Timetospend

If you want another reference among many, it might be:
Heb 11:17-20
17 By faith Abraham , when put to the test, offered up Isaac. He who had received the promises was ready to offer up his only son, 18 of whom he had been told, "It is through Isaac that descendants shall be named for you." 19 He considered the fact that God is able even to raise someone from the dead — and figuratively speaking, he did receive him back.
NRSV

WishboneDawn

hmm

WishboneDawn

The quote says nothing about what Abraham considered and imagining he may have been thinking God would raise his son from the dead seems too much of a stretch made by christians too eager for parrallels.

What seems much more consistent with an ancient hebrew view of YHWH is that what was meant was what was said, that God promised Abraham descendents but then seemingly broke his word by demanding Isaac as a sacrifice. It makes the drama of what Abraham has to do even higher. It's not just his beloved son, it's the great promise that God is demanding he destroy. How better to test Abraham's obedience then by making the stakes as high as possible?

Christians did NOT write and tell these stories. Looking for Jesus in the Hebrew Scriptures is akin to looking for predictions of Hitler armed with the 'bible code'.

andy5

Thank you all for your interesting responses. I guess, as I said, I was raised to be a worrier, I probably made my parents re-baptize me at age 10 around 15 times in the bath tub in a period of two weeks-every time I was afraid I had had a bad thought that had invalidated my belief before I got dunked, or something, I guess I had terrets of the mind. Anyway, I'm sure you know many Christians sort of like that, and although my gut tells me now not to buy the Bible, my "conscience" as it has been formed through the years puts the burden of proof on disproving the Bible, and won't rest till there is a silver bullet against everything in there. I guess now my defense mode is saying this-could these people really have followed Jesus, robbed the grave, and then made up a false religion based on this, then go to the trouble of looking through old scriptures and ripping them out of context like they appear to have? I realize it is entirely possible and likely, others make other religions all the time, look at the Book of Mormon, and the leaders make money though they don't appear to live high on the hog with it-they appear to be benevolent there as well. So I realize all of this, but like I said, it helps to talk with others about it because I tend to really go crazy and be unable to live with myself whenever I make big decisions in my life, as I explained earlier.

WishboneDawn

Andy, instead of looking at the bible through a true/false paradigm you could approach it in an entirely different way. Look into textual criticism. Check out alternative christian views.

Cege

Heb 11:17-20
17 By faith Abraham , when put to the test, offered up Isaac. He who had received the promises was ready to offer up his only son...

How was Isaac Abraham's only son at the time he was "put to the test"?

Genesis 16:15: And Hagar bare Abraham a son: and Abram called his son's name, which Hagar bare, Ishmael.

According to Genesis 25:1-2, Abraham had 7 more sons by a new wife after Sarah died.

Baalazel

As far as I can find in scripture God made no promise to Abraham that Isaac would be resurrected. The promises God made to Abraham are these:

Gen. 12: 2 “And I will make of thee a great nation.”

Gen. 13: 15 “For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it.”

Gen. 15: 4 “And behold the word of the Lord came unto him, saying This shall no be thy heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be then heir. And he brought him forth abroad and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the, if you are able to number them ; and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be.”

Gen. 15: 18 “In the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abrham, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the great river of Egypt unto the great river, the great river Euphrates.”

Gen. 17: 4 “As for me, behold my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations.”

Gen.18: 14 “Is anything to hard for the Lord? At the time appointed I will return to thee, according to the time of life, and Sarah shall have a son.”

God made no promise to raise Isaac from the dead. If you are trying to say that it was through Isaac that God would raise nations you need to find a verse that says that. I could not find it reading from Gen. 12 to 18. You may have more luck than I have.

Baal

The Evil One

Actually, what you're dealing with here is probably the worst argument there is against believing the Gospel story as given.

You are right that it stretches credulity that the early followers of Jesus robbed his grave and then made made up the religion to cover it up.

But there are many much better explanations for how we could end up with the Gospel stories we see.

One is the "denial" scenario: the disciples believe that Jesus is the Messiah who will drive out the Romans and restore Israel, so when he is killed their entire worldview is shaken. How could this have happened? Then, let's say, one of them sees a man at a distance who he thinks looks like Jesus. Another has a dream where Jesus comes and speaks to him and assures him that he ISN'T dead. The movement latches onto this as a way of saving their beliefs. Jesus WASN'T defeated, they decide; instead God raised him from the dead and he will return! They will, at this point, believe anything if it allows them to avoid facing the fact of their beloved leader's death.

Over a period of years and decades, the tale grows in the telling and we get stories of the empty tomb, appearances and meetings, and an ascension. Eventually this gets written down by people who weren't direct witnesses to any of it. No one is lying - some are in denial and some are just believing what they have heard from apparently trustworthy people.

Another scenario is the mythical Jesus scenario, where a mystical story about a death-and-resurrection in the spirit realm gets gradually transformed into a story set in Judea under Pilate. I won't go into detail but you can find plenty of discussion of it in this forum (I personally don't entirely buy it, but find the discussions illuminating regarding just how much doubt there is about what actually happened and how much we can know).

I don't think that it is so much of a stretch that early Christians would "go to the trouble of looking through old scriptures and ripping them out of context"... after all that's what plenty of modern Christians do. Have you ever seen how extremist Protestants get their view of the Rapture and Tribulation? It's a verse here, a verse there, ripped out of context and strung together by some 19th century nutjob preacher. The Bible Codes are another, even more extreme example of this kind of thing. The people who do this are convinced their beliefs are correct and they believe the Bible is divine - therefore, it follows that their beliefs must be confirmed in the Bbile, and it's only a matter of finding where. Dodgy logic, of course, but that's the thought process.

So, there you have it. Very few skeptics think the early Christians were liars. There are plenty of explanations for how the gospel story arose based in simple human fallibility and gullibility (and I don't think anyone could argue that human beings are not both fallible and gullible). It is not necessary to argue for intentional deceit.

Clouseau

How very predictable a response.

andy5

Thank you all, I found everything most illuminating and I must say it is nice to be able to discuss these things without fear of reprisals from angry parents, opens up the discussion much more lets say.