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]

You should suspend your personal ideas, in order to analyze a book based entirely on what the author writes.

My claim is that we cannot analyze what Jesus may have said because he did not write any parts of what we now call the Bible.

Already responded to this.

Which is why the Author of the Bible can be intelligently believed to be who He says He is, the LORD God Almighty.

The Bible was written by men, not by some LORD God Almighty. You are just letting your faith speak for you, but this is debate and what you place your faith in is meaningless here. I hear your claim though.

And your unbelief in the LORD God Almighty does not make it written only by men.

I hear your claim too.

You don't get to just add the word 'intelligently' before uttering 'possible' to make what you then suggest to be actually intelligent.

Of course I do,

That will not work in debate.

It does with me. Intelligence is also factual information gained by observation and study, not necessarily the mental powers of a person.

when the possibility is based upon objective study.

This has not been demonstrated and certainly doesn't justify a belief that some Lord God authored the Bible. We know some of the humans that are credited with authoring some of the books and they were in fact human, not some Lord Gods.

All the prophets and apostles used by God were men. But unless we idolize them all as unerring men, unlike all other men, then they were only useful pens in the hands of the unerring perfect Author, calling Himself the LORD God Almighty and Jesus Christ.

Especially in this case where it is not logical nor is it intelligent for a God to create a message for everyone, but then require pastors, priests and theologians to then interpret the said book

Already responded to this.

Which is proof of the Author's freedom granted to all people to read and interpret His words for ourselves.

It is not proof of what you claim it is.

Show how it doesn't, by showing any error in the argument given from the Book: The Author of the Bible not only gives liberty, but also commands His people to read, understand, and minister His words to their own households. And any appointed leaders must be judged according to His words, that we can all read.

I have sufficiently supplied alternative readings with objective study.

You prove my point. You shouldn't have to do this.

You prove the point, that no one should have to do this, if not for some who purpose to find fault with the Book, in order to personally accuse the Author of lying about Himself.

If humans authored the books, it would read as it does.

If only men wrote the Book, then it would not read as it does. Unless someone wants to idolize them as the godlike Authors themselves.

I find most of the accusations of error are entirely superficial by personal bias. I have also found some believers defaulting to similar insufficient responses, rather than taking time to study out the challenge.

That's pretty neat. Are you saying that you are qualified to provide the correct understanding of the Bible?

Anyone is qualified to observe what people do, beginning with ourselves. If we want to be honest about it.

Unless of course the Bible is true, which can be entirely possible by it's own inerrancy. The purpose is not proselytize anyone to the Bible, but to only show that it can be intelligently believed as written, and only superficially declared unbelievable.

Cool, but to be clear, I'm not addressing the truthfulness of the Bible.

Let's be honestly clear. You are claiming the Bible is lying, by trying to find fault in it. The first lie being, that the Author is lying about Himself.

I sure hope that having a belief such as this, does not cause you to hate.

You mean other than evil?

No, hate in general.

Already responded to this.

Jesus Christ died on a cross, in order to show how God hates people so much.

That a Jesus died on a cross is likely, the rest is just your assertion though.

The rest is what the Book says.

I don't care one whit about what Moohammed, J. Smith, or M. Eddy says about me.

Had you been born in the Middle East, you then most likely would care I would note.

I am married to a wife that came from the Middle East to be American, and she did not care. Which is why she came to be American.

Odd isn't, that geography plays such a significant part in what religions most humans belong to? That is another illogic,

No, it's perfectly logical in a carnal way, for religions to be made by people based upon their geography. None of them are the pure religion of Jesus Christ, that begins with all men being created the same in His image by His Spirit. And His true worship and righteousness is not bound by the earth nor the stars, but only by His free faith.

I do however find Buddha very interesting.

Myself as well and I have even read convincing arguments that Jesus might have had Buddhist beliefs that he was spreading,

I've heard from Joseph Campbell too, and ceased listening when he started changing the Bible, in order to conform to Buddha.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #167]

When He comes a second time to inherit all nations, and reign from Jerusalem for a thousand years.

There's no prophecy of the Jewish Messiah coming a "second" time.

Heb 9 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

Jesus was made of the seed of David by the womb of Mary, a daughter of David. Being a woman does not disannul being born of the seed of a man.

In Jewish lineage, the mother conveys Jewishness. The father conveys tribal affiliation.

In the Bible this is so.

And the Christian Bible tells us that Mary was descended from David through Nathan; the Messiah has to be descended from David through Solomon.

False. Nowhere does prophecy speak of the Messiah coming by Solomon, but only David. A false prophecy is made up, solely to reject Jesus' body being made of the seed of David in the womb of Mary.

To demand Messiah born of a woman by the seed of her husband, is to also deny any virgin birth prophesied by their own prophet. And so, anti-NT Jews must also make Isaiah a false prophet

No prophet of theirs prophesied that the Messiah would be born to a virgin.
https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/ar ... rgin-birth

They deny the virgin birth, in order to deny Messiah coming in the flesh born of woman. (And as usual, they resort to playing word games with 'virgin', in order change the whole meaning of the text.

1 Tim 6:3… doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,

Anti-NT Jews make up false prophecy of a Messiah by Solomon, and reject true prophets of the virgin birth, in order to reject Jesus the promised Messiah of the LORD God of Israel.

[RBD]

Zera comes from the verb zur, to ejaculate. It is true that zera means sperm and seed, neither of which is plural in Ivrit/Hebrew.

However, Paul was taught by the great and final Talmudic Rav Gamaliel ( May he rest in Eden). Perhaps Gamaliel lied to Paul and said zera is Z'rot or Z'ra-im in a jestingly hypothetical plural. Or...perish the thought, Acts lied about Gamaliel teaching Paul?

I find it interesting that some people must accuse Paul of Tarsus making a grammatical mistake in Hebrew, that only an unschooled Jew would do. Which in itself is far-fetched, since they are very good and diligent about not letting such ignorance last beyond the crib for too long.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #172]

There's no prophecy of the Jewish Messiah coming a "second" time.

Heb 9 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

The letter to the Hebrews isn't Jewish scripture. Even the "prophecy" in verse 9 was written after the supposed fact.


In Jewish lineage, the mother conveys Jewishness. The father conveys tribal affiliation.

In the Bible this is so.

And the Bible is what we're discussing.

Nowhere does prophecy speak of the Messiah coming by Solomon, but only David.

He must be a member of the tribe of Judah (Genesis 49:10) and a direct male descendant of King David (I Chronicles 17:11, Psalms 89:29-38, Jeremiah 33:17, II Samuel 7:12-16) and King Solomon. (I Chronicles 22:10, II Chronicles 7:18)

https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/ar ... he-messiah

They deny the virgin birth, in order to deny Messiah coming in the flesh born of woman. (And as usual, they resort to playing word games with 'virgin', in order change the whole meaning of the text.

They point out that alma means "young woman", that betulah is the word for "virgin" and that the passage in which Isaiah is sent to calm Ahaz about a feared attack from Israel and Syria is not a messianic prophecy.

You don't get to change the meaning of Bible text just because it doesn't support what you want to believe.

[RugMatic]

Zera comes from the verb zur, to ejaculate. It is true that zera means sperm and seed, neither of which is plural in Ivrit/Hebrew.

However, Paul was taught by the great and final Talmudic Rav Gamaliel ( May he rest in Eden). Perhaps Gamaliel lied to Paul and said zera is Z'rot or Z'ra-im in a jestingly hypothetical plural. Or...perish the thought, Acts lied about Gamaliel teaching Paul?

I find it interesting that some people must accuse Paul of Tarsus making a grammatical mistake in Hebrew, that only an unschooled Jew would do. Which in itself is far-fetched, since they are very good and diligent about not letting such ignorance last beyond the crib for too long.

Was the final part of your remark a reference to Jews killing their unwanted babies? I'm not aware of this practice . Please elaborate.


I realize that to people who don't know Hebrew, Paul's blunder seems irrelevant, I'm fairly fluent in Hebrew and Paul's blunder is just goofy. Off the top of my head it'd be like a German telling other Germans that when the American chick at the end of the bar said that she had lice, it must mean she only has one lice for her potential date to deal with since she didn't say lices. That's an inadequate analogy, but hopefully you see how ridiculous it sounds.


What's even more goofy is that Paul, a Hebrew of Hebrews Philippians 3:5, and a student of Gamaliel Acts 22:3, never translates from the Hebrew Bible when he quotes the Old Testament. Check his quotes yourself using any translation, you'll notice his quotes hardly resemble the referenced text.

Pharisees despised the Septuagint. The Talmud says the Jews only translated the Torah into Greek at the request of Ptolemy ll, but forbid other Jews to read it. Scholars debate whether Jews or Christians finished the Septuagint. Most of Paul's quotes resemble the Septuagint, so I assume Jews did finish it. On any event, most Jews used the Targum ( an Aramaic paraphrase of the Bible ) in Paul's day since outside the Pharisees' clubhouse Hebrew was a dead language.

I'm well aware that Christian apologetics will assume the Talmud is inaccurate at best, deceitful at worst, and will dismiss the Talmud's backdrop altogether.
They'll also suppose the Pharisees had two camps. The Hebrew camp and the Greek camp. They'll suppose Paul was brought up in the former and switched to the latter after his Damascus surprise. They'll suppose Paul knew that seed has no plural in Hebrew, but theologically indicated that it has no plural for sermonic reasons.

[Clownboat]

Already responded to this.

Then I'll just point it out again that Jesus didn't write anything down and we cannot know what he may have said.

And your unbelief in the LORD God Almighty does not make it written only by men.

Correct, my current unbelief is irrelevant. Outside of you using it as a way for you to dodge the apparent faith belief that a God of some sorts authored the books that were written by men and assembled as one book by men. The gods are not involved nor needed to explain what happened.

I hear your claim too.

And completely failed to address it. I assume you no longer feel that gods write books.

All the prophets and apostles used by God were men.

This doesn't justify believing that gods write holy books and it would mean that Muhammed was the last and greatest prophet.

But unless we idolize them all as unerring men, unlike all other men, then they were only useful pens in the hands of the unerring perfect Author, calling Himself the LORD God Almighty and Jesus Christ.

Whoopsie! You note that the authors were men, but then seem to idolize them as being pens of some perfect Author. Why would a perfect author, with a message for everyone, deliver a message that requires, pastors, priests and theologians to then explain the said perfect message. I don't see how this can be 'perfect'.

Especially in this case where it is not logical nor is it intelligent for a God to create a message for everyone, but then require pastors, priests and theologians to then interpret the said book

Already responded to this.

I don't think you did, so I will continue to point it out to our readers.

Show how it doesn't, by showing any error in the argument given from the Book: The Author of the Bible not only gives liberty, but also commands His people to read, understand, and minister His words to their own households. And any appointed leaders must be judged according to His words, that we can all read.

Please clarify, are you making claims about who authored the Bible with 66 books or the one with 73? Maybe you mean the oldest Bible, the Ethiopian Bible, which has between 81 and 84 books. I believe that men authored the 66 to 84 books in the Bible because I'm not aware of a single instance where a God authored a book. Until it is shown that gods do this, claiming that fairies did it has the exact same explanatory power.

You prove the point, that no one should have to do this, if not for some who purpose to find fault with the Book, in order to personally accuse the Author of lying about Himself.

Let's check to see who of us is the liar shall we?
Who authored the 66 to 84 books of the Bible? I say men did it because only men have ever written/authored books as far as I'm aware and for noting this, you accuse me of finding fault in a book just so I can accuse some author I don't believe exists is a liar.
I hope you see just how silly that is. It would me like me accusing you of not singing Christmas songs because you want to find fault with Santa Claus.

If only men wrote the Book, then it would not read as it does.

Please provide an example of something in the Bible that you don't feel humans could be responsible for. When you cannot, you should amend your thinking on the matter.

Unless someone wants to idolize them as the godlike Authors themselves.

This is silly and doesn't follow. I can note that humans have authored every book ever created without having to pretend that the authors are godlike. Your reasoning therefore fails.

I find most of the accusations of error are entirely superficial by personal bias. I have also found some believers defaulting to similar insufficient responses, rather than taking time to study out the challenge.

That's pretty neat. Are you saying that you are qualified to provide the correct understanding of the Bible?

Anyone is qualified to observe what people do, beginning with ourselves. If we want to be honest about it.

Please notice how you completely failed to answer the actual question posed to you. I bolded left it above and bolded it for you.

Let's be honestly clear. You are claiming the Bible is lying, by trying to find fault in it. The first lie being, that the Author is lying about Himself.

You don't need to try to pretend what I'm claiming as I have been very open about it. So once again...
It is not logical that an all powerful, all knowing God would create a message intended for everyone, but then require pastors, priest, theologians and RBD to then interpret the said message.
Notice how lying isn't involved? You are the only one being dishonest about my position.

I am married to a wife that came from the Middle East to be American, and she did not care. Which is why she came to be American.

When you wife starts posting here, perhaps she will then be addressed. For now, I only note that you would have made a good Muslim for the way you can reject one prophet while ascribing to another (you do the same with holy books as well). How would I know if your wife has this trait?

Odd isn't, that geography plays such a significant part in what religions most humans belong to? That is another illogic,

No, it's perfectly logical in a carnal way, for religions to be made by people based upon their geography. None of them are the pure religion of Jesus Christ...

This is nothing but special pleading.
Special pleading is a logical fallacy that involves making an exception to a general rule without justification.
Therefore, belonging to a religion due to a geographic location is expected, but not logical if one of the religions has a true God behind it.

that begins with all men being created the same in His image by His Spirit.

Can you show that you speak the truth?

And His true worship and righteousness is not bound by the earth nor the stars, but only by His free faith.

These words are nonsensical ramblings. During my time being a Christian, I would often note such odd claims being made and fellow Christians then others would shout 'amen'.
To try to get you to understand this better, I offer you this:
Allah's true worship and righteousness is not bound by the earth nor the stars, but only by His free faith. Now everyone in the mosque shout Allahu Akbar! (Was this meaningful to you in any way?)

[RBD]

I had no idea that my darkness was so much more powerful than this light you speak of.

While I agree that pronouncing judgments is not an adequate argument about evidence, there is such a thing as someone's darkness being greater than any light.

What makes my darkness so much more powerful than your gods light?

Only more powerful in your own life. Neither light nor love forces itself upon anyone.

Jhn 1:5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

1Co 13:4 Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,

Anyone can believe a lie, despite all the evidence contrary to it. People can willfully remain in the dark about most anything they want, if it suits their personal goal. People do it with family, society, politics, ideology, and even in a fight until beaten. And some of them even refuse to beliefe they are beaten.

To make this accurate. A lie can only be believed if it is not known to be a lie.

You've never something, or wanted to believe something, that you knew couldn't be true? Never heard of a mother believing her murderous son is still a good boy? Or perhaps the modern liberal morality of doing bad things, but the heart is still good...

That's the problem of blind faith or disbelief: it doesn't face up to reality. Modern psychology calls it a form of disassociate disorder. The Bible calls it strong delusion, and the power of people to willfully believe a lie rather than the truth.

Mat 6:23But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!

2Th 2:10And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.


Some do it because they can't stand the grief of disaster, but others mostly do it to justify themselves.

Perhaps this scripture has more to do with not being able to comprehend that an all powerful, all knowing God with a message for everyone would not require pastors, priests or theologians to correctly relay the said message.

So, you just have a problem with preachers? Hypocrites? Jesus has more respect for someone that simply doesn't believe something, than someone making excuses for themselves...

Rev{3:16} So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #172]

There's no prophecy of the Jewish Messiah coming a "second" time.

Heb 9 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

The letter to the Hebrews isn't Jewish scripture.

Neither are the prophecies of Jewish prophets, which are all Christ's Scripture.

1Pe 1:10 Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.

Rev 19:10 I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.

Dittoes the Jewish apostles.

Even the "prophecy" in verse 9 was written after the supposed fact.

Vs 9 is recorded history, not prophesy.

In Jewish lineage, the mother conveys Jewishness. The father conveys tribal affiliation.

Giving the name to a tribe does not forbid making a member of the tribe by his seed through a woman. Jesus is the male descendant of David by Mary, who had the seed of David in her flesh, the same as Joseph and any other descendant of David.

To say Jesus is not a male descendant of David, because His mother was only a daughter of David, is to say that only Isaac was a male descendant of Abraham, because all others are only born of daughters of Abraham...

They deny the virgin birth, in order to deny Messiah coming in the flesh born of woman. (And as usual, they resort to playing word games with 'virgin', in order change the whole meaning of the text.

They point out that alma means "young woman", that betulah is the word for "virgin"

1 Tim 6:3… doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,

You don't get to change the meaning of Bible text just because it doesn't support what you want to believe.

Many people do. One of their favorite tactics is to play word-definition games...

[Clownboat]

What makes my darkness so much more powerful than your gods light?

Only more powerful in your own life. Neither light nor love forces itself upon anyone.

I never claimed that neither light nor love forces itself upon anyone. I asked why my darkness is so much more powerful then your gods light. Why am I so powerful in this regard?

Jhn 1:5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

This also does not address the power of my darkness.

1Co 13:4 Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,

Once again, nothing to do with this darkness you have assigned to me, nor why I am so powerful with it. You seem confused, but perhaps you can clarify?

Anyone can believe a lie, despite all the evidence contrary to it. People can willfully remain in the dark about most anything they want, if it suits their personal goal. People do it with family, society, politics, ideology, and even in a fight until beaten. And some of them even refuse to beliefe they are beaten.

To make this accurate. A lie can only be believed if it is not known to be a lie.

You've never something, or wanted to believe something, that you knew couldn't be true?

Let's say I have wanted to believe something, that I knew couldn't be true. No go! Make your point if you had one.

Never heard of a mother believing her murderous son is still a good boy?

Oh I have, but as soon as the mother knows that her son it lying, she cannot also believe he is not lying. That is why I say that a lie can only be believed if it is not known to be a lie.

Or perhaps the modern liberal morality of doing bad things, but the heart is still good...

What on earth are you going on about now?

That's the problem of blind faith or disbelief: it doesn't face up to reality.

Just more wrongness! Let me demonstrate. I could have blind faith that fairies aren't real. This blind faith does in fact face up with reality. You need to think for yourself and not let Bible verses think for you.
<snipped the Bible verses that caused your incorrect thinking>

Some do it because they can't stand the grief of disaster, but others mostly do it to justify themselves.

This is unintelligent as stated. Can you clarify?

Perhaps this scripture has more to do with not being able to comprehend that an all powerful, all knowing God with a message for everyone would not require pastors, priests or theologians to correctly relay the said message.

So, you just have a problem with preachers? Hypocrites?

Nope, but I do take issue with you dodging my point, but you just continue to pretend that I have issues with preachers and hypocrites and not that an all powerful, all knowing God with a message for everyone would not require pastors, priests or theologians to correctly relay the said message. I'm sure your strawman is easier to deal with than what I actually say.

Jesus has more respect for someone that simply doesn't believe something, than someone making excuses for themselves...

Rev{3:16} So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

Let's grant that this is true for a moment. How does it address my point about an all knowing god and its message for everyone? You seem confused, but I'm hoping you will clarify.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #172]

There's no prophecy of the Jewish Messiah coming a "second" time.

Heb 9 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

The letter to the Hebrews isn't Jewish scripture.

Neither are the prophecies of Jewish prophets, which are all Christ's Scripture.

1Pe 1:10 Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.

Rev 19:10 I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.

Dittoes the Jewish apostles.

Even the "prophecy" in verse 9 was written after the supposed fact.

Vs 9 is recorded fulfilled prophecy, not future prophesy.

In Jewish lineage, the mother conveys Jewishness. The father conveys tribal affiliation.

Giving the name to a tribe does not forbid making a member of the tribe by his seed through a woman. Jesus is the male descendant of David by Mary, who had the seed of David in her flesh, the same as Joseph and any other descendant of David.

To say Jesus is not a male descendant of David, because His mother was only a daughter of David, is to say that only Isaac was a male descendant of Abraham, because all others are only born of daughters of Abraham...

Mat 1:1The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

They deny the virgin birth, in order to deny Messiah coming in the flesh born of woman. (And as usual, they resort to playing word games with 'virgin', in order change the whole meaning of the text.

They point out that alma means "young woman", that betulah is the word for "virgin" and that the passage in which Isaiah is sent to calm Ahaz about a feared attack from Israel and Syria is not a messianic prophecy.

1 Tim 6:3… doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,

You don't get to change the meaning of Bible text just because it doesn't support what you want to believe.

Many people do. One of their favorite tactics is to play word-definition games...