This is why God in verse 4 quotes the 4th commandment, "Yet I am the LORD thy God from the land of Egypt, and thou shalt know no god but me: for there is no saviour beside me." The author of Bible.ca quotes this totally out of context. The Kingship of David and his lineage is not even mentioned in these passages!
And are "asking" for a king on earth? No! These are promises God made to David to give Israel their lineages of Kings and eventually the King of Kings Jesus Christ.
Question for Bible.Ca? What is wrong with having a Jew as King over Israel?
God promised it, British-Israelites accept it. Where is he going with this
Take a look at this bit of info from Bible.Ca "(4) God's modern covenant"
Answer: We don't propose this. I really don't understand where he is going with this argument.
more will be added