Messianic Mermaid: Of those not fully "human", could they worship Messiah?

[Gxg (G²)]

Originally Posted by INTJ-F

As for mermaids, I believe they existed at one point and became the fish-"god" dagon (that is also worshiped in some churches today - the fish "god" hat is a known symbol of some "churches") Likely these beings were wiped out in the flood or shortly after....Dragons existed too (and may still) and unicorns existed at least into the late 1400's (AD)

Perhaps its possible that certain creatures lived on and simply went underground.

With the possibility of certain creatures existing, some of it seems similar to when others used to tell stories of "man beasts" in Africa and others scoffed, until they realized what the creatures were/discovered gorillas. The same goes for a host of other creatures within cryptozoology..as it concerns how a cryptid (from the Greek "κρύπτω" (krypto) meaning "hide") is a creature or plant whose existence has been suggested but that is unrecognized by a scientific consensus. Many things that were thought to be scientifically impossible later are deemed to be quite realistic when seeing how they were diagnosed.

There was an excellent series on the issue that I'm an avid fan of, known as "Lost Tapes"---and for more, one can go here or here to Lost Tapes : Animal Planet. From the accounts of creatures such as Big Foot, to the Yeti and many others. As it concerns simply seeing the examination of mermaid accounts/depictions throughout history, one may be interested in going here and investigating the following:

• Unknown Explorers - Mermaids

• Mythic Creatures: Dragons, Unicorns & Mermaids | American Museum of Natural History ...

I think that Dragons did indeed exist----and perhaps its the case that they were within the realm of being a kind of Dinosaur. As it concerns their existence today, I would have no reasons to doubt that anymore than it'd be with other creatures that people once thought to not be real.....be it Giant Squids or even things like the ancient fish coelacanth.

The coelacanth is an interesting example, seeing that at one point people considered them to be extinct for a LONG time/ancient....and then when one was discovered in the early 1900's, they realized that the fish itself was actually a DEEP-Sea fish. When they realized where its environment was, they began to find more.

Coelacanth (Latimeria chalumnae) ​

Many other creatures may be within this realm...be it with dragons or types of dinosaurs thought to be extinct. On Dinosaurs, some feel that the creatures went extinct--though I'm open to the fact that they could still be alive, with most dying out in the flood and others surviving still. There's still debate on whether the dinosaurs existed in this age or the age before the flood. From what I can see, in my understanding, I think dinosaurs existed in the age prior to the Flood and after...but in the age after the Flood, the environment may've been radically different and too much for the dinosaurs to really handle---thus causing their extinction. For those believing in a Global Flood, be it with large local floods happening worldwide/collectively covering the Globe or with the entire planet being covered in water, there's a view that the Ice Age happened after the Flood and the Dinosaurs passed away. For a good article on such, one can go online and investigate the following:

• "Dnosaurs and the Biblical Flood" ( )

• Dinosaurs in ancient Cambodian temple — Amazing evidence that dinosaurs and humans coexisted" ()

• "Creation Science Evangelism | The BioLogos Foru" ( )

However, there are others who are of the mindset that Dinosaurs died off long before the Flood ever occurred...and that its not necessary to look for evidence of them in the Bible in order to believe that they existed. For more information, one can go online/investigate the following under the following titles:

• "An Evangelical Dialogue on Evolution" ( )

• "Dinosaurs << The GeoChristian" ( )

• Dinosaur Footprints Part 3 << The GeoChristian" ()

• "Introduction The “Advent” of Scientific Creationism The Origin of Young Earth Creationism..." ()

• "Problems with a Global Flood, 2nd edition - The Talks/Orgin Archive" ( )

One speaker on the issue whom I've always found interesting is Kent Hovind. Very controversial in his views and one who has taken heat from both those supporting Creationism and others against it for how he presents information, though the man had many points that I thought were worth considering. For more info, one can go online/investigate under the following:

• "Creation Seminar 3 - Kent Hovind - Dinosaurs (FULL) - YouTube"

• "Google Video -Part 3 - Dr. Kent Hovind - Dinosaurs and the Bible "

unicorns existed at least into the late 1400's (AD)

Curious as to where you based your theory that unicorns existed into the late 1400's...and to be clear, I'm not saying its likely they never existed (or still don't exist).

Perhaps it'll be the case that we'll actually find them at some point. Then again, seeing how man has treated many other creatures that they do know of----either mistreating them or hunting them down to extinction---its possible that perhaps the Lord has certain creatures hidden for their sake....to keep them a mystery because man would do devestation if he discovered them.


The same goes for mermaids, in the event that perhaps they too alongside other creatures were kept hidden from mankind..

 

[Gxg (G²)]

What do you think dragons and unicorns are? Are you serious? Do you live in another plain of existence?

No offense---but the belief in dragons as real creatures isn't something far-fetched or a concept that many in the world of science have been closed to. Many have considered how multiple cultures around the world have described such creatures in their own folklore and religious stories, just as its the case that stories of the Flood seem to be universal...as they weren't just making things up out of the hat. They must've been seeing something.


If interested, here's something that may be of interest to view:

MonsterQuest - Real Dragons. pt1​

MonsterQuest - Real Dragons. pt2

​

Dragons a Fantasy made Real Documentary Part 1

MonsterQuest Season 2 - Bonus Features (Dragons & Thunderbirds) ​

One of them was on Animal Planet, whereas the other one was on the History Channel. Very interesting to consider..and one can click on the videos/go to YouTube to see the rest of the series in action.​

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Half human-half angel beings cannot be saved. This is why God destroyed them all in the flood and why God instructed Israel to destroy certain cities - including children- while letting other cities continue to exist. Half humans are incapable of accepting Yeshua as Messiah even if they recognize Him to be the Messiah (this is different from unbelievers that are temporarily blinded to the truth)

Forgot to mention earlier that on the issue you brought up about hybrid creatures, the Book of Enoch is interesting since it notes that angels bred with animals at one point just as they did with men. The Watchers--angels charged with guarding mankind---not only modified human DNA during the construction of Nephilim, but that of animals as well, a point the Book of Enoch supports, saying in the seventh chapter ( ) that the fallen angels &#8216;sinned&#8217; against animals as well as humans.&#8221;

Enoch VII 3-6
And all the others together with them took unto themselves wives, and they began to go in unto them and to defile themselves with them, and they taught them charms and enchantments, and the cutting of roots, and made them acquainted with plants. And they became pregnant, and they bare great giants, whose height was three thousand ells: who consumed all the acquisitions of men. And when men could no longer sustain them, the giants turned against them and devoured mankind. And they began to sin against birds, and beasts, and reptiles, and fish, and to devour one another's flesh and drink the blood. Then the Earth laid accusation against the lawless ones.
​

In light of that, it makes sense as to why God would say in Geness 6:7 "And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them." For it wasn't just man that was corrupted..but the natural world as well. Sins against nature occurred, with it being no fault of the animals or those that came as a result....and perhaps the Lord's heart was grieved because of the pain/suffering he saw inflicted upon his creation (including hybrids)---to the point where he felt he had to wipe it out for there to be order again. The enemy would certainly have had no problem with angels mating with animals since He did everything in his power to disgust God and destroy mankind. Truly, angels were leading the way in messing up everything..... ...and it seems that mixing with men wasn't enough. Animal seed was something they wished to mix with the angelic as well..and and for many, the mindset is that the ancient gods of mythology came from mixtures of that nature. It would have made sense to have angels mix with animals and create giant beings with animal traits and yet divine abilities, much like the Egyptian gods or the Aztec gods and many others.

Some are even of the mindset that the animals being bred with angels is what led to the creation of the Dinosaurs.

 

[Lulav]

Hey Easy, have you seen the new Progressive INsurance commercial?

It shows a half man, half white horse (I think it's a horse) working for them. I can't find it listed yet on their commercials page, but I found a tweet on it that it is indeed a Centaur.

Centaur on progressive find the link 6 down on this page.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Hey Easy, have you seen the new Progressive INsurance commercial?

It shows a half man, half white horse (I think it's a horse) working for them. I can't find it listed yet on their commercials page, but I found a tweet on it that it is indeed a Centaur.

Centaur on progressive find the link 6 down on this page.

Saw the commercial, as they had it on YouTube thankfully..

The Bundler - Two in One ​

Didn't really understand where the Centaur came from, but it was interesting. Honestly, "The Chronicles of Narnia" Centaurs seemed to be alot better..

And its interesting how they've already made other commercials/media with the same theme. One of them I remember seeing from "Old Spice" and another was from the Chronicles of Narnia film. Another was from the movie, "Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief"

Old Spice Centaur​

Narnia Battle (part 1) ​

Narnia Battle part 2​

​

&#9733;The Chronicles of Narnia - Prince Caspian [Part 6/11] (HD)&#9733;​

Battle, Narnia, Prince Caspian ​

Meet Chiron - Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief ​

If you do a study on Disney, you'll actually discover how the themes of mythological creatures have been WELL promoted on a host of levels...almost as if people are trying to prepare others for what may occur later. One of the films I'm reminded of came from Disney's Fantasia--as seen here:​

Pastoral Symphony 2/4: Centaur Courtship​

Makes you wonder why the Lord made laws against beastiality, as if it had happened before..and the Lord had to ensure others knew that certain things you're not to entertain. But today, we actually celebrate it. Even in pornagraphy, its now the case that beastilaty between horses and men is depicted frequently...

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Hey Easy, have you seen the new Progressive INsurance commercial?

It shows a half man, half white horse (I think it's a horse) working for them. I can't find it listed yet on their commercials page, but I found a tweet on it that it is indeed a Centaur.

Centaur on progressive find the link 6 down on this page.

I'm assuming the reason you brought up the commercial was for the sake of humor, correct?

 

[simchat_torah]

lots of lol's

 

[Gxg (G²)]

lots of lol's

Glad you got them...

 

[yedida]

Oh, I believe in all the corruptioins and the truth behind genesis 6, as HaShem helped me with this almost 3 decades ago. It also tied in with something I couldn't understand about the move in to Caanan and he showed me how these were connected.

Also it brought me great understanding further down the road when studying Torah and realizing how many commandments and how much of the whole Bible is about separation, and for a reason, which ties in with creation and who the Creator is.

HaHa, that reminds me why back in grade school retorts of 'how do you know' nananananana!

Anyway, more correctly to describe this mythological beast, a mermaid would be half fish half woman, while a half man and half fish would be a merman. (not at all related to Ethel, at least I don't think so!) :o

I'm with you Lulav.
I didn't read all the previous posts and not gonna bother wtih the rest.
Wow do we know there was never such a thing? If we believe the Torah, God created everything to reproduce after its kind, we have no word that he created anything living thing, half human half fish or animal.

Stuff done today? That's not God, that man. If such things were created by man 10s of thousands of years ago, again it was man and not God and the knowledge was lost until it was rediscovered. That's all - it's not something God created according to Genesis.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Who do we know there was never such a thing? If we believe the Torah, God created everything to reproduce after its kind, we have no word that her created anything living thing, half human half fish or animal..

I always say that others need to address the Book of Enoch, as well as the Book of Jasher, if trying to claim the scriptures never make mention of abnormal mixtures occurring. For both mention angel/animal mixes and men making sins against nature for mixing things that NEVER should have been mixed. Steve Collins (who's a Messianic for Two-House Theory) is one I'm very glad for...as he has spoken on the issue in great-depth ...

On the issue, though, just because there's no record of the Lord making anything half-man/half-fish doesn't mean its impossible that there were perhaps creatures that may've seem like that. Some creatures may've looked like they were half human/fish and yet they may've simply been humanoid----having human like features. As said earlier in #20 , this is not something that should be surprising..for many creatures/animals had traits that others today would say only humans have....and the serpent is an excellent example of such. Apes/Chimps are another, seeing how much others often consider them "human like" in their traits/features and physical designs.....so who's to say that there couldn't of been the same with a creatures that resembled mermaids---animals that had high intelligence, human like features...and yet were made for the sea and possessed aquatic abilities?

Stuff done today? That's not God, that man.

Nonetheless, as it is occurring and still does, would it..or would it not..be able to have a soul? There are already debates occurring about this within the Body. One can examine the issue of Test Tube babies that've been created, for example, and others noting how it doesn't seem to be something natural---and therefore, the children that have since been born from such are not truly having a "soul." Same would go with things such as cloning.

If such things were created by man 10s of thousands of years ago, again it was man and not God

But for the offspring created, how would one know whether or not it had a soul? Scripture doesn't say that they couldn't have one---and thus, for those things being made today of the same nature, it needs to be addressed concerning what the response should be. The day a creature is made from a human/animal embryo mix is already here, as they've made them and scientific debate is occurring on the ethics of going further with it. What should the response be? To hate it/demonize it for its existence.....or say that its possible that even they could find salvation?

and the knowledge was lost until it was rediscovered.

Indeed, they've found it again..

That's all - it's not something God created according to Genesis

Indeed, it wasn't the Lord's original intent according to Genesis---but nonetheless, we're past that. What matters is how to deal with it, just as a baby born out of wedlock or incest is not God's intent and yet the baby being alive currently is the more important issue.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

As for mermaids, I believe they existed at one point and became the fish-"god" dagon (that is also worshiped in some churches today - the fish "god" hat is a known symbol of some "churches") Likely these beings were wiped out in the flood or shortly after.

Forgot to ask you from earlier what specific symbol you meant. I'm assuming you're discussing this one here:

If this is the symbol you meant, curious as to how you came to the conclusion that this was somehow connected to Dagon--as that's not what I found in my own research...though there are interesting points to consider when it comes to the subject of aspects of idolatry being seen in many modern practices. On places I investigated:
​

• Dagon the Fish-Godjavascript:void(0)​
• The Pagan Influence of The catholic church ..... Dagon ...​
• Fish Symbol, Emblem, Sign, Image - Christianity, Paganism ...​
  javascript:void(0)
  
  
  
  

 

[yedida]

I always say that others need to address the Book of Enoch, as well as the Book of Jasher, if trying to claim the scriptures never make mention of abnormal mixtures occurring. For both mention angel/animal mixes and men making sins against nature for mixing things that NEVER should have been mixed. Steve Collins (who's a Messianic for Two-House Theory) is one I'm very glad for...as he has spoken on the issue in great-depth ...

On the issue, though, just because there's no record of the Lord making anything half-man/half-fish doesn't mean its impossible that there were perhaps creatures that may've seem like that. Some creatures may've looked like they were half human/fish and yet they may've simply been humanoid----having human like features. As said earlier in #20 , this is not something that should be surprising..for many creatures/animals had traits that others today would say only humans have....and the serpent is an excellent example of such. Apes/Chimps are another, seeing how much others often consider them "human like" in their traits/features and physical designs.....so who's to say that there couldn't of been the same with a creatures that resembled mermaids---animals that had high intelligence, human like features...and yet were made for the sea and possessed aquatic abilities?


Nonetheless, as it is occurring and still does, would it..or would it not..be able to have a soul? There are already debates occurring about this within the Body. One can examine the issue of Test Tube babies that've been created, for example, and others noting how it doesn't seem to be something natural---and therefore, the children that have since been born from such are not truly having a "soul." Same would go with things such as cloning.
But for the offspring created, how would one know whether or not it had a soul? Scripture doesn't say that they couldn't have one---and thus, for those things being made today of the same nature, it needs to be addressed concerning what the response should be. The day a creature is made from a human/animal embryo mix is already here, as they've made them and scientific debate is occurring on the ethics of going further with it. What should the response be? To hate it/demonize it for its existence.....or say that its possible that even they could find salvation?
Indeed, they've found it again..

Indeed, it wasn't the Lord's original intent according to Genesis---but nonetheless, we're past that. What matters is how to deal with it, just as a baby born out of wedlock or incest is not God's intent and yet the baby being alive currently is the more important issue.

Wedlock is not what created the infant, it was the man and the woman that brought on the creation.
We've learned that (at least the animals that I'm aware of) that are mixed are not capable of reproduction to sustain the new "breed" on its own, it continues to require human intervention.
I'm not sure baby M is old enough to be thinking of reproduction or if she is even still alive (Quite frankly, I haven't even really thought about her so not done any research concerning whether or not she has had children in a natural way......brings up an interesting question.)
You bring up an interesting thought about "test tube" infants, but so far, these do come from bonafide female eggs and male sperm and I would imagine that that is what allows a soul to be part of the development, not the "incubator" in which it grows.
And I'm sorry, but from what I understand of the Two House Theory (concerning Judah and Ephraim, it just isn't scriptural (I could have a faulty understanding, that's possible)).

P.S.
I don't usually have a lot of misspelled words but I've a gigantic migraine, on pain meds, can't see well, and am exhausted (not sleepy to go to bed, just exhausted, I guess emotionally worn out). So please pardon the unfixed misspellings.

 

[visionary]

Go rest my friend.. we will forgive the misspellings..

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Wedlock is not what created the infant, it was the man and the woman that brought on the creation.
.

I agree that it was ultimately the man/woman. However, it seems that in Biblical times the way a child was brought about still had consequences. A child created by a man and woman still had limitations if/when they were brought forth in a manner that the Lord didn't approve of..

In example:

Deuteronomy 23:1

Exclusion From the Assembly

1 [a]No one who has been emasculated by crushing or cutting may enter the assembly of the LORD.


2 No one born of a forbidden marriage[b] nor any of their descendants may enter the assembly of the LORD, not even in the tenth generation. 3 No Ammonite or Moabite or any of their descendants may enter the assembly of the LORD, not even in the tenth generation. 4 For they did not come to meet you with bread and water on your way when you came out of Egypt, and they hired Balaam son of Beor from Pethor in Aram Naharaim[c] to pronounce a curse on you. 5 However, the LORD your God would not listen to Balaam but turned the curse into a blessing for you, because the LORD your God loves you. 6 Do not seek a treaty of friendship with them as long as you live.

Leviticus 21:19-21 /Leviticus 21

17 &#8220;Say to Aaron: &#8216;For the generations to come none of your descendants who has a defect may come near to offer the food of his God. 18 No man who has any defect may come near: no man who is blind or lame, disfigured or deformed; 19 no man with a crippled foot or hand, 20 or who is a hunchback or a dwarf, or who has any eye defect, or who has festering or running sores or damaged testicles. 21 No descendant of Aaron the priest who has any defect is to come near to present the food offerings to the LORD. He has a defect; he must not come near to offer the food of his God.
​

It is interesting to see the rules the Lord set up, as they concern the Lord's assembly being a cohort of adult male Israelites (i.e. covenant community functioning as a restricted religious, military, an political association). To be born of illicit union was traditionally understood to mean incest (Genesis 19:30-38, Leviticus 18:6-18, etc)--and those born of such may've had a soul...but the means they were brought forth still had consequences. The same happened for those of a certain ethnic background--as echoed in Ezra 10:10-44, Nehemiah 13:1-3, Nehemiah 13:23-27).

For those who were either dwarfs or hunckbacks by nature, its interesting to consider how they were also forbidden from certain actions...even though they didn't ask to be in their positions.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

We've learned that (at least the animals that I'm aware of) that are mixed are not capable of reproduction to sustain the new "breed" on its own, it continues to require human intervention. .

I think the issue of animals breeding naturally would be something that would not apply as well to what occurred in Genesis 6. For the angels and mankind are two differing species altogether---yet they somehow found a way to mate and produce mixed offspring....and those offspring managed to find a way to continue. The same goes for the angels listed in scriptures that mated with animals/sinned against them. With mixed species, perhaps it was something where there was human intervention (or angelic intervention) that was required to keep things going. There was an excellent discussion on the issue that occurred elsewhere---on the subject of human intervention and genetic manipulation with foods we eat today... when it comes to many of the things we see today. To see the thread, one can go to Did I Sin According to the Law?

Leviticus 19:19 ​

You shall keep My statutes. You shall not let your livestock breed with another kind. You shall not sow your field with mixed seed. Nor shall a garment of mixed linen and wool come upon you.​

Deuteronomy 22:9
You shall not sow your vineyard with different kinds of seed, lest the yield of the seed which you have sown and the fruit of your vineyard be defiled.​

Some feel today that the mixing / continuation of human intervention is necessary for the survival of man----even though others feel that its occurring previously seemed to do damage. On the issue of whether or not it'd be a sin, as said best in the article entitled "Jewish Perspectives on Genetic Engineering >> JEWISH ENVIRONMENTAL PERSPECTIVES" ( )

The biblical prohibition of kilayim, which forbids the mixing of different species of animals and plants, appears in Leviticus 19:19: "You shall keep my statutes. You shall not let your animal mate with a different species; you shall not sow your field with different species of plants." The prohibition of kilayim, in general, applies only to the act of mixing different species and does not forbid deriving benefit from the products of this mixing (except for the prohibition on intermixing grapes with certain plant species where it is forbidden to derive benefit from the product as well). Furthermore, according to almost all rabbinic authorities, the prohibition of kilayim applies only to Jews and not to non-Jews.

....Judaism posits that the natural world, as created by G-d, started out as intrinsically good. Man was given the mandate to perfect himself and the natural world as a partner with the Creator. To fulfill his task, man may manipulate the creation, but only within certain limitations -- these being defined by the natural and religious laws given by the Creator. The defining ethical criteria is that all of the legally permitted actions must bring the world closer to perfection and not further away. Genetic engineering is still a new technology with great promise and, some claim, significant risk to mankind. For the sake of preserving and enhancing human life, genetic engineering is generally encouraged by Jewish authorities, although there are reservations, and there are ethical issues in the genetic engineering of humans which are not covered in this article. Aside from situations where human life or health is at stake, the majority of rabbinic authorities rule that most forms of genetic engineering on animals and plants do not violate Jewish religious laws.
​

I'm glad science is always evolving/new things are learned, especially concerning the rearranging of the genetic material between populations or races often called hybridization. As I'm quite a geek when it comes to those issues, Loved learnig about it in Biology Class and College. And good old Wikipedia always has good info on the issue concerning the issue of Hybridd , which plays an important role in evolutionary biology since, despite how many hybrids are disadvantaged as a result of genetic incompatibility, the fittest survive, regardless of species boundaries. Some animals that are mixed have been able to breed/reproduce...

 

[Gxg (G²)]

We've learned that (at least the animals that I'm aware of) that are mixed are not capable of reproduction to sustain the new "breed" on its own, it continues to require human intervention.

I'm not sure baby M is old enough to be thinking of reproduction or if she is even still alive (Quite frankly, I haven't even really thought about her so not done any research concerning whether or not she has had children in a natural way......brings up an interesting question.).

I think if something was at the stage of a child, it wouldn't naturally have thoughts of reproduction---but it would grow into the point where that would be on the mind. Puberty hits everyone at some point---but until it reaches that point, I would wonder what kind of training would be going on with it. For the human/animal hybrid embryos they've made, I truly do wonder...and feel sorry for their being created. For more on the issue.

Gordon Brown Backs Human-Animal Hybrids
British Scientists GIVEN GO-AHEAD for Human/Cow Hybrid
​

Outside of that, one can go here/check out where it has been discussed by other scientist:

Lord Winston - A successful Sciencewise-ERC project
PROJECT ZEMEZYZ
The Transhuman World Revolution
BBC UK to Create Human Animal Hybrids
Technocalyps pt.9 - Human Cloning & The Digital Messiah
TransHumanism & Genetic Manipulation ~ Tom Horn & Steve Quayle​

You bring up an interesting thought about "test tube" infants, but so far, these do come from bonafide female eggs and male sperm and I would imagine that that is what allows a soul to be part of the development, not the "incubator" in which it grows.

I still wonder how where it is proven that its about having male sperm and female egg that makes something have a soul. If that's the case, that means clones of people are "soulless" because they weren't made naturally.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I'm sorry, but from what I understand of the Two House Theory (concerning Judah and Ephraim, it just isn't scriptural (I could have a faulty understanding, that's possible)).

Everyone's different...and for some people, the issue of Two House Theory is something that will never be accepted at any point. Concerning the man I referenced earlier, I know that Steve Collins actually wrote a response to Boaz from "First Fruits of Zion" when it came to his disagreement with Two House Theory.


It was very interesting....in response to an article that Brother Boaz had written entitled Conversation with an Ephraimite

I was glad tor the response given by Boaz on the issue, as I think he had alot of solid points on understanding where others are coming from. I have always had so much respect for First Fruits of Zion. For they one of the most balanced Messianic Ministries around. One of the best!!

And thankfully, discussion is occurring on the subject of what's essentially an eschatological viewpoint. As I'm not for a wholesale endorsement of all things with Two House Theory just as I don't endorse One Law fully, it may be a bit different for me in my level of comfortability with it all.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Go rest my friend.. we will forgive the misspellings..

Nothing to forgive, from where I stand. Everyone mispells

 

[yedida]

Everyone's different...and for some people, the issue of Two House Theory is something that will never be accepted at any point. Concerning the man I referenced earlier, I know that Steve Collins actually wrote a response to Boaz from "First Fruits of Zion" when it came to his disagreement with Two House Theory. It was very interesting....and thankfully, discussion is occurring on the subject of what's essentially an eschatological viewpoint. As I'm not for a wholesale endorsement of all things with Two House Theory just as I don't endorse One Law fully, it may be a bit different for me in my level of comfortability with it all.

my understanding of it is this in a nutshell: that no gentile has ever come to believe in the God of Israel. Everyone that is not of "Jewish" descent belongs to one of the "10 lost tribes." But this is not scriptural because we have to deal with all the people who came out of Egypt with the Israelites that stayed and "converted" (even tho at that point there was no "formal" coversion other than circumcision (that I'm aware of)). It doesn't take into consideration Rahab, or Ruth or others.

I'm not discounting the possibility that very many gentiles who have an unusual "heart for Israel" don't have Israeli blood flowing in them from thousands of years ago, but that's not a requirement nor a guarantee.

Just my understanding of the Ephraim theology.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

my understanding of it is this in a nutshell: that no gentile has ever come to believe in the God of Israel. Everyone that is not of "Jewish" descent belongs to one of the "10 lost tribes."

Definately not what many for Two House Theory teach. I disagree with those who do advocate such---and on w I've shared more on the issue in threads I made for in-depth discussion on the point such as Native American Jews: What do Messianics Think of Torah in the New World? (as seen here in #3 and #4 ) and Messianic Muslims/Seekers of Isa meet Messianic Jews/Students of Yeshua--Is it Real?



For more on what those supporative of "Two-House Theory" that're healthy, John McKee is someone whom I think is very balanced in his approach. And for more, one can go online/look up a ministry under the name of "TNN Online: Two-House News Network - The Two Houses of Israel - The Two-House Teaching in Proper Perspective" ...under the section entitled "Resoration of Israel" section and their "FAQ" section on Two House Theory. There's also an excellent article online that went in-depth in dealing with the issue, as seen if one should go online/look up the article entitled "The "Ephraimite Error" - TNN Online" .


On their articles:

• Anti-Semitism in the Two-House Movement (PDF)​
• Chanukah for the Two Houses of Israel (PDF)​
• Christian Problems With the Two Houses of Israel (PDF)​
• Contemporary Options Concerning "Israel" (PDF)​
• Dispensationalism: Root Cause of Antinomianism (PDF)​
• Ephraimite Error: Critical Errors, The (PDF)​
• Ezekiel 37:15-28: Have the Two Sticks Been Reunited? (PDF)​
• Four Gateways of Messianic, Two-House Theology, The (PDF)​
• Proper Protocol, The (PDF)​
• Purim for the Two Houses of Israel (PDF)​
• Revisiting the Two-House Teaching (PDF)​
• Seventieth Week of Whom?, The (PDF)​
• The Two Houses of Israel: Biblical Passages That Deserve Our Attention (PDF)​
• Two Houses of Israel in the End-Times, The (PDF)​
• Two-House Teaching in Proper Perspective, The (PDF)​
• What About "the Gentiles"? (PDF)​
• What Is the Two-House Teaching? (PDF)​
• When Did "the Church" Begin? (PDF)​
• Who Restores the Kingdom? (PDF)​
• Why Messianic Judaism Does Not Want to Address the Two-House Teaching (PDF)​

Where I stand on the issue, Gentiles have come to follow the Lord even outside of Israel...but many of the Israelites who were exiled in II Kings 17 were scattered amongst Gentile nations and have developed ever since, with the history and memory gone...but still having an Israelite prescence. In my view, the basis of acceptance with the Lord isn't based upon being an Israelite---but many may have aspects of it in their background and not know of it.

But this is not scriptural because we have to deal with all the people who came out of Egypt with the Israelites that stayed and "converted" (even tho at that point there was no "formal" coversion other than circumcision (that I'm aware of)). It doesn't take into consideration Rahab, or Ruth or others.

I agree--and for those advocating otherwise, they're not of the TWO House mindset that I support.

I'm not discounting the possibility that very many gentiles who have an unusual "heart for Israel" don't have Israeli blood flowing in them from thousands of years ago, but that's not a requirement nor a guarantee.

Just my understanding of the Ephraim theology.

Agree....for having an Israelite background was not necessary for having a relationship with the Lord.

Of course, in line with the OP, I'd also extend that to any/every creature in existence that was made---as they all have a choice, from a man to a mermaid to a minatour (if they exist), nephilim, angels, and a host of other things.....including genetically engineered creatures today that're currently being made and test tube babies..

Whenever one chooses wickedness is when they keep themselves apart from the Lord, just as it was the case that those who claimed to be "Israel" were often discounted by the prophets and the Lord...regardless of their ethnic/spiritual heritage...because of their actions, whereas others who may've not had as much were accepted by the Lord