Talk:Ten Lost Tribes/Archive 2

message: MPLX's "description" of "edits" does not do any justice to the core undeniable fact that the subject of the "Lost Ten Tribes" does in fact primarily relate to the Israelite article in the first place. The so-called "disambiguation" page about "Lost Ten Tribes" as somehow being a "preserve" of modern-day crack-pot theories is an abuse of both the facts of history long established and highly-regarded as recorded in the Hebrew Bible-Tanakh and thus making it an integral part of both Judaism and subsequently Christianity, and also an abuse of Wikipedia's system of organizing serious scholarship. There are HUNDREDS (if not thousands) of classical rabbinical commentaries by Rishonim and Achronim that talk in depth about the subject of the "Ten Lost Tribes", referred to in Hebrew as the Aseret Hashvatim. Forget "Horowitz" and that level of low scholarship, there is a mountain of serious Talmudically trained scholars' output on the subject that has not even been broached here yet. So NO need for melodrama, and let us continue the discussion. Thank you. IZAK 08:40, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: IZAK tone it back down. The possibility of flaming with this topic is built-in and I am doing my best to ignore the heat in response. My response to what you wrote is simply this: Is the REALITY of Heinrich Himmler or Timothy McVeigh a rabbinical issue? I think not. Are they such fringe issues that they affect few people? I think not. I will leave unsaid the ramification of Heinrich Himmler's views, but what about McVeigh? What motivated him? Not why did he specifically blow up that building, but what motivated him to go that far? What was his core? His single act touched thousands in just one morning. The Christian Identity lot create a race sub-species out of the Jews that is outside the book of Genesis. But then the Jewish mystics coming from a different standpoint also go outside of the accepted storylines and some of this stuff is getting renewed attention due to Maddona's expressed interest in that subject. How does that fit in to the mainstream of Jewish thought. It goes outside the bounds. The same is true of Armstrong who dumped mainstream Christianity and absorbed a LOT of teachings familiar to Jews from the holy days to a version of what foods are acceptable. Then look at the millions and I do mean millions of dollars spent on print and airtime by Armstrong, not to mention Gene Scott who has his own take, on teaching a version of the Lost Ten Tribes. Armstrong did all of this with his arms wrapped around the State of Israel and the State of Israel knew who he was and what he was doing. But Armstrong was a big anti-Nazi and those same millions warned the world that a Nazi Europe could happen again. Armstrong was anti-German so when some suggested that Bobby Fischer was swayed by Henry Kissinger they did not know what they were talking about. Fischer turned anti-Semite after being disillisioned by other Armstrong teachings and Fischer was no stranger to Jews. Then if we add the pages of raw history dealing with the era of Queen Victoria and the sun never setting on it because the British were God's chosen people ... what then? How do the rabbis absorb all of that? They don't and they can't. This is a NEUTRAL subject full of contention and emotion by not a single group, but by many. Your reaction is typical of that reaction from only ONE point of view. That is why a true disambiguation page is the best way to go. I am not saying that what I created was perfect or complete, it was neither, but it was a start and it needed cooperation from all sides to create a true NPOV article that could be a work of cooperative art ... if we can all get together and pull it off that is what we could all contribute towards creating. How about giving it a go? MPLX/MH 14:52, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: IZAK: My interpretation of what you have scattered all over this page (I was attempting to keep it orderly) is an example of what you are accusing me of doing. It is highly POV. It is your way or no way. I knew that this topic could be highly charged so I went for the neutral disambiguation approach. Your last comment above I cannot even begin to disassemble without taking up volumes of space. (At one point you call millions of people "fools".) The reason I put in my own references regarding nunc pro tunc was to show not only my opinion but that I had more than a book knowledge of the subject. On the other hand I gave you no personal details because unless you spend the time and the effort, what I have written about myself is all that you know about me. You don't even know if I am male or female. My page only tells you the country of birth and country I migrated to, plus some likes and dislikes in very general terms. On that last score this topic is now going where I don't want to go. It is becoming a little unpleasant for my taste and so I am bowing out. This means that I am leaving the discussion on this page and on the related article because to my way of thinking political and religious issues have been dragged into an academic arena. For me (I am personally non-partisan and non-sectarian) that is neither acceptable, nor entertaining and therefore it has become an unpleasant chore. You have my permission to delete anything or everything that I have ever written on both the article page and this page (not that you need permission in the first place, but now you have it.) I will now post on my own page that I am no longer contributing to this subject. If we meet on other articles I will treat our encounters as fresh starts and respond with friendship and neutrality. MPLX/MH 17:15, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Fixed, thank you. Jayjg (talk) 19:08, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Lost Ten Tribes topic INEXTRICABLY tied in with Hebrew Bible

message: User:24.218.47.118 writes:
First of all, I made that link because of an interesting article on the http://www.eifiles.cn website called "The Twelve Tribes of Israel," which talks about Israel's lost tribes, and where Paul Phelps (the author) thinks they are today. It is all speculation, but Paul supports his ideas well with much research from the Bible, and I'm sure many readers will find his researches interesting. 
Second, I don't think it's correct to label Paul as a "messianic crackpot," because he did spent a lot of time and effort into supporting his ideas. 
Third, I happened to stumble across the Xenomorph article while browsing Wikipedia and reading other things, so I decided to change the "chestburster" to "chestbuster," which is a more correct and popular name. However, it is not my "entire purpose" at WP, as I was researching other stuff. 
P.S: How were you able to track my activity so closely?
11:46, May 22, 2005.
*I assume you're refering to this article...It's a collection of sheer speculation, relying on mistranslations including those found in the KJV as well as the author's own (it even says so).  It invents an "Eastern House of Judah", comprised of 90% of Jewry in the Persian Empire, which it goes on to claim is lost to history—in complete error.  (Not only was there no "Eastern House of Judah", but those Jews who did remain behind in Mesopotamia and other parts of the Persian Empire were not "lost", they were either assimilated following the arrival of Islam (to this day, the Pathans in Afghanistan, Pakistan and eastern Iran, all muslims, are divided into tribes whose names bear striking resemblance to the names of some of aseret hashevatim.  You can read all about them here.  In any case, if we're going to link to that eifiles article, it should be in a separate article, perhaps entitled Crackpot theories about the Ten Lost Tribes...but I don't really think WP should become a repository of every scrap of nonsense out there.  As for how I was able to "track" your activity, I looked at the article's edit history, saw that the same IP address was used to make all the changes involved in inserting the link, and went and looked at the contribs from that IP address.  I recommend that you create an account so that nobody else calls you an anonymous coward in the future. :-p  Also, sign your name when you post on the Talk page so that people know whom they're addressing.  The quickest and easiest way to do this is to simply type ~~~~ at the end of your post.  Tomer TALK 17:56, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
*I don't think Paul means they are "lost," but like you said, assimilated into the cultures in which they live. Here's a short passage addressing the topic:
     The commonly known ones are descendants of the western Roman captivity. 
     They are Judeans, formerly of the House of Judah, Jews.  They are descendants
     of the Jewish 10% who returned from Babylon to Jerusalem.  Isaiah 6:12-13,
                The LORD has removed men far away, and the forsaken places are
                many in the midst of the land.  But yet a tenth will be in it, and will
                return and be for a consuming, as a terebinth tree or as an oak,
                whose stump remains when it is cut down... 
     Most Jews did not return to Judea but stayed in Persia.  We read about them
     in the Book of Esther, written long after the 10% returnees went to Judea.  The
     Persian Jews that stayed in the east are the eastern House of Judah.  This group
     is lost from history except for a few that still cling to Jewish traditions.  Without
     Jewish tradition or with no outside contact most of them have become another
     part of the lost tribes, the unknown Jewish tribes of Israel.  
It never invents a Eastern House of Judah, but rather, it implies that the "Persian Jews that sayed in the east (never returning to Jerusalem) are the eastern House of Judea." Thus explaining them for being "lost." It seems to address the "Ten Lost Tribes" article really well and should be included as an external link. Ryz TALK 20:17, May 23, 2005
:I would argue that it explains Paul Phelps' views wrt the ten lost tribes "really well", but that it leaves a lot to be desired when it comes to actually explaining the ten lost tribes.  As for the "eastern House of Judea", it's a flight of fancy by the author.  And, as for your having reinserted the link, at least now it actually points to the article you consider to relevant.  I've taken out the "with much support from the Bible" part, as I think that's a judgment on your part (with which Mr. Phelps would no doubt concur), but one which I find highly dubious.  I really don't think it should be necessary for me to have to go through a line-by-line critique of that article to refute it just for you, so I'm not going to.  Nice TALK thing, btw. :-p  Tomer TALK 18:02, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
:The Phelps link is a non-notable personal opinion, not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Jayjg (talk) 29 June 2005 01:27 (UTC)
::I wouldn't say his article so much as a personal opinion. It's more likely that he sees something in the Bible that should be pointed out. Considering the amount of work that he shows, it's hard to say that it's nothing but a personal opinion. --Ryz05 29 June 2005 13:05 (UTC)
:What does the amount of work he has done have to do with it being a personal opinion?  There are a million of these guys, each with their own unique understanding of the Bible; that doesn't make them notable. Jayjg (talk) 29 June 2005 18:29 (UTC)
::If you can find me one article that can be called a "personal opinion" that has as much support about the lost tribes from the Bible as Paul Phelps, then I will stop posting up the link. Until then, the link should be posted as a resource that tells of the Lost Tribes of Israel in a Biblical context. --Ryz05 29 June 2005 21:32 (UTC)
:::The article is all Paul Phelps' "personal opinion", and while it has Bible citations and misappropriated mistranslations sprinkled throughout it liberally, it is neither encyclopedic nor particularly noteworthy.  Tomer TALK June 29, 2005 21:52 (UTC)
:You mean you think it should be included because you like his argument?  Sorry, it's still just one person's opinion; please find more credible links. Jayjg (talk) 29 June 2005 21:52 (UTC)
::If eifiles.cn is not considered a credible link, then at least someone should put its claim under the heading "Varied Claims" in this article. (Ryz05 14:00, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to Tomer 

message: So why is this page not titled "Ten Lost Tribes"?
I also think the page could use a lot less discussion of the more controversial claims. There is little discussion about the Lost Tribes going to Ethiopia, India, Magog, the Asian Steppes, or the dozens of other places they were said to go in various legends at various times. The controversy and British Israelism idea get way too much time.--Cuchullain 15:39, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
I agree about how this article ought to be at Ten Lost Tribes.  The current title is just awkward. john k 05:56, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Ten Lost Tribe

message: The following sentence in the lead paragraph seems incoherent to me: "Among most groups of Jews and Christians, the tribes are said to have disappeared, together with doctrine concerning continued hidden existence and/or future public return." If I parse this correctly, it says (in part) that doctrine concerning the continued hidden existence and/or future public return of the tribe is said to have disappeared. That makes no sense to me at all. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incoherent 

message: The following was recently removed from the article without comment: "Since Cromwell had totally severed the link between the Pope and organized Christianity within England to the point of executing the king; abolishing the monarchy and House of Lords; destroying the abbeys and even banning observance of Christmas due to its (disputed) pagan heritage, the way seemed open to reverse the edicts which had forced the Jews to either flee from England, go underground or be killed between the time of the first Magna Carta of 1215 and the Magna Carta of 1297." -- Jmabel | Talk 07:24, 26 October 2005
I removed the passage in question, because the whole sentence is either off-topic or misleading - creating links that are not there: Cromwell's motives are partly religious (eschatological, as given in the next paragraph), partly commercial. It has nothing to do with the abolition of the monarchy or the Reformation (apart from the motives I refered to). Kings could have revoked this before (and informally a few Jews were admitted to England) and after 1660 Charles II did not revoke this. In fact, he even contined this policy, since some Jews had helped him during his exile.
And please sign your post (I did it for you this time). Str1977 10:29, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed without comment 

message: I remember at one time reading about a connection between the Ten Lost Tribes and Rastafarianism.  Why is a section on Rastafarians not included in this article?  I think it is extremely relevant.  If there is a section on LDS, there should be a section on the Rastafarian theory of the Ten Lost Tribes otherwise I believe the neutrality of this article is compromised! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.212.244.202 (talk • contribs) .
:I don't see any LDS section, other than a small mention that LDS beliefs hold that native americans are descended from Manasseh.  Incidentally, the Book of Mormon peoples are descended from both Manasseh (Lehi) and Ephraim (Ishmael), among others. Aranhamo 21:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rastafarians