It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

God said to Abraham

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 01:17 PM
link   
So God told Abraham, "kill me a son" .

And so it was.

And there it is and shall be, eternally on the mount.

But if God can see the future, or rather.. create the future through the actions of his children on Earth in the Present, certainly he must've known that letting Abraham attempt to sacrifice a son would cause the single greatest wedge in the history of the Abrahamic Monotheistic Faiths!

The Muslims insist it was Ishmael the first born, not Isaac, that was offered up. I honestly side with them on this one. I think it would be natural to give your BEST to God .. and your first born is most important. It makes sense.

The Jews insist that it was Isaac, the second born, but first born in wedlock and not of an Egyptian Slave Girl, like Ishmael was. Abe was big pimping. I guess being circumsized in a world of foreskins had it's benefits with the ladies ..
as we come to see later on that David and Solomon, his heir, would both succumb to blatant and outrageous amounts of extra-marital sex with multiple women, which drove Solomon to worshipping Idols in his old age! Crazyness. The WISDOM of Solomon .. defeated by a harlot.

Anyways, God musta knew this was going to be a major splitting point in the two religions, and if it werent there, and both teh Jews and Muslims agreed on what actually happened and which son was offered up for sacrifice, we could have some real Inter-Faith understanding and dialogue develop that just cant right now due to the hatred and brick wall mentality on all sides.

One can only think .. perhaps it was done by God on purpose?

But then again, it was MAN who wrote these texts, carried them through the ages, re-writing and re-writing them. The problem in the ancient scripture specimens differing on which son was offered up, Isaac or Ishmael, wasn't created by God, it was created by Man when Men made errors and some wrote "Ishmael" while others wrote "Isaac". Or one group knew the truth and put a lie into their version of the texts. We will never know which son was actually offered up .. and this will forever be a wedge between Islam and Israel, as well as the Jewish World Community. Such a shame..




posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 01:37 PM
link   

I think it would be natural to give your BEST to God .. and your first born is most important. It makes sense.


Except that Ishmael was born of a concubine, not Abraham's wife, and was not the promised son of God. Ishmael was Abraham and Sarah's attempts at forcing God's promise to come true on their terms instead of waiting on the Lord. Isaac was the promise of God delivered in God's timing through His covenant with Abraham via Abe's wife. The one born in the bounds of God's will is, therefore, the greater.



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 08:19 PM
link   


Except that Ishmael was born of a concubine, not Abraham's wife, and was not the promised son of God. Ishmael was Abraham and Sarah's attempts at forcing God's promise to come true on their terms instead of waiting on the Lord. Isaac was the promise of God delivered in God's timing through His covenant with Abraham via Abe's wife. The one born in the bounds of God's will is, therefore, the greater.


Right, right. This is the Jewish/Christian stance, which you can see is very much different from the Islamic stance, which states that Ishmael was the one.

It's interesting to note that Ishmael moved into Arabia where the Zamzam well is, to father the Arab peoples. Yet Somehow.. the Monotheism was lost, and Arabs continued Pagan practices until 600 A.D.?

And the Lord said Ishmael and his seed would become great hunters, and their hands will be extended against all peoples. (they will be violent toward all foreigners)

Gee, I think Isaac may be the actual one afterall.



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
Except that Ishmael was born of a concubine, not Abraham's wife, and was not the promised son of God. Ishmael was Abraham and Sarah's attempts at forcing God's promise to come true on their terms instead of waiting on the Lord.


I'm sure we can both agree that previous attempts by Abraham to father a child were futile, in regards to both his and Sarah's age. So may I ask, why would God grant them a child through Hagar, if Ismael wasn't meant to be the one God wanted them to have?



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 01:56 PM
link   
Now therein lies some fun theology discussion
Why, indeed?

It begs the question, then, too, though...Why would God allow David to have a child with Bathsheba if He was only going to allow the child to die? Why would He still have had Solomon, David and Bathsheba's second child, be the appointed king of Israel though Solomon wasn't David's first, and was, in fact, born through a marriage of adultery, murder and sin? Why would David be the one anointed to be king after Saul though he was the youngest and smallest of 7 sons?

Why would God raise Joseph over his brothers and father, though he was the youngest in the family?

Just some other questions to marvel at. God does not always honor what the world says is best because He sees the universe in a far different light than we. God did tell Hagar He would provide for Ishmael and make nations from him, though. In Genesis 15:16-17, though, God clearly states His purpose with Isaac:


God also said to Abraham, "As for Sarai your wife, you are no longer to call her Sarai; her name will be Sarah. 16 I will bless her and will surely give you a son by her. I will bless her so that she will be the mother of nations; kings of peoples will come from her."


God goes on and states (emphasis mine).


And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him; I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers. He will be the father of twelve rulers, and I will make him into a great nation. But my covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah will bear to you by this time next year."(Gen 17:20-21)


Finally, we have in Genesis 22:2


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."


At the time God told Abraham this, Hagar and Ishmael had already been sent out of the house by Sarah -- they were not there anymore. So even if Abraham somehow misunderstood God, there'd be no way he could have taken Ishmael as he was in Egypt now (or at least married to an Egyptian wife).



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by junglejake
 


The Islamic reply to what you said, junglejake (as far as I understand it) is that God's covenant with Abraham was in reference to HIS seed, and did not specify any mother.

I've also heard it said of Gen 22:2 that since Isaac was not Abraham's only son (and why would God ignore Ishmael after acknowledging him?), the event of sacrificing was before Isaac's birth, and thus was with Ishmael.



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by babloyi
I've also heard it said of Gen 22:2 that since Isaac was not Abraham's only son [removed to be addressed in a moment] the event of sacrificing was before Isaac's birth, and thus was with Ishmael.


The problem with that is there's no scriptural evidence pointing to that, and it breaks the chronology of the narrative. That's not so much expository (basing a teaching out of scripture) as much as it is finding scripture to match a teaching. I'm not saying it can't be so, just that one would have to start with the premise that it was Ishmael and not Isaac that was to be sacrificed in order to see it that way, rather than taking what scripture says in the context of where it says that and going from there. Everything up to that point and following that point is chronological -- why the sudden break at that moment?

Which leads to the question I removed from your quote above to address now,


(and why would God ignore Ishmael after acknowledging him?)


That's another thing -- before chapter 22 comes chapter 21, where this is directly addressed after Sarah kicks Ishmael and Hagar out of the house:



The child grew and was weaned, and on the day Isaac was weaned Abraham held a great feast. 9 But Sarah saw that the son whom Hagar the Egyptian had borne to Abraham was mocking, and she said to Abraham, "Get rid of that slave woman and her son, for that slave woman's son will never share in the inheritance with my son Isaac."

The matter distressed Abraham greatly because it concerned his son. But God said to him, "Do not be so distressed about the boy and your maidservant. Listen to whatever Sarah tells you, because it is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned. I will make the son of the maidservant into a nation also, because he is your offspring."

14 Early the next morning Abraham took some food and a skin of water and gave them to Hagar. He set them on her shoulders and then sent her off with the boy. She went on her way and wandered in the desert of Beersheba.

When the water in the skin was gone, she put the boy under one of the bushes. Then she went off and sat down nearby, about a bowshot away, for she thought, "I cannot watch the boy die." And as she sat there nearby, she began to sob.

God heard the boy crying, and the angel of God called to Hagar from heaven and said to her, "What is the matter, Hagar? Do not be afraid; God has heard the boy crying as he lies there. Lift the boy up and take him by the hand, for I will make him into a great nation."

Then God opened her eyes and she saw a well of water. So she went and filled the skin with water and gave the boy a drink. God was with the boy as he grew up. He lived in the desert and became an archer. While he was living in the Desert of Paran, his mother got a wife for him from Egypt.


God was watching over them, and fulfilled His promise. His blessing was upon Ishmael, but His covenant was with Isaac.



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by junglejake
 


As far as I can see, God's covenant was with his seed, and applied to all his offspring and descendants. Ishmael was all these things (and referenced such). I have no idea how to check this up, but I'm 1000% sure that Ishmael was circumcised. Why would he not be? So then after all this, why would God say (and emphasise even), that Isaac was Abraham's only son? If Isaac was more important than Ishmael in some respects, there would be many ways to phrase this, but the least truthful of them would be to disregard Ishmael's lineage. At this point there was nothing about not taking multiple wives. That came later.

It is Sarah who has Hagar and Ishmael removed from their house, not God. God goes along with it (perhaps to prevent enmity between them?), but it doesn't mean that Ishmael is not the son of Abraham. If you take this occasion as sanctioning from God, then what about the previous occasion, where Sarah convinced Abraham to take Hagar as his wife?

It's alright, JJ. I suppose you are right. We are approaching this from different perspectives- I don't consider the bible to be 'Gospel truth'
and you do. I'm just providing the another (and I believe very valid) viewpoint. I guess in the end it all comes down to interpretation.

I guess I'm somewhat interested in this particular subject. I started a thread a long while back about it, but wasn't able to learn as much as I'd like to have, from it.

[edit on 7-9-2007 by babloyi]



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 03:09 PM
link   
Ishmael was circumcised (Genesis 17:23 says so). I'm not sure, though, where this idea comes from that God emphasizes that Isaac is Abe's only son. As was pointed out, God blessed Ishmael's line, but the covenant God made with Abraham, in part that his seed would bless all nations, was held with Isaac. It is the same with Jacob and Esau, where the covenant went with Jacob and did not go with Esau. There was a certain line God set aside.

However, you are right, we are approaching this from different perspectives, but I have to ask. I'm basing these assumptions I have on the Bible, and do believe it to be God breathed...What are you basing your assumptions on?

You mentioned in the end it comes down to interpretation, but interpretation of what?



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 10:46 PM
link   
When in discussion with Christians about what would be considered Christian theology, I try to restrict myself to the Bible:


Originally posted by junglejake
Finally, we have in Genesis 22:2


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."


God's own, very oddly phrased words referring to Isaac as Abe's only son (and Isaac was younger than Ishmael, so at no point in time could he have been Abraham's only son).

[edit on 7-9-2007 by babloyi]



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by babloyi
When in discussion with Christians about what would be considered Christian theology, I try to restrict myself to the Bible


That's understandable, but I'm wondering where you get your understanding from.



posted on Sep, 8 2007 @ 06:16 AM
link   
reply to post by junglejake
 

My understanding comes from plain old logic, I guess. I dislike it when Christians say that the Bible is only understandable/meant for Christians. If God left a message of such importance, why would he condemn so much of humanity from comprehending it?

While I don't believe that the Bible has been 'God breathed', I'm sure it has many nuggets of truth in it, and I'd like to think I'm not approaching it with an attitude of 'this is wrong, that is wrong!'.



posted on Sep, 8 2007 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by babloyi
 



Finally, we have in Genesis 22:2

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."

God's own, very oddly phrased words referring to Isaac as Abe's only son (and Isaac was younger than Ishmael, so at no point in time could he have been Abraham's only son).


This was all a shadow of things to come. The trial of Abraham is a lesson to us. God would give His only begotten Son and for that reason He told Abraham to "Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac".

God was showing that He would sacrifice His only Son for us as He did 1,230 years later, on the same site - Moriah. Moriah means chosen or provided by Yah. This is where the Temple in Zion would be built and where Christ was crucified, Golgatha. (11Chron. 3:1)

Other interesting parallels, showing this was all part of God's plan are:

22:4 Then on the third day Abraham lifted up his eyes......

****** Christ on the third day rose

22:8 And Abraham said, "My son, God will provide Himself a lamb for a burnt offering:....

******* God did provide the Lamb for sacrifice

22:13 And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns:

******* Christ had a crown of thorns on His head.


Ishmael was a son of Abraham but he was of mixed blood and the line to Christ had to be pure. Only through Isaac would the "seed be called". (Rom.9:7)



.........Whirlwind



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join