Posts : 233
Join date : 2009-08-01
|Subject: Britain-Ancient Israel Sat Aug 01, 2009 7:19 pm|| |
ANCIENT ISRAEL IN SPAIN AND BRITAIN
(A Review of an important 1846 work authored by historian and theologian DR. MOSES MARGOLIOUTH: 'THE HISTORY OF THE JEWS IN GREAT BRITAIN' )
Moses Margoliouth was a learned and respected minister in the Church of England of the nineteenth century. As his name might indicate, he was also of Jewish extraction. Born in Suwalki, Poland in 1818, he arrived in England in 1837 and converted to the Christian faith the following year. MCCLINTOCK AND STRONG'S CYCLOPEDIA adds the following:
"In 1840 he entered Trinity College, Dublin, and, after completing his studies, was ordained in 1844. He held various positions in the Episcopal Church, and at the time of his death, Feb. 25, 1881, he was vicar of Little Linford, near Newport Pagnell, Bucks, England. He is the author of many works: Fundamental Principles of Modern Judaism Investigated (London 1843); History of the Jews in Great Britain (ibid., 1846); A Pilgrimage to the Land of my Fathers (ibid. 1850, 2 vols.); History of the Jews in Great Britain (expanded 1851, 3 vols.); Abyssinia, its Past, Present, and Future (1866); The Spirit of Prophecy (1864); Sacred Minstrelsy: A Lecture on Biblical and Post-Biblical Hebrew Music (1863); The Oracles of God and their Vindication (1870); Vestiges of the Historic Anglo-Hebrews in East Anglia (eod.); The Poetry of the Hebrew Pentateuch (1871); The Lord's Prayer No Adaptation of Existing Jewish Petitions (1876). Besides, he left a great many works in manuscript."
A very learned churchman, he earned two doctorates (in Philosophy and Letters). The knowledge and learning he possessed shows clearly in his work, THE HISTORY OF THE JEWS IN GREAT BRITAIN. At the University of Liverpool, in England, he gave six lectures in 1845 on this subject. They were so well received that many requests came for their reprinting in book form, which appeared in 1846. A synopsis of this work follows.
ISRAEL, A MIGRATORY NATION
On page12, he states that Israel was "trained to be a wandering nation" with "a peculiar migratory disposition" (p.13) in preparation for "their mighty dispersion" over the earth. Israel's progenitor, Abraham, was "a type of the same," or example to those who followed after. Abraham was commanded in Genesis 12:1, 'Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that 1 will show thee.' Dr. Margoliouth adds that Abraham "and his descendants have ever and anon manifested a peculiar migratory disposition, as you always find in holy writ." Not only that, but Israel was "trained to be a maritime nation," as well, and quoting the eminent ancient Roman historian, Tacitus, "the first colonizing expeditions were performed by water, not by land." Margoliouth adds, "Not only did they possess the small Sea of Galilee, but they were placed all along the upper border of the great, or Mediterranean, Sea; and no sooner were they established in their country than they began to be engaged in maritime affairs, as we read in sacred history (I Kings 9:26-28) 'And King Solomon made a navy of ships in Ezion-geber which is beside Eloth, on the shore of the Red Sea, in the land of Edom. And Hiram sent in the navy his servants, shipmen that had knowledge of the sea, with the servants of Solomon. And they came to Ophir, and fetched from thence gold, four hundred and twenty talents, and brought it to King Solomon.' The Israelites, therefore, had an opportunity of traversing the known world at a very early period of their history..."
These statements have proven true in history. Other historians (such as Aylett Sammes in the 17th century), noted the Hebrew-Phoenician language of the early colonists of Britain, yet gave the Phoenicians all of the credit, saying that the Hebrews were never known to colonize! Not only is such a conception mistaken, but the word, "Hebrew," in ancient times even came to mean "a colonist." The Bible prophesied of Israel that, "his seed shall be in many waters"(Numbers 24:7) and they were to "spread abroad" to the four corners of the earth. (Genesis 28:14)
On pages 16 to 21, Pastor Margoliouth comments on the Hebrew-Phoenician connection with ancient Britain and Spain. The Bible in First Kings 10:22 tells us, 'For the king had at sea a navy of Tarshish, with the navy of Hiram: once in three years came the navy of Tarshish, bringing gold and silver...' Margoliouth says, "I am led to adopt the view of the profoundly learned Bochart -- viz., that the Tarshish of the Scriptures was the Tartessus of Spain, with a district around including Cadiz ... Now if Tarshish be Spain, the conclusion is inevitable, the Israelites must have visited the western countries in the days of Solomon.' Israel and Phoenicia both spoke the same language in ancient times, but since the nation of Israel far outnumbered the Phoenicians, it is obvious that most "Phoenician" colonization was in reality Israelite. An excellent and authoritative discussion of this subject is covered in Stephen M. Collins' recent book, "THE TEN TRBES OF ISRAEL ... FOUND!" ($20US PPD., Box 88735, SIOUX FALLS, SD 57109-1005)
ANCIENT HEBREW INSCRIPTIONS
A very interesting discussion of monuments found in Spain begins on page 22. In the year 1480 at Saguntum, Spain, "a Hebrew epitaph" of great antiquity was discovered. It reads, 'This is the grave of Adoniram, the servant of King Solomon, who came to collect the tribute, and died on the day...' (page 23) This Adoniram is mentioned in both I Kings 5:14 and 4:6, "and Adoniram the son of Abda was over the tribute." From this we understand that Adoniram was sent by Solomon to the Hebrew colony in Spain, where raw materials were collected for the Temple and other building projects in Palestine. This large stone sepulchre has been called, "the stone of Solomon's collector."
A second monument discovered in Spain with ancient Hebrew lettering, reads, "Raise with a bitter voice, a lamentation for the great prince; YAH has taken him. Amaziah." An old Hebrew book, called "Darcay Noam," or "Ways of Pleasantness," gives an account of this epitaph.
Pastor Margoliouth sums up this issue well in saying, "I see no reason for disbelieving that there were [Israelites] in Spain in the time of David and Solomon - startling as it may appear .. there existed colonies of Hebrews all over the world, in the reigns of David and Solomon..." (page 30)
I KINGS 9:26-28 "And king Solomon made a navy of ships in Ezion-geber which is beside Eloth, on the shore of the Red Sea, in the land of Edom. And Hiram sent in the navy his servants, shipmen that had knowledge of the sea, with the servants of Solomon. And they came to Ophir, and fetched from thence gold, four hundred and twenty talents, and brought it to King Solomon."
I KINGS 10:22 "For the king had at sea a navy of Tarshish, with the navy of Hiram: once in three years came the navy of Tarshish, bringing gold and silver..."
A fascinating discussion of the language connection with ancient Israel appears beginning on page 32. Samuel Bochart (1599-1667), a profound Oriental language scholar, showed that the name Britain itself "is a corruption of the Hebrew words Barat Anach,"or islands of tin. We read that "an eminent Cornish scholar of last century, who devoted a great deal of his time to prove the affinity between the Hebrew and Welsh languages, observes, 'It would be difficult to adduce a single article or form of construction in the Hebrew grammar, but the same is to be found in Welsh, and that there are many whole sentences in both languages exactly the same in the very words.'" Two columns of quotations follow, showing the connection between the Hebrew and Welsh languages, after which Pastor Margoliouth asks, "where could [the early Britons] have got hold of such whole Hebrew, purely Hebrew, sentences?" The only answer, of course, is that Hebrews visited and colonized the British isles in ancient times.
Proper names are next referenced. Kings of ancient Britain often had Hebrew names, such as Solomon (three different kings!), Daniel, Abraham, Asaph, and Adam, "from which circumstance some antiquarians attempted to prove that the Welsh are descendants of the children of Israel." Pastor Margoliouth expresses that he is being "very moderate" in establishing that at the very least, ancient Israelites had been 'mixing with the Britons' in forming the foundation of the modern British people. On this point, we believe evidence exists that the Celtic-Britons were themselves descendants of the Biblical House of Israel, the lost ten tribes, who migrated overland from the land of their captivity in Assyria through the Caucasus and into Europe. Our tract, "THE REAL DIASPORA" discusses these points in greater detail.
Posts : 233
Join date : 2009-08-01
|Subject: Re: Britain-Ancient Israel Sat Aug 01, 2009 7:20 pm|| |
Biblical prophetic references to Britain are discussed beginning on page 37. 'The command is to declare the Lord's purpose concerning Israel' in "The isles afar off," in Jeremiah 31:10 . These "were supposed by the ancients to have been Britannia, Scotia, and Hibernia (Ireland).' Again, in Jeremiah 31: , "For thus saith the Lord, sing with gladness for Jacob, and shout among the chief of the nations ... save thy people, the remnant of Israel." Pastor Margoliouth avers that, 'The prophet seems to behold Britain in his vision. There can be no doubt that Britain [was long] the chief of the nations. Her monarch's territory is one upon which the sun never sets.' Yet a third Biblical term is also tied to the British isles. "The expression, 'The end of the world,' mentioned in Isaiah 62:11 is also supposed to mean Britain, which was a common appellation for this island in remote ages."
In the year 1670, a contractor digging the basement for a house in Mark-Lane, London, came across an old underground Roman-era vault beneath the pavement. The vault was scaled with a large old Roman-style brick 'of curious red clay, and in bas-relief on the front hath the figure of Samson putting fire to the foxes' tails, and driving them into a field of corn.' An antiquarian of the time, writing about the find, asked, "How the story of Samson should be known to the Romans, much less to the Britons, so early after the propagation of the gospel, seems to be a great doubt, except, it should be said, that some Jews, after the final destruction of Jerusalem, should wander into Britain..."
The spread of the Gospel into Britain during the time of the Apostles, is a matter of historical record. "As to St. Paul's being one of the first heralds of salvation in this island, there can scarcely be any doubt on the subject. Indeed, if we do not believe it we must make up our minds to reject all the hitherto authentic historians." Dr. Burgess, late Bishop of Sarum, has shown that St. Paul laid the foundation of Britain's national church. Clemens Romanus, 'who was an intimate friend and fellow-labourer of St. Paul, declares in his Epistle to the Corinthians, that "St. Paul having been a herald of the Gospel both in the east and in the west, he received the noble crown of faith, after teaching righteousness to the whole world, and gone even to "the utmost bounds of the west" , an expression, well-known to every scholar, that always designated, or at least included, the British Islands." Theodoret, a learned church historian of the fourth century, 'mentions Britain among the nations which had received the Gospel.' He states in his observations on Psalm 116, that "Paul carried salvation to the islands which lie in the ocean." Jereme soon after, in his commentary on Amos chapter 5, said that "St. Paul's diligence in preaching extended as far as the earth itself .. after his imprisonment he preached the Gospel in the Western parts [of the world]." (De Script. Eccl.) Venentius Fortunatus, fifth century Bishop of Poitiers, said, "Paul having crossed the ocean, landed and preached in the countries which the Britons inhabit."
Pastor Margoliouth observes that "I could multiply quotations on this subject almost without end; but they would be as tedious, as they are unnecessary. 1 may, however, observe that some of the greatest men ... who spent a great part of their lives in such researches... the learned Ussher, Parker, Stillingfleet, Cave, Camden, Gibson, Godwin, Rapin, and a great many others - have clearly shown that St. Paul was the founder of the British church ... yea, the government of the British Christian Church was established and set in proper scriptural order by [Israelites] themselves, be they who they may - Peter, Paul, Simon Zealotes, loseph of Arimathea."
Christians owe a debt of gratitude to men like Pastor Moses Margoliouth, who so clearly show us our relationship to the ancient covenant people, that we may correctly see our responsibilities as that people.
OTHER JEWISH EXPOSITORS
Other Jewish authors have espoused the "Anglo-Israel" identity. One of the most famous scholars of the middle ages was RABBI MOSES BEN MAIMON, usually called MAIMONIDES; a philosopher, astronomer, and physician, who lived from 1135 to 1204 A.D. So famous and respected was he among the Jewish people for his learning, that they called him, "The Second Moses." He stated, "I believe the ten tribes to be in various parts of West Europe."
In the early 19th century, MOSES EDREHI was a distinguished rabbi, scholar, teacher, and firm believer in the existence of the "Lost Ten Tribes" in the lands of the West. Born in Morocco, he taught both modern and oriental languages, as well as religion, in Amsterdam and England. He also spent years in the old libraries of Europe researching the fate of the lost tribes. In his book entitled, "An Historical Account Of The Ten Tribes,"(1836) he states, 'Orteleus, that great geographer, giving the description of Tartary, notices the kingdom of Arsareth, where the Ten Tribes, retiring, succeeded [other] Scythian inhabitants, and took the name Gauther [Goths], because they were very jealous for the glory of God. In another place, he found the Naphtalites, who had their hordes there. He also discovered the tribe of Dan in the north, which has preserved its name. ...They further add, that the remains of ancient Israel were more numerous here than in Muscovy and Poland - from which it was concluded, that their habitation was fixed in Tartary [ie Scythia] from whence they passed into neighbouring places ... it is no wonder to find the Ten Tribes dispersed there; since it was no great way to go from Assyria, whither they were transplanted, having only Armenia betwixt them." (pp. 90-92) Yes, looking from Assyria northwest beyond Armenia and the Caucasus is Europe, ancient Scythia. Edrehi later finds lost Israel, among other places, in France and Spain, quoting Obadiah 17:23, "And the captivity of the host of the children of Israel shall possess that of the Canaanites [i.e., Phoenicians], even unto Zarephath (France), and the captivity of Jerusalem, which is in Sepharad (Spain)..." (page 266)
MODERN JEWISH PROPONENTS
In 1993, Hebrew scholar YAIR DAVIDY published in Jerusalem his book, "The Tribes," which was the result of years of study on the question of the lost tribes of Israel. He states, "Descendants from the Tribes of Joseph (Ephraim and Manasseh) seem to have been especially concentrated in the nations who settled the British isles and, through them, amongst all English-speaking peoples of British origin. These peoples have played a unique role in history over and beyond that of the other Israelite nations as a whole. This historical record was appropriate to the character of their forefather, JOSEPH." (p. 387)
THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA
Perhaps no greater authority exists as to the Jewish position on this subject, than 'THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA,' published in several editions beginning in the 1890's by Funk & Wagnalls, Inc. Under the subject, "TRIBES, LOST TEN," we read the following:
"The identification of the Sacae, or Scythians, with the Ten Tribes because they appear in history at the same time, and very nearly in the same place, as the Israelites removed by Shalmanesar, is one of the chief supports of the theory which identifies the English people, and indeed the whole Teutonic race, with the Ten tribes." (Vol. 12, p. 250)
In continuing to discuss this question, they state, "...the Sacae, or Scythians, who, again, were the Lost Ten Tribes." (ibid.)
EVIDENCE WHICH CONFIRMS SCRIPTURE
Related information identifying Israel in the world today will be found in our companion tracts, "ANCIENT HEBREW SEA MIGRATIONS," and "THE HEBREW-CELTIC CONNECTION". Evidence of ancient Hebrew sea voyages and settlement of Greece, Italy, Spain, Britain, and Denmark is confirmed by leading archaeologists. All of this is of more than passing interest for the Christian, for Bible prophecy spoke of Israel comprising "many nations," and "a company of nations." We believe that these and other prophecies have been indeed fulfilled!
Posts : 233
Join date : 2009-08-01
|Subject: British Covenant Church Sat Aug 01, 2009 9:05 pm|| |
THE BRITISH (COVENANT) CHURCH
BEFORE we can study the history of the true British Church, we should first understand the real meaning of the words 'British' and 'Church'. In all matters concerning Christianity the one true authority is, of course, The Bible. It may be useful at this stage to confirm that the word 'British' actually means 'Covenant man'- but more of that statement later
If we look at the word 'church', we see that this comes from the Greek word ekklesia, which is translated in the New Testament as 'church'. The Greek word ekklesia means 'the called out ones'. In the Old Testament, the Hebrew word qahal describes the same people - God's assembled people.
The 'called out ones', are God's chosen ones, His elect or those whom God has predestined to be His. These people God 'called out' of the world, to be His own. Only one people can fit this description in Biblical times and today. The Hebrew/Greek words translated as 'church' do not refer to modern church denominations or their members.
Jesus Christ said, as recorded in Matthew 21:43, that The Kingdom was to be given to another Nation. Do we know anything of this Nation or people 'called out' by God over the last 2000 years since Jesus Christ used these simple, but quite definite words that cannot be misconstrued? Which people, above all others, has done most to spread God's Word? Are we too ashamed to admit that no Nation or people has 'brought forth the fruits' to the extent that Britain has over the past 2000 years?
Concerning the modern usage of the word 'church', it is no longer a well known fact that the first church was established here in Britain within a few years of the ministry of Jesus Christ in Palestine. Yes, the first church! Many think that the first churches were established in the Middle East but this is not so. The persecutions that took place immediately following the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, ensured that any such assemblies were small and secret, especially when the Jews and later the Romans started to fear the so-called new religion.
If, as Jesus Christ confirmed; a Nation rnade up of God's church or elect, would 'bring forth the fruits', we should surely be able to see such a Nation in the early years following Jesus Christ's ascension. What can we learn, in this respect, from the writings of the early authorities? *
Tertullian. A.D. 155-222. He was Christianity's first genius after the apostles, and he wrote, 'The extremities of Spain, the various parts of Gaul, the regions of Britain which have never been penetrated by Roman arms have received the religion of Christ'.
Eusebius. A.D. 260-340. He was Christianity's first great historian, and he wrote 'The Apostles passed beyond the ocean to the isles called the Britannic Isles'.
Dorotheus. The Bishop of Tyre in A.D. 303 said 'Aristobulus, whom Paul saluted, writing to the Romans (Romans 16:10) was Bishop of Britain'. He also mentions by name another disciple as visiting Britain. 'Simon Zelotes preached Christ through all Mauretania, and Afric, the less. At length he was crucified at Britannia, slain and buried'.
Theodoret the Blessed. He was the Bishop of Cyrus in Syria, and writing in A.D. 435, said, 'Paul, liberated from his first captivity at Rome, preached the gospel to the Britains and others in the west. Our fishermen and publicans not only persuaded some Romans (i.e. Roman citizens, just like Paul) and their tributaries to acknowledge the Crucified and His laws, but the Britains also and the Cymry (the Welsh)'.
Chrysostom. The Patriarch of Constantinople A.D. 347- 407 wrote, 'Though thou shouldest go by the ocean to the British Isles, there thou shouldest hear all men everywhere discoursing matters out of the Scriptures with another voice, but not another faith, with a different tongue but the same judgement.'
Gildas the Wise. A.D. 425-512 the early British historian wrote, 'Christ the True Sun afforded his light, the knowledge of his precepts, to our Island in the last year of Tiberius Caesar.' This was in A.D. 37, only four years after the Crucifixion!
In the Diocletian Persecution. In A.D. 300, there were martyred in Britain by Rome, Stephen and Argulius, both Bishops of London; Socrates, Bishop of York; Arnphibalus, Bishop of Llandaff; Nicholas, Bishop of Penryn (Glasgow); Melior, Bishop of Carlisle; St. Alban; Julius and Aaron, elders of Caerleon; and 889 communicants in different grades of society.
The British Bishops. Eborius of York, Restitutus of London and Adelfius of Caerleon were present at the Church Council of Aries in A.D. 314. British Bishops were also present at the Council of Nicaea, A.D. 325, Sardica in Illyria, A.D. 347 and Ariminium in Italy, A.D. 359.
It is important to know that it was over FIVE CENTURIES after the founding of the early British Church that the first representatives of the so-called Rornan Christianity came to these islands. The rnonk, Augustine, sent by Pope Gregory arrived in Kent in the year A.D.597 - please reflect on the dates mentioned above!
This same Augustine, writing to Pope Gregory about the early British Church in A.D. 600 said, 'In the western confines of Britain, there is a certain royal island of large extent, surrounded by water, abounding in all the beauties of nature and necessities of life. In it the first neophytes of catholic law, God beforehand acquainting them, found a church constructed by no human art, but by the hands of Christ himself, for the salvation of His People'. This was Glastonbury's church, originally built with wattle.
This statement refers to the tradition that between the ages of 12 and 30, during which period the Gospels make no mention of Him (compare St Luke 2:42 & 49 with 3:23), Jesus Christ Himself visited these Islands with Joseph of Arimathea. Traditionally, Joseph was the uncle of the Virgin Mary, and came to Ynis-witrin, later called the Isle of Avalon, now Glastonbury, Somerset. Tradition and history further assert that when Joseph of Arimathea returned here after the Resurrection and Ascension, he and the eleven Disciples, who came with him built a wattle church. This was The First Church building above ground and it stood where the Norman Chapel of St. Mary stands in the Abbey grounds.
William of Malmesbury. A.D. 1080-1143, who was the best British historian of his day and who was asked by the monks of Glastonbury to write their history, says that after the Crucifixion, Joseph of Arimathea came here with eleven missionaries and that the King Arviragus gave them twelve Hides of land.
The Doomsday Book has the following entry which lends support to the above words of Augustine and of William of Malmesbury; 'The Church of Glastonbury has its own ville, twelve Hides of which have never paid tax'.
Maelgwyn of Llandaff. Circa A.D. 450. He was Lord of Anglesey and Snowdonia, and Uncle of St David of Wales, who forswore his realm in order to become a monk. He has left these words: 'Joseph of Arimathea, the noble decurion, entered his perpetual sleep with his eleven Companions in the Isle of Avalon'.
Polydore Vergil, a learned Italian historian in England, A.D. 1470-1555, wrote, 'Britain, partly through Joseph of Arimathea was of all kingdoms the first that received the Gospel'.
Superior dignity and antiquity was claimed for the British Church at the Roman Catholic church Councils of Pisa 1409, Constance 1417, Sienna 1424 and Basle 1434. This was on the grounds that 'the churches of France and Spain must yield in points of antiquity and precedence to that of Britain, as the latter Church was founded by Joseph of Arimathea immediately after the passion of Christ'.
After studying the above facts, can anyone say that the Roman Catholic church is the first true apostolic church? The Roman Catholic church was not even represented in these British Isles, over five centuries after the British Church was founded. To place this fact in perspective, this is like comparing the present date with AD. 1492, when Columbus had just landed in America and Henry VII ruled in England.
Posts : 233
Join date : 2009-08-01
|Subject: Re: Britain-Ancient Israel Sat Aug 01, 2009 9:06 pm|| |
How can it be that many in this country still believe that Augustine brought Christianity to this land? Why do the Archbishop of Canterbury and other church leaders still speak of this lie whenever they have the opportunity? This, of course, is the 'unity' of ecumenism! We should know that true Christian unity is not the same as conformity!
When Augustine arrived here in A.D. 497 (incidentally he never travelled much beyond the area which we now know as Kent) he was met by the British Church representatives and he was told by them:
'Be it known and declared that we all, individually and collectively, are in all humility prepared to defer to the Church of God, and to the Bishop of Rome, and to every sincere and godly Christian, so far as to love everyone according to his degree in perfect charity and to assist them all by word and in deed in becoming the children of God. But as for any other obedience, we know of none that be, whom you term the Pope, or Bishop of Bishops can demand. The deference we have mentioned we are ready to pay to him as to every other Christian, but in all other respects our obedience is due to the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Caerleon, who is alone under God our ruler to keep us right in the way of salvation'.
The Synod of Whitby in A.D. 664, marked the First entry of Roman Catholic influence into the native British church, which was now of both British and Celtic origin. Here, it was agreed that Roman Catholic usage on three points was to be followed. This was the first British ecumenical movement - just as wrong then as now! One far reaching result was that the native Church, distinguished for its evangelistic zeal and piety, was now controlled centrally under increasing Roman Catholic encroachment.
The first notable resistance to Roman usurpation was made by Williarn the Conqueror, when Pope Gregory demanded of him homage for William's realm of England. King William replied 'Fealty I have never willed to do, nor will I do it now. I have never promised it, nor do I find that my predecessors did it to yours'. Later, he refused to allow Lanfranc, Archbishop of Canterbury, to go to Rome at the summons of the Pope to answer for his conduct.
In later years, King Edward III in refusing to give homage and to pay the tribute to the See of Rome, asked parliament for their advice. The Bishops, Lords and Commons after full deliberation gave it in these words, 'That any king, could bring himself, his realm and people under such subjection without their assent and that if done, it was without the consent of parliament and contrary to his Coronation oath, and that in case the Pope should attempt to constrain the King and his subjects to perform what he lays claim to, they would resist and withstand him to the uttermost of their power'. Compare this statement with the compromise and cant of today's church leaders and politicians!
The continuity of our British Church is seen in Archbishop Cranmer's statement to Parliament in 1549 that the Prayer Book, then being authorised, contained the same prayers that had been in use in Britain for over 1500 years - that is from the days of Joseph of Arimathea and the Apostles. The breach with the foreign Roman system was made absolute in the words of Article 38 of the British Church's Articles of Religion contained in the Book of Common Prayer. To these Articles, all clergy of the Church of England are still required to subscribe. Article 38 reads, 'The King's Majesty hath the chief power in this Realm of England and over his Dominions, unto whom the chief Government of all Estates of this Realm, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil in all causes doth appertain, and is not, nor ought to be, subject to any foreign jurisdiction ... The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this Realm of England.'
The Sovereign, by virtue of his position, undertakes even today in the Coronation Oath 'to the utmost of his power to maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel; to the utmost of his power to maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by Law. And to maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the Doctrine, Worship, Discipline and Government thereof, as by Law established in England'.
Furthermore, in contradistinction to the headship of a Pope, the appointment of the Sovereign to the headship of the Church of England marks an exact following of Scriptural precedent. 'We give not to our Princes the ministering of either God's word or of the Sacraments but that only prerogative, which we see to have been given always to all godly Princes in Holy Scriptures by God himself, that is that they should rule all estates and degrees committed to their charge by God, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal, and restrain with the civil sword the stubborn and evildoers.'
The British Isles can claim that, from the days when the first wattle church was built at Glastonbury, it has never lacked a Church, subject to no other church on earth. This Church recognising the apostolic Scriptures alone for its rule of faith, and its form of Government. This British Church has not only received its faith direct from the Apostles but may also claim that Jesus Christ visited the place of its foundation.
What can we learn if we now look at the word 'Covenant'? In Britain, we look on the Bible as two separate books known as the Old and the New Testarnents. This is quite wrong. The Bible when correctly translated contains no word for 'Testament'. The Hebrew word 'berith' means Covenant. There can be no argument over this fact; reference to any Hebrew dictionary or lexicon easily and quickly proves this point. Therefore, the Bible is correctly divided into two parts the Old and the New Covenants. God made these Covenants with man. It is important to remember that God not man made the Covenants! In both instances, Old and New, the Covenants were made with the same people - God's chosen people, the Israelites.
It is of vital importance that all should realise that the people we today refer to as the Jews are not Israelites; but proselytes from many nations to the Talmudic Jewish religion. This religion, Judaism, is not the religion of the Old Covenant (Testament) Israelites and people should not give the impression that the two faiths have a common inception or intent.
Jesus Christ said, speaking to the Jews as recorded in Matthew 21:43, 'Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof'. Jesus Christ told the Jews, who had attempted to usurp The Kingdom from God's chosen people, the Israelites, that they would not inherit The Kingdom. The Kingdom was to be given to another Nation - an Israelite Nation, just as promised by God in the Old Testament Covenants.
1) Whom did God 'call out' in Genesis? It was Abraham. Genesis 12:1.
2) Whom did God 'call out' in Exodus? It was the Israelites, Abraharn's descendants. Exodus 3:16-17.
3) With whom did God make all His Covenants? It was the Israelites alone.
4) With whom did God make the New Covenant? It was with the House of Israel and the House of Judah. Hebrews 8:8.
5) Whom alone did God say He had called? It was Abraham. Isaiah 51:2.
6) To whom alone did Jesus Christ say that He was sent? It was to the House of Israel, Abraham's descendants through Isaac and Jacob (renamed Israel by God Himself). Matthew 15:24.
The Israelites alone comprise God's true Church as defined by Scripture itself.
When we consider the Hebrew words for 'covenant' and 'man' we see 'berith' and 'ish' respectively. The word 'ber-eeth' and the word 'ish' is pronounced as'eesh'. If we place the two words together to mean 'Covenant Man', we see that the pronunciation is 'ber-eeth-eesh'. Now after approximately 4000 years usage and allowing for ever so slight a change, 'ber-eeth-eesh' is extremely close to British!
When one considers that the old English word 'ain' means land, we have 'ber-eeth' plus 'ain'; that is Britain! Alternatively, more simply the Covenant Land. To confirm this point further we can deliberate upon the word 'Britannia'. How many know the meaning of this word? Well, the word 'annia' comes from the Hebrew word 'oniyah' which is pronounced 'onee-yaw' and means, 'ship'. Therefore, the Hebrew words pronounced as 'ber-eeth- on-ee-yaw', actually means Covenant Ship! Co- incidence? God made the Covenants with our ancestors for their benefit. These same Covenants are here today for our benefit - spiritual and secular! When will we return to The Faith of our fathers? When will we stop trying to fill our churches, rather than fill our minds with the love and knowledge of God?
'Thus saith the Lord, stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, but they said, we will not walk therein'. Jeremiah 6:16. When will we listen?
We are commanded to, 'Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness'. Matthew 6:13. When will we listen?
God's promise is sure to those that accept The Faith (His Word) and try to carry out His commandments. Our ancestors knew this, as did our early British Church. When we listen, repent and trust The Word, we too shall understand; 'Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love Him'. I Corinthians 19.
We should ask ourselves which Nation, descended from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Israel) was to be called 'Great', as noted in Genesis chapter 12:2? 'And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great'.
It is quite apparent that History over the last 4000 years since God gave His promise to Abraham records only one - 'Great Britain'!
*With acknowledgement to Revd G. M. Nicholson for the information concerning the early authorities.
Posts : 233
Join date : 2009-08-01
|Subject: Following in Christ's Footsteps Sat Aug 01, 2009 9:09 pm|| |
FOLLOWING IN CHRIST'S FOOTSTEPS
There is a theory that Jesus himself may have actually visited Britain - and it's a belief that Christian historian Walter Seaman has faith in.
'And did those feet
in ancient time
WALTER SEAMAN thinks they did. He has collected a mass of evidence to show that Jesus may well have visited Britain. And if not Jesus himself, almost certainly some of His disciples in the years immediately after the Crucifixion.
In the comfortable garden room of his home in Bexhill-on-Sea, where he lives with his wife Elizabeth, Walter lovingly handles the book that started him on this epic project. For that is what it has become, taking over much of his life and almost every available space in his house.
The book, published in 1906, is The Coming of the Saints by Professor John W. Taylor, an eminent surgeon, who was also a poet. It was lent to him by a friend in the late 1960s when he was living in Hertfordshire. "I think you'll enjoy this," his friend had said, knowing that Walter had had a scientific training and was also a Christian.
For two years the book gathered dust on Walter's shelves; it was a busy period in his life - he was working fulltime in the paper industry and he just never got around to opening it. Then one day he did ... and it would be true to say that his life has never been the same since.
'I was absolutely riveted by what I read. Taylor believed, as did several other authors who later wrote books on the same theme, that in 36 A.D. Joseph of Arimathea, the great-uncle of Jesus, together with a group of the Disciples travelled from what was then Palestine, across the Mediterranean, up through France, across the English Channel to Falmouth, then finally to Glastonbury in Somerset, where they set up what could be regarded as the world's first Christian church above ground.
'The story unfolds in a very logical way: Joseph of Arimathea, the man who had taken responsibility for the body of Jesus after the Crucifixion, was a rich merchant trading in valuable ores tin, copper and lead. He was accepted by the Romans, not for any love of him personally, but because he supplied them with the metals from the British Isles that they needed for making weapons. A well respected man, Joseph would have travelled frequently to the west of Britain where he was known to the ruling king, Arviragus. He was also known in rnany places in France where he stopped on his overland journeys to Britain; he probably owned shares in shipping as well because a lot of ore was exported by sea frorn Cornwall.'
'So to me it makes complete sense, that when the Roman and Jewish authorities were in pursuit of the Disciples after the Crucifixion, Joseph, who had both the money and the means, should take them to safety in Britain, and there set up a church. It is also believed that Joseph and his companions died and were buried at Glastonbury.'
'As to the other story, of Jesus visiting Britain in those 18 unrecorded years between his appearance in the Temple aged 12 and the beginning of His ministry, well, that seems reasonable, too. It would be a very natural thing for the boy Jesus to have accompanied His great-uncle on his travels, especially when he made the journey to Britain by sea, where His skills as a carpenter would have been of value. This tradition is, in fact, known in Israel. An American bishop, a friend of ours, was talking to a young Jewish girl about this subject and she said, "Why are you so surprised? That story is well known."'
Walter's charitable Foundation teaches Christians
about the history and traditions of their faith
Having read The Coming of The Saints and other works on the subject, Walter was convinced of the truth of the stories. So was Elizabeth. Neither of them is what you might call "airy headed rnystics"; they both have their feet very firmly on the ground. "And we have the same sense of humour," says Walter. "We laugh together a lot!"
They were born in Altrincham, Cheshire, in almost adjoining streets. They even had the same doctor, yet they never met until several decades later, after the war.
'I was by then living in London,' says Walter. 'We had a large five-storey house and my parents let out parts of it as flats; the top flat was occupied by several girls, Elizabeth was one of them. Something had gone wrong with the aerial which involved my going into her flat to get on to the roof. That's when I met her, and we took it from there and married in 1950.' They now have three grandchildren.
During the war Elizabeth was a boats crew Wren stationed at Portsmouth - she was arranging a WRNS reunion (advertised in the Old Comrades pages of Saga magazine) the day I visited them while Walter was in a reserved occupation, involved in technical design of national importance.
After taking his degree in mechanical engineering at Imperial College, London, Walter worked in various engineering firms, including British Aerospace. Later he worked for Bowater, the paper company. In the meantime he had become interested in what he calls 'the human engineering side of industry'; how people in business relate to one another.
'I introduced into the Bowater complex something called Management by Objectives. I said to the chap at the top, "I am going to start with you. Who do you have reporting to you? Do you breathe down their necks or let them get on with it?" We went from the director and the factory manager right down to the foreman and the men on the shop floor. They began to realise that everybody in a business should know how much was expected of them and why.' Eventually Walter became Personnel Director of all the Bowater companies in Britain.
Before he read The Coming of The Saints Walter hadn't really cared as to how, or even when, the Christian faith had come to Britain. 'It was the faith itself that mattered to me, not its history,' he says. The book made him appreciate how important the history could be. It astounded him that most people, including himself, didn't know about these traditions.
He decided to rectify this by setting up a foundation, with charitable status, to spread the word. Walter enjoys telling the story of its inception. 'I was in the bath,' he says, 'in our home in Frant, near Tunbridge Wells - it was 1970 - and as I lay there thinking about all the information I was gathering and all the things I wanted to do with it, I decided it was time to give a name to this project. So I thought, well ... it's about Christianity; it's Historical; it involves Research, definitely; Education, yes; Study, continuously; and Tradition. CHREST And that's how the name of the foundation arose.
'I felt I must write something which could be made into a CHREST film. I'd recently met a cameraman who was also interested in these traditions, so we discussed the idea and I wrote the first script, Let There Be Light. Elizabeth and I visited some of the places on Joseph's route and we asked our cameraman to film these, as well as many of the other places referred to in the script.'
That was in the early 1970s. Since then there have been two more films (on video), Light in the West and The Thread of Gold.
In 1984 Walter conducted a party of enthusiasts, mainly Americans, on a tour of the west country, visiting the sites shown in his second film, and in 1993 he published a paperback, The Dawn of Christianity in the West -'a short, readable book to whet people's appetite,' a condensation of the authoritative writings on this subject.
Now he is busy planning another tour, but not one he will conduct in person. Scheduled for the spring of 1996 this two-week CHREST Foundation tour in collaboration with Interchurch Travel will begin in London, from where the group will fly to Marseilles, the port at which Joseph would have landed. Then, travelling by coach, they will visit a number of places in the area where there is evidence that the Disciples stayed, such as Arles and Les Saintes Maries de la Mer.
They will journey north through France, up the Rhone valley following the tin trade route, then move northwest towards the Channel, stopping at one or two interesting places in the Loire Valley before making the crossing from Roscoff to Plymouth. 'It would be lovely if they could land at Falmouth,' says Walter, 'but that doesn't seem practicable.' From Plymouth the tour continues to Glastonbury, Bath and Stonehenge and ends in London.
Walter's arguments for his belief in Joseph's journey are very persuasive, but if this story of the early Church in Britain is so credible and there is sufficient evidence to make a good case for it, why is it not accepted, nor even generally known?
'Well yes,' says Walter, 'It is extraordinary. Professor Taylor had spent years visiting holy places in France and he had a wealth of evidence, but there was antagonism from the Roman Church. As there had been much earlier, in the 16th century when Robert Parsons, a Jesuit priest, had been despatched to Britain to disprove the theory. Being an honest man, however, he actually proved the reverse, which he recorded in a book, The Three Conversions of England, in which he said, 'The Christian religion began in Britain within 50 years of Christ's ascension.'
'There is also the feeling, deeply rooted in the Anglican church, that there is no historical proof for these happenings. An archdeacon in the west of England said to me, "You don't really believe this, do you, that this is historically true?"'
'I said, "Yes I do". Walter then told the archdeacon everything that he knew in support of the theory, including the fact that there are references to it in the writings of the early priests and monks.
To trace the development of the Christian faith through the ages, particularly during those neglected early centuries, as Walter has done, is one of the aims of the foundation. Another is to make you stop and think. Walter Seaman, with his enthusiasm and commitment, certainly makes you do that: I left Bexhill with a great deal to think about ... and a completely fresh and enthralling view of part of our English history.
Reproduced from the January 1996 edition of Saga Magazine with their with kind permission
Posts : 233
Join date : 2009-08-01
|Subject: Ulster, Ireland Great Britain Sun Aug 02, 2009 1:41 pm|| |
ULSTER, IRELAND AND GREAT BRITAIN
ONE PEOPLE ... ONE FAITH ... ONE THRONE
POLITICAL necessities over several generations have caused the people of Northern Ireland to think of themselves as Ulstermen rather than Irishmen. This is the greatest possible tragedy of our history. It is only when viewed in the context of Ireland that the Ulster story makes sense. Without Ireland, Ulster has no past, no present or no future! Recently a document was presented to the public by a political group who offered it as the work of intelligent men and as a basis for intelligent thought. In its pages they spoke of Ulster Independence and referred to 'a sense of Ulster identity, and a sense of the alien character of outsiders, whether British or Irish'. Alien character indeed! How ridiculous can we get! If we are not British and, we are not Irish what mongrel breed are we?
The suggestion that Northern Ireland is a separate ethnic group or has become such by some strange process is ridiculous in the extreme. We are Irishmen all, whether born in Belfast or Dublin, in the Glens of Antrirn or some lonely place in Connemara. Ireland is our home, Ireland gave us birth, this is the rock from whence we all have been hewn! Tragically the republican denies the Ulsterman his birthright, that of being an Irishman, while the Ulsterman turns away from his heritage! It is only the historically illiterate or those who have a political motive who would suggest that we have two races in Ireland.
The Ulster Protestant knows so little about the history of his own country that he has handed over to the enemy the most glorious parts of his heritage. Many Ulstermen believe that there were no Protestants in Ireland before the Battle of the Boyne, or the Plantation of Ulster. Nothing could be further from the truth! Ireland was not always Papist! St. Patrick never bowed the knee to Rome! The Saint preached a simple Gospel based on New Testament standards and opened his churches hundreds of years before Romanism had taken root in our land. Protestantism is not some foreign growth striving for its existence in an alien soil! It is the historic faith of the Irish!
Ulstermen need not apologise for laying claim to an Irish heritage. Did not St. Patrick spend his first years in Ireland among the hills of County Antrim! Did he not set up his First Church in County Down and did he not organise his See in County Armagh? In A. D. 517 St. Comgall was born in Magheramorne, Co. Antrim and about A.D. 558 he founded his great centre of worship and learning in Bangor, County Down. St. Comgall was a man imbued with missionary zeal and a born leader. Soon he had gathered so many men around him that according to one historian 'they could not all be in one place'. Other places of learning had to be opened across Ulster and throughout the other provinces of Ireland. In these some three thousand men were in training, preparing to take the simple Gospel not only across Ireland but to every corner of the British Isles, and so set it free from the Druidic religion. At this point in history Romanism had hardly been heard of in these islands!
If Ulstermen would make a study of Irish history they might recapture the vigour and the vitality that is missing in present day Protestantism! They might also discover something of the grandeur and the glory of being Irish! After all it all started here! The great Winston Churchill tells us that the Christian heritage of the British people 'was cradled in the mists of Ireland'. Green, in his History of the English People, tells us that 'not from Rome but from the ancient Irish Church, did England chiefly derive her Christianity'.
And that is not all! A study of Irish history might also give to the Ulster people a sense of responsibility for Ireland as a whole, and help them to discover the indivisible oneness of the Irish people. After all, Ireland is ours! Such a sense of responsibility, faithfully implemented, would help to atone in some small way, for generations of neglect when we allowed Popery to run rampant and enslave those who are bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh. The fact that the biggest part of our land and the majority of our people are held by the enemy does not absolve us from responsibility, it only makes the task more difficult!
Left to die!
Their faces bear the story,
Wronged by cruel hate they live beneath a lie;
As if for them the Cross could have no glory -
We have let them die.
Sociologists and Psychotherapists the world over, are struggling to find what will remove the deep seated mark of emotional deprivation, left on the life of a child estranged from its parents. Irish republicans bear all the marks of political and spiritual deprivation that comes with such separation. The tragedy is that this separation has been caused by a stranger - one who is not of our family, an old man who lives on the banks of the Tiber! Irish Roman Catholics wander the earth in their millions like lost souls, driven thither, not by economic reasons as is so often suggested, but in an endless emotional search for the source and goal of their very existence. They burn up their years seeking the one element that would bring them fulfilment.
For generations Irish Roman Catholics have been reared on hatred of England. They have been conned and brainwashed into believing that which is contrary to historic fact.
Take then our answer, England,
We speak it straight and true;
We have but hands to strike you,
And hearts of hate for you.
These are the words that have resounded through a thousand classrooms in the Roman Catholic Schools of Ireland, as our children are moulded into second-class citizens, in order that there would be an endless supply of recruits to bomb and blast the target of Papal hate - the Protestant character of the British people. The pious platitudes of peace from Roman Catholic spokesmen sound hollow when the facts are known! Hatred such as this shortcircuits all that is good and noble in human nature, and makes it impossible for a people to rise to the full stature of nationhood.
If the indivisible oneness of the Irish people is beyond dispute, then the indivisible oneness of the Anglo-Saxon-Celtic people of these British Isles cannot be denied. Sir Arthur Keith, one of the great Anthropologists, says
'From the physical point of view the Celt and the Saxon are one. Whatever be the source of their antagonism, it does not lie in a difference of Race'
If the antagonism between Ireland and England is not of race then we must look elsewhere. All the years of bloodshed and suffering stretching back into the dim distant past, all the frustrated hopes of a people, can be traced to one source - the lying, history distorting ability of the Roman Church. Countless thousands of Irishmen have lived and died believing that their native land was desecrated by the hated Protestants of Ulster. Millions more have gone out into the world with lives soured and twisted by hatred of England, and in every generation men have laid down their lives for a lie! And all this time we were one family, who should have been enriching the world with all that God and nature has given us so bountifully.
Not only is the Irish people part of the Anglo-Saxon-Celtic people of these islands, but to them belongs a glory that is theirs alone! For it was in Ireland on the hill of Tara, in County Meath, that the tender plant of Royalty took root. It was there that the present Royal House of Britain began! This thin red line of Royalty runs from Tara to Dalriada in County Antrim, thence to Scotland and on to London. This was what James 1 of England was thinking when at the Council table in Whitehall, on April 21, 1613, he said:
'There is a double reason why 1 should be careful of the welfare of the Irish people. First as King of England and also as King of Scotland, for the ancient Kings of Scotland are descended of the Kings of Ireland.'
Could anything be clearer? Here is history as it should be! History as it happened, history undistorted by the Papacy! The Annals of Clonmacnoise, one of the most historic documents in Ireland, tells the same story.
'This stone remained a long time in the King of Ireland's Palace at Tara, whereon many Kings and Queens were crowned, until it was sent over into Scotland by the King of Ireland with his son Fergus who was the first King of Scotland. For a long time all the Kings of Scotland received their crowns thereon until the time of King Edward 1 of England who placed it in Westminster Abbey.'
So here is the story we are compelled to accept, not by force of argument or at the point of a gun, but by the hard facts of history! An Ireland united, proudly taking her place in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, sharing in a common faith to the Glory of God, deeply conscious of her great and abiding honour in providing the Royal House to rule the Kingdom. One people! One faith! One Throne! Can the story be realised? Is it a possibility? Have the Protestants of Ulster sufficient intelligence to realise the significance of the Ulster conflict? Are our Politicians at Westrninster prepared to cast aside the devious influence that compel them to follow policies contrary to the best interests of the British people? Have our Roman Catholic people sufficient strength to throw off the chains that have bound them for centuries? Or must the present state of affairs remain with us for ever?
Posts : 233
Join date : 2009-08-01
|Subject: Cradle of Christianity Sun Aug 02, 2009 2:52 pm|| |
CRADLE OF CHRISTIANITY
CHRISTIANITY originated in Palestine, and when the centre of activity moved from that land, it did not go to Rome but, hundreds of years before there was a Pope at Rome, it was transferred to the Isles of the North and West by Joseph of Arimathea and those who fled from Jerusalem and Palestine to escape persecution. They established the first church in the British Isles - only a few years after the crucifixion - at Glastonbury England.
Furthermore, we seriously question if the Apostle Peter ever visited Rome, for he was an apostle to Babylon (see I Peter 5:13) where, in his time, many Israelites were dwelling. There Peter no doubt suffered his martyrdom by being crucified. Paul went to Rome and there is abundant evidence that, on one of his missionary journeys, he also visited London where, from Ludgate Hill, he preached the Gospel. If Peter had been in Rome, Paul would certainly not have failed to include him in his greetings to the friends there. His very silence indicates that Peter was where he declares that he was in his Epistle - at Babylon. The claim of the sacred heritage of apostolic descent is hardly sustained in the lack of all evidence that Peter ever was at Rome.
In spite of all this, and despite the fundamental fact that missionaries from Rome admittedly found a strong flourishing Christian Church in the British Isles, established centuries before their arrival, many continue to erroneously repeat the statement that Rome brought Christianity to the Isles. That city once the centre of the pagan Roman Empire, is now the centre of the Papacy - a powerful politico-ecclesiastical organisation - but never has it been the centre of true Christianity from whence the House of Israel, the Anglo-Saxon-Celtic peoples, received the Gospel.
When God called Israel to be His servant, He saw to it that His Gospel, which Israel was to transmit, was taken directly to the Isles by the disciples of our Lord. His people Israel received their commission directly from Jerusalem, not by way of Rome, regardless of the claims of Rome and of those who accept those claims as true!
Jesus commissioned His disciples to 'go unto the lost sheep of the House of Israel' and He constituted them the lightbearers of the Gospel to His people. When He said to the Jews, 'The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof,' it was to the House of Israel that the disciples carried the message and to Israel that the transfer of the Kingdom was made. The company of disciples and believers who, with Joseph of Arimathea, established the first Christian church in the Isles, were instruments in the hand of the Lord in accomplishing the transfer directly from Eastminster (Jerusalem) to Westminster in the Isles of the Sea north and west of Palestine.
Our Lord did not wait hundreds of years, as taught by Rome, before giving Israel the glad tidings of their redemption, but sent the disciples directly to the Isles with the message of the Gospel. The conversion of England to 'Christianity' is given in the Encyclopedia Britannica as taking place between 597 and 686 AD, but the following inscription in the Church of St. Peter-Upon- Cornhill, London, England, is evidence that there was a flourishing Christian church in the Isles long before the Church of Rome was able to send emissaries to Britain - which it did not do until 597 AD when Pope Gregory the Great sent a mission to England headed by Augustine, who landed at Ebbsfleet in that year. Note this inscription carefully and mark the date:
'Bee it known to all men that in the year of Our Lord God 179 Lucives, the first Christian king of this Land, then called Britaine, founded ye first Church in London, that is to say, ye Church of St. Peter-Upon-Cornehill and hee founded there an Archbishop's See and made that Church ye Metropolitane and Chiefe Church of this kingdome and so it endured ye Space of 400 years and more, unto the coming of St. Austin the Apostle of England, the which was sent into this land by St. Gregorie, ye Doctor of ye Church, in the Time of King Ethelbert and then was the Archbishop's See and Pall removed from ye said Church of St. Peter-Upon-Cornehill unto Dorobernia that now is called Canterburie and there it remaineth to this day and Millet, a monke which 'came into this land with St. Austin, hee was made the first Bishop of London and his See was in Paul's Church and this Lucives king was the first founder of St. Peter's Church upon Cornehill and Hee reigned king in this land after Brute 1245 yeares and in the yeares of our Lord God 124 Lucives was crowned king and hee was buried (After some Chronicles hee was buried at Gloucester in that Place where ye order of St. Francis standeth now).'
It is interesting to note the reference to Brute, or Brutus, who came to London after the destruction of Troy, for he was also of Israel stock.
No nation, or city, outside of Israel's lands can rightly lay claim to being the true seat of Christianity. It is only logical to recognise that the origin of the Christian Church was in Palestine - where Jesus Christ lived and completed His work as the Redeemer of Israel and Saviour of the world. When the Gospel activities were transferred from that land, they went to another Israel land - to the Isles of the Sea. When the People of the Book recognise this, abundant light will be shed on their history and destiny.
Posts : 233
Join date : 2009-08-01
|Subject: A Letter From Elizabeth Sun Aug 02, 2009 3:00 pm|| |
A LETTER FROM ELIZABETH
The Prince of Wales, who seems to attach little importance to the title "defender of the Faith," to which he would fall heir should he become king, is urged to consider the powerful letter his illustrious ancestor, Queen Elizabeth I, wrote to dissident Roman Catholic Bishops.
As spiritual leader, it is clear she felt a rnoral obligation to her subjects - doubtless one not shared by Prince Charles.
On December 4th 1559, five of the Roman Catholic Bishops, who had been deprived of their Sees for refusing to accept the new order in the Church of England, wrote to the Queen entreating her not to 'be led astray through the inventions of those evil Counsellors, who are persuading your Ladyship to embrace schisms and heresies in lieu of the ancient Catholic faith, which hath been long since planted within this realm by the motherly care of the Church of Rome.' The letter was read in Council, and the Queen, before she rose, returned this answer.
Greenwich, December 6, 1559
As to your entreaty for us to listen to you, we wave it: 'Yet do return you this our answer. Our realm and subjects have been long wanderers, walking astray, whilst they were under the tuition of Roman pastors, who advised them to own a wolf for their head (in lieu of a careful shepherd), whose inventions, heresies, and schisms be so numerous, that the flock of Christ have fed on poisonous shrubs for want of wholesome pastures. And whereas you hit us and our subjects in the teeth, that the Romish Church first planted the Catholic faith within our realms, the records and chronicles of our realms testify the contrary: and your own Romish idolatry maketh you liars: witness the ancient monument of Gildas: unto which both foreign and domestic have gone in pilgrimage there to offer. This author testifieth Joseph of Arimathea to be the first preacher of the word of God within our realms. Long after that, when Austin (Augustine) came from Rome, this our realm had bishops and priests therein, as is well known to the wise and learned of our realm by woeful experience, how your church entered therein by blood: they being martyrs for Christ, and put to death, because they denied Rome's usurped authority.
As for our father being withdrawn from the supremacy of Rome by schismatical and heretical counsels and advisers: who, we pray, advised him more, or flattered him, than you, good Mr Hethe, when you were bishop of Rochester? And than you, Mr Boner, when you were archdeacon? And you, Mr Tuberville? Nay further, who was more an adviser of our father, than your great Stephen Gardiner, when he lived? Are not ye then those schismatics and heretics? If so, suspend your evil censures. Recollect, was it our sister's conscience made her so averse to our father's and brother's actions, as to undo what they had perfected? Or was it not you, or such like advisers, that dissuaded her and stirred her up against us and others of the subjects?
And whereas you would frighten us, by telling how Emperors, Kings, and Princes have owned the Bishop of Rome's authority; it was contrary in the beginning. For our Saviour Christ paid His tribute unto Caesar, as the chief superior, which shows your Romish supremacy is usurped.
As touching the excommunication of St Athanasius by Liberius and that Council, and how the Emperor consented thereunto; consider the heresies that at that time had crept into the church of Rome, and how courageously Athanasius withstood them, and how he got the victory. Do ye not acknowledge his creed to this day? Dare any of you say he is schismatic? Surely ye be not so audacious. Therefore as ye acknowledge his creed, it shows he was no schismatic. If Athanasius withstood Rome for her then heresies, then others may safely separate themselves from your church, and not be schismatics.
We give you warning, that for the future we hear no more of this kind. Lest you provoke us to execute those penalties enacted for the punishing of our resisters: which out of our clemency we have forborne.
Posts : 233
Join date : 2009-08-01
|Subject: Introduction of Christianity into Britain Sat Aug 08, 2009 10:18 am|| |
THE INTRODUCTION OF CHRISTIANITY INTO BRITAIN
THE objection is sometimes made that the British are not good enough to be God’s nation. Yet many of those who put forward that objection believe that the Jews alone constitute God’s chosen people. But are the Jews any better than the British? The Scriptures say:
“Backsliding Israel hath justified herself more than treacherous Judah” - (JEREMIAH 3:11).
The idea held by some that Christianity was first brought to Britain by the Roman Catholic Missionary, St. Augustine in A.D. 597 is altogether erroneous as is proved by the following evidence.
The famous ecclesiastical historian Eusebius, who lived three hundred years before Augustine came to Britain, and who is well known as the Father of Church History, says “The Apostles passed beyond the ocean to the Isles called the Brittanic Isles”. This is confirmed by the early British Historian Gildas (A.D. 516-570) who states, “Meanwhile, these islands ... received the beams of light that is, the Holy precepts of Christ, the true Sun at the latter part, as we know, of the reign of Tiberius Caesar”. This Tiberius Caesar was the reigning Roman Emperor when Christ was crucified. Notice Gildas’ words “as we know”, of the reign of Tiberius Caesar which indicates that what he records regarding the introduction of Christianity into Britain was in his day a matter of common knowledge. Tiberius Caesar reigned from A.D. 14-37, therefore Gildas’ words, “in the latter part of the reign of Tiberius Caesar” show that Christianity was introduced into Britain before A.D. 37.
That very early, the Gospel came by the hands of Hebrew is borne out by the finding of two medals bearing the effigies of our Lord without a halo; one of these was unearthed at Cork in 1812, under the foundation of one of the very first Christian monasteries ever built in Ireland, the other under the ruin of a Druidical Circle at Bryngwin, in Anglesey about the same time. Antiquarians inform us that the Hebrew letter “Aleph” on the obverse side to the right of the effigy of one of these gives the date as the first year after the other Hebrew letters signifying Jesus, on the left; the word Messias is on the collar and the reverse side has an inscription in Hebrew, rendered thus, “Messiah the Prince, came in peace, and man, life for man became”. On the other medal, the inscription is different but also in Hebrew and reads “Nought in Thee was found worthy of Divine Wrath”. (British History Traced, p.132)
“Polydore Vergil in the reign of Henry VII and after him Cardinal Pole (A.D. 1555) both rigid Roman Catholics, affirmed in Parliament, the latter in his address to Phillip and Mary, that “Britain was the first of all countries to receive the Christian faith”. “The glory of Britain”, remarks Genebrard, “consists not only in this, that she was the first country which in a national capacity publicly professed herself Christian but that she made this confession when the Roman Empire itself was pagan and a real persecutor of Christianity”.
This priority of antiquity was only once questioned on political grounds, by the Ambassadors of France and Spain, at the Council of Pisa, A.D. 1417. The Council, however, confirmed it. The Ambassadors appealed to the Council of Constance, A.D. 1419, which confirmed the decision of the Council of Pisa which was a third time confirmed by the Council of Siena, A.D. 1423, and it was again ruled at the Council of Basle in A.D. 1431 that the British Church took precedence of all others
as being founded by Joseph of Arimathaea - and then acquiesced in this decision laid down that the Churches of France and Spain were bound to give way in the points of antiquity and precedency to the Church of Britain, which was founded by Joseph of Arimathaea immediately after the passion of Christ. Robert Parsons the Jesuit, in his “Three Conversions of England”, admits, in common with the great majority of Roman Catholic writers that Christianity came into Britain direct from Jerusalem.
We may, therefore, accept as a general opinion of Christendom, the priority in point of antiquity over all others of the British Church. This opinion is well expressed by Sabellius; Christianity was privately confessed elsewhere, but the first nation that
proclaimed it as their religion, and called itself Christian after the name of Christ was Britain.
It is certain that the primitive British, Irish, Scottish, and Gallic Churches formed one Church, one communion, and that on the assumption of the Papacy A.D. 606-610 by Rome, this great Celtic Church, which had previously been in full communion with primitive Rome, refused in the most peremptory terms to acknowledge her novel pretensions. It is, of course, the primitive British Church, and not the Roman Church, introduced by Augustine, A.D. 597, into Kent among the Pagan Saxons, of which such priority must be understood. That such a Church existed on a national scale, and was thoroughly antagonistic to the Roman Church in its new form and usurpations in the person of Augustine, is so notorious, that we may dispense with all but a few testimonies in proof of the fact.
“Britons,” declares Bede “are contrary to the whole Roman world, and enemies to the Roman customs, not only in their Mass but in their tonsure.” (shaved hairdo) But the Britons refused to recognise Augustine or to acquiesce in one of his demands. “We cannot,” said the British bishops, “depart from our ancient customs without the consent and leave of our people”. Laurentius, the successor of Augustine, speaks yet more bitterly of the antagonism of the Scots; “We have found the Scottish bishops worse even that the British” (The Scots at that time only occupied Dalriada, the territory now called Argyll).
And the protest of the British Church itself, signed on its behalf by the Archbishop of St. David’s, six bishops, and the abbot of Bangor, who conducted the conference with Augustine’s Oak, A.D. 607, places in still clearer light the gulf which the change of the primitive Roman Church into the Papacy formed between the Churches hitherto in full communion. It ran as follows:
“Be it known and declared that we all, individually and collectively, are in all humility prepared to defer to the Church of God, and to the Bishop of Rome, and to every sincere and godly Christian, so far as to love everyone according to his degree, in perfect charity, and to assist them all byword and in deed, in becoming the children of God. But as for any other obedience, we know of none that he whom you term the pope or Bishop of Bishops, can demand.”...
As late as the twelfth century, no instance could be produced of a British metropolitan receiving the pall from Rome.
The two British metropolitans of London and York, Theon and Tediac, had retired from their sees into Wales A.D. 586, ten years only before the arrival of Augustine.
In the Diocletian persecution (A.D.. 303-313) the British Church supplied the following remarkable list of martyrs; Amphibalus, Bishop of Llandaff; Alban of Verulam; Aaron and Julius, Presbyters of Caerleon; Socrates, Archbishop of York; Stephen, Archbishop of London; Augulius, his successor; Nicholas, Bishop of Penrhyn (Glasgow); Melior, Bishop of Carlisle, and above 10,000 communicants in different grades of society
Its religious institutions were on an immense scale. William of Malmesbury describes the ruins of Bangor Iscoed Abbey in his days as those of a city - the most extensive he had seen in the kingdom. Two other British foundations in England retained their superiority over all others of a later date, under every change of rulers until the Reformation - St Albans and Glastonbury. Of all the monasteries these continued the most popular and highly venerated.
Tracing our course back from the Diocletian era a concensus of authorities fixes the national establishment of Christianity in Britain somewhere about the middle of the second century. From A.D. 33, then to A.D. 150, we have in round numbers a space of 120 years left for the propagation of the faith and the gradual conversion of the nation.
All accounts concur in stating that the person who baptised Lucius, or Lleeuer Mawr, the monarch who thus established the Church, was his uncle St. Timotheus, the son of Pudens and Claudia, who was brought up on “knees of the Apostles” (St Paul in Britain, pp 112-117).
The above data clearly prove that the year A.D. 597 was the date of introduction not of Christianity, but of Roman Catholicism into Britain, Christianity itself having been brought into the British Isles just after the crucifixion of Christ, more than five hundred years earlier.
The first six hundred years of Church History in the British Isles is very briefly but well summarised by John Scott of Glasgow, as follows:
“Christianity came direct to the islands from the East shortly after the death of Christ in the first century A.D..”
The vigour of its early converts may be gauged by the fact that missionaries from the British Church founded the Churches of Gaul (France) Lotharingia (Lorraine) and Helvetia (Switzerland). It was 5-1/2 centuries later that the first papal emissary in the person of Augustine set foot on these shores. His claim of supremacy for the Roman Catholic Bishop was rejected by the then
British Church, but his ministry amongst the Angles, Jutes and Saxons, who had recently immigrated from the Continent, and who, although of the same stock as the Britons, were still pagan, enabled him to gain a footing and establish a Church on the Island. This nation was the last and least influenced by the Papacy.
Not only did God lead the forerunning sections of Israel to the British Isles in BC times, centuries before the main body arrived during the early part of the Christian era, but even the Druidic religion which these ancient Britons held before accepting Christ was a preparation for Christianity. It is now well known that the Romans were notorious for falsifying history in order to magnify themselves and belittle others, especially those who opposed them.
In no instance was this practice more disgustingly carried out than in the case of their writings concerning the Ancient Britons and the Druids. Unfortunately these perversions have even found their way into British School books and the children are taught to believe the trash that the Romans said about the Druids. Regarding these falsifications we quote from Early English History, by John Pym Yeatman (Barrister at Law) p.1 04, “The stories of the atrocities of the Druids were mere inventions of the Romans to cover their own cruelty, and to excuse it. The religion of a people who were so mild and merciful not even to imprison their debtors, as did the Romans, could not be bloody”.
In Religions of Britain, p. 37 Charles Hulbert states, “The charge of staining their consecrated places with human blood and offering upon the altar of ‘Cor-Gawr’ or Stonehenge, human victims, hath no real foundation in fact; an accusation as wicked as unjust”.
On examination, Druidism is found to be but a perversion of the true religion of the Hebrews, linked up with some of the ritual of the Baal worship. On this point we quote again from Religions of Britain p.41, “So near is the resemblance between the Druidical religion of Britain and the Patriarchal religion of the Hebrews, that we hesitate not to pronounce their origin the same”. Again on page 42 of the same work, “Next to the Jewish in purity, we consider the ancient religion of Britain”. Robert Stukely, also quoting ancient authors, tells us that the Druids represented their God by means of an old Oak selected with two arms ... He also, in common with Henry and others, says that no images were found in Britain before the Romans introduced them. (Druidism in Britain, p.15)
The following account of Druid worship is from Hulbert’s Religions of Britain. “The dress of the druids was white, and that of the druid in his habit of ceremonial judgement was very grand. On his head he wore a golden tiara and his neck was encircled by a breastplate of judgement. Their meetings were held in conspicuous places in the open air, and while the sun was above the horizon, for their laws forbade their performing these ceremonies in his absence. The premier bard stood in the centre, by the side of a large stone”.
This circle was denominated Cylch Gyngrair, or the circle of the federation; and the middle stone, Mean Llog, or the stone of the covenant. Upon the stone altars, before which the priests officiated, occasionally blazed a large fire, the sacred emblem of that true God who once manifested his presence “by a bush and a pillar of fire, whose tremendous voice once issued out
of the midst of the fire, who prescribed a perpetual fire to be kept on the altar of burnt offerings in Jerusalem, and whom an holy apostle designates with the appellation of consuming fire.”
Wylie’s History of Scotland, p.71 states: “There is one fact which throws a pleasing light on these remote times of our country - no idol or graven image has even been dug up in our soil ... In the lands of Greece and Italy, Syria and of India long buried deities are ever and anon cropping up and showing themselves in the light of day, but no such phenomenon has ever occurred on the soil of Scotland. Relics of all sorts have been found in our soil, but never idol of British manufacture, nor is one such to be found in any of our Museums”.
On page 110 “There are others who are equally confident that Caledonia was nearly as brightly illuminated as Judaea itself, and place the priesthood of the Druids only a little way below the priesthood of the Hebrews”.
Cassell’s History of England states: “The Druidical rites and ceremonies in Britain were almost identical with the Mosaic ritual”. McDermot, in his History of Ireland, gives thirteen specimens of identical customs of the Celtic and Hebrew races.
Posts : 233
Join date : 2009-08-01
|Subject: Re: Britain-Ancient Israel Sat Aug 08, 2009 10:20 am|| |
“Then we have the evidence of Hoare’s ‘Wiltshire’ which states that the facsimile of a Hebrew breastplate, the same nearly as that originally worn by the Hebrew high priest, was found in a cist, dug up at Stonehenge, and upon the breast of a skeleton of a British Druid.” (Druidism in Britain, p.9, also Crania Britannica)
This essay written by John Pryce, was entitled “The Ancient British Church”, carried off a prize at the National Eisteddfod in 1876 and in it we read these words: “In this distant corner of the earth, cut off from the rest of the world, unfrequented except by merchants from the opposite coast of Gaul, a people, who only conveyed to the Roman mind the idea of untamed fierceness, was being prepared, ready for the Gospel. It would be difficult to conceive Christianity being preached to any people, for the first time, under more favourable circumstances. There was hardly a feature in their national character in which it would not find a chord answering and vibrating to its touch.
Theirs was not the sceptical mind of the Greek, nor the worn out civilisation of Rome, which even Christianity failed to quicken into life, but a religious, impulsive imagination - children in feeling and knowledge, and therefore meet recipients of the good news of the kingdom of heaven. To a people whose sense of future existence was so absorbing, that its presentment was almost too deeply felt by them, the preaching of Jesus and the resurrection would appeal with irresistable force. There was no violent divorce between the new teaching and that of their own Druids, nor were they called upon so much to reverse their ancient faith, as to lay it down for a fuller and more perfect revelation.”
Not only was the ancient British Race the first nation to recognise Christianity, but all available evidence also goes to show that Glastonbury (in Somersetshire) was the first Christian Church building in the world and that it was built by Joseph of Arimathaea and his associates. The famous Vatican Librarian, Cardinal Baronius, discovered an ancient MS in the Vatican telling of Joseph of Arimathaea, Lazarus, Martha and Mary landing at Marseilles in A.D. 35. This is in agreement with the early records of English historian William of Malmesbury, who states that Joseph of Arimathaea (who took care of our Lord’s body after the Crucifixion) accompanied by eleven missionaries under his charge came to Britain from France, having been sent by Phillip the Apostle, and that the British King gave them Ynys- vitrin or Glastonbury and twelve Hides of land. Confirmatory of this the Doomsday Book contains the following entry:
“The Church of Glastonbury has in its own yule twelve Hides of Land, which have never paid tax.” (Doomsday Survey, folio p.249b).
The old Glastonbury Chronicle gives the following quaint record of the meeting of Joseph of Arimathaea and Arviragus, the British King:
“Joseph then counselled the King to believe in Christ: King Arviragus refused this, nor did he believe in Him. Arviragus the King gave him twice six hides at Glastonia. Joseph left the rights with those companions in the XXXI year after the Passion of Christ. These men, with praises built a church of wattles.”
In J.W Taylor’s work, The Coming of the Saints, the journey of Joseph of Arimathaea is followed place to place from Palestine through Gaul, via Marseilles into Britain (The Early British Church, p.9, by Rev. L.G.A. Roberts). Furthermore the early Welsh writer, Maelgwyn of Llandaff (circ. A.D. 450) informs us that Joseph of Arimathaea is buried at Glastonbury
(Avalon). That Joseph of Arimathaea was the first to preach the Gospel in Britain is also confirmed by foreign writers, e.g, St. Gregory of Tours in his History of the Franks, and Haleca, Archbishop of Saragossa in his Fragments.
For a long time Glastonbury (“Isle” of Avalon) was regarded as the most sacred spot in all Britain. The original Church erected by Joseph of Arimathaea and his companions was built of wattles. At the present day, the ruins of Glastonbury Abbey stand on the site of the old wattle Church. That spot has thus been a place of Christian worship from Christ’s day to the present time. Regarding its antiquity as such, note the following extracts from the various authorities:
Sir Henry Spelman: “It is certain Britain received the faith in the first age from the first sowers of the Word. Of all the Churches whose origin I have investigated in Britain, the Church at Glastonbury is the most ancient”.
Archbishop Ussher: “The British National Church was founded A.D. 36, 160 years before heathen Rome confessed Christianity. The Mother Church of the British Isles is the Church in Insula Avallonia, called by the Saxons, Glaston”.
Fuller: “If credit be given to ancient authors, this church at Glastonbury is the senior church of the world”.
Publius Disciplius: “The church of Avalon in Britain had no other hands than those of the disciples of the Lord themselves built”.
Theodore Martin (Lovar), in A.D. 1517 states; “It is not too much to say that the site of St. Mary’s church in the abbey grounds at Glastonbury is the site of the first known above-ground church in the world”.
Glastonbury has been called the Bethlethem of Britain.
The study of the circumstances which led up to Joseph of Arimathaea choosing Britain as his final place of residence is interesting. There exists a number of entirely independent traditions both in France and Britain that Joseph of Arimathaea was a well-to-do tin merchant. The richest tin mines in the world at that time were in Comwall. Whilst in the Mendip Hills in Somerset nearby were rich deposits of copper and lead, which form useful alloys with tin. It is of course well known that a metal trade between Britain and the near East existed for many centuries and that merchants from Phoenicia and Palestine came regularly to
Cornwall and Somerset for tin lead and copper. This is mentioned by such classical writers as Herodotus, Homer, Pytheas and Polybius, whilst Diodorus Siculus gives the details of the trade route. After the tin was mined it was shaped into slabs or blocks, taken to a small island, Ictis, which at low tide was connected to the mainland by a narrow path. This little island is now known as St. Michael’s Mount (near Marazion, Cornwall). The tin and other metals were taken by boat from the Isle of Ictis to Morlaix, thence transported across France to Massilia, (now Marseilles) and then shipped to Tyre, close to the Palestine border. Stories of Joseph of Arimathaea exist at separate places all along this ancient trade route.
The story is still told “at Marazion in Cornwall of St. Joseph coming there to trade with tin miners” (Glastonbury - Her Saints, page 66 by the Rev. Lionel Smithett Lewis, MA). In the Guide to Penzance (Ward, Locke and Co.) it is stated; “There is a tradition that Joseph of Arimathaea was connected with Marazion when he and other Jews traded with the ancient tin miners in Cornwall”. Marazion means ‘bitter Zion’. It’s other name is still Market Jew. The origin is said to be
derived from the fact that it was a colony of Jews, who traded in tin. “‘Jew’s houses’, ‘Jew’s tin’, ‘Jew’s leavings’, ‘Jew’s pieces’ are still common terms in the Cornish tin mines. The oldest pits containing smelted tin are called “Jew’s houses”. (Glastonbury Her Saints, page 66). “Amongst the old tin workers, who have always observed a certain mystery in their rites, there was a moment when they ceased their work and started signing a quaint song beginning ‘Joseph was a tin Merchant;.” (Joseph of Arimathaea at Glastonbury, pp 23-24)
It is agreed by most authorities that the Virgin Mary was widowed while Jesus was just a youth. It is also generally considered that Joseph of Arimathaea was the uncle of Mary, and took special care over Jesus. Naturally Jesus would be interested in the accounts which his uncle would give of Britain - a land free from the oppression of Rome, and free from ecclesiastical fanatacism such as was prevalent in his own country. It is not altogether surprising therefore to find in different parts of Somerset and Cornwall four independent ancient traditions that on one of his visits Joseph of Arimathaea brought the boy Jesus with him to Britain. These are summarised as follows in the Revd C.C. Dobson’s wonderful little book, Did Jesus Visit Britain as they say in Cornwall and Somerset?.
1) The first is found in Cornwall and is recorded in Baring Gould’s “Book of Cornwall” where he writes;
“Another Cornish story to the effect that Joseph of Arimathaea came in a boat to Cornwall, and brought the boy Jesus with him ...“.
2) The second is found in Somerset of the coming of Christ and Joseph in a ship of Tarshish, and how they came to the Summerland (Somerset) and sojourned in a place called Paradise.
3) The third tradition is to be found in the little village of Priddy on the top of the Mendip Hills to the effect that Jesus and Joseph stayed there.
4) Finally, traditions associate Jesus with Glastonbury.
The accompanying map shows the route taken by Jesus and Joseph of Arimathaea, as indicated by the coordination of all available data. In connection with Paradise mentioned above, and shown on the map, it is illuminating to observe that on an old ordinance survey maps the district around Burnham in Somerset was still called Paradise. Even at Burnham today there is a Paradise Farm. The old well close to the shore of the fine natural harbour at the mouth of the Camel (in Cornwall) at which the boat conveying Jesus called, is still known as Jesus Well. In bygone days it was regarded as a holy well, and traces of the Chapel erected over it remain to the present day.
There is however, evidence that Jesus came to Britain twice by the same route. On the second occasion he came not as a boy but as a young man, and not as a mere visitor, but as a resident at Glastonbury in the Isle of Avalon for a considerable period. That Jesus built for himself a little wattle house for prayer and meditation, near a well at the foot of the hill known as Glastonbury Tor, and that it was subsequently used by Joseph of Arimathaea and his associates as a private chapel (as distinct from the church they erected beside it for public worship) is confirmed by the following extract from the report which Augustine sent to Pope Gregory during the mission to Britain at the end of the sixth century:
“In the western confines of Britain there is a certain royal island of large extent surrounded by water,
abounding in all the beauties of Nature and necessaries of life.” Regarding this, the Revd C.C. Dobson, MA has
beautifully commented; “Having been taken as a boy by Joseph on this voyage and visited Glastonbury, Jesus noticed the beauty and quiet of this island. Seeking a quiet retreat in which to spend years alone before his ministry he returned here as a young man, erected his own small abode ... and then in prayer and meditation prepared for his work”. (Did Jesus Visit Britain? pages 26-27). This absence of Christ from Palestine no doubt explains the Bible’s silence
regarding the early manhood of Jesus.
In that great authority, The Doomsday Book (A.D.1088) there is recorded “The House of God in the great Monastery of Glastonbury, called the Secret of the Lord”. But even many centuries before the Doomsday Book was compiled Taliesin, the Prince-Bard and Druid, wrote “Christ, the Word from the beginning our Teacher and we never lost His Teaching.” To quote C.C. Dobson again;
“Here is an island unconquered by the Romans, and remote from Roman influence and authority. The attempt to conquer it by Julius Caesar had proved abortive. Here was a faith propagated by profound oral teaching, enshrining the truth of the coming Christ, under the very name Jesu, and the principle of the Atonement. Do we wonder that Jesus came to reside in a land ripe to receive his truth?” In Britain He would be free from the tyranny of Roman oppression, the superstition of Rabbinical misinterpretation and the grossness of pagan idolatory, and its bestial, immoral customs. In Britain He would live among people dominated by the highest purest ideals, the very ideals He had come to proclaim. This forcefully brings to our mind the words of Jesus near the very end of His Ministry, “The Kingdom of God shall
be taken from you (in Judaea) and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof,” - (MATTHEW 21.43.
So when Arimathaea subsequently came to Britain to proclaim the Saviour under the very name Yesu or Jesu familiar to every Druid, and as having fulfilled in the Atonement their basic principle, we do not wonder that he received a welcome at the hands of the Druids. It is a remarkable fact the Druidism never opposed Christianity, and eventually became voluntarily merged in it.
Posts : 233
Join date : 2009-08-01
|Subject: Re: Britain-Ancient Israel Sat Aug 08, 2009 10:21 am|| |
In view of the above facts, we can understand why, after his expulsion from Palestine in A.D. 35, Joseph of Arimathaea was eager to bring the Gospel to Britain and take up residence at Glastonbury already hallowed by the home of Jesus there. Here Joseph lived for the remainder of his life. The Welsh poet, Maelgwyn of Llandaff (A.D. 450) records that on Joseph of Arimathaea’s grave at Glastonbury the epitaph reads as follows:
(Translation) “I came to Britain after I buried Christ. I taught. I rest.”
Maelgwyn also describes the exact position of the grave with meticulous care.
In the instructive little work “Did Jesus visit Britain” pp 31-32, Revd C.C. Dobson gives the following interesting account of Joseph’s body: “The Vicar of Glastonbury tells us that Joseph’s body remained buried here until A.D. 1345, when Edward III gave his licence to John Bloom of London to dig for it, and the Abbot and Monks consented. There is the statement of a Lincolnshire Monk in 1367 that his body was found. They placed it in a silver casket let into a stone sarcophagus, which was placed in the east end of Joseph’s Chapel, and it became a place of pilgrimage. There is a written record of the sarcophagus being still in position in 1662 when the Chapel had become partially ruined. Owing to fear of Puritan fanaticism prevalent at the time it was secretly removed by night into the Parish Church Churchyard, and its identity was concealed by the pretence that the initials on it, J.A., stood for John Allen. In 1928 the present Vicar of Glastonbury found it half buried in the soil, and had it removed into the Church, and its construction bears out the accounts of a silver casket which could be raised and lowered, and shows other marks of identity.”
After Joseph of Arimathaea, the next well known missionary to Britain was Simon Zelotes, one of the twelve apostles. Dorotheus, Bishop of Tyre (A.D. 303) informs us that Simon Zelotes preached Christ all along the North Coast of Africa and then crossed to Britain. (Synopsis de Apostol 9, Simon Zelotes) Next came Aristobulus. The historian Alford (Regia Fides, Vol 1, p.&3) states, “It is perfectly certain that before St. Paul had come to Rome, Aristobulus was absent in Britain”.
Haleca, Bishop of Augusta also informs us as follows: “The memory of many martyrs is celebrated by the Britons, especially that of St. Aristobulus, one of the seventy disciples”. “Aristobulus, Cyndav and his son, Mawan, men of Israel, came from Rome with Bran the Blessed to teach the faith of Christ to the race of the Cymry. (lola MSS.) Again, Dorotheus of the fourth century says, ‘Aristobulus, who is mentioned by the Apostle in his epistle to the Romans, Romans 16:10 was made Bishop in Britain’.”
Then came St. Paul to Britain. Theodoretus says “Paul preached the Gospel to the Britons and others in the West” (De Curandis Graecorum Affectionibus Lib.IX). After investigation Capellus states, “I scarcely know of one author, from the time of the Fathers downward, who does not maintain that St. Paul, after his liberation, preached in every country in western Europe, Britain included” (History of the Apostles). Bishop Burgess writes “Of St. Paul’s journey to Britain we have as satisfactory proof as any historical question can demand.” (Independence of the British Church).
There is an ancient MS at Oxford which refers to St. Paul’s residence in Siluria (South Wales). In North Wales, the foundation of Bangor Abbey is ascribed to the Apostle Paul; its doctrine and discipline were known as the “Rule of Paul” and over each of its four gates was inscribed his precept, “If any man will not work neither shall he eat”. According to lingering tradition Paul journeyed and preached as far north as the banks of the River Clyde.
“We must also call attention to the remarkable gift of a Greek MS given to a French traveller, C.S. Sonnini, who was a member of the Society of Agriculture in Paris, and had it presented to him by the Sultan of Turkey in 1801. This document asserts that the Apostle, after visiting Spain, came to Britain and preached upon the Mount Lud (Ludgate Hill, London) and that the Druids came to Paul and showed him that their rites and ceremonies were descended from the Jews, and the Apostle accorded them a kiss of peace” (Druidism in Britain, p.18). Furthermore, we have the old British “Triads of Paul the Apostle” handed down to us in ancient Welsh; these are as follows:
TRIADS (THREES) OF PAUL THE APOSTLE
There are three sorts of men: the man of God, who renders good for evil; the man of men, who renders
good for good and evil for evil; and the man of the devil, who renders evil for good.
Three kinds of men are the delights of God: the meek; the lover of peace; the lovers of mercy.
There are three marks of the children of God: gentle deportment; a pure conscience; patient suffering of injuries.
There are three chief duties demanded by God: justice to every man; love; humility.
In three places will be found the most of God: where He is mostly sought; where He is mostly loved; where there is least of self.
There are three things following faith in God: a conscience at peace; union with heaven; what is necessary for Life.
Three ways a Christian punishes an enemy: by forgiving him by not divulging his wickedness; by doing him all the good in his power.
The three chief considerations of a Christian; lest he should displease God; lest he should be a stumbling block to man; lest his love to all that is good should grow cold.
The three luxuries of a Christian feast: what God has prepared; what can be obtained with justice to all; what love to all may venture to use.
Three persons have the claims and privileges of brothers and sisters: the widow, the orphan and the stranger.
What a contrast between “the evangelical simplicity of these precepts” and the “monkish and mediaeval inventions and superstitions”!
It is interesting to note that the names of a British prince and princess who had become Christians, are mentioned in the New Testament by the Apostle Paul. Linus and Claudia, named in Timothy 4:21 were the son and daughter of British King Caractacus. The verse reads:
“Do thy diligence to come before winter. Eubulus greeteth thee, (and Pudens mentioned in the verse was the husband of Claudia) and Pudens, and Linus and Claudia, and all the brethren”.
Pudens was a Roman Noble. At the time that verse was written all three of them were living in Rome. Pudens has the distinction of being the only name mentioned in the Bible recorded in stone of ancient date in Britain. Our Great Heritage, p.193f.
Amongst Roman remains at Chichester, there was dug up in 1723 a stone bearing an inscription in which Pudens is mentioned in connection with the erection of the Roman Temple there. This stone is now exhibited outside the Council House at Chichester, and is known as the Pudens Stone. The incident recorded on it, of course, occurred before Pudens accepted Christianity. Pudens was a Roman officer stationed at Chichester during the earlier part of the Roman occupation of Britain, and it was during his stay here that he won the affections of the British King’s daughter, Claudia. Pudens and Claudia were subsequently married in Rome in A.D. 53. It is remarkable too, that when the Apostle Paul came to Britain he should also land on our shores in the region of Chichester Reach and St. Paul’s Grove at Porchester. On this we quote E. Wilmshurst (St. Paul and Britain p.11), “In Chichester Harbour, then navigable, in the hamlet of Creed, in the parish of Boshem was a spot known as Paul’s Wharf, the traditional landing place of the Apostle, (Sussex Archaeological Collections, Vol XXII 1871) about A.D. 60”.
From the foregoing evidence it is clear that Christianity was introduced into Britain immediately after the Crucifixion, history informing us that the first Christian Church to be erected in the world was Joseph of Arimathaea’s “Wattle Church” at Avalon (Glastonbury) England, and that it was built by none other than the hands of the disciples of Christ. After about a century and a half of faithful preaching the ancient British nation, in A.D. 179, in the reign of good King Lucius, acknowledged Jesus Christ as the Messiah, and was the first nation to do so; accordingly, Origen, born at Alexandria in A.D. 185 wrote in the beginning of the following century, “The land of Britain has received the religion of Christ”. Thus the early British Church was originally Hebrew, not Papal!
Posts : 233
Join date : 2009-08-01
|Subject: Re: Britain-Ancient Israel Sat Aug 08, 2009 10:22 am|| |
Fuller gives a list of institutions founded by this King Lucius:
1) St. Peter’s Cornhill in London, circa A.D. 179.
2) A chief Cathedral Church in Gloucester.
3) A Church at Winchester, circa.A.D. 180.
4) A Church and College of Christian Philosophers at Bangor-on-Dee.
5) A Church dedicated to St. Mary in Glastonbury, said to be repaired and raised out of the ruins of a former Church, circa A.D. 187.
6) A chapel in honour of Christ in Dover Castle.
7) The Church of St. Martins, Canterbury, “understand it thus: that after ages was new named and converted to the honour of that saint.”
Bishop Fuller tells us that Lucius converted the three Arch-Flamens and the 28 Flamens of the Druids, into so many Archbishops and Bishops of the Christian Church. He could not have done this unless the Druids had generally accepted Christianity as a National Religion. (The Early British Church p.12). The three Arch-Flamens referred to were located at Caer Troia otherwise known as Caer Lud (London), Caer Ebroc (York) and Caer Leon (St. David’s).
How deep a root Christianity had taken in the British Isles during the centuries immediately following the time of Christ may be judged from the following extract from Chrysostum, Patriarch of Constantinople, A.D. 347-407: “The British Isles which are beyond the sea (the Mediterranean) and which lie in the Ocean (the Atlantic) have received the virtue of the Word .... Though thou shouldest go to the ocean, to the British Isles, there thou shouldest find all men everywhere discoursing matters out of the Scriptures, with another voice indeed, but not another faith; with a different tongue, but the same judgement”. (Chrysostomi Orat)
The Ancient Britons of the British Isles thus being the first race to recognise Christ, became the pioneer nation in missionary work. In this connection the great work done by the Irish section of the early Celtic Church must not be overlooked. The noble part played by Ireland in missionary work earned for it the title “Isle of Saints”, during the early centuries before Roman
Catholicism came to its shores. At that time, “swarms of devoted missionaries” went out from Ireland to every part of Europe, so much so that Dr Johnson states that Ireland was the “School of the West” (The Early British Church, p.13 - Roberts).
“Beatus, a noble Briton, converted and baptised in Britain, converted Switzerland. His cell, where he died A.D. 96, is still shewn at Unterseen on Lake Thun” (Theatre. Magnae Britain, Lib. VI, p.9). Mansuetus, born in Ireland, converted and baptised in Britain, was sent in company with S. Clement of Rome, a friend and pupil of the Apostles (afterwards the third bishop of Rome) to preach the Gospel in France. He founded the Church in Lorraine and then penetrated to lllyria in the East of Europe, East of the Adriatic, where he was martyred in A.D. 110 (Franciscus Guillman, Helvetiorum Historia, libl, c. 15. Mersaeus De Sanctis German, etc.). Marcellus, A Briton, became third Bishop of Tongres and founded the Archbishopric of Treves ... Almost all the Archbishops of Treves were Britons. He lived and died, it is stated, as a martyr in A.D. 166 (see Mersaeus, De Archiepiscopis Trevir ensium, and Pantalion De Viris. Illus. Germaniae. Part 1). Cadval, a British Missionary founded in A.D. 170, the Church of Tarentum in Italy and the Cathedral of Taranto is dedicated to him(MS Vellum of the Church of Tarentum).” (The Apostolic Church of Britain, pp.39- 40, Rev. L.S. Lewis). Nor let us forget the work at home
- St. Peiran, an Irishman in Cornwall; St. Patrick, a Scotsman in Ireland; St. Ninian in Scotland; Keby, a Prince in Cornwall; and Fastidius, Bishop of London; and many others. (The Early British Church, p.13, Roberts).
The early Church in the British Isles was known as the Culdee Church and it was not until the coming of Roman Catholics at the end of the sixth century that it became more generally known as the British Church in order to distinguish it from the Roman Church.
Attached to many of the early Culdee Churches were monasteries, that is colleges (for the mode of life in them was altogether different from that of most of the monasteries in Roman Catholic times with which we are more familiar). The reason that there have not been more records of the ancient Culdee Church handed down to us is that the ruthless destruction by the Roman Emperors and later by Roman Catholicism was directed not only at Christians who faithfully maintained their Christian liberty, but also at the records of their Church.
At the time of the Anglo-Saxon Invasions and settlement, the ancient Celts and Iberians were as everybody knows, driven mainly to the mountainous regions of the west and north of the country, while a few escaped to Brittany. Strangely enough, the
Christians of the bulk of these pagan Angles originated from the small Scottish island of Iona, then known by the older name of Icolmkill, which means “the island of Columba of the Church”. Synchronous with the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons the Scots came over from Ireland and settled in Argyll and the Hebrides. When this Scottish kingdom had been established in the north-west of Britain, the saintly Columba (born A.D. 521) crossed over from his native Scotia (as Northern Ireland was then called) to Iona and settled there on 12th May, 563 with a view to making it his headquarters for preaching the Gospel to the pagan part of Britain. His great work and personal influence extended over Scotland and much of northern England, and as early as A.D. 588 a continental mission scheme was formed. (The Early Scottish Church, page 216 McLauchlan).
In the same year that Columba died on Iona, that is 597, the Roman Catholic emissary Augustine landed in Kent. While at first some converts, including King Edwin of Northumbria, were made to the Roman Church, on the east coast of Britain, yet Boyd Carpenter in his History of the Church of England states, “within forty years of the arrival of Augustine, the only place in which his followers held their own was in the kingdom of Kent”. In 637 when the Northumbrian King, Oswald, desired to establish Christianity in his kingdom he did not apply to Kent for Missionaries, but to Iona. Accordingly Aidan was sent and he established a missionary centre on the Island of Lindisfarne, subsequently known as Holy Island, close to the coast of Northumberland. Here Aidan and later Cuthbert from Melrose did a great work. The Norseman, however, called Iona by the name of Holy Island (Eyin Helga). The Gaelic name of Iona was Innis man Druidhneah (The Island of the Druids) which shows that this little island was a sacred place even before the advent of Christianity.
A similar missionary centre to these of Iona and Lindisfarne was also established on the rugged Shetland Island of Foula in the far North and Lindisfarne in the south, to that the northern half of Britain was indebted for receiving Christianity. This is significant in view of the fact that the Stone which Jacob used as a pillow at Bethel (the Stone of Destiny) found its resting
place on Iona at the very time that Colubaand’s associates established there the headquarters of their great and widespread Christian work.
“In the age of darkness Ireland was the bearer of many torches, and Iona, her fairest daughter, more than any other, stood for all that was luminous and spiritual, pure and unworldly. The missionaries of Iona left their mark upon almost every corner of Europe, and some of their most precious manuscripts rest to this day in European libraries” - Norseman in Alban, p.23 Robert Lock Bremner. In the eighth century the library at Iona contained one of the most valuable collections of manuscripts in the world. “For two hundred years Iona was the lighthouse for the western nations, whence missionaries went forth in all directions.” - Celt, Druid and Culdee, p.110 (I.H. Elder).
The account of how the influence of Iona even reached the far north island of Iceland in the ninth century is given in Norseman in Alban (Scotland). The Norseman Orlyg was fostered by Bishop Patrick in the Sudreys (ie the Sougherton Isles of Hebrides, as distinguished from the Nordrieys, i.e. the Northern Isles which comprised Orkney and Shetland). Orlyg wished to go to Iceland. Patrick gave him Kirkwood and an iron bell, a plenarium and hallowed earth, which he should lay under the corner posts. Patrick told him to land where there were two fells visible from the sea, and settle under the southern one, and in a dale between the two mountains he should build the kirk (the church) and dedicate it to St. Columba.
Orlyg landed eventually on the great North-West Peninsula of Iceland at a creek subsequently called Orlyg’s Haven, within a large firth known thereafter as Patrick’s Firth (Patreksfjorour) to the present day. He wintered there, thence coasted southward and lost the bell overboard, finally he sighted the fells on the peninsular of Kjalarnes near Reykjavik answering the subscription given by Patrick. There he found the bell amongst the seaweed, and so built the church as instructed and worshipped under the mantle of St. Columba.
From the mass of foregoing evidence it is clear that Britain was the leading nation in the pioneering of Christianity, and today, we are still the foremost race on earth in regard to the spreading of God’s Holy Word-the Great Bible Societies which were founded last century have done an enormous work in this respect. It is interesting to note that the extending influence of Britain’s Sea Power and the impulse to exploration during the sixteenth century were accompanied by an impulse to spread the Gospel. On this point the Encyclopaedia Britannica, under the caption “Modern Missions” states:
“The development of the Maritime power of England which the Portugese and the Spanish monarchies noted with fear and jealousy was distinguished by a singular anxiety for the spread of the Christian Faith. Edward VI in his instructions to the
navigators in Sir Hugh Willoughby’s fleet, Sebastian Cabot in those for the intended voyage to Cathay and Richard Hakluyt, who promoted many voyages of discoveries in addition to writing their history, agree with Sir Humphrey Gilbert’s chronicler that ‘the sowing of Christianity must be the chief intent of such as shall make any attempt at foreign discovery, or else whatever is built upon other foundation shall never obtain happy success or continuance’.
It is also a remarkable fact that the phenomenal growth of Bible Societies and Foreign Missions and the rapid expansion of the British Empire have been simultaneous.
“Today more than 90% of the funds for Foreign Protestant Missions are subscribed by Anglo-Saxons.”
During the year 1931 the Scriptures distributed by the American Bible Society, the British and Foreign Bible Society, and the National Bible Society of Scotland, to mention only three, reached the colossal total of over twenty-eight millions. Allowing for inter-sales this figure would still be well over twenty millions. It is translated into more than a thousand languages. The total distribution of Scriptures by all other nations combined for the same period is only a few thousands. Verily He has found His witnesses in Anglo-Saxon Israel. (Is Civilisation Doomed? pp.4-5) How evident that Anglo-Celto-Saxondom is God’s nation Israel doing His work!
Posts : 233
Join date : 2009-08-01
|Subject: Our Identity Testified By the Bishop of St. David's 500 Years ago Sat Aug 08, 2009 12:06 pm|| |
OUR IDENTITY TESTIFIED BY THE BISHOP OF ST DAVID’S, 5OO YEARS AGO
IT was the year that the great conqueror Edward III, the father of English commerce, died. Edward the Black Prince, the heir to the British crown, had passed away, to the grief of the nation, in June the previous year (A.D. 1376); and his son, Richard of Bordeaux, the Prince of Wales, a stripling of 11 years of age, was next for the throne. His grandfather’s reign, which had extended to 51 years, had been most glorious in the annals of British history. It included In its scope the victories of Crecy and of Poictiers; the conquest of France; the captivity of its king, John; the triumphs of the Black Prince in Spain; and the rise and rapid growth of Civil Liberty in England.
At that crisis, Richard of Bordeaux, the Prince of Wales and Heir-Apparent, was introduced to the Parliament sitting in A.D. 1377 (the year of the King’s death), by the Bishop of St David’s. The speech made by that Prelate on the occasion was a remarkable one and should be interesting to us Israelites as being singularly confirmatory of the views we hold in regard to the origin of our nation.
Addressing the Houses the Diocesan of St David’s said, in the quaint language of that day:
“And so you may embrace your noble King with the arms of your perfect love, since he has sent you him whom you longed for. And after your King, embrace with love as perfect, my Lord the Prince, who is here present (God save him!), whom you so ardently desired and at now seeing whom you may repeat your Nunc Dimittis; for there is through him that peace over Israel which the Scriptures name - Israel being the heritage of God, and that heritage being also - England! For in good truth, I believe that God would never have honoured this country by victories such as had given glory to Israel, had He not intended it for His heritage also.”
Those are remarkable words to have emanated in A.D. 1377, from lips ecclesiastical and prelatical! We should hardly have credited their use, had we not proof in our own Book of Common Prayer, that 200 years later, in the 16th century, the compilers of the State Church formularies recognized (in a non-natural sense it may be) that this realm is the habitat of Israel! The due succession of the reigning family is there prayed for, and the national petition we are taught to send up to the throne of God is “that our posterity may see her (Victoria’s) children’s children and peace upon Israel!”
Posts : 233
Join date : 2009-08-01
|Subject: The Union Jack Sat Aug 08, 2009 12:15 pm|| |
THE UNION JACK
Douglas C. Nesbit (The Prophetic Expositor)
OUR ongoing series of Bible studies, which started several years ago with the call of The Almighty God to Abram in Ur of the Chaldees, has taken us through successive Scripture passages following the tribal history of God’s people as Abraham’s son, Isaac, and Isaac’s son, Jacob (re-named Israel), became patriarchs of the tribal nation of Israel. They moved down into Egypt, then suffered bondage there, from which The Almighty God drew them forth with great wealth, through the miracles of the Exodus. They have, more recently, formed a tribal encampment under the guidance of The Almighty God Himself, and under the supervision of God’s prophet Moses.
Several weeks ago, we were discussing the various symbols on the tribal banners, validated prophetically by Jacob, and I made some further references to the matter of the Union Jack, which now represents a gathering in today’s world of a number of the descendants of those ancient Israelites of the wilderness encampments described in the Bible. We, of the British Israel-World Federation hold that the main bodies of the modern-day descendants of those Israelite clans now form the generally Anglo-Celto-Saxon and kindred peoples of today. These are seen primarily in the British, and their relatives in Holland, Scandinavia, France, those mainly of northern and western Europe, and those descendants of them in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the U.S.A. and other areas now similarly inhabited. We do not forget the fact that many also of their relatives were left in significant pockets along the braided migratory routes by which these people moved from their Assyrian captivity and deportation to their homes in these new areas. Thus some people of Russian and Ukrainian background, and of Polish, Germanic, Italian, north Spanish and Portuguese, those of Switzerland, and others of central Europe, are by no means excluded from the list.
The flag, known as the Union Jack, formed in Great Britain, of the Jacks representing a strong concentration of these peoples has been described, most appropriately, as representing a “Union of Jacob”, and thus it has become a point of attack by some who would deny the identification of ourselves with ancient Israel.
I recently learned of one such thrust, a twenty-page attack on our thesis on the internet, and I have also received some letters from interested persons who want further information on the matter. This I hope to supply, at least in part, today.
I had mentioned that Union Jacks flown at the top of the rigging on old sailing ships, hoisted, as mentioned by Chamber’s Twentieth Century Dictionary, at the spritsail topmast-head, and flown amidst such articles as “Jack-blocks” and the “Jack cross-trees” were reached by a “Jacob’s Ladder”, a rope ladder having wooden steps. A flag thus positioned would be at the top of Jacob’s Ladder, and symbolically occupy the position from which The Almighty, in a vision, gave Jacob the remarkable promises of Genesis 28:12-15. The 11th Edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, Vol. 16, item “ladder”; the Oxford illustrated Dictionary,. The Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary, Vol.1; The New Lexicon Webster’s Encyclopedic Dictionary and three etymological dictionaries all confirm the use of the name Jacob’s Ladder to reach such rigging. However, such “Jack” flags are also used at the bowsprit of a vessel, held aloft on a Jack-staff, and according to some sources like The Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology, the source from which the name “Jack” arose was from its size, being smaller than the ensign. Reading this, one might assume that this provides grist to the mills of our detractors. Is this true? Let us follow the trail of investigation further.
Pursuing the matter, I consulted “History of the Union Jack - How It Grew and What It Is”, by Barlow Cumberland, M.A., printed by William Briggs, Toronto, in 1900. That authority states “The origin of the name ‘Union Jack’ has given rise to considerable conjecture and much interesting surmise. The name used in most of the earlier records is that of ‘Union Flag’, or ‘Great Union.’ In the treaty of peace made with the Dutch in 1674, in the reign of Charles II., it is mentioned as ‘His Majesty of Great Britain’s flag or Jack,’ and in the proclamation of Queen Anne, A.D. 1707, as ‘Our Jack, commonly called the Union Jack.’ The most generally quoted suggestion for the name is that it was acquired from the fact that the first proclamation which authorized a flag, in which the national crosses of England and Scotland were for the first time combined, was issued by James VI. of Scotland after he had become James 1 of England, the explanation being that King James frequently signed his name in the French manner as ‘Jacques,’ which was abbreviated into ‘Jac,’ and thus the new flag came to be called a ‘Jack.’
Pointing out that the derivation suggested, while “ingenious”, cannot be accepted as “there were ‘Jacks’ long before the time and reign of James I’ the author presents information concerning feudal companies which wore the heraldry of their liege lord and military companies which wore such, marking their allegiance to a king. During the Crusades, which were military expeditions “under the banner of the cross to recover the Holy Land” (the Chambers’ Twentieth Century Dictionary definition), the Christian nations of Europe were combined together to rescue Jerusalem and the Holy Land from the rule of the Mohammedan. Cumberland continues: “Warrior pilgrims recruited from the different countries, wore crosses of different shapes and colours upon their surcoats, to indicate the nationalities to which they belonged.” From wearing these crosses they were named Crusaders. For example, French wore red crosses, Flanders green, Germany black and Italy yellow Earlier, the English wore white, but later changed to the red cross of St George.
“These ‘surcoats’ or ‘Jacques’ came in time to be known as ‘Jacks’ ... and it was from the raising of one of them upon a lance or staff at the bow of a ship ... that the cross of St George, or the cross of St Andrew, came to be known as a ‘Jack,’ and from this origin, too, the small flag-pole at the bow of a ship is still called ‘Jack staff. ‘ “
That makes the case for our opponents, one might imagine. Cumberland is quite a recognized authority. But wait a moment, there is yet one thread of inquiry to be pursued before we wrap the matter up! Let us pursue it.
Those Christian nations of Europe were, in the main, generally composed of the descendants of the Tribes of Israel of old time. From what source, then, did they derive that name, Jacque? Let us consult some dictionaries. The Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology, while noting its use as a pet name for John, adds “the resemblance to F. Jacques James (:-Rom. *Ja-cobus, for L. Jaco-bus Jacob) is a difficulty.” That looks interesting. Let us consult some other dictionaries. An Etymological Dictionary of Modern English by Ernest Weekley, Vol. 1 states “jack. Personal name used in E. as pet-form of John, via Jankin, Jackin, but also representing F. Jacques, L. Jacobus (see Jacob).” That name “Jacob” keeps circling about in the background. Perhaps it is shown most clearly in “Origin - A Short Etymological Dictionary of Modern English “, by Eric Partridge. That reference is straight forward and quite clear. It states “Jack, the very common pet-form of John, the world’s commonest font-name. Jack, although used for John, derives from OF Jaques (F. Jacques), James, ML Jacobus, LL Iacobus, LGr Iakobos, H Ya’aqobh, lit ‘supplanter’.” So the name does derive from the Patriarch, Jacob, after all! It always pays to pursue a matter through to the end. It has been truly said, that “The game’s not over until ‘It’s over’.” Here we find that the name of the Patriarch Jacob lies, in the historic background beyond every diversionary attempt by opponents to obscure the origin of the name of our “Union Jack” in Jacob!
No wonder that King James VI Of Scotland and I of Great Britain at this signed his name as “Jacques”, abbreviated to “Jac”. He well knew that this was a form of the name “Jacob”. He well knew the origin of both Scottish people from whom he had come, and that of the English. The Arbroath Declaration had been signed and sealed by the Scottish Parliament under Robert the Bruce in April, 1320 A.D., and in it they told the Pope that the Scottish people came from “the Greater Scythia” and entered Scotland, completely destroying the Picts, twelve hundred years after the outgoing of the people of Israel. According to “The Story Of The Irish Race” by Seumas McManus, the Scots did this about 500 A.D., and Mr. W H. Bennett, in “Symbols of our Celto-Saxon Heritage” also gives “about 500” as the date of this effective invasion of Scotland. This means that the Scottish barons under the leadership of Robert the Bruce were relating their origins to the emergence of Israelites, at a date of about 700 B.C. This agrees with our knowledge of the deportations of most of the tribesmen of Israel effectively completed by Assyria in 721 B.C., which was soon followed by the break-up of the Assyrian Empire itself a few years later and the release and flight of the Israelite captives at that time.
The Royal Genealogy of Elizabeth I, of England, was linked to that of the Davidic monarchy of the Bible, and it is displayed at Hatfield House in England. Her leading admiral, Sir Francis Drake, knew of England’s identity with Israel for he mentions the name of “Israel” casually in place of the name “England” without feeling the need for any explanation in a letter written to John Foxe the writer of “Foxe’s Book of Martyrs.” It is now preserved as Manuscript 167, part of folio 104 of the Harleian manuscripts, British Library, The British Museum.
Thus, we have sustained our assurance in making reference to the Union Jack as a symbol for the Union of Jacob.
Posts : 233
Join date : 2009-08-01
|Subject: The Lion and The Unicorn Sat Aug 08, 2009 12:33 pm|| |
THE LION AND UNICORN
or, JUDAH AND ISRAEL
(Genesis 49:9, Numbers 24:8, 9, Jeremiah 31:18 Revelation 5:5, Deuteronomy 33:18, Hosea 10:11)
THE Almighty God foretold the destiny of Israel - "The elect nation" - from creation days. By His fore-knowledge He revealed their history in the placement of the stars of the heavens, which truly “declare the glory of God.” in the twelve tribal signs of the zodiac and their attendant constellations. He thus predestined this people to be like the stars-His divine earthly agents and His glory (Isaiah 43:7 and Isaiah 46:13). Amos 3:2 declares, “You only have I known of all the families of the earth"; it was by means of Israel that God determined to preserve a knowledge of Himself and thus prevent the creation of man from being a failure. His plan, therefore, for the salvation and deliverance of mankind. notwithstanding the fatal effects of the Fall, which meant eternal death was to be organised and carried out by the agency of Israel. Sin had so wrought upon man in about 1,700 years that God sent the Flood to destroy him, but preserved eight of one family of the line of Seth and Enoch to recommence human history.
The Divine plan, then, began again its course and continued it through the patriarchs-all of one lineage-Noah, Shem, Abram, Isaac, Jacob and his twelve Sons. All the events of Israel’s career were educational; their slavery in Egypt was a preparation, or an apprenticeship, for the part they had to fill; they there learnt, by contrast, to love freedom, liberty and justice, and to appreciate the Divine laws of Sinai given to them at their Exodus (Deuteronomy 10:19); they were ultimately to preach and enforce them on a sin-enslaved earth, which would fall under their rule (Deuteronomy 14:2 and 26:19) gradually in the latter days.
When the division of the tribes took place under Rehoboam, that king was warned not to attempt to recover the allegiance of the ten revolting tribes, Shemaiah the prophet declaring that "the thing was of God" - (1 Kings 12:24). The separation was evidentlv prearranged by him when Ahijah, Divinelv directed, tore Jeroboam’s mantle into twelve pieces, giving him ten portions as a sign of his approaching kingship over the ten tribes, which came to pass (I Kings 11:30). The northem kingdom was called ISRAEL, while the southern bore the name of JUDAH and consisted of Judah, Levi and Benjamin, who (though of the northern kingdom) was lent to Judah as a light (I Kings 11:36) till the crucifixion. It is a significant fact that the apostles and disciples of Jesus who responded most readily to His Call in Galilee were of the Benjamite tribe, and thus constituted 'the light' first illumined by the Lord. The parable of Zechariah 11:7-14 narrates the separation of the brethren (Beauty-Judah, and Bands-Israel). Benjamin’s flight and eventual dispersion is foretold in Jeremiah 6:1, and by Christ in Matthew 24:16-20, and materialised at the siege and destruction of Jerusalem by Titus AD. 70.
ISRAEL’s kings were all wicked and led the ten tribes into flagrant idolatry so that, after long and continuous warning by their expressly raised-up prophets, they were all led into captivity, 721 B.C., and were so completely lost that they never again were distinguished by the sacred name of Israel; but when they reappear in history it is as the Khumri, Scythians, Sacae, Gazae and Iberians, from which are derived the more modern appellations - Cymri (Wales), Scotia, Saxons, Goths, Hibernians. They are thus traceable from the Greek historians as they migrated at intervals from Medo-Persia into Europe via the Caspian and the Black Seas, or via Asia Minor into the isles and coastlards of the Mediterranean, making their way north and west of Europe, and finally to the Ultima Thule of their wanderings - the BRITISH ISLES - the place God had specially prepared for them (II Samuel 7:10).
JUDAH has never been lost, but, after suffering a captivity of seventy years in Babylon, they remained in Palestine till the birth of Messiah. They were “men of signs” (Isaiah 8:18), but subsequent to their rejection of Jesus they were punished by their entire expulsion from Palestine and their dispersion over the earth to this day; yet their adhesion to the Mosaic law has kept them a distinct people in all their wanderings, where they have so remarkably witnessed in this manner to His eternal truth.
The parable of the prodigal son proves our statement; the prodigal Ephraim wasted his possessions in riotous living among the heathen and became Gentilised, but Judah remained faithful to the law and avoided idolatry after the Babylonish captivity.
The foregoing clearly shows how diverse and distinct the history of the House of Judah and the House of Israel has been ever since the division into the two kingdoms in the reign of Rehoboam.
If we retrace our steps back to the time prior to that division, we find two leading tribes were specially marked out, i.e. Judah for the kingship through David to Messiah, and Joseph or Ephraim for the birthright. Judah’s tribal banner in the wilderness bore the lion as their Royal insignia; hence Christ, who sprang from Judah, was called the lion of that tribe par excellence. Joseph or Ephraim’s banner bore the ox or bull (wild bull or unicorn), indicative of the pushing power of that tribe who had the birthright blessing and who, with his brethren, would ultimately inherit the earth (I Chronicles 5:2), and have the possession of the gates of his enemies-pre-eminently the sea gate (Genesis 22:17). Thus, the two kingdoms. north and south, were clearly distinguished by the symbols on their standards.
We can understand the significance of the UNICORN being on our RoyalArms when we know that the British nation is the northern kingdom of ISRAEL, but the placement thereon of the LION, the emblem of the Royal House of Judah, requires a word of explanation, for JUDAH - the Jews - are not yet nationally joined with us, but are scattered throughout the world. It would appear that when the temporal throne of David apparently ceased in Jerusalem 586 B.C., the prophet Jeremiah fled with Tea Tephi, the daughter of Zedekiah, down into Egypt, and finally arrived in Ireland with the royal seed, and by the union of Zedekiah's daughter with Heremon, arch-king Eochaidh of Ulster, the royal line of Judah was continued over Israel in these islands, and from that marriage can be traced the descent of our Queen. So we have the monarch of JUDAH, the southern kingdom, reigning over Israel, the northern kingdom, in these islands to the present time, and hence our emblems the LION and UNICORN on the Royal Standard.
In the dream of Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 2) is pictured the four great metal human empires which were to subjugate and rule the earth successively from that time till the end of man's kingship. They are Assyria (Babylon), Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome and its modern representatives. In continuance of the Divine purpose, it is distinctly stated that during the period of these empires, God would raise up another kingdom, which should last for ever. There can be no doubt of its identity; it is to be human (Daniel 2:44) and as the divine agent of Jehovah, it must be that kingdom now existing which most resembles the inspired portraiture. The stone kingdom of Daniel 2:35 is undoubtedly the kingdom of ISRAEL, represented principally or best today by the (late) BRITISH Empire. It is not a perfect kingdom but it is now doing the pioneer preparation work for the coming of its final stone King, Messiah, who will complete and crown the Divine purpose in all Israel, and reign for 1,000 years in righteousness over them and all the earth; nor must it be confused with the spiritual (precious stone) kingdom of Christ-Jerusalem above (Revelation 19:10).
Daniel 2 relates that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and is therefore Divinely formed. As these islands were separated from the continent of Europe by Divine creative power, so has the stone kingdom of Israel been fashioned in the course of history by the same Hands and preserved from destruction; and though its sins and imperfections are many, yet it shall endure, because Scripture declares:
"I am Jehovah, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed" - (Malachi 3:6).
The smiting of the metal image by the stone kingdom has commenced. The Kingdom Message held the reins in the late war by sea power and finance, and is effectively carrying out the Divine will.
The British principles of government are based on the laws of Sinai, which make for righteousness and on the same foundation will Messiah rule during the millennium. At this juncture also will Judah, or the Jews, having walked to Israel, be united under one *king (Jeremiah 3:18; Hosea 1:11); and again,
"Behold I will take the stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel, his fellows, and will put them with him, even with the stick of Judah, and make them one stick, and they shall be one in Mine Hand" - (Ezekiel 37:19).
Britain is now gradually waking up to discover her identity, for she is doing the work, Divinely allotted in Scripture to the people of Israel-to be God's witnesses. How better can she prove her destiny than by scattering the good seed of Scripture among all nations, as she is doing this day by means of the British and Foreign Bible Society and its fellows.
The following words will be ever the consolation of the Kingdom Message when the clouds of war seem to overwhelm her:
"Though I make a full end of all nations [their governments and rule of iron],...yet will I not make a full end of thee; but I will correct thee in measure, and will not leave thee altogether unpunished" - (Jeremiah 30:11).
Correction is not destruction. God cast off Israel for sin, but not away.
The unicorn, or wild ox, on our Royal Standard depicts two phases of Israel's condition: it has a chain round its neck to remind us of its captivity; but that chain is broken, and that sign introduces the second chapter of its history - it is free; and the flag waving over these islands is the symbol of Israel's Divine mission to set free under Christ all other nations. Hosea portrays Israel as divorced from Jehovah, but remarried after a period of testing-time, so that they were never in reality lost to God, but ever, as was Judah, a people of "signs and wonders"; from the marvellous birth of Isaac, they have been miraculously led and kept, in spite of their natural tendency to run after other gods, and imitate idolatrous nations; their elective condition never, happily, depended upon their faithfulness to God, but because Jehovah had promised their fathers, and He was unchangeable.
"It is not for your merits, nor for your righteousness, that God hath chosen you, but because He had a love for your fathers and a delight in them" - (Deuteronomy 10:15 and 9:5).
We must be careful not to confuse this election of race or birthright without conditions with the election of grace, for here we must "MAKE our calling and election sure."
God has perpetually preserved Israel as a race in spite of their disobedience.
The Jews failed to receive Christ and understand the kingdom He came to set up in their midst and the work of this kingdom was entrusted to Israel (Matthew 21:43), who accepted the Gospel notwithstanding their then Gentilised or idolatrous condition. when the apostles and their successors spread it among them; hence it is evident that the holy oracles long preserved by Judah passed after the overthrow of Jerusalem AD. 70 to the custody of Israel in Britain (circa AD. 35) in association with the New Testament.
The nomenclature of the twelve tribes in the Scripture must be distinctly defined and understood for accurate elucidation. We may therefore observe that the name Jacob (Isaiah 27:9), when representing his descendants as a nation, covers the whole twelve tribes, as also does the term Israel up to the period of the division into two kingdoms during the reign of Rehoboam. After 975 B.C. the appellation Israel is mainly confined in Scripture to the ten tribes. The term Judah has never included or been applied to the ten tribes, while the name of Joseph is so employed in Zechaiiah 10:6. and again in Hosea. Ephraim is also a frequent appellation (Isaiah 7:8, 9) by which the lost tribes of Israel were designated and described. Paul, though retaining his Benjamnite tribal identity, called himself a Jew because he was educated and trained up among them as a Pharisee who strictly observed the Mosaic laws; there may likewise have been other individuals of the ten tribes specially from the Benjamites who were situated like Paul. Luke 2:36 records the case of Anna of the tribe of Asher, yet these few people could not have represented the lost ten tribes nor constituted at the time of our Lord that Israelite nation who were then scattered far and wide.
The great mission of the Gospel was given by the Master to His apostles, after the rejection of Him by the Jews, to go to the Gentiles, i.e. Israelite idolators - the Lost Sheep of the house of Israel. They came on this errand, therefore, among other places to Britain AD. 35.
Posts : 233
Join date : 2009-08-01
|Subject: A Trojan Connection with Britain Sat Aug 08, 2009 1:01 pm|| |
A TROJAN CONNECTION WITH BRITAIN
A LETTER TO JULIUS CAESAR
SCHOOLBOYS know the letter written by Caractacus to Claudius Caesar. But not everyone knows the letter, written about a century earlier, from Cassilbellaunus to Julius Caesar. This is no doubt because it does not come to us from Latin sources. It is given in full by Geoffrey of Monmouth, the twelfth-century writer who, despite his detractors, possessed three advantages: he studied under his uncle, Uchtryd, Bishop of Llandaff, in South Wales; he was himself Bishop of St Asaph, in North Wales; he also possessed an ancient manuscript from Brittany, which he quotes widely. From any of these sources he could have obtained a copy of the letter of Cassibellaunus which we quote:
"Cassibelaun, king of the Britains, to Caius Julius Caesar. We cannot but wonder, Caesar, at the avarice of the Roman people, since their insatiable thirst after money cannot let us alone whom the dangers of the ocean have placed in a manner out of the world; but they must have the presumption to covet our substance, which we have hitherto enjoyed in quiet. Neither is this indeed sufficient; we must also prefer subjection and slavery to them, before the enjoyment of our native liberty.
Your demand therefore, Caesar, is scandalous, since the same vein of nobility flows from Aeneas, in Britons and Romans, and one and the same chain of consanguinity shines in both: which ought to be a band of firm union and friendship. That was what you should have demanded of us, and not slavery: we have learned to admit of the one, but never to bear the other. And so much have we been accustomed to liberty, that we are perfectly ignorant what it is to submit to slavery. And if even the gods themselves should attempt to deprive us of our liberty, we would to the utmost of our power resist them in defence of it.
Know then, Caesar, that we are ready to fight for that and our kingdom if, as you threaten, you shall attempt to invade Britain."
The reference to Aeneas provides support for the fascinating belief that the ancient British royal line stemmed from Troy, as did, traditionally, the descent of certain of the early rulers of Rome. The tradition that the Trojan leaders were Judahites is upheld by the Apocrypha record to the effect that the Spartan hierarchy claimed kinship with Judah.
(Historia Britonum. Bit. IV ch. 2)
Back To Archive Contents
Posts : 233
Join date : 2009-08-01
|Subject: Bitain B.c. Sun Aug 09, 2009 3:28 pm|| |
Valerie Martlew, U.K.
My apologies to Dr. Francis Pryor for borrowing the title of his interesting Channel 4 television series. I applaud his stance on the ancient Britons, for he debunks the prevalent idea that, prior to the coming of the Romans, these islands were inhabited by a lot of woad-painted savages. However, as with all archaeologists and historians, he still leaves the viewer rather confused about the early inhabitants of these islands, and does not appear to agree that there were successive waves of invaders who added to the culture of these early peoples. He also falls into the trap of believing that the Druids were responsible for human
sacrifices, but this was a slander of the Romans, who hated the Druids for their influence on the independent spirit of the people. True, certain bodies have been
discovered by archaeologists that seem to show signs of deliberate killing for ritual purposes, but why pin the blame on the Druids? This could have been a practice of renegade religionists, or of different sects. Dr. Pryor reported that one body had mistletoe in the stomach, and as the Druids revered mistletoe, this was proof of
their being involved in ritual killing.This appears to me to be stretching a theory a little too far. Mistletoe is a poison and a hallucinogen, so could have been used to
drug the victim. It seems to me to be far too slender a thread to use as proof of the guilt of the Druids. Any perpetrator of the ritual killing could have used this. I do
not consider it to be a valid argument.
There is a golden key to history, which is contained in God's Word. With this key, so much which appears to puzzle the experts and blur their conclusions could be
explained. However, the Lord has told us that we are to be blinded until it is his Will to reveal the truth to us, and Satan is ever active in throwing a spanner in the works. We should not be surprised that the wise men come so near to the truth, and then suddenly seem to veer off course.
This should not be taken as a criticism of Dr.Pryor, for his work is very valuable, and his programme is most interesting. He has contributed much to other
programmes, such as Time Team, and Meet the Ancestors. Scientists such as Dr.Pryor, and Dr.Julian Richards are adding a great deal to the understanding of our ancient history, restoring the balance in a picture of our history which seems to many historians to begin only with the invasion of the Romans. This great culture imposed civilisation on a few backward tribes in these islands, if the popular view of history is taken. This is the picture that I was taught at school, and (in so far as
history is taught at all in schools nowadays) is one that stilI prevails in most peoples' minds - if they think about history at all. In spite of the good work by these experts, the picture is stilI like a puzzle with vital pieces missing. The Bible can supply the missing pieces.
The Real "Ancient Brits"
The mist,which veils the distant past of our ancestors, is further confused by the seeming failure of the experts to differentiate between the different peoples who have inhabited this land. They lump them all together as "Celts", which is a vague term, and not strictly accurate in all cases. I do not believe that it is right to consider the earliest inhabitants as "Celts", for they were probably indigenous, or originated from the people who escaped the great floods(1) caused by the melting of the glaciers in the last Ice Age. They had a distinctive culture, which was by no means primitive, distinguished by specialised tools and buildings. A very interesting fact mentioned by Dr. Pryor is that the mitochondrial DNA of the most ancient people can be found in our population today. This is witnessed by the finding of "Cheddar Man", a skeleton in the Cheddar Gorge caves, dating back about 7,000 years. His DNA can be found today in some of the inhabitants of Cheddar village. Mitochondrial DNA is always traced through the female line. I feel convinced that a great breakthrough will be achieved in this field and that perhaps the Lord is keeping us blind until this science is more developed. It is seemingly a cause for puzzlement amongst experts when they find that their DNA test findings indicate that the people of these islands are genetically very close, in spite of the differing waves of "invaders" which have been recorded in our history.In fact, this is not a new concept, but now our more advanced science is able to verify the ideas of scientists and historians who wrote many years ago.
Many experts could be quoted, if there were space enough in this article, but just two will have to suffice here. Professor Huxley in "Racial Origins", says:
"The invasion of the Saxons, the Goths, the Danes and the Normans changed the language of Britain, but added no new physical element. Therefore we should not talk any more of Celts and Saxons, for they are all one. I never lose an opportunity of rooting up the false idea that the Celts and Saxons are different races".
Professor Freeman in his "Origin of the English Nation" says:
"Tribe after tribe, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Frisians, poured across the sea to make new homes in the Isle of Britain. Thus grew up the English nation-a nation formed by union of various tribes of the same stock. The Dane hardly needed assimilation. He was another kindred tribe, coming later than the others. Even the Norman was a kinsman."
The study of blood groups and skull shapes further confirms that all the different elements amongst our people are of one basic stock. Professor W. Ripley in
"The Races of Europe" states:
"The most remarkable trait of the population of the British Isles is its headform, and especially the uniformity in this respect which is everywhere manifested... These facts indicate a remarkable invariability of cranial type compared with the results obtained elsewhere in Europe... in the British Isles the headform is practically uniform from end to end."
This of course, will not be the case in future years, owing to the high immigration rate and the intermarrying of the basic British stock with peoples of different origins.
Dr. Pryor seemed to imply in his programme that there had not been the different waves of immigrants, such as we have usually understood to be the case in our history, but that the developments were "home-grown". For instance, he cited a particular pattern of agriculture that is not found on the continent, proving to his mind that there had been no influence from foreign sources. This may well be true of the earliest inhabitants of these islands, but later immigrants brought with them
a culture which may be traced back through Europe as far as the shores of the Black Sea.
Historians are able to trace the origins of the successive waves of settlers in these islands back to Europe, and even to the Caucasus and the area that lies south of the Caucasus. There they stop, unable to make the "quantum leap" which would link those peoples found in the area in ancient times with the displaced tribes of the Northern House of Israel. This is in spite of the fact that the new wave of tribes and peoples which the experts acknowledge as having mysteriously risen in the area, appear at the same time and in the same place that the Bible leaves the Northern House in its captivity.
The Bible contains a mystery of which deep students of the Bible are aware, but the majority of Christians and historians are either unaware, or dispute the facts. The mystery is that of the disappearing Tribes. It need not be a mystery, for there are ample clues in Biblical and secular history. It just needs the key to understanding, collating and linking all the known facts. The majority of theologians and commentators consider that the tribes disappeared or were absorbed into the surrounding nations. No doubt a great many did integrate with other nations, but the numbers were too great for them to all have disappeared in this way. Besides, the Lord told us, in Malachi 3:6:
For I am the Lord, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.
Many people do not feel that this matters at all, and are quite happy to believe that the Jews are the sole inheritors of God's Promises, or that the Promises have
been transferred to the Christian Church. However, if either of these beliefs is to be accepted we must also accept that God has gone back on His own solemn word, and changed His mind.
Preconceived ideas need to be revised and examined carefully. The truth should be sincerely sought, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit and the information given in our Bibles. Either we believe what God has said, or we substitute the traditions of men. Which do you feel to be the more reliable?
It can be a rewarding adventure to search out the facts from the Bible's account and from history. God made certain promises to Israel and if He had changed His mind or not fulfilled the promises, we should be justified in becoming atheists. This would be a terrible conclusion to have to come to!
The Splitting of the Kingdom
If we go back into the history of Israel we realise that the people who came out of slavery in Egypt did not long remain a political entity. At the beginning of King David's reign, he only ruled over the southern tribes, but eventually, under him and his son Solomon, they were united. On the death of King Solomon the Kingdom was split in two, owing to the intransigence of his son, Rehoboam, who refused to lighten the tax load in spite of a petition by his subjects. This led to the ten tribes of the Northern House of Israel splitting from the Kingdom and setting up their own kingdom, under Jeroboam, who was not of the line of David. The two Kingdoms, Israel, consisting of ten and a half tribes and Judah, consisting of two and a half tribes (i.e, .Judah, Benjamin, and part of Levi) existed side by side (often at loggerheads with one another) until the Northern House was taken captive into Assyria.
At that time the Assyrians deported peoples to far away lands, and re-populated their homelands with other captives from distant places. The Southern House of Judah remained in the southern parts of Palestine until their eventual captivity and deportation to Babylon. The Babylonians did not repopulate the lands that they
emptied, but they left a few poor people behind to till the fields and provide tribute, as we read in II Kings 25:8-12:
And in the fifth month, on the seventh day of the month, which is the nineteenth year of king Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, came Nebuzaradan, captain of the guard, a servant of the king of Babylon, unto Jerusalem: And he burnt the house of the Lord, and the king's house, and all the houses of Jerusalem, and every great man's house burnt he with fire. And all the army of the Chaldees, that were with the captain of the guard, brake down the walls of Jerusalem round about. Now the rest of the people that were left in the city, and the fugilives that fell away to the king of Babylon, with the remnant of the multitude, did Nebuzaradan the captain of the guard carry away. But the captain of the guard left of the poor of the land to be vinedressers and husbandmen.
The captives in Babylon settled down and built homes and communities. Nebuchadnezzar needed prosperous subjects, so he allowed them a measure of freedom which their less fortunate brethren of the Northern House did not enjoy under their Assyrian captors. The people of the Southern House suffered from homesickness, but led reasonably comfortable lives in exile for seventy years, until Cyrus the Mede gave them permission to return to Palestine to rebuild Jerusalem. Many opted to stay in the land of their captivity. Hundreds of thousands were originally taken captive, but fewer than 50,000 accepted the offer to return to their homeland. These people became known as the "Jews", a corruption of the Greek "Ioudaious", meaning from the country of Judah. This is why the name should never be applied to members of other tribes, especially the Northern House. Even today, Ministers of religion and historians, who should know better, refer to Abraham as a "Jew", which he could not possibly have been, since he lived so many hundreds of years before the captivities.
The Northern captives had a different fate. Their captors, the Assyrians, were a very cruel people, and so Israel did not settle happily under the Assyrian dominion.
The last mention of them in the Bible is in II Kings 17:6:
In the ninth year of Hoshea the king of Assyria took Samaria, and carried Israel away into Assyria, and placed them in Halah and in Habor by the river of Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes.
Careful comparison of different historical sources will enable us to trace these displaced people and discover the different names by which they were known in ancient times.
Posts : 233
Join date : 2009-08-01
|Subject: Re: Britain-Ancient Israel Sun Aug 09, 2009 3:28 pm|| |
The Captivity of the Northern House
We noted from II Kings 17:6 that the Northern House of Israel was carried away
.. .into Assyria, and placed them in Halah and in Habor by the river of Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes.
Where were these places?
The Jewish historian, Josephus, writing just after the time of Jesus, places Israel in Medo-Persia. He stated:
"This conquest (the conquest of Samaria, 721 B. C.) proved wholly destructive to the kingdom of Israel, Hoshea (the king at the time) being made prisoner, and his subjects being transported to Media, in Persia, and being replaced by people whom Shalmaneser caused to remove from the borders of Chuthah, a river in Persia, for the purpose of settling the land of Samaria." (Antiquities IX: 13,14)
Most of the Israelitish settlements were in Mesopotamia ("between the two rivers", Le., the Tigris and Euphrates) in the upper portion of the territory, not at the end near the estuaries. The captives were, therefore, at the time that the Bible leaves them, in Northern Assyria and Persia. This may be checked by reference to the Taylor prism in the British Museum and the stele known as the "black obelisk" on which Shalmaneser records his humiliation of the king of the Northern house, Jehu. It was found in 1846 in Kurkh by SirAustin Henry Layard, and depicts Jehu bowing low before Shalmaneser. He is referred to in the text as the "son of Omri". Omri was one of the first non-Davidic kings of israel. Jehu was also called "Iaua, son of Khumri". In the Book of Tobit, in the Apocrypha, Tobit tells of life as a captive in Assyria. He and his wife were of the tribe of Naphtali (a northern tribe), and he became a purveyor to the king Enemassar (Sargon). Tobit 1:14 says that he went into Media,
".. .and left in trust with Gabael, the brother of Gabrias at Rages, a city of Media, ten talents of silver."
This places the tribes in the territory of Media.
The Israelites had been transported north eastwards about 700 miles to the headwaters of the Tigris and Euphrates. They were no longer referred to as Israel, so
we must search for them under other names, and there are many clues to aid us.
In the testimony of Esdras (Ezra) in the Apocrypha is another clue. This book, although not in our present Canon, is valuable historically, and is a continuation of
the Book of Ezra that is in our Bibles.
In II Esdras 13, verses 40 to 46, we read:
Those are the ten tribes, which were carried away prisoners out of their own land in the time of Osea the king, whom Salmaneser the king of Assyria led away captive, and he carried them over the waters, and so came they into another land. But they took this counsel among themselves, that they would leave the multitude of the heathen, and go forth into a further country where never mankind dwelt, that they might there keep their statutes, which they never kept in their own land. And they entered into Euphrates by the narrow passages of the river. For the most High then shewed signs for them, and held still the flood, till they were passed over. For through that country there was a great way to go, namely, of a year and a half: and the same region is called Arsareth Then dwelt they there until the latter time; and now when they shall begin to come, The Highest shall stay the springs of the stream again, that they may go through: therefore sawest thou the multitude with peace But those that be left behind of thy people are they that are found within my borders. Now when he destroyeth the multitude of the nations that gathered together, he shall defend his people that remain. And then shall he shew them great wonders.
About fifty years after their deportation, the captives took advantage of an attack on the Assyrian Empire to escape through the gorge of the Euphrates. The
Assyrians obviously needed all their forces to defend themselves and turned a blind eye to their disappearance. It has been said by some that their captors actively encouraged them to escape. Many of the fugitives threw their lot in with the attackers of the Assyrians, probably seeing a chance to avenge their wrongs.
Herodotus, (the Greek-historian of c. 484-425 BC ) then takes up the story and tells us that some members of the Ten Tribes left exile and moved westwards and
northwards into what we know as Armenia, then on to a place called Ar-Sareth. There is a river called Sareth to the northwest of the Black Sea. The people were known by then as Gimira or Cimmerians, called Kimmeroi by the Greeks. This name is cognate with the Assyrian Khumri, which is the Assyrian name for the captives, meaning "people of Omri".
We have now established the region to which Israel was deported, and where a number of alien tribes are mentioned who appear to have sprung from nowhere
quite spontaneously. We have demonstrated that many of their names can be traced to an Israelitish origin.
And the Gentiles shall see thy righteousness, and all kings thy glory: and thou shalt be called by a new name, which the mouth of the Lord shall name. (Isaiah 62:2)
Prophets had been warning the Northern House of Israel what would happen to them if they persisted in their worship of idols, but they continued to transgress.
Their punishment had been foretold as early on in their history as the time of the Exodus and the early settlement of Palestine.
But if ye will not hearken unto me, and will not do all these commandments; And if ye shall despise my statutes, or if your soul abhor my judgments, so that ye will not do all my commandments, but that ye break my covenant: I also will do this unto you; I will even appoint over you terror, consumption, and the buming ague, that shall consume the eyes, and cause sorrow of heart: and ye shall sow your seed in vain, for your enemies shall eat it. And I will set my face against you, and ye shall be slain before your enemies: they that hate you shall reign over you; and ye shall flee when none pursueth you. And if ye will not yet for all this hearken unto me, then I will punish you seven times more for your sins. (Leviticus 26: 14-18)
The Gimiri,who had been defeated by Esarhaddon, escaped further westwards into Asia Minor, as far as Sinope, on the southern shores of the Black Sea, as the
Assyrians were pursuing them. The Greeks called these people Kimmeroi, which is close to the original Assyrian Khumri and Gimiri. They must be the same people, especially as these events took place within such a short time after Northern Israel's captivity and transportation, a mere thirty years! Many settled in the Crimea (Cimmeria), where gravestones inscribed in Hebrew have been found, and in the Arsareth region, which was mentioned in Esdras. This area was near the northwestern shore of the Black Sea, not far from the lower reaches of the River Danube, where the river Sereth drains into the Danube. They were driven out of Asia Minor by King Alyattes of Lydia in about 600 BC. Some probably went to Miletus, which was an ancient Israelitish colony, to which many Trojan survivors had gone after the siege of Troy.
Josephus, who was a historian to the Jews around the time of Jesus Christ, wrote that only a remnant of Judah, called the Jews, returned to Palestine, and that the bulk of the people of Israel and Judah were still beyond the Euphrates at that time. "Beyond Euphrates" encompasses Europe and Asia.
They followed the Danube, which had been a highway to ancient peoples for many centuries, into Central Europe where they became known as the Cimbri. Thence they settled in France, the Netherlands and the British Isles, unknowing that they had found the place prepared for them by God, as prophesied in II Samuel 7:10:
Moreover I will appoint a place for my people Israel, and will plant them, that they may dwell in a place of their own, and move no more; neither shall the children of wickedness afflict them any more, as beforetime
It is significant that after the reign of Sargon II, the Khumri are no longer mentioned in the Assyrian records. The Cimmerians were in the Black Sea area before the
Scythians. They were the vanguard of the thrust to the west. Part of the Cimmerians became known as Gauls when they reached southern Germany and France. The Greeks named them Celts but the Romans called them Gauls, according to the historian Diodorus. (d. circa 20 BC.)
Groups of Celtic tribes settled in Bohemia and Bavaria. They were the originators of the "Hallstadt Culture", as the first tombs of this type were found there in Upper Austria. The older tombs date from before the Cimmerian arrivals, but some of the people were of Hebrew origin, their migrations dating back to the time
when Israel was in Egypt. Many had grown tired of the increasing pressures from the Egyptians and had gone off to found colonies in Greece, Asia Minor, Spain and Portugal (Iberia) and had already settled in parts of Europe.The escaped captives followed in their footsteps, led by God's purpose. They may have known that distant kinsmen were before them.
In the early part of the fourth century BC the Celts invaded northern Italy, and were mentioned by Greeks and Romans. The Romans suffered several defeats by
the Cimbri. By the end of the third century BC the Celts were scattered all over Europe, from Northern Italy to North-western France. They crossed the Alps, to go to the aid of the Etruscans, who were being attacked by the Romans. This may be a pointer to their kinship with the Etruscans.
In 390 BC the Celts attacked Rome and burned it. Gauls founded Milan, Brixen and Verona. They continued to be a menace to the Romans for another two hundred years.
The Celts then went further afield, to the British Isles, where they would have found people of their stock already established. It is highly significant that the Welsh
call themselves Cymry to this day.
Later Celts were of the La Time culture. They built wattle and daub houses, thatched much as we still have in rural areas today, but their houses were round. They
also built the great hill top forts, like Maiden Castle in Dorset. They produced beautiful and distinctive artwork, proving that they were not the "woad painted savages" of traditional history. It has also been said that they could not write but they had a form of writing in ancient Ogham script, which appears engraved on rocks as inscriptions. Their language survives in the remoter parts of the Celtic world, and many words are very similar to the Hebrew forms. In Welsh, too, there is also a similarity in the syntax, or construction of sentences, as well as in vocabulary, for some words are almost the same as the Hebrew.
Dr. Francis Pryor pointed out that the Romans never subdued the Celts inWales and Ireland, and only reached as far as Hadrian's Wall in the north. He is also of the opinion that the Romans did not conquer Britain, but that their occupation was with the co-operation of the Britons, who traded with them and benefited from an infusion of their culture.
Posts : 233
Join date : 2009-08-01
|Subject: Re: Britain-Ancient Israel Sun Aug 09, 2009 3:29 pm|| |
On the Behistun Rock, discovered by Sir Henry Rawlinson in 1846, the Gimiri were shown to be same people as the Sacae. The inscriptions on the Rock were cut in 516 BC, and it records them in three different languages, Babylonian, Susian and Persian. In the Persian and Susian versions the Gimiri are called Sacae, and
amongst the twenty-three provinces listed on the Rock is one called Sak. The root Sak is the same as the root of the name of the Scythians, leading us to conclude that they are the same people, living in the same area as the Scythians. Herodotus tells us that the Persians knew the Sacae as Scythians. Now, the root of Sak is the same name by which Israel was known in the book of Amos:
Now therefore hear thou the word of the Lord: Thou sayest, Prophesy not against Israel, and drop not thy word against the house of Isaac. (Amos 7:16)
The House of Isaac is Beth-Saac in Hebrew. The consonants SK are the real root of all the variations, for there were no vowels in ancient written Hebrew.
According to Herodotus, the ancient historian, who wrote about 450 years before Christ, the Persians called all the Scythians Sacae. Herodotus tells us the Scythians began their westward movement in the time of a King of Lydia who reigned from 686 to 637 BC.
The Greeks changed the name of Iskuzu to Skuthae. As in Hebrew, the accent was on the next syllable to the "I", as in "Itzaak", so it is easy to see how the "I" came to be omitted, eventually giving us the name "Scythians".
Herodotus also says that the Scythians appeared quite suddenly in that same area from which the Ten Tribes had disappeared, only half a century after their
The Babylonians first mention the Scythians. They sent troops into Media to collect tribute, and reported that the soldiers had to fight resistance by the Medes and the Gimiri and Iskuzi. They also mention a King Partatua of the Iskuzi, who was contemplating marriage with a daughter of Esarhaddon, the Assyrian ruler.
The Iskuzi were living in the territory of the Medes, and they were renowned for their skill with horses. After having been the allies of the Medes, they became their
enemies, and attempted to overthrow their rulers and overrun their territory. In the Scythians' Hebrew ancestry, their forebears had also been noted for their skills with horses and chariots.
The Scythians were good fighters, and they hired themselves out as mercenaries to the surrounding nations. Then they came under pressure by the Medes, and the western tribes went northwards into the south of present day Russia, through the Dariel Pass and into the Caucasus.
The Scythians were, therefore, a branch of the captive Israelites who went off in a different direction from the Cimmerians.
They went through the Dariel Pass, and then both eastwards and westwards from the shores of the Caspian Sea. Remains have been found in Northwest China of a people who have remarkably Celtic attributes, both in their physical make up and their grave goods and the remnants of their clothing, which included materials of a similar design to Scottish plaids.
The historian, Strabo, said that the Sacae were living in Bactriana and Armenia, and that they called themselves Sacasene. This name is remarkably similar in sound and in meaning to Saxon. The Sacasene began to expand and push out of this territory around 625 to 620 BC. Russian archaeologists established this date when they found Scythian arrowheads of this date, horse gear, and bronze bowls, all dated to this time. This is not all that far removed from the last deportation of the Northern House of Israel, which was in 720 BC.
In the fourth century BCa race called the Sarmatians began to push the Scythians and eventually they pushed on to the area that is Hungary nowadays. Confusion has arisen, even in the minds of some historians, because these later arrivals called themselves Scythians too, even though they were of a different race. This has happened in more recent times. When the Saxons inhabited parts of modern Germany, they called their territory Saxony. This name is retained by the different race of people who now live there.
The Romans later knew the Scythians as "Germans". This was because of the confusion between the real Scythians,and the Sarmatian newcomers. The Latin for
"real" or "genuine" is "germanus". This name was applied to distinguish the original inhabitants of the region which later became Germany. This takes us to 100 BC
The Goths were of the same stock, originally known as "Getae". They have been classed with the Vandals, who came after them, but they were a different people
and do not deserve to be tarred with the same brush. The Massagetae were also from the same stock.
In the Declaration of Arbroath (1316), the Scots claimed that they came originally from Scythia,by way of the Mediterranean, via Spain. This, however, is more
likely to have meant the Cimmerians, as the Scots are largely a Celtic people. The fact that the territories occupied by the ancestors of the Scots were later invaded and settled by the Scythians,may have confused the issue, for the area came to be known as Scythia after these later arrivals. Some authorities derive the name
"Scot" from "Scythian". The original pronunciation would have had a hard "k" sound, "Skuth", and it is significant that this is a Hebrew word, "Succoth", meaning "booths" or "tabernacles", in other words, temporary dwellings, such as would have been erected by a people on the move. Remember that there is a "Feast of Tabemacles", which commemorates the wanderings in the Wilderness of the Israelites who had escaped from Egypt.
In Herodotus' time, the Scythian territory extended 500 miles each way from the Danube to the Don.
The word "Scythian" is mentioned once in Scripture:
Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all. (Colossians 3: 11)
This points to the fact that the Scythians were not considered to be in the same category as Barbarians in Paul's day. Barbarians meant the savage tribes round
about, such as Huns and Vandals.
Having noted the similarity of the name of the Saxons to "Isaac's Sons", we find that God told Abraham that the people would be known by Isaac's name in the latter days.
And God said unto Abraham, Let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the lad, and because of thy bondwoman; in all that Sarah hath said unto thee, hearken unto her voice; for In Isaac shall thy seed be called. (Genesis 21:12)
The Roman writers, Ptolemy and Tacitus mention the settlements of people called Angles and Saxons, further west of the Baltic, having settled in what is now Jutland, part of Denmark. The Romans included this area in "Germany". The Angles and Saxons eventually came to Britain, where they largely displaced the indigenous British or Celts, who were pushed to refuges in the west of Britain.These people had Scythian origins, as we know from the fact that Hengist and Horsa, the Saxon invaders, sent to "Scythia" for reinforcements.
The names "Angle" and "Saxon" are very sigruficant. In ancient Hebrew "engl" was an ox or bull. The tribe of Ephraim had a bull for its emblem. This symbol survives to this day, for we speak of "John Bull" as a typical Englishman, and the corrupted version survives in the Royal Arms as the Unicorn.
God brought him forth out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn: he shall eat up the nations his enemies, and shall break their bones, and pierce them through with his arrows. He couched, he lay down as a lion, and as a great lion: who shall stir him up? (Numbers 24:8-9)
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. (Deuteronomy 33:17)
The two supporters of the Royal Arms are mentioned in the first few chapters of the Bible, and they have continued up to our time! It proves that God is a Covenant-keeping God, in spite of the waywardness and wickedness of His Servant People.
By laborious means, He eventually brought all His People together in the place that He had prepared for them. Their punishment lasted for 2,520 years, as had
been foretold many years before:
And if ye will not yet for all this hearken unto me, then I will punish you seven times more for your sins. (Leviticus 26:18)
And I will scatter thee among the heathen, and disperse thee in the countries, and will consume thy filthiness out of thee. (Ezekiel 22:15)
In prophecy a "time" means 360 (lunar) years, as Ezekiel 4:6 says:
I have appointed thee each day for a year.
If we multiply 360 by 7 it equals 2,520.
God's people sinned and disobeyed Him, so He caused them to forget who they were and what was their function in the world. They persist in their blindness. This is in accordance with God's Will, for He has said in His Holy Word:
For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved: (Romans 11:25-26)
Bible believing Christians,who believe the Lord and trust in Him to work out His Purposes in His people, understand this key to history. They give sincere thanks to God that He will eventually honour His Covenant in full,and gather the scattered people into the fullness of His Kingdom.
(1) A most interesting book on this subject is Before the Flood, by Ian Wilson
Posts : 233
Join date : 2009-08-01
|Subject: Paul's Friends Sun Aug 09, 2009 4:43 pm|| |
ST. PAUL'S FRIENDS
John O. Hartes, USA
AS three kings from the East brought gifts to the Babe of Bethlehem in Judah, so in Israel of the Isles three kings of the West presented a royal gift of land for the "Cradle of Christianity in Britain." They gave the mystic Isle of Avalon to those who brought the glad tidings of Salvation, and told of the Ascension of Him who, as a Babe in lowly manger laid, had received the gifts of the three Wise Men, who had followed the star.We know Arviragus was one of the kings, and it is conjectured that the others were his uncle, Bran the Blessed - who had resigned the kingship to become Arch-Druid of Siluria in A.D. 36 - and his cousin Caradoc (Bran's valiant son, known as the Unconquerable Briton).
Well has the Crystal Isle of Avalon been called the Bethlehem of Britain.
As it was Easter Even in A.D. 38 or 39 when Joseph of Arimathea landed, possibly the three Kings might have been celebrating together the Spring Festival at the Tor of Ynis Wydrin. Certain it is that Caradoc's sister Gladys was one of the first converts. She was a most accomplished Princess, and "from her intimate knowledge of Greek literature" was named Pomponia Graecina. She married Aulus Plautius, the Roman Governor, and accompanied him to Rome.
Among other converts we may mention three missionaries of European fame. Beatus, who founded the Helvetian Church, gave his name to Beatenberg, and died in A.D. 96; Marcellus, who preached in Gaul and founded the bishopric of Treves, and Mansuetus, of Irish parentage, who, with St. Clement, preached in Gaul and founded the Lotharingian Church.
Some years later Caradoc's two daughters, Eurgain and Gladys, with their brothers Cyllin and Linus, were baptised by the old saint at Avalon.
In A.D. 43 the Romans had again attempted the conquest of Britain, and though the Eastern tribes eventually made terms and accepted an overlordship, the proud Silurians and Britons of the West refused to yield to the Roman domination. Acclaiming Caradoc as their great Pendragon, all the chiefs obeyed him willingly. In an ancient Welsh Triad he is called "Caradoc, son of Bran, whom every Briton, from the King to the peasant, followed when he lifted his spear to battle." He was numbered among the three hero kings: Cynvelin (Cymbeline), Caradoc and Arthur.
For many years the brave Silures held out against Rome's greatest generals - even against Vespasian and Titus. But after one hundred fights the great Pendragon was severely defeated in Shropshire (A.D. 52) and took refuge with his cousin Cartismandua. She basely betrayed him, loading him with chains when sleeping, and sent him a prisoner to the Roman general, Ostorious Scapula. All the British royal family fell into the enemy's hands, and were taken to Rome. There, before Caesar's judgment seat, Caradoc, better known as Caractacus, made that memorable speech which won the admiration of his captors. The grandson of LIyr Lediath, a pupil of the great Augustus, he was acquainted with the Latin tongue. Undaunted, though in fetters bound, he stood before the Roman Emperor, whose wife, Agrippina, on that occasion arrogated to herself the right, as daughter of Germanicus, to sit on Caesar's judgment seat.
Far older than Rome is British sovereignty, and the great British chief was proud of his ancestry. Though in chains, he could state with truth,
"Three hundred years ere Rome rose on her seven hills, peopled by scarce 300 men, my ancestor was Brydain, son of Aedd, called the Great. Through three and thirty generations of kingly ancestors my lineage I trace. "
His dauntless bearing won the pardon of Claudius Caesar, who assigned him a palace on the Mons Sacer in which to pass his seven years of free custody. Moreover, he was allowed to receive his revenues from Siluria, and his younger daughter, Gladys, was adopted into the Emperor's family and was henceforth known as Claudia.
How many, when reading St. Paul's second Epistle to Timothy (4:21), realise that Claudia was a British Princess married to Rufus Pudens, a wealthy Roman
noble, and that Linus was her younger brother, a British Prince, afterwards the first Bishop of Rome.
The Palatius Britannicum became the refuge and guest house for the early Christians. There Claudia, who, in 53, had married Rufus Pudens (whom she had met at Regnum in time of truce), soon established a Christian Church under Hermas, the Pastor. There St. Paul was a welcome guest, and instructed her children and baptised Bran and Caradoc.
That Rufus was the half.brother of St. Paul had been suggested by the Rev. R.W. Morgan in his book "St. Paul in Britain," written over sixty years ago. The
Apostle says: "Salute Rufus, chosen in the Lord, and his mother and mine." Lately a document has come to light which tells us that St. Paul was the son of
Prassede, and a wealthy Benjaminite of Tarsus, whose father had purchased Roman citizenship for himself and his family. Prassede was left a widow with one son, Saul. An able and cultured woman of ample means, she married a high Roman official, Pudentinus, then stationed in Cilicia , and after their return to Italy Rufus Pudens was born.
So the daughters of Claudia and Rufus both celebrated in Martial's verse were named Prassede and Pudentiana, after their grandparents.
It was in Rome that the British Princess Claudia was able to be a power for good, and it was there her husband became a Christian. It is thought that St. Paul went with Bran to Britain, as according to Clement, the third bishop of Rome, " St. Paul came to Britain and preached in the extremity of the West." He confirmed the Church planted by St. Joseph, Simon Zelotes and Aristobulus, and is said to have founded Bangor Abbey. Claudia and her family ministered to St. Paul in his last days, and he was interred in the family tomb of those who had been so dear to him.
As St. Joseph founded the first Christian Church in Britain, so his royal convert, Claudia, founded in Rome the first Christian Church, in that palace where she and Rufus were married in A.D.53.
To-day, in the Eternal City, not far from the great basilica of Santa Maria Maggiore, can be seen the quaint little church of Santa Prassede, and across the Via Cavour the sister church of Santa Pudenziana. The little old church of Santa Pudenziana, "the most sacred and most ancient of churches," is of greatest interest to all British people as the home and church of our British Princess Claudia.
An inscription (second century) relates it was "known as that of the Pastor, dedicated by Sanctus Pias Papa, formerly the house of Sanctus Pudens, the Senator, and the Home of the HolyApostles."
It is said Caradoc returned to Britain, where his son Cyllin reigned. He lived and died (A.D.80) at LIan-llid, where his elder daughter had founded Cor-Eurgain. Four years earlier the venerable and kindly Joseph had passed to his rest, and on his tombstone we read, in Latin, these words:
"To Britain I came after I had interred the Christ. I taught. I rest."
From: The People of Destiny. 1994
|Subject: Re: Britain-Ancient Israel || |