I grew up in the Worldwide Church of God cult, founded by Herbert W. Armstrong. In this video, I discuss one of the cult's main beliefs - British Israelism - and why it is wrong.
I grew up in the Worldwide Church of God cult, founded by Herbert W. Armstrong. In this video, I discuss one of the cult's main beliefs - British Israelism - and why it is wrong.
26 comments:
Good video. Paired with the dna evidence, it shows why BI cannot be.
BI is wrong because people like Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob never existed. There were no 12 sons of Jacob. Jewish history does not go back that far. There is no evidence for the patriarchs apart from the Bible. The Bible lacks corroboration from archaelolgy and history. Well, I suppose there might be some corroborating narratives in the Talmud, but it is so full of anti-biblical and preposterous stuff that nobody would take it seriously.
Jesus was unequivocal in claiming He was the Messiah.
And the scripture unequivocally points to Jesus as humanities saviour.
It’s clear and we are left in no doubt about it.
BI on the other hand……..it’s quite bizarre that this ‘debate’ about BI continues, why the scriptures supporting this myth, which it is, pointing to the identity of the Uk and British as Israelites are unequivocally absent.
Jesus at no time clearly and precisely identifies the Anglo peoples as Semitic. End of story.
At the end of the video he talks about Oregon. I had to do some research online about Oregon's history involving black people after slavery. Very interesting topic. I wonder what happened to Worldwide?
There's more than ample evidence proving that the Christian Bible is true for those who seek His Truth. "Patterns of Evidence" series has been a blessing in proving to me the veracity of God's Word. So those who claim there's no evidence that prove the existence of God, Jesus or the Bible are blind fools leading other blind fools.
Annon 10:40 "So those who claim there's no evidence that prove the existence of God, Jesus or the Bible are blind fools leading other blind fools."
Okay, so let's use this statement of yours to segue into this topic of the lost tribes of Israel in the Bible
So Christ is your savior and you believe in what He says correct. Well, this is what He said:
Matthew 15:24 But He answered and said, “I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”
So in this Bible of yours, He went where, Europe, Britain? Nope He went to his own Jewish people who were lost. Armstrongism will have you believing Christ was sent to a whole other region. Think about it.
11:38
You assert that there is no Abraham or some other patriarchs because there is lack of evidence. But lack of evidence itself is not a demonstration that these people did not exist. If the evidence is lacking, that means you don't know whether or not they exist. You have drawn the conclusion that they do not exist based on something else.
I do not know if there was a real Abraham. He might have been allegorical. But I think there probably was a real Abraham. I cannot prove that to you just as you cannot prove to me that he did not exist. Many other accepted figures in history may not have existed for lack of evidence. They may have been only legend. We all trust certain authorities when it comes to history - we may trust historical records of some sort - written accounts that include the Bible. There is an English historical record that indicates that King Arthur might have existed although he sounds like a legendary figure. What I am saying is that if you commit to an opinion on these issues, with little evidence, you may be quite wrong.
This is a good summary presentation. It would give any rational mind pause to consider the origins of BI and do some research. I would have thought that the Splinter groups would have long abandoned the notion of British-Israelism because it is such a blatant falsity and limits the growth of their church to people to people who tend to believe conspiracy theories with whatever baggage that brings.
It is worth mentioning that according to BI, the ten tribes lived in the area of northern Palestine before being hauled off by the Assyrians and resettled around the Assyrian Empire. But archeogentics has never found evidence in burials in Palestine of a population of people with the same genetic profile as the northwest europeans. It just does not exist. That means that the British never lived in Palestine and their history is disjoint from the Biblical history of the Jews. BI supporters can cite the legends of Tea Tephi and others all they want. They need to plausibly account for why there is an absence northwest european genetics in ancient Palestine or they have no case. This should be the focus of any archaeological dig supported by Armstrongists - it would seem to have priority over any thing else since it is foundational to their theology.
When I started attending the WWCG, I had honest doubts about many things, including things in the bible itself. But I worked hard and acted on what I understood to be true. This resulted in God obviously blessing me and answering my prayers. On occasion the holy spirit with its unique emotional feel, put scriptures into my mind to explain certain situations. It also affirmed BI.
That people are still at elementary school level about the validity of the bible after often many decades represents a massive sin of omission on these people's part.
Wrong, 1:18, the scriptures do support where the Israelites migrated. And the lost chapter of Acts, which wasn't included in the canon (because they didn't want you to know this, and because the Roman church wanted Rome, not Britain, to be the final destination for the gospel, to give it supremacy) supports this as well.
And, 5:20, re Mt 15:24, Christ was travelling to the Sidon/Tyre region (Asher's lot) when He made this statement because some Israelites were there, no doubt. It's already been pointed out in another thread that a small percentage of the northern house of Israel came back from the captivity to settle in Judah so Judah could be called "Israel" too because it retained reps of the 12 tribes.
Christ, in the person of the apostles and 70 witnesses, DID go to all lands, even though He primarily preached in the promised lands. So what's your problem? The gospel did go to all of Europe, to both Israelites and gentiles, through the work of the apostles and the church.
"the lost (last?) chapter of Acts, which wasn't included in the canon."???? Really?
Are you arguing from an imaginary chapter? Well, from the 25th chapter of Revelation, I argue that David Pack is mentioned by name, as well as the Continuing Church of God.
"They need to plausibly account for why there is an absence northwest European genetics in ancient Palestine or they have no case."
This is straight out of Rules for radicals by Saul D. Alinsky. This is rule number 3:
"Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of your enemy." This is in contrast to rule number 2 of: "Never go outside the expertise of your people."
A double standard, no? So we all have to become geneticists and archaeologists to answer the above. To hell with the "plausibly account" ploy.
My response to anon. 9:25:00 good post, but I agree to disagree. This notion of a few Israelites came back or a small percentage is not on the Bible. The Bible doesn’t say a few, it’s just that , you and others want it to be a few or small percentage. And that’s a sad commentary coming from Armstrongism. It just doesn’t name the Israelites, like the priest, and levites.
Here’s what we do know:
After the Assyrian captivity, you have King Hezekiah that sends letters to the Israelites
2 Chronicles 30:18 For a multitude of the people, many from Ephraim, Manasseh, Issachar, and Zebulun, had not cleansed themselves, yet they ate the Passover contrary to what was written. But Hezekiah prayed for them, saying,
So a multitude means many, that’s the definition of a multitude. They would eventually obey God and that is most important.
2 Chronicles 30:21 So the children of Israel who were present at Jerusalem kept the Feast of Unleavened Bread seven days with great gladness; and the Levites and the priests praised the Lord day by day, singing to the Lord, accompanied by loud instruments.
And this is why they are mentioned again even after the Babylonian captivity in 1 Chron. 9:2-3. To obey God
Here’s why I disagree with you.
Physically not only do you have Anna from the tribe of Asher dwellings in Jerusalem in the Temple in (Luke 2:36), again obeying God.
Spiritually let’s put the scriptures together:
John 10:27 My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me.
Okay COGs let’s use this verse:
John 10:16 And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd.
Again spiritually, they shall hear His voice. He’s talking about Gentile converts! Gentile Christian’s are a part of his sheep ( flock) too
You guys error in that you put physical Israel over spiritual Israel. It’s sad. You guys embrace a group that we’re lost physically and spiritually and ignore the ones that came back that obeyed God. Hypocrisy, all while clsimubg to love Gods law and statutes.
Unfortunately some adherents to the myth of BI resort to the old ‘Lost chapter of Acts’ as evidence and validation of their belief in BI. Or pull out the old Matthew ‘lost sheep of Israel’ argument.
These have been addressed here by this blog many times over and show how intellectually sloppy and wanting BI truely is.
It must be repeated, the Anglo Saxon peoples are not Semitic.
What is gratifying is that the adherents and proponents and groups supporting BI are rapidly declining, as more embrace the gospel of Jesus Christ, of which BI has no part ever.
I don't know how one could expect to prove the patriarchs existed by modern standards of examination. They were just homesteaders moving about the area according to the text. Short of a contemporary reference, like a receipt on a potsherd or something, there wouldn't be much to substantiate them. Out of all of them, Joseph would likely be the easiest to sniff out due to the high office he supposedly held in Egypt, but what we do have to possibly confirm that story is pretty meager stuff that isn't exactly uncontestable.
I suppose it doesn't matter so much whether the patriarchs existed as it does that the Hebrews believed they did and did things accordingly - the partitioning of the twelve tribes, regarding the Edomites as relatives through Jacob, referencing Abraham even in Jesus' time, etc.
Thiel has a funny piece up today where he touts the possible discovery of the city of Ziklag as more proof that David existed. I was a little amused as that doesn't prove much - only that a Ziklag may have existed at some point. How many fictional characters in American literature live in New York or Los Angeles? The cities existing in real life means nothing in and of itself.
11:38
Well, err, the full spectrum may be outside your personal expertise but you can always read a layman's version of how genetics works. You can also trust the research of scientists using the scientific method. This is not a ploy it is a challenge to you to self-educate and think instead of pallidly capitulating to Armstrongism. Time to think for yourself.
Scout
I am apalled. Some of these ideas from BI supporters are really at the irrational fringe. You get the feeling that you need to switch from a discussion of BI to some kind of discussion about how reality and fantasy are two different things - why it is that you can't just make up something and parade it around as the truth. About 78 percent of White Evangelicals support Donald Trump. I had a feeling that this was all going to wind up in a bad place. The Bible has become a haunt of the naive.
Scout
Even less substantiation for that than "Secret Mark", and thats saying something. You never know, maybe someday a lucky turn of a spade will uncover something exciting, but...
Interestingly, HWA expoused the exact same concept in his "how to win an argument" sidebar in his autobiography. Alinsky hardly invented it.
No, 11:55, we know or should know that some of Israel came back (or stayed behind?) when the Lord expelled the majority of them from their lands to parts of west and east of Assyria, as well as to Media (corroborated by Tobit), because Scripture says so in 2 Chron 30:18. The question is how many? It couldn't have been many because other wise you deny that there was any deportation. The verses you quote don't prove anything. 2 Chron 30:18 only says that many OF THE PEOPLE ASSEMBLED THERE were unclean, not that there were many of the northern kingdom present. No, the majority of them were off and running to the east and west. As for Jn 10:16, no it doesn't necessarily refer to gentiles only but to both Israelites and gentiles whom God would call into the church.
But, you're right. If we put bloodlines ahead of faith, we err, but we are dealing with the subject of national identities here, and people are free to accept the secular histories or not. Some are intrigued by their ancestral beginnings while others convulse over it, esp if Scripture is used to support it.
Why is it an important subject? Because in the kingdom of God the twelve tribes will be resettled in their original lands near Christ, they are the bearers of the blessings of the forefathers, and through them the gentiles would be blessed and saved from their sins. All honourable things and prophesied. They are included in God's plans so thus we should rejoice in this because it shows that He is compassionate and merciful enough to take back a people whom He punished and exiled for sin.
Anonymous 1:27 wrote, " Because in the kingdom of God the twelve tribes will be resettled in their original lands near Christ, they are the bearers of the blessings of the forefathers, and through them the gentiles would be blessed and saved from their sins. All honourable things and prophesied."
There are some problems with this statement. I do not think the various Jewish tribes exist distinctly. I do not know of the Ashkenazi identifiying tribes nor the Mizrahi. If you are hearkening to BI and think that Belgium is Asher and Switzerland is Gad, that is malarkey. Have a look at:
https://armstrongismlibrary.blogspot.com/2023/01/bubonic-plague-massacres-captive-women.html
If you have any questions about it, I will be checking back on this page.
The other problem is that you characterize salvation as being mediated to the Gentiles through the tribes of Israel. Paul would disagree with you on that. He wrote in 1 Timothy 2:5:
"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus"
I do not think that the nations will be insolated from God by the tribes of Israel. You may be hearkening back to Dean Blackwell's preaching of the Seventies which had the tribes of Israel ruling over the Gentiles for eternity. That malarkey was based on a mistranslation of a verse in Genesis.
Scout
I don’t know about that either anon 8:33, as I agree with you.
I’m also reminded of the words of Jesus Christ, when he was addressing his own kindred.
Luke 13:28-29 There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, and yourselves thrust out. They will come from the east and the west, from the north and the south, and sit down in the kingdom of God.
Matthew 12:41-42 The men of Nineveh will rise up in the judgment with this generation and condemn it, because they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and indeed a greater than Jonah is here. The queen of the South will rise up in the judgment with this generation and condemn it
In Isaiah mentioned:
Isaiah 56:3-5 Do not let the son of the foreigner Who has joined himself to the Lord Speak, saying, “The Lord has utterly separated me from His people”; Nor let the eunuch say, “Here I am, a dry tree.” For thus says the Lord: “To the eunuchs who keep My Sabbaths, And choose what pleases Me, And hold fast My covenant, Even to them I will give in My house And within My walls a place and a name Better than that of sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name That shall not be cut off.
There are so many verses that debunks the ideology of salvation as being mediated to the Gentiles through the tribes of Israel (as you mentioned).
In response to Anon 1:27:
Part of the problem with the ideology of the Gentiles being blessed because of the tribes of Israel, is that it ignores obedience. It’s actually because of the obedience of Abraham (Gen. 22:18). See the tribes of Israel went into captivity because of their disobedience. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob didn’t have to go through captivity, because they were obedient faith. The blessings are not given due to tribal existence, rather they are given because of obedience.
Genesis 12:3 I will bless those who bless you, And I will curse him who curses you; And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”
Apostle Paul takes the opportunity to use Genesis 12:1-3 and apply it to the Gentiles receiving God’s blessings through Abraham to the Gentile Christians in Galatia.
Galatians 3:8-9 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, “In you all the nations shall be blessed.” So then those who are of faith are blessed with believing Abraham.
The Blessings are spiritually currently taking place for those in Christ (Eph 1:3). Therefore the Gentiles are being blessed now if they have Christ as their Lord and Savior. Gentile Christians don't have to wait until after the Kingdom is set up.
See Armstrongnism ignores the Apostle Paul’s use of the blessings being spiritual. Armstrongism has duped many who fixate on the birthright blessings and focuses on the physical blessings of the wealth of America and Britain and so forth from Genesis 12:3 while living in the NT covenant era. He ignored Paul’s usage which was a mistake. We all make mistakes in this life.
We have to try and not put race over obedience when considering salvation.
Some of the responses here show how desperate some are to keep afloat the lies of Armstrongism. Reminds me of the way the democrats desperately try to keep afloat their many disproven lies.
The parameters of the problem:
Armstrongism now or at one time asserted the following:
- Adam, Jesus and God himself are all of the White Race.
- The Northwest Europeans predominate as the Chosen People of God.
- The dominant people in the world throughout history are the Northwest Europeans (Hoeh's compendium cannot be thought of as anything less than a dissertation on this topic.)
- "Israel" will rule over the Gentiles for eternity.
- White People are the only people actually created in the image of God. (This was never preached but is an inevitable, logical consequence of Armstrongist dogma.)
This is nothing less than White Supremacy even though Armstrongists may have couched it differently. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. These parameters have influenced the Armstrongist view on reality and on church practice for decades. No doubt many people warm a seat in the pews of various Armstrongist denominations because they are attracted to these views. They want their gospel with a big dash of Bible-backed White advocacy.
Yep, and this why they ignore the Joseph and Asenath union (Gen. 46:20) or any other related unions for that matter. Armstrongism must maintain white supremacy. They can change, but they won't.
Post a Comment