Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Ruth Was An Israelite!

  1. #1

    Ruth Was An Israelite!

    Ruth Was An Israelite
    Willie Martin

    It is unfortunate that many preachers, in their ignorance, teach so much false doctrine. One such false doctrine is the statement that Jesus Christ was not of pure Israelite blood; they say that one of His Ancestors was Ruth, “ a Moabitess. ” From the use of this term, they believe that she was racially, not just geographically, Moabite. In this they are greatly mistaken.

    The territory of the Moabites was originally east and northeast of the Dead Sea, extending from the River Arnon on the south to the river Jabbok on the north, and from the Dead sea and Jordan River on the west across the plains and foothills into the mountains to the east. From the name of the people who lived there, it was call “ Moab, ” and it kept that name for many centuries AFTER ALL THE MOABITES WERE GONE FROM IT!

    When the Israelites entered the Promised Land, after their 40 years wandering in the Exodus, the land of Moab was the first territory they conquered. God had commanded them to totally exterminate the former occupants of the lands they were to settle; and in Moab, they did just that. At that time, about 1450 B.C., Sihon, King of the Amorites, and conquered and occupied the kingdom of Moab, and was its ruler when the Israelites came in.

    In Numbers 21:26, 29, we read: “ For Heshbon was the city of Sihon the king of the Amorites, who had fought against the former king of Moab, AND TAKEN ALL HIS LAND OUT OF HIS HAND, even unto Arnon. Woe to thee, Moab! Thou art undone, O people of Chemosh: he hath given his sons that escaped, and his daughters, into captivity unto Sihon king of the Amorites. ”

    The Israelites conquered the land of Moab, killing all the people they found therein. We read in Deuteronomy 2:32-34:

    “ Then Sihon came out against us, he and all his people, to fight at Jahaz. And the LORD our God delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people. And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain. ”

    From here, the Israelites advanced northward into the land of Ammon. Numbers 21:30-35:

    “ We have shot at them; Heshbon is perished even unto Dibon, and we have laid them waste even unto Nophah, which reacheth unto Medeba. Thus Israel dwelt in the land of the Amorites. And Moses sent to spy out Jaazer, and they took the villages thereof, and drove out the Amorites that were there. And they turned and went up by the way of Bashan: and Og the king of Bashan went out against them, he, and all his people, to the battle at Edrei. And the LORD said unto Moses, Fear him not: for I have delivered him into thy hand, and all his people, and his land; and thou shalt do to him as thou didst unto Sihon king of the Amorites, which dwelt at Heshbon. So they smote him, and his sons, and all his people, until there was none left him alive: and they possessed his land. ”

    This entire area, east of the River Jordan, was settled by the Tribes of Reuben, Gad, and half of the Tribe of Manasseh, after all the original inhabitants, Moabites and Ammonites, had been killed or driven out.

    In Deuteronomy 3:12-16, Moses tells us:

    “ And this land, which we possessed at that time, from Aroer, which is by the river Arnon, and half mount Gilead, and the cities thereof, gave I unto the Reubenites and to the Gadites. And the rest of Gilead, and all Bashan, being the kingdom of Og, gave I unto the half tribe of Manasseh; all the region of Argob, with all Bashan, which was called the land of giants. Jair the son of Manasseh took all the country of Argob unto the coasts of Geshuri and Maachathi; and called them after his own name, Bashan‑havothjair, unto this day. And I gave Gilead unto Machir. And unto the Reubenites and unto the Gadites I gave from Gilead even unto the river Arnon half the valley, and the border even unto the river Jabbok, which is the border of the children of Ammon. ”

    All of this was accomplished about 1450 B.C. From that time on, this was purely Israelite territory; even more so than the land west of the River Jordan, because in the old lands of Moab and Ammon none were left alive. Today, Anglo-Saxon Americans who live in California are called “ Californians. ” But bearing this name and living in a former Mexican territory doesn ’ t make them Mexicans. Likewise, pure Israelites living in the old land of Moab were often called “ Moabites, ” just as those who lived in Galilee were called “ Galileans. ”

    Three hundred years later, about 1143 B.C., we find evidence that the Israelite occupation of the lands of Moab and Ammon was still unbroken, in Judges 11:12-26, which says:

    “ And Jephthah sent messengers unto the king of the children of Ammon, saying, What hast thou to do with me, that thou art come against me to fight in my land? And the king of the children of Ammon answered unto the messengers of Jephthah, Because Israel took away my land, when they came up out of Egypt, from Arnon even unto Jabbok, and unto Jordan: now therefore restore those lands again peaceably. And Jephthah sent messengers again unto the king of the children of Ammon: And said unto him, Thus saith Jephthah, Israel took not away the land of Moab, nor the land of the children of Ammon: But when Israel came up from Egypt, and walked through the wilderness unto the Red sea, and came to Kadesh; Then Israel sent messengers unto the king of Edom, saying, Let me, I pray thee, pass through thy land: but the king of Edom would not hearken thereto. And in like manner they sent unto the king of Moab: but he would not consent: and Israel abode in Kadesh. Then they went along through the wilderness, and compassed the land of Edom, and the land of Moab, and came by the east side of the land of Moab, and pitched on the other side of Arnon, but came not within the border of Moab: for Arnon was the border of Moab. And Israel sent messengers unto Sihon king of the Amorites, the king of Heshbon; and Israel said unto him, Let us pass, we pray thee, through thy land into my place. But Sihon trusted not Israel to pass through his coast: but Sihon gathered all his people together, and pitched in Jahaz, and fought against Israel. And the LORD God of Israel delivered Sihon and all his people into the hand of Israel, and they smote them: so Israel possessed all the land of the Amorites, the inhabitants of that country. And they possessed all the coasts of the Amorites, from Arnon even unto Jabbok, and from the wilderness even unto Jordan. So now the LORD God of Israel hath dispossessed the Amorites from before his people Israel, and shouldest thou possess it? Wilt not thou possess that which Chemosh thy god giveth thee to possess? So whomsoever the LORD our God shall drive out from before us, them will we possess. And now art thou any thing better than Balak the son of Zippor, king of Moab? did he ever strive against Israel, or did he ever fight against them, While Israel dwelt in Heshbon and her towns, and in Aroer and her towns, and in all the cities that be along by the coasts of Arnon, three hundred years? why therefore did ye not recover them within that time? ”

    So the Israelites had held unbroken possession of the land of Moab and Ammon all that time. Right in the middle of this period, about 1322 B.C., or 130 years after the Israelites of the Tribes of Reuben and Gad had occupied the land of Moab, ELIMELECH, A MAN OF JUDAH, WITH HIS WIFE NAOMI and his two sons was driven by famine out of Judah; and Ruth 1:1 says that he “ went to sojourn in the country of Moab. ”

    “ Now it came to pass in the days when the judges ruled, that there was a famine in the land. And A CERTAIN MAN OF BETHLEHEMJUDAH WENT TO SOJOURN IN THE COUNTRY OF MOAB, HE, AND HIS WIFE, AND HIS TWO SONS. And THE NAME OF THE MAN WAS ELIMELECH, and the name of his wife Naomi, and the name of his two sons Mahlon and Chilion, Ephrathites of Bethlehemjudah. And they came into the country of Moab, and continued there. And Elimelech Naomi's husband died; and she was left, and her two sons. And they took them wives of the women of Moab; the name of the one was Orpah, and the name of the other Ruth: and they dwelled there about ten years. ” (Ruth 1:1-4)

    Note the accuracy of that expression: NOT AMONG THE PEOPLE OF MOAB, BUT IN THE COUNTRY OF MOAB, WHICH WAS OCCUPIED BY ISRAELITES EXCLUSIVELY. His sons married women of that country; one of them being Ruth, became an ancestor of David, and through David an ancestor of Jesus Christ. SHE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN OF ANY RACE OR NATION BUT ISRAEL, FOR NO OTHERS LIVED THERE.

    Indeed, it could not have been otherwise. From the beginning God very strongly condemned the Moabites and Ammonites. In Deuteronomy 23:3 He commanded: “ An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of God; even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of God Forever. ”

    In the tenth generation there could be as little as one part in 1056 of Moabite blood: yet Forever a person with even on part in a thousand of Moabite blood could not enter into the congregation. And God was always consistent, in this as in other matters. In Sephaniah 2:9 we read: “ Therefore as I live, saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, surely Moab shall be as Sodom, and the children of Ammon as Gomorrah... ”

    The whole 48th chapter of Jeremiah is a terrible condemnation of the people of Moab. In prophesying the triumphant return of Jesus Christ, Isaiah tells us: “ For in this mountain shall the hand of the Lord rest, and Moab shall be trodden down under him, even as straw is trodden down for the dunghill. ” (Isaiah 25:10)

    Certainly God would not take from a people whom He condemns like Sodom one to be an ancestor of Jesus Christ. So never let anyone tell you that Jesus Christ was only a mongrel, with the blood of other races flowing in His veins. God was so insistent that even the least peasant among His people Israel must keep the race line pure, under penalty of being cut off from His people for violation of this law; and Jesus Christ said, “ Think not that I am cone to destroy the law or the prophets: I am come not to destroy, but to fulfill. ” (Matthew 5:17).

    We have the clearest proof that, both as God the Father and as God the Son, He was consistently true to His own commandments: Ruth was a pure Israelite, from the land of Moab, but not from the race of Moab. But even if she were, the Moabites were descended from Lot, Abraham ’ s nephew, and as such were not racial aliens either. (Taken, in part, from a study by Bertrand L. Comparet, from “ Covenant Report, ” New Zealand)

  2. #2
    Senior Member Michael's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    "Beyond the rivers of Ethiopia."

    Re: Ruth Was An Israelite!

    Excellent article !

  3. #3

    Re: Ruth Was An Israelite!

    Quote Originally Posted by George Lenz View Post
    Ruth was a Moabite woman, as the Bible clearly states.
    George, you imply above that Ruth WAS a racial Moabite and not just an inhabittant of Moab. (If I understand you correctly. You seem to be disagreeing with the thread) - a thread which clearly implies mixed, colored blood in the Moabites - Deuteronomy 23:3 “ An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of God; even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of God Forever. ” - and which states that Ruth was not a Moabite, but an inhabbitant of Moab (I have some South African friends who are white and are not "African" at all!!!)

    Then directly below that, you end with your standard phrase: "Resist the jews, negroes and coloreds and the jews, negroes and coloreds will flee from you."
    It is strange that you tell people this, yet you would have us believe that Christ Himself is part Moabite as he descends from Ruth.

    You say one thing, but then do the opposite.
    You are what Christ calls hypocrites in the New Testament and I think a lot of people on here see through your lies George.
    It would seem like they are just humouring your presense on here George.

    I sometimes wonder who you really are.

  4. #4

    Re: Ruth Was An Israelite!

    George, I will answer what you accuse me of in the next comment below this, but first answer me this, so that we can all understand you properly and in detail:
    Are you saying that any race, whether Moabite, or Canaanite, black, coloured, or Chinese is allowed to intermarry with white Israelites if they believe in Christ and are Christians?

    Please reply - yes, or no?

  5. #5

    Re: Ruth Was An Israelite!

    Just as I suspected, when it comes to race in the Bible, everything you say is a complete contradiction.

    You say: "It is not lawful to prohibit interracial marriage".
    Then you say: "interracial marriages bring much sorrow to those who enter in interracial marriages".

    It seems that you cannot make up your mind - even when the Bible is very clear.

    When the New Testament talks about the 'world' being saved by Christ - it is very clear it talks about the 'world' of dispersed Israelites and the Gentiles (all who are pure white in race).

    Christ did not do away with the Old Testmanent law of Moses (which was very clear on racial intermarriage).
    17 Ά "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
    18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
    19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
    20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 5:17

    Most New Testament "bishops" teach that this was not the law of Moses that Christ was referring to, but his own "NEW LAW".
    There is absolutely no proof of that found in the scriptures and I will not submit to any "bishop of Christ" who claims this without proof in the Bible to prove what they say. In fact, it is very clear, due to the fact that Christ mentions this same "law" in the same sentence as "the prophets", that this was the Old Testament (OT) law, because it was associated with the Old Testament (OT) prophets.
    Christ was also addressing those of his time that thought that he came to do away with the law (a law that ALREADY existed and can only be the law of Moses.) Christ said he did not do way with this law, not even a small part of it (not even "one jot or one tittle".)
    This is why Christ and his followers kept the law during his whole life, from his circumcision, to his keeping of the Sabbath, to the Passover - not until his death, but: "Till heaven and earth pass" as Christ Himself said. The law was not "done away with by Christ's death" and this verse is proof.

    So what did the law of Moses teach about racial intermarriage?
    Deuteronomy 23:2 "A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD."
    Bastard is translated in Hebrew as "mongrel" which is a racial mixture.

    Nehemiah 13:3 "Now it came to pass, when they had heard the law, that they separated from Israel all the mixed multitude."

    1 Samuel 17:42 "And when the Philistine looked about, and saw David, he disdained him: for he was but a youth, and ruddy, and of a fair countenance."

    Song of Solomon 5:10 "My beloved is white and ruddy, the chiefest among ten thousand.
    Lamentations 4:7 Her Nazarites were purer than snow, they were whiter than milk, they were more ruddy in body than rubies, their polishing was of sapphire:"

    You say: "It is not lawful to prohibit interracial marriage" despite everything in the Bible teaching the opposite.
    The only thing not lawful is teaching the opposite of what Christ taught - you are the only one behaving unlawfully in that regard.

    Then on top of all that, you claim, "interracial marriages bring much sorrow" as a way to get out of what you have just commited to saying minutes before that. If interracial marriage brings "much sorrow", then why is it "not lawful" to prohibit it?

    You say that you are against the coloreds and the Jews, yet everything you say in your teaching is the same that they teach.
    You are teaching the same as the coloreds and the Jews teach.

    This can lead only to one conclusion.
    You have been corrupted by them, or you are one of them yourself (Jews or coloreds).

    Christ came to condem the additions and removals of the law that priests such as yourself were engaging in 2000 years ago.
    He called these teachings "the commandments of men"
    Matthew 15
    7 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,
    8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
    9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men."

    Isaiah 8:20 "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them."

    Revelation 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
    19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

  6. #6

    Re: Ruth Was An Israelite!

    Judging from your reply above in which you have now been more clear about what you stand for, I can see now that when you said:
    "It is not lawful to prohibit interracial marriage", it seems now to me, that you were talking about the human, government "state laws" and not God's laws.

    If that is what you saying, then I agree with you, state laws DO ALLOW mixed marriages (unfortunately).
    So I agree with you there, now that you have been more clear about what you meant to say.

    However, firstly, what you don't understand is that state law should be the same as Bible law to begin with.
    And who was even talking about state law to begin with? Why are you bringing state / government law into the conversation, when was never talking about that to begin with?

    Secondly, the rest of what you say about most of the law of Moses being abolished is wrong and the word 'fulfilled' in the New Testament does NOT mean abolished. This is one of the biggest lies being taught today by most modern Christian churches.
    Christ fullfilled the law, how? - by keeping it - so precisely - that he kept every last jot and tittle of the law Himself as I explained.
    In that way he fulfilled the law of Moses (kept the law) and did not abolish it. This is what was meant by fulfilled. He fulfilled every single requirement of the law.
    It is ridiculous that people can think for even one minute that the word fulfilled can mean "abolished". The two words have completely opposite meanings.

    Many ministers / priests misinterpret Christ's parables in order to give justification to the idea that Christ came to abolish the law.
    For example, they talk about the parable where He spoke about the women who was accused of commiting adultery.
    They say that because Christ condemmed those who were attempting to stone the adultress in the parable story, he did away with the law which says that the adulteror and the adultress should both be put to death.

    This is not necessarilty true.
    Christ said: "John 8:7 ...He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her."
    The Jews at the time of Christ, more especially the leadership in the priesthood (hypocrites) where always condemning others for not keeping the law of Moses, while they themselves did not keep certain parts of the law themselves. They were hypocrites.
    This parable was a story Christ taught to people, that if they want to judge others, then they too must be judged.
    Those people that wished to stone her then left after Christ told them this.
    This does does not necessarily mean that the death penalty is abolished for those who commit adultery.

    Another parable of Peter that they use, to claim that Christ abolished the law of Moses, relates to the following issues in the New Testament:
    As you know already the law of Moses prohibits the eating of pork (or any unclean animal that does not chew the cud and have a cloven hoof) and the eating of unclean sea animals (i.e. those that do not have scales and fins).
    There was a parable about a sheet full of clean and unlcean animals descending down from heaven and Peter was told by God to eat it all.
    Here is the Parable in short:
    (notice how it ends off very clearly explaining the true meaning: that the Gentiles are now clean - NOT that pork , or shellfish is now clean)

    Acts 11:1 "And the apostles and brethren that were in Judaea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God.
    2 And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him,
    3 Saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them.
    4 But Peter rehearsed the matter from the beginning, and expounded it by order unto them, saying,
    5 I was in the city of Joppa praying: and in a trance I saw a vision, A certain vessel descend, as it had been a great sheet, let down from heaven by four corners; and it came even to me:
    6 Upon the which when I had fastened mine eyes, I considered, and saw fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.
    7 And I heard a voice saying unto me, Arise, Peter; slay and eat.
    8 But I said, Not so, Lord: for nothing common or unclean hath at any time entered into my mouth.
    9 But the voice answered me again from heaven, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.
    10 And this was done three times: and all were drawn up again into heaven.
    11 And, behold, immediately there were three men already come unto the house where I was, sent from Caesarea unto me.
    12 And the Spirit bade me go with them, nothing doubting. Moreover these six brethren accompanied me, and we entered into the man’s house:
    13 And he shewed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter;
    14 Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.
    15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.
    16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.
    17 Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?
    18 When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life."

    Another saying they use to try and deny the law of Moses:
    "John 1:17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ."
    This does not mean the law of Moses is abolished, it means that only by grace can you be forgiven for you sins.
    The law is given as punishment to those who sin and as compensation to those harmed by that sin, but it does not forgie you for your sins, or make you clean again as you were before you sinned. GRACE IS WHAT IS GIVEN AS FORGIVENESS FOR SIN AND THE GRACE OF CHRIST IS WHAT MAKES YOU CLEAN AGAIN!!!

    So you see Christ did NOT do away with the law, sometimes it seemes that way, but everything He did in His own life was according to the law of Moses and I have shown. Even His parables which focus on often ignored aspects of the law, do not abolish the law as it would seem when you first read them.

    You have also make patently false statements in condeming Moses and have made many false accusations.
    Moses killed an Egyptian in defense of fellow Hebrews who the Egyptian was assaulting.
    Exodus 2:11 And it came to pass in those days, when Moses was grown, that he went out unto his brethren, and looked on their burdens: and he spied an Egyptian smiting an Hebrew, one of his brethren.
    Exodus 2:12 And he looked this way and that way, and when he saw that there was no man, he slew the Egyptian, and hid him in the sand.
    Moses was not evil and even the New Testament speaks respectfully of him.

    Luke 24:44 "And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me."
    (i.e. that it was prophesied that he would fulfill - keep - every jot and tittle of the law). I encourage you to study the English definition of the word "fulfilled" in any dictionary and the ancient Greek form of this word as it appeared in the Bible using Strongs Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible which translates the English of the King James Bible into Greek.

    Revelation 15:3 "And they sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvellous are thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true are thy ways, thou King of saints."

    John 7:19 "Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill me?"

    John 5:46 "For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me."

    If Moses was so "evil" why is he written of in this way by the disciples and by Christ Himself?
    Moses smashed the stone tablets of the ten commandments IN ANGER when he came down from Mount Sinai and discovered the Israelites were worshipping a golden calf. Jehovah God (Yahweh) then re-carved the commandments on new tablets.
    Exodus 32:19 "And it came to pass, as soon as he came nigh unto the camp, that he saw the calf, and the dancing: and Moses’ anger waxed hot, and he cast the tables out of his hands, and brake them beneath the mount."
    Exodus 34:1 "And the LORD said unto Moses, Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first: and I will write upon these tables the words that were in the first tables, which thou brakest."

    The commandments of men were the additions and traditions the Pharisee priests added to the law of Moses which were never in the law of Moses.
    They continue to be followed to this day in the Talmud by imposter "Jews" (not real Jews), but they were never part of the original law of Moses as you falsely claim without any proof.

    You wrote: "the law of Moses, written by sinful Hebrew Moses, constitutes a mixture of commandments of Lord God Jehovah and commandments of a sinful man, Moses" - in that case please explain which laws were the commandments of a sinful man (Moses) and which were commanments of Jehovah (Yahweh)?

    Another thing you falsely claim, which is the same thing most of the false Christian churches are teaching:
    You say that the law of Moses only applies to the modern State of Israel - the modern Jews.
    By this you imply that the modern Jews are the true descendands of the ancient Israelites and therefore the law still aplies to them.
    The modern "Jews" are not true racial Jews of 2000 years ago. They are descendants of the Khazars (a Turkish Mongolian mixture of colored people that converted to the religion of Judaism 1000 years ago in Southern Russia and were never in Palestine). This is a historical fact that has been proven by linguistics and archeology and written history going back centuries. Even before that, some Jews at the time of Christ were not Jews, but were Edomites. These are the ones who got control of the priesthood and murdered Christ. The Edomites were mixed race Canaanites and converted to Judaism about two hundred years before Christ and hated Christ who exposed them to the public. If there is any "Middle Eastern" DNA in the modern Jews is it most likely Edomite / Canaanite DNA and not true Jewish / Israelite genetics. The lost tribes of Israel, including most Jews were taken into Assyrian captivity and escaped into Europe in many migrations over many centuries. They have fulfilled the prophesies made to Israel as they are Israel!!! The law still applies to them.

    How can you claim to be against the modern Jews, when you claim that the law of Moses applies to the modern Jews?
    If the law of Moses applies to them, that means that God (Yahweh) sees them as his chosen people for whom the law was given.
    How can they be His chosen people if they are not Jews, but are imposters and how can they be his chosen people to whom the law was given and to whom the great and woderful prophesies were made if you say we must "resist them" with all the other coloreds?

    Once again George, you are contraditcing yourself.

    You also have no proof that there was a law given to Moses and a seperate set of laws given in the Old Testament.
    The 10 commandments were part of the law f Moses and all Old Testament law was known as the law of Moses.
    Please provide proof of what you said about there being two different sets of laws in the Old Testament.

  7. #7

    Re: Ruth Was An Israelite!

    PS - To add one last thing.

    Slavery is not accepted in the Bible - at least not in the modern forms of slavery that we think of when we hear the word slavery.
    There was a form of slavery in the Bible but that was reserved for those who had debts to pay off, or those who broke the law - not innocent individuals.
    In fact there were laws to protect slaves and slaves were often those who did not earn a wage, but who wilingly became a slave in return for food and housing, but not wages. Like indentured labourers, but better treated of course. I suggest you read an excellent article explainig this far better than I ever could:

    Click here:

  8. #8

    Re: Ruth Was An Israelite!

    I don't know what Bible you are using George, but according to my Bible, the 1611 King James Version (KJV), there is no evidence, even in the verses you make reference to, to support the interpretations you come up with - and you have come up with many other interpretations in the exact same way, seemingly, without any evidence.

    The Catholic Church does the same thing all the time, for example, when they try to justify idols, as long as they are representations of Jesus, or Mary. Maybe that is where your thinking and reasoning comes from, as you even promote the Roman Julian calendar for the whole world to follow and then in the very next sentence you say that it doesn't matter what day you keep the Passover on as there is no time in Heaven and even two people keeping the Passover a month apart will still be keeping it in sync with each other and with God (Yahweh/Jehovah). Why then do you want us to keep the Julian calendar if it does not matter what calendar we follow? -

    For example, you say above: "the tablets of the Law of the Lord God Jehovah were given to Moses... in the glorious holy Mount Sinai, written in the finger of God, two tables of testimony that contain not only ten commandments but the whole Law of the Lord God Jehovah written in the books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers".

    You then make reference to Exodus 31:18 in support of this particular interpretation.
    But what does Exodus 31:18 really say?
    Exodus 31:18 (KJV) "And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God."
    Yes, there were two tables of stone, but there is no proof that they contained more than just the 10 commandments. The fact that there were two tablets is obviously not proof of that.
    Even the verse before this one and the verse after this one make no reference to the tablets containing more than just the 10 commandments. Yet you insist that they do.

    I can no longer take anything you say seriously George as you either do not provide Biblical evidence for your "priestly" interpretations of God's word, or when you do reference a verse in the Bible it contains nothing whatsoever to prove what you say it says.
    It would therefore be a complete waste of time to even debate anything further with regard to you last post above if you cannot even satisfy the most basic requirements of an honest, intellectual debate on the interpretations of God's word.

    George, you are nothing but a Catholic priest in disguise as a Russian orthodox.
    You have no place in Christian Identity as long as you keep prooting the false beliefs that you are now promoting.
    You try to use "priestly authority", just like the Catholic Church does, to justify your beliefs, but true Protestant Christians use scriptural authority to justify their beliefs, or interpretations. That is the difference between you and us George. Even a child can speak with authority on God's word if he uses God word and God's word alone as evidence to support his beliefs. This is why the Cathlic Church eventually had to ban the Bible itself, because people were reading it for themselves and were able to see the lies being perpetuated by the "priestly authority" that you keep promoting. Lies that have no basis in scripture.

    I look forward to your reply to see how you address my concerns, but I do not think I will respond again to you (at least on this thread) until you start providing REAL SCRIPTURAL PROOF for the things you say. I have clearly shown you how your 'proof' contains nothing to substantiate what you say - your far reaching conclusions.

  9. #9

    Re: Ruth Was An Israelite!

    I will respond this weekend, or soon thereafter when I have more time.
    When that verse says: "I will give thee tables of stone and a law and commandments which I have written." - Exodus 24:12
    A law and commandments does not necessarily mean two different things as they are the same thing - the law is the commandments.
    I will go into some detail soon about the commandments that were verbally given to Moses (not on the tablets) and which Moses then verbally recited to the Israelites - as clearly explained in Exodus.

    It is also not even logical (not physically possible) that the entire law of Moses could have been written on the tablets that Moses carried down from the mountain.
    He would have needed 20 donkeys, or a few trucks to bring them all down they would weigh so much!!!

Similar Threads

  1. Female Israelite inspiration...
    By Dan in forum Daughters of Adam
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-26-2016, 01:48 AM
  2. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 08-16-2011, 12:15 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts