Jesus was of the linage of David and Caucasian? The same linage which populated Britain?

In the thread titled “Tourist Slave Wages Taking Aussie Jobs” www.abovetopsecret.com... a statement of fact (outlined below and in the thread title) was raised by member ‘Janadele’ when questioned on the statement no proof of any kind was forthcoming.

I have invited Janadele by U2U to comment in this thread or indeed offer any proof of this claim as she indicated extensive study on the subject and purports the proclamation to be a statement of fact.

As no proof was offered (perhaps slightly off topic) this conspiracy now intrigues me greatly and I would like to get to the bottom of it with your help, knowledge and assistance.

I should state for those wondering, I do not believe in any god, religion or jesus anymore, however I do believe that it is important for those that do to have the correct knowledge and indeed understand accurately the path & teachings that they are wishing to follow.

Further to that, even though I am not religious I can be very interested in the question even though I have no faith, I would still like to understand (if true) how jesus could possibly be caucasian and eventually populate Brittan.

The actual claim made by Janadele: “Jesus was of the linage of David, and Caucasian. The same linage which populated Britain”, she went on further to state that apparently it has something to do with the “Dispersment of the ten tribes”......

Members both of a faith and without any - what is your take on this? Can it be true that jesus was white and populated Britain? As I cannot see how this is possible?

A secondary or sub question I would like to raise to members: As a christian, is correct to help those that need assistance? An example of this would be refugees seeking asylum from a war-ravaged nation. Apparently some christians (and non-christians) believe that we should NOT help these people because of their religion or the colour of their skin and they should just be left to die either in the country of origin or at sea in a leaking boat.

Is this correct christian or human behaviour, or should christians (and non-christians) help in every way possible to assist and bring these people to a safe haven? I don’t believe that this outlook or behaviour of being racist is acceptable from anyone, in my opinion of course.

I say open our shores to people seeking refugee status or seeking asylum, but maybe that is just me…. I did think of course that it is a 'christian thing to do' and the will of your god? Am I wrong?

Again, here is a brief on the statements / questions needing facts, proof or any supporting documentation:

1. Jesus was of the linage of David & caucasion?
2. This linage populated Britain. (Dispersement of the ten tribes?)
3. Should christians help all people in need or only the chosen ones of the right race, religion and colour of skin?

I look forward to your replies.

Mickierocksman

What possible difference could it make to anyone what lineage Jesus was? Either the value of his teachings stand or fall on their merit alone -- nothing else matters. This obsession with lineages, bloodlines, ethnicity, and the rest of it is one of the great distractions to our own situations and natures.

This is what the KKK christian type people believe.

Christian Identity asserts that the white people of Europe or Caucasians in general are God's servant people according to the promises that were given to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. It further asserts that the early European tribes were really the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel and therefore the rightful heirs to God's promises, and God's chosen people.

Which is an offspin of British Israel-ism

British Israelism (also called Anglo-Israelism) is the belief that people of Western European descent, particularly those in Great Britain, are the direct lineal descendants of the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel. The concept often includes the belief that the British Royal Family is directly descended from the line of King David.[1][2] There has never been a single head or organisational structure to the movement. However, various British Israelite organisations were set up across the British Commonwealth and in America from the 1870s, and many continue to exist.[3]

en.wikipedia.org...

It's all complete nonsense

reply to post by metamagic


The reason lineages matter is because throughout history many have grabbed power based on them.

Recognizing that western aristocracies are largely claimants of biblical lineage is an important step in understanding geopolitics.

Posted yesterday on a different thread with links to sites about biblical lineage as they relate to scotland/england

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by metamagic
What possible difference could it make to anyone what lineage Jesus was? Either the value of his teachings stand or fall on their merit alone -- nothing else matters. This obsession with lineages, bloodlines, ethnicity, and the rest of it is one of the great distractions to our own situations and natures.

I think it matters very much to some.

In some cases people of the christian faith has come across very raciest when it comes to people from the ME region for whatever reason they have.

To me, it makes no difference what colour a person’s skin is, or where they are from - but I always thought that jesus would have been of middle eastern origin and that is what I wish to find some answers on as I was told I was incorrect.

The 3 questions stated in the OP are legitimate questions to raise, ATS is a place to find knowledge and hopefully answers whenever possible.

Thanks

Mickierocksman

Originally posted by MassOccurs
Posted yesterday on a different thread with links to sites about biblical lineage as they relate to scotland/england

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Thanks, I will check it out.....

Mickierocksman

There is rumour that Mary Magdalene carried Jesus's unborn child to England (Glastonbury, to be exact).

But even then, the Celts, Picts, Romans where all in Britain way before Jesus was even conceived. And then after Jesus, we had the Anglo-Saxon, Viking, Norman invasions. Pretty well known stuff over here that most kids could tell you, even. So I don't see how Jesus populated Great Britain.

If you have religious belief - then you believe that man was made in Gods own image. Since you posses self-image you then correlate the two and feel a deep, spiritual need to see God and self as same. It's ego subtly painting conscious thought really.

Personally I don't care what color skin Jesus had. It's his message that matters.

~Heff

Take a step back. Noah had 3 sons: Japheth, Shem, and Ham. Ham's descendants populated Africa. Shem's descendants populated Asia. And Japheth's descendants populated Europe. This would have happened long before the Exodus in Egypt.

for the love of crap. Some people buy the most ridiculous rubbish (not referring to you, OP). Replies below:

1. Jesus was of the linage of David & caucasion?

The first half of this sentence is fact. The second half is pretty clearly fiction. Jesus was born to Mary, a Jewess. Let's assume for a moment that the divinity of Christ is fictional, and that his father was in fact merely Joseph, a Jewish carpenter (I personally don't believe this, I'm simply using it for the sake of argument). That would equal 100% Hebrew ancestry. Both Matthew and Luke, writers of two of the four gospels, outlay the genealogies of Christ, from his mother's side in Luke's case, and from his father's side in Matthews. These genealogies were, prior to the destruction of the 2nd temple in 70ad, easily verifiable by anyone who wished to look into them.

These records destroyed along with the temple in 70ad... meaning that anyone who wished to dispute Jesus' right to the throne of David had the means to do so during this period. No contention of any sort was ever made. Importantly, this also means that anyone AFTER 70ad has no basis on which to claim that they are the Messiah from the line of David... because such a claim cannot be proven.

2. This linage populated Britain. (Dispersement of the ten tribes?)

This is called "British Israelism".
It is based upon a particularly horrific interpretation of both Scripture and history, and has no validity. I'll allow you to do your own research on this one, as it's not even worth addressing, in all honesty.

3. Should christians help all people in need or only the chosen ones of the right race, religion and colour of skin?

I'm not entirely sure how this question fits in with the first two.... or how it fits in at all.
I can see two possible threads that might lead to this line of thought:

1) Israel are God's chosen people

2) For a time ("the time of the gentiles"), Israel has suffered God's rejection... and the church, "as one grafted in to the vine", receives this same blessing.

Nowhere in Scripture are these two facts used as a basis for discrimination against anyone. Even in Scripture, the fact that Israel & the Church are "chosen" is purely and simply for the fact that they are the vehicle by which God is unveiling His plan of redemption for ALL of mankind.

Israel was chosen because she was to be the heritage and lineage of the Messiah.

Likewise the church was chosen because she had received and believed the Good News of the Messiah, and was sent out to preach the same, and the news of His impending return.... not to some, but again, to all.

My favourite quote ever on the racism issue actually comes from Robin Hood, Prince of Thieves (I know)... where the Moor, Azim, is asked:

"did God paint you?"

"did God paint me?" (Azim laughs) "Most certainly."

"why?"

"Because Allah loves wonderous variety."


Now, I'm no Muslim, but this quote is pretty fantastic - and utterly correct. Apart from the obvious scientific reasons and benefits to different skin colours, I truly do believe that mankind is all a part of God's wonderous creation - and God is an amazing artist.

Originally posted by Awen24
for the love of crap. Some people buy the most ridiculous rubbish (not referring to you, OP). Replies below:

1. Jesus was of the linage of David & caucasion?

The first half of this sentence is fact. The second half is pretty clearly fiction. Jesus was born to Mary, a Jewess. Let's assume for a moment that the divinity of Christ is fictional, and that his father was in fact merely Joseph, a Jewish carpenter (I personally don't believe this, I'm simply using it for the sake of argument). That would equal 100% Hebrew ancestry. Both Matthew and Luke, writers of two of the four gospels, outlay the genealogies of Christ, from his mother's side in Luke's case, and from his father's side in Matthews. These genealogies were, prior to the destruction of the 2nd temple in 70ad, easily verifiable by anyone who wished to look into them.

These records destroyed along with the temple in 70ad... meaning that anyone who wished to dispute Jesus' right to the throne of David had the means to do so during this period. No contention of any sort was ever made. Importantly, this also means that anyone AFTER 70ad has no basis on which to claim that they are the Messiah from the line of David... because such a claim cannot be proven.

2. This linage populated Britain. (Dispersement of the ten tribes?)

This is called "British Israelism".
It is based upon a particularly horrific interpretation of both Scripture and history, and has no validity. I'll allow you to do your own research on this one, as it's not even worth addressing, in all honesty.

3. Should christians help all people in need or only the chosen ones of the right race, religion and colour of skin?

I'm not entirely sure how this question fits in with the first two.... or how it fits in at all.
I can see two possible threads that might lead to this line of thought:

1) Israel are God's chosen people

2) For a time ("the time of the gentiles"), Israel has suffered God's rejection... and the church, "as one grafted in to the vine", receives this same blessing.

Nowhere in Scripture are these two facts used as a basis for discrimination against anyone. Even in Scripture, the fact that Israel & the Church are "chosen" is purely and simply for the fact that they are the vehicle by which God is unveiling His plan of redemption for ALL of mankind.

Israel was chosen because she was to be the heritage and lineage of the Messiah.

Likewise the church was chosen because she had received and believed the Good News of the Messiah, and was sent out to preach the same, and the news of His impending return.... not to some, but again, to all.

My favourite quote ever on the racism issue actually comes from Robin Hood, Prince of Thieves (I know)... where the Moor, Azim, is asked:

"did God paint you?"

"did God paint me?" (Azim laughs) "Most certainly."

"why?"

"Because Allah loves wonderous variety."


Now, I'm no Muslim, but this quote is pretty fantastic - and utterly correct. Apart from the obvious scientific reasons and benefits to different skin colours, I truly do believe that mankind is all a part of God's wonderous creation - and God is an amazing artist.

edit on 16-8-2012 by Awen24 because: (no reason given)

Wow, thanks for the education, very appreciated.

I will read your post again to let it sink in, I may have a question later.

Thanks again Awen24

Mickierocksman

reply to post by Awen24


actually british-israelism is tracked through scripture.....the U S was founded after the 2250 years of delay spoken of.....the new land was to be given that would abound by far in more natural resources enough to bless the world.....
and just pondering....that skin color thing may be trackable, but why spend any energy on that....bigger thoughts to see along the faith journey,huh!!! manasseh or ephraim.....Ithink britain is ephraim, america manasseh.....it boils down possibly to which one is a group of nations that cover the globe.....The U S is more of a nation of states, not so spread out

edit to say ephraim gets bopped on the head. mannasseh, no

CHRIST in BRITAIN

--------------- www.greatdreams.com...

The study of Jesus in Britain touches on the Royal family, the establishment of the Church, Paul's visit to Britain, and even the founding of the Roman church.

Various and many historical documents indicate that, after Jerusalem, the first Christian church was established in England. It's founder, and founder as well of many seminaries, was Joseph of Arimathea, the uncle of the Virgin Mary. He was Jesus' great uncle. Joseph was a rich merchant with a large fleet of ships that ran the tin trade for the Roman Empire, between England and the Mediterranean.

As Jesus' great uncle, Joseph became Jesus' Guardian (by Law, as next of kin) when Mary's husband Joseph died early in Jesus' life. He took Jesus with him on his journeys to Glastonbury, England. The place we know as Avalon; the King Arthur Avalon. This is the location of the first Christian church built above ground.

To paraphrase an old saying, "All Christian roads lead to England."

Also Modern English Language and Numeric's...Correlate (IN CONTEXT)

A=1 B=2 C=3...Z=26 (Jesus=74) (Messiah=74) (Cross=74) (Point=74) (Connect=74) (Jewish=74) (English=74)

JESUS, Gave A Great Insight...John 21:6 Cast the net on (The Right Side Of=153)

John 21:11 The ( 153 ) Fish Count.

Examples of Correlation - (Jesus Words=153) (Letter Number=153) (Numeric Proof=153) (God Set In Order=153) (Informations=153) (Surely Exact=153) (The Last Language=153)

The DNA studies have revealed a high degree of genetic interrelatedness among Ashkenazi groups, particularly among those of Eastern Europe. This common ancestry can be attributed to a small founding population, coupled with rapid population growth and a high rate of endogamy over the past 500 years. The studies also indicate a sharing of genetic ancestry between eastern and western Ashkenazim, supporting the view that some portion of Eastern European Jewry was founded by western Ashkenazim.

DNA research has also revealed significant genetic links between Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jewish populations, despite their separation for generations. With the Cohanim study, researchers found a clear genetic connection between the Jewish priests and a shared Israelite ancestor from the past. Additional genetic results suggest that the Ashkenazim can trace at least part of their ancestry to their Israelite forbearers.

But Jewish DNA presents a picture that is far more complex than just the Cohanim results. This picture is also far more diverse than what many genetic studies on Ashkenazi Jews would suggest. Instead, many of those studies have focused heavily on the Israelite DNA results, often downplaying the significant contribution of European and Khazarian ancestors. The examination of only a single component of Jewish ancestry has resulted in an incomplete and, to a certain extent, distorted presentation of the Jewish genetic picture.

Diversity was present from Jewish beginnings, when various Semitic and Mediterranean peoples came together to form the Israelites of long ago. The genetic picture was clearly enriched during the Diaspora, when Jews spread far and wide across Europe, attracting converts and intermarrying over time with their European hosts. The most recent DNA evidence indicates that from this blending of Middle Eastern and European ancestors, the diverse DNA ancestry of the Ashkenazi Jews emerged.

Although the debate over the fate of the Khazars is far from over, DNA research suggests that remnants of these mysterious people continue to exist within the genetic makeup of Ashkenazi Jews. In fact, the Levite results indicate that the Khazars became fully integrated into the Ashkenazi communities and came to play an important role within the Jewish priesthood.

The Cohanim results do not disprove the genetic contribution of the Khazars. Rather, the DNA studies indicate that Jews are not entirely Khazarian, Israelite or European in genetic makeup, but a complex and unique mixture of all these peoples.

Genetic studies of the future will hopefully clarify many of the remaining mysteries surrounding the origins and formation of the Ashkenazi communities. For instance, the origins and distribution of the most common mtDNA haplogroup among Ashkenazim – haplogroup K – remains unexplored. Additionally, tantalizing differences in the genetic makeup of western and eastern Ashkenazi populations remain to be fully investigated by DNA researchers.

In addition to the Ashkenazim, many other Jewish groups are ripe for study by genetic researchers. Examination of these groups will no doubt help illuminate their common genetic bonds as well as their differences with other Jewish populations. "

www.jogg.info...

Also Interesting "Adam=19" and "DNA=19

Mod Edit: No Quote/Plagiarism – Please Review This Link.
Mod Edit: External Source Tags Instructions – Please Review This Link.

reply to post by ResearchEverything777


Wow, thank you ResearchEverything777, it’s obvious that you do ‘research’ – I think I’m going to read your post at least 3 times and I may need a degree in mathematics to understand it

I thank you for your post, I may have a question later – I will get back to you.

From what I can see so far…. It’s not an easy question to answer is it?

Mickierocksman

reply to post by ResearchEverything777


Ever notice that MJ = 23, as in Micheal Jordan and his number... always found that interesting. Maybe he's an agent of the British/Jewish establishment?

I'm interested in the implications of all this... The entire world has been touched by Britain/America in a major way. Even a country like China, which was never formally colonized, has an economy that centers on the Western industrial concept.

The world has been primed for messiah...

reply to post by GBP/JPY

Ithink britain is ephraim, america manasseh

If the British were indeed descended from the Israelites, their culture would have contained at least some remains of Israelite culture. But instead we see nothing that is reminiscent of Israelite culture.

I've also read a claim (mainly by white supremacists) that the various groups of Caucasians (Nordics, celtics, saxons, etc.) are actually the lost tribes of Israel. But these groups were already in existence when the tribes dispersed.

The claim that the British or any other European people are descended from the Israelites is not backed up by anything. I will never understand why people, with their own unique culture insist on identifying themselves as somebody else.

Humans were in Europe before Jesus was even born, the claim makes no historical sense.

According to the history books the romans were in England at about 55 BC. And according to the bible Jesus would have to have been from the blood line of king david and the tribe of Juda I think. I think other Jews would know if for some reason he didn't seem to look Jewish. And I think as he got popular people would know all his relatives and parents. So I'd say no deal.

Also the Norway vikings were invading for years. First at around 790 AD. Eventually got assimilated to create the scotts man and many of the strange ethnic mixes as they owned most of england at one time. I think. So that's why they look so white they got Sandinavian in them. As white as you can get thats' why the Nazi's loved them.

No. Please read a little more.

Jesus was brown.