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)