brain sizes: Einstein's and women's

Bob LeChevalier lojbab at lojban.org
Fri Sep 13 04:24:29 EST 2002


"John Knight" <jwknight at polbox.com> wrote:
>Moses married an Israelite who was a descendant of the Israelite named
>Cushi.

But you've claimed that Cushi was NOT an Israelite, because he was
descended from Cush, who was descended from Ham.  Are you admitting
that all your prior posts on Cushi were lies?

>Why do you think they would have made an exception for Ruth?

They didn't.  Therefore the law was not what you have claimed that it
is.

>And if they did
>make an exception for her, which would have altered thousands of case
>history to the contrary, where was the dialog with God that would have been
>required to make such a huge exception?

Far simpler to accept that you are wrong about what the law means, and
that miscegenation was NOT the sin.  Ezra and other instances where
Israelites and Jews were chastened to put away foreign wives were NOT
about the fact that they WERE foreign, but about the fact (generally
stated quite clearly) that the foreign wives practiced foreign ways,
worshipped foreign gods, and hence were not fit to share in the
inheritance of Israel.  When foreigners adopted the ways of Israel NOT
through force, but by realization that the Lord was God, and kept the
covenant of Moses, then they were regardless racial birth inheritors
of the covenant.  And the Lord explicitly SAYS this in a passage I
quoted to you a couple of days ago.

>Descendants of Judah are never referred to as jews in any place in the Holy
>Bible, because they were Israelites.

They are referred to as Jews, because the Hebrew word for a descendent
of Judah is precisely the word which is translated as "Jew".

>Yes, the country was known as "Judea" [or Judaea], and most of the
>Israelites who lived there were known as "Judah", because they were
>descendants of Judah, but there were also Israelites of the Tribe of
>Benjamin (like Paul), as well as jews who were descendants of Jehudi.  The
>Holy Bible never confuses Judah with Jehudi.

Because the one refers to the other.

>> All of the residents who claimed
>> Hebrew descent (with or without genealogical records) were known as Jews.
>> Even the Hebrews scattered abroad ("diaspora") were known by this name
>> (compare Esther).
>
>No.  By both Hebrew and Israelite law, mamzers born of an adulterous
>marriage with non-Hebrews or non-Israelites had to be put away.  There's no
>way that jews could have legally been either.  Besides, most jews today
>claim to be descendants of Ashkenaz,

No they don't.  You have yet to come up with a quote that Kostler
claims that Jews are descendants of Ashkenaz, much less that any other
Jew does.

>Maybe the Talmud says this, but if it does, it's in direct conflict with the
>Holy Bible.

This from the guy who just posted agreeing with the claim that Paul
was a false prophet and that therefore most of the New Testament is
not scriptural.

>Disagreed.  You WANT Christ's ancestry to be impure,

You want it to be pure

>and will go to great lengths to discredit it, 

and will go to great lengths to invent reasons to believe it, none of
which are really supported by the Bible or by non-Biblical sources
that otherwise agree with the Bible.

lojbab



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list