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?

[Avoice]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #240]

How so? This is how so. God describes his seed. God isnt talking about one person like Paul claims.

Look, you read it for yourself. Is Paul lying? What does God mean when he uses the word seed? How do we use the word sheep? If I said:
"He was asked to take all of his sheep to pasture. And then he took them. Every sheep was taken to pasture."
Am I talking about a single sheep? No. How do you know? You know how.

Now here is God speaking. What is the truth? All we want is the truth, right?

"...Lift up now thine eyes, and look from the place where thou art northward, and southward, and eastward, and westward: For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever. 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"

Does seed mean one or many? Is there evidence that he means one seed? Like one speck of dust? Or so many thar man cant count them all like he also cant count the specks of dust on the Earth?

That is my evidence. If you want to defend Paul and say God means a singke seed (one person) please explain your reasoning. I exolaibed mine to you. Thank you

[RBD]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #240]

How so? This is how so. God describes his seed. God isnt talking about one person like Paul claims.

Look, you read it for yourself. Is Paul lying? What does God mean when he uses the word seed? How do we use the word sheep? If I said:
"He was asked to take all of his sheep to pasture. And then he took them. Every sheep was taken to pasture."
Am I talking about a single sheep? No. How do you know? You know how.

Now here is God speaking. What is the truth? All we want is the truth, right?

"...Lift up now thine eyes, and look from the place where thou art northward, and southward, and eastward, and westward: For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever. 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"

Does seed mean one or many? Is there evidence that he means one seed? Like one speck of dust? Or so many thar man cant count them all like he also cant count the specks of dust on the Earth?

That is my evidence. If you want to defend Paul and say God means a singke seed (one person) please explain your reasoning. I exolaibed mine to you. Thank you

Gal 3:16
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.

Rom 9:7
Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son.

Heb 11:17
By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called:

Paul is speaking of the promise of one son to Abraham by Sarah, not to all his household sons, nor to all his natural seed.

You need to move to Gen 15 & 18 , in order to respond to Gal 3, Rom 9, and Heb 11.

As you note so wittingly, Paul never said only one natural child of Abraham would be as innumerable as stars, nor inherit all the promised land. Paul is only speaking of the promised son God made to Abraham, by whom Christ would come.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #242]

Paul is speaking of the promise of one son to Abraham by Sarah, not to all his household sons, nor to all his natural seed.

Paul isn't speaking of a promise of a seed:

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.
(Gal 3:16)

He's referring to a promise to Abraham and to Abraham's seed. That's where Paul goes wrong. The promises made to Abraham's "seed" are made to many, not to one.

[Avoice]

[Replying to RBD in post #242]

Yes. In Isaac shall thy seed be called.

Isaac had two sons. They are both his sons.

You say that seed means ONE and not all of Isaacs household. So then only one of his sons can be the ONE. If we have to discount all of Isaacs household except for ONE then Jesus would have to be Isaacs only son. But he had two and none were named Jesus.
Many generations are between Jesus and Isaac. What makes jesus the winner?

The passage you quote refers to the seed of Jacob. The nation of Israel.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #242]

Paul is speaking of the promise of one son to Abraham by Sarah, not to all his household sons, nor to all his natural seed.

Paul isn't speaking of a promise of a seed:

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.
(Gal 3:16)

He's referring to a promise to Abraham and to Abraham's seed. That's where Paul goes wrong. The promises made to Abraham's "seed" are made to many, not to one.

In Gal 3, Rom 9, and Heb 11, he is referring to the specific promise of Abraham's one seed and heir by Sarah in Gen 15, 18 & 21, rather than his other household seeds by Keturah and Hagar.

People can try and change Paul's topic to Gen 13-17, but it doesn't change Paul's topic of the one promised seed of Abraham by Sarah:

Gen 15:3
And Abram said, Behold, to me thou hast given no seed: and, lo, one born in my house is mine heir. And, behold, the word of the LORD came unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir.

Gen 21:12
And God said unto Abraham, Let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the lad, and because of thy bondwoman; in all that Sarah hath said unto thee, hearken unto her voice; for in Isaac shall thy seed be called. And also of the son of the bondwoman will I make a nation, because he is thy seed.

Paul makes difference between the promise of land to all of Abraham's many seed, and the one promise of heir to Isaac alone, and by whom Christ would come.

Gal 3:16 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.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #242]

Yes. In Isaac shall thy seed be called.

Isaac had two sons. They are both his sons.

You say that seed means ONE and not all of Isaacs household.

The God of Abraham does, when He makes difference between the one promised seed and heir by Sarah, vs all his seed inheriting land by Isaac, and Jacob.

Paul also makes the same difference in Gal 3, Rom 9, and Heb 11, by referring to Abraham's one promised seed and heir in Gen 15, 18, & 21.

He first mentions the well-known promise of land to all Abraham's seed by Isaac and Jacob, and then focuses only on the one promised seed Isaac himself, by whom Christ would come.

So then only one of his sons can be the ONE.

Correct, the one heir alone, rather than Abraham's sons by Keturah and Hagar.

If we have to discount all of Isaacs household except for ONE

Which was then Jacob, not Esau.

then Jesus would have to be Isaacs only son.

Promising inheritance to only one son, does not mean there can only be one son. Abraham had many sons, with one heir, and Isaac had two sons, with one heir.

But he had two and none were named Jesus.
Many generations are between Jesus and Isaac. What makes jesus the winner?

Makes no sense, unless you're suggesting the promised Christ by Isaac, had to be born by Rebecca.

Many Jews falsely interpreted it so, and continued to do so, even when the promised Christ came by David, Jacob, Isaac, and Abraham. And still do to this day...

The passage you quote refers to the seed of Jacob. The nation of Israel.

The passages Paul responds to, refer to the one seed of inheritance by Abraham and Isaac.

Rom 9:9
For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son. And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #245]

Paul makes difference between the promise of land to all of Abraham's many seed, and the one promise of heir to Isaac alone, and by whom Christ would come.

"And Abram said, Behold, to me thou hast given no seed: and, lo, one born in my house is mine heir. And, behold, the word of the LORD came unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir."

The one from his own bowels was Isaac, through whom Abraham's descendents would be many. The text makes no reference to the Messiah, despite the connection Paul tries to make.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #245]

Paul makes difference between the promise of land to all of Abraham's many seed, and the one promise of heir to Isaac alone, and by whom Christ would come.

"And Abram said, Behold, to me thou hast given no seed: and, lo, one born in my house is mine heir. And, behold, the word of the LORD came unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir."

The one from his own bowels was Isaac, through whom Abraham's descendents would be many. The text makes no reference to the Messiah, despite the connection Paul tries to make.

Which is a separate argument, that Paul makes after establishing the difference between the land promise to all the seed of Abraham, and the promise of heir to one seed by Sarah.

Whether anyone then believes Paul preaching Christ, has nothing to do with the first argument establishing Isaac as the one seed and heir of Abraham's house, rather than the other sons by Keturah and Hagar...

Paul was not so stupid to misunderstand basic Hebrew, which is a stupid accusation, nor did Paul stupidly imply the land promises to all the seed of Abraham would not be many, but only one person, Isaac.

Which in itself is ridiculous, since neither Abraham, Isaac, nor Jacob inherited the promised land themselves:

Heb 11:13
These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #248]

Paul was not so stupid to misunderstand basic Hebrew, which is a stupid accusation, nor did Paul stupidly imply the land promises to all the seed of Abraham would not be many, but only one person, Isaac.

Then why does he straight-up say, "He saith not, And to seeds, as of many", making no mention of the fact that exactly that was said?

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #248]

Paul was not so stupid to misunderstand basic Hebrew, which is a stupid accusation, nor did Paul stupidly imply the land promises to all the seed of Abraham would not be many, but only one person, Isaac.

Then why does he straight-up say, "He saith not, And to seeds, as of many", making no mention of the fact that exactly that was said?

Because in all the promises of God to Abraham, he says not to seeds of Abraham, but one is to seed Isaac. So, it's understandable enough.

Do you now say all the promises God made to Abraham include all His seed, or is any promise made to one seed of Abraham alone, Isaac.

Are you saying like Muhammed, that the promised seed and household heir included Ishmael?