lost tribe

[FollowingHim]

I deliberately chose not to touch on that subject at all @Joleneakamama. Hence my statement getting so close and deliberately not touching that matter. I was responding to a specific statement of @The Revolting Man, and felt that in the context it would be better to be very clear that my response was not based on a particular view of the identity of the gentiles, but applied regardless of that particular discussion.

My pushback on your continual use of the word church is only due to the confusion that word brings with it and all of its historical traditions.

I don't think it brings any confusion. The word "church" refers to a congregation of Christian believers, or the building they meet in. Just as the word "synagogue" refers to a congregation of Jews, or the building they meet in. When I said "the synagogue became a church" I simply meant that the one building and the majority of the congregation changed from following God after the Pharasaical teaching and shifted to following God after the Way of Jesus, in the same building they had used previously. It's a shorthand terminology that is simple and makes sense.

Obviously we can then go to many deeper levels of understanding on that, particularly regarding the continuity of God's people throughout history (the vine, grafting in + cutting out but still the same vine) and so forth. This is all important. But it doesn't change the fact that when you say the word "church", everyone knows what it means. It's an assembly of followers of Jesus, or the building they meet in. Let's not get into arguments over words.

 

[The Revolting Man]

I don't think that can be talking about Jews and Christians. There were no Christians separate to the Jews to be reconciled to them - the first Christians were Jews. Following @IshChayil's clarification above, I think we need to be very careful to separate religion from ethnicity when looking at this also.

Were religious Christians reconciled with religious Jews? Not at all, much of of the New Testament is a call for people to come out of Judaism and follow Messiah. There is no religious reconciliation in scripture at all, that would undermine the entire message. The first such "reconciliation" I can think of is modern Christian Zionism.
Were ethnic Christians reconciled with ethnic Jews? No, there is no such thing as an ethnic Christian.
These are not two parties to be reconciled.

Rather, the two parties discussed in Ephesians 2 must be Jew and Gentile, within the church. Jewish (ethnic) followers of Yeshua, and Gentile (ethnic) followers of Yeshua. Nothing else makes sense of that passage.

Whether "gentile" is a reference to those from the Northern Tribes, making this a prophetic fulfilment of the two houses of Israel being united is of course a much deeper and separate question, which I am not offering an opinion on. I'm just saying that this MUST be referring to ethnic Jews and ethnic Gentiles within the church, not Jews and Christians.

This strongly reminds me of New Zealand politics. NZ was founded largely by a treaty in 1840 between indigenous Maori tribes and the British Crown. The union of Maori and British became the country of New Zealand, which represents and includes both. However, in recent years, political factions have reinterpreted this and generally try to make it seem like the treaty was between the New Zealand government and Maori, turning the NZ government into a party to the treaty rather than the unified body formed as a result of the treaty - and this misinterpretation has now become the basis for government decisionmaking. That misinterpretation completely twists our history and perpetuates racial divisions in our politics right up to the present day, which is extremely damaging. And it all comes back to misunderstanding (or deliberately misrepresenting) who the two parties were whose "middle wall of separation" was broken down.

This is important to get correct.
If Jewish and Gentile belivers have had their "middle wall of separation" broken down, we are one in unity regardless of ethnicity - but separate from religious Jews.
If religious Jews and religious Christians need to have that "middle wall of separation" broken down, that has enormous theological ramifications and undermines the very core of Christianity - the fact that Yeshua is the Messiah and the only way to salvation.

All possible but not really as ironclad as you portray. That we’re dealing with yet another prophecy, and I admit I’m having a hard time keeping them all straight at this point, should give us all pause. God reveals His plans in His time.

 

[FollowingHim]

All possible but not really as ironclad as you portray. That we’re dealing with yet another prophecy, and I admit I’m having a hard time keeping them all straight at this point, should give us all pause. God reveals His plans in His time.

Why do you call this a "prophecy"? Ephesians 2:14 is entirely written in the past tense: "For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility". It does not say He will break down any wall of hostility, but that He has already done so.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Why do you call this a "prophecy"? Ephesians 2:14 is entirely written in the past tense: "For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility". It does not say He will break down any wall of hostility, but that He has already done so.

At this point I don’t remember which point I was responding too. I may even have confused two different conversations.

 

[IshChayil]

...
I don't think it brings any confusion. The word "church" refers to a congregation of Christian believers, or the building they meet in. Just as the word "synagogue" refers to a congregation of Jews, or the building they meet in. ...

Actually this word is used in many more ways today than that. "the church" certainly has broader theological uses than a congregation or building and as an unnecessary invented term it does cause theological confusion; maybe not to you, but to many.
Especially when some translators choose to translate synagogue as "church" when it's in a positive light and translate it as "synagogue" when it's in a negative light.

...
Let's not get into arguments over words...

Well, it is the misuse and abuse of words which certainly needs to be checked / corrected from time to time.
Much theological disagreement hinges over a single word or hendiadys. It's certainly worthy do voice disagreements and share this information especially with such a broad and misunderstood / wholly invented term. I've received enough feedback from others that they find these little discussions on Hebrew / Greek words edifying that I think I'll continue chiming in but I'll try to refrain from responding to your posts directly so as not to annoy. (apologies in advance as I may forget)

By the way did anyone notice last week when Trump used the term "sexual preference" he was attacked by American media for being a bigot? The SAME DAY a famous online dictionary changed their definition to say "offensive."
So I'm not trusting online English dictionaries any more as the thought police have now seized control as all media comes under the control of the evil democratic party.
***edit alert: edited this for typos within 1 min after posting***

 

[Cap]

are/were the native americans the ‘lost tribe’?

They are part of the lost tribes, just like everyone else. There are no 'found' tribes of old. The only tribe God is looking for today is the the new tribe in Christ.

 

[Joleneakamama]

They are part of the lost tribes, just like everyone else. There are no 'found' tribes of old. The only tribe God is looking for today is the the new tribe in Christ.

But that makes it sound like He is selecting a different group, when in reality it is just where the two houses, and others He has called, should be found.

 

[Cap]

But that makes it sound like He is selecting a different group, when in reality it is just where the two houses, and others He has called, should be found.

You are not considering the reality of death. Besides the spiritual reality of the the New Jerusalem, where does God return to a physical people?

“I will call them ‘my people’ who are not my people;
and I will call her ‘my loved one’ who is not my loved one,” i

26and,

“In the very place where it was said to them,
‘You are not my people,’ there they will be called ‘children of the living God.’ ” j

 

[rockfox]

Actually this word is used in many more ways today than that. "the church" certainly has broader theological uses than a congregation or building and as an unnecessary invented term it does cause theological confusion; maybe not to you, but to many.
Especially when some translators choose to translate synagogue as "church" when it's in a positive light and translate it as "synagogue" when it's in a negative light.

The word church wasn't invented, it has a long etymological history going all the way back to Ancient Greek. Just not to the Greek word it's used as a translation of. That it is used for both a congregation and a building in English does cause much confusion and is an artifact of Anglican mistranslations of the Bible in order to confound the two and buffer their religiopolitical power.

But back to the original question...

are/were the native americans the ‘lost tribe’?

First off Native Americans are a multitude of tribes with different histories and origin stories. Not a single tribe. But I have heard many commentators identify certain tribes with the lost 10 tribes of Israel. Usually this is done using those tribe's oral history around their origins. IIRC this includes the Cherokee, some New England Tribes, and even the Aztecs. Now I can't verify any of this as I have no access to source material on it and if true, I'm sure there are many other tribes too.

This ancient history is quite interesting though as there is much evidence that doesn't fit the standard explanation of history; such as of Egyption trade with South America, Minoan trade with the Great Lakes, and European settlement of North America predating the Indians, etc.

 

[IshChayil]

The word church wasn't invented, it has a long etymological history going all the way back to Ancient Greek. Just not to the Greek word it's used as a translation of. That it is used for both a congregation and a building in English does cause much confusion and is an artifact of Anglican mistranslations of the Bible in order to confound the two and buffer their religiopolitical power.

It's based from medeival Greek (5th to 6th centuries A.D.) not Biblical Greek... In other words, to get the English word "church" borrowed from Old German one must FIRST translate a BIBLICAL Greek word into a medeival Greek word (not in bible), and then translate that OUTside of the bible word,i nto English. At this point who cares if the etymology of the word is from Later, post-biblical Greek or even Modern Greek spoken today?

Medieval Greek is not Ancient Greek as you phrase it. These are different beasts.
Medieval Greek is already from a time period where the church had divorced itself from the Hebrew roots of the faith.

So yeah, it's wholly invented... the tools of invention were to borrow from Dutch which borrowed from 6th century Greek "late Greek".
I wasn't saying "church" was gibberish, or that no thought went into it's coining. Today they could have made it from Klingon with similar result, but it was invented none-the-less outside of a biblical context and it served it's purpose well to divide and confuse.

(I thumbed up your comment though for the 2nd half of content, relating to the thread. Well done returning us to course!)

 

[rockfox]

You and I have different definitions of 'invented'. The word already existed in English and was used by the Anglicans in the way it is translated. And did not the medieval Greek descend from the Ancient? I agree it's a mistranslated of the original Ancient Greek text; and an intentional mistranslation at that (see the 1611 translators preface). Just not the way you make it sound.

https://www.etymonline.com/word/church

 

[IshChayil]

You and I have different definitions of 'invented'. The word already existed in English and was used by the Anglicans in the way it is translated. And did not the medieval Greek descend from the Ancient? I agree it's a mistranslated of the original Ancient Greek text; and an intentional mistranslation at that (see the 1611 translators preface). Just not the way you make it sound.

https://www.etymonline.com/word/church

Yeah I agree with your link; it's in Old English as you wrote, and it got there from late Greek where it first appeared. Oxford's is more pithy:

church
[definition deleted: we know how it's used in English]
—ORIGIN Old English cir(i)ce, cyr (i)ce, based on medieval Greek kurikon, from Greek kuriakon (dōma) ‘Lord’s (house)’, from kurios ‘master or lord’.
Soanes, C., & Stevenson, A. (Eds.). (2004). Concise Oxford English dictionary (11th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Seems we agree on the reason this happened Rock, so we're golden
That's why Messianic believers don't usually use the word since it promotes theological confusion (I think you nailed it with your comment regarding power).
So back to the thread topic; has anyone researched the Romani from the perspective of a lost tribe?
I personally have an inkling they may be Ephraim. If anyone has researched this I'd love to hear about it.

 

[FollowingHim]

You and I have different definitions of 'invented'. The word already existed in English and was used by the Anglicans in the way it is translated. And did not the medieval Greek descend from the Ancient? I agree it's a mistranslated of the original Ancient Greek text; and an intentional mistranslation at that (see the 1611 translators preface). Just not the way you make it sound.

https://www.etymonline.com/word/church

That's really interesting @rockfox, thanks for sharing the link.

 

[FollowingHim]

Ran across some interesting verses in 1 Maccabees 12 this evening of relevance to this discussion.

6 “Jonathan the high priest, and the senate of the nation, and the priests, and the rest of the people of the Jews, to their kindred the Spartans, greetings. ...
20 “Arius king of the Spartans to Onias the chief priest, greetings. 21 It has been found in writing, concerning the Spartans and the Jews, that they are kindred, and that they are of the descendants of Abraham. 22 Now, since this has come to our knowledge, you will do well to write to us of your† prosperity.

In this case, "kindred" is only defined as "descendants of Abraham". Abraham had a number of sons by three wives / concubines, so there are various possibilities here. But given the other sons went generally east towards Arabia, while Israel was taken north, the most probable explanation is a connection to the 10 tribes.

 

[Mojo]

Whoa! That's some pretty interesting stuff? If the connection can be made to more than just the Spartans, that would open up a whole other area of study. Much has been made of the early Christian attraction to Platonic philosophy. Has anyone been able to link him to a Hebrew tribe?

 

[PeteR]

Ran across some interesting verses in 1 Maccabees 12 this evening of relevance to this discussion.

In this case, "kindred" is only defined as "descendants of Abraham". Abraham had a number of sons by three wives / concubines, so there are various possibilities here. But given the other sons went generally east towards Arabia, while Israel was taken north, the most probable explanation is a connection to the 10 tribes.

Actually, there is an interesting probable connection to Edomites who infiltrated Greece. Possibly one sect or group maintained closer ties with Judah? And, yes, the migration of elements of the 10 lost, may also have impacted...

 

[FollowingHim]

Actually, there is an interesting probable connection to Edomites who infiltrated Greece. Possibly one sect or group maintained closer ties with Judah?

So, you mean @Joleneakamama is right about the connection between Edom and the Jews?


Oh, just remembered I'm supposed to be a responsible admin, keeping things calm, not the one poking a stick and shouting "Fight, Fight, Fight" just for amusement. I take it back.

Interesting info @PeteR, thanks.

 

[rockfox]

Ran across some interesting verses in 1 Maccabees 12 this evening of relevance to this discussion.

In this case, "kindred" is only defined as "descendants of Abraham". Abraham had a number of sons by three wives / concubines, so there are various possibilities here. But given the other sons went generally east towards Arabia, while Israel was taken north, the most probable explanation is a connection to the 10 tribes.

Not an isolated reference either, other examples...

Hecataeus of Abdera, a Greek historian of the fourth century B.C., "tells us that the Egyptians, formerly being troubled by calamities [in context, assumedly the 10 plagues at the time of the Exodus] in order that the divine wrath might be averted, expelled all the aliens [i.e., Israelites] gathered together in Egypt. Of these, some under their leaders Danuss and Cadmus, migrated into Greece; others into other regions, the greater part into Syria [i.e., the whole eastern Mediterranean, including the land of Israel]. Their leader is said to have been Moses, a man renowned for wisdom and courage, founder and legislator of the state" (cited by C.W. Muller, Fragmenta Historicum Graecorum, 1883, Vol. 2, p. 385).

In confirmation of the Israelite identity of these people, Diodorus of Sicily, a historian of the first century B.C., states: "They say also that those who set forth with Danaus, likewise from Egypt, settled what is practically the oldest city of Greece, Argos, and that the nations of the Colchi in Pontus and that of the Jews, which lies between Arabia and Syria, were founded as colonies by certain emigrants from their country [i.e., Egypt]; and this is the reason why it is a long-established institution among these peoples to circumcise their male children . . . the custom having been brought over from Egypt. Even the Athenians, they say, are colonists from Sais in [the Nile Delta of] Egypt" (Book 1, sec. 28, 1-5).

I've ran across various commentators over the years connecting Israel to Greece in various ways, and esp. this way. One recent one...

 

[IshChayil]

Ran across some interesting verses in 1 Maccabees 12 this evening of relevance to this discussion. In this case, "kindred" is only defined as "descendants of Abraham". Abraham had a number of sons by three wives / concubines, so there are various possibilities here. But given the other sons went generally east towards Arabia, while Israel was taken north, the most probable explanation is a connection to the 10 tribes.

I wonder what the connection was that's inferred here.
Here's a snippet from a commentary I have on Maccabees (note the "here" is a different section, chapter 5):

… kinship The notion that the Jews and the Spartans are cousins appears several times in Jewish literature of our period, especially in 1 Macc. 12:2–23.31 Perhaps it stems from the Jews’ pride in their strict discipline, which they asserted was comparable to that of the Spartans. Here, however, it functions in a satire: after Jason killed so many of his fellow Jews at home, he tried to save himself by seeking some trumped-up kinship abroad!​

Schwartz, D. R. (2013). 2 Maccabees. In L. H. Feldman, J. L. Kugel, & L. H. Schiffman (Eds.), Outside the Bible: Ancient Jewish Writings Related to Scripture: Commentary (Vol. 3, p. 2850). Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society.

Here's a snippet from another commentary on various 2nd temple period literature. The late Masorti Rabbi Neusner seems to identify the Greek document in question:

With considerable probability, one may trace back farther the family heritage of the Oniads, to seek relations of mutual respect between Greeks and Jews. Chronologically, the Onias to whom Areus I of Sparta addressed a letter can have been only Onias II. I shall deal elsewhere with the authenticity of the letter; for the present, see Yehoshua Gutman, The Beginnings of Jewish-Hellenistic Literature (Jerusalem, 1958), pp. 108–11 (in Hebrew). Onias II probably saw to the preservation of Areus’ letter to him. Onias IV may have quoted the letter in his propagandists work, taking it from family archives, and Josephus (AJ xii. 4. 10. 226–227) would then appear to have derived his version from Onias IV. Jonathan the Hasmonaean sent a copy of the letter with the embassy to Sparta between 145 and 143 (1 Maccabees 12:1–23). Onias IV’s book can hardly have been published so early, but Jonathan could have drawn on a copy deposited in the temple archives.​

Neusner, J. (Ed.). (2004). Christianity, Judaism and Other Greco-Roman Cults: Judaism before 70 (Vol. 3). Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock Publishers.

Here's a fun thought... if the Spartans were mixed with a lost tribe, imagine how they would read Paul's words,
"...there is no difference between the Judean and the Greek..."
*** edit ****
I realized I didn't say the obvious ...
THIS .... IS.... SPARTA!!!!!

 

[rockfox]

The notion that the Jews and the Spartans are cousins appears several times in Jewish literature of our period, especially in 1 Macc. 12:2–23.31 Perhaps it stems from the Jews’ pride in their strict discipline, which they asserted was comparable to that of the Spartans. Here, however, it functions in a satire: after Jason killed so many of his fellow Jews at home, he tried to save himself by seeking some trumped-up kinship abroad!

Classic example of a commentary trying to explain away a literal understanding.