Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Sons and Daughters BY ADOPTION
#1
Dear Chaverim,

I would like to speak about "the simple way" of becoming a Son or Daughter of Zion, and that's by adoption!

We as Gentiles, are being/and have been, "grafted in" as wild olive branches.

Were (some) other branches broken off so that we Gentiles could be grafted in?

It appears so.

But we need to keep our humility about this, and we need to REMEMBER WHO THE NATURAL OLIVE BRANCHES ARE.

The JEWISH PEOPLE ARE THE NATURAL OLIVE TREE BRANCHES.

They, and NONE OTHER represent, Israel, and "Zion".

And as we are "grafted into" the natural olive tree, we ARE SONS AND DAUGHTERS, BY "ADOPTION".

Who ADOPTS US? None other, then YHWH HIMSELF!

This is the "simplistic way" of Yah's Adoption Process.

It's so much simpler then these wild theories of "British Israelism", or "The Two House" movement(s).

Alaha always works in natural, and "simplistic" ways.

Comments welcome.

Shlama, Albion
Reply
#2
And that dear Albion IS what the Bible teaches <!-- s:bigups: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/bigups.gif" alt=":bigups:" title="Big Ups" /><!-- s:bigups: -->
Reply
#3
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!!!

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.
Reply
#4
Shlama Akhi Ryan,

My beliefs are different from Moshe K and certainly from Avi ben Mordechai. I don't emphasize Two House stuff AT ALL. It is not a salvation specific matter nor an Aramaic Primacy matter. It is a school of thought about trends in Scripture and there have been extremes on all sides about this.

If you have a question about what I believe, just ask. For now, just know that Mari is NOT the Restoration Scriptures, and there is no running Two House commentary in it. It is true that before Moshe K's fall I supported RSTNE but I did so within some pretty specific criteria. The fact is I have worked with so called One House and Two House Messianics for more than 20 years.

Obviously also, I am against anything that denies the spritual inheritance of my people and transfers it to Europe or anywhere else. Armstrong was a heretic of the highest order, and I have said that for years. It should also go without saying that all forms of anti-semitism are repudiated by me in the strongest possible terms, regardless as to how carefully people try to wrap it in theological garb.

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 shouldn't have to give you the hundreds of citations on the matter. Of course Jeremiah 31, Isaiah 66 and Ezekiel 36 and 37 speak to this. 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. "two house" is a minomer. 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).

And I will tell you something else. The New Covenant of Jeremiah 31 is ONLY with Israel, Judah and those who join to them--meanng all of you too, but you come in as part of the COMMONWEALTH of Israel (Ephesians 2:11-16). But lest you think this is a preaching agenda of Mari, IT IS NOT. HONESTLY, I DON'T CARE IF PEOPLE BELIEVE THIS OR NOT. IT MAKES NO IMPACT ON WHAT I TRY TO DO AT ALL.

You see Ryan, this is what the bottom line is for me. Forget two house, one house, blah blah. Focus instead on what I call ONE DOOR, DOESN'T MATTER HOW MANY HOUSES. This is what I mean.

1) If you are an Orthodox Jew, your answer is to:

Embrace Y'shua as Messiah and follow the Torah/NT.

2) If you are an Ephraimite, returning Israelite, etc, your answer is to:

Embrace Y'shua as Messiah and follow the Torah/NT.

3) If you are a "pure Gentile", your answer is to:

Embrace Y'shua as Messiah and follow the Torah/NT.

4) If you are from polytheistic traditons, neo paganism, new age-ism, etc., your answer is to:

Embrace Y'shua as Messiah and follow the Torah/NT.

5) If you are from this house, that house or no house at all, your answer is to:

Embrace Y'shua as Messiah and follow the Torah/NT.

6) If you are a secular humanist, and atheist, a communist or from any political scenario that subverts faith, your answer is to:

Embrace Y'shua as Messiah and follow the Torah/NT.

7) If you are a Hebraic Roots Christian, a sincere student of the Word and its culture while staying in mainline churches, your answer is to:

Embrace Y'shua as Messiah and follow the Torah/NT.

<!-- s8) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/cool.gif" alt="8)" title="Cool" /><!-- s8) --> If you are Protestant, Catholic, Eastern/Western Orthodox, "heterodox", Ebionite, Nazarene, COE, SOC or any other acronym that may apply, your answer is:

Embrace Y'shua as Messiah and follow the Torah/NT.

There is ONE TORAH for Jew and for foreigner. We can argue all day as to what that Torah is, how it applies, etc., but such is NOT for me to do here. But if you think Mari is a "two house document" you are quite honestly very very wrong. Baruch is not a two houser at all, nor is Shali, 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.

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. But as for the rest, to paraphrase Billy Joel:

"Two house, one house, even with an old louse it's still just the Word to me."

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.

And this topic, of all of them, could not be less relevant to what I try to do. 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.

Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
Reply
#5
Shlama Andrew,


Quote:If you have a question about what I believe, just ask. For now, just know that Mari is NOT the Restoration Scriptures, and there is no running Two House commentary in it. It is true that before Moshe K's fall I supported RSTNE but I did so within some pretty specific criteria. The fact is I have worked with so called One House and Two House Messianics for more than 20 years.

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. 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? 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? 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). 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.???

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?

Quote: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 shouldn't have to give you the hundreds of citations on the matter. Of course Jeremiah 31, Isaiah 66 and Ezekiel 36 and 37 speak to this. 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. "two house" is a minomer. 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).

Amen! I disagree with NOTHING.

Replay:

Quote: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.

Quote: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.

Quote: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? 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? 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.

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. 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:

Quote: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?

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? 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.

Quote: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.

Quote:Embrace Y'shua as Messiah and follow the Torah/NT.

Amen, to all 8 accounts!!!

Quote: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.

Quote: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.

Quote: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?

Quote: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?

Quote: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.

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.


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.
Reply
#6
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
Reply
#7
Shlama AKhi Rafa,

No I am not mad at you at all. I would certainly tell you if I was. Self expression is not one of my problems...

And for the record, I am not mad at Ryan or Bauscher or Spyridon either.

I have a passionate nature and a forceful style. I make no apologies for that, but at my heart I am a caring man. I dispute things strongly because the issues matter, and I don't like having my views misunderstood any more than the next person.

Rafa, you and Ryan have exchanged many emails with me over the months and years. I have been patient and will be patient and helpful wherever possible. But I also will fight for my beliefs. I attack positions, not people.

Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
Reply
#8
Quote:Likewise, if you do believe that God Himself is the One Who grafts Gentiles to the Jewish olive tree, how do you explain that Jesus would forbid his disciples to take his gospel to the Gentiles? (Mat. 10:5,6)

Shlama, Ben.

It seems that prohibition was a temporary command for expediency on their first mission trip. In the same passage, Jesus hints that this will eventually result in them going before kings and governors and result in them being witnesses to Gentiles (Matt. 10:18).

Also, it can't be an eternal command because Jesus himself witnessed to Gentiles, such as the Samaritan woman at the well.

In addition, Acts 1:8 makes it clear that the disciples are expected to expand beyond the borders of Israel.

This brings to mind Isaiah 49:6, as well:
Quote:"It is too small a thing for you to be my servant
to restore the tribes of Jacob
and bring back those of Israel I have kept.
I will also make you a light for the Gentiles,
that you may bring my salvation to the ends of the earth."

bar Sinko
Reply
#9
Andrew Gabriel Roth wrote
Quote:3) If you are a "pure Gentile", your answer is to:

Embrace Y'shua as Messiah and follow the Torah/NT.

The Scriptural answer is:
Acts 15:5 - And some who from the sect of the Pharisees had believed, rose up and said: It is necessary for you to circumcise them, and to command them to observe the law of Moses.
Acts 15:10 - And now, why tempt ye God, by putting a yoke on the necks of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we could bear?
Acts 15:23 - And they wrote a letter by them, thus: The legates and Elders and brethren, to them that are in Antioch, and in Syria, and in Cilicia, brethren who are from the Gentiles, greeting:
Acts 15:24 - We have heard, that some have gone from us and disquieted you, by discourses, and have subverted your minds, by saying, That ye must be circumcised and keep the law; things which we have not commanded them.
Acts 15:25 - Therefore we all have thought fit, when assembled, to choose and send men to you, with our beloved Paul and Barnabas,
Acts 15:28 - For it was pleasing to the Holy Spirit, and to us, that there should not be laid upon you any additional burden, besides these necessary things:
Acts 15:29 - that ye keep aloof from a sacrifice [to idols], and from blood, and from what is strangled, and from whoredom. And if ye keep yourselves from these, ye will do well. Be ye steadfast in the Lord.

Acts 15:31 - And when they had read [it], they rejoiced and were comforted

Galatians 3:28 - There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free-born, neither male nor female; for ye are all one in Jesus the Messiah.

Galatians 3:29 - And if you are of the Meshiha, therefore are you the seed of Abraham, and heirs by the promise
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)