Nehemiah 13

[ContentInHim]

The Jesus wasn't Jewish... no Jewish father...

What happened to Jewish matriarchial lineage? You are Jewish if your mother was Jewish.. is that just inconvenient?

That was the Rabbis who instituted that, I believe.

 

[KCDAD]

That shows her nationality, not her religion. That's not proof of anything. And the Bible is against you. Do you really think that people would have considered Ruth's descendants Jews at the cost of everything? They'd be laughed off the face of the earth.

I quit. Reason has nothing to do with foolishness. So "Moabite" is a religious designation when you want it to be and a ethnic designation other times?

Be happy

 

[KCDAD]

That was the Rabbis who instituted that, I believe.

What Rabbis? When ? It is the Jewish law.. did you not read the site?

 

[HypnoToad]

I quit. Reason has nothing to do with foolishness. So "Moabite" is a religious designation when you want it to be and a ethnic designation other times?

Lol, no one said it was a "religious designation".

Try again.

 

[KCDAD]

It is great how hard you try to justify the inconsistencies of the scriptures... well done.

The whole point of the OP is that Moabites are forbidden forever to be a part of the family of God. Ruth was a Moabite. There is nothing else to be said except excuses.

 

[HypnoToad]

It is great how hard you try to justify the inconsistencies of the scriptures... well done.

The whole point of the OP is that Moabites are forbidden forever to be a part of the family of God. Ruth was a Moabite. There is nothing else to be said except excuses.

Your OP had a problem with David and Jesus. As already shown, her descendants would have been considered Jewish and Israelites.

As to Ruth alone, any prohibition listed from Nehemiah would have been several hundred years AFTER Ruth anyway, so you can't take a later judgement and apply it backwards to Ruth.

Nice clothes, emperor.

 

[CShephard53]

I quit. Reason has nothing to do with foolishness. So "Moabite" is a religious designation when you want it to be and a ethnic designation other times?

Be happy in your foolishness.

Ad hominem, yet again. Do try to refrain from that, you only make your credibility go down the toilet.

 

[CShephard53]

It is great how hard you try to justify the inconsistencies of the scriptures... well done.

The whole point of the OP is that Moabites are forbidden forever to be a part of the family of God. Ruth was a Moabite. There is nothing else to be said except excuses.

Did you read the verse I posted?
Neh 13:2 because they did not meet the sons of Israel with bread and water, but hired Balaam against them to curse them. However, our God turned the curse into a blessing.

They were forbid for a reason. Ruth did not meet that reason. Are you really going to keep your position after its been shot down by multiple arguments? That doesn't seem very intellectually honest (since you're so concerned about it with me).

 

[ContentInHim]

What Rabbis? When ? It is the Jewish law.. did you not read the site?

Your citation is modern Jewish thought. God's thought is that your inheritance and geneology passes down through the father. We know that Jesus is from God the father, adopted as it were by Joseph of David and born by Mary also of David (as well as being a Levite). Pretty good bloodline I would say!

 

[KCDAD]

Your citation is modern Jewish thought. God's thought is that your inheritance and geneology passes down through the father. We know that Jesus is from God the father, adopted as it were by Joseph of David and born by Mary also of David (as well as being a Levite). Pretty good bloodline I would say!

Read the citation again... according to Jewish law the lineage runs through the mother, only the modern revisionists argue it goes through the father.

 

[KCDAD]

Did you read the verse I posted?
Neh 13:2 because they did not meet the sons of Israel with bread and water, but hired Balaam against them to curse them. However, our God turned the curse into a blessing.

They were forbid for a reason. Ruth did not meet that reason. Are you really going to keep your position after its been shot down by multiple arguments? That doesn't seem very intellectually honest (since you're so concerned about it with me).

Who came first, Balaam and his talking donkey or Ruth and Boaz?

 

[HypnoToad]

Read the citation again... according to Jewish law the lineage runs through the mother, only the modern revisionists argue it goes through the father.

This citation? -

According to Jewish law, someone is considered to be a Jew if he or she was born of a Jewish mother or converted in accord with Jewish Law. (Recently, the American Reform and Reconstructionist movements have included those born of Jewish fathers and gentile mothers, if the children are raised practicing Judaism only.) A Jew who ceases to practice Judaism is still considered a Jew, as is a Jew who does not accept Jewish principles of faith and becomes an agnostic or an atheist; so too with a Jew who converts to another religion. However, in the latter case, the person loses standing as a member of the (practicing) Jewish community and becomes known as an apostate in said community, though this might not affect his standing with non-practising Jews. In the past, family and friends would often formally mourn for the person, though this is rarely done today.

That does NOT say who the lineage runs through - it only says the child is Jewish if the mother is Jewish. And since Ruth worshiped the God of Abraham, she WAS Jewish. Her being Jewish means her children would be Jewish. Since the children are Jewish, the lineage runs through the father, and they would be considered Israelites, not Moabites.

Who came first, Balaam and his talking donkey or Ruth and Boaz?

Irrelevant, the CURSE, what actually matters, came AFTER Ruth.

 

[KCDAD]

This citation? -

That does NOT say who the lineage runs through - it only says the child is Jewish if the mother is Jewish. And since Ruth worshiped the God of Abraham, she WAS Jewish. Her being Jewish means her children would be Jewish. Since the children are Jewish, the lineage runs through the father, and they would be considered Israelites, not Moabites.


Irrelevant, the CURSE, what actually matters, came AFTER Ruth.

What was Ruth's mother? A Moabite? So she wasn't Jewish and wasn't welcome in the "congregation of God". (According to Nehemiah 13)

 

[HypnoToad]

What was Ruth's mother? A Moabite? So she wasn't Jewish and wasn't welcome in the "congregation of God". (According to Nehemiah 13)

Lol, again, you can't take a curse AFTER the fact and apply it retroactively.

 

[CShephard53]

What was Ruth's mother? A Moabite? So she wasn't Jewish and wasn't welcome in the "congregation of God". (According to Nehemiah 13)

You really can't admit when you have no argument, can you? That's why you resort to straw men, ad hominems and red herrings. AKA logical fallacies. Just because Ruth's MOTHER wasn't welcome, per your 'logic', does not mean that Ruth was not also.

 

[KCDAD]

You really can't admit when you have no argument, can you? That's why you resort to straw men, ad hominems and red herrings. AKA logical fallacies. Just because Ruth's MOTHER wasn't welcome, per your 'logic', does not mean that Ruth was not also.

Ruth is not Jewish BECAUSE HER MOTHER WAS NOT JEWISH.

 

[KCDAD]

Lol, again, you can't take a curse AFTER the fact and apply it retroactively.

Balaam is before Ruth... isn't he? The curse then, came first.

 

[HypnoToad]

Just read here

 

[CShephard53]

Ruth is not Jewish BECAUSE HER MOTHER WAS NOT JEWISH.

Formal conversion. You don't have enough logical evidence against it.

 

[KCDAD]

Formal conversion. You don't have enough logical evidence against it.

You don't have ANY for it.