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?

[servant1]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #140]

All who have read the bible a few x, find-99% mislead throughout.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #140]

All who have read the bible a few x, find-99% mislead throughout.

Your reply fails to address the power that you demonstrated I have over your god and its weak light. Submit to my power for I am the 'Supreme Light Defeating Clownboat the Destroyer of Creators Light'!

[servant1]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #142]


You must be dilussional

[Clownboat]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #142]
You must be dilussional

Nope. As you have demonstrated, I am the 'Supreme Light Defeating Clownboat the Destroyer of Creators Light'. When I bring darkness, your God is powerless!

Servant1 said: "The light will not penetrate your darkness".
Clownboat:

[servant1]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #144]


not dillusional-insane, smoke another one.

[Avoice]

[Replying to servant1 in post #6]

Your response to my post is interesting. Rather that deal with the truth of what I say [because you can't] you call me an atheist.
Like I said...you have been left holding the bag and you can't defend your faith.

I'll give you another chance:

The Christian testament claims it says 'seed' not seeds therefore it is about one person - Jesus.

Seed in Hebrew is the same plural and singular. Okay ..so how do I know it isn't talking about a single seed?
SIMPLE. Look what it says. NOW YOU TELL ME HOW ITS TALKING ABOUT A SINGLE SEED:

""And I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth: so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered." (Gen. 13:16)

"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." (Gen. 15:5)

Look what you have to defend. You can't. Embarrassing

[Avoice]

[Replying to AquinasForGod in post #7]

See...see what I mean. Look how you are left having to defend this. Calling it theological not grammatical.
It is quoting the Hebrew Scriptures and giving a false interpretation.

READ. It's about many not one!
TELL ME HOW THIS IS ABOUT A SINGLE SEED. Do you number a single seed? I feel sorry for Christians having to do acrobatics to make things into truth.

""And I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth: so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered." (Gen. 13:16)

"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." (Gen. 15:5)

Look what you have to defend. You can't. Embarrassing

[Avoice]

[Replying to servant1 in post #10]

Just because the person identifies as an atheist doesn't make them ignorant. In fact they can give an unbiased answer. Basing it strictly on fact.
And thst fact is that it refers to NOT one seed but MANY seeds.

You asked what God they believed in. That is a pointless question if you know they identify as an atheist.

To you I ask a valid question. You claim to believe in God. Why don't you believe what he said? How's that ham sandwich? Ya' know...God said don't eat pig. Or do you even care what he said? He never changed his mind.
You want mustard on that? How about the Easter Ham? Talk about a slap in the face to God. Of all the food Hod gives Christians plop down pig on the table. Unbelievable. OUCH!

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #124]

Christ is mentioned in Gal 3 leading into Gal 4. Someone can disbelieve it, but why pretend Messiah is not mentioned at all?

The Messiah isn't mentioned at all in the promises made to Moses in Genesis.

Exactly. Messiah is only spoken in Dan 9. By your argument limited to grammar alone, nowhere else in the Bible is the Messiah referred to. The only place to learn of the Bible Messiah would be in Dan 9.

If a book is read without any sense of context and narrative development, then any analysis of the book become senseless, so far as the author is concerned, as well as with any legitimate reviewer of literature.

If anyone were to conlcude that the Bible does not refer to it's Messiah, unless the word Messiah is spoken, is so senseless, that anyone reading that kind of analysis of any book, would put it away as a superficial waste of time.

Why not just proceed to find error in the OT to prove Bible errancy? That would be sufficient to prove the whole Book is not written by one Author, or that Author is flawed and not the LORD God as He says.

Arguably that could be done, but I've been picking my battles. My issue here hasn't been with Judaism.

Your issue certainly is with the NT Christians, whether Jew or Gentile. If you're not an anti-NT Jew nor convert, then you at least appear to have taken up their cause.

And any Mormon can easily say, "Whether anyone believes it, is irrelevant to what the Book says."

Certainly. But no Moromon can say Smith's book is the same book as the Bible, only written later. The cover makes itself known, that it does not agree with the Bible: Any other testament of Jesus Christ written after the Bible, is in opposition to Gal 1, and so the latter cannot be a part of the former.

Simple logic book's title, as well as from the Koran's rejection of the Son of God, proves that neither can be part of the Bible written after Revelation.

Then what proves that the "New Testament" is part of the Tanakh written after 2 Chronicles*?

By not contradicting any part of the Bible in record, doctrine, and prophecy. If any book wholly agrees with the Bible without contradiction, then it is Bible. That certainly does not include the Koran nor book of Mormon.

*(That's another giveaway----2 Chronicles is actually the last book in the Jewish Bible. Christian translators changed the order of the books to put Malachi last so it would look like the Tanakh was ending on a "to be continued...." note.)

Fine by me. The Author not only had the whole Book by His own will, but also had the Bible placed in His own order. As well as translated into almost every present language on earth.

[RBD]

What it does mean, is that any accusation of an apostle in the Bible contradicting Jesus in the gospels, is Jesus Christ contradicting Himself.

Than you should amend your thinking on the matter due to the fact that Jesus didn't supply anything in the Bible, the gospels included.

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.

Gal 3:17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

Jhn 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.Christ wrote the whole Book by the hands of His own prophets and apostles.

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

You've never heard of an author contradicting himself in his own book or books, and so needs good critical analysis to correct it?

I'm sorry, I thought you were talking about the Bible, a book claimed to be from an all powerful God with a message meant for everyone. I take no issue with your stance on authors of books and how they might accidently contradict themselves. Humans are not all powerful nor all knowing after all.

Which is why the Author of the Bible can be intelligently believed to be who He says He is, the LORD God Almighty. Otherwise, all those many men over so many years, can be idolized as unerring demigods in their own right.

Many Christians do so in 'revereing' the prophets and apostles of the Lord. But those same prophets and apostles deny it is themselves unerringly writing alone.

2 Pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

It's the Author of the Bible who has not. And since it is written by so many people, over so much time, from so different backgraounds, then it is intelligently possible to believe there is the Author of the whole Book, and He is who He says, the LORD God Almighty Himself.

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, when the possibility is based upon objective study. It's only by such learned intelligence on the book, that anyone can make a rational conclusion about it's possibilites.

What people shouldn't do, but get to do if they like, is claim intelligence on something, that is entirely subjected to a predetermined outcome.

It's an axiom among literary scholars, that any reader subjecting a book solely to one's own personal bias, always ends in skewing any analysis against the literature.

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

Deu 6:7 And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.


Act 17:11These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

The Author's requirment is for people to read His Book for themselves in their own homes, especially to their children. He also says only the ignoble trust entirely on someone else to read and teach His words to them.

Once again, you need to leave your own angst aside about an author, so that you can only report on the author's words and written intent.

which then go us to the over 45,000 denominations of the religion.

Which is proof of the Author's freedom to read and interpret His words for onself.

I know that you should, since you claim he is in error.

I demonstrated such a thing...

Certainly to yourself and perhaps others, but not at all to me. I have sufficiently supplied alternative readings with objective study. 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.

Rom 10:16But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report…For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written,

People reject His words all the time on earth. But if He is Lord and God, then that rejection ends in the grave. Then it's turn to reject others.

People do reject words in the Bible that you believe come from your preferred God. Since it has not been demonstrated that this god concept is some Lord God, then the grave ending is irrelevant.

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.

Since the Book says Jesus is no longer in the grave, then He is angry at what people did to Paul for his faithful service, as well as that of others:

I know what the Book says. Do you not think that Jesus would be rolling in his grave if he was shown a small part of what Paul did to Jesus's alleged message?

Already answered.

If you have an example, I'd be glad to see that too.

Sure, I've only shown one quote from the Bible. There are many others about false teachers, leaders, and christs...Unlike simple unbelievers, they actively change the Bible, teach against it, abuse the power of their office, or try to say the Bible is false.

How dare they! Next thing we know, we'll have 45,001 denominations of Christianity due to all these false teachers and leaders. If only there was a God that provided a message for everyone. Then false teachers and leaders would be much more powerless to change the said message.

Oh, you mean communists and totalitarians. They're also called liberal idologues, and religious proselytizers. There have been, and are many such gods on earth:

Gen(3:5} For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

These are the enemies of the Author, that He condemns more than neutral unbelievers.

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

You mean other than evil? And a pathetic lie like the modern doctrine of 'hate not'. Unless of course someone 'judges' you.

Only when Christians and Muslims stop telling their children that there is a God that loves them so much as to send them to heaven, but hates the other so much as to send them to hell will we ever stop the violence and bloodshed.

Oh, you mean atheist communes are the home of a brave new and better world, where no one hates?

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

If I snipped anything that you think deserves an answer, I apologize and ask that you state your point as a question or at least in a way that I can address. I really don't see a need to respond to scriptures you are simply quoting at me without any argument for why.

What? Something from the Bible would matter to you, if explained why?

I don't care one whit about what Moohammed, J. Smith, or M. Eddy says about me. So long as they live and let live on earth, then what they have to say is at most just a passing curiosity to me. Including Zeus, Zoroaster, atheists, satanists, etc...

I do however find Buddha very interesting.