Did Abraham Sin in This Thing?

[NotWorthy]

Let’s look at the whole Sacrificial system instituted at Mt. Sinai. These sacrifices were set up to remind Israel not to worship these animals, as they did in Egypt. For over 1000 years, Israel was reminded of the sinfulness of her fathers.

God punishes in numerous different ways, not always calling down a plague of locusts or lightning… for which this humble servant is thankful!

 

[tortdog]

Didn’t someone already mention that he was saddled with Hagar, which would create for numerous generation a little trouble between the Jews and the Arabs?

For a parallel situation, look at Lot having sex with his two daughters after the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Although Lot is not punished, the Jews certainly suffered with animosity between the Amonites and the Moabites for several generations (don’t forget, Lot’s daughters were Amon and Moab).

Where does the Bible state (or allude) that this was punishment for Abraham’s sin regarding the pharaoh?

Why did God immediately punish the pharaoh (who was deceived) and did not immediately punish Abraham for deceiving pharaoh of God thought it was wrong? Not only was there no immediate punishment of Abraham, but God LISTENED to Abraham’s plea to forgive the pharaoh for the sin.

 

[NotWorthy]

Where does the Bible state (or allude) that this was punishment for Abraham’s sin regarding the pharaoh?

Why did God immediately punish the pharaoh (who was deceived) and did not immediately punish Abraham for deceiving pharaoh of God thought it was wrong? Not only was there no immediate punishment of Abraham, but God LISTENED to Abraham’s plea to forgive the pharaoh for the sin.

I have no idea, and I wouldn’t even begin to presume why God chose to do it this way.

Do you punish your children the same way every time, or do you find out that different scenarios require different reactions.

But, to your original question. Where does the bible allude to this being punishment? I didn’t know that the Bible has to allude. I figured the message was still learned by looking at real history.

 

[tortdog]

Well, from the responses that I have read so far, St. Augustine’s response seems the most rational in my view. All the others require less rational assumptions, linkages to far off events, or an unfairness by God.

 

[NotWorthy]

Well, from the responses that I have read so far, St. Augustine’s response seems the most rational in my view. All the others require less rational assumptions, linkages to far off events, or an unfairness by God.

OK. You are welcome to your opinion.

But I would still be leery of the spotty quoting of St. Augustine. This, in my opinion, reeks of someone having an opinion and using quote “quips” to justify it.

 

[Fidelis]

Where does the Bible state (or allude) that this was punishment for Abraham’s sin regarding the pharaoh?

As has already been pointed out numerous times, it is not the Scripture’s way to explain everything as it goes along like a childs book. You’re supposed to read the Bible patiently, looking at the whole story to see how it pans out, then draw lessons from that. Sort of like real life.

Why did God immediately punish the pharaoh (who was deceived) and did not immediately punish Abraham for deceiving pharaoh of God thought it was wrong?

Because the story isn’t about Pharoah, it is about Abraham and his descendants.We’re supposed to leave the episode of Pharoah behind once we’ve read it, but we are to stay with the story of Abraham and see where it leads.

 

[NotWorthy]

As has already been pointed out numerous times, it is not the Scripture’s way to explain everything as it goes along like a childs book. You’re supposed to read the Bible patiently, looking at the whole story to see how it pans out, then draw lessons from that. Sort of like real life.

Because the story isn’t about Pharoah, it is about Abraham and his descendants.We’re supposed to leave the episode of Pharoah behind once we’ve read it, but we are to stay with the story of Abraham and see where it leads.

Good points!

But more accurately, we’re supposed to follow the seed of Abraham (or would it be “The Woman’s” seed?) throughout the rest of Salvation History!

 

[Fidelis]

Good points!

But more accurately, we’re supposed to follow the seed of Abraham (or would it be “The Woman’s” seed?) throughout the rest of Salvation History!

 

[Seraphim25]

Hi - this is a good post (very interesting and very well stated), though I do disagree with the ultimate conclusion. Abraham was subject to “natural law” (the CCC talks of the natural law). Taken to its logical conclusion, saying Abraham could not sin because he was not subject to the law yet would mean Cain did not “sin” when he killed Able. I believe (I believe Catholic teaching concurs) that we have always been subject to the natural law - which is made explicit in the 10 commandments, but has always been with us. Lying or deceiving is a sin - our concience knows this even without reference to the 10 commandments.

Now - someone might argue that this particular act of deception was not a sin given the circumstances (that is a different argument that could be debated).

Blessings,

Brian

Thanks for taking the time to read my post! I will of course agree with you on that fact that Cain did in fact sin. But the orginal sin was already carried out. Meaning that the first sin death came into the world. The spiritual death and thus away from God. Through this sin Adam was put to death and thus all men are put to death because of this sin. Cain in fact was also put to death and also was punished to leave the settlement of Adam.

Paul still alludes to the fact that the law had to come into existence to show that humans are in fact sinners so that by the law that is manifest. "What then can we say? that the law is sin? Of course not! yet I did not know sin except through the law and I did not know what it is to covet except that the law said “you shall not covet”. But sin, finding an opportunity in the commandment produced in me every kind of covetousness.Apart from the law sin is dead. I once lived outside the law but when the commandment came sin became alive. Then I died and the command that was for life turned out to be death for me. For sin seizing an opportunity in the commandment deceived me and through it put me to death. So then the law is holy and the commandments is holy and righteous and good Romans 7: 7

So what God says is this. Abraham was not found righteousness by his works that he did. But by is faith in God that at which he believed he was God. Faith is what gave him credit to be called righteousness in the sight of God. For by there is no violation if their is no law. So Abraham was credited to him by faith. Now also we can’t forget what James says about his faith to God. God testing his faith found him righteous as well. For it was not by faith ALONE at which it was credited it was his obedience to Gods command to sacrifice Issac to Him. But for God to choose Abraham as apart of the law (un-circumcised) he was made the father of many nations for the circumcised and uncircumcised by his faith in God .

So it is not that God gave him a collect 200 dollars and a no jail card it is that by his faith it was credited to him to be called righteous out and away from the law. But the law came into being so that man shall know he is a sinner and that only God can rescue him. A person can not do anything to please in the flesh but only through the spirit can one please God. The only way you know if you please God is if you have the spirit of Christ within you!

So

 

[tortdog]

But I would still be leery of the spotty quoting of St. Augustine. This, in my opinion, reeks of someone having an opinion and using quote “quips” to justify it.

In my reading of scripture, I look for consistency and a fair God. I know God is fair, just and merciful, so everything that he does should fit within that. There are a few stories in the Old Testament that seem to conflict with most people’s view of what is fair, just, etc.

The story of Abraham and the pharaoh is one of them. Another is the deception of the birthright. My view was that this must not have been a sin for Abraham based on the Bible’s statement of how God reacted to it (or failed to react). I research the writings of scholars for their views. That research came to the pertinent section of St. Augustine, and his view that it would be wrong to assume sin of Abraham when there is another rational explanation.

That could be a philosophical twist of St. Augustine. But it makes sense to me. I wasn’t sure if there was a “Catholic” view, but seeing how St. Augustine puts forward one I figured that Catholics would likely agree. Seems that most do not (at least the ones on this forum). So now it will be my quest to find out how many other ancient Christians agreed with me and St. Augustine on this matter regarding Abraham. Then the question will be (assuming that there St. Augustine’s view is agreed to by ancient Christians) why most modern Christians do not hold that view any longer.

Again, I’m assuming that St. Augustine is not a loose cannon.

 

[tortdog]

This source suggests that the Old Testament contains antiquated views of ancient Hebrew ethics, thus the view of a just God is tainted by the writer:

books.google.com/books?id=EKsQAAAAYAAJ&dq=abraham%20lied%20pharaoh%20century&lr=&as_brr=1&as_pt=ALLTYPES&client=firefox-a&pg=PA189&ci=89,152,741,200&source=bookclip

The Biblical World By William Rainey Harper, Ernest De Witt Burton, Shailer Mathews, University of Chicago, JSTOR (Organization)

 

[NotWorthy]

In my reading of scripture, I look for consistency and a fair God. I know God is fair, just and merciful, so everything that he does should fit within that. There are a few stories in the Old Testament that seem to conflict with most people’s view of what is fair, just, etc.

I understand what you are saying here, but this is wrong. You are trying to mold God to what you just as fair and just. God’s ways are far and away above ours.

I’ll give you a little pop quiz to prove my point. Did anything good come out of Stephen’s death, other than the fact the Christians everywhere have a witness to Christ in Stephen?

The story of Abraham and the pharaoh is one of them. Another is the deception of the birthright. My view was that this must not have been a sin for Abraham based on the Bible’s statement of how God reacted to it (or failed to react). I research the writings of scholars for their views. That research came to the pertinent section of St. Augustine, and his view that it would be wrong to assume sin of Abraham when there is another rational explanation.

'And I ask you. Are you going to the original text, or are you looking at these little snippets that the author posted to prove **his **point.

We all know that a prooftext without a context is a pretext.

That could be a philosophical twist of St. Augustine. But it makes sense to me. I wasn’t sure if there was a “Catholic” view, but seeing how St. Augustine puts forward one I figured that Catholics would likely agree. Seems that most do not (at least the ones on this forum). So now it will be my quest to find out how many other ancient Christians agreed with me and St. Augustine on this matter regarding Abraham. Then the question will be (assuming that there St. Augustine’s view is agreed to by ancient Christians) why most modern Christians do not hold that view any longer.

That’s easy. Most modern Christians are applying their own standards to God’s judgment over the Church, and would be wise to learn more from the Church Fathers. Although they are not fallible, they are filled with wisdom.

And, yes, I lump myself into that group that would be wise to learn from the fathers.

Again, I’m assuming that St. Augustine is not a loose cannon.

No, he’s not. But I still haven’t seen the context of his words. I’m not convinced.

 

[shaky]

I understand what you are saying here, but this is wrong. You are trying to mold God to what you just as fair and just. God’s ways are far and away above ours.

I’ll give you a little pop quiz to prove my point. Did anything good come out of Stephen’s death, other than the fact the Christians everywhere have a witness to Christ in Stephen?

'And I ask you. Are you going to the original text, or are you looking at these little snippets that the author posted to prove **his **point.

We all know that a prooftext without a context is a pretext.

That’s easy. Most modern Christians are applying their own standards to God’s judgment over the Church, and would be wise to learn more from the Church Fathers. Although they are not fallible, they are filled with wisdom.

And, yes, I lump myself into that group that would be wise to learn from the fathers.

No, he’s not. But I still haven’t seen the context of his words. I’m not convinced.

Why would Abraham sacrafice a Lamb if he was without Sin ?

 

[nordskoven]

As Kenneth Kitchen, Christian Egyptologist notes, all ancient cultures and their primitive derivatives adopted Genesis laws and standards as if they were reading right out of the Bible. Marriage, for example, is a cultural universal and that’s from Genesis 2. Savinah Teubal, Jewish scholar, wrote a whole book on the tumultuous lives of Sarah & Abraham called Sarah the Priestess. Savinah Teubal’s publisher ruined the point of the book, IMHO, in insisting on a spicy title including “priestess” when the woman’s office and role Teubal was talking about is simply derived from Genesis 3:15 and is best defined as queen-mother, the EN, literally, woman of GRACE!

Ancients accounted one’s lineage and passed down lands through the female exclusively as an exalation of the Woman & Seed role of Genesis 3:15, God cursing Lucifer and his minions with the Woman & Seed. Got a feather in your cap? This was the Egyptian code for truth-teller as institutionalized religious lying was an issue. But did Abraham lie? NOOOOOOOO! Teubal notes that in the “old” system, one could marry one’s half-sister from the same father because lineage was accounted only through the woman. Yep. That Woman & Seed system was being assailed by the “new” king system of males throwing down landmarks, seizing authority and land, and marrying up the old-school EN’s to solidify their claim.

Sarah was an EN, a woman of grace, and somehow everybody knew it. Sarah had to lam out of Ur of the Chaldees/City of the Chaldees as headquarters of the same bad guys whose priest, Lugalan, wanted to rape the EN centuries before, King Sargon’s daughter EN-Heduana, to seize power and land. That’s no good. PS This is why Solomon married all those foreign princesses, to baptise kingship, a new, foreign system, in the marital rights of EN-ship through marriage.

Ditto the snitching of the birthright by the youngest, a repeated theme in the Old Testament. David was the youngest, for example. In the sacred matriarch Woman & Seed EN-ship system, the youngest inherits, a great idea as older kids had a head start. In the sacred patriarch system, the eldest inherited, as the need for a strong man ruler was foremost. These meshed well. Jacob, the youngest, supplanted Esau because God was exalting the Woman & Seed system. Read that book, Sarah the Priestess by Savinah Teubal or miss a hiding-in-plain-sight theme of God’s economy of salvation. I called Teubal in Arizona and she was, as a (pre-Messianic) Jew, not happy to hear my linking this EN, woman of “grace” with the Virgin Mary, “Full of Grace.” Savinah Teubal is dead now but may her soul and all the souls of the faithful departed rest in peace. AMEN

Sacred Heart of Jesus, Immaculate Heart of Mary, grant us God’s peace. AMEN