The Official Israelite History Thread

[KoncreteMind]

It's perfectly plausible that some jews could have gone to africa because of course, they did....and they lived in N.Africa....
it's possible the ancient israelites over time made it to africa and then became slaves......
possible....

Its not only possible, its what happened. The maps dont lie and neither do the scriptures (well imo). They didnt just live in N. Africa as they clearly lived in W. Africa and even certain places in Nigeria are named after biblical children (and Im not talking about the well known ones either)...

but it doesn't mean every black man in America is an israelite

True

Africa=historically the richest continent on earth
I would want to reclaim my africanheritage if i was a black man
go watch some akala videos, maybe do some research on the past civilisations other than egypt.
if i was a black yank i would want to retire in S.E or S.W africa.
not get my cock out whenever i see the star of david which was an occult symbol from the middle ages....you dumb fucks.

First off, all black people arent from Africa though. Or let me say, all the black people in America did not come here on slave ships. I'll refer you to the picture posted in the thread already....

Spoiler

Not all blacks were brought to the Americas on slaveships. And theres even more where that came from:

Spoiler

And more can be seen if one just googles "Agostino Brunias" who was a painter of the WEST INDIES in the 1700's (you know, before the slave trade). So if anyone is a "dumb fuck" its you coming here and perpetrating the "all blacks are African" lie when there were clearly blacks in Europe, America, Africa, and the made up "middle east" before any other group of people. But anyways, can we discuss without the emotion? I mean if you have something that shows why Im wrong, or gives credence to whatever viewpoint you have, I dont mind seeing it. But please, without the emotions...

 

[KoncreteMind]

It's silly to post pics of the "Moors" As proof that somehow there's some sort black hidden history in Europe.
All that happened was the Protestant movements back then were seeking alliances/trade deals with the moors and ottomans in defiance to the Catholic Church.
They even used to claim Islam is closer to Christianity because "the Catholics commit idolatry"
But that's the white man for you.

How is it silly? They surely arent teaching us in America about the coloreds running around Europe during the dark ages lol. Are they wherever you are (if you're not in America as well)? I mean its not "hidden" as its easily findable. But its "hidden" as in they dont talk about it.

Im personally not a fan of the Ottomans to be honest so I'd say the moors allying themselves with them was a mistake. But of course Im biased when I say that.

 

[KoncreteMind]

Ought to start writing out the exceedingly racist ideology of British Israelism, is the exact same racist ideology as is being displayed here except white Europeans are the 10 Lost Tribes and the Black Man is the Devil...

Black Hebrew Israelism is an Afrocentric religious belief most popular in the USA, which claims that black people are the descendants of the ancient Israelites of the Bible. Practically a mirror image of British Israelism and with many parallels to the white Christian Identity movement. The more extreme adherents of Black Hebrew Israelism venture into black supremacy, racism and anti-Semitism. While the anti-Semitism, which includes claims that whites and Jews are the spawn of the Devil, and that white people will be slaves in the Kingdom of Heaven. Yahweh Bin Yahweh is an example of one such extremist — back in the early 1990s, members of his "Nation of Yahweh" sect were charged and convicted of murder as he used the killing of white people as one of his cult's initiation rites.

Like I said Black Hebrew Israelism is the Black Equivalent to the horrifically Racist British Israelism, and like one above stated why on Earth would Black people have such a desire to co opt the Hebrews and Jewish Culture? Blacks have a rich history and culture within their actual culture found in Africa, why not self identify with these Cultures instead of forcing your Race upon anothers Culture . From what I read today Black people seem to get rather offended when Non Black people try and co opt their Culture.


Regardless if one who adheres to the God of the Bible its rather obvious that Race literally means nothing Spiritually unlike these 2 Racist ideologies express...

Rom 10:12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

And it specifically states NOT to become obsessed with genealogies which is essentially what these Racist ideologies boil down too...

Titus 3:9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.

If you believe in Christ your race or genealogy doesnt matter and if you think that your race brings you some special perk or salvation with God well then in my eyes your simply a Racist...

Its like I said to AS, if you want to explain your viewpoint, or explain why mine is wrong, Im really all ears. That is, if you can do it without the emotions. I dont think truth should be looked at emotionally. It skews the perception imo. And I say this because I said nothing about being part of any movement. And I also say that because there are people of different races coming to this same conclusion. Does that make them "Black Hebrew Israelites" too? Does it make them racist? The excuse that they're trying to "co opt Jewish culture" doesnt fit either. So what happens when they say the same thing I am? And if anyone is co opting anything its the Jewish people themselves who call themselves Ashkenaz. Yet somehow the bible that should be speaking about them, says they descend from JAPHETH (not Shem). And the same Japheth that is said to dwell in Shem's tents (Genesis 9:27). And from there we could get into discussing DNA (and DNA from the perspective of other races might I add) or what the OT says about Israel's regathering, but I dont think any of this is a conversation you're willing to have.

Heres something funny as well. You think that the same God that put the different genealogies in the bible then sent Paul at the end of the bible to call them "foolish"... But like I said, if you want to discuss the meat of what Im saying and not just place "racist" labels on it, then Im all ears...

 

[AspiringSoul]

How is it silly? They surely arent teaching us in America about the coloreds running around Europe during the dark ages lol. Are they wherever you are (if you're not in America as well)? I mean its not "hidden" as its easily findable. But its "hidden" as in they dont talk about it.

Im personally not a fan of the Ottomans to be honest so I'd say the moors allying themselves with them was a mistake. But of course Im biased when I say that.

Moors were merchants, they travelled. They set up businesses in major cities like London..and this was all okay, just regular trade selling goods.
The ancient greek's also had black slaves.

Here's the thing....

Actual white people originate from ancient sumeria, this is known. However if we go even further back then it's very plausible that we ALL originate from africa ultimately.
However im not going to go that far into history.

why were Black AFRICANS specifically made into slaves?
You try drawing your reasons from the bible. The reality is fairly simple.
White people adapted to the environment in Europe post-ice age by living in caves and utilising tools to survive ie shelter, clothing, hunting. It's the same reason why dogs are so popular with white people because they kept dogs as guardians.
That are many more reasons if you simply give it some attention.

Africans simply didn't need as many tools to survive, the terrain was also better suited to running so long term the africans were physically stronger/bigger than europeans, but europeans had better tools for hunting so it was easy for them to eventually enslave africans.

So obviously when I talk of slavery im not only on about the colonial era but even a thousand years before it.

However Africa is the largest continent so i'm not generalising about all africans ie there were advanced civilisations in Africa too. However as advanced as they were, clearly they weren't advanced in warfare otherwise history would be different.

 

[KoncreteMind]

Moors were merchants, they travelled. They set up businesses in major cities like London..and this was all okay, just regular trade selling goods.

They clearly ruled Europe. It's not simply a case of them being businessmen unless you're talking about another time period after the one I am. And my whole point of bringing up that and the fact that there was so called black people in America BEFORE the slave trade was to show that there's a history that's not talked about when it comes to people of color. Where am I wrong in that when the pictures speak for themselves?

Actual white people originate from ancient sumeria, this is known. However if we go even further back then it's very plausible that we ALL originate from africa ultimately.
However im not going to go that far into history.

Known by who? The Caucasian race, per scientists who are Caucasian have something in their DNA that so called blacks do not. Do you know what that is? And for the record the people in the Middle East today that we call "arabs" descend from Caucasians too. With that tidbit in mind, if true, makes your position on whites and Sumeria unlikely. Rather keep it on Israel history but I mean if you want to open up those cans of worms....

why were Black AFRICANS specifically made into slaves?
You try drawing your reasons from the bible.

Why wouldn't I use the Bible when it's the Bible that says that the curses would be placed on the descendants of the Israelites? Who else went somewhere on ships to be enslaved/oppressed for 400 years if not the "blacks" of the Americas? Do you have something relates to that? Or to whoever it is you think are the Israelites? The Africa and Caucasian talk isn't really relevant though like I said, we can discuss the DNA if you want to get into that

 

[Yahda]

I thought it was the caucusian who descended from the Arab not the other way around ? Science, studying, and history tells us that the white race was thee last to arrive. Roughly between 6000-10000 years ago.

Anyway look into it. That's why arabs are considered white when it comes to race.

 

[AspiringSoul]

moors conquered parts of the mediterranean ie siciliy
moors...you know, muslims.

otherwise no, blacks were never 'ruling' europe.




Known by who? The Caucasian race, per scientists who are Caucasian have something in their DNA that so called blacks do not. Do you know what that is? And for the record the people in the Middle East today that we call "arabs" descend from Caucasians too. With that tidbit in mind, if true, makes your position on whites and Sumeria unlikely. Rather keep it on Israel history but I mean if you want to open up those cans of worms....

wrong
semites didn't descend from 'whites'
whites and arabs alike descended from ancient sumeria



Why wouldn't I use the Bible when it's the Bible that says that the curses would be placed on the descendants of the Israelites? Who else went somewhere on ships to be enslaved/oppressed for 400 years if not the "blacks" of the Americas? Do you have something relates to that? Or to whoever it is you think are the Israelites? The Africa and Caucasian talk isn't really relevant though like I said, we can discuss the DNA if you want to get into that[

because your method is dumb
the very book you read has been preserved and translated by white people inc white jews....

the curses on the israelites were about their exile
this is still true till this day.

however we all know the israelites were taken to assyria and then into persia
as it says

strike Israel, as a reed is shaken in the water. He will uproot Israel from this good land which He gave to their fathers, and will scatter them beyond the [Euphrates] River, because they have made their wooden images, provoking the LORD to anger.

only chance of 'black israelites' is if some were later rerouted and lived in africa until later becoming slaves.

also note, jews lived in persia for over 2500 years
never have they been described as 'black'
and since we're talking about jews, the 'cousins' of the supposed 'black israelites' why aren't the jews black?

 

[Yahda]

Even the fake Jews ( Jews who say they are Jews ) claim they share a DNA link with black African Jews. Most know that's a lie, but anything to deceive the masses. There is even a white Jew exposing this lie in a book he wrote called " The ashkenazi Jewelry "

 

[KoncreteMind]

I thought it was the caucusian who descended from the Arab not the other way around ? Science, studying, and history tells us that the white race was thee last to arrive. Roughly between 6000-10000 years ago.

Anyway look into it. That's why arabs are considered white when it comes to race.

Well the theory is that white people are white because they were living in the caucas mountains. I see it as more plausible that arabs are whites who later mixed in with other races than it somehow being the other way around. I don't really care enough to look into it though so whichever way it is, my point was that they shared a common ancestor.

 

[Yahda]

Well the theory is that white people are white because they were living in the caucas mountains. I see it as more plausible that arabs are whites who later mixed in with other races than it somehow being the other way around. I don't really care enough to look into it though so whichever way it is, my point was that they shared a common ancestor.

Btw I just want to point out that the word "caucas" is also compounded with the word Asian in terms of the white race "Caucasian".

 

[KoncreteMind]

otherwise no, blacks were never 'ruling' europe.

The crests say otherwise as do the statues and other pieces of art that litter Europe. You're more than welcome to go the the things posted in this thread and explain how you get "Arab" from that if you'd like.

semites didn't descend from 'whites'
whites and arabs alike descended from ancient sumeria

How about you look up caucasoid race and see if arabs pop up. Then after that come back and tell us the difference between the Caucasians DNA and so called blacks.

because your method is dumb

I'm using the book that was given to a specific group of people to identify the said group of people and that's "dumb"? The apocrypha they took out of the Bible speaks of the seed of Japheth coming and removing the heritage of Israel at the behest of God. It speaks of them coming, opening the law, and painting images in their own likeness. It speaks of them coming and taking personal interest in the scriptures while simultaneously telling the Hebrews to not follow it. The Bible speaks of the Israelites looking like the ancient Egyptians/Ethiopians which the modern Jews do not. It also speaks of the Ashkenaz descending from Japheth and not Shem and later goes further and outright says that there are a group of people who say they are the Jews but are of the synagogue of Satan. With all this considered (and all of it is biblically documented) where am I going wrong with this again?

 

[AspiringSoul]

Again, the MOORS (ie n.african muslims) were on various crests because european countries back then relied a lot on trade from muslim countries
crests do not signify royalty, they signify rank.

this is muslim history which inc blacks/arabs/southern european

it isn't 'black' in the way you're trying to present it ie these were black people but specifically they were north african.
the black slaves in america mostly came from west africa.
of course there are vast differences in features, despite the colour of skin. just like how slavs and hispanics look a lot different to the irish or german.

"How about you look up caucasoid race and see if arabs pop up."
arabs have caucasian features and so o white peoplee
the term 'Caucasian' is a general time to identify people with similar features ie eyes/head shape/nose
it doesn't mean mean what you're trying to make it seem like it does.


"The Bible speaks of the Israelites looking like the ancient Egyptians/Ethiopians which the modern Jews do not."
says who?
who are the 'modern jews'?
look at the yemenite jews and the persian jews.....and the n.african jews.....
the ashkenazi jews have those specific features the nazis identified...
however there's a strong genetic link between all of these groups.


also the 'synagogue of satan' theme didn't mean they would be pretend jewish people genetically
it was referring to those rabbis who called themselves 'jewish' but weren't following the law of Moses as 'synagogue of satan' referring to their rabbis.
the NT similarly talks of people who are 'circumcised in the flesh only'
the NT/paul also says that The JEWS had been cut off the olive tree but could be grafted in, in future meaning they do had the bloodline but not the spiritual qualities.

im toot ired to bother with the rest of your point.

 

[KoncreteMind]

im toot ired to bother with the rest of your point.

Well then we can leave it at that because there was where the crux of my position was made. Thanks for the input though

 

[AspiringSoul]

Well then we can leave it at that because there was where the crux of my position was made. Thanks for the input though

they're weak arguments though, they don't directly prove anything.
even if people converted to judaism
over 2000 years they would have mixed with real jews
no one is 100% jew or israelite
always a mix of different races inc israelite

However here's the crux of the matter
the real israelites were scattered beyond the euphrates
the ONLY chance they were black is if they managed to escape the east and go to africa, then get captured as slaves..highly unlikely.

 

[KoncreteMind]

they're weak arguments though, they don't directly prove anything.
even if people converted to judaism
over 2000 years they would have mixed with real jews
no one is 100% jew or israelite
always a mix of different races inc israelite

However here's the crux of the matter
the real israelites were scattered beyond the euphrates
the ONLY chance they were black is if they managed to escape the east and go to africa, then get captured as slaves..highly unlikely.

Yea the way I see it is I dont mind you giving your viewpoint on the matter. I actually encourage it. But you cant ignore what I say and simply repeat yourself. Because now in this post you're saying "IF" someone converted when I already said that someone, biblically at least, CLEARLY did. The Ashkenazi. In the bible it says they descend from Japtheth and not Shem like real "Jews" should. And not only is that in every bible, but in the 1611 KJV apocrypha it details about other descendants of Japheth doing the same. And yet, when I ask you "where am I going wrong?" you have anything to offer other than "weak argument". Which is why I said lets leave it at that. Because the actual "weak argument" is you saying "weak argument". Thats easy to do. Whats more difficult, is to go thru what Im saying and show why it is a weak argument. And Im not saying you have to do that, but you're in the thread..

And the bible doesnt just say "past the Euphrates" but says they'd be scattered EVERYWHERE. Thats without mentioning the map that clearly says Whidah/Juda on it in W Africa which now became "Ouida".But like I said, instead of actually articulating why Im incorrect in my conclusion, or why you see this particular thing and others presented differently, you simply say "weak argument" and repeat your already responded to argument. And you've done that multiple times in this thread on different things. So its like I said in the beginning, if you're only going to come in and say "you're wrong" or any other label without actually responding to the contents of the thread, then lets leave it at that...

 

[KoncreteMind]

King James Quotes


vs Rome:

"Whereby it ap- peareth that Babylon, which is Rome, shall bee the Seate of the Antichrist; but not that Ethnicke Romewhich was in the Apostles dayes (for Iohn himselfe pro- fesseth that hee is to write of nothing, but that which is to come after his time.)77 Nor yet that turning Christian Rome while shee was in the conuerting, which immediatly followed the Apostles time, glorious by the Martyrdome of so many godly Bishops: But that Antichristian Rome, when as the Antichrist shal set downe his seat there, after that by the working of that Mysterie of iniquitie, Christian Rome shall become to be corrupted; and so that deadly wound, which the Gothes and Vandales gaue Rome, shall bee cured in that Head or King, the Antichrist, who thereafter shall arise and reigne for a long space"

View on the "Antichrist"

"Whereas if the Antichrist shall reigne three yeeres and a halfe before the Latter day, and that there shall bee but iust fourtie flue dayes of time after his destruction; then shall not the iust day and houre of the Latter day, bee vnknowne to them that shall be aliue in the world, at the time of Antichrists destruction. For first according to the Papists doctrine, all the world shall know him to be the Antichrist, both by the two Witnesses doctrine, and his sudden destruction; And consequently they cannot be ignorant, that the Latter day shall come iust fourtie fiue dayes after: and so Christ shall not come as a thiefe, nor the world bee taken at vnawares; contrary to all the Scriptures before alleadged, and many more. And thus haue we proued Rome to be the Seat of the Antichrist, and the second halfe of that spirituall Weeke betweene the first and second comming of Christ, to be the time of his Reigne: For in the first halfe thereof the mysterie of iniquitie began to worke; but the man of Sinne was not yet reuealed.

View on the Apocrypha:

"As for the Scriptures; no man doubteth I will beleeue them: But euen for theApocrypha; I hold them in the same accompt that the Ancients did: They are still printed and bound with our Bibles, and publikely read in our Churches: I reuerence them as the writings of holy and good men: but since they are not found in the Canon, wee accompt them to bee secundæ lectionis, or ordinis29 (which is Bellarmines owne distinction) and therefore not sufficient whereupon alone to ground any article of Faith, except it be confirmed by some other place of Canonicall Scripture; Concluding this point with Ruffinus (who is no Nouelist, I hope) That the Apocryphall books were by the Fathers permitted to be read; nor for confirmation of Doctrine, but onely for instruction of the people."

View on Mary:

And first for the blessed Virgin Marie, I yeeld her that which the Angel Gabrielpronounced of her, and which in her Canticle shee prophecied of herselfe: that is, That she 30 is blessed amongst women, and That all generations 31 shall call her blessed. I reuerence her as the Mother of Christ, whom of our Sauiour tooke his flesh, and so the Mother of God, since the Diuintie and Humanitie of Christ are inseparable. And I freely confesse, that shee is in glory both aboue Angels and men, her owne Sonne (that is both God and man) onely excepted. But I dare not mocke her and blaspheme against God, calling her not onely Diua but Dea, and praying her to command and controule her Sonne, who is her God; and her Saviour: Nor yet not I thinke, that shee hath no other thing to doe in heauen, then to heare euery idle mans suite, and busie her selfe in their errands; whiles requesting, whiles commanding her Sonne, whiles comming downe to kisse and make loue with Priestes, and whiles disputing and brawling with Deuils. In heauen shee is in eternall glory and ioy, neuer to bee interrupted with any worldly businesse; and there I leaue her with her blessed Sonne our Saviour and hers in eternall felicitie.

All taken from "The True Law of Free Monarchies"

View on kingship:
"The state of monarchy is the supremest thing upon earth; for kings are not only God's lieutenants upon earth, and sit upon God's throne, but even by God himself they are called gods"

 

[KoncreteMind]

Ben Franklin on black or "swarthy" Germans in "Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind, Peopling of Countries":

"Why should Pennsylvania, founded by the English, become a Colony of Aliens, who will shortly be so numerous as to Germanize us instead of our Anglifying them, and will never adopt our Language or Customs, any more than they can acquire our Complexion.

24. Which leads me to add one Remark: That the Number of purely white People in the World is proportionably very small. All Africa is black or tawny. Asia chiefly tawny. America (exclusive of the new Comers) wholly so. And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who with the English, make the principal Body of White People on the Face of the Earth. I could wish their Numbers were increased. And while we are, as I may call it, Scouring our Planet, by clearing America of Woods, and so making this Side of our Globe reflect a brighter Light to the Eyes of Inhabitants in Mars or Venus, why should we in the Sight of Superior Beings, darken its People? why increase the Sons of Africa, by Planting them in America, where we have so fair an Opportunity, by excluding all Blacks and Tawneys, of increasing the lovely White and Red? But perhaps I am partial to the Complexion of my Country, for such Kind of Partiality is natural to Mankind."


Swarthy definition:
naturally having skin of a dark color

German coat of arms:

Spoiler

Italian coat of arms

Spoiler

 

[KoncreteMind]

Acts 13:1
Now in the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon called Niger(countries of Nigeria/Niger and the "slur" N****r), Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen (who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch) and Saul

Igbo/Eboo/Heeboes from Nigeria:

Slave names

Ouidah Slave coast

Spoiler

Deuteronomy 21:23
his body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day (for he that is hanged is accursed of God), that thy land be not defiled which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.

Deuteronomy 28:15
“But it shall come to pass, if you do not obey the voice of the Lord your God, to observe carefully all His commandments and His statutes which I command you today, that all these curses will come upon you and overtake you:

Lynching is the practice of murder by extrajudicial action. Lynchings in the United States rose in number after the American Civil War in the late 1800s, following the emancipation of slaves; they declined after 1930 but were recorded into the 1960s. Lynchings most frequently targeted African American men and women in the South. They were most frequent from 1890 to the 1920s, with a peak in 1892. Starting with large mob actions attended by hundreds or thousands of watchers, lynchings in the 20th century began to be secretly conducted by small groups of people. Lynchings were also common in the Old West, where Native Americans, Mexicans, and Chinese were the primary victims.[1]

After the Reconstruction era, most of the South was politically dominated by Democrats. Lynchings enforced white supremacy and intimidated blacks by racial terrorism.[2] The rate of lynchings in the South has been strongly associated with economic strains,[3] although the causal nature of this link is unclear.[4] Low cotton prices, inflation, and economic stress are associated with higher frequencies of lynching.

 

[KoncreteMind]

"The Inca Empire (Quechua: Tawantinsuyu, lit. "The Four Regions"[2]), also known as the Incan Empire and the Inka Empire, was the largest empire in pre-Columbian America,[3] and possibly the largest empire in the world in the early 16th century.[4] The administrative, political and military center of the empire was located in Cusco in modern-day Peru. The Inca civilization arose from the highlands of Peru sometime in the early 13th century. Its last stronghold was conquered by the Spanish in 1572."

Charles V "normal" depiction:

"Charles V (Spanish: Carlos; French: Charles; German: Karl; Dutch: Karel; Italian: Carlo)[a] (24 February 1500 – 21 September 1558) was ruler of both the Spanish Empire from 1516 and the Holy Roman Empire from 1519, as well as of the Habsburg Netherlands from 1506. He voluntarily stepped down from these and other positions by a series of abdications between 1554 and 1556. Through inheritance, he brought together under his rule extensive territories in western, central, and southern Europe, and the Spanish coloniesin the Americas and Asia. As a result, his domains spanned nearly four million square kilometers[3] and were the first to be described as "the empire on which the sun never sets".[4]:

 

[UnderAlienControl]

Khazarians Then, Khazarians Now
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2017/09/05/khazarians-then-khazarians-now/