Identity Chrisis: Slander

[Qnts2]

I agree. The definition they place forth, from what I have seen, is indeed something that is to be deemed anti-Semitic and I am glad it has been noted. However, what is problematic is what appears to be innocent sidestepping or blantant ignoral of the ways that many in Two-House circles have never in the formation of their own groups supported that ideology and have spoken against it....and ultimately, it seems that people are making caricatures/judgements based on the term "Two House"/how it was defined in early movements from select groups rather than dealing case-by-case with the many who've done differently throughout the ages.

Really, it's no different than what has occurred when it comes to the ways that the Messianic Jewish movement was condemned early on for many extremes it went to in the 60s/70s and they later reformed them - with papers given on why/how they changed. Just because others later on came in the name of Messianic Judaism doesn't mean they're to be seen as exactly the same as the extremes that were present in earlier days - as that'd be prejudiced. There have been given multiple posts with evidence, including history, scripture, DNA science, articles and direct statements from Messianic Judaism leaders who've noted both the extrmes of Two House and the ways others in Two-House cirlces have refuted others doing those extremes.

Two House makes use of anti-semitic teachings and actually started by picking teachings from anti-semitic which support their view but excluding the grosser anti-semitic teachings.

I have had discussions with people who deny being anti-semitic while teaching grossly antisemitic teachings. How do they deny being anti-semitic? Well, they just don't see what they believe is anti-semitic because it is a 'bad' label. And they claim not to be anti-semitic because what they are teaching is the truth. Of course, all anti-semites actually believe what they teach is the truth, so claiming not to be anti-semitic is no proof they are not anti-semitic.

What you have to do is actually look at the teaching and not their denials.

Many here recognize Two House as an anti-semitic teaching and replacement theology. The people who fall for Two House may not think of themselves as anti-semitic, but in their desire to be or possibly be Israel, have bought into an anti-semitic teaching.

 

[Qnts2]

Personally, I don't believe a people can replace a people.

Just as with secular adoption, the adopted child has their own genealogy which is different from the family which they were adopted into. They may have siblings who were naturally born to the adopted parents. Yet, they are one family. The adopted child does not replace the natural child. Just as a natural child cannot replace another natural child. They are individuals. A parent recognizes his children, whether natural or adopted, they are his children.

Relate this to the topic at hand, and this is the way I see it...

There are 12 tribes, none has replaced the other, none has been done away with. They are one family, 12 natural siblings, with descendants innumerable, as the stars in the heavens. The adopted children, so to speak, who have different genealogies, do not replace the natural. Scripturally, in the Torah, when the House of Israel comes out of Egypt, with the mixed multitude, those who are named are the 12 tribes. As they march and when they are numbered, they are in 12 divisions. Was this mixed multitude adopted in to each of the 12 divisions? Or are they just unnamed and unnumbered? Consistently throughout the OT and NT, prophecy, etc., there are 12 family groups forming the one family. Recognized by YHWH.

This does not minimize, it only looks at the family in its original form.

For Gentiles to call themselves Ephraim is presumptuous without asking the true Ephraimites for acceptance into their tribe. Without even understanding anything of the ways/customs/traditions of Ephraim. Just as it would be for Gentiles to call themselves Judah without asking for acceptance. As some children in foster care look for a suitable family, one where they feel they fit in, the same can be said of the tribe.

When Moshe was explaining the Last Days, he mentions all 12 tribes separately. Was he anti-Semitic for not just calling them "Jews"?

You were doing well until the last two lines.

Moses lived and died before the Babylonian captivity so Moses never heard the term, Yehudi, in English, Jews. Moses did use children of Israel, which means the same thing as Jewish people.

What is anti-semitic is telling the Jewish people they are not who they are. Two House tries to tell the Jewish people that Jew means something different then it really does, and that difference is essentially telling those who call themselves Jews are not who they really are.

Almost all anti-semitic teachings start by saying the Jewish people are not who they say they are. The teaching then says, 'whatever group like Two House or British Israel etc' is actually Israel.

 

[pat34lee]

That's good. I really was just kidding around. You were sucking all the air out of the room, being oh-so-serious about a doctrine for which you have zero evidence.

The doctrine is clearly designed to minimize the Jewish people while elevating Gentiles who regard themselves as "Ephraim-by-fiat". You may not personally understand why that is anti-Semitic, but you might want to consider why both Jews and Gentiles on this forum stand against it.

I always found it too high a hurdle to think I can declare myself of a certain blood lineage with absolutely no evidence to suggest my family comes from that line. The whole concept is beyond reason, or reasonable discussion.

Two house is proven both by scripture and history. Ephraim never went home except for some small groups. I even gave quotes from Jewish sources which say the same thing.

This is what I mean about straw man arguments.

1. I never said any person or group is Ephraim. That is an extension to two house, not part of it. The only way that I know of that I am tied to Israel is by salvation and adoption.

 

[sevengreenbeans]

You were doing well until the last two lines.

Moses lived and died before the Babylonian captivity so Moses never heard the term, Yehudi, in English, Jews. Moses did use children of Israel, which means the same thing as Jewish people.

This is my point... Moshe was a prophet and he was speaking to them of the Last Days... of course interpretation as to what point in history (or future) Moshe was referring to is open to debate...

He never heard the term Yehudi/Jew, yet when speaking to them of the Last Days, they are each referred to specifically by tribal name.

Why should others get grief handed to them when they do the same as Moses?? (Naming the tribes by name)

Obviously, there is a difference in point of view. You are telling pat34lee and myself who we are!! We are telling you this is not who we are. (Is there a name for this? Slander, is it? False pretenses?) You say we are telling Jews who they are, by having the capacity to listen to a teacher and take the good, leave the bad, and get on with it. I disagree with your assessment. I don't see naming the tribes by name and believing in their existence as being anti-Semitic, and you have yet to prove otherwise. I don't buy into calling the "church" Ephraim... my outlook is entirely different.

 

[yedida]

This is my point... Moshe was a prophet and he was speaking to them of the Last Days... of course interpretation as to what point in history (or future) Moshe was referring to is open to debate...

He never heard the term Yehudi/Jew, yet when speaking to them of the Last Days, they are each referred to specifically by tribal name.

Why should others get grief handed to them when they do the same as Moses?? (Naming the tribes by name)

Obviously, there is a difference in point of view. You are telling pat34lee and myself who we are!! We are telling you this is not who we are. (Is there a name for this? Slander, is it? False pretenses?) You say we are telling Jews who they are, by having the capacity to listen to a teacher and take the good, leave the bad, and get on with it. I disagree with your assessment. I don't see naming the tribes by name and believing in their existence as being anti-Semitic, and you have yet to prove otherwise. I don't buy into calling the "church" Ephraim... my outlook is entirely different.

Samaritan Israelism isn't any different.

 

[sevengreenbeans]

Samaritan Israelism isn't any different.

Yedida, I would ask you to be more informed before speaking of that which you know nothing about.

Or, if you have indeed informed yourself, please explain this "Samaritan Israelism".

 

[pat34lee]

I have given multiple posts with evidence, including history, scripture, DNA science, the statements from Messianic Judaism leaders refuting Two House.

As have many others.

Two House is at the basics, both anti-semitic, and Replacement theology. Neither which is allowed to be taught on the forum.

Let's spell out the arguments then and see who believes what.

You: The kingdom of Israel is basically gone except for those who returned and joined Judah, and now they are all Jews. Even those tribes who have not returned and were never part of the southern kingdom are Jews. There will be no end-time return of the northern tribes en-mass.

2H: Israel never returned except for small groups. A few groups among the nations still have some memory of who they were but most have lost their identity. Jews are mostly Judah, Benjamin and Levi with a small portion from other tribes. Ezekiel says plainly that Israel will return and join with Judah, which has not happened yet. Other scripture says that Ephraim will be larger than Judah, and Josephus claimed that the scattered tribes were huge, so the northern tribes will contain possibly millions of people when they return.

2H is not about who Israel is today, only the fact that they are still among the nations. Unless there is some proof, as with the Ethiopians, guessing who they might be is pointless and counterproductive. YHWH knows his own, so it doesn't matter if we don't.

Just because some people combine 2H and replacement theology does not make them the same thing. If you break anyone's beliefs into distinct theologies, they probably draw from many.

Without adding to the above, is this anti-Semitic?

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Two House makes use of anti-semitic teachings and actually started by picking teachings from anti-semitic which support their view but excluding the grosser anti-semitic teachings.
.

Again, asserting a negative does not prove one does so anymore than it's proven all whites must hate blacks because of the history between blacks/whites in many places during the 1700s-1800s - and thus, as said before, in order to be truly consistent/factual, one needs to deal with what other Messianic Jews/Gentiles who are either Two-House or advocates of aspects of it have said today that do not line up with the assertion. If not, then one is doing argumentation via selection and not really dealing with the text...


As noted before, MessianicMommyis one of the most informed Messianic Jews around - especially as it concerns Messianic Judaism outside of the U.S (as she lives in Germany) - and even she, although never coming anywhere close to supporting British Israelism or Armstrongism, has worked with Two-House circles of many kinds (noted in #20, #40 #44 , #56 and#117 ) and has never seen anything close to what you've been repeatedly trying to assert about all Two-House. The facts simply do not line up with what you're saying overall, IMHO.

I have had discussions with people who deny being anti-semitic while teaching grossly antisemitic teachings

Great - although others, from Messianic Jews to Gentile Messianics, besides yourself have had the same experiences as well as working with others who were quick to throw "anti-semitism" toward anything disagreeing with their view of Jewish people. As said before, others have had the same experiences you've had and differing ones as well - and thus, it all must be considered.

How do they deny being anti-semitic? Well, they just don't see what they believe is anti-semitic because it is a 'bad' label. And they claim not to be anti-semitic because what they are teaching is the truth. Of course, all anti-semites actually believe what they teach is the truth, so claiming not to be anti-semitic is no proof they are not anti-semitic.

That really does nothing to show the issue of proving that all Two-Housers are anti-semitic. Of course, as other Jewish believers have noted, even the people who may at times say they're against "anti-Semitism" actually promote it in the process when it comes to doing things and saying things that don't really reflect accurately on Jewish people. That is definately the case with others promoting philio-semitism where Jewish people are exalted outside of the bounds of scripture - and the same goes with throwing out "Anti-Semitism" anytime a view comes up that one disagrees with....no different than many blacks crying "RACISM!!!" to other whites and non-blacks for critiquing black culture on serious issues (i.e. gang violence, exploitation in the media like B.E.T, fatherlessness, etc.) that even blacks have noted and making it out as if any critique of the culture is to be seen as bad.

As other Jewish groups and Jewish individuals have said some of the same things that other Two- House groups said, unless it is the case that they are automatically "anti-Semitic" toward themsevles for agreeing that Gentiles are either connected to Israel or may have genetic links to Ephraim/Israelites and the scattered tribes are all amongst Gentile nations...

Again, claiming something is "anti-semitic" doesn't equate to showing it as such - nor does it work if one resorts to arguments that are basically "True Scotsman" fallacies where one not fitting a preconcieved idea is deemed to be other than what they are ..like someone assuming how all Scotsman are in saying all Scots like Hagus and then denouncing those Scots who don't like it as not being "True Scotsmen" - or saying that others noting Scots who don't like Hagus are somehow hateful of Scotish people (in their view) even though other Scotsmen have said the same for ages.

What you have to do is actually look at the teaching and not their denials.

Seeing that others have already looked at the teachings multiple times - lived life with others who also address those teachings - what you have to do is stop assuming anyone disagreeing with your view doesn't study the same teachings....and actually listen to what others have said rather than placing words in the mouths of others.

Many here recognize Two House as an anti-semitic teaching and replacement theology

Seeing how the many also accept numerous things which are also condemned by Jewish people (and have actually been noted to accept forms of replacement theology themselves when it comes to One Law or Philio Semitism), it really doesn't serve as good evidence to bring up others who feel a certain way on Two House simply because of their agreement. What matters is what is actually said by others - not how others think it to be.

.The people who fall for Two House may not think of themselves as anti-semitic, but in their desire to be or possibly be Israel, have bought into an anti-semitic teaching.

Seeing other Messianic Jews who have noted otherwise multiple times on the fallacy of assuming all things Two-House are anti-semitic (and have noted how they used to do the same moreso out of fear rather than real understanding of what others said), I'll go with them. For there's nothing wrong with desire to be with Israel or discovering where it is possibly the case - and claiming "anti-Semitism" only goes so far when other Jews...be it non-believing Jews or Jewish believers..work with Gentiles all the time who are Two-House and have noted support for many things. One can either address those Jewish people doing so or stop speaking as if all Jews are against all things Two-House.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Two House actually does not use 'Jewish terminology'.

Actually they do - and several references to such have already been given before on the issue. Anything avoiding of that is non-factual and a strawman.

They use an imitation of what they think Jewish terminology is.

This doesn't show anything, Q - paticularly when other Jews have already noted the same usage of Jewish terminology is found in their own circles and is not imitation.

Kind of like when a white person tries to mimic black terminology and culture. It is not the same, and is easily identified.

Being black myself, this is actually something that a lot of non-blacks are clueless on many times when seeing other whites use black idioms/phrases and assuming "They're just trying to be black!!!" rather than understanding the reality of whites who grew up in black culture and identify with the people - or have black friends/acceptance. Of course, there are others doing so with language/behavior where it doesn't fit them and it seems odd - but it's equally odd when others make an overarching rule in saying all whites must be acting black rather than being authentically black. The same thing goes for others in many Two House circles when it comes to others noting where they are indeed in agreement with many Jewish believers/groups and are not faking it....although other groups indeed fake it/imitate and it makes things seem silly. Thankfully, other Two House groups have called others out for doing so whenever it does occur.

To make matters worse, they then tell the Jewish people who they are (of course not true) and insist that the Jewish people should believe and act they way Two House wants us to.

Seeing that (as said before) plenty of Two House groups have NEVER told Jewish people who they are or insisted Jewish people act the way Two House wants, it is another caricature amongst many others.....although many Jewish people have noted mutiple times that the desire to keep Gentiles from telling other Jews how to act has led to Anti-Gentile sentiment where anything within Jewish culture is proclaimed to be things which Gentiles can never be a part of - and many are trained to believe that Gentiles living out Jewish lifestyles must be a problem.

One law emphasizes the as Gentiles they become a member of the common wealth of Israel while remaining Israel. Two House says they (or many) are Israel.

One Law does not do that - as One Law, in noting Gentiles are members of the common wealth of Israel, also say that Gentiles must now LIVE as if they are Israel. This has again been discussed before in great detail and it'd be ignoring the facts (As well as the articles against One Law) to say otherwise.

As promised from earlier, on all of the respective threads where the issue has been discussed explicitly and others have noted (in their view of One Law) that Gentiles are to be seen as a part of Israel:

• Is the Torah only for Jews?
• Missionary Work in NY
• Messianic Heliocentrism (more shared here)
• The MJAA as a standard of Messianic Judaism (more here in #162 )

Also, some places you can go in the immediate are threads like Some links to Messianic Judaism organizations..or here /here ( #47 ). Others that may help:

• What it's all about....we hope.
• Does God yet have a plan through the Law?
• Are you part of Mainstream Messianic Judaism?
• Who believes this to be true: The Torah is not for Gentiles
• For all the curious.. who wish to ask Messianic Judaism believers a question..
• Who believes this to be true? -We are saved by Torah, not by faith/grace in Yeshua

Read Rabbi Resnik's entire response(PDF Format ) for a good review on the matter. For he beginning of the article - as well as "One Law Movements" by Dan Juster and Russ Resnik. For excerpt:

ONE LAW MOVEMENTS: A Challenge to the Messianic Jewish Community
By Daniel Juster and Russ Resnik

a trend has developed that challenges the Messianic Jewish community on this very issue. This trend involves various groups and movements that teach that all Jews and Gentiles under the new covenant are called to keep the same Torah in all regards.

In so doing, these One Law movements not only misinterpret a great body of Scripture, but they also miss the unique calling of Jews and Gentiles within the Body of Messiah, robbing both groups of the biblical richness of their identity. They lose the new covenant vision of unity in Messiah between Jews and Gentiles and replace it with a man-made rallying cry, which One Law advocate Tim Hegg has expressed as “One people, One Messiah, One Torah.”

Several streams teach such views, including Ephraimite groups that believe that Gentiles who have come to faith in Yeshua in some way fulfill the prophecies concerning the regathering of the Northern Tribes and their reunion with Judah. Generally, they teach that all believers are called to follow the same Torah instructions, with the exception of circumcision.

Other groups teach that Gentiles are both called to live the same Torah as Jews (except for circumcision), without teaching that they are in any way descended from the so-called “lost tribes” of Israel. These groups see all believers as grafted into the Olive tree, and therefore called to obey the same Torah as Israel. Perhaps the best-known proponents of this view are the writers of First Fruits of Zion, including Tim Hegg.
​

One law theology teaches that Gentiles who believe on Jesus are obligated to the same Mosaic laws as the children of Israel. The basis of this belief is taking verses out of context. The belief is that the Tenakh says there is one law for Israel, and the stranger/alien. Therefore what applies to Israel applies to Gentiles who are sojourning with Israel. That's no different than what is taught in Two House cirlces in many places where Gentiles seek to live as Israel/identify as Israel because of the understanding that 1.) God made a Covenant with Israel/had all blessings come through that and 2.) Only in Israel is one blessed.

One Law theology acknowledges the distinction between Ekklesia and Israel in principle, but Gentile believers are considered to come under the Mosaic covenant, making observance obligatory.

Two House ends where One Law begins, for the main reasons other Gentiles have been so focused on having identity with Israel and seeing connection with it is due to the influence of others saying that God only blessed Israel, had his blessings come through Israel, wants all to be FOCUSED on Israel, and expects Gentiles to live as Jews if they're to be a part of the COmmonWealth of Israel.

While I disagree with One Law (saying the Gentiles must keep the law), it is possible for God to call a Gentile to practice the law. Scripture specifically says that Gentiles are called to Yeshua, and are not to become Jews.

Scripture notes where the LORD can call a Gentile to practice the Law, just as it also notes where Gentiles were given the option of becoming Jews and there was nothing against Gentiles identifying with Israel.

Since Gentiles are called to Yeshua, as prophesied, the Two House belief that Gentiles are actually Israel/Jews is a false teaching, and replacement theology.

Seeing that many Two-House places have already noted that Gentiles who have Jewish ancestry and are living out Jewish lifestyle are not claiming they're more "Israel/Jew" than Jews today, it is a false argument to say that all Two House believe Gentiles are actually Israel/Jews. For those that do say Gentiles are Jews/Israel universally, that's one thing - and within that, there's variation when it comes to seeing how others explain it. Others are for the thought that they're simply Israel as it concerns identification - whereas some say that they are Israel in their ancestral heritage and that their desire to live a Hebraic lifestyle is connected to that - and others doing exactly as seen in One Law groups by saying the Gentiles are directly linked to Israel/sharing it is due to God's calling. None of which says Jews today are less than Gentiles.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

This is my point... Moshe was a prophet and he was speaking to them of the Last Days... of course interpretation as to what point in history (or future) Moshe was referring to is open to debate...

He never heard the term Yehudi/Jew, yet when speaking to them of the Last Days, they are each referred to specifically by tribal name.

Why should others get grief handed to them when they do the same as Moses??

Originally Posted by sevengreenbeans

Personally, I don't believe a people can replace a people.

Just as with secular adoption, the adopted child has their own genealogy which is different from the family which they were adopted into. They may have siblings who were naturally born to the adopted parents. Yet, they are one family. The adopted child does not replace the natural child. Just as a natural child cannot replace another natural child. They are individuals. A parent recognizes his children, whether natural or adopted, they are his children.

Relate this to the topic at hand, and this is the way I see it...

There are 12 tribes, none has replaced the other, none has been done away with. They are one family, 12 natural siblings, with descendants innumerable, as the stars in the heavens. The adopted children, so to speak, who have different genealogies, do not replace the natural. Scripturally, in the Torah, when the House of Israel comes out of Egypt, with the mixed multitude, those who are named are the 12 tribes. As they march and when they are numbered, they are in 12 divisions. Was this mixed multitude adopted in to each of the 12 divisions? Or are they just unnamed and unnumbered? Consistently throughout the OT and NT, prophecy, etc., there are 12 family groups forming the one family. Recognized by YHWH.

This does not minimize, it only looks at the family in its original form.

For Gentiles to call themselves Ephraim is presumptuous without asking the true Ephraimites for acceptance into their tribe. Without even understanding anything of the ways/customs/traditions of Ephraim. Just as it would be for Gentiles to call themselves Judah without asking for acceptance. As some children in foster care look for a suitable family, one where they feel they fit in, the same can be said of the tribe.

When Moshe was explaining the Last Days, he mentions all 12 tribes separately. Was he anti-Semitic for not just calling them "Jews"?
​

Good points..

For others who say they are automatically Ephraim, it is without substantiation - but it is also not without merit in noting that many Gentiles may have that calling/heart in them for the Jewish people due to possibly having simple roots in those tribes that were scattered in majority amongst Gentile territory. It is an eschatological viewpoint that many Jews have been open to and have noted before - and many have pointed that out before. Israel itself is seen by the Lord as being all of the tribes - the Sons of Israel (formerly Jacob) - and yet when it comes to identifying Israel as a Divided Kingdom, there's still unity to be done. I don't think it's logical to say that Jews must be Judah and Gentiles are Israel since Jew was used universally at one point to describe both the Northern Kingdom and Southern Kingdom..and when Gentiles try to dominate Jewish people, I have an issue. On the same token, it is problematic when other Jews tell other Gentiles (counter to what other Jews have noted) that they could never have any connection to some of the scattered tribes from the Northern Kingdom - or any other Diaspora after that since the Hebrews went ALL over the world.

Messianic Steve Collins is one who has done an excellent job, IMHO, of addressing the matter..as seen in Two-House Theology (Reality) defined and defended</DIV>

As said before, I realize there are many variations of Two House Theology - something which is problematic for many. ..and although there is definately a DOMINANT understanding of those within Two House Messianic organizations which has been damaging to Jewish believers/Gentiles, I very much agree there IS a legitimate Two House scenario that exists and that Gentiles (be it within Messianic Judaism or even Traditional Jewish circles) may represent "Ephraim" or the northern kingdom of Israel that separated from Judah during the reign of King Rehoboam, the son of Solomon. ...or at least be part of Ephraim in many circles due to background. However, I greatly differ with those that present what is actually Replacement Theology under the new name of Two House Theology.


For a good critique on the issue - and, for that matter, good counter-arguments on the issue of where many aspects of Two House can be misunderstood:

• Two House Theology and Lost Tribes

On that, I think there are some basic questions which we need to address.

• (1) To what extent are we to feel that the Jews have been scatterred abroad?

• (2) Why is it a negative for others to assume that Gentiles may be related to Hebraic dynamics in multiple ways?

• (3) Does the Possibility of Gentiles being related to Jews in some ways automatically mean that Gentiles have to become as "Jews"---or is it possible that Gentiles can be free in continuning to emulate the aspects of other nations apart of their heritage/story and necessary for their survival/witness, just as it was with Joseph who did cultural contexualization when he lived amongst the Egyptians.....different from his brothers/family?

I think its more than possible what Advocates of "Two House Theory" note when saying that the ten tribes of the Kingdom of Israel have become a multitude of nations since their exile by the Assyrian Empire (740-722 BCE) ( 1 Chronicles 5:26 ) and lengthy migrations before and particularly after the decline of the Parthian Empire, 200-700 CE (also known as the Great Migration Period or Barbarian Invasions ) that occurred during roughly AD 300&#8211;700 in Europe, marking the transition from Late Antiquity to the Early Middle Ages. This could go alongside the reality of the Jews in the Kingdom of Judah who exiled to other places----up to and following Judah's return from their Babylonian Captivity in 537 BCE. One can also add the accounts of those scattered by the Roman diaspora (70 CE) and subsequent Christian and Muslim exiles in later periods.

The 1st century Jewish priest and historian, Josephus, writing near the turn of the 2nd century AD, affirmed that the Jews knew where the House of Israel had been taken captive a thousand years earlier:

. . . the entire body of the people of Israel remained in that country [Media]; wherefore there are but two tribes [Judah and Benjamin] in Asia and Europe subject to the Romans, while the ten tribes are beyond Euphrates till now, and are an immense multitude, and not to be estimated by numbers.

-Antiquities of the Jews, 11.5.2, from The Works of Josephus, translated by Whiston, W., Hendrickson Publishers. 1987. 13th Printing. p 294
​

​

While the multitudinous nature of the exiled ten tribes may be somewhat exaggerated in the opinion of many, it is highly unlikely that Josephus would pen an outright falsehood regarding the Median location of the ten tribes when such a statement could be vociferously denied by his fellow-countrymen if the ten tribes had at any time in the past reunited with the Jews following the Babylonian Captivity.

Of course, it is not necessarily the case that people can know 100% where all of the Lost Tribes are currently...and to a degree, it can become dangerous whenever others not knowing fully as Gentiles will try to claim that they are truly "Of Israel" in the genetic sense. ...and look down upon others anything that's remotely seen as just "Gentile" or not connected with Jewishness.

Granted, like the old children's church song goes, "Father Abraham had many sons....and many songs had Father Abraham...I am one of them and So are you, so lets just praise the Lord."

But I'm glad for others, who are more moderate in their approach to the Two House controversy, choosing to see it as an overlooked element in the eschatological restoration of Israel. For they disregard the speculation and "pseudohistory" from British-Israel and other Christian Identity groups---especially as it concerns those making claims that &#8220;the Jews have been replaced by the church&#8221; or that &#8220;We are Israel now!!!&#8221; in ways akin to what happens with either Replacement Theology or Supersessionism. For many, they are for adhering to Paul's directive not to pay attention to "endless genealogies which promote speculations rather than the divine training that is in faith" (1 Timothy 1:4).

For them, they simply choose to leave scattered Israel as a matter to be determined by God, and prefer instead to recognize all believers as participants in its restoration. It seems to be one of the best ways where others can "agree to disagree" because the Two House teaching is a matter of eschatology, and thus not of a core theological nature.

 

[yedida]

And after all that? Your opinion is?

 

[Gxg (G²)]

And after all that? Your opinion is?

Already gave it (just as you gave yours in agreement with others who did the same). Anyone can catch that on a basic level if really seeking to understand.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Moshe was a prophet and he was speaking to them of the Last Days... of course interpretation as to what point in history (or future) Moshe was referring to is open to debate...


He never heard the term Yehudi/Jew, yet when speaking to them of the Last Days, they are each referred to specifically by tribal name.

Why should others get grief handed to them when they do the same as Moses??

To be fair, I don't think Moses would have had any issue referring to the Hebrew people as Jews as they were when the term was used in later centuries - even though he was also not against calling the tribes by name as Jews were in the early Church/Body of believers and as non-believing Jewish historians like Josephus did. It's all about perspective..

 

[sevengreenbeans]

To be fair, I don't think Moses would have had any issue referring to the Hebrew people as Jews as they were when the term was used in later centuries - even though he was also not against calling the tribes by name as Jews were in the early Church/Body of believers and as non-believing Jewish historians like Josephus did. It's all about perspective..

I wasn't saying he would have an issue, I was just saying that when he referred to the House of Israel, it was by tribe and all 12 are mentioned as to what would befall them in the "Last Days".

But... I understand what you are saying.

 

[sevengreenbeans]

Good points..

For others who say they are automatically Ephraim, it is without substantiation - but it is also not without merit in noting that many Gentiles may have that calling/heart in them for the Jewish people due to possibly having simple roots in those tribes that were scattered in majority amongst Gentile territory. It is an eschatological viewpoint that many Jews have been open to and have noted before - and many have pointed that out before. Israel itself is seen by the Lord as being all of the tribes - the Sons of Israel (formerly Jacob) - and yet when it comes to identifying Israel as a Divided Kingdom, there's still unity to be done. I don't think it's logical to say that Jews must be Judah and Gentiles are Israel since Jew was used universally at one point to describe both the Northern Kingdom and Southern Kingdom..and when Gentiles try to dominate Jewish people, I have an issue. On the same token, it is problematic when other Jews tell other Gentiles (counter to what other Jews have noted) that they could never have any connection to some of the scattered tribes from the Northern Kingdom - or any other Diaspora after that since the Hebrews went ALL over the world.

Yes.

 

[ContraMundum]

Those statements are outright lies. Retract them.

Sorry Pat, but that's exactly what I heard when I suffered through Staley's talk. I realize he coats it in sugar and makes vague and imprecise comments appearing to infer the opposite- but at the end of the day, that's his theology.

 

[pat34lee]

Sorry Pat, but that's exactly what I heard when I suffered through Staley's talk. I realize he coats it in sugar and makes vague and imprecise comments appearing to infer the opposite- but at the end of the day, that's his theology.

That is your biased reaction, not what he said.

the contemporary Jewish people are not the "real Jews"

they are frauds or deluded about their identity etc.

He did not say either thing nor imply them.

This "bottom line" is no different in effect than anything Hitler said.

It is low to compare anyone to Hitler, much less a fellow believer. FOR ANY REASON. The fact that you did says more about you than Staley.

 

[sevengreenbeans]

That is your biased reaction, not what he said. He did not say either thing nor imply them.

 

[macher]

Here's an interesting video about 2 House.

The Two House Theory on Vimeo

 

[yonah_mishael]

Here's an interesting video about 2 House.

The Two House Theory on Vimeo

Interesting how he pronounces Hebrew (poorly) and also how he mentions the rapture, talking about what is certainly going to happen at the end of the world. Thanks for the link. It was an entertaining viewing.