Abraham - true prophet of God or something else??

And it came to pass after the death of Abraham, that God blessed his son Isaac; and Isaac dwelt by the well Lahairoi.

rom12345
At the beginning of it all, is a "god" that would demand a father kill his son, or other animal.
A supreme being would not need such things, or trick people into attempted and or murder.
I'm not saying there is not concept of GOD, but this trickster in the bible, koran etc, is not IT

Why would God demand it of Himself and His Son? Probably because He is God. You call a God with that sort of dedication to His creation a "trickster".

You and some others here in this discussion need to consider that this topic is over your heads.

reply to post by babloyi


It's bad enough that the Old Testament version of the Abraham event wasn't written down until 1500 years after Abraham supposedly lived. So that version can't be looked upon as accurate. The Muslim version was written down over 2000 years after the supposed events. That's not reliable either.

In both the Old Testament folklore and the Qu'ran fiction ... a grown man hears voices telling him to kill his son, and the man attempts to do so. That's just insane. The peasants of 2000 BC may have thought that the voices they heard in their heads were actually God or whatever, but nowadays we are educated enough about the human body to know that it's just classic mental health issues.

reply to post by FlyersFan

As I've mentioned before, I'm not quite sure how time since revelation is a relevant factor of trustworthiness of scripture. If you believe it, you do, and it is true because God wrote/inpired it, if you don't, there is going to be no definitive proof, because all we have are copies of copies after the fact. None of the scriptures of the world can be proven to be true through historicity- the events surrounding (and in most cases even the existence of) Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Arjuna, Buddha and Muhammad and so on are all in the air.

Still, not sure how written tradition has some how become the epitome of proof, especially considering that we're talking about a region of the world that emphasised oral tradition, and not written.

babloyi
I'm not quite sure how time since revelation is a relevant factor of trustworthiness of scripture.

You can't see how having 1,500 years of 'oral tradition' being passed down doesn't leave it wide open for MASSIVE changes to the story and leave it open for MASSIVE errors and embellishments?

Heck, when something happens that police need information on, they get it written down within a few days, otherwise they know the eyewitness will be unreliable ... let alone 1500 years later.

And that's the Old Testament. The QU'ran is even further out ... 2,000 years later. And it contradicts the Old Testament.

Neither is reliable.

babloyi
we're talking about a region of the world that emphasised oral tradition, and not written.

ORAL tradition = unreliable. It doesn't matter how much someone supposedly 'emphasised' it.
It's still unreliable. And 1500 years of a story being retold .... YIKES.

Haven't you ever played the 'telephone' game aa a child?
Get 20 kids in a line. Whisper a word or two in the first childs ear. The words then get
whispered by the child into the next ear ... who whispers the words into the ear of the next
child ... and so on down the line. By the time the 20th child hears the word, it's never the same.

reply to post by FlyersFan

"Oral tradition" isn't a game of chinese whispers (or "telephone", neither of which I actually played as a kid, actually..how boring that'd be ) or a police report. It isn't random, untrained people (or children with an obvious desire to make a game more interesting), passing on a story. It is a dedicated set of poets and storytellers keeping alive tradition and entertaining those "peasants" you are so dismissive about. I'm not sure you're aware and how good the human memory is at passing on these things, especially when in the form of songs or rhythmic stories. There are tribes in south america without a written language that had their genesis stories noted down by the early explorers, that still match those recorded today- a much shorter time-frame, but still a good example.

Embellishments would occur, of course, especially over the course of 2000 years, although probably less likely in religious tales with such strong emphasis on the immutability of God's word, but that happens in writing as well.

None of this is really on topic, though, except tangentially. As I said, historicity doesn't really play a part in people's beliefs of these scriptures. If they believe, then God wrote/inspired it, and thus it is true (like your attitude towards the Gospels), if they don't believe, then it doesn't matter, and is likely untrue (like your attitude towards the Hebrew and Islamic Scriptures).

Which begs the question: Is your thread about the historicity of Abraham (which admittedly, cannot be proven, along with the Moses, Jesus, Buddha, Arjuna and so on), or about Jewish, Christian and Muslim (who accept his existence, or at least the message that the story is giving) interpretations of his actions?

reply to post by newincubus

Text Likewise i also had this concern for days. so as I was going through the Quran I found a clue that God never said to slay his son, but Abraham . he himself had a dream, and he thought God has said to slay his son , and he misjudged and tried to kill his son at that moment God has said '' you have believed and trusted your dream '' that is how Quran mentions that... see! ..( 37 :105) '' You have fulfilled the dream!"

@ newincubus

I have a question that perhaps you can answer. After reading your explanation as to Abraham having a dream, i searched through about three sources of the Hebrew manuscripts and found nothing that even hints of Abraham having a dream and being in error of G-d's intent.

Why would the Quran tell a different story than Torah and which is the true account in your opinion?

reply to post by Seede

Hey Seede!
Since newincubus was last active about a month ago, perhaps I can help you here.
The passage that he(?) quoted was this (apologies in advance for the large quote):

Surah As-Saffat, verses 100-109
"My Lord, grant me a child from among the righteous".
So We gave him good tidings of a forbearing boy.
And when he reached the age of working with him, he said, "O my son, indeed I have seen in a dream that I sacrifice you, so see what you think." He said, "O my father, do as you are commanded. You will find me, God-willing, of the steadfast".
And when they had both submitted and he put him down upon his forehead,
We called to him, "O Abraham,
You have fulfilled the vision".
We thus reward the doers of good.
Indeed, this was the clear trial.
And We ransomed him with a great sacrifice,
and We left for him favourable mention among later generations:
"Peace upon Abraham".

I suppose you could understand it to be showing that Abraham mistakenly interpreted a dream to mean that he was meant to kill his son.
The way I read it is that he told his son "I dreamt a vision of me sacrificing you, what do you say?" and his son replies "Do as you are commanded", so he does his preparations, lays his son on the ground, when God says that the vision has been fulfilled, and an animal is sacrificed instead.

@op.......... You will notice that pretty much every prophet 'saw' or 'heard' things. Today, anybody who claims to have heard God or seen an angel would be dismissed as insane or a fraud. Given how you question Abrahams sanity (among other things), you have aligned yourself with the likes of atheists and anti-christians. You believe in Jesus but not the men he spoke of. A perfect illustration of salad bar christianity... Help yourself only to the bits that appear tasty.

babloyi
Embellishments would occur, of course, especially over the course of 2000 years, although probably less likely in religious tales with such strong emphasis on the immutability of God's word, but that happens in writing as well.

Embellishments would occur, of course, especially over the course of 2000 years and is probably MORE likely in religious tales where people get emotionally worked up over them. And errors occur over the thousands of years as well. People hear wrong and pass on the wrong information. People misunderstand and pass along them misunderstanding. People make things up and take things away. It's human nature and human failing. The stories about Abraham are totally unreliable. AND THEY DON"T EVEN MATCH. That in of itself is proof that the telling and retellings got screwed up.

Take a look at the written bibles of today. A tweak here or there ... a word changed here or there ... and then the next generation of bibles are based off the changed ones and they in turn tweak a word or phrase here or there. Etc etc etc. Time changes even the written word let alone the spoken one over 1500 years. It's impossible for the Abraham story to be accurate or reliable at all.

Is your thread about ....

Based on the Old Testament stories - was Abraham a prophet of God or something else? It's very simple. (The Qu'ran doesn't even enter into the question because it was fabricated 'out of the blue' a thousand years after the Abraham folklore was written down for the Old Testament)

Does someone hearing voices telling him to kill his kid, with religious overtones to the event, mean that he's a prophet of God or just insane?

Just because someone is religious when they hallucinate, doesn't mean that the religious hallucinations are authentic. LOTS of people over the centuries have hallucinated religious themes that had a deadly twist. It doesn't make them prophets. It just makes them very sick people.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

.... says the guy who disregards the eyewitness accounts of the life of Christ as recorded in the gospels by Christ's followers and the followers of those eyewitness' ... and yet you hug on the fabrications of the life of Jesus as invented by a mass murdering thief 600 years later. Yeah ... salad bar ... how's it taste?

@op......... According to you, oral traditions that were the foundation of the OT....are ''chinese whispers'' and thereby unreliable....... But the timing of the new testament is *just* perfect, right? You are a salad bar christian because you leave out the references to Abraham EVEN in the New Testament.

sk0rpi0n
But the timing of the new testament is *just* perfect, right?

The New Testament gospels were written down by eyewitness or were testified to by eyewitness and written down by their followers. That's a hell of a lot more reliable then 1500 years of oral retellings of Abraham that get changed over and over and over ...

You are a salad bar christian because you leave out the references to Abraham EVEN in the New Testament.

Wrong. Jesus said 'before Abraham I am'. That doesn't validate any of the Abraham stories.
That is Jesus using the name of God for himself (I am) and that was Jesus verifying that he
predates Abraham and, according to Judaism, only God can predate and say that He came
down from Heaven to Earth like that.

YOU ignore the fact that your fictional qu'ran, which was invented 600 years after the life of Christ, contradicts the eyewitness accounts. YOU ignore the fact that your fictional qu'ran, which was invented more than a thousand years after the stories of Abraham were written down, contradict those stories. If anyone is a salad bar follower of God ... it's YOU .

sk0rpi0n
salad bar christianity... Help yourself only to the bits that appear tasty.

Common sense ... throw out the rotten lettuce or cucumbers (old testament myths and folklore) ... and keep only that which is good and hasn't rotted (gospels). The entire qu'ran salad has rotted. You should toss it and get something fresh and good for you. To do otherwise is just poisoning yourself.

reply to post by FlyersFan

If your question was based purely on the OT, and you're going to disregard the Muslim sources, then it is a little disingenuous to mockingly refer to a Muslim festival celebrating the muslim interpretation of Abraham's actions.

And as I've mentioned before, there were no "eye-witness accounts". The NT is just as valid (or invalid) as the OT, as the Buddhavacana, as the Vedas, and so on. It is quite interesting how you apply such a critical eye to other scriptures, while giving the one you consider true a pass.

Jesus mentioned something about beams in eyes, yeah?

babloyi
If your question was based purely on the OT, and you're going to disregard the Muslim sources, then it is a little disingenuous to mockingly refer to a Muslim festival celebrating the muslim interpretation of Abraham's actions.

No it's not. It was brought up in the conversation. It's not part of the original discussion.

I get that you being a Muslim are all hyped up about Abraham and that you think it's a great thing that he tried to murder his kid because 'voices' told him to ... But we aren't uneducated peasants anymore and we understand how the brain works much better. Mental illness is a much more likely explanation for Abrahams alleged actions, then God telling him to murder his kid and burn the body on an altar. You really think God would be happy about a parent murdering a scared child and burning up the body in an offering? That's one sick God ...

there were no "eye-witness accounts". The NT is just as valid (or invalid) as the OT, as the Buddhavacana, as the Vedas, and so on.

The Gospels were written by eyewitness and/or were written by those who spoke to eyewitness. It's much more reliable than Abrahamic oral folklore stories that were passed around (and you admit they were changed) for 1500 years before being written down. Night and day difference.

It is quite interesting how you apply such a critical eye to other scriptures, while giving the one you consider true a pass.

I gave the same critical eye to the gospels as I did to the rest of the Christian bible ... and the Qu'ran and the Vedas and _____ (fill in the blank with a religious text of choice). Old Testament = large chunks easily debunked and unimportant. Gospels = much more reliable and not debunked (yet) so it's okay to believe it. New Testament = keep what makes sense but be aware of agenda and that it's not directly from Christ. Qu'ran = man made agenda filled fiction invented hundreds of years later so not worthy of listening to. Vedas = VERY interesting reading but not something to base a faith on.

Jesus mentioned something about beams in eyes,

Straw man. Jesus never said to buy into that which can be debunked. Blind faith in something that can be disproven .... that's not 'having faith' ... that's just being stupid.

reply to post by FlyersFan

FlyersFan
No it's not. It was brought up in the conversation. It's not part of the original discussion.

Actually, you specifically mentioned and questioned muslim understanding of the events in your initial post, and then yourself brought up the Muslim festival later.

FlyersFan
I get that you being a Muslim are all hyped up about Abraham and that you think it's a great thing that he tried to murder his kid because 'voices' told him to ... But we aren't uneducated peasants anymore and we understand how the brain works much better.

I have made no judgement about Abraham yet anywhere in this thread. I've simply posted neutral facts about sources. You really do seem to have a thing against poor people, though...

FlyersFan
Mental illness is a much more likely explanation for Abrahams alleged actions, then God telling him to murder his kid and burn the body on an altar. You really think God would be happy about a parent murdering a scared child and burning up the body in an offering? That's one sick God ...

Errr...have you read the Hebrew Scriptures? God didn't "get happy about a parent murdering a scared child".

FlyersFan
The Gospels were written by eyewitness and/or were written by those who spoke to eyewitness. It's much more reliable than Abrahamic oral folklore stories that were passed around (and you admit they were changed) for 1500 years before being written down. Night and day difference.

The Gospels were not written by eyewitnesses. I'm sorry, but there it is. They weren't. There is no evidence of them being written by "those who spoke to eyewitnesses" either. The earliest fragment of a manuscript we have is from the 2nd century, over a hundred years after Jesus's mission on earth.

FlyersFan
I gave the same critical eye to the gospels as I did to the rest of the Christian bible ... and the Qu'ran and the Vedas and _____ (fill in the blank with a religious text of choice). Old Testament = large chunks easily debunked and unimportant. Gospels = much more reliable and not debunked (yet) so it's okay to believe it. New Testament = keep what makes sense but be aware of agenda and that it's not directly from Christ.

Hahaha...sure you did. Totally not debunked yet. Alright, then, if you're willing to cater to my curiousity, what exactly, from the New Testament do you accept? Is it only those specific instances where Jesus speaks that are accepted (a sort of Red-letter christian)? Or do you accept certain books even though none of the authors is Jesus, or people who knew Jesus? We start out with 27 books, I seem to remember you disregard Revelations, so that is 26. Or do you simply pick portions of scripture from within books, even?

It is all very well to claim to be above it all and use a rationalist high-minded critical eye to judge the scriptures and only accept that which "has proof", but if you do that, you don't have any Christian scripture left.

Segue back to the topic at hand, because even in red letter bibles, Jesus himself spoke of Abraham as a real person, in a positive light, and his disciples (and whoever wrote the NT) also spoke of him in a positive light as well.

FlyersFan

Jesus mentioned something about beams in eyes,

Straw man. Jesus never said to buy into that which can be debunked. Blind faith in something that can be disproven .... that's not 'having faith' ... that's just being stupid.

Having faith? Who said anything about having faith? Do you even know what quotation of Jesus I am talking about?

TextHey Seede!
Since newincubus was last active about a month ago, perhaps I can help you here.
The passage that he(?) quoted was this (apologies in advance for the large quote):

reply to post by babloyi


Thank you babloyi for your prompt answer.

I don't really have a a convincing answer to the OP's thread. Was simply interested in knowing.

Thanks again.

reply to post by FlyersFan

YOU ignore the fact that your fictional qu'ran, which was invented 600 years after the life of Christ,

You think the Old Testament and its foundational oral traditions are too old and faulty.... the Koran is too new and therefore faulty.

But a 2,000 year old compilation - in the middle of the OT and the Koran - is just perfect. You claim to follow the New Testament, YET you doubt the virgin birth of Jesus and the OT figures mentioned in the NT. Superb.

sk0rpi0n
You think the Old Testament and its foundational oral traditions are too old and faulty....

The Old Testament has been mostly PROVEN FALSE, and much of the rest is UNRELIABLE.
Those are facts ... deal with it.

the Koran is too new and therefore faulty.

The QU'ran has been proven to be a fabrication and it was written nearly 700 years after the events of the Gospels .. which it totally contradicts. Therefore it's FAULTY, and UNRELIABLE.

But a 2,000 year old compilation - in the middle of the OT and the Koran - is just perfect.

The gospels were written around the time of the events. It's MUCH more reliable.

Typical skorpion ... straw men and lies and attempts at insults that fail.
blah blah blah Seriously dude .. hang it up. It's pathetic.

THE TOPIC .... ALLEGEDLY - Abrahams hearing of voices telling him to murder his son. Abraham catching and binding his son to 'sacrifice him' to the god of the voices. Are these the actions of a sane person or not? It's very simple. Are people who hear religious voices telling them to murder their children and sacrifice them to 'god' prophets or are they insane?

babloyi
have you read the Hebrew Scriptures? God didn't "get happy about a parent murdering a scared child".

Have you?? Abraham thought God ordered him to murder his child. Abraham thought that God would be happy with the sacrifice. And anyone who is tied up and about to be murdered would be scared.

The Gospels were not written by eyewitnesses.

Yes, they were written by those to whom the eyewitness accounts were dictated to. Example - It's the only way Luke could have known the thoughts of Mary .. if he had actually heard the story from Mary herself.

But you'd rather accept the Qu'ran, which was invented nearly 700 years after those events and which totally contradict the gospel accounts which came from those of that time period? Sure. That's logical. (not). But whatever ... enjoy yourself .... believe whatever you wish.

because even in red letter bibles, Jesus himself spoke of Abraham as a real person, in a positive light,

Of course Jesus said that Abraham would be in Heaven. Abrahams mental illness and his murder attempt wouldn't mean that he was an evil person. Mentally ill people can't help their illness any more than a person with prostrate cancer can help that they have cancer.
Quotes Here

And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven

But again .. Jesus did not validate that Abraham was sane when he (allegedly) tried to murder his kid.

THE TOPIC .... ALLEGEDLY - Abrahams hearing of voices telling him to murder his son. Abraham catching and binding his son to 'sacrifice him' to the god of the voices. Are these the actions of a sane person or not? It's very simple. Are people who hear religious voices telling them to murder their children and sacrifice them to 'god' prophets or are they insane?