King David to Queen Elizabeth ?

[Salty]

KingDavid.org says:
"He was also an ancestor of Jesus Christ (Matthew 1:1), and today the Royal Family of England are also descended from him. Queen Elizabeth II is of the House of David, of the tribe of Judah. Her throne in London will eventually be taken over by the Son of David, Jesus Christ the Messiah, when He returns to the earth in power and glory"

Has anyone ever heard this before.
I'm not saying it is true (must be, cause I found it on the net:laugh: ) but I thought it would make a good discussion.

King :applause: Salty

 

[Bob Alkire]

It has been around for years, or something like it. I don't buy it, but I don't think they care.

 

[just-want-peace]

It has been around for years, or something like it. I don't buy it, but I don't think they care.

Guess what?? I don't buy it or care either!!:sleeping_2:

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

British Israelism, now adapted to British/American Isrealism has no historical basis. It is used to try to proclaim that Britain, and her descendant the US are somehow special in God's site and can claim all the promises to Israel and their own.

I just looked at the site and it is indeed the one that chooses to follow a totally unsubstantiated line of petty tribal chieftains in Ireland. There is no list of "Kings of Ireland' for those years. Ireland was in no way united - every local clan was ruled by its own petty chief.

 

[Matt Black]

It's a complete myth, as were Geoffrey of Monmouth's claims that we were all descended from Brutus, one of the survivors of the Trojan Wars.

 

[mcdirector]

Instead of the DaVinci Code, we have the Queen Elizabeth Files

 

[LadyEagle]

KingDavid.org says:
"He was also an ancestor of Jesus Christ (Matthew 1:1), and today the Royal Family of England are also descended from him. Queen Elizabeth II is of the House of David, of the tribe of Judah. Her throne in London will eventually be taken over by the Son of David, Jesus Christ the Messiah, when He returns to the earth in power and glory"

Has anyone ever heard this before.
I'm not saying it is true (must be, cause I found it on the net:laugh: ) but I thought it would make a good discussion.

King :applause: Salty

Well, as you can see, there hasn't really been any good discussion on this thread, just scoffing for the most part. Serious discussions or research on this subject will not occur on the BB, you have to go elsewhere for that.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Well, as you can see, there hasn't really been any good discussion on this thread, just scoffing for the most part. Serious discussions or research on this subject will not occur on the BB, you have to go elsewhere for that.

Could you refer us to some scholarly historical research journals on this topic please? I would be particularly interested in documentation (which must be part of serious research) on how this leap was made:

49. K. Zedekiah (B.C. 599-578).

KINGS OF IRELAND

50. Q. Tea Tephi (b. B.C. 565), marries Herremon, a Prince of the scarlet thread.

As a somewhat student of Irish history I would also be interested in documentation of the rest of the Irish royal line from the fifth century BC to the 5th century AD. Up to this point I have only discovered petty tribal chieftains who called themselves ri (kings) up until about the 10th century when Brian Boru made a claim as 'King of all Ireland' as he ruled from Cashel. Of course there were still others claims to the title in Ulster and at Tara in Meath. I do recognise a couple of names in the list, but was unaware they were part of an Irish royal line. I was not even aware that there was any written recorded history of Ireland before about the late 5th century.

The town I live in, Naas in English, is Nas na Riogh in Irish. It means 'the meeting place of the kings,' because it was a place where the petty kings of Leinster met for what we would now call tribal councils from the 6th to 10th centuries. Archeology suggests that it may go back even further, but as I mentioned I have not been able to dig up any records in my research.

I would appreciate any scholarly help you could provide evidencing this Irish Royal line that I have not come across in my studies.

 

[Beth]

ARmstrongism

We heard a type of this teaching when we were still in Armstrongism.

Your sis in Christ,Beth

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

We heard a type of this teaching when we were still in Armstrongism.

I am glad you brought that up instead of me. You have been there and hence have credibility.

 

[Matt Black]

Roger, all I've come across in quite extensive research about a dozen or so years ago (as a keen student of both history and genealogy, so very much 'into' royal family trees) is that all one can really rely on is the Irish King lists ('King' in this sense being more of a petty chief as you say). The lists themselves are as about as reliable as you can get from that time (ie: not very!) but all they document is the succession of the various 'kingdoms' ie: they just say that "so-and-so followed whats-his-name", with no indication as to how if at all they were related; indeed at several points, IIRC, the brevity of the reigns indicate that it would be impossible for the kingship to pass from father to son to grandson. To read into the lists a kind of hereditary kingship or reliable genealogy is akin to reading the same into a list of the last four US Presidents: "George Bush was succeeded by Bill Clinton who was succeeded by George W Bush who was succeeded by Barack Obama" (almost!); the two Bushes are father and son but the other two are wholly unrelated to each other and the Bushes.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

And a lot of those 'successions' are based on oral tradition and trying to interpret Ogham stones which are written in a code we really haven't cracked yet. I have seem Ogham stones on display that offered 2-3 different interpretations. They often find a name . Eoghan, for example and are unable to decide if this is a birth marker, a property line, a death monument, or a "Eoghan was here." Well, not quite that bad, but you get the point.

And these guy were constantly fighting and assuming new titles. The ri liked big titles, even if they ruled over a clan of 20-30.

 

[Beth]

yes

I am glad you brought that up instead of me. You have been there and hence have credibility.

While Armstrong did not deny that Judah was still in Jerusalem, he did teach that the various European nations could be identified by each of the other sons of Israel.

England, I believe, according to the cult, was Ephraim. USA was Manassah. I think France was Reuben...all based on legend and folklore.

All of this was extra-Biblical. It's been so long since we were saved out of the WCG that I don't remember many details, which is not a bad thing!

Your sis in Christ,
Beth

 

[ktn4eg]

I've heard bits & pieces of this stretch of "royal genealogy bait-and-switch/red herring/cut-and-paste" effort before.

Using what appears to be same form of genealogical gymnastics that these "scientfic experts" employ, I've got CONCLUSIVE proof that St. Nicholas was really an Ethiopian, and thus his favorite song was "I'm Dreaming of a Black Christmas"!!!

 

[Joseph M. Smith]

Think about how many generations are involved from David, 1000 BC, until now! Since the number of our ancestors doubles (approximately) every generation, every person now living has many thousands of ancestors. And so HM The Queen may be descended from David, but so also would be thousands of other people, including you and me. Conversely, she has a huge number of other ancestors. So even if this dubious genealogy is proved true, so what? She is one among many.

 

[Palatka51]

Think about how many generations are involved from David, 1000 BC, until now! Since the number of our ancestors doubles (approximately) every generation, every person now living has many thousands of ancestors. And so HM The Queen may be descended from David, but so also would be thousands of other people, including you and me. Conversely, she has a huge number of other ancestors. So even if this dubious genealogy is proved true, so what? She is one among many.

That is why it is important to have a documented pedigree. I have one that traces my ancestry all the way back to William of Normandy. It is documented and as such it goes no further. I believe that this is the same for Queen Elizabeth. Her pedigree would end with William the Conquer as well. I would therefore be a descendant of King David if that is true.

Wow, I'm actually somebody.

 

[Salty]

I would therefore be a descendant of King David if that is true.
Wow, I'm actually somebody.

Shall we all bow to Kin Palatka the 51st:thumbsup:

 

[Matt Black]

That is why it is important to have a documented pedigree. I have one that traces my ancestry all the way back to William of Normandy. It is documented and as such it goes no further. I believe that this is the same for Queen Elizabeth. Her pedigree would end with William the Conquer as well.

Both of yours would reliably go back further, to Cerdic of Wessex (fl. c495-534).

 

[Salty]

Shall we all bow to Kin Palatka the 51st:thumbsup:

opps, typo should have read King Palatka the 51st, (of Train Stops)

 

[saturneptune]

I would appreciate any scholarly help you could provide evidencing this Irish Royal line that I have not come across in my studies.

In 580 BC, Zedekiah saw a giant rainbow near Jerusalem. He followed it to the end and found a pot of gold. That is how he ended up in Ireland.