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]

Now you show how ridiculous the charge is, since no one was guilty by the law, if raped. There was no need for shame. In fact, keeping quiet was contrary to the law, so that if the maiden does not cry out, then she is complicit and stoned with the man.

I was thinking of retaliation by the soldier.

Very compassionate. The problem now becomes the whole family of Mary involved in a cover-up of rape, that now makes them all complicit contrary to the law of Moses. And for no reason: Roman soldiers were not in the habit of seeking vengeance from provincials, because they were not held accountable by Roman Imperial law.

There was no hint of any doubt about Mary's virginity among the Jews of the day. It wasn't until a degenerate 2nd century philosopher accuses her of fornicating with a Roman soldier, that any such accusation is made. The accuser also says Joseph rejected Mary, so that that they never married, nor had any children at all.

So long as you continue to reject Jesus as Messiah, for not being a son of Solomon, then you must agree with the virgin birth, or charge Mary with hiding her fornication, that was worthy of death.

False dilemma. There are numerous possibilities.

For example----Mark, which scholars tell us is the earliest gospel, makes no mention of a virgin birth. It may, therefore, have been an invention of Matthew.

Not including the same events in separate biographies, does not negate any account. Only contradiction can prove a false account.

Preaching a Messiah by Solomon, as a reason for rejecting Jesus as Messiah, necessitates the virgin birth, so that He was not a son of Solomon by Joseph.

Or, accusing Mary of fornication, or accusing her of not crying out, and so a fornicator, or accusing her whole Jewish family, and Joseph, of forcing a rape cover-up contrary to the law of Moses.

Why not just do like the Jews of the day, and care nothing for Jesus being a son of Solomon or not, and just reject Him as Messiah? Why this zealous attachment to a Solomonic Messiah? Afterall, none of the Jews of the OT at Jesus' day ever prophesied one. I don't believe any anti-NT Jew prophesies a Messiah by Solomon alone, rather than by any of David's son.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #216]

One more time: He denies both promises were made to many. The the first was made to many, and the second was made to one. Land can be shared by many seeds, but a man can only be born of one mother and father.

He denies that any promise was made to many.

"But the promises were spoken to Abraham and his seed. He does not say, And unto seeds, as of many; but as of one"
(Galatians 3:15)

Fair enough, but the same result: The promises of God spoken to Abraham were through only one of his seed: Isaac. Gal 3 is speaking of Abraham's houseborn sons, whereby only one would the promises come. The promises through one seed, not many, would also pertain to Jacob, not Esau.

The promises of innumerability, land, and Messiah to Abraham, would come through one seed of Abraham, being Isaac, and one seed of Isaac, being Jacob, not through the many seeds of Abraham, and two seeds of Isaac.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #217]

Solomon inherited an earthy throne, that could still be remaining on earth, if he and later kings had not defiled.

The Book shows that only a son of David would inherit the eternal throne of Messiah, by whatever son He begat.

"His name will be Solomon, and I will grant Israel peace and quiet during his reign. He is the one who will build a house for my Name. He will be my son, and I will be his father. And I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel forever.’"
(1 Chronicles 22:9-10)

Fathers passed on tribal affiliation (Numbers 1:18, Ezra 2:59).

The throne was inherited by Solomon (I Chronicles 22:10, II Chronicles 7:18), so it would be inherited from Solomon.

The promise did not depend on Solomon's obedience (1 Kings 11:13).

I have Jewish text to support my position. If you have only Christian text to support yours, then your argument is circular.

You can keep repeating yourself, and ignore my past rebuttal.

Also, I've not heard of any OT Jew to the time of Jesus ever prophecying Messiah by Solomon's seed alone.

That's because nobody believed that he was born to a virgin.

It means it was before the time to preach it abroad.

It shouldn't have had to be preached abroad if it was a sign.

So far as the virgin birth being a sign, it shows that the virgin birth was simply to herald in the Messiah. It simply confirms Messiah by His birth of a virgin. Therefore, anyone born of a man and woman, that also claims to be Christ, is a false christ.

Some Christians overplay the virgin birth by idolizing it, with Mary's womb and Jesus' body. Catholic Mariology makes her natural womb eternally sacred, and Jesus' flesh and blood body immortal and 'pure'. The former is a Christianized extension of Rome's virgin Vesta with sacred eternal fire. The latter is Christianized version of pagan demigods and heroes with unnatural 'god-infused' bodies.

That idolatry of Jesus' body is from the false Christian tradition, that natural flesh and blood somehow has 'sin' in it, because we sinned on earth. As though the natural body has some sort of culpability for people sinning with it.

Just because some Christians make idols of Jesus' natural body, and Mary's virgin womb, can't be blamed on the Bible. The Bible says nothing of such things, other than to condemn them as idolatrous nonsense.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #221]

Very compassionate. The problem now becomes the whole family of Mary involved in a cover-up of rape

More strawmanning. I didn't suggest that Mary's family would know.

Roman soldiers were not in the habit of seeking vengeance from provincials, because they were not held accountable by Roman Imperial law.

They might still have raised the ire simmering just beneath the surface of the Jewish locals.

There was no hint of any doubt about Mary's virginity among the Jews of the day.

Who, again, may well not have known what happened.


For example----Mark, which scholars tell us is the earliest gospel, makes no mention of a virgin birth. It may, therefore, have been an invention of Matthew.

Not including the same events in separate biographies, does not negate any account. Only contradiction can prove a false account.

If contradiction is the issue, the resurrection accounts are full of them.

Preaching a Messiah by Solomon, as a reason for rejecting Jesus as Messiah, necessitates the virgin birth, so that He was not a son of Solomon by Joseph.

As I pointed out, this is just wishful thinking.

Or, accusing Mary of fornication, or accusing her of not crying out, and so a fornicator, or accusing her whole Jewish family, and Joseph, of forcing a rape cover-up contrary to the law of Moses.

Also already addressed.

Why not just do like the Jews of the day, and care nothing for Jesus being a son of Solomon or not, and just reject Him as Messiah?

They assumed that he was a son of Joseph, so they assumed that he was descended from Solomon. Most of those who thought he might be the Messiah abandoned the belief after he died without fulfilling the messianic role.

Why this zealous attachment to a Solomonic Messiah? Afterall, none of the Jews of the OT at Jesus' day ever prophesied one. I don't believe any anti-NT Jew prophesies a Messiah by Solomon alone, rather than by any of David's son.

It need not be "zealous", just a recognition that the Jewish Messiah would have to be descended from David through Solomon in order to inherit the throne of Israel (1 Chronicles 22:9-10).

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #222]

Fair enough, but the same result: The promises of God spoken to Abraham were through only one of his seed: Isaac. Gal 3 is speaking of Abraham's houseborn sons, whereby only one would the promises come. The promises through one seed, not many, would also pertain to Jacob, not Esau.

"But the promises were spoken to Abraham and his seed. He does not say, And unto seeds, as of many; but as of one"
(Galatians 3:15)

So the promises were made to Abraham's seed and not just to Abraham. And the promise made to his seed was that they would be many.

The promises of innumerability, land, and Messiah to Abraham, would come through one seed of Abraham, being Isaac, and one seed of Isaac, being Jacob, not through the many seeds of Abraham, and two seeds of Isaac.

Genesis 13:16 and 15:5 refer to Abraham's seed being many, which Galatians denies.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #223]

Solomon inherited an earthy throne, that could still be remaining on earth, if he and later kings had not defiled.

The Book shows that only a son of David would inherit the eternal throne of Messiah, by whatever son He begat.

"His name will be Solomon, and I will grant Israel peace and quiet during his reign. He is the one who will build a house for my Name. He will be my son, and I will be his father. And I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel forever.’"
(1 Chronicles 22:9-10)

Fathers passed on tribal affiliation (Numbers 1:18, Ezra 2:59).

The throne was inherited by Solomon (I Chronicles 22:10, II Chronicles 7:18), so it would be inherited from Solomon.

The promise did not depend on Solomon's obedience (1 Kings 11:13).

I have Jewish text to support my position. If you have only Christian text to support yours, then your argument is circular.

You can keep repeating yourself, and ignore my past rebuttal.

This was my rebuttal of your repeated denial.