-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
10 Tribes
- Thread starter MemeFan
- Start date
Ah yes, the British Israelite theory. I personally don’t dispute it. Some say the British crown descends from Israel. Could be.
But, in my opinion, Britain is only one of many places the 10 could have gone.
It’s been theorized that long before the British empire explored, or Columbus came to America, Hebrews had already visited. Stones from New Mexico and Tennessee seem to show paleo Hebrew.
Forgeries? Authentic? Only God knows.
He doesn't seem as smart as he thinks he is. Initial point that house of Israel was used for the united 12 tribes before division means what? They were divided and had different prophetic futures spoken for them. What would he do with Jacob prophesying over Ephraim that "His seed will become a multitude of Gentiles" oh wait, the rendered it nations there. Same difference actually. Israel was told "your descendants will inherit the nations"
The two houses are historical biblical fact, and you really don't understand history as it relates to the prophesies without comprehending the two houses. Sometimes Paul called the Jews Israel, the Gentiles were Israelites. I can see how people get confused.....and don't even realize their "answers" are missing stuff.
Bingo.
Isn’t 2 Samuel 6 post division?
2 Corinthians 11:22 NKJV
Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they the seed of Abraham? So am I.
Paul was from the tribe of Benjamin, so southern kingdom, therefore a Jew, why then does he call himself an Israelite?
No. King David is alive and leading men in 2 Sam 6 the ten northern tribes were separated after Solomon's death....an he was David's son.
Israelite means a descendant of the man Israel. "The house of Israel" was the family of Israel ....children of Israel....same.
The ten tribes were not called Jews....ever. They were divorced from YHWH and went into Assyrian captivity long before Judah went to Babylon. The remnant that returned were called Jews.....and also Israel as they were not divorced from YHWH ...they were still in covenant and could use the name.
All 12 tribes were Israel and would forever be Israelites (See Jer. 31) but only those of Judah and Benjamin and some of Levi were Jews.
Kinda like all native Arizonians are Americans....but not all Americans are Arizonians.
For YHWH to redeem His name after Israel made Him look bad, He needed the nations to see their transformation when He redeemed them. Hosea 1:10
"Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God."
The entire house of Jacob are Israelites. Jacob is Israel, and the house of Jacob represents all of the tribes of Israel.
Last edited:
The two houses represent the two Nations that our Heavenly Father married. They were two sisters, the daughters of one woman. This is all BEFORE, he brought them out of Egypt. In Egypt, they acted wantonly, but he desired them and brought them out as an act of initial salvation. At Mt. Sinai, he proposed and they accepted the proposal. Then the marriage covenant was confirmed.
Exekiel chapter 23 clearly tells us the about them being two individual nations prior to leaving Egypt. So, they were not divided later, they were always two.
They were also echad with each other.
In the book of Hebrews, there is a scripture that tells us about the new covenant, it says it will be with two women, the same two nations that he married the first time, the house of Israel and also, the house of Judah.
In the end, they will be echad again.
Exekiel chapter 23 clearly tells us the about them being two individual nations prior to leaving Egypt. So, they were not divided later, they were always two.
They were also echad with each other.
In the book of Hebrews, there is a scripture that tells us about the new covenant, it says it will be with two women, the same two nations that he married the first time, the house of Israel and also, the house of Judah.
In the end, they will be echad again.
I guess I’m still confused because you said the Israelites are gentiles, but Paul seems to use the term for Jews. Where is the distinction?
Also if “Israelite” refers to gentiles, why call them gentiles at all?
In Ezekiel 23 God calls them two sisters the daughter of one mother, and that he married both of them, in Egypt. It seems like He considered them two houses when he lead them out of Egypt, according to that passage, and yet he refers to them as Israelites.
Last edited:
The English term "gentile" is the problem, which often
EDIT: A worthwhile correction is noted below. This would have been better phrased:
The English term "gentile" is the problem, which often has the connotation of 'pagan' - and has more to do with idolatry than bloodline.
The Hebrew term is virtually always 'goyim' (plural of 'goy') and means "others," or "nations." Those people may, or may not, also be pagans. They generally were after the 'putting away' and then 'divorce' - which is why He sent them away to begin with.
When they 'return to Him' - they are no longer pagan, although they may not yet recognize their heritage.
And the above posts are correct; descendants of Yakov, renamed Israel, are ALL therefore "b'nai Israel," children of Israel, whether they know it, or act like it, or not.
The northern Kingdom also kept the name - while it lasted - of "Israel," even though they did NOT act like it.
Context, and thus timeframe, are vital in understanding the history and terminology.
Last edited:
The King James translators appeared to be recognizing the familial ties between those of the nations coming to faith and those of Judah who heard the message first from Yeshua himself. Gentiles is from the Latin gentilus and means '"of the SAME genes, clan or tribe." Using it in the manner they did was in harmony with what Paul was saying about these people....but has the opposite meaning of how the average christian understands the word today. Most wrongly believe that Gentile means not an Israelite....Not a Jew.
It didn't mean pagan, just like Goy and Ethnos don't mean pagan. It was a neutral term like nation if you look at the use of it in scripture.
"Connotation," is not the same as "synonymous". The words 'goyim' is used in the Hebrew Scriptures well over 500 times, not counting the singular forms. It is rendered as 'nations' in the KJV in 374 of those.
But it is also rendered as "heathens" 143 times, and as 'gentiles' only 30 times.
What is the difference? I will suggest that the only proper understanding is based on context.
In the 'Apostolic Writings' alone, the word 'Gentile' (often capitalized) certainly includes pagans, and heathens. And it appears almost 50% more in total than in all of the Books preceeding Matthew. It is also often used to refer (as is the word "Greek," as many will note) to refer to those other, NON-Hebrew ethnicities. Most were also clearly pagans, but many we also in the process, as Shaul/Paul's letters attest, in the process of turning, or RE-turning, to faith in YHVH.
The problem, as I have continued to attempt to make clear, is in the ambiguity associated with the English word. The "Venn Diagrams" overlap.
There is no question it has been, and remains confusing to many. Particularly so when those who misunderstand are also uninformed as to the history of the two wives, two whoring kingdoms, and the "why" of their exile.
"Gentile" is not explicity synonymous with pagan. But in some cases it certainly is. And that is where confusion reigns, and context is the only answer to "rightly dividing the Word of Truth."
PS> Personally, I will never, EVER, self-describe as a 'Gentile.' Whatever my own bloodline might be, it is no longer apropos after having been "grafted in."
"Semantics" is a fascinating study. (Some here will remember a wonderful fictional conversation in Robert Heinlein's masterpiece, albeit with a bit of plagiarism from Scripture, "Stranger in a Strange Land," between protagonists Valentine Michael Smith, and Jubal Harshaw. It's about as good an introduction to the art and science of the word as I can recall.)
People will call themselves "Gentiles," who are not Greek, not Roman, and claim to be 'christian,' and yet would bristle at a connotation of 'pagan.'
Investors routinely - whether they should or not - hang on every word of the FOMC's meeting minutes and summary. Changing a single word, and just a slight semantic tilt in connotation, can trigger market meltdowns. Don't think they don't obsess about those nuances.
People who might not mind being accused of 'prevarication,' sometimes come unglued when referred to as "lying," although the meaning is unchanged.
And the word "racist" no longer even remotely means what Webster once said it did.
People will call themselves "Gentiles," who are not Greek, not Roman, and claim to be 'christian,' and yet would bristle at a connotation of 'pagan.'
Investors routinely - whether they should or not - hang on every word of the FOMC's meeting minutes and summary. Changing a single word, and just a slight semantic tilt in connotation, can trigger market meltdowns. Don't think they don't obsess about those nuances.
People who might not mind being accused of 'prevarication,' sometimes come unglued when referred to as "lying," although the meaning is unchanged.
And the word "racist" no longer even remotely means what Webster once said it did.