Abd_Yesua_alMasih
Puritan Board Junior
What makes a Jew of the Bible? Is it just their genetics - or is it something else. It is all a question of identity.
What is the State of Israel?
- Thread starter Abd_Yesua_alMasih
- Start date
- Status
TimV
Puritanboard Botanist
There are people from four tribes mentioned in the NT. They are Jews, the Jews of the Bible, first mentioned in 2 Kings. They have no more Biblical significance than the Medes (Kurds) who are going about getting their ethno-state at this moment.
I'm glad for them. But I wish they didn't run our foreign policy like they do. Too bad we Christians are all too often stupid and easily lead.
I'm glad for them. But I wish they didn't run our foreign policy like they do. Too bad we Christians are all too often stupid and easily lead.
tcalbrecht
Puritan Board Junior
NT times are very different from today. Judaism was always more than genetics. Judaism had to do with the covenant relationship originally established by God with Abraham. That covenant ultimately found it fulfillment in Jesus Christ, the Seed of Abraham.
How could it be said with certainty that Anna was from the tribe of Asher or how could Paul demonstrate that he was from the tribe of Benjamin? These claims could be authenticated by the records. Not only could one say that they were a "Jew", but they could prove it by showing from the record what tribe they belonged to.
But such is not the case today. No one can authenticate what tribe they are a member of. They either claim to be a Jew because their mother (who might have been a convert) was a Jew, or they are convert themselves. And for the record these modern converts are not converts to biblical Judaism. They are converts to rabbinic Judaism, which is not the Judaism of the Bible.
So the idea the Jews living in Israel today are "biblical Jews" is not supported by the evidence.
The only "biblical Jews" living today are those people from every nation who have faith in Jesus Christ and are considered the sons of Abraham.
TimV
Puritanboard Botanist
"How could it be said with certainty that Anna was from the tribe of Asher or how could Paul demonstrate that he was from the tribe of Benjamin? These claims could be authenticated by the records. Not only could one say that they were a "Jew", but they could prove it by showing from the record what tribe they belonged to."
To say that this is pure speculation is barely strong enough. You haven't got even a shread of evidence saying that their tribal IDs were anything more that oral tradition. Besides, it would be one VERY interesting document that traced Anna's family's centuries long journey back from the Assyrian exile. I've never even heard of such an example of this sort.
And, again, if you want proof, it's easily done with DNA, but you said that proof would be "theologically uninteresting" to you. Yet still you argue/speculate against the point
I will make this simple. They are the physical descendents of the Jews of the Bible. I hope this is uncomplicated enough.
There is no need to play mix and match games with double meanings. We all know that (for the 28th time) that there are other, spiritual, meanings for "Jews" so it's ridiculous to belabor the point when there is unanimous agreement.
To say that this is pure speculation is barely strong enough. You haven't got even a shread of evidence saying that their tribal IDs were anything more that oral tradition. Besides, it would be one VERY interesting document that traced Anna's family's centuries long journey back from the Assyrian exile. I've never even heard of such an example of this sort.
And, again, if you want proof, it's easily done with DNA, but you said that proof would be "theologically uninteresting" to you. Yet still you argue/speculate against the point
I will make this simple. They are the physical descendents of the Jews of the Bible. I hope this is uncomplicated enough.
There is no need to play mix and match games with double meanings. We all know that (for the 28th time) that there are other, spiritual, meanings for "Jews" so it's ridiculous to belabor the point when there is unanimous agreement.
tcalbrecht
Puritan Board Junior
"This census first took place while Quirinius was governing Syria. So all went to be registered, everyone to his own city. Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, to be registered with Mary, his betrothed wife, who was with child." (Luke 2:2-5)
The testimony of Scripture is that it was more than an oral tradition. There was certainly a tribal aspect to the census requirement. The phrase "everyone to his own city" strongly suggests that some record existed to validate the claims of tribal relationship. Otherwise Joseph could have just gone to the local magistrate in Nazareth to register.
But yet we have such a record of Jesus lineage, one which was used to authenticate his claim to the messianic title, and one which must have been part of the legal record somewhere at that time.
Originally posted by TimV
And, again, if you want proof, it's easily done with DNA, but you said that proof would be "theologically uninteresting" to you. Yet still you argue/speculate against the point
Sorry, but that does not amount to objectlve proof. It's scientific speculation.
But they are not, unless you are contending that there have been no conversions to Judaism or intermarriage in the last 2000 years. What about Sammy Davis, Jr? :bigsmile:
There is also the fact the rabbinic Judaism, unlike the biblical model, is matrilineal.
I think there is still a problem with identifying modern Jews with biblical Jews. Is it genetics? Is it covenant? That question remains unanswered.
TimV
Puritanboard Botanist
"This census first took place while Quirinius was governing Syria. So all went to be registered, everyone to his own city. Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, to be registered with Mary, his betrothed wife, who was with child." (Luke 2:2-5)
The testimony of Scripture is that it was more than an oral tradition. There was certainly a tribal aspect to the census requirement. The phrase "everyone to his own city" strongly suggests that some record existed to validate the claims of tribal relationship. Otherwise Joseph could have just gone to the local magistrate in Nazareth to register."
This is a classic non sequitur, as well as bad logic. There isn't a scrap of evidence that there was any tribal record in the scripture you quote.
"Originally posted by TimV
I will make this simple. They are the physical descendents of the Jews of the Bible. I hope this is uncomplicated enough."
"But they are not, unless you are contending that there have been no conversions to Judaism or intermarriage in the last 2000 years. What about Sammy Davis, Jr? "
More bad logic. You ask "what about Sammy Davis J?" I could ask "What about Rahab?" There have been intermarriages before and after the time of Christ. So what? Are Japanese not real because some Americans married Japanese girls after the war?
"There is also the fact the rabbinic Judaism, unlike the biblical model, is matrilineal."
Is there a point?
The testimony of Scripture is that it was more than an oral tradition. There was certainly a tribal aspect to the census requirement. The phrase "everyone to his own city" strongly suggests that some record existed to validate the claims of tribal relationship. Otherwise Joseph could have just gone to the local magistrate in Nazareth to register."
This is a classic non sequitur, as well as bad logic. There isn't a scrap of evidence that there was any tribal record in the scripture you quote.
"Originally posted by TimV
I will make this simple. They are the physical descendents of the Jews of the Bible. I hope this is uncomplicated enough."
"But they are not, unless you are contending that there have been no conversions to Judaism or intermarriage in the last 2000 years. What about Sammy Davis, Jr? "
More bad logic. You ask "what about Sammy Davis J?" I could ask "What about Rahab?" There have been intermarriages before and after the time of Christ. So what? Are Japanese not real because some Americans married Japanese girls after the war?
"There is also the fact the rabbinic Judaism, unlike the biblical model, is matrilineal."
Is there a point?
tcalbrecht
Puritan Board Junior
If it is bad logic, please demonstrate it. You can start by giving some other, more logical, reason why Joseph had to travel to Bethlehem, "the city of David", in order to register.
You also didn't address the account of Jesus' lineage. Perhaps Matthew and Luke made them up.
Well, you must be missing the real question. Is a convert to Judaism a "biblical Jew" according to your definition? That was the point of my point somewhat tongue-in-cheek comment about Sammy Davis, Jr.
The fact is without historical records, there is no way to trace a modern Jew back to biblical times.
Using your example of Rahab, if Boaz were born today to Salmon and Rahab, under rabbinic law the child world not be considered Jewish. They would have to convert because they were born to a non-Jewish mother.
My point has been, and perhaps I've belabored it much too long, that modern Jews are not biblical Jews in any objective sense. I'm not sure why you have a hard time seeing the issues in referring to modern Jews as "biblical Jews".
TimV
Puritanboard Botanist
The burden of proof is on you. It could have been oral tradition, especially in cases like Anna's.
Perhaps it will help if you ask yourself this question. "Is it likely that written records survived from the three thousand years between Adam and Christ". If you answer "yes" then we will just have to agree to disagree on this one. If you answer "no" then you have to concede that oral tradition is satisfactory to know what race you belong to.
No, I am not missing anything. People have always married into the Jewish ethnic group, I think of two ancestor's of Christ off the top of my head. If Sammy Davis Junior had kids and they stayed withing the religion, their great great great grandkids will be Jews just the same is if Moses married a Black wife and her great great great grandkids were Jews just like all the other Jews.
Then you must ask yourself the same question as above. Let me guess, you've read some of that Khazar nonsense.
Repeat: So what?
tcalbrecht
Puritan Board Junior
I think this gets to the heart of our disagreement over your use of the term "biblical Jews".
There is no way that someone who converts to modern, rabbinic Judaism can be considered a "biblical Jew".
Biblical Judaism operated under the older covenant made with Abraham that was finally ratified in the new covenant of Jesus Christ. The church is the inheritor and legitimate heir of this covenant. Actually, it is more correct to say that Jesus Christ, the Seed, is the Inheritor. It was the testament made in His blood that redeems a people. We share in that inheritance because we are "in Christ" and thus legitimate children of Abraham.
To equate Moses and Sammy Davis Jr is sheer folly, for we read:
"Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad."
"For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me."
The faith of Abraham and Moses was based ultimately on faith in Jesus Christ. Modern, rabbinic Judaism is the antithesis of this faith.
Since the older covenant is no longer in operation (Heb. 8:13), there is no way that Sammy Davis, Jr or anyone else today can convert to "biblical Judaism", unless they convert to authentic Christianity. So to suggest that these people are "biblical Jews" is just, plain untrue. They are Jews via self-identification only.
I'll overlook your comment about Khazars since it has no basis in our discussion. I wouldn't wish to prejudice the conversation.
TimV
Puritanboard Botanist
I'll try once more. You wrote
"You also didn't address the account of Jesus' lineage. Perhaps Matthew and Luke made them up." and
"The fact is without historical records, there is no way to trace a modern Jew back to biblical times."
I did address the issue. I said that oral tradition can be valid.
Now, using your own words, you must maintain that there were clear written records going back from the time of Christ to Adam, otherwise you are the one who doubts the validity of the NT geneological accounts.
"You also didn't address the account of Jesus' lineage. Perhaps Matthew and Luke made them up." and
"The fact is without historical records, there is no way to trace a modern Jew back to biblical times."
I did address the issue. I said that oral tradition can be valid.
Now, using your own words, you must maintain that there were clear written records going back from the time of Christ to Adam, otherwise you are the one who doubts the validity of the NT geneological accounts.
My Two Cents
Good stuff.
Precisely. See my new post.
I know you probably won´t answer this, but what other ethnic/religious group would you be willing to grant this special favor of being able to take over the land of the indigenous people? American Indians? Since the vast majority of Hispanics on this side of the world are a mixture of the native populations and their early Spanish conquerors perhaps we should give North America back to them and/or have Spanish spoken as our native tongue along with Catholicism as our national religion?
Perhaps the worldwide persecution of Jews is God-ordained as He said in His Holy Word"¦?
Deut 28:21-25 "The LORD shall make the pestilence cleave unto thee, until He has consumed thee from off the land, whither thou goest to possess it." {22} "The LORD shall smite thee with a consumption, and with a fever, and with an inflammation, and with an extreme burning, and with the sword, and with blasting, and with mildew; and they shall pursue thee until thou perish. {23} And thy heaven that is over thy head shall be brass, and the earth that is under thee shall be iron. {24} The LORD shall make the rain of thy land powder and dust: from heaven shall it come down upon thee, until thou be destroyed. {25} The LORD shall cause thee to be smitten before thine enemies: thou shalt go out one way against them, and flee seven ways before them: and shalt be removed into all the kingdoms of the earth."
Ezek 7:4, 9 "And Mine Eye shall not spare thee, neither will I have pity: but I will recompense thy ways upon thee, and thine abominations shall be in the midst of thee: and ye shall know that I am the LORD." "¦{9} "And Mine Eye shall not spare, neither will I have pity: I will recompense thee according to thy ways and thine abominations that are in the midst of thee; and ye shall know that I am the LORD that smiteth."
Of course there are MANY OTHER PASSAGES, but I´ll save those for another day/discussion.
How do we know that it is God´s "œGrace" which allowed the Zionists to create a national presence in the land of Palestine? Was God´s Grace at work when the Arab Muslims conquered Palestine from the Christian crusaders? And to say that "œIsrael [restored] a national presence in the world" is to indentify/equate modern Israel with ancient Israel without a shred of historical or biblical proof.
Your last comment is an eschatological interpretation (which I think is erroneous). You are assuming that "œseeing" Christ in Matt 23:39 is the same as the Second Coming of Christ. But is that how you interpret Heb 2:9?
What does it matter what the official name of modern Israel is? I could call myself a baloney sandwich but that wouldn´t make me one.
Please support your assertion that modern Israel is an ethno-state "“ i.e. made up of ethnic Jews "“ because the modern state of Israel (and Judaism) need all the help they can get in this impossible endeavor. If you have secret knowledge to convey, then we are all ears"¦
The current president of Israel (wonder why they don´t have a Davidic king"¦?) was born in Iran. Is he ethnically an Israelite or an Iranian? (or as you later infer, a Persian?)
You agree that it is God´s Grace that allowed "œIsrael" to "œrestore" a national presence in the world based on Acts 17:26?!? Why not speculate that it is God´s Judgment or God´s Reprobation of a people/religious group or God´s Purpose in order to bring the errors of Dispensationalism to the fore and thus demolish them? We play a dangerous game when we try and guess God´s motives"¦
And I wouldn´t call modern Jews in the land a "œrestoration" of an ancient national presence. I would call it a parody: a feeble or ridiculous imitation.
I think you should have phrased it like this: "œHow does one demonstrate that the ancient land of Israel is "˜home´ to modern Jews?"
Amen!
The FACT is this: modern Jews have absolutely no way of substantiating their claim that they are the descendants of any one person, particularly Abraham, nor that Palestine is the "œland of their origins" (except in a religious, idolatrous sense), that they share any historicity at all with the ancient culture of the Israelites or that they themselves should be INDENTIFIED/EQUATED with the ancient Israelites. These are NOT "œfacts" but myths and legends "“ the very anthesis of "œfacts."
As for testing EVERYTHING, perhaps you should test these anthropological-theological (and sometimes evolutionary) ideas against the theology of Scripture which posits that 1) the covenant required TOTAL obedience, including maintaining one´s pedigree and not intermarrying among the nations as well as the all-important injunction to listen to the Messiah when He came and 2) that the Old Covenant is just that "“ old, obsolete, senescent and can never be revived. It became that to the unbelieving children of Abraham precisely because of their unbelief and rejection of the covenant stipulations. The Old Covenant was renewed by The Faithful Descendant of Abraham who acted as Representative on behalf of His people "“ the faithful remnant and those who by faith, granted to them by God, are grafted into the family tree of Abraham.
I did appreciate your comments that: "œeverybody forgets that national Israel received the fulfillment of the promise of a land during Solomon (1 Kings 8). But I would disagree with what followed: "œThe important thing is, the promise was conditional "“ Israel failed and violated the convenant - and have since then, been bearing the curses of that Covenant YHWH made with them." To say that Jews "œsince then" are bearing the curses of the covenant is to identify/equate ancient Jews with modern Jews "“ which isn´t provable. I know I said pretty much the same thing with my quoting Deut 28 or Ezek 7, but my point was that IF we want to have God reacting to a modern group based upon some O.T. bible verses, then why not the curses? That´s not to say that I actually think that He is"¦
I also appreciated your statement that: "œGod only relates to man via covenant." This is the focus of my signature verse: "The Lord"¦keeps covenant"¦with those who LOVE Him and KEEP His commandments." "“Deut 7:9-11
Amen to the first part. Befuddled as to the second part given what you´ve been saying thus far. If Christians are the fulfillment of the promises "“ the "œNew" Israel of God and the promises were spiritual in nature, then why would WE be "œrestored to the PHYSICAL land of Abraham"? Especially seeing as how that is not the land that Abraham was looking for"¦
Reformed folks who believed this laid the groundwork for Dispensationalism because of their faulty understanding of Scripture. To continue along this line of reasoning is to besmirch the Gospel "“ the REALLY Good News of what Christ´s Atonement accomplished. It is to regress to the natural types and copies and shadows of the truth.
More later. It's 3:50 a.m. (!) and I'll be in trouble in a couple of hours when we have to start school around here! And I still have so much to say...
Good stuff.
Precisely. See my new post.
I know you probably won´t answer this, but what other ethnic/religious group would you be willing to grant this special favor of being able to take over the land of the indigenous people? American Indians? Since the vast majority of Hispanics on this side of the world are a mixture of the native populations and their early Spanish conquerors perhaps we should give North America back to them and/or have Spanish spoken as our native tongue along with Catholicism as our national religion?
Perhaps the worldwide persecution of Jews is God-ordained as He said in His Holy Word"¦?
Deut 28:21-25 "The LORD shall make the pestilence cleave unto thee, until He has consumed thee from off the land, whither thou goest to possess it." {22} "The LORD shall smite thee with a consumption, and with a fever, and with an inflammation, and with an extreme burning, and with the sword, and with blasting, and with mildew; and they shall pursue thee until thou perish. {23} And thy heaven that is over thy head shall be brass, and the earth that is under thee shall be iron. {24} The LORD shall make the rain of thy land powder and dust: from heaven shall it come down upon thee, until thou be destroyed. {25} The LORD shall cause thee to be smitten before thine enemies: thou shalt go out one way against them, and flee seven ways before them: and shalt be removed into all the kingdoms of the earth."
Ezek 7:4, 9 "And Mine Eye shall not spare thee, neither will I have pity: but I will recompense thy ways upon thee, and thine abominations shall be in the midst of thee: and ye shall know that I am the LORD." "¦{9} "And Mine Eye shall not spare, neither will I have pity: I will recompense thee according to thy ways and thine abominations that are in the midst of thee; and ye shall know that I am the LORD that smiteth."
Of course there are MANY OTHER PASSAGES, but I´ll save those for another day/discussion.
How do we know that it is God´s "œGrace" which allowed the Zionists to create a national presence in the land of Palestine? Was God´s Grace at work when the Arab Muslims conquered Palestine from the Christian crusaders? And to say that "œIsrael [restored] a national presence in the world" is to indentify/equate modern Israel with ancient Israel without a shred of historical or biblical proof.
Your last comment is an eschatological interpretation (which I think is erroneous). You are assuming that "œseeing" Christ in Matt 23:39 is the same as the Second Coming of Christ. But is that how you interpret Heb 2:9?
What does it matter what the official name of modern Israel is? I could call myself a baloney sandwich but that wouldn´t make me one.
Please support your assertion that modern Israel is an ethno-state "“ i.e. made up of ethnic Jews "“ because the modern state of Israel (and Judaism) need all the help they can get in this impossible endeavor. If you have secret knowledge to convey, then we are all ears"¦
The current president of Israel (wonder why they don´t have a Davidic king"¦?) was born in Iran. Is he ethnically an Israelite or an Iranian? (or as you later infer, a Persian?)
You agree that it is God´s Grace that allowed "œIsrael" to "œrestore" a national presence in the world based on Acts 17:26?!? Why not speculate that it is God´s Judgment or God´s Reprobation of a people/religious group or God´s Purpose in order to bring the errors of Dispensationalism to the fore and thus demolish them? We play a dangerous game when we try and guess God´s motives"¦
And I wouldn´t call modern Jews in the land a "œrestoration" of an ancient national presence. I would call it a parody: a feeble or ridiculous imitation.
I think you should have phrased it like this: "œHow does one demonstrate that the ancient land of Israel is "˜home´ to modern Jews?"
Amen!
The FACT is this: modern Jews have absolutely no way of substantiating their claim that they are the descendants of any one person, particularly Abraham, nor that Palestine is the "œland of their origins" (except in a religious, idolatrous sense), that they share any historicity at all with the ancient culture of the Israelites or that they themselves should be INDENTIFIED/EQUATED with the ancient Israelites. These are NOT "œfacts" but myths and legends "“ the very anthesis of "œfacts."
As for testing EVERYTHING, perhaps you should test these anthropological-theological (and sometimes evolutionary) ideas against the theology of Scripture which posits that 1) the covenant required TOTAL obedience, including maintaining one´s pedigree and not intermarrying among the nations as well as the all-important injunction to listen to the Messiah when He came and 2) that the Old Covenant is just that "“ old, obsolete, senescent and can never be revived. It became that to the unbelieving children of Abraham precisely because of their unbelief and rejection of the covenant stipulations. The Old Covenant was renewed by The Faithful Descendant of Abraham who acted as Representative on behalf of His people "“ the faithful remnant and those who by faith, granted to them by God, are grafted into the family tree of Abraham.
I did appreciate your comments that: "œeverybody forgets that national Israel received the fulfillment of the promise of a land during Solomon (1 Kings 8). But I would disagree with what followed: "œThe important thing is, the promise was conditional "“ Israel failed and violated the convenant - and have since then, been bearing the curses of that Covenant YHWH made with them." To say that Jews "œsince then" are bearing the curses of the covenant is to identify/equate ancient Jews with modern Jews "“ which isn´t provable. I know I said pretty much the same thing with my quoting Deut 28 or Ezek 7, but my point was that IF we want to have God reacting to a modern group based upon some O.T. bible verses, then why not the curses? That´s not to say that I actually think that He is"¦
I also appreciated your statement that: "œGod only relates to man via covenant." This is the focus of my signature verse: "The Lord"¦keeps covenant"¦with those who LOVE Him and KEEP His commandments." "“Deut 7:9-11
Amen to the first part. Befuddled as to the second part given what you´ve been saying thus far. If Christians are the fulfillment of the promises "“ the "œNew" Israel of God and the promises were spiritual in nature, then why would WE be "œrestored to the PHYSICAL land of Abraham"? Especially seeing as how that is not the land that Abraham was looking for"¦
Reformed folks who believed this laid the groundwork for Dispensationalism because of their faulty understanding of Scripture. To continue along this line of reasoning is to besmirch the Gospel "“ the REALLY Good News of what Christ´s Atonement accomplished. It is to regress to the natural types and copies and shadows of the truth.
More later. It's 3:50 a.m. (!) and I'll be in trouble in a couple of hours when we have to start school around here! And I still have so much to say...
TimV
Puritanboard Botanist
Convergence of evidence
Anthropology has been a hobby of mine for 30 years, and I follow these things. My knowledge isn't secret, but I admit it may not be well known to people totally unfamiliar with the subject. Here is one study showing modern Jews have their origin in the Mid East.
As far as this "we" business, is that the royal "we" or are you claiming that Calvinists generally, or historically, have denied this?
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/97/12/6769?maxtoshow=&
HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&author1=Ostrer&searchid=
QID_NOT_SET&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=&fdate=1/1/2000
And the Prime Minister is from Russia. So? I have a blonde haired blue eyed daughter born in Africa. Are you making a point? If so, what?
And why would anyone even fairly well read infer that someone born in Iran was a Persian? There are 13-15 million Azari Turks there, among other ethnic groups, including Jews. They are dominated by the Persian ethnic group, though, like the Arabs in Israel are dominated by the Jews, and the Basques are dominated by the French and Spanish.
[Edited on 3-8-2005 by TimV]
[Edited on 3/12/2005 by fredtgreco]
Tim,
You don't really want to quote a bunch of evolutionists as supporting evidence for your hypothesis, do you? (See my 2nd post of 1-21 under the Zionism, Israel & Christianity thread where I posted the same link with much different conclusions.)
As for the "we" I simply meant people on this board.
And it was not I that was inferring (as one of your posts seems to do) that Iranian = Persian. My point was that the current president of Israel was born in Iran, supposedly of Sepharadic descent and whatever his personal religious convictions he is the descendant of a famous Kabbalist (which is not exactly Biblical Judaism...).
TimV
Puritanboard Botanist
Yes, I do it all the time, as does/did anyone else here with a University degree, because you have to, no mater what subject. I don't have any time for Pythagoras and his bean worship, but when I lay out a vineyard or orchard I use his theorum, and it makes the rows nice and straight.
If you will give me a Christian geneticist or physical anthropologist that will support your hypothesis, that will carry much weight with me, though. Who do you recommend?
TimV
Puritanboard Botanist
No, for my theology I go to the Bible. And when you said that Ruth and Rahab didn't have offspring that became part of the Jewish ethnic group, both Keon and I pointed out to you that the human family of Christ were Jews, and descended from Ruth and Rahab.
That is from the Bible, not from DNA researchers.
I never said that Ruth and Rahab were not part of Christ's family tree. Of course they were, but they were IN VIOLATION OF the covenant and their foreign ancestry then forever became a part of Jesus' DNA. The ethnicity of His particular line was a mixture of the various people groups that made up His ancestry. The entire ethnicity of Israel didn't change based on this one family's breach of the covenant, but it necessarily effected Christ's... Therefore, He wasn't 100% Israelite. He had, at the very least, a little Jericho-ian and a little Moabite. Their DNA contributed to His gene pool and may have become diminished over time where it wasn't predominant, but it wasn't completely eradicated just because they married into the Israelite family or converted to a monotheistic belief system.
Or to put it another way, say a white guy marries a black gal and for 500 yrs everyone in their family tree had been the same "color" they were. Now what ethnic group their child and future offspring marry into will determine which phenotypes are dominant, but it will never change the prior DNA of those offspring. Nor does it change the entire ethnic/genetic makeup of all blacks and all whites. Now say this white guy and black gal move to Japan (him having been there in the war) and their children all marry Japanese people and this goes on for 12 generations before any members of that family migrate to another country and are exposed to other ethnic groups. This still doesn't change the fact that every descendant of that couple have Caucasian and African ancestry (to use common modern terminology) even if their features become predominantly Asian.
Look, race isn't biblical, we all know that. We are all from one blood as the Scripture says. We all descend from one man and one woman and then from the 3 sons of Noah who also descended from that same man and woman. But the Bible does speak about family groups - what we call ethnic groups (ethnos=nation). And the ancient Israelites were forbidden to intermarry among the nations. They did of course and thus the purity of both their nation and their religion was compromised. That's the big thing that I'm trying to point out here. Thus modern Israelis and/or modern Jews have no basis upon which to claim descent from the patriarchs - they're just as screwed up as the rest of us (genetically speaking ;o)! But their theology (and political aspirations) rest upon this pretense. I say it's long past time that we allow these delusions to continue - for their sake and for our's: nationally, regarding politics and theologically, regarding the claims of Christian Zionism and Dispensationalism but also the very Gospel itself! (Which holds out the blessings of Abraham to ALL men who believe - regardless of ethnicity and family descent.)
See: The Messiah's Family Tree
[Edited on 3-10-2005 by VERITAS]
Cheri!
TimV
Puritanboard Botanist
The Bible says that Salvation is of the Jews. Christ was a Jew.
Cheri, your understanding of the Covenant is defective. We've yet to see how Daniel and the others were cut off from the Covenant since they didn't go to Jerusalem every three years.
Could you address this please?
And I've asked for sources. Where are you getting this stuff? Have you read something along these lines? If so, what? Is this something that just came to you?
From the beginning the Covenant didn't have to do mainly with descent. Abraham's whole household was part of the Covenant, and if he could field over 200 men in their prime for warfare, there must have been more than a thousand people who weren't born to Abraham that were part of the Covenant.
Your knowledge of the interracial laws is imcomplete. Go back and read for yourself the law you quoted about the Moabites. AFTER THREE GENERATIONS IN THE LAND, IT WAS PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE FOR GOD'S PEOPLE TO MARRY OUTSIDE THE ISRAELI ETHNIC GROUP with just those two exceptions.
I notice your sig is ambiguous as to the church you attend. What exactly is the name of your church?
[Edited on 3-10-2005 by TimV]
Tim: The Bible says that Salvation is of the Jews. Christ was a Jew.
I'm not disputing either of those two points (see Rom 9:3-8; Rom 3:1-4).
Tim: Cheri, your understanding of the Covenant is defective. We've yet to see how Daniel and the others were cut off from the Covenant since they didn't go to Jerusalem every three years. Could you address this please?
Ok, but how can you say that my understanding of the Covenant is defective prior to hearing my answer?
First, WHY could Daniel not go up to Jerusalem three times a year as prescribed by Covenant Law? Mmm... Was it because the people of Israel had been exiled and expelled from the Land BECAUSE OF their covenant unfaithfulness - i.e. their transgression of the covenant; their breaking of the covenant?
Deut 16:16 "Three times in a year shall all thy males appear before the LORD thy God in the place which He shall choose; in the feast of unleavened bread, and in the feast of weeks, and in the feast of tabernacles: and they shall not appear before the LORD empty:"
Secondly, by the time of Daniel the temple was no longer standing (Ezra 5:15-16). How could one go to the Temple to offer sacrifices if the Temple was no longer standing and you and the priests were captives in a foreign land? This didn't excuse them before the Law. No, it amplified the fact that the REASON they couldn't keep the Law was because their people/their ancestors had already broken the covenant.
Now, hear me well (because you seem to be missing the big picture), I have repeatedly said that God could keep the covenant IN SPITE OF the disobedience of His people FOR HIS OWN PURPOSES and PLEASURE, but that does not then excuse them for their disobedience. God had a Plan to fulfill and He wasn't about to let the unfaithfulness of Israel stand in His Way!
Rom 3:3 "What if some did not have believe? Will their lack of faith nullify God's Faithfulness?"
Rom 3:5 "But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? (I speak as a man)"
Tim: And I've asked for sources. Where are you getting this stuff? Have you read something along these lines? If so, what? Is this something that just came to you?
You've asked for "sources"? Where? When? Where am I getting this stuff? Why the Bible! Have I read something along these lines? Yes, it's called The Law of God. I've also read Jewish sources. For instance:
If I'm misunderstanding or misapplying the Covenant, then so are Jews who profess to adhere to it.
Tim: From the beginning the Covenant didn't have to do mainly with descent. Abraham's whole household was part of the Covenant, and if he could field over 200 men in their prime for warfare, there must have been more than a thousand people who weren't born to Abraham that were part of the Covenant.
Where does the Text say that? It says that "whoever is born in your household or bought with your money must be circumcised" but it doesn't say that THEY then become heirs of the covenant. Ishmael was born in Abraham's house and circumcised (and being the firstborn, he was entitled to a double-portion inheritance!), yet we know that he was NOT part of or heir to the Covenant. Furthermore, the New Covenant (interpreting the Old) says that those signs and symbols were "of no profit, not being mixed with faith." Slaves had no rights. No voice. They were "part" of the Covenant only in the sense that the sign of God's Covenant with their masters was on them like a brand used to mark PROPERTY. (Slaves during the Roman era were so branded.)
Tim: Your knowledge of the interracial laws is imcomplete. Go back and read for yourself the law you quoted about the Moabites. AFTER THREE GENERATIONS IN THE LAND, IT WAS PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE FOR GOD'S PEOPLE TO MARRY OUTSIDE THE ISRAELI ETHNIC GROUP with just those two exceptions.
Forgive me, Tim, I can't seem to recall (or locate) any such stipulation. Would you be so kind as to post this verse (which would then contradict God's Word in other verses)?
Tim: I notice your sig is ambiguous as to the church you attend. What exactly is the name of your church?
It's not ambiguous. I just didn't include "Church". What I think you mean is: is this something that my church teaches and are all of the congregants crazy (anti-Semitic) like me? If that's what you're getting at, then "no" my church does not teach this nor has it even come up. I've mentioned my view in certain conversations regarding the nature of Judaism and one of my old Sunday school teachers heard a conversation I had about this online with Hank Hanagraaf...
The name of my church is: Reformed Baptist Church. I know, not very flowery, but hey Baptists are like that! ;o) (And if you don't believe me, then you can ask Average Joey if he's heard of my church.)
--Cheri
P.S. I have a 7th great-grand aunt named Patience VAUGHN. But she married into the family and didn't share my father's bloodline - i.e. she's not from the same tribe. ;o)
I'm not disputing either of those two points (see Rom 9:3-8; Rom 3:1-4).
Tim: Cheri, your understanding of the Covenant is defective. We've yet to see how Daniel and the others were cut off from the Covenant since they didn't go to Jerusalem every three years. Could you address this please?
Ok, but how can you say that my understanding of the Covenant is defective prior to hearing my answer?
First, WHY could Daniel not go up to Jerusalem three times a year as prescribed by Covenant Law? Mmm... Was it because the people of Israel had been exiled and expelled from the Land BECAUSE OF their covenant unfaithfulness - i.e. their transgression of the covenant; their breaking of the covenant?
Deut 16:16 "Three times in a year shall all thy males appear before the LORD thy God in the place which He shall choose; in the feast of unleavened bread, and in the feast of weeks, and in the feast of tabernacles: and they shall not appear before the LORD empty:"
Secondly, by the time of Daniel the temple was no longer standing (Ezra 5:15-16). How could one go to the Temple to offer sacrifices if the Temple was no longer standing and you and the priests were captives in a foreign land? This didn't excuse them before the Law. No, it amplified the fact that the REASON they couldn't keep the Law was because their people/their ancestors had already broken the covenant.
Now, hear me well (because you seem to be missing the big picture), I have repeatedly said that God could keep the covenant IN SPITE OF the disobedience of His people FOR HIS OWN PURPOSES and PLEASURE, but that does not then excuse them for their disobedience. God had a Plan to fulfill and He wasn't about to let the unfaithfulness of Israel stand in His Way!
Rom 3:3 "What if some did not have believe? Will their lack of faith nullify God's Faithfulness?"
Rom 3:5 "But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? (I speak as a man)"
Tim: And I've asked for sources. Where are you getting this stuff? Have you read something along these lines? If so, what? Is this something that just came to you?
You've asked for "sources"? Where? When? Where am I getting this stuff? Why the Bible! Have I read something along these lines? Yes, it's called The Law of God. I've also read Jewish sources. For instance:
If I'm misunderstanding or misapplying the Covenant, then so are Jews who profess to adhere to it.
Tim: From the beginning the Covenant didn't have to do mainly with descent. Abraham's whole household was part of the Covenant, and if he could field over 200 men in their prime for warfare, there must have been more than a thousand people who weren't born to Abraham that were part of the Covenant.
Where does the Text say that? It says that "whoever is born in your household or bought with your money must be circumcised" but it doesn't say that THEY then become heirs of the covenant. Ishmael was born in Abraham's house and circumcised (and being the firstborn, he was entitled to a double-portion inheritance!), yet we know that he was NOT part of or heir to the Covenant. Furthermore, the New Covenant (interpreting the Old) says that those signs and symbols were "of no profit, not being mixed with faith." Slaves had no rights. No voice. They were "part" of the Covenant only in the sense that the sign of God's Covenant with their masters was on them like a brand used to mark PROPERTY. (Slaves during the Roman era were so branded.)
Tim: Your knowledge of the interracial laws is imcomplete. Go back and read for yourself the law you quoted about the Moabites. AFTER THREE GENERATIONS IN THE LAND, IT WAS PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE FOR GOD'S PEOPLE TO MARRY OUTSIDE THE ISRAELI ETHNIC GROUP with just those two exceptions.
Forgive me, Tim, I can't seem to recall (or locate) any such stipulation. Would you be so kind as to post this verse (which would then contradict God's Word in other verses)?
Tim: I notice your sig is ambiguous as to the church you attend. What exactly is the name of your church?
It's not ambiguous. I just didn't include "Church". What I think you mean is: is this something that my church teaches and are all of the congregants crazy (anti-Semitic) like me? If that's what you're getting at, then "no" my church does not teach this nor has it even come up. I've mentioned my view in certain conversations regarding the nature of Judaism and one of my old Sunday school teachers heard a conversation I had about this online with Hank Hanagraaf...
The name of my church is: Reformed Baptist Church. I know, not very flowery, but hey Baptists are like that! ;o) (And if you don't believe me, then you can ask Average Joey if he's heard of my church.)
--Cheri
P.S. I have a 7th great-grand aunt named Patience VAUGHN. But she married into the family and didn't share my father's bloodline - i.e. she's not from the same tribe. ;o)
TimV
Puritanboard Botanist
The quote function on this forum is really irritating.
" AFTER THREE GENERATIONS IN THE LAND, IT WAS PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE FOR GOD'S PEOPLE TO MARRY OUTSIDE THE ISRAELI ETHNIC GROUP with just those two exceptions.
Forgive me, Tim, I can't seem to recall (or locate) any such stipulation. Would you be so kind as to post this verse (which would then contradict God's Word in other verses)?"
Deut 28
7"You shall not abhor an Edomite, for he is your brother. You shall not abhor an Egyptian, because you were an alien in his land. 8The children of the third generation born to them may enter the assembly of the LORD.
I've also given the example of the foreign women taken in battle and the conversion/naturalisation ceremony.
" AFTER THREE GENERATIONS IN THE LAND, IT WAS PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE FOR GOD'S PEOPLE TO MARRY OUTSIDE THE ISRAELI ETHNIC GROUP with just those two exceptions.
Forgive me, Tim, I can't seem to recall (or locate) any such stipulation. Would you be so kind as to post this verse (which would then contradict God's Word in other verses)?"
Deut 28
7"You shall not abhor an Edomite, for he is your brother. You shall not abhor an Egyptian, because you were an alien in his land. 8The children of the third generation born to them may enter the assembly of the LORD.
I've also given the example of the foreign women taken in battle and the conversion/naturalisation ceremony.
tcalbrecht
Puritan Board Junior
Now I think we're on to something.
Is this a correct interpretation of Deut 7:3? If you read the context it is specifically referring to the seven nations of the land that Israel was to displace. It is not referring to all gentiles.
And where in the Torah does it say that a Jew must divorce a gentile and send them away. No reference is given.
Otherwise, are we not left with a problem when we come to Boaz and Ruth the Moabitess?
The rabbinic Jews have been off track for centuries on the meaning of Torah. I would not trust their commentary on the Law.
TimV
Puritanboard Botanist
Exactly.
Also, to interpret the verse
Deuteronomy 7:3 Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. (KJV)
the way you do is like interpreting the verse "Thou shalt not kill" as being against the death penatly, which is isn't. You must let Scripture interpret Scripture, and if you ignore
Then you will have a twisted interpretation of Scripture.
Tom, if I haven't said so already (or said it plainly), I really appreciated the earlier comments that you had made in this thread. And you win the prize - you alone have uncovered the one exception that I think could be made to the intermarriage prohibition - viz, that it MAY have been limited to those particular 7 nations. However, we still have the fact that the people of Ashdod are included in Nehemiah's cursing (Neh 13:23-24) and the greater problem of Ruth being a Moabite - which was an excluded people until 10 generations removed because being near kinsmen (descendants of Abraham's nephew, Lot) they didn't meet their relations with bread and water when they came out of Egypt (Deut 23:3-4).
The other problem would be without pedigrees to compare against, then how would an Israelite/Jew be assured that they weren't ignorantly transgressing the Law? In other words, if the prospective mate wasn't an Israelite/-ess or have a pedigree showing that their ancestry was at least 10 generations removed from an Ammonite or a Moabite, then how could one be assured that they were keeping the covenant. (Rehoboam was the son of Solomon's marriage to an Ammonite.) And women that inherited property were restricted to marrying within their own tribe anyway. If modern Jews are to be considered the genetic offspring of Abraham, then what is to say that some person that they're marrying (convert or not) isn't the genetic offspring of an Ammonite, Moabite, Canaanite, Amorite, Perizzite, Hittite, Hivite, Jebusite, Girgashite, etc.? And if these designations are passe then why do we continue to allow modern Jews to appropriate another equally passe designation? The Philistines were descendants of Canaan, but that didn't stop Samson (or please his parents; Judg 14:1-3). Likewise, Moses' father-in-law (and thus his daughter, Zipporah) is called both a Kenite and a Midianite (Judg 1:6; Num 10:29). The Kenites were a tribe of Canaan who must have intermarried with the Midianites so as to make their tribal affiliation undistinguishable.
And I wasn't suggesting that I rely on Jewish commentaries to inform my theology, but rather that my information about intermarriage isn't unique to me but is something held in common by Jewish sources as well.
Now, as to Tim's reference about marriage between Edomites and Egyptians you will notice that they were prohibited from intermarrying at least UNTIL 3 generations had past and that this pertained ONLY to these two ethnic/family groups. Esau's descendants were FULLY related to Jacob's descendants and yet there is still a prohibition. And some of Esau's descendants married Ishmael's descendants further entangling the family tree. And the Egyptians were Israel's host country during their sojourn there and many of them left Egypt with Israel, so why should there be any exclusions if Tim's assumptions about "conversion/naturalization" be correct?
Ruth was not a captive taken in battle. Nor would Esther fall into this category - she was an Israelite captive of a Persian king.
As for any "conversion/naturalization ceremony", I have yet to come across that. Strangers could eat the Passover if they submitted to circumcision (but they weren't required to). And they could attend the three great Hebrew feasts (Deut 16:11ff). They also had to avoid the use of leaven during the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Exo 12:19), rest on the Sabbath (Exo 20:10; 23:12) and observe the Day of Atonement (Lev 16:29). These legal prohibitons didn't automatically confer upon them Covenant status or change their ethnic identity (i.e. they were still referred to as "strangers" or "gentiles"). It was simply the law of the land in which they dwelled. Otherwise, what do you do when you come to the New Testament era and see that they were to remain in the Court of the Gentiles or that they are referred to not as "Jews" but "God fearers" (such as Cornelius; see Acts 10:1-2).
Gotta run off to work again. No rest for the wicked, ya know... ;o)
The other problem would be without pedigrees to compare against, then how would an Israelite/Jew be assured that they weren't ignorantly transgressing the Law? In other words, if the prospective mate wasn't an Israelite/-ess or have a pedigree showing that their ancestry was at least 10 generations removed from an Ammonite or a Moabite, then how could one be assured that they were keeping the covenant. (Rehoboam was the son of Solomon's marriage to an Ammonite.) And women that inherited property were restricted to marrying within their own tribe anyway. If modern Jews are to be considered the genetic offspring of Abraham, then what is to say that some person that they're marrying (convert or not) isn't the genetic offspring of an Ammonite, Moabite, Canaanite, Amorite, Perizzite, Hittite, Hivite, Jebusite, Girgashite, etc.? And if these designations are passe then why do we continue to allow modern Jews to appropriate another equally passe designation? The Philistines were descendants of Canaan, but that didn't stop Samson (or please his parents; Judg 14:1-3). Likewise, Moses' father-in-law (and thus his daughter, Zipporah) is called both a Kenite and a Midianite (Judg 1:6; Num 10:29). The Kenites were a tribe of Canaan who must have intermarried with the Midianites so as to make their tribal affiliation undistinguishable.
And I wasn't suggesting that I rely on Jewish commentaries to inform my theology, but rather that my information about intermarriage isn't unique to me but is something held in common by Jewish sources as well.
Now, as to Tim's reference about marriage between Edomites and Egyptians you will notice that they were prohibited from intermarrying at least UNTIL 3 generations had past and that this pertained ONLY to these two ethnic/family groups. Esau's descendants were FULLY related to Jacob's descendants and yet there is still a prohibition. And some of Esau's descendants married Ishmael's descendants further entangling the family tree. And the Egyptians were Israel's host country during their sojourn there and many of them left Egypt with Israel, so why should there be any exclusions if Tim's assumptions about "conversion/naturalization" be correct?
Ruth was not a captive taken in battle. Nor would Esther fall into this category - she was an Israelite captive of a Persian king.
As for any "conversion/naturalization ceremony", I have yet to come across that. Strangers could eat the Passover if they submitted to circumcision (but they weren't required to). And they could attend the three great Hebrew feasts (Deut 16:11ff). They also had to avoid the use of leaven during the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Exo 12:19), rest on the Sabbath (Exo 20:10; 23:12) and observe the Day of Atonement (Lev 16:29). These legal prohibitons didn't automatically confer upon them Covenant status or change their ethnic identity (i.e. they were still referred to as "strangers" or "gentiles"). It was simply the law of the land in which they dwelled. Otherwise, what do you do when you come to the New Testament era and see that they were to remain in the Court of the Gentiles or that they are referred to not as "Jews" but "God fearers" (such as Cornelius; see Acts 10:1-2).
Gotta run off to work again. No rest for the wicked, ya know... ;o)
Once again Tim you need to tone it down. I don't care who is right or wrong in the discussion but your condescention in threads of late is getting quite old.
Stop the ad homs and treat the members of this board like the Christian Gentlemen and Ladies that they are.
If you continue to talk down to people and attack them personally instead of dealing with their arguments I will edit your posts myself so that they conform to the rules of this forum.
And if I have to do that, be assured I will revoke your posting privileges until you can assure the admins that you can behave in debate like a gentleman.
You have been warned.
Phillip
Stop the ad homs and treat the members of this board like the Christian Gentlemen and Ladies that they are.
If you continue to talk down to people and attack them personally instead of dealing with their arguments I will edit your posts myself so that they conform to the rules of this forum.
And if I have to do that, be assured I will revoke your posting privileges until you can assure the admins that you can behave in debate like a gentleman.
You have been warned.
Phillip
Tim,
I warned you publicly because this is a continuing public offense on your behalf toward members of this board. You have not sinned against me directly, so I have no need of coming to you in private. You have publicly on this board been demeaning, condescending, arrogant, rude, and offensive.
So now you have been warned. This is not a matter to argue about or try to debate Matthew 18 on.
As an admin on this board I have given you a warning about your posting behavior. You can choose to heed the warning and abide by the rules you agreed to when you joined, or you can chose to have your posting privileges revoked. Your choice.
Free will. Gotta love it.
Phillip
I warned you publicly because this is a continuing public offense on your behalf toward members of this board. You have not sinned against me directly, so I have no need of coming to you in private. You have publicly on this board been demeaning, condescending, arrogant, rude, and offensive.
So now you have been warned. This is not a matter to argue about or try to debate Matthew 18 on.
As an admin on this board I have given you a warning about your posting behavior. You can choose to heed the warning and abide by the rules you agreed to when you joined, or you can chose to have your posting privileges revoked. Your choice.
Free will. Gotta love it.
Phillip
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
