It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Lost tribes found

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 3 2005 @ 10:08 PM
link   
I am posting this because i think it is something that you all need to know.
The Lost tribes of israel have actually not been lost to history as most of us think. Just kind of obscured from history and this apparently was God's plan. I will explain later. I used to think there was no historical trace of the lost tribes and that is not really true. Who are the lost tribes you ask, well the lost tribes now reside in Great Britain, and some surrounding countries. How do I know this? what historical facts to back it up? well, in the 14th century in scotland, the scottish declaration of independence clearly states that they are the decendants of the lost tribes and they detail the route they took from palestine. The pope read the declaration and approved it. there is also a coronation stone with hebrew writing on it, and there are more, i have just barely scratched the surface.

Well, you ask, if they are Israelites why dont they know it. Well, a select few do know it. According to Isaiah 42:16 the Israelites were made blind to the fact of what and who they were, most of them. In Hebrews 8:8 God renews his covenant with the christians.




posted on May, 3 2005 @ 10:23 PM
link   
Got any links to back up your opinion?

BTW the british have had a "wannabe isrealites " complex for centuries. There are people who said that Israel is infact England, and that Jerusalem was in England

("And was Jerusalem builded here
amongst these dark satanic mills?")

It comes from a time when they felt they were the superior race and because of that everything had to come from the british empire.

So it means nothing as it just follows a national obsession through history.


[edit on 3-5-2005 by Netchicken]



posted on May, 3 2005 @ 10:35 PM
link   
I find this post interesting, but however, the twelve tribes each had a particular task... For example, the Levites were in charge of temple worship while others tilling and growing... This made it very handy while wandering in the desert for forty years. Never let it be said that God is a micro-manager. My questions would be:
1. Which "lost" tribes are these Celts supposed to be alligned with.
2. Were entire tribes part of this migration ? Levites wandered around in small groups starting new temples which eventually led to the Pharisees and Sadducees.
3. Each tribe was ascribed to certain family names and they would return to the area from which the tribe hailed to pay taxes and particiapte in the census. This happened for thousands of years. Hence why Joseph was in Bethlehem when Jesus was born. So certianly the tribes had been accounted for for quite some time.
4. After the death and ressurection of Christ, some would argue that the prophesy of the linegage of the Messiah was fulfilled and perhaps the record keeping wasn't as accurate among some of the tribes (ie, Dan) as it should have been. HOWEVER.... Those who didn't belive that JC was the messiah are still probaby keeping pretty good records of the tribes.
5. Decendants of the tribe of Asher were located in Central Africa in the late 80's and they were able to tell becuase of DNA typing.

Now to my point. Basically most Eastern and Western Europeans have Semetic blood and thusly are decended from one of the Twelve Tribes. Some believe that many Asians share a common decendent to Dinah, the sister of the twelve tribes. I'd have to see some pretty hard evidence (DNA) to say that a previously undiscovered tribe has been found in the UK.
Please post any links or information you may have in this matter.



posted on May, 3 2005 @ 10:38 PM
link   
Well, it's not an opinion, if you'll look up the scottish declaration of independence you'll see it says exactly what i say it does, and genetic material is difficult to go by because the jews have been kind of mongrelized so they share traits with many others including israelites.



posted on May, 3 2005 @ 11:00 PM
link   
Ahhh sorry but the scottish thing is just a manifestation of their wannabe complex. Just because they say so doesn't make it true.

The part about the Jews is opinion, and not very well versed at that. There are distinct difference in the genetics of the Jews fom other races because they so carefully bred among themselves.


[edit on 3-5-2005 by Netchicken]



posted on May, 3 2005 @ 11:13 PM
link   
Judiasim is a religion. The Isrealites are a race of people. To be decended from these tribes, you will have genetic markers. Testing for these tribes with these genetic markers has been going on since the late 70's. I have a cousin who was recently tested to find out where she comes from. We have always thought her side to the family has been Ukarainan and Polish. My family is Ukaranian on both sides (or so I think) Anyway, she turned up to be part Persian, which was makes her part of the Ammorite Tribe, who, of course ,were old testament pagans. Now if I'm tested and find out that I'm not of Persian decent, then we know that the Persian decent is on her father's side. Different enthic groups have different genetic markers and disorders. Haven't you noticed that hemophylia, thallasemia and aplastic anemia all are from the Mediterranean area ? Sickle Cell anemia is only in people of African Decent, and there are several immune problems specifically in male children of Isreali decent. Everyone on earth is pretty much a mongrel these days...execpt for maybe Abboriginal Australians. But after testing groups of people, science has been able to determine certain genetic markers with which they are able to classify lineage, and area of decent and then subcategories of say a group from a particular area or common ancestor. I would say that gentics is more exact then the Scottish declaration of independence. It puzzles me why such a thing would be listed in that document anyway.. I have never had the necessity to read the Scottish declaration of independence, but I'll take a gander for curiosity's sake. Also, which pope ?? Some of the past pope's would put their blessing on anything for the right price, so to me a papal endorsement of a document doesn't mean squat. Some of the pope's in the middle ages were barely literate. Please send be the link or the title of the book where you found this information. I'm going to google up the Scottish declaration of independece and get back to you.



posted on May, 3 2005 @ 11:54 PM
link   
Nice answer


Can I make the first post with a link?

www.aish.com...

Recently published research in the field of molecular genetics -- the study of DNA sequences -- indicates that Jewish populations of the various Diaspora communities have retained their genetic identity throughout the exile. Despite large geographic distances between the communities and the passage of thousands of years, far removed Jewish communities share a similar genetic profile. This research confirms the common ancestry and common geographical origin of world Jewry.


As Judasim is passed down through the matriarchal side, common genetic patterns can be passed down continuoiusly through generations.
www.humanitas-international.org...


The finding suggested that Jewish men who founded the communities traced their lineage back to the ancestral Mideastern population of 4,000 years ago from which Arabs, Jews and other people are descended. It pointed to the genetic unity of widespread Jewish populations and took issue with ideas that most Jewish communities were relatively recent converts like the Khazars, a medieval Turkish tribe that embraced Judaism.



posted on May, 4 2005 @ 08:56 AM
link   
Didn't we all come from the same people God initially created? Like it or not, you're all my brothers and sisters. Now...who am I going to see at the family reunion?



posted on May, 4 2005 @ 09:14 AM
link   
Here is an interesting article I found:

www.newscientist.com...




The Genographic Project aims to collect DNA from hundreds of thousands of people around the world over the next five years, including indigenous peoples. Those who wish to contribute their own DNA can purchase DNA sampling kits for $100, with the money being used to fund further research.

By analysing the DNA, the researchers hope to trace past migrations and create a family tree for humanity. Data from the project will be made freely available to other researchers at the end of the project, and a "virtual museum" of human history will also be established.


More information can be found on the official site of the project:

www5.nationalgeographic.com...

I think that should settle the debate of who descended from whom, who went to where at what point in time, where are the "lost" tribes, stuff like that.



posted on May, 4 2005 @ 09:27 AM
link   
Arcaheological and biological evidence supports the idea that they were absorbed into the Assyrian empire. There is some genetic support for the claims of a group in India that they are Jewish descendants:
genomebiology.com...

From an archaeological and cultural standpoint, the Anglo-Israeli connection doesn't make any sense. It requires the Jewish population to suddenly migrate on a 2,000 mile journey AND to ditch their traditions and laws (particularly regarding diet and priesthood) AND to have their educated members forget (suddenly) how to write.

...and to change their technology and way of making pottery. Completely.

...and to change their religion from an Abrahamic one that was beginning to be involved with Sumerian/Assyrian gods and customs into a brand new one that has no relation to their old deities.

Uhm... that's about like having each of you suddenly move your families to Patagonia and then deciding to never again write and begin speaking a brand new language composed of languages that are already in the area and suddenly invent a brand new religion. While you might get a family (under a fanatical father-figure leader) doing this, you sure aren't going to get 20,000 people doing it.

It also ignores the fact that the British Isles were inhabited by then and probably wouldn't have welcomed 20,000 people suddenly arriving on their shores: www.oisf.org.uk...



posted on May, 4 2005 @ 06:33 PM
link   
Byrd and Net Chicken... you took the words out of my mouth. And thanks for the links. 20,000 Isrealites on their way to Scotland.. What are they bloody meshuganah ? Kosher Haggis ??



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Trustnone
I am posting this because i think it is something that you all need to know.
The Lost tribes of israel have actually not been lost to history as most of us think. Just kind of obscured from history and this apparently was God's plan. I will explain later. I used to think there was no historical trace of the lost tribes and that is not really true. Who are the lost tribes you ask, well the lost tribes now reside in Great Britain, and some surrounding countries. How do I know this? what historical facts to back it up? well, in the 14th century in scotland, the scottish declaration of independence clearly states that they are the decendants of the lost tribes and they detail the route they took from palestine. The pope read the declaration and approved it. there is also a coronation stone with hebrew writing on it, and there are more, i have just barely scratched the surface.

Well, you ask, if they are Israelites why dont they know it. Well, a select few do know it. According to Isaiah 42:16 the Israelites were made blind to the fact of what and who they were, most of them. In Hebrews 8:8 God renews his covenant with the christians.



That's like saying the Romans were clearly descended from the Trojans, because the Aeneid says its true. People make all kinds of claims for nationalistic reasons.

Also, it's kind of a non-sequiter to use a quote from the Christian Bible to support a claim about the lost tribes... the Christian Bible has little to do with the Jewish Bible or the Isrealite people...

[edit on 5/5/2005 by JustMe74]



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by JustMe74
the Christian Bible has little to do with the Jewish Bible or the Isrealite people...


This was a joke, right?



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by JustMe74
the Christian Bible has little to do with the Jewish Bible or the Isrealite people...


This was a joke, right?

Technically, JustMe is correct.

Remember that the Jews have a different set of sacred books and the Old Testament (Tanakah) is only part of it (there are some changed lines in the Christianized version of the OT, for one thing. A few here and there...) and they have a whole body of commentaries on it (two different versions of the Talmud.)
www.new-life.net...

Furthermore, they don't have the New Testament or give any credence to the Apocrypha and so forth.

Modern Christians seem to neglect the Old Testament (except for selected tales) and focus on the New Testament. I've seen Christian Bibles, in fact, that kept only the text of the tales they liked (omitting the laws and the things like the human sacrifices and the FULL tale of Lot (including the incest)) and added to that the New Testament.

So I think that, arguably, the two are quite different.

The New Testament, by the way, supports the idea that the tribes simply stayed in the area but were "lost" because they rejected what would become mainstream Judaism. Matthew mentions the tribe of Asher (a "lost tribe") in the time of Jesus.
www.gotquestions.org...



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by JustMe74
the Christian Bible has little to do with the Jewish Bible or the Isrealite people...


This was a joke, right?


Not at all.

The Christian religion was formed by Paul and the dogma and bible were finalized hundreds of years later. The Christianity religion taught by Paul was much different from the Jewish sect of Jesus followers that existed before he came onto the scene. His demonization of the Pharisees (who were actually liberal reformers of the Jewish religion) is likely more of a political statement than anything else. Many gospels exist that did not make it into what is known as the "New Testament" today.... also many scholars believe that the four main New Testament "gospels" were based on an earlier source story that has since been lost.

Add to this the fact that most of the Christian translations (i.e. the Septuagint) of the Jewish Bible were translated from Hebrew to Greek and then into other languages. These Christian translations are full of errors and mistranslations.

I can write a lot more on this subject if you're interested, but it probably belongs in another thread.



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 11:14 AM
link   
I'd hardly know where to begin. Good luck finding truth amoung tabloids.

James 1:5 "If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him."

P.S. The New International Version was translated by over 200 scholars from original Hebrew and Greek texts. Hm...who to believe, who to believe...



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
Furthermore, they don't have the New Testament or give any credence to the Apocrypha and so forth.


Maybe because the Apocrypha is inconsistent and non-helpful perhaps? What ground shattering information is there that makes a person miss their connection with God?


Originally posted by Byrd
Modern Christians seem to neglect the Old Testament (except for selected tales) and focus on the New Testament.


I'm a modern Christian. I do not neglect the Old Testament. Therefore, this statement is based off of a misperception.


Originally posted by Byrd
I've seen Christian Bibles, in fact, that kept only the text of the tales they liked (omitting the laws and the things like the human sacrifices and the FULL tale of Lot (including the incest)) and added to that the New Testament.


What human sacrifices? What "missing parts" of Lot?


Originally posted by Byrd
So I think that, arguably, the two are quite different.

The New Testament, by the way, supports the idea that the tribes simply stayed in the area but were "lost" because they rejected what would become mainstream Judaism. Matthew mentions the tribe of Asher (a "lost tribe") in the time of Jesus.
www.gotquestions.org...


According to the great commission by Jesus Christ (Matthew 28:16, Mark 16:15) they were to go to every nation. In John they had to wait until the Lord gave them the power to do so, but once they did, they were to go out and spread the good news. Also, did Jesus only talk to and help his people? Nope. I can quote those too if you like.

[edit on 5-5-2005 by saint4God]



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 11:50 AM
link   
I've read of the Scottish lost tribe theory but never really given it much thought either way. Anyway, here's the part in question (though there are other slightly different translations from the original Latin) and the rest of the declaration. It was written in 1320 and is regarded as the first declaration of independence and a precursor to the Magna Carta. (It's also quite beautifully written):



www.geo.ed.ac.uk...

Most Holy Father and Lord, we know and from the chronicles and books of the ancients we find that among other famous nations our own, the Scots, has been graced with widespread renown. They journeyed from Greater Scythia by way of the Tyrrhenian Sea and the Pillars of Hercules, and dwelt for a long course of time in Spain among the most savage tribes, but nowhere could they be subdued by any race, however barbarous. Thence they came, twelve hundred years after the people of Israel crossed the Red Sea, to their home in the west where they still live today. The Britons they first drove out, the Picts they utterly destroyed, and, even though very often assailed by the Norwegians, the Danes and the English, they took possession of that home with many victories and untold efforts; and, as the historians of old time bear witness, they have held it free of all bondage ever since. In their kingdom there have reigned one hundred and thirteen kings of their own royal stock, the line unbroken a single foreigner.


Also, this article might be of interest to some: Who were the Scots? Don't know if it's accurate or not, but it's interesting.



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 12:59 PM
link   
Thanks for the links keg
and i know it is conjecture but it is interesting.



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
I'd hardly know where to begin. Good luck finding truth amoung tabloids.

James 1:5 "If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him."

P.S. The New International Version was translated by over 200 scholars from original Hebrew and Greek texts. Hm...who to believe, who to believe...


That is why I said "most" and not "all" of the Christian translations of the Jewish Bible are flawed. There are countless examples that can be shown of errors in the Septuagint. I like the NIV version; as far as Christian translations goes, it's pretty good. I think the "Oxford Study Bible", which I highly recommend for scholarly study of the Bible, is based on this version.

I'm not sure why you said "amoung [sic] tabloids" ... what do you find factually innacurate about what I have posted? That Paul invented what became the modern religion of Christianity? That there are major errors in the Septuagint? Not only can I back these things up, but there has been a good amount of scholarly research in these areas that support what I am saying.

In any case, this is getting really off topic, please create a new thread if you want to continue this!




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join