How do *you explain the promises?
Stevem702
The stimulus of the Lost Tribes subject that carries weight
is not 'pride'.
It is scripture.
You've not offered your explaination of the many, many,
promises that Doc says only make sense if you accept the
Lost Tribes scenario.
I'd like to ask you about them one at a time, and we explore
the sujbect?
-Steve
vonquark
> Quark,
> The stimulus of the Lost Tribes subject that carries weight
> is not 'pride'.
>
> It is scripture.
No!
Can't be scripture! I have shown you FROM
SCRIPTURE why the lost tribes returned with
Judah to Palestine.
Doc traffics in historical sleight of hand.
1) Claims that Jeremiah came to Ireland with
a stone of destiny
Ans: Irish records do not admit of it No
mention of Jeremiah by name.
2) The stone is the stone Jacob slept on.
Ans: Actually, the stone was shone to be
from Scotland not the Mideast
3) Dan (the TeDanaan) and Judah (Milesians)
went to Ireland and therefore the British are
the Lost Tribes of Israel,
Ans: The Irish are not the British and even if true
all you would have done is show that the
Irish NOT THE BRITISH are the Lost
tribes of Israel.
4) The daughters of Zedekiah married into the
Royal Irish line
Ans: Not in the records.
5) The Bible says I will make of you a great nation
Ans: A millenial promise NOT FULFILLED YET
6) The sceptre will never leave David
Ans: It refers to Jesus who is now the eternal King
>You've not offered your explaination of the many, many,
>promises that Doc says only make sense if you accept the
>Lost Tribes scenario.
I have answered it before. THOSE PROMISES MAKE
SENSE - OR RATHER WILL MAKE SENSE - WHEN
THEY ARE FULFILLED IN THE MILLENIAL REIGN.
At that time Israel will be the Capitol of the World
and then she will control the gates of her enemies.
> I'd like to ask you about them one at a time, and we explore
> the sujbect?
> -Steve
And I would like to ask you where Jeremiah and Tea Tephi
are mentioned in the Lebor Gabala Erren (The Milesian
book of Invasion) which is on the web?
How easy do I have to make this for you?
Here is the ORIGINAL IRISH TEXT (translated for you)
http://members.aol.com/lochlan2/lebor.htm
Show me where Jeremiah and Tea Tephi are mentioned
as such. Please do! How many times do I have to ask
this?
This is critical to the Stone of Scone mythos.
Show me where it is mentioned. I have put this link
on here umpteen times.
http://members.aol.com/lochlan2/lebor.htm
Look at it and prove me wrong IF YOU CAN!
Stevem702
>are mentioned in the Lebor Gabala Erren (The Milesian
>book of Invasion) which is on the web?
>
>How easy do I have to make this for you?
>
>Here is the ORIGINAL IRISH TEXT (translated for you)
>http://members.aol.com/lochlan2/lebor.htm
>
>Show me where Jeremiah and Tea Tephi are mentioned
>as such. Please do! How many times do I have to ask
>this?
>
>This is critical to the Stone of Scone mythos.
>Show me where it is mentioned. I have put this link
>on here umpteen times.
>http://members.aol.com/lochlan2/lebor.htm
>
(I admit that it is interesting that you say there is no basis
for Armstrongs treatment of the legend.)
However, do you claim to have an inerrant history,
...fully complete in every detail?
If not, your claim that the Lost Tribes theory can not be true
because it is not shown in "Lebor Gabala Erren" is vapid.
"known as not My people", Quark.
-Steve
>No!
>Can't be scripture! I have shown you FROM
>SCRIPTURE why the lost tribes returned with
>Judah to Palestine.
Where is that in scripture? I missed it where you pointed to.
I'd much rather discuss scripture.
-Steve
>1) Claims that Jeremiah came to Ireland with
>a stone of destiny
>Ans: Irish records do not admit of it No
> mention of Jeremiah by name.
So what? This 'proves' he wasn't there?
...Only if the "Irish records" are complete in detail and
inerrant.
-Steve
>2) The stone is the stone Jacob slept on.
>
>Ans: Actually, the stone was shone to be
> from Scotland not the Mideast
If you mean that 'it was shown that the stone was
quarried in Scotland. I've not seen that. Where was
it "shown"?? All I got from Emmitt was a "Was too!!"
If you mean that "it came from Scotland to England',
that is part of the LT theory. Jerimiah to Ireland, to
Scotland, to England.
-Steve
>3) Dan (the TeDanaan) and Judah (Milesians)
>went to Ireland and therefore the British are
>the Lost Tribes of Israel,
>
>Ans: The Irish are not the British and even if true
> all you would have done is show that the
> Irish NOT THE BRITISH are the Lost
> tribes of Israel.
No. You would have shown that the Irish were
*amoung* the LT, ....not "are the LT".
A 'proof' that the Irish are amoung the LT would *not
be a proof that the British were not.
More than one nation could be. (And indeed, the LT
theory and scripture passages referenced in it, seem
to *require it.)
-Steve
>4) The daughters of Zedekiah married into the
>Royal Irish line
>
>Ans: Not in the records.
(cut and paste) Without an inerrant history,
...fully complete in every detail,
your claim that the Lost Tribes theory can not be true
because it is not shown in "Lebor Gabala Erren" is vapid.
"known as not My people", Quark.
-Steve
>5) The Bible says I will make of you a great nation
>Ans: A millenial promise NOT FULFILLED YET
(Many nations.)
If the LT theory is wrong, then it is possible that this promise
is simply not fulfilled yet. A reasonable view. A *necessary
if you don't think He is a lier.
...but why "many nations" if Jesus is ruling from Jerusalem?
-Steve
>6) The sceptre will never leave David
>Ans: It refers to Jesus who is now the eternal King
If this refers to Jesus, ...
then where was the sceptre between Hezikiah ~586BC to
the coming of Jesus in ~2BC??
Five centuries of time in which the scepter left David?
This seems inconsistant with "never".
-Steve
savudi
Here is a lost tribes link with many of the "proofs" that Dr.Scott
teaches about on the lost tribes.
http://asis.com/~stag/losttrib.html
Von Quack misses on many of the proofs as well as the biblical
references. First the biblical references in the Apocrypha are just as
valid as those in the King James (Oh I forgot the Apocrypha ARE in the
King James up until the 1840's deletion by the British and American
Bible societies). They were part of the bible for 1500 years.
Second his blasé pushing of all of the promises into the Millennium has
no biblical basis.
Third the comment about the Promise of the kingship was not lost during
Cromwell's time. The promise is that there would be a king of the line
of David ruling over Israel until Shilo comes. Well When Cromwell was in
England there were still relatives of the King on the throne over the
Danes (Danities), Swedes, French, Spanish, all part of the lost tribes.
For those who forget Sarah, the wife of Abraham was a blonde, so the
exclusion of the fair races from the line is not tenable. The
description of David clearly indicates a fair skinned (Descendant of
Judah via Phares) coloring. Also remember that the line of Ephriam and
Manasseh were half Egyptian and we know that the Pharoahs and other high
officials of that time period had light skinned, light haired members
from traditional history. (This would have been in the 1800 BC period of
Egyptian history). Also remember that Joseph and his sons inherited the
name Israel (Genesis 33 or 35). Ezekiel 23 had them separate even back
in Egypt (Ezekiel 23 story of Aholah and Aholobah). It is in Ezekiel 38
that the two sticks are rejoined.
Josephous from traditional history recounts that only 3 of the tribes
were under Roman domination when he wrote. (At that time the Silurians
were about to be conquered but not the Irish or Scots or the Welsh).
There is so much evidence for the lost tribes being Northwest Europeans
from so many diverse sources that it is only our Greco-Roman centered
inertia that keeps this out of most history books and zealots like Von
Quack.
:P
vonquark
savudi wrote:
> Hey Von Quack (and anyone truly interested)
>
> Here is a lost tribes link with many of the "proofs" that Dr.Scott
> teaches about on the lost tribes.
>
> http://asis.com/~stag/losttrib.html
BTW I abbreviate "Lost Tribe{s)" with LT.
Have encountered this site in the past!
He builds a major portion of his case
on the belief in the Jeremiah/Tea Tephi
story.
http://asis.com/~stag/jerrytea.html
The problem is:
THE IRISH RECORDS DO NOT
ADMIT OF TEA TEPHI nor JEREMIAH
Here is on-line the Irish record:
http://members.aol.com/lochlan2/lebor.htm
You will not find Tea Tephi nor Jeremiah
mentioned as such.
> Von Quack misses on many of the proofs as well as the biblical
> references. First the biblical references in the Apocrypha are just as
> valid as those in the King James (Oh I forgot the Apocrypha ARE in the
> King James up until the 1840's deletion by the British and American
> Bible societies). They were part of the bible for 1500 years.
Oh fine! Doc refutes the Book of James and accepts the
Apocrypha!
> Second his blasé pushing of all of the promises into the Millennium has
> no biblical basis.
Check my posts I do a commentary on Psalm 89
showing the Messianic Prophecies are indeed Millenial.
> Third the comment about the Promise of the kingship was not lost during
> Cromwell's time. The promise is that there would be a king of the line
> of David ruling over Israel until Shilo comes. Well When Cromwell was in
> England there were still relatives of the King on the throne over the
> Danes (Danities), Swedes, French, Spanish, all part of the lost tribes.
And there were kings and emperors in Japan, China, Africa,
Saudi Arabia, too. Are they of Israel? So what? The
LTers refer to the Stone of Scone. Were Danish Kings,
Swedish Kings, French Kings, etc annointed on the
Stone of Scone?
The fact remains - even if you accept the
Stone of Scone story - that no king was on
the Stone of Scone thrown while Cromwell
had his Commonwealth. And this was for 11 yrs!
Could it be that the Stone of Scone was an idol;
the very thing the Milesians records say it was:
Namely, an idol?!
Have you ever studied the records of the Stone of Scone.
I posted it! The Stone was recorded to be demonically
possessed and the spirits fled at the time of Christ!
In either case, by whatever power, the stone lost
its power after the crucifixion of Christ.
If you believe as I do the stone is not of Jacob,
Christ's death destroyed many powers and
principalities and so many idols were indeed
rendered powerless after his death.
If you believe it is of Jacob, it lost all its
power after Jesus' death indicating that the ONLY
descendant of DAVID which matters is JESUS!
Here is the record again!
http://members.aol.com/lochlan2/lebor.htm
Go to section 57
57. It is the Tuatha De Danann
who brought with them the Great Fal,
[that is, the Stone of Knowledge],
which was in Temair, whence Ireland
bears the name of "The Plain of Fal."
He under whom it should utter a cry
was King of Ireland; until Cu Chulainn
smote it, for it uttered no cry
under him nor under his fosterling,
Lugaid, son of the three Finds of
Emain. And from that out the stone
uttered no cry save under Conn
of Temair. Then its heart flew out
from it [from Temair] to Tailltin, so
that is the Heart of Fal which is there.
It was no chance which caused it, but
Christ's being born, which is what
broke the owers of
the idols.
Notice: It was considered an idol: Demonic!
Notice: They claim the Te Danaan brought it.
But for the LT case to stand it has
to be the Milesians who brought it
NOT the Te Danaan. It was supposedly
Jeremiah who takes the stone to
Milesian Ireland.
YET THESE VERY SAME MILESIAN RECORDS say it came
from the Te Danaan, who you call the tribe of
Dan. You cannot even get your tribes right.
Was it the TeDanaan or the Milesians who
brought the Stone?!
Does it matter since their records say the stone
was an idol?
Even further: You say the TeDanaan are
the Tribe of Dan. Are they? There is
a set of hills in Ireland called the
PAPS [Breasts] of Danu. It was named after
the GODDESS the Irish worshipped, Danu.
Tuatha DeDanaan means People of the Goddess
Danu. Now since the hills refers to breasts
and since Goddesses have breasts worth
memorializing and since Tribal Patriarchs
do not, it is more reasonable to assume
that the Tuatha DeDanaan were a tribe
devoted to the Goddess Danu.
Let's see if I can source the site for you:
List of Irish (Pre-Christian Deities)
http://www.eliki.com/ancient/myth/celts/ireland.htm
Notice Danu. Notice Danu is female!
Look at this: They call Aine the earthly
manifestation of Danu
Aine
Aine, Aine na gClair, Anu, Ana,
This is the Lush green Mother Goddess
whose "paps" are the two well known
hills of Munster. She is the earthen
manifestation of Danu as well as being
a sister of the Sun Goddess Grian. Aine
has her own Rath in Munster ( Cnoc Aine)
and is a goddess of love and ferility.
At Mid-Summer, young girls run through
the fields with flaming torches to assure
the safety of the herds and fields as
well as to promte fertility and increase.
Directional assignments: Southeast,
Bealtaine; South, Mid-Summer.
Source:
http://user.icx.net/~roland95/Celtlit/app2.html
BUT THIS IS THE BEST SITE OF ALL
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/8543/sidhe/sectionb.html
Well with all these paps bouncing around,
we can probably assume it is not the Tribe of Dan.
>For those who forget Sarah, the wife of Abraham
>was a blonde, so the exclusion of the fair races
>from the line is not tenable.
Sarah was a blonde?
>The description of David clearly
>indicates a fair skinned (Descendant
>of Judah via Phares) coloring.
He was also not pure Jewish. Ruth and others
had crept into his line. So if he was
fair - and I doubt he was - it was due to
a non-Semitic element in him.
>Also remember that the line of Ephriam and
>Manasseh were half Egyptian and we know
>that the Pharoahs and other high officials
>of that time period had light skinned, light
>haired members from traditional history.
>This would have been in the 1800 BC period of
>Egyptian history). Also remember that Joseph
>and his sons inherited the name Israel
>Genesis 33 or 35).
Problem is: Egypt is of Ham. By your
hermenuetic, the fair skinned white race
is of Ham!
Gen 10:6 And the sons of Ham; Cush, and
Mizraim [Egypt], and Phut, and Canaan.
>Ezekiel 23 had them separate even back
>in Egypt (Ezekiel 23 story of Aholah and Aholobah).
So what. They were allotted a double
portion of the land is the Mideast!
Hardly proves LT theory.
> It is in Ezekiel 38
> that the two sticks are rejoined.
>Josephous from traditional history recounts
>that only 3 of the tribes were under
>Roman domination when he wrote.
The Bible however lists members of the Ten
Tribes returning to Israel. See Ezra and
Nehemiah.
>(At that time the Silurians were about to
>be conquered but not the Irish or Scots
>or the Welsh).
So what distinguishes the Silurians from the
Scots or the Irish or the Welsh? The
Silurians were Britons (Who later became the
Welsh). The Welsh by all records (the
Britons if you prefer), were dark skinned
and short. Not the Nordic/Celtic Übermensch
of Lost Tribes Theorists. And why did you
even mention them?
I fail to see the distinction though!
Why were you trying to distinguish the Irish,
Scots and Welsh from the Silurians? PS:
The Silurians were the Welsh before the
Anglo-Saxons called them Welsh.
SO the distinction is false; but what was
your motive.
>There is so much evidence for the lost
>tribes being Northwest Europeans
>from so many diverse sources that it
>is only our Greco-Roman centered
>inertia that keeps this out of most
>history books and zealots like Von Quack.
Careful NOW! Those same LT zealots
say Josephus said the Greeks and Jewish
were brothers! This is your inconsistency!
You claim the Jews went to Greece then
to Troy then to Britain. You claim the
Te Danaan came from Denmark but originally
from Greece after they fled Egypt.
I have studied these stories.
Now you blast the Greeks; the very same greeks
which underscore your theory!
>
> :P
FINALLY, your whole theory is predicated
on some idea that the Irish and Scots
(who are the Irish gone over to Scotland)
were the signal tribe of Judah; the ones
who would be blessed. The Welsh were
the Britons to whom Joseph Arimathea
came with the Grail.
Let's see! If you are right, a mightly
blessing should have occurred to the Irish,
the Welsh, and the Scots. A mighty
blessing!
The Welsh (at that time called the Britons)
were conquered by Rome and then by the
Anglo Saxons. No possible chance of
Independence!
The Scots 800 yrs on and off of English domination.
The Highland Clearances. Mass forced immigrations
as the English drove them out. Their language
nearly destroyed.
The Irish 840 yrs of on and off warfare against
the Anglo-Saxon/Norman invaders of their land.
3/4 free. The only Celtic nation which is free.
And even so 1/4 of its country is under foreign
military occupation where a nasty guerilla war had
to be fought to secure any rights at all for the
oppressed native Irish in Ulster (the occupied
territory)
Brittany (Where a large portion of the
Britons moved as the Anglo Saxons (Germans not Celts)
invaded Britons. Probably a lot of Silurian blood.
A tremendous amount of them were slaughtered during
the French Revolution. I think 1/2 Million were
killed in the Vedee campaigns.
Suffered heaviest under German rule in WW2.
They refused to collaborate/
http://www.infoplease.com/ce5/CE007555.html
Now, it is these British Isles Celts which Scott
claims were the receivers of the blessing.
Care to elaborate where that blessing is.
I mean I would like to know! There were
those Highland Clearances when all most all
the Scotic Highlanders were driven out.
http://www.highlanderweb.co.uk/clearanc.htm
http://www.scottishhistory.com/clearce.htm
Interestingly enough the Highlanders
were treated badly because they upheld
the Jacobite claim against the German
Pretenders (The Hanovers who are today
the Windsors) on the English Throne,
Now if the Stone of Scone legend was
true God should have blessed the
Highlanders for defending David's heirs.
They lost and the lot of the Highlanders
has gone downhill ever since.
There was that famine in Ireland.
I won't link it. You should
know of the million and a half who
died.
The Massacres of the Brittany (Breton)
inhabitants during the French Revolution.
http://www.infoplease.com/ce5/CE007555.html
And finally the Silurians
http://www.unex.ucla.edu/plato/JerryCelts.htm
are described as
"were swarthy with dark curly hair."
Hardly the red haired Celts of Scots
claim.
Stevem702
>blessing should have occurred to the Irish,
>the Welsh, and the Scots. A mighty
The Celts *have been blessed.
The rest of you post is mostly "they don't know
they are the LT, ...so they can't be!"
Which is silly.
-Steve
vonquark
Stevem702 wrote:
> >Let's see! If you are right, a mightly
> >blessing should have occurred to the Irish,
> >the Welsh, and the Scots. A mighty
> >blessing! -Quark
>
> The Celts *have been blessed.
So if "[t]he Celts *have been blessed,"
then why is Scotland still not free;
why is Ireland still under British oppression
in Ulster; why is Wales without any hope
of Independence; why aren't the Bretons
of France treated better? See this page:
http://www.fidelitypress.com/CultureWars/Archives/Fidelity_archives/parricide.html
"The French revolution didn't really become
one huge sadistic sex orgy until after the
uprisings in Brittany and the Vendee were
crushed. One must keep in mind that the
Vendee was a peasant's revolt that carried
the aristocracy along with it. The leadership of the
Chouannerie was partially peasant (Cathelineau)
and partially aristocratic (Larochejacquelein); in
addition Charles Armand Tuffin, Marquis de la Rouerie,
a friend of Washington, met their end in this battle.
(His corpse was dug up and decapitated after the fact.)
The terror involved in this deliberate genocide was
announced in advance by the atrocities in Paris,
especially in the extensive defiling of graves and
cemeteries, because the main who can rage against
the dead - against kings, and aristocrats but also
against saints - will have no qualms about doing the
same thing to the living. (I have to confess here,
however, that the defilement of corpses practiced by
the Republican side in the Spanish Civil War - especially
in the cemetery of Huesca - is in the same league with
what the French Republicans did.) In his forward to
Reynold Sechers' book. Le Génocide Franco-Francais.
Professor Jean Mayer says that the author held much
back and that the worst could not be described here.
The truth is much more appalling."
Personally, I think the French Revolution was
a democratizing force in history and overall a good thing!
This episode was not however a good thing! And
who got his the hardest? The Breton French (the Celts)
who you say were blessed.
If being subjected to oppression and genocide is
a blessing, then what is your definition of blessing?
Reread Scots, Irish, Welsh, and Breton
histories.
Start with the Breton French. Read
of the slaughters of the Breton in the
Vendee during the French Revolution.
For what? For fighting against the
excesses of the French Revolution.
Now - according to YOUR interpretation -
not mine - but I am asking YOU - they
should have been blessed as they
were taking the side of Britain on this.
THEY WERE BUTCHERED.
Then go to the Succession Wars in
SCOTLAND. They believed the
Jacobites legends. They defended
the Jacobite line again German
pretenders (The Hanover/Windsors)
and were blessed?! No, they
were slaughtered so badly that most
of the Highland Scots were driven
out of Scotland. Today most of the
inhabitants of Scotland are Lowlanders,
of English, Norman, and Danish ancestry.
The Gaelic/Milesian Highlanders
were butchered or driven out.
Read this History!
http://www.clan.com/history/features/clearances/
The Irish famine where the English
took food forcibly out of Ireland
and let 1-1/2 Million Irish starve,
ON PURPOSE!
http://www.irishfaminefund.ie/famine.html
The British had purposely driven the Irish
into the bogs; had purposely destroyed
any Irish manufacturing of wools, of
export of cattle, and then made them
dependent on the potato and then
after driving them onto Bog reservations
let them starve when the potato failed.
Now, you say these Celts were
blessed?!
Why?
Of the Irish, Scots, Welsh and Bretons,
only the Irish are free and that only
partially. The British still oppress them
in the North!
savudi
vonquack wrote:
> Comments embedded below!
>
> savudi wrote:
>
> > Hey Von Quack (and anyone truly interested)
> >
> > Here is a lost tribes link with many of the "proofs" that Dr.Scott
> > teaches about on the lost tribes.
> >
> > http://asis.com/~stag/losttrib.html
>
> BTW I abbreviate "Lost Tribe{s)" with LT.
>
> Have encountered this site in the past!
>
> He builds a major portion of his case
> on the belief in the Jeremiah/Tea Tephi
> story.
> http://asis.com/~stag/jerrytea.html
>
> The problem is:
> THE IRISH RECORDS DO NOT
> ADMIT OF TEA TEPHI nor JEREMIAH
> Here is on-line the Irish record:
> http://members.aol.com/lochlan2/lebor.htm
>
> You will not find Tea Tephi nor Jeremiah
> mentioned as such.
Ollenfallah is mentioned along with the daughter of a pharoah as Dr. Scott has
mentioned on numerous occasions
>
>
> > Von Quack misses on many of the proofs as well as the biblical
> > references. First the biblical references in the Apocrypha are just as
> > valid as those in the King James (Oh I forgot the Apocrypha ARE in the
> > King James up until the 1840's deletion by the British and American
> > Bible societies). They were part of the bible for 1500 years.
>
> Oh fine! Doc refutes the Book of James and accepts the
> Apocrypha!
Doc accepts the book of James, it is the perfect foil to in which to frame the
perenial conflict between legalists and faithers. Doc also accepts the
apocrypha as history and displays hundreds of Geneva and King James bibles
with it included.
>
>
> > Second his blasé pushing of all of the promises into the Millennium has
> > no biblical basis.
>
> Check my posts I do a commentary on Psalm 89
> showing the Messianic Prophecies are indeed Millenial.
Your basis of millenial are baseless posits not scholarship.
>
>
> > Third the comment about the Promise of the kingship was not lost during
> > Cromwell's time. The promise is that there would be a king of the line
> > of David ruling over Israel until Shilo comes. Well When Cromwell was in
> > England there were still relatives of the King on the throne over the
> > Danes (Danities), Swedes, French, Spanish, all part of the lost tribes.
>
> And there were kings and emperors in Japan, China, Africa,
> Saudi Arabia, too. Are they of Israel? So what? The
> LTers refer to the Stone of Scone. Were Danish Kings,
> Swedish Kings, French Kings, etc annointed on the
> Stone of Scone?
Ok let me spell it out to the clueless. Lets first take your assertation about
the Cromwellian times no problem. This was a caretaker government as Cromwell
himself stated on numerous occasions. The monarchy and the line of blood
succession was restored as everyone knows. This is no different than what
happened during the rein of Zedekiah where Jeremiah was made the caretaker of
the kingship during the Babylonian destruction of the Jewish state. Psalm 89
specificallys states that if the descendants of David break their side of
God's promise that he will chastize them with Rods of Iron but will not
utterly take his favor from them. This gives the "out" that God used in both
Jeremiah and during the Cromwellian period. Duh.
>
>
> The fact remains - even if you accept the
> Stone of Scone story - that no king was on
> the Stone of Scone thrown while Cromwell
> had his Commonwealth. And this was for 11 yrs!
> Could it be that the Stone of Scone was an idol;
> the very thing the Milesians records say it was:
> Namely, an idol?!
>
> Have you ever studied the records of the Stone of Scone.
> I posted it! The Stone was recorded to be demonically
> possessed and the spirits fled at the time of Christ!
>
> In either case, by whatever power, the stone lost
> its power after the crucifixion of Christ.
>
> If you believe as I do the stone is not of Jacob,
> Christ's death destroyed many powers and
> principalities and so many idols were indeed
> rendered powerless after his death.
>
> If you believe it is of Jacob, it lost all its
> power after Jesus' death indicating that the ONLY
> descendant of DAVID which matters is JESUS!
If your postion is true then God is a liar. If God is a liar then we cannot
trust him and all of Christianity and Judiasm is also a lie. God specifically
states that there will never lack for a king on the throne of the line of
David over Israel till Shiloh comes. This is not a metaphor it is a concrete
promise. If there is no descendant of David on the throne at least until
Christ's birth then God is a liar and he broke his promise to David. Is this
your position?
Listen closely quack I did not make that asseration you did.
>
>
> Does it matter since their records say the stone
> was an idol?
So what the Pharasees claimed that Christ was demonic. Do you also make that
statement since it is in writing!
Probably does not carry any academic weight when the vast majority of the
historical study as illustrated by Dr. Scott shows otherwise.
>
>
> >For those who forget Sarah, the wife of Abraham
> >was a blonde, so the exclusion of the fair races
> >from the line is not tenable.
>
> Sarah was a blonde?
>
> >The description of David clearly
> >indicates a fair skinned (Descendant
> >of Judah via Phares) coloring.
>
> He was also not pure Jewish. Ruth and others
> had crept into his line. So if he was
> fair - and I doubt he was - it was due to
> a non-Semitic element in him.
Well several thousand years of such intermixture with white folks then makes
Jews even more so don't it.
>
>
> >Also remember that the line of Ephriam and
> >Manasseh were half Egyptian and we know
> >that the Pharoahs and other high officials
> >of that time period had light skinned, light
> >haired members from traditional history.
> >This would have been in the 1800 BC period of
> >Egyptian history). Also remember that Joseph
> >and his sons inherited the name Israel
> >Genesis 33 or 35).
>
> Problem is: Egypt is of Ham. By your
> hermenuetic, the fair skinned white race
> is of Ham!
Brain dead all you have to do is look at monuments of that particular age in
Egypt and you will see that the leadership was white sometimes and dark
sometimes. These are easy proofs why do you dispute them?
>
>
> Gen 10:6 And the sons of Ham; Cush, and
> Mizraim [Egypt], and Phut, and Canaan.
I know this and acknowledge it. However, it was through Cush principally that
the dark races sprung from.
>
>
> >Ezekiel 23 had them separate even back
> >in Egypt (Ezekiel 23 story of Aholah and Aholobah).
>
> So what. They were allotted a double
> portion of the land is the Mideast!
> Hardly proves LT theory.
Where do you get this? The text is talking about the character of the to
seperate peoples in God's view.
>
>
> > It is in Ezekiel 38
> > that the two sticks are rejoined.
>
> >Josephous from traditional history recounts
> >that only 3 of the tribes were under
> >Roman domination when he wrote.
>
> The Bible however lists members of the Ten
> Tribes returning to Israel. See Ezra and
> Nehemiah.
See Second Ezra, which comes right after first Ezra where the tribes decided
not to return to Israel. Why is it that God's commandment to Paul is to go not
to Babylon where hundreds of thousands of Judahites were in the first century
but to the "lost house of Israel". Where did he go? He went to Glatia, Greece,
and Rome. That alone should bias your opinion of where the lost tribes went
even disregarding the 29th chapter of Acts that Doc talks about.
>
>
> >(At that time the Silurians were about to
> >be conquered but not the Irish or Scots
> >or the Welsh).
>
> So what distinguishes the Silurians from the
> Scots or the Irish or the Welsh? The
> Silurians were Britons (Who later became the
> Welsh). The Welsh by all records (the
> Britons if you prefer), were dark skinned
> and short. Not the Nordic/Celtic Übermensch
> of Lost Tribes Theorists. And why did you
> even mention them?
Cause I wanted to thats why.
Nope. Sorry you are wrong. The entirety of Celtic ethnicity is the ten tribes
along with sprinklings from Judah. Specifically the Judahites of this group
were the leadership from Troy (The sons of Dardanous (Darda) the son of Zara
the other son of Judah). These, according to Dedorous of Sicily (sorry for the
spelling errors this is all from memory) these folks then became the founders
of Rome and of new Troy in Britian. There were several waves over hundreds of
years that make up the Celtic tribes of northwest Europe. The fact that they
did not get along is just par for the family.
>
>
> Let's see! If you are right, a mightly
> blessing should have occurred to the Irish,
> the Welsh, and the Scots. A mighty
> blessing!
>
> The Welsh (at that time called the Britons)
> were conquered by Rome and then by the
> Anglo Saxons. No possible chance of
> Independence!
The founders of Rome were also of the tribes. :)
>
>
> The Scots 800 yrs on and off of English domination.
> The Highland Clearances. Mass forced immigrations
> as the English drove them out. Their language
> nearly destroyed.
The English were of the tribes.
>
>
> The Irish 840 yrs of on and off warfare against
> the Anglo-Saxon/Norman invaders of their land.
> 3/4 free. The only Celtic nation which is free.
> And even so 1/4 of its country is under foreign
> military occupation where a nasty guerilla war had
> to be fought to secure any rights at all for the
> oppressed native Irish in Ulster (the occupied
> territory)
The Saxons were of the tribes.
>
>
> Brittany (Where a large portion of the
> Britons moved as the Anglo Saxons (Germans not Celts)
> invaded Britons. Probably a lot of Silurian blood.
> A tremendous amount of them were slaughtered during
> the French Revolution. I think 1/2 Million were
> killed in the Vedee campaigns.
> Suffered heaviest under German rule in WW2.
> They refused to collaborate/
> http://www.infoplease.com/ce5/CE007555.html
>
> Now, it is these British Isles Celts which Scott
> claims were the receivers of the blessing.
> Care to elaborate where that blessing is.
The simple fact that we basically have ruled the planet for the past several
centuries. The fact that almost all innovation and new technology has come
from the tribes. The fact that even in the last couple of years the only
nations that have weathered the global financial crisis have been those
nations of the tribes (U.S., Canada, Britain, Australia)
>
>
> I mean I would like to know! There were
> those Highland Clearances when all most all
> the Scotic Highlanders were driven out.
> http://www.highlanderweb.co.uk/clearanc.htm
> http://www.scottishhistory.com/clearce.htm
>
> Interestingly enough the Highlanders
> were treated badly because they upheld
> the Jacobite claim against the German
> Pretenders (The Hanovers who are today
> the Windsors) on the English Throne,
> Now if the Stone of Scone legend was
> true God should have blessed the
> Highlanders for defending David's heirs.
> They lost and the lot of the Highlanders
> has gone downhill ever since.
The Hanovers were also of the correct line or their lineage would not have
held for the kingship that was given to them when the Stewarts became idiots.
>
>
> There was that famine in Ireland.
> I won't link it. You should
> know of the million and a half who
> died.
>
> The Massacres of the Brittany (Breton)
> inhabitants during the French Revolution.
> http://www.infoplease.com/ce5/CE007555.html
>
> And finally the Silurians
> http://www.unex.ucla.edu/plato/JerryCelts.htm
> are described as
> "were swarthy with dark curly hair."
> Hardly the red haired Celts of Scots
> claim.
Well ain't that one interesting. Isn't that your description of the Jews. :)
:P
vonquark
savudi wrote:
> vonquack wrote:
>
> > Comments embedded below!
> >
> > savudi wrote:
>
> > The problem is:
> > THE IRISH RECORDS DO NOT
> > ADMIT OF TEA TEPHI nor JEREMIAH
> > Here is on-line the Irish record:
> > http://members.aol.com/lochlan2/lebor.htm
> >
> > You will not find Tea Tephi nor Jeremiah
> > mentioned as such.
>
> Ollenfallah is mentioned along with the daughter of a pharoah as Dr. Scott has
> mentioned on numerous occasions
The Problem is this: Check Section 64 of the Milesian Records.
See the link above
Check it! You will see the Great Ollam is trackable back to Iafeth (Japheth)
not to Shem
Let me quote lines 7 and 8 of section 64
"Ollam s. Delbaeth s. Ogma s. Elada. [there is a blank line in the text]
Lug s. Cian s. Dian Cecht s. Esarg s. Net s. Indui s. Alldui...."
So we see that Ollam is a descendent of Alldui
And in lines 1 to 4 we see this Aldui (A spelling variant of Alldui)
is
"Aldui s. Tat s. Tavarn s. Enda s. Baath s. Ebath s.
Bethach s. Iarbonel s. Nemed s. Agnomain
s. Pamp s. Tat s. Sera s. Sru s. Esru s. Braimend s.
Rathacht s. Magoth s. Iafeth s. Noe.
AGAIN! Traceable to Iafath (Japheth).
LETS SEE IF WE CAN TRACK IT IN ANOTHER WAY!
Further on in Section 64 we see this in Reference to Ollam
"The six sons of Delbaeth s. Ogma s. Elada s. Delbaeth s. Net, were
Fiachra, Ollam,..."
So see that Ollam was a son of Ogma was a son of Elada was a son......
which confirms the same lineage as cited above
In Section 10 we see this Elada
traceable to whom? You got it Magog, And who is Magog
son of? Japheth!
"The numerous progeny of Elada, of them was Bres, no untruth:
son of Elada expert in arms, son of Delbaeth son of Net.
S. Inda, s. Allda -Allda who was s. Tat, s. Tabarn s. Enda, s.
Baath, [son of] pleasant Ibath.
S. Bethach s. Iardan s. Nemed grandson of Paimp: Pamp s. Tat
s. Sera s. Sru s. white Braiment.
Of Braiment s. Aithecht, s. Magog, great in reknown: there
happened in their time a joint appearance against a Plain."
So the legendary OLLAM FODLA was a Japhethite! And I tracked
by two different accounts in the record.
The only Brug (you claim Baruch) I find is a
a geographic reference.
For ex:
"Two years of Rudraige the Red, till
he died in Brug Bratruaid"
Section 52
"Fea and Neman, the two wives of Net s. Indiu,
two daughters of Elemar of the Brug."
Section 64
"Bres from the Brug of Banba"
Section 64
"The Dagda died of a dart of gore in the Brug "
Section 64
Do a word search! No Bar...'s
Now Scota is listed as a daughter of Pharoah,
I grant you BUT THAT HARDLY qualifies her as
Semetic let alone Jewish. There are some who
believe that Hyskos (Indo Europeans) took over
Egypt for a short while. This would explain
it.
But you have yet to make your case!
>> > Von Quack misses on many of the proofs as well as the
>> > biblical references. First the biblical references
>> > in the Apocrypha are just as valid as those in the
>> > King James (Oh I forgot the Apocrypha ARE in the
>> > King James up until the 1840's deletion by the British
>> > and American Bible societies). They were part of the
>> > bible for 1500 years.
FIRST YOU MISS THE POINT. THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS
ON YOU AND YOU HAVE YET TO DEMONSTRATE
CONVINCING PROOF TO ME!
Second I have the read Apocrypha. It was always questioned.
Always set apart from the other books. And it is full of
horrific legends.
<...snip...>
>Doc accepts the book of James, it is the perfect
>foil to in which to frame the perenial conflict
>between legalists and faithers. Doc also accepts the
>apocrypha as history and displays hundreds of Geneva
>and King James bibles with it included.
Not from what I saw him preach on James. He said it
should NOT be n there.
Second, it is very questionable history.
>> > Second his blasé pushing of all of the promises
>> > into the Millennium has no biblical basis.
You have yet to prove your case. I compared
scripture to scripture to prove mine.
> > Check my posts I do a commentary on Psalm 89
> > showing the Messianic Prophecies are indeed Millenial.
>
> Your basis of millenial are baseless posits not scholarship.
Except I compared Scripture to Scripture and quoted it and cited it.
You said and I quote "Ollenfallah is mentioned along
with the daughter of a pharoah as Dr. Scott has..."
So what? That does not prove Ollam Fodla [The more usual
rendering] is a Semite especially when the records track him
back to Japheth.
This seems to be a common stance of the Scotties and
you are not the first to use it.
Cite the legend as Scott told you. He cites E Raymond Capt.
The problem is: When you go to the original legends these
legends do not hold up. But when I point this out to you
then you say it is NOT THE BIBLE.
FINE LET'S USE ONLY THE BIBLE. Show me the verse
in the BIBLE (NOT THE APOCRYPHA) where Jeremiah
(by name) took Tea Tephi (by name) to Eire, or Erin or
The Isle of Fal or Ogygia. SHOW ME the Verse.
YOU CAN'T Then you go to legend/history. When I show
you the legend/history does not hold you go back to the bible
and start all over again.
As for Josephus saying the Lost Tribes of Israel were still in
the Black Sea area well you have lost if you accept that.
For archeology places the first waves of Nordics/Celtics in
British Bogs thousand of years ago - pre Northern Tribes
capture. And long before there was even an Abraham.
Moreover even if Joseph was right; all that would do
is make the locals who became Khazars to be the Lost Tribes
and the Khazars became Jewish (or converted back to
Judaism in the 9 th century) EITHER WAY it is not the Goths,
not the Celts, et al. They are Japhethite.
>
> > And there were kings and emperors in Japan, China, Africa,
> > Saudi Arabia, too. Are they of Israel? So what? The
> > LTers refer to the Stone of Scone. Were Danish Kings,
> > Swedish Kings, French Kings, etc annointed on the
> > Stone of Scone?
>Ok let me spell it out to the clueless.
>Lets first take your assertation about
>the Cromwellian times no problem. This
>was a caretaker government as Cromwell
>himself stated on numerous occasions.
Did he now! SO why did he make it a
Republic!
>The monarchy and the line of blood succession
>was restored as everyone knows. This is no
>different than what happened during the rein
>of Zedekiah where Jeremiah was made the
>caretaker of the kingship during the Babylonian
>destruction of the Jewish state.
You are not getting away with that SHOW ME
PROOF JEREMIAH LANDED IN IRELAND.
PROOF! Not your tales of Scott!
>Psalm 89 specificallys states that if
>the descendants of David break their side of
>God's promise that he will chastize them with
>Rods of Iron but will not utterly take his favor
>from them. This gives the "out" that God used in both
>Jeremiah and during the Cromwellian period. Duh.
11 years is as good as 4000. And I say you have
not proven your case. Scripture said the
seed promised to Abraham was singular. Likewise
the king promised to David was singular: JESUS!
>
> >
> > The fact remains - even if you accept the
> > Stone of Scone story - that no king was on
> > the Stone of Scone thrown while Cromwell
> > had his Commonwealth. And this was for 11 yrs!
> > Could it be that the Stone of Scone was an idol;
> > the very thing the Milesians records say it was:
> > Namely, an idol?!
> >
> > Have you ever studied the records of the Stone of Scone.
> > I posted it! The Stone was recorded to be demonically
> > possessed and the spirits fled at the time of Christ!
> >
> > In either case, by whatever power, the stone lost
> > its power after the crucifixion of Christ.
> >
> > If you believe as I do the stone is not of Jacob,
> > Christ's death destroyed many powers and
> > principalities and so many idols were indeed
> > rendered powerless after his death.
> >
> > If you believe it is of Jacob, it lost all its
> > power after Jesus' death indicating that the ONLY
> > descendant of DAVID which matters is JESUS!
>
> If your postion is true then God is a liar.
God is NOT a liar. I assert your interpretation is flawed.
>If God is a liar then we cannot trust him and all
>of Christianity and Judiasm is also a lie. God
>specifically states that there will never lack
>for a king on the throne of the line of
>David over Israel till Shiloh comes. This is
>not a metaphor it is a concrete
Shiloh (Jesus) came in 4 BC. Hence no more
thrown of David except for Jesus! And there
was always someone there available to be king
until Jesus came. If you can allow that excuse
for Cromwell then you must allow it here.
During the Babylonian and Roman occupations a
king was always available. Though the throne
may not have been. But that is the excuse
you allow for Cromwell's Republic.
And if you allow it here then you can say
the kingly line ran up to Jesus and ended
with him.
If the existence of a descendent who is
available (even if the throne is not) is
allowed - and you must allow it or Cromwell
voids your theory - then I can equally assert
that it runs up to Jesus and ends with him.
So you can show that the Davidic line ended
with Jesus and it is NOT Brittanic!
The funny thing is: My theory is justifiable
biblically and from the archeological and
historical records.
You have to play games with the verses, twist
the records OUT OF SHAPE and ignore the
archeological evidence.
> promise. If there is no descendant of David on the throne at least until
> Christ's birth then God is a liar and he broke his promise to David. Is this
> your position?
God kept his promise in Jesus!
<...snip...>
> >
> >
> > >For those who forget Sarah, the wife of Abraham
> > >was a blonde, so the exclusion of the fair races
> > >from the line is not tenable.
> >
> > Sarah was a blonde?
> >
> > >The description of David clearly
> > >indicates a fair skinned (Descendant
> > >of Judah via Phares) coloring.
> >
Did I miss something? Is this another sleight of hand you
learned from DOC? WHEN DID SARAH BECOME A BLONDE?!
Cite verse!
> > He was also not pure Jewish. Ruth and others
> > had crept into his line. So if he was
> > fair - and I doubt he was - it was due to
> > a non-Semitic element in him.
.
>Well several thousand years of such intermixture
>with white folks then makes Jews even more so don't it.
All it means is that the original Semites were
not Nordic/Celts! To the extent modern Jews are
white it is to the extent they are part Japhethic!
> > >Also remember that the line of Ephriam and
> > >Manasseh were half Egyptian and we know
> > >that the Pharoahs and other high officials
> > >of that time period had light skinned, light
> > >haired members from traditional history.
> > >This would have been in the 1800 BC period of
> > >Egyptian history). Also remember that Joseph
> > >and his sons inherited the name Israel
> > >Genesis 33 or 35).
> >
> > Problem is: Egypt is of Ham. By your
> > hermenuetic, the fair skinned white race
> > is of Ham!
>Brain dead all you have to do is look at
>monuments of that particular age in
>Egypt and you will see that the leadership
>was white sometimes and dark sometimes.
>These are easy proofs why do you dispute them?
Why do you think?! You tell me Jeremiah is in the
Irish records and he is not there. You tell
me Ollam Fodla is in the Irish Records as
Jeremiah and I do not see it. In fact they
say he is a descendent of Japheth. You tell
me all these tales which are contradictory to
the records you cite and then you ask why I
dispute you.
As for being easy, you have YET to prove
your case!
>
> > Gen 10:6 And the sons of Ham; Cush, and
> > Mizraim [Egypt], and Phut, and Canaan.
>I know this and acknowledge it. However,
>it was through Cush principally that the dark
>races sprung from.
Hence it would follow that Egyptians are dark!
Well actually a case can be made for a two
tiered Egypt but the white tier is Japhetic
as I shall show!
Look the best and only case you can make
is that the Indo Europeans invaded Egypt and
for a while took it over. We know it was
Indo Europeans since they came on Chariots
with iron rimmed wheels. An I-E invention.
The Israelites had no knowledge of Iron
working UNTIL late into their stay in the land.
(See 1 Sam 13 19-22 cited below)
HENCE, the HYSKOS, these charioted invaders
of Egypt were IE whites. They were Japhethic
rulers over a Hamitic people.
This however jives with Irish records.
And does not contradict them. The Irish did
claim to rule in Egypt for a while. They Jews
only claimed to be enslaved in Egypt!
http://publish.uwo.ca/~charring/egypt/15egypt.htm
A great short history of the Hyskos.
Has this quote:
"In the year 1785BC, the XIIth dynasty
ended, and the XIIIth dynasty in Thebes
started badly. Royal power was weakened
by internal struggles and the situation
resembled that in the 1st Intermediate
Period. Again the northern frontiers were
threatened by invasion from tribes from the
east, (from the Caucasus and Palestine)
to conquer the Delta areas. According to
certain historians they had a weapon
unknown to the Egyptians : war chariots
pulled by one or two horses giving
them a great advantage in combat."
NOTE: the HYSKOS INVADED. The family of
Jacob came in during a famine. They
did NOT INVADE!
NOTE: The came in WAR CHARIOTS. Genesis
notes Jacob's sons coming in to TRADE
for food and being obesient. The
Irish claim they came as mercenaries
and would have brought war chariots.
NOTE: The HYSKOS had war chariots. War
Chariots require Iron rimmed wheels
which according to the Biblical record
the Jews did not have.
"Now there was no smith to be
found throughout all the land of Israel;
for the Philistines said, "The Hebrews must
not make swords or spears for themselves";
so all the Israelites went down to the
Philistines to sharpen their plowshare,
mattocks, axes, or sickles; the charge was
two-thirds of a shekel [a pim] for the
plowshares and for the mattocks, and
one-third of a shekel for sharpening
the axes and for setting the goads. So on
the day of the battle neither sword nor
spear was to be found in the possession of
any of the people with Saul and Jonathan;
but Saul and his son Jonathan had them. [1 Sam. 13:19-22]
Wow! The Jews were not good with Iron
work. For a discussion of this see the
http://www.phoenixdatasystems.com/goliath/c4/c4j.htm
Interestingly, do you know who invented iron working:
That's right the NON-Semetic Celts who were the Hyskos
invaders of Egypt who came in on WAR CHARIOTS!
Who were the Philistines cited in 1 Sam 13 18-22?
There is reason to believe they were Sea Peoples
from Crete. Interestingly enough, the
Milesians records hint that they stopped over
on Crete on their way to Ireland. Maybe taught
the Philistines Iron working.
http://www.cgocable.net/~aoneill/roygen1.htm
Check out this cite which traces the O`Neill
(Milesian) Line back to Japheth. Notice
how one of the ancestors ended up in Crete
(See 17) So the Japhethic Milesians taught
the Philistines how to work in iron. We
know they did not teach the Jews as the Jews
were poor iron workers until David's day.
1 Sam Chap 13 as cited.
Irish Records noted the Milesians MET MOSES
but still place themselves in the Japhetic Line.
The site I gave you has a similar story
http://members.aol.com/lochlan2/lebor.htm
(See section 16)
When you add all the evidence together from
many sources you get this.
The Pharoah hired Scythian (IE) mercenaries.
These mercenaries came down to Egypt.
A group of them took a liking to Moses
and broke with the Pharoah and helped Moses.
This is what the Irish records indicate.
Not that they were of Israel but that
while in Israel they befriended Moses.
Not implausible. To this end Moses
warned them that Pharoah would be destroyed.
So they took over Egypt after the Pharoah's
army had been destroyed. I got this from
several sources and comparisons of the
legends.
It explains the Irish claim to Japhethic
descent. It explains the confusion with
Israel. It explains why alone among
northern Europeans the Irish, Welsh and
Scots are so mixed in Coloration. They are
a mix of Jpahethic and some Egyptian blood.
The Mercenaries took wives as the Irish
records indicate. So this is why in
Irish families one son can be red haired
and two can have dark hair. Two kids
can have blue eyes and two can have brown
eyes. One cousin can look Nordic and another
cousin look Italian and yet the Italian looking
one can have a Nordic looking kid.
This explains Diodorus's two exoduses from
Egypt But by two different peoples!
Israel went by land and the Japhethic Friends
of Moses sent by boat. SOme records say they
stayed a short while but realized that it would
be impossible for them to rule over the people
for long. Others indicate they left shortly
after Moses took Israel to Sinai.
See section 16 and 17 of the Irish records cited.
A sloppy read may cause you to confuse the two -
the Milesian mercenaries and the Hebrews.
No doubt many have!
BUT A CLOSER READ WILL DISPEL THE ILLUSION
FOR THE IRISH TAKE GREAT PAINS TO SHOW
THE WERE JAPHETIC AND MERELY FRIENDS OF MOSES!
Look my ancestry is Irish. I would love tales of Scott to be true!
While I am not Nordic looking by mother and sister
are. So the blood is in there!
I checked this out to see if the legends were true.
I sourced it out. IT DOES NOT HOLD UP.
And what I see here are the LTers always firing back
with a DOC LINE.
I take pains - HOURS on the web to source links for you.
I spent years tracking this down myself YEARS!
And the LT theory falls apart!
And what do you come back with: MORE DRIVEL!
This ties it all together. The Indo-European
(sons of Japheth) invade the Mideast by land,
by boat (Sea Peoples) and by war chariot.
Everybody agrees on this.
They set up some local rulerships. A large
agreement on this. This explains why some
Pharoahs were white. This however was unstable
and so they were forced to leave which explains
why the Irish records say they were once rulers
in Egypt.
Could the sons of Jacob have walked into this
political bruhaha.
You bet! But that would not have made the Hyskos
Semetic.
Later on some bad interpretations mix up this
soup of legends and histories and confuse the Milesians
with the Israelites. Though the Milesians
say the met Moses (A possibility) they do NOT
say they are Semite. There is your explanation.
The Irish were experts with Iron working. The
Jews were not. The ancient British had war
chariots which shocked the Romans. The Israelites
came late to them. See verses cited above.
The Mideast EVEN THEN was a ground for invasions and
counter invasions of Hamitic, Semitic and Japhetic
peoples.
<...snip...>
FINALLY FOR MORE IRISH ORIGINAL SOURCE
TEXTS CHECK THIS OUT
http://members.aol.com/lochlan2/lebor2.htm
Go to
Redaction Two (R2)
Early history of the Gaedil
Stowe D.5.1
at the source cited directly above
This will explain how Moses
and the Milesian Ancestors of
the Irish met Moses. But it takes
pains to show they were ONLY FRIENDS
NOT KIN!
Let me quote one section
As for Pharao Tuir thereafter and
the host of Egypt, when they attained
strength, they called to mind their
hereditary hostility against the progeny of
Nel and the family of Gaedel; the
friendship which these had shown to the
Sons of Israel, and Nel's taking of the
ships of Pharao with him, when the
Sons of Israel escaped. War and
hostilities were increased upon the proteny
of Nel thereafter, till they were expelled
from Egypt.
What seems to be indicated is this:
On the way of the Exodus from Egypt the Tribes
of Israel met with some of Pharoah's mercenaries.
Who had just returned from an expedition in
Ethiopia and so were not aware of the Passover
and probably had lost no sons to the Angel of
Death as they had been in Ethiopia at the time.
They hear tales and go to meet Moses!
They met Moses and struck up a friendship and
fed him. (Or so the legend goes)
Fearing Pharoah's wrath for helping Israel
Moses said they should wait out in boats.
They did so and were not drowned.
They then returned to Egypt to rule.
Hey Pharoah was dead!
Eventually having to leave.
Well there are variants and the times
often screw up But the point is the
general drift concurs with my general
precept.
This explains the confusion and is in
concord with the Bible as well.
Your theories are full of contradictions.
So the general theory is this
IE Scythians invade Egypt
Some take up and set up the ruling class.
Others are hired as mercenaries of Egypt
Those who became Milesians fell out
with their employer Pharoah and stuck
up a friendship with Moses. They
later go all over the Mediterranean
and back to Scythia finally back to
Ireland.
This is the legend.
Properly understood it comports with the
facts. Scott does not!
I refuse to answer your legends with
source facts anymore. You refuse
to answer them I have spent hours
on each letter only to be insulted
with your puerile responses!
From now on ONLY A BIBLE VERSE
NOT THE APOCRYPHA or a Respectable
historical source will be addressed.
I will not waste my time any more!
Seester Rosa Gabriel
wrote:
>I will not waste my time any more!
Finally, sense prevails.
Lordy, that was alot to snip...
My Dear Vonquark, what does it mean at the end of the day?
All your timelines and bloodlines?
With the proof of Jesus hisself only speculative, what of all this
other knowledge about jap eyes in Gaul or whatever the debate, how
does it make you happy? How does it help you to make others happy?
I understand the need to argue back with True Believers, although in
my day I volleyed with more the True Dullards and the posts were
nowhere near the intellectual brain jizz of late, more like 'you go in
lake of fire <expletive> <expletive> McChurch" to which I would fire
up my mortal brain to zing back "nuh uh, fuckers" and McDonna would
hijack my feengers during a cake stupor and write about kindness and
playfullness before I woke up naked with vague memories of a red
convertible, KFC driv-thru, and those kids that preach on bikes
doing...things...to a woman in a red convertible. (I had this
confirmed as a real experience when I forced my way back into my body
one afternoon and had biscuits tucked in my cheeks and a honey tattoo
of the colonel's face on my belly.)
I digress.
Vonquark, what's all this mean? not my story, yours.
(although, you buy the 40up and I'll sing like a bird)
What do all the facts lead you to believe, to feel? Is Jesus more
real to you by building a bridge to more tangible facts and hoping for
a retro sincerity? If you are a Christian, in the strictest sense of
the definition, wouldnt' you just study and live by the words of Jesus
The Christ? Why do we need anything else of The Bible, The Tribes,
The "lost episodes" found in clay jars and snakes bellies and Shecky
Greene's rectum?
Didn't Jesus say enough? What was left to wonder about?
Wasn't he smitin' enough for everybody? Let's tack on that misogynist
Paul so we can get a bunch of made up reasons why we can hate and make
women shorn their hair. Let's put in Revelations so everybody from
Jehosephus to Charles Manson to Rexella (mmmmm, Rexella) can have
ammunition for their eternal damnation threat guns.
Is Jesus' message so shallow and incomplete and unfullfilling that you
need more?
Seester Rosa Gabriel
*
Everybody is saying they are a Christian, but nobody is talking about
Christ.
HEATH MACKLEY
: Is Jesus' message so shallow and incomplete and unfullfilling that you
: need more?
I won't pretend to speak for VQ, but I'll comment on what I see (this
includes within myself).
Jesus' message is remarkably straightforward (99% of it anyway), and
doesn't lend itself to the mental masturbation that other topics of
theology encourage. Because his message is straightforward, it calls you
to action in a direction that is frightening to most (totally relying on
God for your needs? turning the other cheek?). Engaging in
mental masturbation puts off the feeling that you're not actually doing
anything. We all choose our masters in the end though, don't we?
That's not to say that theological discussions are necessarily a waste of
time, but at the same time it goes without saying that Christianity is much
more than an intellectual exercise.
heath
Jon Volkoff
URL: http://207.158.224.31/glover3.htm
(...)
>> I have, however, no desire to encumber my hypothesis, with any
>> argument, as to whether the Ollam Fodhla of Irish Tradition is, or is
>> not a mistake for Jeremiah the Prophet. I feel that the case of the
>> presence of the illustrious Seer in Ireland is made out on other
>> grounds; that, indeed, he must have been the transporter of the Stone,
>> the conductor of "the King's Daughters" and the planter of the
>> Standard of Judah, in Ireland. I was satisfied of this, long before I
>> heard a word of the Legend, of his having been Instructor to the great
>> warrior Finn McCoyle, or even of the existence of this Ollam Fola. But
as the existing history of Ollam Fola is inconsistent with itself, ..
as his kingship is evidently a fiction, while the facts of his reality
and his wisdom cannot be denied; .. and as, moreover, the chronology
of the real individual is brought down to accord with the times of the
Prophet; and as his acts are exactly those that the Prophet's acts
would have been had he had the power to do as he would have felt it to
be his duty to do, viz. the establishing an order of learned men to
carry on the knowledge of that Law, the Tara, which he certainly would
have brought with him and left them, with that office of Jodhan Moran,
of which he was evidently the introducer, - I submit,
1. That the Eochaid-Ollam-Fola-Heremon-Ardri of fiction, is, when
reduced to its proper elements, the description of two officials
instead of one person:-
2. That the Eochaid Ollam Fola, when divested of the royalty which
belongs to the first of the last two words of this pretentious name,
and of the Pentarchate expressed by the last, is the Jeremiah of
reality:-
3. That the two last words belong to the King contemporary with him,
the King Pentarch at the time of the Prophet's arrival in Ireland, and
who married the Princess from the East:-
4. That the word Eochaid as prefixed to the words Olla-Fola, is an
adjective characteristic of respect, such as we are accustomed to use
towards the ancient chronicler, the Venerable Bede:
The word Each'd, evidently the same as Eocaid, means "History,"
"Annals." "The ancient Records and Chronicles of the kingdom were
ordered to be written and carefully preserved at Tara, by Ollav Fola,"
- more Hebraico? - "and these formed the basis of the ancient history
of Ireland called the Psalter of Tara." - Annals of the Four Masters,
note, p. 297. Well, therefore, did Ollam Fola deserve the
immortalization of the epithet, "The Chronicler." Vide also Moore, i.
114.
5, and lastly. That, in the capacity and character thus assigned to
him, as the Prophet-Restorer of the Monarchy of Judah, the Ollam Fola
of Tara, Chronicler, Sage, and Lawgiver, divested of both Pentarchy
and Royalty, is more worthy of the exaltation given him in the Dome of
the Four Courts in the Irish Capital, than any other would be, though
entitled to the dignity of all the adjuncts through which Ollam Fola
has been presented to the world, since the true knowledge of the real
man became lost to the generations which succeeded him.
(...)
vonquark
Just speculations AND IRISH RECORDS STILL
list OLLAM FODLA as being Japhetic!
The whole mass of Legends is so inconsisent
as to be built on straw. I will not answer or
link this time. I have spent hours instructing you.
Spent days (if you accumulate the times) writing these
letters. Back track them and read them.
The fact that Ollam means a time short of eternity
in Hebrew MEANS NOTHING!
The American car NOVA (meaning exploded Star in English)
means Doesn't go (No va) in Spanish. Hence it did not
sell so well in Latin America. Words change meaning
over languages. Embarrasado in Spanish does not
mean Embarrased but Impregnated.
Assistir means "to attend."
So what if Ollam means something in Hebrew.
I am sure thousands of IE words have meanings in Hebrew
because there are on a limited amount of sounds the
human can produce.
The Irish records say he is Japhetic and the only thing
you site says is that Ollam is Jeremiah because
HE MUST BE JEREMIAH. If I wish really
really really hard it MUST BE SO!
There is no proof. I on the other hand
showed you a lineage from Ollam to Japheth!
Look, I refuse to write more. You have my links
on the other letters. This "Proof" you gave
has NO LINEAGE, no internal evidence and
is inconsisent.
And finally DOC is a loud mouthed,
arrogant, vile outrage of a minister.
Get grounded in good church. Not one
who passes off Irish (they are the people
who gave the word BLARNEY to the
world's lexicon) fables to you as truth!
PS: I am Irish-American. That was
not a slight at the Irish, merely letting you
know that when the Irish concoct a tale
they concoct a doozy!
Jon Volkoff
> Look, I refuse to write more.
My fervent hope is that you really mean this.
Jon
Seester Rosa Gabriel
Brother Paul
Seester Rosa Gabriel wrote:
Lots of good text (edited for brevity)
and finished with:
> Everybody is saying they are a Christian, but nobody is talking about
> Christ.
Amen, and amen my dear McDonna!
(Rollin' a big doob in your honor and smokin' it meeself.)
Now, GIT ONNA PHONES!
Peace,
Brother Paul
Stevem702
>list OLLAM FODLA as being Japhetic! -Quark
Tautology.
Really, Quark, this is meaningless repetition of something
that didn't mean anything to anyone here in the first place.
-Steve
>There is no proof. I on the other hand
>showed you a lineage from Ollam to Japheth! -Quark
Since Christian men of good will disagree on the
geneologies in *scripture*, ...how can you offer
this ancient non-scripture geneology as "proof"
of something!?
"on the other hand" indeed. Proof?
There is no "proof" either way.
-Steve
> I will not answer or link this time. -Quark
Steve <--- Looking around at all the sad faces.
;)
> I have spent hours instructing you.
>Spent days (if you accumulate the times) writing these
>letters. -Quark
...and here we are not being appreciative of your
profound teaching and persuasive scholarship.
-Steve
>And finally DOC is a loud mouthed,
>arrogant, vile outrage of a minister. -Quark
I doubt your claim that all Doc is to you is "entertainment".
Doesn't seem consistant.
-Steve
Stevem702
oh no. Not again.
-Steve
>rest of post deleted to save a significant portion of
>the internet's bandwidth capacity....
>Second I have the read Apocrypha. It was always questioned.
>Always set apart from the other books. Quark
If memory serves, ...the Apocrypha was intermingled
within the Septuagint (the "scripture" that Jesus'
and the rest seemed to have used much of the time)
with *no* distinction whatsoever from the rest.
...which would prove you wrong in the use of "always",
...and in an *important way, due to the credibility given
by Jesus' use.
-Steve
Stevem702
>
>So if "[t]he Celts *have been blessed,"
>then why is Scotland still not free;
The Celts have been blessed.
The fact that not *all Celts have been blessed
*all the time, ....is not a refutation of that fact.
From a little group of people from one place,
the Celts have come to be a multitude of nations,
have come to number like the sands of the sea,
have come to have most of the world's wealth,
have most of the world's military might,
have the highest number of Redeemed, etc, etc.
Trying to make the world feel sorry for the 'poor
Celts' by painting the British as the evil
oppressors of the enslaved Irish, etc.,
is laughable.
-Steve
Brien Sullivan
>Seester Rosa Gabriel wrote:
>Lots of good text (edited for brevity)
>and finished with:
>> Everybody is saying they are a Christian, but nobody is talking about
>> Christ.
Reminds me of the professor at the Big Baptist Seminary in
Dallas who was fired for spending too much time teaching
from the Gospels rather than from Paul (the other one).
>Amen, and amen my dear McDonna!
>(Rollin' a big doob in your honor and smokin' it meeself.)
Enjoy. You've earned it.
>Now, GIT ONNA PHONES!
>Peace,
>Brother Paul
--
Brien
{http://www.mcchurch.com}
Stevem702
> >promises that have only been fulfilled in the Celts. -Steve
>
> For the umpteenth time, the prophecies
> given to the tribes will be fulfilled in the
> Millenial reign AND NOT BEFORE. -Quark
Shall we discuss them a bit?
How about the promise in 2Sam7:10 "I will also appoint a
place for my people Israel and will plant them, that they
may live in their own place and not be disturbed again..." ?
This seems to be talking about a place other than Palastine,
right? They were already in Palastine when this promise was given,
and besides, ...that place (Palastine) was *already appointed,
which seems inconsistant with "I *will* also appoint...".
During the Millenium, do you think that God will appoint
such a place for Israel other than Palastine?
It seems to fit the LT theory better than the Millenium theory.
-Steve
How about the "number of the ...will be like the sand of
the sea.." promise of Hosea 1:10
Doesn't your current thinking on the matter has the rejoining
of Hosea 1:11 taking place in about Ezra's time?
I've heard that the number of Northern Kingdom people that
came back during this time was much less than 50,000.
Is this "like the sand of the sea" ? ...or should we
research the number of people that returned, and go from there?
-Steve
Stevem702
>Republic. You claim that there would always be a King
>to sit on the Stone of Scone.
>How do you explain the Cromwellian Republic?
>The sceptre departed then!
>I am no fan of Cromwell who was a genocidal butcher.
>But the fact remains there was NO sceptre then. -Quark
That "fact" no longer remains.
At least, it no longer remains unquestioned.
As for my explaination of the Cromwell time, I've given
my explaination, and someone else has, as well (which was
better than mine, I might add.)
...I would like explaination of these promises, in
light of your current thinking that they were fulfilled
by Jesus.
2Sam7:12 "...your descendant after you...I will establish
his kingdom. He shall build a house for My name, and I will
establish the throne of his kindom forever."
How can you say this is Jesus, when right after that (14)
it says "when he commits iniquity"?
Jesus didn't commit iniquity of course, so this promise
pertained to Solomon.
2Sam7:16 "Your house and your kingdom shall be established
forever" This promise was to David.
You can read this to mean "shall be established in another
few centuries..." ?? Do you think David thought this is
what God meant?
How about Ps89:29 "...establish his seed forever, and his
throne as the days of heaven."
If you stop there, it could sound like Jesus is the seed
referred to, ...but then it goes on
"if his sons forsake My law, and do not walk
in My judgements, if they violate..."
That doesn't sound like Jesus.
That sounds like the fallable-human descendents of David,
...the most obvious reading of the text.
If you spiritualize it to mean Jesus,
...it doesn't seem to fit.
In refering to this above promise He goes on:
vs34, 35 "I really mean this" (paraphrase) :)
vs36, 37 "His seed shall endure forever,
and his throne as the sun before Me.
It shall be established forever like the moon"
If you make the 'establishment' of the throne refer
to Jesus, then the "if his sons forsake My law..."
doesn't make sense.
-Steve
vonquark
here convinced me to stay but to not fall for your
cheap shots.
vonquark
> >AND IRISH RECORDS STILL
> >list OLLAM FODLA as being Japhetic! -Quark
>
> Tautology.
>
> Really, Quark, this is meaningless repetition of something
> that didn't mean anything to anyone here in the first place.
> -Steve
>
> >There is no proof. I on the other hand
> >showed you a lineage from Ollam to Japheth! -Quark
>
> Since Christian men of good will disagree on the
> geneologies in *scripture*, ...how can you offer
> this ancient non-scripture geneology as "proof"
> of something!?
>
> "on the other hand" indeed. Proof?
>
> There is no "proof" either way.
> -Steve
>
And if there is no proof either way, then
the LT theory is NOT proven. You admit this!
<...snip...>
If so, why does DOC teach it as DOCTRINE.
AND HE DOES!
<...snip...>
vonquark
Stevem702 wrote:
> >Check it! You will see the Great Ollam is trackable back to Iafeth (Japheth)
> >not to Shem .... -Quark
>
> oh no. Not again.
> -Steve
Well you do not have to enter into the LT discussion.
You have already admitted the LT theory is
not proveable. But this post does NOT concern that!
It mere concerns the APOCRYPHA!
> >rest of post deleted to save a significant portion of
> >the internet's bandwidth capacity....
A legitimate reason!
> >Second I have the read Apocrypha. It was always questioned.
> >Always set apart from the other books. Quark
>
> If memory serves, ...the Apocrypha was intermingled
> within the Septuagint (the "scripture" that Jesus'
> and the rest seemed to have used much of the time)
> with *no* distinction whatsoever from the rest.
>
> ...which would prove you wrong in the use of "always",
Lets see.
A marvellous site which shows why the Apocrypha is
not included in the Bible. It is anti-Catholic (IN DOCTRINE)
so I am not being anti-Catholic here but merely using
a good doctrinal reason why the Apocrypha is suspect,
historically and doctrinally. Pay attention to Reason #5
Antiochus Epiphanus is listed as dying three different ways!
http://bible.ca/cath-apocrypha.htm
Another site which explains why the Apocrypha
was not used. GUESS WHAT! JESUS NEVER -
I REPEAT NEVER - QUOTED FROM THE
APOCRYPHA though he liberally quoted
from the rest of the Scripture. Apocyrphal
texts are never quoted from in the New Testament.
Old Testament texts are but not Apocryphal.
http://www.new-life.net/faq000.htm
Look at Item #6
Jesus never quoted from the Apocrypha
Note: Josephus ( a man cited a lot here)
never cited the Apocyrpha either.
> ...and in an *important way, due to the credibility given
> by Jesus' use.
> -Steve
JESUS DID NOT USE THE APOCRYPHA -
See above!
vonquark
You just admitted it was unproveable.
Shall I quote you from another post.
A quote from Steve:
There is no "proof" either way.
-Steve
<...snip... Steve is right: We must conserve bandwidth...>
vonquark
<...snip... following Steve's laudable
example, I am endeavoring to save copious amount's
of bandwidth. The better to save space to redress
Steve's errors>
> 2Sam7:12 "...your descendant after you...I will establish
> his kingdom. He shall build a house for My name, and I will
> establish the throne of his kindom forever."
Let's see.
Your descendant NOT descendants
His kingdom NOT their kingdoms
He shall build NOT they shall build
Need I say more!
We are left with the singular excellance of Jesus!
> How can you say this is Jesus, when right after that (14)
> it says "when he commits iniquity"?
>Jesus didn't commit iniquity of course, so this promise
>pertained to Solomon.
(See below where I address that very issue)
> 2Sam7:16 "Your house and your kingdom shall be established
> forever" This promise was to David.
And fulfilled in Jesus or did David live forever?
It also said in the bible
"My flesh also shall rest in hope. For thou wilt not
leave My soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine
Holy One to see corruption."
(Ps.16:9-10).
Clearly this was a Davidic Covenant Promise
too. Yet David died and was corrupted.
It only applied to Jesus. So we have INTERNAL
SCRIPTURAL EVIDENCES that a lot of
these Davidic covenant promises are only to
ONE SEED not SEEDS of DAVID - that
is: JESUS!
Let us compare Scripture to Scripture.
Galations
3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed
were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds,
as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
Notice, the promise was fulfilled in ONE not many
but ONE seed. No to whom did Paul say the
promises were made.....To the British Royal
Family or to Christ. (See above for answer)
Again, comparing Scripture to Scripture NOT Scott to Scott
we end up with a more balanced and reliable interpretation
of Scripture.
> You can read this to mean "shall be established in another
> few centuries..." ?? Do you think David thought this is
> what God meant?
David may not have fully understood what the promises
meant. The Bible testifies to this!
Mat 13:17 "Believe me, a great many prophets
and good men have longed to see what you
are seeing, and they never saw it. Yes, and
they longed to hear what you are hearing,
and they never heard it."
They were not given the whole picture.
Remember Daniel did not either. He was
told the meaning of some Scripture
would be hidden until the last days.
Daniel
12:9 And he said, Go thy way, Daniel:
for the words [are] closed up and sealed
till the time of the end.
And comparing Scripture to Scripture we see:
That in all probability David did not understand
totally! SO WHAT!
> How about Ps89:29 "...establish his seed forever, and his
> throne as the days of heaven."
Yes his seed [singular - that is JESUS] was
established forever.
> If you stop there, it could sound like Jesus is the seed
> referred to, ...but then it goes on
> "if his sons forsake My law, and do not walk
> in My judgements, if they violate..."
>
> That doesn't sound like Jesus.
2 Timothy
2:15 Study to show thyself approved unto God,
a workman that needeth not to be ashamed,
rightly dividing the word of truth.
In order to study scripture you have to divide the word
of truth rightly. Clearly a Messiah is in mind early on.
But when we get to the part about forsaking the law
we know it does not apply to Jesus. There is
a break in the Scripture. We are called to discern
and rightly divide.
Nor does the eternal kingdom apply to the
"...sons [who] forsake MY law..."
If it applied to the sons it would be their kingdom.
Clearly it is only HIS kingdom.
> That sounds like the fallable-human descendents of David,
> ...the most obvious reading of the text.
>
> If you spiritualize it to mean Jesus,
> ...it doesn't seem to fit.
You have to rightly divide the word of truth.
Again, let us compare Scripture with Scripture NOT
Scott with Scott.
Luke 4:16-21
He went to Nazareth, where he had
been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went
into the synagogue, as was his custom. And he
stood up to read. The scroll of the prophet Isaiah
was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the
place where it is written: "The Spirit of the Lord
is on me, because he has anointed me to preach
good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim
freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for
the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim
the year of the Lord's favor." Then he rolled up
the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat
down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were
fastened on him, and he began by saying to them,
"Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing."
Luke 4:16-21
But Jesus only quoted half of the Isaiah Prophecy
61:1 The spirit of the Lord GOD [is] upon me;
because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good
tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the
brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and
the opening of the prison to [them that are] bound;
61:2 To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD,
and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn;
NOTICE, he did not preach the vengence part since
it did NOT apply at that time. HE RIGHTLY DIVIDED
the word.
In a like fashion, the sin part only applies to the other
descendents of David but not Jesus while the eternal
Kingdom applies to Jesus ONLY!
Again, you must RIGHTLY DIVIDE the word of truth.
See, I have answered you FROM SCRIPTURE
comparing Scripture with Scripture.
> In refering to this above promise He goes on:
> vs34, 35 "I really mean this" (paraphrase) :)
> vs36, 37 "His seed shall endure forever,
> and his throne as the sun before Me.
> It shall be established forever like the moon"
See above
> If you make the 'establishment' of the throne refer
> to Jesus, then the "if his sons forsake My law..."
> doesn't make sense.
> -Steve
See above
Stevem702
>> by Jesus' use.
>> -Steve
>
>JESUS DID NOT USE THE APOCRYPHA -
>See above!
Jesus used the Septuagint.
The Septuagint had the Apocrypha.
That makes it more interesting than my Sunday school
teacher had me believing.
In any case, my post was very limited.
I simply took issue with *one* false statement of yours.
>> > Apocrypha. It was always questioned.
>> >Always set apart from the other books. -Quark
This was wrong. I corrected it.
The Apocrypha was NOT "Always" set apart from the
other books.
-Steve
Stevem702
"Back" to the LT?
You talk like I've picked up a dead-for-month thread,
instead of one that is on-going, with many posts a day.
The subject heading even *refers to the LT.
What are you talking about ,..."back to"?
-Steve
>You just admitted it was unproveable.
>Shall I quote you from another post.
>
>A quote from Steve:
>
> There is no "proof" either way.
> -Steve
Hmmm.
Was it *I who made claims that my thoughts
on the LT were obviously true and that people on the
other side of the issue were stupid and had no evidence
in support of them whatsoever?
Was it *I who ranted that Doc was unfit to be anyone's
Pastor, largely *because of his "ridiculous" thoughts
regarding LT?
Was that me?
no.
It has been *you spouting absolutes.
I think that people of good will and learning can disagree
on this subject.
You, on the other hand,
think that whoever disagrees with you on this subject
needs admonitions to "rightly divide the Word" and
taunts akin to "go learn something, fool".
Besides, "unprovable" is not the same thing as "un-mentionable",
so why should I be castigated for mentioning LT,
just because I "admit" that it is unprovable either way?
Lighten up.
-Steve
Stevem702
>the LT theory is NOT proven. You admit this!
>
><...snip...>
>
>If so, why does DOC teach it as DOCTRINE.
>
>AND HE DOES!
He uses LT to show another aspect or set of examples
of the faithfulness or reliability of God when it comes to
His promises.
He uses LT to show that God is trustworthy, faithful,
...that His Word is settled in heaven and a good rock
upon which to stand.
He uses LT to glorify God.
What an evil, dogmatic "doctrine" of heresy.
-Steve