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.

 

Whatever happened to the Ten Tribes of Israel?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 20 2003 @ 01:57 PM
link   
I was just wondering what anyone else knows about this.

Links:

1

2

3 (long, e-book like, as in chapters, lots of info)

4

There are theories that they came to america, Africa, Asia, everywhere and there is no concrete proof, I hope that this was informative.

XAOS




posted on Feb, 20 2003 @ 03:30 PM
link   
nothing happened to them...

When israel went into exile in babylon they were taken by tribe.

But in the 70 years they were there the tribes were broken up and when they returned the tribal structures were subsumed into their national identity.

However even in the New Testamant they still knew their tribes.
There are conversations where the tribe of the people are talked about matter of factly.

Even today cohens know that they are from the tribe of levi.

What is above are old ideas from wannabe israelites, following the crackpot road that the mormons and others believe.



its just rubbish...

[Edited on 20-2-2003 by Netchicken]



posted on Feb, 20 2003 @ 07:39 PM
link   
are not the real hebrew israelite and they know it.

how come they call themselves "israeli" and not hebrew israelite... they can speak hebrew but they wont call themselves hebrew because they know they're not the true offspring of abraham.

abraham was a black man, so was his children and their children and their children... if your black, hispanic, or native american... there's a chance your abraham's seed

i wont speak for the pale skinned jews because they're the descendants of europeans such as romans and persians and greeks who converted to judaism and adopting their customs after being astonished by Jerusalem.

there's been investigations in africa... they have found the true offspring of abraham living in africa.. they did dna tests and it showed that they have a strong hebrew trait... they were real hebrew israelites


there may be a possibility that many of the blacks here in america are abraham's seed. why? because back in the slave trade blacks traded off blacks to whites.. the blacks they traded off werent "real african blacks" who were they then... the blacks traded off didnt share the same beliefs and culture has the african man... (please note: just because someone is black doesnt mean they're african)

so they traded them off.. there's 24 million dormant Hebrews and Muslims living here in america... they NEVER were christian.



posted on Feb, 20 2003 @ 07:41 PM
link   
... see ... wannabe israelites

[Edited on 21-2-2003 by Netchicken]



posted on Feb, 20 2003 @ 07:45 PM
link   
masterpieces are forgotten and not much rubbish survives

William Bridges-Adams



posted on Feb, 20 2003 @ 07:55 PM
link   
Illimatic, where do you get this "Hebrews were black" information?

Hebrews were not black, nor were many Egyptians, or sumerians. Some were dark, but black people more than being black, have a different bone structure in the skull.

This the Hebrews did not have, even had they been as dark as night, they were still caucasians.



posted on Feb, 20 2003 @ 08:01 PM
link   
sorry, but you have no idea what your talking about

the hebrew israelite were black
the egyptians were black
egypt itself means land of the burnt skin in greek
sumerians were black

hello, it's africa and asia minor.. they were all BLACK

"dark am i, yet lovely,
o daughters of jerusalem,
dark like the tents of kedar
do not stare at me because i am dark
because i am blackened by the sun"

song of songs 1:5-6

there you have it, solomon said it himself he was black, that means his father david was black... that means abraham was black because david and solomon both came from abraham... that means jesus was black because jesus is the "star of david"



posted on Feb, 20 2003 @ 09:18 PM
link   
sorry to get a little off topic but i felt like pointing out that i in my opinion if you follow gods rules it doesn't matter jewish, hebrew, white black, yellow, pink

its what u did not who u are that determines your fate



posted on Feb, 20 2003 @ 09:29 PM
link   
You are right falcon.
But what Illumatic is doing is pushing his "black superiority" wheel barrow. This time its full of the myth that the hebrews were black negros.

Olive skin and curly hair, like the israeles today does not make black.

But in the end who really cares? What illumatic is on about is the politicization of the jews claiming them as black to push a racial agenda. The actual truth is immaterial to the agenda.

its what I said earlier in this thread ... wannabe israelites....


[Edited on 21-2-2003 by Netchicken]



posted on Feb, 20 2003 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illmatic67
the egyptians were black
egypt itself means land of the burnt skin in greek sumerians were black

No the Egyptians were *not* black & you mention the *Greek* interpretation of Egytians...The Egyptians themselves called their land Khemet. In Egyptian, this meant that they were describing thier land as being of *two colors*...The Black Land of the Nile Valley, which was rich in loam brought in by the yearly deluges & the Red Land, signifying the desert sands that were everywhere else.

The Egyptians themselves saw a distinction between themselves & the Nubians to the south, who *were* black. Egytian skin color was distinctively lighter than the Nubians, but still distinctively darker than Sumerians.

Don't mess around with *me* about Egyptians...I've studied them pretty thoroughly...I've even memorized a few heiroglyphs & have found out how they were meant to be read (Although, I have to admit that the Coptic script still leaves my head spinning if I don't have any reference materials handy).



Originally posted by Illmatic67
"dark am i, yet lovely,
o daughters of jerusalem,
dark like the tents of kedar
do not stare at me because i am dark
because i am blackened by the sun"

song of songs 1:5-6

Ah, but who was he *talking to* at that time? It's obvious that Soloman was talking to someone who had much lighter skin than himself...He was merely telling that person not to be prejudiced towards him because of differing skin colors. In other words, he was saying, "Don't be a bigoted @$$hole". Soloman *was* well known for his wisdom...


Besides, you've mixed up his *meaning* with his words...He said that he was "dark", not that he was "black"...Like anyone who spends a long time in the sunlight, he was "blackened by the sun". When he used the term "blackened", he was referring to the *effects* of long-term exposure to the sun, not the color of his own skin.



posted on Feb, 21 2003 @ 02:26 AM
link   
Mirriam and Aaron spoke against Moses marriage to a cu#e(ethiopian) woman. The Lord punished them.

www.mechon-mamre.org...

Why would Mirriam (instigator who was punished more than Aaron) and Aaron speak against Moses? Because they didn't want him to marry someone different, they had fear. Fear is what causes people to be racial. Don't have it. We all have flesh and spirit. The flesh might look different, but it's the spirit that has no color.

The tribe of Dan, I believe, is black. Not all the tribes were so.



[Edited on 21-2-2003 by pacman]



posted on Feb, 21 2003 @ 05:51 AM
link   
ok, first of all, call me by my real name netfaggot, dont call me illumantic or whatever you say.

the hebrews were black.. they werent negro because the word negro didnt exist until the white man stole blacks out of africa.


the egyptians weren't black??? midnight where do you get your so called knowledge from? the egyptians WERE black... look at their paintings and hyrogylphics... they depict black men.

look at the sphinx.. why was the nose shot off?? because it was flat like a black man's nose... look at the lips.. full...

In order for Moses to be in the mysteries religion, he had to look like the egyptian priests... they were black.. so was Moses.

listen... caucasion people dont EXIST in AFRICA.. how hard is it for you to understand this??? white people= people with thin lips and light skin color simply didnt live in africa.


Olive skin and curly hair, like the israeles today does not make black.


netfaggot, those are the jews of TODAY... you said it your self, "israeles"... they are not of the hebrew israelite.



posted on Feb, 21 2003 @ 01:15 PM
link   
The only response ive seen right was (falcon)

"" it does not matter what color but what you did ""

There will be a disease where black will be turned white and white
will be turned black.

and only to the (biggots) will it scare.

The story about moses was true, he was questioned about his marriage to a black women of
a (different) race.

But it matters nthing, dont argue with those who see only color.

God created black, white, chinese, mexican, indian, jew ectt...

he seperated all langague because he knew we would become evil biggots.


So illmatic answer this ONE question truthfully.


Is a black hitler better than aa white prophet?

when you answer this you will understand hopefully the word of god.


peace.



posted on Feb, 21 2003 @ 01:19 PM
link   
Btw midnight did not say that egyptians werent black, he said
they were (white) and (black) in egypt.

peace.



posted on Feb, 21 2003 @ 01:38 PM
link   
You *both* (Illmatic & Truth) got it wrong...I said that the Egyptians were darker than Sumerians but lighter than the Nubians. If you're going to get it wrong, you can at least get it wrong by what I've actually *said*, not by what you *think* I said.

BTW Illmatic...How many *shades* of color do you include when you use the term "black"? Compare the lighter skin-tone in those pics you've mentioned to the darker color depicted when Nubians were included in the pics.

As a side note, Nubia is an Egyptian term that means "Land of Gold", so that's why they called them Nubians. Nubians (once they were defeated by the Egyptian armies) paid regular tributes of gold to Egypt...Check out *those* pics.



posted on Feb, 21 2003 @ 02:25 PM
link   
sigh ..
As usual I overestimated you illmatic and assumed that your quote was accurate. It wasn't and must have come from the "Bible for aspiring black supremacists" version.

here is the overview of Sos..

The characters in this play are Solomon, the young king of Israel---this was written in the beginning of his reign, in all the beauty and manliness of his youth---and the Shulammite.

She was a simple country lass of unusual loveliness who fell in love with the king when he was disguised as a shepherd lad working in one of his own vineyards in the north of Israel.

The language of the book is highly poetical and figurative and there may also be some difficulty determining who is speaking at any one time. But you can distinguish the different speakers in this way: the bridegroom always refers to her as "my love," and the bride calls him "my beloved."

Here is the language of love as she describes him:



My beloved is all radiant and ruddy, distinguished among ten thousand. His head is the finest gold; his locks are wavy, black as a raven.
His eyes are like doves beside springs of water, bathed in milk, fitly set. His cheeks are like beds of spices yielding fragrance.
His lips are lilies, distilling liquid myrrh. His arms are rounded gold, set with jewels.
His body is ivory work, encrusted with sapphires. His legs are alabaster columns, set upon bases of gold. His appearance is like Lebanon, choice asthe cedars. His speech is most sweet, and he is altogether desirable. This is my beloved and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem. (Sol. 5:10-16)


so Soloman had alabaster legs - white.
an Ivory body - white
ruddy appearance - red or white


Don't see no black there bro!


Who does the verse you quoted refer to?
The woman!!

Why?
Because she looked after the vinyard and was tanned!!

Look not upon me, because I [am] black, because the sun hath looked upon me: my mother's children were angry with me; they made me the keeper of the vineyards; [but] mine own vineyard have I not kept.

here is anothe version


Young Woman:
"How right that the young women love you!
5"I am dark and beautiful, O women of Jerusalem, tanned as the dark tents of Kedar. Yes, even as the tents of Solomon!
6"Don't look down on me, you fair city girls, just because my complexion is so dark. The sun has burned my skin. My brothers were angry with me and sent me out to tend the vineyards in the hot sun. Now see what it has done to me! "



Mind you don't let the facts get in the way of a good political theory, you get out there and push your black supremacy barrow for all its worth, you seem to need it to help you overcome the other inadequacies in your life.

Maybe one day you will see that you are of just as much worth as other people as you are, without having to invent ways to make you seem superior.

[Edited on 21-2-2003 by Netchicken]



posted on Feb, 21 2003 @ 04:58 PM
link   
no, a black hitler is no better than a white hitler.. it's way different

your comparing hitler to jesus now?

hitler is recognized in world history for being a a murderer

jesus a saint... they cannot be compared


how many shades do i think is black??

black is the foundation for all colored people..

brown, red, yellow people are considered to be black people because they all derived from black.

the white man is the odd man out.



posted on Feb, 21 2003 @ 08:58 PM
link   
NC that does not change the fact that Ramesis II was African decent. And so therefore for Moses to have been seen as his brother, he would have to be of similar decent. Please note the facial characteristics

Ramesis II

The question is not so much why does it matter. But if it does not matter then why present an augment adjacent it (why in fact say anything at all?) Look closely at the avatar Iluminatic has presented, what was to Malcolm X the definitions of Black and White? NC you are so prepared to discount a value to any augment.. That the word applied as "rubbish" is very clear and apparent. it presents the issue that nothing could taint your precious convictions, this that Jesus was pure, despite any misinterpretation. But if that is true then why are the very foundations of his system (wine and bread/blood and flesh) based on what the very culture he was a part of, as an abomination before God Almighty???

To be honest NC my opinion is that you have not the slightest idea what you are talking about. Those that disagree should be placed on Haldol 10-mg bid with access to appropriate therapy (this being an opinion). Jesus Christ made major changes to what was reality to the common man. Its actually very clear he had African roots, to be very honest, his family was considered royalty amongst the Egyptian hearty.

Despite your assurance of biblical accuracy that the lineage presented, denies the same is hypocrisy. Joseph was right hand of Egypt, as such his affiliation would have made clear his responsibility (this being to become a part of that family). That this is not presented in biblical text does not in any way deny the fact that you in your own way are a heretic. One, which fails to respond to the obvious inaccuracies and therefore, presents them as an advantage.

For the record the advantage being to produce any issue in relation to Race.



posted on Feb, 21 2003 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Toltec
Look closely at the avatar Iluminatic has presented, what was to Malcolm X the definitions of Black and White? NC you are so prepared to discount a value to any augment.. That the word applied as "rubbish" is very clear and apparent. it presents the issue that nothing could taint your precious convictions, this that Jesus was pure, despite any misinterpretation. But if that is true then why are the very foundations of his system (wine and bread/blood and flesh) based on what the very culture he was a part of, as an abomination before God Almighty???


Toltec, I am merely presenting the fact as seen in the bible, via the bible. Illmatic has, in his usual manner, twisted the verses to meet his own preconceptions and legitmise his racial and political myths.

For illumaitc and some others the religion forum is a place to push political and other belief systems that are supposeldly legitmised on the basis of religious authenticity.

So far we have seen supposedly Mohammed in the Old testament, which was totally disproved and now we get the thesis that the ancient hebrews etal were balck. Why? Not because of any RELIGIOUS conviction (they could be asian for all I care) but purely for the political purpose of advancing one race over another.

Now if it was true I wold be happy to accept it, I am not a racist, however I hate to see the bible used by fringe dwellers to justify their crackpot beliefs.

If you want to debate with me as to the racial characteristics of the hebrews etal, then use the bible to do it, if you can. Why shold I remain silent and let misconception, distortion and just plain rubbish be passed around as truth.

If you can't handle bible debate, based on the bible then that is your problem. I don't know what Ramses race is, but I will endevour to find out more myself.

Reportedly, Ramses II had as many as 100 children he might not have noticed a few of different races around.

www.catchpenny.org...
It is apparent that the ancient Egyptians did not make racial distinctions themselves, but rather ethnic distinctions based on nationality. Tomb paintings depicting captive Nubians may show them as being very dark, but this is an artistic convention stereotyping a nationality, and to conclude there were therefore no very dark Egyptians would be a non sequitur. Similarly, the skin tones in art depicting the Egyptians themselves adhere to convention rather than an absolutely accurate description of reality. Tutankhamun is variously shown as being black as in the guardian statues found in his tomb, and brown or beige as in the lotus bust

www.touregypt.net...

In the ancient world, good geographical location attracted people. In this regard, Egypt had it all, including a fertile land as well as a central location for trade.

So when we attempt to decipher the question of race in early Egypt, we find a complex equation from the outset. In fact, some scholars argue that the question is so complex as to be irrelevant. Much like someone from mid America, with ancestors who might have been Swedish, Irish, Spanish and Indian, he or she is no longer any of those, but simply an American.

Clearly, ancient Egyptians during the dynastic period saw themselves as Egyptians. Their art, and literature pointedly reveals that they showed no identification with either Africa or Asia. In many regards, the symbolism with the modern United States is striking.

People who were obviously of foreign origin very often melted into the Egyptian culture, and became high officials as Egyptians, and it was possible for many different racial types to consider themselves Egyptian.




To be honest NC my opinion is that you have not the slightest idea what you are talking about. Those that disagree should be placed on Haldol 10-mg bid with access to appropriate therapy (this being an opinion).

And a weak one at that. Its not even a good insult. Again if you can't handle bible debate then stay away with the children, personal insults only serve to show the shallowness of your reasoning, and as I often find with your posts, the absolute confusion and of your reasoning.



Jesus Christ made major changes to what was reality to the common man. Its actually very clear he had African roots, to be very honest, his family was considered royalty amongst the Egyptian hearty.


crap, prove it... go on, give me one piece of biblical proof for your statement that raises it above the level of political jingoism. ... just another wannabe israelite



Despite your assurance of biblical accuracy that the lineage presented, denies the same is hypocrisy. Joseph was right hand of Egypt, as such his affiliation would have made clear his responsibility (this being to become a part of that family). That this is not presented in biblical text does not in any way deny the fact that you in your own way are a heretic. One, which fails to respond to the obvious inaccuracies and therefore, presents them as an advantage.


Oh what rubbish, go on, validate your accusations. Or are you just trolling? What inaccuracies have I failed to respond to?

Yes Joseph held an important place in Egypt, but that was nothing to do with his race, it was to do with his honesty and ability. To say that his position was racially based is your opinion and NOT backed up biblically. If you can't back up your arguments biblically then what else are you going to use, there is not much evidence outside of the bible.

Look at the information posted above, maybe the egyptians rose above race in a manner that is beyond many people today. The race of Joseph may have been immaterial to his postion.

www.touregypt.net...
Interestingly, however, DNA studies at the University of Cairo report that there is little differences between modern and ancient Egyptians. Of course, books on Egypt often point to members of the Coptic Christian faith as being closer in race to the ancient Egyptians, because they supposedly do not marry outside the ancient faith.

The coptic egyptians don't look very black to me ......






[Edited on 22-2-2003 by Netchicken]

[Edited on 22-2-2003 by Netchicken]



posted on Feb, 21 2003 @ 11:39 PM
link   
NC I am far from presenting the argument that illuminati feel is apparent. Except with relation to pointing out (clearly) that Ramesis II was not Caucasian. I am clearly arguing against that idea that Jesus, albeit Moses was not of African decent. As a result any convictions that somehow might be confused let me make clear.

Illuminactic and I are two different individuals we have our own interests as well as rational for engaging in a debate.

Personally I find your referral to term such as troll and rubbish as insulting. In relation to this, to some extent I am responding. To be honest I probably would had left this thread alone if it were not for such insinuations. If your title allows you a privilege others do not enjoy. Feel free to present the policy and will be more than happy to disengage.

Proving that Jesus was a threat to the foundations of Judaic culture is easy. All that has to be done is hand a present day Rabbi a piece of pork skin and some blood pudding and ask him to consume it. BTW am far from being a wannabe anything. Jesus pissed a lot of people off in relation to the Last Supper. And 2000 years ago what he did would have been a death sentence to anyone except perhaps that societies equivalent to O.J. (this applying modern standards but not unrealistically)

You feel I should validate my accusations sure why not, I would cite every culture that has existed on earth prior to the late 1700s. If you are given authority equal to that of Joseph in any of those cultures guess what??????? He was obligated NC to become part of the Egyptian family. And the Bible by any known custom in relation to that time in history is wrong.

The evidence is beyond any shadow of doubt (for the love of God my great, great, great, great Grandfather was obligated to do the same thing and that was in the early 1800s). The matter is simple the right hand of Pharaoh was obligated to become part of the Egyptian royal family (Sex with fertile and ovulating women for the purpose of having babies). Otherwise he could not in all sincerity be considered the right hand (realistically).

Furthermore this is not a purely biblical discussion. Which portends to simply addressing issues in relation to the bible (as if it was heaven sent). What is implied is that the original Judaic culture was dispersed to an extent that at present. The lineage could be present in just about every race, that could be conceived as distinct from that culture.

[Edited on 22-2-2003 by Toltec]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join