Who was offered for sacrifice by Abraham- Isaac or Ishmael?

[Gorgias]

With regard to the Injil, what is essentially presented isn’t even a harmonized partwork consisting of four parts but four separate books each with their own intentions and they cannot agree on even the most basic of facts concerning the life events of Jesus or his teachings/actions.

Hmm… I think you’re working from a faulty set of assumptions. The canonical Gospels weren’t intended to be discourses that should be harmonized: they were expressions of the Good News that were provided for distinct audiences in particular times and places. If they were four distinct translations of a single common source, then I’d agree with you. But they’re not; so one naturally expects that the inspired authors / redactors presented their story in ways that made sense for their intended audiences.

Then there’s the supposed non-canonical Gospels of Jesus such as the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Judas which were mysteriously judged to be not part of the canon, which is probably an issue of finding what fits with the agreed version of the events of Jesus’ life by the early church. In short, they simply deleted what they saw fit.

Not exactly. There were a number of criteria by which canonicity was decided: was the authorship of the Gospel generally settled and considered apostolic? was the Gospel already in widespread use throughout the Church in its liturgies? was the teaching of the Gospel in consonance with the faith of the Church?

The “gospel of Thomas” and “gospel of Judas”, in particular, were judged to have originated late, from sources that weren’t apostolic; they were in use in only certain ‘Christian’ communities and even these communities taught doctrine that the Church did not (i.e., they were communities of Gnostics). That’s far from an arbitrary standard!

Even my NIV admits some passages don’t feature in some manuscripts across all four gospels.

That’s because the Synoptic Gospels share features, while the Gospel of John was written in the context of a later tradition. What’s the problem with that?

Surely if all four Gospels were writing on the ONE set of teachings, they could at least agree to some extent?

Christ was born in 1st century Palestine. He taught, performed miracles, and preached a new Gospel. He was crucified, died, and rose again. I’d call that “agreement”, wouldn’t you?

 

[Kouyate42]

Hmm… I think you’re working from a faulty set of assumptions. The canonical Gospels weren’t intended to be discourses that should be harmonized: they were expressions of the Good News that were provided for distinct audiences in particular times and places. If they were four distinct translations of a single common source, then I’d agree with you. But they’re not; so one naturally expects that the inspired authors / redactors presented their story in ways that made sense for their intended audiences.

In short you’re ignoring the glaring inconsistencies of the four Gospels. Even if they are intended as four seperate accounts of the same events, you would expect something of the same details even though the main focus may be elsewhere.
Let’s say we met and I was telling you about the Rush concert I went to and I told you about the songs and instruments used. Now, I’m a bassist myself and so I’d likely be more focused on the bass elements of the concert, but if you asked my friend Mark who was with me, he would likely agree with me on major elements of the narrative even if he’d be focused on the drum elements as he’s a drummer. The focus of the writers may mean the narrative is adapted, but this does not stop coherence on major details.

Not exactly. There were a number of criteria by which canonicity was decided: was the authorship of the Gospel generally settled and considered apostolic? was the Gospel already in widespread use throughout the Church in its liturgies? was the teaching of the Gospel in consonance with the faith of the Church?

To me, the Church used the ‘top-down’ approach in that it decided what it wanted to be the truth and then ignored those elements which were not fitting. The very existence of other alternate (Gnostic) gospels seems to indicate to me that far from there being an agreed canon of Gospels and church teachings, there was deep division. I could even give something of a Bible-based argument for this.

Christ was born in 1st century Palestine. He taught, performed miracles, and preached a new Gospel. He was crucified, died, and rose again. I’d call that “agreement”, wouldn’t you?

Problem was that the texts which you base your assertions upon has not one word written by Jesus himself, and is in many places almost baffling in its contradictory stance against Jewish and then Islamic theology.

I also have this issue with Christianity which has some bearing on this matter: when I read hadith (reports of what the Prophet said, did or approved of), I can read of the chain of the narrators down which the hadith was passed down (called an isnad). This allows for Islamic scholars to determine their reliability and their strength, and to dismiss any doubtful narratives.
The four Gospels, despite being similar to the hadith in their narration of the events and teachings of Jesus’ life, does not have this element and so the reliability or even the source of the Gospels cannot be traced.

Surely such a historical figure, with many followers and people who met him, would then have narrators who could be reliably named as transmitting certain passages or teachings?

 

[Gorgias]

Let’s say we met and I was telling you about the Rush concert I went to and I told you about the songs and instruments used. Now, I’m a bassist myself and so I’d likely be more focused on the bass elements of the concert, but if you asked my friend Mark who was with me, he would likely agree with me on major elements of the narrative even if he’d be focused on the drum elements as he’s a drummer. The focus of the writers may mean the narrative is adapted, but this does not stop coherence on major details.

This is an awesome approach! Thanks for bringing it up!

OK – here’s the way I see it: the four evangelists are less like four guys who know how to play the bass, guitar, drums and sing. They’re more like four concert-goers explaining a Rush concert to different folks: one is a rock & roll fanatic, who knows all the history of the genre; another is a journalist; another is Russian, and doesn’t know a lick about American culture, but is a music major; and a fourth is a Rush fan from back in the days of Jeff Jones (so what he wants out of a narrative is completely different than what any of the other three audiences wants, or can handle!)

Now, how does this affect our understanding? Well… would we expect that all four would describe the set list identically? No way! We might not even expect that the four folks who were at the concert would have memorized the set lists identically! What might we expect, then? Well, we’d expect that some of the songs would match up between the descriptions. We’d expect that the approach to the concert that the “rock & roll fanatic” audience hear would be steeped in references to the culture that they share. We’d expect that the description given to the journalist would be someone stripped-down and would be a pretty bare description of events. We’d expect that the person who was talking to the Russian would have to take time out to explain American cultural implications to his listener. And we’d expect that the mega-Rush-fan would want a description that’s on a whole higher level than the other three would get. And that’s exactly what the Gospels give us!

To me, the Church used the ‘top-down’ approach in that it decided what it wanted to be the truth and then ignored those elements which were not fitting. The very existence of other alternate (Gnostic) gospels seems to indicate to me that far from there being an agreed canon of Gospels and church teachings, there was deep division.

That’s interesting. Let me make sure I understand what you’re saying: we’re looking at exactly the same historical events (i.e., the spread of the Gospels), and the two of us are coming up with a completely divergent description of what those events were? Why, that’s not possible, is it?

Problem was that the texts which you base your assertions upon has not one word written by Jesus himself

I’m not certain why this is a problem. Is there any need for Jesus to be a scribe?

in many places almost baffling in its contradictory stance against Jewish and then Islamic theology.

Again, could you explain? Why would a Christian writer, drafting a text for a Christian (and, given the post-70AD timeline, explicitly not Jewish) audience, be faulted for writing something that is “against Jewish theology”? Moreover, considering that he was writing far earlier than the start of Islam, why would he be beholden to Islamic theology?

I also have this issue with Christianity which has some bearing on this matter: when I read hadith (reports of what the Prophet said, did or approved of), I can read of the chain of the narrators down which the hadith was passed down (called an isnad). This allows for Islamic scholars to determine their reliability and their strength, and to dismiss any doubtful narratives.
The four Gospels, despite being similar to the hadith in their narration of the events and teachings of Jesus’ life, does not have this element and so the reliability or even the source of the Gospels cannot be traced.

I have a few thoughts on this. First, was the writing of the Koran done in an environment in which Islam was a persecuted religion? If so, then signing your name to a text would be something that ensured a short career as copyist. Second, have you ever read the writings of the Church Fathers? They discuss the sources of the Gospels and the provenance of the various texts.

 

[LegoGE1947]

If Muslims really accept the Bible then how can they deny that Christ actually died on the Cross, and rose from the dead?

But then how could ANY religion believe that Christ didn’t die on the Cross and rise from the dead. Even some “Christians” don’t believe it!

 

[Bezant]

OK, a question which is bugging me.

Islamic belief holds that Ismail (Ishmael) was the one who Abraham bound and put on the sacrificial altar on the command of Allah.

But the Bible holds Isaac to be the one Abraham offered.

My problem with this is from the Bible: Ishma’il was born first, and so was the eldest of the two half-brothers. However the Bible states this:

[BIBLEDRB]Genesis 22:2[/BIBLEDRB]

This passage holds Isaac to to the only son, which cannot be correct according to the Biblical narrative.

So. is the Bible wrong?

Kouyate

I really don’t see a conflict. You’re using a rather liberal translation. The Hebrew text does not include the word “begotten.” A more precise translation would be:

“And He said: 'Take now thy son, thine only “Ychid-cha”] son, whom thou lovest, even Isaac, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt-offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.” (mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0122.htm)

And there’s more than one way of defining “Ychid.” Assuming this is a good concordance, the word can mean “only”, “only one”, and “only son” but also “solitary”, “lonely” with a connotation of being beloved and precious, or even “darling.”
(concordances.org/hebrew/3173.htm)

But you also need to put the events in context. In the previous chapter that Ishmael did something to Isaac that offended Sarah (Genesis 21:9) and Abraham reluctantly sends Ishmael and Hagar off to exile in Be’ersheva (Genesis 21:14), effectively making Ishmael a lonely son without his brother and a very dear one to his father indeed.

However, I would prefer rendering “Ychid-cha” as “your darling [son]”, especially in conjunction with the next few words (“whom you love”). Even if you could say "But that’s repetitive to say ‘your darling son, whom you love’ " the sentence in itself is already quite repetitive (“Take now thy son…thine only son…even Isaac”) perhaps to stress the seriousness of what God is commanding Abraham to do.

 

[Sonseeahray]

Romans 9:6-9 (NASB)
But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; [7] neither are they all children because they are Abraham’s descendants, but: “through Isaac your descendants will be named.” 8] That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants. [9] For this is a word of promise: “At this time I will come, and Sarah shall have a son.”

Abraham who was now tired of waiting decided on his own to make the promise come to pass by taking Hagar - after all Sarah was really getting old. The result was Ishmael and Ishmael was not the son of promise.

It was only Isaac, born of Sarah, who was the child of promise. Ishmael was not. So Isaac was Abraham’s only true son of promise.

 

[Bezant]

Romans 9:6-9 (NASB)
But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; [7] neither are they all children because they are Abraham’s descendants, but: “through Isaac your descendants will be named.” 8] That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants. [9] For this is a word of promise: “At this time I will come, and Sarah shall have a son.”

Abraham who was now tired of waiting decided on his own to make the promise come to pass by taking Hagar - after all Sarah was really getting old. The result was Ishmael and Ishmael was not the son of promise.

It was only Isaac, born of Sarah, who was the child of promise. Ishmael was not. So Isaac was Abraham’s only true son of promise.

While I agree that Isaac was clearly meant to inherit the promise of fathering the Nation of Israel, this wasn’t the only promise to Abraham’s descendants.

“And also of the son of the bondwoman will I make a nation, because he is thy seed.” (Genesis 21:13)

Through Abraham there’s a general promise to all of his children and grand-children to father nations (though not necessarily the Nation of Israel).

Ishmael fathered thirteen children, who in became the Ishmaelite Nation.

Likewise, Esau inherits the promise to father nations by right of being Abraham’s grandson, and he becomes the father of the Edomites, despite the fact that he gave up his birthright (that is to say, his entitlement as elder brother to father the Nation of Israel, which he passed on to Jacob).

By the way there are also promises within the promise to father the Nation of Israel, such as the blessing of the priesthood lineage (through the Levites and specifically Aaron) and the blessing of the kingly lineage (through Judah).

 

[triumphguy]

So Kouyate42, a few weeks ago when you were Jewish who did you believe that Abraham was called to sacrifice?

Now you are Moslem who do you think was the intended sacrificial victim?

 

[LegoGE1947]

So Kouyate42, a few weeks ago when you were Jewish who did you believe that Abraham was called to sacrifice?

Now you are Moslem who do you think was the intended sacrificial victim?

The REAL intended sacrifice victim was God’s only begotten Son, Our Lord Jesus Christ