What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Bible Study The earthly throne of Israel is Extinct

C

charlesj

Guest
The earthly throne of Israel is Extinct. – Jer 22:24-30

The earthly throne of David became extinct in Coniah and Jeremiah declared that no man of his seed should prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling in Judah.

Here is the statement of Jeremiah:

Jeremiah 22:24-30 24 As I live, saith the LORD, though Coniah the son of Jehoiakim king of Judah were the signet upon my right hand, yet would I pluck thee thence; 25 And I will give thee into the hand of them that seek thy life, and into the hand of them whose face thou fearest, even into the hand of Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon, and into the hand of the Chaldeans. 26 And I will cast thee out, and thy mother that bare thee, into another country, where ye were not born; and there shall ye die. 27 But to the land whereunto they desire to return, thither shall they not return. 28 Is this man Coniah a despised broken idol? is he a vessel wherein is no pleasure? wherefore are they cast out, he and his seed, and are cast into a land which they know not?
29 O earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the LORD.
30 Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.

Coniah belonged to the lineage of David and was of the seed of David. He was NOT childless in the physical sense, he was the father of several sons, and their names are given in several places in the Old Testament record. He was childless in the sense referred to by Jeremiah. It was a decree that the earthly throne of David would be no more, he would have NO SEED after him on the throne, the throne of David ceased. The man who followed him on the throne was Zedekiah, his son, but he was the prince of Nebuchadnezzar, a vassal of the king of Babylon, and had no right to the throne. This fact is state in 2 Chron 36:10, put in the divine chronicles for a purpose:

2 Chronicles 36:10 10 In the spring, King Nebuchadnezzar sent for him and brought him to Babylon, together with articles of value from the temple of the LORD, and he made Jehoiachin's uncle, Zedekiah, king over Judah and Jerusalem.

Now, Zedekiah had NO right to the throne is further emphasized by an eloquent declaration of the prophet Ezekiel. Ezekiel, speaking of Zedekiah, the prophet says:

Ezekiel 21:25-27 25 And thou, profane wicked prince of Israel, whose day is come, when iniquity shall have an end, 26 Thus saith the Lord GOD; Remove the diadem, and take off the crown: this shall not be the same: exalt him that is low, and abase him that is high. 27 I will overturn, overturn, overturn, it: and it shall be no more, until he come whose right it is; and I will give it him.

But Jeremiah said that no man of Coniah’s seed should prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, ruling any more in Judah.

WHAT BEARING DOES THIS DECLARATION HAVE ON THE SUBJECT?

Just this:
Yahshua the Christ came through the seed of Coniah according to the genealogies of both Matthew and Luke, one establishing the natural and the other the legal seed of Yahshua, one through Joseph and the other through Mary. The New Testament record enters the names of Jeconiah (Coniah) and Salathiel (Shealtiel) his son, in the direct fleshly lineage of Yahahua. Yahshua, being of the earthly seed of Coniah, cannot therefore, according to Jeremiah, “prosper sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah†– notice the words, “ruling any more in Judah.â€Â
If Yahshua should come to his earth and sit upon David’s throne in Judah, Jeremiah says positively that He could not prosper on that throne, ruling any more in Judah. That puts an end to David’s earthly throne; it became extinct in Coniah. It was taken from Zedekiah. God removed his diadem and took off his crown, overturned this throne, and Ezekiel said that it whould be no more “until he come whose right it is.†That One to come was Christ, to whom alone belongs the throne, and He sits upon it NOT “in Judah†, but in heaven. Furthermore, Ezekiel plainly said that “this shall not be the same.†The earthly throne of David ceased, never to exist again.

Your servant in Messiah,
charlesj
 
Actually, God promised David an eternal throne that continued thru all generations.

Modern Christendom sees this as fulfilled in Christ, but actually the throne of David is an earthly throne (Christ is not presently on that throne until he returns).

I believe in what is commonly construed as a "British Israelite" slant and (as the family genealogist as well) see that God selected an alternate lineage that the throne was perpetuated that was a different lineage than Christ was from. They occupy the throne until "he whose right it is" as prophesied in Ezekiel.

I find it hard to understand how one can be a Christian and believe in an extinct throne, but that's my view.
 
tim_from_pa said:
Actually, God promised David an eternal throne that continued thru all generations.

Modern Christendom sees this as fulfilled in Christ, but actually the throne of David is an earthly throne (Christ is not presently on that throne until he returns).

I believe in what is commonly construed as a "British Israelite" slant and (as the family genealogist as well) see that God selected an alternate lineage that the throne was perpetuated that was a different lineage than Christ was from. They occupy the throne until "he whose right it is" as prophesied in Ezekiel.

I find it hard to understand how one can be a Christian and believe in an extinct throne, but that's my view.
Click to expand...


Hello Tim:

I really wonder how you can apply if one is a Christian or not by what they believe on an extinct earthly throne.
I obeyed the gospel of the Lord in August 1970. (That's what made me a Christian, not my beliefs on the end time.)
We may not believe alike, but that doesn't make either one of us "not a Christian" because we don't think alike. LOL
I am familiar with the British Israelite theories. (Mainly through Herbert & Garner Ted Armstrongs group, back when Herbert was alive and their group was popular and running TV ads etc.) As a Texan, I would say, BULL!

I am going to paste something that a Christian wrote: (I've believed this for over 30 years now)

Christ On David's Throne
by David Padfield

Premillennialists claim that one day our Lord will return to this earth for the purpose of establishing His kingdom. They further claim that He will sit and rule "on the throne of David" in Jerusalem for 1,000 years. The truth of the matter is that at this very moment, Christ is King of kings and Lord of lords, and He is now reigning from heaven "on the throne of David." If we can prove that Christ is now "on the throne of David," the entire theory of premillennialism falls to pieces.

God's Promise To David
King David of Israel, was a man after God's own heart (Acts 13:22). Before his death, God made several promises to him. "When your days are fulfilled and you rest with your fathers, I will set up your seed after you, who will come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be his Father, and he shall be My son. If he commits iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men and with the blows of the sons of men. But My mercy shall not depart from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I removed from before you. And your house and your kingdom shall be established forever before you. Your throne shall be established forever." (2 Sa. 7:12-16).

This promise to David can be summarized by four main points: 1) David's seed would be set upon the throne, 2) it would happen after David's death, 3) God would establish this throne, and 4) this one would build God's house. These promises were fulfilled by Jesus Christ, the son of David, when He ascended into heaven to sit at God's right hand.

When Peter preached the first gospel sermon in the name of our risen Lord, he told how God fulfilled His promises to David. "Men and brethren, let me speak freely to you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne, he, foreseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that His soul was not left in Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption. This Jesus God has raised up, of which we are all witnesses. Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He poured out this which you now see and hear. For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he says himself: The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool." (Acts 2:29-35).

The promises to David were fulfilled: 1) Christ was of the seed of David, 2) His coronation in heaven took place after the death of David, 3) Christ was raised up "to sit on his throne," and 4) God's house, the church, has been built. Paul wrote to Timothy to remind him "how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15).

What Was Established?
When God spoke to David, He said, "your house and your kingdom shall be established forever before you. Your throne shall be established forever." (2 Sam. 7:16). God promised to establish three things: David's house, David's kingdom, and David's throne. When you find out when one of these items was established you will find out when all of them were established.

David's house (royal family) was established in the first century. Matthew begins his gospel by proclaiming Christ to be "the Son of David, the Son of Abraham" (Matt. 1:1). Many centuries before God had promised, through the prophet Amos, to "raise up the tabernacle of David, which has fallen down, and repair its damages" (Amos 9:11). The NKJV adds a textual note to this verse, which says, "Lit. booth, A figure of a deposed dynasty." Amos had gone from his home at Tekoa to Bethel to prophesy against the kingdom of Israel, which had become very corrupt, and to warn the people of their coming doom (Amos 1:1; 7:7-17). The rule of David's house had ended for Israel when they left the theocracy; it ended for Judah with the carrying away of Coniah into Babylon (Jer. 22:24-30). They were sifted and scattered among the nations, and these verses refer to their return from captivity.

The "tabernacle" of David was the "royal family" of David. Please observe C.F. Keil's comments on the word "tabernacle" in this context: "Sukkah, a hut, indicates, by way of contrast to bayith, the house or palace which David built for himself upon Zion (2 Sam. v.11), a degenerate condition of the royal house of David. This is placed beyond all doubt by the predicate nopheleth, fallen down. As the stately palace supplies a figurative representation of the greatness and might of the kingdom, so does the fallen hut, which is full of rents and near destruction, symbolize the utter ruin of the kingdom. If the family of David no longer dwells in palace, but in a miserable fallen hut, its regal sway must have come to an end." (Commentary On The Old Testament, pp. 329, 330).

When the apostles and elders met in Jerusalem to discuss the state of the Gentiles, James quoted the prophecy of Amos and pointed out that it had to be fulfilled before the Gentiles could seek after God (Acts 15:13-19). What had to happen before the Gentiles could seek after God? The tabernacle of David had to be rebuilt. If Christ is not on David's throne, if the tabernacle has not been rebuilt, then the Gentiles cannot seek after God!

David's kingdom was "established" by Christ in the first century. Paul told the Colossians how God "has delivered us from the power of darkness and translated us into the kingdom of the Son of His love" (Col. 1:13). He told Hebrew Christians that "since we are receiving a kingdom which cannot be shaken, let us have grace, by which we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear" (Heb. 12:28).

David's throne was "established" when God raised "up the Christ to sit on his throne" and exalted Him "to the right hand of God" (Acts 2:29-36). Christ told the church at Laodicea, "To him who overcomes I will grant to sit with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne" (Rev. 3:21).

What Will David's Throne Do For Him?
If Jesus Christ is not now on David's throne, then one of three things will happen when he does ascend to that throne: 1) He will increase in power and authority, 2) He will decrease in power and authority, or 3) David's throne will add nothing to Him.

If you teach that being seated on David's throne will increase His authority, you have to explain passages like Matthew 28:18 where Jesus claimed, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth." Paul spoke of how Christ had been raised from the dead and seated at the right hand of God, "far above all principality and power and might and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come. And He put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all." (Eph. 1:20-23).

If He will decrease in power and authority when seated on David's throne, it would be a dishonor to Him. In this case, David's throne could only serve to weaken His power and authority.

The only other conclusion would be that David's throne would add nothing to Him -- in either power or authority. What a consequence!

Whose Throne Is It?
Premillennialists often claim that Christ is now on the "throne of God" but not on the "throne of David." However, a study of the Old Testament reveals that these are one in the same.

During the time of Samuel, the people of Israel desired to no longer be ruled by a judge but by a king. The sin of the people was not just that they wanted to be "like all the nations" around them, as I sometimes hear brethren preach in ignorance. Their sin was that they had rejected Jehovah as their king. "And the Lord said to Samuel, 'Heed the voice of the people in all that they say to you; for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me, that I should not reign over them.'" (1 Sam. 8:7).

God had long ago promised that kings would rule Israel. Just before his death, Jacob promised his son Judah that kings would come from him. "The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh comes; and to Him shall be the obedience of the people" (Gen. 49:10). Moses had even instructed the people on the duties and behavior of kings before the people entered the promised land (Deut. 17:14-20).

The point is that when God allowed Israel to have a king over them, that king was ruling Israel in place of God. This explains many of the passages related to the throne of David. At the coronation of Solomon, David said, "he shall come and sit on my throne, and he shall be king in my place. For I have appointed him to be ruler over Israel and Judah" (1 Kings 1:35). David also said, "And of all my sons (for the Lord has given me many sons) He has chosen my son Solomon to sit on the throne of the kingdom of the Lord over Israel" (1 Chron. 28:5).

We also read of how "Solomon sat on the throne of the Lord as king instead of David his father, and prospered; and all Israel obeyed him" (1 Chron. 29:23). Solomon himself said, "Now therefore, as the Lord lives, who has established me and set me on the throne of David my father, and who has made me a house, as He promised, Adonijah shall be put to death today!" (1 Kings 2:24). Solomon also said, "So the Lord has fulfilled His word which He spoke; and I have filled the position of my father David, and sit on the throne of Israel, as the Lord promised; and I have built a house for the name of the Lord God of Israel." (1 Kings 8:20).

When we put these passages together, we see how Solomon sat on "the throne of David," "the throne of the Lord," "the throne of Israel, " and "the throne of the kingdom of the Lord over Israel" all at the same time.

Christ On His Throne
The prophet Zechariah prophesied about the reign of Christ, and said, "He shall build the temple of the Lord. He shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule on His throne; so He shall be a priest on His throne, and the counsel of peace shall be between them both." (Zech. 6:13).

Christ was to do three things on His throne: 1) He would sit on His throne, 2) He would be a priest on His throne, and 3) He would rule on His throne. If we put this into the form of a syllogism, we would say: 1) He would rule on His throne while priest, 2) according to Hebrews 8:1, He is a priest on His throne now, and 3) therefore, He is ruling on His throne now.

Notice another syllogism: 1) He is a priest on His throne (Zech. 6:13), 2) He is a priest in heaven (Heb. 4:14), and 3) therefore, His throne is in heaven!

One last syllogism for your consideration: 1) He could not be a priest if He were on earth (Heb. 8:4), 2) however, He is a priest on His throne (Zech. 6:13), 3) therefore, His throne cannot be on earth!

Christ And Coniah
Jeremiah had condemned king Coniah as a "despised, broken idol" (Jer. 22:24-30). Coniah (also called Jeconiah) was to be cast out of the land and brought into captivity. We are further informed that he was a "man who shall not prosper in his days; for none of his descendants shall prosper, sitting on the throne of David, and ruling anymore in Judah" (Jer. 22:30). Notice this carefully: Coniah would never have a descendent of his sitting on the throne of David and ruling in Judah.

We need to notice the genealogy of this man. Jehoiakim begot Coniah (1 Chron. 3:16; Jer. 22:24). Coniah (Jeconiah) begot Shealtiel (1 Chron. 3:17; Matt. 1:12). Christ is a descendant of Shealtiel (Matt. 1:12).

Therefore, since Christ is a descendant of Coniah, He cannot sit on the throne of David and rule in Judah! Yet, this is the very heart of modern premillennialism! The truth is that Christ is on the throne of David -- but not in the land of Judah. He is on the throne of David in heaven where He must reign "till He has put all enemies under His feet" (1 Cor. 15:25).

Conclusion
When Our Lord returns it will not be for the purpose of establishing a kingdom -- He is at this very moment the King of kings and Lord of Lords (Rev. 17:14). He rules as sovereign King in His kingdom right now. When He returns He will deliver "the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power" (1 Cor. 15:24).

your servant in Messiah,
charlesj
 
Well, I can at least say one thing---- at least you do not believe in a literal return of Jesus Christ to reign from a throne. That's better than many Christians who says that he will, but otherwise debate and believe that the throne is vacant which would make no sense.

My theology differs from yours extensively, and the article is long to comment on in its entirety, but I heard of that before and know where you are coming from.

I am from a perspective that both heaven and Earth is very important, and earth was supposed to be like heaven had Adam not sinned. Therefore in my theology, and many in the Jewish world, concepts such as family, tribes and nations and kingdoms were very real. Satan is the god of this world, taking the reigns when Adam submitted to him in effect as Lord.

Israel was God's chosen people and earthly representation of God's government to be eventually restored what was lost in the fall, here on this earth.

The problem I have with God reigning "out there" is that it seems to move the Kingdom from the earth while letting everyone else who does not have the kingdom "in their hearts" go to hell. In that respect, Satan would have won if God just moves everything to existing out there somewhere and only influences men by his Spirit alone and nothing else will ever happen.

The statement made by your article,

Therefore, since Christ is a descendant of Coniah, He cannot sit on the throne of David and rule in Judah! Yet, this is the very heart of modern premillennialism! The truth is that Christ is on the throne of David -- but not in the land of Judah. He is on the throne of David in heaven where He must reign "till He has put all enemies under His feet" (1 Cor. 15:25).

This bothers me severely. Why would you, or anyone else want to worship a cursed Messiah if he is not allowed to rule in the land of Judah? Is that "all power" given to him, except for the land of Judah? If one wants to escape the rule of Christ, then, all they have to do is run to Judah and he cannot touch them there. Seems to be a pretty ineffectual Messiah.

There is no indication to me that Coniah is in Luke's genealogy at all. There is supposition because of the names Zorobabel and Shealtiel. There are many explanations to this--- for instance Levirate marriage or one that I consider possible were two names identical but not the same people as in Matthew. What we do know is that Conaih is not mentioned in that genealogy---- and for that matter, even Joseph, Jesus' father, is not really in that genealogy, but I heard all kinds of fallout from unbelievers who want to discredit Christ about that one.

I am not a follower of Armstrong, per se. But I sound similar to him. Your answer to the tracing of the lost tribes and thrones (i.e. "BULL!") is parroting of what many say, but to this very day not a one person can answer who fulfilled Genesis 35:11. The Jews did not if they are supposedly all the 12 tribes. I put this question out many times over---- too many to count and not a single soul knew (and probably did not even care) what verses like that really meant. Instead, I got all kinds of name-calling of the doctrine. Not really a counter-argument at all.

The problem is that these national promises, and promises of Kings were understood to be literal descendants and were part of the entire package of Messianic promises. In other words, throw one out and Messiah goes by default. These were major, foundational, and "the meaning of everything" verses. To throw them aside is like playing chess without understanding that the goal is to trap the king (and play it by merely jumping pieces instead).
 
tim_from_pa said:
I am not a follower of Armstrong, per se. But I sound similar to him. Your answer to the tracing of the lost tribes and thrones (i.e. "BULL!") is parroting of what many say, but to this very day not a one person can answer who fulfilled Genesis 35:11. The Jews did not if they are supposedly all the 12 tribes. I put this question out many times over---- too many to count and not a single soul knew (and probably did not even care) what verses like that really meant. Instead, I got all kinds of name-calling of the doctrine. Not really a counter-argument at all.
Click to expand...

Hello Tim:

I am going to paste something that I wrote tonight. Being as you are "similar to him" (Herbert W. Armstrong & Garner Ted Armstrong) I will base my thoughts on them assuming you are "like them." (I hope you are not "like" Herbert W. Armstrong....he is dead. ...couldn't resist that. lol)

Your theory that Anglo-Saxons being descendants of the ten tribes “in large part†reminds me of the theory of the “origin of species.†By the evolution theory they try to make a monkey out of a man and by this British Israelite theory you are trying to make an Israelite out of an Englishman!! LOL

Like the theory of evolution, Anglo-Israelism is at best a guess, was born in doubt and exists in doubt. In one hundred and fifty years (plus/minus) of existence it still has nothing to offer but doubt. It consists of biological impossibilities, with centuries of mixed marriages, and brings fourth a mongrel Israel.

British Israelites insist that the ten tribes are the real Israel, not the Jews of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin – but the ten tribes – and the Anglo-Saxons(us) are descendants of the ten tribes, therefore we are Israel.
Now, using your thinker, ask yourself the question:
When and how did the ten tribes originate? Read 1Kings 12 & 13. They originated in the rending of the kingdom and went off in apostasy. God’s throne and kingdom remained in Judah. God repudiated the kingdom of the ten tribes and set a prophet out of Judah to denounce their altars. How does it happen now that the apostate ten tribes have the advantage over Judah? HUH?
Just how and when did the ten tribes fall heir to the throne of Judah? Can you please give me some “scriptural†answers?

In order to prove your “theory†you must:
1. Prove that the ten tribes were once lost.
a. If so, how do you know it?
2. Prove that they have found these lost tribes. And… how can we identify them?
3. Prove that the British and American people are these lost ten tribes. How do you prove this? How do you identify them?
4. Prove that Great Britain is Ephraim and the United States is Manasseh. (Proving this will prove that England is greater than the U.S.A.)
5. Prove that the ten tribes alone constitute the house of Israel, in which there are no Jews.
6. Prove that “Jews†and “Israel†are never synonymous.

In the Old Testament we have many uses of Jew & Israel. In Exodus 21:2 2 If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.
In reference to this same law in Leviticus it says:
Leviticus 25:46 46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.

“Hebrew servant†is mentioned as “your brethren, the children of Israel†over whom they should “not rule†continuously “with rigour.â€Â

Then in Jeremiah 34:9 the same law of slavery is restated that every man should let his “Hebrew†servant “go free,†and this phrase is added: “…to wit, of a Jew his brother.â€Â

Jeremiah 34:9 9 That every man should let his manservant, and every man his maidservant, being an Hebrew or an Hebrewess, go free; that none should serve himself of them, to wit, of a Jew his brother.

Here, I’ve shown you three statements of the same law. Moses stated it twice and used the terms “Hebrew†and “Israel†interchangeably, showing that he recognized no difference. Moses and Jeremiah understood Hebrew, Jew and Israel to mean the same thing and used the three words synonymously.
The reference to the covenant that God made with Israel when He brought them out of Egypt shows that Jeremiah was referring to the same law of slavery.

Jeremiah 34:13-14 13 Thus saith the LORD, the God of Israel; I made a covenant with your fathers in the day that I brought them forth out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondmen, saying, 14 At the end of seven years let ye go every man his brother an Hebrew, which hath been sold unto thee; and when he hath served thee six years, thou shalt let him go free from thee: but your fathers hearkened not unto me, neither inclined their ear.

Jeremiah did not know about this late distinction the Anglo-Israelites are making between Jews and Israelite – Jeremiah thought a Hebrew, a Jew and an Israelite were the same thing.
The Old Testament does not bear out the distinction.

What does the New Testament say about it? Who are Israelites in the New Testament use of the word? Does the New Testament make a difference between a “fleshly Jew†and a fleshly “Israelite�

1. John preached repentance to the Jews “of Judea†– Mark 1:4,5 But John preached “repentance to ALL the people of Israel†Acts 13:24
2. Nicodemus was a “ruler of the Jews†– John 3:1 But Nicodemus was a “master of Israel†–John 3:10.
3. Paul the apostle was a “Jew of Tarsus†– Acts 21:39 But Paul the apostle was also “an Israelite†–Rom 11:1.
4. Paul called the Jews his own nation --Gal 1:13,14. But Paul called Israel his nation – Acts 28:17-20.
5. Paul was a fleshly Jew “by nature.†– Gal 2:15. But Paul was the same kind of an Israelite – 2Cor 11:22.
6. Paul called Peter a Jew like “other Jews†-Gal 2:11-15. Peter called himself a Jew in contrast with “another nation†– Acts 10:28.
7. Jews “out of every nation†were dwelling at Jerusalem –Acts 2:5. Peter referred to all these Jews as “men of Israel†– Acts 2:22.
8. The Old Covenant was given to the “Jews.†– Rom 3:1. But the Old Covenant was given to Israel – Rom 9:4
9. Paul called the Jews the circumcision – Rom 3:29,30. He referred to Israel as the circumcision – Gal 6:13-16.
10. The gospel was first preached to the Jews –Rom 1:16. But the gospel was first preached to Israel –Acts 10:36
11. At first the gospel was preached only to the Jews – Acts 11:19. But at first the gospel was preached to Israel – Acts 10:36

12. Matthew called Yahshua the king of the Jews –Matt 27:29-37. Mark called Yahshua the king of Israel. – Mark 15:17,32.

Also, let it be observed here (Matthew & Mark) that Pilate asked only one question. He did not ask Christ was king of the Jews and then ask if He was king of Israel. The records of Matthew and Mark therefore show that they used the terms interchangeably; one said that He was king of the Jews, but the other said He was king of Israel ---but they meant the same thing.

13. Paul declares that Yahshua was of the tribe of Judah – Heb 7:14. John declares that Yahshua was Lion of the tribe of Judah – Rev 5:5.

If Paul had been of the tribe of Judah, would my Anglo-Israelites admit that he was a Jew? YES! Then since Yahshua was of the tribe of Judah, what keeps Him from being a Jew?
The ol’ British Israelites I’ve know in past, I’m not sure about you, insist that Neither Christ nor any of the apostles of Christ were Jews.
Yahshua was of the tribe of Judah; Paul was of the tribe of Benjamin, which merged with Judah and continued under the name of Judah. This fact is clearly stated in 1 Kings 12:20-23. So Paul the Benjamite, and Yahshua the Judah-ite – but neither of them was a Jew according to the British Israelite. LOL

14. In the Lord’s conversation with the Samaritan woman, Yahshua said that He was a Jew – John 4:9-22.
First, the woman of Samaria said to Yahshua: “How is it that thou being a Jew asked drink of me…? …for Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans.â€Â
Here Yahahua permitted this woman to call Him a Jew, and John the apostle wrote it down that way in the gospel record. Then inverse 22, Yahshua said to the woman, “ye worship ye know not what; WE know what WE worship: for salvation is of the Jews.â€Â
Thus Yahshua accepted the name Jew when the woman called Him one, and then in referring to “ye†and “we†when replying to her He called Himself one.
As a matter stands, Paul the Hebrew, the Benjamite, the Israelite, was a Jew. Yahshua who “sprang out of Judah,†and who was the “Lion of the tribe of Judah,†was a Jew. Paul said “we Jews†(Gal 2:15) and Yahshua said “we Jews†(John 4:22) – so Yahshua and Paul wre Jews if their own words count anything or have any meaning.
15. Prove that God chose the ten tribes over Judah.
16.
In Psalms 78:67,68 David says very specifically that God “refused the tabernacle of Joseph†and “chose not the tribe of Ephraim†but “chose the tribe of Judah.â€Â
WHEN DID GOD CHANGE HIS MIND AND CHOOSE THE TRIBE OF EPHRAIM INSTEAD?
Please show me one passage.

I am willing to bet that you didn’t know that God put an end to the people of Ephraim.
Isaiah the prophet declared that Ephraim should cease to be a people. Ephraim was forming an alliance against Judah. God said ti would not stand or come to pass, and that Ephraim would be broken, cease to be a separate people and become extinct as a nation. In fulfillmen of that prophecy they went into captivity and never came out one people again.

Isaiah 7:6-8 6 Let us go up against Judah, and vex it, and let us make a breach therein for us, and set a king in the midst of it, even the son of Tabeal: 7 Thus saith the Lord GOD, It shall not stand, neither shall it come to pass. 8 For the head of Syria is Damascus and the head of Damascus is Rezin; and within threescore and five years shall Ephraim be broken, that it be not a people.

This prophecy was spoken by Isaiah in 733 B.C. The prophecy was fulfilled in 669 B.C., sixty-five years later… that is, “three score and five years,†when when Ephraim was carried into captivity. The prophecy is linked with the prophecy that the invasion of Judah by Samaria would fail.
But the prophet said that Ephraim would cease to be a people. Ephraim NEVER CAME OUT OF CAPTIVITY TO EXIST AS A PEOPLE AGAIN.


Your servant in Messiah,
charlesj
 
Your posts are very long and I would tend to tackle one thing at a time. As for #1 proving there are lost tribes, I say say 3 things right off the bat, and quote many, many other similar types of scripture. The bible says they will be lost, known as "not my people" in Hosea. In the book of the Law, the Lord said as a punishment I would scatter them into corners, I would make the remembrance of them to cease from among men:

I believe the Jews are primarily from Judah, but if they are 12 tribes, when where they ever known as "not my people" and forgotten? On the contrary, Jews were always historically sought after to persecute.

In addition, the bible is replete with references to the "house of Israel' and "house of Judah" of which Ezekiel 37 is an excellent example that talks about the rejoining of the two sticks---- Judah and Israel are very much separated until the time of the end. But that's right. You do not believe in end-times I guess that important passage will just be swept away (and a careful reading of it shows it did not happen yet).

Then there's that funny statement that only the Bi types like us see the humor in and seem to understand where Jesus said.

Ye shall seek me, and shall not find me: and where I am, thither ye cannot come.

Then said the Jews among themselves, Whither will he go, that we shall not find him? will he go unto the dispersed among the Gentiles, and teach the Gentiles?

True Messiah was understood to bring all the tribes together again, so they were poking fun at Jesus that he was going out to the Gentiltes and find these tribes to teach them.

Of course, no serious historian denies there are lost tribes--- they just do not accept who or whom they became.

Sorry, that's five, not 3 references just touching the tippy tip of the scriptural iceburg.

I cannot resist #16

He's not rejecting them (Joseph) as the birthright. David is talking about to rule. The promise of the scepter was given way back in the end of Genesis.
Joseph still had the birthright, Judah the scepter, and this never changed. What was the birthright?

back to Genesis 35:11 for starters which you so much evaded. There seems to be great effort in disproving the lost tribes, that as usual all I see is tap-dancing around these great promises and nothing is ever said about them.
 
Your posts are very long and I would tend to tackle one thing at a time....
Click to expand...
I agree Tim. I have posted numerous times that members cut down on the length of posts. Maybe I will ask the Mods to start deleting overly long posts if this continues. :-? :-?
 
vic said:
Your posts are very long and I would tend to tackle one thing at a time....
Click to expand...
I agree Tim. I have posted numerous times that members cut down on the length of posts. Maybe I will ask the Mods to start deleting overly long posts if this continues. :-? :-?
Click to expand...

Delete a whole bunch of useful information? :o :sad


I appreciate the information.

I would not have known if it weren't for the posting this information.

Don't want to disrespect anyone here, but what are we to do? Go some place else and create our own pages of information, and just link to them? I wonder.... will anyone really bother to do that? :sad

I really do find this subject interesting and would love to have as much information as possible and I do appreciate the debating of it here. So now what? :sad

.

.
 
Dan. 7:13-14 Jesus is ascending to God the Father and is given rule.

James sees the restoration of David's throne as already being fulfilled when he quotes Amos 9:11-12 in Acts 15:13-21.

Rev. 5:7 We find Christ sitting on the throne.

The Kingdom was at hand 2000 years ago, unless you change the meaning of "at hand", it's already come in the form of the Church and the rule of the Gospel.

peace,

jm
 
vic said:
Your posts are very long and I would tend to tackle one thing at a time....
Click to expand...
I agree Tim. I have posted numerous times that members cut down on the length of posts. Maybe I will ask the Mods to start deleting overly long posts if this continues. :-? :-?
Click to expand...

Sorry.... I will try to cut down on my posts. I don't like sitting in front of this computer that long anyway... (also, this is NOT copywrite material, this is from my little thinker... FYI...)

your servant in Messiah,
charlesj
 
Relic said:
.

Wow,

I'm surprised I didn't see it before I made this thread about this book.

The United States & Britain in Prophecy
http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=24325


Just 4 days afterward , I discovered this very interesting discussion here.

I have printed out this thread and will read the whole of it when I have time.

Thanks for the information. :) .
Click to expand...



Hi Relic:

There's been several threads on this topic, usually sparked by a topic (in this case the throne) that is related to it.

Here's a link to J. H. Allen's book "Judah's Sceptre/Joseph's Birthright." It is a free online book in zip format---- about 31 chapters. One a day and you'll be thru it in a month. I think it is better than Armstrong's book, although, Armstrong's book is good as well. (I believe Allen was a Methodist minister that believed in the lost tribes of Israel)

http://www.geocities.com/abreone/jsjb.zip

As for the site that refuted the book
http://www.bible.ca/pre-british-israeli ... strong.htm,
I would not take them too seriously. I had one-to-one dealings with them and I did not find them too amicable. I even answered their refutations, but they are on a one-track mind refusing to believe what the bible says, and they take the (implied) stance, "if you don't agree, you're going to hell"
 
Interesting thread. IMHO, your allegation that the throne of David is extinct is untrue and your use of the curse of Coniah only serves to prove that Jesus could not be the Mashiach of Israel. Please provide your proof with appropriate scriptural references.
 
einstein said:
Interesting thread. IMHO, your allegation that the throne of David is extinct is untrue and your use of the curse of Coniah only serves to prove that Jesus could not be the Mashiach of Israel. Please provide your proof with appropriate scriptural references.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what your persuasion is (pro or con), but you did bring up an interesting point for our friend to consider.

This Coniah association is the very thing that some of the atheistic slant take to prove that Jesus is not the Messiah. In the case of this thread, this association is used to explain a supposed lack of a throne--- whatever benefits the belief in other words.
 
While waiting to hear from charlesj. let me state this for consideration: According to 2 Sam7: 12-16 the essential elements of the Davidic dynasty are that it is an everlasting dynasty, passing immediately to the biological son of David who is to build the Temple, and will be propagated through David's seed so that every future king who occupies the throne will be a mortal man. Even if that king should commit iniquity, he will be punished accordingly, yet God will keep the dynasty intact and not terminate it as was done with Saul.

The Davidic covenant does not stipulate that the throne will always be occupied by a reigning king and in fact the prophets foretold that there would be a intgerregnum period. God's promise to David also does not stipulate, among other things, that there would be a special future king who would preside over a heavenly rather than an earthly kingdom, or that this special king would build a heavenly, rather than a earthly Temple. These beliefs, and various other beliefs are not to be found in the Hebrew Bible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top