Von Smith

I'm sure that Clouseau has a plan.

A plan zat cannot possibly fail. *winks*

J-D

I am not sure how it affects the argument, because I am not sure exactly what the argument here is, but I think it is worth noting that ants and termites, despite being social animals, cannot be trained to know right and wrong. Whether a particular human being regards theft, or cannibalism, or homosexuality, as right or wrong may depend on how that human being has been trained, but it is nevertheless a fact about the biology of human beings that they can be so trained, which is biologically not true of all animals.

Amaleq13

It makes little sense to refer to a "convincing argument" in relation to someone already convinced of a conclusion. Certain believers might very well consider what you have described as reinforcing their existing beliefs while, to anyone applying even a modicum of critical thought, however, it should become apparent that the similarities are vague and weak while the differences are plentiful and significant.

There does not appear to be any rational basis for concluding there to be any direct connection between the two stories.

If you prefer conclusions that are defensible with rational thought and logic, you should not believe that there is any direct connection between the stories.

No, only one "side" makes no sense but it appears to be the one you prefer and that is what confuses you.

andy5

Believe me, I'd rather believe it's nothing. Could we propose then, that whoever it is who wrote the first account which began to extrapolate on the legend of Jesus, first and foremost caught upon the idea that he was carrying something with which he was to be executed, noticed the similarity to Isaac carrying his wood, and then went from there making up everything about Jesus that was similar to and apparently foretold by the said parallels? To me, this seems the only logical conclusion.

The Evil One

andy5, the reason you are not getting a lot of terribly serious responses (Amaleq's being an honourable exception) is that the problem you are fretting about is not a problem.

The parallel that flabbergasts you is something that you are reading into the text. The rest of us don't see it.

The correspondances between the two stories are just not that strong to start with. There is no persuasive parallel in need of explanation.

(I tried to explain this in my previous post.)

IF there was actually a persuasive parallel THEN AND ONLY THEN would it make sense to start wondering whether the parallel was prophetic, or whether the crucifiction account had been rigged to create the parallel, as you suggest. (And one would of course have to conclude the latter, for the sake of parsimony.)

But there isn't a persuasive parallel. So the question you are worrying about is, therefore, irrelevant.

andy5

Alright, I understand-so you are saying, you would believe the crucifixion didn't happen before you would believe my hypothesis 2 posts ago? I just really wanted to get the general opinion on that, because disproving the crucifixion as seen in other threads is a real sticking point I guess and I assume to generally be the one thing that had to be true, along with elements of Jesus' ministry and whatnot, for everything else to have basis.I realize again there are arguments about this but I believe you were the one who said you didn't necessarily buy those who said the whole thing started out as a symbolic tale-therefore in the context of arguing with a die hard believer and giving them every benefit of a doubt, I am trying to get a silver bullet argument that will defeat them no matter what.

J-D

andy5, I don't think you have fully grasped the point The Evil One was making.

Let me see if this helps to clarify it.

Why don't you try simply listing, one at a time (and not all run together in a single block paragraph of text), all the parallels you see between the Binding of Isaac story and the Crucifixion of Jesus story.

I think you will find that there just aren't many, or that any there are highly generalised. (I mean, they are both stories with a 'human sacrifice' motif, but there is nothing particularly noteworthy about that, because there are lots of stories with that motif.)

andy5

I grasp it-I understand it, I am saying that that would not be good enough for an inerrantist. They would say whatever parallels there are are enough. Period. You know them. I am trying to put them in a corner which is why I'm asking what I've been asking. You've seen Clouseau on this thread, whatever similarities there were he listed earlier and they were good enough for him. I am attempting to counter that argument because that is the one I have been implanted with from birth and so to myself and anyone else I should argue with I need this, this rock solid alternative which is likely, which distinctly says if there are similarities, here's why-because they based Jesus on this story. Now earlier someone else said yes, that was true. One person I believe, but it appears most of you say it's not likely, it's too general, there's no connection. But for my particular place which is much worse than any of you think, I am asking these harder questions because in my mind, I cannot rest at just not likely. The alternative has to be presented as likely-that either the crucifixion was not true, or my hypothesis is. Now unless someone else here says they concur with one of those things, I am going to go certifiably insane in a matter of days.

J-D

OK, let's run through these.

In the story of Isaac we have a promise that his father will have countless descendants through him.
In the story of Jesus we have no such promise, so far as I know.
(I see no parallel here.)

In the story of Isaac we have the motif of human sacrifice.
In the story of Jesus we have the motif of human sacrifice.
(Not noteworthy, given the commonness of human sacrifice in real life, and as a motif in stories.)

In the story, Isaac carries the wood for the burning to the place for the sacrifice.
In the story, Jesus carries the wooden crosspiece for the crucifixion to the place for the sacrifice.
(Interesting, but I am prepared to regard it as coincidence. Is that too much to swallow?)

In the story Isaac asks where the sacrificial lamb is and is told that God will provide it.
In the story Jesus is sometimes referred to as a lamb, but apparently he knows perfectly well that he is the designated sacrifice and does not ask about any apparent absence of a lamb.
(Given that we have two stories with a human sacrifice motif, it is hardly surprising that both use analogies of the human to a sacrificial (non-human) animal. In any closer analysis, the parallel breaks down.)

In the story of Isaac, an actual sacrificial (non-human) animal is substituted for the human.
In the story of Jesus, no such substitution takes place.
(I see no parallel. In fact, this seems to me a clear disanalogy between the stories. We would get closer to a parallel if we used the Islamic stories.)

In the story of Isaac, Abraham is willing to sacrifice his only son.
In the story of Jesus, God is (apparently) willing to sacrifice his only son.
(Well, we already had the fact that these were two 'human sacrifice' stories. The 'only son' element--if we accept Isaac as in some sense an only son, ignoring the problems with this--is more specific, but I still don't think it's very noteworthy. So far as the element of willingness goes, I think the parallel is not that close: the Isaac story emphasises the willingness of the father rather than the son, the Jesus story emphasises the willingness of the son rather than the father.)

So what have we got? Two stories about a father's willlingness (but see caveat above) to sacrifice his only son as if he were a sacrificial (non-human) animal. Given the commonness of human sacrifice in fact and story, I don't think that's very striking. The only genuinely independent parallel detail is the bit about carrying the wood, and that's not enough to impress me. I can swallow the possibility of that much coincidence. After all, carrying wood is also a common human activity. And the fact that one sacrifice really is carried through and the other really isn't is, to me, a striking disanalogy.

Amaleq13

That is not the impression I have obtained from your posts.

Stop here. It is my understanding this was not an uncommon requirement of crucifixion victims. This is the instrinsic reason for Jesus to carry his cross. IOW, there is no good reason to look elsewhere for an explanation.

A Christian noticed the vague similarity with Isaac carrying the wood for his pyre and went on to impose as many other vague, at best, similarities as he could imagine upon the text.

That is the only logical conclusion.

There is nominal difference between this exercise and the appearance of Jesus' face on a stain on a garage floor.