The Implications of Abraham’s Test of Faith…

[grannymh]

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

Why should He? Catholics know the meaning of the Deposit of Faith and its relationship to Scripture versus fiction. What is your opinion on that relationship?

 

[grannymh]

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.

Chapter and verse, please.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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?

D = the Deuteronomist, responsible for Deuteronomy & what is known as the “Deuteronomistic History”. This is the history of Israel which reflects the theology of Deuteronomy; as distinct from that of the Chronicler: which concentrates much more on Judah that on the other tribes, & depicts King David very favourably (nothing is said of the business of Uriah, & its catrastrophic consequences - for that, we have to read 2 Samuel.​

R = the Redactor, who edited the work of JEPD into the form in which the Pentateuch - or if Joshua is included, the Hexateuch - now has in the Hebrew Bible.

It probably could be simple if you would point out exactly what you mean. When I think of allegory, I connect to Aesop.

Aesop’s fables are not usually, if ever, allegories - many are “beast-fables”, in which animals behave anthropomorphically.​

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?

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

 

[grannymh]

D = the Deuteronomist, responsible for Deuteronomy & what is known as the “Deuteronomistic History”. ## Aesop’s fables are not usually, if ever, allegories - many are “beast-fables”, in which animals behave anthropomorphically.​

Thanks for D description…somehow, I was stuck in Genesis.

As for Aesop’s fables being beast-fables in which animals behave anthropomophicallly --that is one of the original examples of allegory where abstract ideas or principles are represented by characters or figures. Granted allegory has expanded. Nonetheless, I still want Peter Dawson to explain how he connects allegory to a fictional legend written by an author inspired by something else other than truth? See his posts 5 & 7 Plus the use of “typological word pictures” remains a mystery.

Blessings,
granny

All human life is sacred.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

Chapter and verse, please.

Well, I’m glad that you did not infer that I am a heretic this time. I’ll get the Chapter and Verse for you shortly.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

Chapter and verse, please.

First, here is one of Moses’ own affirmations that He was barred by God from crossing the Jordan River into the Promised Land…

21 Since the LORD was angered against me on your account and swore that I should not cross the Jordan nor enter the good land which he is giving you as a heritage,
22 I myself shall die in this country without crossing the Jordan; but you will cross over and take possession of that good land. Deuteronomy 4:21-22.

Next, here is one of the statements by the non-Moses author – there are several – in which the author, from WITHIN the Promised Land, talks about activity of the Israelites (including Moses) on the OUTSIDE of the Promised Land on the OTHER side of the Jordan, before the Israelites crossed over the Jordan from Moab but without Moses…

1 Then the Israelites moved on and encamped in the plains of Moab on the other side of the Jericho stretch of the Jordan. Numbers 22:1.

Those words could only have been written by someone who wasn’t Moses.

There are problems like this all over the Torah. As a consequence, it does not appear that Moses actually wrote the Books, as we know them, despite Christ’s words, “Moses said…” Christ wasn’t lying. He was just relaxedly referring to the Books by their customary inaccurate name, otherwise no one would have understood Him.

So, the “Chapter and Verse” you demanded is Numbers 22:1. There are others.

 

[grannymh]

Well, I’m glad that you did not infer that I am a heretic this time. I’ll get the Chapter and Verse for you shortly.

Actually, I have said in the past, that “Adam is Christ” is a heresy. Read the Nicene Creed if you are in doubt. By the way, I personally prefer that the official Catholic Church declare heretics. However, anyone, including my Irish grandmother, can point out heresies.

Blessings,
granny

Bible means: basic instructions before leaving earth.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

Actually, I have said in the past, that “Adam is Christ” is a heresy. Read the Nicene Creed if you are in doubt. By the way, I personally prefer that the official Catholic Church declare heretics. However, anyone, including my Irish grandmother, can point out heresies.

Blessings,
granny

Bible means: basic instructions before leaving earth.

Hi, Granny,

Here’s an idea: DO YOU ACCEPT THAT ADAM IS A TYPE, OR SYMBOL, OF CHRIST?

Peter

 

[grannymh]

Hi, Granny,

Here’s an idea: DO YOU ACCEPT THAT ADAM IS A TYPE, OR SYMBOL, OF CHRIST?

Peter

Thanks. Yes, I can work with your idea because it can lead to Abraham, but… Let’s first get on the same page which I believe is possible once we clarify some basic concepts regarding types and symbols. First question is: Would it be possible to stick to symbols rather than types which have a slightly different connotation?

For example. Typology in biblical studies involves more than type or symbols in that it involves relationships between the Old Testament and the New Testament. It is used as an aid to instruct readers in the truths of Divine Revelation. Because typology is seen in relationship to Divine Revelation, it could not involve any kind of fiction.

On the other hand, symbols are easier to use because they can be interpreted from one’s own imagination. Because I accept both objective and subjective reasoning, I find that some symbols can have a variety of meanings. However, when it is difficult to differentiate a symbolic meaning from a literal meaning, I look to Catholic resources.

My second question is: Would it be possible to accept the “logic” of – grass is always green; but not all green things are grass? In other words symbols can work one way but not always in reverse. This is important when discussing Adam and Abraham because both have a human nature while Christ is divine as well as human.

To answer your question “DO YOU ACCEPT THAT ADAM IS A TYPE, OR SYMBOL, OF CHRIST?” I would rather address this question from the view point of similarities rather than a declarative sentence using the word is. For example: Romans chapter 5. “In conclusion, just as through one transgression (Adam) condemnation came upon all, so through one righteous act (Jesus) acquittal and life came to all.” One is the operative word.

In other words, a human sinner cannot be a direct symbol of a divine Savior. But Jesus’ one act of salvation of the cross can be viewed as reversing the one act of Adam. Praise God!

Until tomorrow, when we can continue this conversation,

Blessings,
granny

All human life is sacred.

 

[Camron]

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

Who did Abraham 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” ?

One big difference is that Abraham didn’t actually kill his son, remember?

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

I’m sorry for your lack of faith in God, Gottle of Geer. I did not know you felt this way about Him.

Wait a sec…aren’t you Catholic???

 

[Camron]

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.

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

 

[Camron]

The story may be polemical, against human sacrifice in the author’s own time.

Or it may be based on real events and real people and a real test of faith too.

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

 

[Peter_Dawson]

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

Hi, Camron.

I, personally, suspect that Abraham was real; Isaac was real; Moriah was real. They may have dwealt in the vicinity of Moriah.

I, personally, suspect that after that, the entire story of Abraham’s sacrifice is fiction.

I believe that which parts are fiction and which parts are non-fiction is important only to people who are focusing on the story in a way not important to the Holy Spirit.

I believe that, regardless of which parts of the story are fiction, and which parts are non-fiction, the Holy Spirit caused the story to be included in Genesis as a foreshadowing of Christ. It is an amazing foreshadowing of Christ, writtern long, long, long before the arrival of Christ.

 

[Mintaka]

So God did truly step into history as Jesus Christ.

However, God did not truly test Abraham and test Isaac, because it’s just way unbelievable that God would send a riddle message and an angel into history.

The ideas folks have in this thread of what is plausible and what is not!

Look, folks. Think about the concept of initiation. God was planning to do something big – to make a covenant with Abraham, to make Abraham’s descendants part of the family of God. This is big freaky stuff. God means people to remember it for thousands upon thousands of years, to burn it into their memory as a people.

If God had just said, “Yo, Abraham! We’re family now!”, would that have been at all impressive and mysterious and worthy of being taken seriously? Nope. The ancient world would have just yawned. Boring. Not even worthy of a story, much less one that would tease people to think about it and retell it until the end of the world.

So yes, I believe God did do this thing, in sober historical fact, on a certain day in an ordinary non-fairy tale place. He was setting up the descendants of Abraham to have a vivid initiatory test and eucatastrophic ending, one where they could identify both with Abraham and Isaac, one that they could argue about for ages over campfires and pixel light. It also served to reinforce God’s lack of desire for human sacrifice, which was a nice lagniappe, and set up the founding of the Temple and all sorts of other things to come.

If ordinary human men can plan out a memorable story setting for their proposals of marriage, I don’t see why people disbelieve that God could and would do the same thing for a proposal and decree of everlasting covenant. If God is the Author of all things, why would you disbelieve His willingness to step in, to set up amazing scenes in real life for pivotal historical events of His people and revelations of Himself?

The point of being eternal God is that you can foreshadow historical events by other historical events! So why wouldn’t He? Do you really think the Creator is uncreative in His work with flesh and blood, and only creative when inspiring guys with pens to write fiction?

And contrariwise, if a mere initiatory test of Abraham’s belief in God’s oath that Isaac would live and have descendants – if that seems too dark to be believed, do you really believe that Christ suffered and died and rose again? I mean, wasn’t that awfully masochistic of God, and awfully hard on His poor followers? Surely He should have told Judas not to worry so much, before it fooled the poor guy into suicide. (And so on. Though of course you can avoid all problems with His story by declaring the Gospels fictional, too… In which case, you probably wouldn’t worry enough about Christianity to come and argue on this forum.)

It’s okay to wrestle with the story of Abraham. Clearly God set up His people to do so, just as He set up Jacob to wrestle in the dark. But declaring the whole thing fictional is a refusal to come to grips with God’s intimate dealings with humanity. Don’t wimp out.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

So God did truly step into history as Jesus Christ.

However, God did not truly test Abraham and test Isaac, because it’s just way unbelievable that God would send a riddle message and an angel into history.

The ideas folks have in this thread of what is plausible and what is not!

Look, folks. Think about the concept of initiation. God was planning to do something big – to make a covenant with Abraham, to make Abraham’s descendants part of the family of God. This is big freaky stuff. God means people to remember it for thousands upon thousands of years, to burn it into their memory as a people.

If God had just said, “Yo, Abraham! We’re family now!”, would that have been at all impressive and mysterious and worthy of being taken seriously? Nope. The ancient world would have just yawned. Boring. Not even worthy of a story, much less one that would tease people to think about it and retell it until the end of the world.

So yes, I believe God did do this thing, in sober historical fact, on a certain day in an ordinary non-fairy tale place. He was setting up the descendants of Abraham to have a vivid initiatory test and eucatastrophic ending, one where they could identify both with Abraham and Isaac, one that they could argue about for ages over campfires and pixel light. It also served to reinforce God’s lack of desire for human sacrifice, which was a nice lagniappe, and set up the founding of the Temple and all sorts of other things to come.

If ordinary human men can plan out a memorable story setting for their proposals of marriage, I don’t see why people disbelieve that God could and would do the same thing for a proposal and decree of everlasting covenant. If God is the Author of all things, why would you disbelieve His willingness to step in, to set up amazing scenes in real life for pivotal historical events of His people and revelations of Himself?

And contrariwise, if a mere initiatory test of Abraham’s belief in God’s oath that Isaac would live and have descendants – if that seems too dark to be believed, do you really believe that Christ suffered and died and rose again? I mean, wasn’t that awfully masochistic of God, and awfully hard on His poor followers? Surely He should have told Judas not to worry so much, before it fooled the poor guy into suicide. (And so on. Though of course you can avoid all problems with His story by declaring the Gospels fictional, too!)

It’s okay to wrestle with the story of Abraham. Clearly God set up His people to do so, just as He set up Jacob to wrestle in the dark. But declaring the whole thing fictional is a refusal to come to grips with God’s intimate dealings with humanity. Don’t wimp out.

Hi.

Sorry. I disagree. Viewing the story as fiction preserves its value to humanity as a Jesus-foreshadowing mechanism just fine.

Viewing it as non-fiction entails believing that God “knew” that Abraham was devoted to God “since” Abraham (who did not actually have the oppoprtunity to not withhold his son from God) “did not withhold his beloved son from” God.

Viewing the story as non-fiction requires believing that God is a slow thinker.

 

[Camron]

Hi, Camron.

I, personally, suspect that Abraham was real; Isaac was real; Moriah was real. They may have dwealt in the vicinity of Moriah.

You do realize that your belief is an aberration from traditional Catholic theology, correct?

I, personally, suspect that after that, the entire story of Abraham’s sacrifice is fiction.

Does the Magisterium agree with your personal opinion?

I believe that which parts are fiction and which parts are non-fiction is important only to people who are focusing on the story in a way not important to the Holy Spirit.

Like the Magisterium of the Catholic Church and the witness of the Communion of Saints over the last 2,000 years?

I believe that, regardless of which parts of the story are fiction, and which parts are non-fiction, the Holy Spirit caused the story to be included in Genesis as a foreshadowing of Christ.

I agree that this is a fore-shadowing of Christ. But you seem to be innovative in your approach, perhaps watering down certain elements to make it more palatable to your own personal opinions…

It is an amazing foreshadowing of Christ, writtern long, long, long before the arrival of Christ.

We agree. But you do need to remember that Galatians 3:8 says…

The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: “All nations will be blessed through you.”

Is this fact or fiction?

You also need to remember that Galatians 3:14 says…

He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.

Is this fact or fiction?

You also need to remember that Galatians 3:16 says…

The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ.

Is this fact or fiction?

Indeed, Galatians 3:29 says, “If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.”

Is this fact or fiction?

In fact, now that I think of it, let’s take a look at Hebrews 11, the parts concerning Abraham…

By faith Abraham, when called to go to a place he would later receive as his inheritance, obeyed and went, even though he did not know where he was going.

By faith he made his home in the Promised Land like a stranger in a foreign country; he lived in tents, as did Isaac and Jacob, who were heirs with him of the same promise. For he was looking forward to the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God.

By faith Abraham, even though he was past age—and Sarah herself was barren—was enabled to become a father because he considered him faithful who had made the promise. And so from this one man, and he as good as dead, came descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as countless as the sand on the seashore.

Is this fact or fiction?

Look at the Book of James…

Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,” and he was called God’s friend. You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.

Is this fact or fiction?

We could come back to Hebrews 11…

By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had received the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son, even though God had said to him, “It is through Isaac that your offspring** will be reckoned.” Abraham reasoned that God could raise the dead, and figuratively speaking, he did receive Isaac back from death. **

There’s nothing within these pages that suggest this is a fictional account and a lot to suggest these promises were based on real events.

I’m sorry Peter Dawson, but your view regarding Abraham is an innovative one that bears little resemblance to traditional Catholic thoughts concerning Abraham. I would almost argue that it is heretical. I will admit that there is most likely some figurative language being used, but undermining the real event of Abraham’s test of faith does serious damage to the credibility of our common heritage in Abraham.

 

[Camron]

Hi.

Sorry. I disagree. Viewing the story as fiction preserves its value to humanity as a Jesus-foreshadowing mechanism just fine.

It also turns a significant portion of the promises to Abraham fulfilled in Christ into a lie. You keep forgetting to mention this part.

Viewing it as non-fiction entails believing that God “knew” that Abraham was devoted to God “since” Abraham (who did not actually have the oppoprtunity to not withhold his son from God) “did not withhold his beloved son from” God.

By that analogy all portions of the Bible which demonstrate God testing people’s faiths would be rendered superfluous.

Viewing the story as non-fiction requires believing that God is a slow thinker.

By that same analogy, viewing a huge percentage of the Bible as non-fiction (including portions of the New Testament) requires believing that God is a slow thinker.

 

[zachforn]

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” ?

It’s an interesting question, how is he different from any other “god told me to do it” murderers or potential murderers? And the Answer is: He is exactly the same.

That is what the story is revealing to us. Abraham has to perform something immoral, “evil,” and illegal to prove his Faith. If he would have done it, he would have been punished by the legal system of the day. Plain and simple. Faith is not a 'free-get-out-of-jail-card." It’s difficult, it’s uncomfortable, it’s a Test.

God tested Abraham’s faith, against the penalties he would suffer. Again, Faith is not comfortable, it’s not sitting in your home writing entries on a Catholic Forum, it’s choosing to pass every test of faith God gives you, including the “ugly” ones that get you in trouble, because in the end the tests of faith that get you in trouble are the ONLY REAL TESTS OF FAITH.

It’s interesting that of all the discussion of Abraham here, no one is discussing the implications of the Abraham story, which are:

If God commanded you to kill your offspring, would you do it?

If you would not, can you call yourself faithful?

Again, Faith is not comfortable, it’s not a pillow for you to make yourself fell at home, it is the single most difficult action of existence.

 

[Camron]

It’s interesting that of all the discussion of Abraham here, no one is discussing the implications of the Abraham story, which are:

If God commanded you to kill your offspring, would you do it?

If you would not, can you call yourself faithful?

You’re just joining in. That’s what started this thread to begin with.

It continues on this page and eventually comes to here…which is the first page of this thread we’re in right now.

By the way, I think you’re making the answer more complicated than it needs to be.

Did Abraham actually kill Isaac: Yes or No?

 

[zachforn]

You’re just joining in. That’s what started this thread to begin with.

It continues on this page and eventually comes to here…which is the first page of this thread we’re in right now.

By the way, I think you’re making the answer more complicated than it needs to be.

Did Abraham actually kill Isaac: Yes or No?

Thanks for the thread info Sorry. Heheheh.

He had the intention to kill which is still illegal, so the issue of Faith bumping up against Law and that being why Faith is difficult at its core, can still be discussed.

Again, thanks for the info.