Ishmael and Isaac

  • Thread starter Thread starter hawk
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Genesis315:
Wait-- Why does it say “your only one, yea, Isaac”? Either way, I would think he would be called the loved and “only one” since he came from the legitimate wife and not the concubine like Ishmael.
Click to expand...
No, he is called only son ,since he is the only one with Abraham at that time.
Ishmael is legitimate, and Hagar is Abrahams wife, whom he leaves in the desert with Ishmael.

Since Ishmael is not at home, Isaac is the “only son”.
 
That doesnt fly . If it was the case he wouldnt have needed to specify him by Isaac. If it is well known and clear that by mentioning the word only son then that means your cuurrently near in the neighborhood son . Then why need mention Isaac at all?!

To talk to some body and tell him about his only son is totally irrelevant to where his sons are located. I dont see how can they be combined .

Again sadly Jelousy is bad
 
Imagine if you had a son called Mike and another called John

Mike is abraod for years and years now and then i come to you and ask you to take yr son for an errand down town . Do i need to specify his name and say that its the only son Named John!!!

This name thing is again clearly fictotious. Man made put so that all glory goes to someone else.
 
I either say

Take your son to town

or

Take John to town

I dont need to say

Take Your Only son John to town

As for the reason fo mentioning beloved , is to show the dearness of this single child that came after a long wait to abraham. Doesnt have any notion that Abraham loved a son and not the other . Specially if the other is his first born .

I guess things cant be more clear than this .

Thanks for tolerating me . Nice forum. Catholics are really nice and polite and much better mannerd than many hardline evangelicals protestants. May Peac be with you .
 
40.png
meedo:
That doesnt fly . If it was the case he wouldnt have needed to specify him by Isaac. If it is well known and clear that by mentioning the word only son then that means your cuurrently near in the neighborhood son . Then why need mention Isaac at all?!

To talk to some body and tell him about his only son is totally irrelevant to where his sons are located. I dont see how can they be combined .

Again sadly Jelousy is bad
Click to expand...
Jealousy is bad, however I dont see the nexus.

You see there are two things happening here.

Isaac is the “only son” in three ways.
  1. Isaac is the only son at home
  2. Isaac is the only son and heir of Abraham, since Sarah would not tolerate Ishamel to be heir with her son
  3. Isaac is the only son, by the covenant of the Lord, the “only son” from whose blood line Allah will incarnate.
Now the Covenant with Abraham is to make his seed a plentitude.

But the Covenant through Isaac , is special.

It is to reveal Himself through Isaac only.

We know too, this since Abraham and Sarah are renamed after the birth of Isaac, this is not the case with Hagar.

And we know that it is the custom of the Lord to rename people, at the time of a monumental change or covenant, as in Saul to Paul, Jacob to Israel, etc etc.
 
Ok, In the Douay-Rheims (the translation) Bible, in Genesis 21, Agar and Ishmael are sent away after Isaac is born. Then, the sacrafice incident happens in Genesis 22 with Isaac. So it seems the discrepancy is with chronology between the Islamic understanding and the Christian one.
 
It’s kind of funny that we are arguing over the detail of who was almost sacraficed, when really, no matter who it is, this incident can be argued to heavily forshadow the redemptive death of Christ. I think that would be the big topic of discussion;)
 
40.png
Genesis315:
Ok, In the Douay-Rheims (the translation) Bible, in Genesis 21, Agar and Ishmael are sent away after Isaac is born. Then, the sacrafice incident happens in Genesis 22 with Isaac. So it seems the discrepancy is with chronology between the Islamic understanding and the Christian one.
Click to expand...
And since the Quran doesnt actually specify which son it is, it is safe to say that we must rely on the Bible.
 
40.png
Genesis315:
It’s kind of funny that we are arguing over the detail of who was almost sacraficed, when really, no matter who it is, this incident can be argued to heavily forshadow the redemptive death of Christ. I think that would be the big topic of discussion;)
Click to expand...
Exactly, this is why it must be ** isaac**, same blood line.

There is logical continuity in the revelations through time.

It makes no sense for it to be ishmael, from a logical perspective.

Peace
 
40.png
hawk:
Jealousy is bad, however I dont see the nexus.

You see there are two things happening here.

Isaac is the “only son” in three ways.
  1. Isaac is the only son at home
  2. Isaac is the only son and heir of Abraham, since Sarah would not tolerate Ishamel to be heir with her son
  3. Isaac is the only son, by the covenant of the Lord, the “only son” from whose blood line Allah will incarnate.
Now the Covenant with Abraham is to make his seed a plentitude.

But the Covenant through Isaac , is special.

It is to reveal Himself through Isaac only.

We know too, this since Abraham and Sarah are renamed after the birth of Isaac, this is not the case with Hagar.

And we know that it is the custom of the Lord to rename people, at the time of a monumental change or covenant, as in Saul to Paul, Jacob to Israel, etc etc.
Click to expand...
Now the first Point I refuted before - The home issue
The second point is irrelevant to the sacrifice.
The third point is not valid because this isnt a Jewish creed. The incarnation of God .and since we are quoting the Tanack . We are looking with Jewish eyes and understanding and not christian.

Now i would like to say that we dont take things that are irrelevant to the incident and show it as evidence. There was a covenant with ishmael but this is irrelevant to the essence of the sacrifice

Simply put . as the torah said.

Sacrefice was a test . a test needed a very dear thing that cannot be replaced. Simply an ONLY child waited for after long time.

THIS is relevant to the sacrifice.

Ishamel had a convenant of bieng a great nation . Abraham had nothing to give after his death . He didnt have palaces or anything.

This is all irrelevant to the sacrifice and the essence of the test itself .

The TEST is considred a test by the hardships it bring and the emotions involved. Again, wouldnt it be much easier test after knwoing that he has two sons instead of one??! and he already he guaranteed oen of them to be a great nation?

Peace
 
40.png
meedo:
If it was the case he wouldnt have needed to specify him by Isaac. If it is well known and clear that by mentioning the word only son then that means your cuurrently near in the neighborhood son . Then why need mention Isaac at all?!
Click to expand...
Interesting point. Perhaps God was making sure Abraham would not try to avoid sacrificing Isaac by seeking Ishmael to sacrifitce instead. Therefore God tells Abraham that yes He is referring to Isaac even though Abraham would not like that.
40.png
meedo:
The TEST is considred a test by the hardships it bring and the emotions involved. Again, wouldnt it be much easier test after knwoing that he has two sons instead of one??!
Click to expand...
Since apparently Abraham was with Isaac at the time and therefore had a closer relationship to Isaac, it would truly have been more of a test to sacrifice Isaac. This is not to say that Abraham would like to sacrifice Ishmael either, but perhaps God is making sure that Abraham does not try to choose Ishmael since it might be less painful to sacrifice him. This is not a comment on Ishmael but rather Abraham and simply the fact that Abraham had a closer relationship to Isaac at the time. Therefore it was more of a test to sacrifice Isaac. The scripture does inidcate that it would be a test. So it is a true test if it someone that you are very close to. If Abraham did not have as close a relationship with Ishmael at the time then it would seem that a “test” indicates that it was to be Isaac.
 
There is a difference between what makes sense to People from a christian perspective and what can constitute for abraham a hard test .

A hard test is the sacrifice of the ONLY son long waited for after years of no sons or children. This is the test and how hard it is .

When the test is made , there was no incanration creed , there was no worries about who is the heir .

The problem is now that his first born son is gonna die and he doesnt have any mnore and he is the one who is gonna kill him .
 
The third point is not valid because this isnt a Jewish creed. The incarnation of God .and since we are quoting the Tanack . We are looking with Jewish eyes and understanding and not christian.
Click to expand...
It’s not a *modern *Jewish creed. The Tanach was not recorded by modern Jews. The ancient writings do indeed record the name of the Messiah to be “God with Us”, which can be taken to mean God Incarnate, which is exactly what the Jews who became Christian believed.

Jews and Christians are not as seperate as you may think; the Catholic Church is a direct continuation of a particular line of Jewish theology and thinking in the modern day. We don’t call ourselves Jews for a number of reasons, most espescially since we include people not of the Jewish bloodline.

Not completely relevant to your point, but it’s important to keep in mind when you say “This is a Jewish thought, not a Catholic one”.
 
40.png
meedo:
There is a difference between what makes sense to People from a christian perspective and what can constitute for abraham a hard test .

A hard test is the sacrifice of the ONLY son long waited for after years of no sons or children. This is the test and how hard it is .
Click to expand...
Do you think that it would be harder for Abraham to sacrifice someone he lived with and was close to?
 
i understand yr point Coder but that makes Abraham someone trying to fool God . And it makes the need for refering to his son by the ONLY son unnecessary . He could have said Go and sacrifice Isac.

My opinion is that there is too much specification in this verse that it renders it suspicious. Thgis is one of the things i notice about my christian brothers.

In order to prove a certain christian point of view it has to be complex witha lot of details and ties so it would hold. and alot of data and that sometyiemes might be irrelevant are put to support the claim .

God isnt like that . He doesnt confuse people specially his prophets. His orders are clear and specially the prophets doesnt need much clarification from God to udnertsand the message said to them. Plus i dont think God just made a precaution so that Abraham wouldnt play the fool . I also dont think abraham would think he can decieve God!!!

Prophets dont play hide and seek , The revelations that come to them from God is always clear. They are the chosen ones they know what to do .

As i said before

He could have said Just Isac , no need for the ONLY SON.

Peace
 
I think sacrificing any of your sons ios hard . Bineg away doesnt Make it less harder . Specially if you see that son from tiem to time and that was yr first born .
 
40.png
meedo:
In order to prove a certain christian point of view it has to be complex witha lot of details and ties so it would hold. and alot of data
Click to expand...
In this case, it is clear that God is referring to the son Abraham loved, and “only one” is followed by “whom you love” Gen 22:2

Also, “…you did not withold from me your own beloved son.” Gen 22:12

Jesus teaches to look at the spirit of the law (in this case scripture) and not only the letter. This is how we see the meaning and point. By the context, the word “only” would mean only one whom you are very close to as a son. Who did Abraham have a close relationship with at the time? Who would it have been more of a test to sacrifice?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top