the monarchy

[ncn]

The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge have named their son George Alexander Louis, Kensington Palace has said.

 

He will be known as His Royal Highness Prince George of Cambridge..

.

[nebula]

No, the bible indicates they would be as Gentiles, and Hosea is so brave as to call them "sons of the Living God".  When I read the book of John, there's only one place I read that, and it's those who believe on the name of Christ. So, these people would become what we'd call Christian nations today (although that title is rapidly disappearing).  Now there's only a few called out ones today, while the rest hold onto a form of godliness and religiosity, akin to the adulterous practices ancient Israel practiced. But as Paul stated, the fall of them is for the salvation of the world in which many of the famous missionaries and bible societies formed to preach Christ.  Me thinks the message of Christ, i.e. the proclamation of the Coming Kingdom would be far more effective  coming from people who are resident to, and backed up by powerful nations rather than being lost in the third world nation somewhere IMO. In the latter case, Christianity would probably never have been heard of.  So, as Paul stated, whether Christ is preached (mostly) out of contention, or in truth, either way, he's being proclaimed which would not be the case if everyone just disappeared into oblivion somewhere.

 

 

I disagree. The interpretation you have given to the verses you have pointed to take a lot of imagination stretching to come to those conclusions.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

 

Here's something interesting:

 

List of countries ruled by a monarchy

 

 

Wow - Norway, Netherlands, Sweden, and Spain still have monarchies.

 

 

Why is it that England's monarchy are made to be celebrities, while we know nothing of these other nations' monarchies?

__________________________

 

Many of the European monarches have genealogies that trace back to Zarah-Judah, the prince of the scarlet thread (Genesis 17:4-6, Genesis 38:26-30), but the British lineage can be traced directly to Zedekiah (of King David), aka the "tender one" or tender twig which was his daughter (Ezekiel 17:22-24), thus fulfilling the earlier promise in 2 Samuel 7 that I posted, that's the main line (throne) over the many nations. In the bible, you often have many branches, geneological children of a patriarch, thus fulfilling the multiplicity of seed (and many nations), but if you noticed, only one gets the special attention, i.e. one chosen in each line for a special purpose.

 

That's what I believe, anyway, as shown by scripture I supplied.

 

 

So you're saying the line of David = the British Lineage? Wow.

I've never heard of that before. My first response is that is a bit off.

 

God bless,

GE

 

______________________________

 

Yep.  That's right.  That's what I believe. Also, the tribes of Israel that migrated became nations in the NW European nations, and Britain, and ultimately the USA.  So I take the prophetic warnings to Israel very seriously, in which the Jew is not all of Israel, but only part.

 

I won't credit Herbert W. Armstrong with discovering all of latter day prophecy, although he was good at it.  The book about the lost tribes of Israel was written by a Methodist minister by the name of J. H Allen circa 1900 AD.

 

In the past, this knowledge may have bypassed some people because they only had radio over 100 years ago.  But in this age of the Internet, I'm surprised you missed this with "knowledge increasing" as Daniel prophesied. You were mis-taught, I believe, if you did not hear of this.  The resources are out there; we just have to come out of the shell of traditions of men to learn of these things.

 

My question to you is, if there is NOT a throne on earth today from King David's lineage, then how do you reconcile that promise in 2 Samuel 7 of an eternal throne?  I'm curious, because if there is not someone on the throne, then God is a liar and the bible is false and the atheists have a point. That's my observation, anyway.

 

That is false teaching known as the Identity cult or "British Israelism."   I will address this heresy in a day or so.

[gnomonist]

 

No, the bible indicates they would be as Gentiles, and Hosea is so brave as to call them "sons of the Living God".  When I read the book of John, there's only one place I read that, and it's those who believe on the name of Christ. So, these people would become what we'd call Christian nations today (although that title is rapidly disappearing).  Now there's only a few called out ones today, while the rest hold onto a form of godliness and religiosity, akin to the adulterous practices ancient Israel practiced. But as Paul stated, the fall of them is for the salvation of the world in which many of the famous missionaries and bible societies formed to preach Christ.  Me thinks the message of Christ, i.e. the proclamation of the Coming Kingdom would be far more effective  coming from people who are resident to, and backed up by powerful nations rather than being lost in the third world nation somewhere IMO. In the latter case, Christianity would probably never have been heard of.  So, as Paul stated, whether Christ is preached (mostly) out of contention, or in truth, either way, he's being proclaimed which would not be the case if everyone just disappeared into oblivion somewhere.

 

 

I disagree. The interpretation you have given to the verses you have pointed to take a lot of imagination stretching to come to those conclusions.

 

________________________________

 

Well, that's not the only passage the bible, but it begs the question, why are the Israelites called the sons of the living God in the place of their exile? Let's take Genesis.  Abraham was promised both physical seed and spiritual seed. Spiritual seed are those of faith obviously be they natural seed or not.  Physical seed come from an actual branch of people. Now clearly that says that his seed would become many nations (those are political units) with many kings.  Israel was not many nations, and they will not be after their return (c.f. Ezekiel 37). When (or how) was this ever fulfilled?  Now these are straightforward covenantal promises to the Patriarchs. So they have to become many.  My "imagination" regarding Hosea is merely an extrapolation of the covenants clearly stated, e.g. Israel was to become as the "sand of the sea". That's what I believe anyway.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

No, the bible indicates they would be as Gentiles, and Hosea is so brave as to call them "sons of the Living God".  When I read the book of John, there's only one place I read that, and it's those who believe on the name of Christ. So, these people would become what we'd call Christian nations today (although that title is rapidly disappearing).  Now there's only a few called out ones today, while the rest hold onto a form of godliness and religiosity, akin to the adulterous practices ancient Israel practiced. But as Paul stated, the fall of them is for the salvation of the world in which many of the famous missionaries and bible societies formed to preach Christ.  Me thinks the message of Christ, i.e. the proclamation of the Coming Kingdom would be far more effective  coming from people who are resident to, and backed up by powerful nations rather than being lost in the third world nation somewhere IMO. In the latter case, Christianity would probably never have been heard of.  So, as Paul stated, whether Christ is preached (mostly) out of contention, or in truth, either way, he's being proclaimed which would not be the case if everyone just disappeared into oblivion somewhere.

 

 

I disagree. The interpretation you have given to the verses you have pointed to take a lot of imagination stretching to come to those conclusions.

 

________________________________

 

Well, that's not the only passage the bible, but it begs the question, why are the Israelites called the sons of the living God in the place of their exile? Let's take Genesis.  Abraham was promised both physical seed and spiritual seed. Spiritual seed are those of faith obviously be they natural seed or not.  Physical seed come from an actual branch of people. Now clearly that says that his seed would become many nations (those are political units) with many kings.  Israel was not many nations, and they will not be after their return (c.f. Ezekiel 37). When (or how) was this ever fulfilled?  Now these are straightforward covenantal promises to the Patriarchs. So they have to become many.  My "imagination" regarding Hosea is merely an extrapolation of the covenants clearly stated, e.g. Israel was to become as the "sand of the sea". That's what I believe anyway.

 

"sand of the sea" is nothing but a hyperbolic statement.

 

Sorry but there is no credible research that supports your claims.  British israelism is an anti-Semitic teaching that has no place in the Body of Christ, and does not reflect anything but very sloppy theology and poor biblical exegesis.  

[GoldenEagle]

 

So you're saying the line of David = the British Lineage? Wow.

I've never heard of that before. My first response is that is a bit off.

 

God bless,

GE

 

______________________________

 

Yep.  That's right.  That's what I believe. Also, the tribes of Israel that migrated became nations in the NW European nations, and Britain, and ultimately the USA.  So I take the prophetic warnings to Israel very seriously, in which the Jew is not all of Israel, but only part.

 

I won't credit Herbert W. Armstrong with discovering all of latter day prophecy, although he was good at it.  The book about the lost tribes of Israel was written by a Methodist minister by the name of J. H Allen circa 1900 AD.

 

In the past, this knowledge may have bypassed some people because they only had radio over 100 years ago.  But in this age of the Internet, I'm surprised you missed this with "knowledge increasing" as Daniel prophesied. You were mis-taught, I believe, if you did not hear of this.  The resources are out there; we just have to come out of the shell of traditions of men to learn of these things.

 

My question to you is, if there is NOT a throne on earth today from King David's lineage, then how do you reconcile that promise in 2 Samuel 7 of an eternal throne?  I'm curious, because if there is not someone on the throne, then God is a liar and the bible is false and the atheists have a point. That's my observation, anyway.

 

 

I was not familiar with this ideology. At least not in this form. I assume this would go along with Replacement Theology? Personally, I find it amusing. However, I am familiar with Herbert W. Armstrong and the WCoG (Worldwide Church of God).

I have serious issues with Mr. Armstrong's teachings particularly in the areas of following Levitical law, following the Sabbath, his stance on eternal judgment, his stance on the trinity, allowing others to call him a modern day apostle/prophet, his stance on modern medicine, his very oppressive dress code, a supposed third resurrection, and now I’ll add British Israelism.

 

From I have read it seems the tenants of British Israelism have been refuted from a Biblical standpoint. Also the evidence of modern genetic, linguistic, archeological, and philosophical research points to this concept of British Israelism being unrealistic at best… Bad research and doctrine at worst.

J.H. Allen is also someone who’s theology IMO is iffy. How could the “truth” of British Israelism be “lost” for 1900 years? Sorry this theology is simply lacking. That’s like saying Mormons are Christians because of course Joseph Smith had a revelation from an angel.

The eternal throne of 2 Sam. 7 is the spiritual (not of this earth) throne of Christ which is established with the death and resurrection of Christ with the consequential establishment of the Kingdom of God. It was established since the beginning of time since Jesus Christ is God and through Him all things were made. And it will be established in the new Heaven and new Earth when Christ makes all things new after his second return.  

Sorry God doesn’t lie. The Bible is true. All people (atheists included) are in need of a Savior – Jesus Christ.

 

These are my 2 cents.

 

God bless,

GE

[nebula]

 Abraham was promised both physical seed and spiritual seed. Spiritual seed are those of faith obviously be they natural seed or not.

 

Please post the quote in Genesis where there is a mention of "spiritual" seed?

 

 

Now clearly that says that his seed would become many nations (those are political units) with many kings.

 

 

1 Chron. 1

 

28 The sons of Abraham; Isaac, and Ishmael. 29 These are their generations: The firstborn of Ishmael, Nebaioth; then Kedar, and Adbeel, and Mibsam, 30 Mishma, and Dumah, Massa, Hadad, and Tema, 31 Jetur, Naphish, and Kedemah. These are the sons of Ishmael. 32 Now the sons of Keturah, Abraham's concubine: she bare Zimran, and Jokshan, and Medan, and Midian, and Ishbak, and Shuah. And the sons of Jokshan; Sheba, and Dedan. 33 And the sons of Midian; Ephah, and Epher, and Henoch, and Abida, and Eldaah. All these are the sons of Keturah. 34 And Abraham begat Isaac. The sons of Isaac; Esau and Israel. 35 The sons of Esau; Eliphaz, Reuel, and Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah. 36 The sons of Eliphaz; Teman, and Omar, Zephi, and Gatam, Kenaz, and Timna, and Amalek. 37 The sons of Reuel; Nahath, Zerah, Shammah, and Mizzah. 38 And the sons of Seir; Lotan, and Shobal, and Zibeon, and Anah, and Dishon, and Ezer, and Dishan. 39 And the sons of Lotan; Hori, and Homam: and Timna was Lotan's sister. 40 The sons of Shobal; Alian, and Manahath, and Ebal, Shephi, and Onam. And the sons of Zibeon; Aiah, and Anah. 41 The sons of Anah; Dishon. And the sons of Dishon; Amram, and Eshban, and Ithran, and Cheran. 42 The sons of Ezer; Bilhan, and Zavan, and Jakan. The sons of Dishan; Uz, and Aran. 43 Now these are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom before any king reigned over the children of Israel; Bela the son of Beor: and the name of his city was Dinhabah. 44 And when Bela was dead , Jobab the son of Zerah of Bozrah reigned in his stead. 45 And when Jobab was dead , Husham of the land of the Temanites reigned in his stead. 46 And when Husham was dead , Hadad the son of Bedad, which smote Midian in the field of Moab, reigned in his stead: and the name of his city was Avith. 47 And when Hadad was dead , Samlah of Masrekah reigned in his stead. 48 And when Samlah was dead , Shaul of Rehoboth by the river reigned in his stead. 49 And when Shaul was dead , Baalhanan the son of Achbor reigned in his stead. 50 And when Baalhanan was dead , Hadad reigned in his stead: and the name of his city was Pai; and his wife's name was Mehetabel, the daughter of Matred, the daughter of Mezahab. 51 Hadad died also. And the dukes of Edom were; duke Timnah, duke Aliah, duke Jetheth, 52 Duke Aholibamah, duke Elah, duke Pinon, 53 Duke Kenaz, duke Teman, duke Mibzar, 54 Duke Magdiel, duke Iram. These are the dukes of Edom.

 

 

Are these not "many nations"?

[amor]

Here's something interesting:

 

List of countries ruled by a monarchy

 

 

Wow - Norway, Netherlands, Sweden, and Spain still have monarchies.

 

 

Why is it that England's monarchy are made to be celebrities, while we know nothing of these other nations' monarchies?

 

Because the British monarch is also Queen of New Zealand Canada, Jamaica Australia and about 20 other entities. Furthermore, because the USA, India, Pakistan and many other states were former British colonies often founded upon rebellion of the ancestors of the aforementioned Queen. If you fight someone you tend to remember them. They also have a very good media machine. Furthermore, the Japanese are reclusive and most European monarchs cycle around pretending to be bourgeois. The British monarchy is the only one that still shows of in pompous pseudo-feudal style - horse drawn glass coaches, Palaces and more bling than all the rappers of the world combined.

[amor]

 

 

So you're saying the line of David = the British Lineage? Wow.

I've never heard of that before. My first response is that is a bit off.

 

God bless,

GE

 

______________________________

 

Yep.  That's right.  That's what I believe. Also, the tribes of Israel that migrated became nations in the NW European nations, and Britain, and ultimately the USA.  So I take the prophetic warnings to Israel very seriously, in which the Jew is not all of Israel, but only part.

 

I won't credit Herbert W. Armstrong with discovering all of latter day prophecy, although he was good at it.  The book about the lost tribes of Israel was written by a Methodist minister by the name of J. H Allen circa 1900 AD.

 

In the past, this knowledge may have bypassed some people because they only had radio over 100 years ago.  But in this age of the Internet, I'm surprised you missed this with "knowledge increasing" as Daniel prophesied. You were mis-taught, I believe, if you did not hear of this.  The resources are out there; we just have to come out of the shell of traditions of men to learn of these things.

 

My question to you is, if there is NOT a throne on earth today from King David's lineage, then how do you reconcile that promise in 2 Samuel 7 of an eternal throne?  I'm curious, because if there is not someone on the throne, then God is a liar and the bible is false and the atheists have a point. That's my observation, anyway.

 

 

I was not familiar with this ideology. At least not in this form. I assume this would go along with Replacement Theology? Personally, I find it amusing. However, I am familiar with Herbert W. Armstrong and the WCoG (Worldwide Church of God).

I have serious issues with Mr. Armstrong's teachings particularly in the areas of following Levitical law, following the Sabbath, his stance on eternal judgment, his stance on the trinity, allowing others to call him a modern day apostle/prophet, his stance on modern medicine, his very oppressive dress code, a supposed third resurrection, and now I’ll add British Israelism.

 

From I have read it seems the tenants of British Israelism have been refuted from a Biblical standpoint. Also the evidence of modern genetic, linguistic, archeological, and philosophical research points to this concept of British Israelism being unrealistic at best… Bad research and doctrine at worst.

J.H. Allen is also someone who’s theology IMO is iffy. How could the “truth” of British Israelism be “lost” for 1900 years? Sorry this theology is simply lacking. That’s like saying Mormons are Christians because of course Joseph Smith had a revelation from an angel.

The eternal throne of 2 Sam. 7 is the spiritual (not of this earth) throne of Christ which is established with the death and resurrection of Christ with the consequential establishment of the Kingdom of God. It was established since the beginning of time since Jesus Christ is God and through Him all things were made. And it will be established in the new Heaven and new Earth when Christ makes all things new after his second return.  

Sorry God doesn’t lie. The Bible is true. All people (atheists included) are in need of a Savior – Jesus Christ.

 

These are my 2 cents.

 

God bless,

GE

 

 

 

The David stuff is British-Israelite propoganda. British Israelites are a rather odd bunch who believe that we (the British) are the lost tribes. Rather silly in my opinion as there is nothing to back up the claim

 

This is from Wikipedia

 

British Israelism (also called Anglo-Israelism) is a doctrine based on the hypothesis that people of Western European descent, particularly those in Great Britain, are the direct lineal descendants of the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel. The doctrine often includes the tenet that the British Royal Family is directly descended from the line of King David.

The central tenets of British Israelism have been refuted by evidence from modern genetic, linguistic, archaeological and philological research. The doctrine continues, however, to have a significant number of adherents.

The movement has never had a head organisation or a centralized structure. Various British Israelite organisations were set up across the British Empire and in America from the 1870s; a small number of such organisations are active today.

 

 

 

There's a Congregational Church in Orange Street  behind the National Gallery where lots of them hang out. popped in once and popped out again fairly quickly. The British Royal have several rather mythical family tree: they claim of have claimed descent not just from King David but also King Arthur, The Germanic God Woden (who incidentally has Wednesday named after him) and King Priam of Troy. They can however via various Moorish Spanish ancestors prove descent from Mohammed. Mind you given the laws of maths (2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2) there is nobody posting on this board or anyone else in the world who isn't descended from him many times over. We're also multiply descended from anyone else alive in the sixth century with living descendants; and descended from King David counless many more times over.

[amor]

The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge have named their son George Alexander Louis, Kensington Palace has said.

 

He will be known as His Royal Highness Prince George of Cambridge..

.

 

 

Since George and Richard are the only" king" name's not in current use in the immediate  Royal family, this is hardly a surprise. Particularly as there have been two George's in the twentieth century and no Richard's since Richard the III (not a monarch with a particularly good reputation) the fifteenth.