Jesus was a Jew. When did his followers stop being Jews?

[rosends]

not a father, My father.

Oh, you mean "avi" -- My father.

 

[Tumah]

You need more than the temple to be rebuilt. You also need to have a priest who can trace his linage back to Aaron.

Yes, among some other issues. Not sure what that's got to do with anything.

...nor are you to break any bone of it----coming to Jesus, when they saw He was dead, they did not break His legs---for these things came to pass to fulfill the Scripture, not a bone of Him shall be broken.

Not breaking the bones of the Passover sacrifice isn't a messianic prophecy, its a commandment about how to eat the Passover sacrifice. Other commandments regarding the Passover sacrifice include: that it must be roasted not raw or boiled (Ex. 12:9), after you take it apart to rinse you need to tack the legs and innards back onto it (ibid.), you have until sunrise of the following morning to eat it (12:10), you can't take it out of the house (12:46). It needs to be a one year old lamb or kid (12:5 - cows, birds and humans seem to be excluded). Of course like all sacrifices, the blood needs to be sprinkled on the altar by a priest. It has to be skinned, have its non-kosher fats, kidneys, a piece of the liver and intestinal waste removed. If its a sheep, its tail needs to be removed as well.

 

[omega2xx]

Yes, among some other issues. Not sure what that's got to do with anything.

You can't have an acceptable sacrifice without a qualified priest.

Not breaking the bones of the Passover sacrifice isn't a messianic prophecy, its a commandment about how to eat the Passover sacrifice. Other commandments regarding the Passover sacrifice include: that it must be roasted not raw or boiled (Ex. 12:9), after you take it apart to rinse you need to tack the legs and innards back onto it (ibid.), you have until sunrise of the following morning to eat it (12:10), you can't take it out of the house (12:46). It needs to be a one year old lamb or kid (12:5 - cows, birds and humans seem to be excluded). Of course like all sacrifices, the blood needs to be sprinkled on the altar by a priest. It has to be skinned, have its non-kosher fats, kidneys, a piece of the liver and intestinal waste removed. If its a sheep, its tail needs to be removed as well.

Then why don't you follow those rules? Modern day celebration of he Passover has made up many rules that are not in the Bible. Why do you do that. BTW Passover is the only sacrifice that did not require a priest.

 

[Tumah]

And to God? Simply put Jesus reference to God as Aram 'abba' (my own dear father) reflects his own experience of God.

Abba doesn't mean "my own dear father". It just means "father". To make it "my father" it would be "Avi" such as can be found in the Pe****ta of Matthew 16:17.

 

[pearl]

Oh, you mean "avi" -- My father.

My only point was that 'Abba', a term used for a human father, was not found to be used in the liturgies of the synagogue and probably not by 'pious' Jews. Yet we are poorly informed concerning the 'popular' Jewish-Aramaic religious practices and vocabulary in the 1cent Galilee. In a quest for the historical Jesus it was necessary for scholars to devise criteria, one of which focuses on the words and deeds of Jesus that cannot be derived from Judaism before him or Christianity after him.

 

[Tumah]

You can't have an acceptable sacrifice without a qualified priest.

I don't know why you're bringing this up again. Yes, one of the requirements for all sacrifices is that certain parts needs to be done by a qualified priest.

Then why don't you follow those rules?

I do follow the rules. There are other rules that make sacrificing a Passover sacrifice at this time, impossible according to most authorities.

Modern day celebration of he Passover has made up many rules that are not in the Bible. Why do you do that.

Because G-d didn't just make us guardians of the Written Torah, He appointed us guardians of the Oral Torah as well.

BTW Passover is the only sacrifice that did not require a priest.

No, its not. It requires a priest as well. The sacrifice was slaughtered in the Temple in an area called the Israelite Courtyard. After it was slaughtered the blood was collected in a bowl - like all animal sacrifices - and a priest was required to pour that blood on the altar as well as burn the fats and relevant organs on the altar. An Israelite can't perform this task because (1) an Israelite can't perform this task and (2) because an Israelite is prohibited from entering the Priests Courtyard which is where the altar was located.

 

[Tumah]

My only point was that 'Abba', a term used for a human father, was not found to be used in the liturgies of the synagogue and probably not by 'pious' Jews.

Source?

 

[rosends]

My only point was that 'Abba', a term used for a human father, was not found to be used in the liturgies of the synagogue and probably not by 'pious' Jews. Yet we are poorly informed concerning the 'popular' Jewish-Aramaic religious practices and vocabulary in the 1cent Galilee. In a quest for the historical Jesus it was necessary for scholars to devise criteria, one of which focuses on the words and deeds of Jesus that cannot be derived from Judaism before him or Christianity after him.

But the use of it is not specific or unique to Jesus. That he used a (possibly Aramaicized) word that others used for father to refer to God (instead of using the Hebrew precedented word) is not much of an innovation. You might want to check the Zohar in which Rashbi uses both the words Abba and Ema to refer to aspects of God (the easiest citation is in the Yom Kippur prayerbook by Artscroll, page 56) so there was already a tradition of, in Aramaic, using those words.

 

[omega2xx]

I don't know why you're bringing this up again. Yes, one of the requirements for all sacrifices is that certain parts needs to be done by a qualified priest.

I am bringing it up to show you can't make an acceptable sacrifice even if the temple is rebuilt, and I believe it will be before the world comes to an end. Also the Passover sacrifice did not require a priest.

I do follow the rules. There are other rules that make sacrificing a Passover sacrifice at this time, impossible according to most authorities.

You don't follow the rules made by God. Do you select the lamb on the 10th? Do you slay if or have someone do it for you?

Because G-d didn't just make us guardians of the Written Torah, He appointed us guardians of the Oral Torah as well.

You have no Biblical evidence God gave the Jews an oral Torah.

No, its not. It requires a priest as well. The sacrifice was slaughtered in the Temple in an area called the Israelite Courtyard. After it was slaughtered the blood was collected in a bowl - like all animal sacrifices - and a priest was required to pour that blood on the altar as well as burn the fats and relevant organs on the altar. An Israelite can't perform this task because (1) an Israelite can't perform this task and (2) because an Israelite is prohibited from entering the Priests Courtyard which is where the altar was located.

I will have to do some research but I don't think the Bible mentions the Priest courtyard in the temple. In any case a priest was not need for the Passover sacrifice.

The priest's courtyard was in Herod's temple, not Solomon's.

 

[Tumah]

I am bringing it up to show you can't make an acceptable sacrifice even if the temple is rebuilt, and I believe it will be before the world comes to an end.

And like I said before, that is only one of the impediments against bringing sacrifices in the Temple. But we believe that Elijah will also come with the Messiah and let people know who qualifies as a priest as well as take care of the other issues.

Also the Passover sacrifice did not require a priest.

This is the second time you're saying that and it hasn't become true yet.
Passover sacrifice - Wikipedia

If it was true, then most of the other issues would be resolved as well. Unfortunately its not.

You don't follow the rules made by God. Do you select the lamb on the 10th? Do you slay if or have someone do it for you?

The selecting of the lamb on the 10th specifically, was a commandment for the first Passover that was celebrated in Egypt. For all other Passovers it could be selected any day throughout the year.

Anyways, that was all in order to bring the Passover sacrifice. Since we're prohibited from bringing the Passover sacrifice at this time, slaughtering a lamb would serve no purpose.

You have no Biblical evidence God gave the Jews an oral Torah.

The same evidence that I have that G-d gave the Jews the Written Torah, I have that G-d gave the Jews the Oral Torah.

I will have to do some research but I don't think the Bible mentions the Priest courtyard in the temple.

Here you go:
Temple in Jerusalem - Wikipedia

In any case a priest was not need for the Passover sacrifice.

This is now the third time you're saying that and its still not true. Also see Numb. 18:4.

Perhaps what you are thinking about, is that a non-priest is allowed to slaughter the sacrifice and that on Passover this was more commonly done since all the priests were busy getting the blood to the altar.

The priest's courtyard was in Herod's temple, not Solomon's.

From the link above:

The Temple of Solomon or First Temple consisted of three main elements:

• the Great or Outer Court, where people assembled to worship (Jeremiah 19:14; 26:2);
• the Inner Court (1 Kings 6:36) or Court of the Priests (2 Chr. 4:9);

and the Temple building itself, with

• the larger hekhal, or Holy Place, called the "greater house" in 2 Chr. 3:5 and the "temple" in 1 Kings 6:17, and
• the smaller "inner sanctum", known as the Holy of Holies or Kodesh HaKodashim.

In the case of the last and most elaborate structure, the Herodian Temple, the structure consisted of the wider Temple precinct, the restricted Temple courts, and the Temple building itself:

• Temple precinct, located on the extended Temple Mount platform, and including the Court of the Gentiles
• Court of the Women or Ezrat HaNashim
• Court of the Israelites, reserved for ritually pure Jewish men
• Court of the Priests, whose relation to the Temple Court is interpreted in different ways by scholars
• Temple Court or Azarah, with the Brazen Laver (kiyor), the Altar of Burnt Offerings (mizbe'ah), the Place of Slaughtering, and the Temple building itself

The way it was set up was, there was an outer courtyard also called the Women's Court because women were also allowed there. Then there were 15 steps leading up to big doors. Within those doors was another big courtyard that was split into two main parts: the Israelite Court which was right at the entrance (to a depth of 16.5 feet in at the Second Temple) and defined how far in and Israelite male could enter and then the Priest Court which was pretty much the remainder of the courtyard because the priests could more or less go anywhere they needed to outside the Sanctuary whenever they wanted although technically that area was split up into a number of parts as well.

So when it came to the Passover sacrifice, the men from the different groups would stand in a row with their animals and slaughter it, the priests would stand in long lines leading from the alter to the Israelite section. As the goat or lamb was slaughtered, the priest would catch the blood in a bowl and pass it to the priest next to him who would pass it to the priest next to him... until the priest who would spray it on the alter. Then they would skin the animals take out the necessary parts to burn on the alter later and move to the side. They had to do it this way, because a non-priest couldn't pass the into the Priest Court and that was where the alter was located. But there were so many sacrifices that were brought, that there was no time for individual priests to waste time walking back and forth from the Israelite court to the altar.

 

[jtartar]

Jesus was a Jew teaching his followers. I have heard Jews refer to him as a Rabbi.
He said that he didn't come to destroy the (Mosaic) Law, but to fulfill it. (Matt 5:17-20)
Therefore, are Christians allowed to call ourselves Jews?

GeelongFams4wildPeace,
Jesus was, indeed a Jew, so he did not teach Christianity, but he taught many things from the Mosaic Law Covenant, that were the same principles as would be in the New Covenant, that Jesus instituted at The Lords Evening Meal, Last Supper, Luke 22:15-20, 1Corinthians 11:23-26.
Jesus was called Rabbi, also Rabboni, which means great teacher. Jesus is the teacher, and the Leader of Christianity, NOW, but not until he was put to death as a corresponding sacrifice to save all those who followed him, Matthew 20:28. Even though Jesus died forlorn people, only those who took advantage of his sacrifice, by totally believing in him, and by following in Jesus' footsteps, would benefit, 1 Peter 2:21.
Jesus did not destroy theMosaic Lw Covenant, but he completed all the things in it that pertained to him, then the Mosaic Lw Covenant was superseded by the New Covenant, which started at Jesus death. The New Covenant was a much better Covenant, because it was based on the Blood of Jesus, not bulls and goats
and did not require animal sacrifices, but people would be forgiven of their sins because of Jesus ransom sacrifice, based on FAITH, and not works, as the Mosaic Law required. No one could obey the Mosaic Law Covenant completely, so it condemned all under it to death. One of the very important things that Jesus did was to free people from the law of sin and death, Galatians 3:8-14, Hebrews 8:4-13.
Christians re really, Spiritual Jews, as can be understood by these Scriptures, Romans 2:28,29. Under the New Covenant sins were forgiven completely, and are not charged against Christians, because Jesus already paid for all their sins with his blood, and are Perfect perpetually, in God's eyes, Hebrews 10:8-14, Acts 13:38,39. Agape!!!

APPLY YOURSELF TO THE FIELD MINISTRY

 

[pearl]

{Abba doesn't mean "my own dear father". It just means "father". To make it "my father" it would be "Avi" such as can be found in the Pe****ta of Matthew 16:17.}


In the Pater Noster, the shorter form in Luke is more probably closer to the form of the prayer as historically spoken by Jesus with its number of petitions, written for Gentile churches, while Mt's longer form is closer to the original words of Jesus. Jesus' use of abba without modifier, (abinu) in addressing God is distinctive. in the OT God was thought of as the Father of the people Israel, in the NT God's Fatherhood is not put on the basis of a national covenant, but on the basis of union with Jesus, uniquely God's Son. In the NT the concept of God's Fatherhood and Christian sonship gives an eschatological tone to the title of the Pater Noster. I think the following site illustrates the many exegetical differences.


https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/volume-6-number-1-2005/why-abba-new-testament

Given the dual relationship between Christ and His Father,[20] we can now turn to Christ’s use of abba in Mark 14:36. The context is within Christ’s "great intercessory prayer," reported in more detail in John 17. In His role as the steward or Suffering Servant (see Isaiah 53) in God’s plan of redemption, Christ used abba in His final mortal report. It seems to me that in this context of a stewardship account, He would have used abba with the greatest of formal respect for His God.

 

[RESOLUTION]

By this logic, there should no longer be a priestly class. Being from the tribe of Judah does not grant her children lineage to the tribe of Judah otherwise she would be called "the mother of the Judeans". There was over a thousand years between when Elisheba lived and the Jesus narrative. There were probably many other women from other tribes who married priests (and men from other tribes). And vis versa. That doesn't mean that all Jews have lineage to all tribes. We stricly look to the mother to determine Jewishness and we strictly look to the father to determine tribe.

I think you miss the point. That Aaron being the first of the High Priests means that Elisheba who is known by the Jews as the Mother of the priesthood because she
was the mother of Aarons children the line of priests.
It is a fact that Elisheba is called “the mother of the priesthood” (Gen. Rabbah 97:8).
Had Elisheba married Judah one of the sons of Jacob then she could be called the 'Mother of Judeans'.
You have for someone reason appeared to deliberately ignore the fact that Isaac had to be born of Sarah to be the chosen descendant of Abraham by God.
Because God chose both Abraham and Sarah to be the Father and Mother of nations and kings.
Just as Aaron was chosen as the first high priest his children born through Elisheba were the first descendants of the line of the priesthood.

Elisheba born of the tribe of Judah and her children with Aaron were the first descendants of the priesthood through Aaron.

 

[RESOLUTION]

You are half right. The mother determines whether the child is Jewish. But its the father who determines tribal affiliation.
So a child born from a Jewish mother and non-Jewish father is a Jew without any tribal affiliation.
A child born from a Jewish father and non-Jewish mother is a non-Jew.
A child born from a Reubenite mother and Zebulunite father is a Zebulunite.
A child born of a priestess and a Judahite is a Judahite.

Bringing examples of the patriarchs and matriarchs are irrelevant because they were not bound by Torah Law as it was given much later.

You cannot ignore what God himself teaches us. He has shown that first born does not count when he chooses.
He has shown he is not bound by human rules.
The first born of mankind did not have a human mother or father but he was still the son of god.
We see that Gods will determines the outcome what is and what will be.

Hagar bore the eldest son of Abraham. But she was a slave and God chose Sarah Abrahams wife to be the mother of nations and Kings.
God promised that Isaac would be born to Sarah and the Son would be the child of the promise God made to Abraham.
Joseph was of the tribe of Judah and so as you say the law stated any child born in a marriage belonged to the Husband.
We know if a man died without a descendant that the next brother married the wife of the dead brother and the child born became descendant
of the dead brother.

It is always about Gods choice look at Ruth and Boaz.
God made his choice of Mary and Joseph.
He also makes it clear everything done by his will and choice.
Christ was born of the priestly and Judah line. God is not bound by human thinking or choices.

 

[omega2xx]

[QUOTE="omega2xx, post: 5149945, member: 60871"]I am bringing it up to show you can't make an acceptable sacrifice even if the temple is rebuilt, and I believe it will be before the world comes to an end. Also the Passover sacrifice did not require a priest.

You don't follow the rules made by God. Do you select the lamb on the 10th? Do you slay if or have someone do it for you?

You have no Biblical evidence God gave the Jews an oral Torah.

I will have to do some research but I don't think the Bible mentions the Priest courtyard in the temple. In any case a priest was not need for the Passover sacrifice.

The priest's courtyard was in Herod's temple, not Solomon's.[/QUOTE]

And like I said before, that is only one of the impediments against bringing sacrifices in the Temple. But we believe that Elijah will also come with the Messiah and let people know who qualifies as a priest as well as take care of the other issues.

The Bib le says Elijah will be the "forerunner" not tjhat he will lcome with the Messiah.

This is the second time you're saying that and it hasn't become true yet.
Passover sacrifice - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passover_sacrifice#The_sacrificial_animal

It won't come true until near the end of the age.

If it was true, then most of the other issues would be resolved as well. Unfortunately its not.

I know you don't believe in the second coming, but you should at lest know it is Christians doctrine.

The selecting of the lamb on the 10th specifically, was a commandment for the first Passover that was celebrated in Egypt. For all other Passovers it could be selected any day throughout the year.<<

Not Biblical.

Anyways, that was all in order to bring the Passover sacrifice. Since we're prohibited from bringing the Passover sacrifice at this time, slaughtering a lamb would serve no purpose.

That is because the true Lamb of God has been sacrificed at Calvary.

The same evidence that I have that G-d gave the Jews the Written Torah, I have that G-d gave the Jews the Oral Torah.

Not true. There is no mention anywhere of an oral Torah.

Here you go:
Temple in Jerusalem - Wikipedia


This is now the third time you're saying that and its still not true. Also see Numb. 18:4.

Perhaps what you are thinking about, is that a non-priest is allowed to slaughter the sacrifice and that on Passover this was more commonly done since all the priests were busy getting the blood to the altar.


From the link above:

The Temple of Solomon or First Temple consisted of three main elements:

• the Great or Outer Court, where people assembled to worship (Jeremiah 19:14; 26:2);
• the Inner Court (1 Kings 6:36) or Court of the Priests (2 Chr. 4:9);

and the Temple building itself, with

• the larger hekhal, or Holy Place, called the "greater house" in 2 Chr. 3:5 and the "temple" in 1 Kings 6:17, and
• the smaller "inner sanctum", known as the Holy of Holies or Kodesh HaKodashim.

In the case of the last and most elaborate structure, the Herodian Temple, the structure consisted of the wider Temple precinct, the restricted Temple courts, and the Temple building itself:

• Temple precinct, located on the extended Temple Mount platform, and including the Court of the Gentiles
• Court of the Women or Ezrat HaNashim
• Court of the Israelites, reserved for ritually pure Jewish men
• Court of the Priests, whose relation to the Temple Court is interpreted in different ways by scholars
• Temple Court or Azarah, with the Brazen Laver (kiyor), the Altar of Burnt Offerings (mizbe'ah), the Place of Slaughtering, and the Temple building itself

The way it was set up was, there was an outer courtyard also called the Women's Court because women were also allowed there. Then there were 15 steps leading up to big doors. Within those doors was another big courtyard that was split into two main parts: the Israelite Court which was right at the entrance (to a depth of 16.5 feet in at the Second Temple) and defined how far in and Israelite male could enter and then the Priest Court which was pretty much the remainder of the courtyard because the priests could more or less go anywhere they needed to outside the Sanctuary whenever they wanted although technically that area was split up into a number of parts as well.

So when it came to the Passover sacrifice, the men from the different groups would stand in a row with their animals and slaughter it, the priests would stand in long lines leading from the alter to the Israelite section. As the goat or lamb was slaughtered, the priest would catch the blood in a bowl and pass it to the priest next to him who would pass it to the priest next to him... until the priest who would spray it on the alter. Then they would skin the animals take out the necessary parts to burn on the alter later and move to the side. They had to do it this way, because a non-priest couldn't pass the into the Priest Court and that was where the alter was located. But there were so many sacrifices that were brought, that there was no time for individual priests to waste time walking back and forth from the Israelite court to the altar.

You are right about the "courtyard of the priest. What you say in the paragraph above is not Biblical, but it is reasonable to assume that is what was done.



I will bless those who bless you(Abraham)---Gen 3:15
The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham--Mt 1:1

 

[Tumah]

The Bib le says Elijah will be the "forerunner" not tjhat he will lcome with the Messiah.

I didn't mean that they're going to walk down the street together.

It won't come true until near the end of the age.

Says you.

I know you don't believe in the second coming, but you should at lest know it is Christians doctrine.

Makes no difference to me.

You are right about the "courtyard of the priest. What you say in the paragraph above is not Biblical, but it is reasonable to assume that is what was done.

I'm glad I have your acceptance...

 

[Tumah]

You cannot ignore what God himself teaches us. He has shown that first born does not count when he chooses.
He has shown he is not bound by human rules.
The first born of mankind did not have a human mother or father but he was still the son of god.
We see that Gods will determines the outcome what is and what will be.

What are you talking about? Where is Adam called the "son of G-d"?

Hagar bore the eldest son of Abraham. But she was a slave and God chose Sarah Abrahams wife to be the mother of nations and Kings.

What's the got to do with being the firstborn...?

God promised that Isaac would be born to Sarah and the Son would be the child of the promise God made to Abraham.

This statement doesn't make sense.

Joseph was of the tribe of Judah and so as you say the law stated any child born in a marriage belonged to the Husband.

I did not say that.

We know if a man died without a descendant that the next brother married the wife of the dead brother and the child born became descendant
of the dead brother.

We don't know that.

It is always about Gods choice look at Ruth and Boaz.

What about them?

God made his choice of Mary and Joseph.

No He didn't.

He also makes it clear everything done by his will and choice.

This sentence isn't clear.

Christ was born of the priestly and Judah line.

No he was not.

God is not bound by human thinking or choices.

That not being relevant here.

 

[omega2xx]

I didn't mean that they're going to walk down the street together.

It sounded like it.

Says you.

No, says the Bi ble.

Makes no difference to me.<<

Yours comment makes no difference to me.

I'm glad I have your acceptance...

Not my acceptance, my agreement.

 

[Tumah]

I think you miss the point. That Aaron being the first of the High Priests means that Elisheba who is known by the Jews as the Mother of the priesthood because she was the mother of Aarons children the line of priests.
It is a fact that Elisheba is called “the mother of the priesthood” (Gen. Rabbah 97:8).].

Yes...

Had Elisheba married Judah one of the sons of Jacob then she could be called the 'Mother of Judeans'.

Yes...

You have for someone reason appeared to deliberately ignore the fact that Isaac had to be born of Sarah to be the chosen descendant of Abraham by God.

Because its irrelevant...

Because God chose both Abraham and Sarah to be the Father and Mother of nations and kings.

Ok....

Just as Aaron was chosen as the first high priest his children born through Elisheba were the first descendants of the line of the priesthood.

Right...

Elisheba born of the tribe of Judah and her children with Aaron were the first descendants of the priesthood through Aaron.

That's right. But none of this has anything to do with what you were trying to say. By Jewish Law although Elisheba's Judean father is related by blood to his priestly grandchildren, his priestly grandchildren are in no way connected to the tribe of Judah.

 

[RESOLUTION]

Tumah said: ↑

By this logic, there should no longer be a priestly class. Being from the tribe of Judah does not grant her children lineage to the tribe of Judah otherwise she would be called "the mother of the Judeans". There was over a thousand years between when Elisheba lived and the Jesus narrative. There were probably many other women from other tribes who married priests (and men from other tribes). And vis versa. That doesn't mean that all Jews have lineage to all tribes. We stricly look to the mother to determine Jewishness and we strictly look to the father to determine tribe.

RESOLUTION
I think you miss the point. That Aaron being the first of the High Priests means that Elisheba who is known by the Jews as the Mother of the priesthood because she
was the mother of Aarons children the line of priests.
It is a fact that Elisheba is called “the mother of the priesthood” (Gen. Rabbah 97:8).
Had Elisheba married Judah one of the sons of Jacob then she could be called the 'Mother of Judeans'.
You have for someone reason appeared to deliberately ignore the fact that Isaac had to be born of Sarah to be the chosen descendant of Abraham by God.
Because God chose both Abraham and Sarah to be the Father and Mother of nations and kings.
Just as Aaron was chosen as the first high priest his children born through Elisheba were the first descendants of the line of the priesthood.

Elisheba born of the tribe of Judah and her children with Aaron were the first descendants of the priesthood through Aaron.

POST TWO

Tumah said: ↑

You are half right. The mother determines whether the child is Jewish. But its the father who determines tribal affiliation.
So a child born from a Jewish mother and non-Jewish father is a Jew without any tribal affiliation.
A child born from a Jewish father and non-Jewish mother is a non-Jew.
A child born from a Reubenite mother and Zebulunite father is a Zebulunite.
A child born of a priestess and a Judahite is a Judahite.

Bringing examples of the patriarchs and matriarchs are irrelevant because they were not bound by Torah Law as it was given much later.

You cannot ignore what God himself teaches us. He has shown that first born does not count when he chooses.
He has shown he is not bound by human rules.
The first born of mankind did not have a human mother or father but he was still the son of god.
We see that Gods will determines the outcome what is and what will be.

Hagar bore the eldest son of Abraham. But she was a slave and God chose Sarah Abrahams wife to be the mother of nations and Kings.
God promised that Isaac would be born to Sarah and the Son would be the child of the promise God made to Abraham.
Joseph was of the tribe of Judah and so as you say the law stated any child born in a marriage belonged to the Husband.
We know if a man died without a descendant that the next brother married the wife of the dead brother and the child born became descendant
of the dead brother.

It is always about Gods choice look at Ruth and Boaz.
God made his choice of Mary and Joseph.
He also makes it clear everything done by his will and choice.
Christ was born of the priestly and Judah line. God is not bound by human thinking or choices.

What are you talking about? Where is Adam called the "son of G-d"?

You do not know?
Why are the angels called sons of God?

2That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
Adams Father and creator was God. Adam is therefore a son of God.

What's the got to do with being the firstborn...?

Being first born does not make you the inheritor of the promises of God.
Ishmael has no claim as far as the promises of God,
Being born of Abraham his Father did not make him the inheritor of Abrahams wealth and status as leader.

This statement doesn't make sense.

Makes every sense when we look at how God decides who are his people.

I did not say that.

You referred to the LAW.

So a child born from a Jewish mother and non-Jewish father is a Jew without any tribal affiliation.

Are you saying that Jesus was not a Jew and was not classed as Jospehs son under the law?
I do explain how a brother can bear a son with the widow of his brother and the child becomes the dead mans
son.

We don't know that.]/QUOTE]

We do know that.

Deuteronomy 25: 5-6.
5 If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not 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.

6 And it shall be, that the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel.

What about them?

Ruth was not born of the 12 tribes of Israel but her son Obed was the Father of Jesse the Father of King David.

No He didn't.

Of course he did, hence the truth is still around today.

This sentence isn't clear.

He also makes it clear everything done by his will and choice.

What is unclear about it?
King James Bible
There are many devices in a man's heart; nevertheless the counsel of the LORD, that shall stand.

No he was not.

Christ was most definitely born of the line of Judah and a priestly line.
Both through his Father Joseph and his mother. The reason he is classed as a Jew and no one cannot deny it
not even a Jew denies Christ was a Jew.

That not being relevant here.

Of, course it is relevant.
God is not bound by human thinking or choices.

Just as you cannot change what God has done or whom he has chosen.