Here is a breakdown of my understanding of British Israelism/Christian Identity as I have learned it through self study. It took 2 days to write this out, but over 20 years to research it(Christinsanity in general, not just THIS subject).
The whole concept of CI rests on the notion that the Ten Tribes were lost. If this is proved to be not true, then everything else the advocates of Christian Identity may say is of no avail to prove their cases.
The fact of the matter is that the ten tribes were never lost and the term "ten tribes" as applied to the ten tribes of Israel is a misnomer. It may sound wonderfully mysterious to talk about lost tribes, and the idea that they are members of Gods chosen race is very exciting to many, hence the popularity in the WN/Racialist movement.
To prove that the ten tribes were never lost you must look at history, not the Bible. I won't use mythological stories and legends as a source of infomation as the CI adhearents do, other than the bible.
Most who have an understanding of the bible know that under Saul, David and Solomon Israel existed as twelve tribes, with Levy being the 13th but having no spereate inheritance, and two of the tribes came from Jospheph through his sons Ephraim and Manasseh.
The kindoms split under the rule of Solomons son Rehoboam. The ten northern tribes followed his leadership as he set himself up as the king of Tirzah(as we can read in "1 Kings 14:17) Under Omri, the sixth king of the Northern tribes, the kingdom was re-located in Samaria. This kingdom lasted about 250 years under 19 wicked kings and 9 families.
These northern tribes endulged in idol worship throught this entire period of time and not one of their kings was a godly man. The two southern tribes retained the descendants of David as their king and after the other tribes were enslaved they had 3 revivals of their religion and had 150 years of freedom after the other 10 tribes were stolen. Any real study of these kingdoms clearly shows that Judah and NOT Israel was the channel that Jewhova chose to preserve his "truth"(wow, it was painful calling this 'truth').
THe CI theory rest upon the idea that these 2 kingdoms were seperate and existed as completely seperate nations and have very seperate destinies. It doesn't account for any mixture of the peoples, nor the possibility that all the 12 tribes finally emerged into one ethnic and religious group. The 'facts' as recorded in the bible clearly state that there was constant interacion between the people from these 2 kingdoms and that after captivity they eventually lost their tribal identity and finally were known as Jews.
Not all of the people in the ten tribes followed Jeroboam when he built his seperate kingdom. Some of these people united with Benjamin and Judah and it is clearly indicated in 1 Kings 12:21-24.
The "remnant of the people" could be none others than the 10 tribes who chose to say with Rehoboam and teh kingdom of Judah. It is clear that the southern kingdom actually represented the people from all the tribes.
Eventually, the entire tribe of Levy joined the south along with a large number of people from the 10 tribes who decided to come back. If you read 2 Chron 11:14-17 you see that once again there is a gathering of the people from all the tribes in the southern kingdom.
Not long after that, under the rule of King Asa, there was a religious revival of sorts with blessings from God in Judah when a great number of the northern people joined in the south with their racial kinsmen. Then in 2 Chron 15:9 we read that a great number of of the ten tribes joined with Asa and his people. It is more than obvious that the kingdom of Judah did not only represent the people form the two tribes but also from the rest of Israel as well.
Then gain under Hezekia we can see that the people who 'rejoiced' together in the worship of God included the remnants of teh ten tribes(2 Chron 30:25-26). According to this, it is clear that God favored Judah and it was form this kingdom that the majority of the godly people from the ten tribes identified theselves with. It was blessed by David, the temple of Solomon and some 'godly' kings that ruled and led durring these reliious revivals. This means that the norht was qwiouth a king of Gods choice and without a temple that god has designed.
Its clear that Jewhova recognized the kings of judah as the kings of his ENTIRE chosen race/nation. he never intended that the ten tribes should even continue to exist as seperate kingdoms and he spoke of the day when the two kingdoms would unite into one with Jewrusalem as the center of worship. In Chron 2 21:1-2 you can see that Jehoshaphat who is the 4th king of the southern tribes is called the KING OF ISRAEL. In 2 Chron 28:19 Ahaz, who is the 11th ruler of Judah is called the KING OF ISRAEL. According to the bible, god considered these descendants of David as the rulers of his ENTIRE 12 tribes. I guess god didn't recognize the distinction between Israel and Judah that the Anglo-Isralite theorists insist is an absolute necessity.
That is not where the merging of the tribes ends though. In 721 BC, after the kingdoms were taken into captivity, they were defeated by teh Assyrians and a number of them were taken captive. The OT doesnt tell us how many were deported from the land, but an inscription by Sargon, the ruler who succeeded Shalmaneser says...and I quote:
It's possible that some of other deportions took place but this text indicates that the large majority of these people were left in their own lands with Assyrian aapointed leaders to rule over them. These citizens of the ten tribes were the majority of the population and placed themselves under the rule of Judah. This is clearly pointed out by the fact about 100 years after Assyria handed them an ass kickin' and deported some fo the people a large number of the people joined in the religiou festivals durring the revival under Josia, the KING OF JUDAH, as seen in 2 Chron 34:9 and 2 Chron 35:17-18.
This means that most of the people were NOT displaced by Assyria and in fact stayed in their own lands and many joined with the king of Judah. Even afetr the ten tribes were taken into captivity, in a very real sense, the process of amalgamation(sp?) between the two people of Judah and Israel continued.
Another mistake the CI's make in their effort to 'lose' the ten tribes is the fact that Assyria and Babylon became one empire. Less than 50 years later the two kingsdoms were under the same rule. Therfore when Babylon started to transport captives out of Judah they were moving them to a place where people rom the 10 tribes were living. Its easy to prove this. 2 Kings 17:6 tells us where they were the Israelites were taken, in about 721 BC. When Ezekial was carried away to Babylon in about 590 BC, just befoer Judah was completely defeated 4 years later, he and the other exiiles from Judah lived in this area. Its here that the Assyrian and Babylonian captives gradually merged into one people.
Years later when the remnant returned from captivity to the lands of Palestine, Ezra DEFINITLY recognized the Jews as representing all of the tribes of Israel. This is clearly shown in Ezra 6:17, which I'll quote:
When Alexander the Great was leading, many of the Jews settled in Palestine and had great freedoms. Other jews were establishing colonies through the world by this time. Everywhere - Asia Minor and the coastal regions of the Agean, souther europe, egypt, northern africa india and china all knew the presence of the jewish menace. There was jew synagogs everywhere but at the great feast celebrations(you know, holidays) Jewrusalem was their center of worshop and millions would come to the city to pay respect to their tribal god of insanity, murder, mayhem and evil(AKA Jewhova) and anyone who was connected with Moses and still looked to Jewrusalem as the Holiest City were considered Jews.
The ten tribes were never lost and James recognized this in teh NT when he write his epistle to the Jewish believers of his day. He recognized them as athe twelve tribes and used the term "twelve tribes" when addressing them(James 1:1). In this day when anti-semitism was common, remember that EVERY one of Jesus apostles who Jesus himself allegedly chose was loyal to the religion of Jewrusalem. Jewsus himself practiced the rituals of this Jewish faith. When he sent his desciple to the lost 'sheep' of the house of Israel, he obviously ment the jews. According to the British Israelites and CI's, the TRUE Israelites should have been in Britain for several hundreds of years by this time. I guess Jesus did not know this when he sent his spostles throught Judaea to reach the "lost sheep of israel". (
) It was in sysnagogs that they carried their message. Remeber too, that on the day of Penticost a large number of of the people from ALL parts of the Great Aryan Empire of Rome who were jews gathered for their religious holidays. The people who Peter preached to on the day of Penticost were the same people who cried "Crucify Him. His blood be on us and our children". Just read Peters declaration to them in Acts 2:22-24.
These same people that rejected Jewsus were the ones who Peter gave the message of repentance. Peter told these jews - who crucified Jewsus - that this'Christ" would return as their King if they wold "recieve him"(Acts 3:19-26)
If the Israelites were indeed in Britian at this time, then Jesus and Peter made the horrid mistakes in the message to these jews that rejected Jewsus as the "Christ".
It's all based on legends. One shoudl assume that a theory of this nature would be backed by historical prof. This is not the case though. Not at all. Some of these people - even some who post here on FNF! - think that some of the lost tribes made their way to Denmark and then to England. Then they say that another group from Dan followed Jeremiah to Ireland who brought with them the daughter of Zedekiah, the last king of judah. Her name was Tea Tephi. She supposedly fell in love with the king of Ireland and they got married. Then they claim that Queen Victoria is a direct descendant of these people and therefore the kingdom of Israel was transfered to England. There is NO evidence that Zedekiah's daughter went to Ireland. Hell, we have NO REASON AT ALL to even believe there was even a Tea Tephi. Ther are a few old poems and songs that mention somone named Tea,a nd also some of somone named Tephi, but this is only in Mythology and there is no real evidence to support this. If we are to believe these fables then we must agree that there were: a) flying fire breathing green scaled dragons, b) werewolfs, c) magic trolls, and last but not least - d) flying pigs. The CIs like to play games with words and tie these two seperate mythologies together to create their mythology of an anglo-israelite queen named Tea Tephi.
Its a well known fact that there is no reliable history intil a few centuries after Jewsus lived. No respectable scholar will for a monment take these ludicrous claims on the Anglo-Israelite theorizers. I wonder why the CI never make reference to the fact that Zedekiah was not even a rightful king of Judah. He was made the king by Nebuchadnezzer but he didnt have legal rights to the throne. He was the uncle of the last legal king Jehoiachin and his sons were the heir to the throne( 2 kings 24:17-18 and 1 Chron 3:17 and also Matt 1:11-12) Even if Zedekiah had surviving sons they would NOT have been legal heirs to the throne. Ezekiel even refers to Zedekiah as the "prince in Jerusalem" not the king.
Another retarded claim of teh CIs is that God cursed Jehoiachin (Jewr 22:24-30) and therefore the throne right is passed along to his uncle Zedekiah. This is not true though. Although the curse would make it so his literal seedline could not take the throne, Jewsus was not a physical descendant of Jehoiachin. In teh openeing chapter of Matthew, he was establishing the legal right to the throne of David. As the adopted son of Josphef the curse does not apply to him and also Zedekiah is not mentioned as the ancestor of Jewsus in the NT geneologies. It should insult anyone who actually believes in Abrahamic faith as their own that these people latch onto a mythical female descendant of a man who had no rights to the throse in the first place.
Another ethod used by CIs and BI's is childish plays on word sounds. Because the Hebrew word "berith" means 'covenant" and the Hewbrew word "ish" means "man", they conclude that British" means "men of covenant". The dont seemed too impressed by the fact that philologists are UNAMIMOUS in declairing that there is NO connection between the kyke hebrew and the noble Anglo-Saxon tongue. (NONE, regardless of any threads on FNF! that you may have read stating otherwise.)
I just researched Dr. Lawrence Duff-Forbes about this(http://www.amazon.com/baleful-bubble-British-Israelism-Lawrence-Duff-Forbes/dp/B0007FVONA) and I suggest that all CI's read his work with an open mind. Here is what he has to say about it all(NOTE: I could not find it online, so you better thank me for typing this out of a book!):
The whole concept of CI rests on the notion that the Ten Tribes were lost. If this is proved to be not true, then everything else the advocates of Christian Identity may say is of no avail to prove their cases.
The fact of the matter is that the ten tribes were never lost and the term "ten tribes" as applied to the ten tribes of Israel is a misnomer. It may sound wonderfully mysterious to talk about lost tribes, and the idea that they are members of Gods chosen race is very exciting to many, hence the popularity in the WN/Racialist movement.
To prove that the ten tribes were never lost you must look at history, not the Bible. I won't use mythological stories and legends as a source of infomation as the CI adhearents do, other than the bible.
Most who have an understanding of the bible know that under Saul, David and Solomon Israel existed as twelve tribes, with Levy being the 13th but having no spereate inheritance, and two of the tribes came from Jospheph through his sons Ephraim and Manasseh.
The kindoms split under the rule of Solomons son Rehoboam. The ten northern tribes followed his leadership as he set himself up as the king of Tirzah(as we can read in "1 Kings 14:17) Under Omri, the sixth king of the Northern tribes, the kingdom was re-located in Samaria. This kingdom lasted about 250 years under 19 wicked kings and 9 families.
These northern tribes endulged in idol worship throught this entire period of time and not one of their kings was a godly man. The two southern tribes retained the descendants of David as their king and after the other tribes were enslaved they had 3 revivals of their religion and had 150 years of freedom after the other 10 tribes were stolen. Any real study of these kingdoms clearly shows that Judah and NOT Israel was the channel that Jewhova chose to preserve his "truth"(wow, it was painful calling this 'truth').
THe CI theory rest upon the idea that these 2 kingdoms were seperate and existed as completely seperate nations and have very seperate destinies. It doesn't account for any mixture of the peoples, nor the possibility that all the 12 tribes finally emerged into one ethnic and religious group. The 'facts' as recorded in the bible clearly state that there was constant interacion between the people from these 2 kingdoms and that after captivity they eventually lost their tribal identity and finally were known as Jews.
Not all of the people in the ten tribes followed Jeroboam when he built his seperate kingdom. Some of these people united with Benjamin and Judah and it is clearly indicated in 1 Kings 12:21-24.
The "remnant of the people" could be none others than the 10 tribes who chose to say with Rehoboam and teh kingdom of Judah. It is clear that the southern kingdom actually represented the people from all the tribes.
Eventually, the entire tribe of Levy joined the south along with a large number of people from the 10 tribes who decided to come back. If you read 2 Chron 11:14-17 you see that once again there is a gathering of the people from all the tribes in the southern kingdom.
Not long after that, under the rule of King Asa, there was a religious revival of sorts with blessings from God in Judah when a great number of the northern people joined in the south with their racial kinsmen. Then in 2 Chron 15:9 we read that a great number of of the ten tribes joined with Asa and his people. It is more than obvious that the kingdom of Judah did not only represent the people form the two tribes but also from the rest of Israel as well.
Then gain under Hezekia we can see that the people who 'rejoiced' together in the worship of God included the remnants of teh ten tribes(2 Chron 30:25-26). According to this, it is clear that God favored Judah and it was form this kingdom that the majority of the godly people from the ten tribes identified theselves with. It was blessed by David, the temple of Solomon and some 'godly' kings that ruled and led durring these reliious revivals. This means that the norht was qwiouth a king of Gods choice and without a temple that god has designed.
Its clear that Jewhova recognized the kings of judah as the kings of his ENTIRE chosen race/nation. he never intended that the ten tribes should even continue to exist as seperate kingdoms and he spoke of the day when the two kingdoms would unite into one with Jewrusalem as the center of worship. In Chron 2 21:1-2 you can see that Jehoshaphat who is the 4th king of the southern tribes is called the KING OF ISRAEL. In 2 Chron 28:19 Ahaz, who is the 11th ruler of Judah is called the KING OF ISRAEL. According to the bible, god considered these descendants of David as the rulers of his ENTIRE 12 tribes. I guess god didn't recognize the distinction between Israel and Judah that the Anglo-Isralite theorists insist is an absolute necessity.
That is not where the merging of the tribes ends though. In 721 BC, after the kingdoms were taken into captivity, they were defeated by teh Assyrians and a number of them were taken captive. The OT doesnt tell us how many were deported from the land, but an inscription by Sargon, the ruler who succeeded Shalmaneser says...and I quote:
"I besieged the City of Samaria and took it. I carried off 27, 280 of the citizens; I chose 50 chariots for myself from the whole number taken; all the other property of the people of the town I left for my servents to take. I appointed resident officers over them, and imposed on them the same tribute as had formerly been paid. In the place fo those taken into capitivity I sent thither inhabitants of lands conquered by me, and imposed the tribute on them which I required from Assyrians."
It's possible that some of other deportions took place but this text indicates that the large majority of these people were left in their own lands with Assyrian aapointed leaders to rule over them. These citizens of the ten tribes were the majority of the population and placed themselves under the rule of Judah. This is clearly pointed out by the fact about 100 years after Assyria handed them an ass kickin' and deported some fo the people a large number of the people joined in the religiou festivals durring the revival under Josia, the KING OF JUDAH, as seen in 2 Chron 34:9 and 2 Chron 35:17-18.
This means that most of the people were NOT displaced by Assyria and in fact stayed in their own lands and many joined with the king of Judah. Even afetr the ten tribes were taken into captivity, in a very real sense, the process of amalgamation(sp?) between the two people of Judah and Israel continued.
Another mistake the CI's make in their effort to 'lose' the ten tribes is the fact that Assyria and Babylon became one empire. Less than 50 years later the two kingsdoms were under the same rule. Therfore when Babylon started to transport captives out of Judah they were moving them to a place where people rom the 10 tribes were living. Its easy to prove this. 2 Kings 17:6 tells us where they were the Israelites were taken, in about 721 BC. When Ezekial was carried away to Babylon in about 590 BC, just befoer Judah was completely defeated 4 years later, he and the other exiiles from Judah lived in this area. Its here that the Assyrian and Babylonian captives gradually merged into one people.
Years later when the remnant returned from captivity to the lands of Palestine, Ezra DEFINITLY recognized the Jews as representing all of the tribes of Israel. This is clearly shown in Ezra 6:17, which I'll quote:
"And he offered at the dedication...twelve he-goats, according to the number of the tribes of Israel".
When Alexander the Great was leading, many of the Jews settled in Palestine and had great freedoms. Other jews were establishing colonies through the world by this time. Everywhere - Asia Minor and the coastal regions of the Agean, souther europe, egypt, northern africa india and china all knew the presence of the jewish menace. There was jew synagogs everywhere but at the great feast celebrations(you know, holidays) Jewrusalem was their center of worshop and millions would come to the city to pay respect to their tribal god of insanity, murder, mayhem and evil(AKA Jewhova) and anyone who was connected with Moses and still looked to Jewrusalem as the Holiest City were considered Jews.
The ten tribes were never lost and James recognized this in teh NT when he write his epistle to the Jewish believers of his day. He recognized them as athe twelve tribes and used the term "twelve tribes" when addressing them(James 1:1). In this day when anti-semitism was common, remember that EVERY one of Jesus apostles who Jesus himself allegedly chose was loyal to the religion of Jewrusalem. Jewsus himself practiced the rituals of this Jewish faith. When he sent his desciple to the lost 'sheep' of the house of Israel, he obviously ment the jews. According to the British Israelites and CI's, the TRUE Israelites should have been in Britain for several hundreds of years by this time. I guess Jesus did not know this when he sent his spostles throught Judaea to reach the "lost sheep of israel". (
) It was in sysnagogs that they carried their message. Remeber too, that on the day of Penticost a large number of of the people from ALL parts of the Great Aryan Empire of Rome who were jews gathered for their religious holidays. The people who Peter preached to on the day of Penticost were the same people who cried "Crucify Him. His blood be on us and our children". Just read Peters declaration to them in Acts 2:22-24.These same people that rejected Jewsus were the ones who Peter gave the message of repentance. Peter told these jews - who crucified Jewsus - that this'Christ" would return as their King if they wold "recieve him"(Acts 3:19-26)
If the Israelites were indeed in Britian at this time, then Jesus and Peter made the horrid mistakes in the message to these jews that rejected Jewsus as the "Christ".
It's all based on legends. One shoudl assume that a theory of this nature would be backed by historical prof. This is not the case though. Not at all. Some of these people - even some who post here on FNF! - think that some of the lost tribes made their way to Denmark and then to England. Then they say that another group from Dan followed Jeremiah to Ireland who brought with them the daughter of Zedekiah, the last king of judah. Her name was Tea Tephi. She supposedly fell in love with the king of Ireland and they got married. Then they claim that Queen Victoria is a direct descendant of these people and therefore the kingdom of Israel was transfered to England. There is NO evidence that Zedekiah's daughter went to Ireland. Hell, we have NO REASON AT ALL to even believe there was even a Tea Tephi. Ther are a few old poems and songs that mention somone named Tea,a nd also some of somone named Tephi, but this is only in Mythology and there is no real evidence to support this. If we are to believe these fables then we must agree that there were: a) flying fire breathing green scaled dragons, b) werewolfs, c) magic trolls, and last but not least - d) flying pigs. The CIs like to play games with words and tie these two seperate mythologies together to create their mythology of an anglo-israelite queen named Tea Tephi.
Its a well known fact that there is no reliable history intil a few centuries after Jewsus lived. No respectable scholar will for a monment take these ludicrous claims on the Anglo-Israelite theorizers. I wonder why the CI never make reference to the fact that Zedekiah was not even a rightful king of Judah. He was made the king by Nebuchadnezzer but he didnt have legal rights to the throne. He was the uncle of the last legal king Jehoiachin and his sons were the heir to the throne( 2 kings 24:17-18 and 1 Chron 3:17 and also Matt 1:11-12) Even if Zedekiah had surviving sons they would NOT have been legal heirs to the throne. Ezekiel even refers to Zedekiah as the "prince in Jerusalem" not the king.
Another retarded claim of teh CIs is that God cursed Jehoiachin (Jewr 22:24-30) and therefore the throne right is passed along to his uncle Zedekiah. This is not true though. Although the curse would make it so his literal seedline could not take the throne, Jewsus was not a physical descendant of Jehoiachin. In teh openeing chapter of Matthew, he was establishing the legal right to the throne of David. As the adopted son of Josphef the curse does not apply to him and also Zedekiah is not mentioned as the ancestor of Jewsus in the NT geneologies. It should insult anyone who actually believes in Abrahamic faith as their own that these people latch onto a mythical female descendant of a man who had no rights to the throse in the first place.
Another ethod used by CIs and BI's is childish plays on word sounds. Because the Hebrew word "berith" means 'covenant" and the Hewbrew word "ish" means "man", they conclude that British" means "men of covenant". The dont seemed too impressed by the fact that philologists are UNAMIMOUS in declairing that there is NO connection between the kyke hebrew and the noble Anglo-Saxon tongue. (NONE, regardless of any threads on FNF! that you may have read stating otherwise.)
I just researched Dr. Lawrence Duff-Forbes about this(http://www.amazon.com/baleful-bubble-British-Israelism-Lawrence-Duff-Forbes/dp/B0007FVONA) and I suggest that all CI's read his work with an open mind. Here is what he has to say about it all(NOTE: I could not find it online, so you better thank me for typing this out of a book!):
Quote"But Hold! There us a fly in the ointment! Since the word 'covenant" posesses no adjectival force in Hewbrew, the two nouns are in what is known as the construct state. So placed, the meaning would be "a man of the covenant," but even for this concept it shoudl rather be "Ish HaBrith". Thus, to get even remotely near this philological monstrosity we should require to reserve the order of the words.
The B/I (British Israel) balderdash based on "Brit-ish," if it proves anything it proves too much. For what of the word "BRITAIN"? Permitting me a similar use of assonance, may I remark that "Ain" in Hebrew is a particle of negotion, meaning "NOT" or "WITHOUT> It is so tranlasted in Hosea 3:4, "AIN MELECK," "without a king," etc. Thus, if "BRIT-ISH" is 'covenant-man," then "BRIT-AIN" is "without a covenant!".....
....British Israelites do considerable violence to philology generally. They weave a fanciful tale that "Isaac's sons" is really the basis of the word "SAXONS." The full humor of this can only be appreciated by a Hebrew scholar!" If it is really legitiment to thus ride from one nationality to another by saddling an assonance, could we not equally prove that the inhabitants of Hamburg were mountaineers of negro origin violating the Jewish dietary laws? Again warning against the vagaries of B/I, Professor (H.U) Parker (of McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario :) ) declares: "as a matter fo fact there are hardly more than two dozen words, exclusive of Bible names, in the English vocabulary which can be traced to Hebrew roots...Nearly every one of the "Hebrew" words we do have come to us via Greeks, and might more reasonably be credited to Pheonician than to Hebrew."
I could give many examples of this pseudo-scholarship among British-Israeli followers but just one more should do the trick. To follow the movements of the Tribe Of Dan and to prove that it was one of those among the settlers of ireland, they point to the many instances that a 'din', 'dun' or 'don' is part of the name or territory, city or river they supposedly passed through or settled. A few mentioned names I've seen were Macedonia, Dardanelles, Danube, Denmark, Dunbar, London etc. Likewise, when using this is non-logical approach one could asl make claims that the tribe of Dan went to Africa where there are names like the Danakil and Dinka, where there are the Donalists(a christian cult) also it is where one can find Dondo and Denkera. Any person with a good imagination can present a convincing case based on this non-logic, as the Anglo-Iiraelites do with "Dan".
Great Britian and the USA/Canada can NOT be Ephraim like many CI/BI's claim. We can read that Jacob and his sons were in te line of Shem. The mates they chose were of the line of Ham(maning they were negros). Joseph, by marrying a Hamitic girl produced offspring that was semitic-hamitic, even. if the Tarshish of Ezekeil 38 is Britain as the CI's claim, then it's people must be Johpetic. Genosis 10:4 makes it very clear that Tarshish is a descendant of Japheth, making it impossible for Britains to be Ephraimites. Also, it's a joke and an insult on our intelligence to assume that the USA is Manasseh because that wold mean he people who left England walked onto a ship Ephramites and came off of it as Menassehites. I wonder if the sea and open air had a strange potency to make this transformation ( :) ).
The jews living upon this earth are the mythical Israelites, and there is nothing you can say to change that.
Thank you for reading,
The Ontaryan
Great Britian and the USA/Canada can NOT be Ephraim like many CI/BI's claim. We can read that Jacob and his sons were in te line of Shem. The mates they chose were of the line of Ham(maning they were negros). Joseph, by marrying a Hamitic girl produced offspring that was semitic-hamitic, even. if the Tarshish of Ezekeil 38 is Britain as the CI's claim, then it's people must be Johpetic. Genosis 10:4 makes it very clear that Tarshish is a descendant of Japheth, making it impossible for Britains to be Ephraimites. Also, it's a joke and an insult on our intelligence to assume that the USA is Manasseh because that wold mean he people who left England walked onto a ship Ephramites and came off of it as Menassehites. I wonder if the sea and open air had a strange potency to make this transformation ( :) ).
The jews living upon this earth are the mythical Israelites, and there is nothing you can say to change that.
Thank you for reading,
The Ontaryan
No comments:
Post a Comment