Was Abraham a myth or a real person?

[RobbyS]

Just to clarify, as your RCIA teacher should have, saying that something is a myth does not mean that it is untrue or not factual. A myth in terms of theological intellectual terminology is used in the sense of “A usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people, or explain a practice, belief or natural phenomenon” (thank’s Merriam-Webster Dictionary!)

You’ll note that NO WHERE in that definition of myth does the word false, fictional, or untrue occur.

So in a theology class, such as the one I took at my Catholic University, it is common to hear such terms as the Genesis Creation Myth, or the Genesis Myth in general.

All your RCIA director was trying to say (and this is my educated guess) is exactly what you said: that it’s not a point to point science and history text, that not ALL of it is literal, though some of it very well is.

The problem with using the word “myth” is that in common useage it means non-hisrorical. Furthermore, Genesis was, in a way, an effort by the author to demythologize the accounts of reality found in the mesopotanian/Egyptian creation stories. The creator is nothing like the “gods” of the pagans. He is very much a person like the humans he brings into being. The Bible is about his relationships with these god-like beings and the rest of his creation, but with the focus on humans. Abraham is to true to the middle east scene that Mohammed/the Muslims recognized him as a person like themselves. As for the persons who came before him , they seem legendary. More or less like King Arthur does to us, Why they could not be at least based on actual characters, however, is something that any honest skeptic must admit. I don’t think there is much doubt that the Deluge happened. Some amazing things happened at the end of the Ice Age as the great ice sheets melted and the power of water has to be seen to be believed.

 

[patrick457]

Next time you’re having a little hanky panky with the wife, tell her very warmly that your love for her has really been a myth. Later, when you’re pulling the curling iron out of your ear and all the bleeding has stopped, tell her “But sweet thing, by myth, I really meant sacred narrative.” That might also be a good time to ask her when she became hostile to religion.

Thank the Lord I don’t have a wife then.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Abraham was not a myth. If you don’t believe the bible you aren’t Catholic and don’t believe God. It’s that simple.

Who is behind all the myth nonsense? The devil!

 

[bmonk]

But if one part of the Bible isn’t strictly 100% true, then how can we trust any of it?

Because we know that the Bible contains the essential truth God wanted to tell us–through the Church that stands behind it and interprets it with authority. How do we trust the Church? Because Jesus promised the Church the guidance of the Holy Spirit, who would remind us of all that he taught us, and lead us into all truth. Because Jesus told Simon Peter that he would be the rock (Petra, Cephas) on which he would found the Church, and the gates of hell would not prevail against it. This is the promise made us–not that the Bible is inerrant and literally true in every regard, but that the Church, under its shepherds, the College of Bishops and its head the Pope, is infallible.

Edit: By the way, I too believe that Abraham existed–if only because there had to be a first believer, someone who trusted God enough that his life and faithfulness that he changed the course of, first, his own immediate family, and then the whole world. I have no particular reason to doubt what was remembered.

Consider the denial that David existed–until an inscription was found that mentioned him. It is less likely we will find an inscription mentioning Abraham, but that does not mean he never existed. Consider the denial that Jesus existed, since we have no word written by him, no documents on him from the governments involved, not even a word written by his followers until some 20 years after he died. Do we really doubt, based on the results, that Jesus did exist, and transformed his followers?

 

[servant_dan]

Thank you all for your replies.

Unfortunately I don’t believe that is what she meant. She was trying to explain that the story communicates the relationship between God and his people and uses invented characters to do so. She said that she still believes it is inspired, but is inspired to teach us general themes.

Oh well, not really sure how to handle this. Any suggestions on what to say next time this comes up in class? I don’t want to flip tables or anything, but I don’t want the other people in the class being scandalized either. It seems like it throws an unnecessary stumbling block in people’s way for no appreciable gain.

Thanks again,
-Corruich

It becomes a useless excercise in trying to apologize for what we think other people think or are saying. You said it yourself, "invented character’, which then mean you consider Genesis to be a work of fiction. Once we take that position then who is to say the Ultra Orthodox Jews are wrong when they say the Chrisitian made up Iesus and that he never really existed but was invented? If you cave on Genesis, then you have to cave on the Gospels, both have about the same amount of proof. I think, if we claim to be Christians, then we understand the “Seed” of Abraham – Romans 4:16 – either this is true or it is not and we being believers then it must be true and therefore Abraham is not an invented character anymore than Adam and Eve, the Flood, Noah and so on. Even our Savior spoke of Noah and his time as fact, not myth and not invented – Mat 24:37-39 – Also Adam and Eve are refered to as actual people - 1 tim 2:13-14 – If anyone takes the time to read the New Testament you will see the accounts given in Genesis were believed and referred to by our Savior and His Apostles over and over again. For get about ignorant teachers afraid to stand up to worldly influences and Satan guided false intellect. Too many of his, Satans, helpers have entered the Church. You are responsible for your own Salvation and need to Know you Bible so you can protect yourself from such false teachers - Philp 2:12 – Either they all existed and the Word is true from the beginning to the end or our Savior is a myth too. Who are you going to believe?

 

[servant_dan]

As a Cultural Anthropologist, I can say that besides the Sacred Text in Christianity, Islam and Judaism, there is not much evidence historically that he ever lived. The Bible gives places, dates, kings, kingdoms etc…Some check out and so do not. If one went purely from an historical view, we tend to say no or I don’t know. One cannot say for certain, but if we go by faith, then one will say yes. You can kind of balance the two in a sense.

This is how I come at from as an Anthropologist…I have faith that he was a true man and a man of God. I believe some of the stories about him in religious text add a few things, but it still does not take away from the man Abraham. His battles or trips to here and there could be fact or somewhat fiction, but I believe the core of the Abrahamic Tradition is true. God called him out of all to proclaim the One True God.

From a worldly point of view, in all of the studies anyone can do enough evidence can be found or ignored depending on which side of the Myth arguement you want to come down on. But, on thing is sure, our Savior and His apostles all spoke of and taught us about the people from Adam and Eve, Noah, the Flood and Abraham as real people and real events, so what is the arguement? Oh, right, what men think, what other highly educated men think. Our Savior said the end times will become like the days of Noah, so, what were the days of Noah like? Paul taught the we are all children of the Seed, the Seed of Abraham, if we have the Christ. Adam is compared to our Savior – Adam the first man, and our Savior the firstfruit of the Spiritual man. Either Genesis stands as fact or the New Testament falls and all of it is a Myth, made up inventions – ancient fiction – our faith depends upon it, not upon what men say or want it to say. You know there are Jewish scholars that claim our Savior is a made up story, and invention of the Christian too, and here we are discussing whether Abraham really existed. The word says he did, men and some women teachers say he was ficiton, and if this is so, for these teachers, then maybe our Savior is a fiction to them also? Read your bible, believe your bible, listen to it and you will be surprised at how often men in high place contradict the very things they claim they believe. Peace, Dan

 

[servant_dan]

Aloysium wins the thread.

-Corruich

Great point – and if anyone is interested in what our Savior and His Apostles had to say –
Matt 24:37-39 – He thought Noah existed and if Noah did ?
Luke 3:38 – the generation line treats Adam as if he exsisted.
1 Cor 15:22 – the Apostles spoke of Adam as a real person
Gal 3:16 – and verse 29 – Abraham existed as sure as our Savior

Believe the Book and the record it lays out and the Gospel it teaches

 

[davidn87]

Because we know that the Bible contains the essential truth God wanted to tell us

not that the Bible is inerrant and literally true in every regard,

See, these two statements seem contradictory to me.

the Pope, is infallible.

So we can’t trust the Bible ‘as is’, but we can trust the Pope?

 

[_Abyssinia]

Ur, Hebron and Paran, mentioned areas in Abraham’s life, are real places

Check out the ancient tablets that were found in Nuzi, and Mari. These tablets describe lifestyles in the time Abraham would of existed. Professor William F Albright said

the narratives of Genesis dealing with Abram may now be integrated into the life and history of the time [the second millennium B.C.] in such surprisingly consistent ways that there can be little doubt about their substantial historicity

Page 10 July 1973, Biblical Archaeologist

 

[davidn87]

Why would any Christian doubt that what’s in the Bible actually happened?

 

[servant_dan]

See, these two statements seem contradictory to me.

So we can’t trust the Bible ‘as is’, but we can trust the Pope?

Good one David,

You must not be a Roman Catholic or you would now the answer to your sarcastic question is YES – POPE over bible, POPE over the word of the living God. This is how the Church survives, it replaces the final authority of Scripture in the lap of the Pope , Cardinals and priests. Right or wrong it is what they say even to overriding Scripture. Luther coined the term, “Solo Scripta”, or Scripture Only to which the Catholic leadership laughed – And any Catholic that wants to take issue with this is blind. Having the appearance of righteousness but full of dead men’s bones – this is the Catholic Church today, witness the scandal of the century and the excuses that followed and continue to follow as the queer priest and pediphiles are uncovered and still protected, only the high profiles are bought off as the continue blinding the sincere followers of the Chirst with their evil pretenses of being something they are not, righteous men. If what we see and have seen is but the tip what lies beneath. Not the congregation, no, most Catholics I have met are honest and spiritual people, except for those in the mobs, that is. Peace, to all that wake up and read and beleive the Scriptures over the false teachings of men and women.

 

[Cyberseeker]

Next time you’re having a little hanky panky with the wife, tell her very warmly that your love for her has really been a myth. Later, when you’re pulling the curling iron out of your ear and all the bleeding has stopped, tell her “But sweet thing, by myth, I really meant sacred narrative.” That might also be a good time to ask her when she became hostile to religion.

Either that, or tell her you are a myth, and she is your mythress. :egyptian:

 

[Lion777]

In response to Server Dan’ s response I accept the Pope as head of Church because that is what the Bible itself teaches. I was an evangelical Bible believing protestant for a while until it became undeniable to me that the Catholic Church is the only church that actually follows all of scripture in context. All the apparent contradictions between Catholiscm and the Bible evaporated away when I really studied the fullness of scripture. There are countless others posts on this fourm that go over each of the apparent contradictions. As far as the recent scandals go, Jesus himself said there would be tares among the Wheat until the Final Judgement. The Pope and the Magesterium have always treated Noah, Abraham, David, etc as absolutely real historical persons.

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android

 

[patrick457]

Ur, Hebron and Paran, mentioned areas in Abraham’s life, are real places

Check out the ancient tablets that were found in Nuzi, and Mari. These tablets describe lifestyles in the time Abraham would of existed. Professor William F Albright said

the narratives of Genesis dealing with Abram may now be integrated into the life and history of the time [the second millennium B.C.] in such surprisingly consistent ways that there can be little doubt about their substantial historicity

Page 10 July 1973, Biblical Archaeologist

Ur did exist. One problem is that we don’t know for sure where “Ur of the Chaldeans” is because there were a lot of places which bore the name. So the question is: in which of these Urs would have Abraham lived?

Not exactly related, but a small rant. While I think that one of the greatest faults of some 19th-early 20th century archaeologists is digging with an agenda (attempting to use archaeological finds as prooftext for the factuality of biblical stories), one of the greatest faults of some modern archaeologists is digging with an agenda (attempting to use archaeological finds as prooftext against biblical stories).

 

[miodrag1963]

What I would really like is a Catholic document (encyclical, council document, anything) that specifically spells out that we believe these were real people, but that may be hoping for too much.

That I can not provide. But from the point of Hinduism, he is real.

I don’t think I will live long enough to see some topics been addressed properly. Identity of Abraham is one of them. It would take much more serious and unbiased research then anything I’ve seen so far, to reveal how religious ideas evolved. One of the elementary methods of research is a comparative religion. It should be obvious what the three Abrahamic religions have in common.

For example, what they call Musa in Islam is Moses in Christianity, is Moshe in Judaism. Suleyman = Solomon = Sh’lomo, Isa = Jesus = Yeshua, Ilyas = Elijah = Eliyahu etc. But let’s go one step further: Ibrahim = Abraham = Avraham, in Hinduism = Brahma. And his wife is Sara = Sarah = Sarai = Sarasvati, in Hinduism. There is such a strong resistance to this idea. Once there was a Abraham page on Wikipedia, with a section “Speculations on Hindu connections” and references. It can be found here:

en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abraham&diff=prev&oldid=188156091#Speculations_on_Hindu_connections

I suggested that the same section can be added on Sarah page, but all traces of my conversation with the editor in charge of that page were promptly removed from his talk page. Back then I did not push any further, I just gave up, understanding the way things are. However, there are still few lines about that matter preserved on Sarah talk page, saying: “The link viewzone.com/abraham.html even says that identity of Abraham and Sara with Brahma and Saraiswati was first pointed out by the “Jesuit missionaries.(Vol. I; p. 387.)” So making the “Hindu connections” entry only for Abraham and not for Saraswati is only half the job done and seems awkward.” That also may disappear, so I will try to leave some trace here. It seems to me that Hindu section on Abraham page can easily be dismissed as a sensationalism, but it may be inconvenient if sensationalism strikes again with his wife too. Brahma is a demiurge and a procreator, he appeared as the first being in this Universe, he has no parents. In order to procreate, he was supposed to have a wife. But his wife had no way to appear in the Universe other then Brahma’s own. So, in this regard, she is his sister. And how Abraham introduces his wife Sara to a pharaoh - as his sister.

I don’t see why presenting things the way they really are would be such a blasphemy, why the resistance? That’s the way it is, so live with it. Oh, well, it may be inconvenient for all those worshiping the Abraham’s tomb in Hebron. Byzantine church was turned into a mosque, and now is divided in two sections, separated by bars, since both Jews and Arabs regard this place as holy. While true Brahma is as alive and kicking, just like God and angels are…

 

[patrick457]

That I can not provide. But from the point of Hinduism, he is real.

I don’t think I will live long enough to see some topics been addressed properly. Identity of Abraham is one of them. It would take much more serious and unbiased research then anything I’ve seen so far, to reveal how religious ideas evolved. One of the elementary methods of research is a comparative religion. It should be obvious what the three Abrahamic religions have in common.

For example, what they call Musa in Islam is Moses in Christianity, is Moshe in Judaism. Suleyman = Solomon = Sh’lomo, Isa = Jesus = Yeshua, Ilyas = Elijah = Eliyahu etc. But let’s go one step further: Ibrahim = Abraham = Avraham, in Hinduism = Brahma. And his wife is Sara = Sarah = Sarai = Sarasvati, in Hinduism. There is such a strong resistance to this idea. Once there was a Abraham page on Wikipedia, with a section “Speculations on Hindu connections” and references. It can be found here:

en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abraham&diff=prev&oldid=188156091#Speculations_on_Hindu_connections

I suggested that the same section can be added on Sarah page, but all traces of my conversation with the editor in charge of that page were promptly removed from his talk page. Back then I did not push any further, I just gave up, understanding the way things are. However, there are still few lines about that matter preserved on Sarah talk page, saying: “The link viewzone.com/abraham.html even says that identity of Abraham and Sara with Brahma and Saraiswati was first pointed out by the “Jesuit missionaries.(Vol. I; p. 387.)” So making the “Hindu connections” entry only for Abraham and not for Saraswati is only half the job done and seems awkward.” That also may disappear, so I will try to leave some trace here. It seems to me that Hindu section on Abraham page can easily be dismissed as a sensationalism, but it may be inconvenient if sensationalism strikes again with his wife too. Brahma is a demiurge and a procreator, he appeared as the first being in this Universe, he has no parents. In order to procreate, he was supposed to have a wife. But his wife had no way to appear in the Universe other then Brahma’s own. So, in this regard, she is his sister. And how Abraham introduces his wife Sara to a pharaoh - as his sister.

I don’t see why presenting things the way they really are would be such a blasphemy, why the resistance? That’s the way it is, so live with it. Oh, well, it may be inconvenient for all those worshiping the Abraham’s tomb in Hebron. Byzantine church was turned into a mosque, and now is divided in two sections, separated by bars, since both Jews and Arabs regard this place as holy. While true Brahma is as alive and kicking, just like God and angels are…

One problem: the Indo-Aryans in the Rigvedic period did not yet know of a deity named as such. The Hindu Brahma is a later amalgam of Rigvedic figures like Prajapati, Vastospati, Vishvakarman and Hiranyagarbha. Sarasvati was the personification of the river of the same name. And I think you’ll find that Hindu thought is not consistent about Brahma’s origin.

 

[geekborj]

In a bible study yesterday our RCIA director told us that Abraham, and the rest of the book of Genesis, is a myth. She said that it was written as a myth and was never intended to be a history book. I can understand that it is not a point for point history. However, that seems to me to be something different altogether than saying Abraham didn’t even exist at all!

Is the position of the Church and the Magisterium that Abraham was an actual, real individual? Is this one of those “free to disagree” points? I’ve heard this kind of thing about Adam, Job and Noah, but this is the first time I’ve heard this about Abraham.

What I would really like is a Catholic document (encyclical, council document, anything) that specifically spells out that we believe these were real people, but that may be hoping for too much.

Thanks,
-Corruich

Next time, ask her whether we should have abandoned our faith in God because our God is:
the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob. If any of these personalities are myth, then natural conclusion is that the God referred to is also a myth.

Thus, as Catholics, we do believe that Abraham is real. Perhaps that is not a catholic RCIA? hehe.

You should find hard evidences for this by asking her in a letter requesting a written response so you could digest well (email should do). Then when confirmed, send a letter to your Pastor (parish priest) CC to your Bishop.

Truly, there are wolves in sheep’s clothing!

God bless!

 

[Lesliej64]

Even critical Biblical scholars and theologians believe that Abraham is real historical person. They clearly trace his land of origin (Ur), land of his brief stay (Haran), and his eventual settlement in Israel. They understand and verify the customs, the culture, language, etc. If Abraham did not exist, then there would have been no Judaism or Israel in this world. He was their origin or father, from whom came Isaac and Jacob, and from whom originated the famous 12 tribes, from whom descended also Christ.

The target of Satan is blot out Christ from your hearts in a subtle indirect way. Unsuspectingly, he will start from Abraham. If he can plant even a small seed of disbelief on this, that could be slowly translated into not believing in the existence Christ himself. A little poison here and a little poison there, one by one can be enough to kill your faith fully. Hold fast to the orthodox faith of the Church. Always pray, meditate prayerfully the scriptures, frequent sacraments, intercession of saints and angels (St. Joseph), etc. Speak with other mature believers or frequent such websites.

At the present time, it would not be out of place to suspect every talk or every teaching you hear. Always try to verify and challenge what you hear. Satanic agents are sometimes sent out as extremely well-behaving highly educated gentlemen and ladies, but under conscious or unconscious control of demonic spirits to mislead the simple. They can be irresistible, charismatic, commanding and powerful than ordinary people in the way they speak or act, so beware!

 

[miguel]

Either that, or tell her you are a myth, and she is your mythress. :egyptian:

Use a pun, go to jail.:takethat:

 

[miguel]

Thank the Lord I don’t have a wife then.

I tried. But I can’t do that. Also from Genesis…Yahweh God said “It is not right that the man should be alone. I shall make him a helper.” I thank the Lord for every wife who helps her man live in reality, even when that help comes with a jab.