The Ten Lost Tribes of Israel: Your Thoughts?

[mfblume]

Aquila, what about your thoughts to my response concerning Romans 9 in light of your ten tribe issue?

[Trouvere]

all I could hear while reading this thread was the old song Shangrala.

[Godsdrummer]

Originally Posted by Aquila

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.

Loren says:
1Jn 2:19 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.

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.

Loren says
Aquila when are we going to accept the word and not mans teachings.
John tells us it was the last days in is life time, the prophecys spoken aready came to pass.

1Jn 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.

And that goes or Revelation!!

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 don't think Mike has his head in the sand. The ones that have their heads in the sand beleive that satan is going to rage a battle and win. Your battle above does not any where say satan wins.

[mfblume]

Aquila, what are your thoughts about 1 John 2:19?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Aquila, what are your thoughts about 1 John 2:19?

Bump for Aquila.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Bump for Aquila.

The verse you referenced is about apostates, not Israel. Israel was assemilated. I believe that God's prophecies are sure and if he promises something to a people... it comes to pass. If anything we SHARE in their promise by the Grace of God through Jesus Christ.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Aquila

The verse you referenced is about apostates, not Israel. Israel was assemilated. I believe that God's prophecies are sure and if he promises something to a people... it comes to pass. If anything we SHARE in their promise by the Grace of God through Jesus Christ.

No, that is not what I was referring to. 1John 2:19 is the verse qualifying who the antichrists were.

But speaking of Israel, what about Romans 9 and my notes on that? They seem to remove the veracity of thinking God is working with Israel apart from the church in your Ephraim and Manasseh issue..

[mfblume]

Bump.

Originally Posted by mfblume

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?