Christian Zionism Discussed

Thunderian

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
7,515
Yes that's what I meant, my autocorrect is uneducated. Well I don't have any names specifically but I would imagine anybody who wasn't too keen on the idea of an apocalyptic outlook for the future.
So Jews stole Palestine to build their house of God, but are holding back on the construction of it because they're afraid someone will react badly?
 

Thunderian

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
7,515
Jews as defined today means anyone that has converted to Talmudic Judaism which is an organized religion.

Converting to an organized religion does not change a person's DNA. Talmudic Judaism has been accepting converts for the last 26 centuries, including three mass conversions to Talmudic Judaism over the last 2600 years.

There is no DNA evidence linking the Ashkenazis to the Biblical descendants of the House of Judah (the tribes of Judah and Benjamin) nor is there any DNA evidence linking the Ashkenazi to Noah’s second son Shem/Sem.

Per the standard Jewish Encyclopaedia, it’s likely 95% of the Jews today are NOT Semites. And as for the patently absurd claim that Ashkenazis were named after the land they occupied, instead of the fact it was the other way around, the evidence that the “land of Ashkenaz” was named after its Ashkenazi inhabitants comes as a direct admission from the Ashkenazis themselves:

Map of the World: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/map-of-the-world-according-to-the-bible

It would be against The Law (Torah) for real Jews (descended from the House of Judah) to adopt a non-Jewish, non-Semitic, non-Israelite designation. The Law forbids even marrying outside the 12 tribes so the notion of their intentional adoption of a foreign lineage is ludicrous.

Others already have done this. -

The available DNA evidence clearly indicates an Eastern European/Khazarian connection.

Genetic Research Confirms Khazar Theory

Ashkenazic Jews’ mysterious origins unravelled by scientists thanks to ancient DNA
No Evidence from Genome-Wide Data of a Khazar Origin for the Ashkenazi Jews
 

Thunderian

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
7,515
Real jews would be people who actually descended from the House of Judah (the tribes of Judah and Benjamin). Most true descendants of the tribe of Judah converted to Christianity long ago.
Why does the Bible list all the tribes, including Ephraim and Manasseh, as the children of Israel?

And the LORD spake unto Moses in the wilderness of Sinai, in the tabernacle of the congregation, on the first day of the second month, in the second year after they were come out of the land of Egypt, saying,
Take ye the sum of all the congregation of the children of Israel, after their families, by the house of their fathers, with the number of their names, every male by their polls;
From twenty years old and upward, all that are able to go forth to war in Israel: thou and Aaron shall number them by their armies.
And with you there shall be a man of every tribe; every one head of the house of his fathers.
Of the children of Joseph: of Ephraim; Elishama the son of Ammihud: of Manasseh; Gamaliel the son of Pedahzur.
Why are all twelve tribes listed again in Revelation 7 as the "children of Israel"?

If Ephraim and Manasseh aren't Jews, why do they inherit the land that was promised to Jews?
 
Joined
Jul 29, 2018
Messages
2,040
Why does the Bible list all the tribes, including Ephraim and Manasseh, as the children of Israel?


And the LORD spake unto Moses in the wilderness of Sinai, in the tabernacle of the congregation, on the first day of the second month, in the second year after they were come out of the land of Egypt, saying,



Take ye the sum of all the congregation of the children of Israel, after their families, by the house of their fathers, with the number of their names, every male by their polls;



From twenty years old and upward, all that are able to go forth to war in Israel: thou and Aaron shall number them by their armies.



And with you there shall be a man of every tribe; every one head of the house of his fathers.



Of the children of Joseph: of Ephraim; Elishama the son of Ammihud: of Manasseh; Gamaliel the son of Pedahzur.

Why are all twelve tribes listed again in Revelation 7 as the "children of Israel"?

If Ephraim and Manasseh aren't Jews, why do they inherit the land that was promised to Jews?
Because Jacob/Israel was their dad, obviously. So they are all his children (the children of Israel - their dad).
But especially Ephraim and Manasseh (Joseph's sons) because of the blessing that Jacob/Israel gave to them. He said let Ephraim and Manasseh be called Israel, that is why they became the two leading tribes. Judah would carry the scepter as prophesied in Genesis and they became the kings of the Royal houses of Europe, etc.
 
Joined
Jul 29, 2018
Messages
2,040
If Ephraim and Manasseh aren't Jews,
They are not Jews obviously since they are not Judah. Duh?
why do they inherit the land that was promised to Jews?
Which verse did you mean, please?

But in any case Jesus said their (the Jews) inheritance goes to others:

Matthew
21:33 Hear another parable: There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country:
21:34 And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent His servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it.
21:35 And the husbandmen took His servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another.
21:36 Again, He sent other servants more than the first: and they did unto them likewise.
21:37 But last of all He sent unto them His son, saying, They will respect my Son.
21:38 But when the husbandmen saw the Son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance.
21:39 And they caught him, and cast [him] out of the vineyard, and slew [him].
21:40 When the Lord therefore of the Vineyard cometh, what will He do unto those husbandmen?
21:41 They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out [His] vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render Him the fruits in their seasons.

21:42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the Scriptures, The Stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the Head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
21:43 Therefore say I unto you, The Kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof (the "10 lost tribes" - the "House of Israel").
21:44 And whosoever shall fall on this Stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.
 
Last edited:

Thunderian

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
7,515
Because Jacob/Israel was their dad, obviously. So they are all his children (the children of Israel - their dad).
But especially Ephraim and Manasseh (Joseph's sons) because of the blessing that Jacob/Israel gave to them. He said let Ephraim and Manasseh be called Israel, that is why they became the two leading tribes. Judah would carry the scepter as prophesied in Genesis and they became the kings of the Royal houses of Europe, etc.
If Ephraim and Mannaseh are the two leading tribes, why does Judah have the scepter? Wouldn't a leading tribe have the power?
 
Joined
Jul 29, 2018
Messages
2,040
If Ephraim and Mannaseh are the two leading tribes, why does Judah have the scepter? Wouldn't a leading tribe have the power?
That is how God made it.

Judah - The Royal House of David; Solomon's Enduring Earthly Throne (1 Chron. 17:12-14). The Royal houses - kings & queens of Europe. Judah/Zarah is known to have finally settled in Scotland and Northern Ireland and Judah/Pharez in Israel, among other places.

Ephraim - A Company of Nations (Gen. 12:2 & 35:11) - The British Commonwealth
Manasseh - A Great People (Gen. 48:19) - The U.S.A.

QE2 and the other kings & queens of Europe are all descendants of David (Judah).
Ephraim and Manasseh are the two leading tribes (Great Britain and USA) with kings of Judah ruling (sceptre) in the midst of them.
 
Last edited:

Thunderian

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
7,515
Jesus said their (the Jews) inheritance goes to others:

Matthew
21:33 Hear another parable: There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country:
21:34 And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent His servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it.
21:35 And the husbandmen took His servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another.
21:36 Again, He sent other servants more than the first: and they did unto them likewise.
21:37 But last of all He sent unto them His son, saying, They will respect my Son.
21:38 But when the husbandmen saw the Son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance.
21:39 And they caught him, and cast [him] out of the vineyard, and slew [him].
21:40 When the Lord therefore of the Vineyard cometh, what will He do unto those husbandmen?
21:41 They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out [His] vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render Him the fruits in their seasons.

21:42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the Scriptures, The Stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the Head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
21:43 Therefore say I unto you, The Kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof (the "10 lost tribes" - the "House of Israel").
21:44 And whosoever shall fall on this Stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.
Jesus didn't say their inheritance goes to others. He said the Kingdom of God would be taken from them. He said that because the chief priests and pharisees rejected him, they would no longer be the conduit through which God communicates with humanity.

It also stands pointing out that if Jesus was speaking to the chief priests, he was speaking to the tribe of Levi, who you claim are not Jews. How do you square that with the things you've been saying about who the Jews actually are?
 
Joined
Jul 29, 2018
Messages
2,040
Jesus didn't say their inheritance goes to others. He said the Kingdom of God would be taken from them. He said that because the chief priests and pharisees rejected him, they would no longer be the conduit through which God communicates with humanity.
Read the preceding verses:

Matthew
21:37 But last of all He sent unto them His son, saying, They will respect my Son.
21:38 But when the husbandmen saw the Son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance.
21:39 And they caught him, and cast [him] out of the vineyard, and slew [him].
21:40 When the Lord therefore of the Vineyard cometh, what will He do unto those husbandmen?
21:41 They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out [His] vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render Him the fruits in their seasons.

It also stands pointing out that if Jesus was speaking to the chief priests, he was speaking to the tribe of Levi, who you claim are not Jews. How do you square that with the things you've been saying about who the Jews actually are?
Jesus was not speaking this to the chief priests (Levites) alone but also to the "elders of the people" (Jews) who were there.

Matthew 21:23 And when he was come into the Temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came unto him as he was teaching, and said, By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority?
 
Joined
Jul 29, 2018
Messages
2,040
"Only a day or two before his death Jesus is quietly teaching in The Temple, when some of the chief priests and elders join his audience and challenge his authority. The object of their question is to trap him into making some statement which will put him in their power. But Jesus skillfully parries the question, and proceeds to tell them this parable.

'A certain man had two sons; and he came to the first, and said, Son, go work today in my vineyard. He answered and said, I will not: but afterward he repented, and went.
'And he came to the second, and said likewise. And he answered and said, I go, sir: and went not.
'Whether of them twain did the will of his father?'
(Matt. 21:28-31).

It does not seem to occur to them immediately that the two sons represent the House of Israel and the House of Judah, because they answer and say, 'The first'. But they know that this is not a pretty Sunday-school story, and that every word is pregnant with meaning for themselves.

While they are still speculating as to his meaning Jesus goes on to tell them another parable. But this time they realize in the first few words the exact meaning of the vineyard to which he refers. How does Jesus do it? Very simply. He used the actual words of another parable of the vineyard in the Book of Isaiah, a passage with which they are very familiar, and which they cannot fail to understand.

This is the parable of Isaiah.

'Now will I sing to my well-beloved a song of my beloved touching His vineyard. My well-beloved hath a vineyard in a very fruitful hill: and He fenced it, and gathered out the stones thereof, and planted it with the choicest vine; and built a tower in the midst of it, and also made a winepress therein: and He looked that it should bring forth grapes, and it brought forth wild grapes.
'And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem, and men of Judah, judge, I pray you, betwixt Me and My vineyard.
'What could have been done more to My vineyard, that I have not done in it? Wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes?
'And now, go to; I will tell you what I will do to My vineyard: I will take away the hedge thereof, and it shall be eaten up; and break down the wall thereof, and it shall be trodden down:
'And I will lay it waste: it shall not be pruned, nor digged; but there shall come up briers and thorns: I will also command the clouds that they rain no rain upon it.
'For the vineyard of the "I AM" Lord of hosts is the house of Israel, and the men of Judah His pleasant plant' (Isa. 5:1-7).

Remembering the intimate knowledge of the Old Testament Scriptures which was so constantly displayed by the Lord Jesus, we may safely assume that he was well acquainted with the parallel passage in Psalm 80, where the Psalmist applies the same imagery to the House of Israel, and leads our thoughts to the promised Messiah, who was destined to leave the right hand of his Father in order to become the Son of Man.

'Thou hast brought a vine out of Egypt: Thou hast cast out the heathen, and planted it.
'Thou preparedst room before it, and didst cause it to take deep root, and it filled the land.
'The hills were covered with the shadow of it, and the boughs thereof were like the goodly cedars.
'She sent out her boughs unto the sea, and her branches unto the river.
'Why hast Thou then broken down her hedges, so that all they which pass by the way do pluck her?
'The boar out of the wood doth waste it, and the wild beast of the field doth devour it.
'Return, we beseech Thee, O God of hosts: look down from heaven, and behold, and visit this vine;
'And the vineyard which Thy right hand hath planted, and the branch that Thou madest strong for Thyself.
'It is burned with fire, it is cut down: they perish at the rebuke of Thy countenance.
'Let Thy hand be upon the man of Thy right hand, upon the son of man whom Thou madest strong for Thyself.'

With consummate skill Jesus weaves these two passages into a parable which his audience cannot fail to understand.

'There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country.
'And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it.
'And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another.
'Again, he sent other servants more than the first: and they did unto them likewise'
(Matt. 21:33-36).

The chief priests and scribes and elders understand now exactly what Jesus means. The vineyard, as explained by Isaiah, is the House of Israel. God had planted it in Palestine; hedged it about, that is, separated it from other nations and protected it with His power; digged a winepress in it, given to it the Divine Law; built a tower, established the Royal House of David. The servants are the long line of prophets ending in John the Baptist, whose murder only a year or two before is still fresh in their minds.

Having identified the vineyard, Jesus continues the parable, 'But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son.'

The Jews know now that Jesus is referring to himself; and they listen attentively because they hope that he will say something that will put him in their power. But, instead of that, they hear their own plot unmasked, and Jesus uttering aloud the very words that they have been whispering in secret. Imagine their amazement as that calm voice proceeds:

'But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance.*'

* Ezekiel 44:2 Then said the "I AM" unto me; This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter in by it; because the "I AM", the God of Israel, hath entered in by it, therefore it shall be shut.
44:3 [It is] for The Prince (Dan. 9:24-27); The Prince, he shall sit in it to eat bread before the "I AM"; he shall enter by the way of the porch of [that] gate, and shall go out by the way of the same.
48:21 And the residue [shall be] for The Prince, on the one side and on the other of the holy oblation, and of the possession of the city, over against the five and twenty thousand of the oblation toward the east border, and westward over against the five and twenty thousand toward the west border, over against the portions for The Prince: and it shall be the holy oblation; and The Sanctuary of The House [shall be] in the midst thereof.
48:22 Moreover from the possession of the Levites, and from the possession of the city, [being] in the midst [of that] which is The Prince's, between the border of Judah and the border of Benjamin, shall be for The Prince.

But Jesus has not finished yet. He has shown them that he knows why they are going to put him to death; now he intends to warn them of the consequences of their action. So he asks them this question:

'When the Lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen?
'They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons.'

The answer to our Lord's question comes probably from one of the crowd, or possibly from one of his own followers. Luke, in his version of the scene, puts the words into the mouth of Jesus himself. If one of the chief priests, or scribes, or elders is speaking, then he is very quickly made conscious of his stupidity, for Jesus drops the parable, and turns upon his enemies with these words: 'Therefore say I unto you, the Kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.'

This statement leaves no shadow of doubt in their minds as to the meaning of the parable. The guilty thoughts of their hearts have been laid bare and they are filled with fury, and the lust for murder, for we read, 'And the chief priests and the scribes the same hour sought to lay hands on him; but they feared the people: for they perceived that he had spoken this parable against them.'

- The Fight for The Kingdom
 

Thunderian

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
7,515
Read the preceding verses:

Matthew
21:37 But last of all He sent unto them His son, saying, They will respect my Son.
21:38 But when the husbandmen saw the Son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance.
21:39 And they caught him, and cast [him] out of the vineyard, and slew [him].
21:40 When the Lord therefore of the Vineyard cometh, what will He do unto those husbandmen?
21:41 They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out [His] vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render Him the fruits in their seasons.
I am confused. You say the Jews have lost their inheritance, but then you highlight a verse that says HIS (the Son's) inheritance. Who is the Son in that passage? Who are the husbandmen?

Jesus was not speaking this to the chief priests (Levites) alone but also to the "elders of the people" (Jews) who were there.

Matthew 21:23 And when he was come into the Temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came unto him as he was teaching, and said, By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority?
But your contention is that the Jews lost their inheritance, and that the Jews are only the tribes of Judah and Benjamin. The elders of the people would be the elders of all the tribes of Israel, would they not? Certainly the Levites aren't of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, but Jesus is said to be addressing the chief priests. How do you make sense of this?
 
Last edited:

Serveto

Star
Joined
Apr 20, 2017
Messages
1,043
This just in (again). For those who might be interested in some of the finer points of especially "fundamentalist" Jewish-Christian relations, and this by a veteran, blessedly in this case leftist, Middle-Eastern correspondent who doesn't primarily rely upon Rupert Murdochian media, Pat Robertson's 700 Club or interpretations of Zecharia 12:10 for his understanding of the politics on the ground, here is an excerpt from a still timely report ...

"Like fundamentalism everywhere, the Jewish variety seeks to restore an ideal, imagined past. If it ever managed to do so, the Israel celebrated by the American “friends of Israel” as a “bastion of democracy in the Middle East” would, most assuredly, be no more. For, in its full and perfect form, the Jewish Kingdom that arose in its place would elevate a stern and wrathful God’s sovereignty over any new-fangled, heathen concepts such as the people’s will, civil liberties or human rights. It would be governed by the Halacha, or Jewish religious law, of which the rabbis would be the sole interpreters ... A monarch, chosen by the rabbis, would rule and the Knesset would be replaced by a Sanhedrin, or supreme judicial, ecclesiastic and administrative council ... All forms of “idolatry or idol-worship,” but especially Christian ones (for traditionally Muslims, who are not considered to be idolaters, are held in less contempt than Christians), would be “obliterated,” in the words of Shas party leader Rabbi Ovadia Yossef ... "
David Hirst
 

Lisa

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
20,288
This just in (again). For those who might be interested in some of the finer points of especially "fundamentalist" Jewish-Christian relations, and this by a veteran, blessedly in this case leftist, Middle-Eastern correspondent who doesn't primarily rely upon Rupert Murdochian media, Pat Robertson's 700 Club or interpretations of Zecharia 12:10 for his understanding of the politics on the ground, here is an excerpt from a still timely report ...

"Like fundamentalism everywhere, the Jewish variety seeks to restore an ideal, imagined past. If it ever managed to do so, the Israel celebrated by the American “friends of Israel” as a “bastion of democracy in the Middle East” would, most assuredly, be no more. For, in its full and perfect form, the Jewish Kingdom that arose in its place would elevate a stern and wrathful God’s sovereignty over any new-fangled, heathen concepts such as the people’s will, civil liberties or human rights. It would be governed by the Halacha, or Jewish religious law, of which the rabbis would be the sole interpreters ... A monarch, chosen by the rabbis, would rule and the Knesset would be replaced by a Sanhedrin, or supreme judicial, ecclesiastic and administrative council ... All forms of “idolatry or idol-worship,” but especially Christian ones (for traditionally Muslims, who are not considered to be idolaters, are held in less contempt than Christians), would be “obliterated,” in the words of Shas party leader Rabbi Ovadia Yossef ... "

Not to worry though, Serveto...even if they can get to that point, it won’t last long, 3 1/2 years to be exact after the treaty is broken then Israel will be attacked and only a remnant will be saved. I don’t fully know if it will get to the point that the Sanhedrin will rule the state of Israel, but I do know that a new temple will be built.
 
Joined
Jul 29, 2018
Messages
2,040
I am confused. You say the Jews have lost their inheritance, but then you highlight a verse that says HIS (the Son's) inheritance. Who is the Son in that passage? Who are the husbandmen?
The Son is Christ (the heir; The Prince - Ezekiel 48:22).

'But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance.*'

(Ezekiel 48:22 Moreover from the possession of the Levites, and from the possession of the city, [being] in the midst [of that] which is The Prince's, between the border of Judah and the border of Benjamin, shall be for The Prince.)

So, who then are the husbandmen?

Jesus asks them this question:

'When the Lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen?
'They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons.'

The answer to our Lord's question comes probably from one of the crowd, or possibly from one of his own followers. Luke, in his version of the scene, puts the words into the mouth of Jesus himself. If one of the chief priests, or scribes, or elders is speaking, then he is very quickly made conscious of his stupidity, for Jesus drops the parable, and turns upon his enemies with these words: 'Therefore say I unto you, the Kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.'

This statement leaves no shadow of doubt in their minds as to the meaning of the parable. The guilty thoughts of their hearts have been laid bare and they are filled with fury, and the lust for murder, for we read, 'And the chief priests and the scribes the same hour sought to lay hands on him; but they feared the people: for they perceived that he had spoken this parable against them.'

The chief priests (Levites), scribes (lawyers) and elders (community leaders - sanhedrin) were not all Levites. Only the priests were (or had to be) Levites.

But your contention is that the Jews lost their inheritance, and that the Jews are only the tribes of Judah and Benjamin. The elders of the people would be the elders of all the tribes of Israel, would they not?
No they would not, because the 10 northern tribes (the "House of Israel") were no longer in the promised land. Only a remnant of the original 2 southern tribes (the "House of Judah") were still there.

Remember that there were two separate captivities, the first one being the captivity of the House of Israel by the Assyrians, followed by the second captivity of the House of Judah by the Babylonians.

The House of Israel never returned (from their captivity into Assyria) to the promised land and had gone elsewhere. So they (the 10 northern tribes - the "House of Israel") were not there in the promised land anymore.

John 10:16 And other sheep I have (the "House of Israel"), which are not of this fold (the "House of Judah"): them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, [and] one Shepherd (Eze 37:22 and Genesis 49:10).

And of the House of Judah, only a remnant of the House of Judah (42,360 souls) had returned from the captivity in Babylon.
Certainly the Levites aren't of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, but Jesus is said to be addressing the chief priests. How do you make sense of this?
Not only the chief priests (who were Levites) but also the elders of the people (Matt. 21:23) who were not Levites but who were the Jewish leaders. The elders (or "the counsel" - Mark 14:55) were the community leaders and judges. So they were all there too and Jesus was speaking to all of them together.

Mark 14:55 And the chief priests and all the council sought for witness against Jesus to put him to death; and found none.

Mark 14:55 New International Version (NIV)
55 The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for evidence against Jesus so that they could put him to death, but they did not find any.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jul 29, 2018
Messages
2,040
The Levites obviously were, so you're down to 9 northern tribes.
In Scripture, the tribe of Joseph is counted as 2 tribes (Ephraim and Manasseh) so it is 10 northern tribes and it is not down to 9. There were Levites living amongst all of the tribes, not just Judah.
What does the vineyard represent in the parable?
The house of Israel (Isa. 5:1-7).
 
Joined
Jul 29, 2018
Messages
2,040
Jacob-Israel had twelve sons, of whom Judah was the fourth. It is obvious, therefore, that Judah was one of the children of Israel, and equally obvious that the other eleven sons could not possibly have been Judah.

Each of these twelve sons founded a tribe, with the exception of Joseph, who founded two tribes through his two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh. There were thus, strictly speaking, thirteen tribes; but, inasmuch as the tribe of Levi had no territorial status but was dispersed throughout the other twelve tribes for the performance of special duties, it became customary to speak of the whole nation as the twelve tribes of Israel.

These tribes were organized into a kingdom, of which God Himself was the King: a Theocratic State, which lasted about four hundred years. At the end of that time they decided to set up a visible and earthly king, and first Saul, then David, and lastly Rehoboam, reigned over the original united kingdom of all-Israel.

In the reign of Rehoboam this kingdom was split into two parts: the tribes of Judah, Benjamin with some of the tribe of Levi scattered amongst them formed the kingdom of Judah, while the remaining ten tribes with the remainder of the Levites scattered amongst them formed the new northern kingdom of Israel. This great division took place about 975 B.C., and from this time forward the terms Israel and Judah generally refer to the two separate kingdoms so formed.

Between the dates 741 B.C. and 676 B.C., the people of the kingdom of Israel were deported by the Assyrians to a district north of Nineveh; and shortly afterwards their land was handed over to colonists from the Assyrian Empire.

The main deportations of Judah took place between the dates 606 B.C. and 587 B.C. when all the inhabitants of that kingdom, with very few exceptions, were transported by the Chaldaeans to Babylon.

The people of the two kingdoms were thus deported at different times, by different conquerors, and to different districts.

In 537 B.C., under the decree of Cyrus, a portion of Judah (42,360 souls in all), some of whom had married non-Israelite wives and fathered children by them, returned to their own land - Judaea, and became known as Jews.

These Jews, being of the tribes of Judah, Benjamin and Levi, were, therefore, of the race of Israel, but of the kingdom of Judah.

On the other hand, the ten tribes, who never returned home from their captivity, were not only of the race of Israel, but also of the kingdom of Israel; they could not, therefore, by any possibility have been either Judah or the Jews.

Until these facts are clearly understood, much of the Bible must remain unintelligible.
 
Joined
Jul 29, 2018
Messages
2,040
When we come to the New Testament times, we find that the term 'Jews' has acquired a two-fold meaning. The same word is used to indicate (1) the whole body of Jews, and (2) those Jews who were domiciled in Judaea, many of whom, like king Herod, were Idumaean (Edomite) converts to Judaism.

During the Roman occupation that part of Palestine, which lay immediately between the river Jordan and the sea coast, was divided into three sections: Galilee in the North, Judaea in the South, and Samaria, which lay between the two.

The Samaritans were the descendants of the Assyrian colonists who have been mentioned above; they did not go up to Jerusalem to the Feasts, but worshipped YHWH (Jehovah - the "I AM") in their own fashion (Jonah 1:2; 3:4-5) at their own temple on Mount Gerizim. The Jews were expressly forbidden by their leaders to have any dealings with the Samaritans, except in so far as it might be incumbent upon them to buy food, or other necessities, when passing through their territory.

Thus Galilee and Judaea were separated from each other by a wide tract of land inhabited by an alien, and hated, people.

This separation resulted in a divergence of manners, customs, speech and ideals, that caused the Jews of Galilee to fear the Idumaean Jews of Judaea for their political and religious power, and which led the Jews of Judaea to despise the Jews of Galilee for their provincialism.

Thus it came about that the Jews of Galilee called themselves Galileans, while the Jews of Judaea retained the name of Jews.

We are not surprised, therefore, when we find the Evangelists, who were Galileans, referring to their fellow-countrymen in Judaea as Jews, or when we find the Jews of Judaea referring to their compatriots of Galilee as Galileans.

This distinction between Jews (all Jews) and Jews (Judaeans) should not be overlooked by students of the New Testament.
 

Thunderian

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
7,515
The Son is Christ (the heir; The Prince - Ezekiel 48:22).

'But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance.*'

(Ezekiel 48:22 Moreover from the possession of the Levites, and from the possession of the city, [being] in the midst [of that] which is The Prince's, between the border of Judah and the border of Benjamin, shall be for The Prince.)

So, who then are the husbandmen?

Jesus asks them this question:

'When the Lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen?
'They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons.'

The answer to our Lord's question comes probably from one of the crowd, or possibly from one of his own followers. Luke, in his version of the scene, puts the words into the mouth of Jesus himself. If one of the chief priests, or scribes, or elders is speaking, then he is very quickly made conscious of his stupidity, for Jesus drops the parable, and turns upon his enemies with these words: 'Therefore say I unto you, the Kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.'

This statement leaves no shadow of doubt in their minds as to the meaning of the parable. The guilty thoughts of their hearts have been laid bare and they are filled with fury, and the lust for murder, for we read, 'And the chief priests and the scribes the same hour sought to lay hands on him; but they feared the people: for they perceived that he had spoken this parable against them.'

The chief priests (Levites), scribes (lawyers) and elders (community leaders - sanhedrin) were not all Levites. Only the priests were (or had to be) Levites.
OK, so what is the inheritance that the Jews (and the Levites) have taken from them? What is the Kingdom of God?

No they would not, because the 10 northern tribes (the "House of Israel") were no longer in the promised land. Only a remnant of the original 2 southern tribes (the "House of Judah") were still there.
That's not what the Bible says. The Bible says that all the Levites and all the faithful Israelites, from all the tribes, went to the southern kingdom.

For the Levites left their suburbs and their possession, and came to Judah and Jerusalem: for Jeroboam and his sons had cast them off from executing the priest's office unto the LORD:
And he ordained him priests for the high places, and for the devils, and for the calves which he had made.
And after them out of all the tribes of Israel such as set their hearts to seek the LORD God of Israel came to Jerusalem, to sacrifice unto the LORD God of their fathers.
So they strengthened the kingdom of Judah, and made Rehoboam the son of Solomon strong, three years: for three years they walked in the way of David and Solomon.

Then we hear of another great movement of faithful Israelites out of the House of Israel.

And he gathered all Judah and Benjamin, and the strangers with them out of Ephraim and Manasseh, and out of Simeon: for they fell to him out of Israel in abundance, when they saw that the LORD his God was with him.
So they gathered themselves together at Jerusalem in the third month, in the fifteenth year of the reign of Asa.

According to the Bible, the House of Judah was made up of all the Jews that wanted to serve God, and the House of Israel was made up of the idolators.

God even addresses the faithful of the Houses of Judah and of Israel who were living in the southern kingdom.

Speak unto Rehoboam the son of Solomon, king of Judah, and to all Israel in Judah and Benjamin, saying,

All of the above verses are from after the division into the two kingdoms, but before either kingdom had gone into captivity. Clearly, all the tribes were represented in the House of Judah, just as all were represented in the House of Israel.

Remember that there were two separate captivities, the first one being the captivity of the House of Israel by the Assyrians, followed by the second captivity of the House of Judah by the Babylonians.

The House of Israel never returned (from their captivity into Assyria) to the promised land and had gone elsewhere. So they (the 10 northern tribes - the "House of Israel") were not there in the promised land anymore.
Really? Again, the Bible says otherwise. Ezra wrote after the Babylonian captivity, regarding the rebuilding and dedication of the temple in Jerusalem:

And the children of Israel, the priests, and the Levites, and the rest of the children of the captivity, kept the dedication of this house of God with joy,
And offered at the dedication of this house of God an hundred bullocks, two hundred rams, four hundred lambs; and for a sin offering for all Israel, twelve he goats, according to the number of the tribes of Israel.

All the children of Israel offered sacrifices for all the tribes of Israel. How do you square this with your theory that it was only Judah that returned from captivity?
 
Top