Messianic Judaism - not Rabbinical Judaism [Archive]

Devasha

6th August 2005, 02:15 PM

I don't have any problem with Oral Torah that enhances or is in harmony with written Torah. What I reject is the takanot and ma'asim which are in conflict with Torah and/or make Torah of no effect.

Matthew 23:2-3

Actually what this verse originally said is to do as he, i.e. Moses, says. But even with the mistranslation of the pronoun, it is clear and consistent with the rest of what Yeshua taught that it is what the Pharisees say when they are sitting in Moses' seat, i.e. reading Torah, that we are to observe and do.

In my home for Erev Shabbat, I follow several traditions (such as candlelighting and handwashing, etc.) which are not included in Torah for keeping/setting apart the Sabbath, but I don't do these things because of rabbinical command. I do them because they provide good symbolism and set the day apart from the others and they do not clash with nor negate Torah.

Why are you assuming either of us are "reject[ing] what [we] have never read"? How could you possibly know what either of us has ever read or never read? :scratch:

One thing in particular that I have read and specifically reject is the sages' and rabbis' claim to absolute authority here on earth such that even YHVH Himself is subject to it. Although that rejection could probably be based upon many Scriptures, let's start with:

Exodus 20:1-3
1 Corinthians 11:3
Matthew 23:8-10

insaneinthebrain

7th August 2005, 08:59 AM

Actually what this verse originally said is to do as he, i.e. Moses, says. But even with the mistranslation of the pronoun, it is clear and consistent with the rest of what Yeshua taught that it is what the Pharisees say when they are sitting in Moses' seat, i.e. reading Torah, that we are to observe and do.
The scholarship supporting this is sketchy at best.

Charles YTK

7th August 2005, 10:40 AM

The scholarship supporting this is sketchy at best.

Sketchy yes, but not an outright fabrication as far as we can tell like some other additions like Mark 7:17.

But here is the thing, if we line up all the things that Yeshua says to or about the Pharisees condemning their doctrines, making Torah of no effect, making the Toah a burden no man could carry, teaching as doctrine the commandments of men, and then add to them, " Whatever they (the Pharisees) say, do." it does not fit. The Shem Tob does fit perfectly and it is the Shem Tob understanding that we see the apostles following after the Lord's ascention. They continually teach the followers not to do what the Pharisees tell them but to follow the Torah and the spirit of Messiah.

Charles

Higher Truth

7th August 2005, 01:07 PM

The scholarship supporting this is sketchy at best.

Correct you are brain (obviously not insane). Many of the Shem Tov copies do not even agree with each other on this.(he/they)

Bracy

7th August 2005, 01:17 PM

The scholarship supporting this is sketchy at best.

Sketchy? You think so?

As I see it, it is the only logical explanation. Do you really think that Yeshua was telling us to obey all of commandments of the Rabbis -- the very same commandments that He said "transgressed the commandments of Elohim" and made it of "none effect?"

Matthew 15:3: But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

Matthew 15:6: And honour not his father or his mother, [he shall be free]. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.

As I see it, there are only three possible ways to interpret this passage:

(1) Yeshua commanded us to "do and observe" all that the Pharisees tell us -- even those commandments which transgress the word of Elohim,

(2) We are to "do and observe" all that the Pharisees tell us except for that which Yeshua contradicted,

or (3) there is an error in translation.

I think option 3 is the most likely.

I mean, seriously, if you think that Yeshua was telling us that we must observe all that the Pharisees command us, then you must also agree that we must obey the following commandments of the Rabbis, since we have no record of Yeshua directly contradicting these:

* A law (takanah, “enactment”) forbidding a wife from becoming unattractive to her husband (Baba Kama 82a).

* A law (gezerah, “decree”) against covering up food with material (on Shabbat) that generates heat (m.Shabbat 3:1). Shabbat laws (gezerot, “decrees”) against swimming lest one repair a swimming vessel or make a swimming bladder; a preventative measure against clapping the hands, slapping the thighs, or dancing, lest he repair musical instruments (Beitzah 36b).

* A law (gezerah, “decree”) that one must give his purse or bag to a Gentile if Erev Shabbat falls upon him while on the road (Shabbat 17b).

* Laws (takanot, “enactments”) supposedly by Ezra that clothes be washed on Thursday; that garlic be eaten on Friday; that a woman must comb her hair before performing immersion (Baba Kama 82a).

* A law (gezerah, “decree”) that the courtyard of a Gentile has the same status as that of a cattle pen (Eruvin 62b).

And these are just a small sampling of the many laws created by the Rabbis.

visionary

7th August 2005, 02:26 PM

What about the seat of Moses?

Matthew 23:1 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, 2 Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: 3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

Bracy

7th August 2005, 02:45 PM

What about the seat of Moses?

According to Yeshua, the Pharisees seated themselves in the seat of Moses. He never says that HaShem seated them there:

Matthew 23:1-3: Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples, saying: "The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say {things} and do not do {them.}

As I see it, Shem Tov's Hebrew Matthew offers the only logical explanation for this verse:

Matthew 23:2: Now all that HE tells you, keep and do. And their takanot (reforms) and ma'asim (precedents) do not do; for they say and do not do.

In other words, the Pharisees sit in the seat of Moses, so we are to do what Moses tells us, not the Pharisees.

After all, does it make sense that Yeshua would command us to obey the Pharisees whom He said do not hear Moses (Luke 16:31), do not believe Moses (John 5:46), and do not obey the Law of Moses (John 7:19)?

Luke 16:31: And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

John 5:46: For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.

John 7:19: Did not Moses give you the law, and [yet] none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill me?

visionary

7th August 2005, 05:07 PM

Good explanation... just wanted to see what you would do with the verse.

ShirChadash

7th August 2005, 06:14 PM

[/font]

According to Yeshua, the Pharisees seated themselves in the seat of Moses. He never says that HaShem seated them there If you accept that rendering of the passage.

Bracy

7th August 2005, 06:29 PM

If you accept that rendering of the passage.

I readily admit that I am no Greek scholar, but as I understand it, that is how it appears to me in the Greek. The verb tense used in this verse is usually rendered as past tense, as Strong’s explains below:

The aorist tense is characterized by its emphasis on punctiliar
action; that is, the concept of the verb is considered without
regard for past, present, or future time. There is no
direct or clear English equivalent for this tense, though it is
generally rendered as a simple past tense in most translations.

The events described by the aorist tense are classified into a
number of categories by grammarians. The most common of these
include a view of the action as having begun from a certain
point ("inceptive aorist"), or having ended at a certain point
("cumulative aorist"), or merely existing at a certain point
("punctiliar aorist"). The categorization of other cases can
be found in Greek reference grammars.

The English reader need not concern himself with most of these
finer points concerning the aorist tense, since in most cases
they cannot be rendered accurately in English translation,
being fine points of Greek exegesis only. The common practice
of rendering an aorist by a simple English past tense should
suffice in most cases.

Bananna

7th August 2005, 08:21 PM

I don't have any problem with Oral Torah that enhances or is in harmony with written Torah. What I reject is the takanot and ma'asim which are in conflict with Torah and/or make Torah of no effect.

Matthew 23:2-32 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: 3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

Actually what this verse originally said is to do as he, i.e. Moses, says. But even with the mistranslation of the pronoun, it is clear and consistent with the rest of what Yeshua taught that it is what the Pharisees say when they are sitting in Moses' seat, i.e. reading Torah, that we are to observe and do.

In my home for Erev Shabbat, I follow several traditions (such as candlelighting and handwashing, etc.) which are not included in Torah for keeping/setting apart the Sabbath, but I don't do these things because of rabbinical command. I do them because they provide good symbolism and set the day apart from the others and they do not clash with nor negate Torah.

Why are you assuming either of us are "reject[ing] what [we] have never read"? How could you possibly know what either of us has ever read or never read? :scratch:

One thing in particular that I have read and specifically reject is the sages' and rabbis' claim to absolute authority here on earth such that even YHVH Himself is subject to it. Although that rejection could probably be based upon many Scriptures, let's start with:

Exodus 20:1-31 And God spake all these words, saying, 2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. 3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
1 Corinthians 11:3But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
Matthew 23:8-108 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. 9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. 10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.

Yes Dev,
I was talking to the original poster of the thread Gabriele, not to you sorry for the confusion. I also presume that she has at least read some of the oral law to make a judgement on it. That is why I asked, which she objects to. Obviously some of it was worth Yehoshuah's observance.

Interesting point about sitting in Moses' Seat.

Bananna

Steve Petersen

7th August 2005, 08:51 PM

Tim Hegg addresses the Shem Tov: www.torahresource.com

Bracy

8th August 2005, 12:40 AM

Tim Hegg addresses the Shem Tov: www.torahresource.com (http://www.torahresource.com/)

I've read Tim Hegg's articles regarding Shem Tov's Hebrew Matthew, and personally I've found his arguments to be extremely weak. I'm very surprised he has taken the position he has chosen since I find Gordon's conclusion to be the only logical one to take. In fact, Hegg's position appears to directly contradict his own book, The Letter Writer in which he states his position on the four prohibitions given by the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15.

I've enjoyed Tim Hegg's works in the past, but lately he has taken what I consider to be a very disturbing direction of late. Not only does Tim object to Gordon's conclusions regarding Shem Tov's Hebrew Matthew, he has also taken a position contrary to the Two House teaching regarding the Restoration of both Israel and Judah to the Promised Land. I can only guess that Gordon has touched on a sacred cow of Hegg's that he is not yet willing to give up.

I also find it curious that Hegg challenges Gordon's position regarding Shem Tov's Hebrew Matthew, while at the same time he apparently supports the du Tillet Hebrew Matthew and even offers a copy for viewing on his website:

Thus, the du Tillet remains before us as an historical document of Matthew's Gospel. We are therefore offered the opportunity to study it and find in its pages the valuable information it may contain in terms of the text of the Gospel, and perhaps even its connection to a very early strata of the textual transmission of the biblical text itself.

http://www.torahresource.com/DuTillet/HistOfDuTillet.pdf

That Hegg would make such a statement as the above with regard to du Tillet Hebrew Matthew while attacking Shem Tov's Hebrew Matthew as he has, forces me to view his position with a skeptical eye. Would his position differ if Gordon was a Messianic rather than a Karaite? I'm left to wonder if Hegg has really thought out his position and its implications.

Link to copy of du Tillet Hebrew Matthew provided by Tim Hegg:

http://www.torahresource.com/DuTillet/DuTillet1004.pdf

Charles YTK

8th August 2005, 07:26 AM

Bracy,
I too have found this move a bit odd. I thought it was perhaps becasue Tim has more confidence in the Du Tillet and wants to demphasize anything associated with Shem Tob.

Overall in FFOZ there is a recent move to keep everything they say as impecable as possible, which is good, and to be careful to avoid anything that speaks too strongly against any other group especailly the greater christian camp. I think this is part of the outreach program they are working and being invited to speak in this venue. Maybe this change in policy somehow plays into this opinion of Tims as you say because of Gordons alignment.

Yet I still feel that the FFOZ organization is the top of the hill, and Tims, Daniels and Michaels works some of the best out there.

I down loaded the Du Tillet tiles but have not been able to use them yet. Have you read the passage in question to see how it compares?

Mikhail

8th August 2005, 08:03 AM

I've read Tim Hegg's articles regarding Shem Tov's Hebrew Matthew, and personally I've found his arguments to be extremely weak. I'm very surprised he has taken the position he has chosen since I find Gordon's conclusion to be the only logical one to take. In fact, Hegg's position appears to directly contradict his own book, The Letter Writer in which he states his position on the four prohibitions given by the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15.

I've enjoyed Tim Hegg's works in the past, but lately he has taken what I consider to be a very disturbing direction of late. Not only does Tim object to Gordon's conclusions regarding Shem Tov's Hebrew Matthew, he has also taken a position contrary to the Two House teaching regarding the Restoration of both Israel and Judah to the Promised Land. I can only guess that Gordon has touched on a sacred cow of Hegg's that he is not yet willing to give up.

As a relative new comer to a Torah based view of the faith less than 12 months. I have found that Tim Hegg seems to be quite disagreeable with just about everyone and seems to disagree with all insundry I wonder if part of it is to keep adding content to the site and also whether he wants to be seen to not be too radical so that some will perhaps take other things that are dear to his heart more seriously hence distancing himself from those that see the Restoration of the house of Israel I also find that he adhere's very much to a more western roman view of marriage as well.
Shalom,
Mikhail ben Gino

ShirChadash

8th August 2005, 09:21 AM

I've enjoyed Tim Hegg's works in the past, but lately he has taken what I consider to be a very disturbing direction of late. Not only does Tim object to Gordon's conclusions regarding Shem Tov's Hebrew Matthew, he has also taken a position contrary to the Two House teaching regarding the Restoration of both Israel and Judah to the Promised Land.
[/url]

:o

[url]http://www.mjaa.org/biblicaljudaism/EphraimiteError.pdf (http://www.torahresource.com/DuTillet/HistOfDuTillet.pdf)

Bracy

8th August 2005, 10:44 AM

Zemirah:

Yes, I'm very much aware of MJAA's position paper, "The Ephraimite Error." As you can probably guess, I strongly disagree with it and believe that their position contradicts an overwhelming number of prophecies in the Tanakh.

Avi ben Mordechai recently addressed their position in his new book “Galatians – A Torah-Based Commentary in First-Century Hebraic Context” (due to copyright, I must limit the quote to 2000 words or less):”

Among many of the “mainstream” Jewish messianic leaders, this Two House/Ephraimite teaching is considered filthy and heretical, especially as they present it to their followers as the “Ephraimite Error” and other derogatory expressions. However, I think perhaps the real reason for their causticity is because the movement poses a real threat to their missionizing efforts, which is primarily aimed towards the Jews, when in fact the Ephraimite/Two House focus is more centered on educating masses of Gentiles who need to know that they have a divine destiny to fulfill a long-standing series of prophecies, which we will discuss shortly. Put another way, I think the real issue among some modern-day messianic Jewish leaders who are opposed to the Two-House teaching, is the strong possibility that they will lose massive donations from their high-dollar, high-financing, cash-heavy Gentile benefactors who support “Jewish” evangelism and ministries aimed at getting the Jews “saved.”

Coupled with this, I believe the problem is also something that has scourged us Jews for centuries; that we have an ugly track record that labels us as arrogant and demaining, and always behaving in high-handed rebellion towards [HaShem] and our brothers – the Israelite Northern Kingdom. It is a haughtiness of giant proportions and a Jewish narcissism that simply cannot accept the fact that [HaShem] wants to show mercy towards our exiled brothers of the Northern Kingdom – the Gentiles, and bring them (along with our own family of Yehudah) back into the divine inheritance of the Hebrew Torah, the Land of Israel, and the Hebrew Messiah, exactly as it was described for us in Jeremiah 3:18.

…

I would have to dedicate an entire chapter of many pages to show you the numerous examples of our disgusting attitude as it relates to the Gentiles, recorded in all of the Hebrew Scriptures. It is a serious problem that we Jews of the family of Yehudah , Benjamin, or Levi must overcome. And, if it should help you, I would ask you to please forgive us Jews for acting this way.

Suffice to say, I know that [HaShem] is doing a great thing among the goyim and I believe that the focus of our attention now is not supposed to be towards “Jewish evangelism,” but rather “Gentile evangelism,” because when they (the goyim) will open up their hearts and minds and immediately abandon their ways of Romish idolatry and attach themselves to the holy Torah covenant, and to its people referred to as Israel, it will be the signal of events leading up to the final redemption and the coming of King Messiah, ben David.

ShirChadash

8th August 2005, 11:55 AM

I am very familiar with Avi's teachings.

Zemirah:

Yes, I'm very much aware of MJAA's position paper, "The Ephraimite Error." As you can probably guess, I strongly disagree with it and believe that their position contradicts an overwhelming number of prophecies in the Tanakh.

Avi ben Mordechai recently addressed their position in his new book “Galatians – A Torah-Based Commentary in First-Century Hebraic Context” (due to copyright, I must limit the quote to 2000 words or less):”

ShirChadash

8th August 2005, 12:13 PM

Wags

8th August 2005, 01:53 PM

As a relative new comer to a Torah based view of the faith less than 12 months. I have found that Tim Hegg seems to be quite disagreeable with just about everyone and seems to disagree with all insundry I wonder if part of it is to keep adding content to the site and also whether he wants to be seen to not be too radical so that some will perhaps take other things that are dear to his heart more seriously hence distancing himself from those that see the Restoration of the house of Israel I also find that he adhere's very much to a more western roman view of marriage as well.
Shalom,
Mikhail ben Gino

Tim Hegg disagrees with those that disparage torah observance (MJAA) or distort it (Two House).

No surprise that you don't like his take on marraige....

FFOZ has been reaching out to those in the Two House movement, trying to teach them Torah and the fact that they don't have to make up hebrew identities for themselves in order to keep torah.

gabriele

8th August 2005, 03:17 PM

I think the traditions of men, even if they seem good, are still traditions of men.

While some of the oral law may seem good, it is still traditions of men.

Think of the good traditions in Christianity. They are still traditions, and hinder people from God's Torah.

gabriele

Charles YTK

8th August 2005, 03:36 PM

Yes, but Yeshua observed traditions that were not Torah, so long as they did not interfer with Torah and inhanced it or promoted community, and Torah life.

Bracy

8th August 2005, 04:59 PM

I think the traditions of men, even if they seem good, are still traditions of men.

While some of the oral law may seem good, it is still traditions of men.

There's nothing wrong tradition per se. But when that tradition is enacted as Law -- and not only as law, but declared to be a commandment given by HaShem Himself -- or when that tradition violates other commandments of HaShem, that's when we have a problem.

Tishri1

8th August 2005, 06:00 PM

Ha Satan will use even the truth to divide us

Proverbs 17:14 14 The beginning of strife is like letting out water, So aabandon the quarrel before it breaks out.

Bruce101

8th August 2005, 06:51 PM

Tim Hegg disagrees with those that disparage torah observance (MJAA) or distort it (Two House).

No surprise that you don't like his take on marraige....

FFOZ has been reaching out to those in the Two House movement, trying to teach them Torah and the fact that they don't have to make up hebrew identities for themselves in order to keep torah.

Though I am not completely sold on Two House, nor am I against it.
How does Two House distort Torah observance?
I am honestly asking.

Bruce

Wags

8th August 2005, 07:18 PM

Though I am not completely sold on Two House, nor am I against it.
How does Two House distort Torah observance?
I am honestly asking.

Bruce

I wish I had the time to answer that personally in depth, but for now I will refer you to an article written by Tim Hegg. "The Two-House Theory: Three Fatal Errors." (http://www.torahresource.com/English%20Articles/Two%20House%20Fatal%20Errors.pdf)

Mikhail

8th August 2005, 10:45 PM

I wish I had the time to answer that personally in depth, but for now I will refer you to an article written by Tim Hegg. "The Two-House Theory: Three Fatal Errors." (http://www.torahresource.com/English%20Articles/Two%20House%20Fatal%20Errors.pdf)

Hi All,
I am with Bracy I see things in the scripture that the MJAA does not propose and answer to but redily try ot pull down those who have attempted to provide an understanding of the prophecies in the TeNaK.

The extreme hatred and animosity of the like most of the Leaders in the MJAA against those gentiles who want to keep the Torah is simply a mirror of the problems that Paul experienced trying to communicate the acceptance of Gentiles into the congregations.

I have a friend who is of a brethren background and is very much a scripturalist. A few weeks ago spent 7 days fasting regarding his work and what Elohim wants him to do next. He has progresseiveley been embracing a Torah Observant Lifestyle over the last 6 months. Midway through the fast he was studying the scriptures and he starts seeing the whole return of the lost Isralite's from the scriptures themselves he was looking for it nor had he read anything up to that point about 2 House teaching at all.

He beleives that not only will their be an identification of such but that according to the words of the prophets that they will be resettled in the land that was given to Ephraim and Manassah.

He tries to shun reading other books and prefers to read the Scriptures themsleves.

Now if this teaching was tracable to one source alone then perhaps we could dismiss it but when men endependant of each other are receiving Revealtion from heaven as they pray and seek understanding then their has got to be something to it.

Does it mean that everything that calls itself 2house or "Regathering of Israel" is without a few tares nor will it be free of those men who will use anything including truth to draw beleivers after themself.

In the book of Hosea we see that their is in fact 2 woman one called Gomer his first wife who eventually returns to him due to hardship and not gaining what she wanted from her lovers and the 2nd is "a woman beloved of her friend" this woman who becomes his wife as well is purchased from a life of slavery in which it indicates that she is not just a slave but a clave prostitiute.

I beleive that she is also known to Gomer hence the reference go buy a woman loved of her friend, the friend being Gomer of course.

So hear we see a picture of the Prophet married to 2 woman one an adulterous and Idolater and the other purchased out of the one of the worst forms of slavery a woman can experience in this life. He declares that she will not be given to men anymore and that he will give her 6 months beore he will lie with her.
Shalom,
Mikhail ben Gino

Mikhail

8th August 2005, 10:58 PM

My question to Ephraimites has always been,

Show me Israel outside of, and utterly separate from, Judah.

*ps, just in case anyone thinks I was being affrontive in saying this, really it was not remotely meant that way but was said in more of a :scratch: spirit... At this point, no one has ever effectively been able to point me to Israel separate from Judah and say, "here is Israel, but there is Judah". I am -- after having spent much time looking into and studying the two-house theologies when I first came online and had no idea what the ideas even were -- firmly of the belief that the tribes intermixed and none were "lost", and Israel and Judah are one, represented by the rather generic term of "Judah/Jew".

When you say intermixed I assume you mean the marriages of woman to men of the other tribes.

This in itself is the problem because a man's tribal identification is never mixed as it were because the Tribal identification was clearly derived from the father this also is the case of daughters hence the terms ben and bat.

So if you take a straight line of Patriarchal Geneology as the geneologies of the TeNaK clearly show us then you can very much see who is eventually who. If this was not the case then YHWH could not have allowed the Israelites to marry the virgin woman of the pagan nations.

That is partly why I refer to myself as Mikhail ben Gino because that is who I am I am the son of my father and he in turn is the son of his Father Danito who is in turn the father of Gaocomo.

This of course is the opposite to Rabbincal Judaism as they like everything depart from the scriptural basis of Patrilinenal Lineage and say that the woman determines one's as being a Jew according to Rabbinical Halacha.

They of course make an exception to Cohenim as the Torah is very clear about that.
Shalom,
Mikhail ben Gino ben Danito ben Gaecomo :thumbsup:

Bracy

9th August 2005, 12:31 AM

My question to Ephraimites has always been,

Show me Israel outside of, and utterly separate from, Judah.

Isn’t that precisely what we see in Ezekiel 37?

Ezekiel 37:16-19: Moreover, thou son of man, take thee one stick, and write upon it, For Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions: then take another stick, and write upon it, [b]For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and [for] all the house of Israel his companions: And join them one to another into one stick; and they shall become one in thine hand. And when the children of thy people shall speak unto thee, saying, Wilt thou not shew us what thou [meanest] by these? Say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will take the stick of Joseph, which [is] in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel his fellows, and will put them with him, [even] with the stick of Judah, and make them one stick, and they shall be one in mine hand.

If Judah and Israel were not separated, then why the need to join them into one stick?

Bananna

9th August 2005, 01:36 AM

Aren't these the physical land divisions? Israel is one again there is no longer a north and south kingdom
bananna

Mikhail

9th August 2005, 03:43 AM

Aren't these the physical land divisions? Israel is one again there is no longer a north and south kingdom
bananna

Hi Banana,
No this is dfinateley not the land divisions this is a modern mentality of what a nation is when Elohim talks of Nations it should more accurateley be translated peoples.

When God looks down upon the nation of America as yoi see it he sees it as it really is each tribal representative all mixed together across the continent.

He does not look at it based on color but on who our fathers are.

If you are married then you become part of your husbands tribe now if the Patriarchal lineage comes from wales, england then he sees the welsh nation in America if the Patriarchal Lineage is Indian then he sees that he looks and sees exactly who is from the lines of Shem Japheth and Ham though we do not know he does.

His promise is to our fathers and even if we have lost our geneology he has not so he is still bound by those promises that for instance that Japheth will dwell in the tents of Shem.

Without this understanding it is all near impossible to understand the Prophets and end time events as they are all tied up in the promises Elohim made to the Patriarchs in the Bereshit.

Get a firm understanding of the begginning and you will have a understanding of exactly why things are as they are around the world and why certainl peoples (nations) band together against other nations.

He know for instance who are direct descendants of Aharon, Gad, Dan etc because he follows the sons.

He knows who is a descendant of Edom and Moab even to this day.
Man's failure to identify does not constitute that something is not as it is.
Shalom,
Mikhail ben Gino

Charles YTK

9th August 2005, 08:07 AM

Just a short note. I took a nice long stroll through the two house camp a few years back. Spoke with some of its leaders like Batya Wooten. And I affiliated my web site with them through the link enchange and such, posted linkes to their better teachings. After a short time MJAA launched a viscious attack against them and things got to be a real mess. I disengaged the "Yeshua the King" web site and went back to totally neutral ground.

Here is what I came away with. Both sides are fighting to preserve some important issues, Gentile inclusion as full members on one side, and preventing replacement doctrine at the deepest level with a loss of Jewish status and identity on the other.

In life I have found that there are not often clear cut single answers to these sort of things. The truth is often a mixture of the both. Are some of the Gentiles who are coming to a Torah based relationship with HaShem actually Israelites? Sure without a doubt. But are all who come to Torah lost Israelites? No. If we believe the bible to be true, then we are all connected to Naoh and one of the sons, Ham Shem , Japheth. So even the Israelites are Gentiles who were called with a special purpose were they not? Is it impossible that a Gentile who is not in any way related to the line through Abraham to still be saved and come to love God and desire to live by his word? Certainly that is the promise TO Abraham.

But what was begining to happen on both sides was a search for the Connection to Abraham, the Jews through Judah, Benjamin, and Levi, and the Gentile 2 house through Ephraim. So from that perspctive everybody was some sort of blood relation to Abraham. There was one and maybe a few on this forum, some who are still in authority, who began to teach that only those of Jewish blood or Ephraimites had the RIGHT to follow Torah; that all the rest who could not find a Jew in the wood pile had to limit themselves to the 4 restrictions of the Jerusalem council. In fact one here was teaching and gaining a lot of respect saying that when Paul spoke to "Gentiles" that it really meant only the lost tribes of the north and not "Gentiles" in the sence of those were not in the line of Abraham. The Gospel was being once again Israelite exclusive.
And this was sort of at the heart of the two house and the MJAA. They both wanted to say that those who were saved were all blood related at some point to Abraham. And so in this respect they are both wrong in my opinion. God calls not just Israel back to himself, but he says that he would gather others who were not his people and that his house would be called a house of prayer for all nations, PAGANS. Paul says that God in his mercy was calling those who did not have God who were distant and without any knowledge of God. He didn't screen them to see if Great uncle Ernie was perhaps from Ephraim.

I think we have to be real careful with all of this because God is calling his entire creation, back to himself. He is redeeming everything, even the animals and the planet itself. It all gets restored and made new. Yes he wants the Northern kingdom to come back home. And maybe that is behind the Torah movement as those who never realized they were from the line of Abraham are being awakened to the truth of Gods word and who they are in Gods people. And maybe too God is so attractive and his truth so profound that even the heathens of the Pagan world are drawn to Him and repent and take upon themselves the yoke of Torah and the love for Messiah as did those many nations who went up out of Egypt with the People and said to God, all you say we shall do.

I am a Gentile, Heathen, Pagan fathers way back on the North American plains, completely separated from God. And yet God in his infinite mercy called even me to be his son and to be covered by his blood offering and to take upon myself his Torah of liberty. I accept his mercy in humility, amazed at how deep his love is for all of the creation.

Charles

ShirChadash

9th August 2005, 08:31 AM

Mikhail

9th August 2005, 08:41 AM

Not specifically -- what I am saying specifically is that at least SOME G-dly Israelites/Hebrews (whatever term you prefer) from every familial tribe within "Israel" moved into "Judah" to live and worship, and it is well-known and widely-held that the term "Jew" generically refers to them all.

Certainly, others were dispersed, no doubt about that. And I have no doubt that at least the vast majority of the world's Jewry will be regathered to the Land. But the entirety of "Israel" was never "lost", since members of every tribe influxed into "Judah" and are now simply noted as "Jews" as well.

Very few from my understanding migrated to the Yehudah.
It is clear that most of the Cohanim did so after the kingdom seperated after Soloman as II Chronicles says this.

Regardless of how you or I may look at historical data the Prophets clearly Prophesied seperately of the 2 kingdoms so if God addresses them seperateley then in his mind they are in fact seperate in fact they are described as him married to 2 sisters one of which he divorced but yet asked her to return and the 2nd (Yehudah) he did turn over to be punished that she would learn to obey him.

Before I had even heard of 2 house I had clearly seen that as the prophets kings and chronicles clearly show them as seperate.

I would ask the question why is it that you do not want to see them as seperate? Or is it something that you had drummed into you at some point?
Shalom,
Mikhail ben Gino

Wags

9th August 2005, 10:48 AM

I would ask the question why is it that you do not want to see them as seperate? Or is it something that you had drummed into you at some point?
Shalom,
Mikhail ben Gino

And conversely - why do you persist in reading something into the text that isn't there?

Bracy

9th August 2005, 11:22 AM

I'm certainly not saying that one who is an Israelite descendant is anymore "special" that one who is not, nor am I saying that one must accept the Two-House teaching. As far as I'm concerned, that is simply a disagreement in Theology. I personally believe that the Two-House teaching is more consistent and better supported by scripture than the One House teaching, but if anyone disagrees with me, I have no problem with that. If one has accepted the Torah commandments of Elohim and does his or her best to live by them, I'm thrilled.

I have a lot of respect Tim Hegg, and his writings and teachings have been an invaluable resource in my study. I just happen to believe that he is "missing the mark" with regard to the Two-House teaching and Shem Tov interpretation of Matthew 23-1-3. Maybe his view will change, maybe my view will change, but while we are in disagreement, I have to take that into account.

According to Ezekiel:

Ezekiel 47:21-23: So shall ye divide this land unto you according to the tribes of Israel. And it shall come to pass, [that] ye shall divide it by lot for an inheritance unto you, and to the strangers (Hebrew: "gerim") that sojourn among you, which shall beget children among you: and they shall be unto you as born in the country among the children of Israel; they shall have inheritance with you among the tribes of Israel. And it shall come to pass, [that] in what tribe the stranger sojourneth, there shall ye give [him] his inheritance, saith the Lord GOD.

The way I understand this passage is that non-Israelite descendants who serve and obey HaShem will be equal inheritors of the promises made to Abraham. So in that sense, I don't see that it makes any difference whether or not one is a direct descendant or not.

However, like Avi, I believe that the Israelites scattered among the goyim "have a divine destiny to fulfill a long-standing series of prophecies." If there is one thing I've learned in my life it is that there is no such thing as a non-harmful lie. Lies have a way of snowballing into something larger. If the One House teaching is false, and if this teaching prevents one from coming back to HaShem's Torah, that's when I must raise an objection.

ShirChadash

9th August 2005, 11:23 AM

There is more to the "Two-house" theories, however, than you all are revealing in your posts.

From British-Israelism, to believing gentiles being "Israel" in general, to Mormonism (which I understand teaches that Mormons are the true Israel) I reject these two-house theories. I have no problem believing G-d will again delineate (as only He knows who is from each tribe) those from the tribes of Israel from those from the tribes of Judah when Messiah comes, if it serves His purpose to do so -- I doubt that many "Jews" know what their tribal line is at this point, though I am sure some do.

And certainly, as I said, there are those in worldwide Jewry who will be returned to the land (no matter what their tribal affiliation, and again if G-d intends for the tribal delineations to be made at a future point, He will make them in His good timing...)

But ISRAEL simply does not exist as a people aside from Judah at this time.

There is no delineation and again... I ask anyone who may to point out Israel -- separate from Judah -- to me right now and tell me, "there is Israel, but over there is Judah" -- and I am not asking for Scriptures referring to the two Kingdoms and peoples, but I am saying, "Show me the two as separate entities as they exist right now, on this earth, in this time." It cannot be done.

Because as of now, they are one people under the heading "Jew" -- dispersed, mainly, sure. Even non-religious, yes, most Jews are not religious at all.

But G-d knows... and G-d knows that gentiles were never "Israel", and so do I -- nor do I believe for one moment that gentiles are "Israel" now -- and in my mind the belief that they are so is simply a twisted form of replacement theology.

Another question: show me one place in the Tanach -- or in the KN for that matter -- in which those gentiles who converted were automatically tribally affiliated with Israel rather than Judah. Where does G-d designate -- anywhere in His Word -- that gentiles who come to belief in Messiah have their inheritance with "Israel" as compared to Judah (as the people, I am saying). And certainly, show me where gentiles who come to belief in Messiah *replace* the Hebrews and the bloodlines that "were Israel" and become "Israel" themselves. It never comes down to anything but "reading-into the relevant scriptures in order to come up with such a rendering -- AND really it shows me that people do not really understand and believe that one can be a gentile and belong to G-d through His salvation/Messiah... but that those who are gentiles must somehow replace Israel whom G-d must have simply forgotten and "divorced". If Israel were divored and meant to remain divorced from her Husband... then she will always be divorced and no new "woman" is going to marry G-d with her name and be "Israel" that ISN'T divorced.

I studied this ad nauseam years ago, as a gentile Messianic as far as I knew then and realized that the two-house theories as they are -- which is FAR more than simply believing G-d will restore *THE* two houses of tribes of the Hebrew people. Israel and Judah in His time -- is replete with a huge assortment of errors in the fullness of the real teachings behind the theology. My opinion on this has not changed and i am certainly not anti-gentile in ANY respect.

Very few from my understanding migrated to the Yehudah.
It is clear that most of the Cohanim did so after the kingdom seperated after Soloman as II Chronicles says this. I think it unreasonable to believe the cohanim influxed into Judah, but no righteous members of any other tribes of "Israel" influxed as well. I also think it unlikely that people of every single tribe wouldn't have migrated into Judah, knowing the history.

Bracy

9th August 2005, 12:04 PM

From British-Israelism, to believing gentiles being "Israel" in general, to Mormonism (which I understand teaches that Mormons are the true Israel) I reject these two-house theories.

I also reject the British-Israelism and Mormon-Israelism teachings, but at the same time, I don't let those teachings prevent me from accepting what the scriptures have to say about the 10 Northern tribes of Israel. Those teachings came into existence because they recognized through the scriptures that the 10 Northern tribes were destined to be swallowed up by the nations and lose their identity. Their error was in their misapplication of the scriptural passages. Just because British-Israelism and Mormon-Israelism missed the mark doesn't mean that we should automatically reject any Two-House teaching.

The Two-House teaching isn't something foreign to Judaism. The Talmud and other Jewish literature contains many references to the lost tribes and where they were dwelling at the time. In addition, 1 Maccabees, while not accepted as "inspired scripture" is nevertheless accepted as historically accurate, and it has this to say about the Israelite descendants:

1 Maccabees 12:6-12: “Jonathon the high priest, the senate of the nation, the priests and the rest of the Jewish people to the Spartans their brothers, greetings.

“In the past, a letter was sent to Onias, the high priest, from Areios, one of your kings, stating that you are indeed our brothers, as the copy subjoined attests. Onias received the envoy with honour, and accepted the letter, in which a clear declaration was made of friendship and alliance. For our part, though we have no need of these, having the consolation of the holy books in our possession, we venture to send to renew our fraternal friendship with you, so that we may not become strangers to you, a long time having elapsed since you last wrote to us. We, for our part, on every occasion, at our festivals and on other appointed days, unfailingly remember you in the sacrifices we offer and in our prayers, as it is right and fitting to remember brothers. We rejoice in your renown.

…

1 Maccabees 12:19-23: The following is the copy of the letter sent to Onias:

“Areios king of the Spartans, to Onias the high priest, greetings.

“It has been discovered in records regarding the Spartans and Jews that they are brothers, AND OF THE RACE OF ABRAHAM. Now that this has come to our knowledge, we shall be obliged if you will send us news of your welfare. Our own message to you is this: your flocks and your possessions are ours, and ours are yours, and we are instructing our envoys to give you a message to this effect.”[Emphasis mine]

Question: Who does the king of Sparta identify as the ancestors of the Spartans? Who does Onias the High Priest identify the Spartans as being?

If we can accept the Two House teaching, we can better understand to whom the "New Testament" scriptures were addressed:

James 1:1: James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.

1 Peter 1:1-2: Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

Why did James and Peter address their letters in this way? Could it be that they understood something in their day that we do not understand today?

If we understand that the Torah is a "sheepfold" and that the "Lost Sheep" are those who wander outside of the "sheepfold" of Torah, then we can better understand who the "Lost Sheep" are.

Jeremiah 16:16: Behold, I will send for many fishers, saith the LORD, and they shall fish them; and after will I send for many hunters, and they shall hunt them from every mountain, and from every hill, and out of the holes of the rocks.

Jeremiah prophecied that HaShem would send out "fishers" to fish out the Lost Sheep from among the goyim. Then Yeshua arrives on the scene, and what does He say?

Matthew 4:19: And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.

Who is it that Yeshua said He came for?

Matthew 15:24: But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

And to whom did Yeshua send his disciples?

Matthew 10:6: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

It isn't those who are living inside the sheepfold who are lost, it is those who are living outside who are lost.

ShirChadash

9th August 2005, 12:24 PM

Please...

http://www.torahresource.com/English%20Articles/Two%20House%20Fatal%20Errors.pdf

read it.

(reading through your above post, I keep thinking of replies, and honestly, it's easier to simply point you toward the well-written articles others have lain out...)

Bracy

9th August 2005, 12:29 PM

I have read it, several times. I don't agree with Hegg's conclusions, and I believe that the interpretation that I have provided is more straightforward and consistent with scripture than that provided by Hegg.

ShirChadash

9th August 2005, 12:35 PM

Messiah preached *repentance* (turning back) to the *lost sheep of Israel*, yes, that's *Israel* as it always was, that did not refer to gentiles. He was preaching a return to what Israel already had and walked away from -- Torah-observance -- and thus those Israelites were *lost*, non-observant. *Gentiles* never HAD Torah-observance before Y'shua came and therefore coult not *return* to it, and it was a good many years after Messiah died that the Apostles understood Messiah's commands to include reaching out to gentiles, when Peter received the vision and ministered to (an already righteous by the way, as in following Torah but not converted), Cornelius -- so no, when Messiah said they were to minister to the "lost sheep of Israel" they most certainly didn't understand Him to mean gentiles.

Also, to say that Israel in the TNK is not the same as "Israel" in the KN is to render Scripture not only inconsistent in and of itself but unstable and the idea that "Israel" is two different groups, so that "Israel in the New testament is not who was "Israel" in the Tanach... this idea is utterly spurious.

I am not personally concerned with mandating anyone else's beliefs, but I simply refuse to believe something that I find to be so blatantly full of error and requires me to read into and speculate much before even being able to swallow the whole of the theology. My stance won't change. I am not trying to change yours.

Bracy

9th August 2005, 02:19 PM

Zemirah:

If you prefer not to accept the Two House teaching, I'm okay with that. It is not my intention to sow division in this forum. My original comment was intended only to point out that, since Tim Hegg argues against the Two-House teaching, Shem Tov's interpretation of Matthew 23:1-3, and what he calls "The Greater and Lesser YHVH Heresy," I am forced to take his interpretations with a grain of salt and view them with a skeptical eye. I believe that his interpretations are in error in these three cases, and therefore I must assume that the potential for error exists in other articles. That doesn't mean I don't find his articles useful, but it does mean that I must use discernment when studying his materials.

gabriele

9th August 2005, 03:27 PM

OYE gabriele,

Sorry oral law was partly obeyed by Yehoshuah.
Talmadim were commanded to do as the Pharasees said, but not as they did.
To outright reject what you have never read is just not wise. So on what basis are you rejecting which teaching? Remember some of the teachings are on oposite poles of the discussion.

I disagee -Yeshua never obeyed man. He is God, and obeys no man.

If you are going to agree that some of the Talmud is good, then you basically are giving it the spiritual "ok" as it were. It is the oral law that kept the Pharisees from seeing who Yeshua was.

It is like the Qu'ran - some of it has some "good" rules, but many wrong, and so I cannot even say it has good in it - to do so would be to call it spiritually acceptable.

I have had some Messianic friends turned away from Yeshua because of rabbinical Judaism and the Talmud. I will be against it as long as I live.

gabriele

Talmidah

9th August 2005, 06:38 PM

This of course is the opposite to Rabbincal Judaism as they like everything depart from the scriptural basis of Patrilinenal Lineage and say that the woman determines one's as being a Jew according to Rabbinical Halacha.

Tribal afiliation is patrilineal, through the birth father.

visionary

9th August 2005, 07:13 PM

[/color][/size][/font]

I also reject the British-Israelism and Mormon-Israelism teachings, but at the same time, I don't let those teachings prevent me from accepting what the scriptures have to say about the 10 Northern tribes of Israel. Those teachings came into existence because they recognized through the scriptures that the 10 Northern tribes were destined to be swallowed up by the nations and lose their identity. Their error was in their misapplication of the scriptural passages. Just because British-Israelism and Mormon-Israelism missed the mark doesn't mean that we should automatically reject any Two-House teaching.

The Two-House teaching isn't something foreign to Judaism. The Talmud and other Jewish literature contains many references to the lost tribes and where they were dwelling at the time. In addition, 1 Maccabees, while not accepted as "inspired scripture" is nevertheless accepted as historically accurate, and it has this to say about the Israelite descendants:

[size=3]

Question: Who does the king of Sparta identify as the ancestors of the Spartans? Who does Onias the High Priest identify the Spartans as being?

If we can accept the Two House teaching, we can better understand to whom the "New Testament" scriptures were addressed:

Why did James and Peter address their letters in this way? Could it be that they understood something in their day that we do not understand today?

If we understand that the Torah is a "sheepfold" and that the "Lost Sheep" are those who wander outside of the "sheepfold" of Torah, then we can better understand who the "Lost Sheep" are.

Jeremiah prophecied that HaShem would send out "fishers" to fish out the Lost Sheep from among the goyim. Then Yeshua arrives on the scene, and what does He say?

Who is it that Yeshua said He came for?

And to whom did Yeshua send his disciples?

It isn't those who are living inside the sheepfold who are lost, it is those who are living outside who are lost.There is a returning, and I believe that it applies to all jewish brethren. Just because some keep the Talmud/Pharsee/Sadduce/Rabbidical fiaith does not make it any better than those that just assimulated into the other nations and threw out the faith of their fathers. They both missed the mark and thus missed out on Yeshua. So both are prodical sons returning to the Father throug the son. It reminds me of politics and drawing lines in the sand. The distinction is not better. Judah failed and needs to return to God and cry for the one whom is pierced for their sins. Israel is now a nation which still needs to return to the living faith and recognise what Yeshua has done for them.

Steve Petersen

11th August 2005, 09:41 PM

I disagee -Yeshua never obeyed man. He is God, and obeys no man.

If you are going to agree that some of the Talmud is good, then you basically are giving it the spiritual "ok" as it were. It is the oral law that kept the Pharisees from seeing who Yeshua was.

It is like the Qu'ran - some of it has some "good" rules, but many wrong, and so I cannot even say it has good in it - to do so would be to call it spiritually acceptable.

I have had some Messianic friends turned away from Yeshua because of rabbinical Judaism and the Talmud. I will be against it as long as I live.

gabriele

Rabbinics provide a historical/cultural backdrop for the New Testament. I read them as a history book of the Jewish religion, not as spiritual guides. In fact, familiarity with these sources just hammers home the point that the NT is a Jewish book and not the creation of a Gentile church. No Gentile could possibly have been as familiar with the minutae of Judaism as the NT is.