Abraham - true prophet of God or something else??

babloyi
Or the far far far more likely: "Luke" (whoever wrote the Gospel of Luke) made it up.

It's possible Luke made it up ... but it's also very probable that he got it directly from Mary. He hasn't been debunked (yet) and therefore it's open to believe or not. Now look at the Qur'an ... ABSOLUTELY made up almost 700 years after the life of Christ. Instead of believing that which could be real (the gospels), you decide to believe that which absolutely can not be (the Qu'ran). That doesn't make any sense.

But like I said .. buy into whatever you want.

Considering that his behaviour is so wrong...

He was mentally unstable. It's just that simple. The people who were brainwashed into believing he was something else or who buy into the embellished folklore stories will naturally sing his praises.

Because the New Testament talks of Abraham .... all in a very positive light.

Because they all bought into that religion and didn't dare question it.

You didn't quite answer my question about what books of the NT you accept

It's not really relevant but here you go - The New Testament writers bought into the whole Abrahamic storyline and therefore it seeped into their writings. It's very hard to find God in the bible. You have to wade through the human. It's impossible to find God in the Qu'ran.

You didn't quite answer my question ... is it sane for a person to hear 'voices' from 'god' telling him to murder his child and sacrifice him on an altar of fire ???

ElohimJD
The sacrifice God implied was required of Abraham is the EXACT SAME SACRIFICE God made for all mankind!

That's what Christians say ... they back engineer the story and claim that Abraham murdering his son was foreshadowing God sending His Son to be murdered. Sounds like a huge stretch of the imagination to me.

In fact it was on the DAY OF PASSOVER in Abraham's day that this sacrifice was made manifest.

Here's the problem with that statement ... it's impossible to know what day this supposedly happened on and it's impossible to know if Abraham even existed. He supposedly lived in 2000 bc, and his folklore wasn't written down until 500 bc. So there was no record keeping of what happened each day, and there is no way of knowing how much of the folklore is even real.

On Passover Day (14th of Abib) in Moses' day,

Sorry, but there is no evidence that the Jews ever were slaves in Egypt or that they left enmasse or that they lived in the desert for 40 years. So the story of Passover is kind of suspect. It's an interesting story and something may have happened ... but the story itself is unreliable and there is no physical proof to back it up.

reply to post by FlyersFan

FlyersFan
It's possible Luke made it up ... but it's also very probable that he got it directly from Mary. He hasn't been debunked (yet) and therefore it's open to believe or not.

It is only "very probable" if you don't apply the same criteria you are applying to all the other scriptures. Earliest manuscript of Luke we have is from the 3rd century, almost 200 years after Jesus's mission on earth.

Two thirds of it are taken from other scriptures, and Luke's own introduction makes it clear that he didn't get eyewitness testimony of anyone, rather he wrote down the consensus of what OTHERS claim was eye-witness testimony- i.e. he mostly ripped off Mark and Matthew and SOMETHING else (probably the Q documents), with only a third of it being from sources unknown, probably including oral traditions (which you are so dismissive of) such as the Canticle of Mary, which you might be familiar with as a former catholic, and the origin of the Dead Sea scrolls.

Luke also has a number of later edits that added a lot of theology- the breaking of bread and the new covenant that Jesus talked about in Luke 20, the addition of Jesus sweating blood, which wasn't present in older manuscripts, and a variant reading in older manuscripts that has God saying "This day I have adopted you" at Jesus's baptism (which would fundamentally change the theology).

FlyersFan
Because they all bought into that religion and didn't dare question it.

So Jesus "bought into that religion, and didn't dare question it", despite being, according to you, God himself?

FlyersFan
You didn't quite answer my question ... is it sane for a person to hear 'voices' from 'god' telling him to murder his child and sacrifice him on an altar of fire ???

Your question doesn't meaningfully seem to be directed at me. You are again applying Judeo-Christian interpretations of the Binding of Isaac, while refusing to understand Muslim ones, then questioning the Muslim interpretation based off your Judeo-Christian knowledge.


reply to post by Akragon

Akragon
hmm... He didn't call himself the son of Abraham...

That was the author's of the books... and they weren't quoting him

I was actually referring to another part where Jesus was speaking to Jews who were calling themselves all sons of Abraham (or calling Abraham their father), but it turns out you are right anyhow. Thanks for your correction.

FlyersFan
That's what Christians say ... they back engineer the story and claim that Abraham murdering his son was foreshadowing God sending His Son to be murdered. Sounds like a huge stretch of the imagination to me.

It is a huge stretch for a physically thinking human being, it is not meant to be understood by those not called out of this age and given spiritual eyes to think spiritualy with.

Here's the problem with that statement ... it's impossible to know what day this supposedly happened on and it's impossible to know if Abraham even existed. He supposedly lived in 2000 bc, and his folklore wasn't written down until 500 bc. So there was no record keeping of what happened each day, and there is no way of knowing how much of the folklore is even real.

Using scripture it is very easy to know this to be fact, using history books it would be impossible; your "source" of history is different then my "source".

From the day of Abraham's sacrfice of Isaac to the day the Israelites left Egypt (Passover) was 430 years to the day. The Israelites left Egypt on Passover. In this manner you can determine the day of the year Abraham offered up Isaac was in fact Passover day (14th of Abib).

Sorry, but there is no evidence that the Jews ever were slaves in Egypt or that they left enmasse or that they lived in the desert for 40 years. So the story of Passover is kind of suspect. It's an interesting story and something may have happened ... but the story itself is unreliable and there is no physical proof to back it up.

Do not be so certain history has the Egyptian kings correct. The greatest falacy in modern historic record is the assumption Manetho's (Egyptian pagan priest) account of the kings list is 100% correct. The history of Egypt is used as the backbone of all ancient history and all other accounts are forced to correspond to Egypt's record.

Manetho deceived the world by claiming Egypt has only been ruled by a single Pharoh at a time. This is not true, the kings list from Manetho places the seat of government in several different cities over time(the "Pharoh" was in this city for X number of years, then moved to that city for X number of years etc.), when the reality of Egypt's history involves numerous kings ruling from different cities simultaeously. Manetho wanted Egypt to be accepted as the "oldest civilization on Earth" to validate his position, so he took the accurate kings records from all the different cities and placed them "end to end" in a timeline, making it seem to go far back in time (history)

If you place the kings lists next to each other, you will find Egyptian history restored and 100% in line with the account of the Israelites leaving Egypt (exodus).

For research purposes the Hyskos (shepherd kings of Egypt) were the Kenites (Moses' father in law's tribe, (known for their shepherding skills) who took contorl over Egypt after pharoh and his army were killed in crossing the gulf of Acaba (called the Red Sea Finger in anceint times) separating the Sinai Penninsula from Saudi Arabia (not the presently assumed body of water seperating Egypt from Sinai). When Pharoh and it's army was destroyed in a single moment, it caused a power vacuum in which the Kenites took full advantage of.

The pharoh just prior to the Hyskos kings died suddenly, there are numerous Egyptian hyrogliphics depicting this army dying in the sea.

There is a land bridge a few dozen feet below the waters of the Gulf of Acaba where Egyptian chariots and arms can still be seen today, also Solomon had two pillars erected during his reign marking where the Israelites crossed; those pillars are still standing today (physical evidence for one who thinks physically).

Once again your "source" of history comes from false conclusions driven by false Egyptian chronicles manipulated by Manetho years ago, you believe your source by faith in mankind's ability to draw logical conclusions from previous work. My "source" is the perfect word of God, which once understood fully is 100% accurate in it's historical record and there is ample evidence to enforce this fact.

One source believes the "traditions of men" the other source believes the "word of God"; both beliefs require faith in the "source".

God Bless,

babloyi
It is only "very probable" if you don't apply the same criteria you are applying to all the other scriptures.

No.
- Luke is better sourced and traceable.
- Luke isn't from the third century. 60-100 AD is more like it.
- And if 2/3 of it agrees with other scripture that means they confirm each other ... but of course you being a Muslim would claim that they 'ripped each other off'. Whatever. Believe as you wish. It's still better sourced than the fictional qu'ran.

Jesus "bought into that religion, and didn't dare question it", despite being, according to you, God himself?

Jesus followed the many of the religious precepts of the day and spoke in a way that the people of that time could understand. He also broke with many of them. He created a NEW faith and Church .... Matthew 16:18 ... and all he said about Abraham was that He (Jesus) predated Abraham and that Abraham was in Heaven.

Your question doesn't meaningfully seem to be directed at me.

So again you refuse to answer the question .... it's very simple but you continue to dodge ....
Does a person who claims to hear 'voices' from heaven telling him to murder his child and
burn the body on a fire filled altar sound like someone who is sane to you?

Very simple.

ElohimJD
it is not meant to be understood by those not called out of this age and given spiritual eyes to think spiritualy with.

What I understand is that a person claiming to hear voices from God and who tries to murder his son on the demand of those voices, is insane. Pious. But insane.

From the day of Abraham's sacrfice of Isaac to the day the Israelites left Egypt (Passover) was 430 years to the day. The Israelites left Egypt on Passover.

Again .. there is no archeological evidence to support that the Jews were ever slaves or that a mass exodus happened. I've read what you posted, but it doesn't change the facts of 'no evidence'. If any evidence comes up, I'll re-evaluate that position. Also - There is no calendar to show what Abraham (allegedly) did on any particular date. If you wish to believe otherwise .... then go ahead.

FlyersFan

What I understand is that a person claiming to hear voices from God and who tries to murder his son on the demand of those voices, is insane. Pious. But insane.

Your replies to me have been fair so thank you for that, many are not able to discuss things like this very openly. I enjoy engaging with those who are willing to at least read the opposite point of view.

I will simply reply to this belief you have.

HEB 11:17-19
"By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had embraced the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son, 18 even though God had said to him, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.”[c] 19 Abraham reasoned that God could even raise the dead, and so in a manner of speaking he did receive Isaac back from death."

What you call "insane" by your own reasoning, God calls "faithful" in spirit and in truth.

What a christian has to answer is whether they believe the traditions of men (human reasoning), or the word of God; by FAITH.

God Bless,

FlyersFan
Again .. there is no archeological evidence to support that the Jews were ever slaves or that a mass exodus happened. I've read what you posted, but it doesn't change the facts of 'no evidence'. If any evidence comes up, I'll re-evaluate that position. Also - There is no calendar to show what Abraham (allegedly) did on any particular date. If you wish to believe otherwise .... then go ahead.

Just in case you wanted to look at the archeological evidence to support the Exodus here is a link to a site that has much of it, I don't care for the "look" of the site, but the evidence is clear and precise.

www.arkdiscovery.com...

Good Luck in you quest for understanding.

God Bless,

reply to post by ElohimJD

Okay ...good, thanks. and here is the evidence that says Exodus didn't happen ...

Reform Judaism - Moses stories of Egypt are allegories

Jewish World Thinker - Jews were never slaves in Egypt

LA Times

After a century of excavations trying to prove the ancient accounts true, archeologists say there is no conclusive evidence that the Israelites were ever in Egypt, were ever enslaved, ever wandered in the Sinai wilderness for 40 years or ever conquered the land of Canaan under Joshua's leadership. To the contrary, the prevailing view is that most of Joshua's fabled military campaigns never occurred--archeologists have uncovered ash layers and other signs of destruction at the relevant time at only one of the many battlegrounds mentioned in the Bible.

Today, the prevailing theory is that Israel probably emerged peacefully out of Canaan--modern-day Lebanon, southern Syria, Jordan and the West Bank of Israel--whose people are portrayed in the Bible as wicked idolators. Under this theory, the Canaanites who took on a new identity as Israelites were perhaps joined or led by a small group of Semites from Egypt--explaining a possible source of the Exodus story, scholars say. As they expanded their settlement, they may have begun to clash with neighbors, perhaps providing the historical nuggets for the conflicts recorded in Joshua and Judges.

"Scholars have known these things for a long time, but we've broken the news very gently," said William Dever, a professor of Near Eastern archeology and anthropology at the University of Arizona and one of America's preeminent archeologists.

reply to post by FlyersFan

FlyersFan
No.
- Luke is better sourced and traceable.
- Luke isn't from the third century. 60-100 AD is more like it.
- And if 2/3 of it agrees with other scripture that means they confirm each other ... but of course you being a Muslim would claim that they 'ripped each other off'. Whatever. Believe as you wish. It's still better sourced than the fictional qu'ran.

- If by "better sourced", you mean we know where he ripped it off from, then yes.
- And I was talking about the earliest existing manuscript of the Gospel of Luke. Not "when it was from".
- I didn't say "agrees with". I said ripped off. Copied. And I'm not talking as a muslim here. You seem to keep desiring to stick in my faith in topics where I am making relatively faith-neutral comments. Textual analysis of the Gospel of Luke shows that 2/3rds of it was copied from Mark and Matthew, with the remaining (such as the Canticle of Mary) probably from oral traditions, with an "L source" hypothesis postulated. Luke himself admits in the intro to the Gospel that he got all his information from consensus of what was learnt at that point.

FlyersFan
Jesus followed the many of the religious precepts of the day and spoke in a way that the people of that time could understand. He also broke with many of them. He created a NEW faith and Church .... Matthew 16:18 ... and all he said about Abraham was that He (Jesus) predated Abraham and that Abraham was in Heaven.

Since you are now going by what WASN'T said by Jesus as proof of theology, instead of bringing up again that Jesus never claimed to be God , let me point out that the same verse you quoted shows that Jesus considered Abraham to be a "doer of good" or "worker of righteousness", as opposed to the unrighteous who won't be allowed to sit with him in heaven, and there is also the parable with Lazarus, showing Abraham to be "righteous", unlike the rich man, Jesus also chides his followers for claiming to be Abraham's children, but not doing what Abraham did.
Odd still, though, that with Jesus breaking many religious precepts and creating his NEW faith and Church, he didn't feel the need to clarify that most of the major stories his NEW faith and Church was based off of were untrue.

FlyersFan
So again you refuse to answer the question .... it's very simple but you continue to dodge ....
Does a person who claims to hear 'voices' from heaven telling him to murder his child and
burn the body on a fire filled altar sound like someone who is sane to you?

Very simple.

I'm not dodging it at all. As a muslim, I don't believe that Abraham "heard 'voices' from heaven telling him to murder his child and burn the body on a fire filled altar", so your question isn't relevant to me.

FlyersFan
reply to post by ElohimJD

 

Okay ...good, thanks. and here is the evidence that says Exodus didn't happen ...

Reform Judaism - Moses stories of Egypt are allegories

Jewish World Thinker - Jews were never slaves in Egypt

LA Times

The article from Reformed Judaism uses the incorrect Egyptian kings list (as I mentioned in previous posts) to claim the Biblical account false, if Egyptian history is restored to accurate, those pieces of evidence are resolved. It makes assumptions of the whole historical record based on Egypt's history being taken as 100% accurate.

This is the fundamental flaw in the modern historical record.

The Haaretz article also uses the incorrect Egyptian Kings list to date the prymids and the questioned Exodus in error. They also were looking for pottery on the Sinai penninsula and when none was found, they claim it as evidence. I already showed you archeological evidence that the crossing of the Israelites was through the gulf of Acaba (between Sinai and Saudi Arabia) not the gulf of Suez (between Egypt and Sinai). If Haaretz wanted to find the pottery they should have looked in Midian (Saudi Arabia) NOT Sinai, where my sources looked and found plenty of it.

Same for the LA Times article.

Every single one of these articles take the fact that the Biblical story does not and cannot be reconsiled to Egyptian history (based on Manetho's false Kings list) as the sole basis for it being false.

"every modern archeologist has ruled it out as possible".

Because every modern archologist must have his findings reconsiled to the history of Egypt for it to be accepted by peers, review and published.

You showed me "opinions" by writers based on fellow archologist's inability to reconsile the Exodus story to the presently "accepted as fact" Egyptian historical record; NOT EVIDENCE!

There is a difference.

I showed you hard evidence (pictures, pottery, monuments, satelite images, artifacts etc.); my sources just aren't accepted by "modern archeologists" because it cannot be reconsiled to Egypt's false history.

If you have evidence that does NOT use the Egyptian chronology of their Kings as the justification for the conclusion that the Exodus didn't occur, I would be interrested in seeing it; but if all you have are opinions based on the Bible and Egyptian history being unable to reconsile, it will not be of use for my research. I KNOW the Egyptian record is wrong, I have many pieces of evidence to proove this.

Your OP is about Abraham, not the Exodus; so I would not want to derail your thread by this side bar topic. Again if you have hard evidence I am interrested, otherwise we are wasting our time with these Exodus exchanges, as you wil believe your archeologists, and I will believe my God.

God Bless,

FlyersFan
IF IF IF Abraham (of Old Testament Fame) actually existed and that the biblical accounts of his life are recorded accurately from his point of view, there are some questions that need to be asked. My questions - Was Abraham suffering from mental illness? If so/not .. what does that mean to the religions of the Christians, Jews, and Muslims?? Have the Jewish, Christian and Muslim religions candy coated over the fact that one of their big patriarchs could easily have been suffering from a mental illness that caused him to be violent and delusional?? Or is what they say true .. that God was 'testing' Abraham and so he really was a major power player in the plan of God? What do you think?

If he wasn’t mentally ill, what does the story of Abraham tell us about God?

If Abraham was mentally ill, what does that do to the Muslim, Jewish and Christian faiths which hold Abraham up as a prophet of God in their respective religions??

Genesis 22 – “God” tells Abraham to plot to kill his own son. Abraham was going to burn him alive and slit his throat as an offering. He planned the murder and deceived his own son to go on an outing with him in order to lure him to the murder spot. Then, at the last minute, “God” told Abraham not to kill the boy.

Was this a case of dementia suffered by an old man who lead a ‘religious’ life?

Hallucinations and by a religious man with mental health issues?

Insanity and hallucinations due to radiation sickness from the Sodom and Gomorrah ‘brimstone and fire’ that Abraham had just recently witnessed?

Just another murderer wrapped in the cloak of religion?

Genesis 15:12 talks about a ‘dread and great darkness’ falling upon Abraham. Perhaps he had clinical depression of some kind? Paranoia? That coupled with delusions can make someone rather dangerous ...

Genesis 17 is kinda odd .. that whole circumcision thing gets started. I find it rather strange that a God would want human genitalia to get cut up as a sign of his ‘covenant’ with people. But God works in mysterious ways so … who knows??

Was God really testing Abraham?
Was Abraham suffering from a mental health issue?
Was the story just not true, or changed through the thousands of years?

At any rate, if I was Abrahams wife and my son came home after an outing with daddy-dearest and told me the ‘sacrifice story’ .. I’d sure as heck make sure that my child got no where near daddy ever again.

It's not common for me to log in just to respond to a single thread one time, but when someone makes an assumption about a historical (or even fictional) human like Avraham from the Torah, I simply cannot help it.

Let me clarify who Avraham is and what the Torah accounts upon him, and attempt to put your questions to rest.

Firstly, Avraham was told to sacrifice his son Isaac ( Yitzaak for phonetic Hebrew pronounciation ) as the 10th 'test' that Avraham was given by G-d before receiving the Covenant ( a.k.a circumcision ). In the Torah and the Gemorah this event is known as the Akaida, and the Midrash has several verses about it. Yitzaak, when leaving his home with his father Avraham, according to the Gemora knew exactly what was going to happen, for though young he was righteous and knew from 'seeing' and 'feeling' from his father what they were traveling for. When they arrived at the mountain which the Dome of the Rock is currently capping at the Jerusalem Old City's Temple Mount, and Avraham began to bind his son Yitzaak, Yitzaak, seeing the emotional turmoil Avraham was going through urges him to make sure the knots were tied tight enough lest he in a physical rush of emotion struggled for freedom caused the sacrifice to be 'not pretty' before their Creator, G-d. Before Avraham sacrificed his son Yitzaak, G-d sends an angel to the Holy Mountain and which tells Avraham not to commit the sacrifice. Avraham argues that G-d told him to do it, and only G-d can tell him not to. What happens there after becomes very esoteric in it's Midrashic and Gemora as well as Kabballistic meanings. Furthermore, there's a lot more to write about on this subject that get's extremely mystical and is correlated to parts of the Torah not in discussion here.

Avraham in his times was known as the "Man on the other side of the Jordan." Besides him and a select others mentioned in the Torah, for example, Noah, was a pagan. In his generation which the Torah story is relating, Avraham was the only person to be a Monotheist and knowing the one and only G-d. His knowledge of the spiritual happenings of the universe is something that today is hard to fully fathom. Avraham is attributed to writing the very mystical, first esoteric text, in human history, the Seifer Yetsirah. In it, through Avraham's understanding and spiritual sensitivity, not only did he uncover the method of the Universes creation but of how the universe affects human beings on earth, effectively starting Astrology, and laying the foundation for the Kabballah. Avraham, despite being among people who were all pagans, which to Avraham's understanding were commiting a grevious sin against the true creator, still opened up his doors, and shared his wealth and tried to educate people, which with G-d's favor was quite successful, so much so that we have our three main religions of Today. Avraham, at the age of 75, had his first communication with G-d. G-d told him, "Avraham, you are my friend."

You can't read something at face value and pick and choose this or that to come to any sort of hypothesis about something. I could look at Einstein, take one or two quotes of his work, and call him a raging homo-sexual retard if I wanted to. Get a look at the bigger picture before you make assumptions about something because it's shallow understandings and presentations that generate needless hate or ignorance.

Akragon




Lets all read the story... shall we?

22 And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am.

2 And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.

3 And Abraham rose up early in the morning, and saddled his ass, and took two of his young men with him, and Isaac his son, and clave the wood for the burnt offering, and rose up, and went unto the place of which God had told him.

4 Then on the third day Abraham lifted up his eyes, and saw the place afar off.

5 And Abraham said unto his young men, Abide ye here with the ass; and I and the lad will go yonder and worship, and come again to you.

6 And Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering, and laid it upon Isaac his son; and he took the fire in his hand, and a knife; and they went both of them together.

7 And Isaac spake unto Abraham his father, and said, My father: and he said, Here am I, my son. And he said, Behold the fire and the wood: but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?

8 And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together.

9 And they came to the place which God had told him of; and Abraham built an altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar upon the wood.

10 And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son.

11 And the angel of the Lord called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I.

12 And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.

13 And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son.

14 And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovahjireh: as it is said to this day, In the mount of the Lord it shall be seen.

15 And the angel of the Lord called unto Abraham out of heaven the second time,

16 And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the Lord, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son:

17 That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;

18 And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.

19 So Abraham returned unto his young men, and they rose up and went together to Beersheba; and Abraham dwelt at Beersheba.

First error is assuming this story starts at verse 22, why would anyone start Abraham and God's story at verse 22.
Even Akragon accepts that God and Abraham had an established and personnel relationship,

Its silly to ignore every thing that happened before this incident

But no matter how the evidence is produced, you will only accept what you want to believe.

reply to post by borntowatch

Even Akragon accepts that God and Abraham had an established and personnel relationship,

Akragon also believes the OT god was a False God posing as the true Father of Creation

SO where does that leave Abraham?

My own opinion of course.

I feel as though some people do not understand the Genesis account of Abraham and his son Isaac. I don't believe that Abraham was nutty as some have depicted here on ATS. If you read the account as the author intended you will understand that when Isaac asked his pop where the sacrificial lamb was that Abraham said "Gen 22:8 And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering:". Now a nutty guy that was unsure of all of this would not have been convinced that God would intervene and provide the sacrifice.

Even if God had not intervened and Abraham was a nut what do you think of God Himself? Didn't God sacrifice His own Son? Then if God is real and Jesus is the Son of God does that make God a nut? God did the very same thing that Abraham was going to do and God let His only begotten Son die like a pig. God had a reason for doing what He did and He had a reason for letting Abraham do as He was told to do. There is that difference when you think you know something and you absolutely do know something. That difference is not understood by most people that try to analyze God and is called faith.

Akragon
reply to post by borntowatch

 

Even Akragon accepts that God and Abraham had an established and personnel relationship,

Akragon also believes the OT god was a False God posing as the true Father of Creation

SO where does that leave Abraham?

Irrespective of your beliefs, you suggest in the story Abraham and God had a relationship

Nothing more, you said as much.
My issue is starting the account at verse 22 when the story starts with Gods call on Abraham

If its just a story, fine.
Simply the story doesnt start at V22 as some try to imply

reply to post by FlyersFan


You might as well call the whole book the writings of a collection of mentally ill persons and get it over with. The book is all about people that claimed to speak with God. Then culminating with a guy showing up saying he was God and spoke for God and His followers writing about it.

Isolating Abraham is rather amateur, sophomoric and the only single point in the bible that allows a place where all the "sand religions" can be bundled up for the purposes demonstrated in this thread.

reply to post by ElohimJD

its quite simple really
the reeds and basket cartoche belongs to zargon the great (aprox 4000 bc)
he was the baby in the basket, who was adopted and became king
thats written in stone in a plethora of places

moses...?
lol...not so much

reply to post by Danbones


maybe that's where Moses mom got the idea. And then just played on these royals dupe for these mystic tales. I mean nobody's a sucker for that stuff like these head in the cloud dynastical "star people". Outwitted by a slave woman by a little Hair of the Dog. LOL

And really, one wouldn't find anything written in stone around Egypt about an adopted slave boy made good or big time. Would have been "expunged", as they were want to do, form official records anyway after he beat the head slave driver to death.

borntowatch

Akragon
reply to post by borntowatch

 

Even Akragon accepts that God and Abraham had an established and personnel relationship,

Akragon also believes the OT god was a False God posing as the true Father of Creation

SO where does that leave Abraham?

Irrespective of your beliefs, you suggest in the story Abraham and God had a relationship

Nothing more, you said as much.
My issue is starting the account at verse 22 when the story starts with Gods call on Abraham

If its just a story, fine.
Simply the story doesnt start at V22 as some try to imply

I don't think anyone is claiming the story of Abraham starts in chapter 22... but the part of the story we're talking about happens there...

Regardless of whether Abraham was hearing voices or the "voice of god"... the fact is this so called "god" asks him to sacrifice the innocent, which is a theme throughout the OT... This shows the character of this so called "god"... he/she/it is a blood thirsty psychotic maniac which demands worship...

And no real God would ask his children to do such a thing...

No real God would ask his children to slaughter an innocent animal or person... nor would God demand the blood of anyone or anything...

This silliness about Abraham's dirty little deed being a forshadowing of Jesus is nonsense... Jesus volunteered to sacrifice himself because the world was a mess and so were the beliefs of men due to following this biblical terrorist for millennia... On the other hand Isaac was tricked into following his father, tied up and tossed on the alter... and Abraham would have killed him if an angel of God didn't stop him

Theres no comparison...