Did Abraham go to sacrifice Isaac or Ishmael?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catholic_Dude
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
MikinVa said:
Isaac
Click to expand...
**That is as per bible OT. Bible NT does not talk about it who was sacrificed. Quran and Hadith and the traditions of thousands of years say that it was Ishmael who was sacrificed near the mountains of Makkah well before the birth of Issac. Issac was not even born before the incident of sacrifice.

Please read chapter 37 of quran verses 83 to 112. Even though name of Ishmael is not mentioned there for some special reason, it is shown that it was the first born child who was sacrificed. There was no hope of getting a child from Sarai.

When Abraham sacrificed his only son Ishmael in the way of Allah (God), God was very pleased with him and gave him the good news of the birth of a son from Sarai. That was the second son Issac. The birth of Issac was a blessing from Allah due to the good work of Abraham and Ishmael.**
 
planten said:
Please read chapter 37 of quran verses 83 to 112. Even though name of Ishmael is not mentioned there for some special reason, it is shown that it was the first born child who was sacrificed. There was no hope of getting a child from Sarai.
Click to expand...
Ishmael is not mentioned in the entire chapter and Isaac is because…Isaac was really the one bound just like it says in the Bible.

No big mystery, man-made Muslim tradition is just wrong. Same as it is with all the ritual Salat gestures it says you have to make when you pray and stuff like that. None of that is in the Quran either.
 
MikinVa said:
Isaac
Click to expand...
**That is as per bible OT. Bible NT does not talk about it who was sacrificed. Quran and Hadith and the traditions of thousands of years say that it was Ishmael who was sacrificed near the mountains of Makkah well before the birth of Issac. Issac was not even born before the incident of sacrifice.

Please read chapter 37 of quran verses 83 to 112. Even though name of Ishmael is not mentioned there for some special reason, it is shown that it was the first born child who was sacrificed. There was no hope of getting a child from Sarai.

When Abraham sacrificed his only son Ishmael in the way of Allah (God), God was very pleased with him and gave him the good news of the birth of a son from Sarai. That was the second son Issac. The birth of Issac was a blessing from Allah due to the good work of Abraham and Ishmael.**
 
planten said:
That is as per bible OT. Bible NT does not talk about it who was sacrificed.
Click to expand...
It does.

Hebrews 11:17 By faith** Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac:** and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,

Hebrews 11:18 Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called:

Hebrews 11:19 Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.
 
“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” (Genesis 22:2)

I think that it’s pretty clear that it was Isaac.
 
It is rather blatant that it was Isaac. I didn’t even know there was an argument about this.
 
Valke2 said:
Let’s not exaggerate.
Click to expand...
It’s extremely convenient that thousands of years after the event took place Muslims claim that the starter of their race (Ishmael) was the one who was sacrificed and not Isaac, when any historical evidence that was even close to the time the event took place says it was Isaac. Who are we supposed to believe. I choose to believe Moses who recorded these events how God told him they happened.
 
No argument from me. Isaac is not like his father or his son. He does not change his name, as Jacob/Israel and Abram/Abraham do. He does not travel at God’s instruction. One explanation that I"ve heard is that because of his status as a near sacrifice, Isaac remains apart, as he is in a sense consecrated to God.

When we read the many accounts of God restating His covenant with Isaac, Jacob, and Moses, it clearly emphasizes and re-emphasizes, that the covenant/promise is through the Abraham-Isaac-Jacob branch.

That this is the case is strengthened even further, IMO, by the unbiased treatment of Ishmael. The Torah makes it perfectly clear that Ishmael was Abraham’s son, born before Isaac, and loved by Abraham. ANd let’s not forget that Ishmael is there to bury his father. ANd God does bless his seed.

If the Torah were concerned with stealing Ishmale’s birthright, it could have done a much better job in the “cover up.”

Finally, I’ll repeat what I’ve said before. The Torah is replete with examples of the second son taking what we would think would belong to the first. Seth takes what would have ended up with Cain. Jacob takes from Esau, Issac is given and subjected to what should have gone to the first born. Moses takes the greater role from his older brother. As does Joseph. Rachel takes a higher place than her older sister Leah.
 
Valke2 said:
No argument from me. Isaac is not like his father or his son. He does not change his name, as Jacob/Israel and Abram/Abraham do. He does not travel at God’s instruction. One explanation that I"ve heard is that because of his status as a near sacrifice, Isaac remains apart, as he is in a sense consecrated to God.

When we read the many accounts of God restating His covenant with Isaac, Jacob, and Moses, it clearly emphasizes and re-emphasizes, that the covenant/promise is through the Abraham-Isaac-Jacob branch.

That this is the case is strengthened even further, IMO, by the unbiased treatment of Ishmael. The Torah makes it perfectly clear that Ishmael was Abraham’s son, born before Isaac, and loved by Abraham. ANd let’s not forget that Ishmael is there to bury his father. ANd God does bless his seed.

If the Torah were concerned with stealing Ishmale’s birthright, it could have done a much better job in the “cover up.”

Finally, I’ll repeat what I’ve said before. The Torah is replete with examples of the second son taking what we would think would belong to the first. Seth takes what would have ended up with Cain. Jacob takes from Esau, Issac is given and subjected to what should have gone to the first born. Moses takes the greater role from his older brother. As does Joseph. Rachel takes a higher place than her older sister Leah.
Click to expand...
That sounds correct to me.
 
holdencaulfield said:
That sounds correct to me.
Click to expand...
** Yet the instruction in the OT to bring the first born as offering. It is specially mentioned and it is true and that was practiced. It is further proved by the will of Issac himself. He wanted to bless Esau and not jacob. Was he ignorant?? Why did he try to do that?? Why did he call esau for the blessing? Please do not bring god into what the lady tried to achieve, i.e. the mother of Jacob and esau. And do not make a new rule. Thanks.**
 
planten said:
** Yet the instruction in the OT to bring the first born as offering.** It is specially mentioned and it is true and that was practiced. It is further proved by the will of Issac himself. He wanted to bless Esau and not jacob. Was he ignorant?? Why did he try to do that?? Why did he call esau for the blessing? Please do not bring god into what the lady tried to achieve, i.e. the mother of Jacob and esau. And do not make a new rule. Thanks.
Click to expand...
That’s the covenant of Sinai, after Isaac and Ishmael. But if you want to see it that way, Ishmael was the one who was actually sacrificed, being sent away.

But he still wasn’t the one bound, Isaac was.
 
planten said:
** Yet the instruction in the OT to bring the first born as offering. It is specially mentioned and it is true and that was practiced. It is further proved by the will of Issac himself. He wanted to bless Esau and not jacob. Was he ignorant?? Why did he try to do that?? Why did he call esau for the blessing? Please do not bring god into what the lady tried to achieve, i.e. the mother of Jacob and esau. And do not make a new rule. Thanks.**
Click to expand...
Why don’t you actually read the post about how second borns are often chosen. Furthermore, who cares that it wasn’t the first born. I don’t see how this is debatable.
 
The after thought in bible OT is visible. There is everything being told to the Muslims against Ishamel (in the forums) that:
  1. Ishmael was not the son of abraham.
  2. He was not the legitimate son.
  3. He was not the real son from a wife.
  4. He did not deserve the blessing.
  5. He was not offered for sacrifice.
  6. He was expelled from the house and left to wander…
  7. Being the son of a servant he did not deserve anything.
  8. That he joked with his brother Issac.
  9. That Sarai did not like him and wanted them out of sight.
  10. That he could not be a prophet of God.
  11. That the covenant was with Issac and not with Ishmael.
The covenant was established before Issac was born. How could the covenant be with Issac when he was not even born?? That seems to be an after thought of the writers of the bible OT. There are so many other things in the bible OT that seem to be not in proper place.

We Muslims believe that the covenant was with the children of Abraham. So it was with Ishamel and also with Issac. Believe it or not.
 
planten said:
The after thought in bible OT is visible. There is everything being told to the Muslims against Ishamel (in the forums) that:
  1. Ishmael was not the son of abraham.
  2. He was not the legitimate son.
  3. He was not the real son from a wife.
  4. He did not deserve the blessing.
  5. He was not offered for sacrifice.
  6. He was expelled from the house and left to wander…
  7. Being the son of a servant he did not deserve anything.
  8. That he joked with his brother Issac.
  9. That Sarai did not like him and wanted them out of sight.
  10. That he could not be a prophet of God.
  11. That the covenant was with Issac and not with Ishmael.
The covenant was established before Issac was born. How could the covenant be with Issac when he was not even born?? That seems to be an after thought of the writers of the bible OT. There are so many other things in the bible OT that seem to be not in proper place.

We Muslims believe that the covenant was with the children of Abraham. So it was with Ishamel and also with Issac. Believe it or not.
Click to expand...
Moses hadn’t even brought done the Law at this point, what are you talking about. And just so you know they are right. Ishmael isn’t even a legitimate son of Abraham.
 
holdencaulfield said:
Moses hadn’t even brought done the Law at this point, what are you talking about. And just so you know they are right. Ishmael isn’t even a legitimate son of Abraham.
Click to expand...
That has proved my point (No.2) in my post about the attitude of the christains towards islam.
 
After 271 posts, we still haven’t agreed on who was the sacrificial lamb huh? If this is a three game tennis match, the Jew and the Christian are hand down the winner: 2 to 1. For thousand of years, the Jewish tradition says it was Isaac. So was the Christian religion which grew out of the Jewish tradition. Then, just one man, Mohammad came along and said, “Hold on! It was Ishmael.” So, do you think we gonna believe him? So, Isaac was a lie? Thousands of Abraham’s descendants were misled by the old man himself? I think this story is a perfect scribe for another Hollywood blockbuster.
 
MugenOne said:
After 271 posts, we still haven’t agreed on who was the sacrificial lamb huh? If this is a three game tennis match, the Jew and the Christian are hand down the winner: 2 to 1. For thousand of years, the Jewish tradition says it was Isaac. So was the Christian religion which grew out of the Jewish tradition. Then, just one man, Mohammad came along and said, “Hold on! It was Ishmael.” So, do you think we gonna believe him? So, Isaac was a lie? Thousands of Abraham’s descendants were misled by the old man himself? I think this story is a perfect scribe for another Hollywood blockbuster.
Click to expand...
**It is not a story of winning or losing something. The whole attitude of the christians goes against the Muslims and the humanity. It is true that the Jews say it was Issac. The Muslims say it was Ishmael. So leave it at that. Leave the christians out of this matter. They are niether here nor there. There is nothing about the sacrifice matter in the bible NT. Not more than a word of some person.

About the OT, it is not a holy book. In that there is blessing through teachery and biased writings against some people, cannot be a holy book. While the sons of Jacob through maidservants are being blessed, the son of Abraham through maid is denied anything and there is so much teaching against that man of God (Ishmael) that he is not even counted as a legitimate son of his father. Due to that I do not believe the bible to be holy.

The first and foremost job of a religion is to be just and honest. Where is justice and honesty in those bibles? Let the neutral minds decide.**
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top