The Ten Lost Tribes of Israel: Your Thoughts?

[Sam]

Originally Posted by revrandy

It is taught that the reason the US and Briton aren't Mentioned in Scripture is that they have been destroyed....

or may have sunk to such a low level of strength and influence that they are not worth mentioning as real players on the world stage

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Nitehawk013

I believe they all went to Shangri La or Atlantis. That is why they disappeared and have not been found since.

Or as the Mormons teach they came to North America in submarines and became the American Indians.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by revrandy

It is taught that the reason the US and Briton aren't Mentioned in Scripture is that they have been destroyed....

How can we conclude that they are destroyed when they are not even mentioned?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by mfblume

All these promises are fulfilled in Christ. The church took prophecies spoken to Israel as being spoken to the church.

Acts 13:47 KJV For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth.

Isaiah 49:3 KJV And said unto me, Thou art my servant, O Israel, in whom I will be glorified.

Isaiah 49:6 KJV And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth.

In the verses above God tells Israel (the decendents of Ephraim and Manasseh) that Israel is His servant and that He would be glorified in them. In addition God promises that they should raise up the tribes of Jacob, and restore the preserved of Israel. Notice that God also promises that Israel (Ephraim and Manasseh) would be a light to the Gentiles. Notice the Gentiles and Israel are separate bodies. Why? So that Ephraim and Manasseh would be God's salvation unto the end of the earth.

Notice that the United States and Great Britain have been greatly in the service of the LORD. Even the greatest translation of the Bible is in English. It was indeed the English who saw to it that the common man had a Bible to read in the common tongue. It is the United States and Great Britain that has defended the modern nation state of Israel and that has saught the well being of any Hebraic person. In addition, if this is true, the ministry taking place in the United States and Great Britain has indeed restored the preserved decendents of Ephraim and Manasseh. Notice also that the United States and Great Britain have launched the greatest missionary efforts in the world, if not even in history, serving as a light to the Gentile nations. This missionary effort has spread the news of God's salvation unto the ends of the Earth.

While indeed the church receives the spiritual blessings of salvation and friendship with God that comes from the Messianic promises, the church has yet to experience the prophesied political power and might promised to Ephraim and Manasseh.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Why do Amillennialists assume there will not be an Antichrist? I read a wonderful book by a solid Amillennialist that explains quite a bit about the Antichrist.

It's a myth that Amillennialists don't believe in an Antichrist. It's typically parroted by Amill converts who simply believe in the "Box" and don't examine all positions of Amill teaching.

Here's the book,

http://www.amazon.com/Man-Sin-Uncove...0320520&sr=8-2

The truth is, the spirit of Antichrist is very real. And the church should be prepared to face this spirit's continued manifestation through the age up until the final manifestation of Antichrist is upon us.

The antichrist is and always has been a spirit. But to say it will culminate in a man in the end is up for debate.

God bless!

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Aquila

In the verses above God tells Israel (the decendents of Ephraim and Manasseh) that Israel is His servant and that He would be glorified in them. In addition God promises that they should raise up the tribes of Jacob, and restore the preserved of Israel. Notice that God also promises that Israel (Ephraim and Manasseh) would be a light to the Gentiles. Notice the Gentiles and Israel are separate bodies. Why? So that Ephraim and Manasseh would be God's salvation unto the end of the earth.

Notice that the United States and Great Britain have been greatly in the service of the LORD. Even the greatest translation of the Bible is in English. It was indeed the English who saw to it that the common man had a Bible to read in the common tongue. It is the United States and Great Britain that has defended the modern nation state of Israel and that has saught the well being of any Hebraic person. In addition, if this is true, the ministry taking place in the United States and Great Britain has indeed restored the preserved decendents of Ephraim and Manasseh. Notice also that the United States and Great Britain have launched the greatest missionary efforts in the world, if not even in history, serving as a light to the Gentile nations. This missionary effort has spread the news of God's salvation unto the ends of the Earth.

While indeed the church receives the spiritual blessings of salvation and friendship with God that comes from the Messianic promises, the church has yet to experience the prophesied political power and might promised to Ephraim and Manasseh.

Lineage is not the issue with Israel as the above assumes. Keeping the law in specific rites and feasts is required.

This especially applies to the thought of Britain and the USA. Why does everyone cast aside these issues of Mosaic law and circumcision when considering lost tribes?

Genealogy seemed to be the only concept for being an Israelite. You were of Abraham first and foremost. But then things narrowed down to Isaac and then Jacob/Israel. Of course the tribes came into being after Israel. But things went far from the accepted concept there is today during Exodus when the law and feasts came into being.

Genesis 17:14 KJV And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.

Passover shows the Israelite condition to be far removed from what would allow a concept as you propose to be considered. Moses instructed the people of Israel that should an Israelite refuse Passover, he was cut off. But a Gentile could take Passover! Before Egypt's Exodus, these details were never introduced. But they most certainly have been in effect since Exodus.

And since Law is so integral for the existence of a tribe under Israel's Banner, and Law is no longer in effect, how can your ideas be valid?

James wrote his epistle to an interesting audience.

James 1:1 KJV James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.

This is a church epistle. Together with the concept that Not all Israel is Israel, the above passage implies the church is considered Israel, including the general thought of tribes, thought of your post becomes a moot issue, in my opinion.

For Paul to say the children of promise alone are considered the Israel that God considers His prophecies to pertain to, we must realize that traditional concepts of membership to a tribe of Israel are moot.

Romans 9:1-10 KJV I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost, (2) That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. (3) For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: (4) Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; (5) Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen. (6) Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: (7) Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. (8) That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed. (9) For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son. (10) And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;

Think of that statement above carefully. Only some of the ones whom people might consider to be of Israel are the people God considers to be Israel. Not all of them. And Paul emphatically stated that being a child of promise involves membership in the church. And Gal 4 includes Gentiles in that idea.

How can we accept the Britain and Israel idea in light of those whom Paul claimed God considers to be Israel?

Aquila, it's not an amill box, but rather allowing only what scriptures concerning the issue for Israel's identity in passages like Romans 9 allows for.

Seriously, how can we take your proposal in light of Romans 9? If "Not all Israel is Israel," then what does that say about Ephraim and Manasseh today? If the prophecies to Israel should be read through the lenses of "Not all Israel is Israel, but the children of the promise are counted for the seed," then how do we read your OT references?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by mfblume

The antichrist is and always has been a spirit. But to say it will culminate in a man in the end is up for debate.

God bless!

I think you're missing the point. The spirit of antichrist has always been with us... operating in various rulers down through history beginning with the Jewish authorities, Roman Emperors, Popes, etc. I'd say you'd be hard pressed to find significant opposition from the spirit of antichrist without it being manifest in an individual.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I think you're missing the point. The spirit of antichrist has always been with us... operating in various rulers down through history beginning with the Jewish authorities, Roman Emperors, Popes, etc. I'd say you'd be hard pressed to find significant opposition from the spirit of antichrist without it being manifest in an individual.

That is just it. There is no THE antichrist in a man, just many antichrists. Aquila, the Beast is not antichrist. Antichrist denies Jesus came in flesh. John said it works in backslidden believers. I do not agree it is in popes, emperors, etc. That's a throwback from futurism when they confuse antichrist with beast.. Antichrist has no relation to a military leader of any kind.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by mfblume

That is just it. There is no THE antichrist in a man, just many antichrists. Aquila, the Beast is not antichrist. Antichrist denies Jesus came in flesh. John said it works in backslidden believers. I do not agree it is in popes, emperors, etc. That's a throwback from futurism when they confuse antichrist with beast.. Antichrist has no relation to a military leader of any kind.

So Nero wasn't under the influence of the spirit of antichrist?

The Bible says,

1 John 2:18
Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

1 John 2:22
Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

1 John 4:3
And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

2 John 1:7
For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

The Bible plainly states that there are many antichrists. Anyone who denies the Father and the Son is an antichrist. They are under the influence of that spirit of antichrist. Antichrists deny that Christ came in the flesh.

The book that I referenced in a previous post above addresses the spirit of antichrist. It's written by a preeminent Amillennial Preterist, Kim Riddlebarger. The notion of the Antichrist being a spirit that is continually manifested and will even manifest one last time before the end of the age isn't strictly futurist. I feel you're moving to an extreme and throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Just because a Futurist believes something, it doesn't automatically make it false. In fact, this teaching regarding the spirit of antichrist can be found among Amillennial Preterists, Historicists, Spiritualists, and Futurists.

Bro. Blume, I know you're an Amillennialist. Let's see the last Hoorahh according to Amillennialism,

Revelation 20:7-9
7And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,
8And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog, and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.
9And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.

While the details of this final war aren't elaborated upon, we see that at the end of what Amillennialists believe is the church age Satan is loosed and the spirit of antichrist seeks to destroy the camp of the saints and the beloved city.

You can put your head in the feel good Preterist sand... but I assure you, there will be a final Antichrist.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Aquila

So Nero wasn't under the influence of the spirit of antichrist?

No. Just the devil, flat-out.

The Bible says,

1 John 2:18
Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

1 John 2:22
Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

1 John 4:3
And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

2 John 1:7
For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

Right! Nero knew nothing about Christ to deny he came in flesh. John was speaking about backslidden believers.

1 John 2:18-19 KJV Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. (19) They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

Notice above who the MANY antichrists were. They were amongst the church! All of them.

The Bible plainly states that there are many antichrists.

Right! but keep reading. MANY Who were amongst the church.

Anyone who denies the Father and the Son is an antichrist. They are under the influence of that spirit of antichrist. Antichrists deny that Christ came in the flesh.

The context is that people who were taught about Jesus later denied it, not heathens who never knew anything. Nero was not amongst John and the church to then depart from the church. Bro., it's a throw-back from futurism's confusion about the beast being the antichrist. Don't uphold that error. Just note John's actual context.

The book that I referenced in a previous post above addresses the spirit of antichrist. It's written by a preeminent Amillennial Preterist, Kim Riddlebarger. The notion of the Antichrist being a spirit that is continually manifested and will even manifest one last time before the end of the age isn't strictly futurist.

Then that amill teacher is in error, since they, too, neglected to see who the many antchrists were by reading 1 John 2:19.

I feel you're moving to an extreme and throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Just because a Futurist believes something, it doesn't automatically make it false.

Give me more credit than that. I just called an amill claim false, too. John does not allow for your idea due to 1 John 2:19. Anyone with much sense at all knows not to cast something out just because it is touted by those of another prophetic persuasion.

In fact, this teaching regarding the spirit of antichrist can be found among Amillennial Preterists, Historicists, Spiritualists, and Futurists.

It does not make it right. I claoim they are all neglecting 1 John 2:19 qualifier for verse 18.

Bro. Blume, I know you're an Amillennialist. Let's see the last Hoorahh according to Amillennialism,

Revelation 20:7-9
7And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,
8And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog, and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.
9And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.

While the details of this final war aren't elaborated upon, we see that at the end of what Amillennialists believe is the church age Satan is loosed and the spirit of antichrist seeks to destroy the camp of the saints and the beloved city.

You can put your head in the feel good Preterist sand... but I assure you, there will be a final Antichrist.

I believe you are persuaded by your thoughts. But I suggest you read 1 John 2:18 through into verse 19.