NationStates Jolt Archive

Of the Bible, few stories are as well known as the Akedah: The Binding of Isaac.

What I wish to do in this thread is take this text and analyze it.

Here is the text, thanks to the NIV version of the Bible. Feel free to use your own, but please note differences between the translations.

Genesis 22 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)

Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society


Genesis 22
Abraham Tested
1 Some time later God tested Abraham. He said to him, "Abraham!"
"Here I am," he replied.

2 Then God said, "Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about."

3 Early the next morning Abraham got up and saddled his donkey. He took with him two of his servants and his son Isaac. When he had cut enough wood for the burnt offering, he set out for the place God had told him about. 4 On the third day Abraham looked up and saw the place in the distance. 5 He said to his servants, "Stay here with the donkey while I and the boy go over there. We will worship and then we will come back to you."

6 Abraham took the wood for the burnt offering and placed it on his son Isaac, and he himself carried the fire and the knife. As the two of them went on together, 7 Isaac spoke up and said to his father Abraham, "Father?"
"Yes, my son?" Abraham replied.
"The fire and wood are here," Isaac said, "but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?"

8 Abraham answered, "God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son." And the two of them went on together.

9 When they reached the place God had told him about, Abraham built an altar there and arranged the wood on it. He bound his son Isaac and laid him on the altar, on top of the wood. 10 Then he reached out his hand and took the knife to slay his son. 11 But the angel of the LORD called out to him from heaven, "Abraham! Abraham!"
"Here I am," he replied.

12 "Do not lay a hand on the boy," he said. "Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son."

13 Abraham looked up and there in a thicket he saw a ram [a] caught by its horns. He went over and took the ram and sacrificed it as a burnt offering instead of his son. 14 So Abraham called that place The LORD Will Provide. And to this day it is said, "On the mountain of the LORD it will be provided."

15 The angel of the LORD called to Abraham from heaven a second time 16 and said, "I swear by myself, declares the LORD, that because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, 17 I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore. Your descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies, 18 and through your offspring [b] all nations on earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed me."

19 Then Abraham returned to his servants, and they set off together for Beersheba. And Abraham stayed in Beersheba.


What I ask of you all are the following contemplations. Feel free to post solid answers, musings, ruminations, haikus...whatever you choose. Limit discussion to only the text presented here (I don't care what happened in Leviticus, or even the rest of Genesis). Please avoid the "this story is false" aspect. Even an atheist can read this story and have a literary interpretation.

Who is being tested? Isaac? Abraham? God? What is being tested? Why? Does God stop Abraham too late? Too early? Would Abraham have killed his son for God? Does it mean anything that it is an angel that stops Abraham, and not the Lord himself? Does it matter that the English "God" is actually, in Hebrew, two beings (Elohim, the feminine, compassionate being and Adonai, the masculine, logical being), and that both appear in this story?


I'll post my own interpretation in a second.

I think Abraham is being tested in this tale.

Does it matter that the English "God" is actually, in Hebrew, two beings (Elohim, the feminine, compassionate being and Adonai, the masculine, logical being), and that both appear in this story?Yes. It does.

This was occuring at a time when sacrifice of the firstborn was considered an appropriate offering to such deities as Ba'al. This was a turning point in religion at the time - in reality a codification of the change from sacrifice of the first-born child to the sacrifice of an animal. Chrisitianity would take this a step further to the sacrifice of the first born son of the deity. There's a direct parallel here between Isaac and Christ.

My opinion of this story:

This is a battle of wills. It isn't just Abraham who is tested, nor is it just God.

First of all, from this story alone, we can characterize the Lord with which we deal: He is somewhat jealous, curious, insecure. We know that He is not omnipotent in this specific story, lest there would be no need to test someones faith.

As such, He is distinctly human. What is also important is that the challenge is set forth by Adonai.

What then comes along is a headbutting contest between God and Abraham. God says "Prove you love me", and Abraham says "Prove you deserve it". This goes right up untill the knife is at Isaacs throat.

Let's not forget Isaac here. He has the "one true god" he was raised with telling dad to kill him, and his father there with a knife to his throat. Put yourself in his place.

Now, we have the angel stop him. Here is an important shift in literature. We have Elohim, not Adonai. Also, we have an angel, not God. God made the challenge himself, but did not stop it himself. Both were tested, and both lost.

Why did both lose? In the closing section, Abraham descends the mountain alone. Not with Isaac. Not with God. Alone. Abraham lost his cherished son.

You gotta wonder about the religion who's ultimate moral story is the willingness of a father to commit infanticide on his son because he hears voices in his head.

I think we call that today batshit insane.

I think Abraham is being tested in this tale.
Why?
Yes. It does.Interesting that English doesn't have that difference, no?

Judaism isn't nearly as monotheistic as the Latinate and Germanic worlds would hold. You lose alot with translations, sadly.

This was occuring at a time when sacrifice of the firstborn was considered an appropriate offering to such deities as Ba'al. This was a turning point in religion at the time - in reality a codification of the change from sacrifice of the first-born child to the sacrifice of an animal. Chrisitianity would take this a step further to the sacrifice of the first born son of the deity. There's a direct parallel here between Isaac and Christ.

Now that, my friend, is interesting, as I had somehow missed the connections between the sacrifical sons...

Who is being tested? Isaac? Abraham?

Abraham's being tested.

What is being tested?

His degree of faith and eagerness to obey. Whether he will go so far as to sacrifice that which is most valuable to him.

Why?

To serve as an example of the faith and dedication humans owe God.

Does God stop Abraham too late? Too early?

God here commands an absolute ethical wrong, murder. He withdraws from it in the end--but this only makes Him a manipulative liar. He acts quite wrongly, and should never have commanded the deed in the first place.

Would Abraham have killed his son for God?

Yes. We know because he succeeds at his test--God promises to reward him.

Does it mean anything that it is an angel that stops Abraham, and not the Lord himself?

No, it's just a matter of compiled different versions of the same tale.

Does it matter that the English "God" is actually, in Hebrew, two beings (Elohim, the feminine, compassionate being and Adonai, the masculine, logical being), and that both appear in this story?

"Elohim" is masculine, not feminine. The verb conjugations confirm this. And, again, the only significance of the term is that they point to two different textual sources for this story.

You gotta wonder about the religion who's ultimate moral story is the willingness of a father to commit infanticide on his son because he hears voices in his head.

I think we call that today batshit insane.

You're a concrete thinker, aren't you. You don't deal in abstracts at all, I think. It's a m-e-t-a-p-h-o-r - like so much of the Bible - parable, metaphor, much of it badly done, but still...

He is somewhat Jealous, curious, insecure.Understatement? And you know, of course:
http://bible.cc/exodus/34-14.htm
We know that He is not omnipotent in this specific story, lest there would be no need to test someones faith.Not a good need, no. Unless the intent was for someone to take it in scribe, to set the lesson.

You gotta wonder about the religion who's ultimate moral story is the willingness of a father to commit infanticide on his son because he hears voices in his head.

I think we call that today batshit insane.

Remember that the "Bible" as we know it today was, one day, a series of scrolls...in all probability hundreds (Bible comes from Ta Biblia, literally, the books in greek)

the moral, however, is up to question, given this "scroll". What say you? Is it what we've been told?

You're a concrete thinker, aren't you. You don't deal in abstracts at all, I think. It's a m-e-t-a-p-h-o-r - like so much of the Bible - parable, metaphor, much of it badly done, but still...

And what is the metaphor here, that you should blindly follow 'Gods will', even to commit atrocities?

/OT

Interesting that English doesn't have that difference, no?

Judaism isn't nearly as monotheistic as the Latinate and Germanic worlds would hold. You lose alot with translations, sadly.You must admit, it was likely intentional.

And what is the metaphor here, that you should blindly follow 'Gods will', even to commit atrocities?

More or less, yes. That's the tale's point and significance. The various other interpretations severely stretch the meaning of the text, and beg the question: if that's what was meant, why wasn't it written that way?

Interesting that English doesn't have that difference, no?

It does--"God" and "the Lord."

And while most of the Torah is decidedly non-monotheistic, Judaism certainly is not.

More or less, yes. That's the tale's point and significance. The various other interpretations severely stretch the meaning of the text, and beg the question: if that's what was meant, why wasn't it written that way?

Hmmm.

Well I've always wondered how you can simultaneously love and fear the same being, it sounds alot like dictator-worship to me, learning to love the whip and all that.

And what is the metaphor here, that you should blindly follow 'Gods will', even to commit atrocities?

/OT

It's not about following "God's will," it's about the change from sacrificing children to sacrificing animals. It's a metaphorical presentation of an historical process.

Originally the Semitic deities required the sacrifice of the first-born child of every set of parents (and since polygamy was practiced, it could mean the first born child of every mother). The point came when the people of that area, for lack of a better term, "outgrew" that practice and used animals instead. This story marks that transition, just as the story of Christ marks the transition from blood sacrifice to the direct sacrifice of deity. In both instances it is a case of "I come not to change the law, but to fulfill the law" - meaning that the need for sacrifice was never changed, but the means of sacrifice was.

Abraham's being tested.
How do we know it is just him?


His degree of faith and eagerness to obey. Whether he will go so far as to sacrifice that which is most valuable to him.
fair.


To serve as an example of the faith and dedication humans owe God.

Why do we owe this? Especially to a God that commands such an act?

God here commands an absolute ethical wrong, murder. He withdraws from it in the end--but this only makes Him a manipulative liar. He acts quite wrongly, and should never have commanded the deed in the first place.You use "absolue ethical", in relation to God. Can such an action be so? If God commands it, then can it be wrong?



Yes. We know because he succeeds at his test--God promises to reward him.But the action is not done.
I give you a knife and tell you to kill your child. If you don't, I'll kill you. You press the knife down. You may even move it, but I stop you. What is to say that, in the next second, you wouldn't pull the knife away and say "fuck you, kill me".

Do we know that the action would be finished?



No, it's just a matter of compiled different versions of the same tale. It seems quite remarkable that one can command, yet cannot recind.



"Elohim" is masculine, not feminine. The verb conjugations confirm this. And, again, the only significance of the term is that they point to two different textual sources for this story.Ah...you're right...I think I got them backwards genderwise, but right in the nature of the beast.

It seems odd that the change would occur at that spot, no?

I think OMAC is testing us to see if we're willing to hunt down their top guy's phone number and yell at him at 3 am about the midpost advertisements.

And don't see the biblical story as being true or abraham as existing. If it is, however, the testing was to see if abraham would have any morals (he wouldn't).

You must admit, it was likely intentional.In all probability

It does--"God" and "the Lord."

And while most of the Torah is decidedly non-monotheistic, Judaism certainly is not.
Is the difference between "God" and "Lord" the same as between "Elohim" and "Adonai"? No. English has dozens of euphamisms for God. We do not, however, have two distinct entities as ancient Hebrew (and modern Hebrew to an extent) held.

How do we know it is just him?

We don't, but the text clearly marks him out, and no one else's.

Why do we owe this? Especially to a God that commands such an act?

We don't owe it at all. But the Biblical writers certainly think we do.

You use "absolue ethical", in relation to God. Can such an action be so? If God commands it, then can it be wrong?

Divine command theory is nonsense. If we want to argue that God would never command something evil, in this case we should follow Kant and argue that "God's" voice here is actually Satan's.

I give you a knife and tell you to kill your child. If you don't, I'll kill you. You press the knife down. You may even move it, but I stop you. What is to say that, in the next second, you wouldn't pull the knife away and say "fuck you, kill me".

Well, first, there's the language of the text--in the translation you provide, "took the knife to slay his son." The intent is clearly there. The implication of the text is that the angel intervenes at the last moment because otherwise Isaac will die--Abraham will kill him. Abraham passes the test; he is about to do it, he would have finished it if given the opportunity.

It seems quite remarkable that one can command, yet cannot recind.

I don't think it's any more than different styles of different authors.

Ah...you're right...I think I got them backwards genderwise,

No, "Adonai" is masculine too. The feminine version of God is Shekhinah.

It seems odd that the change would occur at that spot, no?

A little. It would be interesting to read an analysis. I don't know the specifics here.

It's not about following "God's will," it's about the change from sacrificing children to sacrificing animals. It's a metaphorical presentation of an historical process.

Originally the Semitic deities required the sacrifice of the first-born child of every set of parents (and since polygamy was practiced, it could mean the first born child of every mother). The point came when the people of that area, for lack of a better term, "outgrew" that practice and used animals instead. This story marks that transition.

That is an interesting thought indeed.

Is the difference between "God" and "Lord" the same as between "Elohim" and "Adonai"? No.

In what sense not? That's how the two terms are translated.

English has dozens of euphamisms for God. We do not, however, have two distinct entities as ancient Hebrew (and modern Hebrew to an extent) held.

This is purely interpretive. It has nothing to do with the language. Traditionally interpreted, the Hebrew terms don't refer to "two distinct entities" at all--that's just secular (and probably somewhat accurate) textual analysis coming in.

My opinion...thats pretty fucked up...he's practically toying with him...

God: Sacrifice your son

Abraham: yes o mighty lord

*goes through the pain and torment of preparing to kill his son*

God: Nah, not really, i was just testing you...

I think OMAC is testing us to see if we're willing to hunt down their top guy's phone message and yell at him at 3 am about the midpost advertisements.

And don't see the biblical story as being true or abraham as existing. If it is, however, the testing was to see if abraham would have any morals (he wouldn't).I specifically didn't ask if it was true or not. I asked about literary interpretations.
And what are morals? If God dictates morals, as a religious text would hold, and God tells you to do something, can it be immoral?
More or less, yes. That's the tale's point and significance. The various other interpretations severely stretch the meaning of the text, and beg the question: if that's what was meant, why wasn't it written that way?
You were quite ready to pass off the writing as being from different sources. Is it that big of a stretch to note the significant difference between "God" and "angel of God", the difference between "Abraham and Isaac ascend the mountain" and "Abraham descends the mountain, or the difference between "Adonai" and "Elohim"?


The differences are there. It could be due to several texts going into the story. It could not be.

It's not about following "God's will," it's about the change from sacrificing children to sacrificing animals.

These two are mutually exclusive?

The text clearly marks out the framework of a test, a test Abraham passes by being properly obedient and offering up his son. That ties directly into the theme of obedience to the deity. Is it possible that there's also a metaphorical rejection of human sacrifice there? Sure. But that's not the whole--or even the predominant--element.

The differences are there. It could be due to several texts going into the story. It could not be.

No, it pretty definitely is. It's not something exclusive to this story that you can assign a particular interpretation; it's something common to all of Genesis.

The way the editing and the compilation happened here is interesting, though.

If God dictates morals, as a religious text would hold, and God tells you to do something, can it be immoral?

A false statement implies anything. Let's take the false statement 2+2=5 and see what happens...

2+2=5
2+2-2=5-2
2=3
3=2
2=1

Gandhi and DragonAtma are two people. Since 2=1, Gandhi and DragonAtma are one person. Hence I am Gandhi.

It's not about following "God's will," it's about the change from sacrificing children to sacrificing animals. It's a metaphorical presentation of an historical process.

Originally the Semitic deities required the sacrifice of the first-born child of every set of parents (and since polygamy was practiced, it could mean the first born child of every mother). The point came when the people of that area, for lack of a better term, "outgrew" that practice and used animals instead. This story marks that transition, just as the story of Christ marks the transition from blood sacrifice to the direct sacrifice of deity. In both instances it is a case of "I come not to change the law, but to fulfill the law" - meaning that the need for sacrifice was never changed, but the means of sacrifice was.
That's an absolute load of bollocks to be frank.

How can you know that was the intention of the story was? I mean for all this talk of metaphorics the OT is decidedly literal and to-the-point in what it says.

In short, your post sounds more like some attempt to distort what the Abraham story really SAYS, which is that it's good to have a willingness to commit infanticide if God orders you to.

And no amount of vague philosophizing on your part can change that.

A false statement implies anything. Let's take the false statement 2+2=5 and see what happens...

2+2=5
2+2-2=5-2
2=3
3=2
2=1

Gandhi and DragonAtma are two people. Since 2=1, Gandhi and DragonAtma are one person. Hence I am Gandhi.

*sends your scrawny ass a cheeseburger*

That's an absolute load of bollocks to be frank.

How can you know that was the intention of the story was? I mean for all this talk of metaphorics the OT is decidedly literal and to-the-point in what it says.

In short, your post sounds more like some attempt to distort what the Abraham story really SAYS, which is that it's good to have a willingness to commit infanticide if God orders you to.

And no amount of vague philosophizing on your part can change that.

True, but how are you going to get Loyal followers and lots of charitable donations to your causes with an attitude like that?

In order to properly use propaganda over and over, it must be flexible, lol...

*sends your scrawny ass a cheeseburger*

I can has cheezburger! (http://icanhascheezburger.com/tag/cheezburger/)

(sorry)

We don't, but the text clearly marks him out, and no one else's.If the text so clearly marks it out, then we must know difinitivly. Is there not a case where the person who administers the test is also tested? Is there not a case where the test lies upon them solely?

It happens frequently with power situations.



We don't owe it at all. But the Biblical writers certainly think we do.
k


Divine command theory is nonsense. If we want to argue that God would never command something evil, in this case we should follow Kant and argue that "God's" voice here is actually Satan's.It isn't an invalid argument. The adjectives one could use to describe the God of the Akedah are remarkably similar to those frequently attributed to Satan.

Divine command in this discussion is nonsense, I agree, as it breaks the parameters I established. In a different discussion, however...



Well, first, there's the language of the text--in the translation you provide, "took the knife to slay his son." The intent is clearly there. The implication of the text is that the angel intervenes at the last moment because otherwise Isaac will die--Abraham will kill him. Abraham passes the test; he is about to do it, he would have finished it if given the opportunity.
I raise my fist to punch my wall. At the last second, I decide "no, that would hurt". He has the intent, I don't argue that. But he didn't follow through. Yes, he was stopped. But without the completion of the action, we cannot definitivly know that he would have. We've all seen enough plot twists in movies...and we all know that reality is even more twisted.
This is where you get the face off of God and Abraham. It is a chicken fight. Who will flinch first. Would Abraham have moved the knife enough to draw blood and stopped at the scream of his son? Would God have backed down then? It's a pissing contest. We know that God backed down first. That doesn't mean Abraham didn't have his final limit.



I don't think it's any more than different styles of different authors.
I find it quite different. Even if the style between the authors was different, there is still the issue of editorial voice.


No, "Adonai" is masculine too. The feminine version of God is Shekhinah.
Shekhina is the full female aspect, yes.
maybe I'm thinking of singular and plural? I'm a bit tired, and haven't covered this stuff in a while. Fact remains, they are two distinct concepts.


A little. It would be interesting to read an analysis. I don't know the specifics here.It could be random. It could be two different authors, as you state. But the differences are so significant, that it seems remarkable. Moreover, considering where they occur, they become significant.

In what sense not? That's how the two terms are translated.Not consistantly. Elohim isn't always God, Adonai isn't always Lord. They are used interchaingably. In Hebrew (atleast that of prayer and Torah) they are not.



This is purely interpretive. It has nothing to do with the language. Literary interpretation has everything to do with language.

Traditionally interpreted, the Hebrew terms don't refer to "two distinct entities" at all--that's just secular (and probably somewhat accurate) textual analysis coming in.I'm not interested in traditional. Judaism has a long tradition of questioning the Torah.

I'm interested in debate over a literary text that is ripe for the picking.

I give Abraham a C-

He was deceptive toward his servants and his son regarding his intentions and he didn't ask for ID. Even supposing the God I worship would demand such a thing(not likely) and supposing I don't tell Him to go fuck Himself(fairly likely), I'd want to see some valid identification before I go slitting my kid's throat and torching the corpse.

I'm reminded of a stand-up comedy routine by Norm Macdonald where he talks about being told by the devil to kill one's family and what happens when he goes to the devil afterward:

Norm:"Oh, Satan! I have done as you've commanded! I killed my family and chopped them up. I have them here with me in this duffelbag!"
Satan:*pulls of his mask* "Hey! It's me Bob from work!"
Norm: "Bob! .... You got me Bob." *looks at duffel bag* "I got my family in a duffelbag. Good one, Bobby."

:p

That's an absolute load of bollocks to be frank.

How can you know that was the intention of the story was? I mean for all this talk of metaphorics the OT is decidedly literal and to-the-point in what it says.

In short, your post sounds more like some attempt to distort what the Abraham story really SAYS, which is that it's good to have a willingness to commit infanticide if God orders you to.

And no amount of vague philosophizing on your part can change that.

Yeah because, you know, AP knows exactly what the intention of the story is. :rolleyes:

I give Abraham a C-

He was deceptive toward his servants and his son regarding his intentions and he didn't ask for ID. Even supposing the God I worship would demand such a thing(not likely) and supposing I don't tell Him to go fuck Himself(fairly likely), I'd want to see some valid identification before I go slitting my kid's throat and torching the corpse.

I'm reminded of a stand-up comedy routine by Norm Macdonald where he talks about being told by the devil to kill one's family and what happens when he goes to the devil afterward:

Norm:"Oh, Satan! I have done as you've commanded! I killed my family and chopped them up. I have them here with me in this duffelbag!"
Satan:*pulls of his mask* "Hey! It's me Bob from work!"
Norm: "Bob! .... You got me Bob." *looks at duffel bag* "I got my family in a duffelbag. Good one, Bobby."

:p
surprisingly, not far from Kant's argument that Soheran brought up, stating that God, in this case, is actually Satan untill the moment the knife is drawn.

Yeah because, you know, AP knows exactly what the intention of the story is. :rolleyes:
No, but the intention is clear to anyone who reads it, and I think I will take the written meaning to the overly-complex philosophizing rantings of OT apologists.

Yeah because, you know, AP knows exactly what the intention of the story is. :rolleyes:

I think he meant the difference between Reading the Story for what it Says vs Reading between the lines and Speculating for hidden Meanings...

surprisingly, not far from Kant's argument that Soheran brought up, stating that God, in this case, is actually Satan untill the moment the knife is drawn.

Any resemblance to rational thought on my part is purely coincidental. ;)

Any resemblance to rational thought on my part is purely coincidental. ;)

Of course. I wouldn't mean to imply anything else. Just mention it in passing ;)

No, but the intention is clear to anyone who reads it, and I think I will take the written meaning to the overly-complex philosophizing rantings of OT apologists.

Written meaning in almost all texts is a) boring, b) limiting, and c) not the whole picture.

After all, The Scarlet Letter isn't just about learning to spell.

I think he meant the difference between Reading the Story for what it Says vs Reading between the lines and Speculating for hidden Meanings...

Most theologians know that the Bible is written on at least two levels. Level one is a literal level, written for people for whom abstractions have no meaning, it still gets the meaning across - in this instance, deity no longer wishes human sacrifice.

The other levels are abstract. Fundamentalists are not given to dealing with abstractions, whether they are fundamentalist Christians, fundamentalist Muslims or fundamentalist Stalinists.

And, for the record, I am not an OT or an NT apologist. I am an agnostic who enjoys this sort of discussion.

Written meaning in almost all texts is a) boring, b) limiting, and c) not the whole picture.

After all, The Scarlet Letter isn't just about learning to spell.

I'll take boring over the speculation of people with a biased agenda thanks.

If you can't explain your point in a forthright and understandable manner, then I have no time for it.

And I have the least time of all for the pseudo-intellectual junta of Christians telling us a part of the Bible means something completely different than what is written.

I'll take boring over the speculation of people with a biased agenda thanks.

If you can't explain your point in a forthright and understandable manner, then I have no time for it.

And I have the least time of all for the pseudo-intellectual junta of Christians telling us a part of the Bible means something completely different than what is written.

The Fox and the Grapes

One hot summer's day a Fox was strolling through an orchard till he came to a bunch of Grapes just ripening on a vine which had been trained over a lofty branch. "Just the thing to quench my thirst," quoth he. Drawing back a few paces, he took a run and a jump, and just missed the bunch. Turning round again with a One, Two, Three, he jumped up, but with no greater success. Again and again he tried after the tempting morsel, but at last had to give it up, and walked away with his nose in the air, saying: "I am sure they are sour."



Clearly this is about vegan foxes and nothing more. *nod*

I'll take boring over the speculation of people with a biased agenda thanks.

If you can't explain your point in a forthright and understandable manner, then I have no time for it.

And I have the least time of all for the pseudo-intellectual junta of Christians telling us a part of the Bible means something completely different than what is written.

Then what are you doing in a thread created by an atheist for the purpose of literary interpretation, analysis, and discussion of a Biblical text, likely to gain the attention and input of some religious members of these forums?

Most theologians know that the Bible is written on at least two levels. Level one is a literal level, written for people for whom abstractions have no meaning, it still gets the meaning across - in this instance, deity no longer wishes human sacrifice.

The other levels are abstract. Fundamentalists are not given to dealing with abstractions, whether they are fundamentalist Christians, fundamentalist Muslims or fundamentalist Stalinists.

And, for the record, I am not an OT or an NT apologist. I am an agnostic who enjoys this sort of discussion.

Glad to see there are more of us around :)

I think he meant the difference between Reading the Story for what it Says vs Reading between the lines and Speculating for hidden Meanings...

Yes that is exactly what he meant, but he also said that ASD can't tell what the writer meant by the story, but obviously AP does.

And I have the least time of all for the pseudo-intellectual junta of Christians telling us a part of the Bible means something completely different than what is written.

Yeah you know that parable that Jesus said about the women who lost one of her gold coins that actually happened, there was no meaning behind it at all. :rolleyes:

Then what are you doing in a thread created by an atheist for the purpose of literary interpretation, analysis, and discussion of a Biblical text, likely to gain the attention and input of some religious members of these forums?

Literary analysis and interpretation is a hell of alot different than Christians (or pro-Christians) pulling magical hidden meanings out of their hats to fit their own agenda and 'edit' the Bible so we don't get the bad parts.

Yeah you know that parable that Jesus said about the women who lost one of her gold coins that actually happened, there was no meaning behind it at all. :rolleyes:

No, but the meaning was plain and easy to understand, I am referring to the pseudo-intellectual Christians trying to edit out parts of the bible via selective interpretation for their own agenda.

No, but the meaning was plain and easy to understand, I am referring to the pseudo-intellectual Christians trying to edit out parts of the bible via selective interpretation for their own agenda.

What about those attempting to interpret the Bible and say why they wrote this or even problems with translation.

What about those attempting to interpret the Bible and say why they wrote this or even problems with translation.

AP is a literal-minded, concrete thinker. I doubt that he enjoys intellectual exercises, either as a means to an end or for their own sake. He thinks all religions are as literal and concrete as his own.

Does it matter that the English "God" is actually, in Hebrew, two beings (Elohim, the feminine, compassionate being and Adonai, the masculine, logical being), and that both appear in this story?


As a native speaker of Hebrew, and a grad student of the bible (among other areas), I have no idea who gave you this idea. This sounds much more like a new-age interpretation by some kind of a charlatan.

Those are not two beings. Just two names for the same "being". G-d has a many names, but they all describe the same ONE being (this is in fact one of the points where Christianity got it wrong, maybe because of poor translations).

Most of G-d's names, except for one (they are more titles than names) are only descriptions, in human language, of his actions in this world.

A-D-O-N-A-I means literally "who rules (me)". The Y- -H- -W- -H name (being mis-translated to LORD in English bibles) is G-d's specific (private)name. No one can really pronounce it, and mis-creations that appear here and there like "Jehova" are so blatantly wrong, that one really wonders who exactly those people worship when they use this mispronunciation.

There are a lot of things that are lost in translations of the bible. As a native Hebrew speaker I can tell you that sometimes I am absolutely amazed by how such a wonderful book with such a depth is being reduced to no more than story-telling when being translated.

Sorry guys, if you want to understand the bible, you really have to learn Hebrew and master it first.

As a native speaker of Hebrew, and a grad student of the bible, I have no idea who gave you this idea. This sounds much more like a new-age interpretation by some kind of a charlatan.

These are no two beings. Just two names for the same "being". G-d has a many names, but they all describe the same ONE being (this is in fact one of the points where Christianity got it wrong, maybe because of poor translations).

Most of G-d's names, except for one (they are more titles than names) are only descriptions, in human language, of his actions in this world.

A-D-O-N-A-I means literally "who rules (me)". The Y- -H- -W- -H name (being mis-translated to LORD in English bibles) is G-d's specific (private)name. No one can really pronounce it, and mis-creations that appear here and there like "Jehova" are so blatantly wrong, that one really wonders who exactly those people worship when they use this mispronunciation.

There are a lot of things that are lost in translations of the bible. As a native Hebrew speaker I can tell you that sometimes I am absolutely amazed by how such a wonderful book with such a depth is being reduced to no more than story-telling when being translated.

Sorry guys, if you want to understand the bible, you really have to learn Hebrew and master it first.

And Aramaic.

AP is a literal-minded, concrete thinker. I doubt that he enjoys intellectual exercises, either as a means to an end or for their own sake. He thinks all religions are as literal and concrete as his own.

The issue I have with these intellectual exercises is that there's a tendency towards literalism because it's the easy way out: Young earth, creationism, teh flood, etc, etc... can all be tenets of not-even-so-fundie christians.

Thus the literalism in ze bible (http://www.lolcatbible.com/index.php?title=Main_Page) is in the eye of the beholder and any intellectual exercise that doesn't rely on concrete evidence is, at least to me, almost always completely futile because you can twist words to any meaning you want.

For example, Abraham was a latent mental case who invented the story and passed it around as a way to relieve the pressure and appease the voices in his head.

The issue I have with these intellectual exercises is that there's a tendency towards literalism because it's the easy way out: Young earth, creationism, teh flood, etc, etc... can all be tenets of not-even-so-fundie christians.

Thus the literalism in ze bible (http://www.lolcatbible.com/index.php?title=Main_Page) is in the eye of the beholder and any intellectual exercise that doesn't rely on concrete evidence is, at least to me, almost always completely futile because you can twist words to any meaning you want.

For example, Abraham was a latent mental case who invented the story and passed it around as a way to relieve the pressure and appease the voices in his head.

We could say the same thing when reading Republic, and we will interpret some of what is written into any meaning we want, or we can try to understand what is being said. While some people may try to understand what is being said your posts suggest that you will dismiss any other interpretation or some other meaning because then it would not fit in with your agenda. Oh the irony.

If the text so clearly marks it out, then we must know difinitivly.

We do, with respect to Abraham.

Is there not a case where the person who administers the test is also tested?

Sure, that's possible. But not likely here, where there's no indication of it in the text, and where the "person" in question is God.

It isn't an invalid argument.

No, but it's one that doesn't rest on an honest interpretation of the text. Kant (like me) is bringing in an external sophisticated moral theory that doesn't mesh well with the internal logic of the Bible. In his version, Abraham fails his test: while an allegedly divine voice is objectively uncertain (could be God, could be Satan, could be insanity), it is absolutely clear that murder is wrong in all circumstances. Abraham goes with blind, irrational faith over moral right.

But without the completion of the action, we cannot definitivly know that he would have.

What does "definitive" mean when speaking of several thousand year old texts constructing a narrative out of various tales?

All we know is what the story's logic suggests--that Abraham passes his test, he proves he would have sacrificed his son--and the consistent traditional interpretation that this is actually the case.

This is where you get the face off of God and Abraham. It is a chicken fight. Who will flinch first. Would Abraham have moved the knife enough to draw blood and stopped at the scream of his son? Would God have backed down then? It's a pissing contest.

While the deity of Genesis is not quite the ineffable divine being currently venerated by Christianity and Judaism, imagining Him in a "pissing contest" (and losing!) is far too close to setting Him up with an equality to humans that the writers of the text would never have fathomed.

maybe I'm thinking of singular and plural?

You might be. That would work--"Elohim" is certainly a plural form, and when it is used in Genesis 1 it is accompanied by some plurality ("we").

Not consistantly. Elohim isn't always God, Adonai isn't always Lord.

I think you're wrong, but I'd be delighted to see a counterexample.

Translators aren't quite as muddle-headed as some people think they are. :)

They are used interchaingably. In Hebrew (atleast that of prayer and Torah) they are not.

Well, I don't recall any insight from my Jewish education about the reasons (if any) for when the different names of God are used in prayer, but certainly it was not to respect them as distinct entities. Modern Judaism (Kabballah kinda-sorta excepted) is very clear on this point: there is one God.

Literary interpretation has everything to do with language.

Perhaps, but I'm referring to "language" as in "English" or "Hebrew."

I'm not interested in traditional. Judaism has a long tradition of questioning the Torah.

Sort of, in that Rabbinic Judaism (far and away the most prominent form) has always distanced itself from a strict literal interpretation, but the breaks from literal interpretation are transferred through the traditional Rabbinic sources. An English class-style dissection is an essentially secular activity.

and a grad student of the bible (among other areas)

Secular or religious?

Makes a big difference, especially when it comes to "names." A good number of scholars argue that they in fact point to different deities, that were conveniently synthesized to serve the purposes of the compilers of the Bible--to serve as a unifying national narrative.

We could say the same thing when reading Republic

Plato's Republic is a philosophical text intended for a sophisticated audience, and written by a single author in a decidedly non-literal way (through dialogues).

The Bible, on the other hand, has a consistent omniscient third-person narrator, and serves as a narrative and moral tale for common consumption. Interpretations closer to the literal meaning of the text, in general, probably better encompass the intent of the writers and compilers.

We could say the same thing when reading Republic, and we will interpret some of what is written into any meaning we want, or we can try to understand what is being said. While some people may try to understand what is being said your posts suggest that you will dismiss any other interpretation or some other meaning because then it would not fit in with your agenda. Oh the irony.
By these intellectual exercises I meant interpreting religious texts and tenets and the general lack of intellectual honesty that surrounds the process: What do you think? usually translates to What I want the text to represent to me? which depends on how devout or not the replier is.

My opinion is that in a public forum you cannot have a meaningful discussion about an aspect of a religious text - dependent or independent of the context - because people have their opinions and are oft unwilling to take another viewpoint to make the discussion rational - ie. take it somewhere beyond mud flinging contest or my-(non)belief-is-stronger/better/etc-than-yours.

But in order to humour you ...
Who is being tested? What is being tested? Abraham - Killing someone close to you is a simple test of loyalty; oft used in fiction, usually crime related though.

Would Abraham have killed his son for God? Yes, for dying or killing in name of God should hold no problems to a believer. Infact, Isaac should've been HAPPY to be sacrificed to Lord if he was a believer himself.

Does it mean anything that it is an angel that stops Abraham, and not the Lord himself? No, it has no bearing because god is s'posed to be all-powerful.

There, happy? My interpretation that's completely dependent of the context.

By these intellectual exercises I meant interpreting religious texts and tenets and the general lack of intellectual honesty that surrounds the process: What do you think? usually translates to What I want the text to represent to me? which depends on how devout or not the replier is.

My opinion is that in a public forum you cannot have a meaningful discussion about an aspect of a religious text - dependent or independent of the context - because people have their opinions and are oft unwilling to take another viewpoint to make the discussion rational - ie. take it somewhere beyond mud flinging contest or my-(non)belief-is-stronger/better/etc-than-yours.

I am presuming you include yourself when making these claims, and if you think it is pointless to do, then why bother posting in this thread to begin with?

Plato's Republic is a philosophical text intended for a sophisticated audience, and written by a single author in a decidedly non-literal way (through dialogues).

The Bible, on the other hand, has a consistent omniscient third-person narrator, and serves as a narrative and moral tale for common consumption. Interpretations closer to the literal meaning of the text, in general, probably better encompass the intent of the writers and compilers.

Yes true, but after all what was literal to them may not not be the same sort of literal to us. I will take the example of the flood, it says it covered the whole world. Now what was this 'world' to them? To Europeans in the 9th century? To people living today? The world and the layout was different in all three of those time frames so yes I still think we can take this text and attempt to understand what the original writers were saying, it may also help people if you looked at is as a non-religious text to help people get over the prejudices that would support it or otherwise.

I am presuming you include yourself when making these claims
That would depend on the recipient of my opinion, would it not? ;)
..and if you think it is pointless to do then why bother posting in this thread to begin with?
Well, I didn't exactly reply on topic now did I? :p

Besides, I was taking part the futily in order to entertain myself - So, what do YOU think of my opinion of the issue?

A false statement implies anything. Let's take the false statement 2+2=5 and see what happens...

2+2=5
2+2-2=5-2
2=3
3=2
2=1

Gandhi and DragonAtma are two people. Since 2=1, Gandhi and DragonAtma are one person. Hence I am Gandhi.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_implication#Comparison_with_other_conditional_statements

I never heard anything about Elohim being feminine, just that it was a plural noun meaning "creator". Adonai means "master".

The significance was that God created him and was his Lord.

I'm remembering this from a study in Genesis I took like......3 years ago, so I might be mussing it up.

You gotta wonder about the religion who's ultimate moral story is the willingness of a father to commit infanticide on his son because he hears voices in his head.

I think we call that today batshit insane.

Isaac was at least 12 by this point, but more likely in his early/mid teens. He certainly wasn't a baby gathering the wood and stuff for his own sacrifice.

As far as my interpretation.... it's always been very close to ASD's, there is a parallel, the Bible all connects itself to itself. If something doesn't make sense it's because you lack perspective in a literary sense. You have to read the whole thing. Even the "boring books" like the minor prophets go into great detail predicting Jesus's life and death.

I was hoping this was a thread about Lincon.

Even the "boring books" like the minor prophets go into great detail predicting Jesus's life and death.
Actually they go into great detail about territorial disputes of the late Bronze Age and the extreme resentments Judeans felt against their neighbors.

Actually they go into great detail about territorial disputes of the late Bronze Age and the extreme resentments Judeans felt against their neighbors.

That too. It depends on what you are looking for and how deeply you read I suppose. Daniel is written on at least 3 different levels, what you get from it is dependent on how thoroughly you read it. The same is true of the minor prophets.

As a native speaker of Hebrew, and a grad student of the bible (among other areas), I have no idea who gave you this idea. This sounds much more like a new-age interpretation by some kind of a charlatan.

Those are not two beings. Just two names for the same "being". G-d has a many names, but they all describe the same ONE being (this is in fact one of the points where Christianity got it wrong, maybe because of poor translations).

Most of G-d's names, except for one (they are more titles than names) are only descriptions, in human language, of his actions in this world.

A-D-O-N-A-I means literally "who rules (me)". The Y- -H- -W- -H name (being mis-translated to LORD in English bibles) is G-d's specific (private)name. No one can really pronounce it, and mis-creations that appear here and there like "Jehova" are so blatantly wrong, that one really wonders who exactly those people worship when they use this mispronunciation.

There are a lot of things that are lost in translations of the bible. As a native Hebrew speaker I can tell you that sometimes I am absolutely amazed by how such a wonderful book with such a depth is being reduced to no more than story-telling when being translated.

Sorry guys, if you want to understand the bible, you really have to learn Hebrew and master it first.
I don't mean to say that they are names for different gods (though, some think that may be the case). The names are used fairly specificly for different aspects of the one God of the OT.
We do, with respect to Abraham.

Yes, but texts tend to be more intelligent than the author and words combined. We don't know for sure, granted...but it seems to be there.

Sure, that's possible. But not likely here, where there's no indication of it in the text, and where the "person" in question is God.

I don't think it really matters that it is God except for the fact that with that name comes the power to command. The indication comes from the shift in the text...God hiding behind the angel.

No, but it's one that doesn't rest on an honest interpretation of the text. Kant (like me) is bringing in an external sophisticated moral theory that doesn't mesh well with the internal logic of the Bible. In his version, Abraham fails his test: while an allegedly divine voice is objectively uncertain (could be God, could be Satan, could be insanity), it is absolutely clear that murder is wrong in all circumstances. Abraham goes with blind, irrational faith over moral right.
true.


What does "definitive" mean when speaking of several thousand year old texts constructing a narrative out of various tales?Same as it does when discussing the situation of Hester in the world of the Puritans. If an action is uncompleted, we cannot know what would happen in the next few moments. All that we can know is exactly what happened: in this case, Abraham holds the knife to his sons throat, but does not cut.

Whether he would or not is just a nice bit of interpretation. I don't think he would, based off of my idea that it isn't just Abraham being tested.

All we know is what the story's logic suggests--that Abraham passes his test, he proves he would have sacrificed his son--and the consistent traditional interpretation that this is actually the case.
Yes, he passes, but is it that simple? I see it as Abraham calling God's bluf and God folding.

While the deity of Genesis is not quite the ineffable divine being currently venerated by Christianity and Judaism, imagining Him in a "pissing contest" (and losing!) is far too close to setting Him up with an equality to humans that the writers of the text would never have fathomed.
Is it? The ancient Hebrews were coming from a polytheistic background. Look at the Greek gods...how many times did they get in to competition with man?
It's an interesting implication of monotheism. Your God can no longer have the flaws of polytheism.
We see God and Satan get into the same type of contest with Job, where God again shows himself to be highly jealous, somewhat competative, and not at all in the image of what a monotheistic god should be.
I don't find it a far stretch that we could have the same flawed being here.

You might be. That would work--"Elohim" is certainly a plural form, and when it is used in Genesis 1 it is accompanied by some plurality ("we").

I'm pretty sure that is what it is...Adonai is singular, Elohim plural.
Sorry...I started this thread at 3 AM. Sarky needs his sleep every now and then.

I think you're wrong, but I'd be delighted to see a counterexample.Just look to the number of translations. Especially interesting is Genesis, in which some have a plural God, some use the royal "we", and some are singular. I'll look in a few to see what I can get for ya.

Translators aren't quite as muddle-headed as some people think they are. :)Read my prof's version of the Illiad and tell me that ;)



Well, I don't recall any insight from my Jewish education about the reasons (if any) for when the different names of God are used in prayer, but certainly it was not to respect them as distinct entities. Modern Judaism (Kabballah kinda-sorta excepted) is very clear on this point: there is one God.Yes, modern Judaism is quite clear on that, especially given the statement of faith. Ancient would not have been so much. If I remember right, the commandment translates to "Thou shalt not have any gods before me"...that just means that God wants to be higher than Zeus...not that Zeus can't coexist.



Perhaps, but I'm referring to "language" as in "English" or "Hebrew."Gotcha.



Sort of, in that Rabbinic Judaism (far and away the most prominent form) has always distanced itself from a strict literal interpretation, but the breaks from literal interpretation are transferred through the traditional Rabbinic sources. An English class-style dissection is an essentially secular activity.True dat. I enjoy my secular activities :)

I never heard anything about Elohim being feminine, just that it was a plural noun meaning "creator". Adonai means "master".

The significance was that God created him and was his Lord.

I'm remembering this from a study in Genesis I took like......3 years ago, so I might be mussing it up.
Yeah, Sarky was tired. Turns out it was related to the plurality of the word, not the gender. Aside from this story, it has been quite a while since I really tore into the text.

Isaac was at least 12 by this point, but more likely in his early/mid teens. He certainly wasn't a baby gathering the wood and stuff for his own sacrifice.

As far as my interpretation.... it's always been very close to ASD's, there is a parallel, the Bible all connects itself to itself. If something doesn't make sense it's because you lack perspective in a literary sense. You have to read the whole thing. Even the "boring books" like the minor prophets go into great detail predicting Jesus's life and death.
Now I'm curious....can these stories be read without considering Jesus anymore? Or is that now impossible?

That too. It depends on what you are looking for and how deeply you read I suppose. Daniel is written on at least 3 different levels, what you get from it is dependent on how thoroughly you read it. The same is true of the minor prophets.What you are doing is like reading old newspapers from the '30s and thinking that the condemnation of Mussolini's invasion of Ethiopia is code: "Mussolini" means "Bush" and "Ethiopia" means "Iraq". Actually, "Mussolini" means "Mussolini" and "Ethiopia" means "Ethiopia". If you don't know enough about the period to catch the references, it is easier to misread it as if it were talking about something else entirely.

Now I'm curious....can these stories be read without considering Jesus anymore? Or is that now impossible?
It's an overreaching story. Like Homer. You can read parts of it and like those parts, but then there is the whole, and it is big and long and connected.
What you are doing is like reading old newspapers from the '30s and thinking that the condemnation of Mussolini's invasion of Ethiopia is code: "Mussolini" means "Bush" and "Ethiopia" means "Iraq". Actually, "Mussolini" means "Mussolini" and "Ethiopia" means "Ethiopia". If you don't know enough about the period to catch the references, it is easier to misread it as if it were talking about something else entirely.

That's not true. I know people who do things like that, but it's not what Iam doing, all I am doing is discussing parallels in literature that other people have pointed out and I have found interesting.

Zecharaiah 9:9 Rejoice greatly, O people of Zion! Shout in triumph, O people of Jerusalem! Look, your king is coming to you. He is righteous and victorious, yet he is humble, riding on a donkey--even on a donkey's colt

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matt%2021&version=31 <--- see Matthew 21

It's an overreaching story. Like Homer. You can read parts of it and like those parts, but then there is the whole, and it is big and long and connected.


That's not true. I know people who do things like that, but it's not what Iam doing, all I am doing is discussing parallels in literature that other people have pointed out and I have found interesting.
Interesting. I shall ponder.

Of the Bible, few stories are as well known as the Akedah: The Binding of Isaac.

What I wish to do in this thread is take this text and analyze it.

Here is the text, thanks to the NIV version of the Bible. Feel free to use your own, but please note differences between the translations.




What I ask of you all are the following contemplations. Feel free to post solid answers, musings, ruminations, haikus...whatever you choose. Limit discussion to only the text presented here (I don't care what happened in Leviticus, or even the rest of Genesis). Please avoid the "this story is false" aspect. Even an atheist can read this story and have a literary interpretation.

Who is being tested? Isaac? Abraham? God? What is being tested? Why? Does God stop Abraham too late? Too early? Would Abraham have killed his son for God? Does it mean anything that it is an angel that stops Abraham, and not the Lord himself? Does it matter that the English "God" is actually, in Hebrew, two beings (Elohim, the feminine, compassionate being and Adonai, the masculine, logical being), and that both appear in this story?


I'll post my own interpretation in a second.
which parts are elohim and which parts are adoniai?

which parts are elohim and which parts are adoniai?

Adonai is the singular authority type, Elohim is the plural sympathetic type (I'm saying that to keep it straight in my head)

We see Adonai in 22:1-9 (I think, though I am not positive, that Abraham says Adonai when speaking to Isaac in 22:8)

In the rest of the text it is Elohim

surprisingly, not far from Kant's argument that Soheran brought up, stating that God, in this case, is actually Satan untill the moment the knife is drawn.

doesnt that make it a test of how well abraham recognizes the voice of god and what he could rationally expect god to command?

a test that abraham has failed spectacularly?

and since god is PLEASED that abraham was about to kill his son, doesnt that mean that it cannot have been satan's deception?

doesnt that make it a test of how well abraham recognizes the voice of god and what he could rationally expect god to command?

a test that abraham has failed spectacularly?The only flaw there is that Abraham is told that he passed.

and since god is PLEASED that abraham was about to kill his son, doesnt that mean that it cannot have been satan's deception?
Well, going by Kant's view, he essentially says that every action of the OT is done by Satan, not God. I haven't looked at his stuff in a while, maybe Soheran can say more.

My opinion of this story:

This is a battle of wills. It isn't just Abraham who is tested, nor is it just God.

First of all, from this story alone, we can characterize the Lord with which we deal: He is somewhat jealous, curious, insecure. We know that He is not omnipotent in this specific story, lest there would be no need to test someones faith.

As such, He is distinctly human. What is also important is that the challenge is set forth by Adonai.

What then comes along is a headbutting contest between God and Abraham. God says "Prove you love me", and Abraham says "Prove you deserve it". This goes right up untill the knife is at Isaacs throat.

Let's not forget Isaac here. He has the "one true god" he was raised with telling dad to kill him, and his father there with a knife to his throat. Put yourself in his place.

Now, we have the angel stop him. Here is an important shift in literature. We have Elohim, not Adonai. Also, we have an angel, not God. God made the challenge himself, but did not stop it himself. Both were tested, and both lost.

Why did both lose? In the closing section, Abraham descends the mountain alone. Not with Isaac. Not with God. Alone. Abraham lost his cherished son.

i dont seee how god is tested here.

and i dont see that either of them lost. abraham was made the patriarch of a great religion whose descendants would outnumber the stars. god got his great patriarch.

isaac was dropped from the story completely. is there any discussion of what happened to him after god blessed abraham? his story isnt taken up again until abraham sends a servant back home to get a wife for him. i saw no suggestion that isaac had been living on that mountain the whole time.

i see no reason to think that abraham didnt descend the mountain WITH isaac.

The only flaw there is that Abraham is told that he passed.


Well, going by Kant's view, he essentially says that every action of the OT is done by Satan, not God. I haven't looked at his stuff in a while, maybe Soheran can say more.
i think kant is full of shit.

abraham was perfectly willing to kill his son. that is not a victory for god if it was satan's idea.

That's not true. I know people who do things like that, but it's not what Iam doing, all I am doing is discussing parallels in literature that other people have pointed out and I have found interesting.

Zecharaiah 9:9 Rejoice greatly, O people of Zion! Shout in triumph, O people of Jerusalem! Look, your king is coming to you. He is righteous and victorious, yet he is humble, riding on a donkey--even on a donkey's colt

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matt%2021&version=31 <--- see Matthew 21

What you are talking about here is a staged stunt on Jesus' part to remind people of the Zechariah passage: he specially arranged to have a donkey colt.

FWIW, traditional Jewish interpretations put Isaac's age at 37. This view has some Biblical support, but I don't remember what. They also use the repetition of "The two went on together" after Isaac's question to suggest that, once he hears Abraham's answer, he knows what is going on and goes with it willingly.

Yes, but texts tend to be more intelligent than the author and words combined. We don't know for sure, granted...but it seems to be there.

I'm still not sure why you think God is being tested.

The indication comes from the shift in the text...God hiding behind the angel.

That seems a very questionable reading to me, even ignoring the stylistic differences between the two authors. Sure, the shift is weird, but your explanation is without support from anywhere else and is not compellingly supported by this piece of evidence.

Yes, he passes, but is it that simple? I see it as Abraham calling God's bluf and God folding.

What's God after, though? What's His motive?

Is it? The ancient Hebrews were coming from a polytheistic background. Look at the Greek gods...how many times did they get in to competition with man?

Not all polytheisms are created equal, and in any case the Genesis narrative, while it does not remove God entirely from the realm of human emotions the way later theology would, does certainly mark Him out as powerful, unique, and exalted in a way the Greek gods never were.

We see God and Satan get into the same type of contest with Job, where God again shows himself to be highly jealous, somewhat competative, and not at all in the image of what a monotheistic god should be.

Oh, the god of Genesis and of Job is petty, certainly, and we do see something of that here, but He doesn't play games with humans as equal participants, and He doesn't lose. Job is a victim of God's (successful) proof of His point, not a real player himself.

Just look to the number of translations.

Yes, translations vary, but they're generally pretty consistent in translating "Adonai" one way and "Elohim" another.

Ancient would not have been so much.

Depends on how "ancient" we're talking about here, but yes, in essence.

Well, going by Kant's view, he essentially says that every action of the OT is done by Satan, not God. I haven't looked at his stuff in a while, maybe Soheran can say more.

I can't. I'm going by a secondary source here, one that quoted Kant extensively enough on this particular point to give me a solid idea of his views (and to convince me that they weren't just the author's invention), but that didn't flesh out the larger Biblical perspective from which it came. Worse, I happened across the book (Encounters between Judaism and Modern Philosophy, by Emil L. Fackenheim) at a relative's house last weekend, and I don't have it with me.

FWIW, traditional Jewish interpretations put Isaac's age at 37. This view has some Biblical support, but I don't remember what.

Sarah was 90 Years old when she gave birth to Isaac. She died at 127 in the next chapter after this story. Tradition claims that she died because of a heart attack when she heard about the Ackeda when the two men returned, an act of revenge by the angel of death for Isaac's life.

It should be noted that it's not the only tradition. Other Jewish traditions claim he was 5 Years old, 14 years old, 26 y.o. and 36 y.o. .

I'm still not sure why you think God is being tested.It is the inverse of the stated. That is, what is stated is that God needs to test Abraham to know that he is truly dedicated. The inverse is that, in order to be truly dedicated, Abraham must know that God would not do such a heinous test.

God is the jealous girlfriend..."If you love me, you'll do this for me". Abraham is the fed up boyfriend. "Fine. You want me to do this? We'll see how much you like it".

God cannot be the one true god if he is willing to put this test forth and allow it to be completed. Ignoring the fact that it would end the bloodline, he would not be worthy of praise. It is the gods of the pagans who require sacrifice. Abraham is challenging God to set himself apart.



That seems a very questionable reading to me, even ignoring the stylistic differences between the two authors. Sure, the shift is weird, but your explanation is without support from anywhere else and is not compellingly supported by this piece of evidence.



What's God after, though? What's His motive?
That question must be asked regardless of interpretation. Is Gods only motive to see if Abraham is dedicated? It would seem so.


Not all polytheisms are created equal, and in any case the Genesis narrative, while it does not remove God entirely from the realm of human emotions the way later theology would, does certainly mark Him out as powerful, unique, and exalted in a way the Greek gods never were.
Different, yes. But not entirely. God in the OT is consistently vengeful and jealous. Hell, his name is even Jealous in one of the commandments. Jealousy and the like are human emotions, not divine. Given that, I don't see it irrational to consider God to be willing to get in to a chicken fight.


Oh, the god of Genesis and of Job is petty, certainly, and we do see something of that here, but He doesn't play games with humans as equal participants, and He doesn't lose. Job is a victim of God's (successful) proof of His point, not a real player himself.
We see it again with Sodom and Gommorah (which I have not read at all recently, so I can't be taken to task on details...I do recall a bit of a bargaining session. Not quite the same, but similar enough)


Yes, translations vary, but they're generally pretty consistent in translating "Adonai" one way and "Elohim" another.I'll have to look into it more.

I can't. I'm going by a secondary source here, one that quoted Kant extensively enough on this particular point to give me a solid idea of his views (and to convince me that they weren't just the author's invention), but that didn't flesh out the larger Biblical perspective from which it came. Worse, I happened across the book (Encounters between Judaism and Modern Philosophy, by Emil L. Fackenheim) at a relative's house last weekend, and I don't have it with me.Fair enough. I last read it about 8 years ago in high school. *shrug*

i dont seee how god is tested here.
God is tested to spare the life of Isaac. Isaac was given as a gift by a God that was set apart and above from the pagan gods. Now, he was being taken back through a pagan ritual. Abraham pushes God to prove that he is, in fact, a different God from all the others.

and i dont see that either of them lost. abraham was made the patriarch of a great religion whose descendants would outnumber the stars. god got his great patriarch. You are (depending upon tradition) anywhere from 5 to 34. Your father ties you up, and holds a knife to your throat. Will your relationship with your father ever be the same?

Yes, Abraham became a patriarch. But Abraham lost his son.

isaac was dropped from the story completely. is there any discussion of what happened to him after god blessed abraham? his story isnt taken up again until abraham sends a servant back home to get a wife for him. i saw no suggestion that isaac had been living on that mountain the whole time.

i see no reason to think that abraham didnt descend the mountain WITH isaac.
The fact that he is gone from the story is possibly the most important note. No, he didn't live on the mountain. It isn't that literal. But Abraham is said to descend the mountain alone. Be that literally alone or symbolically alone, he is without son.

The text explicitly states that Abraham and Isaac climb the mountain together. Again, we have a significant textual shift to state that Abraham descends alone.


Yes, this could all be due to different sources, as I stated before. But these are some glaring difference that would usually catch even the worst editors eye.

God tests Abrahams faith by saying "kill your son". Abraham tests God by saying "Fine. You're such a great god? I'll kill him. Just to please you. Really. I don't mind at all. In fact, I'm even HAPPY to do it. Just for you. To prove I love you. More than my son. You know. That son you gave to me? Yeah. Sarah? I'm sure she won't mind.".
Abraham holds the knife to his sons throat.
Isaac loses faith in his father. God and Abraham hold steady for a second, Abraham wondering if he really will have to kill his son, God wondering if Abraham would actually do it.
God caves.
Abraham descends the mountain, patriarch of a great nation, but without his cherished son.

It is the inverse of the stated. That is, what is stated is that God needs to test Abraham to know that he is truly dedicated. The inverse is that, in order to be truly dedicated, Abraham must know that God would not do such a heinous test.



that isnt in the text at all that i can see. god tells abraham to kill isaac and he immediately sets about doing it. he doesnt question and doesnt hesitate. any "test" on abraham's part is not in the story.



You are (depending upon tradition) anywhere from 5 to 34. Your father ties you up, and holds a knife to your throat. Will your relationship with your father ever be the same?

Yes, Abraham became a patriarch. But Abraham lost his son.


The fact that he is gone from the story is possibly the most important note. No, he didn't live on the mountain. It isn't that literal. But Abraham is said to descend the mountain alone. Be that literally alone or symbolically alone, he is without son.

The text explicitly states that Abraham and Isaac climb the mountain together. Again, we have a significant textual shift to state that Abraham descends alone.


no the text doesnt say he descends alone. the story has dropped isaac completly. it doesnt say what happened to him. we dont know his reaction. we dont know if he obediently walked down that mountain at the side of his father. it doesnt say. any reaction we propose comes from US not from the story.

isaac might have been thrilled that this little day of horror ended up with his dad--and thus him-- made the extra special friend of GOD. he certainly benefitted from it as much as abraham did.

The fact that he is gone from the story is possibly the most important note. No, he didn't live on the mountain. It isn't that literal. But Abraham is said to descend the mountain alone. Be that literally alone or symbolically alone, he is without son.

Isaac isn't "gone" from the story, he lives many many more years, and still has a relationship with his father. Abraham sent a match maker to find Isaac a wife later, he married Rebecka and she was "barren" and he prayed and he had Jacob and Esau and they lived a long ass time too.

that isnt in the text at all that i can see. god tells abraham to kill isaac and he immediately sets about doing it. he doesnt question and doesnt hesitate. any "test" on abraham's part is not in the story.
It isn't quite immediate...he leaves "early the next morning". Now, lets say that God is a night owl and talks to Abraham at midnight. Early the next morning would be what? 5 AM? That's 5 hours. Now, we don't know what he did, said or thought during this time, but we do know what he did NOT do. He did not tell Isaac or Sarah of his mission. This is a time period when child sacrifice wasn't uncommon, so why wouldn't he at least tell his wife? The conclusion I come to is that he didn't plan to go through with it.

Now, he is on the trail for three days. His son even asks about the sacrifice, and Abraham still says nothing. Why? It could be that he doesn't want to scare the boy, but I'm pretty sure that would be lost somewhere around the time you started to tie him up. I read it to be wishful thinking. "God will provide. He won't make me do this. There will be a sheep up there for me to sacrifice."


no the text doesnt say he descends alone. the story has dropped isaac completly. it doesnt say what happened to him. we dont know his reaction. we dont know if he obediently walked down that mountain at the side of his father. it doesnt say. any reaction we propose comes from US not from the story.
"Then Abraham returned to his servants" (22:19)
Isaac is not there.
Why would the story drop one of three major characters at the moment that Abraham holds a knife to his throat? To me, this screams that the son has been lost. Moreover, we don't hear from Isaac again untill Rebekah. How do we not have anything about Isaacs reaction to his mothers death?

That removes a bit further from this story than I wish to go, but it seems significant.

The absence of Isaac in the final verse is significant because of the contrast to that in the start. Abraham and Isaac ascend, Abraham descends. The lack of the son is not only relevant, but significant.

isaac might have been thrilled that this little day of horror ended up with his dad--and thus him-- made the extra special friend of GOD. he certainly benefitted from it as much as abraham did.
Yes, he may be thrilled that he gets to be best friends with the being who called for his death, but that doesn't mean that he is a big fan of dad any more.
We aren't even told that Isaac is specially blessed. Only Abraham. Why no words from God to Isaac?


Yes, anything that we can say is from us. That is what literary interpretation is. But it isn't without its defence. In a story with only three characters, the sudden disappearence of one is relevant and telling. The question becomes "what does it tell us?"

Isaac isn't "gone" from the story, he lives many many more years, and still has a relationship with his father. Abraham sent a match maker to find Isaac a wife later, he married Rebecka and she was "barren" and he prayed and he had Jacob and Esau and they lived a long ass time too.I mean to say that he is gone from the rest of the Akedah, not the rest of the Bible. I am curious though, what do we know of Isaac and Abraham's relationship following the binding? I thought there was only Sarah's death, where we don't hear from the son.


Incidentally, out of random curiosity, does anyone know what "Akedah" translates to directly?

It isn't quite immediate...he leaves "early the next morning". Now, lets say that God is a night owl and talks to Abraham at midnight. Early the next morning would be what? 5 AM? That's 5 hours. Now, we don't know what he did, said or thought during this time, but we do know what he did NOT do. He did not tell Isaac or Sarah of his mission. This is a time period when child sacrifice wasn't uncommon, so why wouldn't he at least tell his wife? The conclusion I come to is that he didn't plan to go through with it.

Now, he is on the trail for three days. His son even asks about the sacrifice, and Abraham still says nothing. Why? It could be that he doesn't want to scare the boy, but I'm pretty sure that would be lost somewhere around the time you started to tie him up. I read it to be wishful thinking. "God will provide. He won't make me do this. There will be a sheep up there for me to sacrifice."



"Then Abraham returned to his servants" (22:19)
Isaac is not there.
Why would the story drop one of three major characters at the moment that Abraham holds a knife to his throat? To me, this screams that the son has been lost. Moreover, we don't hear from Isaac again untill Rebekah. How do we not have anything about Isaacs reaction to his mothers death?

That removes a bit further from this story than I wish to go, but it seems significant.

The absence of Isaac in the final verse is significant because of the contrast to that in the start. Abraham and Isaac ascend, Abraham descends. The lack of the son is not only relevant, but significant.


Yes, he may be thrilled that he gets to be best friends with the being who called for his death, but that doesn't mean that he is a big fan of dad any more.
We aren't even told that Isaac is specially blessed. Only Abraham. Why no words from God to Isaac?


Yes, anything that we can say is from us. That is what literary interpretation is. But it isn't without its defence. In a story with only three characters, the sudden disappearence of one is relevant and telling. The question becomes "what does it tell us?"

I mean to say that he is gone from the rest of the Akedah, not the rest of the Bible. I am curious though, what do we know of Isaac and Abraham's relationship following the binding? I thought there was only Sarah's death, where we don't hear from the son.


Incidentally, out of random curiosity, does anyone know what "Akedah" translates to directly?

all of these things are very reasonable conjecture. they would make excellent details for a retelling of the story. maybe a movie or a novel.

but they are just conjecture and no matter how reasonable it might be to suppose that 36 year old isaac was utterly devastated by his father's willingness to kill him and refused to leave the mountain in his company it can never be more than conjecture. its not in the text.

It isn't quite immediate...he leaves "early the next morning". Now, lets say that God is a night owl and talks to Abraham at midnight. Early the next morning would be what? 5 AM? That's 5 hours. Now, we don't know what he did, said or thought during this time, but we do know what he did NOT do. He did not tell Isaac or Sarah of his mission. This is a time period when child sacrifice wasn't uncommon, so why wouldn't he at least tell his wife? The conclusion I come to is that he didn't plan to go through with it.

Now, he is on the trail for three days. His son even asks about the sacrifice, and Abraham still says nothing. Why? It could be that he doesn't want to scare the boy, but I'm pretty sure that would be lost somewhere around the time you started to tie him up. I read it to be wishful thinking. "God will provide. He won't make me do this. There will be a sheep up there for me to sacrifice."



I don't think you're really thinking this through, Sarkhaan: if Abraham was really thinking that God won't bring him to that final impasse, then Abraham had no real faith. God told Abraham that he was to go up onto the mountain and sacrifice Isaac. Right or not, that's God giving Abraham a command. And if you're going through the motions with no real intent to follow through with a command, you don't really have faith in the legitimacy in the command, now do you?

Having read Kierkegaard, I derive a lot of my thinking on the subject from him: it's a fascinating story, because the more you think about it in context with the larger story of Abraham, the less sense it makes. God specifically told Abraham that he would be the father of a nation of people, and that Isaac was to be the means of that fatherhood. Abraham even waited (IIRC) 90-some-odd-years for Isaac to be born, faithfully (or not so much, if you count Ismael) waiting for God to deliver on his promise. Then, when the child arrives, God asks him to sacrifice said son.

The problem and quandary when put in this context is that for Abraham to be faithful to God, he has to simultaneously believe the truth of two incompatible statements: Isaac is the means of making Abraham the father of a nation of people, and Isaac must be killed before he has children of his own. As noted above, you can't be faithful while believing in the truth of God's statements in only half-assed fashion. We know that God himself was satisfied with Abraham's faithfulness. The only way to reconcile this is to come to the conclusion that Abraham was able to simultaneously believe both that Isaac would be his avenue to being the father of a nation AND that Isaac must be sacrificed because God commands it.


Of course, Kierkegaard and I come to exactly opposite conclusions about this result. Kierkegaard assumed there must be something incomplete about rationality, in that it doesn't tell you everything about what you need to do in life. I on the other hand come to the conclusion that Abraham is completely irrational on top of being one of the most contemptibly vile people in the Bible (he ranks just behind Lott for me). Count me with Soheran and Kant: the man ought to have known that what he was doing was wrong, and that it could not have been God whispering in his ear, because the only way to pass such a test is to risk hellfire rather than do it. Damnation before sin.

It is the inverse of the stated. That is, what is stated is that God needs to test Abraham to know that he is truly dedicated. The inverse is that, in order to be truly dedicated, Abraham must know that God would not do such a heinous test.

God is the jealous girlfriend..."If you love me, you'll do this for me". Abraham is the fed up boyfriend. "Fine. You want me to do this? We'll see how much you like it".

Part of this works. Part of it doesn't.

It makes sense that the Akedah serves as a means for God to differentiate Himself: He is a god of justice, who would never command the sacrifice of human life (just innocent rams in the wrong place at the wrong time... but nevermind).

But it makes no sense to depict God as losing, God as having his bluff called. Along with what I've already said, we see Abraham as "the fed up boyfriend" elsewhere... but he's always very straightforward about it, challenging God directly.

That question must be asked regardless of interpretation. Is Gods only motive to see if Abraham is dedicated?

Yes, and this is plausible from the deity of the Torah. Any difficulty with foresight can be eliminated by considering it as an example for the future.

Different, yes. But not entirely. God in the OT is consistently vengeful and jealous. Hell, his name is even Jealous in one of the commandments. Jealousy and the like are human emotions, not divine. Given that, I don't see it irrational to consider God to be willing to get in to a chicken fight.

As I said before, He can be petty, yes, but still far above humans.

We see it again with Sodom and Gommorah (which I have not read at all recently, so I can't be taken to task on details...I do recall a bit of a bargaining session. Not quite the same, but similar enough)

No, Sodom and Gomorrah is not at all comparable. God does not get into a game with Abraham; Abraham challenges God, asks how God can justify destroying the righteous with the wicked. The rest is just God proving that He is indeed always just: Abraham can't even find ten righteous people. This is perfectly in line with my characterization of God as always elevated.

all of these things are very reasonable conjecture. they would make excellent details for a retelling of the story. maybe a movie or a novel.

but they are just conjecture and no matter how reasonable it might be to suppose that 36 year old isaac was utterly devastated by his father's willingness to kill him and refused to leave the mountain in his company it can never be more than conjecture. its not in the text.
But conjecture is what interpretation is based upon, no? I don't deny that there is a lack of direct evidence (that is, it doesn't directly say "Issac hated dad from this moment on"), but there is quite a bit of indirect evidence (well, enough for you to state that it is reasonable conjecture and that I'm not just blowing hot air)
I don't think you're really thinking this through, Sarkhaan: if Abraham was really thinking that God won't bring him to that final impasse, then Abraham had no real faith. God told Abraham that he was to go up onto the mountain and sacrifice Isaac. Right or not, that's God giving Abraham a command. And if you're going through the motions with no real intent to follow through with a command, you don't really have faith in the legitimacy in the command, now do you?
Abraham had faith...just not the faith we would expect. Abraham trusted God to protect both he and his son: that is, Abraham had faith that God would stop the sacrifice. In my opinion, that is a stronger bond of faith, as it relys upon both parties.
Sacrifice is one sided. God says do it, you say yes.
This situation is guided by both sides. God says do this horrible thing. You say yes, and God never makes you do it.

Having read Kierkegaard, I derive a lot of my thinking on the subject from him: it's a fascinating story, because the more you think about it in context with the larger story of Abraham, the less sense it makes. God specifically told Abraham that he would be the father of a nation of people, and that Isaac was to be the means of that fatherhood. Abraham even waited (IIRC) 90-some-odd-years for Isaac to be born, faithfully (or not so much, if you count Ismael) waiting for God to deliver on his promise. Then, when the child arrives, God asks him to sacrifice said son.That's why I've tried to limit it to just this one story...I know there are theories that this was God's punishment for Ismael (I don't buy it, but hey, that's another thread). I haven't read Kierkegaard on this subject, but I've been meaning to. This is just one of those stories that can be interpreted dozens of ways, largely due to the lack of physical text.

The problem and quandary when put in this context is that for Abraham to be faithful to God, he has to simultaneously believe the truth of two incompatible statements: Isaac is the means of making Abraham the father of a nation of people, and Isaac must be killed before he has children of his own. As noted above, you can't be faithful while believing in the truth of God's statements in only half-assed fashion. We know that God himself was satisfied with Abraham's faithfulness. The only way to reconcile this is to come to the conclusion that Abraham was able to simultaneously believe both that Isaac would be his avenue to being the father of a nation AND that Isaac must be sacrificed because God commands it.
...and my text just disappeared here. hm... I'll redo it.
There's alot that caught my eye here...I'll try to keep it straight.
First, do we know already that Abraham is to birth a nation? I can't remember where we first learn that.
Second, these statements are not inherently contradictory. Isaac is a bit of a miracle child to begin with. Kill him, and there is nothing to say there won't be a new miracle child (how Jobian).
Now, the part that really struck me is that you say we know God is satisfied with Abraham's faithfulness. Why then test it? If I am satisfied, why would I ask you to do more? It leads to a fun little tidbit I've considered before, but have yet to mention in this thread.
We've covered Gods test to Abraham. That is clear and well stated in the text.
I mentioned Abraham's test to God. That is questionable and interpretative.
What of Abraham's test to Abraham? You said that God is satisfied with Abraham's faith. Could it be that God wants Abraham to know how far he can go in the name of faith?

Now, this raises some issues. First, why would God then stop Abraham before an incision is made, even a small one? I think this would lend evidence to the idea that Abraham might not have completed the action. If God wants to prove Abraham's faith to Abraham, then you would stop him right before he lost that faith.
Second, it starts to give God a layer of omnipotence not yet seen.

Of course, Kierkegaard and I come to exactly opposite conclusions about this result. Kierkegaard assumed there must be something incomplete about rationality, in that it doesn't tell you everything about what you need to do in life. I on the other hand come to the conclusion that Abraham is completely irrational on top of being one of the most contemptibly vile people in the Bible (he ranks just behind Lott for me). Count me with Soheran and Kant: the man ought to have known that what he was doing was wrong, and that it could not have been God whispering in his ear, because the only way to pass such a test is to risk hellfire rather than do it. Damnation before sin.I don't necessarily disagree. I actually quite think I align with that conclusion. I tend to focus more upon Isaac than it seems most do.

What I do know is that the God of this story is not the modern concept of an omnipotent being (though, if this was meant to be a test for Abraham to prove himself to...himself, then we have a different story entirely).

But conjecture is what interpretation is based upon, no? I don't deny that there is a lack of direct evidence (that is, it doesn't directly say "Issac hated dad from this moment on"), but there is quite a bit of indirect evidence (well, enough for you to state that it is reasonable conjecture and that I'm not just blowing hot air)


that depends on the point of the conjecture... are you talking about a reasonable assumption based on human nature? fine.

are you talking points that can be teased out of the text that are not obvious but if you look at certain phrases your conjecture can be shown to be true? no. isaac is so absent from the time that the angel stops abraham from killing him until he gets his wife that it seems like someone must have erased him purposely. there is nothing in the text that supports a devastated isaac and nothing to support the idea of a happy isaac--except that we do know that he didnt disown his father for this act or the whole "get my son a wife" thing never would have happened.

Abraham had faith...just not the faith we would expect. Abraham trusted God to protect both he and his son: that is, Abraham had faith that God would stop the sacrifice. In my opinion, that is a stronger bond of faith, as it relys upon both parties.
Sacrifice is one sided. God says do it, you say yes.
This situation is guided by both sides. God says do this horrible thing. You say yes, and God never makes you do it.

What makes you think God would be satisfied with that kind of "faith"? I put it in quotation marks because, again, I find it impossible that God is satisfied with the faith of an Abraham is who is setting up the sacrifice all the while sweatily whispering to himself "Okay God, anytime now with that ram. . .".

To use another Biblical example: Jesus could have turned away at Gethsemane and hidden himself. He knew what was coming, but he could have tried to avoid it. He even pleaded with God to let him avoid it. But in the end, he stayed at the Garden because he knew he would untrue to his faith if he left, and Jesus's promise to the world would fail with him. To extend the analysis, you seem to be saying that in a strikingly similar circumstance, where Abraham has been given a command by God to do something, your analysis seems to be that Abraham was being true to his faith by convincing himself that God was lying or punking him. But I see the same lesson being extended in either case (although the context differs wildly, with one being substantially more compassionate overall): that God's commandments cannot be ignored, and it is not an act of faith to pretend that they'll just be taken back if they're inconvenient to the hero in question.


That's why I've tried to limit it to just this one story...I know there are theories that this was God's punishment for Ismael (I don't buy it, but hey, that's another thread). I haven't read Kierkegaard on this subject, but I've been meaning to. This is just one of those stories that can be interpreted dozens of ways, largely due to the lack of physical text.


Well, actually that's Kierkegaard's point in Fear and Trembling: you can't tell the story in a way that makes sense, because the premises 1) Abraham is faithful to God, 2) Abraham is reasonable, and 3) God commands Abraham to believe in two logically inconsistent sets of beliefs form an inconsistent triangle. Kierkegaard tries about 12 different ways to tell the story, and each one fails because it suggests that Abraham isn't really being faithful to God.

Part of the problem, I think, is that you seem to have a narrow conception of faith that allows for a person to do something without really believing in something. To which I take the Augustinian point that in any other context, that doesn't make sense. If a person serves in the military while secretly despising America, that person isn't really patriotic whatever their actions. By extension, if I'm just in the military because I was drafted, and in the course of action I do something that saves the United States, I'm still not patriotic, because to be patriotic is to believe that the United States (or whichever country you are a citizen of) has a certain value that engenders my loyalty. Your analysis, by contrast, doesn't really suggest an element of loyalty at all, because I can't see how you can go through the motions of killing your son, all the while being so very sure that it's just a joke, and really being loyal to the idea that a Godly command is worthy of respect.


First, do we know already that Abraham is to birth a nation? I can't remember where we first learn that.
Second, these statements are not inherently contradictory. Isaac is a bit of a miracle child to begin with. Kill him, and there is nothing to say there won't be a new miracle child (how Jobian).

I'd have to look back through my Genesis to find the exact passage, but I know for a fact that God told Abraham he would be the father of nations, and in another passage that the child that would be born unto him and Sarai would be the means by which this promise to Abraham would be carried out. So you can't have a Jobian plot device here, because that would require one of the promises made by God to Abraham, something he must believe as being true to have faith, being untrue. More importantly, Abraham couldn't possibly have believed that he was sacrificing his best (Kierkegaard calls such an Abraham the knight of resignation) and still had faith in God's promise. Which brings us back to the intractibility of Abraham's position.


Now, the part that really struck me is that you say we know God is satisfied with Abraham's faithfulness. Why then test it? If I am satisfied, why would I ask you to do more? It leads to a fun little tidbit I've considered before, but have yet to mention in this thread.
We've covered Gods test to Abraham. That is clear and well stated in the text.
I mentioned Abraham's test to God. That is questionable and interpretative.
What of Abraham's test to Abraham? You said that God is satisfied with Abraham's faith. Could it be that God wants Abraham to know how far he can go in the name of faith?

Now, this raises some issues. First, why would God then stop Abraham before an incision is made, even a small one? I think this would lend evidence to the idea that Abraham might not have completed the action. If God wants to prove Abraham's faith to Abraham, then you would stop him right before he lost that faith.
Second, it starts to give God a layer of omnipotence not yet seen.

I don't necessarily disagree. I actually quite think I align with that conclusion. I tend to focus more upon Isaac than it seems most do.

What I do know is that the God of this story is not the modern concept of an omnipotent being (though, if this was meant to be a test for Abraham to prove himself to...himself, then we have a different story entirely).

. . .Because God doesn't know at the time whether Abraham can do it? Because it was pre-ordained? Here you're asking for an analysis of God's psychology, which I can't guess on even the best of days. I don't know why God tested Abraham. But if the purpose was to teach Abraham that he's so faithful to God that he can fully believe two contradictory sets of beliefs at the same time, Abraham has learned the wrong lesson.

I mean to say that he is gone from the rest of the Akedah, not the rest of the Bible. I am curious though, what do we know of Isaac and Abraham's relationship following the binding? I thought there was only Sarah's death, where we don't hear from the son.
They were seperated quite a distance physically by that point. I don't think Abraham would have had a way to contact him in time for the burial. Abraham did send a person to find Isaac a wife though, so they had some form of relationship. After Isaac married he fathered Esau (Israel) and Jacob. Israel went on to father 12 sons who became leaders of the 12 tribes. One would assume that since God kept his covenant with Abraham through Isaac that things didn't sour like you believe they did. However Abraham did fuck up quite a bit over the years and God still made him the father of many nations. So, I don't know. Like I said, I haven't even been in Genesis in a few years, maybe I should read it again.

Incidentally, out of random curiosity, does anyone know what "Akedah" translates to directly?
Akedah means binding.

After all, The Scarlet Letter isn't just about learning to spell.Sigworthy. :D

There's a direct parallel here between Isaac and Christ.

(And Cain).

God was testing Abraham and Isaac. Abraham was chosen to be the source of God's chosen people on earth. And back before the law (Moses), it was faith which made you righteous before God, just like the way it is now since the coming of the messiah. God needed Abraham to demonstrate just how deep his faith was. He also needed Isaac to demonstrate how deeply faithful he was. Would Abraham have killed his own son for God? If God hadn't intervened...yes, I believe so. Does it mean anything that it was the angel that intervened and not God himself? No. The angel was acting on God's orders. God sent the angel for that specific purpose.
The story is a parallel for Christ's sacrifice. I actually think there is a bit more to the story than what is given in the NIV interpretation. Sorry if people have already said this, but i'm just giving my opinion.
Isaac would not have been a boy at this stage. Theologians estimate he was about 20 years old, with Abraham very aged. When was the last time you saw a 20 year old being physically forced to do anything by someone who would obviously be weaker. In my opinion, once it was apparent that there was no goat, and that he was the offering. Isaac chose to be sacrificed. Much like Christ chose to be sacrificed.

In my opinion, once it was apparent that there was no goat, and that he was the offering. Isaac chose to be sacrificed.

So, the object of the story is that Isaac was an idiot?

So, the object of the story is that Isaac was an idiot?

Do you think Jesus was an idiot for sacrificing himself?
Isaac loved his father, and he loved God. I'm sure people have risked their lives and/or died for things which were far more idiotic than that.

Actually, Christianity is fundamentally immoral in it's premise. It posits that whatever you do, that you can wash away the consequences and pretend that you never did anything wrong, it's simply 'erased'. You know, old Arab tribes had a very similar idea to this, the whole village would 'pile their sins' onto a goat, and the goat would be led out into the desert to die, it's was called 'scapegoating'.

And what's this crap about 'loving' your enemies, I don't know about you but I will never love my enemies. That premise is just weird.

Actually, Christianity is fundamentally immoral in it's premise. It posits that whatever you do, that you can wash away the consequences and pretend that you never did anything wrong, it's simply 'erased'. You know, old Arab tribes had a very similar idea to this, the whole village would 'pile their sins' onto a goat, and the goat would be led out into the desert to die, it's was called 'scapegoating'.

And what's this crap about 'loving' your enemies, I don't know about you but I will never love my enemies. That premise is just weird.

So forgiveness is fundamentally immoral?
No, actually, Christianity doesn't imply that ALL the consequences will be washed away.....it states that the eternal consequences will be washed away. And its not as simple as pretend you did nothing wrong, that is a very simplistic take a person convicted enough by a particular sin to repent in the first place. God forgives a lot easier than we forgive ourselves.

Do you think Jesus was an idiot for sacrificing himself?
Isaac loved his father, and he loved God. I'm sure people have risked their lives and/or died for things which were far more idiotic than that.

No, I think Jesus was a myth.

But that's beside the point. Jesus allegedly died to bring forgiveness to a troubled world. Isaac would have died because his dad told him to. By their own lights, Jesus would be an okay guy, and Isaac would just be a tit.

The Akedah is interesting because it may signify the fundamentalist principals which reside in the heart of all Judeao-Christian teaching and by extension in Islam too. The Abrahamic faiths are founded on the notion that depravity, violence, immorality, criminal insanity, irrationality and extremism are justified by one's duty to god.

As fables go i prefer anything by Aesop

No, I think Jesus was a myth.

But that's beside the point. Jesus allegedly died to bring forgiveness to a troubled world. Isaac would have died because his dad told him to. By their own lights, Jesus would be an okay guy, and Isaac would just be a tit.

Okay, whatever to the jesus comment.

Jesus died to bring about forgiveness. True. But he was also following instruction from his father (who is invisable...and according to you a myth) Jesus wasn't thrilled to death about dying.
Isaac, was also following instruction from his father (who you could see). And he wouldn't have died for no reason either. Redemption was based on faith. And God's future people depended on them having the right kind of faith to inherit the blessings of God......so I wouldn't say either of them were stupid.

I think people have done stupider things and died needlessly, based on a lot less logic than what happened with Isaac and Jesus.

The Akedah is interesting because it may signify the fundamentalist principals which reside in the heart of all Judeao-Christian teaching and by extension in Islam too. The Abrahamic faiths a founded on the notion that depravity, violence, immorality, criminal insanity, irrationality and extremism are justified by one's duty to god.

As fables go i prefer anything by Aesop

I love it when people say generic, judgemental statements like that. And then go onto to say that people from those faiths are more jugemental.

so you've just called me depraved, violent, immoral, criminally insane, irrational and extreme.....because I practise the teachings of Christ....nice.

Here's my take on the tale:

Background: God had just promised Abraham that all of His people would be descendants of Abraham and they would come from Isaac.

Abraham had extreme faith in this circumstance. He knew that God could not lie (since sin cannot be seen near his holy perfection) so something was going to happen. If he had to kill Isaac, he had faith that God could resurrect him from the dead.
(Hebrews 11:19 NIV- "Abraham reasoned that God could raise the dead, and figuratively speaking, he did receive Isaac back from death.")
Isaac also showed faith in this situation. He was in his early to mid twenties at the time. (That's how he could carry so much wood) Isaac, when about to be sacrificed by his father, easily could have knocked Abraham to the ground and run away (his dad was in his 100s), but he didn't.

Then the Angel of the Lord comes. This is who Jesus was known as before he came to the world. Notice this?: 12 "Do not lay a hand on the boy," he said. "Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son." "From me". Not God, "from ME". Jesus is part of the Trinity as is YHWH.

In summary, this is an amazing story about the Grace of God, and how he always provides help when he tests. (The Ram they found)

I love it when people say generic, judgemental statements like that. And then go onto to say that people from those faiths are more jugemental.

so you've just called me depraved, violent, immoral, criminally insane, irrational and extreme.....because I practise the teachings of Christ....nice.

Actually if you look closely at what i said you will see i said nothing about you or the teachings of Christ. If you genuinely practice Christ's teachings and are not a formal "Christian" then doubtless you are probably quite a decent person. Unfortunately the teachings of Christ and Christianity are not the same thing.
Your own tendencies to jump to conclusions have led you to assume i was insulting you. I was not. I was making a point about abrahamic religions having a tendency toward extremism justified by divine will, based upon certain portions of the old testament such as the Akedah, a point often made by christian, jewish and islamic theologians and scholars.

If you want to presume that any one who does not share your faith or who does not follow the same teachings as you is always an adversary or is innately a bad person then it sounds to me as if you know fairly little about the teachings of Christ.

Actually if you look closely at what i said you will see i said nothing about you or the teachings of Christ. If you genuinely practice Christ's teachings and are not a formal "Christian" then doubtless you are probably quite a decent person. Unfortunately the teachings of Christ and Christianity are not the same thing.
Your own tendencies to jump to conclusions have led you to assume i was insulting you. I was not. I was making a point about abrahamic religions having a tendency toward extremism justified by divine will, based upon certain portions of the old testament such as the Akedah, a point often made by christian, jewish and islamic theologians and scholars.

If you want to presume that any one who does not share your faith or who does not follow the same teachings as you is always an adversary or is innately a bad person then it sounds to me as if you know fairly little about the teachings of Christ.

So if I'm a "Formal Christian" then I'm not a nice person, but I am a nice person if I practice the teaching of Christ?
I am a christian, hence I follow the teachings of Christ. I'm not jumping to any conclusions which you didn't set up.
I follow an Abrahamic faith....let me remind you what you said about my faith.

The Akedah is interesting because it may signify the fundamentalist principals which reside in the heart of all Judeao-Christian teaching and by extension in Islam too. The Abrahamic faiths are founded on the notion that depravity, violence, immorality, criminal insanity, irrationality and extremism are justified by one's duty to god.

As fables go i prefer anything by Aesop

I have had many conversations with people who don't share my faith. And while they may not agree with me, I actually enjoy debating with them because they make me think my faith through. I don't see them as an adversary or innately bad people. Just as I don't think you're a bad person or an adversary. I think you've got a big mouth and you said some stupid stuff.

Jesus died to bring about forgiveness. True.


Debatable. We can't even prove he lived, much less died.


But he was also following instruction from his father


Who is what? Separate? The same person?


(who is invisable...and according to you a myth) Jesus wasn't thrilled to death about dying.


Jesus committed suicide. He can't have been that against it.


Isaac, was also following instruction from his father (who you could see).


No, his father is no less mythical than any of the other characters from the story.


And he wouldn't have died for no reason either. Redemption was based on faith.


Re-read your Hebrew scripture. When you're dead, you're dead.

That whole 'live eternal' thing... so post-Hellenic.


I think people have done stupider things and died needlessly, based on a lot less logic than what happened with Isaac and Jesus.

People are stupid. At least we agree on this.

Jesus committed suicide. He can't have been that against it.


Jesus did NOT commit suicide. Read your scripture:

Mark, Chapter 23, Verse 7

7) Then Jesus said, "And Father, let this cup pass from me to another."

8) And the Lord God replied "Jesus, we talked about this..."

9) and sayeth Jesus, "Yeah, right, I know, but seriously, have you seen how the Romans do this? I mean..."

10) And the apostles, full of woe, said "Um, Jesus, c'mon...we've come this far...kind of anticlimactic to bail now, you know? I mean, I haven't gotten laid in like 3 years over this thing."

11) Jesus said, "Okay, okay, look, I'm feeling a lot of pressure here, okay?"

12) And Judas said, "I'm going outside...for smoke...be right back. Just going to smoke."

13) And Jesus said, "Wait, I get it...this is like the thing where you told what's his name to take his son Isaac up to be burnt, but at the last second you stopped him! Right? You're not going to let them butcher me on a stick. This is just a test."

14) And God said, "...........yes. Yes, you got me. That's totally what's going to happen. See you tomorrow."

So if I'm a "Formal Christian" then I'm not a nice person, but I am a nice person if I practice the teaching of Christ?
I am a christian, hence I follow the teachings of Christ. I'm not jumping to any conclusions which you didn't set up.
I follow an Abrahamic faith....let me remind you what you said about my faith.



I have had many conversations with people who don't share my faith. And while they may not agree with me, I actually enjoy debating with them because they make me think my faith through. I don't see them as an adversary or innately bad people. Just as I don't think you're a bad person or an adversary. I think you've got a big mouth and you said some stupid stuff.


Again please don't read whatever you like into what i've written and then start insulting me on the basis of such spurious revisionism. If you read carefully i wrote that this nature may be a part of abrahamic religious thinking, if you do not wish to debate and want to have an argument with me instead then really why are you posting a discussion on the Akedah?

Also where did i suggest that followers of the teachings of Christ were "nice" as you put it?

Your rather shallow understanding of basic terms and concepts is making you sound foolish, since it signifies ignorance of the topic you have raised for debate or a rather school boyish attempt to twist the words of someone you dissagree with so that you can create false conflict instead of making informed points. i think i'll stop posting so that you wont embarrass yourself and your much vaunted "faith" any more.

p.s. is it very christian to be calling people names? Hypocrite.

Jesus did NOT commit suicide. Read your scripture:

Mark, Chapter 23, Verse 7

7) Then Jesus said, "And Father, let this cup pass from me to another."

8) And the Lord God replied "Jesus, we talked about this..."

9) and sayeth Jesus, "Yeah, right, I know, but seriously, have you seen how the Romans do this? I mean..."

10) And the apostles, full of woe, said "Um, Jesus, c'mon...we've come this far...kind of anticlimactic to bail now, you know? I mean, I haven't gotten laid in like 3 years over this thing."

11) Jesus said, "Okay, okay, look, I'm feeling a lot of pressure here, okay?"

12) And Judas said, "I'm going outside...for smoke...be right back. Just going to smoke."

13) And Jesus said, "Wait, I get it...this is like the thing where you told what's his name to take his son Isaac up to be burnt, but at the last second you stopped him! Right? You're not going to let them butcher me on a stick. This is just a test."

14) And God said, "...........yes. Yes, you got me. That's totally what's going to happen. See you tomorrow."

KJV? No... NIV? No - still doesn't read right.

Ah, got it - The Gospel According to St Bastard.

Military time? Cool.
*incident*

the Grace of GodI can't help but think this is the exception to prove the rule.
"Good" and "grace" simply aren't terms you would apply to anything like "God" (note: Jealous)if it were anyone else.

Military time? Cool.
*incident*
i searched but couldnt find a place to switch it back to 12hr time.

i searched but couldnt find a place to switch it back to 12hr time.*You* can do that? But it says right under your name, "knows stuff". :confused:

*You* can do that? But it says right under your name, "knows stuff". :confused:
i do know stuff. but sometimes the stuff i really want to know escapes me.

good category name (whatever the fuck its called)

i love being able to make up my own designation.


oh maybe it should have been 8 of 9...

i do know stuff. but sometimes the stuff i really want to know escapes me.
Where does it go? HN Fiddleysticks VIII? Ruffy? Hammurab?

Where does it go? HN Fiddleysticks VIII? Ruffy? Hammurab?
if i knew, id go get it, then id know.

Would Abraham have killed his son for God?

This notion seems a bit outlandish now-a-days, what with murder laws, and "the rights of an individual", but, yes, he most certainly would have. Until marriage, a child would have been commonly acknowledged as the property of the parent, to be put to work, fed, clothed, and disposed of as the parent saw fit. To kill this child was, albeit personally and economically moreso, no more repugnant than killing a decent ox. These things became codified later.

The moral aspect is right out, since, if God, who determines morality, demanded the sacrifice, it could not be a sin.

The moral aspect is right out, since, if God, who determines morality,Then we're fucking doomed. Or not, since that's someone else's imagination anywho. *wipes brow*
demanded the sacrifice, it could not be a sin.The best case for honouring the father, obviously, is not to take his example. Show shame when he shows his nature, inebriated or otherwise.

This was a test for both Abraham and Isaac. Abraham did not question God, but was willing to sacrifice his son to Him with faith that God would fulfill his promises through another son. Isaac, being a young man likely in his teens, passed his test of faith when he was willing to be bound and set on an altar to be sacrificed by his aged father, who was over 100 years old at this time. God stopped Abraham just in time, in enough time that Abraham could see his own faith. And the angel in this story is referred to as "the angel of the Lord" which, due to its obvious significance, and some other clues in the original language, is accepted to be the second person of the trinity(the Son) before he came into the world as Jesus.

Debatable. We can't even prove he lived, much less died.

Actually, we can. Josephus, a contemporary Jewish scholar wrote about Jesus of Nazareth and, if I'm remembering correctly, said something to the effect of he did wonderful things, which would sort of fit the description. By no means flawless, but it's a possibility. I don't know if he wrote about his death, however.

clues
*snickers*

*snickers*

What? are you hungry?

Actually, we can. Josephus, a contemporary Jewish scholar wrote about Jesus of Nazareth and, if I'm remembering correctly, said something to the effect of he did wonderful things, which would sort of fit the description. By no means flawless, but it's a possibility. I don't know if he wrote about his death, however.
Hi there, new guy/gal. I'm curious as to whether you think you'll be schooling Grave_n_idle on this, especially if you're relying on your memory to refute his statements.
His name is in the archives ... perhaps you should read a few of his past statements.
Well, good luck with that. You at least seem well-mannered.

What? are you hungry?Do you have nuts & nougat for me, with a little dribble of caramel to top it off?
/offtopic
No, it's your use of the term "clues". The term "clues" can often be used in a variety of settings, and that's what i'm angling about.

Hi there, new guy/gal. I'm curious as to whether you think you'll be schooling Grave_n_idle on this, especially if you're relying on your memory to refute his statements.
His name is in the archives ... perhaps you should read a few of his past statements.
Well, good luck with that. You at least seem well-mannered.

Yeah, I haven't read it in awhile, and am too lazy to go and find it. I'm not looking to be any sort of champion, just to show that there is some evidence, he can disregard my statement, I know without a reasonable quote or link there isn't any way to be sure that it's actual proof. You can look him up, though, and I think most articles concerning him make a point of mentioning his talk about Jesus.

Again please don't read whatever you like into what i've written and then start insulting me on the basis of such spurious revisionism. If you read carefully i wrote that this nature may be a part of abrahamic religious thinking, if you do not wish to debate and want to have an argument with me instead then really why are you posting a discussion on the Akedah?.

That isn't what you wrote. You wrote that the foundation of the abrahamic faith was based on being able to scapegoat the most evil behaviour on duty to God. Except you said it in a condescending, offensive way.
I don't wish to debate with you, because I think what you said doesn't even qualify for debate. However, I'm hardly just going to sit back and let that comment sit there without opposition.


Also where did i suggest that followers of the teachings of Christ were "nice" as you put it?.

You implied that there were people who followed the teachings of Christ, who were sensible and decent. And that if I was a 'formal christian' then I was not those things. And then decided that there is a difference between christianity and following Christ. Here's what you said.
Actually if you look closely at what i said you will see i said nothing about you or the teachings of Christ. If you genuinely practice Christ's teachings and are not a formal "Christian" then doubtless you are probably quite a decent person. Unfortunately the teachings of Christ and Christianity are not the same thing.




Your rather shallow understanding of basic terms and concepts is making you sound foolish, since it signifies ignorance of the topic you have raised for debate or a rather school boyish attempt to twist the words of someone you dissagree with so that you can create false conflict instead of making informed points. i think i'll stop posting so that you wont embarrass yourself and your much vaunted "faith" any more..

The people who I have debated with in the past have made informed comments. You on the other hand, made a sweeping generalised offensive statement. I am not debating with you. I am simply ending the conflict you began by saying you are completely in the wrong.


p.s. is it very christian to be calling people names? Hypocrite.

:headbang: Being a christian doesn't = doormat. And I haven't called you anything. I have only said that your comment was stupid and offensive.
Anyway, as far as i'm concerned this is the end of it. I'm over it.

Clearly the Aliens where testing him to see how damn stupid humans would be.

And the angel in this story is referred to as "the angel of the Lord" which, due to its obvious significance, and some other clues in the original language, is accepted to be the second person of the trinity(the Son) before he came into the world as Jesus.

dont you find it ODD that there would be clues in the original language about the angel being jesus when there was no jesus and especially no TRINITY when it was written?

That isn't what you wrote. You wrote that the foundation of the abrahamic faith was based on being able to scapegoat the most evil behaviour on duty to God. Except you said it in a condescending, offensive way.
I don't wish to debate with you, because I think what you said doesn't even qualify for debate. However, I'm hardly just going to sit back and let that comment sit there without opposition.



You implied that there were people who followed the teachings of Christ, who were sensible and decent. And that if I was a 'formal christian' then I was not those things. And then decided that there is a difference between christianity and following Christ. Here's what you said.






The people who I have debated with in the past have made informed comments. You on the other hand, made a sweeping generalised offensive statement. I am not debating with you. I am simply ending the conflict you began by saying you are completely in the wrong.



:headbang: Being a christian doesn't = doormat. And I haven't called you anything. I have only said that your comment was stupid and offensive.
Anyway, as far as i'm concerned this is the end of it. I'm over it.


For god's sake! how many times do i have to say this? I'm not responsible for you reading what i actually wrote and then deciding to imagine that i wrote something completely different. It is this imaginary position you have been arguing with, putting words in my mouth and casting me in the light of some christian hating extremist is frankly bizarre.

The position i have taken on the Akedah is one frequently sited and expounded by eminent religious scholars, the fact that you are unfamiliar with this is not my fault. Did you only expect devotional eulogies of the story of the sacrifice of Isaac?

Much of what you have written is simply Lies and deceit and totall missrepresentation invented to make you look persecuted by my imaginary predjudice, your behaviour is imcompatible with reason, fact, decency. I suggest you seek better instruction in the actual teachings of Christ and modify your attitude and behaviour accordingly.

I'm strongly on the side of "What messed up god asks this of someone?"

It's in my collection of stories that show why the bible shouldn't be used as a guide to your life. Kill your son. Just kidding. WTF?

Soddom and Gomorrah is another one. The only family in the entire town that God decides to save, is one that the leader of the family chooses to allow a gang to pack rape his 2 daughters (God does stop this happening, but still). And that's the good family?

Story of Tamar and Judah. After she is raped, one of the suggested solutions to this is a marriage between the rapist and the victim.

All of these have some logical basis when read in the context of the time it was written, but it is still a bit of a stretch and Does not fit with modern day values.

dont you find it ODD that there would be clues in the original language about the angel being jesus when there was no jesus and especially no TRINITY when it was written?.... this being, EXACTLY, why i made a point of "clues". :)

Hi there, new guy/gal. I'm curious as to whether you think you'll be schooling Grave_n_idle on this, especially if you're relying on your memory to refute his statements.
His name is in the archives ... perhaps you should read a few of his past statements.
Well, good luck with that. You at least seem well-mannered.

:)

I'll be back to deal with it later.

For god's sake! how many times do i have to say this? I'm not responsible for you reading what i actually wrote and then deciding to imagine that i wrote something completely different. It is this imaginary position you have been arguing with, putting words in my mouth and casting me in the light of some christian hating extremist is frankly bizarre.

The position i have taken on the Akedah is one frequently sited and expounded by eminent religious scholars, the fact that you are unfamiliar with this is not my fault. Did you only expect devotional eulogies of the story of the sacrifice of Isaac?

Much of what you have written is simply Lies and deceit and totall missrepresentation invented to make you look persecuted by my imaginary predjudice, your behaviour is imcompatible with reason, fact, decency. I suggest you seek better instruction in the actual teachings of Christ and modify your attitude and behaviour accordingly.

Firstly, I haven't been rude to you and I haven't made things up. If I say that you've said something I QUOTE what you've said. I have even been so kind as to bold it for you, so you can't miss it.
No i didn't expect devotionals. Its rare on a mainly non-religious forum. But the majority of people who contribute are at least respectful.
Lies, deceit, total misrepresentation, imainary predjudice...maybe you'd have a leg to stand on if I hadn't QUOTED you.

My behaviour isn't in line with the teachings of Christ? I think you're a person who isn't used to being called on their shit and you're cranky. I don't think you're a christian hating extremist. I think your predjudice extends to all abrahamic faiths.
I really don't care what you say from here onwards. You've got nothing worth saying. I would actually maybe sympathise with your position on religion. The way you said it was offensive. But I expect that you'll come back with your big words and your overextended grammar to try and show me up, because you've proven that you need to have the last word.

dont you find it ODD that there would be clues in the original language about the angel being jesus when there was no jesus and especially no TRINITY when it was written?

Well, maybe we didn't know about Jesus specifically at that point. But the Father had definitely been introduced...and the Holy Spirit as well.

I believe Abraham was being tested here. But I believe that Abraham believed that God would not allow Isaac to be sacrificed and he knew in his heart God would stop him, because first of all he did not argue with God like he did when God was going to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah and God swore to Abraham that his offspring would be reckoned through Isaac.

Actually, we can. Josephus, a contemporary Jewish scholar wrote about Jesus of Nazareth and, if I'm remembering correctly, said something to the effect of he did wonderful things, which would sort of fit the description. By no means flawless, but it's a possibility. I don't know if he wrote about his death, however.

Josephus did mention he was crucified by Pontius Pilate and his his followers believed Jesus rose from the dead.

Soddom and Gomorrah is another one. The only family in the entire town that God decides to save, is one that the leader of the family chooses to allow a gang to pack rape his 2 daughters (God does stop this happening, but still). And that's the good family?

Story of Tamar and Judah. After she is raped, one of the suggested solutions to this is a marriage between the rapist and the victim.

All of these have some logical basis when read in the context of the time it was written, but it is still a bit of a stretch and Does not fit with modern day values.That's just it. Given the same set of circumstances in this day & age, same "god", would said god choose exactly the same course of action, and everyone else is wrong? Makes me think of the Westboro Baptist Church thread.
Or is it perhaps that god was infant-minded, and people simply outgrew it?

dont you find it ODD that there would be clues in the original language about the angel being jesus when there was no jesus and especially no TRINITY when it was written?

Actually there is a Trinity in the Old Testament. The Spirit of God is mentioned several times and the one whose appearance is like the son of man is mentioned twice in the Book of Daniel.

dont you find it ODD that there would be clues in the original language about the angel being jesus when there was no jesus and especially no TRINITY when it was written?

No one knows if that was Jesus. I would hate to think that Jesus is being called nothing more than a mere angel. On that note I must disagree with my Christian friend.

I'm strongly on the side of "What messed up god asks this of someone?"

It's in my collection of stories that show why the bible shouldn't be used as a guide to your life. Kill your son. Just kidding. WTF?

Soddom and Gomorrah is another one. The only family in the entire town that God decides to save, is one that the leader of the family chooses to allow a gang to pack rape his 2 daughters (God does stop this happening, but still). And that's the good family?

Story of Tamar and Judah. After she is raped, one of the suggested solutions to this is a marriage between the rapist and the victim.

All of these have some logical basis when read in the context of the time it was written, but it is still a bit of a stretch and Does not fit with modern day values.

You must understand that this is the custom of the Middle East even today. If someone comes under your roof, you must by all means protect them even if you have to sacrifice your family members. Furthermore in the Old Testament understanding of things if a man raped an unmarried woman it was his responsibility to take care of her this was the punishment for his sin. However when Jesus died on the cross he made it so all the rapist has to do repent,plead the blood of Jesus Christ, and turn from his evil ways (all three mind you) and now it is not mandatory for a the rapist and the raped to marry. The Bible can still be used as a moral book for modern day, but you must take the Bible as a whole. You can not look at the Old and New Testament seperately from one another.

You can not look at the Old and New Testament seperately from one another.
Even when they don't successfully reconcile each others' circumstances and shortcomings?

.... this being, EXACTLY, why i made a point of "clues". :)
he didnt seem to catch that point. it was obvious to ME though.

Well, maybe we didn't know about Jesus specifically at that point. But the Father had definitely been introduced...and the Holy Spirit as well.
not as being anything like a trinity. the jews were/are monotheists, their god does NOT have 3 persons (or 2) in one.

I like the Kierkegaard take on it, although I'm sure I'm about to find out I misinterpreted it. What God asks Abraham to do is immoral, no matter how you look at it. God is outside of morality, though, beyond it. In a more general existential context, I guess that would go along with creating and living by one's own morals, only it's Kierkegaard so God is still somehow involved.

I feel a little guilty, but this is one of my favorite stories in the Bible. It makes firm the idea that there is more to being a good person than just following a bunch of rules such as the Ten Commandments or canon law.

not as being anything like a trinity. the jews were/are monotheists, their god does NOT have 3 persons (or 2) in one.

Christians are also Monotheist, the idea of the trinity is that there are 3 separate members of the same God, It's impossible to describe well enough to be understood by mortal minds because it is impossible to understand. John 1:1-2 shows the presence of separate persons, however: "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God, He was with God in the beginning." (NIV) (http://www.ibs.org/bible/verse/?q=John%201&niv=yes) It's sort of (not exactly) like a person with multiple personalities, they all are present in the same body but can be quite different.

Christians are also Monotheist, the idea of the trinity is that there are 3 separate members of the same God, It's impossible to describe well enough to be understood by mortal minds because it is impossible to understand. John 1:1-2 shows the presence of separate persons, however: "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God, He was with God in the beginning." (NIV) (http://www.ibs.org/bible/verse/?q=John%201&niv=yes) It's sort of (not exactly) like a person with multiple personalities, they all are present in the same body but can be quite different.
which does not change that the jews (the writers of the old testament) do NOT have anything like a trinity so it cant be in the old testament.

Christians are also Monotheist, the idea of the trinity is that there are 3 separate members of the same God, It's impossible to describe well enough to be understood by mortal minds because it is impossible to understand. John 1:1-2 shows the presence of separate persons, however: "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God, He was with God in the beginning." (NIV) (http://www.ibs.org/bible/verse/?q=John%201&niv=yes) It's sort of (not exactly) like a person with multiple personalities, they all are present in the same body but can be quite different.

No offense but I actually think it is quite easy to explain.You see a man is also a tri-partite being. He consists of a mind,a spirit, and a body. These three things are not the same but they make up one person. The Bible says God made man in his own image, so therefore God must be made up the same way. The Father is like the human mind it tells the other parts what to do. The Spirit of God is like the human spirit it is an encourager and comforter. The Son is like the human body. Like our body, the Son is the outward image of God. The Book of Hebrews says Jesus is the image of the living God. So everytime we see God's image like when he was seen by Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Daniel, and Ezekiel that was the Son.

which does not change that the jews (the writers of the old testament) do NOT have anything like a trinity so it cant be in the old testament.

Actually there is a Trinity in the Old Testament. The Spirit of God is mentioned several times and the one whose appearance is like the son of man is mentioned twice in the Book of Daniel.

Even when they don't successfully reconcile each others' circumstances and shortcomings?

The New Testament reconciles the Old's short comings. Because before in the olden days, animal sacrifices, capital punishment, and other payments whether it be monetary or through deeds were the payment for sins. But when Jesus came and died for us he made it so these things no longer have to go on, but now we only need to plead the blood of Jesus and repent and turn from our sins.

Actually there is a Trinity in the Old Testament. The Spirit of God is mentioned several times and the one whose appearance is like the son of man is mentioned twice in the Book of Daniel.
bring out the verses and we'll discuss it.

he didnt seem to catch that point. it was obvious to ME though.
Yeah, it even indicates as much just underneath your nation name there, on the left there ...
knows stuff<====

bring out the verses and we'll discuss it.

http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Names_of_G-d/Spirit_of_God/spirit_of_god.html


Ruach is the hebrew name of the Holy Spirit, in the OT.

The New Testament reconciles the Old's short comings. No it really, really doesn't. 'sides, it would imply that all Jews are morons and against God's plan, which i *think* you're gonna find won't sit well with them - especially given that the new testament only exists in respect to the old testament.

Because before in the olden days, animal sacrifices, capital punishment, and other payments whether it be monetary or through deeds were the payment for sins. But when Jesus came and died for us he made it so these things no longer have to go on, but now we only need to plead the blood of Jesus and repent and turn from our sins.So Jesus is like the fast-food restaurant of god's universe of cuisine redemption?
BTW, you might consider looking up Mithra, Horus, and Simon for a little bit of fun reading.

The New Testament reconciles the Old's short comings. Because before in the olden days, animal sacrifices, capital punishment, and other payments whether it be monetary or through deeds were the payment for sins. But when Jesus came and died for us he made it so these things no longer have to go on, but now we only need to plead the blood of Jesus and repent and turn from our sins.

I'm not sure if that's quite accurate. You see, Jesus said he came to fulfill the law, not destroy it. Why would the law need reconciled? It's the people that need reconciled. God came, as Christ, and lived by His own standards, when we couldn't, and died so that we can have a way out of the punishment for failing those standards.

Actually there is a Trinity in the Old Testament. The Spirit of God is mentioned several times and the one whose appearance is like the son of man is mentioned twice in the Book of Daniel.

Agreed. And in that regard, Jesus clearly taught that he was talked about in the scripture (what Christians call the old testament today)

Luke 24:25=27
And he said to them, "O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?" And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.

And reading the book of Hebrews certainly sheds light on the Christian understanding of the pre-existing Jewish scriptures...

I'm not sure if that's quite accurate. You see, Jesus said he came to fulfill the law, not destroy it. Why would the law need reconciled? It's the people that need reconciled. God came, as Christ, and lived by His own standards, when we couldn't, and died so that we can have a way out of the punishment for failing those standards.

Romans 7:5
For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death.

Romans 8:2
For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death.

1 Corinthians 15:56
The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law.

Fulfill the law, accomplish the law, complete the law... We cannot be saved through the law, we die in the law because we can't complete it.

Actually there is a Trinity in the Old Testament. The Spirit of God is mentioned several times and the one whose appearance is like the son of man is mentioned twice in the Book of Daniel.

And the spirit of God among men is femininely gendered, in the Hebrew. Which of the Trinity is a chick?

Another desparate attempt by Christian revisionists to try to claim elements of Judaism as evidence of their 'religion'.

Christians are also Monotheist,


Not according to the roots of their faith. According to Judaism, Jesus is an idol.

Which makes Christianity abomination.


...the idea of the trinity is that there are 3 separate members of the same God, It's impossible to describe well enough to be understood by mortal minds because it is impossible to understand.


Utter wank. Not only is it simple enough that my nine-year-old has no problems with it, but it was considered a simple concept by Egyptians, two thousand years before the Jesus story was even written.


John 1:1-2 shows the presence of separate persons, however: "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God, He was with God in the beginning."

The creative principle - the dichotomy between ergon and logos?

You're seriously going to argue that Hebrew traditions had a trinity... by reference to post-Heraclitean Hellenic theology?

Ruach is the hebrew name of the Holy Spirit, in the OT.

No it isn't.

'Ruach' is a creative principle - the Breath of Life.

It is A 'spirit' FROM god, not THE 'Spirit OF god'.

You must be getting your information from some kind of revisionist concordance - because 'spirit' doesn't mean what you think it means, in Hebrew. (Should have looked at your source first, shouldn't I - it's a "Jews for Jesus" site - I rest my case).

All 'spirit' is (in Hebrew), is what animates the flesh - it's your breath.

The Spirit of God on Earth, in the Hebrew, would be better identified as Shekhinah.

Actually, we can. Josephus, a contemporary Jewish scholar wrote about Jesus of Nazareth and, if I'm remembering correctly, said something to the effect of he did wonderful things, which would sort of fit the description. By no means flawless, but it's a possibility. I don't know if he wrote about his death, however.

First - we KNOW that the Jospehus texts were altered at a later date, anyway. Which must cast questions on how reliable they are.

Second - by contrasting the different versions of Josephus, we can further tell that the 'christian' content is almost entirely revision.

Third - we don't even NEED to contrast sources - if you've actually read the Josephus material, the 'redacted' text is pretty obvious - it interrupts the flow between two passages that flow perfectly together if you ignore the 'adition'.

Fourth - Josephus wasn't a contemporary. He wasn't even BORN when the Jesus story is supposed to have taken place - much less capable of being a witness to any of it.

Fifth - reviewing Jospehus' life, it's highly unlikely that he would have even MET anyone that MIGHT have been an actual witness to the alleged stories of Christ.


The one thing you said that doesn't require correction, is that the evidence isn't flawless, and that the story 'is a possibility'. Which is okay - because 'possibility' isn't what we were talking about. Is aid we can't PROVE that he lived - and we can't. There is NO independent, contemporary evidence to support the life or death of (the biblical) Jesus.

Which makes Christianity abomination.
Wondering if Baldy's gonna revisit now ..... :)

Wondering if Baldy's gonna revisit now ..... :)

Oh, probably.

There's not much he can say, though - Christianity is abomination, in the perspective of the people that had the prophecies of Messiah... which they are still waiting to see fulfilled.

You're seriously going to argue that Hebrew traditions had a trinity... by reference to post-Heraclitean Hellenic theology?

Well, Genesis has a few references right in the beginning...
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.(Father)
...and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.(Spirit)
And God said... (The presence of the Word of God. Christ was the incarnate word of God, and thus present at creation)

And the spirit of God among men is femininely gendered, in the Hebrew. Which of the Trinity is a chick?

Another desparate attempt by Christian revisionists to try to claim elements of Judaism as evidence of their 'religion'.

Gender has absolutely nothing to do with it. In Latin, for example, there are masculine nouns that have feminine forms. Many times, for the sake of emphasis or meter, speakers and writers change gender forms. Vergil, Cicero, and many others did it. Many animal names have a specific gender in certain languages, that doesn't mean that all members of that species are that gender.

Also, why do you have religion in quotation marks? I don't see where Christianity doesn't measure up to be a religion.

Who is being tested? Isaac? Abraham? God? What is being tested?

Me, and my patience. Does an omnipotent being really have nothing better to do than dick around with someone for no reason?

I also think putting your own fear of punishment above the life of a loved one should count as a failure to any test, but that's just me.

Well, Genesis has a few references right in the beginning...
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.(Father)
...and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.(Spirit)
And God said... (The presence of the Word of God. Christ was the incarnate word of God, and thus present at creation)
you being able to lay the trinity over the genesis story is not the same as the trinity being a part of jewish theology.

Well, Genesis has a few references right in the beginning...
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.(Father)
...and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.(Spirit)
And God said... (The presence of the Word of God. Christ was the incarnate word of God, and thus present at creation)

The capitalisations are yours, of course.

It makes it clear elsewhere in the Genesis story that the word we are interpreting as 'spirit' (moving on the face of the waters, etc) is breath. The Breath of Life, the breath of God... the breath of you and I.

Of course, there's no conflict there, because in that early Hebrew tradition, 'spirit' (or 'breath') is not some superhuman entity that exists separately from the body. It most certainly isn't Spirit, with the capital letters you give it.

You are trying to conflate Hellenised Judaism/Christianity - with a much older tradition.

Similarly - your attempt to make God's display of omnipotence in the Genesis account (he says it and pow! it's done) into some kind of testimonial for the existence of Jesus is a ridiculous conflation. It doesn't matter that you're only one in a long tradition to do it - it's never had any value in the context of the ORIGINAL story. It's a 'word' - not 'Word'. The intent is clear - until you add confusions to it that weren't there. Again - the post-Hellenised Heraclitean conflict of Logos and Ergon.


The book of Genesis IS polytheistic. It is readily evident if you read it in the Hebrew, that the story has (at the very least) polytheistic roots. Indeed, the evidence for that extend throughout the Hebrew scripture.

But there's no 'Trinity'.

Gender has absolutely nothing to do with it. In Latin, for example, there are masculine nouns that have feminine forms. Many times, for the sake of emphasis or meter, speakers and writers change gender forms. Vergil, Cicero, and many others did it. Many animal names have a specific gender in certain languages, that doesn't mean that all members of that species are that gender.


Latin, as I'm sure you know - isn't Hebrew. So - while it's very informative for some who might not know - it's really not relevant to THIS discussion.

And, I'm sure you know your connection to animal names having specific genders, is a red herring. We aren't talking about species - we are talking about specific names/titles.

It's less apparent in English perhaps - and mainly shows up where a word has been borrowed from a more strongly gendered language. Example: the name Miranda, or Selena, Diana, etc. ALL of those are female names - not just because theya re traditionally feminine - but because they are actually intrinsically female.

Actress, empress, priestess... examples of titles that you can immediately tell the gender of the person involved.


Also, why do you have religion in quotation marks? I don't see where Christianity doesn't measure up to be a religion.

Perspective, my friend. Look to the content, to provide the context.

you being able to lay the trinity over the genesis story is not the same as the trinity being a part of jewish theology.

This ^^

Latin, as I'm sure you know - isn't Hebrew. So - while it's very informative for some who might not know - it's really not relevant to THIS discussion.

And, I'm sure you know your connection to animal names having specific genders, is a red herring. We aren't talking about species - we are talking about specific names/titles.

It's less apparent in English perhaps - and mainly shows up where a word has been borrowed from a more strongly gendered language. Example: the name Miranda, or Selena, Diana, etc. ALL of those are female names - not just because theya re traditionally feminine - but because they are actually intrinsically female.

Actress, empress, priestess... examples of titles that you can immediately tell the gender of the person involved.

Latin may not be Hebrew, it was an example. However, I am sure that the same amount of leniency in gender is used in colloquial Hebrew as in Latin. The form may still be naturally feminine, but it may have a different connotation than the suggestion that a part of the Trinity was female. We really can't assign a gender to any part of God, seeing as he is not human. We assign a gender to make us more easily relate to him, giving human characteristics to God in the same way that we give them to animals and the like in stories. It's the same as assigning a gender to things that have no gender: cities, boats, etc.

The capitalisations are yours, of course.

It makes it clear elsewhere in the Genesis story that the word we are interpreting as 'spirit' (moving on the face of the waters, etc) is breath. The Breath of Life, the breath of God... the breath of you and I.

Of course, there's no conflict there, because in that early Hebrew tradition, 'spirit' (or 'breath') is not some superhuman entity that exists separately from the body. It most certainly isn't Spirit, with the capital letters you give it.

You are trying to conflate Hellenised Judaism/Christianity - with a much older tradition.

Similarly - your attempt to make God's display of omnipotence in the Genesis account (he says it and pow! it's done) into some kind of testimonial for the existence of Jesus is a ridiculous conflation. It doesn't matter that you're only one in a long tradition to do it - it's never had any value in the context of the ORIGINAL story. It's a 'word' - not 'Word'. The intent is clear - until you add confusions to it that weren't there. Again - the post-Hellenised Heraclitean conflict of Logos and Ergon.


The book of Genesis IS polytheistic. It is readily evident if you read it in the Hebrew, that the story has (at the very least) polytheistic roots. Indeed, the evidence for that extend throughout the Hebrew scripture.

But there's no 'Trinity'.

Actually, the capitalizations are copied from the online text of the New International Version.

And I am not making God's omnipotent word into evidence of the trinity, I found it in an equally reliable source. It is found in John 1:1-2, which I put on the same level of authority as Genesis, though you might not. I accept Christianity as the continuation of the Jewish tradition, in that I see Jesus Christ as the fulfillment of the Old Testament and its promises/prophecies. This seems to be a point of conflict between our two sides, that I am applying New Testament, Christian concepts to Old Testament, Jewish texts. When one has an understanding of the New Testament, one can see connections between what is written there and what is written in the Old Testament.

Latin may not be Hebrew, it was an example. However, I am sure that the same amount of leniency in gender is used in colloquial Hebrew as in Latin. The form may still be naturally feminine, but it may have a different connotation than the suggestion that a part of the Trinity was female. We really can't assign a gender to any part of God, seeing as he is not human. We assign a gender to make us more easily relate to him, giving human characteristics to God in the same way that we give them to animals and the like in stories. It's the same as assigning a gender to things that have no gender: cities, boats, etc.

I've always found it amusing that the Christian Right are so keen on enforcing traditional gender roles when the supreme being that they themselves worship is clearly neither male nor female. If I ever get any trouble from them, I'll just remind them that their God is genderqueer, and should thus logically be a supporter of the interests of the LGBT community. Yes, my logic's more than a little dodgy, but it'll confuse the hell out of them :) *cackles in a most evil manner*

Me, and my patience. Does an omnipotent being really have nothing better to do than dick around with someone for no reason?

I also think putting your own fear of punishment above the life of a loved one should count as a failure to any test, but that's just me.

Well, he had a reason: testing Abraham's faith.

And actually, the entire point is that it wasn't fear of punishment, but a desire to do the will of God and trusting God enough to know that he would provide, and fulfill the promises he had made.

I've always found it amusing that the Christian Right are so keen on enforcing traditional gender roles when the supreme being that they themselves worship is clearly neither male nor female. If I ever get any trouble from them, I'll just remind them that their God is genderqueer, and should thus logically be a supporter of the interests of the LGBT community. Yes, my logic's more than a little dodgy, but it'll confuse the hell out of them :) *cackles in a most evil manner*

Though God may be lacking gender, we are not. He made us male and female.

I'm not, however, going to discuss LGBT here. I don't know any verses that particularly forbid or condemn transgender-ing (excuse the poor term), and the LGB part would be labeled as sexual immorality, and I'm sure we've all heard enough concerning that.

Though God may be lacking gender, we are not. He made us male and female.

But the Bible seems to say these distinctions are meaningless...

Galatians 3:28 "There is neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free, neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

This passage looks remarkably like a rejection of false gender distinctions to me, and a statement that basically we're all the same. Seems like an argument against regimented traditional gender roles of the kind that the Christian Right are so keen to impose. And..if such distinctions are so meaningless, it seems rather silly to make a huge fuss about the sex of two partners in a consenting relationship. After all, we are apparently all the same...

I'll go away now, rather than hijacking the thread. I just had to drop that in as that verse was mentioned at a thing I attended on the Bible and LGBT issues. This is one of the few occasions on here I'll ever be able to look vaguely knowledgeble, so I couldn't pass it up :p

But the Bible seems to say these distinctions are meaningless...

Galatians 3:28 "There is neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free, neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

This passage looks remarkably like a rejection of false gender distinctions to me, and a statement that basically we're all the same. Seems like an argument against regimented traditional gender roles of the kind that the Christian Right are so keen to impose. And..if such distinctions are so meaningless, it seems rather silly to make a huge fuss about the sex of two partners in a consenting relationship. After all, we are apparently all the same...

I'll go away now, rather than hijacking the thread. I just had to drop that in as that verse was mentioned at a thing I attended on the Bible and LGBT issues. This is one of the few occasions on here I'll ever be able to look vaguely knowledgeble, so I couldn't pass it up :p

Actually - the most important concept would probably be that we are all (allegedly) the bride of Christ. Man, woman and child, we're all his bitch.

Latin may not be Hebrew, it was an example. However, I am sure that the same amount of leniency in gender is used in colloquial Hebrew as in Latin.

Then you would be wrong.


The form may still be naturally feminine, but it may have a different connotation than the suggestion that a part of the Trinity was female. We really can't assign a gender to any part of God, seeing as he is not human. We assign a gender to make us more easily relate to him, giving human characteristics to God in the same way that we give them to animals and the like in stories.


Actually, Genesis explicitly says that god is both sexes - perhaps simultaneously. (Well, you could make the argue that, in real terms - what it actually describes is polytheism, with both male and female gods - but if you acknowledge that, you are denying the monotheism of the latter text.)


It's the same as assigning a gender to things that have no gender: cities, boats, etc.

No. It's not.

Actually, the capitalizations are copied from the online text of the New International Version.


They're not inherent in the Hebrew text. Thus, they are 'yours' - not part of the Genesis text.


And I am not making God's omnipotent word into evidence of the trinity, I found it in an equally reliable source.


No, you didn't.


It is found in John 1:1-2, which I put on the same level of authority as Genesis, though you might not.


Well, you're wrong - you don't hold it to be the same level of authority, at all. You hold the New Testament to be superior to the Hebrew scripture.

You're right, I don't. And that's simply because it isn't.


I accept Christianity as the continuation of the Jewish tradition,


Which is how I know that you hold the Greek scripture to be superior.


...in that I see Jesus Christ as the fulfillment of the Old Testament and its promises/prophecies.


He's not. Not only that, but he can't be - IF you actually accept the Hebrew scripture.

The fact that you claim Jesus fulfills the Old Testament just shows that you don't hold any special value for the Hebrew text.


This seems to be a point of conflict between our two sides, that I am applying New Testament, Christian concepts to Old Testament, Jewish texts.


That is the point of conflict.

You're a revisionist, raping someone else's religion to make your own seem more credible.


When one has an understanding of the New Testament, one can see connections between what is written there and what is written in the Old Testament.

Patronising much?

My 'understanding' of the New Testament is probably superior to your own. I know barely a single Christian that has ever read the Greek scripture IN the Greek, or even in the Latin.

The New Testament attempts to claim that it is connected to the Old, but it isn't.

Well, you're wrong - you don't hold it to be the same level of authority, at all. You hold the New Testament to be superior to the Hebrew scripture.

I do, I believe both are the inspired word of God, I do not find conflict in the Old Testament to what is taught in the New Testament and vice versa, assuming that Jesus established the new covenant between God and His people.

And where do you get off telling me what I accept and believe?

He's not. Not only that, but he can't be - IF you actually accept the Hebrew scripture.

The fact that you claim Jesus fulfills the Old Testament just shows that you don't hold any special value for the Hebrew text.


show me one prophecy in the Old Testament that wasn't fulfilled by Christ

My 'understanding' of the New Testament is probably superior to your own. I know barely a single Christian that has ever read the Greek scripture IN the Greek, or even in the Latin.

I know quite a few that have read both, and have read the Hebrew and aramaic in the OT, and have a thorough understanding of them all. I personally haven't, though I'm currently in my fourth year of Latin and plan to go on with it as well as start both Hebrew and Greek in the near future.

Then you would be wrong.



Actually, Genesis explicitly says that god is both sexes - perhaps simultaneously. (Well, you could make the argue that, in real terms - what it actually describes is polytheism, with both male and female gods - but if you acknowledge that, you are denying the monotheism of the latter text.)



No. It's not.

Just curious, what passage states God is both sexes? I see it as a possibility, I just don't know the book, chapter, and verse. If you'd kindly give me the reference, I'd look it up and see for myself.

and, if we're going to do that...

YES IT IS!

But the Bible seems to say these distinctions are meaningless...

Galatians 3:28 "There is neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free, neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

This passage looks remarkably like a rejection of false gender distinctions to me, and a statement that basically we're all the same. Seems like an argument against regimented traditional gender roles of the kind that the Christian Right are so keen to impose. And..if such distinctions are so meaningless, it seems rather silly to make a huge fuss about the sex of two partners in a consenting relationship. After all, we are apparently all the same...

I'll go away now, rather than hijacking the thread. I just had to drop that in as that verse was mentioned at a thing I attended on the Bible and LGBT issues. This is one of the few occasions on here I'll ever be able to look vaguely knowledgeble, so I couldn't pass it up :p

This verse, in context, shows that we are all the same in our sinfulness and need of a savior, and shows that no matter what we are, we all have the forgiveness that comes from Christ. There continue to be other roles for all members of Christ's body in Paul's other epistles

I do, I believe both are the inspired word of God, I do not find conflict in the Old Testament to what is taught in the New Testament and vice versa, assuming that Jesus established the new covenant between God and His people.


You do not find conflict in the Old Testament to what is taught in the New Testament.

Which can only mean one thing - you do not actually accept the Old Testament.

If you did, you couldn't accept the New Testament.

QED.


And where do you get off telling me what I accept and believe?


You said it. The two texts are irreconcilable from the point of view of the Hebrew scripture.

The only way to reconcile the two texts, is to denigrate the Hebrew scripture to the position of a kind of flavour-text-and-justification for the Greek scripture.

Hence, by your own claims, you do not accept and believe the Old Testament.


show me one prophecy in the Old Testament that wasn't fulfilled by Christ


Messiah will build the Third Temple.

Messiah will gather all the Jews back to Israel.

Messiah will usher in an era of world peace.

Messiah will spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel - which will unite the world as one.

Messiah will be a prophet.

Messiah will be descended on his father's side, from King David.

Messiah will lead the Jewish people to full Torah observance.

Messiah is human, mortal, and not gifted with supernatural (miraculous) ability.


I know quite a few that have read both, and have read the Hebrew and aramaic in the OT, and have a thorough understanding of them all. I personally haven't, though I'm currently in my fourth year of Latin and plan to go on with it as well as start both Hebrew and Greek in the near future.

What you 'plan to do' is no assurance of your understanding, NOW. Perhaps you'll think before you are so condescending, next time.

Just curious, what passage states God is both sexes? I see it as a possibility, I just don't know the book, chapter, and verse. If you'd kindly give me the reference, I'd look it up and see for myself.


Genesis 1:27 "So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them".

It's even clearer in the Hebrew.


YES IT IS!

Just saying it loud isn't going to make it so.

You're asserting that the person of god is 'the same as giving a boat a gender'. I'm saying it's not - because I can point you to the specific Hebrew text where gender is assigned.