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?

[Clownboat]

that the son shall not suffer for the sins of the father...

Exodus 34:7
New International Version
7 maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation.”

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #205]

The promise of land is to all the many seed of Abraham.

Then why does the author of Galatians bother to deny that the promises were made to Abraham's "seeds" (3:16)?

There were two promises made to Abraham, and both were not to his seeds and many children. The first promise of land is to the seeds, but the second promise of Messiah could only be to one seed, not many.

Gal 3:16Now 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.

He first establishes two promises were made. Then he establishes the obvious, that the Messiah promised could only be by one seed and son, not born of many seeds and sons at the same time, in the way land can be shared by many. There must be only one seed to produce one man, while many children can share the same land.

It's not a lingual argument, but a land vs Messiah argument between to different promises to the same man, Abraham. Only fault finders would try to make a lingual problem out of it. Especially with Paul of Tarsus, who was one of the most well versed in the OT Hebrew of the day.

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

Here he shows who to also use the 'singular' seed for the 'plural' children, just in case anyone thinks Saul of Tarsus lost his Hebrew wits, after converting to the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ.

The promise of Messiah is to the one seed of Abraham by Isaac and Judah and David.

Where is the "one seed" of the Messiah mentioned in the promises to Abraham?

This is a rebuke to a nonsense argument over linguistics, not about unbelief in the promised Messiah, the son of David, the son of Abraham, Jesus Christ. Who was made of the seed of David and Abraham:

Romans{1:3} Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

Heb 2:16For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.


Born of one seed, not seeds. No man is born of more than one seed at a time.

(It's also a rebuke to any pagan thinking Jews, who probably speculated about Christ being the land promised to all children of Abraham. Sort of like the land of Thebes giving birth to the sons of Cadmus. And a rebuke to the more recent mystical Christians and their 'cosmic' Christ, who was not a man born of a woman, but rather the universal 'Being' made of all Christians together.)

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #212]

There were two promises made to Abraham, and both were not to his seeds and many children. The first promise of land is to the seeds, but the second promise of Messiah could only be to one seed, not many.

Gal 3:16Now 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.

He first establishes two promises were made.

But denies that they were made to many, saying that only one is referred to.

Then he establishes the obvious, that the Messiah promised could only be by one seed and son, not born of many seeds and sons at the same time, in the way land can be shared by many. There must be only one seed to produce one man, while many children can share the same land.

Arguing that the Christian Bible "establishes" anything about the Jewish Bible is like arguing that the Book of Mormon establishes things about the Christian Bible. Were the Nephites among the "other sheep" of John 10:16? The BoM "establishes" that.....


Where is the "one seed" of the Messiah mentioned in the promises to Abraham?

This is a rebuke to a nonsense argument over linguistics, not about unbelief in the promised Messiah, the son of David, the son of Abraham, Jesus Christ. Who was made of the seed of David and Abraham:

Can't answer that, huh?

Romans{1:3} Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

Heb 2:16For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.

More Book-of-Mormon-style "establishing"....

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #210]

The Scriptures you use have been shown to pertain to Solomon's reign on earth, not to any son of his being the Messiah.

Solomon inherited the throne which is supposed to be inherited by the Messiah.

Rejecting Jesus as Messiah, for not being a son of Solomon, leads directly to His virgin birth

Nonsense. Many people living then were neither descended from Solomon, nor born to virgins, nor the Messiah. it was easy.

Which was not in issue during Jesus' day, because her virgin birth was not noised abroad until after His resurrection gospel.

That's because nobody believed that he was born to a virgin. And what does that mean? It means that Matthew's "a virgin shall conceive" sign (1:23) never came about.


Whose throne was to be established forever? Solomon's throne (1 Chronicles 22:10). Solomon became king after David, so it was Solomon who continued the davidic line of kingship.

And it only pertained to the continued kingship of Israel on earth

And where is the Messiah supposed to reign? On earth.

so long as Solomon remained obedient to the LORD, which he did not.

It wasn't conditional on Solomon's obedience.

"I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men:
But my mercy shall not depart away from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee."
(2 Samuel 7:14-15)

"Howbeit I will not rend away all the kingdom; but will give one tribe to thy son for David my servant's sake, and for Jerusalem's sake which I have chosen."
(1 Kings 11:13)

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #208]

The only dilemma here is someone declaring Jesus could not have been the Messiah, based solely upon a prophesied Messiah son of Solomon, and therefore excluding Jesus due to His virgin birth by Mary.

As I've mentioned, there are numerous arguments against the qualification of Jesus as the Jewish Messiah. It goes well beyond the Solomon issue.

And you keep trying to slip in Jesus' alleged virgin birth as an argument in his favor when virgin birth is one of the claims in question.

The virgin birth only came into play, when you tacitly agreed with it, by rejecting of Jesus as Messiah, because He was not a son of Solomon.

That's when you then opted for a 'Mary the whore' accusation, which no Jew of the day ever thought, much less accused.

An objective sceptic does not resort to changing the narrative, nor accuse the writer of lying, based solely upon made up accusations a hundred years later, that no acknowledged Jewish historian of the day ever hinted at.

I haven't offered speculation as to motive. A 1st-century Jewish girl, violated by a soldier of the Roman empire and fearing retaliation against her and her family, might have kept it to herself so no one would know.

Now you show how ridiculous the charge is, since no one was guilty by the law, if raped. There was no need for shame. In fact, keeping quiet was contrary to the law, so that if the maiden does not cry out, then she is complicit and stoned with the man.

So long as you continue to reject Jesus as Messiah, for not being a son of Solomon, then you must agree with the virgin birth, or charge Mary with hiding her fornication, that was worthy of death.

And of course no Jew ever questioned her maiden virginity and marital vow. A 2nd century degenerate philosopher is the first one making such a charge. And that degenerate also said that Joseph put her away. So we see none of this argument has anything to do with the Bible, but only beating the air.

I'm not fielding the Pantera scenario as a concrete declaration. It has its weaknesses, but it at least has merit as a plausible alternative to a virgin birth.

Which is only plausible to committed disbelievers, who care nothing of slandering others, and has nothing to do with any objective skepticism of the Book itself.

Tit 1:15 Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.


Skeptics: Does this embarrass you?

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #212]

There were two promises made to Abraham, and both were not to his seeds and many children. The first promise of land is to the seeds, but the second promise of Messiah could only be to one seed, not many.

Gal 3:16Now 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.

He first establishes two promises were made.

But denies that they were made to many, saying that only one is referred to.

One more time: He denies both promises were made to many. The the first was made to many, and the second was made to one. Land can be shared by many seeds, but a man can only be born of one mother and father.

Then he establishes the obvious, that the Messiah promised could only be by one seed and son, not born of many seeds and sons at the same time, in the way land can be shared by many. There must be only one seed to produce one man, while many children can share the same land.

Arguing that the Christian Bible "establishes" anything about the Jewish Bible is like arguing that the Book of Mormon establishes things about the Christian Bible. Were the Nephites among the "other sheep" of John 10:16? The BoM "establishes" that.....

Two books that perfectly agree, do not compare with any other book, that disagrees with one or both.

Where is the "one seed" of the Messiah mentioned in the promises to Abraham?

This is a rebuke to a nonsense argument over linguistics, not about unbelief in the promised Messiah, the son of David, the son of Abraham, Jesus Christ. Who was made of the seed of David and Abraham:

Can't answer that, huh?

Not here. I don't do diversions. You can start that argument elsewhere.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #210]

The Scriptures you use have been shown to pertain to Solomon's reign on earth, not to any son of his being the Messiah.

Solomon inherited the throne which is supposed to be inherited by the Messiah.

Solomon inherited an earthy throne, that could still be remaining on earth, if he and later kings had not defiled.

The Book shows that only a son of David would inherit the eternal throne of Messiah, by whatever son He begat.

Which was not in issue during Jesus' day, because her virgin birth was not noised abroad until after His resurrection gospel.

That's because nobody believed that he was born to a virgin.

Joseph did. Who was the only one that Mary owed an answer to.

And what does that mean? It means that Matthew's "a virgin shall conceive" sign (1:23) never came about.

It means it was before the time to preach it abroad. The same as many things Jesus did, were forbidden by Him to wait and preach after His resurrection.

Mat 17:9 And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying, Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead.

2Pe 1:17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.

Whose throne was to be established forever? Solomon's throne (1 Chronicles 22:10). Solomon became king after David, so it was Solomon who continued the davidic line of kingship.

Which continued until the Babylonian captivity.

And it only pertained to the continued kingship of Israel on earth

And where is the Messiah supposed to reign? On earth.

True. With His second coming.

so long as Solomon remained obedient to the LORD, which he did not.

It wasn't conditional on Solomon's obedience.

Ignoring given Scripture, does not make it go away.

"Howbeit I will not rend away all the kingdom; but will give one tribe to thy son for David my servant's sake, and for Jerusalem's sake which I have chosen."
(1 Kings 11:13)

The kingdom remained until Rome. But the kings were cast away by Babylon.

If you're still waiting for a son of Solomon messiah to rule Israel as king on earth, then you're more than welcome to him.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #215]

The virgin birth only came into play, when you tacitly agreed with it, by rejecting of Jesus as Messiah, because He was not a son of Solomon.

That's when you then opted for a 'Mary the whore' accusation, which no Jew of the day ever thought, much less accused.

Your repeated assertion that I "tacitly agreed" to a virgin birth is bordering on the delusional, and I didn't make a "Mary the whore" accusation; I suggested a "Mary the assault victim" scenario.

Now you show how ridiculous the charge is, since no one was guilty by the law, if raped. There was no need for shame. In fact, keeping quiet was contrary to the law, so that if the maiden does not cry out, then she is complicit and stoned with the man.

I was thinking of retaliation by the soldier.

So long as you continue to reject Jesus as Messiah, for not being a son of Solomon, then you must agree with the virgin birth, or charge Mary with hiding her fornication, that was worthy of death.

False dilemma. There are numerous possibilities.

For example----Mark, which scholars tell us is the earliest gospel, makes no mention of a virgin birth. It may, therefore, have been an invention of Matthew.


I'm not fielding the Pantera scenario as a concrete declaration. It has its weaknesses, but it at least has merit as a plausible alternative to a virgin birth.

Which is only plausible to committed disbelievers, who care nothing of slandering others, and has nothing to do with any objective skepticism of the Book itself.

Ad Hominem.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #216]

One more time: He denies both promises were made to many. The the first was made to many, and the second was made to one. Land can be shared by many seeds, but a man can only be born of one mother and father.

He denies that any promise was made to many.

"But the promises were spoken to Abraham and his seed. He does not say, And unto seeds, as of many; but as of one"
(Galatians 3:15)

Two books that perfectly agree, do not compare with any other book, that disagrees with one or both.

You argue in a circle by assuming that the Christian Bible and the Jewish Bible perfectly agree.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #217]

Solomon inherited an earthy throne, that could still be remaining on earth, if he and later kings had not defiled.

The Book shows that only a son of David would inherit the eternal throne of Messiah, by whatever son He begat.

"His name will be Solomon, and I will grant Israel peace and quiet during his reign. He is the one who will build a house for my Name. He will be my son, and I will be his father. And I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel forever.’"
(1 Chronicles 22:9-10)

Fathers passed on tribal affiliation (Numbers 1:18, Ezra 2:59).

The throne was inherited by Solomon (I Chronicles 22:10, II Chronicles 7:18), so it would be inherited from Solomon.

The promise did not depend on Solomon's obedience (1 Kings 11:13).

I have Jewish text to support my position. If you have only Christian text to support yours, then your argument is circular.


That's because nobody believed that he was born to a virgin.

Joseph did.

According to Matthew.


And what does that mean? It means that Matthew's "a virgin shall conceive" sign (1:23) never came about.

It means it was before the time to preach it abroad.

It shouldn't have had to be preached abroad if it was a sign.


Whose throne was to be established forever? Solomon's throne (1 Chronicles 22:10). Solomon became king after David, so it was Solomon who continued the davidic line of kingship.

Which continued until the Babylonian captivity.

Then how was the promise to establish his throne forever kept?


It wasn't conditional on Solomon's obedience.

Ignoring given Scripture, does not make it go away.

I gave scripture (1 Kings 11:13) and you're ignoring it.

What given scripture am I ignoring?

The kingdom remained until Rome.

Then, again, how was Solomon's kingdom established forever (1 Chronicles 22:10)?