In the flesh

quick responce to muslims who says How can "G-d" come in the flesh If he said he never changes

Abdullahi, Came IN the flesh isnt claiming that flesh is YHVH. So where exactly is the "change"????? I have said it countless times but muslims just dont get it. There are Many Hebrew words translated as G-D, G-d, and or g-d. One is Elohim and it means divine judgement and authority and applies Not only to G-D ALMIGHTY but also includes all instruments of G-D Almighty such as Messiah, Angels, prophets, apostels and basically everyone in covenant with G-D that carries out his divine judgement and authority, the only relation to the flesh is that this is done IN the flesh/ led of the SPIRIT. spirit is liked unto the wind you cant see the wind but you can see its effects. you cant see Spirit other than by its effects/works (love, hate, envy, faith, intelect... these things are spirit and are only Observed through actions in the physical). thus in this context men are often called Elohim (theos in the greek) which again is ONE term translated as G-d. Its NOT claiming that these people are G-D Almighty and Not a single title of G-D relates to flesh (El, Elyon, Elohim, Eloah, Elah,....) In Jn 1:1,14 we are told that the Word its self was with G-D and was G-d (divine in authorityy and judgement) and that it was "made" flesh. This word "made" from the kjv means to come to pass and is translated as such 82 times. So G-d's Word came to pass IN the flesh. Why did G-d need (use) flesh for his Word to come to pass? Because his Word had already delcared it would. Torah gives a standard of Blood atonement and Yeshua (Jesus) makes it clear that he came to overcome death (be crusified as do other scriptures such as Heb.2:14). Messiah is Adon- Lord as IN the earth (in relation to creation). The Almighty isnt limited to being within his own creation thus his annointed one (Messiah) comes to do the will of the Almighty within the earth. This postion is called the right hand of G-D (power and works of G-d in relation to creation). G-D Almighty is spirit and every man has a spirit that came from G-D Almighty and when they do his willl the will that is done is that of Elohim (G-d). It seems to me that muslims struggle to think spiritually and are carnal minded and Yeshua said such people cant understand the postion of Messiah. Yall simpley look at his flesh rather than his works which are spiritual and of the Father.

Ruth & Rachab

I recall someone commenting on a woman (or two) that are often accussed of being prostitutes when in fact they are not. Can anyone supply any info on this.

Also i was recently approached with comments about Matt.1:5 where we have Jospeh's line in relation to Mary(Jesus) and the mention of Rechab and Ruth of which the individual claimed both were prostitues. Joshua 2:1 does seem to say that the Rehab of... Joshua 2 is a "harlot". I couldn't get the guy to give me any documentation of ruth being a "prostitute" yet Deut.23:3 says no Moabite shall enter the congregation of The LORD (the companion bible says this is in the masculine here so didnt include (exclude) Ruth and yet the strongs says "Moabite or Moabitess" for H#4125) Ruth 1:4 / Ruth 4:5 (Ruth 2:10)

So Im looking for any info on any of these areas.

1/ If a Moabite wasn't to enter in the congregation of the LORD why is one in Joseph's line?

2/ Who is it that is often accussed of being a prostitute yet it cant be documented biblically?

3/ Is the "Rechab" of Matt 1:5 the "harlot" of Joshua 2:1 if so what purpose does this serve in the legal line of Yeshua?

______________________________

I recently looked back into the subject upon responding to someone else asking about Ruth being a moabite. Just wanted to share what i dug up while in the process (Praise YHVH).
The individual asked if the curse(LAW) of Deut 23:3 was removed from Ruth (after claiming Boaz redeemed her).


As for relation to the Law, I don't believe laws are removed but rather fulfilled. In this case the only fulfillment is to institute the standard. However upon comparing scriptures i think modernized interpretion is where the issue is.

Example: Within the scriptures we have 3 uses of the term "Jew". 1) one of the tribe of Judah (PHY. descendants of Judah) Some lump all tribes under this identification when each had their own 2)Geographical: one who dwells in the territory of Judah and when the kingdom was split one who considers Jerusalem the capital & its king the king 3) one of the Faith according to Torah(Word). The same goes with the use of Moab in the scriptures! (Geographical,& OR Physical relation /by blood)
Deut 23:3 say no Moabite in the congregation H#4125 a Moabite or Moabitess, that is, a 1)Descendant from Moab <-individual not location (phy): - (woman) of Moab (geographical anor or phy?), Moabite (-ish, -ss). in relation to a people
Can we apply this to Ruth 1:4? Can we say that Ruth being a "stranger" (Ruth 2:10)means foreigner (geographic loc.) rather than tribal lieniage? H#5237
Matt 1:5 says Ruth is in the Regal/Legal line of Joseph/Jesus.
Ruth 1:4 says Ruth was a woman taken from Moab (geographical location Not from Moab the man or his line) Ruth 4:5 again relates to the land /Geographical sense of the term!

Ruth 1:1-3 we see Elimelech's family (a Jewish Family) in Moab (the Land). I take it you know that according to Rabbinic Judaisim, Jewish identity (of the seed) is through the mother but tribal identification is of the Father. One of the sons of Elimelech took Ruth to wife Ruth 1:4 (still carrying the geographical sense) never said she wasnt of the congregation of the seed or faith of Israel! Boaz ordainied it and he was of relation to Elimelech Ruth 2:1. so IF Moab wasn't used in the geographical sense (which we have clear evidence it was) then Boaz would have been offending Torah as well as Ruths (Jewish) Husband that also dwelled in Moab. (Ruth 4:5/ Ruth 4:9) Boaz called Ruth daughter showing me that she was identified in a phy sense to be related to Israel (Ruth2:8). Ruth 2:11 drives it home for me.
I ask you was Elimelech (a Levite) also a Moabite (of Moab)? ONLY in a geographical sense. The standard of Deut 23:3 never would have applied to Ruth if all this is true .
________
Rabbinic commentaries point out that "Moabite" in Deut.23:3 is in the masculine thus not excluding Ruth (IF she be of Moab in any other way than location). However the prior verse stress the females need to be of the descendants of Jacob. Otherwise the seed would still be considered outside of the camp!