Talk:Two House theology

Regarding the edit I made today galut5 00:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC): people who support and embrace two house theology are far beyond just karaite types or any particular sect or flavor within any one sect... especially just small scattered Messianic groups who are largely unaccounted for, unorganized, and fighting internally about where/how they stand up against Christian and Jewish orthodoxy. You have Christians from different denominations writing about the lost tribes. You even have Mormons writing about it. You also have Orthodox Jews talking about it and writing about it... largely because their Mishnah has the ancient sages talking about the reality of the two houses. The paragraph I removed just isn't pertinent here for numerous reasons. If one housers want to start an article or add a section about why they don't like some two housers' other doctrinal stances, they should title an article or section more appropriate than "Details Disputed" in this article. The seciton was designed to dispute the details of two house idealogy, not dispute the doctrinal details of those who may or may not support the subject herein. galut5 00:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

This article needs serious work

Why is there so many paragraphs about the self proclaimed messianic movement ? This movement is rejected by absolutely all jewish organisations, as well as the State of Israel and the Roman Catholic Church. The article should spend more time describing the traditionnal point of view (because its the main source for the origins of the lost tribes) and less about a sect that nobody takes seriously in order to respect the Neutral Point Of View of Wikipedia :

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/WP:NPOV#Undue_weight :

NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority.

--Squallgreg 09:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

agreed. I placed a NPOV tag on the article. It needs considerable checking. DGG ( talk ) 04:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

It should not be deleted

I think that this article should not be deleted. It is a point of view about the interpretations of the return of the lost tribes that is described in Isaiah 11:10-13. The fact that some groups reject some part of the hypotesys does not means that it has no significance, the reject is not unanimous in any of view considering that in the article we have many sources of authors from many diferent religions and is a very old discussion and now a days we have many parts that defends this theory. The theory is actually big and does not have a full concern between all groups that defends it, but the main source is very concerning.

Regards Fabio Asato — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fasato (talk • contribs) 00:39, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I can confirm that this article should not be deleted. This is a distinct belief commonly held in the Hebrew Roots faith. It serves as one of its core distinguishing characteristics, and cannot be overlooked. However, I agree with Squallgreg that it needs serious work. I'll look into making an edit against this page to add much needed clarification, details, background, and sources. Regards, Armitus (talk) 22:42, 30 April 2021 (UTC)