Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Jesus was of the linage of David and Caucasian? The same linage which populated Britain?

page: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 01:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by BIHOTZ
No. Please read a little more.

Jesus was brown.


Well that's what I would have thought at first being from the ME & with his mother being a jewess......

What do you want me to read?

Can you offer your opinion on why you believe that so stongly?

Thanks

Mickierocksman




posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 01:45 AM
link   
Jesus was a Galilean Jew, nothing "Caucasian" about him. Because his patronage was in doubt he was considered a Mamzer, an eloquent way of saying "bastard". He could never hold a position of an elder in his village. The Bible gives two versions of his lineage from Abraham through David to Joseph (Jesus' 'father'), in the Gospels of Luke and Matthew. How accurate these biblical lineages are - considering they differ - is anybodies guess.



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 01:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Mickierocksman
 


There was 12 tribes altogether 2 in the south in Samaria and 10 in the north in Judea ,the Assyrian's attacked the ten in the north and the 10 tribes of the north mixed and lived with the Syrians ,the 2 tribes in the south fled in to northern Europe and then down in to Britain ,

a small number of the 10 tribes went back to Judea and these people became known as the Jews and it was from these small number of Jews that Jesus came from



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 02:44 AM
link   
Again, I thank everyone for the contributions.

I have a lot to digest and think about, I may U2U a few after the thread dies with more questions.

If anyone else would like to add to the discussion and my confusion - please go right ahead!

I am still inclined to believe (if true) that jesus was from david, but as his mother was a jewess, he must have been of ME appearance and it is certain that the linage certainly did not populate England.

Thanks again,

Mickierocksman



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 03:52 AM
link   
The ten tribes headed by Joseph were dispersed around 700BC, having been divorced by God Himself for breaking His Covenant.
The two tribes headed by Judah remained in the covenant so that the Saviour of the world could be born. Jesus was the king of Judah, and salvation cometh out of Judah.
We see throughout the gospels that Jesus came to His Own, but that most rejected Him. He stated that, however, He had come for the lost sheep of the House of Israel. The Samaritan woman at the well was not a Judahite, but rather a divorced Israite descended from Jacob. We see that many of the Roman soldiers fell to their knees in knowledge of who He was, and that that the "Greeks" came seeking Him. The leaders and teachers of the law wanted His death out of envy, knowing that He had declared that the Kingdom was being taken from them and given to those whom would produce good fruit. Joseph's son Ephraim was prophecied to become a "multitude of nations", and that "Gentiles" were to become the "fullness of the Gentiles". These are the same as "Gentiles" simply means "nations" of a similar race/ethniticity. Substitute the correct word "nations" for "Gentiles", and it becomes clear that Jesus came for the remnant of all of Israel from both Houses, through faith.

Jesus is the stick by which the two Houses of Israel were to be reunited. Thousands of Judahites accepted their Messiah, which flies in the face of British Israelism teachings which state that the "Jews" are still awaiting the acceptance of Jesus. But Paul clearly explained that many didn't believe "For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel" - that not all of those descended from Jacob are the Israel of God (the remnant). Any of us can clearly see the locations of Christians throughout the world and throughout history. There are no large pockets of professing Christians in Asia, India, Japan, Africa, China and the Middle East. Why not? It is God who calls, and Israel (the people) were, and are, His Portion in this world through which He is effecting salvation. The remnant have always put their trust and faith in Him through His chosen branch, the Messiah. Looking at the world today, it is clear that only the populations of the western nations are the ones being actively encouraged to forsake the God of their forefathers - the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. It is only the populations of the western nations whom are being encouraged to accept occultism and the beliefs of others, to go astray through the love of sin and immorality. It is Satan that chases Israel, and therefore he has no need to further deceive populations that he already controls through other false religions. It is the descendants of the woman (Israel) that he is actively swaying away from their Saviour, Christ Jesus, and as shown through the history of Israel, it is through the love of sin and sexual immorality that he does it. Nothing new under the sun, what was will be again.



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 04:01 AM
link   
"British Israelism" is no more nuts than an Iron Age, desert-based, sky god suddenly deciding he likes the U.S. of A better than anywhere else the minute white people turn-up there in any great numbers.

Hundreds and hundreds of years of devotees, martyrs and spreading of The Word and desert sky god was just thinking "I can't wait to get out of this dump, I fancy moving to a place with guns and casinos!" all that time!
edit on 17-8-2012 by Merriman Weir because: stuff



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 05:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Merriman Weir
"British Israelism" is no more nuts that an Iron Age, desert-based, sky god suddenly deciding he likes the U.S. of A better than anywhere else the minute white people turn-up there in any great numbers.

Hundreds and hundreds of years of devotees, martyrs and spreading of The Word and desert sky god was just thinking "I can't wait to get out of this dump, I fancy moving to a place with guns and casinos!" all that time!


Mate, I read that twice and laughed both times and still dont know what you said


Its brilliant!

Mickieocksman
edit on 17/8/2012 by Mickierocksman because: STILL LAUGHING

edit on 17/8/2012 by Mickierocksman because: YEP, I'M STILL ROFL ING




posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 06:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by WhoKnows100
The ten tribes headed by Joseph were dispersed around 700BC, having been divorced by God Himself for breaking His Covenant.
The two tribes headed by Judah remained in the covenant so that the Saviour of the world could be born. Jesus was the king of Judah, and salvation cometh out of Judah.
We see throughout the gospels that Jesus came to His Own, but that most rejected Him. He stated that, however, He had come for the lost sheep of the House of Israel. The Samaritan woman at the well was not a Judahite, but rather a divorced Israite descended from Jacob. We see that many of the Roman soldiers fell to their knees in knowledge of who He was, and that that the "Greeks" came seeking Him. The leaders and teachers of the law wanted His death out of envy, knowing that He had declared that the Kingdom was being taken from them and given to those whom would produce good fruit. Joseph's son Ephraim was prophecied to become a "multitude of nations", and that "Gentiles" were to become the "fullness of the Gentiles". These are the same as "Gentiles" simply means "nations" of a similar race/ethniticity. Substitute the correct word "nations" for "Gentiles", and it becomes clear that Jesus came for the remnant of all of Israel from both Houses, through faith.

Jesus is the stick by which the two Houses of Israel were to be reunited. Thousands of Judahites accepted their Messiah, which flies in the face of British Israelism teachings which state that the "Jews" are still awaiting the acceptance of Jesus. But Paul clearly explained that many didn't believe "For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel" - that not all of those descended from Jacob are the Israel of God (the remnant). Any of us can clearly see the locations of Christians throughout the world and throughout history. There are no large pockets of professing Christians in Asia, India, Japan, Africa, China and the Middle East. Why not? It is God who calls, and Israel (the people) were, and are, His Portion in this world through which He is effecting salvation. The remnant have always put their trust and faith in Him through His chosen branch, the Messiah. Looking at the world today, it is clear that only the populations of the western nations are the ones being actively encouraged to forsake the God of their forefathers - the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. It is only the populations of the western nations whom are being encouraged to accept occultism and the beliefs of others, to go astray through the love of sin and immorality. It is Satan that chases Israel, and therefore he has no need to further deceive populations that he already controls through other false religions. It is the descendants of the woman (Israel) that he is actively swaying away from their Saviour, Christ Jesus, and as shown through the history of Israel, it is through the love of sin and sexual immorality that he does it. Nothing new under the sun, what was will be again.



G'day mate

Could you possibly dumb that down for me?

Maybe tell me how it relates to my questions?

I do hope you have answers for me..... I also hope I will be able to understand or relate it to... well, I don't know...something?

I hope you undersand, peace out.

(Edit) When I said in my post above for people to 'add to my confusion' I did not mean it as a matter of top priority


Mickierocksman
edit on 17/8/2012 by Mickierocksman because: (no reason given)
edit on 17/8/2012 by Mickierocksman because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by GBP/JPY
 



Ithink britain is ephraim, america manasseh



The claim that the British or any other European people are descended from the Israelites is not backed up by anything. I will never understand why people, with their own unique culture insist on identifying themselves as somebody else.


It is because they do not have their own unique culture it is a culture of thievery. ALMOST everything they are was stolen and plundered and pillaged from others.

We are the modern day Roman Empire; assimilate and eliminate just like clockwork.



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 04:15 AM
link   
reply to post by ISHAMAGI
 


genuine question: who is "they" in your reply? The British? Europeans? Both?

Either way, that's quite a hard line to take. "Almost" everything to do with European or British culture/history/religion/whatever is stolen/plundered/pillaged from others? You really think that? You don't think it's waves of immigration bringing ideas with them?

Look at the history of British immigration:
Post-Ice age opportunists,
beaker folk &c,
Doggerland wanderers from Denmark, Germany, Netherlands,
successions of Iron Age peoples,
Romans and the peoples that made up their Empire,
Angles/Saxons/Jutes/Frisians,
Danish and Norwegians,
Normans and the French court that followed,
a massive mediaeval melting-pot of writers, thinkers and artists coming to and leaving Britain,

and that's just up to the 16th/17th Century and yet, despite a pattern that's heavily reliant on people coming here and bringing ideas with them or even forcing culture on the people already here, you choose to interpret this as the British goingand then stealingideas and culture?

Is this a 'white man's guilt' thing? British and Europeans exploiting Africa, India and the New World? Other than resources and material items, I'm not really sure as to what is meant to have been stolen by way of ideas and thinking. African, Indian and Native American religions haven't made a massive impact on Britain and Europe, aside from people bringing it with them to Britain and Europe. Very, very little in the way of 'technologies' has been stolen or adopted.

Even arguments like 'Arabs invented maths and white Europeans robbed it' (to use an example) are a bit strange as very little springs up in isolation and I'm not aware of anything (though happy to be corrected) that states that ancient Arabs (or anyone else) were particularly protective about ideas and technologies. Also, to further that example, the way that Europeans have in turn built on whatever Arabs did initially, and that development also being used by Arabs (it's not as if Arabs have a cut-off at the age of maths they use and forbid the use of Western-developed mathematics) could surely support the idea of 'two way transmission' rather than this idea of a European cult of theft?

Pre-standardised currencies, bartering was the way of the world. Things were traded and they were traded with the understanding that material goods would be 'back-engineered' if necessary and replicated for sale elsewhere, that books and scrolls would actually be read and then transcribed or would be translated for yet another audience. There was no patent protection in the way things are understood today and it's very doubtful that even the idea of such a thing would have been important.

I'm genuinely interested to see you expand on your claim.
edit on 18-8-2012 by Merriman Weir because: stuff



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Awen24
for the love of crap. Some people buy the most ridiculous rubbish (not referring to you, OP). Replies below:


Mickierocksman asks?
1. Jesus was of the linage of David & caucasion?


Originally posted by Awen24
The first half of this sentence is fact. The second half is pretty clearly fiction. Jesus was born to Mary, a Jewess. .................. this also means that anyone AFTER 70ad has no basis on which to claim that they are the Messiah from the line of David... because such a claim cannot be proven.


I would disagree my dear.

Judah is of Abraham's Lineage and is Caucasion. That is despite your contentious implication that Jew's are something else.

As for the later, you really need to follow the words that come from Prince Philips mouth. He would argue that.


Mickierocksman asks?
2. This linage populated Britain. (Dispersement of the ten tribes?)


Originally posted by Awen24
This is called "British Israelism".
It is based upon a particularly horrific interpretation of both Scripture and history, and has no validity. I'll allow you to do your own research on this one, as it's not even worth addressing, in all honesty.


British Israelism is part of it, but only a Part, and one twisted to suit the Throne which Prince Philip is part of.

Jeremiah, brought out of Jerusalem, three things when he fled. Jacob's Pillow, and Two Princesses of Davids Family.

They entered Egypt, and from there dispersed. There are indications One married a Prince of Egypt, which today, the Family makes up the Throne of Espana, Spain, The Region clearly identified as living in the area of the Iberian Mountain Range, which is to say, the IBER Mountains or EBER Mountains or HEBREW Mountains. These words have the same implication in all there use. Makes sense that the Spain has this connection with Israel.

As for the "British Aspect" there are two trains of thought.

Jeremiah took the second daughter with him to Ireland, where she was wedded to the First King of Ireland. There is some indications one of their descendants, who was the last King of Ireland crossed into Scotland, and became the first King of Scotland. The other aspect of this, is Jacob's Pillow. And despite being stolen from Scotland by the English, and recently returned, it is still there. Jacob's Pillow = Stone of Destiny = Stone of Scone

There is also indication the Christ Child grew up in Glastonbury. His Uncle ran and operated Tin Mines in the area, as well as being a merchant seaman. His Travels may well be expressed in certain Mayan beliefs, which ultimately may have been their downfall. Cortez the Killer, was welcomed why??? You do your own research on that.


The other train of thought tends to imply EVEN the DRUIDS where Preists of Levitical background as can be noted within the 29th Chapter of Acts. Ever wonder how an OLD STRUCTURE like St Paul's Cathedral in London becomes called St Paul's Cathedral in the first place? I do.



Mickierocksman asks?
3.Should christians help all people in need or only the chosen ones of the right race, religion and colour of skin?


Originally posted by Awen24
I'm not entirely sure how this question fits in with the first two.... or how it fits in at all.
I can see two possible threads that might lead to this line of thought:

1) Israel are God's chosen people


Well, that isn't quite right.


Isaiah 19:25 Whom the Lord of hosts shall bless, saying, Blessed be Egypt my people, and Assyria the work of my hands, and Israel mine inheritance.


Israel was the Inheritor of GOD's Land, The Holy Land. Does this denote being chosen, possibly, but not specifically, as verse 25 shows. Egypt is GOD's People. GO FIGURE.


Originally posted by Awen24
2) For a time ("the time of the gentiles"), Israel has suffered God's rejection... and the church, "as one grafted in to the vine", receives this same blessing.

Nowhere in Scripture are these two facts used as a basis for discrimination against anyone. Even in Scripture, the fact that Israel & the Church are "chosen" is purely and simply for the fact that they are the vehicle by which God is unveiling His plan of redemption for ALL of mankind.

Israel was chosen because she was to be the heritage and lineage of the Messiah.


See here, you get it. Israel was the Inheritor.


Originally posted by Awen24
....................... and God is an amazing artist.


"Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:" The many beautiful races of Man are these peoples created on the 6th Day.

and GOD'S Thoughts on them??

"Genesis 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day". If it was good in the Eyes of GOD, who can state otherwise????


Ciao

Shane



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 08:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Shane
 





Well, that isn't quite right.

Isaiah 19:25 Whom the Lord of hosts shall bless, saying, Blessed be Egypt my people, and Assyria the work of my hands, and Israel mine inheritance.


Israel was the Inheritor of GOD's Land, The Holy Land. Does this denote being chosen, possibly, but not specifically, as verse 25 shows. Egypt is GOD's People. GO FIGURE.


I'd like to add...

Are ye not as children of the Ethiopians unto me, O children of Israel? saith the LORD. Have not I brought up Israel out of the land of Egypt? and the Philistines from Caphtor, and the Syrians from Kir? - Amos 9:7



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 08:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Shane
 




Judah is of Abraham's Lineage and is Caucasion.


Abraham was a descendant of Shem. Through a son called Arpachshad.
Caucasian people are associated with the people of Japeth.



Traditionally, Japheth has been believed by some to be the progenitor of the peoples of Europe. Thus "Japhetic" came to be used as a synonym for Europeans, as well as Asians. In medieval Europe, the world was believed to have been divided into three large-scale racial groupings. In addition to the Japhetic peoples of Europe, the Semitic peoples were equated with all Middle-easterners, Arabs and Israelites, and Hamitic peoples with Africans.


en.wikipedia.org...




edit on 18-8-2012 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 08:10 AM
link   
I just want to add that the line of Jesus being linked to David is a fraud, it is used to avoid the accusations of his actual and possible shameful lineage in the eyes of religious authorities.In the words of a resident ATSer....



reply to post by Sigismundus
 





l. The fake ‘midrashic’ (i.e. haggadic = legendary) 14-set genealogy of ‘Iesous’ in the 1st canonical Greek gospel ‘according to Matthew’ (whoever he was) skips over a number of Judaean kings (who reigned between c. 680 BCE and 621 BCE) in order to keep his fake sets of 14 going (D-V-D = i.e. 4 + 6 + 4 = the gemmatrial number for the Messiah based on the ‘number’ for the name ‘David’) –

Yet ‘Matthew’ adds FIVE whorish (sexually compromised) women to the set (odd for a genealogy for the Messiah) including Rachab the Harlot, Tamar (raped by her brother Yehudah), Ruth (who threw herself sexually at her late husband’s cousin Boaz, then lived (possibly as a lesbian?) with Naomi her mother in law) , then there’s the promiscuous Jebusite princess Bath-Shebiti (‘Bath-sheba’ lit. ‘daughter of the 7’ i.e. gods) who married to Uriah the Hittite commited Adultery with ‘David’ to produce the (illegitimate) clan chieftan Jedediah (i.e. ‘Sholomon’, lit. ‘peaceful’) – then Miryam of Galilee, the 5th in a long line of whores….or as AMADEUS asks (quoting C.K. Barrett) ‘what exactly was ‘Matthew’ trying to tell us about her character?’

2. The so-called ‘Magnificat’ poem of ‘Mary’ in the 3rd canonical council approved Greek gospel (‘according to Luke’ whoever he was) includes phrases like ‘blessed be YHWH, who has looked favourably upon the ‘gross-defilement’ of his handmaiden…’ –

Now if Miryam of Galilee was an old woman at the time, post menopausal, her ‘gross-defilement’ i.e. ‘sexual humiliation’ would naturally (for a middle eastern woman of the time) be barreness (=biological inability to produce ‘sons’)) – but since she was supposed to be young at the time, the ‘gross defilement ’ (in its CONTEXT) that ‘Luke’ mentions in his Greek (‘TAPEINWSIN’) can only mean RAPE (or possibly ‘seduction’ i.e. date-rape).

3. The weird bastardy (i.e. MAMZER) echoes in the 4th council approved Greek Canonical Gospel ‘according to John’ whoever he was) about ‘WE (in the Greek intensive) were NOT born of fornication:

John 8:41 “WE (in the Greek intensive) know who OUR father is !’

(the Greek intensive for WE in this pejorative sneer could be better rendered into modern English as something like ‘At least WE ourselves know who OUR OWN Father is…”) – which carries a kind of double-entendre underneath it.

At any rate the ‘sneer’ (C. K. Barrett) seems to indicate that there was some kind of bastardy insult hurling going on in the scene – although admittedly, these are not recorded historical literal word for word notes being taken here – and the pejorative language (being hurled at R. Yehoshua’s parentage may well be more general against all Galileans whom the Judaeans (at least in the 4th ‘gospel’ !) apparently equated with “Sammaritans” (i.e. half-breeds) e.g. John 9:34

‘You were steeped in defilement from the day of your sinful birth (i.e. bastardy), and do you dare to teach US? Then they threw him out of the hall….’

John 8:48 ‘Are we not absolutely right in labeling you a Samaritan, and one possessed of Belial?’

4. The rough Hebrew idea of a MAMZER (i.e. bastard or ‘one born of illicit union’) could mean a legitimate child who was conceived during menstruation, or one conceived out of wedlock, or could refer to two tribal blood lines illegally ‘mingling’ such as a member of the ‘priestly’ tribe of LEVI ‘sexually squeezing’ (‘to form one bone’ with) a member of e.g. the tribe of JUDAH – the birth legally timed within marriage or not…

So one does NOT really know what ‘kind’ of MAMZER is meant, although the Talmud mentions c. 400 CE that ‘he who must never be named’ (i.e. Yeshu) was conceived during the time of menstrual uncleanliness as being the reason why he was popularly known as a MAMZER (‘born of illicit union’ i.e. a bastard).

The large question of course is : Are all the MAMZER accusations in the gospels the REASON why the virgin birth stories were concocted



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 08:57 AM
link   
I hope I'm not overlooking anything that has already been posted. First Matthew traces Jesus back to Abraham
Quote "2nd verse-Abraham fathered Isaac, and Isaac fathered Jacob, and Jacob fathered Judah and his brothers. through verse 24 "
edit on 18-8-2012 by SmikeS because: www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 06:04 AM
link   
Once again I thank everyone for the responses and info.

Is there a simple answer to all of this?

Probably not, but I have read both sides of the debate and I believe that the most compelling side providing some logic on a matter (that some say defies it) would have to be that jesus would have been of ME appearance.

As England (and most of euro) was already populated, a linage may have made it to populate at least some parts, but as it's been said, any mix would be so unquantifiable.

It does make me smile when I hear that the Royal family thinks they are the linage of jesus.... of course they think that but it is quite impossible.

Keep it going.... I want more confusion, facts, arguments and maybe someone has something new to add?

It is a shame that the person that made me question this conspiracy has not participated in the thread yet - I got no reply from my U2U thus far.... bit of a shame.

Mickierocksman






top topics



 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join