Acts 10 Controversy

simchat_torah · Apr 6, 2003

Shalom Sonworshipper,

I'm afraid I must have missed your comments earlier...
and unfortunately, I'm headed to bed now, so I don't have time to discuss this in detail.

However, I'll hop on tommorow.
shalom,
Yafet.

SonWorshipper · Apr 7, 2003

I still await patiently!

simchat_torah · Apr 7, 2003

heh... thus I have become transparent recently, nu?

jk

anyway, I've been extremely busy concerning a new job hunt over the past couple weeks, and haven't posted much...

I've read your post, and I'm excited that my original post sparked interest in your studies, but may I ask specifically, what aspect would you like me to comment on?

shalom,
Yafet.

SonWorshipper · Apr 7, 2003

Yesterday at 08:00 PM simchat_torah said this in Post #24

heh... thus I have become transparent recently, nu?

jk

anyway, I've been extremely busy concerning a new job hunt over the past couple weeks, and haven't posted much...

I've read your post, and I'm excited that my original post sparked interest in your studies, but may I ask specifically, what aspect would you like me to comment on?

shalom,
Yafet.

What would I like a comment on? That is odd considering that I gave you my answer to this comment :

There is some type of a reoccuring theme of hunger. If any of you have an insight into this, please share...

To which my post gave a complete answer, and I guess I would like your thoughts on it.

And I also asked this:

In speaking of the use of Adam or ish, I was wondering if Kefa used Adam where he says in verse 26, "Stand Up , I myself am just a man." If so that would lend much more credence to this I believe.

I have also wondered about the two uses of description of the things in the "sheet". There are two words used, common and unclean. Now unclean would naturally mean trief, but common?

Let me know what you think, I am very interested in discussing this more.

If it needs to be clearer let me know, but it seems to me that you do not wish to discuss this topic any longer for whatever reason and that is perfectly fine, but just don't keep me waiting expectantly if that is your intention.

simchat_torah · Apr 8, 2003

Shalom Sonworshipper....

My deepest apologies...

...it seems to me that you do not wish to discuss this topic any longer for whatever reason and that is perfectly fine, but just don't keep me waiting expectantly if that is your intention.

Not at all.

I have just recently lost my job and I've been frantically searching for another to support my wife and I. I am online job hunting nearly 10 hours a day, and check posts inbetween my job searches... so please forgive my scatterbrained posts.

Now, let's see here....

On the topic of hunger, I really enjoyed your answer! I think that it shows the passion, and possibly a yearning in the spirit?
None the less, I think that there must be something symbollic behind it, whether it concerns prophecy or kabbalah, or who knows??? Though I enjoyed your comments thoroughly, and believe that they apply, I have to wonder if there's something more being hinted at with a prophecy or what not.

hmmmm.....

In speaking of the use of Adam or ish, I was wondering if Kefa used Adam where he says in verse 26...

I'm not sure, I'll have to check my Aramaic translation and see if it gives hint to the Hebrew possibly used there.

I have also wondered about the two uses of description of the things in the "sheet". There are two words used, common and unclean. Now unclean would naturally mean trief, but common?

In my studies I have considered that the sheet was a tallit. In the light that a sheet is "set aside" or "made holy" by containing the tzitzit, it would naturally lead to the idea that anything on it or contained in it would not be "common"... but instead something being used for the glory of HaShem.

I hope these few thoughts help.

I'll try to answer whenever possible.
Shalom,
Yafet.

SonWorshipper · Apr 8, 2003

Thank you for taking time to answer. I am sorry, did not mean to hound you, I was just excited about what you posted and looked forward to your replies.

In my studies I have considered that the sheet was a tallit. In the light that a sheet is "set aside" or "made holy" by containing the tzitzit, it would naturally lead to the idea that anything on it or contained in it would not be "common"... but instead something being used for the glory of HaShem.

Yes, Yes, it is clear although one really has to look hard through the Anglecized version, but I think the "knit at the four corners" is a dead giveaway!

Now are those of the "lost tribes" of Israel, now considered "common" and if read in that light they are now upon accepting Yeshua, considered "cleansed"?

As far as the hunger ..........do you think that Yechezk'el 34:29-30 could be of any help?

Ezekiel 34:31
29 I will provide for them a land renowned for its crops, and they will no longer be victims of famine in the land or bear the scorn of the nations. 30 Then they will know that I, the LORD their God, am with them and that they, the house of Israel, are my people, declares the Sovereign LORD . 31 You my sheep, the sheep of my pasture, are people, and I am your God, declares the Sovereign LORD .' " NIV

Ezekiel 34
29 And I will raise up for them a plant of renown, and they shall be no more consumed with hunger in the land, neither bear the shame of the heathen any more.
30 Thus shall they know that I the LORD their God am with them, and that they, even the house of Israel, are my people, saith the Lord GOD.
31 And ye my flock, the flock of my pasture, are men, and I am your God, saith the Lord GOD.KJV

simchat_torah · Jul 7, 2003

P4I,

I appologize for not responding asap to your above post. I definatley think that those passages concerning hunger relate to either a regather of Israel, or at very least that this plant would recognize HaShem.... being regathered together in worship of his providence.

I will be discussing this with my Rabbi over the next week or so... I greatly appreciate you brining these forth.

Shalom,
Yafet.

RobSav · Jul 7, 2003

Now, if you also look at Zech. 10 you will see the story of Ephraim, or the dispersed of Yisrael. These are the Jews who were a dispersed (now of the diaspora) group among the nations, or Jews who blended into the secular world by not returning after the release from Babylon. There are many many prophecies of the regathering of Yisra'el. In fact, it is this group which Y'shua was primarily interested in reaching:

Mattiyahu 15:25 "I was sent ONLY to the Lost Sheep of Yisrael."

I can tell that you're not a Messianic Jew because you believe in Ephraimism.

Yochanan 4:19-22

"Sir," the woman said, "I can see that you are a prophet. Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Yerushalayim."
Yeshua declared, "Believe me, woman, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Yerushalayim. You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews

This is probably the biggest contradiction to Ephraimism I can imagine. Salvation is not especially for, nor from the Arabs.

Shamash Of Yeshua · Jul 7, 2003

Shalom simchat_torah,
Great thread and Blessed posts with much meat to digest.

Todah Shalom,
Tag

simchat_torah · Jul 7, 2003

Shalom RobSav,

No, I do not believe in Ephraimism. Had you read my writing a little closer, you would have found it to be drastically different.

Ephraimism is essentailly British Israelism. It says that all of the nations today are simply tribes that composed of Ephriam.

Simply put, that is untrue. Any study of history or genetics will show otherwise.

I do however, believe that the tribes composing Ephraim were dispersed among the nations. That is undeniable according to the Tenach and history. I also believe that the tribes of Ephriam will be re-united... or shall we say, make Aliyah.

I'm sorry to say, but you were gravely mistaken in your assumptions.

Israel (Ephriam) was dispersed among the nations. That is evident by both history and Tenach.

They will be regathered. That is evident by both the Tenach and by what is going on today (a mass returning to Israel by the Jews).

You question this?

I hope not.
-Yafet.

simchat_torah · Jul 7, 2003

Ephraimism is yet another repackaged form of Replacement theology.

Oh, and RobSav... Interesting that by one single misinterpretation of my theology you are able to judge my religious standing.

RobSav · Jul 7, 2003

Sorry if we misunderstood each other simchat torah, but the only people I am familiar with who believe that Yeshua came only for the (non-existant) lost house of israel would be Anti-Semitic Christians, Muslims, and Ephraimists. I'm not familiar with any other theology.

My intention was not to be harsh. I thought your post had established your theology. I'm sorry if I've offended you.

simchat_torah · Jul 7, 2003

Sorry if we misunderstood each other simchat torah, but the only people I am familiar with who believe that Yeshua came only for the (non-existant) lost house of israel would be Anti-Semitic Christians, Muslims, and Ephraimists.

I think you are drastically wrong in what you've concluded.

Lesson in Religions #1:
1) Christians (antisemetic) believe that Y'shua came for the gentiles... and often the lost sheep of Israel are forgotten. Why you concluded as such is beyond me.

2) Muslims don't believe Y'shua came to regather, save, or was the messiah to anyone. They merely believe he was a nice little prophet. Again, why you concluded as such is beyond me.

3) Ephraimists believe that every nation in the world are Jews, which is replacement theology... they replace the true genetic Jewish race with gentiles. They do not believe Y'shua came to re-unify true Israel with Judah, but that Y'shua came for these gentiles (who are now renamed Jews). It is nothing more than replacement theology and British Israelism repackaged. And again, why you concluded as such is beyond me.

None of the religions beliefs you quoted believe that Y'shua came only for Israel. I am left with the conclusion that you want to desperately lump me in with these groups.

Why?

Shalom,
Yafet.

p.s. I am Jewish, attend synagouge (not messianic) and yes... I believe in Y'shua as HaMoshiach. Now you know. Had you read the boards you would have discovered that as well.

SonWorshipper · Jul 7, 2003

Simchat, Thank you for responding to me ( it was I not P4I) I await your sharing what knowledge and wisdom you receive from your Rabbi this coming week.

SonWorshipper · Jul 7, 2003

Now just as a reminder, only Messianic believers are to debate in here over beliefs, doctrines, etc. If you want to debate a persons beliefs you may start a post in IDD and do it there.

Simchat Torah has presented a very nicely written post on Acts 10 which deserves much study and discussion but not debate. Let us all continue in this vein.

Thank You
SonWorshipper

RobSav · Jul 7, 2003

I'm more confused than ever I'm not saying you're an anti-semite, obviously, I'm saying that part of your general statement coincided with the most prominant theories of Ephraimism. They require the lost house of Israel to be of Ephraim because Aryan mythology (even in the 3rd Reich) generally accepted that Nordic people were descendant of Assyrians, etc.

You stated

Now, if you also look at Zech. 10 you will see the story of Ephraim, or the dispersed of Yisrael. These are the Jews who were a dispersed (now of the diaspora) group among the nations, or Jews who blended into the secular world by not returning after the release from Babylon. There are many many prophecies of the regathering of Yisra'el. In fact, it is this group which Y'shua was primarily interested in reaching:

Excuse me if I'm blunt, but this is the cornerstone of the entire subject. You are right by saying that they didn't return from exile but you are wrong by saying that they will return as Jews. If an Ephraimite accepts Yeshua he/she is still not Jewish. All believers are bought into the branch of Israel's promises, but that is all. We Gentiles still remain Gentiles.

2) Muslims don't believe Y'shua came to regather, save, or was the messiah to anyone. They merely believe he was a nice little prophet. Again, why you concluded as such is beyond me.

Muslims believe that their house is the true house of Israel.

1) Christians (antisemetic) believe that Y'shua came for the gentiles... and often the lost sheep of Israel are forgotten. Why you concluded as such is beyond me.

Some perhaps, the more proud ones say that the true house of Israel were never the Jews in the first place, or that by Yeshua concentrating soley for the "lost house", which is Ephraim; which you stated.

I don't think Yeshua was too concerned with gathering the lost of any particular tribe of that time. The commandment "Go not unto the Heathen" actually means "Go not unto the Gentiles" which would include Ephraim. The lost of Israel would be those who were Israelites and non-believers. This would be a temporary commandment for the Apostles in the first place.

RobSav · Jul 7, 2003

Ahh ok, well all is well that ends well. I always figured Acts 10 was in reference to Yeshua explaining that Gentiles were no longer "unclean". We already know through Yeshua's life that anything unclean that entered into one's mouth did not make the person unclean. This does not go to say that it isnt' disobedience to the Torah to do such a thing, but it does mean that Gentiles are not unclean by disobeying the dietary laws of the Torah.

simchat_torah · Jul 7, 2003

I see what's going on....

I think you have missed an important Jewish idiom that's being used. Ephriam is a symbollic idiom used in the Tenach referring not to a specific tribe (though at times it does that) but in prophecy refers to the lost sheep of Israel. Any Jew (and I undestand that 'jew' has many connotations, so I'm using it lightly here) who was a part of the diaspora was lumped into this general prophetic term "Ephriam". As well, they are often referred to as various animals, as Israel (opposed to Judah), and various other terminology used in Hosea, Isaiah and Jeremiah (among other prophets as well).

When speaking of Ephriam in a prophetic sense, I do not mean the specific tribe, but instead the 'lost sheep of Israel'. In mainstream Jewish literature, it is commonly understood that 'Ephraim' was used as an idiom referring to the tribes that were dispersed.

I hope this clarifies.

Now, a word of advice... before challenging someone, and blatantly labeling them (and specifically under a wrong banner) it is best to discuss with that individual what they truly believe.

No offense, just be cautious when jumping on top of someone with a label.

Shalom,
Yafet.

simchat_torah · Jul 7, 2003

Sonworshipper,

AHHH!!! forgive me. I must have glanced over your name a little too quickly.

bah humbug. my appologies.

RobSav,

Muslims believe that their house is the true house of Israel.

Actually, that's untrue. Islam teaches the destruction of Israel, and if you were to tell a Muslim that they are the true house of Israel, I'm sure you'd find a whole new list of obscenities you never knew existed... lol.

They require the lost house of Israel to be of Ephraim ...

As you can clearly see, I stated that the lost tribes are just that... tribes (notice that's plural)... and these 'tribes' are referred to as Ephraim. The reason why Ephraimism exists is because many fail to see the prophetic idiom used, and think that 'Ephraim' is to be taken literally... and ignore the other tribes.

Make no mistake, I do not think that what so ever.

If an Ephraimite accepts Yeshua he/she is still not Jewish.

I would never accept the idea that anyone merely accepting 'Yeshua' would make them Jewish. If they want to convert, there is a formal process laid out by the Beit Din that they would submit themselves under.

We Gentiles still remain Gentiles.

My point is...
in prophecy, the term 'gentile' must be examined. In Mishnaic and Talmudic literature, 'gentile' is often used to refer to the Jews who were a part of the Diaspora and left their true place of worship before Adonai. When a person of Jewish ancestory returns unto the G-d of Israel, they are 'reborn' (for a lack of better words) into the Jewish faith. They should then be accepted as a Jew in fulness.

However, a gentile not of Jewish ancestral heritage must go through full conversion.

concerning christianity:

Some perhaps, the more proud ones say that the true house of Israel were never the Jews in the first place, or that by Yeshua concentrating soley for the "lost house", which is Ephraim; which you stated.

This is not a mainstream teaching of christianity, and would most likely be rejected by all major denominations. It is british israelism repackaged, and is viewed as a cult in christianity.

I don't think Yeshua was too concerned with gathering the lost of any particular tribe of that time.

Again, 'Ephraim' as is used in prohpecy is a Jewish idiom referring to the lost tribes of Israel. No, he did not go seek out any specific tribe... but instead to the lost sheep (all lost tribes) of Israel. "Lost" meaning away from Hashem, not physically lost in the world (british israelism all over again).

Shalom,
Yafet.

SonWorshipper · Jul 8, 2003

Actually, that's untrue. Islam teaches the destruction of Israel, and if you were to tell a Muslim that they are the true house of Israel, I'm sure you'd find a whole new list of obscenities you never knew existed... lol.

Acts 10 Controversy

Got Torah?

Old Timer

Got Torah?

Old Timer

Got Torah?

Old Timer

Got Torah?

Active Member

Servant

Got Torah?

Got Torah?

Active Member

Got Torah?

Old Timer

Old Timer

Active Member

Active Member

Got Torah?

Got Torah?

Old Timer

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency