JUDAISM: Pedigrees - Ethnicity vs Religiousity

[Anton Bruckner]

Originally posted by VERITAS


By Law David should have been excluded from both the "congregation" and the covenant. I said in another post that what God does is His Own prerogative and He can forgive any transgression of the Law, but is not required to do so with anyone or everyone. However, contrary to the fact of the transgression of David's ancestors, we know that God did indeed accept David into the family of Israel even making him King, so that Jews cannot deny HIS legitimacy. This does not then make the transgressions of all of their ancestors excusable and then make them legitimate.

I think the above is a very shaky interpretation, since David's immediate parents were both Jewish, and Ruth the Moabitess was merely a great grandmother who married Boaz who was a Jew.

Therefore David is not purely of the posterity of Moab, but morely so of the Posterity of Judah. The lineage in Judaism has always been traced through the Father's line, and Ruth's husband being a Jew necessarily had the claim in determining the heritage of his children.

To say that David should have been excluded from the Covenant and the Congregation will impugn on God's Holiness by making God duplicitious.

[Edited on 3-10-2005 by Slippery]

 

[LadyFlynt]

Originally posted by Slippery
will impugn on God's Holiness by making God duplicitious.
[Edited on 3-10-2005 by Slippery]

Agreed! Which would mean that in ANY scripture of examples used in this thread or any other thread a person could throw it out as "Well, that was God's exception to the rule"...

 

[VERITAS]

I'm going to try and play catch-up and address everything in one post.

Colleen: And so not a single person from the old covenant shall we see? King David? Abraham, Moses, Jacob? They all broke laws...did they are break the covenant and no longer Jewish?

No, that's not what I'm saying Colleen. God accepts us on the basis of faith by His Grace. He imputes the righteousness of Christ to our account on the basis of our faith in Him and not BECAUSE OF anything we have done - good or bad (ALL of our "righteousness" is like soiled menstrual rags). But as Reformed people we believe that this imputation, this justification, is not made for all people without discrimination, but for those whom He Wills to Justify - i.e. those whom He chose in Christ before the foundation of the world (Eph 1:4).

(Rom 4:5-8) "But to him that worketh not, but believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. {6} Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, {7} Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. {8} Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin."

Adherence to the Law never saved anyone (apart from Christ), but that doesn't excuse man's responsiblity before the Law (O.C. or New).

I thought that I've made it perfectly clear that God can forgive anyone He wants for His Own Purpose and Pleasure, but that doesn't then mean that He MUST forgive everyone or that He is then arbitrary. We are all doomed/damned without Christ. That He saves any one of us is sheer Mercy, sheer Grace. And He does this not for our benefit, but for His Glory.

Does that make God "duplicitous"? No, that makes God more than Gracious! He's not being contradictory or deceptive. The same external means of salvation were available to all of Israel, and yet we know that only a remnant (who possessed something internally different) were saved. And they were all saved in the same way - i.e. not by works or obedience to the Law, but by Grace through faith (Eph 2:8).

Colleen: In reality, we are all one "kind". The purpose of not taking foreign wives was not for genetic purity...it was to keep out foreign gods.

I totally agree! The distinction that I'm making is that the children of Israel didn't have a license to IGNORE God's Covenant Commands. The fact that they broke them showed the true nature of their heart and where their affections lay. The same could be said of someone today. If a professing Christian who knows the prohibition against marrying an unbeliever then willfully disobeys the Command of God, then one must wonder whose affection is of supreme importance. Could God forgive that sin and continue to have a covenant relationship with that person? Sure. But He wouldn't be obligated to. Remember, we may be elect but we are to make our calling and our election "sure", "stedfast", "firm", "stable", etc. We dare not presume upon God's Grace or Mercy in the face of willfull disobedience. "If the righteous SCARCELY be saved..."

Beth: By your definitions, there would be no "races" at all, because in Russians have intermarried Scotts, French have intermarried with Americans, American Indians have intermarried with Europeans etc, etc. So by your arguments no person can claim they are from any particualar descent.

That is my position. I do not believe in "races". And I don't believe there are any "pure-breds" or "blue-bloods" in the world. I think that I could make a case for that from the descendants of the nations in Gen 10 alone! Israel was to be unique in that regard. They failed and therefore by the evident nature of their fall we should no longer regard their spiritual descendants as anything.

Beth: About every single thread you post is questioning the Jews. ...Over and over and over and over. On one of your posts on a previous thread you said "Show me a Jew that I might be antisemitic" You come across pretty antisemitic as it is.

I *AM* questioning the Jews/Judaism. I would like to see Judaism entirely obliterated along with every other religion that vaunts itself against the knowledge of Christ (2 Cor 10:5). I don't understand why we can critique Mormonism or Buddhism or Hinduism or New Agism or even Armstrongism but Judaism is off limits. Why should it be regarded as some sacred cow? The apostles didn't view it that way. The apostle Paul said that he "profited in the Jews religion above many of my equals in my own nation" (Gal 1:14), but these things he counted as a loss, a detriment - dung! (Phil 3:5-8).

It seems to me that critiquing Judaism is all right if it is pointing out a N.T. verse here or there that speaks against their interpretation or it's OK to critique their reliance upon the Talmud or other traditions, but somehow to impugn their "ethnic" integrity is going too far! To say that they broke the covenant (which is self-evident in and loudly voiced by Scripture) by intermarriage or failure to maintain their familial bloodline is heresy! And to then say that we should then ignore their political aspiriations based upon erroneous theology and view their newfound nationalism as a parody of ancient Israel, well that's just going too far!

Beth: I really don't understand the point of all your posts nor the crusade to 'discredit' (for lack of a better word) the Jews, or the Jewish race.

Hopefully now you do.

Beth: Rahab was not a Jew, but she was in Jesus' line and Jesus was considered a Jew.

No dispute there.

Beth: Matter of fact, by blood, Jeusus' mother was a Jew, but His father was God. Yet, Jesus was considered a Jew. So if both parents must be 'purely' Jewish, does that mean God is a Jew?

Now you're "speaking as one of the foolish women." Sure Jesus was considered a Jew. He was from the tribe of Judah, both by His biological mother's line and His legal father's line. No one disputes that the line of Judah was chosen by God to be the vehicle through which Messiah would come. Nor does anyone dispute that God further chose the family of David who was of the tribe of Judah. Nothing I've posted has called into question God's Choice or His Grace. Jews clearly believe both points regarding the choice of Judah and David. The question is not whether these two things are true, but whether His Choice then excuses ALL Jews from obeying the Covenant prohibitions against intermarriage or from not having to maintain their pedigree?

Biologically Jesus was not descended from Solomon (who broke the covenant). He was a legal descendant of his, but biologically Jesus was a descendant of David's son Nathan (of whom nothing is said - good or bad). Why was this? Jews argue against Jesus' claim to the throne because of this! They would deny Him the right to rule over Israel based upon another misreading of Scripture - viz, that ONLY a descendant of David THROUGH SOLOMON could rightfully rule over the people of Israel.

Remember this too, 10 of the tribes defected and were lost to history. Not even the Jews of the first century considered the Samaritans to be fellow Jews and legitimate heirs of the Covenant. The only ones that could have survived and then been considered legitimate were Judah and Benjamin. The only thing I'm asking is whether they too survived extinction through intermarriage and assimilation among the nations and now have a right to be called the religious or ethnic descendants of Abraham (and thus have any political advantages conferred upon them by the world)?

I would address the subject of Benjamin's brides, but it would take too long. Suffice it to say the brides that were provided to the tribe of Benjamin weren't from their own tribe, but they were from the family of Israel. They weren't "foreigners."

I wanted to get to Keon's post, but it's late again and I promised myself (and my husband) I wouldn't stay up late again tonight (3:22am). Tomorrow. I promise.

 

[LadyFlynt]

The difference between Judaism and other religions (not counting Christianity) is that a Jewish person through their Judaism can (through the Grace of God) see Christ. That is how many of them come, they read the NT, realize this is the God of the OT, and that Christianity is very Jewish per se (there are parallels...one foresaw the other)(They see the corelation of the two). In fact, one converted Jewish man, whom wrote a couple of books about his conversion, speaks of the first time he read first 5 books of the new testament (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts). As a Jew, he was shocked, and said "These are JEWISH books" (even given that Luke was not, the content was). Especially Acts.

Second point...since none of us truely believe in "races" (I hold to the AIG position "one blood"), I think it should be note that ethniticity is more of an IDENTITY...or identifying with. Here's why:

I identify as American and yet I have no american in me. I also historically identify as Scottish and Finnish....yet we know that there is bound to be Norman and Russian in there...and even those are bound to have ? and ? and ?...and so on till we get back to Noah. I STILL identify myself as Scottish and Finnish....and even American, and it can't be disbuted that I am not...even if I am (as we all are) Heinz 57. Therefore, I see it as a useless point to try to wipe out any Jewish identification and a cruel one at that. The Jewish identification is split on Religion...there a Jewish ppl that are Jewish, Christian, Bahai, etc. I think we need be a witness to them regardless. There are elect amoung them as well as amoung others. I do not believe tearing into their previous sins that they are more aware of than any other religion or tearing into their identity will accomplish anything more than to push them away and provoke them to more bitterness. THEY, Jewish ppl of Jewish belief, at least mourn for the commandments they are aware that they have broken. We, though saved by Grace, still have no business exalting ourselves above others when we, even though we are saved by grace, break commandment after commandment, especially the most basic ones.

I honestly don't mean to sound harsh...this is just MHO.

[Edited on 3-12-2005 by LadyFlynt]

 

[VERITAS]

Keon: I think the above is a very shaky interpretation, since David's immediate parents were both Jewish, and Ruth the Moabitess was merely a great grandmother who married Boaz who was a Jew.

Please see my comments regarding David on the other thread (Ctrl + F "David"). As well as my comments to Colleen.

Keon: Therefore David is not purely of the posterity of Moab, but morely so of the Posterity of Judah. The lineage in Judaism has always been traced through the Father's line, and Ruth's husband being a Jew necessarily had the claim in determining the heritage of his children.

1) I don't see how you can make the claim that David had more Israelite blood running through his veins than Moabite blood. A person doesn't have an unequal number of ancestors on one side of his family verses the other side. It takes two to tango...

2) If lineage is Israel was traced SOLELY through the father's line then you might have a point, but then what about:
a) the Israelite woman in Lev 24:10-16?
b) all naming of all the mothers of the kings of Judah and where they're from?
c) the fact that the prohibition against intermarriage was to Israel's "sons AND daughters"

3) If it were just a matter of which religious heritage the children would be raised in and this was the sole prerogative of the father, then there would be no need to abstain from marrying foreign wives or to then have to put them AND their children away.

Keon: To say that David should have been excluded from the Covenant and the Congregation will impugn on God's Holiness by making God duplicitious.

Again, please see my comments to Colleen, et. al. regarding the Sovereignty and Grace of God.

Blessings Keon,
--Cheri

 

[Anton Bruckner]

Originally posted by VERITAS
Keon: I think the above is a very shaky interpretation, since David's immediate parents were both Jewish, and Ruth the Moabitess was merely a great grandmother who married Boaz who was a Jew.



1) I don't see how you can make the claim that David had more Israelite blood running through his veins than Moabite blood. A person doesn't have an unequal number of ancestors on one side of his family verses the other side. It takes two to tango...

2) If lineage is Israel was traced SOLELY through the father's line then you might have a point, but then what about:
a) the Israelite woman in Lev 24:10-16?
b) all naming of all the mothers of the kings of Judah and where they're from?
c) the fact that the prohibition against intermarriage was to Israel's "sons AND daughters"

3) If it were just a matter of which religious heritage the children would be raised in and this was the sole prerogative of the father, then there would be no need to abstain from marrying foreign wives or to then have to put them AND their children away.


Blessings Keon,
--Cheri

Cheri I think it is proven that King David had much more Jewish Blood in him that Moabite blood.

Remember Ruth was the only person of Moabite descent in his family tree.
1. Boaz was fully Jewish, Obed his son wasn't said to have marry any non Jew, neither Obed's son, Jesse. The preponderance of the evidence lies on the Jewish side not the Moabite side. This is one of the reasons why David is and should be considered a full Jew.

a) Because eventhough Ruth was a Moabite, she was a convert.
b) Boaz, Ruth's husband was fully Jewish, Obed, their son stayed under the covenant and married a Jewish woman, Jesse his son stayed under the convenant and married a Jewish woman.

The above is why I say David was much more Jewish that Moabish. And this is why I think your interpretating of the Law errs when you say the descendents of Moab means anyone who is purely of Moab as well as anyone who had Moab blood period, whether this Moab blood was in combination with a greater Jewish blood, of whether this blood in combination with a greater Jewish blood was under the covenant.

While the Law is simple, I will say it is never to be applied simplistically, everything must be taken within the context of the culture, because the Law while it came from heaven, it was never devoid of cultural considerations.

While it was expressly written that no marriages should be made to the Canaanites etc. The fact that Rahab confessed and believed on the True God, automatically transferred her into a different category where her faith took preeminence over her humanity. While she could not go into the Tabernacle etc, she was considered a full convert.

The same thing went for Ruth, while it was expressly forbidden that the Moabites should not enter the congregation of the Lord, Ruth's confession of the True God and conversion to the protocols of religion transferred her into a different category, where she was considered a partaker of the Convenants in the least.

 

[VERITAS]

Keon: Cheri I think it is proven that King David had much more Jewish Blood in him that Moabite blood.

HOW?

Let's go back a generation before Ruth and Boaz to Boaz's parents. Boaz's father was Salmon, an Israelite from the tribe of Judah. Boaz's mother was Rahab the harlot, of the people of Jericho, who were probably Canaanites! Thus Boaz himself was not a "full-blooded" Israelite, but was rather 1/2 Israelite and 1/2 Canaanite!

This would make Obed, the son of Ruth and Boaz: 1/2 Moabite, 1/4 Canaanite and 1/4 Israelite. We have no idea who Obed married and what her nationality/ethnic group was.

Obed's son, Jesse, would then be 1/8 Israelite, 1/8 Canaanite, 2/8 (or 1/4) Moabite on his father's side and 4/8 (or 1/2) UNKNOWN on the mother's side.

THAT is the only verifiable proof that we have in Scripture of David's ethnic heritage. Judah himself had married a Canaanite before he impregnated Tamar, his daughter-in-law. We have no idea what her ethnicity was, but it wouldn't be a stretch for Judah to secure a Canaanite wife for his sons seeing as how there were few other choices at that time. (Unless his sons married their first cousins! and Tamar was his niece!)

EVEN IF we were to ASSUME that every unnamed ancestor between David and his great-great-grandparents was an Israelite, then that would AT BEST make him 1/16 Canaanite, 2/16 (or 1/8) Moabite and 13/16ths Israelite. And that would be SHEER ASSUMPTION WITH NO HISTORICAL OR SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT.

Keon: Remember Ruth was the only person of Moabite descent in his family tree.

Don't forget every ancestress of Ruth had to be something too (and it probably wasn't Israelite, there being only 7 generations between Boaz and his ancestor Jacob, the patriarch of Israel). If you count the number of ancestors between David and the patriarch Jacob/Israel then you would have 2047 ancestors and we only know the name of 13 of them! Two of which were non-Israelites and contributed 382 non-Israelite ancestors to the gene pool/family tree (127 Canaanites and 255 Moabites), leaving 1650 UNNAMED ancestors of UNKNOWN origin!

Israel/Jacob
_Judah, the Israelite + Tamar, the ???
__Pharez, the Israelite + ???
___Hezron, the Israelite + ???
____Ram, the Israelite + ???
_____Amminadab, the Israelite + ???
______Nahshon, the Israelite + ???
_______Salmon + Rahab, the Canaanite
________Boaz + Ruth, the Moabite
_________Obed, 1/4 Israelite-1/4 Canaanite, 1/2 Moabite
__________Jesse, 1/8 Israelite-1/8 Canaanite, 1/4 Moabite and 1/2 Unknown
___________David, 1/16 Israelite-1/16 Canaanite, 1/8 Moabite, and 13/16 Unknown

Moab
_Moabite
__Moabite
___Moabite
____Moabite
_____Moabite
______Moabite
_______Moabite
________Ruth + Boaz, the 1/2 Israelite 1/2 Canaanite


Canaanite
_Canaanite
__Canaanite
___Canaanite
____Canaanite
_____Canaanite
______Canaanite
_______Rahab + Salmon, the Israelite

Keon: 1. Boaz was fully Jewish, Obed his son wasn't said to have marry any non Jew, neither Obed's son, Jesse. The preponderance of the evidence lies on the Jewish side not the Moabite side. This is one of the reasons why David is and should be considered a full Jew.

Sheer assumption. The Bible doesn't say that Obed or Jesse married Israelites either. It may be of interest to know that while David was on the run from Saul he turned to the King of Moab and asked if his father AND MOTHER could stay there under the king's protection (1 Sam 22:3-4). Was this because his father (at least) was 1/4 Moabite?

Keon: a) Because eventhough Ruth was a Moabite, she was a convert.

And where does it say that a Moabite could convert and enter into the congregation? It doesn't. In fact, it says just the opposite. It says that it is against the Law/Covenant.

Keon: b) Boaz, Ruth's husband was fully Jewish, Obed, their son stayed under the covenant and married a Jewish woman, Jesse his son stayed under the convenant and married a Jewish woman.

Boaz, as I've pointed out, was not a "full-blooded" Israelite. He was 1/2 Israelite, 1/2 Canaanite (another forbidden union).

The Bible NEVER says who Obed married nor does it say who Jesse married AND it never mentions the ethnicity of either woman. You are ASSUMING that the married "Jewish" women. I hate to be a smart-aleck, but perhaps you could tell us which tribe they were from? You see, Keon, this is exactly the problem that modern Jews have - they cannot produce their ancestry. They don't know what they are. In David's case, it is irrelevant because we know that he was favored by God. We don't know that about modern Jews. In fact, we know the exact opposite regarding those who remain in unbelief...

Keon: The above is why I say David was much more Jewish that Moabish. And this is why I think your interpretating of the Law errs when you say the descendents of Moab means anyone who is purely of Moab as well as anyone who had Moab blood period, whether this Moab blood was in combination with a greater Jewish blood, of whether this blood in combination with a greater Jewish blood was under the covenant.

First, you haven't proven that David was more "Jewish" than Moabite, Canaanite or anything else. You've just asserted it. Furthermore, it doesn't matter that David was only 1/4 Moabite as that was enough to exclude him from the Covenant, his great-grandmother being a Moabite - an ethnic group that was excluded from the congregation UNTIL THE 10TH GENERATION!

Why is this so hard to swallow? to understand? (to accept?...)

**I** am not excluding David from the Covenant. God obviously did not exclude David from the Covenant. BUT what I've said is what the Covenant said. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Keon: While the Law is simple, I will say it is never to be applied simplistically, everything must be taken within the context of the culture, because the Law while it came from heaven, it was never devoid of cultural considerations.

And what cultural considerations excused Naomi and her family from leaving Israel CONTRARY TO THE COVENANT? What cultural considerations excused Chilion and Mahlon from obeying the Law of the Covenant when it said not to take foreign wives? or Boaz for that matter? And especially a MOABITE, someone who (unlike the Edomites and Egyptians) weren't just excluded for 3 generations but for 10 generations! What cultural considerations excuse any one of us from obeying God?!?

Keon: While it was expressly written that no marriages should be made to the Canaanites etc. The fact that Rahab confessed and believed on the True God, automatically transferred her into a different category where her faith took preeminence over her humanity. While she could not go into the Tabernacle etc, she was considered a full convert.

Says Keon, not the Bible. The Bible doesn't say "Tabernacle" it says "congregation"... Or you could translate it assembly, company, or multitude... Much the equivalent of ekklesia in the New Covenant. But the fact is: Israel was unique. She was a theocratic monarchy. A familial-religious-political entity all bound up into one - an indivisable union. For instance, we know that foreigners were NOT REQUIRED TO but COULD:
a) live in the Land (Exo 22:21-24; Deut 10:18-19; 14:29; Jer 22:3)
b) participate in 3 of the Hebrew feasts (Deut 16:11, 14)
c) celebrate the Passover IF they and all the males in their household were circumcised (Exo 12:48-49; Num 15:14-16)

but they COULD NOT:
a) use leaven during the Feast of Unleaved Bread (Exo 12:19)
b) violate the Sabbath (Exo 20:10; 23:12)
c) eat blood (Lev 17:10)
d) violate the Day of Atonement (Lev 16:29)

In short, they were to obey the laws of the land. God didn't want the foreigners running around on the Sabbath while His people were resting in obedience to Him. Nor did He want them making leaven cakes that some Israelite might slip up and buy at the market, eat at a friend's house, or at his own that a maid might make for him. In short, if they were to live in Israel's land then their actions had to conform to her sociopolitical restrictions so as not to become a stumbling block to His people and His Covenant with them.

However, the ger (stranger) had no INHERITED RIGHTS with respect to his/her new land. They were to receive hospitality as the inviolate right of any guest who was lodging in someone's tent or house (Job 31:32), in part because the Israelites themselves had been strangers in the land of Egypt (Exo 23:9; Lev 19:33ff). In fact, they were classed with widows and orphans as needing special consideration (e.g. Exo 22:21-24; Deut 10:18; 14:29; Jer 22:3). But they could be bought as property which could be inherited - slaves for life, both they and their children. This was something that was NOT permissable for an Israelite (Lev 25:45-46, 55).

Keon: The same thing went for Ruth, while it was expressly forbidden that the Moabites should not enter the congregation of the Lord, Ruth's confession of the True God and conversion to the protocols of religion transferred her into a different category, where she was considered a partaker of the Convenants in the least.

Where in the Bible does it say that? That is an INFERENCE that you are making. In fact, it amounts to your saying this: "a Moabite could not enter the congregation of the Lord, BUT if said Moabite a) confesses the Lord as the True God and b) converts according to the Protocols of Religion then said Moabite will henceforth a) be transferred into a different category - namely Israelite and b) be considered a partaker of the Covenants in the least." If that doesn't amount to adding to the Word of God, then I don't know what does!

I'm not intentionally trying to pick on you, Keon, but don't you see what you're doing? Your changing the Word of God to fit what you THINK SHOULD BE true. How is that different than what the Pharisees did? And I'm not negating the fact that in the beginning their hearts were probably in the right place, and they were trying to put a hedge around the Law of God, but it was still "making the Commandments of God of none effect by [a] tradition"... And that's what you'll be doing if you continue to go down this road and try and defend something that isn't in the Bible. If you have a legitimate proposition, then I am more than willing to listen to you and change my current position, but "unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Holy Scriptures or by evident reason ([and] I consider myself convicted by the testimony of Holy Scripture, which is my basis), [then] my conscience is captive to the Word of God. Thus I cannot and will not recant, because acting against one's conscience is neither safe nor sound. Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me. Amen." (--Luther before the Diet of Worms)

 

[VERITAS]

I had intended to include this link on the other thread, but I don't think I want to add anything further over there now...

The link is to King Abdullah of Jordan's website. He has a 55 generation pedigree on there, showing his descent from the Hashemites. You'll have to click on "The Hashemites" and then on "Family Tree" from the drop-down menu.

Quite a different story from what modern Israel has to show for her leaders...

 

[pastorway]

What is the point?

In one sentence, what are you arguing for in this discussion Cheri?

Phillip

 

[VERITAS]

My argument is that modern Jews cannot prove any ethnic (or religious) tie to Abraham and thus modern Judaism (and all its derivatives - Dispensationalism, Christian Zionism, Zionism, Armstrongism, etc) should be seen for the sham it is and argued against accordingly - removing the foundation of a system which exalts itself above Christ (much like we would do with regards to any other erroneous theological system).

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by VERITAS
My argument is that modern Jews cannot prove any ethnic (or religious) tie to Abraham and thus modern Judaism (and all its derivatives - Dispensationalism, Christian Zionism, Zionism, Armstrongism, etc) should be seen for the sham it is and argued against accordingly - removing the foundation of a system which exalts itself above Christ (much like we would do with regards to any other erroneous theological system).

I guess the immediate question that follows is: why is this important? Even if the Jews could show an ethnic tie, it would be of no value in light of the NT.

 

[turmeric]

You don't disprove this kind of error by proving that modern Jews are not literally the seed of Abraham, you disprove it by Scripture. God can make children of Abraham out of stones!

 

[VERITAS]

I agree. But I believe that it is of value when witnessing to modern Jews who reject out of hand the N.T. If they won't listen to you regarding the Person and Work of Christ, then you must remove the foundation of their system by some other means which then may leave them vulnerable to the Gospel.

Is my method substantially different than the apostles when they posed the questions?

 

[VERITAS]

And I feel like the lone ranger in this. If I am so wrong, if my approach is so wrong, then WHY is it wrong and HOW is it wrong? I have yet to hear what I would consider a valid challenge/critique. Perhaps the problem lies with me. Perhaps it is there and I cannot see it...

My way may not be anyone else's way, but is it theologically unsound?

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by VERITAS
And I feel like the lone ranger in this. If I am so wrong, if my approach is so wrong, then WHY is it wrong and HOW is it wrong? I have yet to hear what I would consider a valid challenge/critique. Perhaps the problem lies with me. Perhaps it is there and I cannot see it...

My way may not be anyone else's way, but is it theologically unsound?

Because:

1. It is suspect "science"
2. Because it makes an argument that relates to solely geneology and is debatable on that level without even a reference to the Scriptures (Titus 3:9; 1 Tim 1:4)
3. Because if the argument is proper, it casts doubt on the Biblical practice of Ezra and Nehemiah with reference to Jewish descent (the issue of Ruth/Rahab/intermarriage being prior to that time)
4. Because it takes the focus of where the NT places it - spiritual descent - and the whole point of the NT here is not to replace the OT physical descent but to correct the false interpretation of the OT regarding descent.

Honestly, this whole issue is a waste of time. If there were any merit to this kind of approach, why wouldn't Paul have used it? Why didn't the Church Fathers? They were much closer to the time, and had far greater reason to interact with Jews who had a far better understanding of Jewish genealogies.

I say this not to suspect your motives, Cheri, but because I think your time is far better (and effectively) spent in other areas.

[Edited on 3/14/2005 by fredtgreco]

 

[pastorway]

I agree with Fred. The gospel, the Word of God, is the power of God to salvation and what He uses to convert (Ps 19:7; Rom 1:16, etc). So why go around the Bible just because someone does not believe it? Of course many lost people no matter the "group" they are in reject the Bible in part or whole. That does not mean we should find ways other than Scripture to "enlighten" them.

When you gave us the summary statement of what you were trying to argue, honestly, this is the first verse that popped in my head:

1 Timothy 1
3As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine, 4nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculations rather than the stewardship from God that is by faith. 5The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith.


Phillip


[Edited on 3-14-05 by pastorway]

 

[bond-servant]

[/quote]

Because:

1. It is suspect "science"
2. Because it makes an argument that relates to solely geneology and is debatable on that level without even a reference to the Scriptures (Titus 3:9; 1 Tim 1:4)
3. Because if the argument is proper, it casts doubt on the Biblical practice of Ezra and Nehemiah with reference to Jewish descent (the issue of Ruth/Rahab/intermarriage being prior to that time)
4. Because it takes the focus of where the NT places it - spiritual descent - and the whole point of the NT here is not to replace the OT physical descent but to correct the false interpretation of the OT regarding descent.

Honestly, this whole issue is a waste of time. If there were any merit to this kind of approach, why wouldn't Paul have used it? Why didn't the Church Fathers? They were much closer to the time, and had far greater reason to interact with Jews who had a far better understanding of Jewish genealogies. [/quote]



Yes. Agreed!

Cheri, I don't know how many "Jews" you've witnessed to. I witness to as many as possible since its in my "ethnic descent" ,a descent you do not acknowledge. It breaks my heart that most Jewish people do not acknowledge Christ as thier Messiah, but they will not respond to genetic arguments.

You will find the opposite effect you are seeking. They'll get upset and defensive like TimV did because of the etnic descent of his wife. All these threads pursuing the "ethnic descent" (or lack of) of the Jews is pretty offensive to me too, as it happens over and over and over again.

If you were to witness to Jewish people this way, they will just feel like "someone is trying to draw horns on thier head" again. Especially those in the older generation that literally had this done to them repeatedly in the 1930's-1950's.

It is the Spirit that moves people, whether they are "Jew" or "Gentile". I have found personally, that the best approach when witnessing to the Jewish people is to show them the Messiah in thier own Scriptures. God will move in thier hearts. There is nothing we can do in our own flesh to convince anyone of the Gospel. That is the work of the Holy Spirit. Fred and Philip, I really appreciate your comments. Thank you.

"Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all." Col 3:11

 

[VERITAS]

Well first, I am not the one who sought to shore up my arguments using DNA (which evolutionists use as an argument for Jewish ancestry - the Cohen Modal Haplotype junk). If that is what Fred meant by something be a "suspect science". My arguments regarding DNA is that no genetic research can prove WHO one's ancestor is and even genetic labs request a documented family tree. It can only compare the DNA of one person to another as to whether they have common markers. (The Science-Friday show on the BBC just a few nights ago, talking about the Human Genome project, said that there are 300 million differences in DNA. This directly contradicts any notion of their slow mutation rates between father and sons.)

I didn't understand Fred's 2nd and 3rd points. But regarding his comment that I'm wasting my time, that may well be, but it is my time after all and is his subjective opinion.

The reason Paul couldn't argue exactly the same way that I do is because there were still Jewish genealogical records around to corroborate their ancestry. That is not the case today 2,000 yrs removed from the scene. Besides, Paul had eye-witnesses to the miracles of Christ. But should we throw out the genealogies in the Bible because they can't be independently verified today? Did Matthew and Luke get their genealogies of Christ solely be revelation? Are we going to say that someone could not go and check their sources? Eusebius quotes a Jew, Hegesippus, who relates how the grand-nephews of Christ are hauled before Domition based on the fact that they were descendants of David. One would wonder how that could be verified apart from genealogical records?

And as the owner of Endless Genealogies.com, I would agree that a person's enthnicity or lineage is of no importance with regards to the Gospel, but it is important to Judaism if they hold up their ancestry as a means of claiming spiritual or political favors. And who would deny the influence of Judaism on the Church SINCE Christ? Patrick Fairbairn didn't (see his comments about the 3 types of eschatological views).

Now, regarding what Phillip said about the Word of God being that which He uses to convert, I would simply ask this: have I not been using the Scriptures? Have my points not been extrapolated from what the Scriptures themselves say?

On a personal note Beth, I told you in another post that I had no intentions of offending you. I praise God that you have come out of darkness (as we all have) into the glorious Light and Gospel of The Son. AND I had no idea that Tim's wife was from an Jewish background. HOWEVER, that does not change the truth of my arguments. And if witnessing to the Truth is the same as witnessing to Jews, then I believe that I am accomplishing both. (But I have discussed these things with self-proclaimed Jews in message boards, in email, in chat rooms, on the radio and in person. One fella was a guy running for local office here.) I'm not trying to destroy a person's familial heritage. I couldn't do that anyway. Your ancestors and mine were what they are - right or wrong.

I know that it is God that moves the heart, but He moves it through His Word.

Blessings to you all,
--Cheri

P.S. I am perfectly comfortable with you guys closing this thread if you so desire. I've said about all that I think can be said and frankly I'm burnt out. This thread seemed to generate more heat than light. I'm just at a loss to know why Christians would be so antagonistic or offended... Some of the arguments used here haven't even been used by Jewish people that I've dialogued with! (Although by far the strangest argument that I've heard was by a Jewish fella on another site who said Moabite referred only to the males, and that the Text didn't include Moabitesses!)

 

[calgal]

Originally posted by tcalbrecht

Originally posted by TimV
Not to be picky, but the burden of proof is on her. She has to prove that something happened on or before 70AD to destroy all Jewish records. It would be like a future historian saying ALL JEWISH RECORDS WERE LOST DURING WW2. The future historian would have heard about the partial destruction of European Jewry, but didn't know how many lived in the US and elsewhere.

Kinda, except you can't prove a negative. If she says I looked everywhere and haven't found any therefore none exist, all one needs to do is show a place where she hasn't looked and produce a record.

I would think Jewish people would be falling all over one another with this info if it existed.

My question stands: does anyone have a pointer to such records?

Simple! There are families holding pedigrees (usually Levite descendents) going back 5000 years. The norm (in a religious aka rabbinical Jewish community) is for the families with a name that is a variant on Cohen or Levi (not even going there) to be able to PROVE their lineage. The sad thing is that these folks are captive to a dispensation that ended in 70 AD when the second temple was destroyed. Raised Jewish and will NOT discuss that aspect further (except to say there is a danger in placing obedience to law above allegiance to the Lord). :bigsmile:

 

[calgal]

Originally posted by VERITAS
I had intended to include this link on the other thread, but I don't think I want to add anything further over there now...

The link is to King Abdullah of Jordan's website. He has a 55 generation pedigree on there, showing his descent from the Hashemites. You'll have to click on "The Hashemites" and then on "Family Tree" from the drop-down menu.

Quite a different story from what modern Israel has to show for her leaders...

THAT DOES IT! :bigsmile: The inconvenient expulsion from the Arabic countries of some 400,000 + Jews (real quick) and your favorite events by Messrs Hitler and Stalin destroying documents as well as large populations (Jews AND Slavs were murdered enmasse by these two fiends in human guise) making any such document preservation UNLESS the family had mostly left the areas of Russia, Poland and Germany all but impossible. The above mentioned lineages were preserved by certain families in certain locales. Many of whom no longer exist. The idea is as silly as asking a person from Nagasaki to provide documentation from 1941-1945 of events. Unless the documents were duplicated outside the blast zone, they are a bit too radioactive. The tragic part is that this kind of talk will confirm the prejudices of my family and former coreligionists, thus closing their ears further to anything about Christ. They will have old prejudices (and every kid telling them they personally killed Jesus) revived. Of course, since you decided my ethnic background is irrelevant, then what I said means nothing. I am beyond offended and am approaching disgust and anger at you Cheri.

[Edited on 3-22-2005 by calgal]