Was Ruth an Israelite?

[Hawkeye]

Presuming this is true, we still have direct evidence that the supposed law behind the the argument that Ruth was not a Moabite was not very well obeyed.

You are absolutely correct....and Solomon lost his Kingdom for this reason [I Kings 11:1-13].

And Jeroboam and Rehoboan, his sons constantly kept Israel in turmoil because of the split. Israel was in rebellion against the House of David [I Kings 12:19].

Rehoboam built pagan shrines and appointed priests from all tribes instead of the Levites.....and many other evil things. It was for these reasons Israel suffered and eventually went into captivity.

 

[Rachel Redux]

Not so.

Matthew does not give the "Blood" lineage of Yeshua. You find that in [Luke 3] down from Nathan, son of David. This is Mary's blood line. Her father was "Heli".

You find the scriptural authority for that in [Numbers 27]. Mary had no brothers....only one sister and no Moabite or Ammonite blood.

The line down through Solomon is the "Royal" line and the right of the scepter promise to Joseph who then gave it to his adopted son, Yeshua.

Not so.

Matthew does not give the "Blood" lineage of Yeshua. You find that in [Luke 3] down from Nathan, son of David. This is Mary's blood line. Her father was "Heli".

You find the scriptural authority for that in [Numbers 27]. Mary had no brothers....only one sister and no Moabite or Ammonite blood.

The line down through Solomon is the "Royal" line and the right of the scepter promise to Joseph who then gave it to his adopted son, Yeshua.

Hawkeye, what is your source for the bolded above?

 

[Hawkeye]

Hawkeye, what is your source for the bolded above?

At no place in scripture is Joseph (Mary's husband) mentioned after Yeshua taught in the temple [Luke 2:41-52] at Passover. We assume that Joseph had died as he was not present at the cross.

Yeshua gave the custody of Mary to John [John 19:25-27] which would definitely indicate Joseph was not alive. This same passage indicates that Mary had only a sister which makes her eligible for the Mosaic Law of the daughters of Zelophehad [Numbers 27] and gives her the right of inheritance since her father, Heli was obviously dead as well [Luke 3:23].

No brothers were ever mentioned and no Moabite or Ammonite is listed in her genealogy from Nathan, son of David.

 

[Rachel Redux]

At no place in scripture is Joseph (Mary's husband) mentioned after Yeshua taught in the temple [Luke 2:41-52] at Passover. We assume that Joseph had died as he was not present at the cross.

Yeshua gave the custody of Mary to John [John 19:25-27] which would definitely indicate Joseph was not alive. This same passage indicates that Mary had only a sister which makes her eligible for the Mosaic Law of the daughters of Zelophehad [Numbers 27] and gives her the right of inheritance since her father, Heli was obviously dead as well [Luke 3:23].

No brothers were ever mentioned and no Moabite or Ammonite is listed in her genealogy from Nathan, son of David.

Hawkeye, I disagree that John 19: 25-27 says Mary mother of Yeshua, had only a sister also named Mary!

All versions, including Youngs, has commas placed where someone thought they should be. Here is NASV which I think is also a literal translation:

25 Now beside the cross of Jesus stood His mother, His mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. 26 So when Jesus saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing nearby, He *said to His mother, “Woman, behold, your son!” 27 Then He *said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” And from that hour the disciple took her into his own household.

 

[Hawkeye]

Hawkeye, I disagree that John 19: 25-27 says Mary mother of Yeshua, had only a sister also named Mary!

All versions, including Youngs, has commas placed where someone thought they should be. Here is NASV which I think is also a literal translation:

25 Now beside the cross of Jesus stood His mother, His mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. 26 So when Jesus saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing nearby, He *said to His mother, “Woman, behold, your son!” 27 Then He *said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” And from that hour the disciple took her into his own household.

I didn't say that Mary's sister was also named Mary. I said that scripture says Mary had a sister.

From the statement.....His mother's sister.... would indicate to me she indeed had a sister. No brothers are ever mentioned in scripture.....only this sister....His mother's sister.

It seems to me that there are four women mentioned in this passage....three of which are named Mary. His mother's sister is not called by a personal name.

 

[En Hakkore]

You are absolutely correct....and Solomon lost his Kingdom for this reason [I Kings 11:1-13].

And Jeroboam and Rehoboan, his sons constantly kept Israel in turmoil because of the split. Israel was in rebellion against the House of David [I Kings 12:19].

Rehoboam built pagan shrines and appointed priests from all tribes instead of the Levites.....and many other evil things. It was for these reasons Israel suffered and eventually went into captivity.

A few minor corrections... Rehoboam is said to be Solomon's son, not Jeroboam, whose patronym is Nebat. Rehoboam was king of Judah and the author displaces the building of high places, pillars, etc. onto the people of Judah. It was Jeroboam who was king of Israel and the one who appointed non-Levite priests at the shrines he built in Bethel and Dan... this became the 'sin of Jeroboam' and is listed among the reasons why the deity exiled the inhabitants of Israel.

Kind regards,
Jonathan

 

[Gary Mac]

What was the curse that the people of Israel put on themselves if they did not obey the Law (re in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah)

They didn't keep the Law and so they were a cursed people, right?

The kaw as in? Be ye therefore perfect even as your Father in heaven is perfect, Walk as He walks in His same light, same Spirit be in you who was in Christ Jesus, Same signs follow you who do believe?

Are these the laws you are referring to?

 

[Hawkeye]

A few minor corrections... Rehoboam is said to be Solomon's son, not Jeroboam, whose patronym is Nebat. Rehoboam was king of Judah and the author displaces the building of high places, pillars, etc. onto the people of Judah. It was Jeroboam who was king of Israel and the one who appointed non-Levite priests at the shrines he built in Bethel and Dan... this became the 'sin of Jeroboam' and is listed among the reasons why the deity exiled the inhabitants of Israel.

Kind regards,
Jonathan

Thank you for pointing that out as it is indeed incorrect. I meant to say....."And Jeroboam and Rehoboan, his son (singular) constantly kept Israel in turmoil because of the split."

And it was Jeroboan who appointed priests from other than Levi.......and this indeed caused this:

"Israel was in rebellion against the House of David [I Kings 12:19]."

The House of David obviously being Judah and Rehoboam.........

Fast fingers and too many "Boams".

Israel then went into captivity in Assyria and ostensibly never came back while later Judah went captive to Babylon....but did return. The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah speak of their return.

 

[Cynthia]

The kaw as in? Be ye therefore perfect even as your Father in heaven is perfect, Walk as He walks in His same light, same Spirit be in you who was in Christ Jesus, Same signs follow you who do believe?

Are these the laws you are referring to?

In reference to my post #157

The law in view would be the Mosaic Law.

The specific curse is referenced in Nehemiah10:29

 

[Gary Mac]

In reference to my post #157

The law in view would be the Mosaic Law.

The specific curse is referenced in Nehemiah10:29

I see, the old law and not the new.

 

[Cynthia]

I see, the old law and not the new.

??
In the context of Ezra and Nehemiah, the law in view was the Mosaic.

That was what was being discussed on this thread.

 

[Gary Mac]

??
In the context of Ezra and Nehemiah, the law in view was the Mosaic.

That was what was being discussed on this thread.

I understand. The Old law is what you discuss and not the new law for Spirit.

 

[Cynthia]

I understand. The Old law is what you discuss and not the new law for Spirit.

It was in reference to my post 157 here. We were not discussing the New Covenant in this thread since we were trying to stay on topic as in the OP

 

[Gary Mac]

It was in reference to my post 157 here. We were not discussing the New Covenant in this thread since we were trying to stay on topic as in the OP

Thats what I said, you were discussing the old law instead of the new. I really do understand that. Why cant you grasp that I do understand -- You were discussing the old law and not the new . RIGHT? The Old law is what you were discussing, I understand perfectly. Why cant you grasp that?

 

[Cynthia]

Thats what I said, you were discussing the old law instead of the new. I really do understand that. Why cant you grasp that I do understand -- You were discussing the old law and not the new . RIGHT? The Old law is what you were discussing, I understand perfectly. Why cant you grasp that?

sorry. your post on 173 was not clear to me.

blessings!

 

[En Hakkore]

Thank you for pointing that out as it is indeed incorrect.

You're welcome.

Fast fingers and too many "Boams".

I figured that's all it was... props for owning it.

Kind regards,
Jonathan

 

[Gary Mac]

sorry. your post on 173 was not clear to me.

blessings!

Is OK I understand.

 

[Bob Dobbalina]

I have already told you that the curse applied to those not converted to the God of Israel.

Where in the scriptures does God make such specifications?

 

[Bob Dobbalina]

I have asked this question a number of times on this thread but as yet no one has attempted an answer.

Can anyone tell me why devout Hebrews would travel to a pagan Nation like Moab and marry pagan women? They would be trashing everything that their Lord God Yahweh had told them through the Prophet Moses.....less that 150 years earlier.

Reading through from where I left several days ago; got this far and found this question intriguing.

I’m not surprised that no one answers this question; an honest answer requires one to acknowledge the errors taught in Christian traditions. It wouldn’t surprise if someone tried to argue that the Hebrews were not devout.

Your thesis explains much while remaining true to the heart of the text. On the other hand, the cognitive dissonance required to maintain the traditions is dizzying.

I’ve always wondered why so many place such ardent faith in the skills of mere mortal men- we don’t have the original manuscripts. We have copies of copies translated by men. It seems as if most have their faith not in YHWH but in the anonymous scribes who never made any mistakes evidently, yet somehow there are a million different Bibles to choose from.

No one is going to burn in hell for eternity because they got the finer points of scripture wrong. This question is interesting but not of salvific import, thank YHWH.

 

[Bob Dobbalina]

Solomon married the Ammonite Namaah (1 Kings 14:21), who bore a son, a future king of Judah (Rehoboam) and is in the lineage of Christ (Matthew 1:7).

The objection about an Ammonite or Moabite being in the lineage of Christ is answered by the fact that men and women aren't ruthlessly obedient to the law, and God gives them the latitude to do so.




See above. Claiming the Jews ruthlessly followed the law is to deny that they went to Babylon and all of the preaching of Jeremiah and other prophets that they did the opposite.

Where will I find the scriptures that define YHWH to be the capricious god you describe here?