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 AquinasForGod in post #200]

The Apostle, in Galatians, draws upon the allegorical sense, not denying the literal plurality of Abraham's descendants, but unveiling the divine plan hidden within: that Christ is the ultimate Seed through whom all nations are blessed (cf. Gen 22:18).

"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."
(Gal. 3:16)

The apostle does deny that the promises refer to the literal plurality of Abraham's descendents, so it's clear from Genesis 13:16 and 15:5 that the apostle is wrong.

[RBD]

.


COULD SOME PERHAPS ENTIRELY MISS THE CONTEXT THAT THE AUTHOR WAS MAKING

Please consider the context of the passage and also primarily realize that the author is not intending to make a " direct quote " to thrust or vault backwards in time to apply the meaning to a historical context of that day

the Author here is explaining that God made a promise to Abraham concerning Sarah his sister and his wife one single seed would be given a promise and eternal covenant - this was not to apply to multiple seeds as through his additional wife Hagar nor given through his last wife Keturah

THE PROMISE AND MEANING AND CONTEXT AND SURROUNDING ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPT MESSAGE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
the promise was denied to plural seeds - but promised to a primary numeral one seed - a single seed - Isaac


the author is being honest .....saying plainly

and also

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. 


:16  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. 

God specifically that it was a single, primary number one seed - not through multiple seeds or through other wives that Abraham had - the Seed Of Sarah alone - 1 single seed.............

This is the way the New Testament is written unlike the Quran wherein the Quran in its dishonestly make a claim to be transmitting the same exactly message and revelation of the Old and New Testament - - - the New Testament does not make this claim but lets the reader know plainly that this is new revelation, new message and a moving of God that is fulfilling and bring Old Prophecy to new meaning and new light

Well said. Every reader knows the purpose of the text of the prophesy and that of it's fulfillment: the promised seed of Christ would be by one son of Abraham alone, not by two sons. The land promise is to all Abraham's natural seed.

The only reason Paul could make such a clarification between one seed for the promised Messiah, and the many seeds for the promised land, is because Paul was writing in Greek, not Hebrew. And the only reason we can also read that grammatical distinction in English, is because it also allows for it.

The only readers that try to say Paul did not know the Hebrew language enough to know the difference, are children trying to play grown up.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #202]

THE PROMISE AND MEANING AND CONTEXT AND SURROUNDING ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPT MESSAGE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
the promise was denied to plural seeds - but promised to a primary numeral one seed - a single seed - Isaac

As I pointed out in post #116, where Isaac is mentioned in Genesis the Messiah is not.

The only reason Paul could make such a clarification between one seed for the promised Messiah, and the many seeds for the promised land, is because Paul was writing in Greek, not Hebrew.

But he makes a claim about what's written in Genesis----and the author of Genesis was writing in Hebrew, not Greek. And he was writing that Abraham's "seed" would be as numerous as dust particles and stars.

He was writing of many, not of one.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #197]

How does anyone reject Jesus as son of Solomon by Joseph, except by being born of Mary alone, and not of Joseph? You have to believe the virgin birth of Mary, in order to reject Jesus as a promised Messiah by Solomon.

If you want to make a Messiah by Solomon, then Jesus could still be that Messiah, if He were born of Joseph.

Therefore, no one can reject Jesus as a promised Messiah by Solomon, unless they believed He was only virgin born by Mary, not by her husband Joseph.

First, you don't have to believe in a virgin birth in order to reject Jesus as the promised Messiah through Solomon.

You certainly, do when your rejection of Jesus is solely by your prophecy of Messiah by Solomon.

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

Which is how this all began, with you arguing Jesus could not be Messiah, because He was not a son of Solomon. Which excludes Joseph as His father. Which is based upon a virgin birth by Mary.

Accordingly, you're only argument about His lineage is through Mary, a daughter of David by Nathan. Which is supposed to reinforce He could not possibly be Messiah by Solomon.

The whole argument against Jesus is based entirely on a prophecy of Messiah by Solomon, which argues Jesus is excluded because of Mary by Nathan on the one hand, and Joseph not being the father by virgin birth on the other hand.

Jews, for example, reject both propositions.

And so, unlike you, they don't argue Messiah by Solomon, as the reason for rejecting Jesus. You're revisionist effort to ally yourself with them, is too little too late.

You have to cast aside your first proposition: That Jesus could not be Messiah based upon your prophecy of Messiah by Solomon alone. Hence your argument about Mary being of David by Nathan, not by Solomon. And, your unwitting acknowledgment of the virgin birth, but also excluding Jesus' sonship of Joseph, the son of David by Solomon.

Second, Mary could not have made Jesus a son of the Davidic line since she was his mother and Jewish tribal affiliation is conveyed by the father (Num. 1:18, Ezra 2:59). Only Jewishness is conveyed by the mother.

Neither did they ever bother arguing against Jesus being son of David by Nathan, nor of being son of Solomon by Joseph. Because they did not believe He was born of the virgin Mary.

You've boxed yourself into your own inconsistencies: First you reject Jesus as Messiah, because He was not a son of Solomon, and so could not fulfill a prophecy of Messiah by Solomon.

And now you try to reject Him as Messiah by saying He wasn't a son of David at all, as though being a son of Solomon alone doesn't matter.

The only true prophecy of Scripture for Messiah, is by David alone, without any regard through which son. Scripturally, the Messiah could have been by Absalom the son of David.

Third, the proposition that Jesus must have been fathered either by Joseph or by God is a false dilemma.

Because it's a false argument, that has nothing to do with the prophecy of Messiah by David, nor any false prophecy of Messiah by Solomon.

There are certainly other possibilities (a Roman soldier named Abdes Pantera has been put forth as one candidate).

And now you want to violently bust out of your box, by suggesting Mary was not only not a virgin, but rather was some Jewish whore or rape victim of a Roman soldier??

Mat 13:55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

Even the unbelieving Jews never accused her of not being the proper wife of Joseph, nor of Jesus being a bastard son Rome:

Conspiracy theorists about Area 51 have more credibility, without relying on any degraded accusations of a perverse mind.

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.


Christians: Does this embarrass you? Not me. And some people obviously can't be embarrassed, when arguing against themselves, to refuse any correction. And then reduced to attack the innocent mother of Jesus, just to reject Him as Messiah son of David.

[RBD]

[Replying to Avoice in post #1]


Respondeo dicendum quod, Scripture contains manifold senses: the literal, the allegorical, the moral, and the anagogical. The Apostle, in Galatians, draws upon the allegorical sense, not denying the literal plurality of Abraham's descendants, but unveiling the divine plan hidden within: that Christ is the ultimate Seed through whom all nations are blessed (cf. Gen 22:18).

Which is simply understood by context, and any argument about grammar is feigned distraction. The promise of land is to all the many seed of Abraham. The promise of Messiah is to the one seed of Abraham by Isaac and Judah and David.

Thus, the Apostle’s point is not linguistic error, but theological insight

Which further exposes the pseudo arguments of would-be linguists. Paul of Tarsus did not lose his own learned Jewish mind, by becoming a Christian apostle of Jesus Christ.

(I'm surprised someone hasn't yet made that accusation..."The scholar Saul of Tarsus didn't even know proper Hebrew after becoming a dumb Christian.")

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #204]

First, you don't have to believe in a virgin birth in order to reject Jesus as the promised Messiah through Solomon.

You certainly, do when your rejection of Jesus is solely by your prophecy of Messiah by Solomon.

If you were familiar with more of my posts, you would know that I've addressed numerous examples of Jesus being disqualified as the Jewish Messiah.


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

Which is how this all began, with you arguing Jesus could not b Messiah, because He was not a son of Solomon.

And I cited biblical text in support of that position.


Jews, for example, reject both propositions.

And so, unlike you, they don't argue Messiah by Solomon, as the reason for rejecting Jesus.

They do argue Messiah by Solomon as one of the reasons for rejecting Jesus.

You have to cast aside your first proposition: That Jesus could not be Messiah based upon your prophecy of Messiah by Solomon alone.

It isn't "my" prophecy. It's in the Bible.

And, your unwitting acknowledgment of the virgin birth, but also excluding Jesus' sonship of Joseph, the son of David by Solomon.

Excluding Joseph as Jesus' father doesn't lead straight to a virgin birth. My "unwitting acknowledgement" is nothing but your wishful thinking.


Second, Mary could not have made Jesus a son of the Davidic line since she was his mother and Jewish tribal affiliation is conveyed by the father (Num. 1:18, Ezra 2:59). Only Jewishness is conveyed by the mother.

Neither did they ever bother arguing against Jesus being son of David by Nathan, nor of being son of Solomon by Joseph. Because they did not believe He was born of the virgin Mary.

They didn't believe him to be the Messiah either.

You've boxed yourself into your own inconsistencies: First you reject Jesus as Messiah, because He was not a son of Solomon. Which a prophecy of Messiah by Solomon demands.

And now you try to reject Him as Messiah by saying He wasn't a son of David at all, as though being a son of Solomon alone doesn't matter.

That doesn't box me into anything. It simply shows that there's more than one factor disqualifying him as the Jewish Messiah.

The only true prophecy of Scripture for Messiah, is by David alone, without any regard through which son. Scripturally, the Messiah could have been by Absalom the son of David.

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. To be king of Israel, therefore, the Messiah would have to be descended from Solomon.

And now you want to violently bust out of your box, by suggesting Mary was not only not a virgin, but rather was some Jewish whore or rape victim of a Roman soldier??

It isn't something I made up. I was relating a specific speculation, as unsavory as it may be. My point was that we shouldn't just jump right to the conclusion of a virgin birth and arbitrarily dismiss more plausible scenarios.

[Athetotheist]

[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)?

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?

[RBD]

Third, the proposition that Jesus must have been fathered either by Joseph or by God is a false dilemma. There are certainly other possibilities (a Roman soldier named Abdes Pantera has been put forth as one candidate).

There is no dilemma for any unbelieving Jews, that believed in a manufactured Messiah son of Solomon. Even if there were such Jews, there's no record of them doubting Jesus' birth by Joseph.

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.

Hence the ditch digging desperation of making a sexual accusation against her, which was never recorded by any unbelieving Jew of the day, nor in Josephus' history of the Jews. They are driven to repeat the accusation of a 2nd century unbelieving 'philosopher', who also says there was an accusation at the time of Mary whoring or raped by a Roman soldier. And adds that Joseph rejected her, and so they never were married at all.

The moral of the story here, is the deteriorated manner of arguments, that prove the difference between committed disbelievers on the one hand, and honest objective sceptics on the other hand, who don't sink so low.

Mar 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him. And no Jews of the day thought it necessary to slander Mary's virginity before, or while married to Joseph.


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.