Identity Chrisis: Slander

[Qnts2]

The word "Jew" is not in scripture except in English past the 1600s. The term used is Yehudim, from Yehuda, which is either a person from the southern kingdom or the tribe. The northern kingdom may be missing, but it is still the northern kingdom, Israel or Ephraim.

The word Jew is an English word, but we are speaking English. It does not mean Judah and never has. So, you are simply insulting the Jewish people by continually insisting we are not who we are. Not just insulting but going beyond that to a form of prejudice.


As far as Hebrew:

Esther 2:5 [Now] in Shushan the palace there was a certain Jew, whose name [was] Mordecai, the son of Jair, the son of Shimei, the son of Kish, a Benjamite;

The Hebrew word translated as Jew is not Yehudah or Yehudim. It is Yehudi and refers to a Benjamite. After the dispersion, Yehudi referred to children of Israel. Since Babylon had defeated Assyria, when the Babylon allowed the Jewish people to return to Jerusalem, that included members of all 12 tribes. We know from the list and the sacrifices that members of all 12 tribes returned as the sacrifice, when each tribe provides their offering, included all 12 tribes.

 

[sevengreenbeans]

H3064
יהוּדי
yehûdı̂y
yeh-hoo-dee'
Patronymic from H3063; a Jehudite (that is, Judaite or Jew), or descendant of Jehudah (that is, Judah): - Jew.

H3063
יהוּדה
yehûdâh
yeh-hoo-daw'
From H3034; celebrated; Jehudah (or Judah), the name of five Israelites; also of the tribe descended from the first, and of its territory: - Judah.

 

[yedida]

H3064
יהוּדי
yehûdı̂y
yeh-hoo-dee'
Patronymic from H3063; a Jehudite (that is, Judaite or Jew), or descendant of Jehudah (that is, Judah): - Jew.

H3063
יהוּדה
yehûdâh
yeh-hoo-daw'
From H3034; celebrated; Jehudah (or Judah), the name of five Israelites; also of the tribe descended from the first, and of its territory: - Judah.

You know, it really doesn't matter what Strong's says. It's really funny that prior to 100AD there was no question who the Jews were. They kind of have first-hand knowledge over anyone else's definition.
Don't ya'll think it's time to drop it? No matter what veils are used, RT is hideous.

 

[sevengreenbeans]

I think a lot of this issue has to do with perspective.

"Well... so-and-so sounds like a _______, and that means they must believe _________, and oh my...."

Come on.

This is assumption-based.

Speaking for myself, I look at this issue from a Torah perspective. Many people will say this leaves a lot out. Moshe spoke face to face with YHWH, he was not visited in visions and dreams like the rest of the prophets. All things are contained in the Torah, there are rabbis who will say this is true. I believe in the restoration of all things, including the 12 tribes. I do not replace a people with a people. I believe those grafted in have a hierarchy to follow. I do not believe this is degrading.

Personally, I have my own studies, as well as listen to the teachings of (my favorite rabbis) Rabbi Lazer Brody, Rabbi Yossi Mizrachi, I like to read the studies and writings of Rabbi Moses Gaster, still keep in touch with Messianic Torah study group friends, including a friend who was recently ordained a Messianic Rabbi, have attended Pesach seder hosted by the local synagogue, I also love my Samaritan friends, and Muslim friends I've made along the way. I enjoy Messianic, Jewish, and Samaritan music and liturgy. There is beauty in the people.

Please do not make assumptions about who I am. It is better to ask.

So, maybe from my perspective, I hear Staley differently, maybe even different from how he intends to be heard.

One thing I can tell from the video is that the audience he is speaking to are denominational or non-denominational Christians and a group of pastors. Not everyone in that audience will remember - or even consider - what they've heard from him, as a lot of Messianic "Gentiles" who came out of a denominational or non-denominational church can attest to. Those who are interested in what they're hearing will perhaps begin a journey toward a deeper level of understanding of the books they might not know much about. So, it is up to them, as it is up to each one of us, to study things out for themselves (ourselves), separating the holy from the profane. Everyone has a different pace with different routes on this common journey. At least it should be a common journey. It is possible to argue and disagree, yet walk away friends.

It's so interesting to see so much slander in an anti-slander thread!

 

[pat34lee]

You know, it really doesn't matter what Strong's says. It's really funny that prior to 100AD there was no question who the Jews were. They kind of have first-hand knowledge over anyone else's definition.
Don't ya'll think it's time to drop it? No matter what veils are used, RT is hideous.

Who cares what the facts are, where's the love? Right?
Can't have peace without truth.

The Jews have no better information than anyone else looking back in time. They have no magic teleport or television so they can see what happened. They have history, but then again, so do we. It's all the same. They use books to carry information forward, and so did the Christians, and the Romans, etc. The rabbinic version in the talmud is not always right.

Anyone who learns from books and then has the gall to say "I know 'x' better than you ever could because I'm 'race, gender, religion, etc.'" is a bigot, racist or whatever.

 

[yedida]

Who cares what the facts are, where's the love? Right?
Can't have the second without truth.

The Jews have no better information than anyone else looking back in time. They have no magic teleport or television so they can see what happened. They have history, but then again, so do we. It's all the same. They use books to carry information forward, and so did the Christians, and the Romans, etc. The Jewish version in the talmud is not always right.

Anyone who learns from books and then has the gall to say "I know 'x' better than you ever could because I'm 'race, gender, religion, etc.'" is a bigot, racist or whatever.

I'm just telling you what they've been trying to tell you - they know who they are. The children of Israel today are known as Jews. There is no other definition needed.

 

[pat34lee]

I'm just telling you what they've been trying to tell you - they know who they are. The children of Israel today are known as Jews. There is no other definition needed.

Most Jews today don't even know that the majority of their religion is only less than 1500 years old, some of it much younger. Do you think more than a few even wonder where the name Jew came from, what it meant then, or care to find out?

 

[macher]

Most Jews today don't even know that the majority of their religion is only less than 1500 years old, some of it much younger. Do you think more than a few even wonder where the name Jew came from, what it meant then, or care to find out?

The children of Israel are known as Jews.

 

[sevengreenbeans]

The children of Israel are known as Jews.

Today....yes....historically...no.

And to be accurate, some of them are not known as Jews today, but as Children of Israel, such as the Samaritans, who call themselves Bene Yisrael. And Bene Menashe in India are another example. As stated before, Ethiopian Jews called themselves Beta Israel (House of Israel) - Falasha is a term which means "invaders" and was a classification placed on them by outsiders.

So, there are some surviving groups in the world today who are known by the names of Israel (or his sons).

 

[macher]

4.) Gentiles are included into the Covenant with God's People Israel- and yet they have a different calling that the Jewish people (who make up Israel Remnant) and the Gentiles are not to walk in all aspects of the Hebrews lifestyle like the Hebrews did when God gave his standards to Israel - consistent with the ways that Gentiles (who converted) ended up being deemed as Hebrews/Jews and yet Gentile Foreigners amongst the Israelites were not expected to do the same as them ...with Gentiles outside of the community who served the Lord always being treated differently and seeing the Lord interact with them differently, as Paul and the other apostles noted.

The mystery of the one new man is that both communities are united as One under Christ. Yes both communities have their distinctions Gen 17 being one. But nothing makes the 2 communities united better or less than the other.

Paul said to remain as you are.

What the 2 House teaches is that indentity matters in terms of being indentified as an Israelite. Staley teaches that as a result of believing in a Jewish Messiah you're of the lost tribes.

 

[sevengreenbeans]

Sir Alexander Brunes in his Travels into Bokhara, which he published in 1835, speaking of the Afghans said: "The Afghans call themselves Bani Israel, or the children of Israel, but consider the term Yahoodi, or Jew, to be one of reproach. They say that Nebuchadnezzar, after the overthrow of Israel, transplanted them into the towns of Ghore near Bamean and that they were called after their Chief Afghana... they say that they lived as Israelites till Khalid summoned them in the first century of the Mohammadans... Having precisely stated the traditions and history of the Afghans I see no good reason for discrediting them... the Afghans look like Jews and the younger brother marries the widow of the elder. The Afghans entertain strong prejudices against the Jewish nation, which would at least show that they have no desire to claim – without just cause – a descent from them. [Sir Alexander Brunes, Travels into Bokhara, Vol. 2:139-141.]
Brunes was again in 1837 sent as the first British Envoy to the Court of Kabul. For some time he was the guest of King Dost Muhammad Khan. He questioned the King about the descent of the Afghans from the Israelites. The King replied that "his people had no doubt of that, though they repudiated the idea of being Jews".

Quotes taken from: Pashtun - Definition | WordIQ.com

According to the Encyclopedia of Islam, the theory of Hebrew descent of the Pashtuns is traced to Maghzan-e-Afghani who compiled a history for Khan-e-Jehan Lodhi in the reign of Mughal Emperor Jehangir in the 16th century A.D. This reference is in line with the commonly held view by Pushtuns that when the twelve tribes of Israel were dispersed (see Israel and Judah, Lost Ten Tribes), the tribe of Joseph among other Hebrew tribes settled in the region. Hence the term 'Yusef Zai' in Pashto translates to the 'sons of Joseph'; the Yusefzai are the largest tribe of the Pashtuns.

 

[sevengreenbeans]

The Yousafzai is the largest ethnic Afghan/Pashtun tribe. Yousafzai translates into English as "The Sons of Joseph": Yousaf = Joseph, zai = son of. Their spoken langagues is Pashto. The Yousefzai are considered to speak the purest form of Pashto. Other spellings include:

• Euzefzai
• Yusefzai
• Yosefzai
• Yousefzai

The majority of The Yousafzai reside in Pakistan, in the areas of mardan malakand and Swabi.

Quote taken from: Yousafzai - Definition | WordIQ.com

 

[yedida]

The mystery of the one new man is that both communities are united as One under Christ. Yes both communities have their distinctions Gen 17 being one. But nothing makes the 2 communities united better or less than the other.

Paul said to remain as you are.

What the 2 House teaches is that indentity matters in terms of being indentified as an Israelite. Staley teaches that as a result of believing in a Jewish Messiah you're of the lost tribes.

That's what I've been saying that 2house teaches - if you think you're gentile and believe in the work of the promised Messiah then you're not really gentile, instead you're of one of the lost tribes (and you said it doesn't teach this, now you say it does?? Make up my mind for me here.). Regardless, it's just not scriptural.

 

[macher]

That's what I've been saying that 2house teaches - if you think you're gentile and believe in the work of the promised Messiah then you're not really gentile, instead you're of one of the lost tribes (and you said it doesn't teach this, now you say it does?? Make up my mind for me here.). Regardless, it's just not scriptural.

I'm agreeing with you.

 

[Qnts2]

Today....yes....historically...no.

And to be accurate, some of them are not known as Jews today, but as Children of Israel, such as the Samaritans, who call themselves Bene Yisrael. And Bene Menashe in India are another example. As stated before, Ethiopian Jews called themselves Beta Israel (House of Israel) - Falasha is a term which means "invaders" and was a classification placed on them by outsiders.

So, there are some surviving groups in the world today who are known by the names of Israel (or his sons).

And all are known as children of Israel. Calling oneself a child of Israel is not new. So there is nothing terribly unique about identifying oneself as that as we are all descendents of Jacob who was called Israel. And since the Kingdom is no longer divided, we are all the House of Israel. House or home has a more unique meaning in Hebrew. Look around and you will find many synagogues with the name Beth Israel. House of Israel.

The point is, all also call themselves Jewish, as that is the slang terminology for child of Israel.

And all who know their tribe also call themselves Ben xxxxxx, for the tribe. That is also not new or unique. If a person does not know their tribe, they simply call themselves Ben Israel. This linage is important in Judaism, so we use it.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

The mystery of the one new man is that both communities are united as One under Christ. Yes both communities have their distinctions Gen 17 being one. But nothing makes the 2 communities united better or less than the other.

Paul said to remain as you are.

What the 2 House teaches is that indentity matters in terms of being indentified as an Israelite. Staley teaches that as a result of believing in a Jewish Messiah you're of the lost tribes.

I agree - as being united and having differing identities doesn't mean that one's loved more than the other anymore than one child is "loved" more by their father than their sibling because the dad has differing expectations than the other child...like the 12 yr old being assigned to take out the trash while the 8yr is asked to clean the room - the 12yr old loving to do chess games with the father and seeing dad focus on that while the 8yr old loves to do dance and dad relates in that manner.

Where things often get messed up is that the same people saying they're against what Two-House says will be inconsistent with themselves/saying they want distinction when they generally denounce Gentile Christians/Messianic Gentiles and Messianic Jews when it is noted that Gentiles are to live EXACTLY the same as Jews in order to be seen as loving the Torah/God's Law....and if you mention it, it's often said that one's making it out as if God broke his law. It has been said multiple times by several others (some of whom are on the thread) and others have corrected it before when noting that even the Torah given to Moses had the theme of Distinction and Yeshua did the same in His treatment of Gentiles - as did the apostles in Acts 15.

Whereas many in Two-House say that Gentiles are automatically Israel for acceptance (and thus must live as such - and open the door for telling Jewish people they're either not doing enough or must be in dominance to "show how it's done" before Jewish people)......many arguing against it essentially open the door for it to be done when pressuring Gentiles to live as the Jews in order for them to feel as if the Lord is content/accept them. They basically enable the very thing they say they're against..

Paul said multiple times - from Galatians 5 to I Corinthians 7 - to remain as you were/rejoice over how the Lord made us...with the Gentiles being children OF Abraham by virtue of the promise of Messiah (Abraham's seed). And yet on the same token, it can be the case that Gentiles who come to faith in Messiah simply have Hebrew background in them and it's exciting to discover it. This is what many Two-House (and pre-Two House) groups have long said when it comes to understanding the history of cultural diffusion/assimilation in Jewish circles within Gentile territory....and whenever they note that they don't believe you're automatically an "Israelite" if you as a Gentile convert, it can be problematic to throw out a negative assertion on them and claim they must believe you HAVE to be with Israel for acceptance.

Someone else also brought up an interesting point from long ago saying that it's possible all of the Gentiles will have to go through one of the 12 tribes in Revelation - and it's not beyond the Lord's ability to make others into something. The individual stated as he did with conversion to the 12 tribes based on the gates of the New Jerusalem and how each of them had a tribal name on it.

 

[macher]

I agree - as being united and having differing identities doesn't mean that one's loved more than the other anymore than one child is "loved" more by their father than their sibling because the dad has differing expectations than the other child...like the 12 yr old being assigned to take out the trash while the 8yr is asked to clean the room - the 12yr old loving to do chess games with the father and seeing dad focus on that while the 8yr old loves to do dance and dad relates in that manner.

Where things often get messed up is that the same people saying they're against what Two-House says will be inconsistent with themselves/saying they want distinction when they generally denounce Gentile Christians/Messianic Gentiles and Messianic Jews when it is noted that Gentiles are to live EXACTLY the same as Jews in order to be seen as loving the Torah/God's Law....and if you mention it, it's often said that one's making it out as if God broke his law. It has been said multiple times by several others (some of whom are on the thread) and others have corrected it before when noting that even the Torah given to Moses had the theme of Distinction and Yeshua did the same in His treatment of Gentiles - as did the apostles in Acts 15.

Whereas many in Two-House say that Gentiles are automatically Israel for acceptance (and thus must live as such - and open the door for telling Jewish people they're either not doing enough or must be in dominance to "show how it's done" before Jewish people)......many arguing against it essentially open the door for it to be done when pressuring Gentiles to live as the Jews in order for them to feel as if the Lord is content/accept them. They basically enable the very thing they say they're against..

Paul said multiple times - from Galatians 5 to I Corinthians 7 - to remain as you were/rejoice over how the Lord made us...with the Gentiles being children OF Abraham by virtue of the promise of Messiah (Abraham's seed). And yet on the same token, it can be the case that Gentiles who come to faith in Messiah simply have Hebrew background in them and it's exciting to discover it. This is what many Two-House (and pre-Two House) groups have long said when it comes to understanding the history of cultural diffusion/assimilation in Jewish circles within Gentile territory....and whenever they note that they don't believe you're automatically an "Israelite" if you as a Gentile convert, it can be problematic to throw out a negative assertion on them and claim they must believe you HAVE to be with Israel for acceptance.

Someone else also brought up an interesting point from long ago saying that it's possible all of the Gentiles will have to go through one of the 12 tribes in Revelation - and it's not beyond the Lord's ability to make others into something. The individual stated as he did with conversion to the 12 tribes based on the gates of the New Jerusalem and how each of them had a tribal name on it.

Here's a an explanation I hope will shed a better light.

An Israelite(Jew) in the flesh is one that is circumcised in the flesh according to Gen 17...If there are no fleshly Israelites(Jews) then there can be no promise of Messiah to the Israelites(Jews) who have not yet come to belief in Yeshua by faith. This is what Paul is saying in Romans 11.

The indentity crisis amongst non Israelites(Jews) seeks to replace this fact.

 

[pat34lee]

And all are known as children of Israel. Calling oneself a child of Israel is not new. So there is nothing terribly unique about identifying oneself as that as we are all descendents of Jacob who was called Israel. And since the Kingdom is no longer divided, we are all the House of Israel. House or home has a more unique meaning in Hebrew. Look around and you will find many synagogues with the name Beth Israel. House of Israel.

The point is, all also call themselves Jewish, as that is the slang terminology for child of Israel.

And all who know their tribe also call themselves Ben xxxxxx, for the tribe. That is also not new or unique. If a person does not know their tribe, they simply call themselves Ben Israel. This linage is important in Judaism, so we use it.

The kingdom was never united, and all Jews is not all Israel. Why do you continue to claim that, when even you admit that much of Ephraim is yet to be found?

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Here's a an explanation I hope will shed a better light.

An Israelite(Jew) in the flesh is one that is circumcised in the flesh according to Gen 17...If there are no fleshly Israelites(Jews) then there can be no promise of Messiah to the Israelites(Jews) who have not yet come to belief in Yeshua by faith. This is what Paul is saying in Romans 11.

The indentity crisis amongst non Israelites(Jews) seeks to replace this fact.

Paul, prior to Romans 11, also noted that being circumcised in the flesh didn't mean that one was truly a Jew. Per what he said at the beginning in Romans 2 - and Romans 4. And per Romans 11, he also noted rather plainly that no all who claim to be of Israel are Israel - circumcision or not. The fleshly Israelites who made room for those Israelites(Jews) were those who believed in the Lord - and they also made room for other Gentiles to come into the fold/be grafted into Israel, as Paul also noted in Romans 11.

The identity crisis amongst non Israelites often seems to be directly connected to and correlated with the ways that there is an identity crisis amongst Israelite (Jews) who often seem paranoid when seeing that others are brought into the camp whom they may not feel are as worthy as they are because of the Lord. If a Gentile happens to say "I belong to Israel - the New Israel" based on what Paul noted with Spiritual Israel and Physical Israel, then it's claimed that Jewish people are pushed out/are no longer unique - but if it is claimed (be it by Messianic Jews or Messianic Gentiles) that there is one Israel and that Gentiles are grafted onto it/the ROOT, then others claim that it's not fair Gentiles get included to share in the same blessings that the Jewish people had.....

But all spiritual blessings for the saints are found solely in the Messiah - as He is the one, as Paul noted in Ephesians 2-3, who made the ONE NEW Man united together in Him and reflecting His heart. THere are differing callings, but the same blessings found in CHrist.

 

[pat34lee]

Here's a an explanation I hope will shed a better light.

An Israelite (Jew) in the flesh is one that is circumcised in the flesh according to Gen 17...If there are no fleshly Israelites (Jews) then there can be no promise of Messiah to the Israelites (Jews) who have not yet come to belief in Yeshua by faith. This is what Paul is saying in Romans 11.

The indentity crisis amongst non Israelites (Jews) seeks to replace this fact.

If there are no Israelites (non-Jews) then there is no second stick to join to the first. They are not one yet. That will happen near the end of the tribulation, before the millennial reign begins.