Like it a lot Samuel.
-
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.
Could the USA Be The Real, Regathered, Biblical Israel?
- Thread starter Joleneakamama
- Start date
After studying Jubilees, I have become convinced that no matter who they are, they are fulfilling prophecy in the nation of Israel being resurrected. I have become convinced through my own studies on the subject that there are 2 kinds of jubilees. One I call a Creation Jubilee, the other a Land Jubilee. The first dates from Creation and accurate or not, James Ussher's chronology and this "Creation Jubilee" seems to coincide with significant events in our lifetime. The Land Jubilee, which people are more familiar with, seems to land on the '17's and '67's. The Creation Jubilees land on the '47's & '97's. I tend to think that the year starts on the Rosh Hashanah of the year previous, but it may actually start on the First of Nissan in the given year. 1917 marked the year that The city was given up without cost or price and oddly enough on a mow'ed or appointed day. Not one shot fired. The Creation Jubilee would indicate the birth of something or someone significant. I see that being the State of Israel though it wasn't formally recognized til 48. By Mosaic Law a young man wasn't considered a man until he was 20 yrs old and unable to be counted for war or take a bride although there have been a few notable exceptions. If you take 20 years from the Creation Jubilee of '47, that results in Israel recovering Jerusalem, specifically the Temple Mount complex, in the Seven Day war of 1967. They got the city back without price or cost, though it did require a few bullets. By my count, it was 50 years since the last time that happened and 20 years after their 'rebirth'. This year is another Land Jubilee 2017. Who knows what will happen this year.
BTW. 1997 by my count is the 120th Creation Jubilee. Compare that to the life of Moses as it relates to Israel and significant things happen. Abraham was born on the 40th Creation Jubilee. Christ was born on the 80th Creation Jubilee. He came preaching the kingdom of heaven is at hand 30 years later beginning His ministry on the last recorded Land Jubilee in Israels history till the last century. Obviously, due to unbelief, they turned back from the promised "Land" and have spent the last (almost) 40 Jubilees wandering. Kind of interesting.
BTW. 1997 by my count is the 120th Creation Jubilee. Compare that to the life of Moses as it relates to Israel and significant things happen. Abraham was born on the 40th Creation Jubilee. Christ was born on the 80th Creation Jubilee. He came preaching the kingdom of heaven is at hand 30 years later beginning His ministry on the last recorded Land Jubilee in Israels history till the last century. Obviously, due to unbelief, they turned back from the promised "Land" and have spent the last (almost) 40 Jubilees wandering. Kind of interesting.
We see the two houses reunited in Christ, and being born again, as fulfillment of the prophesies that mention bringing them out of their graves etc. This also fulfills the prophesy of a new name for His servants.
He made it very plain that their possession of that land was conditional, and said He would do to Jerusalem, and the land He gave their fathers, what He did to Shiloh if they did not repent. (See Jer 7) Jesus standing over Jerusalem confirmed the sentence with the words "Your house is left into you desolate." YHWH never went back to Shiloh. After the fiasco when they trusted in the Ark, and it was taken, Samuel judged the people in other cities NOT Shiloh. When this is coupled with all the verses in the same prophetic books that talk of a new land, and a new name, it is plain to me that people still using that old name, and trying to retake that old land, are not prophetic Israel of the latter days.
Joseph Dumond has a video on the ten tribes that documents many of the Israelite's migrations, using the scriptures, and tribal emblems of Israel. I have linked to it before, but have found this subject is as popular here, as polygyny is elsewhere.
I did find a gem of a quote the other day.
Prejudices are rarely overcome by argument: not being founded in reason, they cannot be destroyed by logic.
~Tryon Edwards
I would still appreciate, and seriously consider, scriptural arguments that challenge, or might cause me to change, what I believe, but it would really be impossible for me to toss my current understanding, just because someone doesn't like it.
Replacement Theology is just a false foundationless doctrine, and I mean there is no such thing.
People just failed to recognise that Israelites who converted were called Christians. The church did not replace Israel, Israel just got a new name, along with all the other strangers that YHWH has gathered to Christ through the great commission. Intermarriage with Israelites makes more Israelites, and fulfills the prophesies about their descendants inheriting the nations. I believe YHWH had a much bigger plan then most people realize, and sowing the Israelites throughout all the earth did not result in Israel being "lost and assimilated," but rather in the nations becoming part of Israel.
Most don't realize that the bulk of the Israelite people were never called Jews. Most went from being known by their tribe, or house (Israel or Judah) to exile, to that new name when they accepted the redeemer of Israel. Now everyone is looking for lost tribes, or lost Jews, not realizing that term was only applied to the remnant of Judah that returned from Babylon.
If anyone wants the references, I can get them, but I really don't expect things to suddenly change. The many scriptures that have been quoted have been rejected, not rebutted with scripture.
Please, if you really believe I've got it all wrong, and I'm the one prejudiced, bring the prophesy, or scripture that is not being understood, or considered.
You're being a little obtuse Jolene. What you get push back for here is saying that modern Jews are not descendants of Jacob but accursed Edomites. That is all. I think a lot if people have theories about the lost tribes. No one is arguing with that.
But a conspiracy theory about the switching of an entire people with an entire other people is not okay. Especially in this case.
But a conspiracy theory about the switching of an entire people with an entire other people is not okay. Especially in this case.
I have never said all people called Jews today are Edomites. I'm only trying to make sense of why some Jews are anti Christ, in light of what the Scriptures say about His sheep following Him.
I have said repeatedly that we need to follow Jesus instructions, and judge by fruit, not labels. Labels can and do get mixed up. Just ask fruit growers how often in happens that they order a tree, and it ends up not being the variety listed on the label. Happened to us buying from a very large and well known wholesale nursery. No amount of arguing for the validity of the label will change the actual variety of the tree, and nurseries will all replace a tree that was labeled incorrectly. They would go out of business if they accused the customer of lying, when the evidence of the mix up (wrong fruit!) is plain to see.
It was never a conspiracy theory, only an objective look at history, and scripture.
Everyone knows and no one argues that there are forces out there working to destroy Christianity, that hate Jesus Christ, what about suggesting they are the descendants of the wolves in sheep's clothing that Jesus denounced and identified for us, is so wrong?
Again, if Jews are messianic, I completely recognise them as being part of the body of Christ.
You have never offered a word of explanation for the many conflicts with scripture that exist with the commonly held view that the church is made up of Gentiles, and the Jews are God's chosen people.
Here is my question for you again. Do you really believe that NO Israelite Jews followed Christ into the new covenant?
Was Paul, who was celibate and had no children the only one of his people who converted???
Because 2000 years of intermarriage with the faithful remnant that accepted Jesus, would mean that the Israelite descendants of that remnant should be an uncountable multitude.
If the children of Israel went from fewer then 100, to millions in 430 years in Egypt, even a very modest number of Jews that followed Christ could easily explain the numbers of believers we see in the Church now, after 2000 years.
The common doctrine of our day does not recognise the church as Israel, but there is plenty of scripture and history that proves who they are.
We all should have learned through our studies of polygyny, that the popular consensus of the pastors, and seminary teachers, is not always right.
So how do you decide which doctrines are worth proving, and which should not be questioned?
I'm sticking with prove all things, and hold fast to that which is good.
I have said repeatedly that we need to follow Jesus instructions, and judge by fruit, not labels. Labels can and do get mixed up. Just ask fruit growers how often in happens that they order a tree, and it ends up not being the variety listed on the label. Happened to us buying from a very large and well known wholesale nursery. No amount of arguing for the validity of the label will change the actual variety of the tree, and nurseries will all replace a tree that was labeled incorrectly. They would go out of business if they accused the customer of lying, when the evidence of the mix up (wrong fruit!) is plain to see.
It was never a conspiracy theory, only an objective look at history, and scripture.
Everyone knows and no one argues that there are forces out there working to destroy Christianity, that hate Jesus Christ, what about suggesting they are the descendants of the wolves in sheep's clothing that Jesus denounced and identified for us, is so wrong?
Again, if Jews are messianic, I completely recognise them as being part of the body of Christ.
You have never offered a word of explanation for the many conflicts with scripture that exist with the commonly held view that the church is made up of Gentiles, and the Jews are God's chosen people.
Here is my question for you again. Do you really believe that NO Israelite Jews followed Christ into the new covenant?
Was Paul, who was celibate and had no children the only one of his people who converted???
Because 2000 years of intermarriage with the faithful remnant that accepted Jesus, would mean that the Israelite descendants of that remnant should be an uncountable multitude.
If the children of Israel went from fewer then 100, to millions in 430 years in Egypt, even a very modest number of Jews that followed Christ could easily explain the numbers of believers we see in the Church now, after 2000 years.
The common doctrine of our day does not recognise the church as Israel, but there is plenty of scripture and history that proves who they are.
We all should have learned through our studies of polygyny, that the popular consensus of the pastors, and seminary teachers, is not always right.
So how do you decide which doctrines are worth proving, and which should not be questioned?
I'm sticking with prove all things, and hold fast to that which is good.
Ah! THAT one's easy. And I've had dozens, if not hundreds, of fruitful discussions with Torah-knowledgeable, sincere Jews -- from sons of the Holocaust to high-level rabbis.
"Jesus" -- they have been told -- "did away with the Law". Therefore, since that fact alone violates the explicit conditions not only THE 'prophet like unto Moshe', but ANY prophet (Deut 13, etc) -- "Jesus" could NOT possibly be the promised Messiah. QED.
There are other issues, too, of course, but that is a no-go, end-of-story, show-stopper. Many of the others also involve clearly pagan doctrines incorporated by 'the church' that most Orthodox, Conservatives, etc, would recognize as pagan, even if they might resist a bit when it comes to some Talmudic doctrine that some will eventually admit dates from Babylon.
Most are then surprised when I tell them I agree, and quote any number (Matt. 5:17-19, Luke 6:46, Mark 7, and on and on) that show why I am careful to distinguish a Meshiach Whose very Name means a "Salvation" that they can quote from Scripture from 'another jesus', who was something entirely different. (One of my oldest rabbi friends has an advanced degree from Loyola University; he'd heard ALL about RC doctrine, but NEVER a word about those things, about which later we had some lengthy discussions, on-air and off.)
PS> Two books that will help outline some of the longstanding animosity between two houses, both still in exile, and both still with no shortage of "baggage":
Constantine's Sword, by James Carroll, a former RCC priest
and
The Watchman's Cry, by Obadiah Frank, a 'Messianic Jew'
Last edited:
Wait, so then an Edomite automatically must reject Christ by virtue of being an Edomite? DidcI hear this correctly?
Don't try to make sense of this Mojo. It's a discombobulated mess.
God said that the descendants of Esau, who are also known as Edomites, or Edumea, have a perpetual hatred for the children of Israel. The Jewish encyclopedia has an entry about them and tells us that they were mixed with the Jews at the time of Christ, and no distinction was made between the Jews and the Edomites. It also informs us that the Edomites were reigning in Judah, and that Herod was an Edomite.
If our timeless God uses the word perpetual, I take that seriously, and hating the children of Israel must include Jesus Christ, as he was from the tribe of Judah, and was called King of the Jews.
People who are descended from Israel can reject God. There were 12 spies sent into the land to spy it out, each was a leader in their own tribe, representing all the tribes - these were definitely Israelites by descent. 2 stayed faithful, 10 chose to reject God's instructions, and died for it. So there is certainly a genetic element to who follows God, in that He has chosen the descendants of Jacob - but that does not mean that every single descendent of Jacob will follow Him, and every single person who rejects Him is not a descendent of Jacob.
Many are called, few are chosen.
All of Israel may be called - but not all will necessarily follow, and failure to follow does not make them not-Israel.
If my son chooses to disobey me, it doesn't mean he's actually someone else's son. It means he's my son and he's being disobedient.
Many are called, few are chosen.
All of Israel may be called - but not all will necessarily follow, and failure to follow does not make them not-Israel.
If my son chooses to disobey me, it doesn't mean he's actually someone else's son. It means he's my son and he's being disobedient.
The spies lacked faith.
Of course, an Israelite can reject God, and an obvious example that comes readily to mind would be the bad apple among Gideon's sons. Cain is known for killing his brother, but few are aware of the son who murdered 68 of his brothers. I would have to look up his name, but his crime his hard to forget.
Still, there are according to scripture two nations, and two manners of people. One blessed, loved, and in covenant with the almighty, and the other He said He is against. I'm sure many people have both in their ancestry, and I agree it is a choice who one serves. Hence the instruction on how to judge.
I am sure YHWH knows who His servants are.
Jer 31:31 still says that YHWH would make the new covenant with both houses of Israel.
So, what is so crazy about believing that at least a remnant of Israel followed Christ, who is the mediator (like Moses was for the first covenant) of the new covenant?
Nothing. As Zec said, that's not controversial, given the descendants of the 10 tribes will be somewhere it's statistically inevitable that at least some would be in the Church.
On the other hand, the identification of non-Messianic Jews as a nation with Edom is a completely separate and highly controversial matter. Don't conflate the two issues.
And of course we all know that the Jewish Encyclopedia is absolute and inspired truth and if it says something then scripture must be bent to fit it.
With all due respect Samuel, this is 100% more then Zec has admitted, (did I miss it?) and still only gets you halfway to believing what the scripture says in Jeremiah 31:31 where YHWH said the days were coming when He would make a new covenant with both houses of Israel.
Are we still waiting, or was that covenant made about 2000 years ago?
Remember Paul saying there was no longer Jew or Greek? Even if you don't want to see that the dispersed among the Greeks were descendants of the ten tribes, certainly Judah was represented among those who followed Christ.
About that term controversial. Some synonyms are: contentious, disputed, at issue, disputable, debatable, arguable, vexed, tendentious; informal hot.
Some of those clearly indicate that there is another way of seeing the issue.
Think about this for a minute. A young girl is wise to listen to her father about who she marries, not only when his opinion agrees with hers, but also, and especially so, when his opinion is different, and she has an emotional involvement.
Every reason Zec, or anyone else, has for disliking what I've written, is a reason they should look at it closer. If a
subject is disputable, debatable, arguable, and one someone is passionate about, logic and reason are all the more required, if prejudice and emotion are to be tempered, and the truth discerned.
The two issues are connected, as to claim Judah rejected Christ is to state that YHWH did not do what He said He would. Then too there is history, prophesy, and even authors like Arthur Koestler
(The Thirteenth Tribe is a 1976 book by Arthur Koestler, in which he advances the thesis that Ashkenazi Jews are not descended from the historical Israelites of antiquity, but from Khazars, a Turkic people. ) and Benjamin H Freedman who wrote "Common Sense" and "Facts are Facts" two books that also address the mix up of peoples that some wish to ignore.
Judaism is a religion, it is not a race (or tribe), as per the Jews own admission.
Here is a lovely allegation of bending scripture, with no specific mention of what scripture, or how it was misapplied.
On a debate forum that would be addressed. I see women come here to Biblical Families and look at scripture concerning polygyny, a very close to the heart and emotional issue, with more reason, and less hostility.
In the other thread suggesting the USA was Mystery Babylon the great, people discussed current events and the politics behind them. There are many people writing The less popular side of the story now, and identifying Zionism as the force behind much of what the USA is doing globally. Check it out, because if you only hear one side, you might believe anything, and be ready to hang that deadbeat husband out to dry, or kick his wife to the curb with no support. ONLY if you seriously, and logically, consider both sides of an issue, could you ever make an informed choice about which is right, and which should be supported, and to what degree.
There are documentaries too, made by survivors of the attack on the USS Liberty by our supposed ally Israel. There was a massive and shameful cover up by pro Zionists in the US government. This event, to me, shows the heart (and fruits) of a people who chose the Talmud over Jesus Christ, and proves that our government has been subverted, and is serving foreign interests to our hurt.
I agree everyone needs to come to saving knowledge of Jesus Christ, and think it is a good thing to take the good news to everyone, including those in the religion of Judaism.
I just dislike seeing that promise YHWH made to Abraham, being twisted and applied to a group of people, who are using the commonly accepted belief that they are Judah, to collect billions a year in US aid, and are also using the USA to fight their wars of aggression in the middle east.
Think about it please. (It's a thinking cap, not a tin foil hat * grin*)
When in the entire history of the Bible did YHWH ever bless His people while they were rejecting Him? When did He ever censor the nations that He brought against them to correct them, for doing His will? Were those nations cursed for coming against His "chosen people" when they were in rebellion? How about that story where famine comes upon Israel, and David is told it is because Saul waged unrighteous (God did not order it) war against the Gibeonites (if my memory is correct) and David gave them some of Saul's descendants FOR EXECUTION to make it right, but American Christians today don't question whether these Israelis are righteous in their national policies, before supporting them militarily, and financially?
According to some America is Babylon because of her sins, but the nation with the city voted the gay capitol of the world, by the gay community cannot be criticized?
America was great before we began supporting Israel, does anyone really see America being blessed since 1948?
Is it more acceptable to support someone commiting murder, if they call themselves Jews?
The Bible teaches if you see a wrong being done, and do nothing to stop it, you are as guilty as the one committing the sinful act. This is why believers are told to come out of the false worship of Babylon. A little research will show that the lying Jews we are warned about in Revelation are a big part of that unholy system, and Christians should be more diligent in sorting it out. Allegations of antisemitism should never be used as a shield and defense of evil acts.
So why the lack of discussion, and what is the cause? There is plenty of substance to consider, and scripture to use in sorting out the controversy.
Truth is always truth, and time will certainly prove all things..... eventually.
So here is an excellent example of how flawed your logo is Jolene, you point to Paul saying that there is no longer Jew or Greek as proof positive that all the "real" Jews converted to Christianity but ignore that in that exact same passage Paul also said there was no male or female, servant or master. We know that all of those classes of people continued to exist after that passage was written so there must be a different interpretation then that it was referring to a literal doing away with a class of people. I'm pretty sure you still claim to be a woman. So obviously your interpretation isn't the only one, or even the best one. And just because God said He would establish a new covenant with both houses of Israel doesn't mean there was only one thing that could possibly mean and your understanding of it could be right.
You give a lot of quotes but you never tie those quotes solidly to your claims. The Scriptures are always right. Its just your interpretations of them that are almost always wrong.
You give a lot of quotes but you never tie those quotes solidly to your claims. The Scriptures are always right. Its just your interpretations of them that are almost always wrong.
Actually, the scripture that I cited as proof that both houses are in the new covenant
you did not address. It is here.
YHWH also tells us His word does not come back to Him void. It accomplishes His will.
The point I made quoting Paul was never that all these classes of people no longer exist, but that the simple fact that Paul mentions Jews in contrast to Greeks indicates, as I stated before that "certainly Judah was represented among those who followed Christ."
So how do you see Jer 31:31 fitting into historical context? Or Hosea talking about the two houses coming together and appointing themselves one head? When is the correct time that that happened, if not at the commencement of the new covenant?
Or Ezekiel' s two sticks with the interpretation of the vision being that the two sticks represented the whole house of Israel, what other way is there to understand those passages?
In the very next verse Paul writes "And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise."
(Gal 3:29)
Paul also spoke of YHWH making of twain one new man, and of the body of Christ being made up of different members, but them all being one. Does it matter, if one is in Christ, what tribe you came from?
I think the history of Christianity bears out that there was one thing that mattered to believers. It is found in Eph. 4:4
There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; v5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism; v6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
No one cared which tribe they hailed from, as it didn't matter in Christ.
If you aren't too afraid of ending up like me, you might really enjoy Joseph Dumond's presentation about the ten tribes. He has Sighted Moon ministry up in Canada, and did that presentation because of certain rabbis he spoke with who called themselves "Two house" but their "two houses" were Judah and the rest of the Jews.
Or look at the declaration of Abroath which was written in 1320. Fascinating bit of history from a people that used patriarchal clans to order their people, had names like MacDonnald, MacGee, MacCullum and such (A bit like Macabees is it not?) and who claimed that their forefathers crossed the red sea with Moses, along with boasting of having been ruled by their own kings, and no foreigners, for many many years.
How did I get sucked back into this? Yes, God prophesied that there would be a new covenant. There is. Nowhere did He say that covenant would mean that every Jew would convert to Christianity and forget their racial identity so completely that others could take it over. That's not in there anywhere. You have a new covenant and then you just make one up and declare it.
Yes, Christians are the spiritual sons of Abraham. But we know that there were gentle converts in Paul's time. Paul wasn't ex excepting them. He didn't say oh yes, all the Christians are the literal sons of Abraham except for these converts who clearly would not be therefore my writings would be untrue.
He undoubtedly was talking about a spiritual covenant and spiritual children. It would radically alter the faith if he wasn't and call into question whether or not gentiles could experience salvation. Which we know he wasn't saying because he converted gentiles!
It just doesn't make sense. You act like these verses are iron clad and definitely couldn't possibly have any other meaning and so you side with some of the gospel's worst enemies in spite of the fact that the Jews have been blessed and preserved for at least 2,000 years.
That fact alone should tell you that you're a bit off to one side on this thing. What other group can boast the incredible achievements and contributions that Jews can? No one. And int the face of incredible opposition. It just doesn't work Jolene. It doesn't make sense in the text. It doesn't make sense in practice. The only place it makes sense is in some very bad places n the middle east and some awful episodes in European history.
Look who you're aligned with and look who you're aligned against. You're on the wrong side of this.
Yes, Christians are the spiritual sons of Abraham. But we know that there were gentle converts in Paul's time. Paul wasn't ex excepting them. He didn't say oh yes, all the Christians are the literal sons of Abraham except for these converts who clearly would not be therefore my writings would be untrue.
He undoubtedly was talking about a spiritual covenant and spiritual children. It would radically alter the faith if he wasn't and call into question whether or not gentiles could experience salvation. Which we know he wasn't saying because he converted gentiles!
It just doesn't make sense. You act like these verses are iron clad and definitely couldn't possibly have any other meaning and so you side with some of the gospel's worst enemies in spite of the fact that the Jews have been blessed and preserved for at least 2,000 years.
That fact alone should tell you that you're a bit off to one side on this thing. What other group can boast the incredible achievements and contributions that Jews can? No one. And int the face of incredible opposition. It just doesn't work Jolene. It doesn't make sense in the text. It doesn't make sense in practice. The only place it makes sense is in some very bad places n the middle east and some awful episodes in European history.
Look who you're aligned with and look who you're aligned against. You're on the wrong side of this.
Jolene, I am struggling to understand why you are so upset about this issue (by which I mean why you are writing such long posts restating so much stuff, I don't actually know what you are feeling emotionally). I think that you are assuming some complete caricature of what we are stating as if we are completely anti-ten-tribes or something like that, and then assuming the complete opposite position, and making it into a massive debate. I don't think there is that much disagreement, I think you're imagining a lot of it.
The ten tribes certainly exist somewhere. Nobody knows who they are clearly (there are many theories, some may be true, but nobody knows with complete certainty). The descendants of Judah obviously exist somewhere also, and no doubt will have descendants of some other tribes identifying alongside them as some would have returned with them after the Babylonian exile. Gentiles clearly exist.
Salvation is offered to all. The early church clearly contained Jews. It clearly contained full-blooded gentiles (Romans etc). And it clearly would have contained members of the 10 tribes, whether they knew who they were or not. I fully agree that the 10 tribes most likely went throughout Europe and are represented in many Western nations, as per the evidence presented by the various people you reference - and no doubt have ended up many other places also. I fail to see how any of this is the slightest bit controversial or worth debating at all.
It only becomes controversial if you then start saying that ALL the church must be genetically Israel, or ALL the Jews must be Edomites. Absolute statements like that would require a completely separate body of evidence, and are a jump far beyond the biblical and secular evidence into a particular narrow theoretical interpretation that has many problematic implications.
I also thoroughly agree that the modern secular land of Israel is not a truly godly nation, nor are all their actions the actions of a godly people, and political and military support of this nation is certainly a matter for political debate (although the US support for countries like Saudi Arabia and various Islamic terrorist groups is a more urgent issue that should be addressed first, Israel isn't out chopping off Christians heads like other people the USA supports are - just keeping this in perspective. And remember that Israel is not supported militarily for religious reasons but for political and strategic ones). However, the secular nation was formed after the return of the Jews to the land in a miraculous fashion. God may preserve His people and do miraculous things for them - yet the same people can then turn around and reject Him. Their rejection is not evidence that they are Edomites or anything like that, that is a massive leap of logic. It just means that they are rejecting Him - just as they did over and over again throughout the entire Bible. And they will be punished for this rejection, likely through defeat in a major future war, as various prophecies can be interpreted to mean. Again, you are taking something that is self-evident and jumping to the conclusion that it proves a single very narrow viewpoint.
I have four boys and two girls. Someone looking from the outside could make a wide number of plausible reasons for this. Maybe I've been adopting kids and have a preference for boys. Maybe I have a genetic mutation that causes us to miscarry girls. Maybe we practice sex-selective abortion, or female infanticide. Maybe it's pure chance. Maybe we had 20 kids and adopted out the ones we didn't like, keeping mainly boys. All of those are plausible reasons. An outside observer could say "they definitely practice female infanticide because they have more boys than girls". The evidence is consistent with that explanation - but does not prove that explanation.
The modern nation of Israel has done many ungodly things (though generally far less than their Islamic neighbours have done). There are many plausible reasons for this - the Jews being Edomites being one of thousands. The behaviour of the nation of Israel does not prove the Jews are Edomites, nor does it prove any other individual explanation.
And that is why this debate is not needed on this particular website. It does not serve any profitable purpose, and simply causes divisions that detract from our primary purpose - supporting people in their marriages.
The ten tribes certainly exist somewhere. Nobody knows who they are clearly (there are many theories, some may be true, but nobody knows with complete certainty). The descendants of Judah obviously exist somewhere also, and no doubt will have descendants of some other tribes identifying alongside them as some would have returned with them after the Babylonian exile. Gentiles clearly exist.
Salvation is offered to all. The early church clearly contained Jews. It clearly contained full-blooded gentiles (Romans etc). And it clearly would have contained members of the 10 tribes, whether they knew who they were or not. I fully agree that the 10 tribes most likely went throughout Europe and are represented in many Western nations, as per the evidence presented by the various people you reference - and no doubt have ended up many other places also. I fail to see how any of this is the slightest bit controversial or worth debating at all.
It only becomes controversial if you then start saying that ALL the church must be genetically Israel, or ALL the Jews must be Edomites. Absolute statements like that would require a completely separate body of evidence, and are a jump far beyond the biblical and secular evidence into a particular narrow theoretical interpretation that has many problematic implications.
The covenant is very clearly described. The law will be written in people's minds and hearts so strongly that nobody will teach anybody else about God at all, because every single one of them will already know Him. Has that happened yet? I haven't seen that. So this doesn't fit into history, it's still future. One day in the future He truly will do this, and I look forward to it. I believe this is talking about the second coming of Yeshua, and possibly will occur alongside the formation of the army of 144,000 people taken from all twelve tribes, because that too requires all to be identified. The covenant spoken of could well be the covenant we are already under, however it must be awaiting a future full implementation.Jeremiah 31:31-34 said:
I also thoroughly agree that the modern secular land of Israel is not a truly godly nation, nor are all their actions the actions of a godly people, and political and military support of this nation is certainly a matter for political debate (although the US support for countries like Saudi Arabia and various Islamic terrorist groups is a more urgent issue that should be addressed first, Israel isn't out chopping off Christians heads like other people the USA supports are - just keeping this in perspective. And remember that Israel is not supported militarily for religious reasons but for political and strategic ones). However, the secular nation was formed after the return of the Jews to the land in a miraculous fashion. God may preserve His people and do miraculous things for them - yet the same people can then turn around and reject Him. Their rejection is not evidence that they are Edomites or anything like that, that is a massive leap of logic. It just means that they are rejecting Him - just as they did over and over again throughout the entire Bible. And they will be punished for this rejection, likely through defeat in a major future war, as various prophecies can be interpreted to mean. Again, you are taking something that is self-evident and jumping to the conclusion that it proves a single very narrow viewpoint.
I have four boys and two girls. Someone looking from the outside could make a wide number of plausible reasons for this. Maybe I've been adopting kids and have a preference for boys. Maybe I have a genetic mutation that causes us to miscarry girls. Maybe we practice sex-selective abortion, or female infanticide. Maybe it's pure chance. Maybe we had 20 kids and adopted out the ones we didn't like, keeping mainly boys. All of those are plausible reasons. An outside observer could say "they definitely practice female infanticide because they have more boys than girls". The evidence is consistent with that explanation - but does not prove that explanation.
The modern nation of Israel has done many ungodly things (though generally far less than their Islamic neighbours have done). There are many plausible reasons for this - the Jews being Edomites being one of thousands. The behaviour of the nation of Israel does not prove the Jews are Edomites, nor does it prove any other individual explanation.
This I completely agree with. Which is why I can't see why we're even having this debate at all. What does it matter? Can't we just step past all this and get on with preaching the Gospel to everyone?
And that is why this debate is not needed on this particular website. It does not serve any profitable purpose, and simply causes divisions that detract from our primary purpose - supporting people in their marriages.
Last edited:
I'm not sure if I should cry or shout swear words but this is just one giant yes. Perfect. I wish I was capable of saying this.
Not only this, but citing Zionism as part of the evidence for this theory is really off base. Zionism is more of a political endeavor by secular Jews. From what I have read, the ultra religious really could care less about Zionist tendencies. They want to practice their religion in Jerusalem...period. They were without a protected homeland for 2 millenia so another few hundred years means nothing to them.
I do agree that we Western believers need to be more cautious in our approach to Israel, politically, and not just always see every move they make as infallible. These are secular politicians, and they have their own ambitions. I think the Christian community has been suckered into complete allegiance to all things Israel, and both our politicians use that to their own advantage.
Someone correct me, but didn't the Crusaders use some of these same arguments to wipe out Jews and Muslims?