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]

I never claimed that neither light nor love forces itself upon anyone. I asked why my darkness is so much more powerful then your gods light. Why am I so powerful in this regard?

Oh, you mean the age old question of why there is evil in the world, when God is such a good God?

Nope. I left my question above for you and even bolded where it begins. How you arrived where you did is a bit concerning.

Why does a rebellious child reject the instruction of a good father and mother?

You literally supplied the answer to your own question. I bolded it for you.

Why does someone suicidal refuse to live?

You did it again... because they are suicidal.
Perhaps you meant to ask different questions?

The terrible thing is, that if someone chooses the darkness over the light, then that good God will then consign them to their darkness forever:

Nah, this wont happen.

The problem with those who hope for dark oblivion after this life, rather than judgment of our deeds, is that we remain conscious and know it.

The truthful answer is that we don't know what happens after we die.

The judgment of the just and true God is that He gives people what they ask for, even if it's darkness and evil.

Nah, it doesn't do that.

Are you so blind that you can't see

Fortunately, I have good vision.

, that it's because light does not force itself upon a darkness, that does not want to shine?

This claim ends with a question mark. Are you asking me a question or making more unevidenced claims?

[Clownboat]

It certainly does when talk specially about the Book itself. You can reject anything written in the book about itself, but that doesn't mean what the Author writes is irrelevant to his own book.

It seems that you have conceded my point since you didn't address it.
Your idolization of the Bible is what confuses you here because you think finding a quote in the Bible makes the quote special.

You're being unreal here. We're talking about what a physical book says of itself, not about what a reader believes or not. Once again, it's blind disbelief, that unrealistically injects itself into a book analysis. No one cares about the personal disbelief of a reader, when making a book report. Specially if the reader thinks it matters when analyzing it...That's unrealistic.

Still seems to stand:
Your idolization of the Bible is what confuses you here because you think finding a quote in the Bible makes the quote special.

The same for whether the words of the book are special to others or not. They're certainly special to the author.

And to you, which is why I said and it still seems to be true:
"Your idolization of the Bible is what confuses you here because you think finding a quote in the Bible makes the quote special.

And the Bible is your nemesis, therefore you're not objective. You're not fooling anyone.

I have read the Bible from cover to cover and I assure you that it is not my nemesis. I don't idolize it like you do though. That much is true.

True, but none of them write in the first Person while doing so:

What does that have to do with the fact that all religions that I am aware of have a god or gods that created the earth?

Once again, it's only your disbelief in the forefront of everything you say, that blinds you to what the Book says, and specially to what makes it's uniquely special among all the books of the world: Inerrancy between many writers over much time. And God speaking Himself, and specially for Himself, in the first person...

Thank you for providing further evidence that my claims is true:
Your idolization of the Bible is what confuses you here because you think finding a quote in the Bible makes the quote special.

I am an objective reader, because I let the Bible argue for itself. But you keep diverting to your own personal angst about it, as though that's a realistic argument. If you can't set aside disbelief, the way I do my belief, in order to only report on what the Bible says, then that's your personal problem, not mine.

Your dodging an argument that you know you can't win by accusing me of having some emotional reaction to the Bible instead of a rational criticism of it.

That's why I skip over much of what you say,

That does explain why your replies aren't addressing what I'm actually saying.
For any willing to not skip what I'm saying, it has been provided many times here in italic.

Be well.

i·dol
/ˈīd(ə)l/
noun
an image or representation of a god used as an object of worship.

wor·ship
/ˈwərSHəp/
noun
the feeling or expression of reverence and adoration for a deity. (In this case a book written by a deity specifically).

Now readers, is it more likely that I deny everything in the Bible, have personal angst about it or that we have a user that has made an idol out of a religious book?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #188]

2Sa 7:12 And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever.

The seed is by David's bowels, not by Solomon's.

David had many sons of His bowels by wives, not just Solomon by Bathsheba. Nathan was a son of David's bowels, and Mary his daughter, and Jesus the son of David's bowels by Mary. A person's seed lineage includes the mother.

Isa 11:1 And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots:

Jer 23:5 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth.


Once again, nothing about Solomon, but only Jesse and David. No Scripture anywhere speaks of Messiah as son of Solomon.

Sorry to have to do this to you....

But you will have a son who will be a man of peace and rest, and I will give him rest from all his enemies on every side. 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)

FYI, by making up a messiah prophecy for Solomon, in order to reject Jesus Christ the son of David by Nathan, you make yourself a believer in His virgin birth. That's the only way not to believe Jesus was the son of Solomon's bowels by Joseph.

How does Solomon's being in the messianic line, which he clearly was, mean that the Messiah would have to be born to a virgin?

[ledgeRAILz]

.


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

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to ledgeRAILz in post #194]

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

.....

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.

"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." (Genesis 13:16)

Many, not one.


"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." (Genesis 15:5)

Many, not one.

[RBD]

I never claimed that neither light nor love forces itself upon anyone. I asked why my darkness is so much more powerful then your gods light. Why am I so powerful in this regard?

Oh, you mean the age old question of why there is evil in the world, when God is such a good God?

Nope. I left my question above for you and even bolded where it begins. How you arrived where you did is a bit concerning.

Well, willful darkness is concerning, especially if someone loves it.

Luk 22:53 When I was daily with you in the temple, ye stretched forth no hands against me: but this is your hour, and the power of darkness.

1Th 5:5 Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #188]

2Sa 7:12 And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever.

The seed is by David's bowels, not by Solomon's.

David had many sons of His bowels by wives, not just Solomon by Bathsheba. Nathan was a son of David's bowels, and Mary his daughter, and Jesus the son of David's bowels by Mary. A person's seed lineage includes the mother.

Isa 11:1 And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots:

Jer 23:5 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth.


Once again, nothing about Solomon, but only Jesse and David. No Scripture anywhere speaks of Messiah as son of Solomon.

Sorry to have to do this to you....

But you will have a son who will be a man of peace and rest, and I will give him rest from all his enemies on every side. 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)

Don't be sorry. This is what is needed when disputing about the Bible. Quotes that could apply to the argument at hand. They try the teaching to perfect it. And at the same time prove the Bible does not contradict itself in any detail. Thanks.

Solomon's reign was as the LORD promised, as well as Solomon's temple, which was destroyed. The Messiah's temple will never be destroyed.

Zec 6:12 And speak unto him, saying, Thus speaketh the LORD of hosts, saying, Behold the man whose name is The BRANCH; and he shall grow up out of his place, and he shall build the temple of the LORD:

And so, Solomon's temple was not Messiah's temple. Nor was Solomon's kingdom of Israel the Messiah's kingdom, which will also not be destroyed nor rent from Him.

Dan 7:13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.

1Ki 11:11 Wherefore the LORD said unto Solomon, Forasmuch as this is done of thee, and thou hast not kept my covenant and my statutes, which I have commanded thee, I will surely rend the kingdom from thee, and will give it to thy servant.

1Ki 11:35 But I will take the kingdom out of his son's hand, and will give it unto thee, even ten tribes.

Solomon's kingdom over Israel did not remain whole beyond his own life on earth.

The LORD made promise to Solomon of his kingdom being established forever, so long as he and his sons remained faithful to the Lord God of Israel.

1Ch 28:6 And he said unto me, Solomon thy son, he shall build my house and my courts: for I have chosen him to be my son, and I will be his father. Moreover I will establish his kingdom for ever, if he be constant to do my commandments and my judgments, as at this day.

And so, while it's good to quote Scripture in an argument, it doesn't stand up when taken out of context.

FYI, by making up a messiah prophecy for Solomon, in order to reject Jesus Christ the son of David by Nathan, you make yourself a believer in His virgin birth. That's the only way not to believe Jesus was the son of Solomon's bowels by Joseph.

How does Solomon's being in the messianic line, which he clearly was, mean that the Messiah would have to be born to a virgin?

Because that's how He was born of Mary, but not Joseph the son of David by Solomon. Trying to cut off Jesus from Solomon's seed, can only be by His virgin birth of Mary.

As has been mentioned elsewhere, the Jewish Messiah is supposed to be a descendant of David through Solomon (I Chronicles 22:10, II Chronicles 7:18). Mary was descended from David through Nathan.

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.

But since the promised Messiah was only by David, and not necessarily by Solomon, then Jesus could be the promised Messiah by David, Nathan, and Mary.

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

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

[Athetotheist]

[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.

But since the promised Messiah was only by David, and not necessarily by Solomon, then Jesus could be the promised Messiah by David, Nathan, and Mary.

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

Therefore, no one can reject Jesus as a promised Messiah by Solomon, unless they believed He was only virgin born of Mary, not of 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. Jews, for example, reject both propositions.

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.

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).

[ledgeRAILz]

the New Testament seeks to make a clear distinction of what the Old Testament is saying in complete context

and also in applying the Old Prophetic events as they parallel what God is doing through Jesus

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to Avoice in post #1]

I feel like I answered this before. Are people repeating themselves in new threads?

It seems the Apostle erred in his exegesis, since the Hebrew word zera serves both singular and plural, and thus no distinction can be made.

Sed contra, the Apostle speaks not as a lexicographer, but as one illumined by the Holy Spirit. For while zera may indeed be grammatically ambiguous, the Apostle does not appeal merely to grammar, but to divine intention within the text.

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).

Thus, the Apostle’s point is not linguistic error, but theological insight—a spiritual reading, authorized by the unity of Scripture and the divine Author behind both Genesis and Galatians.

Ad oppositum, to charge deceit is to mistake spiritual exegesis for ignorance. The Apostles interpret Scripture typologically, as Christ Himself did on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:27).

Therefore, the Apostle is not deceived, nor does he deceive, but teaches according to the Spirit, who speaks in mysteries yet reveals truth.