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?

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to AquinasForGod in post #7]

I don’t believe this is a genuine question, but rather an attempt at a "gotcha" moment—though it isn’t one. I’m responding only to clarify why that’s the case. Paul is making a theological point, not a grammatical one. In Hebrew, zeraʿ in Genesis 22:18 is grammatically plural, as indicated by the plural helping verbs like "shall be blessed" (וְהִתְבָּרֲכוּ). However, Paul is speaking theologically, as seen in Genesis 3:15, where seed clearly refers to one person. His point is that the ultimate fulfillment of this promise is in Christ.

If Paul isn't making a grammatical statement in Galatians 3:16, why does he draw a grammatical distinction between what's supposedly said and what's supposedly not said in Genesis?

If the seed of the woman in Genesis 3:15 refers to only one and that one is supposed to be Jesus, then who is the serpent's seed? Is that also supposed to be an individual?

To assume that the woman's seed in Gen. 3:15 must be the individual Jesus, you have to assume that the woman in that verse is the individual Mary since she's the one who bore Jesus, but how is the woman Mary when Eve is the only woman present and every reference to "the woman" up to that point is a reference to her?

The assumption that the promises made to Abraham refer to the Messiah as an individual, when the text indicates something entirely different, is founded on wishful thinking. If it were founded on anything more, you wouldn't have to go all the way over into a different story to try to defend it.

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.

[servant1]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #48]


Many truths are disguised in the bible. Only those taught by these( Matt 24:45) get real truth at the proper time. It keeps satan and his angels in darkness, but most mortals as well. The key is believing Jesus over dogmas and his truth clearly points to his 1 religion.

[servant1]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #49]


Paul and Jesus are in harmony, otherwise God wouldn't have used his writings in the bible. Its men who twist things into disharmony.

[servant1]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #50]


John 3:16 proves it is for all.
In the NT speaking in tongues was speaking a foreign language they never spoke before. via holy spirit guidance.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to AquinasForGod in post #51]

You are reading it too literally. The single seed is from Eve, who is Jesus.

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.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to servant1 in post #52]

Many truths are disguised in the bible. Only those taught by these( Matt 24:45) get real truth at the proper time. It keeps satan and his angels in darkness, but most mortals as well. The key is believing Jesus over dogmas and his truth clearly points to his 1 religion.

Then how do you know that his 1 religion isn't Mormonism?


There's a Jewish joke:

Q: Why did God make Mormons?
A: To show Christians how Jews feel.

[RBD]

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

Gal 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

There's no contradiction here. In fact, Gal 3 is ensuring no contradiction nor misunderstanding is made about the promised seed of Abraham: He saith not, And to seeds...

Nor is there an argument made against there being more than one seed of Abraham. As Gal 4 confirms, Abraham had two sons, but that there is only one promised seed and son of Abraham, by whom Christ would come, Isaac by Sarah. The Author is confirming the promise, that Christ would only come by Isaac, and not by Ishmael, whom Mohammed preaches.

Rom 9:7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.

A limited objective necessitates a superficial reading for a false report. As well as a silly accusation that Paul of Tarsus didn't know Hebrew..

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?

The only decieved one here is thinking he or she knows Hebrew more than Paul did.

And the only reason for anger would insulting our intelligence by such stuff, being passed off as literary analysis and a study in Hebrew.

[RBD]

[Replying to AquinasForGod in post #7]

I don’t believe this is a genuine question, but rather an attempt at a "gotcha" moment—though it isn’t one. I’m responding only to clarify why that’s the case. Paul is making a theological point, not a grammatical one.

Actually he is making a simple grammatical point, and there's no need to theologize it into something else.

The Author is reminding everyone that the promised seed of Christ is only by the one promised son of Abraham, Isaac. Rather than making some kind of mistake between seed and seeds, He is ensuring the prophecy is not contradicted by anyone claiming the promise was to seeds of Abraham: He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one,

This is the problem with superficial readings limited to only one purpose, such as finding fault. How in the world can someone be contradicting words, when they are reconfirming the same words, and rejecting any other contradictory words?

The physical and theological point, is that Christ does not also come by another son of Abraham, such as Ishmael, as Muuhammed says. (That dead prophet's whole purpose was to mix the seeds Ishmael and Isaac together pertaining to the promise of Christ to come. He personally rejected Gal 3 when hearing and reading the NT, in order to make the promise by Abraham's seeds, but, He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, )

Gal 4:22For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.

Rom 9:7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.

Abraham did have more than one seed and son, but only in Isaac is the promise of Christ kept. In Gen 21, where the promise is made to his seed Isaac, it is in response to Abraham's concern for his son Ishmael and Hagar.

In Hebrew, zeraʿ in Genesis 22:18 is grammatically plural, as indicated by the plural helping verbs like "shall be blessed" (וְהִתְבָּרֲכוּ). However, Paul is speaking theologically, as seen in Genesis 3:15, where seed clearly refers to one person. His point is that the ultimate fulfillment of this promise is in Christ.

If Paul isn't making a grammatical statement in Galatians 3:16, why does he draw a grammatical distinction between what's supposedly said and what's supposedly not said in Genesis?

If the seed of the woman in Genesis 3:15 refers to only one and that one is supposed to be Jesus, then who is the serpent's seed? Is that also supposed to be an individual?

Gal 3 isn't addressing Gen 3, but rather Gen 21.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #57]

The argument is out of context. Paul is not arguing about the seed of Abraham being singular or plural, but about the seed of Abraham being the only one on earth by which Christ comes. Seeds is used for more than one man, as if Christ could also come by the seed of another man than Abraham.

Paul may be talking about Jesus, but Genesis isn't.

And Abram said, Lord God, what wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless, and the steward of my house is this Eliezer of Damascus? And Abram said, Behold, to me thou hast given no seed: and, lo, one born in my house is mine heir. And, behold, the word of the Lord came unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir. And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be.
(Genesis 15:2-5)

Paul states that the promises were made "to Abraham and his seed (Galatians 3:16) but then claims that Jehovah did not say "seeds" meaning many. In Genesis, however, "seed" obviously refers to many. Abraham is lamenting that he has no biological heir and that his heirs will have to be born to his steward. Jehovah promises him that he will have biological descendents and that they will be innumerable. That is what the Genesis passage is saying. It's a promise to Abraham that he will have many descendents and that they will have a land to live in. The passage isn't messianic; that's why it doesn't mention the Messiah. The only "seed" it refers to is Abraham's multitude of descendents who will be as numerous as the stars. It's Paul's argument which is out of context.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #58]

Gal 3 isn't addressing Gen 3, but rather Gen 21.

Where is the Jewish Messiah mentioned in Genesis 21?