am i isreal or judah?

[Guest]

Damon,

I now stand corrected. "I'm not being condescending. I'm extremely well-studied..." is a statement pregnant with irony. Please, ahem, forgive me (chuckle).

a1

[Guest]

If you think you have all the answers, fine, but being arrogant about it is one sure-fire way to make sure people don't listen to you.

If you won't hear the Word of God...

It has nothing to do with not hearing the word of God. It has to do with you being deliberately offensive. (Mat. 18:7)

Damien, huh? I can see that you have no interest in continuing a reasonable discussion. I'm big enough to see when I've sinned against someone, but something tells me you won't ever apologize to me for that remark.

Oh, are Damon and Damien not derivatives of the same root word meaning "to tame"? Why are you so upset? Didn't you use the same argumentation about David being a descendant of Ephraim!!!

"Damon" means "the constant one". It comes from the Greek legend of Damon and Pythias. Damon was reknowned for being incredibly loyal, a "constant" friend.

In any case, don't try to lie to me. You called me "Damien" on account of the series of horror movies where the character "Damien" was Satanic, didn't you?

Why would I ever listen to you when you treat me like that??

Nope, you're the one who's misunderstanding it, sorry. The "last days" didn't begin until Jesus' ministry. (Heb. 1:1-2 et. al)

Look! We agree on something. The last days BEGAN with Jesus' ministry. They ENDED with the destruction of the last vestiges of the Old Covenant with it's temple, sacrifices, priestly caste, etc.

That's an assumption, nowhere proven in the Scriptures.

The "last days" is a reference to Creation symbolism, as follows:

--Creation--
1000 years - day 1
1000 years - day 2
1000 years - day 3 (Temple built)
1000 years - day 4 (Jesus comes at end)
1000 years - day 5 (beginning of the two "last days")
1000 years - day 6 (second of the two "last days")
1000 years - Sabbath rest/Millenium

The "last days" are the last two thousand years of the millenial week, before the Sabbath.

Damon

[Guest]

Damon,

I now stand corrected. "I'm not being condescending. I'm extremely well-studied..." is a statement pregnant with irony. Please, ahem, forgive me (chuckle).

Steve Gregg is likewise well-studied. Would you treat him that way? If not, then doesn't that make you a respecter of persons?

Unless you have something edifying to say, then go away.

Damon

[Guest]

Oh, are Damon and Damien not derivatives of the same root word meaning "to tame"? Why are you so upset? Didn't you use the same argumentation about David being a descendant of Ephraim!!!

"Damon" means "the constant one". It comes from the Greek legend of Damon and Pythias. Damon was reknowned for being incredibly loyal, a "constant" friend.

In any case, don't try to lie to me. You called me "Damien" on account of the series of horror movies where the character "Damien" was Satanic, didn't you? Why would I ever listen to you when you treat me like that??

Your last statement is a red herring. If you won't listen to the clear teaching of the New Covenant, then you wouldn't listen to me anyway.

Whether I had the movie in mind or not is irrelevant. The point that I was trying to make was that just because words are derived from the same root doesn't make them synonomous with each other - like Ephrathite and Ephraimite or Damon and Damien. You're the one who brought up the movie. Both are equally legitimate names derived from a Greek myth. It's just that the later has a bad CONNOTATION based upon a modern movie. It doesn't mean that anyone who currently has or has ever had that name is demonic.

The last days BEGAN with Jesus' ministry. They ENDED with the destruction of the last vestiges of the Old Covenant with it's temple, sacrifices, priestly caste, etc.

That's an assumption, nowhere proven in the Scriptures.

What's an assumption? That the Old Covenant ended, that the temple was destroyed along with the ability to perform legitimate sacrifices, or that the priestly caste is no more? Or do you just deny that it was the "last days" for Israel as the people of God? If that's the case, then what WOULD you call all that?

The "last days" is a reference to Creation symbolism, as follows:

--Creation--
1000 years - day 1
1000 years - day 2
1000 years - day 3 (Temple built)
1000 years - day 4 (Jesus comes at end)
1000 years - day 5 (beginning of the two "last days")
1000 years - day 6 (second of the two "last days")
1000 years - Sabbath rest/Millenium

The "last days" are the last two thousand years of the millenial week, before the Sabbath.

To which I would like to quote what

That's an assumption, nowhere proven in the Scriptures.

And where is this "last days/Creation symbolism" laid out in Scripture?

I've got some figures for you to consider too. They're not in the Bible, but they're pretty much generally accepted the world over. Here they are:

Each person has 2 parents (whether they survive or raise them is irrelevant; biologically each person MUST have 2 parents). So starting with you as the first generation, the second generation would have 2 (your father and your mother). The third generation would be double that - i.e. 4 (your paternal grandparents and your maternal grandparents). The next generations also double, so the fourth generation would have 8 great-grandparents (each paternal grandparent has 2 parents - 2x2=4; and each maternal grandparent has 2 parents - 2x2=4; 4+4=8 ). See how that works? Let me just do the math and show you that way.

1st generation = 1 person
2nd generation = 2 people (your mother and father)
3rd generation = 4 people (your grandparents - living or not they contributed to the gene pool)
4th generation = 8 people (your great-grandparents)
5h generation = 16 people (your great-great-grandparents; getting the picture?)
6th generation = 32 people (appx 200 yrs)
7th generation = 64 people
8th generation = 128 people
9th generation = 256 people (appx 320 yrs; most Americans can get back at least this far with federal or state census and tax records)
10th generation = 512 people
11th generation = 1,024 people
12th generation = 2,048 people
13th generation = 4,096 people (appx 480 yrs or A.D. 1524)
14th generation = 8,192 people
15th generation = 16,384 people
16th generation = 32,768 people
17th generation = 65,536 people
18th generation = 131,072 people
19th generation = 262,144 people
20th generation = 524,288 people
21st generation = 1,048,576 people (appx 800 yrs or c.1204)
22nd generation = 2,097,152 people
23rd generation = 4,194,304 people
24th generation = 8,388,608 people
25th generation = 16,777,216 people
26th generation = 33,554,432 people (or appx 1,000 yrs! Thats 33 million ancestors)
32nd generation = 4,294,967,296 people (4 Billion Ancestors in appx 1280 yrs; still 10 generations short of the length of Jesus' recorded genealogy! - see Matt 1:17)

35th generation = 34,359,738,368 people (or appx 1400 yrs)

Now 35 generations or 1400 yrs ago only gets us back to A.D. 604. These modern Jews who are clinging to a shred of infererence and assumption that they are the direct descendants of Abraham still need at least another 1900 yrs to go! (I'll let you do the math...) But suffice it to say, a mere 70 years in Babylon was too much for most. And that was only the Levites that had remained WITH the 2 southern tribes. (And just begin reading at Mal 1:6 if you think those priests were something to write home to momma about...) Those who had earlier abandoned the covenant and thrown in their lot with the 10 northern tribes were lost to history much earlier...

Here's a chart that might help you visualize all that.

Now perhaps you'll get some idea of the enormity of the problem. I doubt it, but miracles have been know to happen.

[Guest]

In any case, don't try to lie to me. You called me "Damien" on account of the series of horror movies where the character "Damien" was Satanic, didn't you? Why would I ever listen to you when you treat me like that??

...It's just that the later has a bad CONNOTATION based upon a modern movie. It doesn't mean that anyone who currently has or has ever had that name is demonic.

I believe that's exactly what you intended.

I'm not going to answer you any more. Not only are you being deliberately offensive, you're also expecting me to listen to you and read your citations when you constantly and consistently blow me off.

For your information, when the empire of Parthia broke up, history records that we suddenly had a huge flood of people crossing the Caucasus mountains. History calls them "the Caucasians."

They, by and large, are the people that Josephus had labeled the "ten tribes."

Done. Fini.

Damon

[Guest]

Damon,

I'll pray that your insecurity issues are resolved, oh martyr of the messge boards. Was that edifying? Good grief.

a1

[Guest]

Damon,

I'll pray that your insecurity issues are resolved, oh martyr of the messge boards. Was that edifying? Good grief.

A1, is it okay to mock someone else?

Well, well, well. It looks like I've succumbed to the bait. I thought you were asking a question for the sake of gaining answers, and you were just baiting a trap to rant and rave about your own point of view. Well, two can play that game, but ultimately I'll have to leave you and your delusions to the Lord.

Is it okay to accuse them of something without knowing the full story?

You have the authoritative guarantee of the apostles who said that the prophecy of Amos 9 is fulfilled in the gentiles coming to faith in Christ in Acts 15:15-17 and yet you reject the Word of God in order to keep your own traditions.

Am I supposed to think that someone who's AT LEAST TWICE acted in a totally unChristian manner is suddenly going to JUST have a dichotomy of Ephratah versus Ephraim in mind when he called me Damien?

I'm sorry, I'm just not that gullible. You can be gullible if you want. The context of his comment wasn't Ephratah versus Ephraim. It was what I said about the Urim and Thummim, which in no way related to that. Am I to believe that that's what he had in mind when that wasn't the context? Sorry, I ain't buying it!

Veritas owes me a deep apology, something he'll never do because he doesn't see it as important. You do too, but I don't think you'll apologize either, for the same reason. As a person, I mean nothing to you. Neither one of you has any Christian love for me whatsoever.

A1, since it's okay for you to mock me when I said I was well-studied, should I suggest that you don't have the computer knowhow to get a real name on this forum? Would that be okay?

Judge not, lest you be judged. Condemn not, lest you be condemned in exactly the same way. Apologize now for sinning against me, and put behind us this BS. I don't like arguing and I'd much rather be friends, but I'm not going to stand for being treated in an unChristian way and for that to be just "okay."

Damon

[Guest]

For your information, when the empire of Parthia broke up, history records that we suddenly had a huge flood of people crossing the Caucasus mountains. History calls them "the Caucasians."

They, by and large, are the people that Josephus had labeled the "ten tribes."

On government forms caucasian=white. Does this mean that all white people originated in the Caucasas Mtns and therefore must be the ten lost tribes of Israel and therefore white=Israel?

I've researched my family tree going back a 1,000 yrs on some lines and I don't have any ancestors who came from the Russian steppes and yet I'm lily white.

If you're positing that the majority of modern Jews might be descended from the Khazars, then I might agree - but the Khazars were NOT ethnically related to Israel!

It sounds like what you're advocating is the Anglo-Israelism heresy. In which case you should read The Origins of the British-Israelites by O. Michael Friedman who refers to himself in the book as a "Hebrew-Christian".

I'm not going to answer you any more. Not only are you being deliberately offensive, you're also expecting me to listen to you and read your citations when you constantly and consistently blow me off.

I'm not offended by you, just nonplussed, and I'd just as soon you left too. I haven't seen you say anything which I would consider Biblical except for the comment about the Canaanite woman. You've wasted a whole lot of space talking about nothing of any value when at least Psalmist may have had something worthwhile to contribute...

Adios, Damon

[Guest]

I'm not offended by you, just nonplussed, and I'd just as soon you left too.

Thank you for proving my point. No Christian love for me whatsoever.

I haven't seen you say anything which I would consider Biblical except for the comment about the Canaanite woman. You've wasted a whole lot of space talking about nothing of any value when at least Psalmist may have had something worthwhile to contribute...

You wouldn't know whether it was biblical or not. You came in at the tail end of a conversation and didn't bother looking into what had come before. I personally doubt that either you or Psalmist could even follow the logic concerning what I wrote about Ephrath, so instead you blew it off and considered it "unbiblical."

For the record, people of faith tend to have very strong, passionate feelings about what they believe. In order to not offend one another, it's usually wise to refrain from denigrating those beliefs without a very good reason. You've shown yourself to be extremely unwise in this regard.

I'm already well aware of the studies that have been done both in favor of and against "British Israelism" as you put it. You've assumed that I was simply not smart enough to have looked into this very deeply, or not smart enough to be "convinced" by the evidence. Sorry, but I've done a lot more studying into issues like this one than you can possibly conceive of, and I'm still not convinced.

By the way, I come from a background of not believing in a literal Third Temple being built in Jerusalem. But, I changed my belief about the Third Temple because of what I've studied and come to understand. I don't expect everyone to agree with me on issues like this one and on what I've posted in this thread, but I do expect them not to treat me like a nigger because I believe differently and because I'm not convinced by the evidence that they present.

You, sir, have treated me with nothing but contempt. You might think yourself Christian, but I see you as nothing more than a hypocrite who can't even see that what he has done is wrong.

Damon

[Guest]

I'm not offended by you, just nonplussed, and I'd just as soon you left too.

Thank you for proving my point. No Christian love for me whatsoever.

I love my little sister, but sometimes I wish she would just leave too...

But I suppose all of the comments that you've made throughout this thread are stirling examples of Christian charity?

And Christian charity doesn't mean that I can't call nonsense what it is or that I have to give it the same weight as truth. Solomon says that when a fool speaks to answer that fool according to his folly.

Damon, no one can follow anything that you're saying. You don't explain yourself or answer anything straightforwardly. Like your last missive. Do you hold to British-Israelism or not?

And as for that racial slur, that DID offend me. Stuff like that should NEVER come out of the mouth of a professed Christian.

BTW, I thought you were leaving: "Bye. Done. Fini."