• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Messianic Jews vs. Reality

Status
Not open for further replies.
JacobEzra.

JacobEzra.

Dr. Greenthumb
Shermana said:
It's hard to remember something that I didn't actually write. And accusing me of saying something I didn't may be a violation of the rules.
Click to expand...
No, I am sure its not like a personal insult, so it violates nadda.

Shermana said:
And what I'm saying is NOT contradictory to Messianic Judaism.

You're simply arguing against a straw man based on a false accusation.
Click to expand...
How is it not? Didn't you claim Ruth is not okay because she clashes with Ezra? That would also include David and Solomon, and the whole premises of a Davidic Mashiach.
 
Shermana

Shermana

Heretic
JacobEzra said:
No, I am sure its not like a personal insult, so it violates nadda.
Click to expand...


No, if you repeatedly accuse someone of saying something they didn't, I believe that violates the Trolling provision.

How is it not? Didn't you claim Ruth is not okay because she clashes with Ezra? That would also include David and Solomon, and the whole premises of a Davidic Mashiach.
Click to expand...
I already said that you don't need the Book of Ruth for David to be King. Especially when scholarly concensus agrees Ruth was written well after David's rule. This itself is a straw man accusation. I also said that the Geneology is said by scholars to be a Later interpolation. It seems that making Ruth the great grand-mother of David was a later idea shoehorned in. David was already King BEFORE this geneology was interpolated. Why would you possibly need Ruth to be valid for David to be King? It's like saying you need Luke's geneology for David to be King. Thus I am not saying David and Solmon are invalid. It's an illogical syllogism to say: Ruth forged, David not valid king. Doesn't work. David will still be King and valid without the Book of Ruth saying he descends from a Moabitess. It's a complete representation of what I'm saying. That's why she refuses to quote what I actually said because I never said such a thing, YOSI said it about what I'm saying, and its an inaccurate accusation.

I hope I am clear this time.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
JacobEzra.

JacobEzra.

Dr. Greenthumb
Shermana said:
I already said that you don't need Ruth for David to be King. This itself is a straw man accusation. I also said that the Geneology is said by scholars to be a Later interpolation. Why would you possibly need Ruth to be valid for David to be King? It's like saying you need Luke's geneology for David to be King.
Click to expand...

Ruth and her offspring need to be valid Jews for David to be a valid Jewish King and his offspring to be the Jewish messiah.

If Ruth isn't Jewish, and her children and her children's children are not Jewish, then how can the Mashiach ben David be such?
 
Shermana

Shermana

Heretic
JacobEzra said:
Ruth and her offspring need to be valid Jews for David to be a valid Jewish King and his offspring to be the Jewish messiah.

If Ruth isn't Jewish, and her children and her children's children are not Jewish, then how can the Mashiach ben David be such?
Click to expand...

No, Ruth doesn't even have to exist for David to exist.

Another thing, I also believe that Luke and Matthew's geneologies are forged. Iraneus's geneology in Luke for example is 5 generations shorter than Augustine's, and there was much dispute about them even back in the day when the canons were first circulating. This is another common scholarly view, that the NT geneologies of Yashua's descent are interpolated as well. Salmon married Rahab the Canaanite prostitute too? Right.

I think the problem here may be the belief in the NT geneologies, which I also reject. For scholarly reason which we can get into on another thread.

But its completely illogical to suggest that you need the Book of Ruth to be authentic for David to have existed. Like I said, the scholarly concensus is that the idea of David descending from Ruth was a later idea shoehorned in with the geneology interpolated.
 
JacobEzra.

JacobEzra.

Dr. Greenthumb
Shermana said:
No, Ruth doesn't even have to exist for David to exist.

Another thing, I also believe that Luke and Matthew's geneologies are forged. Iraneus's geneology in Luke for example is 5 generations shorter than Augustine's, and there was much dispute about them even back in the day when the canons were first circulating. This is another common scholarly view, that the NT geneologies of Yashua's descent are interpolated as well. Salmon married Rahab the Canaanite prostitute too? Right.

I think the problem here may be the belief in the NT geneologies, which I also reject. For scholarly reason which we can get into on another thread.

But its completely illogical to suggest that you need the Book of Ruth to be authentic for David to have existed. Like I said, the scholarly concensus is that the idea of David descending from Ruth was a later idea shoehorned in with the geneology interpolated.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes: Whatever guy. I read from scholars the whole Tanach and Gospel (with accompanying epistles) are all frauds and worthless. Must be true according to them.

As to Iranuus and Agustine, what does their genealogies have to do with this?
 
Shermana

Shermana

Heretic
JacobEzra said:
:rolleyes: Whatever guy. I read from scholars the whole Tanach and Gospel (with accompanying epistles) are all frauds and worthless. Must be true according to them.

As to Iranuus and Agustine, what does their genealogies have to do with this?
Click to expand...

Are you're saying you can't use scholarly arguments on this board? I'm pointing to what MANY scholars say on this SPECIFIC issue. If you want to discuss scholarly views on the entirety Tanakh and Gospel, that's for another thread and I'll be glad to chime in. For this OP, we're discussing Ruth and the general scholarly concensus. There's a lot of reasons based on various evidence for what they are saying. I suggest you click on the link I presented, would you like me to repaste it for the new page? It seems Ruth wasn't even written at first to be the basis of David's lineage to begin with, and that part was added later. You can't just throw out what all the scholars are saying when it comes to scriptural debate. Otherwise, we might as well accept everything without debating it as if its all 100% correct. I do find it odd that the same people accusing me of this and that because I don't buy Ruth's authenticity (of whose author is totally anonymous) have no problem throwing out the idea of Mosaic authorship of the Torah, to me that's mind boggling.

I'm saying that the geneologies of Luke themselves appear to have interpolations, and many early Church Fathers threw the geneologies out altogether. Likewise, it seems the geneology at the end of Ruth for David may be forged as well. Read the page that I posted on that link, you'll see I'm far from alone on this.
 
JacobEzra.

JacobEzra.

Dr. Greenthumb
I don't care if 1000 scholars and my mother told me what your saying. IF you do not like the cannon, then make your own :rolleyes: Maybe your not really that pure blooded. It seems like your almost related to Martin Luther
 
Shermana

Shermana

Heretic
JacobEzra said:
I don't care if 1000 scholars and my mother told me what your saying. IF you do not like the cannon, then make your own :rolleyes: Maybe your not really that pure blooded. It seems like your almost related to Martin Luther
Click to expand...

Well you're on the wrong board if you don't want to discuss the Scripture in scholarly detail. If you don't want to debate, why are you here? I like the constant ad hominem from everyone when I back my argument up with those who say similarly as I do. I have my own set of books which I consider Canon, like how Iraneus and the Dead Sea Scroll authors and the Muratorian fragment author and the early Syrian Church had theirs, even the Talmud seems to hint that its early authors considered Sirach as scripture. I consider a lot of the so-called "OT Pseuipigrapha" and NT Apocrypha to be valid, and consider a lot of "NT Canon" to be Pseudipigrapha. I have reasons behind my choices on the matter which I'm fully prepared to discuss. As for the OT, even Esther was earlier doubted as Canonical by various Jewish authorities. So was Ecclesiastes. Feel free to start a thread on this issue if you want to actually get into it.

PS It's "Canon", a "Cannon" is a large caliber gun. Maybe one day I'll make my own Cannon design to sell to the IDF. I can trace my Ashkenazi ancestry back many centuries to Ukrainian and Russian Jewish communities, and Ashkenazis are generally said to be fully Israelite. I'd be happy to have a genetic test.
 
Last edited:
Revoltingest

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
"Purity"....."full blooded"...."pure bloods"....reminds me of that guy Frost in the movie Blade.
What a weird thread.
 
JacobEzra.

JacobEzra.

Dr. Greenthumb
Shermana said:
That they're mostly considered genetically fully-blooded Israelite in terms of Haplotype. Regardless of how "Disgusting" anyone finds this claim to be.
Click to expand...
Anyway, are you sure about that? I herd they weren't. In fact I read that Ashkenazim are very mixed. So I am not sure how "fully-blooded" or "pure" you are.

Though it is very sad how you can switch the word "ashkenazi" from your posts with "aryan" and it would seem like I am reading comments from them "Aryan Israelites". Or switch it with the word "black israelite" and you could sound like them racist Hebrew Israelite groups
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top