What makes you a descendant of Abraham?

[AndyN]

I recently married a girl with Jewish ancestry - her grandfather was a German Jew, whose son married an English woman, who then gave birth to my wife. I had always assumed that this made my wife Jewish, but I have now been told that you can only be Jewish through the female line. Is there any scriptural proof of this? I thought the Old Testament was pretty emphatic that it is the MALE line which is important?

btw, we are both Christians, so I am not talking about Judaism, but being a literal descendant of Abraham....

also, I am aware that it's not really that important anyway ;o)

Yours Naively.....

AndyN
(1st year Theology Student at Oxford Brookes :o))

[Bill the Cat]

Lineage in Judaism is on the Father's side. That's why people were often referred to as so-and-so Son of(bar) so-and-so

[The Curtmudgeon]

I would clarify :btc: 's post by saying that my understanding (based on conversations, direct and indirect, with Jews) is that while he's certainly correct that lineage among Jews is certainly through the father, the Jewish faith today has established that to be counted a Jew-by-birth you have to have a Jewish mother. Any person born of a Jewish mother would automatically be counted a Jew, although of course one could always choose a non-Judaic religion (or none, as many Israeli Jews today are atheists). Any person not born of a Jewish mother but raised as a Jew would be counted a religious Jew, which for all practical purposes is the same thing, but not precisely the same.

Did your wife's parents originally raise her in a Jewish home, or as a Jew? Then she's Jewish. If they raised her in a non-Jewish home (e.g., they were already Christian themselves), then (f'rinstance) to be allowed to immigrate into Israel under the Jewish Homeland provision might be a bit tricky.

But to get the real story, you might check your city for a Jewish synagogue or centre and contact them. Most, I would think, would have no problem answering a sincere question about Jewish beliefs even from a Christian (although perhaps you might not want to make a point of that when you ask).

The (so what do I know?) Curtmudgeon

[GrayPilgrim]

Until the Roman era it lineage was recconed exclusively through the male line. However, this led to a problem of what to do with rape victims. Under the older rubric rape excluded one from teh Jewish lineage so it was changed to the female descent rubric that is still in use.

GP

[Socrates]

Bill the Cat:

Lineage in Judaism is on the Father's side. That's why people were often referred to as so-and-so Son of(bar) so-and-so

GrayPilgrim:

Until the Roman era it lineage was recconed exclusively through the male line. However, this led to a problem of what to do with rape victims. Under the older rubric rape excluded one from teh Jewish lineage so it was changed to the female descent rubric that is still in use.

Right on both counts. But as Christians, only the Bible is binding authority, not later Judaistic traditions, no matter how well meaning. So we must stick to the biblical patrilineal way of reckoning Jewishness. If the father is Jewish then a child is a Jew. But if the mother is Jewish, it is optional, and in the Bible a man is described as the son of an Israelite woman.

Even in the Messiah's line, there are the Gentile women Tamar, Ruth and Rahab, and because Jesus didn't have a biological father, Luke traced His lineage through Mary to show that his is a Jew both through his who were also ancestors of Israel's greatest king. A bit of a problem if Melech David wasn't a Jew!

So a Jew is someone who is descended through the patrilineal line from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The AiG article Genesis correctly predicts Y-Chromosome pattern: Jews and Arabs shown to be descendants of one man! (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4304news5-16-2000.asp) goes into this in some detail. My post More on defining a Jew (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=132146&highlight=fruchtenbaum#post132146) shows the futility of trying to define a Jew non-biblically.

[AndyN]

Thanks Socrates - that seems to make sense to me. My wife wasn't bought up as a Jew at all. Her Grandfather seems to have taken no real interest in Judaism, and she only became a Christian when she met me. Biblically speaking then, my wife is a Messianic Jew?
If an orthodox Jew was to dispute this I will have to appeal to the Torah and the Prophets!

[stillsmallvoice]

Hi all!

Hmm, lessee...

Since the Torah was given, a Jew has been/is someone who was born of a Jewish mother or who had a halakhic (i.e. orthodox) conversion (see http://www.jewfaq.org/whoisjew.htm#Matrilineal and http://www.jewfaq.org/gentiles.htm#Conversion).

This is traditional, normative Jewish law & has been since the revelation at Mt. Sinai. While I certainly respect both Socrates & his opinions, we Jews (invoke our right to self-determination?) reserve to ourselves only the sole & exclusive right to determine who we are.

Curt posted:

Any person not born of a Jewish mother but raised as a Jew would be counted a religious Jew, which for all practical purposes is the same thing, but not precisely the same.

This is incorrect. Such a person would have to undergo a halakhic (i.e. orthodox) conversion.

then (f'rinstance) to be allowed to immigrate into Israel under the Jewish Homeland provision might be a bit tricky.

Our Law of Return (http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH00kp0) says that any Jew defined as such in the Law itself may immigrate to Israel & obtain full citizenship automatically (i.e. and not have to be naturalized). The definition of "Jew" in the Law of Return does not jibe with tradiotional. normative (i.e. orthodox) Jewish law; this has been, and still is, the source of considerable controversy. Non-Jewish non-Israelis who wish to become Israeli citizens may do so under the Nationality Law (http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH00mz0).

Howzat?

Be well!

ssv :hi:

[The Curtmudgeon]

Today @ 02:54 PM stillsmallvoice:

Curt posted:

Any person not born of a Jewish mother but raised as a Jew would be counted a religious Jew, which for all practical purposes is the same thing, but not precisely the same.

This is incorrect. Such a person would have to undergo a halakhic (i.e. orthodox) conversion.

Okay, thanx. I'll try not to make that same mistake again.

then (f'rinstance) to be allowed to immigrate into Israel under the Jewish Homeland provision might be a bit tricky.

Our Law of Return (http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH00kp0) says that any Jew defined as such in the Law itself may immigrate to Israel & obtain full citizenship automatically (i.e. and not have to be naturalized). The definition of "Jew" in the Law of Return does not jibe with tradiotional. normative (i.e. orthodox) Jewish law; this has been, and still is, the source of considerable controversy. Non-Jewish non-Israelis who wish to become Israeli citizens may do so under the Nationality Law (http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH00mz0).


I knew (or thought I knew) that there were other ways to acquite citizenship in Israel, which is why I specifically limited my point to the Law of Return (which I deliberately miscalled "Jewish Homeland" only because I was trying to avoid any confusion with the present controversy over the so-called Palestinian Right of Return). Thanx for clearing up the distinctions.

The (now, can a goy like me get a work-permit for a software job in Israel? :teeth: ) Curtmudgeon

[AndyN]

I see. So what do you call a person who is descended from Abraham (through the fathers line), but not Jewish by religion? (I guess the answer to this question will vary)

[stillsmallvoice]

Hi all!

Andy N. posted:

So what do you call a person who is descended from Abraham (through the fathers line), but not Jewish by religion?

How about "Arab Muslim"? (Islam goes by patrilineal descent.)

Curt posted:

can a goy like me get a work-permit for a software job in Israel?

If you can line up a job first, your employer can then request a B-1 working tourist visa for you. It's not that difficult.

Be well!

ssv :hi:

[AndyN]

erm, but Abraham, erm, wasn't a muslim........

[stillsmallvoice]

Hi Andy N.!

You posted:

erm, but Abraham, erm, wasn't a muslim........

But his descendants via Ishmael & many of Ketura's children are!

Be well!

ssv :hi:

[Timothy Leary]

Andy, in the context you are speaking of - just being a descendant of Abraham - he'd simply need to be one of your ancestors, Jewishness and all the other things aside.

[Timothy Leary]

I would like to add that Karaite Jews generally accept either maternal or paternal geneology, though we prefer Paternal Geneology. In our minds, if you follow Torah, you are a Jew!

[Socrates]

01-04-2004 @ 06:54 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=362250#post362250)
stillsmallvoice:

Since the Torah was given, a Jew has been/is someone who was born of a Jewish mother or who had a halakhic (i.e. orthodox) conversion (see http://www.jewfaq.org/whoisjew.htm#Matrilineal and http://www.jewfaq.org/gentiles.htm#Conversion).

This is traditional, normative Jewish law & has been since the revelation at Mt. Sinai. While I certainly respect both Socrates & his opinions, we Jews (invoke our right to self-determination?) reserve to ourselves only the sole & exclusive right to determine who we are.

Who is "we"? That's the whole point in the link -- even most Jews don't agree on what a Jew is. So we should use the Bible to decide.

[Socrates]

01-03-2004 @ 10:10 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=361782#post361782)
AndyN:

Thanks Socrates - that seems to make sense to me. My wife wasn't bought up as a Jew at all. Her Grandfather seems to have taken no real interest in Judaism, and she only became a Christian when she met me. Biblically speaking then, my wife is a Messianic Jew?

You're welcome, Andy. Yes, that is what your wife is.

If an orthodox Jew was to dispute this I will have to appeal to the Torah and the Prophets!

Which is authoritative over traditions of men (Mark 7).

[Cherith]

I have always intentionally avoided this area of Tweb, but felt compelled to come over here after Socrates made some remarks that I couldn't live with and to continue discussing it off-topic on the other thread would have usurped the original poster's purpose. I had intended to just repost my original comments, but after reading the thrust of the thread I decided to denounce everyone and throw in my support with Soc. :gag:

AndyN said: "her grandfather was a German Jew, whose son married an English woman, who then gave birth to my wife." (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=360706#post360706)

Hey Andy, try this on for size: ask your wife (or father-in-law) what TRIBE her grandfather was from! The family won't be able to answer this because there is no answer! Ten of the twelve tribes were lost to history over 500 yrs before Christ. There was a faithful remnant that returned with the two remaining tribes (Judah and Benjamin) to rebuild after 70 yrs, but even many of them could not prove their ancestry and were excluded from service (see Ezra, Nehemiah). By the time of Christ there was a Edomite usurper on the throne and a "priestly" family who had bought their way into the position.

Perhaps your wife's family might say that they are Ashkenazi Jews. Well, Ashkenaz was the grandson of Japeth(! Gen 10:2-3) not Shem and thus not in the family tree of Abraham. Or maybe they will say Sephardic, but the term Sephard was a corruption taken from Obad 1:20 for a region of Assyria(!) and was typically used by Jews to refer to Spain and later Jews of Spanish descent, and thus they are/were not Abraham's genetic offspring either!

You said that you had "been told" (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=360706#post360706) that you can "ONLY be Jewish through the female line" (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=360706#post360706) and that the "Old Testament was pretty emphatic that it is [descent through] the MALE line which is important." (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=360706#post360706) And YOU would be correct. Don't let the adherents of Talmudic Judaism define the terms - after all, they are known liars. :wink:

Broad brushstrokes in calling people groups names is not allowed.


Then Bill the Cat said: "Lineage IN JUDAISM is on the Father's side. That's why people were OFTEN referred to as...son of (bar) so-and-so." (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=360722#post360722)

The fact of the matter is that this was the ancient way of identification before SURNAMES came into vogue around the 1st millennium A.D. However, there are a few notable exceptions to your theory:

Gen 24:15, 24 - "...Bethuel, son of Milcah, whom she bore..." Lev 24:10 - "...the son of an Israelitish woman..." Mark 6:3 - "...the son of Mary..."

Curtmudgeon then said: "the Jewish faith TODAY has established that to be COUNTED a Jew BY BIRTH you HAVE TO HAVE a Jewish mother. (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=361225#post361225) He then goes on to use the word "counted" 2 more times and "raised" once showing again that what is important in Judaism is no longer biology but theology. Well, we also have a "count" verse, Rom 6:11. The fact of the matter is we also "count" or "reckon" the children of Abraham according to theology rather than biology and we, at least, have the authority of Holy Scripture to back us up. Furthermore the children of Israel had to adhere to the Law to remain in the covenant people. Take for instance the admonition to circumcise their male children, Gen 17:14: "The uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken My Covenant."

GrayPilgrim posited part of the reason for the switch from patrilineal to matrilineal by stating that "Until the Roman era...rape victims...[were] excluded from the Jewish lineage so it was changed..." (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=361710#post361710) But that still doesn't deal with the AUTHORITY issue. By whose authority was it changed? By God's or apostate Judaism's? What I've also seen put forth by the Jews was that too many Roman women were converting to Judaism for autonomy/material gain as well as the fact that after A.D. 70 the surviving Jewish women were sold as slaves, thus effectively putting an end to the Divine Mandate to marry within the family/nation/tribe.

I agreed with much of the next post by Socrates that I instantly became afraid to even trust my own eyes!

Of course, all my joy turned to instant pain when I read "we Jews...reserve to ourselves ONLY the SOLE and EXCLUSIVE RIGHT to determine who we are" (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=362250#post362250) by StillSmallVoice. This is manifestly untrue. Anthropologists, genealogists and historians alike all deny you that "right" along with the theologists following closely upon their heels. I won't even bother with the legalities of the "Law of Return" except to say that to "return" presupposes that the people group was ever there in the first place!

Curtmudgeon played into his fallacious premise when he deliberately"miscalled [Israel] the 'Jewish Homeland'..." (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=362624#post362624), but we'll let that too slide for now...

Getting back to AndyN's original question, "what do you call a person who is DESCENDED from Abraham (through the fathers line), but not Jewish by religion?" (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=363505#post363505) Well, I guess - according to the Scriptures - you would call that person a Christian! Because "descent" today can only be traced spiritually. There is not ONE SINGLE SOLITARY Jew alive on the earth today who can trace his genealogy back to Abraham, much less to the first century following the destruction of Jerusalem and her genealogical records maintained in the temple. (For a fuller treatment of who are "counted" as the children of Abraham look online for The True Israel of God by L.R. Shelton.)

Lastly, StillSmallVoice should really try to live up to his screen-name and not post drivel like "Ishmael and many of Ketura's children are [Arab Muslims]" (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=363524#post363524) because even though Arabs and those in the Muslim religion (not identical terms/people) chart their ancestry with reliance upon the father they too cannot trace their lineage back to Abraham, Ishmael or Keturah! Besides all that is the FACT that many of Mohammad's first converts were Jews living (and marrying) in predominately Arab countries!

Socrates gave another good post (which I still can't believe) except for the last part where AndyN asked if his wife would be considered a "Messianic Jew." Socrates said "Yes, that is what your wife IS" (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=393934#post393934)!!! No she's not. Ethnically she has (presumably) 2 German grandparents and 2 English grandparents - at least one was the son of a religious Jew (somewhere along the line) and one (or more) professed no religion whatsoever. I would say, respectfully, that your wife (like the rest of us) is nothing but an ethnic MUTT. :wink:

Look, the vast majority of my ancestors (and I've traced a lot of them back to the first millennium) are white, "Anglo-Saxon" Protestants. Most came from England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales, but some of them came from France, Germany and the Netherlands. Some were Puritans, some were (God-forbid) Free-Will Baptists, some were (God-forbid) Catholics, some were "Native-American" heathens, several were Methodists, one of which walked 3 miles one way to church when she was in her 80s! The vast majority, however, were your average garden-variety pagans. Did I mention that Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, was a part of my family (on my father's side) or that I also have Indians and black folks (to name a few) in my family? My father's people have been in America for over 400 yrs so I like to call myself a "Native American" (it gets the dark-skinned Oklahoma cousins riled up, but hey they can't trace their ancestry before the advent of "white-man's" penchant for record-keeping anyway! ;o) so it just becomes a matter of who was here for how much longer FIRST. ;o)

There are no pure-blood "races" on the earth - I doubt there ever was given human nature. The history of ancient Israel bears that out right full well.

[Heathen Dawn]

Since the Torah was given, a Jew has been/is someone who was born of a Jewish mother or who had a halakhic (i.e. orthodox) conversion (see http://www.jewfaq.org/whoisjew.htm#Matrilineal and http://www.jewfaq.org/gentiles.htm#Conversion).

This is traditional, normative Jewish law & has been since the revelation at Mt. Sinai. While I certainly respect both Socrates & his opinions, we Jews (invoke our right to self-determination?) reserve to ourselves only the sole & exclusive right to determine who we are.

Never mind that there’s no proof that Ma’amad Har Sinai ever happened; the view that all of Jewish law was revealed on Har Sinai, instead of slowly evolving through the ages, is a myth. Jewish descent was traced through the father until Roman times, when the law of “pater incertus, mater certa” (uncertain father, certain mother) was made the norm.

[Timothy Leary]

Many Karaim - in fact, most - still adhere to Patrilinneal Descent, though bilineal descent is preffered, and maternal descent is accepted if the person is Torah Observant.

[Cherith]

Many Karaim - in fact, most - still adhere to Patrilinneal Descent, though bilineal descent is preffered, and maternal descent is accepted if the person is Torah Observant.

I think you guys are missing the point! Jews (no matter which branch) don't have any authority to speak to these matters.

First, (assuming that modern Jews could be descendants of the ancient people of God) they've broken The Law by the fact that they did not remain separate from the nations and did not maintain their genealogies as commanded by God. Obedience to The Law was a condition of their remaining in covenant with God. Outside of a covenant relationship they are (or have become) just like the rest of the nations.

Second, seeing as how they can not genetically prove - and thus have theologically broken - their relationship with God, one must wonder why anyone would go to them for information or instruction on any matter!?!

Would you ask a Buddist or a Mormon or even a Muslim stuff like this? As if someone's ancestry is of any importance whatsoever!

Believe me, Andy, even if both of your wife's parents could trace their Jewish heritage back unbroken for a thousand years and could prove that that every generation had not only been Torah observant, but big-wigs in Judaism, the very fact that your wife is now a Christian will not win you any brownie points with them. Consider this man, the ancient Jews not only had the descendant of David, The Messiah, in their midst - they had the very Son of God! and what did they care for that!?! (What do they care today?)

Grace and Peace from His Who Was, Who IS, and Who Is To Come,
--C

[FieryFemme]

Lineage in Judaism is on the Father's side. That's why people were often referred to as so-and-so Son of(bar) so-and-so
Gotta disagree, dear. The "son of" bit is vestigial partriarchy. Judaism is, in fact, matrilineal. Why? Good question! Answer: You can tell where the baby came from by observing the birth. You cannot, however, tell how it got there (no DNA testing in those days). The only sure thing, in other words, was the mother. Again, patriarchy's work. Women were not to be trusted in the minds of these ancient dudes.

Go and ask a Rabbi if you don't believe me. :)

[FieryFemme]

is smack on top of your head. Supersessionism? On a discussion forum named "Jewish". It seems you're a little confused as to where you are.


I think you guys are missing the point! Jews (no matter which branch) don't have any authority to speak to these matters.


You mean, being Jewish doesn't count? Odd that Jews should have no say in what they believe and that their beliefs and practises should be governed by those who apparently know little or nothing about their Faith.

First, (assuming that modern Jews could be descendants of the ancient people of God) they've broken The Law by the fact that they did not remain separate from the nations and did not maintain their genealogies as commanded by God. Obedience to The Law was a condition of their remaining in covenant with God. Outside of a covenant relationship they are (or have become) just like the rest of the nations.

Separate from the nations? Look who's talking! American Christians (and you quite obviously are one) are so cozy with the powers and principalities and their pagan idols that they are barely recognizable as Christians. I submit: the Christian Coalition voter advisory scandal, the 10 Commandments idolatry debacle ("Get your hands off our god!"....oops, oh my) and the pagan Bush White House where the only King is Caesar.


Second, seeing as how they can not genetically prove - and thus have theologically broken - their relationship with God, one must wonder why anyone would go to them for information or instruction on any matter!?!

Neither can you prove it; but if you have a Bible in your house (that thing holding your parlour door open), you might want to have a peep at the first coupla chapters of Genesis, in which all mankind is created by the same parent. By the way, why would anyone go to YOU for information on instruction on any matter, when it appears you are so grievously malnourished?


Would you ask a Buddist or a Mormon or even a Muslim stuff like this? As if someone's ancestry is of any importance whatsoever!


Sure, if they were learned in the matter, which you certainly are not.

Believe me, Andy, even if both of your wife's parents could trace their Jewish heritage back unbroken for a thousand years and could prove that that every generation had not only been Torah observant, but big-wigs in Judaism, the very fact that your wife is now a Christian will not win you any brownie points with them. Consider this man, the ancient Jews not only had the descendant of David, The Messiah, in their midst - they had the very Son of God! and what did they care for that!?! (What do they care today?)

Cut back on your caffeine. Supersessionism is the parlour game of the lunatic fringe of Christianity; a fringe which neither reads the Bible with any sort of humility or may even claim a basic understanding of it. You are living proof. If you repent, of course, there is still hope for you. Please do.


Grace and Peace from His Who Was, Who IS, and Who Is To Come,


May you find some of that Grace and Peace and also a healthy dollop of humility.
--C

[FieryFemme]

Sephard was a corruption taken from Obad 1:20 for a region of Assyria(!) and was typically used by Jews to refer to Spain and later Jews of Spanish descent, and thus they are/were not Abraham's genetic offspring either!


Nonsense. "Sephard" (Spanish Jew) derives from the semitic language of the Phonecians and the word in that language for "rabbit". The ancient Phonecians, upon discovering Spain saw many of these animals there and so named the land "Shaphan", which is also the Hebrew word for rabbit. "Sepharad", the Hebrew word for Spain is derived from this early moniker.

Must admit I didn't read the rest of this show-boaty post, but this nonsense caught my eye. It tends to. Funny what people out there in cyberspace like to pass off as truth. Hilarious.

[Cherith]

FieryFemme:Funny what people out there in cyberspace like to pass off as truth. Hilarious.

I whole-heartedly agree!

I had said:

Sephard was a corruption taken from Obad 1:20 for a region of Assyria(!) and was typically used by Jews to refer to Spain and later to Jews of Spanish descent, and thus they are/were not Abraham's genetic offspring either!

To which the FieryFemme replied:

Nonsense. "Sephard" (Spanish Jew) derives from the semitic language of the Phonecians and the word in that language for "rabbit". The ancient Phonecians, upon discovering Spain saw many of these animals there and so named the land "Shaphan", which is also the Hebrew word for rabbit. "Sepharad", the Hebrew word for Spain is derived from this early moniker.

Ok, little missy, show me the error of my ways and I will convert. I will cease and desist from speaking "nonsense" and succumb willingly to your wisdom.

First, if the ancient Phoenicians and ancient Hebrews shared a common language (and I am in no way disputing that they did), then why would the Semitic name for "rabbit" (actually a "coney" - which is not exactly the same; prob. the modern equivalent of the hyrax) in Phonecian AND Hebrew be "shaphan," but why then did those stupid Jews who lived in Andalusia (the medieval area which is now known as Spain) use a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT WORD (i.e. "sepharad") to refer to both themselves and the land? How, oh my great etymologist, does one "derive" sepharad from shaphan?

I could also point out that some scholars identify "sepharad" with Sardis (Turkey) based on a bi-lingual inscription in Hebrew and Greek characters found there - an inscription by the ASSYRIAN king Sargon - mentions "Shaparda" in southwestern Media toward Babylon. Neither of which is near modern Spain! Whether they are overrun with rabbits or rabbit-like Jews I have no idea...?

Secondly, how does this in any way mitigate against my assertions?

What does "Sepharad" refer to in Obad 1:20 if not a region in Assyria? (see also Sepharvaim in 2 Ki 17:24, 31; 18:34; 19:13; Isa 36:19; 37:13, and Sepharvites).

Or were you simply denying that Jews "typically use [this term] to refer to Spain and later to Jews of Spanish descent"?

Hasdai Ibn Shaprut (a good Jewish name, no?!), the Jewish chief minister of the Caliph of Cordoba, in his letter (c.954-961) to Joseph, King of the Khazars, says "the country we live in is in Hebrew Sepharad, BUT the Ishmaelites who inhabit it call it al-Andalus." (al-Andalus means "land of the Vandals" in Arabic; again no rabbits)

The Targum (or Aramaic) translation of Obadiah (ascribed to Jonathan ben Uzziel) translates Sepharad in Obad 1:20 as "Espamia" (a reference to the land of Spain, not the rabbit-like inhabitants).

Just imagine, Obadiah wasn't predicting a military assault on Jerusalem in which "the captives of Jerusalem who are in Sepharad"- Assyria, Asia Minor, Media OR EVEN Babylon (all relatively close by) - "will possess the cities of the South," but in some far-flung country overrun with rabbits!

And just how did the name for "Spain," a country not yet in existence, become so much a part of the ancient Hebrew language!?

I do like the fact that you used the word "moniker" as this is the only part of your posts that I found interesting. The dictionary definition of moniker is "an identification mark used by a tramp." This would fit the adherents of the Jewish religion well, whether they be in/of Ashkenaz or Sepharad. :wink:

Must admit I didn't read the rest of this show-boaty post, but this nonsense caught my eye. It tends to. Funny what people out there in cyberspace like to pass off as truth. Hilarious.

Yeah, hilarious.

Use Ctrl+F on these pages and see: Hebrew language (http://www.ccel.org/e/easton/ebd/ebd/T0001700.html), Coney (http://www.ccel.org/e/easton/ebd/ebd/T0000800.html); as well as The History of the term "Sepharad" --by Dr. Seth Ward of Denver University (http://www.du.edu/~sward/sepharad.html)

Oh and BTW, welcome to Tweb girl!

[Dave G]

Gotta disagree, dear. The "son of" bit is vestigial partriarchy. Judaism is, in fact, matrilineal. Why? Good question! Answer: You can tell where the baby came from by observing the birth. You cannot, however, tell how it got there (no DNA testing in those days). The only sure thing, in other words, was the mother. Again, patriarchy's work. Women were not to be trusted in the minds of these ancient dudes.

Go and ask a Rabbi if you don't believe me. :)
I think that Judaism is both matrilineal and patrilineal, at least in the ANE. The mother's lineage established the tribe and the father's established the right of inheritance. That is, a mother's tribe would determine the lands permissible and a known father would legally be able to pass owned lands to the child.

[Cherith]

I think that Judaism is both matrilineal and patrilineal, at least in the ANE. The mother's lineage established the tribe and the father's established the right of inheritance. That is, a mother's tribe would determine the lands permissible and a known father would legally be able to pass owned lands to the child.

The problem with this issue is that some people equate Old Testament Law or norms with "Judaism" (ancient or modern). Juda-ism was/is a theological construct. It is what Paul calls "the Jews' religion" in Gal 1:13-14. What was Divine Law or even normative under the Old Covenant is not the same thing as a theology constructed to suit the whims or interests of a particular group.

Which is another problem I spotted in FieryFemme's diatribe about "American Christians" - she is comparing apples with oranges, marriage laws with political views. Americans (nor any other country) have ever lived under a theocracy as Israel did. The children of Israel didn't have a say over what to wear, how to style their beards, who they could "vote" for, or even who they could marry. They weren't allowed to construct their own theology - they were COMMANDED to accept and obey one God Himself chose (Gal 3:19).

Anyway, the Old Covenant record that we have bears out the fact that the children of Israel recorded at least SOME of the mothers, but almost ALWAYS the fathers. In the case of Zelophehad (from Joseph's line) who had only daughters we know that their names were specifically included BECAUSE there were no sons to inherit (Num 36) and if they married outside of their tribe then the inheritance of their "fathers" would go to the tribe of the men they married.

Of course, the genealogical lists that survived were for different purposes - some for the military, some for the priestly duties (both of the former restricted to men only), some for the kingly line (which DID include the mothers), etc.

But it is not true (contrary to modern Judaism) that "the mother's lineage established the tribe." Where do you find the "tribe" of Dinah, for instance? And what tribe was Tamar from and why are her children referred to as the sons of Judah? Who raised those children? The Bible says that Judah never "knew" her again... We don't even know if Tamar was an Israelite! After all, Judah had already been married to a Canaanite! So too with Simeon's son, Shaul, and yet he being half-Canaanite is considered (presumably) an Israelite. So too with Jarha's descendants. (Jarha was an Egyptian servant who married a good "Jewish" girl - i.e. a descendant of Judah, and yet his offspring isn't considered Egyptian but Israelite.) The same could be said for Ruth the Moabitess. She was originally married to an Israelite, which by The Law should have excluded her descendants from entering the congregation for 10 generations, but along came Boaz and redeems her according to the custom of the nearest kinsman. The fascinating thing about this (besides the fact that King David is descended from this woman) is that according to Levitical Law, King David's grandfather Obed should be reckoned as a descendant of Mahlon(!), Ruth's first husband, "to raise up the name of the dead upon HIS inheritance" (Ruth 4:5, 10). And we have NO IDEA of his ancestry beyond his parents names!

All of this goes against something else FieryFemme said, viz. that prior to this century and DNA testing people did not know who the father was. Absolute knowledge was irrelevant. The PRIMARY concern was who the father was. The mother was more or less incidental. Abraham is another good example. You never hear the O.T. patriarchs refer to the children of Sarah and yet we are absolutely sure that Isaac was her child! Likewise with Tamar. Judah (or the Scriptures) could have conjectured that if she had "slept around" once (with her father-in-law), then there was no guarantee that those boys might not be somebody elses... After all, isn't that what the Jews use to accuse Mary the mother of Jesus?

No, the normative practise of ascribing ethnic, spiritual and political preferences from the father to the mother was changed ONLY AFTER the destruction of Jerusalem and her records when the point should have become mute. The Lord saw fit to only maintain One Person's genealogy after that generation... Everyone else who denied/denies that Jesus is The Christ was considered a "liar" (1 John 2:22) anyway, and we know the paternity of all of those guys (John 8:44)!

Basing heritage on Matrilineal descent was a convenient out for first-century Jews and has continued to serve them well when need be, BUT again it only gets one so far as long as their theology also passes muster!

Grace and Peace,
--C

P.S. Bathsheba (what was she, the 8th wife!?), as well as King David, should have been stoned for their adultery and her son should have never inherited the throne seeing as how he wasn't the first, second, third or even fourth-born son but the 10th! Just as Judah himself received genealogical preference even though he was the 4th son (Reuben, Simeon and Levi having been passed over), and the Scriptures themselves having accorded the "birthright" to Joseph, the 11th son (1 Chron 5:1-2). Have I ever said how much I *love* the doctrine of unconditional election...?!?! :wink:

[Timothy Leary]

I think you guys are missing the point! Jews (no matter which branch) don't have any authority to speak to these matters.

Actually, I'm not. Before I continue, do you know what Karaim/Karaites are, and what we believe, and how we come to those beliefs?

they've broken The Law by the fact that they did not remain separate from the nations and did not maintain their genealogies as commanded by God.

Please provide a scriptural reference for that command. There is no specific command to keep records of our genealogy, though it is definitely helpful.


Outside of a covenant relationship they are (or have become) just like the rest of the nations.

Luckily, we have a covenant still.


Consider this man, the ancient Jews not only had the descendant of David, The Messiah, in their midst - they had the very Son of God! and what did they care for that!?! (What do they care today?)

The term 'son of god' is not exclusive to any one person.

[Timothy Leary]

The problem with this issue is that some people equate Old Testament Law or norms with "Judaism" (ancient or modern). Juda-ism was/is a theological construct. It is what Paul calls "the Jews' religion" in Gal 1:13-14. What was Divine Law or even normative under the Old Covenant is not the same thing as a theology constructed to suit the whims or interests of a particular group.

The same could be said about any "religion" - be it Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, etc. Using the defintion of Judaism you quoted - "The Jews' religion" - True Judaism is practiced when we follow the Torah's commands properly, thus the phrase "Torah True Judaism".


But it is not true (contrary to modern Judaism) that "the mother's lineage established the tribe."

Modern Judaism? IMHO, that's lumping all the "sects" of Judaism into one. Which sect are you reffering to?

which by The Law should have excluded her descendants from entering the congregation for 10 generations,

What does the phrase, 'enter into the congregations of YHVH', mean to you?


Basing heritage on Matrilineal descent was a convenient out for first-century Jews and has continued to serve them well when need be, BUT again it only gets one so far as long as their theology also passes muster!

Not all first century Jews adopted that pratice.


P.S. Bathsheba (what was she, the 8th wife!?), as well as King David, should have been stoned for their adultery and her son should have never inherited the throne seeing as how he wasn't the first, second, third or even fourth-born son but the 10th! Just as Judah himself received genealogical preference even though he was the 4th son (Reuben, Simeon and Levi having been passed over), and the Scriptures themselves having accorded the "birthright" to Joseph, the 11th son (1 Chron 5:1-2). Have I ever said how much I *love* the doctrine of unconditional election...?!?! :wink:

That's a huge subject all on it's own. Perhaps I'll start a thread on it later.

[Cherith]

Please provide a scriptural reference for that command. There is no specific command to keep records of our genealogy, though it is definitely helpful.

Luckily, we have a covenant still.

I really don't want to detract from what I've already said and get bogged down in mindless details that mean nothing. With that in mind, I would like to respond to these two points by Yosh.

First, the ancient Israelites were in a covenant with God based on their familial relationship to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. This, on its face, provided them without enough of an incentive to maintain their pedigree. But what, after all, do you believe all those genealogies are for anyway? Filler space?!?

Second, I believe that I had already pointed out that the Lord had commanded these "children" to maintain their pedigrees for inheritance purposes. When the children of Israel went in to possess the land of Canaan the amount of land they were given was based upon the size of the individual tribe. (By this standard, those turkeys in Palestine "who say they are Jews and are not but do lie [and] are The Synagogue of Satan" - Rev 2:9; 3:9 - have NO right to ANY territory BECAUSE they cannot prove their tribal affiliation. Which further makes all this nonsense about mothers and tribes incredibly funny. They couldn't claim a tribe as theirs if they wanted to!) And if one didn't maintain their genealogy then what would be the point of referring to the descendants of Israel as "tribes" at all!?! Tribes of what?!? Families! Reubenites, Danites, Gadites, Benjamites, etc. Compare this with the account of the daughters of Zelophehad (Joseph's descendants through Manasseh) in Numbers 36.

Third, they were commanded to be reckoned by genealogy for military purposes, priestly/levitical purposes, birthright/inheritance purposes - especially in the case of the kingly line, etc. Even the prophets are typically introduced by a reference to their pedigree.

Fourth, how many references would it take to convince you neighbor? One, two, three? (In like manner, how many references to Israel being a "zanah" would it take before you would be convinced that she broke her union with God!?) I'll include one:

Neh 7:5, 64: "And my God put into mine heart to gather together the nobles, and the rulers, and the people, that they might be reckoned by genealogy. And I found a register of the genealogy of them which came up at the first, and found written therein" ...{64} "These sought their register among those that were reckoned by genealogy, but it was not found: therefore were they, as polluted, put from the priesthood."

Not just "the nobles" or "the rulers" were registered according to their family tree, but all "the people" as well! Even such mundane positions as gatekeepers, musicians, etc. held their posts ACCORDING TO their pedigree (see 1 Chron 9:22; 15:16ff; 2 Chron 7:6; 31:16-19). And the Levites (who had no territorial inheritance "for the Lord is their Inheritance" - Deut 10:9; 12:12; 14:29; Josh 13:14, 33)

But, as for your point that "Israel" is still in covenant with God, I would ask you to please explain how that is...!?

--C

"So ALL Israel were reckoned by genealogies; and, behold, they were written in the book of the kings of Israel and Judah, who were carried away to Babylon for their transgression." --1 Chr 9:1

"The LORD...Keeps Covenant...with those who LOVE Him and KEEP His COMMANDMENTS." --Deut 7:9-11

[kofh2u]

because Jesus didn't have a biological father, Luke traced His lineage through Mary to show that his is a Jew both through his who were also ancestors of Israel's greatest king.

The AiG article [url=http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4304news5-16-2000.asp]Genesis correctly predicts Y-Chromosome pattern: Jews and Arabs shown to be descendants of one man!

1) Thanxs for the url on Abraham.
2) You are wrong about the reason for Matt 1:1-19 lineage and the Luke 3, seemingly, inconsistencies.
3) Another genetic find supports a link between the Cohanim priesthood established by Moses according to Numbers and the Jews of today who still hold that special name, Cohen.

Applying the techniques of modern genetis to members of the ancient
institution known as the Cohanim, the Jewish priesthood which predates
the present system of Rabbi, genetics has allowed them to trace their origins back 3300 years.

Beginning with Aaron, priestly status has been passed down through the
ages, from fathers to sons through word of mouth. To this day, all the
Cohanim are seen as descendants of Aaron, not just figuratively but by
blood. Many, but not all, have the surname Cohen, Kohen, Cohn, Kohn,
Cone, Kone, Cahn, Kahn or Kahane. (Cohan in Hebrew means priest.)

In Orthodox and some Conservative congregations, they are accorded
special respect and are the only ones who can perform certain important
religious duties. The Cohanim Blessing is made by holding the hand with a split between the ring finger and the middle finger- a gesture
decidedly similar in posture to the greeting of Dr. Spock's hand on
"Star Trek."

The test examined certain portions of the Y-chromosome, which, like the
priestly distinction, belongs only to men, and is passed strictly from
father to son. As the researchers reported in the journal Lancet, the
men who had been told they were Cohanim shared certain distinctive
genetic traits, indicating that they may represent a single line tracing
back to one male forebearer, perhaps even Aaron.

Important to the dating of the time of Exodus, some Rabbis are quick to
point out, the study not only confirms the genetic links among Cohanim, it also validates the reliability of the word-of-mouth, father -to- son transmission of the priesthood. It confirms that the Jewish people have for 3300 years maintained their authenticity and familial integrity. In this, the record measuring 3300 years we have an independent measurement of time, one which sets the date of the Exodus, during the life time of Aaron, at @1200BC.

[Cherith]

1)Thanxs for the url on Abraham.

I had said in another thread:

I cannot believe that a Christian - much less a Christian Creationist-website - would appeal to such inconclusive, biased, evolutionary drivel!

I read Dr. Hammer, et. al.'s paper and that is the best that I can say about it. (Have you read it Socrates? Or have you just read their conclusions reguritated by Answers In Genesis? And what eschatological ax do they have to grind, I wonder...? :huh: )

In case you need the link it is: http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/97/12/6769. Just a few items should suffice to question AIG's conclusions:

1) The study itself lacked was conducted on evolutionary principles. (See the several comments about "natural selection" under the Introduction. The reference to "homologous NRY sequences from great apes" and "evolutionary relationships" in the Results section for examples. Note also that the lead researcher works in the "Laboratory of Molecular Systematics and Evolution" at the Univ. of Arizona.)

2) The study's conclusion begged the question. It concluded that Jews and non-Jews "descended from a common Middle-Eastern ancestral population." Well, duh! Have they not ever heard of Noah? The problem is (besides the fact that we don't know if Noah wasn't a widower twice before his youngest son was born and he and his "wife," singular, entered the ark...) that the researchers are presupposing this link to be Abraham when they have no genetic material by which to make this comparision. There are no direct male descendants of Abraham who can document their ancestry for comparision against modern claimants and there isn't any genetic material from a grave or such that is identifiably Abraham's. So, the study's conclusion is flawed from the get-go.

3) Two of the researchers are Israelis. Do you not think that their conclusions would tend toward substantiating a genetic claim to the land they now possess?

I could go on and rip that study apart phrase-by-phrase, but I trust that this is sufficient to dissuade a Christian from being a Jewish apologist for an evolutionary study on genetics?


2) You are wrong about the reason for Matt 1:1-19 lineage and the Luke 3, seemingly, inconsistencies.

I didn't see where Socrates stated a reason for the N.C. lineages, their "seemingly [sic] inconsistencies," or even that he mentioned Matt's account. (I'm not sure "I" would have denied the "biology" of Jesus' Paternity, but anyway...)


3) Another genetic find supports a link between the Cohanim priesthood established by Moses according to Numbers and the Jews of today who still hold that special name, Cohen. Applying the techniques of modern genetics to members of the ancient institution known as the Cohanim, the Jewish priesthood which predates the present system of Rabbi, genetics has allowed them to trace their origins back 3300 years.

Whoa cowboy :cowboy:! Look at what YOU just said:

1) HOW can modern genetics "apply" their techniques to "members of the ancient institution"? The members of that ancient institution are dead without any clearly definable graves and/or biological substance upon which to "apply" modern genetic techniques. (There are some studies being carried out on some ancient ancestors, but even they have problems of their own in that department.) IF you are trying to EQUATE/IDENTIFY/MAKE EQUAL the ancient members of the priesthood with those who today SIMPLY PROFESS a connection, then you have made a tremendous leap that sound logic can't bear!

2) Your inclusion of the phrase "the Jewish priesthood which predates the present system of Rabbi" is instructive in itself! Think about it. IF the Jewish priesthood HAD continued uninterrupted throughout these 2,000+ years, THEN there would have been no reason for the rabbinical system to have usurped the levitical system. Since it has, it stands to reason that we have no guarantee those who presently (or in the past) have simply called themselves or thought themselves to be somebody actually makes them somebody! That was my whole point in another post regarding Ezra and Nehemiah's day. Those Jews had only been living outside of the promised land for 70 years and yet they couldn't account for their heritage. Oh, they BELIEVED they were descendants of Aaron, but without REAL, GENEALOGICAL proof "they were rejected as defiled."

3) Also your statement that "genetics has allowed them to trace their origins back 3300 years" is a bald-faced lie. You might not have intended it as such, but there it is. All the DNA research has done is concluded that SOME of those who CLAIM to be "Cohen" have a common genetic marker. Other people who neither claim to be a Cohen or even a Jew also have this same genetic marker! Note:


"...it soon became apparent that the CMH is NØT specific to Jews or descendants of Jews. In a 1998 article in Science News, Dr. Skorecki indicated (in an interview) that some non-Jews also possess the Cohen markers, and that the markers are therefore not "unique or special". The CMH is very common among Iraqi Kurds, according to a 1999 study by C. Brinkmann, et. al. And in her 2001 article, Oppenheim wrote: "the dominant haplotype of the Muslim Kurds (haplotype 114) was only one microsatellite-mutation step apart from the CMH..." (Oppenheim 2001, page 1100). Furthermore, the CMH is also found among some Armenians, according to Dr. Levon Yepiskoposyan (Head of the Institute of Man in Yerevan, Armenia), who has studied genetics for many years. Dr. Avshalom Zoossmann-Diskin wrote: "The suggestion that the 'Cohen modal haplotype' is a signature haplotype for the ancient Hebrew population is also NØT supported by data from other populations." (Zoossmann-Diskin 2000, page 156)."

Skorecki and Oppenheim are two of the original scientists your link uses to support their hypothesis!

One other thing and I'll lay off for now. Do you know how many ancestors a person would have in 3,000 years? Each person has 2 parents (whether they survive or raise them is irrelevant; biologically each person MUST have 2 parents). So starting with you as the first generation, the second generation would be 2 (your father and your mother). The third generation would be double that - i.e. 4 (your paternal grandparents and your maternal grandparents). The next generations also double, so the fourth generation would have 8 great-grandparents (each paternal grandparent has 2 parents - 2x2=4; and each maternal grandparent has 2 parents - 2x2=4; 4+4=8). See how that works? Let me just do the math and show you that way:

1st generation = 1 person
2nd generation = 2 people (your mother and father)
3rd generation = 4 people (your grandparents - living or not they contributed to the gene pool)
4th generation = 8 people (your great-grandparents)
5h generation = 16 people (your great-great-grandparents; getting the picture?)
6th generation = 32 people (appx 200 yrs)
7th generation = 64 people
8th generation = 128 people
9th generation = 256 people (appx 320 yrs; most Americans can get back at least this far with federal or state census and tax records)
10th generation = 512 people
11th generation = 1,024 people
12th generation = 2,048 people
13th generation = 4,096 people (appx 480 yrs or A.D. 1524)
14th generation = 8,192 people
15th generation = 16,384 people
16th generation = 32,768 people
17th generation = 65,536 people
18th generation = 131,072 people
19th generation = 262,144 people
20th generation = 524,288 people
21st generation = 1,048,576 people (appx 800 yrs or c.1204; my ancestor #1,720,640 is Richard Dennis b. 1380. He was married to Alice Cristenstow who was 13 yrs younger. Their son Walter was born in 1414 and married Isod Durnford. Her father's name was Stephen Durnford who was born in 1391 and is my ancestor #1,720,642)
22nd generation = 2,097,152 people
23rd generation = 4,194,304 people
24th generation = 8,388,608 people
25th generation = 16,777,216 people
26th generation = 33,554,432 people (or appx 1,000 yrs! Thats 33 million ancestors that I've had! My ancestor #27,530,270 was Richard Chiderlegh who was born abt 1293)

32nd generation = 4,294,967,296 people (4 Billion Ancestors in appx 1280 yrs; still 10 generations short of the length of Jesus' recorded genealogy! - see Matt 1:17)

35th generation = 34,359,738,368 people (or appx 1400 yrs)

Now 35 generations or 1400 yrs ago only gets us back to A.D. 604. These modern Jews who are clinging to a shred of infererence and assumption still need at least another 1900 yrs to go! (I'll let you do the math...) But suffice it to say, a mere 70 years in Babylon was too much for most. And that was only the Levites that had remained with the 2 southern tribes. Those who had earlier abandoned the covenant and thrown in their lot with the 10 northern tribes were lost to history much earlier...

Now you don't really want to propose that modern science can put Humpty Dumpty back together again do you...? That's not something even all The Kings' horses and all The Kings' men could accomplish. Ahhh... but to cling to our modern fairy-tales we may even be willing even to succumb to this!

Grace and Peace,
--C

BTW, I think my oldest known ancestors on one of my father's branches is #44,294,864 - Otis L'Arcedekne of France who died in 1290 and his beautiful wife, a nice young girl from the Amice family(#44,294,865). Both in the 29th generation. Oh, but was it "France" then or something else...? And just think, less than a 100 yrs prior Saladin was conquering Jerusalem for the Muslims.

[geebob]

so what do you do with Paul's statement that the calling of the Jews is irrevocable in romans 11?

[Cherith]

so what do you do with Paul's statement that the calling of the Jews is irrevocable in romans 11?

¡Hola! Geebob. My initial reaction to your post was one of pleasant surprise - because you were the one to respond and because Romans is my favorite book, especially 9-11, but then after contemplating how best to answer you I suddenly became very "weary in well-doing." So. How best to answer you...

Well, how do you typically respond to someone who posits a non-existent verse? :blush: What can one "do" with that!?! I understood the jist of what you meant and thought to quip initially "believe it?," but how can I do that? The Text does NØT say "the gifts and the calling of the Jews is irrevocable" but,

"The Gifts and Calling OF God are irrevocable."

Being a Calvinist (and yes, I know that you're not), this verse gives me a LOT of comfort because I interpret it as a reference to the Sovereign, Unconditional Election of God in Salvation (which incidentally, I believe is the doctrine being posited in Rom 9-11). It is His election of SOME individuals for salvation - based upon nothing that they do or is foreseen by God - that is irrevocable. It is the basis upon which the Calvinist (one who literally believes the Bible :teeth:) can subscribe to the doctrine of Preservation/Perserverance of the saints. God calls (the doctrine of election) and based upon His Choice and Character (i.e. that His gifts/calling are irrevocable) the saint can be eternally assured. (Which is quite different than the doctrine of Eternal Security.)

I know this is not what you wanted and I fear that we are going to have to discuss Romans 9-11 verse by verse since it is an indivisible pericope. (Which, incidentally, I would love to do.)

Paul's entire reason for writing 9-11 was to posit that:

1) he has a burden and love for his own - that SOME of them MIGHT be saved

2) but IF not, THEN it's not as if they were clueless OR unaccountable

3) but ultimately there's only one way to be saved (for Jew or Gentile) - by Divine Choice through faith

add to this all of the conditional, subjunctive language and violá - NØ FUTURE HOPE for a now non-existent family-group, but continual hope for anyone of any people group.

What people like you are proposing sounds to my ears like "Why CAN'T the Vikings be saved!?!" Hello. Because the Vikings no longer exist as a people group!

What other ancient, now non-existent people would you procure out of thin air? The Chaldeans? The Persians? The Medes? The Amalekites? The Midianites? The Elamites? The Babylonians? The Magyars? The Khazars? The Moabites? The Philistines?

I can't believe after all the genealogical impossibilities that I've set forth that someone could still answer, "Yeah, but..." John Doe Cohen's 33 billion ancestors would have had to be faithful to the covenant restrictions, and yet the ancient "cohens" - who ACTUALLY HAD a covenant relationship - couldn't maintain their faithfulness for a mere 70 years (a generation or two)!

And surely you don't suggest that ALL Jews throughout all generations are called/chosen in the ultimate sense? So why presuppose that ALL Jews in some fairy-tale future will be "called"/"chosen"?

Remember, there is only ONE Way of Salvation. All must enter through The Narrow Door... We are saved based on something that ALREADY occurred - NØT something that WILL occur IN THE FUTURE. Look at the Text!

Grace and Peace,
--C

[geebob]

how is that an explanation of this?

28As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies on your account; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, 29for God's gifts and his call are irrevocable.

so his gifts and calling are revocable because they didn't maintain their geneologies?

[Cherith]

Interpretative Key:
(there is some overlapping)

BLUE = Israel in a Generic sense
RED = Unbelieving Israel
GREEN = Believing Israel

Underline = The Sovereign Act(s) of God

Orange = Conditional, Subjunctive Mood


1 I say then, has God Cast Away His people? Certainly NØT! For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. 2God Has NØT Cast Away His people whom He Foreknew. Or do you NØT know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel, saying,

3"LORD, they have killed Your prophets and they have torn down Your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life"?

4But what does The Divine Response Say to him?

"I Have Reserved for Myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal."

5Even so then, at this present time there is a remnant according to the Election of Grace. 6And if BY Grace, then it is no longer OF works; otherwise Grace is no longer Grace. But IF it is OF works, it is no longer Grace; otherwise work is no longer work.

7What then? Israel has NØT obtained what it seeks; but the elect have obtained it, and the rest were blinded. 8Just as it is written:


"God Has Given them a spirit of stupor,
Eyes that they should NØT see
And ears that they should NØT hear,
To this very day."


9And David says:


"Let their table become a snare and a trap,
A stumbling block and a recompense to them.
10Let their eyes be darkened, so that they do NØT see,
And bow down their back always."

11 I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall [eternally; from outside the realm of God's Grace]? Certainly NØT! But through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, Salvation has come to the nations. 12Now if their fall is riches for the world, and their failure riches for the nations, how much more their fullness !

13For I speak to you nations; inasmuch as I am an apostle to the nations, I magnify my ministry, 14IF by any means I MAY provoke to jealousy those who are my flesh and save SOME of them. 15For IF their being cast away is the reconciling of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?

16For IF The Firstfruit is Holy, THEN the lump is also holy; and IF The Root is Holy, THEN so are the branches. 17And IF SOME of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them became a partaker of The Root AND fatness of The Olive Tree, 18do NØT boast against the branches. But IF you do boast, THEN remember that you do not support The Root, but The Root supports you.

19You will say then, "Branches were broken off that I MIGHT be grafted in." 20Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you standy BY faith. [You] Do NØT be haughty, but fear. 21FOR if God did NØT spare the natural branches, He MAY NØT spare you either. 22Therefore consider the Goodness and Severity of God: on those who fell, Severity; but toward you, Goodness, IF you continue in His Goodness. Otherwise you ALSO will be cut off. 23And they also, IF they do NØT continue in unbelief, THEN they will be grafted in, for God is Able to graft them in again. 24For IF you were cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and you were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, who are natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?

25For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this Mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the nations has come in. 26And SO all Israel will be Saved, as it is written:


"The Deliverer Will Come out of Zion,
And He Will Turn Away ungodliness from Jacob;
27FOR this is My Covenant with them,
WHEN I Take Away their sins."


28Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers. 29For The Gifts and The Calling of God are irrevocable. 30For as you were once disobedient to God, yet you have now obtained Mercy THROUGH their disobedience , 31even so these also have now been disobedient, that THROUGH the Mercy shown you they also MAY obtain Mercy. 32For God Has Committed them all to disobedience, that He MIGHT Have Mercy on all [who believe].

33Oh, The Depth of The Riches both of The Wisdom and Knowledge of God! How Unsearchable are His Judgments and His Ways past finding out!


34"For who has known The Mind of The LORD?
Or who has become His counselor?"
35"Or who has first given to Him
And it shall be repaid to him?"


36For OF Him and THROUGH Him and to Him are all things, to Whom be Glory forever. Amen.

[Cherith]

Just to clarify:


Romans 11:7 "Israel has NØT obtained what it seeks; but the elect have obtained it, and the rest were blinded."

"And SO" (or IN THIS MANNER) "ALL 'Israel' will be Saved, as it is written:


Romans 11:26-27 "The Deliverer Will Come out of Zion, and He Will Turn Away ungodliness from Jacob/Israel/the people of God; [Why?] BECAUSE/FOR this is My Covenant with them, when I Take Away their sins."

The Coming of The Deliverer is NØT something that is to occur in the future. It is something that the apostle Paul is pointing to that happened to in the past, with the First Advent. It is THROUGH faith in Christ's First Coming that Jacob/Israel/the people of God are saved. This is when a person's sins are taken away - when they believe. And this is the only way and means of Salvation - for "Jew" or "Gentile."

My point is that the terms "Jew" and "Gentile" are now passé. "Concerning the gospel they WERE enemies" of the early church (comprised initially of fellow Jews!), "but concerning the election" (or choice of God) "they WERE beloved for the sake of the fathers."

The Gifts and The Calling of God ARE irrevocable, BUT when Moses (like Paul in Rom 9:3) wished that God would forgive them despite their spiritual infidelities - even going so far as to tell the Lord to blot his name out of the book of life - the Lord still said no: "Whoever has sinned against Me, I Will Blot him out of My Book." (Exo 3232-33) God had chosen/elected Israel, yet that was only an outward call. The inward salvific call comes only with the New Birth through the New Covenant. Only in this way can man remain in covenant with a Holy God.


"The LORD...Keeps Covenant...with those who LOVE Him and KEEP His Commandments and He Repays those who HATE Him to their face to destroy them. He Will NØT Be Slack with those who hate Him; He Will Repay them to their face..." --Deut 7:9-11

After God chose Abraham, Isaac and Jacob His election was initially (and primarily) based on familial relationships or "on account of the patriarchs," but don't forget Paul had already clarified who that "seed" was in Romans 4 and 9:


Rom 4:13-16: "For The Promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was NØT to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness OF faith. {14} For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and The Promise made of none effect: ... {16} Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end The Promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is OF The Faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,"

Rom 9:7-8: "Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: ... {8} That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are NØT the children of God: but the children of The Promise are COUNTED FOR the seed."

Or in his letter to the Galatians:


Gal 3:16, 29: "Now to Abraham and his Seed were The Promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of One, And to thy Seed, which is Christ." ...{29} "And IF ye be Christ's, THEN are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to The Promise."

Gal 4:29: "But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now."

This also explains the seeming double-speak that Jesus is engaged in with the Jews in John 8:37, 39 and 44 where He says "I know that you are Abraham's seed... {39} "IF you WERE Abraham's children..." {44} "Ye are of your father the devil..."

So, are "His Gifts and Calling revocable because they didn't maintain their genealogies." I would say yes. Because although it was a good covenant it was also a faulty covenant that Israel was required to keep but couldn't. Under that covenant the "calling" of God was mostly external. The same type of general call that the whole world hears. Whereas under the New Covenant the "calling" of God is wholly internal. It is The Law or Commandments of God "in the inward part" that He Writes "upon our hearts" (Jer 31:31-34).

Israel had repeatedly broken their covenant with God (Jer 31:32). Therefore He was under no obligation to the patriarchs (also Paul's point in Rom 9:27; 11:5). The dissolution of the nation/family of Israel was well underway prior to the first century writings of Paul, but immediately thereafter they - like their northern brothers centuries before them - also ceased to be a distinguishable people and were absorbed into the nations around them. Today nothing exists but "the nations" and "the people of God" - the "Gentiles" (if you will) and "Israel". We are that people - not biologically as British-Israelism or Zionism puts forth, but in the only way that matters - "those that have obtained like precious faith with us through The Righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ" (2 Pet 1:1).

Grace and Peace,
--C

[geebob]

So, are "His Gifts and Calling revocable because they didn't maintain their genealogies."

seems to me that revocable and irrevocable are exclusive categories.

Therefore He was under no obligation to the patriarchs (also Paul's point in Rom 9:27; 11:5).

yes paul explains all that and yet afterwords he still says that the gifts are irrevocable. and he doesn't use the past tense. If he used the past tense, I'd believe you. He goes to great lengths to explain God's shift in election to the israel as you've labored to demonstrate and yet he says that the call of these people is still in order, irrevocable no less. Paul is no where near the conclusion you've reached.

My point is that the terms "Jew" and "Gentile" are now passé. "Concerning the gospel they WERE enemies" of the early church (comprised initially of fellow Jews!), "but concerning the election" (or choice of God) "they WERE beloved for the sake of the fathers."

IF you have to change scripture to argue your point, you've pretty much lost the scriptural arguement.

[Cherith]

yes paul explains all that and yet afterwords he still says that the gifts are irrevocable. and he doesn't use the past tense. If he used the past tense, I'd believe you. He goes to great lengths to explain God's shift in election to the israel as you've labored to demonstrate and yet he says that the call of these people is still in order, irrevocable no less. Paul is no where near the conclusion you've reached.

IF you have to change scripture to argue your point, you've pretty much lost the scriptural arguement.

I'm not changing Scripture to argue a point. I'm merely pointing out that what was true in Paul's day is not necessarily true in ours. From our perspective those terms are passé.

Concerning what you said above I would simply ask WHO are "these people" - the NATURAL seed of Abraham or the SPIRITUAL seed of Abraham that is the true elect? And "elect" for what purpose if not Salvation? The elect = the Israel of God. There are no other contenders!

Remember the golden chain...

Rom 8:29-32: "For whom He did Foreknow, he also did Predestinate to be conformed to The Image of His Son, that He might be The Firstborn among many brethren. {30} Moreover whom He did Predestinate, them He also Called: and whom He Called, them He also Justified: and whom He Justified, them He also Glorified. {31} What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us? {32} He that spared NØT His Own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He NØT with Him also freely give us all things?"

[geebob]

I'm not changing Scripture to argue a point. I'm merely pointing out that what was true in Paul's day is not necessarily true in ours. From our perspective those terms are passé.

irrevocable means not subject to change.

Concerning what you said above I would simply ask WHO are "these people" - the NATURAL seed of Abraham or the SPIRITUAL seed of Abraham that is the true elect? And "elect" for what purpose if not Salvation? The elect = the Israel of God. There are no other contenders!

Remember the golden chain...

after paul outlines who "these people" are, he still says of physical israel that their calling is irrevocable. You go to great lengths to show from paul's arguement that the distinction of jew and gentile are passe. Paul doesn't draw that conclusion from his own writing as absolute. He still draws the conclusion that they have a calling and gifts that are irrevocable. So his picture is more complex than merely suggesting that the distinction is dissolved. In a sense it is dissolved as Christ opens the door for all people to enter into israel and calls a new people his people who are from the jews and gentiles. In another sense, these enemies who reject the gospel have a calling and gifts that are irrevocable. for anyone reading through this thread, I would by no means want this status of "enmity" of the jewish people to the gospel be construed as a basis for anti-semitism

Your frequent refferencing to verses like romans 8:28 does not help your case when paul finishes a section posterior to that with a statement that the calling of the enemies of the gospel, specifically physical israel have a calling and have gifts that are irrevocable.

as for the geneological issue, it is a problem for the priesthood and it is an epistemic problem. But it is only an epistemic problem when you hold to enlightenment standards for knowledge. And once we realize the faultiness of those standards, the problem shrinks. Science doesn't work that way. Real human knowledge almost always has some epistemic risk involved and contemporary philosophy of science has come to terms with that.


as for 1 chron 9:1. It seems descriptive, not prescriptive. It is no doubt the case that many of the jews even in paul's day could not trace back their geneologies, and yet the new testament writers to my knowledge did not make such an arguement to weaken the claim. Perhaps I'm wrong and you know of such an arguement? They could've used such an arguement to strengthen the claim of the legitimacy of what the apostle's called the "true" israel over fleshly israel as you seem to be doing.

[Cherith]

Mmm... elect, elect... Who are THE elect...? Oh, I know!

ekklesia = The Called-Out Ones

No. THAT can't be right! :shrug:

Let's see...

"And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened." --Matt 24:22

Who are "the elect" in this passage?

It could not be all Jews everywhere (the nation) because those outside of Judea were not immediately threatened by the destruction of AD 70.

It could not have even been all the unbelieving Jews in Jerusalem, because the vast majority perished or were enslaved.

The elect could only have been the believing Jews who Providentially escaped "the tribulation of those days".

50%

As for "the elect" being "beloved for the fathers' sakes," the majority of the nation/descendants of Israel were "chosen" in a temporal sense and and NØT in the eternal or ultimate sense. They were "beloved," as Paul says, based SOLELY on the basis of God's Love for the patriarchs:

Deu 4:37: "And because He Loved thy fathers, therefore He Chose their seed after them, and brought thee out in His Sight with His Mighty Power out of Egypt;"

Deu 10:15: "Only the LORD had a delight in thy fathers to love them, and He chose their seed after them, even you above all people, as it is this day."

Acts 13:17: "The God of this people of Israel chose our fathers, and exalted the people when they dwelt as strangers in the land of Egypt, and with an high arm brought he them out of it."

Deu 7:7-11: "The LORD did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people: {8} But because the LORD loved you, and because He would keep the oath which He had sworn unto your fathers, hath the LORD brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt. {9} Know therefore that the LORD thy God, He is God, the Faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that LOVE Him and KEEP His Commandments to a thousand generations; {10} And Repayeth them that hate Him to their face, to destroy them: He will not be slack to him that hateth Him, He will repay him to his face. {11} Thou shalt therefore keep the commandments, and the statutes, and the judgments, which I command thee this day, to do them."

As for God "revoking" His Gifts and Calling, let me ask you a two-fold question.

First, Paul sets forth the gifts that the temporal nation/descendants of Israel enjoyed in Rom 9:4 - the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, the promises, etc. Since the destruction of both the outward accoutrements and the filling up of the spiritual promises in the New Covenant - particularly "the gift of God [which] is eternal life" (Rom 6:23) what "gifts" of God do modern Jews still enjoy? Or to put it another way, which gifts have NØT been "revoked"?

I understand that "irrevocable" means "not subject to change," but you see, I don't believe that ultimately God "changed" His Gifts or His Calling. Under the Old Covenant God chose Israel in a typical sense. The true Israel of God - i.e. believers - still enjoy the gifts Paul previously set forth but in a fuller, wider sense! These gifts can only find their fulfillment in the New Covenant.

Second, must something that is no longer viable be "revoked"? Let me give you an example. In this country when a person buys a piece of property the contract states that the property becomes that of the new owner and "their heirs and assigns forever." Now, if a person dies without heirs then the property reverts to the state's control to do with whatever they want. Remember Ruth and Boaz? If Boaz (or some other near kinsman) had not redeemed the property of Ruth's first husband then it would have either reverted to the nation/state or possibly lain fallow. The Lord had commanded that the people were to inherit land according to their tribal affliation and He provided strict laws regarding inheritance and tampering with landmarks. The Lord said in Lev 25:23 that the land was His and that the nation of Israel were foreigners and mere tenants on His Land. So the Lord was in a very real sense the Government and the State. When people died without heirs (or broke the covenant) the contract became null and void (invalid) and the land reverted to God to dispose of as He saw fit (sometimes through enemy subjugation). Now, if there are no "heirs" - i.e. ethnic descendants of Israel in the world today then there is no Calling that can be revoked. Over time the "contract" simply became null and void. There is no blame to be placed on God for their unfaithfulness in not maintaining the family/ethnic unit.

This is not rocket-science and if you could set aside your pseudo-intellectualism for one momemt then perhaps you could see that. 1+1=2 (parents) 2+2=4 (grandparents) and so on. How many descendants of Jacob in a sea of ethnicity does it take to equal one Israelite? Or to put it another way, how many non-Israelite ancestors can one have and still be considered a Jew - the "praise" of God? One (a practicing mother)? Two out of four? Or 17 out of 33 billion? Next you'll be telling us - likewise without any proof - that little green men exist! (Hey, maybe THEY are the descendants of Jacob!?!)

50%

Of course the terms Jew and Gentile were NØT yet passé when Paul wrote Romans, but like the writer to the Hebrews affirms of the covenant that created the distinction, they had alredy been "made old" and were "decaying and waxing old" and "READY to vanish away" (Heb 8:13).

50%

And what was the extent of their calling in the first place?

??» A temporal means for bringing the Saviour into the world (Rom 9:5; Gal 4:4).

?» A temporal means for His didactic purposes (1 Cor 10:6, 11; Heb 8:5; James 5:10).

» A temporal blessing to the patriarchs (Deut 4:37, 10:15, 7:7-11; Acts 13:17).

» A temporal means of blessing the world by their example (at which they failed miserably; too lazy to look up the references).

If there is some other aspect of their "calling" that still needs to be fulfilled, then pray tell us all what it is?

Because Paul goes to great pains to prove to us that those unbelieving Jews were never chosen in the truest sense of the word. There election was only a temporal, outward benefit. It is only the gifts and calling bestowed upon the true Israel of God that are without repentence - i.e. not subject to change.

"And say unto them, Thus saith The Lord GOD; Behold, I will take the children of Israel from among the heathen, whither they be gone, and will gather them on every side, and bring them into their own land: {22} And I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel; and one King shall be King to them all: and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all: {23} Neither shall they defile themselves any more with their idols, nor with their detestable things, nor with any of their transgressions: but I will save them out of all their dwellingplaces, wherein they have sinned, and will cleanse them: so shall they be My people, and I will be their God. {24} And David My servant shall be King over them; and they all shall have one Shepherd: they shall also walk in My judgments, and observe My statutes, and do them. {25} And they shall dwell in the Land that I have given unto Jacob My servant, wherein your fathers have dwelt; and they shall dwell therein, even they, and their children, and their children's children for ever: and My servant David shall be their Prince for ever." --Ezek 37:21-25

I guess this is future for the natural seed of Jacob too!? King David will rise from the dead and sit forever upon his throne in Jerusalem.

[geebob]

what "gifts" of God do modern Jews still enjoy? Or to put it another way, which gifts have NØT been "revoked"?

I don't understand all those gifts and I don't believe that you do either. In what sense did faithless israel of whom paul was writting about have the "divine glory"? and yet he said that was their gift. So he goes on to explain that that not all israel are israel. Well then, he had no reason to have unceasing grief for those people whom belonged the "adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises." So it looks like the simple suggestion that God was changing his covenant is not going to cut it to make a clear case against their identy as Jews.

Now, if there are no "heirs" - i.e. ethnic descendants of Israel in the world today then there is no Calling that can be revoked.

their are ethnic heirs. they call themselves Jews. Sure there are differences "ethnically" but ethnic cultures are dynamic and many jews today have more contact with ancient jews then any other contemporary peoples have with their ancient ancestors.

I've seen your geneological arguement. It's horrendously bad. It hurts your case. statistically speaking, there may be a few Jews who have no geneological connection to abraham. The chance that one's parents are both "jewish" in the modern sense of ethinicity and yet not descended from abraham is vanishingly small (absurdly small) as your geneological records prove!! To suggest that one could have a hypothetical 33 million ancestors in the many of which extends into the jewish community and to suggest that they don't have a significant number who are descended from abraham is absurd. Of course with the Jewish tendency to encourage marrige within the jewish community, and plus the european antisemetic reinforcement of that, the number of ancestors is going to become way smaller, and it is going to be more predominantly jewish.

How many descendants of Jacob in a sea of ethnicity does it take to equal one Israelite?

why should this be an issue? surely you don't think that israel was soley decended from jacob at any time in it's history. surely you must understand that there was intermarrying of all the forign peoples from the sojourn in Egypt all the way to to the time of paul (and it wasn't all bad pagans taken into the nation that were not themselves converted.)

but lets see. Joseph took an egyptian wife, and his two children were considered sub-tribes within Joseph. so we're at 50/50. so what if one of those children had 10 kids, one married a convert that'd be a quarter decended from Jacob. and what if that couple had 10 more kids and one married a convert... and so on.

I don't know how many ancestors have to be descended from jacob to keep the identity and it doesn't even seem to be an issue.

Of course the terms Jew and Gentile were NØT yet passé when Paul wrote Romans, but like the writer to the Hebrews affirms of the covenant that created the distinction, they had alredy been "made old" and were "decaying and waxing old" and "READY to vanish away" (Heb 8:13).

well that time has certainly come. you certainly have nothing to teach me. (Heb 8:11)

Second, must something that is no longer viable be "revoked"?

on what basis is the ethic identity no longer viable? On the basis that they didn't keep the covenents? Paul didn't think so. He explained how ethnic israel had been faithless to it's covenent ("All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and obstinate people.") and yet he said of that very people "the gifts and calling are irrevocable." after he had to great lengths to explain that God was forming a new covenant.

On the basis that they don't have a temple or land? well their goes the babylonian captivity. On the basis that they didn't have there geneologies worked out? where is that necessary? It's necessary for priests and others in the temple, and geneology was instrumental in some cases but no where is it said that it is necessary for identity.

[Cherith]

I don't understand all those gifts and I don't believe that you do either.

Ho! Now you're going to presume to tell me what I understand and what I don't understand!?!

...[Paul] had no reason to have unceasing grief for those people...

And yet he did! IF Paul had no reason to have unceasing grief for his own kin then WHY did he? He had unceasing grief because - unlike you - he understood the difference between types and antitypes.

their are ethnic heirs.

Says your mere assertion only. NØT even close to what The Word of God says:

--Rom 4:14 "For IF they which are OF the law be heirs, THEN faith is made void, and The Promise made of NØNE effect:"

--Gal 3:29 "And IF ye be Christ's, THEN are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to The Promise."

--Rom 8:17 "And IF children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with Him, that we may be also glorified together."

--Titus 3:7 "That being justified by His Grace, we should be made heirs according to The Hope of Eternal Life."

--James 2:5 "Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God Chosen the poor of this world, rich in faith, and heirs of The Kingdom which He hath promised to them that love Him?" Cp. Deut 7:9-11!

Further, IF you believe that you can produce one red-blooded Hebrew descendant of Abraham, then bring it on. I think I'm pretty qualified as a genealogist to check their facts/sources. However, the onus is upon you (or them) to prove their claims. I have already given enough proof to indicate that their claims are fallacious, but hey, I could be wrong. All I'm asking is for ONE, just one...

they call themselves Jews.

Yeah and I could call myself the Emperor of West Virginia and offer it for sell on eBay! But you and I both know that wouldn't make it true. Listen to what Jesus, The Lion of the tribe, says:

--Rev 2:9 "I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are NØT, but are the synagogue of Satan."

--Rev 3:9 "Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are NØT, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee."

There weren't any British-Israelites running around back in the first century claiming a pedigree they couldn't substantiate, Geebob.

Sure there are differences "ethnically" but ethnic cultures are dynamic and many jews today have more contact with ancient jews then any other contemporary peoples have with their ancient ancestors.

Like many of your statements, this is completely nonsensical. HOW can "many Jews today" have "more contact with ancient Jews"?! By telepathy? Maybe by supersonic time travel? Given their mystic and occultic beliefs I wouldn't discount the use of a Ouiga board!

But have you stopped to consider what "ethnicity" meant historically? Ethnos is Greek for nation and meant a people whose origins (i.e. family group) was the same and who shared a linguistic, cultural and religious unity. Jews throughout the past two millennia have been extremely diverse and have shared almost none of these - particularly the national aspect!

I've seen your geneological arguement. It's horrendously bad. It hurts your case.

How so? Please offer some examples and not just assertion.

Statistically speaking, there may be a few Jews who have no geneological connection to abraham. The chance that one's parents are both "jewish" in the modern sense of ethinicity and yet not descended from abraham is vanishingly small (absurdly small) as your geneological records prove!!

Another nonsensical statement.

To suggest that one could have a hypothetical 33 million ancestors in the many of which extends into the jewish community and to suggest that they don't have a significant number who are descended from abraham is absurd.

What I put forth is NØT a mere "hypothetical" but an absolute, mathematical FACT which I went to great lengths to prove. As I've repeatedly said, I'm just looking for ONE... just one... Surely the almighty cohens should be able to produce ONE unbroken chain of descendants back to Aaron... just one...

Of course with the Jewish tendency to encourage marrige within the jewish community, and plus the european antisemetic reinforcement of that, the number of ancestors is going to become way smaller, and it is going to be more predominantly jewish.

Stupid, stupid argument. I can't believe I continue to engage such foolishness. The number of one's ancestors cannot become increasingly smaller! That's ridiculous! As for your fallacious use of "anti-semitic," that too is dependant upon descendancy from Shem - another fact which they can in NØ wise prove; therefore "antisemitism" is just another misnomer that they've co-opted for their propaganda.

why should this be an issue? surely you don't think that israel was soley decended from jacob at any time in it's history. surely you must understand that there was intermarrying of all the forign peoples from the sojourn in Egypt all the way to to the time of paul (and it wasn't all bad pagans taken into the nation that were not themselves converted.)

Understanding those things you intend as sentences must require a degree that hasn't yet been invented. Why should this be an issue? It shouldn't. The issue should have been settled with the writing of the apostles, the transfer of the New Covenant, and the destruction of Jerusalem and subsequent dismantling of "the children OF Israel." It continues to be an issue because of rampant Biblical illiteracy and Christians being duped by diSpENSATIONAList Zionism. One only needs to read Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho to see the clarity with which early Christian apologists understood the wonderful truth of The Gospel!

Do I think that Israel was "solely" descended from Jacob? Israel was Jacob, and that the "children OF Israel" were precisely that - his children! (and grandchildren, and great-grandchildren, etc...) Do I think that they intermarried. Of course. Therein lies my claim! Could "strangers" and "foreigners" come into the covenant? Sure. But NØT by blood. And then those same covenant laws were applicable to them as well - but they were still considered "outsiders," note:

"When you come to the land which the LORD your God is giving you, and possess it and dwell in it, and say, "I will set a king over me like all the nations that are around me,' {15} you shall surely set a king over you whom the LORD your God chooses; one from among your brethren you shall set as king over you; you shall NØT set a foreigner over you, who is NØT your brother." --Deut 17:14-15

"One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you." --Exo 12:49 (cp. "homeborn" w/"children of Israel" in Num 15:29; see also Lev 16:29; 17:12, 13, 15; 18:26; 24:22; 25:6; Num 9:14; 15:14-16; Deut 31:12; Ezek 47:21-23; the exception was the priesthood. cf. Num 18:1-7)

Add to this the prohibition to NØT marry outside the covenant and often NØT outside of their own tribe:

"...the wife of the dead shall NØT marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her." --Deu 25:5

"So shall NØT the inheritance of the children of Israel remove from tribe to tribe: for every one of the children of Israel shall keep himself to the inheritance of the tribe of his fathers. {8} And every daughter, that possesseth an inheritance in any tribe of the children of Israel, shall be wife unto one of the family of the tribe of her father, that the children of Israel may enjoy every man the inheritance of his fathers. {9} Neither shall the inheritance remove from one tribe to another tribe; but every one of the tribes of the children of Israel shall keep himself to his own inheritance." --Num 36:7-9

"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. {4} For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly." --Deu 7:3-4

"But if you turn away and ally yourselves with the survivors of these nations that remain among you and if you intermarry with them and associate with them, {13} then you may be sure that the LORD your God will no longer drive out these nations before you. Instead, they will become snares and traps for you, whips on your backs and thorns in your eyes, UNTIL YOU PERISH from this good land, which the LORD your God has given you." --Josh 23:12-13

"But now, O our God, what can we say after this? For we have disregarded the commands...do NØT give your daughters in marriage to their sons or take their daughters for your sons. Do not seek a treaty of friendship with them at any time...What has happened to us is a result of our evil deeds and our great guilt... {14} Shall we again break your commands and intermarry with the peoples who commit such detestable practices? Would You not be angry enough with us to destroy us, leaving us no remnant or survivor?..." --Ezra 9:10-15

"Then Shecaniah...said to Ezra, "We have been unfaithful to our God by marrying foreign women from the peoples around us..." --Ezra 10:2

"Then Ezra the priest stood up and said to them, "You have been unfaithful; you have married foreign women, adding to Israel's guilt." --Ezra 10:10

"Moreover, in those days I saw men of Judah who had married women from Ashdod, Ammon and Moab. {24} Half of their children spoke the language of Ashdod or the language of one of the other peoples, and did not know how to speak the language of Judah. {25} I rebuked them and called curses down on them. I beat some of the men and pulled out their hair. I made them take an oath in God's name and said: "You are not to give your daughters in marriage to their sons, nor are you to take their daughters in marriage for your sons or for yourselves. {26} Was it not because of marriages like these that Solomon king of Israel sinned? Among the many nations there was no king like him. He was loved by his God, and God made him king over all Israel, but even he was led into sin by foreign women. {27} Must we hear now that you too are doing all this terrible wickedness and are being unfaithful to our God by marrying foreign women?" --Neh 13:23-27

As I've labored to point out in numerous places before, the children of Israel couldn't separate themselves from the nations for a generation or two and yet you would have us believe that they have been faithful for 26 generations (33 billion ancestors) or even the greater number of 130 generations (back to Aaron)!!?!

The ONLY way a modern Jew could be assured of marrying "within the family" and NØT breaking God's Command by "interrmarry[ing] with the nations" would be to maintain their genealogy! This was precisely the problem that Ezra and Nehemiah faced among the remnant who returned to rebuild and they were considered the FAITHFUL! Modern Judaism is characterized by nothing if not their UNFAITHFULNESS.

And why the overwhelming grief of heart in Judges 21 for the Benjamites if marrying within "the family" were not a requirement?

Added to this is the prohibition to maintain their inheritance by tribal affliation (BTW, the tribes were a subset within Jacob/Israel's family). How can a modern Jew inherit any of these temporal blessings? On what basis do Israeli-Jews obtain land in Palestine - by tribal affliation?! What a joke!

I don't know how many ancestors have to be descended from jacob to keep the identity and it doesn't even seem to be an issue.

That just it. You know nothing. Not being an issue to you isn't the same as it being an "issue" with God as the string of verses that I quoted above prove.

on what basis is the ethic identity no longer viable? On the basis that they didn't keep the covenents? Paul didn't think so. He explained how ethnic israel had been faithless to it's covenent ("All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and obstinate people.") and yet he said of that very people "the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable." after he had to great lengths to explain that God was forming a new covenant.

On the basis that they don't have a temple or land? well their goes the babylonian captivity. On the basis that they didn't have there geneologies worked out? where is that necessary? It's necessary for priests and others in the temple, and geneology was instrumental in some cases but no where is it said that it is necessary for identity.

See Scripture passages and argumentation above.

[Timothy Leary]

Cherith, how about replying to my response to you in the thread you started 'Modern Jews - In Covenant with God?'? You did start the thread after all.

[geebob]

Ho! Now you're going to presume to tell me what I understand and what I don't understand!?!

then explain to me how the divine glory belonged to the Jews who rejected Jesus.

And yet he did!

that was my point. he did have unceasing grief for a people. the sarcasm was lost on you. What people? they broke the covenant. the people of whom he said "For IF they which are OF the law be heirs, THEN faith is made void, and The Promise made of NØNE effect:". (thanks for the scripture reference. so somehow there is a sense in which they lost the inheritance, and yet Paul has unceasing grief for this people you say should have no identity as a people. So paul does not agree with you that this totally eliminates their identity.

Says your mere assertion only. NØT even close to what The Word of God says:

--Rom 4:14 "For IF they which are OF the law be heirs, THEN faith is made void, and The Promise made of NØNE effect:"\

I spoke of ethnic heirs. that is a heritage that Paul still ascribes to the Jewish people. See Romans 9:3-5

What I put forth is NØT a mere "hypothetical" but an absolute, mathematical FACT

no, you presume that no couple in the tree shares an ancestor. inbreeding is an inevitability for any people groups.

you know in korea, many people shacks up instead of getting married. it's not so much that they share american lack of sensibilities but because they expand the definition of incest to all reletives no matter how distant. well in that country, their geneological records go back hundreds of years, so finding someone who doesn't have the same relative is difficult.

Rev 3:9 "Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are NØT, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.

that's very anti-semetic of you to apply this to modern Jews who are NOT persecuting christians.

Gal 3:29 "And IF ye be Christ's, THEN are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to The Promise."

and yet paul still made distinctions that still recognized jews who rejected Christ.

Like many of your statements, this is completely nonsensical. HOW can "many Jews today" have "more contact with ancient Jews"?!

points of contact. things in common.

Stupid, stupid argument. I can't believe I continue to engage such foolishness.

then quit. you're not a pleasant person to deal with.

The number of one's ancestors cannot become increasingly smaller! That's ridiculous!

smaller than your estimates. couples share direct ancestors.

It continues to be an issue because of rampant Biblical illiteracy and Christians being duped by diSpENSATIONAList Zionism.

don't have an opinion on it. many outside that camp recognize a Jewish race decended from abraham.

"...the wife of the dead shall NØT marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her." --Deu 25:5

then she can enter the covenant, like ruth. as I suggested.

"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. {4} For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly."

which happened and yet the identity was not lost.

"But if you turn away and ally yourselves with the survivors of these nations that remain among you and if you intermarry with them and associate with them, {13} then you may be sure that the LORD your God will no longer drive out these nations before you. Instead, they will become snares and traps for you, whips on your backs and thorns in your eyes, UNTIL YOU PERISH from this good land, which the LORD your God has given you."

happened in babylonian captivity. the Jews still had their identity.

"Then Shecaniah...said to Ezra, "We have been unfaithful to our God by marrying foreign women from the peoples around us..."

who does he mean by we? the Jews? no such thing. they broke their covenant. they married outside the tribes.

and yet you would have us believe that they have been faithful for 26 generations (33 billion ancestors)

everyone alive today has 33 billion distinct ancestors. that's why the population was way over the quadrillions in the past.

See Scripture passages and argumentation above.

see passage you quoted and responded to with that sentence above and yet didn't follow it considering the scripture it was based upon. in romans 9 and 11.

[Cherith]

then explain to me how the divine glory belonged to the Jews who rejected Jesus.

There's an old joke that goes like this: a woman asked another woman why it seemed that Jews never answered a direct question, but always seemed to parry the question with another question, to which the second woman (who was a Jew) responded, "Why do you ask...?"

In the spirit of Judaism I will answer your question with a question. I think that once you answer it then you will also have your answer to your own question.

In Romans 11:12 Paul says: "If their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the nations, how much greater riches will their fullness bring!"

What did Israel "lose"?

To know the answer is to understand the Good News.

Grace and Peace,
--C

P.S. I just noticed yesterday that Jaltus took offense to a statement I made in my first post and edited it out. I bear no animosity towards any "people group." Indeed the main thrust of all my posts has been to refute the idea that Jews are a "people group," but are rather united based solely upon their religious beliefs - like Mormons, Wiccans, JWs, etc. It was to this end that I used the phrase "known liars" having in mind 1 John 2:22 "Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is The Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth The Father AND The Son." As well as Jesus' own condemnation of His people who did NØT believe in Him in passages like John 8:44. I was NØT simply throwing out an epithet. I would offer an apology to that "people group" IF there were such a "people group"; however, as a Christian I reserve the right to use Biblical language to characterize those to whom certain passages are applicable. Perhaps I should have included the reference in parenthesis...

[geebob]

In Romans 11:12 Paul says: "If their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the nations, how much greater riches will their fullness bring!"

What did Israel "lose"?

what did israel lose? I honestly don't know how to articulate that. I can say that they lost one thing or another in some sense or another. They rejected the basis on which they could call God "abba" but they didn't lose their divine sonship. In a sense they lost the covenant. In another, they had the covenant. The lost the divine glory, in another they kept it.

this isn't a simple picture. Paul says that inspite of rejecting the messiah, they kept these things in romans 9:3-5 and romans 11:28-29. so I don't understand on what grounds you could dogmantically insist that they have no identity today. it really does not seem that paul was going in that direction in a clear sense.

And one more thing to consider. We are not to boast of our position over them. As paul said, God can graft them in again.

[Cherith]

what did israel lose? I honestly don't know how to articulate that. I can say that they lost one thing or another in some sense or another. They rejected the basis on which they could call God "abba" but they didn't lose their divine sonship. In a sense they lost the covenant. In another, they had the covenant. The lost the divine glory, in another they kept it.

this isn't a simple picture. Paul says that inspite of rejecting the messiah, they kept these things in romans 9:3-5 and romans 11:28-29. so I don't understand on what grounds you could dogmantically insist that they have no identity today. it really does not seem that paul was going in that direction in a clear sense.

And one more thing to consider. We are not to boast of our position over them. As paul said, God can graft them in again.

Ok, that's fair. You may not know how to articulate what they lost, so I will. First, I'll tell you what "the Divine Glory" was. "The Glory" of Israel was her association with The God of the universe. That association included the gifts that Paul outlined, but it also included:

1) being called "the people" of God
2) being the sole nation called/chosen by Him
3) being the vehicle through which the Messiah-Saviour would come
4) being the only nation/family/recipents to receive His special Revelation of Himself

Therefore, when Israel committed her greatest trespass she was stripped of all of these gifts by reason of her favored status.

So, what did Israel lose? The only thing that Israel lost was her favored status among the nations/families of the earth. Her "fall" leveled the playing field, so to speak, and opened the door for all nations to enter into a better covenant with God based upon better promises. People from all tribes and tongues and nations are grafted into The Root of David and become the heirs of the promises made to the fathers. Believers become the offspring God promised to Abraham throughout all generations.

That is why I disagree where you said that "they" (Israel after the flesh) got to keep the gifts and calling outlined in Rom 9:3-5 and 11:28-29. It is manifestly evident that "they" do NØT have these gifts or this calling. They are NØT the people of God by any stretch of the imagination. This is the whole point of Rom 9-11. "That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are NØT the children of God: but the children of The Promise are counted for the seed." (Rom 9:8) "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: {17} And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together." (Rom 8:16-17) "Even us, whom He hath called, NØT ONLY from the Jews, but also from the nations. {25} As he saith also in Osee, I will call them My people, which were NØT My people; and her beloved, which was not beloved. {26} And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are NØT My people; there shall they be called the children of the living God. {27} Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, ONLY a remnant shall be saved:" (Rom 9:24-27)

It was the nations - the "Gentiles" - that had not been "the people" of God by reason of His previous focus solely on the descendants of Israel, Isaac and Abraham. It was those which believed (whether Jew or Gentile) which would now be called "Israel" - "to have power as a prince" (i.e. a son of The King) "to rule as God" (cp. Matt 19:28; 1 Cor 6:3). That is why Paul could easily say "they are NØT all 'Israel' which are OF Israel" - that is, they are not all "princes (sons of The King) with power to rule as God" simply because they are the descendants of Israel (i.e. Jacob).

I am NØT saying that the Jews to whom Paul encountered and witnessed to had no indentity in his day. I am saying that those distinctions became obsolete over time. The diminishing of Israel as a covenant people, the destruction of Jerusalem and subsequent dispersion, enslavement, intermarrying, etc. all contributed to the lost identity of Abraham's descendants on a biological level. Just as was the case with the ten tribes of the Northern Kingdom that have historically been referred to as "the lost tribes." The were lost in the milieu of history...

The only "identity" that modern Jews enjoy today is their religion - their identification with a bankrupt system of works-righteousness coupled with the traditions of men (the Talmud) and Kabbalistic mysticism and superstition. They don't have a covenant by which they can enjoy a relationship with God (the Old Covenant having been made obsolete; see Heb 8:13), NØR can they in any wise PROVE a genetic relationship to Abraham to whom the promises were made thus having anything by which to hold over God's Head (He having fulfilled the promises made to the fathers anyway; Acts 13:32-33; Rom 15:8). Therefore, all their claims are spurious, a fraud and a sham!

And as for "boasting in our position," I will shout from the highest housetops the position that I enjoy in Christ Jesus as a child of God and of His Covenant! I DO have everything in which to boast over against all the unbelievers of this world whether they be Jew, Mormon, Wiccan, JW, Muslim, etc. The early believers were warned not to boast/glory/rejoice against the natural descendants of Abraham - because as Paul had said earlier and as Jesus had said "Salvation is OF" or "FROM" or "THROUGH the Jews" - that is, through the promises, covenants, gifts, calling, service, etc. but particularly through the Messiah, that we inherit by faith. It is this "Divine Glory" - "the gifts and calling of God" - which has been transferred to believers - whether Jew or Gentile - that is irrevocable.

The children of the flesh only lost one thing - their preferred status, but in losing that one thing they lost everything and the children of faith gained the world. That is what the word translated "reconciliation" in Rom 11:15 means - "the restoration to (Divine) favor."

"For if the casting away of them [i.e. the natural children of Israel] be The Restoration of Divine Favor to the world [at large], then what shall the receiving [or admission back into Covenant with God] of them be, but life from the dead [i.e. eternal life]?"

[geebob]

Therefore, when Israel committed her greatest trespass she was stripped of all of these gifts by reason of her favored status.

that's the your problem. you keep saying that and yet paul still ascribes the divine glory and so on INSPITE of the greatest tresspass.

3For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, 4the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises.

WHAt are you talking about Paul? don't you know that none of that belongs to israel becuase of their GREATEST tresspass. you say it was pending. I don't see paul saying that on the basis of their rebellion.

I am NØT saying that the Jews to whom Paul encountered and witnessed to had no indentity in his day.

well your basis is defunct then. you say the basis for their identity was stripped because of the tresspass. well it wasn't. Paul still identified them.

It is manifestly evident that "they" do NØT have these gifts or this calling. They are NØT the people of God by any stretch of the imagination. This is the whole point of Rom 9-11

then why wasn't it manifestly evident to paul? Paul had almost all the same reasons you have and yet he said that they had those gifts... gifts you say that there breaking of the covenant stripped them of. In Paul's day "their's was the divine glory". In Paul's day, they had rejected the messiah. They had rejected the messiah, and paul still said "their's is the divine glory".

And as for "boasting in our position," I will shout from the highest housetops the position that I enjoy in Christ Jesus as a child of God and of His Covenant! I DO have everything in which to boast over against all the unbelievers of this world whether they be Jew, Mormon, Wiccan

18do not boast over those branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you.



11Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. 12But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their fullness bring! ...24After all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree!

Sorry Paul. That happy situation will never be. There are no more "natural" branches" according to cherith.

[Cherith]

Well, Geebob, if that's your opinion then you're welcome to it. Personally, I'm embarrassed for you and by you, but hey to your own master you will stand or fall (Rom 14:4). I'm perfectly content to let my comments speak for themselves - and perfectly content that you've done nothing to prove them wrong.

Grace and Peace,
--C

"For I Will NØ Longer Have Pity on the people of the land," declares The LORD. "I Will Hand everyone over to his neighbor and his king. They will oppress the land, and I Will NØT Rescue them from their hands." ... I took two staffs and called one FAVOR and the other UNION, and I pastured the flock. ... The flock detested Me, and I Grew Weary of them {9} and said, "I Will NØT be your Shepherd. Let the dying die, and the perishing perish. Let those who are left eat one another's flesh." {10} Then I Took My staff called FAVOR and Broke it, Revoking The Covenant I Had Made with all the people. {11} It was revoked on that day, and so the afflicted of the flock who were watching Me knew it was The Word of The LORD. {12} I told them, "If you think it best, give me My pay; but if not, keep it." So they weighed for My price thirty pieces of silver. {13} And The LORD Said to me, "Throw it to the potter"--the handsome price at which they priced Me! So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into The House of The LORD to the potter. {14} Then I Broke My second staff called UNION, breaking the brotherhood between Judah and Israel."

[Goose]

What makes you a descendant of Abraham?Abraham had two sons, Ishmael and Isaac. The Torah's physical applications were applied to both Ishmael and Isaac from their birth. The 8th day circumcision would be an example of this.

However, Isaac was the only one that carried through with the Torah, applying it physically and spiritually out of love, born of a freewoman. This is why he inherited the birthright and Ishmael, the son of a slavewoman, was sent away. Ishmael only went through the motions and despised his status and father's way.

Therefore, anyone who applies true Torah, can inherit that birthright.

[Cherith]

Don't you ever get tired of being wrong, Goose?

Abraham had two sons, Ishmael and Isaac. The Torah's physical applications were applied to both Ishmael and Isaac from their birth. The 8th day circumcision would be an example of this.

The "Torah" did not come until well after Ishmael's death; therefore, Ishmael could NEVER have been under any of its applications - "physical" or otherwise! And Ishmael was not circumcised until he was 13 yrs old, not "from [his] birth"!

However, Isaac was the only one that carried through with the Torah, applying it physically and spiritually out of love, born of a freewoman. This is why he inherited the birthright and Ishmael, the son of a slavewoman, was sent away. Ishmael only went through the motions and despised his status and father's way.

As I said in another post (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=597039&postcount=40), an anachronism is an error in time, something that is chronologically out of place. Your notions are chronologically out of place. Isaac PRECEDED the "Torah," he was NEVER under the Mosaic Law and all of it's stipulations. The Mosaic Law ONLY came about because of Israel's many transgressions (Gal 3:19). The only stipulation that I see put on Isaac was that he must dwell in the land of which he already dwelt (Gen 26:2). So, your premise is already wrong but let me tell you how else it is wrong. It is in further error because the covenant was NEVER supposed to include Ishmael.

Gen 17:19-21 "And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish My Covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him. {20} And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation. {21} BUT My Covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year."

Notice that God made it crystal clear from the get-go through whom He was continuing the covenant. Ishmael was NEVER included! He merely received the outward sign of the covenant, but so did Abraham's servants (whatever their nationality). And it was applied TO him by his father, probably without regard for his personal wishes seeing as how he was a minor and servant in his father's household (cp Gal 4:1).

The covenant was not "the birthright" and I'm not sure that the son of a concubine was even entitled to a birthright under those ancient customs. The only sense in which the covenant was anyone's "birthright" was that it was promised to continue through Isaac, and that BEFORE he was even born!

Therefore, anyone who applies true Torah, can inherit that birthright.

What nonsense! No wonder you left off following the truth and switched to Judaism, you can't understand simple words or concepts from the book you profess to follow!

--C

P.S. Yoshi had made the same point regarding Ishmael in our Gym Debate (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=21895), so I guess you're in good company:

"A person may be part of the Covenant God made with Abraham and not be a Jew. Ishmael and his descendents are an example of this."

This is false. Ishmael was never part of the covenant God made with Abraham. He expressly stated that "IN Isaac shall your seed be called" (see point #11 under conditions). Abraham had 8 sons, but only Isaac was the successor of the covenant. Likewise Abraham had 24+ grandsons, but only one of Isaac's two were chosen to be the successors of the covenant. Likewise any of the descendants who "BROKE the covenant" were to be excommunicated from both the covenant and the people.