In 2014, David Vejil wrote the above-named article for the Philadelphia Church of God. It is an attempt to prove where the people who call themselves Germans came from and what they are destined to do. Anyone with a history in the Church of God will know where the article is headed.
Germany’s recent history is marred by the two most destructive wars in human history and the most systematic genocide. Were these two world wars flukes? History shows that Germany’s ancient history is also filled with blood and violence. Just who were the ancient Germans, and where did they come from? The answers will not only surprise you, but they will also help you understand Germany’s immediate future!Several months ago, a writer for the Philadelphia Trumpet and for the Phildalephia Chruch of God left the PCG. On June 17th, I posted the resignation letter of Kieren Underwood here:
The article mentioned in Underwood's resignation letter about Germany is below:
“In his Chronik, Aventinus fabricated a succession of Teutonic kings stretching back to the Great Flood, ruling over vast swathes of Germany and surrounding regions until the 1st century BC, and involving themselves in numerous events from Biblical and Classical history.
These rulers and their exploits are mostly fictitious, though some are derived from mythological, legendary or historical figures. Examples of the latter are Boiger, Kels II and Teutenbuecher, whose joint reign is given as 127–100 BC, and who are based on King Boiorix of the Cimbri, the unnamed king of the Ambrones, and King Teutobod of the Teutons.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Aventinus)- You then move on to say that the “Assyrians were forced to settle the southern shores of the Black sea by a group of invading warriors from Central Asia.” (Who were Scythians.) You also quote Herodotus, who mentions that there are Assyrians in Cappadocia.This only proves that some Assyrians were moved to Cappadocia (by the Black Sea). Actually, the vast majority were not taken captive to this area. You can find this information in literally any history book on Assyria. After the Scythians weakened the Assyrians, the Medes, Persians and Parthians (and others) joined in on the fighting. The Assyrians were eventually conquered around 605 BC. Yet they were not taken captive and deported!“Certainly by 599 BC at the very latest, Assyria had been destroyed as an independent political entity, although it was to launch major rebellions against the Achaemenid Empire in 546 BC and 520 BC, and remained a geo-political region, ethnic entity and colonised province until the late 7th century AD, with small Assyrian states emerging in the region between the 2nd century BC and 4th century AD.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyria)Even if you could prove some of those Assyrians in Cappadocia moved into Germany, the vast majority are still in Mesopotamia!
You then quote Mike Edwards from National Geographic, who is talking about the Scythians (supposedly the Scythians who are actually Assyrians): “Nomads and fierce warriors, they lived in Central Asia … and their culture spread westward to southern Russia and Ukraine, and even into Germany.”
Hmm, why is the full quote not given here? What is between the ellipsis? Here’s the full quote: “Nomads and fierce warriors, they lived in Central Asia as early as the ninth century B.C., and their culture spread westward to southern Russia and Ukraine, and even into Germany.” (http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0306/feature7/index.html)
Clearly, the full quote is not given here because it reveals that this is talking of the real Scythians—who were in Central Asia (rather than Mesopotamia) in the 9thcentury—and not the Assyrian-Scythians you claim they are.
Even if this were talking of the Assyrians, Edwards says they moved into southern Russia, Ukraine and Germany. So, is southern Russia and Ukraine also descended from Assyria then? By your logic, all three of these regions are now modern-day Assyria.
- You then quote Pliny the Elder, who says: “The name ‘Scythian’ has extended, in every direction, even to the Sarmatae and the Germans…”
So, by your own admission, the Scythians were clearly a conglomerate of a number of different peoples—all lumped together by historians. But somehow, out of all this, when some historian says Scythian and they happen to move into Europe, they must be the Assyrian-Scythians! Of course! There’s no other explanation.
- Then, under the subtitle “More Proof,” you quote Smith’s Dictionary of Biography, Mythology and Geography, “Germania”: “[T]here can be no doubt that they … migrated into Europe from the Caucasus and the countries around the Black and Caspian seas.”
Ah, here is the ellipsis again. What is being hidden here? Here is the full quote: “The Germans regarded themselves as indigenous in the country: but there can be no doubt that they were a branch of the great Indo-Germanic race, who, along with the Celts,migrated into Europe from the Caucasus and the countries around the Black and Caspian seas…” (https://archive.org/details/b2178050x)
Now, that is just ridiculous. What is removed from the quote is the most important part, because it shows that whoever the Indo-Germans were who moved (you clearly are saying it is Assyrians, but that is your assumption), they moved along with the Celts!
There are only two explanations here. (1) You failed to check the original quote in Smith’s Dictionary, or (2) you checked the original and took out the information which would incriminate the quote. This is either ignorance or outright fraud.
- You then quote Jerome who talks about numerous tribes overrunning parts of Gaul. “Quadi, Vandals, Sarmatians, Alans, Gepids, Herules, Saxons, Burgundians, Allemanni and … even Pannonians.”
By this point, you’ve pretty much given up on trying to convince the reader that these are Assyrian. You just say that historians says these are Germanic tribes, and expect the reader to realize that in your mind, Germanic already means Assyrian. So there—proven!
- You then go on to write that “the Germans and Assyrians share the same physical features, the same warlike tendencies and even certain characteristics in art.”This is almost laughable. I mean, really? The same physical characteristics? As in … light skinned? So, by that reasoning, all of Europe is also Assyria, and also Britain and America, oh, and Russia as well. As for their warlike characteristics, here is a real historian’s analysis:
While the reputation for decisive, ruthless, military tactics is understandable, the comparison with the Nazi regime is less so. Unlike the Nazis, the Assyrians treated the conquered people they relocated well (as already addressed above) and considered them Assyrians once they had submitted to central authority. There was no concept of a 'master race' in Assyrian policies; everyone was considered an asset to the empire whether they were born Assyrian or were assimilated into the culture. Kriwaczek notes, “In truth, Assyrian warfare was no more savage than that of other contemporary states. Nor, indeed, were the Assyrians notably crueler than the Romans, who made a point of lining their roads with thousands of victims of crucifixion dying in agony.” (https://www.ancient.eu/assyria/)And then you go on to give approximately … no proof about them having “certain characteristics in art.”
- Finally, “the clincher,” as you say, is that no other country “could fulfill the prophecies of the Bible that pertain to Germany.”
Do you give any reasoning for this? No. Just read our booklet Germany and the Holy Roman Empire, which also assumes Assyria is Germany! You could prove literally anything with this circular reasoning.
I wonder what the Assyrian Church of the East thinks about the fact that you believe they are so deceived that they do not even realize they are not in fact Assyrian! If they are not Assyrian, then what are they? This is never, ever addressed by anyone who claims that Germany is modern-day Assyria.
You have two options. (1) Research this article again and provide proper reasoning and proof that Germany is modern-day Assyria. (2) Admit that this whole effort is a complete fabrication, and denounce the article you have written.
I am confident that if you put any serious time and thought into this, you will choose option (2).