Ponderer
Junior Member
Posts: 62
Likes: 10
Politics: Balance
Religion: Open to all possibilities
Age: Going on 900
|
Post by Ponderer on Feb 18, 2018 2:11:22 GMT
Did God test Abraham for obedience, or was it something else much less noble? We are told of Abraham's previous cowardly actions regarding Sarah, his wife. Was he actually being tested to reveal how upright the man really was? - and failed the test dismally? Nowhere in the account does it say that he passed.
What if he had refused?
|
|
Ponderer
Junior Member
Posts: 62
Likes: 10
Politics: Balance
Religion: Open to all possibilities
Age: Going on 900
|
Post by Ponderer on Feb 18, 2018 8:50:29 GMT
I hadn't considered that and it makes sense. But what do you make of the angel's observation of fear as told in 22; verse 12? And the rest. One has to understand this in the context of history. In Hebrew, the word "angel" and "messenger" is the same, so this should really be read as God's messenger. And there was a concept that the purpose of messengers was often to deliver meaningless positive words for diplomatic purposes. Most people who read the Old Testament don't distinguish between what is said by God and what is said by messengers. But this is critical to do. What is said by God is simply true, it reflects what the Old Testament is trying to say. But what is said by messangers isn't meant to be taken at face value, but is rather meant to express the diplomacy of God. If it was supposed to be diplomatic wouldn't the messenger have praised Abraham for his faith in God rather than having his fear bandied around? I've noticed that it is Jewish scholars who have questioned the simplicity of this story over any Christian attempt at understanding. I deeply suspect that the story is meant to illustrate personal integrity as being superior to unquestioning obedience. Thoughts? |
|
|
|
Post by fschmidt on Feb 18, 2018 9:35:40 GMT
If it was supposed to be diplomatic wouldn't the messenger have praised Abraham for his faith in God rather than having his fear bandied around? I've noticed that it is Jewish scholars who have questioned the simplicity of this story over any Christian attempt at understanding. I deeply suspect that the story is meant to illustrate personal integrity as being superior to unquestioning obedience. Thoughts? It was diplomatic because that is exactly why Abraham did what he did, fear. And the fear of God certainly isn't discouraged, so Abraham didn't do so badly, he just failed to take the best course which would have been to question God. "Faith in God" is a Christian concept, by the way. I can't think of anywhere in the Old Testament where this is discussed. As for the jewish view, having attended many classes on judaism at an Orthodox synagogue, I can't think of one single case where I agreed with the Talmudic interpretation, so I no longer pay any attention to the jewish view. I just try to judge for myself with my limited Hebrew. |
|
Ponderer
Junior Member
Posts: 62
Likes: 10
Politics: Balance
Religion: Open to all possibilities
Age: Going on 900
|
Post by Ponderer on Feb 18, 2018 9:35:50 GMT
One thing at a time: Elizabeth wrote "Can you state a verse for these innocent deaths?" Try 1 Samuel 15; 2-3 There are others but please don't ask me to dig them out. They're commonly plastered over the internet. Oh, ok. Well, back in old testament there were many wars and God always protected His people. In Samuel, Amalek was a city that hurt God's people and God wanted Amalek to no longer exist. So, God called war on them to destroy them for what they did. It was basically a punishment for Amalek for hurting what belonged to God. Just like when Daniel's friends were thrown into the furnace but God saved them and burned the other guys and like when Daniel was saved by God from the lions and the wrongdoer instead was eaten. So, the deaths were only because the people did something wrong to God or His people. Like a parent will fight for their child at all times to spare them from getting hurt. Elizabeth, I appreciate your defence of God and Abraham but please understand that I am pursuing the underlying lesson from this puzzling story. I am not trying to lay blame on God or Abraham for their actions, but rather seeking a higher truth - I believe this story is central to its understanding. |
|
Ponderer
Junior Member
Posts: 62
Likes: 10
Politics: Balance
Religion: Open to all possibilities
Age: Going on 900
|
Post by Ponderer on Feb 18, 2018 21:38:51 GMT
As for the jewish view, having attended many classes on judaism at an Orthodox synagogue, I can't think of one single case where I agreed with the Talmudic interpretation, so I no longer pay any attention to the jewish view. I just try to judge for myself with my limited Hebrew. This is good, you are thinking for yourself and hopefully open to ideas. Please bear with me while I ask a question seemingly unrelated to the Abraham saga. We humans are most complex. We are capable of great love and kindness and capable of intense hatred and cruelty. Often these two extremes come to the fore even in the same individual: we only have to look at so many marital break-ups to illustrate this. We can be ingeniously creative and wantonly destructive. We can be infinitely patient and instantly raging with anger. We can be truthful and we can lie. We are capable of great good and also great evil. We can be leaders and we can be followers. We can sacrifice ourselves to save others and we can kill others: are we all capable of killing another human? – our long history of ubiquitous violence and bloodshed suggests that most of us are, given the right circumstance. We can be forgiving and vengeful. We are often “in two minds” about something, especially as we mature and the youthful black and white simplicity of life becomes more complex with shades of grey. We are “torn” in our decisions and it becomes noticeable that there is more than just the logical better path to follow; there is often a secret war going on in our minds as if there is indeed the presence of two minds in one. One of the two minds is saying “No” while the other is expressing doubt. It seems to be the way the brain is wired to facilitate a balanced decision and not a blinkered headlong rush into unseen disaster. With this in mind(s?), my question is, in Genesis chapter 1, what is the puzzling difference between verse 26 and verse 27 and is it significant? |
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Feb 18, 2018 21:44:22 GMT
Oh, ok. Well, back in old testament there were many wars and God always protected His people. In Samuel, Amalek was a city that hurt God's people and God wanted Amalek to no longer exist. So, God called war on them to destroy them for what they did. It was basically a punishment for Amalek for hurting what belonged to God. Just like when Daniel's friends were thrown into the furnace but God saved them and burned the other guys and like when Daniel was saved by God from the lions and the wrongdoer instead was eaten. So, the deaths were only because the people did something wrong to God or His people. Like a parent will fight for their child at all times to spare them from getting hurt. Elizabeth, I appreciate your defence of God and Abraham but please understand that I am pursuing the underlying lesson from this puzzling story. I am not trying to lay blame on God or Abraham for their actions, but rather seeking a higher truth - I believe this story is central to its understanding. I'm all in support of you seeking that  Any conclusions have you drawn yet based on the comments given from everyone in the thread? |
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Feb 18, 2018 21:51:47 GMT
My interpretation is that it was a test, but the opposite of what Christians believe. I think the test was whether he would be willing to question God for his family's sake as he had questioned God to defend Sodom and Gomorrah. Abraham failed the test because he did not question God. The evidence is that God never spoke to Abraham again, God only sent angels/messengers to deliver messages. Questioning God is allowed in OT? I'd assume it would be just to obey though. |
|
Ponderer
Junior Member
Posts: 62
Likes: 10
Politics: Balance
Religion: Open to all possibilities
Age: Going on 900
|
Post by Ponderer on Feb 18, 2018 22:08:57 GMT
I'm all in support of you seeking that Any conclusions have you drawn yet based on the comments given from everyone in the thread? Thanks Elizabeth. Still early days yet. I hope that Fschmidt will prove to be open-minded and can use his knowledge of Hebrew to decipher a few hidden treasures that were imparted to me by a Baptist minister friend of mine years ago. I fear that at this stage you are too blinkered in your zeal to protect Christian traditions at all costs. You don't know me and I understand your caution. I have a good friend who is a Jehovah's Witness. I studied with him 20 years ago but we are no longer able to talk freely about God because his mind is closed to any sort of free-thought. I do not discount any Christian beliefs and I certainly retain Christian values, but I find the churches stagnant in their quest for deeper truths and unwilling to step beyond their comfort zones. This is why, I believe, that Christian congregations world-wide are shrinking, while the more dynamic Islam is growing. |
|
|
|
Post by Διαμονδ on Feb 18, 2018 22:46:26 GMT
Does that mean that all terrorists are right to follow God's orders and kill? Are they not just being obedient to divine will and thus excused responsibility for their deeds? And how do they (or Abraham) know that it is God ordering the deed and not the devil? Terrorists do not follow God from the Bible! Is it not clear to you!?   |
|
|
|
Post by Διαμονδ on Feb 18, 2018 22:54:49 GMT
In the New Testament, the sacrifice of Abraham is mentioned several times. In the Epistle of the Ap. James 2:21, the author quotes Abraham as an example, arguing with those who affirm the self-sufficiency of faith in justification before God: "Did not Abraham, our father, justify himself on the altar of Isaac his son?" Do you see that faith contributed to his deeds, And the word of Scripture was fulfilled: "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him for righteousness, and he was called a friend of God." The act of the patriarch is regarded as an act of the highest manifestation of faithfulness and trust in God.This position fits perfectly into the context of the Jew interpretations.
In Hebrews 11: 17-19, this plot arises in the context of the author's reasoning about faith: "By faith Abraham, when tempted, sacrificed Isaac and, having a promise, brought the only-begotten, of whom it was said: in Isaac shall be called your seed. For he thought that God is strong and raised from the dead, why he received it in an omen. "The Patriarch brings his son to the altar, being sure that the promise of God (about the great offspring through Isaac) will be fulfilled in any case, even if he dies because God is able to resurrect him from the dead.
Already in the early Christian doctrine the sacrifice of Isaac is regarded as a prediction of the martyrdom of Christ. In the opinion of the Church Fathers, Jesus himself pointed to this story as a prototype of his forthcoming Golgotha sacrifice: "Abraham your father, was glad to see my day; and he saw and was glad "(John 8:56). This opinion is already contained in the writings of Irenaeus of Lyons (II century), Gregory the Theologian (IV century) and developed by subsequent theologians. They compare Isaac's obedience to the will of Abraham and Jesus to the will of God the Father, Isaac's bearing on the mountain is called the type of the bearing of the Cross by Jesus, and his way up the mountain is the way to Golgotha.
|
|
|
|
Post by fschmidt on Feb 19, 2018 0:34:57 GMT
With this in mind(s?), my question is, in Genesis chapter 1, what is the puzzling difference between verse 26 and verse 27 and is it significant? Sorry, I am not-sure what you mean. What difference? |
|
|
|
Post by fschmidt on Feb 19, 2018 0:41:11 GMT
Questioning God is allowed in OT? I'd assume it would be just to obey though. There is actually no word in biblical Hebrew for "obey". There is only listen (Hebrew "shma") which is sometimes mistranslated as "obey" by Christians. In Exodus 32:9-14 Moses argues with God and wins. |
|
Ponderer
Junior Member
Posts: 62
Likes: 10
Politics: Balance
Religion: Open to all possibilities
Age: Going on 900
|
Post by Ponderer on Feb 19, 2018 0:54:54 GMT
With this in mind(s?), my question is, in Genesis chapter 1, what is the puzzling difference between verse 26 and verse 27 and is it significant? Sorry, I am not-sure what you mean. What difference? "Let us..." (plural verse 26). Who are "us"? "So God created man in his..." (singular verse 27). Thoughts? What does the original Hebrew text translate to? |
|
|
|
Post by fschmidt on Feb 19, 2018 1:10:41 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Feb 19, 2018 1:11:23 GMT
I'm all in support of you seeking that Any conclusions have you drawn yet based on the comments given from everyone in the thread? Thanks Elizabeth. Still early days yet. I hope that Fschmidt will prove to be open-minded and can use his knowledge of Hebrew to decipher a few hidden treasures that were imparted to me by a Baptist minister friend of mine years ago. I fear that at this stage you are too blinkered in your zeal to protect Christian traditions at all costs. You don't know me and I understand your caution. I have a good friend who is a Jehovah's Witness. I studied with him 20 years ago but we are no longer able to talk freely about God because his mind is closed to any sort of free-thought. I do not discount any Christian beliefs and I certainly retain Christian values, but I find the churches stagnant in their quest for deeper truths and unwilling to step beyond their comfort zones. This is why, I believe, that Christian congregations world-wide are shrinking, while the more dynamic Islam is growing. I know it's shrinking but bible says it will for many come in His name but are not really His. I support the decline so the real ones can be present only. |
|
Ponderer
Junior Member
Posts: 62
Likes: 10
Politics: Balance
Religion: Open to all possibilities
Age: Going on 900
|
Post by Ponderer on Feb 19, 2018 1:35:03 GMT
Understood, but does not the origin puzzle you? And what does it mean "in our image" , "in his image he created them"? Does it run deeper than the royal we, and what are we talking about with "image"? It can't surely be physical likeness, but like minds? In what way are our minds "in the image of God"? |
|
