"Moreover, thou son of man, take thee one stick, and write upon it, For Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions: then take another stick, and write upon it, For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim and for all the house of Israel his companions: And join them one to another into one stick; and they shall become one in thine hand. And when the children of thy people shall speak unto thee, saying, Wilt thou not shew us what thou meanest by these? Say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I will take the stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel his fellows, and will put them with him, even with the stick of Judah, and make them one stick, and they shall be one in mine hand. And the sticks whereon thou writest shall be in thine hand before their eyes. And say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I will take the children of Israel from among the heathen, whither they be gone, and will gather them on every side, and bring them into their own land: And I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king to them all: and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all". Ezechiel 37:16-22. If we are Israel too then things are different for all of us. This is called the awakening of Ephraim. I hope that you cannot ignore this information I know you loved to study. I tell you for me this is the truth of the Bible. 12 doors new Jerusalem(12 tribes), not 33000 thousands denominations are entering. I really recommend Identity crisis of Jim Staley. Judaizers had the oral law, and add many things to the law, this is why Jesus argue with them. Blessings brother. I hope not to offend you.

Your realy realy wrong on the ethnicity thing. I'm a Jew and I'm American.

@justingrove5190

3 жыл бұрын

hmmm . . . could you define ethnicity for me? Because I don't think that the fact that you are a Jew and an American counts as a proper counter-example.

@crazywhiteboy613

3 жыл бұрын

@@justingrove5190 www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ethnicity How is it not?

@justingrove5190

3 жыл бұрын

​@@crazywhiteboy613 That is really not much of a definition: "a particular ethnic affiliation or group". Of course it links to "ethnic" but that is defined as "of or relating to large groups of people classed according to common racial, national, tribal, religious, linguistic, or cultural origin or background". So we can conclude that an ethnicity based on the link you provided is "a group of people classed according to common racial, national, tribal, religious, linguistic, or cultural origin or background". That is so broad as to be almost unusable. That is the reason I asked you to define it. It is not an adequate counter-example because American is not generally considered an ethnicity, but a "nationality" in the modern sense of denoting belonging to a political body (though in the video I was using "nation" in the traditional sense -- because someone in the first century would have thought that way -- where it would denote being born from a single father). Thus Paul was a Roman citizen, but never really a Roman. Still American can be considered an ethnicity in the normal sense of the word, but it generally admits to belonging to a different ethnicity at the same time. Thus someone can be Irish and American at the same time. This is the reason that I chose Irish and not American in the video in the first place.

@crazywhiteboy613

3 жыл бұрын

@@justingrove5190 We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one.

@justingrove5190

3 жыл бұрын

@@crazywhiteboy613 On what one exactly? I'm not really sure what you are objecting to here? That "American" as a term is somehow significantly different than "Irish"? That American when considered with regard to ethnicity is unique because it assume a relatively recent multiplicity of origin? That there is a significant difference between "ethnicity" and "nationality" as used in recent decades, but that this distinction we largely not made before 20th century? That the definition of "ethnic" in MW is too broad to be helpful? That Jewish counts as an ethnicity? That the proper practice of the Jewish religion requires embracing that ethnicity? That adopting that ethnicity by conversion would require relinquishing previously held ethnic identities to a significant degree? That Christian, Muslim, and Buddhist have a much weaker ethnic component that Jewish? That your claim about being a Jew and an American doesn't count as a significant counter-example to some or all of the above? I suppose it's fine you don't want to discuss where I've made a mistake, but it might be nice for you to at least make clear what it is that I've said that is "really really" wrong.

Actually, St. Paul doesn't even bind Christians to the moral law. ALL the law is a package. And ALL of it is jumped over from Abraham to Christ. (See Galatians, and Acts 20). The people St. Paul is referring to in Acts 20 are these very Judaizers you speak about. "5 “And indeed, now I know that you all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, will see my face no more. 26 Therefore I testify to you this day that I am innocent[e] of the blood of all men. 27 For I have not [f]shunned to declare to you the whole counsel of God. 28 Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church [g]of God which He purchased with His own blood. 29 For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. 30 Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking [h]perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves. 31 Therefore watch, and remember that for three years I did not cease to warn everyone night and day with tears." - Acts 20

@salpezzino7803

7 ай бұрын

ya he did, 1 Timothy 1

Justin, by the looks of it you would consider me a Judaizer. Regardless, i don't think i fit your definition perfectly because i don't believe in circumcision and keeping of the various Judaic feasts. I however believe the 10 commandments are relevant in the life of a Christian, not as a means to obtain righteousness but rather as an essential guide in Godliness and righteous living. For instance, i keep the Sabbath on the 7th day (unlike some who keep it on the 1st day), but i always bring the teachings of the Lord Jesus about its observance to bear. In the same way, i observe the rest of the commandments with the words of the Lord Jesus in mind. The reason why i believe this to be the correct way to look at the issue concerning God's law and justification by faith is that i don't think there is any verse in the Bible that tells us that we can just pick and choose which of the 10 commandments we are to keep and which to discard. On the other hand, Christians who are quick to point the likes of me out have no problem observing feasts that are unmistakably of pagan origin, and even use the original pagan names for them (like Easter). Nowhere in the New Testament do we see a clear shift in keeping Sunday instead of Saturday, except for circumstantial occasions where the apostle Paul might have over extended a sermon towards the evening of the Sabbath day. All in all i believe there is a huge misunderstanding going on among believers about what it means to rely on the grace of God and the manner in which we ought to live after being saved.

@JAHtony1111

3 жыл бұрын

The Ten Commandments are much harder under the new. It includes the evil thought, not just the deed. Thus, the Ten are inadequate under the new because the new covenant requires belief and obedience to Christ, extends the Law and theTen to evil thought, and the new has otherwise changed the Law (new priesthood, etc.)

@ChuddleBuggy

3 жыл бұрын

@@JAHtony1111 I totally agree. And I do hope you didn't mean that to be an excuse to do away with the 10 commandments.

@JAHtony1111

3 жыл бұрын

@@ChuddleBuggy the Ten are repeated in the new, but with changes. Yashua is our Sabbath, and our God, thus changing the first Four. And u cant even entertain the evil thought of the other Six. So, we still keep the Ten Commandments, but in Spirit and Truth, aka, more sincerely. Much love.

@justingrove5190

2 жыл бұрын

Bit late it replying to this, but it sounds like you think that that 10 commandments are at the heart of the moral law as opposed to the civil/ceremonial law. Is that correct? If that is all, I would not call you a Judaizer, though I would say that I think you are mistaken about the Sabbath and especially about Easter, though I do question certain practices that have been inadequately baptized from pagan cultures.

@giovanni545

10 ай бұрын

apostle Paul kept the old testament feast days like day of atonement and pentacost as has leviticus 23 tells how to keep them, Paul also circumsise a beliver. so brethen your close just follow the rest of the torah.

wait the first beliver in YAHUSHA (JESUS) were jew and they still kept the law of Moses and we see this even in the new testament in the book of Luke 23:56 where the women were keeping the sabbath day commandments and in the book of Acts we see apostle Peter keeping the food laws of leviticus 11 and even after the vision He explain later in the same chapter that the meaning of the vision is to not call any man common or unclean. also YAHUSHA (JESUS) said HE came not to abolish the law or the prophet but to fulfill, so the understanding that fulfill = obsolete its wrong cause YAHUSHA then says that who so over breaks the least of the law and teaches other to do the same shall be called least in the kingdome of heaven and who so does and teach other to do the law shall be called great in the kingdome of heaven. so keeping torah is how one is called great in the kingdome of heaven. also this verse describes the saints of God with these 2 characteristic Revelation 14:12 King James Version 12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.

@salpezzino7803

7 ай бұрын

you Satan worshipers are everywhere

@p0rq

2 ай бұрын

I dunno who Yahusha is. I read the Gospel, which comes from Greek, which contains a man called Jesus (transliterated from the Greek). It is transliterated to English because I am English and speak English. I am not a Jew, I do not speak Hebrew natively. His name is Jesus. Repent.

So, please tell me where scripture makes unclean food clean, where it says Sunday is the sabbath, and why Paul, along with all the other apostles kept following torah? You'd think if God made it easier for the gentiles, he'd have included his chosen people. I do NOT believe the Christian church even understands the new testament, because we don't read it through a Jewish lens. There was no "christianity" for the first 200 years of the church. There was only messianic believers. Enter Pagan Constantine and all the confusion begins...

@justingrove5190

2 жыл бұрын

My position is actually that God also does not require Jews who have been baptized to keep the OT laws. Paul makes this very clear in Galatians 2. He no longer followed Torah nor did Peter (except to please the Judaizers) and Paul doesn't think the other Apostles should either. Also see Acts 10 where God says Himself that the Kosher Laws are abolished.

@policci

2 жыл бұрын

@@justingrove5190 Man, I don't know what misinformation you're studying to have said this, especially having listened to a few of your other teachings, which demonstrate you are well researched on many things. Let's address the Torah thing first, then we'll end with baptism. 1. I [Paul] am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city, educated under Gamaliel, strictly according to the law of our fathers, being zealous for God, just as you all are today. Acts 22:3 2. Galatians was written BEFORE Acts 15. Since the letter to the Galatians does not mention the Jerusalem decision, it must have been written before that decision, therefore somewhere in AD48-50. Since the Jerusalem council decision is dated to AD48-50 (about 20 years after Christ’s death) it means that Galatians was written during those same years. It would make Galatians the earliest of Paul’s letters. 3. Acts 10 God abolishes Kosher? First of all, Kosher is a term not used in scripture. While kosher may or may not refer to what God declared clean vs unclean (and He did that back in Noah's day, not just in Leviticus, go read it in Genesis) it is more often used to wrap in rabbinical tradition. God's "Kosher" is clean versus unclean. And Act's 10 isn't about food, it's about people. Didja read all the way to verse 28? 4. Baptism. Do you think that is a Christian practice? Do you know what a Mikvah is? Brother, I know you are TRYING to teach, but you really need to study under a Jewish believer in the messiah if you want to understand the new testament. It is a JEWISH book, written by JEWS, to JEWS and for over a thousand years, we gentiles think we can interpret it. Start with Tom Bradford, that's a great place to begin. I think you will find his teachings irrefutable.

@justingrove5190

2 жыл бұрын

@@policci Brother, sorry this has taken me so long to reply to. Working two jobs at the moment, Also thank you for changing the word "nonsense" to misinformation" in the interim; the former was unnecessarily inflammatory. 1. This sentence is in the past tense. He was educated according to the law, but that does not mean that he continued to keep the law after he fully understood his conversion. The passage does not hint one way or the other based on his words because the Jews forced him into silence before he could answer one way or the other. 2.I'm not sure exactly why this matters. St. Paul held a position regarding the law before he went to the Council, which, assuming your chronology, he expressed in Galatians. At the Council he expressed that position again. The Council on a practical matter ruled in his favor but on a theological level ruled in James's favor. 3. The point about the word not appearing in the text is pedantic. The word wasn't used to refer to dietary laws when the OT was written. You might as well claim that St. Paul isn't discussing soteriology simply because the term was invented later. Regarding your point about Acts 10: That is a reasonable enough interpretation except that in 11:2-3 it says "So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcised believers criticized him and said, 'You went into the house of uncircumcised men and ate with them.'" Whatever conclusion Peter drew about God's message, what it meant was that the people involved were not following the law at the very least because they were not circumcised. But the implication (esp. given the literal meaning of the message) is that the eating which was being objected to was nonkosher eating. This makes all the more sense when you read Galatians 2:14 in which it says explicitly that Peter was "liv[ing] like a Gentile and not like a Jew". . . . .

@justingrove5190

2 жыл бұрын

@@policci . . . . 4. Christian baptism is different than a simple Jewish ritual washing in a mikvah in the same way that the Baptism of John was different than Christian Baptism mentioned in Act 19:4-5. Obviously the practice is of Jewish origin, but it is not the same thing as the practice, just as the Lord's Supper is derived from the Passover meal, but it is not the same thing as a Jewish Passover meal. In Christian baptism you put on Christ (cf Gal 3:27) and are therefore inheritors of the promise to Abraham and as such are no longer in need to a paedagogos which paedagogos is the law (Gal. 3:24-25) Fundamentally, I see no reason why I should assume that a modern Jew who has converted to Christianity (I assume you mean a Jew who believes in Christ as the Messiah by Jewish believer) has any greater insight into the faith generally speaking than the members of the historical Christian Church who have been living in grace for the past 2000 years. We are children of the promise because God has raised us up by faith, whereas those Jews who did not accept the Messiah rejected the culmination of their inheritance. As St. Paul also says in Romans 9: "For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel." As our Lord said in Mt 21:43 "the kingdom of God [has] be[en] taken away from [them] and given to a people who will produce its fruit." The OT testifies to this eventually happening for the second is regularly placed over the former. Leave Hagar and her first born and enter into the covenant with Sarah and her son of promise. Leave Esau with his lukewarm disregard for the things of God and follow Jacob. For the older will serve the younger. Seek the blessing of Ephraim for he has already surpassed Manasseh. Rachel is far more beautiful and Leah. Esther pleases the king and saves the people whereas Vashti has been put away because she did not respond when called. For Abel's offering is pleasing to God and Cain's is not. Joshua (Jesus) leads the people into the promised land where Moses (and his law) cannot. Elisha preaches God's word when Elijah on Mount Horeb refuses.

@boejiden6587

5 ай бұрын

Wrong