British Israelites

[Mike Gascoigne]

It's good to see the new History forum started up on this message board, and it provides me with an opportunity to discuss the history of Ireland, which should be a matter of importance to the Jewish people because it exposes the fabrications of the British Israelites who claim that they are the true heirs of God's covenant with Israel.

I have already posted a topic, in the "General Discussion / Theology" forum, called "Tracing your Ancestry to Adam":

theloveofgod.proboards3.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&n=1&thread=737

This discusses the Irish king list that can be traced back to Magog, the grandson of Noah. The Scottish kings are descended from the Irish, and then there is an intermarriage with the English royal family, raising the possibility that anyone who can trace their ancestry to the English monarchy can trace it back to Adam, and I have given an example on the following page:

www.annomundi.co.uk/history/pyles_genealogy.htm

At the same time I pointed out that none of this has got anything to do with the British Israelites who falsely claim that Tea Tephi, who married Heremon, was the daughter of Zedekiah the last king of Israel. She was in fact the daughter of Lughaidh, the cousin of Milesius, and there is no reason to believe that the Irish people are descended from the Israelites.

This resulted in a response from Reuel, the board administrator, pointing out that Messianic Judaism prefers to keep a healthy distance from the "Ten Tribers" and "British Israelism", and he asked if anyone else had any insight into the subject.

I could go into it further, and I might consider writing an article for my website, but first I'd like to know if the British Israelites are causing any real problems for the Jewish people. Do they cause confusion over the identity of Israel, or about the Biblical end-time prophecies?

They gained a lot of support during the days of the British Empire, giving the Anglo-Saxon race the supposed divine right to rule the world, but they went into decline when the empire fell apart. However, we now see President Bush, in his second term of office, saying that he is going to export freedom around the world, and whether he does it for good or for evil, it could be the same thing all over again. Now it's the American Empire (descended from Britain) and we could see the British Israelites re-emerging under the same or a different name.

If the British Israelites continue in decline, all well and good, but I would like to hear from anyone who has an opinion on the matter.

Mike

[R' Y'hoshua Moshe]

I could go into it further, and I might consider writing an article for my website, but first I'd like to know if the British Israelites are causing any real problems for the Jewish people.

I think that much of the negative affects of British Israelism can be discovered through a discussion of the effects of Replacement Theology throughout the centuries. In your studies, what have you observed?

Todah chaver,
(Thank you friend)

Reuel

[Mike Gascoigne]

Reuel said:

I think that much of the negative affects of British Israelism can be discovered through a discussion of the effects of Replacement Theology throughout the centuries. In your studies, what have you observed?

Replacement theology began with the early church fathers of the second and third centuries (Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian) and it has persisted throughout the entire history of the church. I just wanted to know if the British Israelites constitute a significant component if it. Are they currently a spent force, since the fall of the British Empire, or have they morphed into something else (Masons, Illuminati, etc.)

Mike

[JB]

I do not know much about British Israelism (although I once was one... ... Praise G'd for rescuing me from that false doctrine by sending my way Walter Martin's The Kingdom of the Cults ).

About all I do know is that British Israelism was part of a cultic system founded by a man known as Herbert W. Armstrong, who founded a cult known as the Worldwide Church of God. But, in a very rare event, a later leader of the organization reviewed Armstrong's teachings, decided that they were false, and actually reversed the organization's direction to change it from a cult to an actual Christian organization. However, during the transition, about fifty splinter groups broke off, and they retain Armstrong's teachings.

[Blake]

JB said:

I do not know much about British Israelism (although I once was one... ... Praise G'd for rescuing me from that false doctrine by sending my way Walter Martin's The Kingdom of the Cults ).

About all I do know is that British Israelism was part of a cultic system founded by a man known as Herbert W. Armstrong, who founded a cult known as the Worldwide Church of God. But, in a very rare event, a later leader of the organization reviewed Armstrong's teachings, decided that they were false, and actually reversed the organization's direction to change it from a cult to an actual Christian organization. However, during the transition, about fifty splinter groups broke off, and they retain Armstrong's teachings.

You mean the new leader he took this sabbath-keeping "Cult", took away the Sabbath, took away the oneness of God doctrines, took away the legitimate holy days of YHVH, took away away the Sabbath, and made it a more
"Christian" church to be accepted into this modern Babylon of Christendom?


Walter Martin is an idiot I'm sorry. He would consider me a cultists for denying the trinity. He is no more than those Priests who persecuted in the Dark Ages for beleiefs that were strange to them.

[Mike Gascoigne]

Blake said:

...The origin of the "British Israelite" myth was conjured up (at least in part) by a 5th century historian in order to garner more hatred for the Celts whom he said were desenced from Isaraelites.

Blake,

Can you tell me who is your 5th century historian? Do you mean St. Patrick, or someone contemporary with him?

Mike

[R' Y'hoshua Moshe]

Walter Martin is an idiot I'm sorry.

Now, now…be nice. I don’t disagree with you, but let us keep this type of language to a minimum.

You mean the new leader he took this sabbath-keeping "Cult", took away the Sabbath, took away the oneness of God doctrines, took away the legitimate holy days of YHVH, took away away the Sabbath, and made it a more
"Christian" church to be accepted into this modern Babylon of Christendom?

Good point. A leader that does this does no favors for Christianity.

Shalom,

Reuel

[Mike Gascoigne]

Here is a passage from Gildas on Penance. He was a 6th century Celtic monk, and although we don't have a precise date for any of his works, it is thought that he wrote his main work "The Ruin of Britain" about AD 540.

1. A presbyter or deacon committing natural or sodomite fornication, if he have taken a monk's vow previously, shall do penance for three years, shall pray for forgiveness every hour, shall do superpositio every week with the exception of the fifty days after Passio, shall have bread without measure and food fattened slightly with butter on the Lord's day; but on other days, if he be a workman, a measure of biscuit and broth slightly thickened, cabbages, a few eggs and British cheese, a Roman half-pint of milk because of weakness of flesh at that time; but a Roman pint of whey or butter-milk to quench his thirst, and the same quantity of water. He is not to have his bed furnished with much straw; let him make some addition by three quadragesimae, as far as his strength will admit. Let him from his deepest heart weep for his fault; let him above all things follow after obedience; after one year and a half he may take the Eucharist and come to communion; let him sing the Psalms with his brethren, lest his soul be lost completely, by so long a time of the heavenly discipline.

For the complete text with explanations of some of the obscure terms, see the following:

www.tertullian.org/fathers/gildas_06_penitential.htm

This passage affirms that the Celtic Christians observed Easter at the time of Passover, because they counted 50 days of celebration afterwards when the offending monk is not expected to fast. Clearly these are the Days of Omer leading up to Pentecost.

However, the passage does not affirm that they observed the Sabbath on Saturday. The offending monk is given a boring repetitive diet every day, but substantial enough to enable him to work. But on the Lord's Day (Sunday) he is given a much more restricted diet because he is not expected to work. There are few people who would argue that the Lord's Day could mean Saturday. The early church always knew the difference between Sabbath and Lord's Day, a matter I have discussed in my article:

www.annomundi.co.uk/bible/sabbath_and_lords_day.htm

This passage from Gildas explains why the Sabbath was never a point of contention when Augustine came to Britain in AD 596. They were already observing Sunday, but the observance of Easter was disputed because the Celts and Romans observed it on different days.

Mike

[Blake]

I belive it differed from region to to region. Some did keep the Sabbath and were more strict the than others. My calculation of what day June 9th, 597 the Saint Patrick called the sabbath (Friday Evening) proving at least he and most likely many of his kinsmen kept the true Sabbath.

7th CENTURY: SCOTLAND AND IRELAND
In the 600s CE: "It seems to have been customary in the Celtic Churches of the early times in Ireland as well as Scotland, to keep Saturday as a day of rest from labour. They observed the fourth commandment [that you should not work on the seventh day] literally on the seventh day of the week." (The Church in Scotland, Moffatt, page 140) "The Celts ...kept Saturday as a day of rest." (The rise of the Medieval Church, page 237)
In the 900s CE: 10th CENTURY: SCOTLAND "They worked on Sunday, but kept Saturday in a Sabbatical manner." (A
History of Scotland from the Roman Occupation, vol.1, p.96)
In the 1000s CE: 11th CENTURY: SCOTLAND "They held that Saturday was properly the Sabbath on which they abstained from work." (Celtic Scotland, vol.2, p.350) During the 11th century the Catholic Queen of Scotland, Margaret, tried to stamp out those that kept Saturday as the Sabbath Day and who refused to honor Sunday as the Sabbath Day.""

These historians seem to think the same. It is possible that they kept the Lord's Day along with the Sabbath like the Ethiopian Church had.


The Ethipian Church has a very rich history, its something I would like to discuss as well.

[Mike Gascoigne]

Here are some useful articles:

Medieval Sourcebook: Ad**nan: Life of St. Columba

www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/columba-e.html

In Chapter IX there is a dialogue in which the eighth day (i.e. the first day of the week) is considered to be the Sabbath, although this appears to be a rather casual use of the word, designating Sunday as the day of rest.

Then in Chapter XXIV, when predicting his own death, Columba refers more specifically to the "Biblical Sabbath" which means Saturday.

"This day in the Holy Scriptures is called the Sabbath, which means rest. And this day is indeed a Sabbath to me, for it is the last day of my present laborious life, and on it I rest after the fatigues of my labours; and this night at midnight, which commenceth the solemn Lord's Day, I shall, according to the sayings of Scripture, go the way of our fathers. For already my Lord Jesus Christ deigneth to invite me; and to Him, I say, in the middle of this night shall I depart, at His invitation. For so it hath been revealed to me by the Lord himself."

In this case, Columba is not defining Saturday as the day of rest for the whole church. Instead he referred to it as his personal Sabbath because he would go to be with the Lord.

Now we go to a page on Electric Scotland where we have an account of the conference between Queen Margaret and the Culdee Pastors. This is primarily based on the Life of St Margaret, Queen of Scotland by Turgot, her confessor.

www.electricscotland.com/history/wylie/vol3ch13.htm

Margaret accused the Culdee Pastors of shortening the Lenten fast because they wouldn't fast on the Sabbath. The Scottish Church followed the tradition of the Eastern Church, so that all fasts were prohibited on Sabbath (Saturday) and the Lord’s Day (Sunday). Then she accused them of neglecting the observance of the Lord's Day, and it appears they had a partial observance of both Saturday and Sunday.

Then in the next chapter we get the argument about the date of Easter:

www.electricscotland.com/history/wylie/vol3ch14.htm

The Celtic Christians were celebrating Easter at Passover, which meant the day of the Resurrection was usually a working day and not Sunday. The Roman Christians observed it according to a calculation that always has the Resurrection on Sunday.

Putting all this together, it seems that the Celtic Church placed less importance on Sunday observance than did the Roman Church, and they placed greater importance on the Sabbath (Saturday), although I have not yet seen a clear statement from an authentic medieval source that they were wholly Sabbatarian.

Mike

[number2]

this thread is old but I thought I would add my 2 cents here anyway. Something that should be considered on this subject is what Genesis says about this.

Genesis 15
4 And, behold, the word of the LORD came unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir.
5 And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be.

Genesis 17
5 Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee.
6 And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee.

Genesis 35
10 And God said unto him, Thy name is Jacob: thy name shall not be called any more Jacob, but Israel shall be thy name: and he called his name Israel.
11 And God said unto him, I am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins;

Genesis 48
16 The Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads; and let my name be named on them, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth.
17 And when Joseph saw that his father laid his right hand upon the head of Ephraim, it displeased him: and he held up his father's hand, to remove it from Ephraim's head unto Manasseh's head.
18 And Joseph said unto his father, Not so, my father: for this is the firstborn; put thy right hand upon his head.
19 And his father refused, and said, I know it, my son, I know it: he also shall become a people, and he also shall be great: but truly his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his seed shall become a multitude of nations.
20 And he blessed them that day, saying, In thee shall Israel bless, saying, God make thee as Ephraim and as Manasseh: and he set Ephraim before Manasseh.

And all of Genesis 49.
The point there being that the decendents of the sons of Israel
were to become nations in the end times.

11 nations for the 11 sons other than Joseph. And for Joseph one for Manasseh and a multitude for Ephraim.

Quite simply there is a large number of nations and a countless number of people descended from Israel/Jacob in today's world according to the prophecies in Genesis.

[R' Y'hoshua Moshe]

The point there being that the decendents of the sons of Israel
were to become nations in the end times.

11 nations for the 11 sons other than Joseph. And for Joseph one for Manasseh and a multitude for Ephraim.

Quite simply there is a large number of nations and a countless number of people descended from Israel/Jacob in today's world according to the prophecies in Genesis.

In all reality the above is conjecture. The text does not say that all the Gentile nations are representative of the "ten lost tribes". It says that Ephraim's seed would grow into a multitude of nations...How many "a multitude" is I believe is up for debate. And, how that all has played out as we look at the various nations today is also questionable. Do to this theology being questionable and that it really doesn't have much to do with our personal walk with the Father...I really don't think it is a theology that people should go out and push others to accept.

Any other thoughts?

Shalom,

Reuel

[Morne]

Does Mike still chat here, I'd like to speak to him about British Israelism, since he seems quite knowledgable on the subject