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.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Originally posted by TimV
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.
Originally posted by TimV
"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.
Originally posted by TimV
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.
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
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.
Originally posted by TimV
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.
Originally posted by TimV
"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
"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?
Originally posted by TimV
"There is also the fact the rabbinic Judaism, unlike the biblical model, is matrilineal."
Is there a point?
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.
Originally posted by TimV
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.
Originally posted by Abd_Yesua_alMasih
Is the modern state that likes to call itself by the title of Israel really a biblical 'Israel' "¦?
"¦Just because this nation accepts the title of Israel does that automatically mean it is a continuation of 'biblical Israel'?
Throughout history we see a pattern. God told the Israelites to follow his commandments and they will stay on in the land. The Israelites would break the covenant and would be exiled/punished
"¦there has been no mass repentance, no return to the Lord... etc...
"¦it is a secular, unrepentant society and if anything in a worse that than before when God exiled them.
Originally posted by Abd_Yesua_alMasih
You could almost sum up the question as what gave David Ben-Gurion and other Jewish leaders the authority to recreate the state of Israel?
Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
On a purely political basis, given the worldwide persecution of the Jews through the 20th century, I understand and emphathize with their desire to have a nation of their own.
Originally posted by Robin
God's grace allowed Israel to restore a national presense in the world in the last century. While this is true - and is amazingly merciful on God's part - it has little to do with Scriptures' "¦ An interesting & curious thing Christ says to them seems to infer that the Jews must confess Christ before He comes.
Originally posted by TimV
The modern state of Israel has as it's official name Medinat Yisra'el. It means basically "the Jewish people".
"¦This is an ethno-state like so many others "¦
The current state of Israel is the place where the Jews of the Bible have achieved self determination in an area where they historically have had a presence, like the others I named above. They may lose it again, or may, like the Iranians, stay there for another 2500 years.
Originally posted by SolaScriptura
Agreed. Acts 17:26. The problem is that many evangelicals think that there is a special significance to the restoration of Israel as a national entity.
Originally posted by tcalbrecht
How does one demonstrate that modern Israel is home to "the Jews of the Bible"?
Originally posted by tcalbrecht
By using the term "restore" you admit some connection between modern Israel and something that has gone before (biblical Israel??).
The reality is that there is no such connection, thus modern Israel is no restoration of anything.
It is a purely political entity carved out by the nations of the world to deal with a problem in an unbiblical fashion.
Originally posted by RobinRobin
We have nothing to fear from granting this fact to the Dispensational camp. ...
The Dispensational claim that the 20th Century "restoration" of Israel is THE "restoration" in Scripture "“ is based upon a geographical fact"¦
It's hard spade-work - but, trust me - it CAN be proved from a responsible study of the Text (by anyone with a 3rd grade reading level) that though we have witnessed a phyisical, geographical event where people (descended from peoples located in the land called Israel) have indeed returned to their land of origin-embraced their historic culture, and identify themselves as Israelites"¦
By the way "“ we are to TEST everything with Scripture - bowing to its authority.
Originally posted by tcalbrecht
Let me say it again, modern Israel is not a "restoration" of anything, biblically speaking.
Whether believing "Israel" will be restored to the physical land of Abraham in the future is a matter of some dispute among Reformed folks. I'm somewhat undecided at the moment.
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?)
Originally posted by TimV
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?
Jewish and Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations share a common pool of Y-chromosome biallelic haplotypes
You don't really want to quote a bunch of evolutionists as supporting evidence for your hypothesis, do you?
A scientific theory that contradicts your theology is a strange source to go to to then inform your theology...
Originally posted by TimV
...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...
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.
If Jewish descent is passed through the mother, they [Christians] ask, how is it that Moses' children could be Jewish when their mother was a gentile?
A better question would be to ask why Moses' marriage to a gentile woman wasn't held against him since the Torah prohibits intermarriage.
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)
While this may seem like answering a question with a question, it is necessary to draw attention to this issue. Moses' marriage to Zipporah was not a sin because the commandment prohibiting intermarriage had not yet been given. As such, the declaration of which parent decides Jewish status was not made until the giving of the Torah at Mount Sinai. To prove this, we need an example that shows Jewish descent through the mother that took place after the giving of the Torah. Providing this example is easily done:
Ezra 10:3 Now therefore let us make a covenant with our God to put away all the wives, and such as are born of them, according to the counsel of my lord, and of those that tremble at the commandment of our God; and let it be done according to the law. (KJV)[/blue]
In the Hebrew text of Ezra, the last word in this verse, "law," is the word "Torah." ...
The Torah prohibits Jews from marrying gentiles. The Torah further teaches that if a Jewish man marries a gentile woman, he must divorce her, send her away, and send the children who resulted from this illegal union as well.
This last part is critical.
The wife had to be divorced and the children sent away with the mother.
Hashem wants the Jews to do what the Torah says. If the father determines whether or not the child is Jewish, what sense does it make to send Jewish children away from the Jewish people, where those children will be taught how to properly fulfill their responsibilities?
Now, if Jewish descent is passed on through the mother, then this passage makes complete sense. A father has no obligation to bring up a gentile child as a Jew. A non-Jewish child in his home could thus potentially be a bad influence on Jewish children. For example, little Yosef will be asking his daddy why his brother John is allowed to eat bacon but Yosef is not.
The only logical answer based on this biblical evidence is that the mother determines who is a Jew, and that this has been the case since the Jewish people stood at Sinai and Moses declared the Torah which Hashem had given him.
SOURCE: Who is a Jew?
Originally posted by VERITAS
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 Jewish descent is passed through the mother, they [Christians] ask, how is it that Moses' children could be Jewish when their mother was a gentile?
A better question would be to ask why Moses' marriage to a gentile woman wasn't held against him since the Torah prohibits intermarriage.
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)
While this may seem like answering a question with a question, it is necessary to draw attention to this issue. Moses' marriage to Zipporah was not a sin because the commandment prohibiting intermarriage had not yet been given. As such, the declaration of which parent decides Jewish status was not made until the giving of the Torah at Mount Sinai. To prove this, we need an example that shows Jewish descent through the mother that took place after the giving of the Torah. Providing this example is easily done:
...
The Torah prohibits Jews from marrying gentiles. The Torah further teaches that if a Jewish man marries a gentile woman, he must divorce her, send her away, and send the children who resulted from this illegal union as well.
This last part is critical.
The wife had to be divorced and the children sent away with the mother.
...
The only logical answer based on this biblical evidence is that the mother determines who is a Jew, and that this has been the case since the Jewish people stood at Sinai and Moses declared the Torah which Hashem had given him.
SOURCE: Who is a Jew?
If I'm misunderstanding or misapplying the Covenant, then so are Jews who profess to adhere to it.
The rabbinic Jews have been off track for centuries on the meaning of Torah. I would not trust their commentary on the Law.
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.
The Torah prohibits Jews from marrying gentiles. The Torah further teaches that if a Jewish man marries a gentile woman, he must divorce her, send her away, and send the children who resulted from this illegal union 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.
This is not a matter to argue about
The Torah prohibits Jews from marrying gentiles. The Torah further teaches that if a Jewish man marries a gentile woman, he must divorce her, send her away, and send the children who resulted from this illegal union as well.