Gems-1

No. 1 Selected Articles from Previous Brit-Am Now Postings

Gems of Brit-Am
Ten Tribes Revelation. Selected Articles and Notes from Past Issues of Brit-Am Now

No. 1 nos 1400 to 1360

Contents:
1. Brit-Am Needs All of You
2. Disraeli and Bismarck: The Importance of Criticism
3. Michael Williams: Every King & Queen of Europe is Descended from King David [via Tea Tephi]
4. Military Characteristics and Identity
5. Rashi on Psalms 87: The Almighty Will Redeem the Assimilated and Lost Descendants of Israel
6. Benjamin: Re the Angles and Saxons,
7. More Defenders of an Ephraim Nation and a Company of Nations. Brit-Am Replies Yet Again.
8. What is the Difference Between Brit-Am Beliefs and those of Anglo-Israel-ism?
9. Rabbi Avraham HaKohen Kook. The Yearning of Ephraim For Redemption
10. The Revision of Ancient Historical Chronology and its Pertinence to Brit-Am
11. Richard: What About the REST of the Promised Land?
12. Non-Israelites to Return with Israel?
13. Ancient Israel and Cyprus
14. Were the Really Intelligent Germans actually Israelites?
15. Additional Proofs Come to the Fore
16. Cam Rea: On the Antiquity of Indian Documents
17. Cam Rea: World Domination by Scythian Descendants Foretold in Indian Text?
18. Was Buddha an Israelite? by Cam Rea
19. Question Concerning a Lack of Academic Historical Confirmation for the Brit-Am Migrationary Scenario
20. My Biblical Fathers. What Does the Bible Say about the Chosen Peoples of Israel?
21. Robert Berentz: British Oaks
22. Were any Israelites Left after the Assyrian Exile?


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
1.

1400.3. Brit-Am Needs All of You
In the past people sent us messages that for some reason or other we answered in a disrespectful manner or in a way that seemed improper to those we were answering. In many cases our response was probably justified. In some cases it may not have been. It happened that
people were offended and left us though up until then they had been active correspondents and seemed to have a
high level of interest in our teaching. In some cases they had previously given us advice that we found useful.
If anyone wants to leave they may do so.
All they have to do is send us an e-mail with the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the subject line.
No-one however should feel unwelcome.
On the whole we are quite tolerant and we request reciprocity.
You input is important to us.
Even your criticisms and argumentation helps us.
I myself do not like criticism (few people do) but have learnt to live with it and take it into account.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
2.

1399. 2. Disraeli and Bismarck: The Importance of Criticism
http://jessea.blogspot.com/2005_12_01_archive.html
Extract:

"And in the end of my thoughts on [the matter of the Talmudic statement 'These and these are both the words of the living God'] I will bring another, external thought, a thought which is based in a conversation of secular scholars, and this thought comes from a source which is honest, and was close to the events, as I shall explain, and the events, and what was about them are both interesting and moving.

"It was in 1878, after the Russo-Turkish War, that the great diplomats of all the states gathered in Berlin in order to settle things between the powers who had been at war, and those things which had affected the interests of other nations. This meeting is known as the Berlin Congress.

"Lord Beaconsfield (also known as Disraeli) had come from Britain, and he was known as the greatest of diplomats at that time.

"And even though the gathering honored the master of the house, Chancellor Bismarck, with the chief seat, it was generally known that the rhythm of the congress would be controlled by Lord Beaconsfield.

"Beaconsfield sat right next to Bismarck, and both of them instructed the assembled, such that there were those who likened them to two teeth in one mouth.

"Whenever there was a break in official discussion these two neighbors, Bismarck and Beaconsfield, would have a conversation as two private people, on private matters which had no bearing on the meeting.

"And one time their conversation fell to the workings of parliament. Bismarck said to Beaconsfield that Members of parliament harassed him to no end, because any law that he wanted to pass, for the interests of the nation could not get through parliament without long periods of discussion, and questioning, and examination, with arguments from all sides and of all types, and he was required to answer them all, to defend against all of them, and to respond to each one. All of this troubled him greatly; his spirit was storming such that he could not answer each objection, so they inserted corrections, and emendations and improvements into the law?

"'And it was not in my power,' he continued emphatically, 'so I limited the rights of parliament, because when parliament has freedom without limitation to claim anything, and to object to anything with out any boundary it is a great rebuke to the ministers of government. And thus,' Bismarck finished his comment, 'it is necessary to place limits on what they can say.

"Beaconsfield listened closely to this rebuke of members of parliament, thought for a moment, then put his hand on his chin and said:

"'In my opinion, if there were not people in parliament who disagreed, and objected and argued against my opinions and ideas, I would hire them with my own money, because without these, the dissenters, the arguers, and objectors All of the issues and questions of the day would never be clarified, the truth of them would never be revealed, and thus we arrive at a desirable and complete conclusion.'

"Bismarck was touched by this answer, because he haD not expected to hear it, especially not from Beaconsfield, the greatest of diplomats, first speaker in every place, to whom everybody listens, and they drink his words with great thirst, and the law is like him in all cases!

"He asked Beaconsfield, 'Where did you learn this?' Beaconsfield answered, 'This is an ancient teaching, which as seen thousands of years, and it is inherited with many other proper opinions, which are all part of the teaching of that ancient period.

"Bismarck understood the hint and realized that this inheritance comes from the Torah of Israel, because he knew that Beaconsfield often based his ideas on those of Israel and its Torah (because he was educated as a Jew, in his youth). Bismarck, as it is known, was one of the great oppressors of Jews at the time, one of the originators of anti-Semitism, and one of its [anti-Semitism's] great defenders, so he understood that Beaconsfield had not unintentionally insulted him, but had used a very straightforward hint, and he was secretly angry."

~R. Baruch Halevy Epstein, Makor Baruch, vol. 4, chapter 39, section 2, pp. 1779-1786.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
3.
1399. 3. Michael Williams:
Every King & Queen of Europe is Descended from King David [via Tea Tephi]

Brit-Am Disclaimer Note:
Our practice is to post out any point of view or piece of information somehow or other
pertinent to our studies of the Lost Ten Tribes and potentially of interest to our subscribers.
This does not mean that we necessarily agree with the item in question.

From: Michael Williams
michaelwilliams@fastmail.net>

Every King & Queen of Europe is Descended from King David

Abraham (Abram)
Isaac
Jacob
Judas (Judah) King of Goshen
Hezron
Aram
Aminadab
Nashon (Naashon)
Salmon(salma)
Boaz, Ruth
Obed
Jesse
David King of Israel
Solomon King of Israel
Rehoboam King of Judah
Abijam King of Judah
Asa King of Judah
Jehoshaphat King of Judah
Jehoram King of Judah
Ahaziah King of Judah
Joash King of Judah
Amaziah King of Judah
Uzziah King of Judah
Jotham King of Judah
Ahaz King of Judah
Hezekiah King of Judah
Manasseh King of Judah
Amon King of Judah
Josiah King of Judah
Zedekiah King of Judah
Tea Tephi Princess of Judah
Irial Faidh King of Ireland
Eithriall King of Ireland
Follain King of Ireland
Tighernmas King of Ireland
Eanbotha King of Ireland
Smioguil King of Ireland
Fiachadh Labhriane King of Ireland
Aongus Ollmuchaidh King of Ireland
Maoin King of Ireland
Rotheachta King of Ireland
Dein King of Ireland
Siorna Saoghalach King of Ireland
Oholla Olchaoin King of Ireland
Giallebadh King of Ireland
Aodhain Glas King of Ireland
Simeon Breac King of Ireland
Muireadach Bolgrach King of Ireland
Fiachadh Tolgrach King of Ireland
Duach Laidhrach King of Ireland
Eochaidh Buaigllcrg King of Ireland
Ugaine King of Ireland
Cobhthach Coalbreag King of Ireland
Meilage King of Ireland
Jaran Gleofathaeb King of Ireland
Coula Cruaidh Cealgach King of Ireland
Oiliolla Caisfhiachach King of Ireland
Eochaidh Folthleatan King of Ireland
Aongus Tuirmheach King of Ireland
Eana Aighneach King of Ireland
Labhra Suire King of Ireland
Blathuchta King of Ireland
Easamhuin Eamhua King of Ireland
Roighnein King of Ireland
Finlogha King of Ireland
Fian King of Ireland
Eodchaidh Feidhlioch King of Ireland
Fineamhuas King of Ireland
Lughaidh Raidhdearg King of Ireland
Criombthan Niadhnar King of Ireland
Feradach Finnfechtnach King of Ireland
Fiachu Finnolach King of Ireland
Tuathal Teachtmhar King of Ireland
Fedlimid Rechtmar King of Ireland
Conn Cetchathach King of Ireland
Art mac Cuinn King of Ireland
Cormac mac Ajrt King of Ireland
Caibre Lifechair King of Ireland
Fiachad Sroiptine King of Ireland
Muiredach Tirech King of Ireland
Eochaid Mugmedon King of Ireland
Niall Noigiallach King of Ireland (of the NH)
Eogan King of Ireland
Muirchertach mac Earea King of Ireland
Feargus More King of Argyleshire
Dongard King of Argyleshire
Conran King of Argyleshire
Aidan King of Argyleshire
Eugene IV King of Argyleshire
Donald IV King of Argyleshire
Dongard King of Argyleshire
Eugene V King of Argyleshire
Findan King of Argyleshire
Eugene VII King of Argyleshire
Effinus King of Argyleshire
Achaius King of Argyleshire
Alpin II of Kintyre King of Dalriada
Kenneth II MA King of Scottland,King of the Picts
Constantine I King of Scottland,King of the Picts
Donald II King of Scottland
Malcom I King of Scotts
Kenneth II King of Scotts
Malcom II MacKenneth King of Scottland
Bethoc
Duncan I King of Scottland
Malcom III King of Scottland
David I the Saint King of Scottland
Henry Prince of Scottland
William I of Scottland (Earl of hunting)
Alexander II King of Scottland
Angharad Verch Llewellyn
Elena Verch Maelgwn Fychan
Owain Mareduddd
Llewellyn Owain Deuheubarth
Thomas of Deuheubarth AP Llewellyn
Marared Verch Thomas
Maredudd Tudor
Owen Tudor
Edmund Tudor Earl of Richmond
Henry VII Tudor King of England
Margaret Tudor
James V Stuart King of Scottland
Mary I Stuart Queen of Scottland
James I King of England (James VI Stuart)
Elizabeth Stuart Princess of Scottland
Sophia Hanover Princess Palatine of the Rhine
George I Hanover King of England
--------------------------------------
George I to Harold V King of Norway;

George II Hanover King of England
Frederick Louis Hanover Prince of Wales
George III Hanover King of England
Prince Edward AH Duke of Kent & Strathearn
Victoria Hanover Queen of England
Edward VII Wettin King of England
Princess Maude Charlotte Queen of Norway
Olav V King of Norway
Harold V King of Norway
--------------------------------------
George I to Carl XVI King of Sweden;

George II Hanover King of England
Anne Hanover Princess of Royal & Princess of Orange
Princess Caroline of Orange-Nassau
Friedrich Wilhelm Prince of Nassau-Weilburg
Wilhelm Duke of Nassau
Sophia
Gustav V Kingof Sweden
Gustav VI Adolf King of Sweden
Prince Gustav Adolf Duke of Vasterbotten
Carl XVI Gustav King of Sweden
--------------------------------------
George I to Queen Margrethe Queen of Denmark;

Sophia Dorothea Hanover
Prince Augustus William of Prussia
Queen Wilhelmina
Willem Frederik Karel
Louise
Louise of Sweden
Christian X King of Denmark
Frederik IX King of Denmark
Margrethe II Queen of Denmark
--------------------------------------?
George to Queen Beatrix of the Nederlands

George II Hanover King of England
Anne Hanover Princess of Royal & Princess of Orange
William V Prince of Orange
William I King of the Netherlands
Willem F GL King William II of the Netherlands
William III APFL King of the Netherlands
Wilhelmina Queen of the Netherlands
Juliana Queen of the Netherlands
Beatrix Queen of the Netherlands
-------------------------------
George I to King Juan Carlos of Spain;

George II Hanover King of England
Frederick Louis Hanover Prince of Wales
George III Hanover King of England
Prince Edward AH Duke of Kent & Strathearn
Victoria Hanover Queen of England
Princess Beatrice Mary Victoria
Victoria Eugenie (Ena) Queen of Spain
Don Juan of Spain
Juan Carlos I of Bourbon King of Spain
--------------------------------------------
King George I to Queen Elizabeth II
King George I

George II Hanover King of England

Anne Hanover Princess of Orange-Nassau

Princess Caroline of Orange-Nassau

Henriette

Alexander Duke of Wurttemburg

Francis Duke of Teck

Queen Mary of Teck

George VI Windsor King of the United Kingdom

Queen Elizabeth II

--
Michael Williams
michaelwilliams@fastmail.net

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

4.
1397. 3. Military Characteristics and Identity
An interesting work that we have recently come across is:
"The Blitzkrieg Myth. How Hitler and the Allies Misread the Strategic Realities of World War II" by John Mosier, USA, 2003.
Amongst other matters this book contains remarks of interest concerning the military aptitude and idiosyncrasies of the French, Belgians, British, Americans, Russians, and Germans.

Extract p.287
##Even before the war there had been an English prejudice to the effect that the Germans were simply automatons, incapable of independent action, and that their officers were feudal relics unsuitable for modern warfare. Once the war began this idea quickly became an unchallenged -and unchallengeable assumption, as it has been ever since. But the idea is purely and simply mythical...

##The German army was, as we have noted, the least mechanized of the major armies. But it was the most mobile; not because of its vehicles but because of its brains. The Allies do not appear to have understood this at any point during the war.The Americans routinely criticized the British for what they saw as inordinate delays to refit and regroup. As our account of Market-Garden makes clear, there is some truth to this criticism. On the other hand there is a good deal of truth to the British criticism of the American tendency to rush headlong into battle without engaging in the sort of careful preparation that would minimize casualties; Bradley at Omaha Beach, Patton at Metz. The reality, however, is that neither army really grasped how quickly the Germans could put together offensives, how quickly they could reorganize a shattered position, and how effectively they could use the terrain over which they were forced to fight.
The author emphasizes that an appreciation of German military qualities cannot be divorced from the fact that on the whole their senior officers acquiesced in or actively supported the attempted extermination of the Jews and atrocities against other peoples.

Other works expand on this issue.
The German soldier man-for-man may have been a better fighter due to his superior training, the level of his leadership, and ideological motivation.
He did however have weaknesses on a relative scale such as not being so good at hand -to-hand combat and fear (or at least avoidance of fighting in) the dark.

Many of the qualities under consideration are an outcome of training, tradition, social cohesion, etc.
They are not inherited qualities.
Nevertheless there may be some inherited aspect to them.

In the past we noted that different Israelite Tribes developed differing military specializations that may have emanated from their tribal characteristics.

See the Brit-Am Commentary to 1-Samuel 17-1 where an extract from our work "Lost Israelite Identity"
deals with this issue.
http://britam.org/samuel-17.html
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

5.
1395. 2. Rashi on Psalms 87: The Almighty Will Redeem the Assimilated and Lost Descendants of Israel
Interesting addition to the Brit-Am Commentary on Psalm 87.
[Source pointed out to us by Rabbi Yehonatan (son of Yair) Davidy.]
http://britam.org/psalms/psalms87.html
[Psalms 87:6] THE LORD SHALL COUNT, WHEN HE WRITETH UP THE PEOPLE, THAT THIS MAN WAS BORN THERE. SELAH.
Commentary of Rashi (France, 1040 -1105 CE):
##...In the future when God records the punishments to be meted out to the idolaters, HE will then register those of Israel who have been swallowed up amongst them and those who were forced to join them. He will bring them out and say, These were descended from the inhabitants of Zion. He will choose them for Himself as Isaiah says: AND I WILL ALSO TAKE OF THEM FOR PRIESTS [Hebrew: "Cohenim"] AND FOR LEVITES [Isaiah 66:21]. From out of the Gentiles who will bring them forth as offerings I will take those [of Israelite descent] who were assimilated amongst them. These will include Cohens [i.e. Priests] and Levites. They are not foreigners. Before ME their identity is revealed, says the Almighty.
And where does the Almighty say it?
THE SECRET THINGS BELONG UNTO THE LORD OUR GOD [Deuteronomy 29:29].
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
6.
1394. 3. Benjamin: Re the Angles and Saxons,
A Criticism of Brit-Am Biblical Interpretation and Historical Understanding

Subject: The English as a lost tribe of Israel

Hi there,
I was reading some of the writings on your site, Britam, and feel compelled to tell you about the origin of the name England. The country is named after a Germanic tribe called the Angles who settled in the south east of the country, about 1200 years ago. One of their Kings, Alfred the Great, made various pacts or alliances with other Kings and then a wider area of land eventually took on the name of the land of the Angles. This Angleland or England, or as the French say, Angleterre. It has nothing to do with angles of the degree variety. Or the ends of the earth. The name of the Angles still survives in the area of East Anglia. There are also place-names such as Ingleton and Ingleborugh, much further north in North Yorkshire, about 200 miles from East Anglia. Have you not heard of the Anglo-Saxons. Also Saxony is in Germany, where the Saxons came from. This name survives in the counties of Sussex, Wessex, Essex and the old area of Middlesex. Sussex means South Saxon, Wessex means West Saxon, Essex, East, etc. It is nothing to do with Isaac (I-Sax). It seems you are clutching at straws in desperation to make the theory fit the facts, rather than the facts fit the theory.

Thankyou

Ben
================================================
================================================
Brit-Am Reply:
Sections:
Thank You. Criticism is valuable even when undeserved.
The Angles and Saxons in History.
Wikipedia Explanations of the name "Angle".
Biblical Importance of the Sound of Names
Angle Also Means Aegel (Bull-Calf).

Thank You.
Thank you for your observations. Even though you are mistaken (as shown below) in your criticisms it is preferable
that you have uttered them rather than keeping them to yourself.
You are apparently criticizing our explanation of the term "Angle" and have misunderstood what we said.
This may indicate a fault on our part in not making what we were saying sufficiently clear.

The Angles and Saxons in History.
Alfred the Great (849 - 899) was at first king of the West Saxons (not the Angles) in Wessex.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_the_Great
There are historians who seem to suggest that to some degree in England the terms Saxon and Angle may have been interchangeable which explains the facility of the name England being unanimously accepted by them all.
The Angles (before coming to Britain) had been in what is now East Germany and then moved to the region of Schleswig-Holstein and southern Denmark.
The Jutes had been to their north and the Saxons to their south.
The Saxons who invaded England were related to the Frisians of the Netherlands and had no (or very little) connection to the area later known as Saxony in Germany.
The place-names Ingleton and Ingleborughthat you mentioned in North Yorkshire in association with the Angles is of interest.
In our book "The Tribes" we also show that the Angles were in this area.
http://britam.org/the-Tribes.html

You will find claims that the name Angle meant just that, "angle" (inclination of two lines to each other) and was given to the Angles because their land in North Germany looks angular on a map.

Wikipedia Explanations of the name "Angle".
This is what Wikipedia says:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angles

The original noun from which this adjective was produced has not been determined with confidence. The stem is theorized to have had the form *Ang?l/r-. The more prominent etymological theories concerning the name's origin have included:
Derivation from the Latin word angulus, translating as "angle".
The Old English word for the Baltic district of Angeln (where the Angles are believed to have emigrated from) is Angel. This is the preferred etymological theory amongst historians, and may connect to Angle (the peninsula is noted for its "angular" shape).
It may mean "the people who dwell by the Narrow Water," (i.e. the Schlei), from the Proto-Indo-European language root ang- meaning "narrow".
Derivation from the Germanic god Ingwaz or the Ingvaeones federation of which the Angles were part (the initial vowel could as well be "a" or "e").

We reject these explanations but even if they are true they do not nullify the use we have made of the term.

Angles and the End of the Earth
The Lost Ten Tribes were prophesied as in the End Times being at the Ends of the Earth.
Taking the Land of Israel as the Center the term End of the Earth could apply to the British Isles along with other places.
The word England or Angle-Land or in French "Angleterre" could be understood to mean "End of the Earth" as pointed out by Rabbi Manasseh ben Yisrael. This REGARDLESS of what the term "Angle" actually meant when it was first used.

Biblical Importance of the Sound of Names
The Bible (and later Rabbinic Tradition) attached importance to names according to their sound.
We have, for instance, the city Beer Sheva.
In Hebrew "Beer" means well and Sheva can mean either oath (swear) or seven.
In fact in English the word "seven" is derived from one optional dialectical pronunciation of the Hebrew "sheva" (seven) which could be sounded as "seven".
So too, the English word "swear" is also derived from the Hebrew "sheva" meaning taking an oath or swearing.

Abraham [Genesis 21:30] gave the King of the Philistines, Abimelech, seven ewe lambs
as a token of acknowledgement by Abimelech that the well belonged to Abraham who had dug it.
http://britam.org/Genesis/Gen18to22VaYera.html
[Genesis 21:31] WHEREFORE HE CALLED THAT PLACE BEERSHEBA; BECAUSE THERE THEY SWAREBOTH OF THEM.
BEERSHEBA: i.e. Beer Sheva, The well (Beer) of Seven ("Sheba" or "seva"). ...it may be that in this as in similar cases that the name of the place was already "Beer-Sheba" but Scripture is saying that the name presages the events that were destined to take place there.
This is a play on words: He set aside seven ewe lambs because they swore in that place. In Hebrew seven is sheva and swear is shevuah. The two words derive from the same root and sound similar. This happens frequently in Scripture: The two different meanings of one word-root are used together and a connection is noticed or created between them.

[Genesis 26:32] AND IT CAME TO PASS THE SAME DAY, THAT ISAAC'S SERVANTS CAME, AND TOLD HIM CONCERNING THE WELL WHICH THEY HAD DIGGED, AND SAID UNTO HIM, WE HAVE FOUND WATER.

[Genesis 26:33] AND HE CALLED IT SHEBAH: THEREFORE THE NAME OF THE CITY IS BEER SHEBA [Hebrew: Sheva i.e. Beer Sheva] UNTO THIS DAY.

The word transliterated here as Shebah in Hebrew is pronounced as Shevah.
The name of the city was Beer Sheva beforehand.
The Commentators say that this was the seventh well Isaac had dug in the area.
Beer Sheva would therefore mean the seventh well.
Previously Abraham (Genesis 21:31) had been in the region and he had given the place the name Beer Sheba due to the giving of seven (Hebrew: Sheva) ewe lambs and the swearing of an oath (Hebrew:Sheva) that had taken place in that region.
In both cases an existing name seems to have been re-interpreted to fit the events that took place in the location of that name.

We would suggest an additional facet to the meaning of Sheva. In Hebrew the root SVA means satisfy, content.
This root seems close to the root of Sheva.
The "S" and "sh" can sometimes interchange.

At all events we see here an application of two word meanings for the one word and an attaching of additional significance to a place name in accordance with events.

Angle Also Means Aegel (Bull-Calf).
The name Angle in Hebrew is an alternative pronunciation of Aegel and Aegel on the Continent was a diminutive for Angle.
Aegel in Hebrew means bull-calf.

[Deuteronomy 33:17] HIS GLORY IS LIKE THE FIRSTLING OF HIS BULLOCK, AND HIS HORNS ARE LIKE THE HORNS OF UNICORNS: WITH THEM HE SHALL PUSH THE PEOPLE TOGETHER TO THE ENDS OF THE EARTH: AND THEY ARE THE TEN THOUSANDS OF EPHRAIM, AND THEY ARE THE THOUSANDS OF MANASSEH.
BULLOCK or bull: John "Bull" is a nickname for Britain. England is named after the Angles who were also known as "Aegloi".
In Ancient Northern Germanic dialects as well as in Ashkenazic Hebrew "Angle" was another way of pronouncing "Aegel".
In Hebrew Aegel means bull-calf. Aegel is a nickname in the Bible for Ephraim, cf. Jeremiah 31:18.
The name England (Angle-Land) may actually be considered to mean "The Land of the Bull-Calf" i.e. the Land of Ephraim.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

7.
1390
1. More Defenders of an Ephraim Nation and a Company of Nations. Brit-Am Replies Yet Again.
Extracts:

(b) Both Ideas are Right but Joseph is Especially Suitable
Charlotte Mecklenburg says:
It is true that Genesis 35 (a Nation and a Company of Nations) is given to Jacob (not Joseph alone) but Joseph is from Jacob and Joseph is a singular nation also referred to as a Company of Nations.

(c) A Nation and a Company of Nations are part of the Birthright and Joseph Received the Birthright!
Nathan Proud says:
In Genesis 35 a Nation and a Company of Nations was promised to Jacob who passed the Birthright onto Joseph therefore a Nation and a Company of Nations applies to Joseph especially since Joseph is expressly promised (in Genesis 48) a Nation (Manasseh) and a fullness of nations (Ephraim). Even though a fullness of nations may not be the same wording as a Company of Nations it is close enough under the circumstances to be considered the same.

Regarding Joseph inheriting the Birthright we have traced and acknowledged this in our article:
Geneaology of the Blessings to Israel
http://www.britam.org/GeneaologyofBlessings.html
Genesis 35 speaks to Jacob of a Nation and a Company of Nations.
It does not speak to Joseph.
The something special that Jacob gave to Joseph in Genesis 48 may be summarized by he having both his sons recognized as tribes in their own right the double portion of the firstborn.

In addition Jacob said:

"The blessings of thy father have prevailed above the blessings of my progenitors unto the utmost bound of the everlasting hills: they shall be on the head of JOSEPH, and on the crown of him that was separated from his brethren" (Genesis 49:6).

In other words more of the same (that was received from the father and that also be given to the brothers) but multiplied many times over.
The interpretation of Malo HaGoyim as Multitude of Nations in my opinion DOES NOT fit the Hebrew.
Anyone who says otherwise should bring parallels from scripture were such an expression is used in that way.
They are not there!

What does Genesis 48 say:

[Genesis 48:2] AND ONE TOLD JACOB, AND SAID, BEHOLD, THY SON JOSEPH COMETH UNTO THEE: AND ISRAEL STRENGTHENED HIMSELF, AND SAT UPON THE BED.

[Genesis 48:3] AND JACOB SAID UNTO JOSEPH, GOD ALMIGHTY APPEARED UNTO ME AT LUZ IN THE LAND OF CANAAN, AND BLESSED ME,

[Genesis 48:4] AND SAID UNTO ME, BEHOLD, I WILL MAKE THEE FRUITFUL, AND MULTIPLY THEE, AND I WILL MAKE OF THEE
A Company of Peoples; AND WILL GIVE THIS LAND TO THY SEED AFTER THEE FOR AN EVERLASTING POSSESSION.

Here Jacob recalls the Almighty appearing to him at Luz. This is the same as Beth-el (Genesis 28:19) and Beth-el is where the Promises of Gensis 35 were given!
[This apparently could strengthen the case of those that say that the blessing of Genesis 35 were to go to Joseph in Genesis 48].
In Genesis 48:4 above we have replaced the expression A MULTITUDE OF PEOPLE (of the KJV) with A Company of Peoples since the Hebrew says Kahal Amim and parallels A Company of Nations (Kahal Goyim) in Genesis 35:11.
In Genesis 35:11 a Nation and a Company of Nations is promised and in Genesis 48:4 the blessing opens up with a parallel to Company of Nations only!

Jacob (Genesis 48) promised Joseph that:
He would be a Company of Nations.
His two sons would be recognized each as separate tribes in their own right and the other sons of Joseph would be included within them.
The blessing of his forefathers would be multiplied many times over and given to Joseph.
Manasseh would also be a nation but Ephraim have all nations of the earth being in need of him and he would rule over them.

Despite everything there is not enough in Genesis 48 to attribute Nation and a Company of Nations of Gensis 35 to Joseph.
There is enough to attribute to him only the Company of Nations section.
To Sandie b. (a) we would reply that we agree that something special and extra is promised to Joseph in Genesis and that it could be associated with the blessing of Genesis 35 (a Nation and a Company of Nations) but only to part of it i.e. the Company of Nations part.

We identify Joseph mainly with the English-speaking nations i.e. Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the USA with possibly offshoots in Ireland and South Africa and elsewhere. These peoples are widely recognized as one cultural and ethnic unity sharing common history, culture, and values and usually in the international sphere working together or at least in such a way as they complement each other. The other Israelite Nations that we recognize include Switzerland, France, Belgium, Netherlands, Iceland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland.
These nations in effect are emulators of Joseph in so far as they share similar values and culture and in some way or other act similarly to the way Joseph does. Joseph is their leader. In Biblical Terms the term Joseph is also applied to them. They are the companions of Joseph in Ezekiel 37.

Judah on the other hand THROUGHOUT THE BIBLE is separate from Joseph.
Judah has its own task.
The future re-union is between Judah (Ezekiel 37) and Joseph.
It is not between Joseph and his brothers.
Joseph is already assumed to be leading his brothers and they are spoken of as attached to him.

[Isaiah 11:12] HE WILL RAISE AN ENSIGN FOR THE NATIONS, AND WILL ASSEMBLE THE OUTCASTS OF ISRAEL, AND GATHER THE DISPERSED OF JUDAH FROM THE FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH.
[Isaiah 11:13] THE JEALOUSY OF EPHRAIM SHALL DEPART, AND THOSE WHO HARASS JUDAH SHALL BE CUT OFF; EPHRAIM SHALL NOT BE JEALOUS OF JUDAH, AND JUDAH SHALL NOT HARASS EPHRAIM.

[Ezekiel 37:16] MOREOVER, THOU SON OF MAN, TAKE THEE ONE STICK, AND WRITE UPON IT, FOR JUDAH, AND FOR THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL HIS COMPANIONS: THEN TAKE ANOTHER STICK, AND WRITE UPON IT, FOR JOSEPH, THE STICK OF EPHRAIM AND FOR ALL THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL HIS COMPANIONS:
[Ezekiel 37:17] AND JOIN THEM ONE TO ANOTHER INTO ONE STICK; AND THEY SHALL BECOME ONE IN THINE HAND.

[Ezekiel 37:22] AND I WILL MAKE THEM ONE NATION IN THE LAND UPON THE MOUNTAINS OF ISRAEL; AND ONE KING SHALL BE KING TO THEM ALL: AND THEY SHALL BE NO MORE TWO NATIONS, NEITHER SHALL THEY BE DIVIDED INTO TWO KINGDOMS ANY MORE AT ALL.

The only two distinctions are between Judah and Joseph.
The term in Genesis 35 (a Nation and a Company of Nations) fits Judah and Joseph.
This is an answer to Charlotte (b).

At the very beginning of the blessing to Joseph in Gnesis 48 he is defined as A Company of Peoples (Hebrew: Kahal Amim) paralleling A Company of Nations (Kahal Goyim) in Genesis 35:11.
Manasseh is defined as a nation that is in effect a part of this Company of Nations.
The term a Nation and a Company of Nations is not applied to Joseph.
This is an answer to Nathan (c).

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

8.
2. What is the Difference Between Brit-Am Beliefs and those of Anglo-Israel-ism?
From: Kerry Bulls
RE: Brit-Am Now no. 1389
#4. A Short Introduction to Yair Davidiy and Brit-Am
http://britam.org/now/1389Now.html#A

Dear Yair,

G-d bless you for your service to Israel in the IDF. I am curious as to what you see the difference being between the doctrine of Anglo-Israel-ism and what Brit-Am believes?

I always find your writing very fascinating as I envy your knowledge of Jewish affairs and the Old Covenant scriptures. Thank you for your time.

Chaplain Kerry Lance Bulls
================================================
================================================
================================================
Brit-Am Reply:

(a) IDF Service:
I mentioned my IDF Service since it was important for me and people find it interesting.
I served for 18 months regular service and after that annual service (of about a month each year) for most years over a ca. 20 year period.
At various times I served in Sinai, Samaria, and Lebanon and ended my service with the rank of sergeant.
My most active and latest service was as an Infantrymen attached to the Armoured (Tank) Corps.

For peoples in my age group who came to Israel when I did there is nothing unusual about this.
================================================
(b) Differences Between Brit-Am Beliefs and those of Anglo-Israel-ism.
By Anglo-Israel-ism you mean British Israel type beliefs.

The Brit-Am Ten Tribes Movement puts more emphasis on the Hebrew Bible and Historical Researches directly concerned with the issue as to whom the Lost Ten Tribes today are.

All other considerations we relate back to this issue and see everything from its perspective.
We attempt to avoid being side-tracked.
We work towards a greater understanding between Judah and Joseph and their future re-union.
We support the State of Israel.
We work to enhance Biblical Consciousness.

We emphasize more the aspect of Judah and come from a more Judah-involved perspective.
Nevertheless we realize the importance of encouraging Ephraimites to relate more to their specific ethnicity and Tribal allocations.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

9.
1388
Rabbi Avraham HaKohen Kook
3. New Article: The Yearning of Ephraim For Redemption
http://www.britam.org/kook8.html
Extract:
Rabbi Kook says:

##The vital potentiality that is enclosed in Israel encompasses within it the ability to acheive sanctity, purity of attitude, psychological purification, and an eager readiness to receive the torrent of Divine Inspiration. Even though external circumstances caused a blockage of the mental faculties and diminishing of deeds the nature of body and soul has not entirely changed. There was a mixing-in by which a portion of the Israelites became assimilated amongst the peoples and swallowed up by them. This mixing of the blood by being taken in amongst the Gentiles, caused a great fermentation. Due to the clarity and strong surge of Israelite life-force the spirit of the Gentiles has been affected. Consequently they have progressively been becoming more and more suited to receive the appearances of Divine Light, of clear revelation and mental lucidity. This phenomenon stands ready to increasingly make its appearance in the world through the light of Israel that is progressing towards revival and ascension. An inner push caused by a renewed [Israelite] spiritual approach would cause all peoples to move forward.
This is a consequence resulting from the hidden ability of those who in ancient times assimilated. [Their descendants] will be yearning and striving to declare the name of Israel on their inheritance. This will be a goal they will feel a need to achieve. The spiritual urge to Communicate with the Divine will progressively enlighten the national spirit and increasingly come to dominate it. Eventually they will be able to reach complete enlightenment through the Supreme Light of the Word of God. This will out-shine in its glorious perfected appearance all the darknesses of the world.##
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

10.
1387. 7. The Revision of Ancient Historical Chronology and its Pertinence to Brit-Am
Jonathan Tillotson wrote:

Dear Yair,

Hello. I was wondering if there is a place on the website which explains clearly and simply the significance of the controversy surrounding discrepancies in the ancient time line? Not just what the discrepancy is but what it means, or what its consequences might be? If not could you perhaps write a few words?

Regards

Jonathan

===============================================
================================================
Brit-Am Reply:
Shalom,
I have not written any articles on the subject as of yet.
Until now we have only been trying to follow some of the arguments and collecting information.
Conventional history says that first there was the Stone Age followed by the Copper, Bronze, and Iron Ages.
Revised Chronology opines that the said historical phases to at least some degree were inter-twined with each other.
Carbon dating etc is rejected.
Conventional history says that between the time of the Bronze Age and the so-called Iron Age in the Middle East and East Mediterranean (Greece, Malta, etc) there was a hiatus or gap ranging from ca. 300 years to up to 700 years. This gap is known as the Dark Ages.
Revised Chronology says that the Dark Ages are a fiction and did not exist or if they did exist in some areas they lasted only about 50 years.
Conventional history says that the Persian Empire lasted for quite a same time.
Revised Chronology says that is was relatively short.

There are a lot of different scenarios that have been proposed.
From my point of view Peter Jones and company present the case quite well:
Centuries of Darkness: A Challenge to the Conventional Chronology of Old World Archaeology by Peter James, I. J. Thorpe, I.J. Thorpe, Nikos Kokkinos, Robert Morkot
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Centuries-
of-Darkness/Peter-James/e/9780813519500

See also:
The 'Dark Age' in Greece by E. J de Meester.
http://home-3.tiscali.nl/~meester7/engdark.html

They reduce Conventional History by 250 years. This to my mind is too little but it is a beginning.
Immanuel Velikovsky reduced the time scale by ca. 700 years. Many of his points still sound and have not been refuted.
Nevertheless it is widely held that he may erred by going too far to the opposite extreme.

How does all this affect Brit-Am?

We hold that megalithic monuments (dolmens, etc) in the west provide evidence of Israelite Presence.
Conventional Dating dates these findings much earlier than the Israelite Exile.

Eliminating the Dark Ages would make the archaeological record coincide much more exactly with Biblical descriptions.

In addition in Scandinavia, Northern Europe, and the British Isles a large number of findings from the Bronze Age show cultural and probable ethnic connections to the Eastern Mediterranean and Middle East.
Lowering the date of the Bronze Age so that it falls within the compass of the Israelites being exiled by the Assyrians makes our belief that Exiled Israelites moved to the west consistent with archaeological findings.
In fact it explains these findings better than the other explanations at present proffered.

If it were accepted that the Persian Empire only lasted for a shirt while it would bring conventional chronology more into sync with traditional Jewish accounts.
http://www.streetdirectory.com/travel_guide/15763/writing/short_persian_empire___archaeological_evidence_from_peter_james_book_centuries_of_darkness.html
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

11.
1386
1. Richard: What About the REST of the Promised Land?
Subject: Land of Israel?

With all the concern over the present day "state of Israel" I am wondering why we are so enamored with this state and the boundaries of the same?
When we look at the original covenant God made with Abram in Genesis chapter 15 we see the boundaries are much broader than the boundaries of the present day "state of Israel".
Why don't we consider the rest of the land God promised to Abram? If you look at a globe or map of the middle east you will see that this area encompasses a much larger land mass that the little sliver of land we call Israel today.

Genesis 15:18 In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates: ( I would assume the great river of Egypt refers to the Nile)

Deuteronomy 1:7 Turn you, and take your journey, and go to the mount of the Amorites, and unto all the places nigh thereunto, in the plain, in the hills, and in the vale, and in the south, and by the sea side, to the land of the Canaanites, and unto Lebanon, unto the great river, the river Euphrates.
8 Behold, I have set the land before you: go in and possess the land which the LORD sware unto your fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give unto them and to their seed after them.

Joshua 1:2 Moses my servant is dead; now therefore arise, go over this Jordan, thou, and all this people, unto the land which I do give to them, even to the children of Israel.
3 Every place that the sole of your foot shall tread upon, that have I given unto you, as I said unto Moses.
4 From the wilderness and this Lebanon even unto the great river, the river Euphrates, all the land of the Hittites, and unto the great sea toward the going down of the sun, shall be your coast.
I look forward to your response, Richard


Brit-Am Reply:
We agree with you that the Promised Land encompasses much much more than that at present controlled by the State of Israel.
We have articles on this subject and mention it quite often.
http://www.britam.org/Questions/QuesLand.html
We even wrote a poem about it:
The Promised Land
http://www.britam.org/BAPoetry.html#Promised

In our opinion ways should be sought for Ephraimites to set up bases in other parts of the Promised Land.
Why not advocate the USA forming a protectorate over some area in southeast Turkey, Cyprus, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, etc, wherein Ephraimites will be enabled to settle?
It sounds fantastic but under certain circumstances it could well be done and if the right information has been going out previously when the opportunity presents itself it could be acted upon.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
12.
3. Non-Israelites to Return with Israel?
We in Brit-Am believe in the identification of the Lost Ten Tribes with Western Peoples.
This is not generally accepted or even known about.
We therefore are constantly looking for new evidence and seeking to emphasize the evidence we already have.
This emphasized activity of ours is necessary but it can lead to an over-emphasis.
We are not racist or racialists.
Recently we met with Michael Chen of Singapore who is presently visiting Israel.
Michael is a supporter of Brit-Am and an Ephraimite who takes an active interest in general Ephraimite
matters.
Michael pointed out that Scripture also allows for those of non-Israelite descent to return with the Tribes.
Ezekiel 47 says that in the end times the non-Israelite who dwells among Israelites will receive an inheritance in the Land
within whatsoever Israelite Tribes he dwells amongst.

[Ezekiel 47:22] AND IT SHALL COME TO PASS, THAT YE SHALL DIVIDE IT BY LOT FOR AN INHERITANCE UNTO YOU, AND TO THE STRANGERS THAT SOJOURN AMONG YOU, WHICH SHALL BEGET CHILDREN AMONG YOU: AND THEY SHALL BE UNTO YOU AS BORN IN THE COUNTRY AMONG THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL; THEY SHALL HAVE INHERITANCE WITH YOU AMONG THE TRIBES OF ISRAEL.

Michael quoted other verses along the same lines.
After taking our leave of Michael we opened a Bible and as if by "chance" immediately alighted on the following passage.

[Isaiah 14:1] FOR THE LORD WILL HAVE MERCY ON JACOB, AND WILL YET CHOOSE ISRAEL, AND SET THEM IN THEIR OWN LAND: AND THE STRANGERS SHALL BE JOINED WITH THEM, AND THEY SHALL CLEAVE TO THE HOUSE OF JACOB.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

13.
1383. 2. Ancient Israel and Cyprus
George Orphanos wrote:
Hello,
I read with great interest all the information you presented regarding Cyprus beeing a part of the land of Israel.
It is also true that almost 3000 years ago the Greeks arrived in Cyprus bringing with them their civilazation, culture and language and since then Cyprus has been considered a part of the Greek territory (ancient Greek,Byzantine etc).
Do you believe that the native people were Hebrews that later were affected by the Greeks or Hebrews who left the island after the advent of the Greeks?

Sincerely
George Orphanos
================================================
================================================
Brit-Am Reply:
Shalom,
Our notes on Cyprus
http://www.britam.org/Questions/QuesLand.html#Cyprus
concern the borders of Israel.
Cyprus was a major source of copper and just recently in our studies of the Torah Portion we came across a reference to "nechoshet" translated as "brass"
but actually meaning copper.
http://www.britam.org/deuteronomy/3ekev.html
[Deuteronomy 8:9] A LAND WHEREIN THOU SHALT EAT BREAD WITHOUT SCARCENESS, THOU SHALT NOT LACK ANY THING IN IT; A LAND WHOSE STONES ARE IRON, AND OUT OF WHOSE HILLS THOU MAYEST DIG BRASS.
We hold that Cyprus was part of the Promised Land and that Israelites at different times ruled over it and probably settled there.
Beyond that we cannot really say.

Cyprus
Cyprus
Cyprus
Cyprus


===============================================
Excerpts from the Wikipedia article (followed by Brit-Am Commentary)
================================================
History of Cyprus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Cyprus

In the Bronze Age the first cities, like Enkomi, were built. Systematic copper mining began, and this resource was widely traded.

The LCIIC (1300-1200 BC) was a time of local prosperity. ...Both the regular layout of the cities and the new masonry techniques find their closest parallels in Syria, especially in Ras-Shamra (Ugarit). Rectangular corbelled tombs point to close contacts with Syria and Palestine as well. The practice of writing spread and tablets in the Cypriot syllabic script have been found at Ras Shamra which was the Phoenician city of Ugarit. Ugaritic texts from Ras Shamra and Enkomi mention Ya, the Assyrian name of Cyprus, that thus seems to have been in use already in the late Bronze Age.

Copper ingots shaped like Ox hides have been recovered from shipwrecks such as at Ulu Burun, Iria and Cape Gelidonya which attest to the widespread metal trade. Weights in the shape of animals found in Enkomi and Kalavassos follow the Syro-Palestinian, Mesopotamian, Hittite and Aegean standards and thus attest to the wide ranging trade as well.

Late Bronze Age Cyprus was a part of the Hittite empire but was a client state and as such was not invaded but rather merely part of the empire by association and governed by the ruling kings of Ugarit[4]....However during the reign of Tudhaliya the island was briefly invaded by the Hittites for either reasons of securing the copper resource or as a way of preventing piracy. Shortly afterwards the island was reconquered by his son around 1200 BCE

In the later phase of the late Bronze Age (LCIIIA, 1200-1100 BC) great amounts of 'Mycenean' IIIC:1b pottery were produced locally. New architectural features include cyclopean walls, found on the Greek mainland, as well and a certain type of rectangular stepped capitals, endemic on Cyprus. Chamber tombs are given up in favour of shaft graves. Many scholars therefore believed that Cyprus was settled by Mycenean Greeks by the end of the Bronze Age. But this view has increasingly been criticised in recent years, as there is no distinct break in most areas of material culture between the LCIIC (1400-1200 BC) and LCIII. Large amounts of IIIC:1b pottery are found in Palestine during this period as well. While this was formerly interpreted as evidence of an invasion ('Sea Peoples'), this is seen more and more as an indigenous development, triggered by increasing trade relations with Cyprus and Crete. Evidence of early trade with Crete is found in archaeological recovery on Cyprus of pottery from Cydonia, a powerful urban center of ancient Crete.[5]

There are finds that show close connections to Egypt as well.

Another wave of Greek settlement is believed to have taken place in the following century (LCIIIB, 1100-1050), indicated, among other things, by a new type of graves (long dromoi) and Mycenean influences in pottery decoration.

Foundations myths documented by classical authors connect the foundation of numerous Cypriot towns with immigrant Greek heroes in the wake of the Trojan war.

The first cremation burial in Bronze vessels has been found at Kourion-Kaloriziki, tomb 40, dated to the first half of the 11th century (LCIIIB). The shaft grave contained two bronze rod tripod stands, the remains of a shield and a golden sceptre as well. Formerly seen as the Royal grave of first Argive founders of Kourion, it is now interpreted as the tomb of a native Cypriote or a Phoenician prince. The cloisonn?enamelling of the sceptre head with the two falcons surmounting it has no parallels in the Aegean, but shows a strong Egyptian influence.

In the 8th century, several Phoenician colonies were founded, like Kart-Hadasht ('New Town'), present day Larnaca and Salamis. The oldest cemetery of Salamis has indeed produced children's burials in Canaanite jars, clear indication of Phoenician presence already in the LCIIIB 11th century. Similar jar burials have been found in cemeteries in Kourion-Kaloriziki and Palaepaphos-Skales near Kouklia. In Skales, many Levantine imports and Cypriote imitations of Levantine forms have been found and point to a Phoenician expansion even before the end of the 11th century.

The first written source shows Cyprus under Assyrian rule. A stela found 1845 in Kition commemorates the victory of king Sargon II (721-705 BC) in 709 over the seven kings in the land of Ia', in the district of Iadnana or Atnana. The former is supposedly the Assyrian name of the island, while some authors take the latter to mean Greece (the Islands of the Danaoi). There are other inscriptions referring to Ia' in Sargon's palace at Khorsabad. The ten kingdoms listed by an inscription of Esarhaddon in 673/2 BC have been identified as Salamis, Kition, Amathus, Kourion, Paphos and Soli on the coast and Tamassos, Ledra, Idalium and Chytri in the interior.

Cyprus gained independence for some time around 669 but was conquered by Egypt under Amasis (570-526/525). The island was conquered by the Persians around 545 BC.

Cyprus gained independence for some time around 669 but was conquered by Egypt under Amasis (570-526/525). The island was conquered by the Persians around 545 BC.

Full Hellenisation only took place under Ptolemaic [i.e. Greek Egyptian] rule. Phoenician and native Cypriot traits disappeared, together with the old Cypriot syllabic script.

Cyprus became a Roman province in 58 BC

After the division of the Roman Empire into an eastern half and a western half, Cyprus came under the rule of Byzantium.

When the Arabs invaded Cyprus in 688, the emperor Justinian II and the caliph Abd al-Malik reached an unprecedented agreement. For the next 300 years, Cyprus was ruled jointly by both the Arabs and the Byzantines as a condominium, despite the nearly constant warfare between the two parties on the mainland.

This period lasted until the year 965, when a resurgent Byzantium conquered the island.

In the 12th century A.D. the island became a target of the crusaders. Richard the Lionhearted landed in Limassol on the 1st of June 1191 in search of his sister and his bride Berengaria, whose ship had become separated from the fleet in a storm. Richard married Berengaria in Limassol on the 12th of May 1192. She was crowned as Queen of England by John Fitzluke, Bishop of ?reux. The crusader fleet continued to St. Jean d'Acre (Syria) on the 5th of June. The army of Richard the Lionhearted continued to occupy Cyprus and raised taxes. He sold the island to the Knights Templar, before they moved to Rhodes and finally to Malta. Soon after that, the Franks (Lusignans) occupied the island, establishing the Kingdom of Cyprus.

Maronites settled on Cyprus during the crusades and still maintain some villages in the North.

In 1878, as the result of the Cyprus Convention, the United Kingdom took over the government of Cyprus as a protectorate from the Ottoman Empire. In 1914, at the beginning of World War I, Cyprus was annexed by the United Kingdom. In 1925, following the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, Cyprus was made a Crown Colony. Between 1955-59 EOKA was created by Greek Cypriots and led by George Grivas to perform enosis (union of the island with Greece). However the EOKA campaign did not result union with Greece but rather an independent republic, The Republic of Cyprus, in 1960.

In 1960, Turkish Cypriots were only the 18% of the Cypriot population.

Internal conflicts turned into full-fledged armed fighting between the two communities on the island which prompted United Nations to send peace keeping forces in 1964 (These forces are still in place today). Turkey invaded the island in 1974 and seized the northern third of the island, Turkish Cypriots in the south would travel north and Greek Cypriots in the north would move to the south. The de facto state of Northern Cyprus was proclaimed in 1975 under the name "Turkish Federated State of Northern Cyprus".

After the southern, Greek speaking part of Cyprus became a member of the European Union, it adopted the Euro as its currency on January 1, 2008, replacing the previously used Cypriot Pound; whilst the northern area began using the New Turkish Lira.
================================================
================================================

Brit-Am Commentary
We see from the Wikipedia excerpts above that:
Cyprus was in contact with "Syria and Palestine" i.e. the Land of Canaan-Israel from the beginning.
Phoenician influence was important and in our opinion findings classified as Phoenician in some cases are actually Israelite.
In addition to that (as also noted in the Wikipedia article) some of the findings classified as Mycenean Greek could just as well have been from the Land of Israel.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

14.
1382. 1. Were the Really Intelligent Germans actually Israelites?
Background:
John Hulley in "Comets Jews and Christians" (1996) attributes true scientific achievement on the whole to a combination of Israelite ancestry together with relative closeness to Biblical truth. He uses recipients of Nobel Prizes as criteria.
We ourselves have never gone into this.
We do however include Originality: Innovation and Intellect in our list of Ephraimite Criteria
See:
How Do You Know. You Descend from Israel?
http://www.britam.org/criteria.html

Recently while reading an article about Jewish achievement (interesting in itself) we came across the following passage:

================================================
##Another thought that occurred to me while googling profiles of German Nobel prize winners is how many of them either married Jews, hired Jews in violation of Nuremberg laws, helped Jews escape or left Germany to protest Hitler's anti-Semitism. One would expect a few people to do this. Instead, probably 70% of German Nobel Prize winners either married a Jew or broke Hitler?s law to help one. ##
Jewish IQ: Above Average or Extraordinary?
March 28, 2009 by guywhite
http://guywhite.wordpress.com/2009/03/28/jewish-iq-above-average-or-extraordinary/
================================================

Assuming the comment is correct it might imply that those few Germans who were still managing to achieve anything new after the Jews had been ejected may also have been of Israelite origin since they acted in a pro-Jewish manner in contradistinction to the less intelligent segments of the populace.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

15.
1381.
6. Additional Proofs Come to the Fore
Our new series, "My Biblical Fathers", is intended to supplement the existing articles examining evidence on specific points
most of which are to be found in the series
Biblical Proofs
http://www.britam.org/Proof/ProofsIntro.html
In the course of producing this series "My Biblical Fathers" we find that new points become apparent or
other aspects of existing proofs come into focus.
===============================================
================================================
(a) Four Corners of the Earth
In our list of Proofs we have a whole section dedicated to Geographical Proofs.
http://www.britam.org/Proof/ProofsIntro.html
Points (among others) include:
Ends of the Earth
Israel -Center of the World
Ends of the Earth and Northern Europe
Isles of the Sea
Tarshish and the Atlantic Ocean
Centered to the West of the Land of Israel
To the North and West of the Land of Israel
Centered to the North
Zebulon on the Shores of the Sea in Holland
"Zepharat" meaning Britain, France, and the North
"Land of Sinim" meaning Australia and New Zealand

Now from the above it is implied that Israelites will of necessity be at one and the same time in the north, west, south, and east.
This is not however stated explicitly.
Nevertheless it prophesied concerning Jacob that his offspring would simultaneous be powerful blessed people in those four directions.
This may be considered another proof in its own right.

[Genesis 28:14] AND THY SEED SHALL BE AS THE DUST OF THE EARTH, AND THOU SHALT SPREAD ABROAD TO THE WEST, AND TO THE EAST, AND TO THE NORTH, AND TO THE SOUTH: AND IN THEE AND IN THY SEED SHALL ALL THE FAMILIES OF THE EARTH BE BLESSED.
===============================================
================================================
(b) Struggle with Esau
We mentioned the final struggle between Joseph and Esau as a Proof valid for identification.

We quoted from
[Ezekiel 25:14] "AND I WILL LAY MY VENGEANCE UPON EDOM BY THE HAND OF MY PEOPLE ISRAEL:
and
[Obadiah 1:18] AND THE HOUSE OF JACOB SHALL BE A FIRE, AND THE HOUSE OF JOSEPH A FLAME, AND THE HOUSE OF ESAU FOR STUBBLE.
We emphasized the involvement of Joseph with the downfall of Edom.
The involvement however began with the birth of Jacob and Esau and was endemic to the whole of Israel only later to be focused on Joseph.

[Genesis 25:23] AND THE LORD SAID UNTO HER, TWO NATIONS ARE IN THY WOMB, AND TWO MANNER OF PEOPLE SHALL BE SEPARATED FROM THY BOWELS; AND THE ONE PEOPLE SHALL BE STRONGER THAN THE OTHER PEOPLE; AND THE ELDER SHALL SERVE THE YOUNGER.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

16.
1380.
1. Cam Rea: On the Antiquity of Indian Documents:
re Brit-Am Now no. 1379
http://www.britam.org/now/1379Now.html#Cam
#1. Cam Rea: World Domination by Scythian Descendants Foretold in Indian Text?

Shalom Mr. Davidiy I hope all is well with you and your family.
I did a pretty good investigation into that verse found in the Mahabharata. So far I find the same verse even in older manuscripts and some of the books I found online by India scholars make no mention of bad interpretation or even a miss understanding. As far as I can tell it seems to be a legit verse. I could try emailing some pro's that specilise in India's religous history.

Cam Rea
================================================
================================================
Brit-Am Reply:

I did not intend to say that the said passage is a mere insertion but rather part of the whole narrative whose final formulation only took place in the 1700s or later and not (as is claimed) 3000 or more years earlier.
Whether or not the Indian works are of great antiquity does not make that much difference to us one way or another since at this stage we do not use them nor even find it necessary to take cognizance of their existence.
Nevertheless if we do have to refer to such works it is worth while making it clear to ourselves as to what we are dealing with.

The Indian works for instance also have tales about their gods (or one of their gods) very similar to that of the Christian Messiah in Christian belief. Where the tales of the Christian Messiah originated is not our concern at present but it does seem that in this case it is the Hindus who are doing the copying and not the other way round.
To be effective one must be fair.
In last week's portion (Shoftim) we had the verse.
[Deuteronomy 16:20] THAT WHICH IS ALTOGETHER JUST SHALT THOU FOLLOW, THAT THOU MAYEST LIVE, AND INHERIT THE LAND WHICH THE LORD THY GOD GIVETH THEE.
http://www.britam.org/deuteronomy/5shoftim.html
#THAT WHICH IS ALTOGETHER JUST SHALT THOU FOLLOW#.

In Hebrew "Tsedek tsedek tirdaf" literally "Justice, justice you shall pursue after" i.e. double justice, justice that is certain.
The word in Hebrew used here for justice is Tsedek. In the Aramaic Paraphrase-Translation of Onkelos this word is here translated as "Kushta" i.e. TRUTH.
Justice is the Truth and the Truth is Justice. We must recognize the truth and own up to it and pursue our course by going after (pursuing) that which is true.

This attitude of ours to Indian written works may remind some of the way modern atheistical Biblical Critics relate to Scripture.
Biblical Critics often have an anti-Israelite anti-Jewish agenda.
They make all kinds of claims about Biblical Books that are mostly untrue.
They are extremely prejudicial and sometimes outright liers.
There is no reason however why the same standards they attempt to apply to the Bible should not be applied to books that are not part of the Bible.
We have no obligation to show any reference to pagan works.
We do not have to accept assertions regarding the antiquity of such works without seeing proof of it.
In general our attitude is to usually respect mythology and ancient traditions and try to look for what historical truth if any lies behind them. We do not reject them outright.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

17.
1379 1. Cam Rea: World Domination by Scythian Descendants Foretold in Indian Text?
From: Cam Rea <tragicpoet77@yahoo.com>

Shalom Mr. Davidiy.

I found something of interest in the ancient India text:

Sakas after Kurukshetra War

A passage which is rendered as a futuristic prediction in Mahabharata mentions thus:- The Andhhas, the Sakas, the Pulindas, the Yavanas, the Kamvojas, the Valhikas and the Abhiras, will then become possessed of bravery and the sovereignty of the whole earth (3:187).
Cam
================================================
================================================

Brit-Am Reply:

Old British Israel writings also mention references to the Isle of Britian in Hindu sacred writings.
This could be worth following up on.
On the other hand, the texts in question are often claimed to be based on sources dating back thousands of years whereas in fact they were only recorded in their present form in ca the 1800s CE.
This was the period of British Predominance in India and some degree of deliberate retro-projection should be suspected.
We are not suggesting that this may be some kind of British inspired insertion but rather that Hindu Sages themselves may have (or perhaps did not?) re-interpreted the traditions in the light of the reality of their own age.
If this was so it could be EVEN MORE INTERESTING!
Did the Indians recognize an identity between the Scythians Sakas,Yavanas, Abhiras, etc, and the British?

We already have Arab Sources (based on Jewish Traditions) that in effect locate the Lost Ten Tribes in Britain, France, and the West.
See our articles:

Aed and Israel
The Lost Tribes in Celtic and Arabic Lore
http://britam.org/aed.html

THE ISLES OF THE WEST
THE ARABIAN CONNECTION
THE SONS OF MOSES
http://britam.org/arabian.html

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

18.
1377

3. New Article: Was Buddha an Israelite? by Cam Rea
http://britam.org/buddha.html
Extract:

The tribe, which Buddha is associated with, was known as the Sakyas. Buddha is said to have come from theGautama or in the Pail language Gotama's clan, which are a branch of the Sakyas tribe. The clan from which Buddha comes from is noticeable in his name, Siddhartha "Gautama or Gotama".[10] But who were the Sakyas and who was this clan called Gautama? That is what we are about to discover in this next piece.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

19.
1376

2. Question Concerning a Lack of Academic Historical Confirmation for the Brit-Am Migrationary Scenario
andrew waterhouse <andrew_nerohouse@yahoo.com> wrote:

Hello Yair, I came across your site a while back when I was looking for evidence of the claims made by British Israel. I use that phrase as I did have some involvement with the BIWF about 20 years ago and my understanding of these things is mostly from them. However, I abandoned exploring BI after a relatively short time - mainly because I came to the conclusion that there is little or no evidence that my north european ancestors (I'm English) originate from Israel. On the other hand, there is a mass of evidence to show that my ancestors inhabited north western europe long before the migrations of Israel. Archaelogical evidence shows boat graves several thousand years old which reflect the stories in Beowulf or the Norse sagas. In short, I cannot reconcile the argument that my ancestors came from Israel (and I'm familar with the Sythian/Cimmerian migration stories) with the fact that they were already in Europe and had been for many thousands of years practicing an ancient religion that developed into what we now call Anglo Saxon/Germanic or Norse Heathenry - Asatru in the States. Also, the Roman historian Tacitus tells us that the ancestors of the Anglo Saxons (Ingavones) believed they originated from a god called Tuisto - the twin if you are familar with it). This is similar to the norse myth based around Ymir - which may also mean twin - and I believe older Indo European origin myths. There is myth about this god coming from the east - but nothing I see that tangibly identifies with Israel. I recall seeing on your site that Brit-Am does not claim that all north european people are descended from the lost tribes - just a proportion. This makes more sense to me and would fit better with what I see as the historical and archaeological reality. It may even tie in with Germanic and Norse myth which suggests a fusion of two peoples - one settled (the vanir) and the other an invading warrior elite (the Asir) - this is where Odin may have originated. I have certainly read articles that suggest Asgard was a real city somewhere near the Black sea - but again I remain sceptical. It literally means realm of the gods. I would be grateful for your views on this. I obviously remain interested as I keep trying to find answers. But I still find the historical evidence a real stumbling block and am unconvinced by the cirular arguments from purely biblical sources. Andrew

================================================
================================================


Brit-Am Reply:
Andrew Shalom,
I sympathize with your predicament having undergone a similar experience in the distant past.
See:
Brit-Am History
http://www.britam.org/BAhistory.html
People who move from Brit-Am and British Israel type writings into the academic world may be non-plussed by the apparent lack of correspondence between the two. This however applies more to Anglo-Saxon academia and is not the case everywhere.
In Scandinavia, academic research accepts the possibility (or strong probability, depending on what sources are referred to)
of strong contacts with the Meditteranean, Middle Eastern and Central Asia areas on a continuous basis from before the Bronze Age all the way up to the Viking Era.
e.g.
"The Rise of Bronze Age Society. Travels, Transmissions and
Transformation" by Kristian Kristiansen and Thomas B. Larsson, Cambridge, 2005
http://britam.org/now/1102Now.html#Map

General European and British Research if read with discrimination does not necessarily negate this possibility.
You say:
#Archaelogical evidence shows boat graves several thousand years old which reflect the stories in Beowulf or the Norse sagas.#
Beowulf and the Norse sagas date from ca. 600-1000 CE. They do explain the boat graves and many other "stone age" and Bronze Age findings that however are claimed to date back in some cases to beyond 2000 BCE, i.e. up to 3000 years.
How logical is this??
Thing about it.
Would not a scenario placing the boat graves close to Beowulf and the Norse Sages be more acceptable?
Europe in ca. 700 BCE had a sparse population.

You mentioned
"Norse Heathenry - Asatru". Our impression is that this form of modern demon worship is a very recent invention.

You mentioned
#Tuisto -the twin as ancestor of the Anglo-Saxons?#
Maybe.
Jacob and Esau were twin brothers.
Jacob was renamed Israel and fathered the 12 tribes of Israel.

Concerning Tuisto, Wikipedia says:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuisto

#Tacitus relates that "ancient songs" (Latin carminibus antiquis) of the Germanic peoples celebrated Tuisto as "a god, born of the earth" (deum terra editum). These songs further attributed to him a son, Mannus, who in turn had three sons, the offspring of whom were referred to as Ingaevones, Herminones and Istaevones, living near the Ocean (proximi Oceano), in the interior (medii), and the remaining parts (ceteri) of the geographical region of Germania, respectively.[1]#

See our book "The Tribes"
http://britam.org/the-Tribes.html
Here we identify Mannus with Manasseh and other ancestral figures with Biblical Patriarchs and the heads of Tribal clans listed in the Bible.
As for the Aseir and Asgard north of the Black Sea and a Movement to Scandinavia.
This reflects historical reality confirmed by archaeological and other findings.
See:
The Khazars. Tribe 13
http://www.britam.org/Khazarbook.html

Modern researchers in effect accept the possibility of large-scale ethnic movements from the Middle East westward.
The main obstacle at present to the acceptance by researchers of such a phenomenon is DNA evidence rather than
archaeological and historical findings.
This is an obstacle that Brit-Am is attempting to cope with.

The Brit-Am Ten Tribes Movement derives puts most of its justification from Biblical Evidence but we also refer
to other sources including secular researches.

God bless you
Yair Davidiy

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

20.
1374
2. New Article. My Biblical Fathers
http://www.britam.org/Patriarch.html
What Does the Bible Say about the Chosen Peoples of Israel?
This article is the first of a series.
In one sense the article says little we have not said before but it has been rendered from the Perspective of the Blessings according to the order they are given in the Bible and with the Biblical background.
This information is very important.
This could well be one of the most important articles we have produced!

We have also given an outline of the subject in a broadcast.
Broadcast
My Biblical Fathers. Abraham
http://britam.org/Broadcasts/newBAMBI/patriarch1.mp3
(ca. 36 minutes)

Contents and Excerpts
Contents.
Introduction
Part One. Abraham
Background
1. Abraham is Chosen. A Great Nation and a Source of Blessing for all Mankind
2. Promise of the Land. Numerous Descendants.
3. Promise of the Land and Moral Recititude.
4. The Covenant of the Land, Circumcision, Torah Law
5. Sarah and Israel. Expulsion of the Arabs. Isaac the Anglo-Saxon!
6. A GREAT AND MIGHTY NATION in whom all Nations will be blessed and who will do Justice and Judgment!
7.The Material Power-based Israelite Blessings were Unconditional. Future Possession of Strategic Gates
8. Summation
9. Poem. Requirements
THE PROMISED BLESSINGS TO ABRAHAM
10. Poem: The Promised Land

Excerpts:
Introduction
The Blessings and goals of the Israelite Peoples where given by the Almighty. They had to be fulfilled at least in part (Genesis 22:16) within an historical time period close to the End Times and are not merely predictions for the Messianic Age. These Promises included becoming a numerous people by universal standards whose offspring would be uncountable as the dust of the earth, sand of the sea, and the stars of heaven. They would become a great and powerful entity. Other peoples of the earth would be blessed through them. They would comprise several distinct nations each ruled by its own kings or rulers, i.e. independently of each other and also ruling over other peoples. They would be the most powerful powers on earth. They would rule over the seas, and be located in several different oceans. They would be extremely wealthy through the possession of raw material sources, agricultural plenty, geographical advantages, and historical good fortune. They would have an irrevocable right to the Holy Land. This right would be primarily expressed by Judah meaning that section of them that maintained consciousness of its origins, practiced circumcision, and kept the Law. Judah in returning to the Land was to act as a forerunner and representative of the other Tribes who ultimately would also return but at a later stage. Judah in this sense represents more of a spiritual aspect making its imprint on physicality.
On the other hand the section headed by Joseph would bring the physical-, material and strength of power-, ruler over others- aspect to its highest degree of expression.

Looking at the Promises to Abraham and with the understanding that the greater part of the Israelite nation lost consciousness of its origins and became the Lost Ten Tribes we must find a group of peoples that fulfill the following points:
Great and Mighty Independent Nations who are a Source of Blessing for all Mankind and who promote Justice and Judgment!
They must be extremely Numerous by world standards.
They should be named after Isaac as the Anglo-Saxons are!
They must be a world power to whom whether by design or by virtue of being what they have gained control over Strategic Gates meaning points that open up lane-ways or give access to vulnerable areas of potential antagonistic parties on the international level.
These requirements are summarized in the Poem below.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

21.
1373
2. Robert Berentz: British Oaks
Brit Ruled - Because of the British Oak trees for ship building ..
superior to any other tree in any other place.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

22.
1361
2. Were any Israelites Left after the Assyrian Exile?
The Northern Kingdom of Israel was destroyed in ca. 720 BCE (conventional date) and disappeared. Later the Jews of Judah were exiled in ca. 580 BCE and later returned.
We know that when the Jews were taken into Babylon a few remained and these joined their brothers after the return.
Could the same have been said for the northern Israelites?
Did any remain?
What do the sources say?
What was the final Brit-Am conclusion?
================================================
================================================
Brit-Am Reply:
We dealt with this question in our article:
The Completeness of the Exile
http://www.britam.org/CompleteExile.html
See also:
Queries on the Exile
http://www.britam.org/Questions/QuesExile.html
The Bible says that all of [northern] Israel was exiled.
[2-Kings 17:18] THEREFORE THE LORD WAS VERY ANGRY WITH ISRAEL, AND REMOVED THEM OUT OF HIS SIGHT: THERE WAS NONE LEFT BUT THE TRIBE OF JUDAH ONLY.
This however could be understood to mean that on JUDAH remained as a recognizable entity and some physical former citizens of Israel could have been left.
According to early Rabbinical sources (Midrash Seder Olam)
about 12% (one in eight remained) most of these moved south to Judah or otherwise were absorbed by the Jews while some may have been assimilated by the non-Israelite Samaritans.
Apart from these Rabbinical sources there is (at present) NO real archaeological or other evidence that any of the Israelites remained behind.
The best summary of the situation is probably that given by Nachmanides:
http://britam.org/RETURN.htm

#Those from the Tribes of Ephraim and Shimeon from Israel that were present (2-Chronicles 35;18) with Judah were they who dwelt in the Land of Judah or perhaps to some degree also those who had dwelt in their own territories adjoining Judah and had fled to Judah. They are referred to in a general sense as ?from Israel? (in 2-Chronicles 35;18) and not by their specific tribes since they represented only a small portion of their tribe. These are they who returned under Ezra with the Jews from Babylon. They were not expressly mentioned by their tribes since they were attached to Judah. They all settled in the cities of Judah. There was no Redemption for the Ten Tribes who remained in exile.

#These said that in the time of the Second Temple a few refugees from the other tribes also came up. They did not come from all of the other tribes but only from Ephraim and Menasseh. [Another authority however,Tosefot in Arakin 32;a, says that, "from each and every tribe a few returned"]. These few were not enough to be termed a tribe in their own right or even part of a tribe. Due to their minority position they were included amongst the two tribes of Judah and Benjamin and dwelt in their cities. This Second Redemption was not meant for the other tribes.

#It has been made quite clear from our study that the only ones who returned from the Babylonian Exile were they who belonged to the Kingdom of Judah. Those however who are termed the House of Ephraim, or The House of Israel, meaning the Ten Tribes are still in Exile in Assyria. These Tribes did not have any participants in the Second Redemption, as I have noted.