The Implications of Abraham’s Test of Faith…

[Camron]

This thread was created for all of us to discuss the topics found in the Conference on Evolution thread around here.

If I understand this correctly, it seems to be contended that Abraham’s test of faith could be equated with the capricious whims of an evil deity, therefore the Old Testament Bible is portraying God as resembling nothing like the God presented within Christianity. I disagree with this contention and would like to discuss it further if possible-- when I’m done in Conference on Evolution thread.

It was also claimed by some that Abraham appears to have been either lying to his servants or else he was intending to disobey God and not go through with the sacrifice of His son. I believe that neither of these positions are accurate and would like to discuss that too.

 

[Camron]

So was Abraham lying to his servants, or was he intending to disobey God and not go through with the slaughter? It seems it must be one or the other.

Neither. He said “we” will go and worship and “we” will return.

He was not lying to his servants, since he believed that God would raise his son from the dead-- and they were both going to worship God too…ie: He said “we” will go and worship and “we” will return.

He did not intend to disobey God either, because he was going to obey God according to Genesis…ie: He said “we” will go and worship and “we” will return.

Mike, where is the evidence in Genesis that Abraham believed anything other than that by slaughtering and burning his son he would be permanently killing him?

He said “we” will go and worship and “we” will return.

Where is the evidence that Abraham thought nonchalantly that slaughtering Isaac was no big deal, because God would simply raise him up again?

First of all, it doesn’t depict him “nonchalantly” following God’s orders.

Second of all, he wasn’t going to “slaughter” Isaac. He was going to sacrifice him.

Third of all, the evidence in Genesis that Abraham believed he would not be permanently killing him is simple: He said “we” will go and worship and “we” will return.

Not sure what else I can say. The New Testament confirms this truth.

Abraham reasoned that God could raise the dead, and figuratively speaking, he did receive Isaac back from death.

Hebrews 11:19​

If you don’t accept this then you probably should not be teaching at a Catholic institution since your lack of faith in the inspired Word of God seems rather frail. You are simply way too quick to portray the God of the Old Testament as something evil too.

I think it’s most likely true that some parts of the Book of Genesis in the Old Testament are allegorical (cf., some of the creation story for example). But to say the story of Abraham and Isaac is allegorical is going too far in my opinion. Abraham is most likely the starting point in Genesis for where a “real-time chronology” slowly begins to emerge.

And don’t forget: Abraham didn’t actually kill Isaac either. This “real event” was a fore-shadowing of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross.

 

[atheist1]

Neither. He said “we” will go and worship and “we” will return.

He was not lying to his servants, since he believed that God would raise his son from the dead-- and they were both going to worship God too…ie: He said “we” will go and worship and “we” will return.

He did not intend to disobey God either, because he was going to obey God according to Genesis…ie: He said “we” will go and worship and “we” will return.

He said “we” will go and worship and “we” will return.

First of all, it doesn’t depict him “nonchalantly” following God’s orders.

Second of all, he wasn’t going to “slaughter” Isaac. He was going to sacrifice him.

Third of all, the evidence in Genesis that Abraham believed he would not be permanently killing him is simple: He said “we” will go and worship and “we” will return.

Not sure what else I can say. The New Testament confirms this truth.

If you don’t accept this then you probably should not be teaching at a Catholic institution since your lack of faith in the inspired Word of God seems rather frail. You are simply way too quick to portray the God of the Old Testament as something evil too.

I think it’s most likely true that some parts of the Book of Genesis in the Old Testament are allegorical (cf., some of the creation story for example). But to say the story of Abraham and Isaac is allegorical is going too far in my opinion. Abraham is most likely the starting point in Genesis for where a “real-time chronology” slowly begins to emerge.

And don’t forget: Abraham didn’t actually kill Isaac either. This “real event” was a fore-shadowing of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross.

Can you imagine the horror that Isaac must have felt when he realized that he was going to be slaughtered…ooops, I mean sacrificed?

Abraham doesn’t seem like a very moral type of fellow does he?

 

[grannymh]

Can you imagine the horror that Isaac must have felt when he realized that he was going to be slaughtered…ooops, I mean sacrificed?

Abraham doesn’t seem like a very moral type of fellow does he?

I can imagine Isaac’s tremendous love of God over the selfish materialism of the world.

Isaac sounds like a prefigurement of Jesus Christ Who actually sacrificed His life for us. …ooops–sacrifice – is that word still in our vocabulary? And morals? That’s anyone’s choice or no choice these days, depending if it is raining outside. Abraham was not wishy-washy like those responsible for the recession. Or is the recession moral according to those who get the bonuses?

Blessings,
granny

Human life is meant for eternal life.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

This thread was created for all of us to discuss the topics found in the Conference on Evolution thread around here.

If I understand this correctly, it seems to be contended that Abraham’s test of faith could be equated with the capricious whims of an evil deity, therefore the Old Testament Bible is portraying God as resembling nothing like the God presented within Christianity. I disagree with this contention and would like to discuss it further if possible-- when I’m done in Conference on Evolution thread.

It was also claimed by some that Abraham appears to have been either lying to his servants or else he was intending to disobey God and not go through with the sacrifice of His son. I believe that neither of these positions are accurate and would like to discuss that too.

I don’t think that the Inspired Author cared about the literal truth of the incident.

I think that in his own mind he was writing a fictional legend about Abraham, while the Holy Spirit was inspiring him to include the story in Genesis because it is really a strikingly clear foreshadowing of the Passion and Death of Christ!!!

 

[grannymh]

I don’t think that the Inspired Author cared about the literal truth of the incident.

I think that in his own mind he was writing a fictional legend about Abraham, while the Holy Spirit was inspiring him to include the story in Genesis because it is really a strikingly clear foreshadowing of the Passion and Death of Christ!!!

Pardon me. What “Inspired Author” are you talking about?
How does fiction qualify as a foreshadowing?
And why Genesis as the location and Abraham as the hero?

 

[Peter_Dawson]

Pardon me. What “Inspired Author” are you talking about?
How does fiction qualify as a foreshadowing?
And why Genesis as the location and Abraham as the hero?

Re “inspired author”: I believe in the Documentary Hypothesis, occasionally nicknamed the “Jeopardy Analysis,” because of the contention that the main authors of the Torah are J, E, P, R, and D, “JEPRD” or “jeopardy,” get it?

Moses may have been involved in compilation, so he might or might not be one of the inspired Sacred Authors.

I think that the R Source is the one most commonly referred to as “the” inspired author, because he, the Final Redactor (thus the letter “R” for “Redactor”) pulled Genesis together into the form we see it as today.

Re “How does fiction qualify as a foreshadowing?,” simple: What commentators refer to as “allegory,” but some Biblical commentators refer to as “typological word pictures.” Once I point it out to you, it is obvious, and enthralling.

Re “Why Genesis as the location, and why Abraham as the hero?,” simple: Basically, the entire OT foreshadows Christ, in a specific way I can point to, not a general way. Abraham is the hero because he is a picture of God the Father sacrificing his beloved Son in the story.

 

[Camron]

Can you imagine the horror that Isaac must have felt when he realized that he was going to be slaughtered…ooops, I mean sacrificed?

No. Where does it say Isaac was horrified? I do imagine he was very scared to be honest. But it also appears that Isaac was willing. There doesn’t seem to be any account of a struggle as far as I can tell.

Abraham doesn’t seem like a very moral type of fellow does he?

Actually, yes, Abraham does appear to be a very moral type.

Do you have anything significant to add to the thread?

 

[Camron]

I don’t think that the Inspired Author cared about the literal truth of the incident.

I think that Abraham was real and he was inspired by God.

But thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

I think that Abraham was real and he was inspired by God.

But thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

Nothing in the sentence of my own which you quoted challenges your thinking.

 

[Camron]

Re “inspired author”: I believe in the Documentary Hypothesis, occasionally nicknamed the “Jeopardy Analysis,” because of the contention that the main authors of the Torah are J, E, P, R, and D, “JEPRD” or “jeopardy,” get it?

Moses may have been involved in compilation, so he might or might not be one of the inspired Sacred Authors.

I think that the R Source is the one most commonly referred to as “the” inspired author, because he, the Final Redactor (thus the letter “R” for “Redactor”) pulled Genesis together into the form we see it as today.

Re “How does fiction qualify as a foreshadowing?,” simple: What commentators refer to as “allegory,” but some Biblical commentators refer to as “typological word pictures.” Once I point it out to you, it is obvious, and enthralling.

Re “Why Genesis as the location, and why Abraham as the hero?,” simple: Basically, the entire OT foreshadows Christ, in a specific way I can point to, not a general way. Abraham is the hero because he is a picture of God the Father sacrificing his beloved Son in the story.

This is interesting and I do think there is some merit to this hypothesis. But I do think that Abraham was real too. He has figured (or is figured) in a significant part of the Catholic liturgy, too much so in my opinion to have been a work of fiction.

Indeed, if he is not real then why are we asking God in prayer to lead along his righteous paths, to inherit his blessings?

I think the documentary hypothesis goes too far in claiming some things were mere fiction. Even Christ refers to him as a real person, “Before Abraham was, I AM.”

…

 

[Camron]

Nothing in the sentence of my own which you quoted challenges your thinking.

It does if you’re implying that Abraham was not a real person. In addition to this, if Abraham did not actually go through this test then it renders the promises of God found within the Bible (and expressed within our Catholic liturgy) to be based on fiction.

I am unsure how this helps the Catholic Church in any way. I agree that the earliest parts of Genesis were allegorical. But when we come to Abraham and the patriarchs it appears that we are dealing with a different kind of literature altogether.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

I happen to believe that Abraham was real. Which chapters in his life were fiction and non-fiction? I don’t know. It doesn’t matter that much. Just because Christ referred to him as though he were real is not determinative. Christ refers to the Books of Moses as though Moses wrote them, but Moses clearly could not have written them in their current form. The writer indicates that he was writing from within the Promised Land, where Moses was not allowed.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

It does if you’re implying that Abraham was not a real person. In addition to this, if Abraham did not actually go through this test then it renders the promises of God found within the Bible (and expressed within our Catholic liturgy) to be based on fiction.

I am unsure how this helps the Catholic Church in any way. I agree that the earliest parts of Genesis were allegorical. But when we come to Abraham and the patriarchs it appears that we are dealing with a different kind of literature altogether.

God can make us promises through inspired fiction. Why can’t He?

 

[Camron]

God can make us promises through inspired fiction. Why can’t He?

Because then it would be based on a lie.

The earliest parts of the Book of Genesis do not demand a strict chronological interpretation of the events presented, therefore it most likely is allegory in some things.

The later parts of Genesis do not use this same kind of language. And even if the story is not literally chronologically true (I personally don’t think the time line demands a strict adherence), if it is found that the promises that God lay out before us were based on events that did not actually happen (even though the story presents them as if they did), this leaves room for others to say,

“How do you know the promises you are hoping for now are not also considered fiction? Are they going to really happen, or are they merely stories meant to keep you going to Church but not really intended to come true?”

I think this kind of thinking opens a big can of worms to be honest. I’m sure you’re aware of some of these dangers.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

Because then it would be based on a lie.

The earliest parts of the Book of Genesis do not demand a strict chronological interpretation of the events presented, therefore it most likely is allegory in some things.

The later parts of Genesis do not use this same kind of language. And even if the story is not literally chronologically true (I personally don’t think the time line demands a strict adherence), if it is found that the promises that God lay out before us were based on events that did not actually happen (even though the story presents them as if they did), this leaves room for others to say,

I think this kind of thinking opens a big can of worms to be honest. I’m sure you’re aware of some of these dangers.

Fiction isn’t a lie if there is not intent to be an infallible history book.

The “dangers” are illusory. Look at the dancing the literalists do to get around the pure contradictions, while the anti-Christians hoot and holler at them as they do so. I.e., the literalist interpretation is just as fraught with dangers.

 

[Camron]

Fiction isn’t a lie if there is not intent to be an infallible history book.

But it is a lie if it’s presented as real historical events and it’s not clearly stated that these things are not actually true.

The “dangers” are illusory.

If you feel comforted with fictional promises regarding fictional tests of faith that never actually happened then there’s very little that I can do to assist you with this one. Not sure what else I can say. Unless you can present something substantial that would convince me other wise, I think we may have to agree to disagree on this one.

Look at the dancing the literalists do to get around the pure contradictions, while the anti-Christians hoot and holler at them as they do so. I.e., the literalist interpretation is just as fraught with dangers.

Hmmm…so then why don’t we break this down a little bit…

What do you consider fictional events and what do you consider true events regarding Abraham’s test of faith?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I don’t think that the Inspired Author cared about the literal truth of the incident.

I think that in his own mind he was writing a fictional legend about Abraham, while the Holy Spirit was inspiring him to include the story in Genesis because it is really a strikingly clear foreshadowing of the Passion and Death of Christ!!!

For us, the problem is a *problem *because we have to make this episode of (frustrated) human sacrifice fit with doctrines that the author or compiler did not: he wasn’t a Christian, he didn’t have a Bible, he didn’t have to bother with things such as inerrancy. For us, there are more ingredients in the mixture. And not infrequently, they fit rather poorly with one another: as if one were to mix chicken, sausage, Irish stew, vanilla, sugar, butter, orange, milk, pepper & curry together. ​

The story may be polemical, against human sacrifice in the author’s own time. It always reminds me of the story of how Agamemnon had to sacrifice his daughter Iphigeneia when the fleet that meant to sail to Troy was becalmed at Aulis; he had offended Artemis, so it was not given the wind it needed. And to placate Artemis, he had to sacrifice what he held most dear. The good news: Artemis spirited the girl away to the kingdom of the Tauri, & substituted a fallow deer for her. The bad news: the loss of Iphigeneia led Clytemnestra wife of Agamemnon to plot his death & kill him when he returned ten years later.

The Bible gains greatly in interest when it’s possible to see what, if anything, narratives in it share wth narratives from elsewhere.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I think that Abraham was real and he was inspired by God.

But thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

How can a good God inspire an act of intended murder ?​

What Abraham was going to do was, by the standards of many Biblical texts, & of all Christian churches, evil - he did not know that he would not have to kill Isaac. How is Abraham any different from those wretched & horribly deluded women who kill their children “because God told me to” ?

This God is not “the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ”, not by a long way.

 

[grannymh]

Re “inspired author”: I believe in the Documentary Hypothesis, occasionally nicknamed the “Jeopardy Analysis,” because of the contention that the main authors of the Torah are J, E, P, R, and D, “JEPRD” or “jeopardy,” get it?

I am familiar with J. E. P. Who was D and what was his contribution?
May I rephrase my original question? What was inspiring the inspired author, or R as you say, to write fiction? As my kids would ask --what was he smoking?

Re “How does fiction qualify as a foreshadowing?,” simple: What commentators refer to as “allegory,” but some Biblical commentators refer to as “typological word pictures.” Once I point it out to you, it is obvious, and enthralling.

It probably could be simple if you would point out exactly what you mean. When I think of allegory, I connect to Aesop. Would you be so kind as to explain how you connect allegory to a fictional legend written by an author inspired by something else other than truth? See your post #5. And how is allegory relating to typological word pictures whatever those are?

Re “Why Genesis as the location, and why Abraham as the hero?,” simple: Basically, the entire OT foreshadows Christ, in a specific way I can point to, not a general way. Abraham is the hero because he is a picture of God the Father sacrificing his beloved Son in the story.

Pardon me, but in my humble opinion, the above is not quite on base on two accounts. If you would kindly tell me the specific way you can point to in your above reply concerning “the entire OT foreshadows Christ”, I could understand where you are coming from. Also, it would help me to understand if you would kindly share what you know about Jesus and salvation of mankind. Your last sentence above sounds weird especially coming from a Catholic.

Blessings,
granny

Bible means: Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth