Add/remove tags to this thread

Topic: The Opposition

Page 1 of 1  sorted by
Moderator
Status: Offline
Posts: 829
Date:

The Opposition

Permalink   
 
Having a little time on my hands, I felt compelled to accumulate the arguments against the Theory of the Ten Lost Tribes, and critque them. The opposing quotes will be respectively numbered, with my reply immeadiately following the quote.

This list is not exhaustive, by any means, but I would think that most of the major arguments against the doctrine are adequately addressed below.

I may, or may not, add to this list over time.

As well, I might as well add here, to lay the foundation, my comments on some of the errors of those who believe in this doctrine.

1) Some teach that the Monarchy in England is the Throne of David, which error I have addressed in the post by the same name.

2) Some from this class (as well as some Messianic Jews who do not ascribe to this teaching) believe that Y'shua was not the Son of God until the resurrection. Some (Mormons and some from the Church of God) even go so far as to teach that, at said resurrection, when we become, "like unto the Angels" or "Sons of God," that we will also become one with God and thus we will become God. This is blaspheme and I can't believe anyone would ascribe to this particular teaching.

3) Most, if not all, British-Israelites teach that the Jews of today are not real Jews, and that only the Ten Lost Tribes are Jews or the people of God. This error has been laid to rest by an article from Yair Davidiy on the Khazars. I might specifiy, as well, that the Doctrine of the Ten Lost Tribes has been known since the days of Josephus and before, but the doctrine called British- Israelism is fairly new and has developed some of these errors that are incorrect. This latter, in itself, is not justification to discard the entire theory, as every major religion has some erroneous teaching in its midst that accumulates followers.

4) Almost all of the people involved in this teaching (as well as Messianic Jews) believe that we need to fulfill the Law, since we are descended from the Tribes. This has been addressed in numerous posts on this site, although not in a systematic way. Suffice it to say that a) since there is no Temple NO ONE can fulfill the law until the Temple and Altar are rebuilt and the Mosaic Covenant has been reconfirmed by the nation as it was at the return from Babylon (and which Daniel 11:22 states will occur during the tribulation), and b) it is specifically stated by the Apostle that this is a matter of conscience per each individual to decide for himself and c) it is only after the Church Age that Ephraim is called to "remember the Law of my servant Moses" in preparation for the restoration of the Theocracy in the Millenium, when those Israelites, who return to the promised land, will again be required to fulfill the Law. To try and force Ephraim, now, to fulfill the Law is to "frustrate the grace of God." This is perfectly seen in the parable of the prodigal son who did not, "fulfill the Law" of his father, until he actually returned home.

5) Most who ascribe to this view believe that Great Britain is Ephraim and that America is Manasseh when, in fact, just the opposite is true, which view has been corrected by many of the posts on this site.

And now to the Critique...

1) Altogether, by the application of wild guess-work about historical origins and philological analogies...

"The same judgment you judge others with you are guilty of yourself." This is the same attitude that I have seen displayed in every opponant of this Doctrine. They do not support their statements, but mearly malign those who teach it. These are arguments from silence and emotion and not from logic.

2) ...and by a slavishly* literal interpretation (or misapplication) of selected phrases of prophecy, a case is made out for the identification of the British race with the Lost Ten Tribes of Israel sufficient to satisfy uncritical persons desirous of finding their pride of race confirmed by Holy Scripture.

*Slavishly - Showing no originality; blindly imitative: a slavish copy of the original.

This is a very candid admission for here the author actually states that the Literal Interpretation of the Word of God supports the Doctrine of the Ten Lost Tribes. His little 'disclaimer' was to try and cancel out this very candid admission - proven by the fact that he had to repeat this exact same statement, almost word for word, below. This, actually, is all the admission needed from this author and, combined with the point I made under number 1 above, aught to prompt the reader to disregard this individual as a nonbiased opponant of this Doctrine. But, if you want, read on...

3) The whole theory rests upon an identification of the word ?isles? in the English version of the Bible unjustified by modern philology, which identifies the original word with ?coasts? or ?distant lands,? without any implication of their being surrounded by the sea.

This is either an incredibly ignorant statement, or purposely designed to deceive, for this Doctrine, by his own previous admission, stands upon the solid foundation of a literal interpretation of ALL the prophetic passages relating to Ephraim in the end days (and not just "selected passages"), many of which are contained in my post The Nation of Ephraim.

4) Modern ethnography does not confirm in any way the identification of the Irish with a Semitic people; while the English can be traced back to the Scandinavians, of whom there is no trace in Mesopotamia at any period of history.

Correct me if I am wrong but, every ethnic group on the face of this planet ORIGINATED IN Mesopotamia and Africa. This is subsequently proven by the, "world-renowned explorer and archaeologist" Thor Heyerdahl ("Kon - Tiki"), who says the Scandinavians came from Azerbaijan, which is where the Gozen River is, where the Ten Tribes were put into exile by the Assyrians. Further, it is the Irish People who have the Semitic Crest called the Red Hand of Ulster as one of their emblems, which can be traced back to the birth of Zara and Pharas. Before you discard this, I would remind you SYMBOLOGY would be considered a branch of ETHNOLOGY - the symbols that ethnic groups are known for and, according to William Bennet ("Symbols of our Celtic-Saxon Heritage"), the only one who has studied this particular subject indepth, there are over 100 specific symbols from the ancient Israelite Ethnos that are also contained in the Anglo-Saxon Ethnos, and this is true of no other Ethnos on the planet. If this was a mere coincidence ("independant invention"), or a case of borrowing symbols ("Diffusion"), you would see it occur in other Ethnos as well - which it has not.

5) The whole movement is chiefly interesting as a reductio ad absurdum of too literal an interpretation (or misapplication) of the prophecies.

I guess he feels that if he throws in a little High School Latin that it will throw off the proponents of this Doctrine, or those who are researching it for the first time. But, in the process, he managed to take the position that the literal interpretation of the Word of God is absurd. Need I say more about this particular author. These first five points are compliaments of Joseph Jacobs, B.A., in the Jewish Encyclopedia

6) The pamphlet is not calculated to produce the slightest effect on the opinion of those competent to form one. Such effect as it may have can only be on the ignorant and unlearned - on those who are unaware of the absolute and entire diversity in language, physical type, religious opinions, and manners and customs, between the Israelites and the various races from whom the English nation can be shown historically to be descended.

"The same judgment you judge others with, you are guilty of yourself." One thing I am pretty sure on, and that is that Ethnology is not an "ABSOLUTE" science, for no group was formed in a vacuum. The English languge, CERTAINLY, is proof of this alone, being the mongrel language that it is. Which mongrelity includes words from the Persian, by the way, according to Anglo-Saxon Historian Sharon Turner, which indicates, obviously, that at one time the Anglos were in Persia. Further, the physical type escapes me for we are called caucasians for a very obvious reason, and that being that we came from the caucasus mountain region at one time - that's just a stone throw above Israel. This is further addressed by the Westminister Historical Atlas to the Bible which states, "It is commonly thought that Israelites had 'hooked noese,' but this was originally a Hittite or Armenoid feature." The Language 'differences' are not as absolute either, as various other authors have noticed, especially that of the Gaelic which is almost entirely the same as the Hebrew, from what I have read by one linguist who stated that the structure of the Gaelic is exactly that of the Hebrew and "this is not true of any other language in Europe" (unfortunately, I don't recall the name but one, RL Thompson says, ?in several respects Gaelic syntax has similarities with that of languages like Hebrew and Arabic?). You will notice that the very scientific statement from our opponent did not come from an Ethnologist or Linguist or or Archeologist or even a Historian, it came from Professor Rawlinson "A prominent Christian Scholar"

7) It is inconceivable that, as the material prosperity of Palestine returned, even many of the Ten Tribes should not have returned to their country.

Brilliant. Any High School Latin student could probably have figured that out for himself. The question is, does this mean that God has totally cast off forever those Israelites that DID NOT return, but who subsequently became lost to History. Keep in mind that NO ONE DOUBTS that there was a very LARGE PORTION from the northern nation that DID NOT RETURN to Israel. Has God cast these descendants of Abraham off or did he watch over them as one sifting wheat - as he said in his word. Concerning this very question, The Jewish Encyopedia (1909, Ten Lost Tribes article), "If the Ten Tribes have disappeared, the literal fulfillment of the prophecies would be impossible. If they have not disappeared, obviously they must exist under a different name." This really settles the question for anyone who believes in the literal interpretation of the Word of God. If the Word of God concerning the Ten Lost Tribes is to be fulfilled literally then the Ten Lost Tribes, as such, must exist somewhere, under a different name (i.e. they "lost" their identity). I have already addressed all this in several posts, and it will be addressed further below. Any of the members of the other tribes that came back would have interbred with the southern tribes and lost their identity and became known as Jews and were subsequently sent into the second exile with them, where they, assuredly, went through a further amalgamation so that, by now, they can be considered the same people. All Jews are Israelites, but not all Israelites are Jews. The Jews are the southern tribes, but the Lost Tribes are not, strictly speaking, Jews. They are Israelites. It is exactly the same as saying, "all New Yorkers are Americans, but not all Americans are New Yorkers."

That comment above came to us by one Dr. Pusey

8) That the inhabitants of Great Britain are Israelites is a modern theory which has been widely spread. Its defenders have invented a large number of resemblances or "identifications," on which, in the absence of authentic history or national tradition, they rest their proof.

However, it has been PROVEN (i.e. not invented), from an Assyrian Monument (as well as the Behistun Rock Carvings) written in three languages, that the SCYTHIANS WERE ISRAELITES. George Rawlinson a professional English Scholar and Historian, as well as the younger brother of Sir Henry Rawlinson (who translated the above Rock Carvings), in the note to his translation of Herodotus, stated that, "We have reasonable grounds for regarding the GimiRri, or Cimmerians, who first appeared on the confines of Assyria and Media in the seventh century B.C., and the Sacae of the Behistun Rock, nearly two centuries later, as identical with the Beth-Khumree of Samaria, or the Ten Tribes of the House of Israel...The Sacae or Scythians, who were termed Gimirri by their Semitic neighbors, first appear in the cuneiform inscriptions as a substantive people under Esar-Haddon in about B.C. 684." His older brother, in translating the Rock formation, agreed, almost word for word, with this statement. All of which is confirmed by the Historian Ptolemy, who specifically mentions a, Scythian people, sprung from the Sakai, by the name of Saxones." These people migrated through the Caucuses, some going into what is now Russia and some up through Northern Europe. In fact, one ETHNIC SYMBOL of the Scythians (and the Sarmatians), was the Stag which was beutifully crafted and has been found all across northern Europe AND IN BRITAIN. This stag was one of the ETHNIC SYMBOLS of the tribe of Issachar, if I am not mistaken.

9) The languages of our country ? Saxon, English, Welsh, and Celtic ? have no affinity with the Hebrew; but that is made of no account.

Here we have an example of the Beauty of Facts being in the Eye of the Beholder. What he should have said was that the numerous affinities of the English with the Hebrew have been discarded by those who are opposed to this teaching. If you look at any of the many sites on the web you will find an incredible amount of words, in the English, that are the same as the Hebrew. One that I remember is Grain - Gimel, Rosh, Ayin and Nun - means grain in Hebrew as well as in English. How is that possible, may I ask. The argument that we can't be Israelites or we would write from left to right is an ignorant statement considering that, during the time period in question, it was only the very wealthy that knew how to write at all. These people, the ones that were not killed in the invasion, when they went into exile, would have learned the other languges around them, including the form and style of writing.

10) The history of the many tribes of which our nation is composed ? whether Teutonic, or Saxon, or Caledonian, or Latin, or Scandinavian ? is totally distinct from that of any of the tribes of Israel; but authentic history is in this case wholly set aside.

One has only to read his next statement to see the circular reasoning (and thus no reasoning whatsoever), for here he says the History of the Anglos is distinct from the History of the Ten Tribes but then he goes on to say that there is no History of the Ten Tribes, which is, itself, contradicted by the afore mentioned Anglo Historian.

11) There is no evidence in the Bible, or in history, or tradition, for any such Israelitish emigration. Such a flood could not have passed over Europe, either north or south, without leaving some trace or being mentioned in history.

This has actually been addressed above (i.e. the symbol of the stag, the Scythians etc), but I would further say that, the reason this evidence is lacking (or more precisely - ignored) by current historians, is because it comes to us from the Assyrians chronologists - which are the ones that would be the decisive voice in the subject in question - and instead, all of European History comes almost entirely from the Roman Chronologists. Ernest Martin has addressed this in one of his books ("The People that History Forgot") for he states that the entire Roman World, around 200AD if memory serves me, was overrun by Edomites, and basically the entire Ethnos of continental Europe was affected to the point that they became the predominant strain - yet you hear nothing of this from the current Historians, though it is a known fact.

12) No evidence (worthy of its name), either historical, ethnological, linguistic, or traditional, is produced; we get nothing but conjectures and fanciful allusions as the proofs of this singular theory.

And here is the crux of the matter : these people arbitrarily DENY the proof that has been given. All of the above have been addressed except the "traditional" point and I will address this here. Circumcision is an ETHNIC TRADITION of Israel and the Jews AND AMERICA. Where, exactly, do we get this practice from, may I ask? If it were mearly for medical reasons, as some say, than why don't any other Christian Nations, Peoples or ETHNOS, circumcise their children other then JEWS, SOME EGPYTIANS AND AMERICANS.

13) Let us take the Word of God simply as we find it. Let us beware of fanciful identifications, which, even were they true, are not worth the stress laid upon them.

The reason stress SHOULD be laid on them is that the Ten Tribes are to fulfill a large portion of Scripture in the end days - that alone aught to be enough - but further, this is dealing with a GOD GIVEN BIRTHRITE, and to disregard this Birthrite is the same as Esau selling his to his brother. It is a sign, simply, of lack of Faith in Y'hova.

The above arguments come from one :

HORATIUS BONAR, D.D.

14) It is in a misunderstanding of Scripture, and especially of prophetic Scripture, to which the origin of Anglo-Israelism can be traced.

"The same judgment you judge others with, you are guilty of yourself" - well, lets see...

15) It is the Church ? God?s elect and converted people out of all nations ? which is that "nation," which during the period of Israel?s national unbelief bears fruit unto God; as is clear from 1 Peter 2:9, where believers in Christ are addressed as "a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation (ethnos), that ye should show forth the praises of Him who hath called you out of darkness into His marvellous light."

Having been to Bible College, I know alittle bit about this particular subject and you will see that the Church (per Romans 11 and Ephesians) has been ENGRAFTED INTO THE ISRAELI COMMONWEALTH or Nation (Ethnos if you prefer). It is a very sad commentary on almost the entire Theogical Community in all of Christendom, that this is not recognized, though clearly taught by Paul - the Apostle to the Gentiles. I have addressed this completly in several posts on this site but I will say here that, when Judah was cut off there was then NO NATION OR ETHNOS in which the Gentiles could be engrafted UNLESS EPHRAIM EXISTED AS A NATION at that time. Until one realizes this very important SCRIPTURAL FACT, the Bible, and especially the prophecies and parables, will be a closed book to the reader.

16) Generally, the name Israel stands for all the descendants of Jacob, whose name was changed by God Himself to "Israel," though in the historical books, especially in 1 and 2 Kings, and 2 Chronicles, and in a few passages in the Prophets, it is used to describe the northern kingdom of the Ten Tribes in contradistinction to the southern kingdom of Judah. But its use in the more limited and temporary sense as ?applied to the Ten Tribes can always be clearly discerned from the context.

However, in at least one example below, in a passage that was clearly directed to the Northern Nation, he says actually is refering to the Southern Nation. Thus, what he meant to say was that, "the term Israel only applies to the Northern Tribe when I say so."

17) With the captivity the divisions and rivalry between "Judah" and "Israel" were ended...In like manner Jeremiah, in his great prophecy of the restoration and future blessing (chaps. 30 and 31), links the destinies of "Judah" and "Israel," or Israel and Judah together; and speaks of one common experience from that time on for the whole people.

Here, in order to prove his view that the Two Nations became one Nation as a result of the first Captivity, he twists the Scriptures, and adds his own words, to arrive at his conclusions. No where in the passages in question does it say that they became ONE NATION, during their captivity. In fact, both passages SPECIFICALLY STATE that the two nations will continue as two separate nations until they are regathered. And, the time of this regathering is specified as the time that God restores the Davidic Throne, which Y'shua said was desolate in his day and age, and which he left desolate, and which has continued so until this day.

18) The name of "Jew" and "Israelite" became synonymous terms from about the time of the Captivity. It is one of the absurd fallacies of Anglo-Israelism to presuppose that the term "Jew" stands for a bodily descendant of "Judah."

Here, he disagrees with your Strong's concordance, as well as the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia which states, "The northern ten tribes had been taken into captivity by the Assyrians and have become known as the lost tribes of Israel. The sole surviving identifiable tribe was Judah, and when this was conquered by Nebuchadrezzar, the captives became known as Jews - a word that developed from ?Judeans.? The returning exiles were henceforth known as Jews, and the name Judah was loosely used to refer to the region they occupied." I guess I'll let you descide on this one.

19) Yes, and without any hope of a restoration to a separate national existence. What hopes and promises they [the northern nation of Ephraim] had were, as we have seen, linked with the Kingdom of Judah and the House of David.

"After two days he will revive us, on the third day we shall live in his sight." This is not a dead person speaking (Hosea to the Northern Nation) it is a person in exile speaking for "us" which is the Northern Nation. Their NATION was destroyed and they went into exile in 720 BC, and were not revived or restored three days later, and thus this is a "hope of a restoration" OF THEIR NATION after two of the Lord's Days (which David and Peter tell us is "a thousand years" each). And, this is NOT refering to their being preserved as a people - this is implied - it is refering to their restoration AS A NATION two thousand years after 700 BC - or about the time the New World was discovered by Columbus. It is, in fact, very similar to the Valley of Dry Bones prediction by Ezekial which, though a resurrection is implied (and gives the timing clue), the context of the passage is national restoration. Further, you can take this verse and say, emphatically, that until those two days had transpired, the Northern Nation would not be revived which would included amalgamation into the Southern Nation. This verse, then, proves that the Northern Nation DID NOT UNITE WITH THE SOUTHERN NATION, at the return from Babylon.

20) Some have supposed that the 14th verse of Zechariah 11 ? "And I cut asunder mine second staff, even Bands, to destroy the brotherhood between Judah and between Israel" ? foreshadowed another division between the Ten Tribes and the Two Tribes subsequent to the partial restoration from Babylon, and after the coalescence of the people before and in the Exile ? as a punishment for their rejection of their true Shepherd the Messiah, which is symbolically set forth in that chapter. But this is a mistake. The preposition (bain), which is twice repeated, has the meaning not only of "between," but also of "among," and the formula, House of Judah and House of Israel, or simply, "Judah and Israel," is, as we have had again and again to notice, this prophet?s inclusive designation of the whole ideally (and to a large extent already actually) reunited one people.

A difference that is no difference, is no difference. The translation does not affect the meaning. Judah is refering to the Nation of Judah and Ephraim or Israel to the Nation of Ephraim. I did not notice where he "again and again" showed that Zechariah was designating the reunited people, which he failed to prove, and which goes against the specific words of Ezekial and Jeremiah to the contrary, as I have shown above. In fact, regardless of what he says to the contrary, this verse, in fact, shows a breaking of the Union between the representatives of the nation at the time of Messiah and is, in fact, the only passage of Scripture that intimidates the second captivity (vs 1). The representatives of the nation were 'united' at the time of Messiah when he presented the possibility of the restoration of the Kingdom to them - which they refused - and then these representatives were again sent into captivity, where the rest of the tribes already were. This is not a reuniting into one nation BUT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN, had they accepted the Messiah on a National Level - proven by the fact that the Lord left their House (Davidic Throne) desolate and thus, the regatering into one nation DID NOT OCCUR at this time OR PREVIOUS to this time, and is, in fact, still future. Thus TWO HOUSES will exist until that time - this is what the passage makes crystal clear.

21) In this charge of the Lord to the apostles, we see also, by the way, in what sense Israel is regarded as "lost." Now Anglo-Israelites are very fond of this word, but they use it in an unbiblical and unspiritual sense.

Here it must be stated that the dicodomy between "physical" and "spiritual" is a fictional theory developed by certain people in the history of the Church and it is not a Scriptural teaching at all. Thus, we can certainly ascertain that the Lord considered the Israelites in the Land as being lost, but it goes beyond the Scripture to say that he also didn't have the Ten Lost Tribes in mind when he said this, who were also lost. Further, if all the people were in fact united into one nation at this time, than exactly what is the point of the parable of the prodigal, may I ask?

22) As Jeremiah pathetically puts it: "My people hath been lost sheep;, their shepherds [their false teachers and leaders] have caused them to go astray; they have turned them away on the mountains; they have gone from mountain to hill; they have forgotten [not their national origin, but] their resting place" ? viz., Jehovah, who is the true ?dwelling-place of His people in all generations.'

And where was Y'hova found - in Israel. He actually is a perfect embodiament of the description itself for he is, suposedly, a shepherd, and yet he has caused some, through his teaching, to go astray. In fact, it is exactly because they forgot the Lord that they also forgot their national identity - you can't separate the two in the Theocracy, for they are all one.

23) Paul knew of no "lost Ten Tribes," but on his testimony the "Jews" in Palestine and in the Dispersion were the "Israel" of all the Twelve Tribes, to whom the "hope of the promise made of God unto the fathers" belonged.

Again, this is an argument from silence for the Apostle doesn't go into details about the Ten Lost Tribes, for the simple reason was that he was sent to the Gentiles and not Israel. Further, if he refers to them at all it is the representative tribes in the nation before the Roman captivity. I also want to add this. Even among those Jews who believe that the Ten Lost Tribes are out there, there is displayed a very apathetic attitude towards them. They take the view that they are out there and at the appointed time, God will restore them and, therefore, it is pointless to try and do the work of restoring them for it is dependant upon God's Timing. Undoubtedly, this was also the Apostle's view at the time and he wouldn't have spent any time on the subject at all while speaking to the Gentiles, through his epistles. Again, this is an argument from silence which is no argument at all.

24) I have not followed Anglo-Israelism in all its crooked paths of misinterpretation of Scripture and history; I have only shown you the baselessness of its foundations, and that the premises upon which the whole theory rests are misleading and false.

Here, to the discerning reader, he tells you exactly what he is about to do or what he has just done : 1) lead you down his crooked path, 2) misinterpret Scripture, 3) lay down a baseless foundation and 4) give you a misleading and false premise. I base this upon the previously quoted Scripture from Paul, "The same judgment you judge others with, you are guilty of yourself" - in other words, what's in a man's heart eventually comes out his mouth and when a person can so easily judge others, in order to strenghen their position, they are only exposing a reflection of themselves. I have seen this principle work THOUSANDS of times, and if you will just think about it, the next time someone runs their mouth about someone else, you will see exactly what is in their own heart.

25) The "Israelites" who in the time of Christ were dispersed among the Parthians, Medes, and Elamites (Acts 2), were as much one with the sojourners in Egypt, Greece, and Rome, as the "Jews" in Bagdad, Persia, or on the Caspian Sea to-day, are one with their wandering brethren in London, Berlin, New York, or Australia, although they then, as now...spoke different languages and dressed differently, and conformed to different social and family customs.

Now here we have a statement that the Jews, even though they maintained their traditions, ended up "dressed differently and conformed to differenct social and family customs" and yet they also use this to 'prove' that the Anglos can't be Israelites because they have different dress and family customs (point 6 above). Here you have his "misleading premise." I will let you decide. His very admission that some of the Jews in captivity changed their customs destroys his whole premise for, surely, the Ten Tribes would also have gone through this same process - more so since they have been in exile longer - and thus, by our day and age it is obvious that they may not be recognized for who they originally were. The terrean they traversed itself would determine this (from the desert conditions of Israel to the dreary conditions of Britain etc), as well as any peoples that may have influenced them along the way with their own customs. Compare the Anglo's adoption of the customs and dress of the Native Americans when we first came to this country, as well as some of their language and beliefs.

26) The Lord Jesus and the apostles, equally with the post-Exilic prophets centuries before, regarded the "Jews" as representatives of "all Israel," and as the only people in the line of the "covenant, and the promises which God made unto the fathers."

He gives absolutely no Scriptural proof for his last statement and it is solely inferencial and thus, an argument from silence, which is no proof at all. That the people living in the land at the time of Messiah were representative of all Israel is not disputed. But to say that they did not represent any descendants of the tribes who had lost their identity, is to go beyond the Scripture. Again, it all boils down to whether or not God would, in fact, preserve those descendants who did not come back to the land, and who lost their identity. Further, here we have a problem, for the Jewish Nation, according to the Apostle Paul in Romans, were completely cut off and thus, how are the Gentiles to be engrafted to the nation if these have been discarded. The only way possible is if Ephraim existed as a separate nation at this very time. Here is his "baseless foundation" and that is that the Church is the "other nation" which it can not be for it is "called out of" (by the very title itself) the Gentiles nations, and engrafted into the nation or commonwealth of Israel. Thus, Ephraim as a nation, separate from Judah, was in "the line of the covenant and the promises of God" in order for the Gentiles to be engrafted when Judah, as a nation, was cut off. It is that simple.

27) The conclusion at which you and every unbiassed person must arrive on a careful examination of the facts which I have adduced is, that the whole supposition of "lost tribes," is a fancy which originated in ignorance.

And here you will see his "crooked path." For, he spent this whole article (five pages) stating that the Doctrine of the Ten Lost Tribes has no basis in the Scriptures or History, but then he lists eleven people below, through the years, that have believed in this Teaching as derived from Scripture and History and then he says that these people didn't know what they were talking about, but he did, even though some of them were 2000 years closer to the period, and events, in question, then he was when he wrote this article, and who were professional Historians, whereas he is just a 'Biblical Scholar'.

(A) Josephus vaguely locates a separate multitude belonging to the Ten Tribes somewhere beyond the Euphrates ("Antiq." 11. 1, 2), (B) Agrippa in his remarkable oration (Josephus, "Wars," 2,16.4), "as far as beyond the Euphrates," and to "those of your nation who dwell in Adiabene," refers to some unknown settlements belonging to the Ten Tribes, (C) Eldad Ben Mahli Ha Dani came forward in the ninth century claiming to give specific details of the contemporary existence of the Ten Tribes and of their location at that time, (D) David Reubeni revived the view in stating that he was related to the king of the tribes of Reuben situated in Khaibar in North Arabia, (E) According to Abraham Farisol, the remaining tribes were in the desert, on the way to Mecca, near the Red Sea; but he himself identifies the River Ganges with the River Gozan, and assumes that the Beni-Israel of India are the descendants of the Lost Ten Tribes, (F) The confusion between Ethiopia and Farther India, which existed in the minds of the ancients and medieval geographers, caused some writers to place the Lost Ten Tribes in Abyssinia, (G) Abraham Yagel, in the sixteenth century, did so, basing his conclusions on the accounts of David Reubeni and Eldad Ha Dani. It is probable that some of the reports of the Falashas led to this identification, (H) According to Yagel, messengers were sent to these colonists in the time of Pope Clement VII., some of whom died, while the rest brought back tidings of the greatness of the tribes and their very wide territories, (I) A Christian traveller, Vincent of Milan, who was a prisoner in the hands of the Turks for twenty-five years, and who went as far as Fez, and thence to India, found the River Sambation, and a number of Jews dressed in silk and purple. They were ruled by seven kings, and upon being asked to pay tribute to the Sultan Salim, they declared that they had never paid tribute to any sultan or king. It is just possible that this may have some reference to the ?Sⳡnam? or the Jews of Cochin, (J) It is further stated that in 1630 a Jew of Salonica travelled to Ethiopia, to the land of Sambation, (K) In 1646 one Baruch, travelling in Persia, claimed to have met a man named Malkiel, of the tribe of Naphtali, and brought back a letter from the king of the children of Moses: this letter was seen by Azulai. It was afterwards reprinted in Jacob Saphir?s book of travels (Eben Sappir, i. 98).

28) But all these are legends and fancies. "We in this twentieth century," to quote the words of a Christian writer, "to whom there is no longer any part of the earth unknown, know that in no country whatever, however far from civilisation it may be, do the Ten Tribes dwell. The ?travellers? tales have been proved to be false; the Ten Tribes, as such, do not exist."

Apparently because they didn't have a big sign on their head saying "Hi - my name is John Smith and I'm from the Ten Lost Tribes and we have been around here for 2700 years waiting for you to find us." You will notice, once again, that this is not an expert in any of the Sciences involved who makes this statement, but is simply
"a Christian writer" who apparently took a geography course in High School, instead of studying Latin like his mother wanted him to.

29) Some Christian writers cling to the view that while some of the "Ten Tribes" amalgamated with the "Jews," there is nevertheless a distinct people somewhere, who are descendants of the Israel of the ancient northern kingdom, which is to be brought to light in the future, and, together with "Judah," will be restored to Palestine, and enter into the enjoyment of the promises...but this view rests upon what I believe to be a misconception of the meaning and scope of some of the prophecies.

Here, he has just summned up in a nutshell the entire debate. He concisely explains our position, and then he said he disagreed with it because of HIS OWN PERSONAL BELIEF SYSTEM. This brings us right back to the original argument in number 2 above where the Jewish Scholar rejected the teaching because it was too literal an interpretation from the Word of God. The question then boils down to this. Do you believe the Word of God, or don't you for, unless the context indicates a spiritual application, then the passage is to be interpreted literally and if you don't take the literal interpretation it is NOTHING MORE THAN LACK OF FAITH. PERIOD.

30) The reference is Isa. 28:11: "By another tongue will I speak to this people." This is another instance of breaking away an isolated text from its context, and giving it a meaning which was never intended. In that chapter we read how the leaders, not of the Ten Tribes, but of Judah, perverted the Word of God.

Look it up for yourself. You will see that the entire passage is directed to, "The Crown of Pride, the Drunkards of Ephraim" and NOT JUDAH. This is important for one very obvious reason and that is, regardless of any partial application to the representatives at the first advent, the entire prophecy will be fulfilled in the endtimes by Ephraim, as I have shown in my post on the Theocratic Covenant and others. The conclusion, and proof, is in verse 14 where the ruler of Ephraim is ruling the people in Jerusalem as well, which has never occured in the history of this people, even at the time of Messiah, and, therefore, it must be fulfilled by Ephraim in the future and here we have today, America ruling over Jerusalem as is evident from the Peace Process itself. Once again you have the adage proven, "The same judgment you judge others with you are guilty of yourself" for he took ONE SENTANCE out of the entire context to make that erroneous claim.

31) Passing on to the next two references, Isa. 40: 27 and Isa. 54: 8, I would ask the intelligent Bible-reader what relevancy or connection these precious Scriptures have with the subject of the identification of any "lost" tribes? It is like sacrilege to misapply such beautiful Scriptures and great spiritual truths to prove a theory which has no basis in fact, and with which they have not the remotest connection.

This is called a gloss-over. In other words, this is too close for comfort for him, as these passages contain information that would destroy his belief system. In chapter 40 Isaiah speaks of the Southern Nation of Judah specifically as they shall be at the time of the minstry of the Baptist, when they shall be back in their own land AS WELL AS during the tribulation when the two nations shall be reunited in the Land. The second half of the passage, he then turns to the Northern Tribe in verse 27 who think that God has discarded them completely JUST AS THIS OPPONENT IS TEACHING, when, in fact, he has not and he promises them strength. Strength for what? For the regathering itself as the next chapter makes perfectly clear (no chapter divisions in the original texts). Yet, they are already one and regathered in the land according to the first half of chapter 40 UNLESS, as the other Scriptures testify, they are still TWO SEPARATE NATIONS. Chapter 54 has been adequately addressed in the Theocratic Covenant section 10 and I don't want to repeat it here except to say that this parable can only be understood as refering to the two separate nations of Ephraim and Judah. In fact, this one parable totally destroys all the arguments against the Doctrine of the Ten Lost Tribes, for it clearly teaches that during the entire Church Age, Ephraim is a separate nation from Judah and the Gentile converts are their children.

32) Hosea 1:4-7 did speak primarily to the Israel of the "Ten Tribes" shortly before its final overthrow by Assyria, and what he announces is that God would cause that kingdom, as a kingdom, "to cease," and that He would no more have mercy upon them. As a people they would be preserved, but, as it were, disavowed of God, and therefore called "Lo-Ammi" (i.e., "not My people "). But what is said here by Hosea of the condition of the people of the "Ten Tribes," after they shall have ceased to exist as a kingdom, is true also of those who belonged to the southern kingdom of Judah.

And here is a direct violation of his own statement above that the application of the term Israel is apparent from the context and he here, after admitting that the context applies this to Ephraim, then turns right around and says that it really applies to Judah. And the reason he had to say this is to 'join' Ephraim to Judah under the phrase 'Jew' in support of his "baseless foundation" that they all became one nation during the captivity, which this passage specifically contradicts. In fact, it says that while they are still "not God's people" that they will become an inumerable multitude, and in the day of Jezreel they shall unite with Judah and come up into the land. This is obviuosly endtimes in nature, as a casual reading of the rest of the book verifies, and as he admits below, and it destroys his belief system totally. Further, it is specifically stated that Ephraim was 'divored' but NO WHERE is it ever stated that Judah is divored and thus 'not God's people.'

33) It is now the Lo-Ammi period for the whole nation of the Twelve Tribes, and they shall continue to be disowned of God nationally (not as individuals) until they as a nation acknowledge and own their long-rejected Messiah. Then, in the final trial, when the spirit of grace and of supplication is poured upon them, and they shall look upon Him whom they have pierced, and mourn, God will look down upon them and say, "Ammi" ? "It is My people" and they shall say, "Jehovah is my God" (Zech. 13:9).

The reason why this is so damaging to his belief system is because, in that passage Judah and Ephraim appoint themselves ONE HEAD and are REUNITED and REGATHERED and come up into the land. This is exactly what is predicted in Ezekiel 37 which he says was fulfilled in the past. However, when we compare Scripture with Scripture we see that both passages are refering to the same event - the regathering of the people of Israel from their two respective nations and the reunion into ONE NATION UNDER ONE DAVIDIC LEADER IN THE END DAYS. Thus, it obviously has not occured yet and his whole theory subsequently crumbles to the ground, proving, once again, the addage, "the same judgment you judge others with, you are guilty of yourself" for, his theology is obviously built upon "a baseless foundation."

He being:

DAVID BARON October 1915

http://www.bibletopics.com/biblestudy/152b.htm

In conclusion it should be summarized that the opposition 1) Supplies arguments from emotions and silence which are not arguments at all, 2) Provide no scientific evidence from experts in the respective fields that contradicts the theory, even though they claim such evidence exists, 3) Discards the scientific evidence that is supplied in support of this theory from experts in the respective fields - 12 of which I have listed in this critique, which is just the tip of the Ice Burg, 4) Discards the literal interpretation of the prophecies which support this teaching, 5) Spiritualize the respective Scriptures, or take the passages out of context, in order to support their own arguments against this theory, 6) Admit that this teaching is found from the earliest times and refered to as such by noted Jewish Historians and Scholars and, 6) Admit that our position may be the correct application of the Scriptures, but do not believe that it is important.

Now, even though we now know that the Doctrine of the Ten Lost Tribes is Scriptural and has Historical support, there are some that say the identifying them with the Saxons (i.e. British-Israelism) is of recent invention and is a conspiracy by the people who started this latter theory, to take over the World.

This can be countered by the previously mentioned statement by Ptolemy (referenced by Sharon Turnor), that the Saxones were Scythians, because the Assyrian Monuments (The Behistun Rock and the Black Obelisk) prove that the Scythians were Israelites (by linking the Saccae, Iskuza, Gimmiri together).

Sir Henry Rawlinson, who found and translated the Rock says, "We have reasonable grounds for regarding the Gimiri, or Cimmerians, who first appeared in the confines of Assyria and Media in the seventh century B.C., and the Sacae of the Behistun Rock nearly two centuries later, as identical with Israel?.

Great Britain?s Rank Among the Nations, R.N. Adams, pg 61


As far as I know, no modern Scholar disagrees with his translation of the Rock and, that being the case, this then is conclusive evidence that the Saxons are, in fact, the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel.

Sometimes there is just nothing left to say...

__________________


Welcome to my World...


Page 1 of 1  sorted by
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.

Members Login


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard