I really enjoy listening to all these episodes again and again. I can remember as a little boy 6 or 7 years old, when I was beginning to understand who YHWH was and his laws, statutes and commandments. I remember when they were teaching that these laws, statutes and commandments didn't apply to us, and we didn't have to keep them. My question was why? I remember telling myself I would try to keep them anyway I just wouldn't tell anybody. As time went on I stayed in " Christianity" and I went further and further away from the truth. Many years later , I remember sitting in church and I kept thinking to myself I go to church on Sunday and Wednesday night, is that all there is to it, I had already been reading and studying scripture and things just weren't lining up. So I prayed and asked YHWH, to show me truth and he began bringing different teachings and studies into my life, at first I was skeptical but the more I listened the more these teachings made sense and they made scripture make more sense and made it clearer. I am very thankful for Two Sticks Roundtable and Assembly of called out believers, and the way documentary and many others who have shown truth and continue to do so. I do have one question though in this episode you speak about the Testimony of Yeshua, what is this?
Thank you... the "testimony of Yeshua" is the right understanding of Yeshua as the prophet like unto Moshe from Deuteronomy 18:15-18 and testifying to others of this.
Isaiah 44:7-9 Who is like me? Let him proclaim it, let him declare and set it forth before me. Who has announced from of old the things to come? Let them tell us what is yet to be. 8 Fear not, nor be afraid; have I not told you from of old and declared it? And you are my witnesses! Is there a God besides me? There is no Rock; I know not any.”
Yah-someness! His Ways are higher than our ways: what if the scattering of Israel and the loss of their identity had as one aspect of God's purpose was, through about 4000 years of intermarrying with the sons and daughters of Japheth and Ham so the whole world MIGHT be saved, having Israelite DNA. Of course there's still the need for Messiah and Torah. That 2nd group that gets white robes is a unnumberable mass of people. Since it's possible the first seal has been broken it hard to see, as a man, how potentially millions of people are going to return to Torah before that Feast of Trumpets where the groom gathers his bride, but they may all have Messiah, then in the Millennial reign they learn Torah from Messiah and those of their brothers that were keeping Torah before the millennium. Just a thought.
Its the phrase "fullness of the Gentiles", i.e. "a multitude of nations" in English, that caused me to ponder the spreading of the lost tribes into all the nations, which would ultimately lead to the ten tribes marrying men and women of the nations they were scattering into and having lots of children. So when is the "fullness of the Gentiles" complete or full? When all people on earth have some Israelite DNA?? I don't know for sure, but to me, it certainly fits with YHWH's character to have that as part of His plan of salvation and redemption for His created "Adam" (mankind). Nice to read that I am not alone my crazy thoughts and pondering as we strive to return to our Father. Shalom. @@japhillips08
Dear Isaac, I have been really enjoying your teachings. Thank you for all you do. I am a messianic leader in Michigan and I hav been challenged on the two house theology. I have a lot of research on this, but I am not great at all my retorts. One problem is that one house people believe that the 10 tribes were never lost. Others claim that there were always members of the ten tribes in the South and therefore they remained in Judah through out the ages. Is there proof for these types of aserssions? Also, are there people from the 10 tribes today that can still follow thier liniage down to one of the 10 tribes. For that matter do the Levites and Aaronic Priestly lines still maintain a truthful liniage to thier respective tribes? Thanks for your input.
Thank you, I really love all your videos. I have two question respectfully. I am confused about Matthew 23:8 and would love if u can clarify the rabbi issue Also in video I heard mentioned "as above so below" , isnt that from hermeticism?? I also always tought that was a satanic mantra... Just curious... thx Thank you again for all your hard work, I really appriciate it. Shalom from assembly that is in Croatia HalleluYah
Ultimately, Yeshua's words are not meant to forbid teachers among us, or fathers, or even leaders. Of course we have and need all of these. But we must never let our fathers, rabbis, leaders or teachers take the place of our one Master. In Hebrew the term for teacher is rabbi and even Paul says that some are given the gift of being teachers but the problem is not being called teacher but when in Hebrew someone shortens that title of Rabbi meaning teacher to “Rav” which changes the meaning to "great one" which then focuses on self rather than "the great One" who is selfless, and it was this issue that Yeshua was addressing, but we do not see that in the English translations as many of those translating were anti-Semitic and changed certain words to suit their agenda just like in the case of the Hebrew word for assembly which translators translated as “church” when it suited them and sounded positive but synagogue in Revelation when referring to an assembly of Satan. Another way to approach these words is to ask are they to be taken literally? Generally speaking, if the literal meaning makes sense, then we don't need to find a non-literal solution. In this case, does his words make sense literally? After all, he told his disciples not to call anyone "father" too. Is this to be taken literally? Is it wrong to call someone "father"? Or rather, is it wrong for someone to exalt in being called "father"? Do you see the difference? We call our own dad "father" all the time. Is this wrong? No, not at all, for it is written, "Honour thy father and thy mother." Also, Abraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov are repeatedly called "fathers" in the Scripture. Is this wrong? No. Sha'ul referred to Abraham is "our father" in Romans 4:1. Was this wrong? After all Yeshua said, "Our Father which art in heaven..." No, it is not wrong. In fact, Sha'ul went so far as to call the Corinthians his sons and his own role as father in 1 Corinthians 4:14-17. Was he contradicting Yeshua's teachings? No, he was not, for this is what the prophets were called by their students. 2 Kings 2:12 shows that Elisha called Elijah "My father." The king of Israel also called Elisha "My father" in 2 Kings 6:21. There are other examples that you can find, but hopefully this illustrates a point. Is it wrong to call someone "father" in a spiritual sense if they "fathered" you in set-apart instruction? No, it is not. Therefore, if it is scripturally accepted to call true servants of Elohim "father" then it follows that Yeshua's words are not to be taken literally. As such, his references to being called "rabbi" and "master" are to be understood in a similar fashion. So, what was Yeshua talking about? He didn't want his disciples to honor themselves and crave such titles for themselves. Rather, he wanted them to be servants and behave as servants. He wanted them to focus on others rather than on themselves. You see, there is "our Father" and then there are "fathers." There is "our Rabbi" and then there are "rabbis. There is "our Master" and then there are "masters." This is all fine. But some may argue that this reasoning is wrong, and that we should be called "pastors" and "shepherds" or "teachers" instead. But think about it. What's the difference? Is it okay for us to be called "Pastor" (meaning "Shepherd") when there is only one Shepherd, and yet wrong for us to be called "Rabbi" when there is only one Rabbi? Do you see the illogic in that reasoning? No, it is the same as with Father, Rabbi, and Master. Equally, there is "our Shepherd" and then there are "shepherds." This is equally scriptural. Hope this helps! Blessings and Father's love be upon you!
There is a doctrine in civil law called Parens Patriae, which literally translates to: father of the country, meaning the father of the nation, or the State as father of its subject citizens. This status is part of the natural punishment/curses, in my legal analysis, for disobeying Torah. As created beings we will always have a Father over us, which can be our Creator and natural fathers (being righteous in our generations: natural family Tree) or the surrogate civil law fathers (civil law corporate towers built by sinful, rebellious men) under Parens Patriae. Therefore, by our own traditions and customs (Babylonian and Rman civil law) and our ignorance and rejection of Torah, our sin & rebellion as divorced Israel [a whore who chases down and covenants with the "gods many" of the earth under the doctrine of Parens Patriae], we, individually, by our own consent (usually done in ignorance) are back in an Egyptian style bondage being ruled by the Fathers and gods many of the earth. As William Penn is attributed of saying, "If we will not be governed by God [YHWH], then we will be ruled by tyrants". Here are a few quotes from court cases that touch on the devastating affects of Parens Patriae, which puts the State in a position of standing in between us and YHWH as a legal surrogate/substitute father by contract: “Parens patriae,” literally “parent of the country,” refers traditionally to role of state as sovereign and guardian of persons under legal disability.” - Ex parte Bayliss, 550 So.2d 986, 988 n. 1 (Ala.1989) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 1003 (5th ed.1979)). “Pursuant to the parens patriae doctrine, ‘the primary control and custody of infants is with the government, to be delegated, as of course, to their natural guardians and protectors, so long as such guardians are suitable persons to exercise it.’ ” - Ex parte Wright, 225 Ala. 220, 222, 142 So. 672, 674 (1932). See also Fletcher v. Preston, 226 Ala. 665, 148 So. 137 (1933); and Striplin v. Ware, 36 Ala. 87 (1860). “In other words, the state is the father and mother of the child and the natural parents are not entitled to custody, except upon the state’s beneficent recognition that natural parents presumably will be the best of its citizens to delegate its custodial powers… ‘The law devolves the custody of infant children upon their parents, not so much upon the ground of natural right in the latter, as because the interests of the children, and the good of the public, will, as a general rule, be thereby promoted.’ “ - Chandler v. Whatley, 238 Ala. 206, 208, 189 So. 751, 753 (1939) (quoting Striplin v. Ware, 36 Ala. at 89) (‘ ’). “Marriage is a civil contract to which there are three parties-the husband, the wife and the state.“ - Van Koten v. Van Koten. 154 N.E. 146. “…When two people decide to get married, they are required to first procure a license from the State. If they have children of this marriage, they are required by the State to submit their children to certain things, such as school attendance and vaccinations. Furthermore, if at some time in the future the couple decides the marriage is not working, they must petition the State for a divorce. Marriage is a three-party contract between the man, the woman, and the State“ - Linneman v. Linneman, 1 Ill. App. 2d 48, 50, 116 N.E.2d 182, 183 (1953), citing Van Koten v. Van Koten, 323 Ill. 323, 326, 154 N.E. 146 (1926). “The State represents the public interest in the institution of marriage.“ - Linneman, 1 Ill. App. 2d at 50, 116 N.E.2d at 183 (1953). “This public interest is what allows the State to intervene in certain situations to protect the interests of members of the family. The State is like a silent partner in the family who is not active in the everyday running of the family but becomes active and exercises its power and authority only when necessary to protect some important interest of family life. Taking all of this into consideration, the question no longer is whether the State has an interest or place in disputes such as the one at bar, but it becomes a question of timing and necessity...The state has a wide range of power for limiting parental freedom and authority in things affecting the child’s welfare… In fact, the entire familial relationship involves the State.” - Prince, 321 U.S. at 167, 64 S.Ct. at 442, 88 L.Ed. 645. And finally a recorded exchange between parents, citizens of the US and the State of Texas, and the Texas Attorney General at that time: A group of Texans, all with State issued Birth Certificates, State issued Marriage Licenses, 14th Amend US citizenship, and Social Security Numbers, questioned the Attorney General of Texas (Jim Mattox) May 19,1986, "Is it true that the State of Texas owns our children?" Texas Attorney General Jim Mattox replied, "Yes, it's true (that the state owns your children) and not only your children but you too!" _________________ There is a huge difference legally, lawfully, spiritually and physically between civil law marriage (the State controls as vicarious pater/substitute father, so the two parties apply to the State for permission/license to civilly marry) and holy matrimony (YHWH is Creator and the natural Fathers give their permission/license to their children to become one flesh under their own contract/ketubah under TORAH). The trouble again goes back to ignorance, being in the "dark" unable to see the "light" of Torah. There is a lot details to this, but suffice it to say for brevity, there is no civil law that mandates a marriage license, its voluntary, as is the case with most quasi contracts with civil government. State marriage licenses got started in America with miscegenation (inter-racial marriage), out of a false apostate Christian belief that in Torah, YHWH forbids inter-racial marriage. There's that ol' sinful man again, twisting The Word to his own destruction leading him into a tighter Gordian knot of bondage. Praise YAH and Yahusha for the Perfect Law of Liberty: Torah, if only men would learn it, keep it, preserve it and propagate it, but that day is coming soon. @@AssemblyofCalledOutBelievers
What about the obedience of Yeshua, Abraham's obedience was good and all nations are blessed through him but we have salvation because Yeshua was obedient to the death .
