Conference yukon::christian_v7

>Archaeology and history show us that the Israelites who had been deported to
>the periphera of their captor kingdom to protect against invasion gradually
>moved on.  They travelled across the caucus mountains and by many other paths
>and settled in what is now know as Europe.

Dates, numbers, and specific directions, please.  Differentiate movement of
people and movement of trade articles.

>They eventually became know as Anglo-Saxon, Scandinavian, and Germanic
>peoples.

Oh, wow.  Another version of this can often be seen in Central Square,
with a bunch of angry looking black men explaining how the lost tribes
of Israel are really all the various groups of blacks around the world.

/john

    Rich,
    
    In the books that you are citing is there any reference to the words
    British and Saxon as pointers that they are, in fact, decended from
    Israel?
    
    Thanks,
    
    Kent
    

    brt         iysh
    covenant    man
    
      Saxon
    Isaac son
           
    
    Certainly not offered as conclusive proof, but interesting.
    
    Rich  

    Rich,
    
    It is interesting but grammatically incorrect.  For anyone else
    reading, what I was looking for in my question was a more positive link
    between what Rich was reading/writing and the doctrine of Anglo-Israelism. 
    The most popular proponent of this doctrine that I know of being Herbert 
    W. Armstrong.  One of the 'proofs' that Mr. Armstrong points to is words
    like British = B'rith (covenant) + iysh (man), a gross grammatical
    misconstruction.  I am glad that you did not try to use this as a proof 
    but merely as interesting.  A chapter can be found on the Armstrong and 
    the doctrine of Anglo-Israelism in Walter Martin's, Kingdom of the Cults.
    
    More on Monday.
    
    Kent
    

    HI,
    
    .3 sounds like HW Armstrong to me, and unfortunately for him, his
    theory doesn't hold up gramatically in Hebrew.
    
    On that premise (which is faulty) all that's built upon it is at best
    questionable.  There are some more scholarly sources you could research
    on the subject if you were interested.  Ancient sources like Philo and
    Josephus would be helpful, more modern writers such as Edersheim (19th
    century) and Dr. Daniel Juster, Dr. Keith Intrater, Dr. David Stern,
    etc. are all excellent, reliable sources for this type of information.
    
    Happy searching!
    
    Steve

    John,
    
    Did I detect a note of sarcasm there?  hmm :-\
    
    There are plenty of all the specifics in any number of publications.
    (which by the way DON'T come from Armstrong).  I'm not a good typist so
    I'll not enter them in here.  
    
    One of the specific ties has no bearing on movement of article vs.
    people.  The same people are referred to by different countries/
    languages by different names.  So sometimes it is difficult to make
    connections between people.  The Israelites taken captive were no
    exception.  They were specifically know to go by the name "x"(cant
    remember now).  Other people were known to be ancestors of Europeans. 
    Then a tablet was found that used both names to refer to the same
    people.  Thus a connection is established.  That is only one of many,
    many evidences, but it is convincing. 
    
      The best evidence come from scripture itself.  Most of the Biblical
    "marks of Israel" have been pushed off into a future fulfillment in
    Israel because they obviously don't fit the Jews.  But they DO fit the
    true Israel as described earlier NOW.  There are also fliers and
    sermons detailing the scriptural "marks of Israel".  The source listed
    can help you.
    
    Rich  

    Christ's own words give us great evidence.
    
    "By their fruits ye shall know them"
    "I came not but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel"
    "My sheep hear my voice"
    
    These words are so obviously fulfilled ONLY in then nations of
    Christendom who even in the height of their disobedience still have
    these descendants as the majority of the population.
    
    Who prints the Bibles?  Chinese, Jews, Indians, Australian aboriginees
    
    Who comes to the rescue when anywhere in the world there is disaster? 
    The African nations?  I think not.
    
    Even in our extreme disobedience we fit the fruits of Israel better
    than anyone else on earth!  Simple enough.
    
    Rich

    Rich,
    
    Please read Ezekial 37:15-25 and explain your interpretation of the
    meaning and timing of these verses.
    
    Also, who was James writing to.  See James 1:1.
    
    By the way the doctrine of Anglo-Israelism is not exclusively the
    property of Armstrong but he has capitalized on it.  There are pockets
    of Anglo-Israelism believers all over.
    
    Just to get started.  I have to run to a staff meeting.
    
    In Him,
    
    Kent
    

    re: .7
    
    I disagree with your perception (for whatever that's worth ;-).
    
    The L-rd's covenant with Israel is unconditional; He will obey no
    matter how disobedient His people have been.  He has said through His
    prophet that unless someone could figure out how to change the order of
    the universe, He would never forsake His people.
    
    Much blood has been spilled in the name of "Christendom" - it's hardly
    been understood as rescuing much in this world, and rightly so - for He
    didn't come to give us religion - He came to give us Himself, to spill
    His own blood that ALL nations, Jewish and Gentile, could have
    fellowship with Him.
    
    "Christendom" as you call it is Anglicized from "Christos" in Greek -
    the work for 'annointed' or "Moshiach" in Hebrew.  Again, see Romans
    9-11 to see where your L-rd Messiah comes from, to see where the Word 
    of G-d came from, to see who it was that you were grafted into (if 
    the natural olive tree [Israel] is dead, then you [a grafted branch] are 
    too, friend).
    
    I hope you'll continue to search and dig - your personal_name seems to
    indicate you will.
    
    Steve
    
    

    I've not got much time to write today, and couldn't access this
    file yesterday, but I did a little reading over the weekend on
    this subject so I thought I'd throw a few things in here.

    First, of all the references to British and Saxon don't really 
    make much sense to me.  English bears no real marks to having
    come from Hebrew.  Neither Issac nor Son are close to the Hebrew
    which would have been something like Bar or Ben Yitzach.  To make
    a connection to meanings of words that may bear some similarity of
    sound such as British and the Hebrew words for convenant and man
    makes no sense unless there are other signs of connection to Hebrew 
    in English, but the script, the alphabet, and other words are all 
    very, very different, they do not come from the same or even similar 
    sources.

    Second of all, to claim that the people of the British Isles are
    descendents of the "10 lost tribes" would seem to me to require that
    there would have carried down at least some remnant knowledge of Torah 
    and God, and yet it seems that not only the news of Yeshua had to brought
    to them, but the whole message of who God was also had to be brought
    to them.  No ways of dressing, no culture, nothing seems to have been
    handed down.  Yet you accuse the pockets of dispersed Jews throughout the 
    world who did retain aspects of the Hebrew language and culture, and 
    knowledge of God and Torah of not really being the descendents of the 
    Biblical people.  It seems to me that the people who have stood in the
    face of persecution and maintained at least some aspects of their beliefs,
    language, and culture are much more likely to be the real descendents
    than a people who bear no marks of being semitic in race or of having
    retained knowledge about Torah and God.
    
    Finally, there is much prophecy in the Old Testament regarding the
    breakup of Israel followed by the reunification of all the tribes into
    one people.  In the book mentioned in an earlier note, "Kingdom of the 
    Cults" the scripture references are given.  Its worth reading.
    
    Leslie

       Oh, and about the Talmud.  This compendium of commentary and codified
       laws by Jewish sages was not written at the time a portion of the 
       captives returned to rebuild Jerusalem.  The Babalonian and Palestinian 
       Talmuds were not begun until the first century AD.

       Leslie

    Lord's Covenant Church
    Sandpoint, ID   (I'll get the rest of the address later)
    
    They have several books that answer the questions very thoroughly.
    
    The Ezekiel question.
    Info about the Talmud and its relation to Judaism and Christianity.
    The covenant question is answered well by one called "The Old Jerusalem
    is Not the New Jerusalem"
    
    The English language has over 2000 words that are directly from Hebrew. 
    Some say as many as 5000 words.  There was little change needed from
    the Druidism to Christianity as it was so close ancient Hebrew.  They
    still performed the sacrifices of lambs.  Druidism, by the way has been
    very misrepresented by the media, as has ancient England.  The Druid
    had many colleges.  Christianity was also brought to England much
    earlier than is widel known.  All this and much more is given in many
    works that have much documentary evidence.
    
    Rich
    
    

    For those interested further in this subject, cross reference
    topic # 165 in CALDEC::ANTIQUITY.  Quite a few objections are
    raised to Rich's "facts" from many viewpoints.

    Leslie

    Leslie, what is that conference about?

    Most of the objections raised in the antiquity(history) file are trying
    to refute Biblical facts.  Not historical.  Such as trying to say that
    the Kingdom of Judah could not handle the army that the Bible says they
    had. etc. etc.
    
    I simply want people to read the books, and make their own decision.  I
    have never seen anyone look at the evidence with an open mind who was
    not convinced.  Actually, even with a closed mind looking to refute it
    they are convinced - IF they read the evidence.  The only people I
    have even heard of that have "read" the evidence and not been convinced
    are those who actually only skimmed some material from which to extract
    quotes out of context to attempt to make them look bad.
    
    The antiquity note also refers to some other books that are good.
    
    Rich

    The antiquity conference is about ancient history, civilizations
    etcetera.  There was a much greater realm of responses than people
    saying that population figures in the O.T. shouldn't be taken 
    as exact statistics.  There were replies that did not hold the 
    Bible to be God's word, but there were also many other points raised.

    Leslie

    Sorry, I forgot the address and today was my last chance.
    
    Sandpoint is a small town it would probably get there.  There is also
    the telephone(information.)
    
    Rich