Stephen T-B

"Ishmael had been sent away, so, at the time of the ascent of Mt Moriah, Isaac was Abraham's only son as practical family. I don't see any material objection to the use of the phrase" (Clouseau).

Not perceiving the true horror in the story of Abraham and Isaac requires an energetic ability to equivocate.
Which also explains the above statement.

Cege

You've lost me. Are you making a comparison of the number of Abraham's sons to the number of Jehovah's?

Genesis only describes one God telling Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. And only one angel of God comes to Isaac's rescue just as Abraham raises the knife to kill Isaac, where he's bound and lying on the altar.

aa5874

Now just imagine some fundies perhaps, got the same vision that God told them to kill their sons. We would have a lot of dead people since no god would really stop them.

Koyaanisqatsi

I have and you've carefully avoided dealing with the fact that Abraham kills his son in his heart and mind and action, but for God stopping the actual kill, because it's not necessary. Indeed, the whole of it is not necessary for either God or Abraham.

Just as killing Jesus would not be necessary, but God did not stop the killing of Jesus (aka, himself).

The story of Abraham is diametrically opposed to the story of Jesus and therefore could not possibly be any kind of prophetic tale, except by those intent on forcing a comparison where one doesn't exist.

The reality of Jesus' story (if there is one) is that of a radical, likely insurrectionist Rabbi killed by the Romans.

The reality of Abraham's story (if there is one) is that of a schizophrenic who hears a voice telling him to kill his own son, which then tells him to stop right at the moment when he was about to.

:huh:

Koyaanisqatsi

Supposedly, yes, it was in the early stages and certainly just after Jesus' alleged death, but the point was, of course, that "oral tradition" is rife with aggrandizement and memory loss and just plain getting shit wrong from telling to telling to telling, generation to generation to generation.

Koyaanisqatsi

That makes no sense at all. God already knew Abraham had strong faith, which axiomatically means Abraham knew this as well. Testing him in such a way was needlessly cruel as it would have left Abraham with the knowledge that his god had pointlessly tested him to the point of killing his own son.

The only "lesson" Abraham would have found out about himself is that he was capable of killing his own son for no reason. That's horrifically evil no matter how you slice it.

As others pointed out, Isaac was not Abraham's only son and since god supposedly stayed his hand, that could only mean that the generations of Jewish people (aka, the "chosen people") would be physically forthcoming; not that, through "belief" in Isaac would future generations of non-Jews be saved.

No, once again, the staying of the sacrifice. Isaac's life was not sacrificed, because God did not need for it to actually come to pass for Isaac to be the conduit of future generations of "chosen poeple," but why that matter, right?

To burn himself with, without his knowledge as a burnt offering. Jesus was not burned to death.

In Isaac, who was, once again, not sacrificed as there was no need to. The intent was horrifically all that Yahweh required for no reason benefiting either Yahweh or Abraham.



Which alone stays the actual sacrifice. Why? Because God's God, of course, and therefore doesn't need to actually have a human sacrifice to grant any damn thing he wants.

And an excessively stupid person to believe that God sacrificing himself to himself as a necessary condition to save humantiy from himself could have anything at all with God stopping the sacrifice of himself (the present but absent "lamb" in Isaac) a thousand years earlier.

Not to mention the fact that everything you're alluding to must mean that Isaac was the Jesus of his day, which would make Jesus' exsitence and death utterly pointless.

Well, that's clear. Probably the only clear thing you've written.

So, let's recap the "motifs" from Genesis: A God needlessly forcing a man he knows to have strong faith to kill his own son to prove it and upon actually attempting it, stays his hand, because the intent was all that was necessary and through his son the "chosen people" shall build a great nation.

Motifs from Mark: A God needlessly transubstantiates into flesh to kill himself as a necessary sacrifice to himself to save all of us from his wrath with no hand stayed and the "chosen poeple" are blamed, thereby destroying any hopes of building a great nation.

Diametrically opposed outcomes with nothing similar to the stories at all, other than God is evidently insane.

Amaleq13

The story of Abraham and Isaac has an arguably stronger parallel to the Islamic version of the passion events since, IIRC, Jesus is not sacrificed but has a substitute take his place.

Chili

Sure, but the best thing Abraham ever did was to raise the ax and the best thing that ever happened to Jesus is that they crucified him.

The raising of the ax was a metaphor wherein the last straw is drawn and returns a yied. I actually never read the story but I suspect that Isaac was the first born here spared of his life. This would be the equivalent of Joseph's sensus wich also was an act of desparation but the only right thing to do (unless you believe that people actually were counted in places where they used to live).

storytime

Where in the KJV does it say that? Righteousness was accounted to Abraham because he believed and obeyed God. Both faith and works exampled.

But.. you might also want to consider that Abraham might have put his thinking cap on and thought: humm, if I kill my only son left, Isaac, who will cook my meals and care for me when I am old. Abraham had already sent his other sons away to start their own tribal nations. Isaac was the only son left.

andy5

Perhaps this is just the nut in me, but I just keep worrying about all the parallels-I don't know if this is like the ink blot thing, but you have metal, the knife, which is like the nails, and wood, being carried by Isaac, like the cross, and it's also possible they burned the cross like they were going to burn Isaac. Also, Isaac was young so maybe he hadn't sinned yet like Jesus, and then Ishmael he could be like the Devil see, the bad son. And of course, perhaps at some point in his life, Isaac may have been around or been a Shepherd or worked with wood. Now am I nuts, or brilliant for finding all of this?