Jews descended from Israel, but none of the other 10 tribes of Israel
were Jews

Fred said: Why is that of any importance? The term sometimes referred to

sometimes it referred to the religion which went beyond the borders of

nation.

-- It seems that Jesus must have thought it was important, or why
would He want His Disciples to only in the direction of the direction
of " the lost sheep of the house of Israel". (Matt 10:6)

He didn't want them to go the direction where the Gentiles were. And
since Gentiles was regarded as anybody who were outside of the House
of Israel, then wouldn't that indicate that He must have been talking
about them?

When Jesus used the term He was speaking of the folks of the religion.

-- You mean when He referred to a Jew, He was speaking of a
particular Religion the way they twisted the scriptures?

It's a distraction with no scriptural reason to be a part of anyone's
theology.

-- Hmm, i'll have to ponder that one for a bit.

-- It seems that Jesus must have thought it was important, or why
would He want His Disciples to only in the direction of the direction
of " the lost sheep of the house of Israel". (Matt 10:6)

On Jun 23, 11:11 pm, "L.T. David" <LTDCap...@newsnet.ca> wrote:

"fenicus" <feni...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:1182650873.981687.111030@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...

Jews descended from Israel, but none of the other 10 tribes of Israel
were Jews

That is what the narratives of the Bible tell you but the heads of tribes
are eponyms, legendary, mythical.

-- Where did you get that kind of information?

They identify localities rather than the

people who lived in them.

-- But they also identify the people as well. Jesus & Kind David
were from both from the tribe of Judah, Samson was from the tribe of
Dan & so forth. I'm sure there were a lot of inter-marrying going on
between them though.

Judah was Judea, Benjamin was Jerusalem. Judaism
was instituted in Jerusalem after the Babylonian Exile by Jews. How can
there have been Jews before the Babylonian Exile?

-- Interesting.. I was going to give Esther as an example, because it
mentions Jews probably more times than anywhere in the Bible, but then
that book was written right around 100 years "after" the Exile, so you
may just have a point there.

The word Jews in 2 Kings 16:2 should read Judeans.

-- Where did you get that information?

The 10 lost tribes is a myth. As if most of the inhabitants of Samaria
and
Judea had all been deported.

-- According to my understanding, the Assyrians took the 10 northern
tribes captive, and the Assyrians moved the Samarians (sp?) in their
stead.

And those 10 tribes eventually won their freedom, then the 10 tribes,
along with the Assyrians left their inhabited land, and took off in a
North-Westerly direction from the Caspian sea homesteading various
places as they went, and eventually over a span of time, both Nations
lost their identity.

And thats what become known of as the "Lost 10 tribes". But the 2
Southern tribes (Judah & Benjamin) remained in Judea until the
Babylonians came & took them captive.

Such was not the case, most of them remained in
Palestine. Jewish is not a race it's a religion. In modern time, a Jew is
a
Jew who calls himself a Jew.
The Bible is not a history book.

-- How did you come to that conclusion?

But people can manipulate history in many ways
and it seems to me to be nothing more than
people wanting to make themselves what they
believe is "God's chosen people", which is built
on what I believe is the mistaken belief that God
is going to set up a Jewish national kingdom.

-- Are you talking about the Jews who are currently
inhabiting Modern Israel?

I believe that this is done, because people think
that Revelation has yet to happen and furthermore,
that it is all about them, today and so unfortunately,
the daily news becomes their Scriptures. They
become one and all, "newspaper prophets". (:

I am of the opposite belief. That it was fulfilled
already. I know that will surely seem strange to
you, but that is because of what you have been
taught about it, which I believe is based on a
false premise.

-- I know you believe in Preterism, (sp?) but are
you one that believes that it was "all" fulfilled prior
to 70 A.D. Or do you think some of it is still yet to
be? I've been curious about this for a long time now,
and was going to ask you...but you know...

For example, people have been taught that it is
about a world war, because they read the words
"earth", or "world" in Revelation. But the Greek
words behind it are far different and the Greek
word for the planet (kosmos) is rarely used in
the New Testament. And what do they do when
this is pointed out? Do they change their belief?
No! They try to redefine the Greek words and
go to the least likely meaning of the words...

-- But if even if it is the most unlikely, it still can't
be ruled out all together if it's listed as a possibility,
right?

...so that they can hang on to their doctrine,
because the Bible being all about them is more
important to them than what is true.

-- Oh, thats an understatement... If it doesn't
line up with their own pre-conceived ideas,
they tend to use only the verses that apply,
and leave out the rest.

Scripture reads a lot differently, when its actual language
and the fact of when it as written and to whom
it was written is taken into account and one
does not have to do the mental gymnastics
that a Dispensationalist/Futurist doctrine requires.

-- This one might require a separate thread :0).
As long as the discussion can stay civilized,
i'd be more than happy to discuss this subject
with you.

My point is, that when people want to believe
that it's all about them, which seems to me
to be nothing more than vanity, then they
tend to invent all kinds of scenarios, to make
themselves those spoken about in the writing
and so, we end up with the British being Jews,
or the United States being God's chosen nation
for a physical kingdom, etc..

-- I remember you making that statement from
our past discussions, and I can see how you could
come to such a conclusion after seeing what some
people put out there.

But theres something you need to know about me,
I'm a nothing.. at least not to myself. Have you ever
noticed that i don't even capitalize my "i's"? Pretty
bad isn't it? If you knew me out of this cyberworld,
you'd see what i mean. When someone attempts
an argument with me, i'll just turn and leave them
there scratching their head. Especially when it comes
to Gods Holy Word. Don't get me wrong though,
i can see an honest debate between 2 (or more)
sincere people who are actually seeking the truth.

What can be said, is that we see a difference
between the tribes and the Gentiles when we
read Revelation 7. And what is the difference
noted throughout the Bible, when speaking
of this? Jews and Gentiles. So why take
the time to note this in Revelation, if that
is not the difference being noted? Revelation
is a highly symbolic book, but if God were
noting the church as the true Israel in these
verses (which is done elsewhere in the NT),
then why note the tribes and then also note
the other nations, since the church consisted
of Jews and Gentiles from all over the place?

Do you see what I'm saying?

-- Not exactly, i'll have to ponder this one
& get back to you on it,ok?

We also note that the city in Revelation 21
(which I believe to be symbolic and not a
physical city) also notes twelve foundations
for the twelve Apostles, who were Jews.

This is an interesting subject to be sure and
one that can be discussed for years. But the
important point to note here, again, is that
we can see a difference being made in
Revelation 7. Not in salvation, but in the way
in which things happen and between peoples.

It would be interesting to compare a list of
the tribal background of the Apostles to the
list in Revelation 7. :)

-- Yes it certainly would if only such a list existed.
So are you suggesting the possibility that the
descendent's of the 12 Apostles might make up
the 144,000?