The lost tribes of Israel

[smokydot]

Great! If indeed you find the NT clear, holy, powerful and true, try to break down the following for me. I'll be grateful.Were There Two Different Jesuses?
When Luke wrote Acts of the Apostles to Theophilus, he guaranteed him that he had dealt with ALL that Jesus began to do and teach did and taught until the end of his life on earth.(Acts 1:1,2) If Luke is someone worthy believing, there must be something wrong with Matthew.
1. I am not talking about the huge difference in the genealogy of Jesus.(Mat. 1:1-17)
2. I am not talking about the anxiety of Mary to explain her pregnancy without having yet slept with Joseph.(Mat. 1:18-25)
3. I am not talking about the Astrologers from the East who came to worship the newborn King of the Jews.(Mat. 2:1,2)
4. I am not talking about the star that stood still over the place where the child was.(Mat. 2:9-11)
5. I am not talking about the flight with the child to Egypt.(Mat. 2:13-15)
6. I am not talking about the slaughering of the innocent under the age of two with the Herodian intent to catch Jesus.(Mat. 2:16-18)
7. And I am not talking about a lot of other things that Luke ignores in his accurate account of EVERYTHING about Jesus to Theophilus.
Here's what I am talking about: While the Jesus of Matthew was still in Egypt waiting for Herod to die, the Jesus of Luke was born, after 8 days, circumcised, and on the 33rd day he was presented in the Temple; and immediately after these requirements of the Law, the family headed back to Galilee, and their own town of Nazareth.(Luke 2:21,22,39)
Now, bear in mind , that Jesus was only 33 days old when they headed back home to Nazareth. In the meantime, the Jesus of Matthew was still trapped in Egypt waiting for the word of the "angel" with the news that Herod had finally died.
Perhaps in order to spare the embarrassment, the age of this Jesus is omitted.
Therefore, how many Jesuses were there? If there was but one, either gospel writer is lying or neither ever met each other. But how about the spirit that inspired the revelation?
I think Christianity will be better off if we don't remove that stone. The smell will be too strong.
Ben

Good grief! . .think you can load it up with more opprobrium? . .just reconcile the two accounts, for cryin' out loud!

Depart from Nazareth to Bethlehem - Lk 2:4,
Birth of Jesus in Bethlehem -- Lk 2:7, Mt 2:1,
Fulfillment of purification laws -- Lk 2:39,
Return to Nazareth in Galilee -- Lk 2:39,
Magi finally arrive at their house in Nazareth -- Mt 2:11,
Joseph flees to Egypt -- Mt 2:13-14,
Jospeh returns to Nazareth in Galilee after death of Herod -- Mt 2:15, 19-23.

Also my edit in your post above shows your wrong assertion about Luke and "everything."

And if you object to anti-Semitism. . .you are practicing some real anti-Christianism here!

 

[smokydot]

Only you can do that.
It seems to me that if you were to modify, change, or disregard any number of unsubstantiated dogmas that your faith would be severely shaken.
Examples:
1) Forgo infalliability and inerrancy of Scripture
2) Approach the Bible as literature

Meaning that it is just literature, and not revelation? The testimony of Scripture is contrary to such a low view.

3) Abandon the heresy that the Bible is the Word of God

You are in major disagreement with Jesus on that one.
It's time to take another look at Jesus' view of Scripture (Bible).

(1) But first, regarding my faith being shaken, the power of an Authority much higher than your "scholars," so called,
causes me to believe that all Scripture is the Word of God written.
That power is the cause of my faith, and it will take more than your exceedingly "low" (as in the tank) view of Scripture to overcome it.

(2) The testimony of Scripture is contrary to your ignorant falsehood:
"All Scripture is God-breathed (theo pnuestos)."--2 Tim 3:16
It comes from the very breath of God, who is the Holy Spirit.
The testimony of Scripture is that the Holy Spirit is the author of all Scripture.

(3) I share the "heresy" with Jesus, who calls Scripture "the word of God" when he categorically rejects the Jewish practice of misusing the Scriptures (Nu 30:1-2)
to render the word of God contradictory:
"Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition."--Mt 15:6

As in Court, a printed deposition signed by Jane Dornob is the lawful "word of Jane Dornob, written," and is sworn testimony subject to liability of perjury,
so then the printed Scriptures are the "word of God, written."

You are so in major disagreement with Jesus on this one, because he believed the OT was the "word of God" in every detail:
(a) he believed that every jot and tittle of Scripture was the very truth of God, vested with the authority of God and backed by the power of God (Mt 5:17-19);
(b) to emphasize that the OT was the wholly trustworthy, reliable and true word of God, he used his regular formula for solemn assertion--"Truly, truly I say to you"--when he stated "until heaven and earth disappear, not one tittle will by any means disappear from Scripture--called "the Law" (Mt 5:18; Lk 16:17);
(c) he treated arguments from Scripture as having clinching force. When he said, "It is written," that was final. There was no appeal against Scripture,
for "the Scripture cannot be broken." (Mt4:4, 7, 10; Jn 10:35) God's word holds good forever.
(d) He constantly scolded the Jews for their ignorance and neglect of Scriptures: "Are you not in error because you do not know the Scriptures?" "Have you not read. . .?" "Go and learn what this means. . ." (Mk 12:24, Mt 12:3, 5, 19:4, 21:16, 42, 9:13)

And that's not all. . .Jesus himself submitted to the OT as the word of God.
(e) he lived a life of obedience to Scripture (Lk 4:17-21, Mt 8:16-17, 11:2-5), and then
(f) he died in obedience to Scripture (Lk 18:31; Mk 8:31, 9:31, 10:33-34; Mt 26:24; Lk 22:37; Mt 26:53-54, 55-56).
(g) When he rose, he explained who he was by the Scriptures (Lk 24:44-47, 25).
(h) He presented himself to the Jews as the fulfiller of Scripture (Jn 5:39-40, 46-47).
(i) In asserting to the Jews that the OT bore divine authoritative witness to him, Jesus thereby bore divine authoritative witness to the OT.

Belief in the authority and truth of the OT was the foundation of Jesus' whole ministry.

And that included the historical accounts. Jesus confirmed the truth and accuracy of:
1) Sodom and Gomorrah (Mt 15:15),
2) Jonah and the whale (Mt 12:39-40),
3) creation acccount as God's words (Mt 19:4-6--"Creator said"),
4) murder of Abel (Mt 23:35),
5) Noah and the flood (Mt 24:37-39)
6) burning bush (Mk 12:26),
7) Elijah and the miraculous provision for the widow (Lk 4:25-26),
8) Elisha and the miraculous healing of Naaman, the Syrian army commander who was a leper (Lk 4:27),
9) Lot's wife turned into pillar of salt (Lk 17:31-33),
10) plague of snakes and brazen serpent (Jn 3:14),
11) manna from heaven in the desert for 40 years (Jn 6:31, 49).

4) Recognize that the Bible is an arbitrary collection of writings and not a whole

The lie is given to that here: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2284375-post873.html

Is Jesus not the seed of the woman in Lk 1:31, 34, promised in Gen 3:15?
Is Jesus not the perfect High Priest of Heb 7:24-28, 9:11, typified in Lev 21:10, 21-23?
Is Jesus not the once-for-all sacrifice of Heb 7:27, 9:28, 10:12, typified in Lev 3:1-5?
Is Jesus not the mediator of the new covenant of Heb 8:6-13, 9:15 in Gal 3:19, and typified in Ex 20:19; Deut 5:5?
Is Jesus not the "prophet who was to come" of Jn 6:14, 7:40; Ac 3:22-23, 7:37, promised and typified by Moses in Deut 18:15?

These are very tight links binding and uniting the Bible into a whole.

5) Study church history and recognize that the fathers had widely varying theologies

Which is no different today. . .heresies were as rife then as they are today.
However, theologies are not Scripture, nor are they the source of Scripture.
Therefore, they are totally irrelevant to this discussion of the Bible as the Word of God written.

 

[smokydot]

Great! If indeed you find the NT clear, holy, powerful and true, try to break down the following for me. I'll be grateful.Were There Two Different Jesuses?

No, there is only your "misunderstanding," to put it kindly, based on your flagrant "inaccuracy," putting it kindly again, regarding the text.

When Luke wrote Acts of the Apostles to Theophilus, he guaranteed him that he had dealt with ALL that Jesus did and taught until the end of his life on earth.(Acts 1:1,2) If Luke is someone worthy believing, there must be something wrong with Matthew.

Luke said, "I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and teach. . ."
Translate: Jesus' ministry.

However, none of your seven examples below are either what Jesus did or what Jesus taught.

1. I am not talking about the huge difference in the genealogy of Jesus.(Mat. 1:1-17.

Some background:
Luke gives the genealogy of Mary through Nathan, son of King David, and Matthew gives the genealogy of Joseph through the line of King Solomon, son of King David.
Thus they establish both Jesus' blood line and his legal royal line from King David.

2. I am not talking about the anxiety of Mary to explain her pregnancy without having yet slept with Joseph.(Mat. 1:18-25)
3. I am not talking about the Astrologers from the East who came to worship the newborn King of the Jews.(Mat. 2:1,2)

Some background:
Daniel was made head over the wise men of Babylon (Dan 2:48). When he was restored to his position after surviving the den of lions, the new king issued "a decree
that in every part of the kingdom people must fear and reverence the God of Daniel (Dan 6:26)." Therefore, Daniel would have imparted knowledge of the Scriptures
to his charges, which knowledge would have been passed on down to the wise men who came to worship the newborn King of the Jews.

4. I am not talking about the star that stood still over the place where the child was. (Mat. 2:9-11)
5. I am not talking about the flight with the child to Egypt.(Mat. 2:13-15)
6. I am not talking about the slaughering of the innocent under the age of two with the Herodian intent to catch Jesus.(Mat. 2:16-18)
7. And I am not talking about a lot of other things that Luke ignores in his accurate account of EVERYTHING about Jesus to Theophilus.

Speaking of accuracy, Luke didn't say "EVERYTHING about Jesus," he said "about all that Jesus began to do and to teach. . ."
None of your examples involve what Jesus began to do and to teach.
They all relate to his infancy, rather than his ministry. . .so much for "accuracy."

Here's what I am talking about: While the Jesus of Matthew was still in Egypt waiting for Herod to die, the Jesus of Luke was born, after 8 days, circumcised, and on the 33rd day he was presented in the Temple; and immediately after these requirements of the Law, the family headed back to Galilee, and their own town of Nazareth.(Luke 2:21,22,39)
Now, bear in mind , that Jesus was only 33 days old when they headed back home to Nazareth. In the meantime, the Jesus of Matthew was still trapped in Egypt waiting for the word of the "angel" with the news that Herod had finally died. Perhaps in order to spare the embarrassment, the age of this Jesus is omitted.
Therefore, how many Jesuses were there? If there was but one, either gospel writer is lying or neither ever met each other. But how about the spirit that inspired the revelation?
I think Christianity will be better off if we don't remove that stone. The smell will be too strong.
Ben

As previously stated:
Do you think you could load it up with more opprobrium. . .particulary in light of your flagrant "inaccuracy" of the text regarding what Luke said he reported?
Your "uninformed" (putting it kindly) assertion of conflicting accounts, producing two different Jesuses,
which is based on your flagrant "inaccurate" reading of the text in Ac 1:1, seems less than honest to me.

Your crowning jewel of #7 above is shown to be counterfeit in the following reconciliation of the two accounts, Matthew and Luke.

Depart from Nazareth for Bethlehem -- Lk 2:4,
Birth of Jesus in Bethlehem -- Lk 2:7, Mt 2:1,
Fulfillment of purification laws -- Lk 2:39,
Return to Nazareth in Galilee -- Lk 2:39,
Magi finally arrive at their house in Nazareth -- Mt 2:11
Joseph flees to Egypt -- Mt 2:13-14,
Joseph returns to Nazareth in Galilee after death of Herod -- Mt 2:15, 19-23.

You said above that you would be grateful if I broke these down for you. . .so are you?

And your ridiculous assertions that
1) the Jesus of Luke was born, circumcised, presented at the Temple on the 33rd day, and returned to Nazareth, while the Jesus of Matthew was trapped in Egypt
waiting for Herod to die,
2) there were two Jesuses, or else
3) the gospel writers were either lying or never met each other,
4) the authorship of the Holy Spirit is impeached by your flagrant "inaccuracy," "misunderstanding" and failure to reconcile the accounts, and
5) Christianity would be better off not removing the stone because the smell would be too strong
are shown to be just that. . .ridiculous.

The only stink here is in your false assertions (shown above),
which are based on your flagrantly "inaccurate" reading of the text,
and your failure to reconcile the two accounts of Luke and Matthew.
Contrary to what is stink to you,

the sweet fragrance of eternal life is in the gospels
for those who believe in Jesus the Christ. (2 Cor 2:16).

 

[smokydot]

Ben Masada:

No comment to the post above (#83)?

 

[smokydot]

It seems to me that if you were to modify, change, or disregard any of a number of unsubstantiated dogmas that your faith would be severely shaken.
Examples:
1) Forgo infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture
2) Approach the Bible as literature

Meaning that it is just literature, and not revelation? The testimony of Scripture is contrary to such a low view.
You are in major disagreement with Jesus on that one.
It's time to take another look at Jesus' view of Scripture (Bible).

(1) But first, regarding my faith being shaken, the power of an Authority much higher than your "scholars," so called,
causes me to believe that all Scripture is the Word of God written.
That power is the cause of my faith, and it will take more than your exceedingly "low" (as in the tank) view of Scripture to overcome it.

(2) The testimony of Scripture is contrary to your ignorant falsehood:
"All Scripture is God-breathed (theo pnuestos)."--2 Tim 3:16
It comes from the very breath of God, who is the Holy Spirit.
The testimony of Scripture is that the Holy Spirit is the author of all Scripture.

(3) The "heretic" Jesus calls Scripture "the word of God" when he categorically rejects the Jewish practice of misusing the Scriptures (Nu 30:1-2)
to render the word of God contradictory:
"Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition."--Mt 15:6

As in Court, a printed deposition signed by Jane Dornob is the lawful "word of Jane Dornob, written," and is sworn testimony subject to liability of perjury,
so then, the printed Scriptures are the "word of God, written."

3) Abandon the heresy that the Bible is the Word of God

The "heretic" Jesus believed the OT was the "word of God" in every detail:
(a) he believed that every jot and tittle of Scripture was the very truth of God, vested with the authority of God and backed by the power of God (Mt 5:17-19);
(b) to emphasize that the OT was the wholly trustworthy, reliable and true word of God, he used his regular formula for solemn assertion--"Truly, truly I say to you"--when he stated "until heaven and earth disappear, not one tittle will by any means disappear from Scripture--called "the Law" (Mt 5:18; Lk 16:17);
(c) he treated arguments from Scripture as having clinching force. When he said, "It is written," that was final. There was no appeal against Scripture,
for "the Scripture cannot be broken." (Mt4:4, 7, 10; Jn 10:35) God's word holds good forever.
(d) He constantly scolded the Jews for their ignorance and neglect of Scriptures: "Are you not in error because you do not know the Scriptures?" "Have you not read. . .?" "Go and learn what this means. . ." (Mk 12:24, Mt 12:3, 5, 19:4, 21:16, 42, 9:13)

And that's not all. . .Jesus himself submitted to the OT as the word of God.
(e) he lived a life of obedience to Scripture (Lk 4:17-21, Mt 8:16-17, 11:2-5), and then
(f) he died in obedience to Scripture (Lk 18:31; Mk 8:31, 9:31, 10:33-34; Mt 26:24; Lk 22:37; Mt 26:53-54, 55-56).
(g) When he rose, he explained who he was by the Scriptures (Lk 24:44-47, 25).
(h) He presented himself to the Jews as the fulfiller of Scripture (Jn 5:39-40, 46-47).
(i) In asserting to the Jews that the OT bore divine authoritative witness to him, Jesus thereby bore divine authoritative witness to the OT.

Belief in the authority and truth of the OT was the foundation of Jesus' whole ministry.
(all of response to second quote, point 3), above taken from "Fundamentalism" and the Word of God, by J. I. Packer, M.A., D.Phil; Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.)

And that included the historical accounts. Jesus confirmed the truth and accuracy of:
1) Sodom and Gomorrah (Mt 15:15),
2) Jonah and the whale (Mt 12:39-40),
3) creation acccount as God's words (Mt 19:4-6--"Creator said"),
4) murder of Abel (Mt 23:35),
5) Noah and the flood (Mt 24:37-39)
6) burning bush (Mk 12:26),
7) Elijah and the miraculous provision for the widow (Lk 4:25-26),
8) Elisha and the miraculous healing of Naaman, the Syrian army commander who was a leper (Lk 4:27),
9) Lot's wife turned into pillar of salt (Lk 17:31-33),
10) plague of snakes and brazen serpent (Jn 3:14),
11) manna from heaven in the desert for 40 years (Jn 6:31, 49).

4) Recognize that the Bible is an arbitrary collection of writings and not a whole

The lie is given to that here: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2299585-post1071.html

Is Jesus not the seed of the woman in Lk 1:31, 34, promised in Gen 3:15?
Is Jesus not the perfect High Priest of Heb 7:24-28, 9:11, typified in Lev 21:10, 21-23?
Is Jesus not the once-for-all sacrifice of Heb 7:27, 9:28, 10:12, typified in Lev 3:1-5?
Is Jesus not the mediator of the new covenant of Heb 8:6-13, 9:15 in Gal 3:19, and typified in Ex 20:19; Deut 5:5?
Is Jesus not the "prophet who was to come" of Jn 6:14, 7:40; Ac 3:22-23, 7:37, promised and typified by Moses in Deut 18:15?

These are very tight links binding and uniting the Bible into a whole.

5) Study church history and recognize that the Fathers had widely varying theologies

Which is no different today. . .heresies were as rife then as they are today.
However, theologies are not Scripture, nor are they the source of Scripture.
Therefore, they are totally irrelevant to this discussion of the Bible as the Word of God written.

You accuse Jesus of heresy, and Scripture of being nothing more than an arbitrary (no less!) collection of writings.
However, the four "unsubstantiated" dogmas you list above are all substantiated by Jesus and the writers of the NT, as shown above.

You are the only heretic here, and your four "dogmas" are the real heresy here.

 

[RaimThunder]

The Israelites are alive and well. They just go by other names that was given to them by those that took them into captivity. You see them everyday. Negroes, Hispanics, Native American Indians are the true Biblical Israelites found with-in the pages of the Bible. All you have to do is read Deuteronomy the 28th chapter and see what type of people fit the curses that Moses was speaking about.

John 8:32
thecomforter.info

 

[Zardoz]

The Israelites are alive and well. They just go by other names that was given to them by those that took them into captivity. You see them everyday. Negroes, Hispanics, Native American Indians are the true Biblical Israelites found with-in the pages of the Bible.

One of the most absurd statements I've ever seen on these forums.

All you have to do is read Deuteronomy the 28th chapter and see what type of people fit the curses that Moses was speaking about.

Oh! and just what 'type of people' are you referring to, eh? c'mon, don't be shy...

this oughta be entertaining...
opcorn:

 

[SHMOOVIL]

I have discussed this topic with several ministers (Protestant & R.C.), a rabbi, and other Christians on different religious forums. No one seems to know what happened to the Israelite tribes that were taken captive by the Assyrians around 800 B.C.

I read the overview of the book published by E. Raymond Capt (Australian biblical archeologist), in which, he states that he re-interpreted the Assyrian tablets, and traced the lost tribes to the throne of England (as well as other places). Is this possible?

The ten tribes were not lost. The writings of the bible make it clear that the Jews of pre-Christian times knew their fellow Israelites were still beyond the river Euphrates. Read Asahel Grant's The Nestorians - or The Lost Tribes which goes through all the historical evidence available, from Old Testament scripture verses to the historians Josephus (C1st AD) and Jerome (C5th AD), citing speeches made by King Agrippa and others, in which the Israelites were referenced many times and their whereabouts mentioned.

Some examples of the evidence this writer and doctor presents to support his claim of their Israelite ancestry includes the following facts:

1. The Nestorians live in exactly the places where the ten tribes were deported to and have an oral tradition that they have lived there for millennia.
2. They maintain a tradition that they came originally from Palestine.
3. Their Jewish neighbours claim they are brethren but hold that since the Nestorians accepted Christianity with the coming of St Thomas, they have ceased to have any social intercourse with them and vice versa.
4. The Nestorians celebrate a form of the Passover (blood on doors and foreheads, eating of Paschal lamb and all its internal organs on one day).
5. They strictly observe the Sabbath with severe punishments for those who break it.
6. They have cities or towns of refuge for those who commit crimes in passion.
7. They have Jewish names and features.
8. They and their Jewish neighbours speak the same language which they cannot have picked up but from each other, since their Kurdish and Persian neighbours do not speak Aramaic/Syriac.
9. They marry as close within their family as possible, down to first cousins (perhaps a remnant of a tradition to keep the tribes separate?).
10. Their spiritual leaders call themselves by the names of Sons of Israel and Nazaraeans, the latter meaning Jews converted to Christianity.
N.B. The author of the work did not travel to Persia with the intention of finding the ten tribes of antiquity; rather, he was commissioned to serve as a missionary doctor to the Christian peoples of the region and to be part of a movement helping to revive their faith which was suffering from a lack of scripture literature, education and church organisation. He became interested in the theory of the ten tribes because he noticed evidences such as I have detailed above, which so struck him that he resolved on pursuing further inquiry and detailing his findings.

By studying bible prophecy and history carefully, we find a remarkable pattern which lends support to the theory above. God cursed the Israelites, promising them that two thirds of their number would be wiped out and the remaining third scattered over the earth. The Nestorians went through a horrific genocide during World War I that destroyed no less than two thirds of their number and the descendants of the remaining survivors are continuing to be scattered throughout the world today. This genocide is different from all other non-Semitic genocides because in this case the people were forced to leave a place where they had been living for over 2,500 years and have had to assimilate into nations as far away as Sweden, Greece, America, Australia and the UK. This calls to mind the fate of the Jewish people who, until quite recently, had no country of their own.

The Israelites are not lost. They simply embraced Christianity and since then their Jewish brethren ceased to want anything to do with them. Because of this, they created all sorts of fables and fantasies about them being lost or living in some mythical country, simply to blind the eyes of inquirers and maintain their own position as the coveted people of God. They need not fear. The Nestorians have other concerns on their minds than trying to grab a piece of Israel. After all, they were living in one of the most beautiful and fertile parts of the world for nearly 3 millennia. Their enviable landscape allowed them a degree of self-sufficiency which was so impressive, their Moslem neighbours in the end could not bear tolerating such indulgence in their 'infidel' subjects while themselves being sucked into a demoralising war. But that is in the past...

I would like to close with the hope that a country may one day be established for these people, as it may be of benefit to much more than just their own race.

Peace.

 

[Ben Masada]

No, there is only your "misunderstanding," to put it kindly, based on your flagrant "inaccuracy," putting it kindly again, regarding the text.
Luke said, "I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and teach. . ."
Translate: Jesus' ministry.

However, none of your seven examples below are either what Jesus did or what Jesus taught.
Some background:
Luke gives the genealogy of Mary through Nathan, son of King David, and Matthew gives the genealogy of Joseph through the line of King Solomon, son of King David.
Thus they establish both Jesus' blood line and his legal royal line from King David.
Some background:
Daniel was made head over the wise men of Babylon (Dan 2:48). When he was restored to his position after surviving the den of lions, the new king issued "a decree
that in every part of the kingdom people must fear and reverence the God of Daniel (Dan 6:26)." Therefore, Daniel would have imparted knowledge of the Scriptures
to his charges, which knowledge would have been passed on down to the wise men who came to worship the newborn King of the Jews.
Speaking of accuracy, Luke didn't say "EVERYTHING about Jesus," he said "about all that Jesus began to do and to teach. . ."
None of your examples involve what Jesus began to do and to teach.
They all relate to his infancy, rather than his ministry. . .so much for "accuracy."
As previously stated:
Do you think you could load it up with more opprobrium. . .particulary in light of your flagrant "inaccuracy" of the text regarding what Luke said he reported?
Your "uninformed" (putting it kindly) assertion of conflicting accounts, producing two different Jesuses,
which is based on your flagrant "inaccurate" reading of the text in Ac 1:1, seems less than honest to me.

Your crowning jewel of #7 above is shown to be counterfeit in the following reconciliation of the two accounts, Matthew and Luke.

Depart from Nazareth for Bethlehem -- Lk 2:4,
Birth of Jesus in Bethlehem -- Lk 2:7, Mt 2:1,
Fulfillment of purification laws -- Lk 2:39,
Return to Nazareth in Galilee -- Lk 2:39,
Magi finally arrive at their house in Nazareth -- Mt 2:11
Joseph flees to Egypt -- Mt 2:13-14,
Joseph returns to Nazareth in Galilee after death of Herod -- Mt 2:15, 19-23.

You said above that you would be grateful if I broke these down for you. . .so are you?

And your ridiculous assertions that
1) the Jesus of Luke was born, circumcised, presented at the Temple on the 33rd day, and returned to Nazareth, while the Jesus of Matthew was trapped in Egypt
waiting for Herod to die,
2) there were two Jesuses, or else
3) the gospel writers were either lying or never met each other,
4) the authorship of the Holy Spirit is impeached by your flagrant "inaccuracy," "misunderstanding" and failure to reconcile the accounts, and
5) Christianity would be better off not removing the stone because the smell would be too strong
are shown to be just that. . .ridiculous.

The only stink here is in your false assertions (shown above),
which are based on your flagrantly "inaccurate" reading of the text,
and your failure to reconcile the two accounts of Luke and Matthew.
Contrary to what is stink to you,

the sweet fragrance of eternal life is in the gospels
for those who believe in Jesus the Christ. (2 Cor 2:16).

Gosh! Was it necessary to write so much to say you have no way to explain the contradiction? The whole theme of the thread is the contradiction to have Jesus of Luke in Nazareth at 40 days old while the Jesus of Matthew was in Egypt. Would you at least quote to me where Matthew claims that the wise men from the East went to visit the baby Jesus in Nazareth and from there instructed to flee to Egypt as you claim above? You can't. Therefore, you haven't broken down a single sentence of my questions. Besides, Jesus' family never lived in Nazareth before Jesus was born in Bethlehem, because when they had to return from Egypt, which never happened, but never mind for the time being, when Joseph had the dream to return to Israel he headed on to Judea where the family used to live. (Mat. 2:21,22) He went to the Galilee insteady only because he came to know that Archelaus, the son of Herod was Governor in Judea. That's a second contradiction within the first one. It's embarrassing, isn't it? Keep on researching for the answer. I am still all ears.

 

[Ben Masada]

[quoteGood grief! . .think you can load it up with more opprobrium? . .just reconcile the two accounts, for cryin' out loud!

Be my guest, let us try to reconile the accounts.

Depart from Nazareth to Bethlehem - Lk 2:4,

And where did the family, according to Matthew depart from? I'll tell you from Judea. (Mat. 2:21,22)

Birth of Jesus in Bethlehem -- Lk 2:7, Mt 2:1,

Fulfillment of purification laws -- Lk 2:39,

Where, according to Matthew, did the family fulfill the purification laws, in Egypt?

Return to Nazareth in Galilee -- Lk 2:39,

And the family, according to Matthew, returned to Judea. But because Archelaus, the son of Herod was Governor in Judea, they decided to flee to Galilee where they found a place in Nazareth to settle. (Mat. 21:21-23)

Magi finally arrive at their house in Nazareth -- Mt 2:11,

What kind of NT are you using to interpolize "Nazareth" in Matthew 2:11? Are you trying to rewrite the NT? That's not a fair way to debate.

Joseph flees to Egypt -- Mt 2:13-14,

And Luke goes back to Nazareth soon after the purification in the Temple.

Jospeh returns to Nazareth in Galilee after death of Herod -- Mt 2:15, 19-23.

Wrong! He returned to Judea, but as he found out that Archelaus was Governor in Judea, he was afraid and went to look for a place in Galilee and found it in Nazareth.

Also my edit in your post above shows your wrong assertion about Luke and "everything."

False assertion without a single proof in the NT.

And if you object to anti-Semitism. . .you are practicing some real anti-Christianism here!

Your statement implies frustration for not being able to refute my thread. Anyone with the minimum of Psychology can see what I am talking about.

 

[smokydot]

Be my guest, let us try to reconile the accounts.
And where did the family, according to Matthew depart from? I'll tell you from Judea. (Mat. 2:21,22)
Birth of Jesus in Bethlehem -- Lk 2:7, Mt 2:1,
Where, according to Matthew, did the family fulfill the purification laws, in Egypt?
And the family, according to Matthew, returned to Judea. But because Archelaus, the son of Herod was Governor in Judea, they decided to flee to Galilee where they found a place in Nazareth to settle. (Mat. 21:21-23)
What kind of NT are you using to interpolize "Nazareth" in Matthew 2:11? Are you trying to rewrite the NT? That's not a fair way to debate.
And Luke goes back to Nazareth soon after the purification in the Temple.
Wrong! He returned to Judea, but as he found out that Archelaus was Governor in Judea, he was afraid and went to look for a place in Galilee and found it in Nazareth.
False assertion without a single proof in the NT.

My reconciliation agrees with the NT text. The proof is there, you just refuse to admit it.

Your statement implies frustration for not being able to refute my thread. Anyone with the minimum of Psychology can see what I am talking about.

My charge speaks for itself when viewed in the light of your thread.

Each can decide for himself.

 

[delbert]

You have got to realize when God is speaking to the Jews,who were given the" sceptre" part of the covenant, or the other tribes who were given the "birth rite" part.
Jews are Israelites ,but most Israelites are not Jews,just as most americans are not Californians.
It is wrong to call the Jews of today "Israel".
Where ever you see the name "Israel",or "house of Israel", or "Samaria", or "Ephraim" used in prophecy remember this : it never refers to the Jews,but to Israel. No place in all the Bible does the term "Israel" refer to the Jews exclusively. When the sense is not national but individual, the term "Israel" alone,or "children of Israel" or "men of Israel" may, and some times does refer to or include the Jews.
Moses may not, scripturally, be called a jew. He was a Levite. Abraham was not a Jew. Neither was Isaac nor Jacob- nor Adam or Noah for that mater.
The descendants of the patriarch Judah are racially Jews and also all who joined themselves nationally to the tribe of Judah- those of the tribe of Benjamin and Levi.
But of Ephraim and Manasseh, sons of Joseph, the dying Israel said, "Let my name be named on them" (Gen.48:16). From this time on, the children of Israel ,twelve tribes in all, are divided into two nations!
And now, for the first time, the birthright goes into one nation,Israel, headed by Ephraim-Manasseh,while the Sceptre remains in another nation,called the "house of Judah".
the two phases of the promises to Abraham now are divided between two entirely separate nations!
4 whole books of the Bible ,1Kings and 2 Kings and 1 and 2 Chronicles, are devoted to explaining it and recording the history of these separate, rival kingdoms.

 

[delbert]

I like the thought that they were never lost. We can call them lost because we do not know where they are. But I do not think they were lost. A small tribe traveled north. They did not go with the majority to the south. They split in two to make the odds of surviving better.

You better believe they are not lost!

Asher=Australia
Benjamin=Norway
Dan=Denmark
Ephraim=Britton
Gad=Switzerland
Issachar=Finland
Judah=Israel
Mannasseh=U.S.
Naphtali=Sweeden
Reuben=France
Simeon=Scattered
Zebulun=Netherlands

 

[Caladan]

You better believe they are not lost!

Asher=Australia
Benjamin=Norway
Dan=Denmark
Ephraim=Britton
Gad=Switzerland
Issachar=Finland
Judah=Israel
Mannasseh=U.S.
Naphtali=Sweeden
Reuben=France
Simeon=Scattered
Zebulun=Netherlands

That's a nice case of revisionism you got here. got any genetic and archaeological academic material to back any of these absurdities up.
Worry not, I won't hold my breath.

 

[smokydot]

The ten "lost tribes" of the northern kingdom were not lost in the exile, for they are "found" in the rest of the Bible.

1) in prophecies relating to the return from exile:

---Jer 3:18, 31:27, 31 (where "Israel" is the northern kingdom of the ten tribes)
---Eze 37:15-22 (where "Ephraim" is the norther kingdom of ten tribes--Isa 7:17)

2) return from exile: Ezra 6:17

3) NT: Ac 26:7, Jas 1:1

 

[Levite]

You have got to realize when God is speaking to the Jews,who were given the" sceptre" part of the covenant, or the other tribes who were given the "birth rite" part.
Jews are Israelites ,but most Israelites are not Jews,just as most americans are not Californians.
It is wrong to call the Jews of today "Israel".
Where ever you see the name "Israel",or "house of Israel", or "Samaria", or "Ephraim" used in prophecy remember this : it never refers to the Jews,but to Israel. No place in all the Bible does the term "Israel" refer to the Jews exclusively. When the sense is not national but individual, the term "Israel" alone,or "children of Israel" or "men of Israel" may, and some times does refer to or include the Jews.
Moses may not, scripturally, be called a jew. He was a Levite. Abraham was not a Jew. Neither was Isaac nor Jacob- nor Adam or Noah for that mater.
The descendants of the patriarch Judah are racially Jews and also all who joined themselves nationally to the tribe of Judah- those of the tribe of Benjamin and Levi.
But of Ephraim and Manasseh, sons of Joseph, the dying Israel said, "Let my name be named on them" (Gen.48:16). From this time on, the children of Israel ,twelve tribes in all, are divided into two nations!
And now, for the first time, the birthright goes into one nation,Israel, headed by Ephraim-Manasseh,while the Sceptre remains in another nation,called the "house of Judah".
the two phases of the promises to Abraham now are divided between two entirely separate nations!
4 whole books of the Bible ,1Kings and 2 Kings and 1 and 2 Chronicles, are devoted to explaining it and recording the history of these separate, rival kingdoms.

You better believe they are not lost!

Asher=Australia
Benjamin=Norway
Dan=Denmark
Ephraim=Britton
Gad=Switzerland
Issachar=Finland
Judah=Israel
Mannasseh=U.S.
Naphtali=Sweeden
Reuben=France
Simeon=Scattered
Zebulun=Netherlands

The stunning breadth and depth of the ignorance of those two statements is breathtaking.

 

[SBlack]

It doesn't take more than a moderately probing look into historical texts, including religious texts like the bible, to know that the ten tribes of Israel were not lost. If one reads Josephus, Jerome, the Prophets in the Old Testament Christian bible and even the books of Tobit and other Apocryphal writings, one can know that the ten tribes existed in the land of Mesopotamia until well after Christ - a good 1100 years after their removal from Israel by the Assyrians. Also that they were largely an unbroken group with lines of communication open between the different cities and towns in which they lived.

Some proofs to consider are: the speech of King Agrippa to the Jews in the 1st Century AD, where he was trying to dissuade them from revolting against the Romans, whom he respected, asking who would help them in such a futile exercise thus: "Where then are those people whom you are to have for your auxiliaries? Must they come from the parts of the world that are uninhabited; for all that are in the habitable earth are [under the] Romans. - -Unless any of you extend his hopes as far as beyond the Euphrates, and suppose that those of your own nation that dwell in Adiabene will come to your assistance (but certainly these will not embarrass themselves with an unjustifiable war, nor, if they should follow such ill advice, will the Parthians permit them so to do); for it is their concern to maintain the truce that is between them and the Romans, and they will be supposed to break the covenants between them, if any under their government march against the Romans." Adiabene is in Mesopotamia and was home to the exiled Israelites. This extract shows that all the Jews, including King Agrippa, knew as common fact where the exiled 10 tribes were living, namely in Adiabene in Mesopotamia.

After 70 AD when Jerusalem was sacked by the Romans, the Jews fled from Israel to other nations. The first nation they ran to, and where the majority of Jews were living before the US gained power, was Iran, or Persia. (The other main nation was Egypt, which was Hellenised by that time and a centre of culture and learning). A wise mind would guess why Persia would attract the fleeing remaining tribes of Judah, Benjamin and Levi. It's because that's where their brethren were living, the remaining 10 tribes. It is not speculation because the holy texts inform us that some people of the 10 tribes would customarily go down to Jerusalem to celebrate important religious festivals (as is recounted by Tobit in the book named after him; not accepted as a Canonical biblical text but important historical document). After Christianity, the Jewish believers in Judea also wrote letters to the exiled 10 tribes, urging them to remain steadfast in their new faith. Some of these letters have been preserved in the New Testament in the writings of St Paul the Apostle. We also have evidence (if you take New Testament events as fact; less easy if you treat it as a fantastical book of metaphors) that during the time of Pentecost, there were people from Mesopotamia visiting Jerusalem who understood the languages the Apostles were speaking as the Holy Spirit enabled them to speak in these far-off languages: Parthian, Median, Persian etc. Many of these would have been God-fearing Israelites who had pilgrimaged to Jerusalem for religious reasons and to keep up on the news of their fellow tribes.

In fact, every part of the writings of history teaches us what would be obvious but for one main obstacle to modern Jewish thinking: How the exiled 10 tribes could possibly turn away from their ancient religion and follow a new belief system. From the time, one might say, that the new exiles left Judea in 70 AD and fled to Mesopotamia, the Jewish mind has been faced with this irrevocable truth: Their brothers had betrayed them. They arrived in Media and Persia only to find that the rest of their fellow tribes had become Christians through the testimony of Saint Thomas and others. This had one of 2 effects on the Judeans: 1). They too, decided to go the same way and become believers in Jesus. Or 2). They rejected Jesus more fervently than ever, along with the Israelites - albeit their fellow tribesmen - who had allied themselves with the new religion, and separated themselves from the rest of the 10 tribes. After some centuries of this, the rift would have grown and the non-believers and believers would have developed their own oral traditions: Church traditions on the part of the believers; Talmudic and other oral Jewish traditions on the part of the non-believers. Another effect would have been that communication between the non-believers and Jews in distant countries like Egypt, Israel (Palestine), Jordan etc would have ceased. The Jews would start to disown the rest of their brethren and attempt to write them out of their Father's will, as it were, by creating fantastical stories (e.g the river Sambatyon, assimilation, migration into Africa etc) that would ensure nobody ever performed a serious search of the 10 tribes and they would never threaten to infiltrate Israel with their foreign religion. It cannot be underestimated how important religion is in this matter. One could say it is more important than bloodlines and hereditary inheritance of land. However it does not remove the truth of the fact that most of the 10 tribes, as the evidence suggests, did not in fact remain in the Jewish faith. Christians, Moslems, Hindus, Zoroastrians, Atheists and others can today claim lineage from the 10 tribes; this is almost certain when we consider common demographics.

The important thing to consider is what is the purpose of the 10 tribes today. Likewise, what is the importance of the remaining 3 tribes? We know that God will unite them at some future time. However, before that takes place, a period of refinement must take place. The Prophets tell us that God had plans to destroy two thirds of His people before He preserved a remnant. This hints at national destruction on a genocidal level. Perhaps the best way to define once and for all who the descendants of the Israelites are today is by identifying, after important cultural and ethnic cultural comparisons have been made (especially linguistic and social), which people in the world have had to endure the destruction of most of their own race and subsequent dispersion from their homeland, as the prophets foretold?

 

[SBlack]

Correction: That paragraph should read: Another effect would have been that communication between the believers (not non-believers) and Jews in distant countries like Egypt, Israel (Palestine), Jordan etc would have ceased.

 

[Levite]

It doesn't take more than a moderately probing look into historical texts, including religious texts like the bible, to know that the ten tribes of Israel were not lost. If one reads Josephus, Jerome, the Prophets in the Old Testament Christian bible and even the books of Tobit and other Apocryphal writings, one can know that the ten tribes existed in the land of Mesopotamia until well after Christ - a good 1100 years after their removal from Israel by the Assyrians. Also that they were largely an unbroken group with lines of communication open between the different cities and towns in which they lived.

Some proofs to consider are: the speech of King Agrippa to the Jews in the 1st Century AD, where he was trying to dissuade them from revolting against the Romans, whom he respected, asking who would help them in such a futile exercise thus: "Where then are those people whom you are to have for your auxiliaries? Must they come from the parts of the world that are uninhabited; for all that are in the habitable earth are [under the] Romans. - -Unless any of you extend his hopes as far as beyond the Euphrates, and suppose that those of your own nation that dwell in Adiabene will come to your assistance (but certainly these will not embarrass themselves with an unjustifiable war, nor, if they should follow such ill advice, will the Parthians permit them so to do); for it is their concern to maintain the truce that is between them and the Romans, and they will be supposed to break the covenants between them, if any under their government march against the Romans." Adiabene is in Mesopotamia and was home to the exiled Israelites. This extract shows that all the Jews, including King Agrippa, knew as common fact where the exiled 10 tribes were living, namely in Adiabene in Mesopotamia.

After 70 AD when Jerusalem was sacked by the Romans, the Jews fled from Israel to other nations. The first nation they ran to, and where the majority of Jews were living before the US gained power, was Iran, or Persia. (The other main nation was Egypt, which was Hellenised by that time and a centre of culture and learning). A wise mind would guess why Persia would attract the fleeing remaining tribes of Judah, Benjamin and Levi. It's because that's where their brethren were living, the remaining 10 tribes. It is not speculation because the holy texts inform us that some people of the 10 tribes would customarily go down to Jerusalem to celebrate important religious festivals (as is recounted by Tobit in the book named after him; not accepted as a Canonical biblical text but important historical document). After Christianity, the Jewish believers in Judea also wrote letters to the exiled 10 tribes, urging them to remain steadfast in their new faith. Some of these letters have been preserved in the New Testament in the writings of St Paul the Apostle. We also have evidence (if you take New Testament events as fact; less easy if you treat it as a fantastical book of metaphors) that during the time of Pentecost, there were people from Mesopotamia visiting Jerusalem who understood the languages the Apostles were speaking as the Holy Spirit enabled them to speak in these far-off languages: Parthian, Median, Persian etc. Many of these would have been God-fearing Israelites who had pilgrimaged to Jerusalem for religious reasons and to keep up on the news of their fellow tribes.

In fact, every part of the writings of history teaches us what would be obvious but for one main obstacle to modern Jewish thinking: How the exiled 10 tribes could possibly turn away from their ancient religion and follow a new belief system. From the time, one might say, that the new exiles left Judea in 70 AD and fled to Mesopotamia, the Jewish mind has been faced with this irrevocable truth: Their brothers had betrayed them. They arrived in Media and Persia only to find that the rest of their fellow tribes had become Christians through the testimony of Saint Thomas and others. This had one of 2 effects on the Judeans: 1). They too, decided to go the same way and become believers in Jesus. Or 2). They rejected Jesus more fervently than ever, along with the Israelites - albeit their fellow tribesmen - who had allied themselves with the new religion, and separated themselves from the rest of the 10 tribes. After some centuries of this, the rift would have grown and the non-believers and believers would have developed their own oral traditions: Church traditions on the part of the believers; Talmudic and other oral Jewish traditions on the part of the non-believers. Another effect would have been that communication between the non-believers and Jews in distant countries like Egypt, Israel (Palestine), Jordan etc would have ceased. The Jews would start to disown the rest of their brethren and attempt to write them out of their Father's will, as it were, by creating fantastical stories (e.g the river Sambatyon, assimilation, migration into Africa etc) that would ensure nobody ever performed a serious search of the 10 tribes and they would never threaten to infiltrate Israel with their foreign religion. It cannot be underestimated how important religion is in this matter. One could say it is more important than bloodlines and hereditary inheritance of land. However it does not remove the truth of the fact that most of the 10 tribes, as the evidence suggests, did not in fact remain in the Jewish faith. Christians, Moslems, Hindus, Zoroastrians, Atheists and others can today claim lineage from the 10 tribes; this is almost certain when we consider common demographics.

The important thing to consider is what is the purpose of the 10 tribes today. Likewise, what is the importance of the remaining 3 tribes? We know that God will unite them at some future time. However, before that takes place, a period of refinement must take place. The Prophets tell us that God had plans to destroy two thirds of His people before He preserved a remnant. This hints at national destruction on a genocidal level. Perhaps the best way to define once and for all who the descendants of the Israelites are today is by identifying, after important cultural and ethnic cultural comparisons have been made (especially linguistic and social), which people in the world have had to endure the destruction of most of their own race and subsequent dispersion from their homeland, as the prophets foretold?

 

[Awoon]

I have discussed this topic with several ministers (Protestant & R.C.), a rabbi, and other Christians on different religious forums. No one seems to know what happened to the Israelite tribes that were taken captive by the Assyrians around 800 B.C.

I read the overview of the book published by E. Raymond Capt (Australian biblical archeologist), in which, he states that he re-interpreted the Assyrian tablets, and traced the lost tribes to the throne of England (as well as other places). Is this possible?

Afghanistan