Hedgeship of Adam ....

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
There's a lot of guessing and supposing going on.
I'm pretty sure this has been pointed out to you before.

Deut 25
5When brothers dwell together and one of them dies without a son, the widow must not marry outside the family. Her husband’s brother is to take her as his wife and fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law for her.b 6The first son she bears will carry on the name of the dead brother, so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel.

7But if the man does not want to marry his brother’s widow, she is to go to the elders at the city gate and say, “My husband’s brother refuses to preserve his brother’s name in Israel. He is not willing to perform the duty of a brother-in-law for me.”

8Then the elders of his city shall summon him and speak with him. If he persists and says, “I do not want to marry her,” 9his brother’s widow shall go up to him in the presence of the elders, remove his sandal, spit in his face, and declare, “This is what is done to the man who will not maintain his brother’s line.” 10And his family name in Israel will be called “The House of the Unsandaled.”

Ruth was considered Jewish or she wouldn't be the subject of Levirate marriage. The fact she told Naomi that her God and people would be hers shows she wasn't ethnically Jewish.

The Moabite ban was on the males. This would be a problem for David and the Messiah otherwise.








 

Rachel Redux

Active member
I'm pretty sure this has been pointed out to you before.

Deut 25
5When brothers dwell together and one of them dies without a son, the widow must not marry outside the family. Her husband’s brother is to take her as his wife and fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law for her.b 6The first son she bears will carry on the name of the dead brother, so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel.

7But if the man does not want to marry his brother’s widow, she is to go to the elders at the city gate and say, “My husband’s brother refuses to preserve his brother’s name in Israel. He is not willing to perform the duty of a brother-in-law for me.”

8Then the elders of his city shall summon him and speak with him. If he persists and says, “I do not want to marry her,” 9his brother’s widow shall go up to him in the presence of the elders, remove his sandal, spit in his face, and declare, “This is what is done to the man who will not maintain his brother’s line.” 10And his family name in Israel will be called “The House of the Unsandaled.”

Ruth was considered Jewish or she wouldn't be the subject of Levirate marriage. The fact she told Naomi that her God and people would be hers shows she wasn't ethnically Jewish.

The Moabite ban was on the males. This would be a problem for David and the Messiah otherwise.








Whatever you inserted didn't come through.
 

Rachel Redux

Active member
I'm pretty sure this has been pointed out to you before.

Deut 25
5When brothers dwell together and one of them dies without a son, the widow must not marry outside the family. Her husband’s brother is to take her as his wife and fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law for her.b 6The first son she bears will carry on the name of the dead brother, so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel.

7But if the man does not want to marry his brother’s widow, she is to go to the elders at the city gate and say, “My husband’s brother refuses to preserve his brother’s name in Israel. He is not willing to perform the duty of a brother-in-law for me.”

8Then the elders of his city shall summon him and speak with him. If he persists and says, “I do not want to marry her,” 9his brother’s widow shall go up to him in the presence of the elders, remove his sandal, spit in his face, and declare, “This is what is done to the man who will not maintain his brother’s line.” 10And his family name in Israel will be called “The House of the Unsandaled.”

Ruth was considered Jewish or she wouldn't be the subject of Levirate marriage. The fact she told Naomi that her God and people would be hers shows she wasn't ethnically Jewish.

The Moabite ban was on the males. This would be a problem for David and the Messiah otherwise.
It can't be both ways, no matter how many pretty stories the Rabbis tell about Ruth and Orpah.
 

Open Heart

Well-known member
It can't be both ways, no matter how many pretty stories the Rabbis tell about Ruth and Orpah.
Rachel: every Jew understand the law about levirate marraiges. It is not a difficult concept. If you think something contradictory is going on, then you are not understanding what we are saying, for reasons I will not speculate.
 

Rachel Redux

Active member
Rachel: every Jew understand the law about levirate marraiges. It is not a difficult concept. If you think something contradictory is going on, then you are not understanding what we are saying, for reasons I will not speculate.
Open Heart....
If Ruth was a Moabite, she couldn't have converted.
If she was a Jew living in Moab, she could have married Mahlon and the Levirate marriage with Boaz.
If you can't understand this fact, then you aren't understanding what the Bible is saying, for reasons I won't speculate about.
 

Open Heart

Well-known member
Open Heart....
If Ruth was a Moabite, she couldn't have converted.
If she was a Jew living in Moab, she could have married Mahlon and the Levirate marriage with Boaz.
If you can't understand this fact, then you aren't understanding what the Bible is saying, for reasons I won't speculate about.
You are completely ignoring the fact that we have two authors with opposing positions. There is the author in Deuteronomy that says a Moabite may not enter the congregation (aka convert to Judaism) and you have the author of Ruth giving an example of someone who did. It is not that this is hard to understand. The problem is your preconceived notion that the Tanakh will have no contradictions that is to blame for you thinking this is not making sense.

You do have the option of going the way of Orthodox thought, that the prohibition of Moabites extended only to men. This is the view that Jewjitzu takes.
 

Rachel Redux

Active member
You are completely ignoring the fact that we have two authors with opposing positions. There is the author in Deuteronomy that says a Moabite may not enter the congregation (aka convert to Judaism) and you have the author of Ruth giving an example of someone who did. It is not that this is hard to understand. The problem is your preconceived notion that the Tanakh will have no contradictions that is to blame for you thinking this is not making sense.

You do have the option of going the way of Orthodox thought, that the prohibition of Moabites extended only to men. This is the view that Jewjitzu takes.
God is not the author of confusion. We have at least two clear scriptures forbidding marriages between Jews and Moabites. Why shouldn't I just believe the obvious...that Boaz was obedient and that Ruth was a Jew. It takes nothing away from the kinsman redeemer message.

Yes, there are other instances of pagans marrying into the Hebrews such as Asenath marrying Joseph, but there was a specific ban against Moabites.

I mean, I guess we're all free to believe whichever way we want to, but for me, as much as I love the idea behind a Moabite woman being accepted into the Jewish community, I still think it's unlikely.
 

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
It can't be both ways, no matter how many pretty stories the Rabbis tell about Ruth and Orpah.
There's no issue of both ways. Either there is no issue as I've said, or David and his lineage isn't legitimate, including Messiah.

Nobody says David isn't legitimate so you just need to accept the Rabbis know more than you think.
 

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
God is not the author of confusion. We have at least two clear scriptures forbidding marriages between Jews and Moabites. Why shouldn't I just believe the obvious...that Boaz was obedient and that Ruth was a Jew. It takes nothing away from the kinsman redeemer message.

Yes, there are other instances of pagans marrying into the Hebrews such as Asenath marrying Joseph, but there was a specific ban against Moabites.

I mean, I guess we're all free to believe whichever way we want to, but for me, as much as I love the idea behind a Moabite woman being accepted into the Jewish community, I still think it's unlikely.
It's ironic you take this stance, but you don't have a problem with a virgin birth with no physical father making the child a mamzer, restricted from entry into the congregation of Israel, Deut 23:2.
 

Rachel Redux

Active member
It's ironic you take this stance, but you don't have a problem with a virgin birth with no physical father making the child a mamzer, restricted from entry into the congregation of Israel, Deut 23:2.
No, I don't have a problem with the virgin birth. I can believe in miraculous occurrences. I believe in a God who can create a vast universe, so why couldn't he plant seed in a young maiden?
And Yeshua wouldn't be a mamzer...he had a father. Why did he have to be a "physical" father?
 

Lee Magee

Member
If Jesus had no father, then the Book of Matthew and Luke wouldn't have written a paternal genealogy.
Matthew 1:16 - Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary

Deuteronomy 23:2 A bastard shall not enter into the congregation

mamzer as no root or etymology because its Greek.

ממזר = ἀπάτωρος (apátōros); without father, fatherless, orphan, disowned by the father, of unknown father

Its common amongst Christians to judge people by the circumstances of their birth, which is why so many mamzer children have being murdered by Christians throughout the history of Christianity.

"Mr Martin also appealed to those who may have information about further unmarked, hidden burial grounds where the 'illegitimate' children of unwed mothers were buried-- such as the mass grave in Tuam in which 800 babies were found"
 

Lee Magee

Member
Euripides, Ion 105 450 BCE
For as I was born without a mother and a father (ἀμήτωρ ἀπάτωρ), I serve the temple of Phoebus that nurtured me.

Deuteronomy 23:2
A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord

The ancient Greeks clearly superior when it comes to morality, no wonder when ancient Greek writing resurfaced, it brought about the renaissance.

Genesis 31:53
וישבע יעקב בפחד = κατώμοσεν Κάκκαβος Φοίβῳ "Kakkabos sware by Phoebus"
 
Last edited:

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
No, I don't have a problem with the virgin birth. I can believe in miraculous occurrences.
I believe in miracles too, I just don't believe there's any support nor need for a virgin birth. Children are born from two physical parents.

I believe in a God who can create a vast universe, so why couldn't he plant seed in a young maiden?
For one thing, Isaiah 7:14 and it's context doesn't support such a notion. For another, God promised physical descent from Abraham and David, from male loins and seed, for kings, ie, Messiah. Your idea breaks the descent.

And Yeshua wouldn't be a mamzer...he had a father.
Not a physical father from the lineage of David. As such, no one knows his father which constitutes a mamzer.

Why did he have to be a "physical" father?
Because Tanakh requires it. Such was the promise, Gen 15:4-6, Psalm 132:11, Psalm 89, Isaiah 11:1. No adoption allowed.

So, you're inconsistent in your approach between how you understand Ruth and the overall requirements on lineage. Sorry.
 
Top