• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
  • We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

Nehemiah 13

Status
Not open for further replies.

KCDAD

Well-Known Member
Aug 4, 2005
12,546
372
70
Illinois
✟14,800.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Well that does explain a lot... your earlier insistence that Ruth was before the curse comes off as totally bogus, eh?

So the curses of God only applies to men... since when? Did it in Sodom and Gomorrah? Did it with Lot's wife? Did it when Joshua came into Canaan killing everyone? Did it in Egypt? Did it in the Garden of Eden?
That was a very thoughtful and logical apologetic by the Rabbi, but since he has a rather vested interest in David's Jewishness, how else could he have answered the question?
 
Upvote 0

CShephard53

Somebody shut me up so I can live out loud!
Mar 15, 2007
4,551
151
✟28,231.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
You don't have ANY for it.
What, did you miss this:
Quote:
A Jew is any person whose mother was a Jew or any person who has gone through the formal process of conversion to Judaism.
It is important to note that being a Jew has nothing to do with what you believe or what you do. A person born to non-Jewish parents who has not undergone the formal process of conversion but who believes everything that Orthodox Jews believe and observes every law and custom of Judaism is still a non-Jew, even in the eyes of the most liberal movements of Judaism, and a person born to a Jewish mother who is an atheist and never practices the Jewish religion is still a Jew, even in the eyes of the ultra-Orthodox. In this sense, Judaism is more like a nationality than like other religions, and being Jewish is like a citizenship. See What Is Judaism?
This has been established since the earliest days of Judaism. In the Torah, you will see many references to "the strangers who dwell among you" or "righteous proselytes" or "righteous strangers." These are various classifications of non-Jews who lived among Jews, adopting some or all of the beliefs and practices of Judaism without going through the formal process of conversion and becoming Jews. Once a person has converted to Judaism, he is not referred to by any special term; he is as much a Jew as anyone born Jewish.
http://www.jewfaq.org/whoisjew.htm
Furthermore from the same source:
Quote:
Several people have written to me asking about King David: was he a Jew, given that one of his female ancestors, Ruth, was not a Jew? This conclusion is based on two faulty premises: first of all, Ruth was a Jew, and even if she wasn't, that would not affect David's status as a Jew. Ruth converted to Judaism before marrying Boaz and bearing Obed. See Ruth 1:16, where Ruth states her intention to convert. After Ruth converted, she was a Jew, and all of her children born after the conversion were Jewish as well. But even if Ruth were not Jewish at the time Obed was born, that would not affect King David's status as a Jew, because Ruth is an ancestor of David's father, not of David's mother, and David's Jewish status is determined by his mother.
Rth 1:16 But Ruth said, "Do not urge me to leave you or turn back from following you; for where you go, I will go, and where you lodge, I will lodge. Your people shall be my people, and your God, my God.
Please note the underlined...

Oh, and you said you quit earlier, post 22, quoted below. If you quit, why persist?

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?
 
Upvote 0

CShephard53

Somebody shut me up so I can live out loud!
Mar 15, 2007
4,551
151
✟28,231.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Oh, it is the intent to convert that you interpret as "formal conversion"? That is your evidence? I concede your superior intellect.
It's amazing how you choose to continue to argue a fruitless position, even though you were amply shot down. Did you catch the red, underlined, bolded, italicized section in my last post?
 
Upvote 0

KCDAD

Well-Known Member
Aug 4, 2005
12,546
372
70
Illinois
✟14,800.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Yes I saw the red underlined section...

David's mother's was Nitzevet daughter of Adael. This is not written in the Torah, but rather is recorded in the Talmud, Tractate Bava Batra 91a. The Talmud there also gives the name of Avraham's mother, and of Haman's mother!
http://ohr.edu/ask_db/ask_main.php/221/Q4/

HOWEVER.. this is not information from the Bible, but from the Talmud: a Jewish commentary on the Torah... certainly not authoritative OR objective.

See the next page from the same site:
She is Jewish. If the facts are true as she has stated them, then she is 100 percent Jewish, and so are her children. This is so because a person's Jewishness is determined by the mother.
http://ohr.edu/ask_db/ask_main.php/275/Q3/

See? Ruth and Boaz could not have Jewish children. Unless you can show where any "formal conversion" took place, which would have been against the command of Nehemiah 13.

Please don't misunderstand my contrariness. I am not arguing that David wasn't Jewish, or that Jesus wasn't Jewish; I am only arguiong that the Bible is riddled with inconsistencies and Hebrew bias... which is not surprising since it is SPECIFICALLY and intentionally a Jewish book.


Try this out:
http://jlguretzki.ca/holymoses/sauldavidsolomon.htm
The slave girl raised David, to make Jesse think his tryst was successful. This story obviously covers up the true origin: he was illegitimate, but only declared a true son of Jesse and wife Nazbat (Nitzevet), daughter of Adael. According to I Samuel 16:10-11 Jesse had eight children, with David the youngest, but in I Chronicles 2:13-15 David was the youngest of seven. When Samuel came on his King-making mission to the Bethlehemite Jesse, to look over his sons, Jesse did not include David, dismissing him as unlikely king material; after all he was illegitimate and red-headed, so showing his Moabite roots. He was likely from the lineage of Esau, being born to Jesse's handmaiden, so Jesse presented only seven sons to Samuel.

David illegitimate? Jesus illegitimate? David the Messiah King, Jesus the Messiah King? See the connection?

 
Upvote 0

CShephard53

Somebody shut me up so I can live out loud!
Mar 15, 2007
4,551
151
✟28,231.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
You're trying to show there are inconsistencies, but fail to recognize that in order to really be an inconsistency doesn't mean it's a consistency that is subscribed to by one or many people, but the opposing side's supposed inability to explain said inconsistency. We've been able to. Why are you arguing against the Bible if you claim to be a Methodist or a Christian?

Your last link has no source except a name, and has no linked homepage. We're supposed to consider it credible?
David's mother's was Nitzevet daughter of Adael. This is not written in the Torah, but rather is recorded in the Talmud, Tractate Bava Batra 91a. The Talmud there also gives the name of Avraham's mother, and of Haman's mother!
http://ohr.edu/ask_db/ask_main.php/221/Q4/

HOWEVER.. this is not information from the Bible, but from the Talmud: a Jewish commentary on the Torah... certainly not authoritative OR objective.

See the next page from the same site:
She is Jewish. If the facts are true as she has stated them, then she is 100 percent Jewish, and so are her children. This is so because a person's Jewishness is determined by the mother.
http://ohr.edu/ask_db/ask_main.php/275/Q3/

See? Ruth and Boaz could not have Jewish children. Unless you can show where any "formal conversion" took place, which would have been against the command of Nehemiah 13.

Um, can you tell me something? When was Ruth written, and when was Nehemiah written?

Please don't misunderstand my contrariness. I am not arguing that David wasn't Jewish, or that Jesus wasn't Jewish; I am only arguiong that the Bible is riddled with inconsistencies and Hebrew bias... which is not surprising since it is SPECIFICALLY and intentionally a Jewish book.
Jewish? The Bible is a Jewish book? Dude, I really hope you're not including the NT. Generally people say Bible to mean both, else it is specified.
 
Upvote 0

HypnoToad

*croak*
Site Supporter
May 29, 2005
5,876
485
✟104,802.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Well that does explain a lot... your earlier insistence that Ruth was before the curse comes off as totally bogus, eh?
Only because you've been giving the wrong source the whole time. You kept on claiming the curse was from Nehemiah - which WAS several hundred years after Ruth. What is written in Nehemiah is a reference to Deuteronomy - THAT'S where the curse came from. Had you got your source correct to begin with, we wouldn't have had to waste our time.

So the curses of God only applies to men... since when? Did it in Sodom and Gomorrah? Did it with Lot's wife? Did it when Joshua came into Canaan killing everyone? Did it in Egypt? Did it in the Garden of Eden?
That was a very thoughtful and logical apologetic by the Rabbi, but since he has a rather vested interest in David's Jewishness, how else could he have answered the question?
Do you even bother reading or not?

That reference NEVER says "all curses of God only apply to men" - never says it. Your comment is totally invalid. Go read it again until you understand what it says.

Lol, so what if he's interested in David's Jewishness - you directly question David's Jewishness in your OP. You are just getting plain ridiculous now. Now you want to try to say that a Jewish organization can't accurately discuss their own historical customs.

Nice clothes, emperor.
 
Upvote 0

HypnoToad

*croak*
Site Supporter
May 29, 2005
5,876
485
✟104,802.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Ruth and Boaz could not have Jewish children. Unless you can show where any "formal conversion" took place, which would have been against the command of Nehemiah 13.
Utter nonsense. We already have her open confession of faith. You have absolutely no reason to think she didn't convert other than the simple fact you refuse to admit you're wrong, despite the overwhelming evidence that you have no case here. And the curse from "Nehemiah", which is actually from Deuteronomy, has already been explained to you. You descended to nothing more than the good old "la-la-la-I-can't-hear-you-I-can't-hear-you" defense.

Nice clothes, emperor.
 
Upvote 0

KCDAD

Well-Known Member
Aug 4, 2005
12,546
372
70
Illinois
✟14,800.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
jawsmetroid;41043321You're trying to show there are inconsistencies, but fail to recognize that in order to really be an inconsistency doesn't mean it's a consistency that is subscribed to by one or many people, but the opposing side's supposed inability to explain said inconsistency. We've been able to. Why are you arguing against the Bible if you claim to be a Methodist or a Christian?

Because, as Wesley explained, it takes experience, tradition and reason along with scripture to understand what it means to follow Jesus.

Your last link has no source except a name, and has no linked homepage. We're supposed to consider it credible?

Credible? or Considerable?

Um, can you tell me something? When was Ruth written, and when was Nehemiah written?

No. Can you?
The following timeline is a general layout for the biblical dates of authorship, according to the Christian Study Center. Some are estimations based upon events accounted in the books and cross-referenced with historical records. Obviously the dates are highly debatable.
B.C.E. Old Testament

  • c. 2166 to c. 1876 Job
  • c. 1446 to c. 1406 Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy
  • c. 1406 to c. 1050 Joshua, Judges
  • c. 1050 to c. 931 Ruth, Samuel, Psalms, Song of Solomon, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes
  • c. 875 Obadiah, Joel
  • c. 790 Jonah, Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, Micah
  • c. 732 to c. 726 Nahum, Zephaniah
  • c. 640 Jeremiah, Lamentations, Habakkuk, Kings, Daniel, Ezekial
  • c. 586 to c. 538 Haggai, Zechariah
  • c. 458 Chronicles, Ezra, Esther
  • c. 444 Nehemiah, Malachi
http://www.mediahistory.umn.edu/archive/biblicalDates.html

And what would the dates of writing have anything to do with the timeline of events? I could write a historyof WWII and then write a history of WWI but that wouldn't mean WWII came first.


Jewish? The Bible is a Jewish book? Dude, I really hope you're not including the NT. Generally people say Bible to mean both, else it is specified.

What would call it? A Christian book? Was not Jesus, Paul, Peter and pretty much everyone suggested as authors in the New Testament Jewish? How totally biased you are. You want to claim everything as "yours". No wonder you don't understand anything in the Bible.
(As Linus says in an early Charles Schultz cartoon, while reading the New testament, "I feel like I'm reading someone else's mail.")
You think it is written to you, personally.
 
Upvote 0

KCDAD

Well-Known Member
Aug 4, 2005
12,546
372
70
Illinois
✟14,800.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Only because you've been giving the wrong source the whole time. You kept on claiming the curse was from Nehemiah - which WAS several hundred years after Ruth. What is written in Nehemiah is a reference to Deuteronomy - THAT'S where the curse came from. Had you got your source correct to begin with, we wouldn't have had to waste our time.


Do you even bother reading or not?

That reference NEVER says "all curses of God only apply to men" - never says it. Your comment is totally invalid. Go read it again until you understand what it says.

Lol, so what if he's interested in David's Jewishness - you directly question David's Jewishness in your OP. You are just getting plain ridiculous now. Now you want to try to say that a Jewish organization can't accurately discuss their own historical customs.

Nice clothes, emperor.
And Deuteronomy is "several hundred years after Ruth " too?

You are a big fan of Hans Christian Anderson, eh?
 
Upvote 0

HypnoToad

*croak*
Site Supporter
May 29, 2005
5,876
485
✟104,802.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
And Deuteronomy is "several hundred years after Ruth " too?
No, it's well before, I never said otherwise.

I love the fact I am offering "proof" in the form of documentation and you guys are just completely flabberghasted by it.
Dry that one out, and you can fertilize the lawn.
 
Upvote 0

CShephard53

Somebody shut me up so I can live out loud!
Mar 15, 2007
4,551
151
✟28,231.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Because, as Wesley explained, it takes experience, tradition and reason along with scripture to understand what it means to follow Jesus.



Credible? or Considerable?



No. Can you?
The following timeline is a general layout for the biblical dates of authorship, according to the Christian Study Center. Some are estimations based upon events accounted in the books and cross-referenced with historical records. Obviously the dates are highly debatable.

If it's highly debatable, then your claim holds no water. You know, your OP.

B.C.E. Old Testament
  • c. 2166 to c. 1876 Job
  • c. 1446 to c. 1406 Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy
  • c. 1406 to c. 1050 Joshua, Judges
  • c. 1050 to c. 931 Ruth, Samuel, Psalms, Song of Solomon, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes
  • c. 875 Obadiah, Joel
  • c. 790 Jonah, Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, Micah
  • c. 732 to c. 726 Nahum, Zephaniah
  • c. 640 Jeremiah, Lamentations, Habakkuk, Kings, Daniel, Ezekial
  • c. 586 to c. 538 Haggai, Zechariah
  • c. 458 Chronicles, Ezra, Esther
  • c. 444 Nehemiah, Malachi
http://www.mediahistory.umn.edu/archive/biblicalDates.html

And what would the dates of writing have anything to do with the timeline of events? I could write a historyof WWII and then write a history of WWI but that wouldn't mean WWII came first.




What would call it? A Christian book? Was not Jesus, Paul, Peter and pretty much everyone suggested as authors in the New Testament Jewish? How totally biased you are. You want to claim everything as "yours". No wonder you don't understand anything in the Bible.
(As Linus says in an early Charles Schultz cartoon, while reading the New testament, "I feel like I'm reading someone else's mail.")
You think it is written to you, personally.
I'm not even going to start ripping apart those fallacies...

Especially the last paragraph, nice straw man.
 
Upvote 0

KCDAD

Well-Known Member
Aug 4, 2005
12,546
372
70
Illinois
✟14,800.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
No, it's well before, I never said otherwise.quote]

The implication was because it was written after it meant it was occuring after...

I'm not even going to start ripping apart those fallacies...
Of course, you aren't. That would require a statement. (The first of which would be for you to identify something as a fallacy... )

You would also have to defend your statement that the Bible is not a Jewish book! :doh:
 
Upvote 0

CShephard53

Somebody shut me up so I can live out loud!
Mar 15, 2007
4,551
151
✟28,231.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
No, it's well before, I never said otherwise.

The implication was because it was written after it meant it was occuring after...

I'm not even going to start ripping apart those fallacies...

Of course, you aren't. That would require a statement. (The first of which would be for you to identify something as a fallacy... )

You would also have to defend your statement that the Bible is not a Jewish book! :doh:
You missed the following STATEMENT, didn't you? Is that all you can do? Rip on credibility? Ad hominem. You don't address the issue, you address what YOU think is the issue then attack that. Straw man fallacy.
 
Upvote 0

CShephard53

Somebody shut me up so I can live out loud!
Mar 15, 2007
4,551
151
✟28,231.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Hey KC-
You want me to point out fallacies? Okay, but if you respond with another in any way, I'm out. Done.

Because, as Wesley explained, it takes experience, tradition and reason along with scripture to understand what it means to follow Jesus.
Granted, perhaps. But what reason are you using? Any? You say it takes reason- yet give the fallacies throughout this....

Credible? or Considerable?
Doesn't matter, a page with no links and no homepage doesn't mean squat. Especially when there's no references, or even any attempts by you to show why it's credible.

No. Can you?
This is your reply? What reason is there in this statement?

The following timeline is a general layout for the biblical dates of authorship, according to the Christian Study Center. Some are estimations based upon events accounted in the books and cross-referenced with historical records. Obviously the dates are highly debatable.
B.C.E. Old Testament
  • c. 2166 to c. 1876 Job
  • c. 1446 to c. 1406 Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy
  • c. 1406 to c. 1050 Joshua, Judges
  • c. 1050 to c. 931 Ruth, Samuel, Psalms, Song of Solomon, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes
  • c. 875 Obadiah, Joel
  • c. 790 Jonah, Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, Micah
  • c. 732 to c. 726 Nahum, Zephaniah
  • c. 640 Jeremiah, Lamentations, Habakkuk, Kings, Daniel, Ezekial
  • c. 586 to c. 538 Haggai, Zechariah
  • c. 458 Chronicles, Ezra, Esther
  • c. 444 Nehemiah, Malachi
http://www.mediahistory.umn.edu/archive/biblicalDates.html
Tell me something, KC-
How come books are missing from this timeline? And how come books are missing from the timeline of the NT on your link? Just because it was reposted by the U of M and the CSC means we take it as gospel?

Tell me something else:
How would this refute the idea that David and Jesus were Jewish, as your OP tries to do, especially in light of the evidence from the link I posted twice now?
And what would the dates of writing have anything to do with the timeline of events? I could write a historyof WWII and then write a history of WWI but that wouldn't mean WWII came first.
So you basically say that the timeline is useless, unless you're quoting someone and have failed to edit and put quote wraps on it.


What would call it? A Christian book? Was not Jesus, Paul, Peter and pretty much everyone suggested as authors in the New Testament Jewish?
Just because its writers were Jewish doesn't mean it's a Jewish book. You don't consider any book written by an atheist unless it has atheistic content throughout it do you?
How totally biased you are.
Ad hominem, how is it biased to simply say that the entire Bible is not Jewish?
You want to claim everything as "yours".
Straw man argument/fallacy. I never stated that, or implied it.
No wonder you don't understand anything in the Bible.
Ad hominem, yet again, and quite offensive too.
(As Linus says in an early Charles Schultz cartoon, while reading the New testament, "I feel like I'm reading someone else's mail.")
Red herring, and straw man, based on your previous statements. It has no pertinence to the subject of Ruth or David or Jesus being Jewish, and it assumes that I'm claiming it's written only for me... which I never claim or imply.
You think it is written to you, personally.
No, I do not.

The Bible is a collection of books (thus, not 'A Jewish book', though has Jewish books contained in them), written by primarily Jewish people, meant by God to be read/followed by the WORLD, not just Jews. Does that clarify things for you?

I'll state it again, KC, so you can't miss it:
Respond with a fallacy in any way, and I'm out of here.
 
Upvote 0

KCDAD

Well-Known Member
Aug 4, 2005
12,546
372
70
Illinois
✟14,800.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
You missed the following STATEMENT, didn't you? Is that all you can do? Rip on credibility? Ad hominem. You don't address the issue, you address what YOU think is the issue then attack that. Straw man fallacy.
Apparently... did you edit it out..I still don't see it.
 
Upvote 0

CShephard53

Somebody shut me up so I can live out loud!
Mar 15, 2007
4,551
151
✟28,231.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I'm not even going to start ripping apart those fallacies...

Especially the last paragraph, nice straw man.
'Especially the last paragraph...'

Apparently... did you edit it out..I still don't see it.
Did I edit it...
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.