|
Post by Gary on May 21, 2017 9:32:19 GMT -6
This is a thread for the discussion of evidence for and against British Israelism
|
|
|
Post by gregt on May 21, 2017 10:22:55 GMT -6
I view it as a little bit of truth and a whole lot of falsehood.
|
|
|
Post by watchmanjim on May 21, 2017 13:11:08 GMT -6
There may be some truth to it, but my experiences in the past, dealing with people who are promoting it, have not been positive. If there is any truth to it, I'm all for discovering it. There are passages in Scripture that do need to be explored and addressed and investigated. So far, though, I can not find proof or strong evidence linking the two people groups.
The best scientific way I can think of to determine where the lost tribes went, is to establish the DNA pattern of Jacob (Israel) and distinguish it from that of Esau, and their uncle Ishmael. Once these genes are separated out by someone with BIBLICAL understanding, we might be able to clearly determine where the various tribes ended up.
I also don't doubt the possibility that the tribes will be shown personally and spiritually who they are, by God, quite possibly after the Rapture. It is entirely possible that the 2 Witnesses sent from God will reveal who is an Israelite, and who is not. The 144,000 will be gathered from "all the tribes of Israel" and yet we see that Dan is conspicuously absent in Revelation 7. This is another mystery. Though I have my clues as to why this may be.
|
|
|
Post by watchmanjim on May 21, 2017 13:15:06 GMT -6
One of the biggest positive reinforcements I see for possible British Israel theory, is in the concept of these Israelites founding multiple tribes in Europe, and the name Dan being used over and over again as in Danube, Don River, Denmark, Danzig (Gedansk), etc. If there is any correlation, this adds to the Mystery of Dan. And I could and probably should write a whole thread on mysterious Dan.
|
|
|
Post by gregt on May 21, 2017 13:33:14 GMT -6
I see British Israelism as sort of a variant of Covenant replacement theology, with instead of the church replacing Israel, it is the British Isles. Just like Covenant theology, they cannot use a literal interpretation of the Old Covenant to arrive at their conclusions. The Old Covenant is a legal contract, and it can't be modified every time someone wants to see themselves as the recipients of the blessings that are contained in it.
|
|
|
Post by watchmanjim on May 21, 2017 13:39:17 GMT -6
Very true, gregt. I agree with you on that, and that is part of what I see the need to stay away from.
Having said that, I do believe in covenants, and their significance. But that does not make ma Covenant Theologian, by any means. Just like, I believe in Christ, and I believe in science, but I am not a "Christian Scientist" right? :-D
|
|
|
Post by 745bcmanasseh1776ad on May 21, 2017 14:27:26 GMT -6
This is a thread for the discussion of evidence for and against British Israelism What you are doing is effectively the same as screaming RACIST in a room full of black people, then when they see the target of the racist gingo is another black, well, he/she becomes and Uncle Tom. In all Christian circles there has been no good commentary related to the Sign of the Woman, as it is the Sign of Joseph. This is a CENTRAL theme for RIGHT NOW,,, Today. The Sign of Joseph, the Great Sign, appears next Trumpets season. Am I mistaken, that the theme of the WHOLE Unsealed forum is about the upcoming apocalypse? My commenting here has only to do with that, and nothing else. I do not care about anyone's ISMs'; if for no other reason, than that it is applied both ways. We have FOUR months to go, and like Jesus, I am highly focused on the next fall festival events. If I see any place where I can add clarity, I will continue to do so; such as the quotes from Isaiah 24, (the praise heard from the far west during the destruction of the "earth") and the misquote from Psalm 81. ( the new and full moon is a sign established for Joseph) and the context correction for Ezekiel 39 (Tyre, the coastal region of satan's high seat, and Haifa, the place where Elijah contested the prophets of baal). All of these help to clarify these texts, especially in the case of Ezek. 39, which is so very often taken out of context in one way or another. I am posting about the Glory of the Woman shortly. I will give full body to the Woman as she is defined earlier in the texts of Israel. Charie and Ed
|
|
|
Post by whatif on May 21, 2017 14:55:11 GMT -6
This is a thread for the discussion of evidence for and against British Israelism In all Christian circles there has been no good commentary related to the Sign of the Woman, as it is the Sign of Joseph. Hi, 745bcmanasseh1776ad! When you speak of it as the Sign of Joseph, are you referring to the account from Genesis 37:9-11?
Then he had another dream, and he told it to his brothers. “Listen,” he said, “I had another dream, and this time the sun and moon and eleven stars were bowing down to me.” When he told his father as well as his brothers, his father rebuked him and said, “What is this dream you had? Will your mother and I and your brothers actually come and bow down to the ground before you?” His brothers were jealous of him, but his father kept the matter in mind.
|
|
|
Post by whatif on May 22, 2017 10:41:49 GMT -6
Good morning, 745bcmanasseh1776ad! Just curious about your comment in other threads that the name America means "Kingdom of Heaven." I've never heard that before, so I'm wondering where this meaning has its origin.
|
|
|
Post by whatif on May 22, 2017 10:55:40 GMT -6
Also, I saw in the thread "USA--the Mid-April Crucible," you mentioned "the Apostle Paul, and earlier, a hidden sort of apostle, who was the custodian of Messiah, delivered the Gospel first to the sons of Joseph in Seluria (England)." Who do you mean as being a "hidden apostle and custodian of Messiah? I didn't think Paul traveled outside the Mediterranean region from the maps I've seen of his journeys.
|
|
|
Post by whatif on May 22, 2017 11:12:29 GMT -6
I hope you don't mind my asking these questions, 745bcmanasseh1776ad... I don't ask with the intent to provoke. I'm simply aware that there are so many people who read our forum threads, many of whom may be new Christians trying to soak up knowledge of the Faith, and so when I read things that I'm a little hesitant about, I like to seek some clarification so there is no misunderstanding. Would you be willing to address these questions so we can open them to discussion?
|
|
|
Post by watchmanjim on May 22, 2017 15:03:54 GMT -6
The narrative I'm familiar with, which I think manasseh is referring to, is, that Joseph of Arimathea was a relative of Jesus, an uncle or some-such, who was a mentor to the young Christ-child, and took the young Child on a lengthy voyage to England, where they founded a shrine or altar or temple or church (depending whom you ask), and then Joseph took Jesus back to the land of Israel in time to show up in His proper timing in the Gospel accounts.
This account is based on legends with little to zero hard evidence, and seem very far-fetched to some of us who like to see things well-documented.
|
|
|
Post by whatif on May 22, 2017 16:42:43 GMT -6
Thank you, watchmanjim! I appreciate the information!
|
|
|
Post by watchmanjim on May 22, 2017 18:35:51 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by whatif on May 22, 2017 19:40:22 GMT -6
Thank you for the link, watchmanjim!
|
|