Brit-Am Now no. 1303
February 19 2009, 25 Shevet 5769
1. Jonathan Tillotson Gives Reasons for Reticence in Accepting the Brit-Am Message followed by Brit-Am Commentary
2. Typo Corrected
3. Brit-Am Interview
4. Charles Bassett: The Temple Should be Rebuilt
5. Mark Robinson: The Prophesied Times of Return, 210?


Discussion Group
Contents by Subject Research

Site Map
Contents in Alphabetical Order
This Site

Khazars Cover
Tribe 13

Now Available!

 Click Here 

1. Jonathan Tillotson Gives Reasons for Reticence in Accepting the Brit-Am Message followed by Brit-Am Commentary

From: Jonathan Tillotson <>
Re: Brit-Am Now no. 1302

#4. Identification must precede Rectification
What  Caused the Division? Whose Fault Was it?

The question of Ephraim's self-awareness, or lack of, is interesting.
I wanted to run past you some ideas about why Ephraim may have resistance to accepting his identity.  I am British so may only be speaking words relevant to Britain.
Speaking personally as an Englishman I very much feel my own and my country's connection with ancient Israel, just as many have in the past, and many still do.
However, maybe some people, as well as I, can sometimes find themselves thinking along these lines: " But a feeling is not a fact. How can I be sure I am not delusional or engaged in wishful thinking? Moreover, even though the evidence may seem compelling as laid out in your books and the other texts of the Anglo-Israelite tradition, other academics, both religious and secular, have always disputed this identity message and deride such conclusions. If I am not an expert in these historical matters, who am I to conclude that mainstream experts are wrong and you are right?" While this hesitancy (which is rather a feature of the Anglo-saxon, cautious, empirically minded character I suggest) may not persuade them to abandon the Brit-am perspective entirely, perhaps it may persuade them to be rather cautious in talking about it, or acting upon it. Frankly they are embarrassed about the possibility of being wrong.
In addition, for many this felt connection with Israel has been understood more metaphorically or spiritually I think, as opposed to literally, or racially. As the thinking would go: Just as ancient Israel was God's chosen nation, so Britain (for example) was or is now (so some may have thought up to the 19th century, anyway) God's new chosen nation. So definitions need to be clarified about what a connection to Israel actually means.
Besides that, the notion of a literal Anglo-Saxon-Celtic descent and connection with physical Ancient Israel also has to contend with a question raised by Replacement Theology, namely: Well, even if it's true, so what? As the argument might go: "Old Israel has been abandoned by God for having rejected Jesus. The "Church" is now Israel, so even if my physical ancestry is Israelite, so what? What matters is my soul in the next life, etc." I think this way of thinking may also explain many Ephraimite Christians' lack of enthusiasm even in the midst of much proof etc. The question is not considrered relevant because in the context of much, especially Catholic, Theology, the role of Israel, ethnically understood, is no longer deemed important.
Added to this is the role played by contemporary aversions to attaching any kind of significiance to racial issues per se (especially if they relate to the Caucasian races). Since Hitler's sinister and evil effect upon racial considerations in general, a certain dogmatic silence about racial issues has determined the climate of thought in the West's own self-reflections - with the caveat, however, that we are allowed and encouraged to feel ashamed of ourselves. That every race other than the Caucasian is allowed both to feel proud of its own race, and to be racist towards other races, of course, does not seem to be relevant, but anyway. In any case, this climate of 'anti-racial consciousness' in the West, as it were, I think, has also made it less likely that Ephraimites will feel comfortable even considering that there is anything about their ancestry that makes them in any way special or important. Perhaps this feeling is less acute in America, which is still a pre-eminent power in the world than it is in Britain, which has declined from its former position rather dramatically.
But beyond this, is a far wider and deeper issue. Namely that most people in Britain are now largely indifferent, if not hostile to Religion and to God altogether. Since this is so, one can hardly expect them, until this situation is altered, to take even the Abrahamic paradigm of spirituality seriously, let alone the particular reading here articulated regarding their ancient Biblical identity.
Anyway those were just some thoughts I've had. I felt they needed such a long expression. 


Brit-Am Reply

Jonathan Shalom,
You letter brought up some interesting points. Our reply below is an attempt to find a workable direction of purpose for ourselves in light of what you said.  We are not arguing with you but rather re-defining the situation.

Reasons given in the above letter justifying a reticence to accept the beliefs of Brit-Am:
1. Uncertainty as to whether evidence and facts given as proof are reliable.
Afraid of being embarrassed by those who know more on the subject.
2. The Real Meaning of the Concept of Israel.
Spiritual or symbolic representation of Israel as opposed to actual physical descent.
Britain = "God's new chosen nation".
Prepared to accept version of Replacement Theology applied to Nation instead of acknowledging actual ancestry and fraternity with Judah.
3. Christian Replacement Theology with belief in Christian Messiah now considered more important than being descended from Israel.
4. Racial Consciousness implied in claims to Israelite Ancestry is distasteful in light of recent racist history.
5. General Indifference to Religious Belief makes the whole question appear irrelevant.

(1). Uncertainty of Evidence.
Our proofs are based on:
(1. Biblical Evidence as confirmed by Rabbinical Commentary and supplemented by secular studies.
(2. Historical Studies and related findings.
The Biblical Evidence we have is easily verifiable and to some degree is self-evident.
Aspects of it are irrefutable.
Perhaps we should emphasize it even more than we already do as well as refining and if possible upgrading it.
We then have the problem of bringing it to public attention but this may not be an insurmountable obstacle.

Our historical scenarios are derived in part from old British Israel type explanations.
We have upgraded them and introduced new factors in many areas but overall our accounts coincide with theirs.
When British Israel scholars first proposed their historical evidence it was consistent with what at the time was main-stream understanding. Since then, academic appreciation of history has changed altogether.
Despite this, the "old" explanations have not been entirely nullified.
Lately new evidence has begun to confirm what Brit-Am says.
In many cases we are ahead of the experts in their own fields.
Nevertheless, even we admit that our scenarios may not be 100% correct.
In encounters with "academics" on various lists we have been faced with hostile, mendacious, supercilious, mocking, intellectually arrogant, and malicious opposition. In some cases we have also had evidence sprung on us that we were not aware of and at first did not initially know how to cope with.
Admittedly we have been knowingly opinionated and ideologically committed to our own explanations.
On the other hand the same (and worse) may be said about those that opposed us.
Our attitude at present is:
So far we have been in the right and new findings confirm our position.
Keep looking for evidence. Do not be afraid of the "facts". Be prepared for anything.
Take account of everything. Try to be updated as much as possible and also attempt to know what was believed in the past and what proofs have been made available.
The situation now is that our historical understanding is defensible.
We would be prepared to abandon it altogether if necessary and look for other possibilities.
This however is not necessary.
Even academia is in fact coming round to thinking along our lines but only as an unproven possibility that may be consistent with some of the evidence for which no equally consistent explanation exists.

The obstacle at present is DNA and lack of an acceptable comprehensive DNA scenario that could incorporate our other approaches.

In short  our proofs: Biblically are quite strong, historically they are defensible and in some cases the best available.
The DNA question is at present problematic.

(2). The Real Meaning of the Concept of Israel.
We believe that many people in the west are the descendants of Israelites and that as Israelites they have a God-given role to fulfill. By "Israel" we mean physical descent. That is what interests us. That is the whole purpose of our studies.
Nevertheless the symbolic and metaphysical aspects of the subject will exist.
They should be viewed as helping to prove our case rather than confound it.
We state that certain national entities became dominated by physical descendants of Israel.
They were destined, according to the Bible, to give expression to their Israelite origins and destiny.
It is natural therefore that the concept of Israel in the ideological abstract sense to some degree would come to permeate the polities spoken about.
This is not something against the reality of physical descent but rather additional proof of it.
The idea however of Britain as being "God's new chosen nation" brings up the anti-Semitic element.
A nationalist version of Replacement Theology applied to the Nation as replacing the Jews as the chosen people exists. It is something that many would perhaps prefer not to speak about.
Sensitive souls might rather not want to look at the Jews as having been passed over and demoted.
They might therefore prefer to avoid the subject altogether.
The alternative is what we propose:
This entails acknowledging actual Israel ancestry and fraternity with Judah.
The two brothers are part of one Chosen People with each brother-nation having their own role to fulfill.

(3). Christian Replacement Theology. 

This says that believers in the Christian Messiah are spiritually the "New Israel".
A modified version of this notion speaks of "Two Houses" with Christian "believers" being chosen alongside Judah.
We on the other hand speak of physical ancestry with belief playing a subsidiary role.
The idea of physical ancestry would seem to some Christian believers to be irrelevant and distracting.
What is more it might threaten to impose unwanted distinctions amongst believers with those who claim to be of physical descent from Israel opposed to they who are indifferent or even hostile to the notion.
This is a problem for Christians to work out on their own.
Brit-Am tries to avoid theological issues especially concerning other faiths.
Our role is to present the truth as we understand it.

(4). Racial Consciousness
We all have friends and associates from other races.
Sometimes we might regard these individuals as perhaps better and more deserving than ourselves.
Everyone is born as they would want to be.
Take it as you will the Biblical Message spoke of physical descendants of Abraham Isaac and Jacob playing a certain role.
Perhaps we ourselves are not part of it?
Who can guarantee us that our ancestors really were Hebrews?
How do we know who our forefathers were?
The answer is we do not know for sure.
God left HIS message in the Bible.
Part of this message pertains to the physical descendants of the Israelite Nations.
The Bible tells us who and where these nations are.
History and historical deduction indicate that we are most likely part of them.
We might not be.
We may be exceptions.
If so then everyone has to make their own accounting.
Amongst the Heroic Entourage of warriors surrounding King David were foreign non-Israelite volunteers.
The cause of Israel encompasses descent through the blood-line but leaves room for interlopers to come in if they so wish.
I personally understand that if that is all that is being offered then they who feel the Call of Israel should take it.
The Mishna says:
"Prefer to be at the tail end of lions rather than at the head of foxes".
This is not racialism. It is noblesse oblige.

(5). General Indifference to Religious Belief.
This exists. It is a problem. It should be countered. Brit-Am teachings provide one way of combatting indifference.

2. Typo Corrected
From: Neshama
Re: The Temple of Solomon 1-Kings 6-1 (6:1-6:4)

Sorry to bother you, but there is an error in listing February as the month of Sivan. I think it's a typo and that you mean Shevat, because later in your explanation of Zif you correctly write Sivan.

Kol Tuv
Hashem should give you Siata D'Shmaya ["Help of Heaven", in Aramaic] and strength to continue your work.

Brit-Am Reply
The passage will be corrected.
God bless you
Yair Davidiy

3. Brit-Am Interview Podcasts:
(Usual length 15 to 20 minutes).

From: "Kosher 101.9 Maccabee" <>
 RE: KMLS FM podcast

Salom Yair:

4. Charles Bassett: The Temple Should be Rebuilt

Dear Yair: The Mosque that the Arabs have on the Temple Mount should be removed, and the Temple of Solomon should be rebuilt regardless of what that bunch of killers say or do. It should be a place of worship for the Jewish people. Don't give up any land to the Arabs. The thing should be annexed and taken over and lay down the law to them, [tell them to] either obey your laws or get out, Charlie Bassett 

5. Mark Robinson: The Prophesied Times of Return, 210?
re "Brit-Am Now"-1299
#2. Sha'ul Benya'akov:
Maybe "its time to go home, to Israel"?

The question was posed last week by Sha'ul Benya'akov, when can Israel go home? I think the answer can be derived right from scripture. Elohim gave the Northern Tribes a punishment of 390 years: Eze 4:5 For I have laid upon thee the years of their iniquity, according to the number of the days, three hundred and ninety days: so shalt thou bear the iniquity of the house of Israel.
Yet for all His warning, Israel refused to repent. Elohim also said unequivocally in the Torah: Lev 26:18 & 21 And if ye will not yet for all this hearken unto me, then I will punish you seven times more for your sins.
So the Exile became 7 x 390 years = 2730 years!
The question then becomes, when was Israel exiled? According to The Annals of the World by Bishop Ussher (and numerous other historians agree): Toward the end of the sixth year of Hezekiah and the ninth year of Hoshea (3993 JP; 721 BC) Shalmaneser took Samaria and sent Israel to Halah, Habor, the Gozan River, and the cities of the Medes.
We have no new moons or Feast Days given as points of reference in the scripture, so we can't be precise in determining the beginning of the exile. Ussher states that the carrying away occured "towards the end of the year." Assuming that "towards the end of the (regnal)year" is about 1 Tishri 4482 or August 28, 721 BC, and adding 7 x 390 solar years = 2730 years, we come to October 10, 2010  or  Heshvan 2, 5771. Of course, the Almighty generally uses His own lunar calendar, and Holy Days for emphasis of His handiwork (witness the 777.7 point & 7% drop in the DOW on the eve of Tishri 1 of last Fall) so I would expect the end of the 7 x 390 years to be announced with some fanfare and on one of His days when it occurs.
Eze 20:34 And I will bring you out from the people, and will gather you out of the countries wherein ye are scattered, with a mighty hand, and with a stretched out arm, and with fury poured out.
Shalom, Mark A. Robinson


Pleased with what you read?
Did you benefit from it?
Your benefit and wellbeing are goals of ours and worthwhile to us in themselves.
We understand that the Brit-Am enterprise is a good work and that they who assist Brit-Am will be blessed.
Brit-Am depends on contributions alongside purchases of our publications

Click Here to make an offering.
Click Here to view our publications.

'It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God or the Bible.'
  George Washington

Brit-Am is the "still small voice" that contains the truth.


Security Cameras, Florida, USA.
security cameras

The Lifestyle Doctor