The Brit-Am Rose
rose
Symbol of Israel United



Brit-Am Now no. 1095
Contents:
1. Question on Brooks and the Khazars with Brit-Am Reply:
2. The Eagle and the Lion in Tabernacle National Israelite Symbolism
3. Jill Johnston: The
Picts

###################################################


rose
Publications

Brit-Am
Discussion Group
Contact
Contents by Subject Research
Revelation
Reconciliation


Contribute
Site Map
Contents in Alphabetical Order
Search
This Site


The Lifestyle Doctor
Doctor



###################################################
###################################################
1. Question on Brooks and the Khazars with Brit-Am Reply:
From: DAVID BEN ARIEL <davidbenariel@earthlink.net>
Subject: Khazars, Kevin Brook, and Yair Davidiy

This brash fellow [Kevin Brook] has some website on the Khazars. Too bad he wasn't a real historian who accepts history AND the Bible as two witnesses to Israelite identity truth. Regardless of his vain rantings, the United States remains Manasseh and England is Ephraim, sons of Joseph!

 ================================================
Excerpt:  The Gems of Brooks
Khazars, Kevin Brook, and Yair Davidiy

 http://www.davidbenariel.org/lost-tribes/khazars-kevin-brook-yair-davidiy.htm
 
www.DavidBenAriel.org

Kevin Brooks Says:
[Extracts]
I am familiar with EVERY ARTICLE ON THE WEB about Khazars.
Brit-Am is an agenda-driven cultish propaganda organization which dismisses the truth about Khazar people's origins to fit their pet theory that Israelites are everywhere throughout Europe.
Since you're associated with them, I have no interest in corresponding with you further. I RELY ON FACTS, EVERYTHING I STATE IS THE TRUTH.
The Khazars were ORIGINALLY TURKIC - ALL the sources say so.
They mixed later with some Hebrews, but that wasn't their main lineage!
And some other contentions of Brit-Am are also false: Khazars aren't Agathyrsoi, and Picts aren't Agathyrsoi, and Celts and Brits aren't Israelites, USA isn't Menashe. Yair Davidy is no historian.

The Christian cult of British Israelitism, founded in the 19th century, is not based on truth, but on biased biblically-inspired interpretations. Brit-Am has the preconceived notion that Western Europeans are Israelites and then tries simplistically to tailor information and names to suit that idea. Whereas by contrast I have no preconceived notion and am open to real facts from objective sources (read: real historians - the type you and Davidy casually ignore).

It is very telling that Brit-Am's Yair Davidy uses defamation tactics to attack Dunlop, Koestler, Artamonov, myself, and other historians of the Khazars, without actually addressing the points we raised. His method is to selectively present his point of view and not presenting the actual facts presented by these authors. For instance I didn't see any time when Davidy quoted the several medieval documents that call Khazars TURKS. Why is he afraid? Because it defeats his theory?

Many medieval writers attested to the Khazars' Turkic origins including Theophanes, al-Masudi, Rabbi Yehudah ben Barzillai, Martinus Oppaviensis, and the anonymous authors of the Georgian Chronicle and Chinese chronicle T'ang-shu. The Arabic writer al-Masudi in Kitab at-Tanbih wrote: "...the Khazars... are a tribe of the Turks." (cited in Peter Golden, Khazar Studies, pp. 57-58). T'ang-shu reads: "K'o-sa [Khazars]... belong to the stock of the Turks." (cited in Peter Golden, Khazar Studies, p. 58). In his Chronographia, Theophanes wrote: "During his [Byzantine emperor Heraclius] stay there [in Lazica], he invited the eastern Turks, who are called Chazars, to become his allies." (cited in Theophanes, The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor, translated by Cyril Mango and Roger Scott, 1997, p. 446).

Yes, Khazars mixed with Israelite immigrants (who came to Khazaria AFTER Khazars already existed as a group), but that doesn't mean Khazars were predominantly or exclusively Israelite.

It's one thing to say that some Western Europeans have a small amount of Israelite ancestry. It's quite another to suggest that their principal origins are in Israel. I believe the former is true, but the latter is definitely false. When people speak about part of Spain's Christian population descending partly from Sephardim who were forced to become Catholics, it's true. But Celtic Welsh people, Germanic Frisian & English people, etc. can't be shown to have any
connection to Israelites whatsoever. Nor American Indians (the Mormons' pet theory).

By the way, please prove that Yair Davidy has recent Jewish ancestry! And that the Bible is a pure work of history! And even that [the Christian Messiah] existed!


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

Brit-Am Reply:
We have dealt with Mr Brooks before.
See:
"Brit-Am Now"-785
http://britam.org/now/785Now.html
#3. Alan Brook Brookmanship and Brit-Am
a. Brook goes over the Brink
b. Brit-Am  Brooks, Brakes, and Breaks the Brinkmanship of Brook Book Brokery

Brooks wrote of a book and maintains a web-site about the Khazars.
His information is sometimes useful but seldom, if ever, original.
For someone who presents himself as an academic research
he surprisingly sound like having had an epiphany.
Brooks says,
I RELY ON FACTS, EVERYTHING I STATE IS THE TRUTH.
He says we use,
"defamation tactics to attack Dunlop, Koestler, Artamonov, myself, and other historians".
He flatters himself. I might classify him alongside someone like Koestler but with Dunlop?
Dunlop did believe the Khazars were Turkish but at least he gave the impression that other possibilities might exist.
Brooks says that we have not been
"actually addressing the points we raised".
There were no points really worth addressing.
Brit-Am should be putting out a book soon on the Khazars where the facts will be shown.
Brooks tries to equate Brit-Am with British Israelitism. BC did the same. Tomer D first  linked us (a long time ago) to Moshe Konishuvesky (?) and after that with Angus Wootten!
Everyone seems to want to link us with somebody else.
The facts (if Brooks and his company cared about them) is that Brit-Am has no connection to any of them and never did have.
This is almost as bad Dell Griffin is running around looking for Brit-Am mentors and so far coming up with two of them!
Brooks quotes a few sources that said that,
"...the Khazars... are a tribe of the Turks."
Brooks presumably has read the sources he relies upon and knows very well that in those days all dwellers of the region north of the Caucasus, and especially those who were nomads were referred to as "Turks".
The sources he quotes do not mean anything.
The only way the Khazars can be considered Turkish is by accepting Chinese Records and ignoring earlier Jewish, Armenian, and similar ones. Brooks knows this or should do.
Brit-Am will show that the Chinese records are less reliable than the Armenian and Jewish ones.
Nevertheless we also accept the Chinese records and show that they were referring to a separate section of the Khazars who had moved (or been moved) eastward along with part of the Alans and other peoples.
This separate section did indeed join a confederation which included ancestors of some of the Turks and which culturally were  "Turkish" or rather Central Asian.

These influences affected not only the Khazars but quite a few other originally non-Turkish peoples as well.

Brooks requests:
"please prove that Yair Davidy has recent Jewish ancestry! And that the Bible is a pure work of history!"
Concerning the Bible Brooks is out of his league and trying to confuse the issue.
Regarding Yair Davidiy what is the point of his remark?
Why make it?
Brooks is a fanatic. For some reason he is dead set on regarding the Khazars as Turkish,
will not consider other opinions, say that everything he says is true (as if he was some kind of prophet) and vilifies people who hold different opinions to his own.
What is the source of this fanatical NEED of Brooks to assert that the Khazars were not Israelite?
Why is it so important to him?
He needs to re-read his sources, even just his own sources.
 
It appears that the Prophets also spoke of Brooks:
[Isaiah 19:7] THE PAPER REEDS BY THE BROOKS, BY THE MOUTH OF THE BROOKS, AND EVERY THING SOWN BY THE BROOKS, SHALL WITHER, BE DRIVEN AWAY, AND BE NO MORE.
###################################################
###################################################


2. The Eagle and the Lion in Tabernacle National Israelite Symbolism
http://www.britam.org/Proof/geo/geoEagleEnds.html#The
With Pictures
###################################################
###################################################


3. Jill Johnston: The Picts
 Re: 2-Samuel 23

Shalom Yair:
 
My heart just about stopped when I started reading your comments on the Aberlemno stones. My father was born in Brechin and I have visted Scotland several times but Adonai led me back in May of 2007 to do some more geneolgy research in Edinburgh and also visit key places since learning of the Israelite heritage. I went first to Edinburgh to see the destiny stone (which may not be the real one) then onto the Isle of Mull and then to Iona where the Kings are buried. We then went to Stirling and then onto Brechin with side trips to St Andrews, Arbroath, Scone Palace and of course the Aberlemno stones which are just down the road from Brechin. Brechin has the Pictavia Museum. I have been perplexed to who these people are and how they play into whether these were Israelites. The Arbroath Declaration claims Israelite heritage and then you have the Picts who were a separate people until Kenneth McAlpin united the people under his rule. My heart tells me they were Israelites.
 
Brechin also has one of two round towers left in Scotland of Irish architecture.
 
www.brechin-angus.co.uk/brechin/places/rou.htm
 
www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_round_tower
 
I think there is something to this little town.
 
blessings, jill

###################################################



PREVIOUS ISSUES


Security Cameras, Florida, USA.
security cameras