Christians: Does this embarrass you?

[Avoice]

Christians: Do you ever feel like you have been left 'holding the bag' having to defend the Christian Testament? Forced to come up with all sorts of torturous explanations to defend the writings of your religion? Respond to the following:
EXAMPLE:

BELOW IS QUOTE FROM GALATIONS AND THE PASSAGE IN GENESIS THAT GALATIANS REFERS TO.

"But the promises were spoken to Abraham and his seed. He does not say, And unto seeds, as of many; but as of one; And thy seed, which is Christ."

"Sojourn in this land, and I will be with thee, and will bless thee; for unto thee, and unto thy seed, I will give all these countries, and I will perform the oath which I sware unto Abraham thy father. And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed"

THE CLAIM: Galatians claims that it says seed not seeds. Therefore it means one seed meaning Jesus.
THE PROBLEM: In Hebrew, the word seed is written the same in the singular and the plural: ZERA. The same way the word sheep in English is the same for singular and plural.

THE QUESTION FOR CHRISTIANS: How do you defend Galations that claims if it meant more than one seed it would have said it. As if the word ZERA would say ZERAS if it meant plural. NO IT WOULDNT.
How does it feel having to conjuring up some explanation to save the ignorant writer of Galatians who didn't know that the word seed in Hebrew is the same in singular and in the plural

CHRISTIANS: YOU HAVE BEEN DECEIVED. ARE YOU ANGRY WITH ME FOR SHOWING YOU OR ANGRY THAT THE WRITER OF GALATIANS USED DECEPTION TO MAKE YOU BELIEVE?

[historia]

You are reading it too literally. The single seed is from Eve, who is Jesus. The single seed of the serpent could be the anti Christ.

Then why didn't Eve give birth to Jesus?

I'm reading it verbatim, and finding that there's no mention of the Jewish Messiah here.

Or, more to the point, you are reading it ad litteram: according to what you think the author originally intended. In the modern world, we tend to favor this way of reading texts to the exclusion of any other. For us what is important is trying to understand what the author originally meant to say.

However, that is not how ancient people approached sacred texts. They though sacred texts could have multiple levels of meaning and therefore could be read in multiple ways. That's why it can be a little disorienting to us when we come across an ancient Christian or Jewish writer giving an interpretation of the Jewish scriptures that treats the text allegorically, or, as in the case we are considering here in Galatians, focusing on a specific word or phrase without regard for the immediate literary context.

Consider John Barton's summary of Rabbinic interpretation of the Bible in A History of the Bible (2019), pg. 338:

Rabbinical biblical interpretation can strike the outsider as arbitrary and even perverse in the way it handles Scripture, with a determination to find the conclusions it seeks by hook or by crook.

Such adverse judgements, which have in the past even fed anti-Semitism, are predicated on the assumption that Judaism is determined by the Bible. But though Judaism is a religion that is certainly a descendent of the Bible, it is by no means limited to its biblical heritage; and it uses the biblical text, often in a consciously playful way, to illustrate its practices and beliefs. In doing so it tries to imply that these practices and beliefs are already present in the biblical text, but this is not a literal claim.

The ingenuity in finding other passages that seem to help interpret the one at hand, often by what look like almost random word association, is part of a great love for Scripture, even though to some non-Jews is seems uncontrolled and, indeed, arbitrary.

I would suggest that any criticism of Paul's interpretation here has more to do with cultural differences between us and him than any flaw in his hermeneutic.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to historia in post #61]

I would suggest that any criticism of Paul's interpretation here has more to do with cultural differences between us and him than any flaw in his hermeneutic.

Okay, then when Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life; no one comes to the Father except by me", he was declaring what he was in that specific era and not necessarily who that would always be.

It's a matter of interpretation.


And when he said that "other sheep" would "hear his voice", he was definitely referring to the Lamanites. Right? If he weren't, the angel Moroni wouldn't have directed Joseph Smith to the plates of gold to translate into the Book of Mormon.....

[historia]

It's a matter of interpretation.

Sure, all texts have to be interpreted.

I'm not sure what other point -- if any -- you are trying to make in your previous reply, as your comments seem a bit scattered.

[Athetotheist]

It's a matter of interpretation.

Sure, all texts have to be interpreted.

I'm not sure what other point -- if any -- you are trying to make in your previous reply, as your comments seem a bit scattered.

The point I'm trying to make is that if anyone can conveniently dismiss any flaws in something they want to believe, then so can anyone else----regarding whatever they want to believe.


I've tried to direct my comments at main points to address things as concisely as I can.

Maybe you haven't read them carefully enough.

Or maybe you just don't like them?

[servant1]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #56]


They don't listen to Jesus over the dogmas.

[historia]

The point I'm trying to make is that if anyone can conveniently dismiss any flaws in something they want to believe, then so can anyone else----regarding whatever they want to believe.

Sure, people can believe what they want.

I'm not sure what any of this has to do with I wrote in post #61, though. In that post I am not "conveniently dismissing any flaws," but rather arguing that we first need to understand the cultural and historical context in which Paul wrote before critiquing his interpretation.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to servant1 in post #65]

They don't listen to Jesus over the dogmas.

How do you know?

A Jew could just as easily say, "Christians don't accept the word of the Tanakh over the dogmas."

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to historia in post #66]

I'm not sure what any of this has to do with I wrote in post #61, though. In that post I am not "conveniently dismissing any flaws," but rather arguing that we first need to understand the cultural and historical context in which Paul wrote before critiquing his interpretation.

Why bother calling the Bible historical if its history can be interpreted in any way anyone wants?

[servant1]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #67]


I have studied, bible, history, etc since 1961--FEW on earth knows what Jesus actually teaches. I have been kicked out of trinity run sights for showing what Jesus teaches. They say he didn't teach that, yet all the teachings i post of his are in every translation on Earth.
Those teachers are paid to teach a religions brand of dogma taught in schools of men and little of what Jesus actually teaches.
Here is a super important one every true follower knows by heart and it shows who is who=
Matthew 6:33-Keep on seeking- FIRST- the kingdom and his ( YHVH(Jehovah) righteousness and all these things will be added( sustenance, covering, spirituality)-- You see one must go through Jesus and get to his Father=YHVH(Jehovah) to do this 24/7,365=John 4:22-24( Jesus assures its what the true followers do)--trinity religions stop at Jesus.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #67]


I have studied, bible, history, etc since 1961--FEW on earth knows what Jesus actually teaches. I have been kicked out of trinity run sights for showing what Jesus teaches. They say he didn't teach that, yet all the teachings i post of his are in every translation on Earth.
Those teachers are paid to teach a religions brand of dogma taught in schools of men and little of what Jesus actually teaches.
Here is a super important one every true follower knows by heart and it shows who is who=
Matthew 6:33-Keep on seeking- FIRST- the kingdom and his ( YHVH(Jehovah) righteousness and all these things will be added( sustenance, covering, spirituality)-- You see one must go through Jesus and get to his Father=YHVH(Jehovah) to do this 24/7,365=John 4:22-24( Jesus assures its what the true followers do)--trinity religions stop at Jesus.

Have you subjected Christian scripture to the same critical analysis which you have presumably applied to the writings of every other religion?