Twelve Tribes of Israel info & research thread

rainerann

Star
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
4,088
Egypt was the lone world superpower during the period of time the Israelites were there, beginning with Joseph, who became the second most powerful man in the world behind only the Pharoah. Comparing the Egypt of then, with the Egypt of today; when God said He would destroy Egypt, He was not joking. So your feeble attempt to argue that Egypt is still a "thriving tourist destination" is utterly ridiculous and proof you're more interested in arguing than in the truth.

Please take the time to watch the documentary film "Patterns of Evidence" by Tim Mahoney, along with the follow-up interviews featuring him and David Rohl, before you make any more baseless assumptions about the Exodus or about the Hebrew language, which is where our modern alphabet originated. If you still have any honest questions after that, please let me know.
I am not impressed by Patterns of Evidence. I don't actually consider them true archeologists. I have already seen their work and am familiar with them. Egypt is not laid waste in the least. In fact, they are one of the only nations to have maintained an ancient presence into the modern-day. They have a continuous linear history that is marked and observable from tangible artifacts. Their foundation is clearly solid and has not been disrupted in thousands of years.

So there is some cognitive dissonance when you are trying to suggest that Egypt has been laid waste especially when you combine this with the suggestion that Joseph was at one point the second most powerful man in this nation.

If Joseph was so powerful, why don't we know who the Pharoah was at the time that Joseph was second in command? So many questions could be solved if the writers of the Bible had mentioned the name of the Pharoah in the same way that they mentioned Darius, Sennacherib, Nebuchadnezzar, etc. Countless leaders are mentioned in the Bible by name, but not one Pharoah.

It is very possible that Mizraim was laid waste, which is why it cannot be identified from the perspective of the modern age, but Egypt has not been laid waste by any means.

Clearly, you are not interested in defending your position on the verses regarding the Isles either?
 






Last edited:

A Freeman

Star
Joined
Nov 11, 2019
Messages
1,470
I am not impressed by Patterns of Evidence. I don't actually consider them true archeologists. I have already seen their work and am familiar with them. Egypt is not laid waste in the least. In fact, they are one of the only nations to have maintained an ancient presence into the modern-day. They have a continuous linear history that is marked and observable from tangible artifacts. Their foundation is clearly solid and has not been disrupted in thousands of years.

So there is some cognitive dissonance when you are trying to suggest that Egypt has been laid waste especially when you combine this with the suggestion that Joseph was at one point the second most powerful man in this nation.

If Joseph was so powerful, why don't we know who the Pharoah was at the time that Joseph was second in command? So many questions could be solved if the writers of the Bible had mentioned the name of the Pharoah in the same way that they mentioned Darius, Sennacherib, Nebuchadnezzar, etc. Countless leaders are mentioned in the Bible by name, but not one Pharoah.

It is very possible that Mizraim was laid waste, which is why it cannot be identified from the perspective of the modern age, but Egypt has not been laid waste by any means.

Clearly, you are not interested in defending your position on the verses regarding the Isles either?
There's no need for me to defend anything, as the truth speaks for itself. You obviously have no love for the truth, as you wish to argue absolute nonsense.

There's enough posted within this thread for anyone honestly interested in the truth to find it. Even the film which you say you're familiar with, and don't agree with, answers some of the questions you've just asked, with specificity. You just choose to ignore it.
 






rainerann

Star
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
4,088
There's no need for me to defend anything, as the truth speaks for itself. You obviously have no love for the truth, as you wish to argue absolute nonsense.

There's enough posted within this thread for anyone honestly interested in the truth to find it. Even the film which you say you're familiar with, and don't agree with, answers some of the questions you've just asked, with specificity. You just choose to ignore it.
Nope I didn't argue with you, I asked for you to highlight a couple of verses, but clearly you have become sensitive. Therefore, I will stop replying and only contribute when I want to share more of my nonsense. Take care.
 






A Freeman

Star
Joined
Nov 11, 2019
Messages
1,470
For those who have a genuine interest in the truth about the Exodus and the origins of the alphabet that began in Egypt with the Hebrew language, please see the links below to the Patterns of Evidence series, which includes not just the film, but the follow-up interviews with the filmmaker Tim Mahoney and British Egyptologist David Rohl, the latter of which has been an Egyptologist for almost 40 years.

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Rohl:-

In 1985 Rohl became the first Director of the Institute for the Study of Interdisciplinary Sciences (ISIS), and editor of its Journal of the Ancient Chronology Forum from 1986. In 1988 he was accepted by University College, London and awarded the prestigious W.F. Masom History Research Scholarship by the University of London as well as being awarded a BA in Ancient History and Egyptology in 1990.[6] He is a past President of the Sussex Egyptology Society (SES) and edited The Followers of Horus: Eastern Desert Survey Report.[7]

The publication of his book, A Test of Time led to his role in a three-part television documentary, "Pharaohs and Kings: A Biblical Quest", which appeared late summer 1995 on Channel 4 in the UK, and spring 1996 on The Learning Channel/Discovery in the USA.

A more detailed biography of David Rohl:

Link to the Patterns of Evidence series:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLK2XTPJF5tvUJ5BB0Ubys3Z1Ubj6ygIaw

Individual interview links:-

1 – The Journey

2 - The Evidence

3 – Fairytale or History?

4 – Questions & Answers


This is some truly amazing, breakthrough work that's been done by these two individuals over the past 15 years. Please enjoy.
God Bless.
 






rainerann

Star
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
4,088
"therefore, behold, I am against you and against your streams, and I will make the land of Egypt an utter waste and desolation, from Migdol to Syene, as far as the border of Cush." Ezekiel 29:10

Some scientists believe that the Sahara used to be green. It would be a much better example of land becoming an utter waste and desolation, and there is also a history of abandoned pyramids and Pharaohs within areas of this region. I am not terribly familiar with this beyond this, but it would fit this description a lot better, and there is no evidence that Egypt was ever known as Mizraim historically. This is another assumption.

There is a visual of a speculated climate map at 8:45 where all of northern Africa that isn't underwater at this point in time, is green.


I also found it interesting when I was watching a TruthUnveiled video a while ago that the famous unicorn reference in the King James version could actually be a reference to a rhinoceros rather than an ox. It seems like something like this should have been so obvious but I completely missed it. A rhinoceros has a single horn. However, they are native to the southern half of Africa and some Asian countries. They do not exist in the middle east.
 






Last edited:

A Freeman

Star
Joined
Nov 11, 2019
Messages
1,470
It's interesting, in a way, to watch others, who admit they don't believe the contents of the Bible are true or of extra-terrestrial origin, offer up their opinions on who the 12 tribes of Israel really are, or who they can't possibly be, at least in their minds. Why would anyone care about who the real people are in a book they think is a fantasy?

It's also interesting, in a way, to watch others offer up "scientific evidence" as if it's an established fact, particularly given the track record on this planet of how frequently scientific "facts" become outdated. Scientific methods of analysis should always be questioned, because their approach is almost invariably exactly backwards, assuming we know better than God and thus can somehow finally prove Him wrong. How ridiculous!

King of kings' Bible - 1 Timothy 5:20 (6:20 KJV) O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane [and] vain babblings, and OPPOSITIONS OF SCIENCE (knowledge) FALSELY SO CALLED:

One of the areas of science that is most susceptible to this is archaelogy, which has made a false god out of carbon-14 dating, the notorious dating system known for its wildly inaccurate results.

The number one corrupter of archaelogical samples is WATER, because water prematurely washes out the radioactivity, which in turn produces carbon-14 dating results that are frequently thousands of years older than the sample actually is. This isn't a personal opinion; it's a statement of fact based upon real-life experience where the historical figures who built specific historical sites can themselves be dated through other means (historical records), as well as testing that has been done by others which proves carbon-14 dating is totally unreliable.

Case-in-point: the historic sites in and around Ireland, e.g. the Hill of Tara, Newgrange and Cairn T in Co. Meath, the latter of which is near Loughcrew. Please see the excerpt below from the hyper-linked article on Newgrange:-

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
“As a matter of fact, the radiocarbon system is well-known and increasingly well-accepted by those in the field to have a number of major drawbacks. Velikovsky, who was never averse to challenging the “experts,” presented a fairly detailed overview of the problems as early as 1972 in an article entitled: The Pitfalls of Radiocarbon Dating. To begin with, Velikovsky said, samples can be contaminated, and it is virtually impossible to know that they have been. Contamination comes in many forms, and can either increase or decrease the readings, making the sample under investigation appear either much younger or much older than it is. The most simple, yet possibly the most pervasive form of contamination is that of water. Under some circumstances, water can literally wash (leach out) the radioactivity out of a sample, making it look older. But there is absolutely no way of knowing whether a control sample has been exposed to water. How then can we use radiocarbon readings of samples of wood, leather and bone recovered from the ground, when it is virtually certain that at some stage, even in Egypt, the ground has been soaked with rainwater? Yet such readings are regularly published without comment.”
O’Kelly, page 88; fig. 13; top diagram

Shows that the samples that were used for radiocarbon dating of Newgrange were taken from the very wettest parts of the cairn, which is precisely why the material was needed in those particular locations as ‘putty’ for caulking (water-proofing) and demonstrates that they would have been constantly soaking-wet and subject to leaching-out of the radiocarbon material contained in them, making the readings appear much older than they really were, as explained above by Velikovsky and Sweeney. The samples taken from the front and rear of Roofstone 3 (R 3) were in locations that received so much water that, as well as using caulking material (‘putty’), special grooves had to be cut into the roof stones (R 3 and R 4) to help drain-away the water so it did not pour into the passage (p. 94) because the caulking alone did not stop the flow of water from soaking and running through the caulking ‘putty’ (leaching-out the radiocarbon material in the process) and into the passage.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

While the above information may not have been known during the early days of carbon-14 dating, it has definitely been known for over 40 years and the unreliability of carbon-14 dating is certainly a familiar subject to anyone in the field of archaelogy. And yet we have the leading archaelogists (Sean P. O’Riordhainin, Michael J. O’Kelly) in this particular case dating these historical sites to be prehistoric STONE AGE sites that purportedly predate the pyramids in Egypt, i.e. 5000 years old (c. 3000 B.C.).

While that prehistoric claim may look impressive in a brochure, and increase tourism to Ireland, it isn't even close to reality, as those dates are nearly twice as old as these historical sites actually are.

We know exactly who built both the Mound of the Hostages at the Hill of Tara, and Newgrange: Eochaidh mac Duach/Dui, the High-king of Tara. And we can date him from multiple ancient Irish historical records (e.g. the Annals of the Four Masters, the Book of Lecan, the Annals of Clonmacnoise, the Book of Conquests, and the Dindsenchas).

He lived c. 600-500 BC, marrying his wife, Princess Teia Tephi on 21 June 583 B.C., and burying her underneath the Mound of the Hostages, with the Ark of The Covenant, shortly after her death on 1 August 534 B.C. Newgrange was built by both Eochaidh and his son Aengus, whose name is literally carved in stone, specifically the East side of the C4 stone.

So, in truth/reality, Newgrange, Cairn T (the burial place of Jeremiah, the Bible prophet) and the Mound of the Hostages at the Hill of Tara, are less than 2600 years old. That's why, during an excavation by Helen Roche in 1997 at the edge of the Mound of the Hostages, she discovered the remnants of an iron-foundry, with iron-slag at the side of the Mound of The Hostages extending under the bank and towards, if not under the Mound itself.

It's impossible to have a supposedly stone age site on top of an iron-age foundry. And it's equally impossible that anyone would have dared to build an iron-foundry next to a Sacred Burial Site later. They would only build a Sacred Burial Site where there was a no longer used iron-foundry; after removing the foundry components.

Hopefully the relevance of these particular historical sites in Ireland, and their significance in connecting yet another link between Jerusalem and "the isles afar off" (the British Isles), is self-evident.
 






A Freeman

Star
Joined
Nov 11, 2019
Messages
1,470
Something else to add on the subject of "credentials", i.e. discounting someone's work because they aren't an "approved" archaeologist or don't have a license, or whatever other paperwork someone deems to be so important as to outweigh actual evidence...

For over a thousands years, the Roman Catholic church kept the Bible under lock and key, making it a "law" that anyone caught reading, copying or distributing the Bible would be considered a heretic and a criminal, and thus could be "legally" murdered, i.e. burned at the stake.

Why was the Roman Catholic church so afraid of people reading the Bible? Because it would expose their EVIL, anti-Biblical policies and prove they were not working for God and never had any real authority over anyone.

That's why Luther, LeFevre, Zwingli, Calvin, and other Protestants, were considered to be “unapproved persons” by the Roman Catholic establishment to translate the Bible. These "sola scriptura" truth-seekers were considered to be a direct threat to the RCC's political power and lucrative business empire, and rightly so. If you want to hide the truth from the public, it helps to be able to make up your own rules as you go along, to reclassify your enemies as criminals.

Of course the RCC overcame this threat to their empire by infiltrating all of the protestant based denominations and running them from the inside, in Lenin-esque fashion. Again, it didn't help for them to install versions of their Roman "law" in every country around the world.

So this total nonsense about someone "not being a real archaelogist" because they don't have an approved piece of paper, or simply because they don't go along with the establishment, when the establishment has been proven to be a fraud, is proof of nothing other than how easily it is to program people to believe in lies and to fight against the truth.

David Rohl is a very well-respected Egyptologist with 40 years of experience in the field, is someone who should be listened to, because what he's discovered is breakthrough information and makes perfect sense when taken together with all of the available evidence.

Of course this flies in the face of "the archaeology club", because it proves many of them have made their reputations and written their books based upon a chronology that clearly doesn't work, and their egos aren't about to allow them to be exposed in such a way. It's much easier to demonize David Rohl, and to discount thousands of hours of interviews conducted by filmmaker Timothy Mahoney over the past 17 years to gather the evidence needed to make the documentary film series "Patterns of Evidence".

None of this is meant to influence anyone to take the information presented in "Patterns of Evidence" at face value. Do your own digging. It's only to point out that anyone who thinks they can dismiss the diligent work of others, simply by claiming they don't consider them to be "approved", is someone who is likely hiding their true motivations.
 






rainerann

Star
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
4,088
Patterns of Evidence is heavily biased information. It has nothing to do with approved credentials. Their information is loaded with bias. Good research can embrace and address counterclaims. They embark on a journey trying to make scraps of nothing appear mystical while ignoring the actual research that strongly suggests that Biblical events did not take place where people have believed.

They are Biblical archeologist propagandists basically employing some of the same techniques that many advertisers use with some dramatic music here and there.
 






Last edited:

A Freeman

Star
Joined
Nov 11, 2019
Messages
1,470
Patterns of Evidence is heavily biased information. It has nothing to do with approved credentials. Their information is loaded with bias. Good research can embrace and address counterclaims. They embark on a journey trying to make scraps of nothing appear mystical while ignoring the actual research that strongly suggests that Biblical events did not take place where people have believed.
Why not let people watch it and decide for themselves? What are you so afraid of them finding out?

First you said it was their credentials, because they weren't "real archaeologists" in your mind. Now it has nothing to do with their credentials. It must now be because they're biased and because they supposedly didn't embrace counterclaims, when in fact they absolutely did embrace them.

How exactly is their research "biased" please? Tim Mahoney interviewed numerous people with different viewpoints over the past 17 years and presented them in the film. Did you actually watch the entire documentary series that's been released thus far or is this another one of your "expert" opinions like that nonsense you were spouting about doing calculations in your head about the rate of travel during the Exodus?

Could it be YOUR viewpoint is biased, always looking for some way to discredit the Bible?

They are Biblical archeologist propagandists basically employing some of the same techniques that many advertisers use with some dramatic music here and there.
David Rohl is an admitted agnostic.

Every film has music. You're being absolutely ridiculous, as usual.
 






rainerann

Star
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
4,088
Why not let people watch it and decide for themselves? What are you so afraid of them finding out?

First you said it was their credentials, because they weren't "real archaeologists" in your mind. Now it has nothing to do with their credentials. It must now be because they're biased and because they supposedly didn't embrace counterclaims, when in fact they absolutely did embrace them.

How exactly is their research "biased" please? Tim Mahoney interviewed numerous people with different viewpoints over the past 17 years and presented them in the film. Did you actually watch the entire documentary series that's been released thus far or is this another one of your "expert" opinions like that nonsense you were spouting about doing calculations in your head about the rate of travel during the Exodus?

Could it be YOUR viewpoint is biased, always looking for some way to discredit the Bible?


David Rohl is an admitted agnostic.

Every film has music. You're being absolutely ridiculous, as usual.
This will be my last response to you because you are not someone who can handle a discussion. You are a very rude person. Words never express the pictures that we see within completely. When I said they weren't real archeologists, it was because they are biased and I consider their material equal with propaganda. I realize that I expressed this picture more completely within two posts rather than one, and this is because internally, I don't see things as posts on a message forum, but as pictures worth a thousand words.

I am not afraid of anyone finding anything out. I was commenting on what you said about how a person doesn't need to have certain credentials to submit something that is true research. In reality, you made the assumption that this is what I meant when I said they weren't real archeologists and then decided to rant about it. I never said anything about the necessity of credentials. I never gave a reason why I didn't consider them real archeologists. You invented this out of thin and then used your own invention to suggest that I was contradicting myself.

This is why I wouldn't be impressed with your suggestions for research material because you are not someone who seems to be careful before making assumptions. You are not someone who is cautiously examining what is there to make a conclusion with. There was not enough information given to form the conclusion that you did. Although, this didn't stop you from jumping up on your soapbox and making one.

However, I am familiar with Patterns of Evidence already, and I already have an opinion of it. It has already been submitted in a discussion that I have had where I watched it because it was presented by the person I was discussing something with. I truly do not care whether someone watches for themselves in order to determine what they think, but I would be careful to think that they are going to be interested in watching because someone like yourself made the suggestion.
 






A Freeman

Star
Joined
Nov 11, 2019
Messages
1,470
This will be my last response to you because you are not someone who can handle a discussion.
And yet you're the one who keeps saying you're going to stop replying, because you can't handle a discussion where someone else points out your attempts to argue that up is down and black is white, etc.

You are a very rude person.
Am I? Or is facing the truth simply a rude awakening for you?

Words never express the pictures that we see within completely. When I said they weren't real archeologists, it was because they are biased and I consider their material equal with propaganda. I realize that I expressed this picture more completely within two posts rather than one, and this is because internally, I don't see things as posts on a message forum, but as pictures worth a thousand words.

I am not afraid of anyone finding anything out. I was commenting on what you said about how a person doesn't need to have certain credentials to submit something that is true research. In reality, you made the assumption that this is what I meant when I said they weren't real archeologists and then decided to rant about it. I never said anything about the necessity of credentials. I never gave a reason why I didn't consider them real archeologists. You invented this out of thin and then used your own invention to suggest that I was contradicting myself.
R..i..g..h..t. Keep telling yourself that lie long enough and you might start believing it. But nobody else will.

This is why I wouldn't be impressed with your suggestions for research material because you are not someone who seems to be careful before making assumptions.
Who cares whether you wouldn't be impressed? You've already said you've seen the film, and already expressed your baseless opinion about it more than once, so why don't you just let people who may not have seen it already make up their own minds?

You are not someone who is cautiously examining what is there to make a conclusion with. There was not enough information given to form the conclusion that you did. Although, this didn't stop you from jumping up on your soapbox and making one.
How would you know any of this?

Aren't YOU the one who is jumping to conclusions about the thoroughness of my research efforts? Why don't you have a look around this forum for the things that have been personally posted in just 90 days or so. It often involves many years of diligent research work and articles written that are filled with studies, statistics and hard-evidence, both from the field and from the historical records.

The bulk of these historical sites that are being discussed have been personally visited. Many thousands of hours have been invested in reading historical documents. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about which should give you pause. Nor do you understand the statistical probabilities involved in the subject of this thread.

It is not a mathematical probability that the British and American people, etc. are the true people Israel; it is a mathematical CERTAINTY. A library could literally be filled with all of the documented evidence, for which only the surface has been scratched in this thread.

However, I am familiar with Patterns of Evidence already, and I already have an opinion of it.
Yes you have expressed your opinion. More than once. You didn't answer though if you had seen the other segments in the series or if you just watched the film. The reason for asking about that is because there was a lot of information shared in the linked interviews that went into great detail on items either briefly mentioned in the film or not at all. So anyone who just watched the film would only have a fraction of the information and research that was done to make it.

It has already been submitted in a discussion that I have had where I watched it because it was presented by the person I was discussing something with. I truly do not care whether someone watches for themselves in order to determine what they think, but I would be careful to think that they are going to be interested in watching because someone like yourself made the suggestion.
Do you even know why you wrote this last paragraph please other than to toot your own horn?
 






DavidSon

Star
Joined
Jan 10, 2019
Messages
1,032
But you saying these things doesn't make them true. And, in fact, from all of the available evidence, both Biblical and secular, your assumptions simply do NOT hold up under the least bit of scrutiny.
I was re-reading your reply and have to comment on this statement. Please take the beam out of your own eye! I'm referencing living, historic Israelitic tribes scattered around North Africa and throughout Asia while your talking about imaginary Britain/US as Mannaseh and Ephraim, Jesus visiting North America, and your insistence there will be WW#3. So xing what? Barely a single person can take this stuff seriously.

Like I said you're obsessed like those of the Synagogue of Satan to claim your identity when the fact is as @Kung Fu put it, the lifestyle is what's important. The worshipers of YAH are interspersed genetically through the nations. How are we not all possibly of the seed of Abraham? In reality Islam is the greatest modern representative of the religion of Abraham so all good. Have faith man, the power of this universe will not allow wickedness to prosper forever.

You're skipping a lot of history there, and rewriting some of it to suit your own ideas, none of which are supported by actual evidence, and all of which are really nothing more than regurgitating the same counterfeit Jewish propaganda that you seem to be rightly fighting against.

There were two mass conversions to Talmudic Judaism that took place before and after that time frame. The first took place in Babylon, c. 588-518 BC, when the "House of Judah" (the tribes of Judah and Benjamin) were held in captivity in Babylon. The second took place c. 150 BC under the rule of John Hyrcanus, when the Edomites surrounding Jerusalem were converted en masse to Talmudic Judaism.

Today, most people refer to the organized religion known as Talmudic Judaism as "the Jews", wrongly thinking that most of these "Jews" are descendants of the Israelite tribes. In fact, it's even worse than that, because most have been duped into believing that "the Jews" somehow represent all 12 of the tribes of Israel, even though that is impossible and totally unscriptural. The 10 northern tribes, known as the "House of Israel" had already been taken into captivity over 100 years earlier (c. 722 BC) by a different captor (the Assyrians) and did NOT return to the land of Israel.

The Levitical priesthood was abolished by God Himself c. 600 B.C., as evidenced in both the books of Jeremiah and Ezekiel (Jer. 23:1-5, Ezek. 34:1-10, 23), in favor of ONE High Priest to come: Christ. So the adherents of Talmudic Judaism, most of which were Idumean Edomites, did NOT write the Bible, even if they referred to it. The first five books of the Bible were GIVEN to Moses (the Torah which, in English, means "The Law"), as evidenced by not one single letter of them being out of place. The other books of the Old Covenant were then given to the prophets of Israel by God to write down. NONE of these people were Talmudic "Jews", as they've been re-branded in the counterfeit Jewish history books since then. In brief, the texts that were delivered by these people to create the Greek Septuagint were NOT of their own hand.
I'm the one regurgitating Zionist mythology? :D Where'd you copy this info from, the WJW? You need a refresher on basic, up to date archaeological/ethnographic history. I recommend "The Invention of the Jewish People" by Schlomo Sand. Skip ahead in the narration if you like. The Bible is not a historical text, as the archaeological evidence and verified timeline of Egypt and Palestine don't line up. I'm not saying the laws of Moses didn't exist in the region but the accepted dates after the Assyrian captivity are nothing buy myth-history.

Mythical Judaism begins with Ezra/Nehemiah, who in their legend led a group of supposed returned Israelites in Palestine. Again the timeline of these Jewish tales don't line up with Babylonian records. The Cyrus Decree never existed, no would there be any logic in it existing. Ezra very well may have been a Persian, Zoroastrian administrator. Look it up. Either way their chronicles and their Talmudic scripture only go back as far as 200-300 BC.

So yes, your OT Bible is the Jewish Tanakh. The Ethiopian Falasha have no account of the minor prophets or Ezra and the Maccabees etc., showing a later group who reworked the literature. It's worth noting some of the narration within the Bible was held sacred by groups in the entire region.

We can't believe a word of what we're told about when the Hebrew language went extinct, DNA results of the ancient inhabitants, dates of when Abraham or Moses lived, when the "Bible" was written- any of it. We're dealing with a racist, murdering force that will do anything to preserve their power. Be careful of including their version of history in a search for the truth.
 






A Freeman

Star
Joined
Nov 11, 2019
Messages
1,470
I was re-reading your reply and have to comment on this statement. Please take the beam out of your own eye! I'm referencing living, historic Israelitic tribes scattered around North Africa and throughout Asia while your talking about imaginary Britain/US as Mannaseh and Ephraim, Jesus visiting North America, and your insistence there will be WW#3. So xing what? Barely a single person can take this stuff seriously.
What evidence is there that the people living in and around North Africa and throughout Asia are "Israelitic" tribes please? And what makes Britain/US as Ephraim/Manasseh respectively somehow imaginary? Even within this thread, if someone were conducting a hearing on the subject, they would be hard-pressed to take your viewpoint based on the evidence put forth.

There's also the irony of someone claiming the Bible isn't a historical text, i.e. the Bible supposedly cannot be trusted, while at the same time arguing they have identified the people of the Bible using different texts and methods. It's akin to someone looking for clues as to the whereabouts of the (fictional) Lilliputians everywhere except in Gulliver's Travels.

Like I said you're obsessed like those of the Synagogue of Satan to claim your identity when the fact is as @Kung Fu put it, the lifestyle is what's important.
It appears you've missed the point of sharing this information with others. It has absolutely nothing to do with thinking the Brits and Americans are some sort of master race or that anyone can claim to be "saved" on the basis of the color of the human they're incarnating. We absolutely will be judged on the merits of our thoughts, words and actions, and even then, it will be our Creator's graciousness bridging the gap.

The point in sharing this information is to reveal to others the depth of the prophecies which validate the Bible in a way that simply cannot be dismissed by any honest and meticulous truth-seeker.

The worshipers of YAH are interspersed genetically through the nations.
Agreed.

How are we not all possibly of the seed of Abraham?
What's specifically being discussed within this thread is the seed of Jacob/Israel, Abraham's grandson through his son Isaac.

In reality Islam is the greatest modern representative of the religion of Abraham so all good.
Abraham didn't have a religion; he just had faith in God and did as he was Commanded to do, as every true believer should do.

In reality, there are no real "Muslims" just as there are no real "Christians" or "Jews". Islam is just another evil organized religion, like Christianity and Talmudic Judaism, as well as all of the non-Abrahamic religions.

What we all should be doing, IF we were true believers, is keep The Law that our Creator gave us, as we promised to do. Just as it says to do in the Koran.

Have faith man, the power of this universe will not allow wickedness to prosper forever.
Agreed. It's so awful now it's difficult to understand how so many remain asleep to all of this evil.

I'm the one regurgitating Zionist mythology? :D Where'd you copy this info from, the WJW? You need a refresher on basic, up to date archaeological/ethnographic history. I recommend "The Invention of the Jewish People" by Schlomo Sand. Skip ahead in the narration if you like. The Bible is not a historical text, as the archaeological evidence and verified timeline of Egypt and Palestine don't line up.
This is the illogical/unreasonable circular argument that's been used in the fields of archaeology and Egyptology according to David Rohl, to create the illusion that the Bible text and the archaeological evidence don't line up:

- Egyptologists use the Bible to date the start of the 22nd Dynasty to 945 BC

- They then date Ramesses II based on that 22nd Dynasty Date

- They then find no evidence for the Exodus and Conquest in the time of Ramesses

- They therefore reject the Bible as a work of 'pious fiction'

- So the Bible is used to establish Egyptian chronology which is then used to dismiss the Bible

- This is a prime example of a circular argument!

Once these impediments in reasoning are removed, and a diligent search through the available evidence is made, amazingly everything lines up perfectly.

I'm not saying the laws of Moses didn't exist in the region but the accepted dates after the Assyrian captivity are nothing buy myth-history.
When people make these kinds of blanket statements without any evidence of any kind to back them up, they lose credibility. Please provide any evidence you may have that the ten-tribed "House of Israel" wasn't taken into captivity by the Assyrians c. 722 BC.

The Assyrians themselves fled with the "House of Israel" before the Babylonians to what is today Germany, where the Assyrians settled. According to a legend recorded in the 12th-century Deeds of the Treveri, the city of Trier, considered to be the oldest city in Germany, was founded by an eponymous, otherwise-unrecorded prince of Assyria named Trebeta, placing the city's founding legend independent of and centuries before ancient Rome's. A medieval inscription on the façade of the Red House in Trier market stated:
ante romam treviris stetit annis mille trecentis.
perstet et æterna pace frvatvr. amen.
Trebeta's parents were said to have been Ninus, a legendary "King of Assyria" invented by the ancient Greeks, and an unknown mother who was Ninus's wife before Semiramis. Semiramis took control of the kingdom upon his father's death and Trebeta was forced into exile, wandering Europe before settling at Trier. His body was said to have been cremated on Petrisberg.

It's no wonder the English language is considered to be a Germanic root language given the amount of time the "House of Israel" spent with the Assyrians.

On the subject of languages, the closest language on the planet today to Hebrew is Welsh, which is yet another clue of where the "ten-lost tribes of Israel" migrated after leaving Assyria.

Mythical Judaism begins with Ezra/Nehemiah, who in their legend led a group of supposed returned Israelites in Palestine. Again the timeline of these Jewish tales don't line up with Babylonian records. The Cyrus Decree never existed, no would there be any logic in it existing. Ezra very well may have been a Persian, Zoroastrian administrator. Look it up. Either way their chronicles and their Talmudic scripture only go back as far as 200-300 BC.
The conspiracy which became Talmudic Judaism began in Babylon, where the two-tribed "House of Judah" was taken into captivity by Nebuchadnezzar's army c 604-588 BC., as attested to by both Jeremiah (11:9) and Ezekiel (22:25). The Babylonian Talmud thus dates back to c 550 BC, and is extra-biblical and thus NOT Scripture. It seems you are confusing dates with when the Greek Septuagint of the Old Covenant was completed.

So yes, your OT Bible is the Jewish Tanakh.
The Old Covenant is NOT "Jewish", despite all of the Zionist programming that people do regurgitate (as you just did). It is Hebrew, which is why it was written in Hebrew, the language of the Hebrews. The Israelites were Hebrews, NOT "Jews", a name that was later applied to the "House of Judah", before it was co-opted by the Idumean-Edomite and Ashkenazi converts to Talmudic Judaism that took over Talmudic Judaism.

The overwhelming majority of the 12 tribes of Israel were the 10-tribed "House of Israel" which not only retained the name Israel, but were NEVER referred to as "Jews" in Scripture, which would be akin to calling all Americans "Californians" or all British people "Scots".

The Ethiopian Falasha have no account of the minor prophets or Ezra and the Maccabees etc., showing a later group who reworked the literature. It's worth noting some of the narration within the Bible was held sacred by groups in the entire region.
Understood, but what exactly does that prove?

We can't believe a word of what we're told about when the Hebrew language went extinct, DNA results of the ancient inhabitants, dates of when Abraham or Moses lived, when the "Bible" was written- any of it. We're dealing with a racist, murdering force that will do anything to preserve their power. Be careful of including their version of history in a search for the truth.
If someone actually believes that our all-powerful God has allowed puny humans to corrupt His Message to mankind, which includes His Law, then they have no hope of finding the truth.

We can absolutely date the Bible, and can match it up to Egyptian chronology as well. And the research into the origins of our modern alphabet is another fascinating subject that confirms the Bible narrative and leads straight from Hebrew through the Israelite Phoenicians to modern-day English.

What people need to do is to learn to stop confusing the Scriptures, both the Bible and the Koran, with the organized religions that use and abuse our Creator's name and His message for their own monetary gain and temporary worldly power. The two have absolutely nothing in common, as anyone who studies those two texts, and compares them to what the religions teach and do, can confirm for themselves.

Peace be upon you.
 






Last edited:

DavidSon

Star
Joined
Jan 10, 2019
Messages
1,032
When people make these kinds of blanket statements without any evidence of any kind to back them up, they lose credibility. Please provide any evidence you may have that the ten-tribed "House of Israel" wasn't taken into captivity by the Assyrians c. 722 BC.

The Assyrians themselves fled with the "House of Israel" before the Babylonians to what is today Germany, where the Assyrians settled. According to a legend recorded in the 12th-century Deeds of the Treveri, the city of Trier, considered to be the oldest city in Germany, was founded by an eponymous, otherwise-unrecorded prince of Assyria named Trebeta, placing the city's founding legend independent of and centuries before ancient Rome's. A medieval inscription on the façade of the Red House in Trier market stated:
I think you misunderstood what I was saying- no one knows the history AFTER the Assyrians. We're told in the Jewish Chronicles a remnant remained who were eventually taken to Babylon, blah blah blah. The Assyrian captivity is 100% verifiable because they left reliefs describing the events in detail! It's astounding to look at these faces carved in stone because no one can change their identity:

Hebrew Captives of Lachish



There's just too much we disagree on to have a productive discussion on this topic which is unfortunate.

I will say this though as a compliment: despite my opposition to a few of your conclusions, I respect your group's dedication to the Bible. There is no one on this site who utilizes in such precision the books from Genesis to Revelation to distill the message of the Holy One. I wholehearted agree with the teachings you've shared about Jesus and the Law, that Jesus never claimed to be God, etc. There's a lot I agree with and appreciate your zeal. Someone like Saul of Tarsus who I have not a drop of interest in... you're able to explain his writings and bring about the correct exegesis. Keep up the good work.

Peace to you as well.
 






A Freeman

Star
Joined
Nov 11, 2019
Messages
1,470
Kings of Israel/Judah

33. King David (B. C. 1085-1015), Bathsheba.
34. King Solomon (B. C. 1033-975), Naamah.
35. King Rehoboam (b. B. C. 1016, d. 958), Maacah.
36. King Abijah (B. C. 958-955).
37. King Asa (B. C. 955-914), Azubah.
38. King Jehoshaphat (B. C. 914-889).
39. King Jehoram (B. C. 889-885), Athaliah.
40. King Ahaziah (B. C. 906-884), Zibiah.
41. King Joash (B. C. 885-839), Jehoaddan.
42. King Amaziah (b. B. C. 864, d. 810), Jecholiah.
43. King Uzziah (b. B. C. 826, d. 758), Jerusha.
44. King Jotham (b. B. C. 783, d. 742).
45. King Ahaz (b. B. C. 787, d. 726), Abi.
46. King Hezekiah (b. B. C. 751, d. 698), Hephzibah.
47. King Manasseh (b. B. C. 710, d. 643), Meshullemeth.
48. King Amon (b. B. C. 621, d. 641), Jedidiah.
49. King Josiah (b. B. C. 649, d. 610), Mamutah.
50. King Zedekiah (B. C. 599-578).


Kings of Ireland

1581192934715.png

51. Queen Tea Tephi (b. B. C. 565), marries Eochaidh, a Prince of the scarlet thread, later King Heremon, descended from Zerah.
52. King Irial Faidh (reigned 10 years).
53. King Eithriall (reigned 20 years).
54. Follain.
55. King Tighernmas (reigned 50 years).
56. Eanbotha.
57. Smiorguil.
58. King Fiachadh Labhriane (reigned 24 years).
59. King Aongus Ollmuchaidh (reigned 21 years).
60. Maoin.
61. King Rotheachta (reigned 25 years).
62. Dein.
63. King Siorna Saoghalach (reigned 21 years).
64. Oholla Olchaoin.
65. King Giallchadh (reigned 9 years).
66. King Aodhain Glas (reigned 20 years).
67. King Simeon Breac (reigned 7 years).
68. King Muirteadach Bolgrach (reigned 4 years).
69. King Fiachadh Toigrach (reigned 7 years).
70. King Duach Laidhrach (reigned 10 years).
71. Eochaidh Buailgllerg.
72. King Ugaine More the Great (reigned 30 years).
73. King Cobhthach Coalbreag (reigned 30 years).
74. Meilage.
75. King Jaran Gleofathach (reigned 7 years).
76. King Coula Cruaidh Cealgach (reigned 25 years).
77. King Oiliolla Caisfhiachach (reigned 28 years).
78. King Eochaidh Foltleathan (reigned 11 years).
79. King Aongns Tuirmheach Teamharch (reigned 30 years).
80. King Eana Aighneach (reigned 28 years).
81. Labhra Suire.
82. Blathucha.
83. Easamhuin Famhua.
84. Roighnein Ruadh.
85. Finlogha.
86. Fian.
87. King Eodchaidh Feidhlioch (reigned 12 years).
88. Fineamhuas.
89. King Lughaidh Raidhdearg.
90. King Criomhthan Niadhnar (reigned 16 years).
91. Fearaidhach Fion Feachtnuigh.
92. King Fiachadh Fionoluidh (reigned 20 years).
93. King Tuathal Teachtmar (reigned 40 years)
94. King Coun Ceadchathach (reigned 20 years).
95. King Arb Aonflier (reigned 30 years).
96. King Cormae Usada (reigned 40 years).
97. King Caibre Liffeachair (reigned 27 years).
98. King Fiachadh Sreabthuine (reigned 30 years.)
99. King Muireadhach Tireach (reigned 30 years).
100. King Eochaidh Moigmeodhin (reigned 7 years.)
101. King Nail of the Nine Hostages.
102. Eogan.
103. K. Murireadhach.
104. Earca.
 






A Freeman

Star
Joined
Nov 11, 2019
Messages
1,470
Kings of Argyleshire

105. King Fergus More
106. King Dongard
107. King Conran108. King Aidan (d. 604).
109. King Eugene IV. (d. 622).
110. King Donald IV. (d. 650).
111. Dongard.
112. King Eugene. V. (d. 692).
113. Findan.
114. King Eugene VII. (d. A. D. 721), Spondan.
115. K. Etfinus (d. A. D. 761), Fergina.
116. King Achaius (d. A. D. 819), Fergusia.
117. King Alpin (d. A. D. 834).

1581193718287.png

118. King Kenneth I. (842-858).
119. King Constantin I. (862-876).
120. King Donald II. (889-900).
121. King Malcolm I. (943-954).
122. King Kenneth II. (971-995, d. A. D. 995).
123. King Malcolm II. (1005-1034, d. A. D. 1034).
124. Bethoc, married to Crinan, Mormaer of Atholl and lay abott of Dunkeld.
125. King Duncan I. (1034-1040, d. A. D. 1040), Sybil.
126. King Malcolm III. Canmore (A. D. 1058-1093), Margaret of England.
127. King David I. (1124-1153, d. A. D. 1153), Matilda of Huntingdon.
128. Prince Henry (d. A. D. 1152), Ada of Surrey.
129. Earl David of Huntingdon (d. A. D. 1219), Matilda of Chester.
130. Isobel m. Robert Bruce III.
131. Robert Bruce IV. m. Isobel of Gloucester.
132. Robert Bruce V. m. Martha of Carrick.

King Robert The Bruce statue Stirling Castle Scotland

133. King Robert I. (The Bruce) (A. D. 1306-1329), Isobel, daughter of Earl of Mar.
134. Marjorie Bruce m. Walter Stewart III.
135. K. Robert II. (b. 1317, 1371-1390, d. A. D. 1390), Euphemia of Ross (d. A. D. 1376).
136. K. Robert III. (b. 1337, 1390-1406, d. A. D. 1406), Annabella Drummond (d. A. D. 1401).
137. King James I of Scotland (A. D. 1406-1437), (16g grandson of King Alfred The Great) m. Joan Beaufort
138. King James II of Scotland m. Mary of Gueldres
139. King James III of Scotland m. Margaret Princess of Denmark


The British Royal Family Line

1581194452016.png

140. King James IV of Scotland. (b. 1473, 1488-1513, d. A. D. 1543), Margaret of England (d. A. D. 1539).
141. King James V of Scotland. (b. 1513, 1513-1542, d. A. D. 1542), Mary of Lorraine (d. A. D. 1560).
142. Queen Mary (also known as Mary, Queen of Scots) (b. 1542, 1542-1567, d. A. D. 1587), Lord Henry Darnley (d. 1567). (Mary became Queen when she was just six days old. She was deposed as Queen in 1567 and was executed in 1587 ).
143. King James VI. and I. (A. D. 1603-1625), Ann of Denmark. James became James I of England (A. D. 1603-1625) in 1603 while still King James VI of Scotland.
144. Princess Elizabeth (d. 1662), Frederick V, Elector Palatine.
145. Princess Sophia, (d. 1714), m. Duke Ernest of Brunswick (d. 1698).
146. King George I. (1714-1727), Sophia Dorothea of Zelle (1667-1726).
147. King George II. (b. 1683, 1727-1760), Princess Caroline of Brandenburg-Anspach (1683-1737).
148. Prince Frederick Lewis of Wales (1707-1751), Princess Augusta of Saxe-Gotha-Altenberg.
149. King George III. (b. 1738, 1760-1820), Princess Sophia of Mecklenburgh-Strelitz (1744-1818).
150. Duke Edward of Kent (1767-1820), Princess Victoria of Saxe-Coburg (d. 1861)
151. Queen Victoria (b. 1819, 1837-1901), Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg & Gotha.
152. King Edward VII. (b. 1841, 1901-1910), Princess Alexandra
153. King George V. (b. 1865, 1910-1936), Princess Mary
154. King George VI. (b. 1895, 1936-1952), Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon (Queen Elizabeth, The Queen Mother) (b. 1900, d. 2002)


"Queen Elizabeth II" (b. 1926, fraudulently reigned from 1952), m. Nazi Philip Duke of Edinburgh HAS NEVER BEEN LAWFULLY CORONATED.

Elizabeth A.M. Battenburg/Mountbatten was coronated on a FAKE stone of scone" after the real Stone of Destiny (Jacob's Pillar) was removed from Westminster Abbey on 25 December 1950 by 4 Scottish Nationalists led by Ian Hamilton

THE TRUTH ABOUT THE BRITISH MONARCHY
THE STONE OF DESTINY AND BIBLE PROPHECY

 






Sanchuniathon

Rookie
Joined
Feb 2, 2020
Messages
24
I would add the following:

• Ancient "Hebrew" - both in spoken language and written script/alphabet - was in reality Canaanite (a.k.a. Phoenician). The Biblical Patriarchs actually spoke Aramaic when they came to Canaan (which, for the record, was never invaded/destroyed). A medieval Jewish scholar, Ramban, had made the observation but it was rejected by subsequent Jewish scholars as "un-Jewish".

• The idea that the Northern aristocratic European families were/are the real descendants of the "Lost Tribes" was implanted by the Venetian Oligarchy (namely in the hands of Paolo Sarpi). This happened when the Venetian fondi (wealth) and system (of perpetual wars) moved north following the weakening of the Venetian Oligarchy in the War of the League of Cambrai. The creation of the cult of British Israelism and the British government policies to create Israel centuries later derive from such Venetian axiom.

• If the "Lost Tribes" were anything, it was Canaanite (a.k.a. Phoenician). Phoenicians circled Africa, settled and dominated the Mediterranean basin for well over a thousand years, reached Britain (to mine for tin) and Scandinavia. Some even suggest they reached, by mistake, the Americas when one of their ship was lost at sea in the Western African coast.
 






A Freeman

Star
Joined
Nov 11, 2019
Messages
1,470
I would add the following:

• Ancient "Hebrew" - both in spoken language and written script/alphabet - was in reality Canaanite (a.k.a. Phoenician). The Biblical Patriarchs actually spoke Aramaic when they came to Canaan (which, for the record, was never invaded/destroyed). A medieval Jewish scholar, Ramban, had made the observation but it was rejected by subsequent Jewish scholars as "un-Jewish".

• The idea that the Northern aristocratic European families were/are the real descendants of the "Lost Tribes" was implanted by the Venetian Oligarchy (namely in the hands of Paolo Sarpi). This happened when the Venetian fondi (wealth) and system (of perpetual wars) moved north following the weakening of the Venetian Oligarchy in the War of the League of Cambrai. The creation of the cult of British Israelism and the British government policies to create Israel centuries later derive from such Venetian axiom.

• If the "Lost Tribes" were anything, it was Canaanite (a.k.a. Phoenician). Phoenicians circled Africa, settled and dominated the Mediterranean basin for well over a thousand years, reached Britain (to mine for tin) and Scandinavia. Some even suggest they reached, by mistake, the Americas when one of their ship was lost at sea in the Western African coast.
As is chronicled in the Bible, the Hebrews eventually settled in Canaan, and brought with them their written script and alphabet, which was developed in Egypt (likely by Joseph) using proto-Hebrew and Egyptian hieroglyphs.

Several hundred years later, Solomon built a navy (1 kings 9:26-27), and sent it out all over the world, including to the Americas.

The Phoenicians were Israelites, and the similarities in the alphabets provide further proof of this fact.

The name British is actually Hebrew, and means "Covenant people" or "the people of the Covenant", i.e. the people Israel.

Rule Britannia, Britannia rule the waves...

The counterfeit Jews (non-Semitic Ashkenazis and Idumean Edomites), who stole both the land and the name of Israel from the true people Israel, the British and Anglo-Saxon American people, have been making up lies for centuries, to hide the fact they are NOT descended from the tribe of Judah nor the two-tribed "House of Judah", and thus are NOT Israelites.
 






Last edited:

Phithx

Veteran
Joined
Nov 5, 2019
Messages
549
Without going into too much detail here, because it can be explored privately; although might not be easy to find:

The words Venetian and Phoenician, seem to have the same root, and describe the same thing: Venus as in Venusian ... the people who identified themselves with that planet?

They were basically the same people, but with migrations most of those who had settled in Venice would have left by now?

E.g. "Queen Victoria, the matriarch of the Venetian Black Guelphs" https://www.intellihub.com/venetian-black-nobility-roots-of-todays-ruling-oligarchy/

Guelph is thought to derive from the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet Aleph? which is logical, as Brit-ish are Hebrew words Berith+ish: בְּרִית + אִישׁ (reversed Hebrew written right to left), meaning Covenant + people. As already described above.

And Aleph is represented by the red Saltire cross in the British flag - see below.

These seem to add further proof that the British are the true Hebrews.

Christ's words in the British Flag

Daily Crucifixion smaller.png
 






Last edited:

Sanchuniathon

Rookie
Joined
Feb 2, 2020
Messages
24
As is chronicled in the Bible, the Hebrews eventually settled in Canaan, and brought with them their written script and alphabet, which was developed in Egypt (likely by Joseph) using proto-Hebrew and Egyptian hieroglyphs.

Several hundred years later, Solomon built a navy (1 kings 9:26-27), and sent it out all over the world, including to the Americas.

The Phoenicians were Israelites, and the similarities in the alphabets provide further proof of this fact.

The name British is actually Hebrew, and means "Covenant people" or "the people of the Covenant", i.e. the people Israel.

Rule Britannia, Britannia rule the waves...

The counterfeit Jews (non-Semitic Ashkenazis and Idumean Edomites), who stole both the land and the name of Israel from the true people Israel, the British and Anglo-Saxon American people, have been making up lies for centuries, to hide the fact they are NOT descended from the tribe of Judah nor the two-tribed "House of Judah", and thus are NOT Israelites.
• "As chronicled in the Bible" is not a serious argument. There is no evidence that the "Hebrews" (whoever they were) were ever enslaved in Egypt. All we know is that they came from the other side of the river (i.e. Mesopotamia) - this seems to have happened when the Persian Empire expanded (there is serious indication that the ruling class of Persia created Judaism). Additionally, how could slaves develop a script/alphabet? The Canaanites/Phoenicians of the city-state of Byblos for instance had a script made of hundreds characters as early as 2500 BCE. The same Canaanites/Phoenicians from Byblos had commercial ties with Egypt as early as 3500 BCE as well. We can do the math as to who really develop the Canaanite/Phoenician alphabet that lead to other alphabets.

• There is no such thing as Proto or Paleo Hebrew - the terminology was invented by a Yiddish linguist (Solomon Binbaum) in the early 1950s to distinguish the origin of the Canaanite/Phoenician alphabet from the "Hebrew" one. This is odd since he knew and acknowledged that the two were nearly indistinguishable. Truth is: there was no two alphabets but one, the Canaanite/Phoenician.

• Solomon (whoever he was) could not even built his temple and asked the Canaanites/Phoenicians' help (King Hiram). Yet, you believe he built a navy? The envious authors of the "Hebrew" Bible expropriated the glory and feats of the Phoenicians to make up for their insignificance. You seem to know the Bible well, and so, you should know how Old Testament writes pejoratively of the Phoenicians' glorious cities.

• The Phoenicians were not Israelites. According to Israel Finkelstein, the Israelites were Canaanites, who through a socio-economic process, became a separate group who settled in the hills. Both Canaanites, yes, but different.

• Is the etymology of "British" and/or "Britain confirmed?

• "Rule Britannia" - the creation of the British Empire, its intelligence network and its navy was the work of the Venetian Oligarchy. You should investigate how the Venetian fondi moved north to created the Banks of Amsterdam, of England, the many colonial enterprises (Venice, Turkey, Levant, East-India, etc) to finally establish the British Empire.

• I don't know who is a counterfeit Jew and who is a real one. What I know is that Judaism is a man-made construct based on older Mesopotamian, Persian, Canaanite and Egyptian stories, beliefs and concepts. The creation of Israel, as I have pointed out before, is an Anglo-Saxon machination. Jews (those you call counterfeit) were used to make it happen. Israel is a colonial endeavor not any different than Canada, Australia, etc.
 






Last edited:
Top