Bible Options Bible Study Software
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Apostle Paul is a Jew
#21
(04-16-2013, 06:34 PM)MessianicJew Wrote:
(04-15-2013, 11:57 AM)Nachshon Wrote: Notice the wording in Ezra, MJ. Why was there a concern about the inheritance for the children forever? Because, if either parent is not an Israelite, there is no inheritance. So, in light of this, Lev 24:11 proves only Shelomith had tribal lineage, and her son, of the tribe of "Egyptians", didn't.
Not so, the Son of Shelomith was not written to be an Egyptian. You're not being fare with Tanakh. I can find where men are named, and then their Fathers name is named, and then his tribe is named. It is no different with Shelomith, yet you are trying to find a work around. Look, if it said he was an Egyptian for his Father was an Egyptian and his mother an Israelite.
You prove my point again, MJ. Both Shelomith and the other sons of Dan trace their lineage through their fathers. If we follow the same pattern, the son of an Egyptian traces to an Egyptian father.

Ezra 9:12 spells this out conclusively that the son with an Egyptian/non-Israelite father has no inheritance, as well as a child with a non-Israelite mother.

(04-15-2013, 11:57 AM)Nachshon Wrote: And, in Ezra 10:14, we see that the judges and elders ruled in accordance with the verse above, and with Lev 17:9, to send away the non Israelite wives and children.

Ezra 10:14 Let now our rulers of all the congregation stand, and let all them which have taken strange wives in our cities come at appointed times, and with them the elders of every city, and the judges thereof, until the fierce wrath of our God for this matter be turned from us.

The sin is in intermarriage with a non-Israelite, not between tribes.
(04-16-2013, 06:34 PM)MessianicJew Wrote: Then King David is once again, not a Israelite because Boaz married Ruth a "Strange" wife. All there children then should be sent away by your teaching.

The sin is both. You don't marry a non-Israelite, and you cannot marry outside your tribe because of inheritance. It is plainly written! The inheritance is not to go from tribe to tribe, but is to remain within each tribe. How much more simple can it get?
Unfortunately, your not reading that the inheritance that passes is strictly land, not tribal lineage. It's pretty simple to understand.

Show me where Boaz sinned in marrying Ruth, where David sinned in marrying Michal, where Moses sinned in marrying Tzipporah, and where Aaron sinned in marrying Elisheva - 4 great men.

I've shown you more prove and logic and reasoning for my position than what you've shown for Yeshua being a High Priest before his death, or for Mary being a descendant of David, etc., and yet you believe your position based on faith alone without any evidence?

It seems you want to bring down everyone on your sinking ship just because your drowning. What's going on MJ?
#22
(04-16-2013, 06:34 PM)MessianicJew Wrote:
(04-15-2013, 11:57 AM)Nachshon Wrote: Notice the wording in Ezra, MJ. Why was there a concern about the inheritance for the children forever? Because, if either parent is not an Israelite, there is no inheritance. So, in light of this, Lev 24:11 proves only Shelomith had tribal lineage, and her son, of the tribe of "Egyptians", didn't.
Not so, the Son of Shelomith was not written to be an Egyptian. You're not being fare with Tanakh. I can find where men are named, and then their Fathers name is named, and then his tribe is named. It is no different with Shelomith, yet you are trying to find a work around. Look, if it said he was an Egyptian for his Father was an Egyptian and his mother an Israelite. Then I would say OK. One problem, it doesn't trace his Dad only, it doesn't trace his Dad passed saying he was Egyptian. It then traces this man to his Mother to her Tribe of Dan.
Right, so everything is named after the father. Follow the same Tanakh pattern, to be fair like you said, and you end up with Shelomith's son tracing to his father an Egyptian.

(04-16-2013, 06:34 PM)MessianicJew Wrote:
(04-15-2013, 11:57 AM)Nachshon Wrote: And, in Ezra 10:14, we see that the judges and elders ruled in accordance with the verse above, and with Lev 17:9, to send away the non Israelite wives and children.

Ezra 10:14 Let now our rulers of all the congregation stand, and let all them which have taken strange wives in our cities come at appointed times, and with them the elders of every city, and the judges thereof, until the fierce wrath of our God for this matter be turned from us.

The sin is in intermarriage with a non-Israelite, not between tribes.
Then King David is once again, not a Israelite because Boaz married Ruth a "Strange" wife. All there children then should be sent away by your teaching.

The sin is both. You don't marry a non-Israelite, and you cannot marry outside your tribe because of inheritance. It is plainly written! The inheritance is not to go from tribe to tribe, but is to remain within each tribe. How much more simple can it get?
Apparently not to simple since you don't get it. You've failed to show again and again that David's lineage is bad, no one was sent away in his family, and he didn't sin when he married outside his tribe.

It is plainly written he didn't sin by marrying Abigail or the prophet Samuel would have told him so. I'd really like to know what your personal motivation is for arguing this point without any evidence to back your assertions? I've already shown you that Moses didn't sin when he married Tzipporah as evidenced by Hashem calling Aaron and Miriam to stop their unfounded claims against Moses. Stop the nonsense MJ.
#23
(04-17-2013, 09:37 PM)Nachshon Wrote: Right, so everything is named after the father. Follow the same Tanakh pattern, to be fair like you said, and you end up with Shelomith's son tracing to his father an Egyptian.

This is just incredulous and asinine. It is written he is the Son of an Egyptian AND the son of an Israelitsh woman and then traces to his tribe through the mother.

(04-15-2013, 11:57 AM)Nachshon Wrote: Apparently not to simple since you don't get it. You've failed to show again and again that David's lineage is bad, no one was sent away in his family, and he didn't sin when he married outside his tribe.

It is plainly written he didn't sin by marrying Abigail or the prophet Samuel would have told him so. I'd really like to know what your personal motivation is for arguing this point without any evidence to back your assertions? I've already shown you that Moses didn't sin when he married Tzipporah as evidenced by Hashem calling Aaron and Miriam to stop their unfounded claims against Moses. Stop the nonsense MJ.

King Davids lineage is bad according to the law, you can't grasp that if they were lawful they wouldn't have had their Temple toppled twice. So you're trying to argue from the assumption that they were lawful when it is clear they were not. You're bias. You can't handle their sins. That is why you are a non Jesus believing Jew. You think everything is A OK.

Moses clearly said the inheritance would transfer from tribe to tribe. You don't understand the law, because you're relying on what others did living at the time to interpret law for you. Which is why you shouldn't speak if you don't understand Torah to begin with. You don't realize not every aspect of their lives was written. You don't understand that it will be twelve Apostles appointed by Jesus Christ who will judge the 12 tribes of Israel. The nonsense is from you.

God never said Aaron and Miriam told a lie. He asked how come they weren't fearful to speak out against a Prophet! You don't even understand what you read.
#24
(04-23-2013, 01:25 PM)MessianicJew Wrote: This is just incredulous and asinine. It is written he is the Son of an Egyptian AND the son of an israelitsh woman and then traces to his tribe through the mother.
Please explain how you understand Ezra 9:12, and how the son of an Egyptian can inherit land or have have tribal lineage in light of what the prophet says.

(04-23-2013, 01:25 PM)MessianicJew Wrote: King Davids lineage is bad according to the law, you can't grasp that if they were lawful they wouldn't have had their Temple toppled twice. So you're trying to argue from the assumption that they were lawful when it is clear they were not. You're bias. You can't handle their sins. That is why you are a non Jesus believing Jew. You think everything is A OK.
Again, please show me evidence from scripture that says David sinned in marrying Abigail, or that there were any inheritance issues with his sons that reigned after him.

(04-23-2013, 01:25 PM)MessianicJew Wrote: Moses clearly said the inheritance would transfer from tribe to tribe. You don't understand the law, because you're relying on what others did living at the time to interpret law for you. Which is why you shouldn't speak if you don't understand Torah to begin with. You don't realize not every aspect of their lives was written. You don't understand that it will be twelve Apostles appointed by Jesus Christ who will judge the 12 tribes of Israel. The nonsense is from you.
Wrong. Numbers 36:1-13 relates that the only thing that transfers to daughters who are sole inheritors is land. That's why the Hebrew uses two different words for land inheritance/possessions("nachlatan, verse 3), and tribe ("minchalat"), and throughout these verses. Verse 4 talks about the Jubilee and how the inheritance will be added to the tribe the daughters marry into. Why? Because only land would be transferred, not tribal lineage. The Torah is straight forward in the explanation. I don't need to rely on someone's interpretation.

(04-23-2013, 01:25 PM)MessianicJew Wrote: God never said Aaron and Miriam told a lie. He asked how come they weren't fearful to speak out against a Prophet! You don't even understand what you read.
Numbers 12:8 says Hashem told Aaron and Miriam they spoke against Moses.

Numbers 12:11 says Aaron asks for forgiveness from Moses for the sin commited.

Regardless of the sin they committed, they were wrong. Since you believe that Aaron spoke against Moses regarding his marriage to Tzipporah, it then follows that he sinned in this regard. What don't you understand?
#25
(04-24-2013, 06:31 PM)Nachshon Wrote: Please explain how you understand Ezra 9:12, and how the son of an Egyptian can inherit land or have have tribal lineage in light of what the prophet says.

The Prophet doesn't say only those with a Israelite Father have a Tribe and those with a Israelite Mother are Jewish. It is Judaism who says that.

As for Ezra 9:12, it clearly says both the Father and Mother have to be Israelite. How can you not get that?

(04-24-2013, 06:31 PM)Nachshon Wrote: Again, please show me evidence from scripture that says David sinned in marrying Abigail, or that there were any inheritance issues with his sons that reigned after him.

There isn't any evidence from scripture about the consequences of their actions. But like I said, I understand the law, I don't need a consequence to be written to understand why one would occur as you do. It is like the saying "There are already laws on the books they're just not enforced" Israeli is guilty of this time and time again.

(04-24-2013, 06:31 PM)Nachshon Wrote: I don't need to rely on someone's interpretation.

Yeah you do.

A woman wouldn't have a clue what property she is inheriting if she couldn't trace her tribal lineage.

(04-24-2013, 06:31 PM)Nachshon Wrote: Numbers 12:8 says Hashem told Aaron and Miriam they spoke against Moses.

Numbers 12:11 says Aaron asks for forgiveness from Moses for the sin commited.

First you said it was falsely, and it wasn't a lie though. You can't speak out against a Prophet period. You certainly are no expert.

(04-24-2013, 06:31 PM)Nachshon Wrote: Regardless of the sin they committed, they were wrong. Since you believe that Aaron spoke against Moses regarding his marriage to Tzipporah, it then follows that he sinned in this regard. What don't you understand?

I don't understand how you're so twisted. Anyway, the problem was them speaking against Moses without fear not out of a lie. I also don't understand how you skip over the most obvious of detail.
#26
(04-25-2013, 11:25 PM)MessianicJew Wrote:
(04-24-2013, 06:31 PM)Nachshon Wrote: Please explain how you understand Ezra 9:12, and how the son of an Egyptian can inherit land or have have tribal lineage in light of what the prophet says.
As for Ezra 9:12, it clearly says both the Father and Mother have to be Israelite. How can you not get that?
It says the children will not inherit any land if either parent is not an Israelite. What are your thoughts on that? Sounds like either case shows no tribal lineage.

(04-25-2013, 11:25 PM)MessianicJew Wrote: There isn't any evidence from scripture about the consequences of their actions. But like I said, I understand the law, I don't need a consequence to be written to understand why one would occur as you do. It is like the saying "There are already laws on the books they're just not enforced" Israeli is guilty of this time and time again.
If Ezra called out openly the Israelites for intermarriage, don't you think another prophet would have done the same with David, Aaron, and Moses?

Lev 21:14, Lev 22:12, and Ezek 44:22 all show tribal intermarriage is not a problem. Your thoughts?

(04-25-2013, 11:25 PM)MessianicJew Wrote:
(04-24-2013, 06:31 PM)Nachshon Wrote: I don't need to rely on someone's interpretation.
Yeah you do.

A woman wouldn't have a clue what property she is inheriting if she couldn't trace her tribal lineage.
That wasn't my point. The Torah calls out specifically that what transfers is land inheritance, not tribal lineage. The Hebrew confirms that. Why do you think that different words are used for inheritance ("nachalat") and tribe ("machanat") in Numbers 36 if that is not the case?

(04-25-2013, 11:25 PM)MessianicJew Wrote:
(04-24-2013, 06:31 PM)Nachshon Wrote: Numbers 12:8 says Hashem told Aaron and Miriam they spoke against Moses.

Numbers 12:11 says Aaron asks for forgiveness from Moses for the sin commited.
First you said it was falsely, and it wasn't a lie though. You can't speak out against a Prophet period. You certainly are no expert.
Whatever the reason for Aaron speaking out, he was wrong. Can you admit that? Look at Numbers 12:2 for a hint of the real issue.

(04-25-2013, 11:25 PM)MessianicJew Wrote: I don't understand how you're so twisted. Anyway, the problem was them speaking against Moses without fear not out of a lie. I also don't understand how you skip over the most obvious of detail.
Numbers 12:11, they sinned against Moses. If Aaron spoke out against Moses for intermarriage it was wrong/a lie? If Aaron spoke out against Moses for any other reason, he still sinned.

This is the obvious detail which you don't wont to admit to. Either way, your assumption was wrong. Can you admit to that?
#27
(04-26-2013, 04:27 PM)Nachshon Wrote: It says the children will not inherit any land if either parent is not an Israelite. What are your thoughts on that? Sounds like either case shows no tribal lineage.

My thoughts are that if you hold strictly to the letter of the law, then you have to be 100% Hebrew. Which is nearly impossible seeing as Moses and King David and King Solomon married non-Hebrew women. And if they did that, imagine how many Israelite men and women did the same.

(04-26-2013, 04:27 PM)Nachshon Wrote: If Ezra called out openly the Israelites for intermarriage, don't you think another prophet would have done the same with David, Aaron, and Moses?

Moses was the Prophet of the time, so only Aaron and Miriam spoke against Moses on that account. Perhaps if the question were brought differently then God would have said something else. But notice they were only rebuked because they did not fear, not because of what they said. King David packaged multiple sins together by taking Urias wife and look what happened.

(04-26-2013, 04:27 PM)Nachshon Wrote: Lev 21:14, Lev 22:12, and Ezek 44:22 all show tribal intermarriage is not a problem. Your thoughts?

First it seems this is to the Levite, and also new situations beckoned new laws as Moses said what he said. As for Ezekiel you can say oh it doesn't mention virgins so there wasn't a problem with Levites not taking virgins. Laws are written elsewhere that you have to follow.

(04-24-2013, 06:31 PM)Nachshon Wrote: Yeah you do.

No really, I don't. Translation yes, interpretation no.
#28
(04-24-2013, 06:31 PM)Nachshon Wrote: MessianicJew: A woman wouldn't have a clue what property she is inheriting if she couldn't trace her tribal lineage.
That wasn't my point. The Torah calls out specifically that what transfers is land inheritance, not tribal lineage. The Hebrew confirms that. Why do you think that different words are used for inheritance ("nachalat") and tribe ("machanat") in Numbers 36 if that is not the case?
[/quote]

But you've went so far off of the original topic of whether a son/daughter can trace to their tribe via a woman that you've moved to land inheritance. And the land to inherit is dependant on a woman's tribal lineage. Therefore if all a Israelitish woman has is a son to an Egyptian man and is not an Israelite. The son would then only be written as a stranger or an Egyptian. And that just isn't written, even though that is how you want it to be written.

(04-25-2013, 11:25 PM)MessianicJew Wrote: [quote='Nachshon' pid='86004' dateline='1366853501']
Whatever the reason for Aaron speaking out, he was wrong. Can you admit that? Look at Numbers 12:2 for a hint of the real issue.

No he wasn't wrong, he asked the question if God did not speak to them as he spoke to Moses. The only reason they were rebuked is because they didn't fear. "wherefore then were you not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?" That was the reason, not because of what they said. Numbers 12:12 has nothing to do with the real issue, when the issue is marrying non Israelites, which is why Aaron spoke up because Moses married an Ethiopian. This is basic stuff.

(04-25-2013, 11:25 PM)MessianicJew Wrote: Numbers 12:11, they sinned against Moses. If Aaron spoke out against Moses for intermarriage it was wrong/a lie? If Aaron spoke out against Moses for any other reason, he still sinned.

This is the obvious detail which you don't wont to admit to. Either way, your assumption was wrong. Can you admit to that?

You don't understand simple reasoning.

8 With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the Lord shall he behold: wherefore then were you not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?

And only Miriam was leprous not Aaron
#29
And apostel Paul was a Roman. So he had some identities and maybe even en identitycrises
#30
(05-04-2013, 05:30 PM)Yetzirah231 Wrote: And apostel Paul was a Roman. So he had some identities and maybe even en identitycrises

For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
~Romans 11:1~

He was a Roman citizen, there wasn't any identity problems nor identity crisis. What you said is bias and naive if it wasn't a lie.


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)