The Brit-Am Rose
Symbol of United Israel
Brit-Am Now no. 1158
Date 21 Iyar 5768 26 May 2008
Contents:
1. Query on Circumcision
2. Daniel Chapter Eleven
3. Thomas Malloy: Iron and Clay = Reinforced Concrete?
4. Paul D Pruitt: Assyrians = SS Arians?
5. Brian Patmore:
Edom + Arab = Palestinian
6. Cam Rea: Media was not totally Israelite.
7. Queries from Jamaica about Brit-Am
1. Query on Circumcision
Graeme wrote:
Shalom
Concerning the everlasting covenant between God and Abraham and his Israelite
descendants in Israel and around the world how much foreskin had to be removed
to be correct biblically according to what God instructed Abraham and Joshua
when circumcising the Hebrews in the Ancient Middle East and in Ancient
Israel.
What does the Torah say? What proof, evidence and depictions does
secular and biblical research show? The reason I am checking with you
concerning this circumcision topic is because there is some controversy with
people around the world concerning the this topic of biblical circumcision
where some people say only the tip of the foreskin was removed and where other
people say the complete foreskin was removed with the Ancient Hebrews in the
Ancient Middle East and in Ancient Israel.
I hope to hear from you soon.
Kind regards
Graeme
================================================
Brit-Am Reply:
We are not sure exactly what you mean.
Jewish circumcision cuts off all the foreskin as well as the underlying
membrane.
Some primitive peoples including Muslims in some places only cut off part of the
foreskin.
We are not sure if your question regards cutting of all the foreskin as done in
Western Nations
(and not primitive ones) or cutting off the foreskin and leaving the underlying
membrane intact.
I was circumcised as an infant in Australia.
I have never circumcised anyone apart from watching a professional mohel (acting
as my emissary) circumcise my sons.
I have also never taken a real interest in medical matters so I know little
about it.
The Western practice (Australia, USA, etc) is to remove all of the foreskin the
same as the Jews do.
The Jews today remove all of the foreskin.
For an overview of the basic injunction
See:
Circumcision - Milah
http://www.torah.org/learning/halacha-overview/chapter11.html
I cannot tell you what the Biblical practice was but I believe it was
similar to that of today.
There may have been a period however when only part of the foreskin (meaning the
outer skin) was cut off
This led to complications so the present practice was instituted or restored.
There are two parts to the commandment:
a. Removing the outer skin.
b. Removing the membrane.
The second part is the more complicated and more dangerous.
I may be wrong but my impression is that
there was an opinion after the Return from Babylon under Ezra that the second
part was not part of the original commandment but a Rabbinicial enactment.
It was decided by sections of the community as a temporary measure to be less
strict about the second part.
Shortly afterwards when the Hellenization Movement began because the subsidiary
membrane remained it was easier to perform an operation to make it look
as if one had never been circumcised.
There may have been other medical reasons in addition to which it was realized
that the whole notion of attaching less importance to the second part
was highly questionable and probably wrong.
Consequently it was henceforth strongly emphasized that both aspects of the
Commandment were obligatory.
The above answer is ONLY AN OUTLINE to give you a notion of the issues involved.
Do not take it as authoritative.
Do not quote it.
If you wish to be sure ask someone else.
Even if in Biblical Times the practice was not exactly the same as today what we
now do today fulfills the commandment
and is probably more hygienic.
Our attitude is that the Sages in each generation had authority (Deuteronomy 17)
to decide that practical application
of the Law should be and this is what we accept.
Further Reply from Graeme:
Thank you for your email answers
concerning my questions about circumcision.
This is exactly what I mean:
Concerning God's everlasting covenant with Abraham, the Israelites in Ancient
Israel and the Israelites Worldwide today in Modern Times. I was just enquiring
about weather the Joshua and the Ancient Israelites in the Sinai desert, Ancient
Israel and the Ancient Middle East cut off all the
forekin
(the inner and outer foreskin-Much like modern Jews today in Israel and modern
Western circumcision in Australia and the USA) as well as the underlying
membrane so that the penis glans
are completely exposed permanently or if only some of the foreskin was cut off
in front of the glans
of the penis. I was just wondering which was and is the Biblical circumcision
which was and is correct according to God and the Torah-A kosher circumcision.
I think the Brit-Am website has wonderful information for people to discover on
the internet worldwide. I am one of the people in the world who is
pro-circumcision, pro-Torah and pro Brit-Am.
Kind regards
Graeme
2. Daniel Chapter Eleven
New Article.
History as Protoypical Prophecy
Will the Maccabees Return?
http://britam.org/Daniel/daniel11.html
3. Thomas Malloy: Iron and Clay = Reinforced Concrete?
From: thomas malloy <temalloy@usfamily.net>
re Brit-Am Now no. 1157
iron and clay
http://britam.org/now/1157Now.html#Craig
#3. Craig Blackwood: the image in
Daniel are all Edomite
empires
No builder in his right mind will undermine such an edifice with such unstable
product, iron mixed in clay.
================================================
What do you think reinforced concrete is? The cement is fired in a kiln and
mixed with sand.
4. Paul D Pruitt: Assyrians = SS Arians?
Yair,
I'm watching another show about the SS on the History Channel. As I think I
wrote to you before, maybe the Assyrian roots of the Nazis can be seen with the
ss. Perhaps it is etymological, the ss put that sound back into the word Arian
and reintroduced the savagery of the Assyrians to the Germans.
5. Brian
Patmore:
Edom + Arab = Palestinian
From: Brian Patmore <manco_yupanqui@bigpond.com>
Re: Jerusalem News-772
#3. Is there such a thing as a Palestinian People?
http://britam.org/jerusalem/jerusalem772.html#Is
Shalom Yair,
It is good to see the Palestinian fraud revealed for what it really is !!
Remember the Edomite influence.
Question is who is using who ?
Edomites using the Arabs or Arabs using Edom ?
Good one, but as I said long ago Edom + Arab = Palestinian
even if they do not know it themselves.
Shalom,
Brian
Brisbane
6. Cam Rea: Media was not totally
Israelite.
From: Cam Rea <tragicpoet77@yahoo.com>
Subject: Medes, Israelites
I agree with Mr. Collins on most stuff for the most part. I've read all his
books and used them for my own research. However, when it comes to the Medes,
the Bible is not wrong. However, before Israel was placed in the region of Media
the original inhabitants had already been repopulated. This happened I believe
22 times I believe, and to give all an example. Tiglath-pileser III deported a
number of them in 744 BCE. Then he repopulated the region with those he captured
in northern Syria and parts of eastern Asia Minor. However, he had to go back
around 736 or 737 BCE and put down another rebellion which lead to another
depopulation of the region and a re population of a new people. Tiglath-pileser
III would do the same to Israel. Sargon II made at lest 6 or 7 trips to the
region. Not ever one of those trips was to deport people but to squash
rebellions. Eventually he had to deport those from Media and resettle them with
another group such as Israel once again. Now, who ever the people further east
are is not fully known and can't be considered Medes for sure. But, it dose not
mean Medes were not their or even small bands of Medes in the regions with the
Israelites.
If their was an original Mede during the Neo-Assyrian Empire he was moved some
were else or possibly even massacred. The new inhabitants took on the name Mede
do to regional quarters and not by ethnic means.
I do however agree with Mr. Collins on the Manda or Umman-manda, but the
Umman-manda are called Medes as well in the "Fall of Nineveh Chronicle" at
times. Cyaxares is leading Medes or Umman-manda. Which suggest that the
Babylonians used the name interchangeably at times depending on the scribe say
for instance, but do not forget that the terms Scythian, Cimmerian, and
Umman-manda are used back and forth and for always the same meaning "It's those
people". It seems like to the Assyrians you could say Cimmerian and they knew
you were talking about Saka.
In conclusion to the Medes and Israelites. Media was not totally Israelite.
However, it does seem that the vast majority of them were, and only a small
number already living in the region was not Israelite. IN-addition I'd rather
still talk to Mr. Collins one day on the issue face to face for I do think we
both agree with each other for the most part and I also think our communication
maybe wrong.
Cam Rea
7. Queries from Jamaica about Brit-Am
From: paul b
Subject: interesting
Hello Britam,
I am a recent reader of your information on your website. I
find these instructions rather most interesting and informative. As an avid
history and political geography student I have an open mind and as such look on
with great interest who you combine bible information with secular knowledge and
archeology to come up with startling findings. As I said I have an open mind but
there are a few points that I think that I should make known.
(A.You claimed that the biblical lost tribes of Israel are to be found in modern
day USA. BRITAIN, NW EUROPE,AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND.(A.many individuals and
commentators would and have mentioned that it is a racist and nationalistic
concept.
B.Many have claimed that people in that part of the world-the MIDDLE EAST are
and have been dark skinned.
C.THERE IS A CERTAIN WEBSITE THAT HAS SAID THAT THE PHILOSOPHY OF BRITAM IS
ABSURD. THEY HAVE MENTIONED THAT MOST OF THE PROPHESIES OF THE LAST DAYS HAVE
ALREADY BEEN FULFILLED TWO THOUSAND YEARS AGO. THEY ALSO SAY THAT THE LOST TEN
TRIBES ARE NOT IN THE SAID COUNTRIES THAT I AND YOU HAVE MENTIONED BUT HAVE
REMAINED IN ASSYRIAN CAPTIVITY AND HAVE DISPERSED THROUGHT THE MIDDLE EAST AND
AFRICA.)
They have also said that the STONE OF DESTINY IS A FRAUD AND THAT IT IS NOT
UNDER THE CORONATION SEAT OF ENGLAND, and that no such tribes of ancient Israel
came to Ireland. They say it is a myth that came out of misunderstandings of
history or bible prophecy or just plain fabrication by BRITAM AND HERBERT
ARMSTRONG. On this website it is even mentioned that the word``BRITISH HAS NO
REAL HEBREW ROOTS AND AS SUCH DO NOT MEAN COVENANT PEOPLE BUT A FABRICATION??.
As I have said I read your articles with tremendous interest but you also have
to becareful of what you believe in in these times. I forgot the name of the
website but it categorically refutes everything that BRITAM has documented(
which is very impressive)-in my opinion it could not all be lies. Is it that
people are not ready for the truth or is it a smear campaign to keep the truth
at bay?
I forgot the name of the website but it blasted BRITAM-which they also said that
the founder of the BRITISH-ISREALITE philosophy later went mad and was
incarcerated in an insane asylum......
There is another journal called the PHEONIX journals that have lambasted the
KHARZARS and have said they are not biblical Jews but are imposters from a
cannibalistic, blood drinking Asiatic tribe of criminals who all converted to
the Jewish religion out of being dissatisfied with Christianity and Islam...On
your website it is said that the KHAZARS ALONG WITH THE CIMMERIANS AND SYCHTIANS
AND GOTHS, were all descended from the ``lost tribes??...
Your information is most impressive and I enjoy reading it very much but these
are questions that I have to ask and point out. I am not against you but I read
many things and being a black english speaking person from Jamaica (people there
also call themselves Israelites), I have to get to the root of all things before
I make a judgement.
I would like your reply to this question.
Yours Truly
PAUL(AVID READER)
================================================
Replies:
Paul Shalom,
Good to hear from you,
A. Brit-Am is not "a racist and nationalistic concept" in so far as we are not
out to put anybody down.
We are saying that a certain group of peoples were promised blessings and in
return historical obligations
would be expected of them.
See:
"Role to Rule. The Task of Joseph"
http://www.britam.org/Role.html
We would not call this "racist and nationalistic" in the negative sense.
For example,
In Asia north of India there is a country of Nepal.
I just read an article about the Gurkha soldiers recruited from that country.
The nations of Britain, Borneo, and India all hire Gurkha soldiers
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3702436.stm
Gurkha soldiers are hired because they considered good at what they do.
Are the people who hire these soldiers guilty of being "racist and
nationalistic"?
B. It is not correct to say that all people in the"MIDDLE EAST are and have been
dark skinned".
Some are dark and some are not.
To some degree the degree of "darkness" changes in accordance to the environment
and in the past the environment was different.
In the past some Israelites were darkish but others were not and many were quite
fair.
The same applies to the surrounding peoples.
We have spoken of this at some length.
We are not saying that you have to be white to be Israelite only that a certain
tendency did exist.
The father-in-law of Jacob was called "Laban" which means "white" in Hebrew.
King Saul was nick-named "Cushi" which may indicate that he was darker than
average.
C. The website you are referring to is:
The "Lost Tribes" of Israel.- They Are NOT British -
http://www.geocities.com/britam_exposed/
The article is written by a bad man who calls himself Avraham Sandor
and other names as his fancy takes him:
See:
Brit-Am Now 804
#3. Enemies of Brit-Am Pretend to be Jewish!
http://britam.org/now/804Now.html
We have answered the misleading claims of this site in our articles
especially:
The Completeness of the Exile. Answers to Deniers of Brit-Am Biblical Truth
http://www.britam.org/CompleteExile.html
Concerning the STONE OF DESTINY we have no position about it being genuine
one way or the other
except that we find the traditions surrounding it to be significant in
themselves.
The statement that,
"the founder of the BRITISH-ISREALITE philosophy later went mad and was
incarcerated in an insane asylum"
refers to Richard Brothers (1757 - 1824).
He was not the founder of "British Israel". The idea that the British descend
from Israel existed long before him.
He did however write about it and make the idea popular.
For all we know he may have been mad but he also antagonized powerful people
including the king
(who may on the side of the mother of my father have been related to me!) so
they put him away.
British Israel as an organization did not exist in his time.
It is a bit unfair to besmirch Brit-Am by trying to associate us with all kinds
of other people and organizations we
have nothing to do with and who in some cases may not even like us!
We believe the Khazars were mainly descended from Israelites and part of the
Lost Ten Tribes.
We hope to shortly publish a book on this subject in addition tot he articles we
already have on this
subject on our web site.
Whoever they were however does not really matter since nasty types who hate Jews
will always find some
reason or other to tell lies about them.
I am glad that you like our writings.
At one stage Brit-Am had a small following in Jamaica.
A good friend of Brit-Am, Colbert Brian, also originates from Jamaica.
Brit-Am is the "still small voice" that contains the truth.
[1-Kings 19:12] AND AFTER THE EARTHQUAKE A FIRE; BUT THE LORD WAS NOT IN THE
FIRE: AND AFTER THE FIRE A STILL SMALL VOICE.
