You’re dealing with a mocker, who is relying on a heretical opinion from the Reform.
There’s crystal clear evidence of the rule of matrilineal descent in Biblical times in the story of Ezra and the returning exiles.of the rule of matrilineal descent in Biblical times in the story of Ezra and the returning exiles.
The Book of Ezra tells the story of the Jews who returned from Babylonia to finish rebuilding the Holy Temple in Jerusalem. Upon their arrival they found that many of the Jews who inhabited the land had taken non-Jewish wives.
Ezra was heartbroken, tearing his garments in mourning and prayer to G‑d. A large crowd gathered, and joined with Ezra as he prayed and wept.
Next, the verse states:
“And Shechaniah, the son of Jehiel, of the sons of Elam, raised his voice and said to Ezra, “We have betrayed our G‑d, and we have taken in foreign wives of the peoples of the land, but there is still hope for Israel concerning this.”
“Now then, let us make a covenant with our G‑d to expel all these women and those who have been born to them, in accordance with the bidding of the Lord and of all who are concerned over the commandment of our G‑d, and let the Torah be obeyed.”
If the child of a Jewish father is Jewish, why did Shechaniah suggest expulsion of the children born to these women? How was it that Ezra and all the people agreed to his advice? Jewish people historically were greatly attached to their children. How is it that they agreed to send them away?
Obviously, it was a given that these children were not Jewish. (They ended up being the Samaritans — and “Palestinians”.)
Furthermore, note that Shechaniah states, “and let the Torah be obeyed.” Apparently, everyone understood that this was not a new edict, but a call for obedience to the Torah as it had always been understood by the Jewish people.
So what was the part of “the Torah to be obeyed”?
Well, Deuteronomy 7:4
“You shall not intermarry with them; you shall not give your daughter to his son, and you shall not take his daughter for your son. For he will turn away your son from following Me, and they will worship the gods of others, and the wrath of G‑d will be kindled against you, and He will quickly destroy you.”
Read that carefully. Note the capitalized letters.
As explained in writing in the year 130CE Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai:
G‑d is warning the people not to intermarry with the people of the land they are about to enter. Neither their sons nor their daughters should intermarry.
What would you expect next? “For he will turn your daughter away from Me.” Or “She will turn your son away from Me.”
But that’s not what He says. “He will turn your son from following Me.”
Who is that son? Who is the “He” that is turning that son away?
One possibility is that this is speaking of the son of your daughter—since grandsons are often called sons in the Hebrew Bible. She is the one mentioned first in the verse, who was taken by a non-Jewish man. That is the “he” that is turning that grandson away. But that grandson is still considered your son.
That being so, we see that the child of a Jewish woman, even when the father is not Jewish, is still considered Jewish—”your son.”
The other possibility is that this is speaking of your son, the one who took a non-Jewish woman. The “he” that is turning him away is his non-Jewish father-in-law. By marrying out of the Jewish people, your son has been turned away from G‑d, because his children will not be Jewish.
Either way leads to the same conclusion: The child of a Jewish mother and a non-Jewish father is considered Jewish, while the inverse is not Jewish.
+++
As far as examples of “foreign women” being married into the Tribe — Joseph married an Egyptian woman. Moses married a Midianite. King David took a Philistine wife and King Solomon also took wives who were not from the Jewish people.
How? They all converted. Otherwise, much fuss would have been made over violation of Deuteronomy 7:4. And there was no admonition from G-d or complaint.The conversion process was simply obvious to the reader and therefore not worthy of mention.
Go look at the process in Ruth. It’s not hard for a woman. A woman would have to immerse in a mikvah (ritual bath) and accept the covenant before three Jews. That’s it.
The accepting of the covenant by these women is an unneeded detail. Be like a description of of every meal Moses had, every day.
I have no idea with whom I'm dealing (cowboyusa): It's extraordinarily difficult to parse his ramblings and understand even what he is trying to say. I don't know: He may even be trying to say something righteous, but he is unable to formulate a coherent sentence, let alone defend his statements in an ordered and rational fashion, so I've given up.
As for your contribution - which, in contrast, is extremely well composed and lucid (with the exception of your closing sentence. What is "Be like a description of of every meal Moses had, every day," supposed to mean, anyway?): I am no Biblical scholar, nor am I a Jew - so the issue of "What constitutes Jewishness?" doesn't really interest me. I view the matter of "ritual bathing" etc. as now moot, anyway, what with the New Testament and all.
Regards,