Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
God is wrong about pork.
That's a fact. No telling what else he's wrong about.
But his church is filled with blue-eyed, blond-haired, white skinned people, some of whom need dental work (especially the English).
The conquerors usually write the histories.
God's purpose was to make the Anglo-Saxon race predominant
not the heavens - it's the 4th century christian bible that portrays jesus as being - blue eyed, blond hair w/ shiny teeth and chalk white skin.
Methinks he protesteth too much, and, denial is a poor argument.What is British Israelism, and is it True?
by William Hoste (1861-1938)
William Hoste, author, preacher and editor of The Believer’s Magazine from 1931-38, graduated from Trinity College, Cambridge, having studied theology there under Handley Moule. Answering a question in print about what Christians are to make of “British Israelism” he answered as follows:
The British-Israel hypothesis is that “Anglo-Saxons are the lineal descendants of the ten tribes of Israel and inherit the wonderful promises made to them. These promises the Anglo-Saxons possess nationally”.
This can hardly be dignified with the name of ‘heresy’; it is rather one of those ‘imaginations that we are to seek to cast down in the name of Christ. As far as truth is concerned, it is of “the stuff that dreams are made of”; a simile not so far-fetched, when we consider that the British Israelism theory’s prime foundation is, as we shall see, confessedly, an invented dream.
How sad it is to see even pious Christians snared by the great fowler, as also numbers of worldlings, taking up as a sort of fashionable pastime the slogan, not “we are lost sinners” but “we are the lost tribes”. It thus provides for the world another gospel, which captivates and hypnotises them with the thought of capturing great earthly blessings for themselves and the British Empire, apart from repentance and faith in Christ, as though He had never died and risen to procure us blessings, and we must needs make out a fancied identity with the lost tribes (bereft of the blessings themselves) in order to get a few for ourselves and the British Empire.
Certainly Christ did not die for the glory of the British Empire. If God has blessed our country so signally in the past, the reasons are not far to seek: (1) His sovereignty; (2) the comparatively good treatment England has bestowed on the Jews; (3) the fact that she has been a harbour of refuge for persecuted continental Christians: (4) because, by His mercy, the Word of God was accepted at the Reformation, and became our national Book for centuries; (5) and because of His many people in our country and their prayers; though now she is on the way to forfeit all of this by her national sin and apostasy.
But not one blessing did Britain ever inherit for the ‘British-Israel’ reason, because even if she were the lost tribes, she has not kept God’s laws and statutes, the very condition of blessing (See Deut 28:15) and would have put herself outside the covenant, if ever under it, by neglecting circumcision. British Israelism is no mere harmless delusion; its logical effect is virtually to exclude Christ (because not He, but the British Empire looms at the centre of things), and to supersede the gospel to sinners with some fancied national position, with its naked abandonment of the heavenly calling of the church and a complete confusion between her and Israel. Even if we were Israel, she is set on one side nationally for the present so far as earthly blessing goes, and so should we be.
If space allowed, I would gladly take up the general arguments for or against the much vaunted ‘identifications’, but before examining the ornaments of a building, it is well to enquire as to the foundation. I believe no castle-in-the-air ever had a flimsier base than this theory. Is there any historical proof that the ten tribes migrated from the latitudes where the Assyrians placed them, to England or anywhere else? There is not a scintilla. No mention is made of their doings either in Scripture or secular history from about 720 BC, when their Assyrian captors settled them in Assyria, etc., though we have promises in the Scriptures of their future restoration, e.g. Isa 11:12 where Jehovah promises to gather back again to their only land of blessing the “outcasts of Israel”, along with “the dispersed of Judah”, from whom they are thus carefully distinguished. We may be sure that the Assyrians, as long as they had the power, would not allow their captives to wander away at their own sweet will to some other land. Until we have some proof that the ten tribes ever started on their journey for the British Isles, it is futile to spend time in proving they never arrived there.
On what then does the British Israelism theory rest? On a passage in an Apocryphal book, the 2nd of Esdras, purporting to have been written by Ezra the scribe, but really forged 700 years after the captivity by some unscrupulous impersonator living in Egypt. The passage (see chapter 13:1-12, 39-46) purports to be the interpretation of a fictitious dream ascribed to Ezra, to the effect that the ten tribes took counsel to leave the heathen country where they were in captivity and go off into a land where no one dwelt; where they might keep God’s statutes. They crossed the Euphrates miraculously and after a year and a half arrived at some unknown region called Arsareth. “Then dwelt they there until the latter time.” The whole chapter reads like an unholy parody of Scripture, as indeed it is, naturally bereft of all spiritual power, and bristling with the wildest improbabilities. And yet this fake dream and its fictitious interpretation is admitted by the writers of British Israel Truth (chap. 7) to be the “one only tradition of their fate (i.e., of the lost tribes) which past ages have handed on to us” (See British Israel – Under New Searchlight, by Avary Forbes).
That a whole system should rest ultimately on a ‘tradition’ would be bad enough, but when that ‘tradition’ is a dream, that nobody really ever had, the edifice must be in a parlous state. As to how to deal with a Christian who becomes infected with this unscriptural, unhistorical theory; it may be said that as far as is apparent, it does not effect directly fundamental truth as to the person of Christ, though what it may lead to is difficult to say. Any attempt to propagate it in an assembly could not be tolerated, and anyone persisting in such a course would bring himself or herself under the open rebuke of the elders. Certainly, the theory “causes division and offences contrary to the doctrine, which we have learned” and we we should mark and avoid those who are in active sympathy with this sad delusion.
Except Jesus was an Arab and most likely looked a lot more like Haddam Hussein than any White actor that ever played him in the moviesMost of us get this. We understand history the way they used to teach it. This George Grey guy knew how real life worked.
---The Role of the Missionaries---
?There are many, many strange birds on this forum who do not go to church and cover their racism with "Christianity"
The promises of race and grace were independent of each other, and unconditional. The critics need to conflate them to make their arguments.Sounds a little racist what you say here. In an area where blue haired, blond eyed and white skinned people live it may indeed happen that this people go to a church service. Why not?
Brexit was necessary for England's survival....the UK has gone for self destruction with Brexit....
Sorry, you always have to be wrong.Sorry bout that,
1. Without the white man, this world would still be living on the farm, using candles to light the way.
2. But humankind isn't all about our needs, there's more, lots more.
3. Salvation of the soul is keen.
Regards,
SirJamesofTexas
He looks white to me.Except Jesus was an Arab and most likely looked a lot more like Haddam Hussein than any White actor that ever played him in the movies
I am sure you are color-blind.He looks white to me.
He was a Galilean Jew and was said to be of such average appearance that he didn't stand out at allHe looks white to me.
Being a carpenter he would have been dark in skin color from working outside.He was a Galilean Jew and was said to be of such average appearance that he didn't stand out at all
He most likely looked like very much this
View attachment 878904
British Israelism is a pseudoarchaeological, pseudohistorical and pseudoreligious belief that the people of Great Britain are the direct descendants of the Ten Lost Tribes of ancient Israel 1. The doctrine claims that the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel found their way to Western Europe and Britain, becoming the ancestors of the British, the English and related peoples 1. The central tenets of British Israelism have been refuted by archaeological, ethnological, genetic, and linguistic research 12. The movement has been around since the 16th century and was inspired by several 19th century English writings 1. From the 1870s onward, numerous independent British Israelite organizations were set up throughout the British Empire as well as in the United States; as of the early 21st century, a number of these organizations are still active 1. The idea gave rise to the Christian Identity movement in the United States 1.
1en.wikipedia.org2cdamm.org3en.wikipedia.org
AI
He looks white to me.
Eh?The promises of race and grace were independent of each other, and unconditional. The critics need to conflate them to make their arguments.
