Michael Rood ~ A Rood Awakening

[Shimshon]

Have any of you ever heard of this man and his ministry? I have considered attending his conference tonight and was just wondering. I have not heard of him but have read his site.

http://www.michaelrood.com/index.htm

 

[yod]

I have heard nothing good about him. That's all I can say

 

[Wags]

I have watched several of his videos - definately an interesting guy. At least a couple of his videos are on a website that mjterry posted a few days ago.

 

[shmuel]

Because I know some Hebrew, several years ago an individual asked me to look at Rood's teaching on Zecharyah . It was Rood's teaching that Zech 5 was about ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads. His basis was that the word for woman (alef-shin-he) could with an alternate pointing mean an offering made by fire. Unfortunately for Rood's teaching "'ishah" has an irregular plural that appears in the next verse. Rood simply ignored the spelling which went counter to his teaching. Of course, there was also the gender problem in vs 7. 'Ishah is feminine but 'isheh is masculine. The verb is "yoshevet", a feminine form.

I personally would stay away from anything connected with Rood.

S

 

[Sephania]

Did you go?

 

[Shimshon]

Did you go?

Ken, It was packed, standing room only. There was a peice of the Hebrew Mattityahu sefer displayed. The man is quite charismatic. But arn't most Yehudi in one way or another? This is my only hesitation with him. And Shmuel, todah for the input. Yes I noticed his book on the coming destruction as prophecied by Zecharyah. Admitedly I have not studied all of this mans witness and testimony. And again todah for alerting me to such a discrepancy. Worthy of a notice.

Overall though I would say Zayit, you would like him. His witness is one of a Cohen. The testimony we witness as well. Come out of her all you people for the time has come to judge babylon. Hashiveinu Adonai eilecha...oh all right I posted this one already this morning

His foundation Ya'akov Levi seems to have a heart to expose western theology and the Rabbinical theology for what they are. He was touring with Nechemia Gordon, born from a long line of Rabbim, turned Karaite. So he basicly addresses the Church Doctrine and Nechemia addresses Talmud. Though I did not get to see him because he had to go back to Yisrael. Michael has also opened a "Messianic Tour" in Yisrael. Says he has an in with many places that mainstream Christian organizations don't and thus can enter into places where they can't. And he also said he avoids the "tourist" stops. Like the Mikvah spot of Yochanan. They go up the river a little away from the gift shop.

I have to admit, he 'promotes' his wears like any other I've seen. But he qualifies himself by is Foundation status. The fact that any money given to the Foundation is for Foundation purposes only. He can't touch it. And so he is allowed to speak his heart. If he were a "church" or "ministry" he would be required to sign a 501c and be gaged from speaking his heart, and the Truth. Like most "religious" organizations today. So he sells his books and videos to stay alive. His only "apparent" purpose seems to be the Truth Zayit. So, I enjoyed last night. It was nice to see another cohen in the midst. Yet, the place had alot of Hebrew Christians , though it was uplifting to know that they were heading the call to the Truth.

 

[insaneinthebrain]

I wanted to go see him when he was here, mostly to hear Nehemia Gordon, but I found out about it far too late to arrange for the evening off.

 

[shmuel]

From Rood's website:

Ancient Hebrew manuscripts

which were secreted away for centuries have recently been unearthed . One of the greatest of these treasures is the ancient Hebrew text of the book of Matthew. These texts solved problems that had grieved scholars for centuries. Nineteen hundred years ago, "Church Fathers" such as Origen and Jerome testified that "Matthew wrote his gospel in the Hebrew language" and that it was later translated into other languages. The early Hebrew copies apparently vanished in the fires of Roman religious persecution. But, unknown to the Christian world, the Hebrew text of Matthew's Gospel was preserved by Jewish scholars who kept it safely hidden in covert archives. Numbers of Hebrew manuscripts of Matthew's account have survived centuries of exile and are now being brought to light. These ancient manuscripts of the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew are the "Dead Sea Scrolls of the New Testament". Nehemia feels that, in many ways, these texts of Matthew are actually more important than the Dead Sea Scrolls themselves.

However, it has been demonstrated that Shem Tov Matthew is a medieval translation from Latin Gospel Harmonies. Medieval may be old, but its not old enough.

S

 

[Shimshon]

From Rood's website:



However, it has been demonstrated that Shem Tov Matthew is a medieval translation from Latin Gospel Harmonies. Medieval may be old, but its not old enough.

S

Yes, and as you should know, with many things, they can be demonstrated "incorrectly".

It has also been demonstrated that Shem Tov's Matthew was written originally in Hebrew.

"Matthew collected the oracles (ta logia) in the Hebrew language, and each interpreted them as best he could."

"Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and laying the foundations of the church."

"As having learnt by tradition concerning the four Gospels, which alone are unquestionable in the Church of God under heaven, that first was written according to Matthew, who was once a tax collector but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, who published it for those who from Judaism came to believe, composed as it was in the Hebrew language."

It's been argued that Shem Tov did not create the Hebrew Matthew himself (e.g., translating from the Latin) but had an existing Hebrew text to work with-as he sometimes comments on its scribal errors and strange readings. Matt 11:11 is a good case in point, as the Greek, Latin, and all other Matthean witnesses contain the qualifying phrase: "nonetheless, the least in the Kingdom of heaven is greater than he." Shem Tov comments on the unique Hebrew version he is following, and how its lack of such a phrase implies that John is greater than Jesus. If he were translating from the Latin, Greek, or any other version such a comment would be meaningless.

In short, there are Hebrew nuancies that can not be explained if the document were to be originated in Latin.

This is only one small case.

 

[shmuel]

It has also been demonstrated that Shem Tov's Matthew was written originally in Hebrew.

LOL No such thing has been demonstrated. All that has been demonstrated is that some "Fathers" believed that a Hebrew Matthew existed. Maybe it did. But the quotes from the "Fathers" do not in anyway whatsoever prove that the Shem Tov Matthew is what they were talking about.

It's been argued that Shem Tov did not create the Hebrew Matthew himself (e.g., translating from the Latin) but had an existing Hebrew text to work with-as he sometimes comments on its scribal errors and strange readings. Matt 11:11 is a good case in point, as the Greek, Latin, and all other Matthean witnesses contain the qualifying phrase: "nonetheless, the least in the Kingdom of heaven is greater than he." Shem Tov comments on the unique Hebrew version he is following, and how its lack of such a phrase implies that John is greater than Jesus. If he were translating from the Latin, Greek, or any other version such a comment would be meaningless.

In short, there are Hebrew nuancies that can not be explained if the document were to be originated in Latin.

The quote could have come from a source with which Shem Tov was not familiar. As with other old manuscripts there were various families that developed. Or the original translator could have introduced the change. After all, if translators never introduced changes, all copies would be identical, and there would be no families of documents.

Your argument is an argument from silence, which most people understand as a weak argument indeed.

BTW what is the Hebrew nuance? It's just a missing phrase that could be missing in any language.

S

 

[shmuel]

William Petersen has done a significant analysis of the Shem Tov Matthew. The following paragrahs are particularly relevant here:

http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/vol03/Petersen1998a.html#par65


65. First, it ignores the dictum that arguments from omissions are intrinsically weak. This is because omissions can arise from any number of reasons other than an omission in the exemplar: from fatigue, parablepsis, lacunae, homoioarcton, homoioteleuton, shortage of materials, etc.; none of these requires an omission in the archetype. In short, an omission marks a lack of evidence. (On when and with what restrictions omissions might be used in textual arguments, see Petersen 1985: 108-109.)

66. Second, and even more to the point, Howard appears oblivious to the fact that Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew is, by and large, an abbreviating text. He never comments upon this distinctive and patently obvious feature of its text (see supra, sec. 1.2.2). Even under the best of circumstances, arguments from an omission are highly suspect; in a case such as this, where the document itself is (generally speaking) an abbreviating text, venturing an argument from an omission is absurd.

S

 

[Sephania]

Todah Shimshon for your brief on the evening sounds interesting.
I am just wondering if he claimed this:

The man is quite charismatic. But arn't most Yehudi in one way or another?

I read somewhere that he isn't Jewish.

This subject has been discussed here before and I went back looking because I thought that name sounded familiar and I had some hesitation about it. S'muel has basically said what he said here #13 if you want to check it out.

http://www.christianforums.com/t708907-is-it-yeshua-or-yashua.html&page=2

Here is some discussion from this forum back a few years ago and some websites they claim give the 'dirt' on him. Michael John Rood

Here's another thread you might find of interest. http://www.christianforums.com/t28913 Sounds like I would like Shimon, you too I believe but by his profile he hasn't been around in awhile, shame.

 

[Shimshon]

No Zayit, I was the one who said this. Thanks for the threads though. From what I can see most who oppose his testimony are those who approve of Modern Christianity and see it as ordained by Adonai. Which by the statement of faith in the MJAA would include them. Why would those who adhere to Church doctrines and Rabbinical teachings agree with him? As far as his prophetic accuracy and calendar issues go. I'm just starting to study them. So, I'll reserve "MY" opinion till I gather all information available and then I'll ask my Abba. He never leads me wrong. The calendar issue strikes me as a bit valid. The P'rushim have been twisting the calendar for awhile. Changing the Mo'edim, adding pagan god names (Tammuz). Changing observances (rosh chodesh) and basicly have been changing Adonai's appointed times for a long time. So to use them in accordance with prophecy to me would lead to exactly what happend. A prediction based on Rabbinical Mo'edim as opposed to Adonai's Mo'edim. He was off. Because the P'rushim have skewed the calendar. To me this makes sense. As far as the "doomsday" prophecies. I believe in them (Adonai's not michaels) but I am weary of ANY man who claims revelation unique to himself. Again, i've not read his prophetic visions yet. The Ruach will discern for myself. Todah.

 

[Shimshon]

BTW, I don't bite on claims that someone is/isn't Jewish. This is the work of Ha Satan. Now if he knows he truely isn't and is claiming to be. This would be different. But naysayers claiming goyish because of this or that. Well you should know how I feel about that. Having been told i'm not Jewish for most of my born life.

 

[Blueskies]

I've been familiar with Michael Rood for a number of years, and I can find very little fault with his knowledge of Jewish history. Certainly he has made a few mistakes (one or two of them stating dates for his predictions) but he is always willing to admit he is wrong and be humble. I admire that he is not afraid to put what he has found to public scrutiny and receive correction if it comes.

Overall, I enjoy his speaking and take the time to read up on what he says. If nothing else, he causes me to think, which can't be bad.

 

[Hedgehog]

How do we find his tour info on that website? The link where it says to go to see his schedule doesnt give any schedule ( for me anyways) . Im curious to see if he is coming to Minneapolis or St. Paul.

 

[Child of the Most High]

Todah Shimshon for your brief on the evening sounds interesting.
I am just wondering if he claimed this:


I read somewhere that he isn't Jewish.

This subject has been discussed here before and I went back looking because I thought that name sounded familiar and I had some hesitation about it. S'muel has basically said what he said here #13 if you want to check it out.

http://www.christianforums.com/t708907-is-it-yeshua-or-yashua.html&page=2

Here is some discussion from this forum back a few years ago and some websites they claim give the 'dirt' on him. Michael John Rood

Here's another thread you might find of interest. http://www.christianforums.com/t28913 Sounds like I would like Shimon, you too I believe but by his profile he hasn't been around in awhile, shame.

At that same site that you referenced, there was an updated article about his tour.

http://www.seekgod.ca/roodnewsflash.htm

If even half of the stuff reported is accurate, why would anyone go and see this guy?

 

[Child of the Most High]

Ken, It was packed, standing room only.

What city did you see him in and how many people were there?

 

[yod]

I saw him today at a conference in California and asked someone to tell me about him.

He's not jewish...but dresses like the High Priest everywhere he goes. He does not believe in the deity of Yeshua. He set a date for the return of Messiah and said he'd step down from ministry if it didn't happen. That was years ago and he never even slowed down.

Basically, he goes around teaching gentiles how to be unsaved jews.

 

[Child of the Most High]

I saw him today at a conference in California and asked someone to tell me about him.

He's not jewish...but dresses like the High Priest everywhere he goes. He does not believe in the deity of Yeshua. He set a date for the return of Messiah and said he'd step down from ministry if it didn't happen. That was years ago and he never even slowed down.

Basically, he goes around teaching gentiles how to be unsaved jews.

Yod,

That is a sobering report. Did you see him at the NRB? If this is true, what is he doing at a convention that is supposed to be proclaiming the name of Yeshua? Was it someone from the convention that gave you this report? It seems like his behavior would be a stumbling block to the unsaved Jews.