the monarchy

[GoldenEagle]

 

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

[MorningGlory]

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 we relate to our origins; nearly all Americans can trace their roots to Great Britain.

[MorningGlory]

I liked Princess Di.  She was cute.

 

 

She was a superstar; I don't know WHY she was, just that she was. 

[MorningGlory]

God bless our new Prince...and may Wills and his wife serve the country well

 

 

Absolutely. 

[gnomonist]

 

 

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.

[Guest]

God bless our new Prince...and may Wills and his wife serve the country well

 

Amen~!

[nebula]

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.

 

If these people are the lost tribes of Israel, why do they no longer keep the covenant of Abraham?

 

God said to Abraham, “As for you, you will keep my covenant, you and your seed after you throughout their generations. This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your seed after you. Every male among you shall be circumcised. . . . The uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that soul shall be cut off from his people. He has broken my covenant."  (Gen. 17:9-10, 14)

 

Why have t hey forsaken the Passover Feast?

 

 “This day shall be to you for a memorial, and you shall keep it a feast to the LORD: throughout your generations you shall keep it a feast by an ordinance forever.  Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread; even the first day you shall put away yeast out of your houses, for whoever eats leavened bread from the first day until the seventh day, that soul shall be cut off from Israel.”  (Exo. 12:14-15)

 

But the man who is clean, and is not on a journey, and fails to keep the Passover, that soul shall be cut off from his people. Because he didn’t offer the offering of the LORD in its appointed season, that man shall bear his sin.  (Num. 9:13)

 

Many more questions could be asked as to why these "Israelites" cast aside all culture and celebrations that defined them as a people?

 

And yet, in other nations (Ethiopia, China, India, etc.) tribes of Israelite descendents have been found who have still maintained these things (circumcision, Sabbath, the Feasts of the Lord, etc.).

[Guest]

Many of the European monarchies 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, genealogical 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.

 

~

 

The Jew

 

I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star. Revelation 22:16

 

The Tender Twig

 

Thus saith the Lord GOD; I will also take of the highest branch of the high cedar, and will set it; I will crop off from the top of his young twigs a tender one, and will plant it upon an high mountain and eminent:

 

In the mountain of the height of Israel will I plant it: and it shall bring forth boughs, and bear fruit, and be a goodly cedar: and under it shall dwell all fowl of every wing; in the shadow of the branches thereof shall they dwell.

 

And all the trees of the field shall know that I the LORD have brought down the high tree, have exalted the low tree, have dried up the green tree, and have made the dry tree to flourish: I the LORD have brought down the high tree, have exalted the low tree, have dried up the green tree, and have made the dry tree to flourish: I the LORD have spoken and have done it. Ezekiel 17:22-24

 

Traced Directly To The Jew, King David

 

And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.

 

And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,

Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,

Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,

Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda,

Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,

Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,

Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,

Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,

Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,

Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson,

Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda,

Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor,

Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala,

Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,

 Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan,

Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God. Luke 3:22-38

 

Thus Fulfilling The Earlier Promise In 2 Samuel 7

 

Wherefore thou art great, O LORD God: for there is none like thee, neither is there any God beside thee, according to all that we have heard with our ears. And what one nation in the earth is like thy people, even like Israel, whom God went to redeem for a people to himself, and to make him a name, and to do for you great things and terrible, for thy land, before thy people, which thou redeemedst to thee from Egypt, from the nations and their gods?

 

For thou hast confirmed to thyself thy people Israel to be a people unto thee for ever: and thou, LORD, art become their God.

 

And now, O LORD God, the word that thou hast spoken concerning thy servant, and concerning his house, establish it for ever, and do as thou hast said. And let thy name be magnified for ever, saying, The LORD of hosts is the God over Israel: and let the house of thy servant David be established before thee.

 

For thou, O LORD of hosts, God of Israel, hast revealed to thy servant, saying, I will build thee an house: therefore hath thy servant found in his heart to pray this prayer unto thee.

 

And now, O Lord GOD, thou art that God, and thy words be true, and thou hast promised this goodness unto thy servant: Therefore now let it please thee to bless the house of thy servant, that it may continue for ever before thee: for thou, O Lord GOD, hast spoken it: and with thy blessing let the house of thy servant be blessed for ever. 2 Samuel 7:22-29

 

And In Psalms 2

 

Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.

 

He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision. Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure. Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.

 

I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

 

Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.

 

Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth. Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling.

 

Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him. Psalms 2

 

You See

 

~

 

Royal intermarriage is the practice of members of ruling dynasties marrying into other reigning families. It was more commonly done in the past as part of strategic diplomacy for reasons of state. Although sometimes enforced by legal requirement on persons of royal birth, more often it has been a matter of political policy and/or tradition in monarchies.

From the medieval era until the fall of Napoleon I most European heads of state were hereditary monarchs in pursuit of national and international aggrandisement on behalf of themselves and their dynasties. Thus bonds of kinship tended to promote or restrain aggression. Marriage between dynasties could serve to initiate, re-enforce or guarantee peace between nations. Alternatively, kinship by marriage could secure an alliance between two dynasties which sought to reduce the sense of threat from or to initiate aggression against the realm of a third dynasty. It could also enhance the prospect of territorial acquisition for a dynasty by procuring legal claim to a foreign throne, or portions of its realm (e.g. colonies), through inheritance from an heiress whenever a monarch failed to leave an undisputed male heir.

Also following Europe's medieval era when tribal leaders evolved into feudal suzerains, suzerains into kings and kings into absolute monarchs, they rose from primus inter pares into God's anointed sovereigns. Marriages with subjects brought the king back down to the level of those he ruled, often stimulating the ambition of his consort's family and evoking jealousy—or disdain—from the nobility. The notion that monarchs should marry into the dynasties of other monarchs to end or prevent war was, at first, a policy driven by pragmatism. During the era of absolutism, it came to re-enforce the notion of Divine right—i.e., the premise that monarchs and dynasties were chosen to reign by God and, ipso facto, were different, as if by caste, rather than merely by fortune from their subjects. Kings continued to marry into the families of their greatest vassals down to the 16th century in most of Europe, by which time most of the great regional principalities and duchies were annexed to the Crown in Scandinavia, Latin Europe and the British Isles through royal subjugation or inheritance. Henceforth, kings tended to marry internationally and, increasingly, to have their sons and daughters do likewise. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_intermarriage

 

Hay

We Had That Kind Of Stuff In The States

Gentile Bullies Living On A Hillside Making War On Each Other And Their Neighbors 

Until It Finally Turned Into Marriages With Kith And Kin And Kids

And Finally Into Dueling Banjos

Long Live The Kings

On The Hill

 

 

For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy; I dwell in the high and holy place, with him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones. Isaiah 57:15

 

~

 

Bow

 

Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him. Matthew 2:1-2

 

To The KING OF KINGS

 

When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy. And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh. Matthew 2:10-11

 

And Be Happy For The Rest Of Your Life

 

Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee. Hebrews 13:5

 

Love, Your Brother Joe

[Guest]

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.

 

If these people are the lost tribes of Israel, why do they no longer keep the covenant of Abraham?

 

God said to Abraham, “As for you, you will keep my covenant, you and your seed after you throughout their generations. This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your seed after you. Every male among you shall be circumcised. . . . The uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that soul shall be cut off from his people. He has broken my covenant."  (Gen. 17:9-10, 14)

 

Why have they forsaken the Passover Feast?

 

 “This day shall be to you for a memorial, and you shall keep it a feast to the LORD: throughout your generations you shall keep it a feast by an ordinance forever.  Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread; even the first day you shall put away yeast out of your houses, for whoever eats leavened bread from the first day until the seventh day, that soul shall be cut off from Israel.”  (Exo. 12:14-15)

 

But the man who is clean, and is not on a journey, and fails to keep the Passover, that soul shall be cut off from his people. Because he didn’t offer the offering of the LORD in its appointed season, that man shall bear his sin.  (Num. 9:13)

 

Many more questions could be asked as to why these "Israelites" cast aside all culture and celebrations that defined them as a people?

 

And yet, in other nations (Ethiopia, China, India, etc.) tribes of Israelite descendents have been found who have still maintained these things (circumcision, Sabbath, the Feasts of the Lord, etc.).

 

 

~

 

This Claim That An English King On The Throne

 

The Jewish experience in the United Kingdom [England, Wales, & Northern Ireland] is one of the longest in the world. Anglo-Jewry faced increasing persecution from its entrance into England in 1066 until the expulsion of 1290. Once Jews returned in the 16^th century, however, they became more and more integrated into society. England was, for a time, one of the most religiously tolerant countries in Europe. British Jewry received formal emancipation in 1858 and has continuously grown larger and stronger.... http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/vjw/England.html

 

Is Somehow A Descendant Of That Most Beloved Of The Hebrew People, Their King David

 

There are many kinds of antisemitism, and among them there are four that have an English provenance, either wholly or in substantial part.

 

The radical antisemitism of medieval England — one of defamation, expropriation, murder and expulsion — completed itself in 1290, when there were no Jews left to torment. English literary antisemitism has been continuously present from the anonymous medieval ballad Sir Hugh, or the Jew’s Daughter through to present times. A modern, everyday antisemitism of insult and partial exclusion has also been pervasive, if contained, in this country. This is the common antisemitism experienced by Jews from their “readmission” to England in the mid-17th century through to the late-20th century.

 

Finally, a new configuration of anti-Zionisms, which treats Zionism and the state of Israel as illegitimate Jewish enterprises, emerged here in the late 1960s and 1970s. This perspective, heavily indebted to antisemitic tropes, constitutes the greatest current threat to Anglo-Jewish security and morale.

 

This fourth kind of antisemitism is now more European than English but has a particularly English history, stemming from the intimacy of association between England and the Zionist project from the mid-19th century through to the mid-1950s. It denies to Jews the rights that it upholds for other, comparable peoples. It adheres to the principle of national self-determination, except in the Jews’ case. It affirms international law, except in Israel’s case. It does not understand that supporting the cause of Palestinian nationhood is one thing, while denying the right of Jews to live in their own state is quite another. It is outraged by the Jewish nature of the state of Israel, but is untroubled by, say, the Islamic nature of Iran or of Saudi Arabia. It regards as racist the social inequalities between Jew and Arab in Israel, while being indifferent to the legal inequalities between Muslim and non-Muslim in Iran, Saudi Arabia, and other Muslim states.

 

It regards Zionism as uniquely pernicious, rather than as merely another nationalism, just as earlier generations of antisemites regarded Jewish capitalists as uniquely pernicious, rather than as heterogeneous members of a much larger capitalist class.

 

It writes out of the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict the massacres of Jews in Hebron (August 1929), Jerusalem (February 1948), and Kfar Etzion (May 1948), while treating the massacre of Arabs at Deir Yasin (April 1948) as proof of fundamental Zionist iniquity. It is reluctant to take a position on the Chinese occupation of Tibet, while holding the Israeli occupation of the West Bank an indefensible evil of global consequence. It is hostile to the United States, which it believes is dominated by Jews. It plays variations on well-established antisemitic tropes and deploys some new ones of its own — principally, that Israel may suitably be compared with Nazi Germany and/or Apartheid South Africa.

 

It treats UN, and UN committee and council, resolutions on Israel as if passed by impartial, apolitical bodies. It denies the existence of Islamic antisemitism, save perhaps as a Western import and of no practical consequence. While it excoriates racist sentiments found among Israelis, or in the complex history of Zionism, it refuses to acknowledge the racist themes towards Jews to be found in many currents of Arab nationalism. It overstates, on every occasion, and beyond reason, any case that could be made against Israel’s actions or policies, and wildly overstates the significance of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in world affairs.

Longstanding antisemites now embrace “anti-Zionism” as a cover for their Jew-hatred. This is because, in relation to Israel, the antisemite finds a protected voice. The desire to destroy Jews is reconfigured as the desire to destroy or dismantle the Jewish state. The new anti-Zionism has become a cause for some English academics and political activists; it is commonly found in the universities and in student and university teacher associations. Anti-Zionism has renewed antisemitism, and given it a future.

 

These, then, are England’s gifts to Jew-hatred. The antisemitism of no other country has this density of history. The antisemitism of no other country is so continuously innovative. On many occasions in the history of antisemitism, England arrives first. http://www.thejc.com/comment-and-debate/comment/26775/englands-not-so-pleasant-aspect

 

Is Especially Odious Considering The Murderous Antisemitic Hearts These Kings Showed To Their "Brothers" The Jew

 

Gentile-Jewish relations in England were disturbed under King Stephen, who burned down the house of a Jew in Oxford (some accounts say with a Jew in it) because he refused to pay a contribution to the king's expenses. In 1144 came the first report in history of the blood libel against Jews; it came up in the case of William of Norwich (1144). Julius finds that the English were endlessly imaginative in inventing anti-Semitic allegations. He says that England became the "principal promoter, and indeed in some sense the inventor of literary anti-Semitism." Julius argues that blood libel is the key, because it incorporates the themes that Jews are malevolent, constantly conspiring against Christians, powerful, and merciless. Variations include stories about Jews poisoning wells, twisting minds, and buying and selling Christian souls and bodies.

While the crusaders were killing Jews in Germany, outbursts against Jews in England were, according to Jewish chroniclers, prevented by King Stephen.

With the restoration of order under Henry II, Jews renewed their activity. Within five years of his accession Jews were found at London, Oxford, Cambridge, Norwich, Thetford, Bungay, Canterbury, Winchester, Newport, Stafford, Windsor, and Reading. Yet they were not permitted to bury their dead elsewhere than in London, a restriction which was not removed till 1177. Their spread throughout the country enabled the king to draw upon them as occasion demanded. He repaid them by demand notes on the sheriffs of the counties, who accounted for payments thus made in the half-yearly accounts on the pipe rolls (see Aaron of Lincoln). Strongbow's conquest of Ireland (1170) was financed by Josce, a Jew of Gloucester; and the king accordingly fined Josce for having lent money to those under his displeasure. As a rule, however, Henry II does not appear to have limited in any way the financial activity of Jews. The favorable position of English Jews was shown, among other things, by the visit of Abraham ibn Ezra in 1158, by that of Isaac of Chernigov in 1181, and by the resort to England of Jews who were exiled from France by Philip Augustus in 1182, among them probably being Judah Sir Leon of Paris.

In 1168, when concluding an alliance with Frederick Barbarossa, Henry II seized the chief representatives of Jews and sent them over into Normandy, while tallaging the rest 5,000 marks. When, however, he asked the rest of the country to pay a tithe for the crusade against Saladin in 1188, he demanded a quarter of Jewish chattels. The so-called "Saladin tithe" was reckoned at £70,000, the quarter at £60,000. In other words, the value of the personal property of Jews was regarded as one-fourth that of the whole country. It is improbable, however, that the whole amount was paid at once, as for many years after the imposition of the tallage arrears were demanded from the recalcitrant Jews.

In this period, Aaron of Lincoln is believed to have been the wealthiest man in 12th century Britain, it is estimated that his wealth may have exceeded that of the King. The king had probably been led to make this large demand on English Jewry by the surprising windfall which came to his treasury at Aaron's death. All property obtained by usury, whether by Jew or by Christian, fell into the king's hands on the death of the usurer; Aaron of Lincoln's estate included £15,000 of debts owed to him. Besides this, a large treasure came into the king's hands, which, however, was lost on being sent over to Normandy. A special branch of the treasury, constituted in order to deal with this large account, was known as "Aaron's Exchequer".

In this era, Jews lived on good terms with their non-Jewish neighbors, including the clergy. They entered churches freely, and took refuge in the abbeys in times of commotion. Some Jews lived in opulent houses, and helped to build a large number of the Abbeys and monasteries of the country. However, by the end of Henry's reign they had incurred the ill will of the upper classes. Anti-Jewish sentiment, fostered by the crusades, during the latter part of the reign of Henry, spread throughout the nation....

[gnomonist]

 

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.

 

If these people are the lost tribes of Israel, why do they no longer keep the covenant of Abraham?

 

God said to Abraham, “As for you, you will keep my covenant, you and your seed after you throughout their generations. This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your seed after you. Every male among you shall be circumcised. . . . The uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that soul shall be cut off from his people. He has broken my covenant."  (Gen. 17:9-10, 14)

 

Why have t hey forsaken the Passover Feast?

 

 “This day shall be to you for a memorial, and you shall keep it a feast to the LORD: throughout your generations you shall keep it a feast by an ordinance forever.  Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread; even the first day you shall put away yeast out of your houses, for whoever eats leavened bread from the first day until the seventh day, that soul shall be cut off from Israel.”  (Exo. 12:14-15)

 

But the man who is clean, and is not on a journey, and fails to keep the Passover, that soul shall be cut off from his people. Because he didn’t offer the offering of the LORD in its appointed season, that man shall bear his sin.  (Num. 9:13)

 

Many more questions could be asked as to why these "Israelites" cast aside all culture and celebrations that defined them as a people?

 

And yet, in other nations (Ethiopia, China, India, etc.) tribes of Israelite descendents have been found who have still maintained these things (circumcision, Sabbath, the Feasts of the Lord, etc.).

 

_______________________________

 

And that's why they became lost, and that's only to themselves, not to God because they did not keep his commandments, his Sabbaths and were involved in idolatry.  If they'd be practising his commands rightly, they would not have been exiled to begin with.  One of the biggest mistakes people have is that these dispersed tribes have to "behave like the Jews" whatever that means. 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.