Musings on British Israelitism

originally posted by: Hanslune
Yep people have been sloshing about for hundreds of thousands of years - other than generalities everyone is from mostly everywhere if one takes into account your relatives from 80,000 years ago.

Most people have varying amounts of Neanderthal DNA.

Many South Asians and Pacific Islanders have significant Denisovan DNA.

An article in the September 6, 2011 Atlantic Monthly outlined a DNA meta-study which crunched the data from several DNA studies. It found that there are traces of DNA in modern humans from Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Homo naledi, Homo rudolfiensis, Homo ergaster, and various other as-yet-unidentified hominins.

a reply to: Solvedit

With an edit that takes you from a question with racist and religious undertones, to a broad statement of fact about another nation 1000s of miles away and you think im the one that's confused.

Good luck with that big red dragon son.

And the band played on.

a reply to: Solvedit

Ile say what i please mate to within the TnC of the site.

Deal with it or not as the case may be.

And that would be your British Israelites nonsense is exactly that.

As to confusion, well your ticking your own box once again.

originally posted by: andy06shake
With an edit that takes you from a question with racist and religious undertones, to a broad statement of fact about another nation 1000s of miles away and you think im the one that's confused.

All right, I'll make it simple. Many white supremacists claim they're the ten lost tribes of Israel. I would have thought persons interested in this forum knew things like that.

a reply to: Solvedit

Are you a white supremacist?

What you think seems to be along the same to similar lines as the notion of "Anglo-Israelism" with a slight modification.

Aka British people are descendant or one of the 10 tribes of Israel.

Or im i incorrect in that assumption?

If so what is it you are punting that Anglo-Israelism does not?

The above aside, we dont ask questions and then replace them with broad statements in an attempt to cover our tracks around these here parts, as its simply poor form.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Solvedit
The above aside, we dont ask questions and then replace them with broad statements in an attempt to cover our tracks around these here parts, as its simply poor form.

I didn't know you found sarcasm complicated.

Cut and pasted word for word: "if I can't be God's Chosen People, why do they get to?"

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Solvedit
Are you a white supremacist?

White supremacy is silly.

Whiteness is a mutation in one gene which one individual had about 10,000 years ago, somewhere between Israel and India.

The gene only controls the color of the skin and has nothing to do with abilities.

If humans were artificially modified by gene editing, any people on earth could be modified to have European white skin and it would change not a thing about their potential in any other way, except they'd do better in winter when there was no fish, fresh green produce, or vitamin D supplements.

a reply to: Solvedit

I imagine there are a multitude of things that you do not know Solvedit.

Then there is the problem you seem to have answering simple questions.

Try again shall we.

Are you a white supremacist?

And what are you are punting that Anglo-Israelism does not?

a reply to: Solvedit

Well glad you cleared that up any road.

Some may argue that Anglo-Israelism is rather silly, myself included, and also racist.

So there is that.

Cheers for the simplistic explanation as to skin pigmentation and dietary requirements all the same.

originally posted by: andy06shake
What you think seems to be along the same to similar lines as the notion of "Anglo-Israelism" with a slight modification.

Aka British people are descendant or one of the 10 tribes of Israel.

Or im i incorrect in that assumption?

Why don't you read the OP instead of assuming?

OK, I'll bite. I'll spell it out more simply. I quoted another thread post.

The poster claimed one migration into Britain originated in the exact place and approximate time of the disappearance of the ten lost tribes of Israel.

Then I said, it is unlikely the Babylonians captured the Israelites and then turned around and let them go.

I said it is more likely the Babylonians sold the land to some other people. It was my theory that those people were the origin of the migration into Britain which is claimed by others to be from Israel. Then I realized the Persian Empire conquered the area not long after the start of the Babylonian captivity, around 550 B.C.E.

I now question a linguistic basis I thought I had when I posted. I had thought "Erin" sounds like "Iran" but all of Europe except for Malta is thought to be descended in part from the Yamnaya/Aryan people, so both names might simply hearken to a common ancestor of both cultures.

It need not imply the migration into Western Europe which originated from what had been Northern Israel came from Persian people who had moved to Babylon-occupied Israel.

a reply to: Solvedit

Why don't you answer simple questions?

Did the "Babylonians" sell much land back then?

Was it not generally taken by force or colonized?

Aside from the sale of land how is your theory any diffrent form what Anglo-Israelism punts?

Do you think the people of the UK are descendant of one of the tribes of Israel?

Coz if so, that's pretty much Anglo-Israelism, which again could be considered rather a racist notion, with implications as to the believe that we are somehow a superior race aka white supremacy.

It's a shame that you want to virtue signal so badly that you trip over yourself to post an irrational rebuttal while I'm still typing.

Think of the good which would result if virtuous chiefs like you bothered to identify actual racism to rail against instead of being phony.

My ancient history was rusty. The Persians took Babylon in 550 B.C.E.

So the people who are said to have originated from the exact place and approximate time of the Babylonian captivity may in fact be Persian with no purchase of land necessary.

a reply to: Solvedit

It's a shame that you want to virtue signal so badly that you trip over yourself to post an irrational rebuttal while I'm still typing.

If you say so, as to your poor typing skills, thats really not my derry or bag of spanners to carry.

There is software available that can help, well that and practice.

Think of the good which would result if virtuous chiefs like you bothered to identify actual racism to rail against instead of being phony.

You still seem unable to answer simple questions and refuse to point out or distinguish between Anglo-Israelism, and whatever you are punting aside to promote the notion of the sale of land far as i can establish.

Try one more time shall we.

"Do you think the people of the UK are descendant of one of the tribes of Israel?

And

"Aside from the sale of land how is your theory any diffrent form what Anglo-Israelism punts?"

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Solvedit

It's a shame that you want to virtue signal so badly that you trip over yourself to post an irrational rebuttal while I'm still typing.

If you say so, as to your poor typing skills, thats really not my derry or bag of spanners to carry.

There is software available that can help, well that and practice.

Think of the good which would result if virtuous chiefs like you bothered to identify actual racism to rail against instead of being phony.

You still seem unable to answer simple questions and refuse to point out or distinguish between Anglo-Israelism, and whatever you are punting aside to promote the notion of the sale of land far as i can establish.

Try one more time shall we.

"Do you think the people of the UK are descendant of one of the tribes of Israel?

And

"Aside from the sale of land how is your theory any diffrent form what Anglo-Israelism punts?"

You are showing yourself up. Why are you commenting on an ancillary point? Why can't you see the main point of the thread? I assure you, I eventually got to it.

a reply to: Solvedit

Just pulling you on the nonsense you are trying to punt.

Why cant you answer questions?

Aka.

"Do you think the people of the UK are descendant of one of the tribes of Israel?

And

"Aside from the sale of land how is your theory any diffrent form what Anglo-Israelism punts?"

As far as I know there is absolutely no genetic, linguistic, archeological or historical evidence to suggest that any Tribe of Israel, lost or not, ended up in The British Isles.

a reply to: Solvedit

The lion of Judah, the anointing system is very similar if not directly copied from the jewish temple traditions. This does not mean anything, it is an observation. The point i was making is that maybe there is juice to this theory, maybe not. It is irrelevant, because even if its 100% true, it still hold zero validity according to Judaism.

Furthermore, if you want real genetic connections to the lost tribes, look at examples like the Pashtun tribe in Afghanistan, the Lemba tribe in Africa etc.

I would also like to add that from a personal perspective, I find the Scottish history and culture to be influenced from an Israelite tribe more than the british. IN my eyes they seem more similar to Jerusalem culture in that they maintain a mentality or relative temperament less conforming to the Helenistic mentality that is so prevalent in the English culture.

Maybe its rubbish but thats my 2 cents

a reply to: combatmaster

I would also like to add that from a personal perspective, I find the Scottish history and culture to be influenced from an Israelite tribe more than the british.

I take it you mean English because Scotland is a part of Great Britain.

Easy mistake to make all the same.

As to our culture, well Scotland's culture can be traced back near enough a thousand years.

Its a complete melting pot of different peoples over the years aka tribes like the Britons, the Picts, the Angles, the Gaels and the Norse.

Not quite sure about any missing tribes from Israel all the same.

a reply to: andy06shake

Yup, youre prob correct!