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 RBD in post #133]

I go to the Bible to teach what the Bible says

You go to the Christian Bible to try to teach what the Jewish Bible says.

Exactly. The NT shows how all old prophecy is fulfilled, as well as rightly teaching and doing the law.

Although it's neither the Jewish nor Christian Bible, but the Bible of God and Jesus Christ written by His Spirit with the hands of men.

Psa 45:1 My heart is inditing a good matter: I speak of the things which I have made touching the king: my tongue is the pen of a ready writer.

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 don't read anywhere in the Bible before Jesus coming, that Jews had even questioned if Messiah had come, much less believed Messiah had come.

That's irrelevant.

It's entirely relevant to anyone claiming to know who the Messiah is, or is not, based upon the 'Jewish' Bible alone. No loyal Jew to their 'Jewish' Scriptures can rightly say who the Messiah is, or is not, because those Scriptures never say.

To say Jesus Christ is not the promised Messiah, is based entirely upone one's own personal unbelief, not upon any reading of old prophecies of Messiah.

Anti-NT Jews trust entirely upon their own personal rejection of Jesus as Messiah, not by their own Scriptures.

Even if Jesus of Nazareth was the first person in history to be accepted by anyone as the Jewish Messiah, that doesn't mean that he was.

Only to the Bible. [/quote]
Nor does it mean He wasn't. Which includes the 'Jewish' Bible, since it never records anyone being, claiming, or believed to be Messiah.

Anti-NT Jews don't even have Scripture warnings to reject a false Messiah. Other than perhaps in Daniel. And Daniel only warns of that little one, that propsers on earth far and wide, and takes away the daily sacrifices.

Jesus did neither.

Once again, the challenge is all about what is reasonably possible from the Book itself, not about what is personally chosen to be impossible based entirely upon unbelief, not upon any Bible evidence. Nor upon any Bible inerrancy anywhere, nor between OT and NT.

[servant1]

[Replying to Avoice in post #146]

No need to defend-you twist it in your lack of true knowledge.

[servant1]

[Replying to Avoice in post #148]


You see in your lack of knowledge. much of the Mosaic laws are done away with when Jesus brought a new covenant=Love, not written law.

[RBD]

I reasonably judge by the inerrancy of the Bible, that the Book can be true.

But, again, you have to begin with the assumption that it's inerrant.

Not at all. It begins without assuming it is or isn't errant, and studying to find out. And it's not like some darkn ystery must be uncovered, in order to show an abvious grammatical contradiction, that cannot possibly be explained.

What it takes is an assumption that the Bible does err in some way, in order to continue finding surface fault alone. And that assumption is also based upon errors found in all other books on earth, along with unbelief there is any perfect One that can do so.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #149]

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.

Daniel 9:25 and 9:26 are the only places where Christian translators render "Mashiach" (מָשִׁיחַ) as "Messiah". In all 37 other instances of that word's appearance, they translate it as "anointed"----which is what it means.
https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/ar ... ranslation

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.

There are many messiahs in the Jewish Bible----which is to say, many anointed [kings, priests etc.]----of whom the Messiah is only one. He's found in places like Ezekiel 37:24:

"And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them."

Jews believe that their Bible doesn't include many references to their Messiah because he isn't the main focus. The main focus, they believe, is on how they keep the law. They're content to let the Messiah come when it's time for him to come.


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.

Then answer these questions, all about the Christian Bible which Christians believe wholly agrees with itself:

1. At the Last Supper, did the bread and wine become the body and blood of Jesus literally, or only figuratively?

2. Was Jesus the archangel Michael or was he not?

3. Was Sunday legitimately established as the Christian Sabbath, or is it Saturday?

4. Is confession to a priest necessary or not?

5. Is infant baptism proper or not?

6. Does purgatory exist or not?

If any fellow NT believers disagree with you on any of those questions, how do you prove that you're right and that they're wrong when you're all reading the same text? (And keep in mind----these are all doctrinal issues.)


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.

The Author not only had the whole Book by His own will, but also had the Bible placed in His own order.

Then why weren't the books placed in that order first?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #151]

To say Jesus Christ is not the promised Messiah, is based entirely upone one's own personal unbelief, not upon any reading of old prophecies of Messiah.

Specific criteria are in section c:

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

[EYR]

[Replying to Avoice in post #1]

The seed of Abraham is actually all TRUE CHRISTIAN ANGLO-SAXONS who are the Lost Tribe of Ephraim.

If Satan makes you sneer at this try read 2 Kings 17.20 20 And the Lord rejected all the seed of Israel, and afflicted them, and delivered them into the hand of spoilers, until he had cast them out of his sight.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to EYR in post #157]

The seed of Abraham is actually all TRUE CHRISTIAN ANGLO-SAXONS who are the Lost Tribe of Ephraim.

If Satan makes you sneer at this try read 2 Kings 17.20 20 And the Lord rejected all the seed of Israel, and afflicted them, and delivered them into the hand of spoilers, until he had cast them out of his sight.

If rejection is permanent, where does that leave Jesus?

"Joseph could never pass on by adoption that which he doesn’t have.  Because Joseph descended from Jeconiah (Mat. 1:11) he fell under the curse of that king that none of his descendants could ever sit as king upon the throne of David.  (Jeremiah 22:30; 36:30)."
https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/ar ... an-claims/

[Clownboat]

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.
To try to blame me for this is to blame the victim.

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.

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.

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.

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

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 author are you referring to? Paul? Please let me know so I can be sure I'm angst free when reviewing the words and presumed written intent.

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

It is not proof of what you claim it is. Again, the Bible has many authors and my logic stands because it is not logical for an all powerful all knowing God to create a message for everyone, but then require pastors, priests, theologians or oneself to then interpret the said book.
Why, because it got us to the over 45,000 differing denominations of this particular religious belief and this is not logical.

I have sufficiently supplied alternative readings with objective study.

You prove my point. You shouldn't have to do this. It is illogical that we need RBD to deliver this message correctly. We should be able to read the book and all of us come away with the same understanding. We'll if an all powerful and all knowing God was behind it. If humans authored the books, it would read as it does.

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? Perhaps you will bring about denomination 45,001?
This is not about you nor how you feel you able to understand the Bible. This is about it not being logical that it should require anyone, RBD included to read and understand the message if an all powerful God was behind this message that is intended for all.
All you are doing is throwing shade on those noticing errors and contradictions. The illogic of what I say remains though.

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. Can you show how it is in fact logical that an all powerful and all knowing God would create a message intended for everyone, but would require pastors, priest, theologians and RBD to then interpret the said message for us? A process that I note got us to over 45,000 denominations.

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. Religions provide a mechanism in order to justify hatred (varies from denomination to denomination) by calling something evil (that may or may not be). My hope is that you don't use your book to justify hatred.

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?

What are you talking about and how does that even come close to addressing what I said? Do you hate atheists and is this just hatred coming out? Perhaps you label them atheists and then feel justified in your hatred?

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. Again, I fear that your religion might be causing you to have hatred that otherwise isn't justified.

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. Odd isn't, that geography plays such a significant part in what religions most humans belong to? That is another illogic, but for now I'm just addressing the message itself and how it has been spread throughout the centuries.

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, but I don't want to get off topic.

[EYR]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #158]

Oh my how you atheosoris has affected your brain!

I'll answer your question just so Satan can have a laugh at how he has tricked you:

GOD thrust the Israelites out of Northern Israel up to the Caspian area from which they travelled up to England.

Right now I'm watching a program about an excavation at an English country house and there is a chart saying Anglo-Saxons were responsible for making the Romans leave England in 410 AD.

But what you have no grasp of is hte simple fact that Mary - Jesus's mother - was descended from the Jews- The Judahs that stayed in South Israel before being captured and then a few travelled back and obviously carried the seed of Jesus that was passed along to MAry in her turn.

Isn't the Bible wonderful?