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?

[RBD]

[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.

Well, let me refer you to the Bible:

Acts 19:6
6 When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied.

Mark 16:17
17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues;

1 Corinthians 14:2
2 For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to people but to God. Indeed, no one understands them; they utter mysteries by the Spirit.

The Bible disagrees with you because speaking in tongues was in fact not just speaking a foreign language they never spoke before.

True. No one ever said an unbeliever can't read the Book and understand what it teaches. The same as any other book not believed, but perfectly understood.

However, teaching and interpretation is not about contradiction. That's why most all accusations of Bible contradiction are only from interpretations that contradict the Book, not from the words themselves. I have seen only a few challenges, that actually suggest a grammatical contradiction between words. And one of the most convincing hasn't even been suggested here.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #106]

Arguing against Jesus Christ being the Messiah is only by intepretation of prophecy.

Any prophecy which is so ambiguous as to be open to interpretation falls into the catagory of myth.

And the first prophecy of Messiah coming to the earth is of 'that prophet' like Moses, and the LORD Himself coming to judge the earth and govern all nations.

[RBD]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #92]
Jesus appointed Paul, they are in harmony, Men twist things in the darkness which makes it seem unharmonious.

Jesus did not appoint Paul because he never met the man

Jesus Christ met Saul of Tarsus on the road to Damascus, and chose him to be His apostle to the Gentiles.

If 'appoint' is a problematic word, then 'chosen' is better anyway.

and Paul's message does not agree with Jesus as was already shown to you.

How so.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #98]

I think you mean absence of evidence does not prove something's not there. Absence is itself evidence of absence, but not proof there's nothing there.

Absence of evidence is proof that evidence is not there.

True. And no evidence does not mean nothing it is there.

In the Bible, the evidence is supplied elsewhere. Whether anyone believes it, is irrelavant to what the Book says. Only if there is contradiction between evidence and event, is the Bible proven errant.

Gen 13/15 is all about the natural seed promised mulititudes and land.

Where does Jehovah make a different promise to Abraham and his seed in Jewish scripture?

And Jesus answering them said, Have ye not read so much as this,

Gen 21:12 And God said unto Abraham, Let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the lad, and because of thy bondwoman; in all that Sarah hath said unto thee, hearken unto her voice; for in Isaac shall thy seed be called...And also of the son of the bondwoman will I make a nation, because he is thy seed.

Gen 15/17 is the promise of land and numbers to the seed of Abraham, which includes both Isaac and Ishmael, but the promise of inheritance is only to his seed by Isaac, not his seed by Ishmael:

Mat 22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

When you resort to quoting Galatians and Hebrews you're just using Christian scripture to justify itself, and that's what makes your argument circular.

When you resort to not believing the NT as Bible, then you can stick to the rest of the Book. Any contradiction in the Bible is enough to prove it is not inerrant, which would prove the Book was not written by one Author alone: The LORD God as He calls Himself.

[RBD]

[Replying to historia in post #73]

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

Bible is history and doctrine and prophecy. History is confirmed factually or not. Doctrine and prophecy can be interpreted.

I don't take issue with there being some history in the Bible and there certainly is doctrine. However, the idea that humans can predict the future gives me pause.

It makes me downright skeptical.

Can you make the idea that humans can tell the future reasonable or is such a thing just an unreasonable assertion and that must be assumed to be true via faith?

It doesn't take genius to learn from history, nor to analyze future events based upon present circumstances. The art of military and politics largely depend on it.

Have you ever met someone with the ability to predict the future?

Your unbelief in the God of the Bible to prophecy accurately, as well as give that prophecy to His people to make known, is not an argument about contradiction in the Bible. Unless you can show a prophecy in the Bible, that was supposed to come to pass, and did not. (This does not apply to prophecy we know cannot have come to pass, and so is yet unfuflilled. Such as the 2nd coming of Jesus Christ to earth.)

There have been many false prophets, especially in the name of the LORD, but no words of prophecy nor of doctrine are proven wrong by His own words.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #114]

Gen 21:12 And God said unto Abraham, Let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the lad, and because of thy bondwoman; in all that Sarah hath said unto thee, hearken unto her voice; for in Isaac shall thy seed be called...And also of the son of the bondwoman will I make a nation, because he is thy seed.

Isaac and Ishmael are mentioned here. And here, again, the Messiah is not.

When you resort to not believing the NT as Bible, then you can stick to the rest of the Book. Any contradiction in the Bible is enough to prove it is not inerrant, which would prove the Book was not written by one Author alone: The LORD God as He calls Himself.

The Tanakh and the NT are separate, just as the NT and the Book of Mormon are separate. And any Mormon can easily say, "Whether anyone believes it, is irrelevant to what the Book says."

[servant1]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #105]


Not that you won't, you cant. Prove it otherwise. Or is it as John Lennon said--Words are flying out like endless rain into a paper cup, they slither while they pass and slip away across the universe.

[Clownboat]

2 Tim 3:16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

I acknowledge this to be Christian dogma. I trust you understand as to why it is not considered authoritative or meaningful.

Just to be clear, if there is any contradiction in the Bible, then it is one Author with Himself.

How would one author contradict himself? Sorry, I'm trying to understand what you mean, but this reads as nonsensical.

If there is a contradiction between any 'apostle' with Scripture, then it is a false prophet and apostle of Jesus Christ, who has no part in the Bible.

It seems as if you are arguing that we should reject the words of Paul? If so, I personally agree and think that Jesus would be rolling in his grave if he knew what Paul had done. However, since Jesus didn't write any parts of the Bible, it is hard to know for sure what can accurately be attributed to him.

There have been many false prophets and apostles speaking and writing in the name of the God of the Bible...

This seems likely upon a reading of the Bible.

which is why they are not included in the Bible.

I don't see a need to address contradictions that are not found in the Bible.

[Clownboat]

True. No one ever said an unbeliever can't read the Book and understand what it teaches. The same as any other book not believed, but perfectly understood.

I believe it was in this thread that someone said it took a Holy Ghost to understand scripture.
We also have scripture itself:
John 14:26
"The Holy Spirit will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you".
1 Corinthians 2:14
14 The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.

But I digress.

However, teaching and interpretation is not about contradiction.

Thank goodness! Could you imagine if that is how we taught/interpreted things?

That's why most all accusations of Bible contradiction are only from interpretations that contradict the Book, not from the words themselves.

The Bible is a collection of words though. To contradict the book would be to contradict the words in the book. Unless I'm missing your meaning...

I have seen only a few challenges, that actually suggest a grammatical contradiction between words.

Acknowledging grammatical contradiction is a start...

And one of the most convincing hasn't even been suggested here.

I believe you.

[Clownboat]

Jesus Christ met Saul of Tarsus on the road to Damascus, and chose him to be His apostle to the Gentiles.

I am familiar with the story. Now, for a moment, please imagine that the story did not take place quite like Saul/Paul claims. Imagine he was creating a religion and was piggy backing off of this Jesus character. Would he not create such a story to establish authenticity for his new religion (something meant to included Gentiles)?

If 'appoint' is a problematic word, then 'chosen' is better anyway.

The main point of contention is that these are the words of Paul, not the words of Jesus. Why is placing faith in Paul justified? Especially when his message seems to be all about Jesus and blood. Jesus not so much (see below).

and Paul's message does not agree with Jesus as was already shown to you.

How so.

For example, how a person gains heaven seems like it would be pretty important to understand. Like the most important thing for our eternal souls if we have them

Eph 1:7 Paul says: In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace.
Rom 4:25 Paul says: who was put to death for our trespasses and raised for our justification.
Matt 6:14-15 Jesus says: For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father also will forgive you, [15] but if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.
Paul says you need to accept the sacrifice of Jesus to be redeemed. Jesus claims that if you forgive others, God will forgive you too.

Rom 3:24 + 28 Paul says: they are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus,… [28] For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law.
Rom 5:9 Paul says: Since, therefore, we are now justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.
Matt 12:37 Jesus says: for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.
More of Paul making this about the sacrifice if Jesus. Jesus on the other hand claims that we will be justified by our words.

Rom 6:23 Paul says: For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal live in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Matt 19:29 Jesus says: And every one who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name's sake, will receive a hundredfold, and inherit eternal life.
Paul once again makes this about the death of Jesus. Jesus on the other hand alludes to a very different way to receive eternal life and does not mention human sacrifice.

These us just a few examples for why I see it that Jesus would be rolling in his grave if he knew what Paul did. I fully admit though, due to Jesus not providing us any of his teaching himself any words attributed to Jesus must be questioned.