09-25-2008, 11:08 PM
Shlama Andrew,
Shlama Akhi Ryan, and I am not angry at you first of all...
Well I don???t think I???ve tried to give the impression that I know too much about MARI???s format, other than what I portend its general character to portray: your beliefs. And being that I know you as a Netzari Jew who embraces 1 Torah for 1 Bride (Yisra???el), and everything else through reading your scholarly works and also from past correspondence where you taught me and taught me until I was able to understand what you were trying to say, I guess I am at a loss as to what you mean in saying that I???ve wrongly portrayed your beliefs.
Because you listed me without clarification next to Moshe K and Avi ben Mordechai, and this is a problem which I will explain.
I didn???t know whether MARI would be like RSTNE or NIVSB or what not ??? in fact, this is why I mentioned to Albion concerning ???the Nazarene Halakha section???. I???m really trying not to step outside the bounds here, and especially if things have changed since you???ve written your Path to Life and Back to the Basics works, Signs of the Cross and RQ 1&2, then I think it???s unfair to expect me to know that you???ve upgraded to something else. In what way(s) have I misportrayed YOUR beliefs?
My dear brother, my beliefs have NOT changed much in 20 years. And they have not changed one bit since our correspondence or my books being published. But I think that I am getting more attention now and more attention means greater scrutiny and greater scrutiny means greater chance for getting it wrong. Most of the time it is folks assumptions about what I must think because of things around a given issue (and thousands of emails over the years that I don't always recall exact wording) that create problems. But this has been happening WAY too often lately and I don't honestly think it is because of me.
I myself told Albion that I prefer ???Whole House??? instead of ???Two/2-House???, because I already know the negative baggage that the whole thing carries, and frankly, do remember your teaching me that ??? "two house" is a minomer.???
I think it???s important for me now to know that you are at variance with Avi, and I think I do need now to understand where and why (I???m asking). I probably gave the wrong impression by lining up your name with others??? names, which was contextually designed to illustrate the ???Jewishness??? of the corporate movement???s leaders/teachers, as opposed to Gentile. I apologize for including your name next to theirs, or theirs next to yours. The doctrine sure is fuzzy at times when one teacher claims to be at variance with another, but how EXACTLY have I swayed from what you???ve in past times taught me concerning the issue?
Avi and I have major doctrinal differences that go well beyond these issues. I believe in a literal virigin birth and he does not, for example. There is a lessening of NT authority with Avi as well that I think leads to misunderstandings and other problems. I respect Avi very much and love him like a brother--but he is a brother that I disagree with on a wide swath of issues and therefore, I cannot abide my name linked with his without clarification. I think Avi's understanding on two house (his wife Dina calls it "two houses becoming one" which I agree with) is close to mine generally but I have not studied his details.
See, practically everything you???ve listed already in your post above, I agree with, and is both nothing new to my ears, nor anything that I see myself having NOT portrayed concerning your understanding. Granted, we may be at variance on specifics that are down to the nitty-gritty (not sure really), but you???re making it sound like I???ve written a treatise of heresy (at least in comparison to your understanding of Yisra???el).
No Akhi. That is not what I said at all. But you can't given the difficulties I just listed with Avi and the obvious perversion of Moshe K now expect me just take vague linkage lightly, as if we all see things exactly the same? We do NOT.
I thought I was on the same page with you, albeit under the misnomer of ???misnomer???? I???m neither preaching nicely garbed theological anti-semitism, nor European transfer, nor anything of the likes. Perhaps it does seem likely that I???ve taken on more particulars as expressed through Avi???s teaching on Galatians, but it???s news to me that his views are drastically different enough from yours so as to blast me with ???This is now the fourth time I think in 2 months that people have made assumptions about my beliefs that 1) are wrong or at least oversimplified versions thereof, and 2) are made without even bothering to ask me.???
But that is true. All four occasions are recorded here, including Bauscher and Spyridon. But I agree largely with his Galatians book--perhaps not to his extremes but generally- or I would not have worked with him on it in the first place. You are only seeing what I said for you. You are not seeing the stress I have been under with my injury and a lot of baseless accusations. I am getting tired of it, and therefore less patient with even inadvertent inaccuracies about my beliefs. That doesn't mean I think you did me wrong. I don't. But you should understand I am tired and I am more sensitive than I normally would be. At the same time, the release of Mari is a lifelong dream that when I get used to it will be a healing balm, but right now I am challenged.
Not to sound pissy, but need I ask you your beliefs regarding Torah observance, before I am allowed to state what they are here at the Forum? Do I mischaracterize you when I accuse you of being a Torah-observant Netzari Jew, just because I didn???t ask you first?
First of all that is not an accusation, but a badge of honor. But you do sound "pissy" in the way you ask me. I am a little disappointed that you are not being a little more forebearing. I have always been supportive of you and patient with you. Why cannot I get just a little of that in return?
Amen! I disagree with NOTHING.
Good!
Replay:
In regards to my "two house" leanings specifically, it is simply a scriptural fact that Ephraim went away to the nations and that at some point will come back into fellowship, bring Gentiles along with them and sometimes being unaware of their lineage.
I believe the Prodigal Son is a very strong teaching on this, along with "dogs and pigs" that Y'shua and others reference often. In the parable, the father is YHWH, the older angry son who is always with him is Judah and the wayward son who lived with pigs but came home is Ephraim. The conflict that the brothers have and the father's answer speaks volumes as to the relationship of the houses of Israel, but in the end we will have ONE HOUSE OF ISRAEL that inlcudes all nations in restoration. That's right.
There may be two houses now, but what counts is that they will be ONE HOUSE as the nations ask Messiah, the head of Judah, to come and follow him (Zechariah 8:23).
Yes! You have not misrepresented yourself to me, to yourself, nor did I think that I did of you to anyone else. ???Whole House??? sounds suspiciously similar to ???ONE HOUSE???, wouldn???t you say?
No I would not say that and in fact did not say that, and such is part of my frustration. That is part of the reading in process that I am not happy with. Orthodox Jews (many, not all) are true ONE HOUSE, in the sense that Ephraim does not return and Gentiles don't come into full Torah but Noachide. That is NOT my belief. A true ONE HOUSE belief is that it is one house NOW and that Ephraim does not return to re form that one house. I acknowledge there are TWO HOUSES now, but I clarify that it will not stay that way.
I mean, as in echad as opposed to yachid. Once YHWH split the Kingdom, it was by definition, split (in two), though still ONE Yisra???el. The unifying is continguous, unless you???d like me to rob you of rightfully being Judean, by claiming in my non-Judean-ness, of now being Judean?
That is disingenous and not worthy of you. I think you know that is a cheap shot. Really Ryan, what is going on? And what makes YOU think YOU can rob me of my inheritance? Do you think I am worried about that? I think you owe me an apology.
Shedding off ???Gentile??? yes, but not impersonating someone that I???m not (if everyone did this, there???d be no Returning Prodigal Ephraim left!). But in distinction from the movement such as First Fruits of Zion, by ???One House??? this is not referring to Judah being ALL 12 TRIBES ??? or have you changed your mind? I thought you were more than clear enough when you first told me, and now also above, when you state the ???scriptural fact that Ephraim went away to the nations and that at some point will come back into fellowship???. The parable of the Prodigal Son AND the Son who stayed at home; the 2 Sticks of Ezekiel; the Two Olive Trees; the WILD branches and the NATURAL (both referred to as the same species of wood: OLIVE, by which grafting-in IS POSSIBLE), etc. etc. etc.
I think I have been consistent in explaining this, both before and throughout this thread. Again I have NOT changed my mind. You have not heard me.
Why do you feel I am at such variance with you? Ephraim is Ephraim. The Jews are the Jews. Ephraim was divorced and cast to the Goyim to become Goyim. When I came to you, a Jew, you guided me to the Torah, and the Mashiakh of that Torah. You don???t have to lay out issues of equality for me again, because I already agree with you on that.
Then there shouldn't be a problem. Again, I was responding to you linking me WITHOUT explanation to Avi and Moshe K. Is this unclear?
What Albion does not acknowledge in his take on Romans 11, is the clear fact that the Jews are not ALONE Yisra???el ??? thereby when grafted-in, the Gentiles do not all become Jews, but Yisra???elites; not all believing Yisra???elites are Jews, though all believing Jews are Yisra???elites. If the Gentile wishes to attach himself to Judah, then that???s one thing. Otherwise, isn???t there room for Ephraim to just be Ephraim? I thought you were more than clear in acknowledgment to Ephraim???s existence. And if so, then whether by ???misnomer??? or not, this is the core substance of the whole ???Two House??? teaching, is it not? Again:
I agree with that. What is YOUR problem? You are overreacting. And "misnomer" means an inaccurate label, which if people don't look fully into the reality and final disposition of Two House creates problem. But that doesn't mean other parts of NT are not EXPLCITLY about Judah too. Ephraim was NOT trusted with "the oracles of Elohim", for example.
There may be two houses now, but what counts is that they will be ONE HOUSE as the nations ask Messiah, the head of Judah, to come and follow him (Zechariah 8:23).
Yes! Hey ??? I grabbed your tzitziyot, not the other way around!
But alas, if you want me to ???Forget two house, one house, blah blah. Focus instead on what I call ONE DOOR, DOESN'T MATTER HOW MANY HOUSES.???, then fine already. I haven???t been persecuting Albion or anyone else for [allegedly] not being truly saved or what-not; in fact, it???s been quite the opposite. I refer to him as my ???brother-in-faith???, and many other times as brother in Messiah, Christ, Alaha, etc. even when some other Netzarim have made this allegation. I understand the core passion you possess for Mashiakh Alone being the focus of our faith and passions. I don???t disagree at all. When it comes to properly understanding this doctrine, you passionately defend it. And rightfully so. No one can be saved apart from Yeshua (Salvation). And likewise, you???re passionate in your desire for all to properly understand that the Peshitta was written before the Greek translations of it. Proper doctrine: truth. So what???s wrong with trying to also properly hash out the PROPER UNDERSTANDING of the rest of Scripture? Are you okay with people misunderstanding the proper Semitic understanding of the story of the Prodigal Son? I didn???t think so. And neither am I. But I???m not conking people over the heads and forcing them to understand, either. If the Prodigal is Ephraim, as you say he is, then am I disallowed from stating such? Or accused of misrepresenting your views if I make the claim that you also believe this?
Again you misunderstand, and all this stuff leads from that misunderstanding. Not all two house belief is Armostrongism. Not all of it is racist. Not all of it is good or scriptural either. It is the details that matter.
This is how you???ve made me to feel, dear Andrew. I feel blasted. I???ve not once claimed that a 2-House / Two House / One Law / One House / Whole House / misnomer House(s) doctrine is Salvific-entertaining. But don???t YOU think that proper identity is important to discuss?
AGR:
Moshe K has made it a salvation specific belief. I have NOT. That has always been true. Every scripture issue is "important" but some have specialties that vary. MINE is Aramaic NT primacy. That has a lot of discussion, along with general Nazarene halacha, history, Torah observance, etc. That is where I focus. Compare to that, compared to who Y'shua is and restoring his original message from his native language, yes, two house is pretty far down my list. Others though can teach it and I won't have a problem with it. They don't do what I do and I don't do what they do, but all are strengthened from the Body of Messiah.
I could care less whether I???m Jewish or Ephraimitish. I???m just thankful that I???m Yeshua???s. But that doesn???t excuse Yeshua???s Teachings, now does it? If I???ve erred in clumping your name with mine and Avi???s, then I shall retract this error. I don???t know how wildly variant I am from your specific take on matters of identity anymore, I guess, so please, if you have the time, I really sincerely would like to be corrected.
And so I have done so with love and respect, but without sparing anything.
But if you think Mari is a "two house document" you are quite honestly very very wrong.
Well, if you completely avoid all matters of Scripture-pegged identity, then I guess I am very, very wrong. My curiosity of what IS going to be covered Nazarene-wise is heightened all the more! Hopefully nothing about Tzitzit, because apparently that puts too many people off.
Embrace Y'shua as Messiah and follow the Torah/NT.
Amen, to all 8 accounts!!!
Baruch is not a two houser at all, nor is Shali
I???ve been aware of this, and frankly, wondered why they???ve taken so much to you, considering what you???ve revealed to me concerning Ephraim, and all.
Because it is not salvation specific. It is NOT core. And Baruch and Shali agree with me 99% of the time. Even where we disagree, we discuss that disagreement in Mari. You will see.Nazarene theology is way, way bigger and more encompassing than two house, trust me.
and to the extent that I have co-opted a very limited understanding on that subject, it has been an opinion that has no bearing on core issues.
Now I know why, thank you.
In short, this is not an issue that I have thought strongly enough to divide people on. If we want to talk about the real Shabbat, the moedim being relevant, Godhead, those are important.
I also agree that it is not enough to divide over. But at least enough, and still part of Tanakh/Peshitta???s Truth, to sincerely consider. It sure does help understand the importance of embracing Torah, Shabbat, the Moedim, etc. and also the importance of shrugging off the garments of false holydays and pagan practices. It surely gets the point driven home if you realize that you???re a part of Yisra???el, and how that can be ?????? and how that can be without necessarily making everyone out to be Jewish. Or do you disagree?
Yes, but that doesn't mean I have time to deal with two house if that time spent means neglecting MY MISSION and MY EXPERTISE. Others can do so. I learn from them and they from me.
And this topic, of all of them, could not be less relevant to what I try to do.
I thought you were in the business of teaching the Truth, through-and-through?
When have I ever backed down from anything. You show me before you answer. I have talked about ALL issues that I have been aware of, including two house, but I have emphasis that I will not give up FOR two house. I think you know my business--another cheap shot.
I don't care what house or no house at all someone is. My answer for their salvation is the same:
Embrace Y'shua as Messiah and follow the Torah/NT.
Well, I too place no particularly excruciating emphasis on what House someone is or wants to be, but if they???re not in a House, then technically they???re not in Yisra???el, correct? I too could care less as to WHICH they choose or prefer, or even if they don???t comprehend the choices exactly enough to make any choice at all, just so long as they can come to a general understanding of what Scripture says, and what It does not say. To throw it completely to the side is to throw an element of Truth to the side, and this helps no one, especially those hungering and thirsting after Righteousness (Truth). My answer for their SALVATION is the same as yours, as it always has been. In that, I would have nothing further to say to Albion. But you know as well as I, that this whole issue is over already knowing this, and furthering our collective understanding of Scripture. So not Salvation-specific, rather Disciple-specific. Growing into all Truth. Putting on the Garments of Grace, Torah herself, upon which the Prophets and Writings have erected, and uphold the truths of history from God???s perspective, and also His Prophetic Voice of things to come. I???m not trying to get anyone saved here by delving into this stuff. I already consider them saved.
Then I humbly and respectfully suggest you move on from this topic, now that you understand me.
And lastly, to ???follow the Torah/NT???, one should have a proper understanding of them in order to properly do so, yes? Otherwise, by definition, does that one not instead believe something and thereby practice something, other than the Torah/NT??? And in conclusion, is this not why you graciously expended so much time and effort in writing me years ago, back-n-forth, on all of the Torah/NT? If so, then I???ve properly understood you. If not, and with anything else here, if I am in error, please, do bring me my correction. I respect you too much to intentionally mischaracterize you in ANY way, or ways. And that goes for your baby, MARI, as well. I will take the hinted advice, and keep my mouth shut about her from now on.
I love your voice Ryan. I cherish it even. But I think you got off track here okay?
Most affectionately yours,
Akh Ryan
P.S. My apologies to you also Albion, if I???ve only brought you more confusion than naught. Perhaps I need to take a break from everything for a while, and focus more on learning and reappraising things for now? It would appear that there might be something I myself am not getting right now, if Andrew is correct. The last thing I need to be doing is wreaking confusion into your time spent with Scripture.
Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
Shlama Akhi Ryan, and I am not angry at you first of all...
Well I don???t think I???ve tried to give the impression that I know too much about MARI???s format, other than what I portend its general character to portray: your beliefs. And being that I know you as a Netzari Jew who embraces 1 Torah for 1 Bride (Yisra???el), and everything else through reading your scholarly works and also from past correspondence where you taught me and taught me until I was able to understand what you were trying to say, I guess I am at a loss as to what you mean in saying that I???ve wrongly portrayed your beliefs.
Because you listed me without clarification next to Moshe K and Avi ben Mordechai, and this is a problem which I will explain.
I didn???t know whether MARI would be like RSTNE or NIVSB or what not ??? in fact, this is why I mentioned to Albion concerning ???the Nazarene Halakha section???. I???m really trying not to step outside the bounds here, and especially if things have changed since you???ve written your Path to Life and Back to the Basics works, Signs of the Cross and RQ 1&2, then I think it???s unfair to expect me to know that you???ve upgraded to something else. In what way(s) have I misportrayed YOUR beliefs?
My dear brother, my beliefs have NOT changed much in 20 years. And they have not changed one bit since our correspondence or my books being published. But I think that I am getting more attention now and more attention means greater scrutiny and greater scrutiny means greater chance for getting it wrong. Most of the time it is folks assumptions about what I must think because of things around a given issue (and thousands of emails over the years that I don't always recall exact wording) that create problems. But this has been happening WAY too often lately and I don't honestly think it is because of me.
I myself told Albion that I prefer ???Whole House??? instead of ???Two/2-House???, because I already know the negative baggage that the whole thing carries, and frankly, do remember your teaching me that ??? "two house" is a minomer.???
I think it???s important for me now to know that you are at variance with Avi, and I think I do need now to understand where and why (I???m asking). I probably gave the wrong impression by lining up your name with others??? names, which was contextually designed to illustrate the ???Jewishness??? of the corporate movement???s leaders/teachers, as opposed to Gentile. I apologize for including your name next to theirs, or theirs next to yours. The doctrine sure is fuzzy at times when one teacher claims to be at variance with another, but how EXACTLY have I swayed from what you???ve in past times taught me concerning the issue?
Avi and I have major doctrinal differences that go well beyond these issues. I believe in a literal virigin birth and he does not, for example. There is a lessening of NT authority with Avi as well that I think leads to misunderstandings and other problems. I respect Avi very much and love him like a brother--but he is a brother that I disagree with on a wide swath of issues and therefore, I cannot abide my name linked with his without clarification. I think Avi's understanding on two house (his wife Dina calls it "two houses becoming one" which I agree with) is close to mine generally but I have not studied his details.
See, practically everything you???ve listed already in your post above, I agree with, and is both nothing new to my ears, nor anything that I see myself having NOT portrayed concerning your understanding. Granted, we may be at variance on specifics that are down to the nitty-gritty (not sure really), but you???re making it sound like I???ve written a treatise of heresy (at least in comparison to your understanding of Yisra???el).
No Akhi. That is not what I said at all. But you can't given the difficulties I just listed with Avi and the obvious perversion of Moshe K now expect me just take vague linkage lightly, as if we all see things exactly the same? We do NOT.
I thought I was on the same page with you, albeit under the misnomer of ???misnomer???? I???m neither preaching nicely garbed theological anti-semitism, nor European transfer, nor anything of the likes. Perhaps it does seem likely that I???ve taken on more particulars as expressed through Avi???s teaching on Galatians, but it???s news to me that his views are drastically different enough from yours so as to blast me with ???This is now the fourth time I think in 2 months that people have made assumptions about my beliefs that 1) are wrong or at least oversimplified versions thereof, and 2) are made without even bothering to ask me.???
But that is true. All four occasions are recorded here, including Bauscher and Spyridon. But I agree largely with his Galatians book--perhaps not to his extremes but generally- or I would not have worked with him on it in the first place. You are only seeing what I said for you. You are not seeing the stress I have been under with my injury and a lot of baseless accusations. I am getting tired of it, and therefore less patient with even inadvertent inaccuracies about my beliefs. That doesn't mean I think you did me wrong. I don't. But you should understand I am tired and I am more sensitive than I normally would be. At the same time, the release of Mari is a lifelong dream that when I get used to it will be a healing balm, but right now I am challenged.
Not to sound pissy, but need I ask you your beliefs regarding Torah observance, before I am allowed to state what they are here at the Forum? Do I mischaracterize you when I accuse you of being a Torah-observant Netzari Jew, just because I didn???t ask you first?
First of all that is not an accusation, but a badge of honor. But you do sound "pissy" in the way you ask me. I am a little disappointed that you are not being a little more forebearing. I have always been supportive of you and patient with you. Why cannot I get just a little of that in return?
Amen! I disagree with NOTHING.
Good!
Replay:
In regards to my "two house" leanings specifically, it is simply a scriptural fact that Ephraim went away to the nations and that at some point will come back into fellowship, bring Gentiles along with them and sometimes being unaware of their lineage.
I believe the Prodigal Son is a very strong teaching on this, along with "dogs and pigs" that Y'shua and others reference often. In the parable, the father is YHWH, the older angry son who is always with him is Judah and the wayward son who lived with pigs but came home is Ephraim. The conflict that the brothers have and the father's answer speaks volumes as to the relationship of the houses of Israel, but in the end we will have ONE HOUSE OF ISRAEL that inlcudes all nations in restoration. That's right.
There may be two houses now, but what counts is that they will be ONE HOUSE as the nations ask Messiah, the head of Judah, to come and follow him (Zechariah 8:23).
Yes! You have not misrepresented yourself to me, to yourself, nor did I think that I did of you to anyone else. ???Whole House??? sounds suspiciously similar to ???ONE HOUSE???, wouldn???t you say?
No I would not say that and in fact did not say that, and such is part of my frustration. That is part of the reading in process that I am not happy with. Orthodox Jews (many, not all) are true ONE HOUSE, in the sense that Ephraim does not return and Gentiles don't come into full Torah but Noachide. That is NOT my belief. A true ONE HOUSE belief is that it is one house NOW and that Ephraim does not return to re form that one house. I acknowledge there are TWO HOUSES now, but I clarify that it will not stay that way.
I mean, as in echad as opposed to yachid. Once YHWH split the Kingdom, it was by definition, split (in two), though still ONE Yisra???el. The unifying is continguous, unless you???d like me to rob you of rightfully being Judean, by claiming in my non-Judean-ness, of now being Judean?
That is disingenous and not worthy of you. I think you know that is a cheap shot. Really Ryan, what is going on? And what makes YOU think YOU can rob me of my inheritance? Do you think I am worried about that? I think you owe me an apology.
Shedding off ???Gentile??? yes, but not impersonating someone that I???m not (if everyone did this, there???d be no Returning Prodigal Ephraim left!). But in distinction from the movement such as First Fruits of Zion, by ???One House??? this is not referring to Judah being ALL 12 TRIBES ??? or have you changed your mind? I thought you were more than clear enough when you first told me, and now also above, when you state the ???scriptural fact that Ephraim went away to the nations and that at some point will come back into fellowship???. The parable of the Prodigal Son AND the Son who stayed at home; the 2 Sticks of Ezekiel; the Two Olive Trees; the WILD branches and the NATURAL (both referred to as the same species of wood: OLIVE, by which grafting-in IS POSSIBLE), etc. etc. etc.
I think I have been consistent in explaining this, both before and throughout this thread. Again I have NOT changed my mind. You have not heard me.
Why do you feel I am at such variance with you? Ephraim is Ephraim. The Jews are the Jews. Ephraim was divorced and cast to the Goyim to become Goyim. When I came to you, a Jew, you guided me to the Torah, and the Mashiakh of that Torah. You don???t have to lay out issues of equality for me again, because I already agree with you on that.
Then there shouldn't be a problem. Again, I was responding to you linking me WITHOUT explanation to Avi and Moshe K. Is this unclear?
What Albion does not acknowledge in his take on Romans 11, is the clear fact that the Jews are not ALONE Yisra???el ??? thereby when grafted-in, the Gentiles do not all become Jews, but Yisra???elites; not all believing Yisra???elites are Jews, though all believing Jews are Yisra???elites. If the Gentile wishes to attach himself to Judah, then that???s one thing. Otherwise, isn???t there room for Ephraim to just be Ephraim? I thought you were more than clear in acknowledgment to Ephraim???s existence. And if so, then whether by ???misnomer??? or not, this is the core substance of the whole ???Two House??? teaching, is it not? Again:
I agree with that. What is YOUR problem? You are overreacting. And "misnomer" means an inaccurate label, which if people don't look fully into the reality and final disposition of Two House creates problem. But that doesn't mean other parts of NT are not EXPLCITLY about Judah too. Ephraim was NOT trusted with "the oracles of Elohim", for example.
There may be two houses now, but what counts is that they will be ONE HOUSE as the nations ask Messiah, the head of Judah, to come and follow him (Zechariah 8:23).
Yes! Hey ??? I grabbed your tzitziyot, not the other way around!
But alas, if you want me to ???Forget two house, one house, blah blah. Focus instead on what I call ONE DOOR, DOESN'T MATTER HOW MANY HOUSES.???, then fine already. I haven???t been persecuting Albion or anyone else for [allegedly] not being truly saved or what-not; in fact, it???s been quite the opposite. I refer to him as my ???brother-in-faith???, and many other times as brother in Messiah, Christ, Alaha, etc. even when some other Netzarim have made this allegation. I understand the core passion you possess for Mashiakh Alone being the focus of our faith and passions. I don???t disagree at all. When it comes to properly understanding this doctrine, you passionately defend it. And rightfully so. No one can be saved apart from Yeshua (Salvation). And likewise, you???re passionate in your desire for all to properly understand that the Peshitta was written before the Greek translations of it. Proper doctrine: truth. So what???s wrong with trying to also properly hash out the PROPER UNDERSTANDING of the rest of Scripture? Are you okay with people misunderstanding the proper Semitic understanding of the story of the Prodigal Son? I didn???t think so. And neither am I. But I???m not conking people over the heads and forcing them to understand, either. If the Prodigal is Ephraim, as you say he is, then am I disallowed from stating such? Or accused of misrepresenting your views if I make the claim that you also believe this?
Again you misunderstand, and all this stuff leads from that misunderstanding. Not all two house belief is Armostrongism. Not all of it is racist. Not all of it is good or scriptural either. It is the details that matter.
This is how you???ve made me to feel, dear Andrew. I feel blasted. I???ve not once claimed that a 2-House / Two House / One Law / One House / Whole House / misnomer House(s) doctrine is Salvific-entertaining. But don???t YOU think that proper identity is important to discuss?
AGR:
Moshe K has made it a salvation specific belief. I have NOT. That has always been true. Every scripture issue is "important" but some have specialties that vary. MINE is Aramaic NT primacy. That has a lot of discussion, along with general Nazarene halacha, history, Torah observance, etc. That is where I focus. Compare to that, compared to who Y'shua is and restoring his original message from his native language, yes, two house is pretty far down my list. Others though can teach it and I won't have a problem with it. They don't do what I do and I don't do what they do, but all are strengthened from the Body of Messiah.
I could care less whether I???m Jewish or Ephraimitish. I???m just thankful that I???m Yeshua???s. But that doesn???t excuse Yeshua???s Teachings, now does it? If I???ve erred in clumping your name with mine and Avi???s, then I shall retract this error. I don???t know how wildly variant I am from your specific take on matters of identity anymore, I guess, so please, if you have the time, I really sincerely would like to be corrected.
And so I have done so with love and respect, but without sparing anything.
But if you think Mari is a "two house document" you are quite honestly very very wrong.
Well, if you completely avoid all matters of Scripture-pegged identity, then I guess I am very, very wrong. My curiosity of what IS going to be covered Nazarene-wise is heightened all the more! Hopefully nothing about Tzitzit, because apparently that puts too many people off.
Embrace Y'shua as Messiah and follow the Torah/NT.
Amen, to all 8 accounts!!!
Baruch is not a two houser at all, nor is Shali
I???ve been aware of this, and frankly, wondered why they???ve taken so much to you, considering what you???ve revealed to me concerning Ephraim, and all.
Because it is not salvation specific. It is NOT core. And Baruch and Shali agree with me 99% of the time. Even where we disagree, we discuss that disagreement in Mari. You will see.Nazarene theology is way, way bigger and more encompassing than two house, trust me.
and to the extent that I have co-opted a very limited understanding on that subject, it has been an opinion that has no bearing on core issues.
Now I know why, thank you.
In short, this is not an issue that I have thought strongly enough to divide people on. If we want to talk about the real Shabbat, the moedim being relevant, Godhead, those are important.
I also agree that it is not enough to divide over. But at least enough, and still part of Tanakh/Peshitta???s Truth, to sincerely consider. It sure does help understand the importance of embracing Torah, Shabbat, the Moedim, etc. and also the importance of shrugging off the garments of false holydays and pagan practices. It surely gets the point driven home if you realize that you???re a part of Yisra???el, and how that can be ?????? and how that can be without necessarily making everyone out to be Jewish. Or do you disagree?
Yes, but that doesn't mean I have time to deal with two house if that time spent means neglecting MY MISSION and MY EXPERTISE. Others can do so. I learn from them and they from me.
And this topic, of all of them, could not be less relevant to what I try to do.
I thought you were in the business of teaching the Truth, through-and-through?
When have I ever backed down from anything. You show me before you answer. I have talked about ALL issues that I have been aware of, including two house, but I have emphasis that I will not give up FOR two house. I think you know my business--another cheap shot.
I don't care what house or no house at all someone is. My answer for their salvation is the same:
Embrace Y'shua as Messiah and follow the Torah/NT.
Well, I too place no particularly excruciating emphasis on what House someone is or wants to be, but if they???re not in a House, then technically they???re not in Yisra???el, correct? I too could care less as to WHICH they choose or prefer, or even if they don???t comprehend the choices exactly enough to make any choice at all, just so long as they can come to a general understanding of what Scripture says, and what It does not say. To throw it completely to the side is to throw an element of Truth to the side, and this helps no one, especially those hungering and thirsting after Righteousness (Truth). My answer for their SALVATION is the same as yours, as it always has been. In that, I would have nothing further to say to Albion. But you know as well as I, that this whole issue is over already knowing this, and furthering our collective understanding of Scripture. So not Salvation-specific, rather Disciple-specific. Growing into all Truth. Putting on the Garments of Grace, Torah herself, upon which the Prophets and Writings have erected, and uphold the truths of history from God???s perspective, and also His Prophetic Voice of things to come. I???m not trying to get anyone saved here by delving into this stuff. I already consider them saved.
Then I humbly and respectfully suggest you move on from this topic, now that you understand me.
And lastly, to ???follow the Torah/NT???, one should have a proper understanding of them in order to properly do so, yes? Otherwise, by definition, does that one not instead believe something and thereby practice something, other than the Torah/NT??? And in conclusion, is this not why you graciously expended so much time and effort in writing me years ago, back-n-forth, on all of the Torah/NT? If so, then I???ve properly understood you. If not, and with anything else here, if I am in error, please, do bring me my correction. I respect you too much to intentionally mischaracterize you in ANY way, or ways. And that goes for your baby, MARI, as well. I will take the hinted advice, and keep my mouth shut about her from now on.
I love your voice Ryan. I cherish it even. But I think you got off track here okay?
Most affectionately yours,
Akh Ryan
P.S. My apologies to you also Albion, if I???ve only brought you more confusion than naught. Perhaps I need to take a break from everything for a while, and focus more on learning and reappraising things for now? It would appear that there might be something I myself am not getting right now, if Andrew is correct. The last thing I need to be doing is wreaking confusion into your time spent with Scripture.
Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth