This isn’t that hard to understand despite decades of many Christians missing/ or ignoring it. Jason Staples’ work is absolutely amazing! He totally gets it!! Others like Batya Wootten and Ephraim and Rimona Frank have been at this for a long time as well. Genesis 48, all 14 chapters of Hosea, the new covenant in Jeremiah, the two sticks of Ezekiel and many other prophets of God speak of this. It’s almost too easy yet many don’t see it, ignore it, or reject it.
Paul quotes Jeremiah when YHWH told him of a new covenant, making the old obsolete, at which point it was ready to vanish. "In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away." Heb 8:13 Then Paul tells us that the Holy Spirit, in Hebrews 8:13, indicated that the way into the Most Holy wasn't known/manifest as long as the temple held its place/function/position in God's plans. "By this the Holy Spirit indicates that the way into the holy places is not yet opened as long as the first section is still standing (which is symbolic for the present age)" Heb 9:8 Then Paul indicates he now knew the way into the Most Holy Place. "But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation)" Heb 9:11 Therefore, the moment Jesus entered Heaven to offer His blood on our behalf in fulfillment of the High Priest role, the sacrifices at the temple ceased. (In God's prophetic plan) A son of Abraham today is one of faith...
Sacrifices hadn’t ceased on earth until the temple was actually destroyed. Then it was clear that God did not dwell in a temple of men’s hands and the priesthood on earth was changed for the Priest in heaven, signifying also the necessary change in Law/Covenant.
@@purview4012 Just because the Jews carried on with physical sacrifices doesn't change the fact that they ceased in God's prophetic plans the moment Jesus entered Heaven.
Jesus ended sacrificing for sins… anything after His accepted offering is blasphemous…Heb 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
Paul was looking to his future when saying "all Israel shall be saved ". The resurrection accomplished at after the destruction of Jerusalem ended the Mosiac age then " all Israel " was saved. New Heavens and earth consummated, Jew and Gentile in one body (the Israel of God)
You're ignoring Hosea and a long list of OT writers, as well as Christ and Paul, James, and Peter, who refer to Gentile believers counted as the chosen, thus "all Israel."
We create problems when we read Paul saying "one day all of Israel will be saved." Actually, Paul is pointing backswords to Christs work saying in effect "in this manner" "shall all Israel be saved." And in Acts 2 Peter affirms Gods promise to David as having been fulfilled through Christ, who was raised from the dead. The Resurrection motif is inseparable from salvation, redemption, and regathering. All of this is realised in Christ. God's promised Isaac is subsumed in Christ, not national Israel, or Judah Correct?
New Covenant Whole Gospel: How many modern Christians cannot honestly answer the questions below? Who is the King of Israel in John 1:49? Is the King of Israel now the Head of the Church, and are we His Body? Who is the “son” that is the “heir” to the land in Matthew 21:37-43? Why did God allow the Romans to destroy the Old Covenant temple and the Old Covenant city, about 40 years after His Son fulfilled the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34 in blood at Calvary? What the modern Church needs is a New Covenant Revival (Heb. 9:10) in which members of various denominations are willing to re-examine everything they believe and see if it agrees with the Bible, instead of the traditions of men. We need to be like the Bereans. It will be a battle between our flesh and the Holy Spirit. It will not be easy. If you get mad and upset when someone challenges your man-made Bible doctrines, that is your flesh resisting the truth found in God's Word. Nobody can completely understand the Bible unless they understand the relationship between the Old Covenant given to Moses at Mount Sinai and the New Covenant fulfilled in blood at Calvary. God is not now a “racist”. He has extended His love to all races of people through the New Covenant fulfilled by His Son’s blood at Calvary. The Apostle Paul warned against using “genealogies” in our faith in 1 Tim. 1:4, and Titus 3:9. ===== Romans Chapter 11: In its New Covenant context... There is no Plan B of salvation outside of the New Covenant Church in this passage. Plan A is found in verses 23 and 24. In Romans 1:16 Paul said the Gospel was taken "first" to the Jews. This time period can be found in Matt. 10:5-7, and Acts 10:36-38, and Gal. 1:14-18. Many try to claim God never gave the Jews a chance to accept Christ, so there must be some Plan B of salvation before or during the Second Coming of Christ. Romans 1:16 proves they are wrong, since Paul said the Gospel went "first" to the Jews. Many ignore the fact that Peter addressed the crowd as "men of Judea", and as "men of Israel", and as "all the house of Israel" on the Day of Pentecost, when about 3,000 Israelites accepted the New Covenant fulfilled in blood at Calvary. The Gentiles were not grafted in until several years later. This passage proves Paul was right about the Gospel being taken "first" to the Jews. Were all of the Israelites "partially" hardened in Romans 11, or were part hardened and another part were not hardened? The answer is found in the "remnant" of Romans 11:5. Paul reveals two different groups of Israelites in Romans 9:6-8. There is an Israel of the promise, and an Israel of the flesh. This is part of the context of Romans 11. Paul speaks about the "remnant" of Israel in Romans 9:27. This is also part of the context of Romans 11. Paul starts Romans 11 with two different groups of Israelites. In verse one Paul reveals he is still an Israelite, even after his conversion. Then Paul refers to two different groups of Israelites during the time of Elijah. There were the Baal worshippers, and there was the faithful "remnant". In verse five Paul says there is also a faithful "remnant" of Israelites during his time. This must be the Israelites who have accepted Christ, as on the Day of Pentecost. Paul uses the two olive trees as a symbol of the New Covenant Church made up of believing Israelites, and believing Gentiles grafted together into the same tree. The unbelieving Israelites have been broken off but can be grafted back in through faith in Christ in verses 23-24. Verse 26 is the problem for many modern Christians. What does the verse actually say, and how is it changed by many in the modern Church. I have heard two of our nations famous preachers say the following. "And then all Israel will be saved..." I have heard another say the following. "And all Israel will be saved..." What does God's Word, recorded by the Apostle Paul actually say? Rom 11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: The English word "so" is translated from the Greek word "houto", which is an adverb of manner, instead of an adverb of timing. Some have changed the word from "so" to "then", in order to change the meaning of the verse. How will all of the "remnant" of Israel from Romans 9:27 be saved? The answer is found in the verses that precede verse 26 and are found below. Rom 11:23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again. Rom 11:24 For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree? Paul quoted from the OT in referring to the Deliverer coming out of Sion to pay for sin. Did this happen at Calvary, or will Jesus die again for His people in the future? Rom 11:27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins. Verse 28 can only be understood by looking at how Paul started the passage. He started with two different groups of Israelites and he ends the passage in the same way. There are two different groups of "they" in verse 28. One group of "they" reject Christ and are the enemies of God, and another group of "they" are the election which accept Christ through hearing the Gospel and faith. Rom 11:28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes. Based on Luke 21:24b-28, the times of the Gentiles comes to fullness at the Second Coming of Christ. This agrees with what Paul said in Romans 1:16 about the Gospel going “first” to the Jews.
@@steven3775 The claim that a man can get you into the Church through water baptism. The claim that God now has "Two" different peoples "The Church and Israel". The claim that the Church can be divided into "denominations". The claim that the Old Covenant is still in effect.
The "only sign given" in reality "is Jonah": A believer murdered by other believers because he is outnumbered. The context is Jesus seeing a gathering crowd.
1:01:50 Who obeys the Torah, "fully"? Here's a clue... Paul gives the answer in Romans 3 by referencing 7 verses from the Psalms. Here''s just one... "There is none righteous, no, not one". -- Psalm 14:3 The rest of the equally unambiguous references are from the Psalms... 14:2, 53:1-3, 5:9; 140:3, 10:7, 36:1 as well as one from Isaiah 59:7-8. There is only one Olive tree and only one path to Salvation. Israel (as in "All Israel will be saved") are those who are grafted in and grafted back into that tree. John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." And not that it really matters at all, but Jesus made this statement in the presence of Jews but It was obviously directed to everyone.
In Galatians 2 Paul seems very defensive of his mission to the Gentiles, as if he had been given the least important job. So is it possible that Paul wants to elevate the importance of his own Gentile mission over against Peter's mission to the circumcised? And that it is this inferiority complex on the part of Paul that drives a lot of his theology (his Gospel) with respect to the Gentiles? It is conceivable that the Jerusalem church of James was interested in some outreach to the Gentiles, especially those peoples whom they thought might be descendants of the lost tribes, but it seems that Paul takes it to a whole new level because of his own "inferior" position as a missionary to the Gentiles? That inferiority complex would explain Paul's emphasis on "my Gospel". And that might also explain Paul's own somewhat anti-Judaic stance because the Jerusalem church and "the Jews" refuse to accept Paul's equalizing (Jew and Gentile) "my Gospel". The Jerusalem church thought Paul was beside himself and teaching against Moses -- breaking down the wall of separation between Jew and Gentile, and even doing away with the Law with his "new creation". Paul even argues that Jesus inaugurated Paul's "new creation" with the crucifixion, which the Jerusalem church probably did not think at all - they were "hardened" to Paul's Gospel.
You have no idea! I guess you think that the gentiles are inferior? The New Covenant is the great equaliser. Now we come to Christ Jesus by faith in his life, death, and resurection. Indeed the wall of partition is gone. And l think it is hard for the Jews who have hardened their hearts against the Saviour of mankind, so they watch the gentiles come in the the Covenant by faith and calling of the Holy Spirit, and the Jews don't get it. Israel was scattered amongst the nations and they became gentalised and flooded in by faith when they saw and heard the word of their Messiah. Don't let it stop you.
Staples is wrong. He believes that gentiles somehow became Israelites and in that way, all Israel would be saved. But the bible doesn’t teach that. An Israelite was a physical descendant of Jacob. Nobody changes their DNA to become someone else. Instead, the bible shows a metanarrative going on throughout the entire NT showing the gathering and restoration of the twelve tribes of Israel. Gentiles who came in were people who Paul believed were non-Jewish descendants of the ten northern tribes of Israel who had been dispersed among the nations.
😂😂oh god you are delusional. Peer reviewed scholarship is something you don't read. Dr Richard carrier wrote an article about the crankery of Israel only on an academic level if you read that you will dispense with your crazy fundamentalist ideas.
There is no 12 tribes,they don't exist as they were assimilated by Assyrians and Babylonians in the times of Jeremiah. The only tribes left are of Judah and Ephraim. Some say the tribe of Levi too but I highly doubt it . Btw most of the stock that you find in the Middle East are Ashkenazi which comprise of European Turkish and ruso Germanic ancestry your pastor is deceiving you
@@TheIObook2024 YOU SAID that NT testament teaches the gathering of the 12 tribes. how is this going to happen if they no longer exist? btw, the 12 tribes are comprised of spiritual believers in Jesus christ. so if a jew comes to repentance and believes the gospel then he is counted as one of the 12 tribes and same goes for gentiles. the law, old covenant whatever you wanna call it. its dead! the deeds of the law cannot save anyone. we are all saved by grace through faith....
@@polarvortex6601 yes, the New Testament shows that there was an expectation that the twelve tribes would be restored in their faith, that the gentiles Paul was seeking to reach weren’t all gentiles everywhere but people he believed were descendants of the ten northern tribes. Whether they were really descendants of the ten northern tribes according to historians isn’t the point. The point is that Paul believed any gentiles who came in were descendants of the tribes of Israel. This already happened in the 1st century. There are no more gentiles in need of salvation. Sorry bub, but you’re not saved. You never needed salvation. Salvation for the disciples meant [Jews] being rescued from sin (violation of the law), the curse of the law (which only Israelites had and were under), their enemies, their perverse generation and the wrath of God. Non-Israelites weren’t under ancient Israel’s law or its curse . The god of the bible didn’t save non-Israelites from their enemies and the ‘wrath of God’ was the end of the age judgment on the twelve tribes of Israel in AD70. There was nothing for non-Israelites to be saved from then or now. The story ended. It was ancient Israel’s story. We aren’t part of the story. There is literally nothing that anyone today needs to be saved from.
This isn’t that hard to understand despite decades of many Christians missing/ or ignoring it. Jason Staples’ work is absolutely amazing! He totally gets it!! Others like
Batya Wootten and Ephraim and Rimona Frank have been at this for a long time as well. Genesis 48, all 14 chapters of Hosea, the new covenant in Jeremiah, the two sticks of Ezekiel and many other prophets of God speak of this. It’s almost too easy yet many don’t see it, ignore it, or reject it.
Go Noles! So blessed to have found you guys. 3 kids at FSU ❤
Outstanding video.
Great interview!
Paul quotes Jeremiah when YHWH told him of a new covenant, making the old obsolete, at which point it was ready to vanish.
"In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away." Heb 8:13
Then Paul tells us that the Holy Spirit, in Hebrews 8:13, indicated that the way into the Most Holy wasn't known/manifest as long as the temple held its place/function/position in God's plans.
"By this the Holy Spirit indicates that the way into the holy places is not yet opened as long as the first section is still standing (which is symbolic for the present age)" Heb 9:8
Then Paul indicates he now knew the way into the Most Holy Place.
"But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation)" Heb 9:11
Therefore, the moment Jesus entered Heaven to offer His blood on our behalf in fulfillment of the High Priest role, the sacrifices at the temple ceased. (In God's prophetic plan)
A son of Abraham today is one of faith...
Sacrifices hadn’t ceased on earth until the temple was actually destroyed. Then it was clear that God did not dwell in a temple of men’s hands and the priesthood on earth was changed for the Priest in heaven, signifying also the necessary change in Law/Covenant.
@@purview4012 Just because the Jews carried on with physical sacrifices doesn't change the fact that they ceased in God's prophetic plans the moment Jesus entered Heaven.
Jesus ended sacrificing for sins… anything after His accepted offering is blasphemous…Heb 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
Paul didn't write Hebrews.
Paul was looking to his future when saying "all Israel shall be saved ". The resurrection accomplished at after the destruction of Jerusalem ended the Mosiac age then " all Israel " was saved. New Heavens and earth consummated, Jew and Gentile in one body (the Israel of God)
You're ignoring Hosea and a long list of OT writers, as well as Christ and Paul, James, and Peter, who refer to Gentile believers counted as the chosen, thus "all Israel."
Ezekiel 37 & John 11
How
54:13 “I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve” - Bilbo Baggins.
We create problems when we read Paul saying "one day all of Israel will be saved." Actually, Paul is pointing backswords to Christs work saying in effect "in this manner" "shall all Israel be saved." And in Acts 2 Peter affirms Gods promise to David as having been fulfilled through Christ, who was raised from the dead. The Resurrection motif is inseparable from salvation, redemption, and regathering. All of this is realised in Christ. God's promised Isaac is subsumed in Christ, not national Israel, or Judah Correct?
the word used for hardened is often misunderstood
it means callus, on the branch, so it is medical
Christianity, the Papacy, the abolishment of the Law/Torah, the Pope is all mentioned in their right roles in 2Thessalonians 2. 😂
It is good to see Evangelicals walking down the path of discovering Orthodox (capital 'O') theology and exegesis, even if you don't realize it.
His view is not the EO view
I love Orthodox Theology ❤
New Covenant Whole Gospel: How many modern Christians cannot honestly answer the questions below?
Who is the King of Israel in John 1:49? Is the King of Israel now the Head of the Church, and are we His Body? Who is the “son” that is the “heir” to the land in Matthew 21:37-43? Why did God allow the Romans to destroy the Old Covenant temple and the Old Covenant city, about 40 years after His Son fulfilled the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34 in blood at Calvary?
What the modern Church needs is a New Covenant Revival (Heb. 9:10) in which members of various denominations are willing to re-examine everything they believe and see if it agrees with the Bible, instead of the traditions of men. We need to be like the Bereans. It will be a battle between our flesh and the Holy Spirit. It will not be easy. If you get mad and upset when someone challenges your man-made Bible doctrines, that is your flesh resisting the truth found in God's Word. Nobody can completely understand the Bible unless they understand the relationship between the Old Covenant given to Moses at Mount Sinai and the New Covenant fulfilled in blood at Calvary.
God is not now a “racist”. He has extended His love to all races of people through the New Covenant fulfilled by His Son’s blood at Calvary. The Apostle Paul warned against using “genealogies” in our faith in 1 Tim. 1:4, and Titus 3:9.
=====
Romans Chapter 11: In its New Covenant context... There is no Plan B of salvation outside of the New Covenant Church in this passage. Plan A is found in verses 23 and 24.
In Romans 1:16 Paul said the Gospel was taken "first" to the Jews. This time period can be found in Matt. 10:5-7, and Acts 10:36-38, and Gal. 1:14-18. Many try to claim God never gave the Jews a chance to accept Christ, so there must be some Plan B of salvation before or during the Second Coming of Christ. Romans 1:16 proves they are wrong, since Paul said the Gospel went "first" to the Jews. Many ignore the fact that Peter addressed the crowd as "men of Judea", and as "men of Israel", and as "all the house of Israel" on the Day of Pentecost, when about 3,000 Israelites accepted the New Covenant fulfilled in blood at Calvary. The Gentiles were not grafted in until several years later. This passage proves Paul was right about the Gospel being taken "first" to the Jews.
Were all of the Israelites "partially" hardened in Romans 11, or were part hardened and another part were not hardened? The answer is found in the "remnant" of Romans 11:5.
Paul reveals two different groups of Israelites in Romans 9:6-8. There is an Israel of the promise, and an Israel of the flesh. This is part of the context of Romans 11.
Paul speaks about the "remnant" of Israel in Romans 9:27. This is also part of the context of Romans 11.
Paul starts Romans 11 with two different groups of Israelites. In verse one Paul reveals he is still an Israelite, even after his conversion. Then Paul refers to two different groups of Israelites during the time of Elijah. There were the Baal worshippers, and there was the faithful "remnant". In verse five Paul says there is also a faithful "remnant" of Israelites during his time. This must be the Israelites who have accepted Christ, as on the Day of Pentecost.
Paul uses the two olive trees as a symbol of the New Covenant Church made up of believing Israelites, and believing Gentiles grafted together into the same tree. The unbelieving Israelites have been broken off but can be grafted back in through faith in Christ in verses 23-24.
Verse 26 is the problem for many modern Christians. What does the verse actually say, and how is it changed by many in the modern Church.
I have heard two of our nations famous preachers say the following.
"And then all Israel will be saved..."
I have heard another say the following.
"And all Israel will be saved..."
What does God's Word, recorded by the Apostle Paul actually say?
Rom 11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
The English word "so" is translated from the Greek word "houto", which is an adverb of manner, instead of an adverb of timing. Some have changed the word from "so" to "then", in order to change the meaning of the verse.
How will all of the "remnant" of Israel from Romans 9:27 be saved? The answer is found in the verses that precede verse 26 and are found below.
Rom 11:23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.
Rom 11:24 For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree?
Paul quoted from the OT in referring to the Deliverer coming out of Sion to pay for sin. Did this happen at Calvary, or will Jesus die again for His people in the future?
Rom 11:27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
Verse 28 can only be understood by looking at how Paul started the passage. He started with two different groups of Israelites and he ends the passage in the same way. There are two different groups of "they" in verse 28. One group of "they" reject Christ and are the enemies of God, and another group of "they" are the election which accept Christ through hearing the Gospel and faith.
Rom 11:28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.
Based on Luke 21:24b-28, the times of the Gentiles comes to fullness at the Second Coming of Christ. This agrees with what Paul said in Romans 1:16 about the Gospel going “first” to the Jews.
Great post. Can you list a few of the "traditions of men", with regards to the western protectant church? Thanks
@@steven3775 The claim that a man can get you into the Church through water baptism.
The claim that God now has "Two" different peoples "The Church and Israel".
The claim that the Church can be divided into "denominations".
The claim that the Old Covenant is still in effect.
Wilson Deborah Lopez Sarah Davis Jose
Interesting historical mythology.
The "only sign given" in reality "is Jonah": A believer murdered by other believers because he is outnumbered. The context is Jesus seeing a gathering crowd.
1:01:50 Who obeys the Torah, "fully"? Here's a clue...
Paul gives the answer in Romans 3 by referencing 7 verses from the Psalms. Here''s just one... "There is none righteous, no, not one". -- Psalm 14:3
The rest of the equally unambiguous references are from the Psalms... 14:2, 53:1-3, 5:9; 140:3, 10:7, 36:1 as well as one from Isaiah 59:7-8.
There is only one Olive tree and only one path to Salvation. Israel (as in "All Israel will be saved") are those who are grafted in and grafted back into that tree.
John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
And not that it really matters at all, but Jesus made this statement in the presence of Jews but It was obviously directed to everyone.
Supercessionism has always been false, and Romans 11 is an obstacle to any other view.
The new testament is unbiblical.
Says the *PAGAN BABYLONIAN*
@@pepepena1937 says the actual pagan that worships a dead man. I only worship the g-d of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. You worship a dead Greek idol.
In Galatians 2 Paul seems very defensive of his mission to the Gentiles, as if he had been given the least important job. So is it possible that Paul wants to elevate the importance of his own Gentile mission over against Peter's mission to the circumcised? And that it is this inferiority complex on the part of Paul that drives a lot of his theology (his Gospel) with respect to the Gentiles? It is conceivable that the Jerusalem church of James was interested in some outreach to the Gentiles, especially those peoples whom they thought might be descendants of the lost tribes, but it seems that Paul takes it to a whole new level because of his own "inferior" position as a missionary to the Gentiles? That inferiority complex would explain Paul's emphasis on "my Gospel". And that might also explain Paul's own somewhat anti-Judaic stance because the Jerusalem church and "the Jews" refuse to accept Paul's equalizing (Jew and Gentile) "my Gospel". The Jerusalem church thought Paul was beside himself and teaching against Moses -- breaking down the wall of separation between Jew and Gentile, and even doing away with the Law with his "new creation". Paul even argues that Jesus inaugurated Paul's "new creation" with the crucifixion, which the Jerusalem church probably did not think at all - they were "hardened" to Paul's Gospel.
You have no idea! I guess you think that the gentiles are inferior?
The New Covenant is the great equaliser. Now we come to Christ Jesus by faith in his life, death, and resurection. Indeed the wall of partition is gone. And l think it is hard for the Jews who have hardened their hearts against the Saviour of mankind, so they watch the gentiles come in the the Covenant by faith and calling of the Holy Spirit, and the Jews don't get it. Israel was scattered amongst the nations and they became gentalised and flooded in by faith when they saw and heard the word of their Messiah. Don't let it stop you.
Staples is wrong. He believes that gentiles somehow became Israelites and in that way, all Israel would be saved. But the bible doesn’t teach that. An Israelite was a physical descendant of Jacob. Nobody changes their DNA to become someone else.
Instead, the bible shows a metanarrative going on throughout the entire NT showing the gathering and restoration of the twelve tribes of Israel. Gentiles who came in were people who Paul believed were non-Jewish descendants of the ten northern tribes of Israel who had been dispersed among the nations.
😂😂oh god you are delusional. Peer reviewed scholarship is something you don't read. Dr Richard carrier wrote an article about the crankery of Israel only on an academic level if you read that you will dispense with your crazy fundamentalist ideas.
There is no 12 tribes,they don't exist as they were assimilated by Assyrians and Babylonians in the times of Jeremiah. The only tribes left are of Judah and Ephraim. Some say the tribe of Levi too but I highly doubt it . Btw most of the stock that you find in the Middle East are Ashkenazi which comprise of European Turkish and ruso Germanic ancestry your pastor is deceiving you
@@polarvortex6601 I didn’t claim there are 12 tribes today, and I don’t have a so-called pastor.
@@TheIObook2024 YOU SAID that NT testament teaches the gathering of the 12 tribes. how is this going to happen if they no longer exist?
btw, the 12 tribes are comprised of spiritual believers in Jesus christ. so if a jew comes to repentance and believes the gospel then he is counted as one of the 12 tribes and same goes for gentiles. the law, old covenant whatever you wanna call it. its dead!
the deeds of the law cannot save anyone. we are all saved by grace through faith....
@@polarvortex6601 yes, the New Testament shows that there was an expectation that the twelve tribes would be restored in their faith, that the gentiles Paul was seeking to reach weren’t all gentiles everywhere but people he believed were descendants of the ten northern tribes. Whether they were really descendants of the ten northern tribes according to historians isn’t the point. The point is that Paul believed any gentiles who came in were descendants of the tribes of Israel. This already happened in the 1st century. There are no more gentiles in need of salvation.
Sorry bub, but you’re not saved. You never needed salvation. Salvation for the disciples meant [Jews] being rescued from sin (violation of the law), the curse of the law (which only Israelites had and were under), their enemies, their perverse generation and the wrath of God.
Non-Israelites weren’t under ancient Israel’s law or its curse . The god of the bible didn’t save non-Israelites from their enemies and the ‘wrath of God’ was the end of the age judgment on the twelve tribes of Israel in AD70. There was nothing for non-Israelites to be saved from then or now. The story ended. It was ancient Israel’s story. We aren’t part of the story. There is literally nothing that anyone today needs to be saved from.