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?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #83]


1Single teaching shows the whole world who is who= Matt 6:33-Keep on seeking-FIRST the kingdom and his ( YHVH(Jehovah) righteousness and all these things will be added( sustenance, covering, spirituality)-- 97% of the religions claiming to be Christian teach to seek Jesus' righteousness first because they do not listen to him.

What's the difference, if "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30)?

[Clownboat]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #85]
They are in harmony. You use an altered translation.

As was shown to you, Paul and Jesus were not in harmony. I put in the work to show this and all you did was stick your fingers in your ears. Those reading here will notice.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #86]
Whatever that means the bible does not explain. One thing for sure its not mumbo jumbo they speak.

Why repeat yourself when you haven been shown to be incorrect?

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.

[servant1]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #91]

They are one in purpose, the same way we can be one with them=in purpose=Living now to do Jesus' Fathers will( Matt 7:21) as Jesus does.

[servant1]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #92]


Jesus appointed Paul, they are in harmony, Men twist things in the darkness which makes it seem unharmonious.

[Clownboat]

[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 and Paul's message does not agree with Jesus as was already shown to you. Your denial is noted, but not respected as this is a debate forum.

Your posts belong in 'Holy Huddle' where they will not be challenged. Try to abide by the site rules. Perhaps pray to your God to see if it can help you do what you agreed to do when you signed up here in the first place.

[servant1]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #96]


You didn't show a thing where Paul contradicts Jesus.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #71]

Gal 3 is talking about Christ by naming Him. Genesis 21 doesn't name Christ, but that does not have to mean, that Christ is not being talked about.

This is the "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence" argument.

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.

We must allow the Author to supplement His own text later, if He wishes. Which He does with Paul in Gal 3. "And to thy seed, which is Christ."

Circular argument.

If circular, then it's a circular literary argument. No author is bound by any literary rule, that says the author can't fill in previous gaps, or add new information. So long as nothing is contradicted, then all's fair in love and war novels.

The argument is erroneous, because Gal 3 is quoting and talking about Gen 21, not Gen 15. Therefore, the argument about seed vs seeds must be kept between Gal 3 and Gen 21.

Genesis 21 tells of the birth of Isaac to Sarah. Galatians 3:16 tells that "the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed". Galatians 3:16 is about the promises, and Gen. 13 & 15----not Gen. 21----are where the promises are made and where Abram's seed is mentioned. Since Gen. 13 & 15 are where Jehovah makes the promises to Abraham and his "seed"----meaning many,----that's what Gal. 3:16 has to be about.

Gal 3 has nothing to do with how many natural children Abraham will have, and the land promised to them, which is what Gen 13/15 is all about.

Gal 3:6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.

Are the new Gentile converts and children of Abraham by faith, supposed to inherit the land with the natural seed?

Gal 3 is all about the eternal promises by faith, which none of the natural children recieved before Christ is come.

Heb 11:11 Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised. Therefore sprang there even of one, and him as good as dead, so many as the stars of the sky in multitude, and as the sand which is by the sea shore innumerable.

These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.

The promise of multitude of children after the flesh, with the land from Egypt to Euphrates, has been recieved, but none of them recieved the eternal promises by Christ through Isaac, as in Gen 21. Which is what Gal 3 & 4 are all about:

Gal 3:6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.

Gal 3:14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

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.

Gal 3:18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.

Gal 3:22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

Gal 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

Gal 3:29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Gal 4:22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.

Gal 4:28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.

Gen 13/15 is all about the natural seed promised mulititudes and land. Gal 3/4 is all about the promised seed and spiritual children of the Christ, which is by the one promised seed and son, Isaac, prophesied only in Gen 21.

Don't see anything about the land promised to the natural seed, but only about the the seed of promise by Isaac, which is Christ.

The promise of multitudes of natural seed, as well as land from the river of Egypt to Euphrates, was fulfilled by the LORD peaking with David. But none of the faithful had yet recieved the eternal promises, until Christ comes in the flesh, is crucifed, and resurrects from the dead.

In any case, there never was any contradiction between seed and seeds by Gal 3. Not from Gen 21, nor Gen 15/16.

Once again, it's just another argument of interpretation, and in this case, applying Gal 3 to Gen 13/15 can only be done by ignoring the whole context of Gal 3 and Gen 13/15. Gal 3 & 4 care nothing for promised land on earth to the natural seed, but only for promised eternal heirs by the faith of Abraham.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #96]


You didn't show a thing where Paul contradicts Jesus.

I did, you just failed to respond to the supplied examples, plus there are lots more.
So to save time and sanity:
"Your denial is noted, but not respected as this is a debate forum."

[POI]

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

I'd say just add this one to the list of other topics in which Christians have a hard time defending. Maybe this is, in part, why Christian apologetics is so necessary