Why Bastardize Ishmael but not the Tribes of Israel? The binding of Isaac or Ishmael?

To those who say Ishmael is of the Flesh while Isaac is of the Spirit,... what do you make of this?:

Genesis 15:4, God promises Abram "a son who is your own flesh and blood will be your heir."

It appears that such a Flesh versus Spirit categorization gives favor to Ishmael.

a reply to: yuppa

Sarah was promised by God that she would bear him a heir. HER HERSELF he didnt say HAGGAR would do it.

....they fail to realize that God said SARAH would bear the chosen one.

As mentioned in detail in this post and this reply, it was only Abraham that was initially promised offspring, descendants, a son, and an heir,.... and then the birth of Ishmael happened,.... followed by God saying Abraham is faithful and blameless,... God then says that the circumcised of Abraham's household would be part of the "everlasting covenant", of which Ishmael participated,... and then after all of this, finally Sarah was promised a son.

ALso Ishmail if you go by definition was a bastard

In this reply, I illustrated how Hagar actually became a legitimate wife of Abraham, not a mere concubine, mistress, or whore. Therefore, Ishmael is absolutely NOT a bastard. Abraham nor God questioned the legitimacy of Ishmael, that was the work of Sarah.

Also if you read correctly the ten commandments do not apply to NT covenant followers from what i understand. that was under the OT covenant,between God and the hebrew people.the OT explains they are for them specifically. New Testament covenant followers are under GRACE.

I have not mentioned the 10 Commandments. However, in Genesis 17, God says that there will be an "everlasting covenant" to Abraham's household who become circumcised. Ishmael participated in this ritual.

a reply to: Seede

Initially, the promise and covenant was only given to Abraham through the promise of his flesh and blood descendants, offspring, son, and heir,... not to Sarah. A promise to Sarah's only came long after the birth of Ishmael.

Abraham takes Hagar as a wife. If this act was bad or against God's Will, why did God say that Abraham is faithful and blameless in Genesis 17:1 after Ishmael was born and before Isaac was born?

a reply to: alwayslearning33

If she would have just chilled out and not DECEIVED Abram into sin

Sin? God did not consider Abraham taking Hagar as a wife to be a sin. In fact, after the birth of Isaac and before Sarah was ever promised a son, God said to Abraham in Genesis 17:1; "I am God Almighty; walk before me faithfully and be blameless."

God did not question Abraham's faith and labeled him blameless. Remember, Sarah was not promised a son until after Ishmael was born.

alwayslearning33

If she would have just chilled out and not DECEIVED Abram into sin

Are you saying the father of Abrahamic religion was deceived ?

The moral of the story, is that Abraham saved the life of
his two sons. One from human sacrifice that was done during that time,
and two by 'hiding' his first born in the dessert from those that would have
probably killed him. btw the first born traditionally would have been
sacrificed (Ishmail); that is actually why Ismail was sent to the dessert
(for his safety).
^ ^ ^ This is why Abraham was made the father of
all Abrahamic religions. He was a wise, moral and just.
Also Abraham reminds us, just as with the flood (The Equalizer),
that blood-lines are mute.
Unfortunately ego elitism is the dark side of human nature,
creating wars by forgetting , manipulating Abraham's message and the true word.
Btw God spoke directly to
Ismail's mother, yet some do not want to accept this (as written).

. . . . . .

a reply to: Logarock

we get talked to like dumbasses.

Without the subtleties, physical cues, and "energy vibes" found in physical conversation,... it is often difficult to gage another individual's emotional or mental intent through written or digital correspondence. I have not made replies within this thread with any condescending intentions. If any were taken this way, let it be known that I am but a humble brother to all.

But thats how we get back to the All that is One. The I am, back into the circle as it were. "I Am the door" for example. Redemption, restoration ect.

All is One. Religiously, we can also say that everything emanates from God,... God is immanently within everything,... God is outside of everything,... God is around everything,... everything consists of God,... and God is transcendent and beyond everything. God is the First, The Last, The One.

To me, this is a truly beautiful and wondrous subjective understanding. Depending on one's personal opinions, in the above, we can substitute the word "God" for Spirit, Great Spirit, Divine Mind, Higher Self, Consciousness, Force, Energy, Particles/Waves, etc.

We do not need to "get back to the All that is One," because we always were and will always be intimately connected with All/One/God. Before Abraham was, WE ARE (I AM).

Esoteric Christian teachings wonderfully express the "I AM" conscious state. It is the same as the Buddhist conscious state of emptiness and mindfulness. Religiously, we can say that it is the complete surrender to God,... it is the detachment from sufferings of the past, present, and future by faith in God,... we do not waste mental or emotional energy on doubt, regret, worry, or fear, because we trust in God's plan, guidance, and protection,... we transcend the ego and fleshly mind and become the pure observer by accepting that; "It is what it is," because all is in God's Hands.

It is realized through a complete realization of Psalm 23 ("The Lord the Shepherd of His People") and Matthew 6, but in particular, The Lord's Prayer, amongst other beautiful teachings and sayings.

"The Door" is simply coming to a deep and personal realization of the concept; All/One. It is that simple. With this one realization, the flood gates of true love for all of existence and reality blossoms, inner peace is obtained, and happiness pours forth.

When we see God in All, a natural altruism is unveiled. Just as in Matthew 25:31-46, "Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me. Whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

It takes enlightenment to understand that you need atoned for.

All is One. Does God need to atone for God? Does God's Plan need to atone for God's Plan? Does the First need to atone for the Last and vice-versa?

Jesus said that the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to the children (Matthew 19:14), and that there is no salvation by believing in his name (Matthew 7:21-23), therefore, I do not accept a saturation of sin nor a professed salvation from it. Instead, sin is a choice. I can choose whether or not I murder, steal, or adulter, etc. Similarly to philosophic alchemy, we must transmute our fleshly and sinful natures in the pursuit of conscious good. There is no atonement, however, there is At-One-ment.

originally posted by: Sahabi
a reply to: Logarock


All is One. Religiously, we can also say that everything emanates from God,... God is immanently within everything,... God is outside of everything,... God is around everything,... everything consists of God,... and God is transcendent and beyond everything. God is the First, The Last, The One.

To me, this is a truly beautiful and wondrous subjective understanding. Depending on one's personal opinions, in the above, we can substitute the word "God" for Spirit, Great Spirit, Divine Mind, Higher Self, Consciousness, Force, Energy, Particles/Waves, etc.

This is all well and good and may contain some truth but it at best a secondary consideration really. Christ as the creative element of the universe is more important than the ambiance. Nothing in creation can regenerate man ultimately.

Knowing that a tree consists of God, that God made it and gave it life, but not recognizing the person that made it is "worshiping the creation more than the creator". Maybe even trying to dodge the creator.

These higher mind and self philosophies are nothing but "worshiping the creation more than the creator". Christ clearly demonstrates a focus toward Himself as The Door, The Bread of Life. All this is found outside the self and outside of creation ourselves included.

originally posted by: Sahabi
a reply to: Logarock


All is One. Does God need to atone for God? Does God's Plan need to atone for God's Plan? Does the First need to atone for the Last and vice-versa?

Jesus said that the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to the children (Matthew 19:14), and that there is no salvation by believing in his name (Matthew 7:21-23), therefore, I do not accept a saturation of sin nor a professed salvation from it. Instead, sin is a choice. I can choose whether or not I murder, steal, or adulter, etc. Similarly to philosophic alchemy, we must transmute our fleshly and sinful natures in the pursuit of conscious good. There is no atonement, however, there is At-One-ment.

Christ called this "cleaning the outside of the cup" an effort in futility.

And paradoxically a self transmutation, aside from being called fruitless, makes us no different from the rock and trees and really does deny the creator by subordinating man to the elements. That mans best nature is found in his relationship to the created universe or within himself rather than to the creator.

All this painfully neglects the fact that we are fallen creature having lost our first estate. For restoration to occur atonement must be made. Man has been corrupted from his original status, his original state of spirituality and relationship with his creator.

a reply to: Logarock

Knowing that a tree consists of God, that God made it and gave it life, but not recognizing the person that made it is "worshiping the creation more than the creator". Maybe even trying to dodge the creator.

I do not propagate the worship of the creation over the worship of the creator. I said, "God is transcendent and beyond everything." God/All/One is tremendously more grand and glorious than we relative humans can perceive, comprehend, or imagine.

Simply, knowing God in All blossoms true love, compassion, and altruism, which correlates to Matthew 25:31-46.

All this is found outside the self

Jesus said that the Kingdom of God is within.

originally posted by: Sahabi
a reply to: alwayslearning33

If she would have just chilled out and not DECEIVED Abram into sin

Sin? God did not consider Abraham taking Hagar as a wife to be a sin. In fact, after the birth of Isaac and before Sarah was ever promised a son, God said to Abraham in Genesis 17:1; "I am God Almighty; walk before me faithfully and be blameless."

God did not question Abraham's faith and labeled him blameless. Remember, Sarah was not promised a son until after Ishmael was born.

Be that as it may it means nothing. It doesn't challenge Isaacs standing as recipient of the blessing and promises given to Abraham and Sarah. Its really not possible to talk about one son and not the other i.e. Ismael in isolation outside of the context. Whatever can be ascribed to Ismael does not usurp Isaacs standing as the son of faith.

originally posted by: Sahabi



Simply, knowing God in All blossoms true love, compassion, and altruism, which correlates to Matthew 25:31-46. ....Jesus said that the Kingdom of God is within.

He doesn't really say that in Matt 25:31-46. He does say there that there will be a separation of sheep and goats. And "come you blessed of my Father and inherit the kingdom that was prepared for you from the foundations of the world".

originally posted by: Sahabi
To those who say Ishmael is of the Flesh while Isaac is of the Spirit,... what do you make of this?:

Genesis 15:4, God promises Abram "a son who is your own flesh and blood will be your heir."

It appears that such a Flesh versus Spirit categorization gives favor to Ishmael.

That prophecy was fulfilled in Issac. Because Abraham and Sarah didn't have faith and tried to fulfill it on their own timing doesn't alter the plan of God. He wanted the promise to come through Sarah and Abraham, not Abraham and Hagar. He still abundantly blessed Ishmael.

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: Sahabi



Simply, knowing God in All blossoms true love, compassion, and altruism, which correlates to Matthew 25:31-46. ....Jesus said that the Kingdom of God is within.

He doesn't really say that in Matt 25:31-46. He does say there that there will be a separation of sheep and goats. And "come you blessed of my Father and inherit the kingdom that was prepared for you from the foundations of the world".

In particular, I was referring to verses 40 and 45:

"Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me. Whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

This is illustrative of true compassion and altruism, knowing God/Divine/Spirit/Self in All.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

The reason why Ishmael was not given the inheritance was because he was conceived in the flesh, Issac was the child of faith

1. If Ishmael was conceived in the flesh, then he is the heir. In Genesis 15:4, God promises to Abraham; "a son who is your own flesh and blood will be your heir."

2. Abraham is not lacking in faith. In Genesis 17:1, God calls Abraham faithful and blameless even after the marriage to Hagar and the birth of Ishmael.

He wanted the promise to come through Sarah and Abraham, not Abraham and Hagar.

Can you please show me where Sarah was ever promised any children at all before the birth of Ishmael?

a reply to: Sahabi

You missed my point or perhaps I was weak in explaining it clearly, technically all children are conceived in the flesh, except Jesus. What I meant was Ishmael was conceived by Abraham's flesh nature, because he didn't trust God, neither did Sarah with the promise made to him in Genesis 15. Issac was the son that was conceived by faith (by trusting and waiting on God and his exact timing.) That's what I'm trying to explain.

Read Genesis 17:15-21

a reply to: NOTurTypical

Read Genesis 17:15-21

My point exactly. Genesis 17:15-21 occurred after God made numerous promises to Abraham and Hagar,... after Abraham's marriage to Hagar,... after the birth of Ishmael,... after the "Everlasting Covenant" of circumcision of Abraham and Ishmael,... and after God called Abraham faithful and blameless. Sarah's promise of a son or children came far after God already spoke to Abraham and Hagar.

Issac was the son that was conceived by faith (by trusting and waiting on God and his exact timing.)

God never told Abraham that he was promised children to Sarah until after Ishmael was born. God did not give Abraham any time frame nor did He say to which womb Abraham's children would be born,... God spoke to Abraham about offspring and descendants, and then he spoke to Hagar about offspring and descendants, and then Ishmael is born. Lastly, He mentioned Sarah's motherhood after Ishmael's birth and "Everlasting Covenant".

a reply to: Sahabi

Why is it such a big issue though? Whatever the circumstances, God decided to make his covenant through Issac. I personally don't like the behavior of Sarah in this story anyways, and it broke Abraham's heart to send Hagar away. It's not like he didn't love Ishmael, that was his first son. We can ask him I suppose when we are in His presence. God often acts in ways that seem weird to us, but He has a purpose and a plan. David was the youngest son of Jesse, but he was called to be the king. And Issac kinda got a taste of this too when he decided he was going to give his birthright to Essau his favorite and firstborn, yet his wife Rebekkah tricked him and he gave the birthright and blessing to Jacob.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
his wife Rebekkah tricked him.

God and g_dS of israel are obviously different entities.
The books should never have been mashed together by Constantine, it just
confuses most people.

originally posted by: ToneDeaf

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
his wife Rebekkah tricked him.

God and g_dS of israel are obviously different entities.
The books should never have been mashed together by Constantine, it just
confuses most people.

The essential doctrines aren't confusing. And Constantine only legalized Christianity, his 2nd successor made it the state religion of the Roman Empire.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

Why is it such a big issue though?

Judaism and Christianity marginalize or bastardize Ishmael. Isaac is championed as the first-born while Ishmael is repudiated as an illegitimate. This is nearly standard doctrine, dogma, and theology.

However, when we read Genesis for ourselves, we discover that God made his covenant and promise to the offspring, descendants, and flesh and blood son of Abraham without the mention of Sarah or Isaac until Ishmael was nearly 13 years old,... we discover that Hagar was actually Abraham's wife,... God spoke to Hagar before Sarah regarding children,... after the union of Abraham and Hagar with the birth of Ishmael, God continued to refer to Abraham as faithful and blameless,... we discover that Ishmael participated in the original "Everlasting Covenant" of circumcision before Isaac was ever born,...

Basically, we discover that in the direct context of Genesis' narrative of Abraham, the opinions espoused by the religious leaders does not support the stance of labeling Ishmael as illegitimate or a bastard.

And why is it a big issue? Because it illustrates an unsubstantiated belief of Judaism and Christianity. The unsubstantiated belief of Ishmael's illegitimacy has drove a wedge between mankind. It has separated human from human based upon a false idea. Such a false doctrine has stoked the flames of separation, prejudice, mistrust, fear, hate, violence, and war for centuries. Instead of seeking equality and reconciliation amongst the scattered brethren of Babel, this false doctrine has encouraged the generational, racial, ethnic, cultural, and/or religious superiority-complex of the Hebrews, Israelites, Jews, and Israelis.

I am not here to prop up Ishmael, tear down Isaac, support the Ishmaelites, reject the Israelites, or vice-versa. Simply, I seek to find clarity in an unsubstantiated belief, in an effort to reconcile all of mankind into one brotherhood free from an elevated, chosen, or superior people above others. Simply, all of us humans are equally brethren.

I personally don't like the behavior of Sarah in this story

When we read the Genesis narrative carefully, we discover that the marginalization of Ishmael actually stems directly from the root of Sarah's jealousy, insecurity, and hostility of Hagar and Ishmael. The illegitimacy of Ishmael and the revoking of Ismael's birth-rite ("Everlasting Covenant" and Inheritance) is not based upon the Genesis narrative, but is instead based upon the propaganda of Sarah.



We can no longer use outdated and unsubstantiated doctrine to trumpet the superiority of one group of humans above another group of humans.