09-25-2008, 05:26 AM
Shlama akhi Albion,
Better brace yourself. Have you forgotten that Andrew Gabriel Roth is a "Two-House" Nazarene??? What do you think is going to be covered in MARI??? Last time I checked, akhan Andrew has not come to the conclusion that it is a "wild theory". In fact, I would know nothing of the "Two House" theology if it weren't FOR HIM. I'll grant you (and Rafa) that it is not exactly the simplest thing to grasp, but by no means does that automatically qualify it as unScriptural. Remember a DVD and booklet by one Avi ben Mordecai on Galatians? Either you haven't finished them yet, otherwise you haven't understood what Avi taught, from the perspective that he taught. I can tell. If you have an idea that "Two House" theology is racist, then know that it is actually quite the opposite (I'm not talking about British Israelism here). Or if you have an idea that it's something that jealous Gentiles invented and advertise, you'd better grab a tight hold to your seat and hang on! Last time I checked, Andrew is Jewish. Avi is Jewish. Koniuchowski (who's tarnished the Nazarene image like Trimm) is Jewish. Batya Wooten is Jewish. These have been the leaders of the 2-House Movement, for crying out loud!!!
Remember these words? Yet, I do not feel like a Jew. Our Jewish Andrew has not tried to make me into a Jew. Neither has any non-Jewish 2-Houser that I've encountered. Strong words, akhi. Are you going to consider much of the exegesis in Andrew's MARI "fake Gentile teaching"? Or lots of (eisegetical) 'twisting and turning'? I've been giving you space and time and prayer for this issue, and you have every right to disagree with it or to not embrace it ..... but I'd like to at least see you first understand it. Same thing for Rafa. I'm not shoving it down anyone's throat; but you're not going to convince me of an alternative if you guys can't properly hash out what it IS that I and Andrew and Avi believe. I say this in love, and also to alarm reproof. Stop interpreting beliefs through the lenses of PEOPLE. It sounds like Rafa has spent too much time himself focusing on the things that many Nazarenes have in fact wrongly focused on. This is why I myself defected from a Nazarene shul. I don't think that I've confused oral law with Written Law, either - in fact, I was the one to point out the difference to Spyridon. If I am in error, then I need to be shown my errors. Not generalized. And to do this, I need my correctionist's understanding of what I currently believe, to be properly understood. Hey - I've bought books written by authors with no personal intention of believing what they wrote; in fact, I bought them specifically to have fun debunking them. You know, exercising the 'ol muscle upstairs. And guess what happened some times? I became reproved, and by the evidence, persuaded. But it's never gonna happen if we continue to generalize and categorize beliefs by their believers. It's difficult, I know, but not absurd.
What's absurd to hear, is a wrong impression that 2-House (I prefer "Whole House") doctrine was invented by Gentiles seeking to be Jews, or invented by whoever, to try and make Gentiles into Jews, as you put it. There's some twists and turns right there, in reworking what I and Andrew and Avi do believe, into something that honestly DOES sound bad. I also would avoid the thing that you're wanting me to avoid. Problem is, I CAN avoid it, because I DON'T already believe it!!!
And as to Herby, of all people here that would want to avoid contact with ANYTHING this man adhered to or taught through his leaders, it should be ME. I was raised with my dad dragging me to church every Saturday to contract headache after headache sitting through God-awful legalist sermons. I hated that church. Amazingly, I somehow hated God later on too. Imagine that! (and apparently I wasn't the only one - the entire denomination repented and reformed). Frankly, if there's any resemblances between his teaching and Andrew's or Avi's, I'm not that familiar with them, because I still can't stomach reading through Herb's stuff. I only briefly know that he was (apparently) a British Israelism advocate, or some strain of it. I know quite a bit more about British Israelism from other sources, however, so I can say that this is also NOT what I and Andrew and Avi believe.
If anything, it sounds awfully close to me through the way you're wording things, that a Gentile could become a Jew, since the Gentile is grafted into the natural olive tree by adoption. Especially when one is adopted by YHWH, that adoption is for real - it becomes as though you ARE family, sort of like I pointed out with foreigners becoming citizens in Ireland. Yet, it is I who maintains the distinction between Jew and Goy (Gentile/nation), although not in an exclusionary sense when it comes to Goyim converting. That is, rather than remaining to be considered "Goyim", they instead shed this identity for their new one, as part of corporate Yisra'el: the Bride. But rather than occurring in a fashion that you suggest, which BTW isn't actually that far off track at all, it occurs continguously. Grafted-in yes, adopted yes. Gentile becoming Jew, no. That is, unless they attach themselves to this Tribe, but I'm not going to get into that. But see, what some people cannot understand, is how simultaneously my view does not derive two separate Brides. That is why I prefer the term "Whole House". It is the Church's theology that in fact teaches - unwittingly - a doctrine whose final conclusion is forced to admit 2 separate Brides. And this conclusion is forced due to maintaining an absolute distinction in Romans 11. That's of course not to say EVERY denomination in the Church; you have dispensationalists, replacement theology, reverse-replacement theology, etc. etc. However, those who believe that a Gentile REMAINS a "Gentile" even once they come to salvation in Messiah, by definition exclude them from appropriating the identity of THE Bride. If the Jews alone are Israel, and Israel alone is the Bride, and you maintain that Gentiles cannot become Jews, then you logically maintain that Gentiles cannot become the Bride as well. This forces the Church, who maintains that She is the Bride, to confess then that there must be 2 Brides, unless she wishes to anti-semitically exclude the Jews from the Bridal equation altogether, or else "replace" them AS the Bride.
See, there has always and only been ONE Bride: Yisra'el. Any and all who would choose to put faith in the Messiah of this Bride, is saved by that Messiah and thus becomes part of the Bride. Problem is with identity here. Batya's book simply tried to clear up the confusions here, is all. It's not her fault if people don't understand. But I can fluently engage in conversation with her about what she does believe, so I know that I haven't misunderstood her at all. And even then, I could maintain the personal option of choosing not to believe what she believes. And that would be in my right, as a human being. But not to slander her understanding, by my own misunderstanding of HER understanding. See?
And I'm not accusing you of slander - allow me to illustrate what I'm trying to say:
As an Open Theist (actually, an Open Theistic-Sinaitic compatiblist), I can fearlessly engage in conversation with Calvinists, Arminianists, and Molinists. Granted, there are also Universalists and Processists, of whom I possess less understanding, but hey - great lesson within a lesson: I have to confess that I should not debate them simply because I intrinsically disagree with them off-hand; I should instead first humbly learn from them by listening to their points of view, and properly and thoroughly understand them, with true intent on learning, rather than intently waiting for my chance to turn it all around on them in debate. But already intimately knowing the innards and mechanisms of the other historical key models, and what I believe to be their fatal inner tensions, I can not only fluently dialog with them in their own dialects, but also ask them questions made up of building blocks they do not already know, built atop and underneath building blocks they already do know. If they decline to apprehend the inconsistencies that I'm pointing out, then I cannot help that. I can only ask them to patiently allow me to reword what I'm saying, until they do understand. THEN, and only then, will we both have a mutual platform to begin launching off from into whether or not my exposed inconsistencies are true or not, and whether or not my proposed correctives are conducible or not.
This is the pain of patience, dear brother. That's why you have a comprehensive DVD teaching on this 2-House subject, shown straight out of the New Testament, and taught by a Jew, straight from Jerusalem, Israel itself! I think you've underestimated me, my dear brother-in-faith. Granted, I acknowledge that I can certainly be proven wrong on many a thing to come, as I've been corrected more times within the last year alone than in the past 6 years combined, but I'm not gonna budge until you budge a little my way first. And it certainly doesn't have to be for the sake of you believing what I believe; rather, for the sake of you properly understanding what I understand. Thus is the sum total of my illustration above. And also with prophetic foresight: I wouldn't want you to be too disappointed with your baby (MARI) when reading in the Nazarene Halakha section!!!
So, this idea that "They, and NONE OTHER represent, Israel, and "Zion" needs some further consideration from your own point of view, as well as the one I and Andrew and Avi espouse, at least the way I'm seeing things. If you're confused by what I've said, just ask me, and I'll try to both rectify and simplify. Maybe Andrew, or for that matter MARI, could do you greater justice than I. I know that you know that what you believe, is also what you plainly see in Scripture. And the same goes for me. Herby and the Brit's haven't influenced my hermeneutic one bit, but the Jews have.
With all my affections,
~Ryan
P.S. I am certainly not one for boasting against the branches - I know what YHWH hath done to Yisra'el - and I just wish that she'd repent already so I'd have a Family to live with.
Better brace yourself. Have you forgotten that Andrew Gabriel Roth is a "Two-House" Nazarene??? What do you think is going to be covered in MARI??? Last time I checked, akhan Andrew has not come to the conclusion that it is a "wild theory". In fact, I would know nothing of the "Two House" theology if it weren't FOR HIM. I'll grant you (and Rafa) that it is not exactly the simplest thing to grasp, but by no means does that automatically qualify it as unScriptural. Remember a DVD and booklet by one Avi ben Mordecai on Galatians? Either you haven't finished them yet, otherwise you haven't understood what Avi taught, from the perspective that he taught. I can tell. If you have an idea that "Two House" theology is racist, then know that it is actually quite the opposite (I'm not talking about British Israelism here). Or if you have an idea that it's something that jealous Gentiles invented and advertise, you'd better grab a tight hold to your seat and hang on! Last time I checked, Andrew is Jewish. Avi is Jewish. Koniuchowski (who's tarnished the Nazarene image like Trimm) is Jewish. Batya Wooten is Jewish. These have been the leaders of the 2-House Movement, for crying out loud!!!
Quote:It's just one more fake Gentile teaching, trying to make Gentiles into Jews.
And like Herbert W. Armstrong's "British Israelism", whoever invented this teaching should (also) be thrown out of their respective Congregation.
Lots of twists and turns trying to make GENTILES into JEWS in the (so-called) "Two House" teachings.
Remember these words? Yet, I do not feel like a Jew. Our Jewish Andrew has not tried to make me into a Jew. Neither has any non-Jewish 2-Houser that I've encountered. Strong words, akhi. Are you going to consider much of the exegesis in Andrew's MARI "fake Gentile teaching"? Or lots of (eisegetical) 'twisting and turning'? I've been giving you space and time and prayer for this issue, and you have every right to disagree with it or to not embrace it ..... but I'd like to at least see you first understand it. Same thing for Rafa. I'm not shoving it down anyone's throat; but you're not going to convince me of an alternative if you guys can't properly hash out what it IS that I and Andrew and Avi believe. I say this in love, and also to alarm reproof. Stop interpreting beliefs through the lenses of PEOPLE. It sounds like Rafa has spent too much time himself focusing on the things that many Nazarenes have in fact wrongly focused on. This is why I myself defected from a Nazarene shul. I don't think that I've confused oral law with Written Law, either - in fact, I was the one to point out the difference to Spyridon. If I am in error, then I need to be shown my errors. Not generalized. And to do this, I need my correctionist's understanding of what I currently believe, to be properly understood. Hey - I've bought books written by authors with no personal intention of believing what they wrote; in fact, I bought them specifically to have fun debunking them. You know, exercising the 'ol muscle upstairs. And guess what happened some times? I became reproved, and by the evidence, persuaded. But it's never gonna happen if we continue to generalize and categorize beliefs by their believers. It's difficult, I know, but not absurd.
What's absurd to hear, is a wrong impression that 2-House (I prefer "Whole House") doctrine was invented by Gentiles seeking to be Jews, or invented by whoever, to try and make Gentiles into Jews, as you put it. There's some twists and turns right there, in reworking what I and Andrew and Avi do believe, into something that honestly DOES sound bad. I also would avoid the thing that you're wanting me to avoid. Problem is, I CAN avoid it, because I DON'T already believe it!!!
And as to Herby, of all people here that would want to avoid contact with ANYTHING this man adhered to or taught through his leaders, it should be ME. I was raised with my dad dragging me to church every Saturday to contract headache after headache sitting through God-awful legalist sermons. I hated that church. Amazingly, I somehow hated God later on too. Imagine that! (and apparently I wasn't the only one - the entire denomination repented and reformed). Frankly, if there's any resemblances between his teaching and Andrew's or Avi's, I'm not that familiar with them, because I still can't stomach reading through Herb's stuff. I only briefly know that he was (apparently) a British Israelism advocate, or some strain of it. I know quite a bit more about British Israelism from other sources, however, so I can say that this is also NOT what I and Andrew and Avi believe.
If anything, it sounds awfully close to me through the way you're wording things, that a Gentile could become a Jew, since the Gentile is grafted into the natural olive tree by adoption. Especially when one is adopted by YHWH, that adoption is for real - it becomes as though you ARE family, sort of like I pointed out with foreigners becoming citizens in Ireland. Yet, it is I who maintains the distinction between Jew and Goy (Gentile/nation), although not in an exclusionary sense when it comes to Goyim converting. That is, rather than remaining to be considered "Goyim", they instead shed this identity for their new one, as part of corporate Yisra'el: the Bride. But rather than occurring in a fashion that you suggest, which BTW isn't actually that far off track at all, it occurs continguously. Grafted-in yes, adopted yes. Gentile becoming Jew, no. That is, unless they attach themselves to this Tribe, but I'm not going to get into that. But see, what some people cannot understand, is how simultaneously my view does not derive two separate Brides. That is why I prefer the term "Whole House". It is the Church's theology that in fact teaches - unwittingly - a doctrine whose final conclusion is forced to admit 2 separate Brides. And this conclusion is forced due to maintaining an absolute distinction in Romans 11. That's of course not to say EVERY denomination in the Church; you have dispensationalists, replacement theology, reverse-replacement theology, etc. etc. However, those who believe that a Gentile REMAINS a "Gentile" even once they come to salvation in Messiah, by definition exclude them from appropriating the identity of THE Bride. If the Jews alone are Israel, and Israel alone is the Bride, and you maintain that Gentiles cannot become Jews, then you logically maintain that Gentiles cannot become the Bride as well. This forces the Church, who maintains that She is the Bride, to confess then that there must be 2 Brides, unless she wishes to anti-semitically exclude the Jews from the Bridal equation altogether, or else "replace" them AS the Bride.
See, there has always and only been ONE Bride: Yisra'el. Any and all who would choose to put faith in the Messiah of this Bride, is saved by that Messiah and thus becomes part of the Bride. Problem is with identity here. Batya's book simply tried to clear up the confusions here, is all. It's not her fault if people don't understand. But I can fluently engage in conversation with her about what she does believe, so I know that I haven't misunderstood her at all. And even then, I could maintain the personal option of choosing not to believe what she believes. And that would be in my right, as a human being. But not to slander her understanding, by my own misunderstanding of HER understanding. See?
And I'm not accusing you of slander - allow me to illustrate what I'm trying to say:
As an Open Theist (actually, an Open Theistic-Sinaitic compatiblist), I can fearlessly engage in conversation with Calvinists, Arminianists, and Molinists. Granted, there are also Universalists and Processists, of whom I possess less understanding, but hey - great lesson within a lesson: I have to confess that I should not debate them simply because I intrinsically disagree with them off-hand; I should instead first humbly learn from them by listening to their points of view, and properly and thoroughly understand them, with true intent on learning, rather than intently waiting for my chance to turn it all around on them in debate. But already intimately knowing the innards and mechanisms of the other historical key models, and what I believe to be their fatal inner tensions, I can not only fluently dialog with them in their own dialects, but also ask them questions made up of building blocks they do not already know, built atop and underneath building blocks they already do know. If they decline to apprehend the inconsistencies that I'm pointing out, then I cannot help that. I can only ask them to patiently allow me to reword what I'm saying, until they do understand. THEN, and only then, will we both have a mutual platform to begin launching off from into whether or not my exposed inconsistencies are true or not, and whether or not my proposed correctives are conducible or not.
This is the pain of patience, dear brother. That's why you have a comprehensive DVD teaching on this 2-House subject, shown straight out of the New Testament, and taught by a Jew, straight from Jerusalem, Israel itself! I think you've underestimated me, my dear brother-in-faith. Granted, I acknowledge that I can certainly be proven wrong on many a thing to come, as I've been corrected more times within the last year alone than in the past 6 years combined, but I'm not gonna budge until you budge a little my way first. And it certainly doesn't have to be for the sake of you believing what I believe; rather, for the sake of you properly understanding what I understand. Thus is the sum total of my illustration above. And also with prophetic foresight: I wouldn't want you to be too disappointed with your baby (MARI) when reading in the Nazarene Halakha section!!!
So, this idea that "They, and NONE OTHER represent, Israel, and "Zion" needs some further consideration from your own point of view, as well as the one I and Andrew and Avi espouse, at least the way I'm seeing things. If you're confused by what I've said, just ask me, and I'll try to both rectify and simplify. Maybe Andrew, or for that matter MARI, could do you greater justice than I. I know that you know that what you believe, is also what you plainly see in Scripture. And the same goes for me. Herby and the Brit's haven't influenced my hermeneutic one bit, but the Jews have.
With all my affections,
~Ryan
P.S. I am certainly not one for boasting against the branches - I know what YHWH hath done to Yisra'el - and I just wish that she'd repent already so I'd have a Family to live with.