Musings on British Israelitism

i tend ti come at this that "British Israelitism" is a stream of protestantism that we can still see in the sides taken between the protestants and Roman Catholics in scotland and northern ireland.. so its really a christian issue of sides in another sectarian conflict

in terms of coming at it from that angle we an clearly see the arguments in the churches with Rome/London competing to be the inheritor of Troy with France and Moscow compete to be the inheritors of Rome and Israelitism is just a side note in the wider older deeper conspiracy..

these things play into the wider myths and folklore be it the likes of brutus and the flintmen who built their wondrous cities before london was even a twinkle in a Romans eye.. kipling did a wonderful job joining the old folklore into poems like those of chesterton..

telling the story of the isles as told by the folklore of the people of the isles

originally posted by: combatmasterI would also like to add that from a personal perspective, I find the Scottish history and culture to be influenced from an Israelite tribe more than the british. IN my eyes they seem more similar to Jerusalem culture in that they maintain a mentality or relative temperament less conforming to the Helenistic mentality that is so prevalent in the English culture.

There's a complicating issue. The cream of English society at one time was raised on classical studies. They named ships and warplanes things like "Lysander."

Scotland made a major effort to teach all their people to read almost as soon as printing became widespread, so they could read the Bible.

originally posted by: Freeborn
As far as I know there is absolutely no genetic, linguistic, archeological or historical evidence to suggest that any Tribe of Israel, lost or not, ended up in The British Isles.

There is historical and ambiguous linguistic evidence that they did not.

The descendants of what was left of the Babylonian captives returned to what was left of Israel in 512 B.C.E.

There is the fact that another people who are said to have originated at the exact place and approximate time of the Babylonian captivity are in fact Persian. Persia was also called Iran even then and it sounds a bit like "Erin." However, Iran means Aryan and we now know that most of Europe has significant Aryan or Yamnaya ancestry so the similar names may simply recall a common ancestor instead of proving they come from Iran, or it may be a coincidence which does not in fact mean "Aryan."

a reply to: nickyw

the song is kipling's poem, "pucks song"

pucks song

See you our pastures wide and lone,
Where the red oxen browse?
O there was a City thronged and known,
Ere London boasted a house.

a reply to: nickyw

Looking for something to watch and after reading "Pucks Song" I'm inclined towards a few seasons of "The Last Kingdom".

Cheers nickyw.

a reply to: andy06shake

great choice, i just love the scale of variety our isles throw up and the contradictions.... did the Romans land in kent or sussex did the roman catholics or irish monks in exile convert sussex.. is Rome or London the inheritor of troy in relation to the thread I find it fascinating that British Israelism is the new kid on the block gog and magog beat them to it

originally posted by: Solvedit
My ancient history was rusty. The Persians took Babylon in 550 B.C.E.

So the people who are said to have originated from the exact place and approximate time of the Babylonian captivity may in fact be Persian with no purchase of land necessary.

[ahem...] It was the MEDES and Persians. Still rusty.

I suppose it's time to to tell you all that I am a bit of a British Israelist. I steeped myself in it back in the 1980's and 1990's. I let it slide for some years while I wrestled with the knotty issue of "hell" versus universal salvation, but lately found "The Drama of the Lost Disciples" on my bookshelf, and realized I had not yet read it. Wonderful book.

Now when it say British Israelism, I subscribe to it in the widest sense, looking at all Europe and not thinking that GB is the be-all and end-all of it. For instance, I have a book written by a Dutch woman, in which she makes a good case for the Dutch people being the tribe of Zebulun. Other tribes are easy to find, others not so much. I am not so foolish as to think that every last European is of Israel.

originally posted by: nickyw
i tend ti come at this that "British Israelitism" is a stream of protestantism that we can still see in the sides taken between the protestants and Roman Catholics in scotland and northern ireland.. so its really a christian issue of sides in another sectarian conflict

That's far from the extent of it though.

Many white supremacists in the US call themselves the lost tribes.

originally posted by: Solvedit

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Solvedit

So do you imagine the island to have been empty before they arrived?

There were people there before the Romans just as theer were people there before the Saxons.

And guess what they worshiped?

Because that would be the nature and the Sun aka paganism.

What does that have to do with my point? Explain please.

What does that have to do with the fact that it is unlikely the Babylonians first captured Northern Israel, then set the people free to leave and settle Britain and the rest of Western Europe, even though most of the captives or their descendants returned to Israel in 512 B.C.E.?

Are you a believer in British Israelitism? Have you decided to swamp my thread with wacky, irrational misdirects?

when the british had Israel more recently, they were opposed to an independent country for them

as was FDR, in 1944, he didn't want to piss off the brits.

the celtics were awesome with larry bird and bill Russell. 1985-86 AD.

i don't know who had theland before the israli's laid claim to it.

could have been khan or alexander.
or persia.
or an obscure people and insigni cant tribe, whatever they are.
en.wikipedia.org...

altho i think

jeremiah and the princess hid the ark in ireland.

tia tephi
israel has a complicated history.

seems like everyone had a turn.

We had the massive migration of Huguenot's out of Europe and settling in Britain. Many of these were descended from the New Christians (Spanish Jews) who had fled Iberia and settled in the low countries and northern France. When things got hairy with the religious over there they then took flight overseas. The Hugenout's settled all over Britain and often were leading lights in the industrial revolution. The textile industry drew many of them into the then booming industrial towns. Ending up in places like Leicester, Lancashire, Yorkshire, Belfast. Many people in those places will be descended from Sephardic Jews who were forced out during the Inquisition fleeing initially to northern parts of the European continent and then onto Great Britain and have no idea about it.

Add to that Scotland had many Jewish refugees taken in during the middle ages when England forced them out. How many people descend from these Jewish refugees who melted into the Sxcottish nation over the centuries.

There looks to have been Jewish settlement in North Wales thousands of years ago too around the Abergele coastal region.

Pretty interesting read here......................... electricscotland.com...

originally posted by: Solvedit

originally posted by: Freeborn
As far as I know there is absolutely no genetic, linguistic, archeological or historical evidence to suggest that any Tribe of Israel, lost or not, ended up in The British Isles.

There is historical and ambiguous linguistic evidence that they did not.

Are you aware of how confusing your posts are? I can't tell if you meant to agree with Freeborn or not because the context and grammar you use makes it look like a rebuttal despite saying the same thing as Freeborn. Though you do this for 5 pages of ambiguous, nonsensical rambling.

The descendants of what was left of the Babylonian captives returned to what was left of Israel in 512 B.C.E.

As I live and breath... your statement is both factually correct AND coherent...

To clear up your confusion on this matter, the people who returned to the Levant/Judea were the Hebrew people taken into captivity. As you had expressed confusion in easier posts about why the Babylonians would release them to go home and went on and on about someone selling the land...now you're just making my head hurt, but I digress... they were allowed to return home because the Persians conquered Babylon and allowed any Hebrew slaves who wanted to, to return home. Many did. Some stayed in Babylon(modern day Iraq) where they had been working as scholars translating texts, some returned home and brought some of those translated text with them hence the Origin of the Noah flood mythos which was borrowed from the Epic of Gilgamesh and still others went to Persia where they were welcomed with open arms.

There is the fact that another people who are said to have originated at the exact place and approximate time of the Babylonian captivity are in fact Persian.

What are you getting at? You're back to making a mess out of the English language again and I'm not entirely certain what your point is. Can you rephrase this is concise, non ambiguous terms?

Or are you getting at what I explained above? You know, where the Persian army conquered Babylon and freed the Hebrew people from bandage and allowed whoever wanted to leave, to return to the Holy Land?

Persia was also called Iran even then and it sounds a bit like "Erin."

No, it was not called Iran in the 6th century BCE

However, Iran means Aryan and we now know that most of Europe has significant Aryan or Yamnaya ancestry so the similar names may simply recall a common ancestor instead of proving they come from Iran, or it may be a coincidence which does not in fact mean "Aryan."

Do you have a citation showing that "most of Europe has significant Persian ancestry? I think you're a little off the mark here. The linguistic similarities actually stem from the shared Indo-European proto language group. Indo-European has some shared commonalities with Indo-Iranian going back a little farther even. But the alleged shared genetics you claim is not a reality.

Many white supremacists in the US call themselves the lost tribes.

Do you have a citation to support this? In my experience, the overwhelming majority of white supremacists here are antisemitic.

originally posted by: peter vlarAre you aware of how confusing your posts are?

What are you getting at? You're back to making a mess out of the English language again and I'm not entirely certain what your point is. Can you rephrase this is concise, non ambiguous terms?

Read slower.

Persia was also called Iran even then and it sounds a bit like "Erin."

No, it was not called Iran in the 6th century BCE

No, you are wrong. "Iran" is the ancient name of their people.

However, Iran means Aryan and we now know that most of Europe has significant Aryan or Yamnaya ancestry so the similar names may simply recall a common ancestor instead of proving they come from Iran, or it may be a coincidence which does not in fact mean "Aryan."

Do you have a citation showing that "most of Europe has significant Persian ancestry? I think you're a little off the mark here.

When did I say Europe was Persian? Read slower.

Do you have a citation to support this? In my experience, the overwhelming majority of white supremacists here are antisemitic.

That doesn't mean they don't think they are the lost tribes.