Which son of Abraham did God ask him to sacrifice?

[scipian]

They should have started and ended there but they didn't trust God enough and decided to "help" him by having the son by Haggar, the slave.

And why would Mesopotamian Law influence Abraham's decisions? In the Bible, God and Abraham made big motions of erasing all the "pagan" influences and creating a completely new, somewhat arbitrary system of rules and regulations. Circumcision, as one obvious example.

 

[El_Machinae]

Again, it's pretty clear that the authors of that story didn't think there was a contradiction, or they would have not included it. We have no legitimate way of knowing what God told Abraham to do.

 

[JollyRoger]

When he sent away Ishmael he still had God's promise that Sarah would bear a son, Ishmael was the result of Abe's impatience. Besides as has been said, Ismael was the son of a concubine, Isaac, the son of his wife.

So Abe was impatient. His impatience drives him to the brink of killing Isaac and it gets spun into God driving him to that brink.

 

[scipian]

Do you have any justification at all for that or are you just BSing? I don't mind people looking critically at the Bible (I admit that there are significant portions that I can't justify) but at least do more than idle speculation or he says she says religious debate.

 

[JollyRoger]

Do you have any justification at all for that or are you just BSing? I don't mind people looking critically at the Bible (I admit that there are significant portions that I can't justify) but at least do more than idle speculation or he says she says religious debate.

I would say that it is human nature to not take responsibility for yur own bad actions. Almost killing your son is a pretty bad action and the "God told me to do it" line worked pretty well for certain people in the ancient world.

 

[Stacmon]

Again, it's pretty clear that the authors of that story didn't think there was a contradiction, or they would have not included it. We have no legitimate way of knowing what God told Abraham to do.

That might be true if people were perfect, but just look at the New Testament.

There is disagreement about how many generations existed between Adam and Jesus! Clearly that can't be construed as the word of God.

The bottom line is, people look things over, make mistakes, and so on, especially if they're being untruthful.

Do you honestly think it's easier to lie all the time (and maintain those lies) than it is to constantly tell the truth? Aren't you more likely to slip up doing the former than the latter ?

 

[scipian]

Ok. So you have no justification. I just wanted to know.

If you want to hit the Bible, I'd suggest you find a better topic. There are many areas that are fairly debatable. I myself have taken the devil's advocate against my Dad involving how we know the bible is true and not just like the Greek myths (mythology based around real events). After that, I realized that I really couldn't justify the complete factuality of the bible except through faith.

Stacmon-

I really do hope that you're joking about the number of generations between Jesus and Adam.

 

[Perfection]

That might be true if people were perfect, but just look at the New Testament.

Maybe the Jews are right...

 

[Stacmon]

After that, I realized that I really couldn't justify the complete factuality of the bible except through faith.

But wouldn't you feel more convinced (and therefore have more faith) if you found a religion that doesn't simply require blind devotion and instead gives you rational justification for your belief?

Some of you may disagree with me, but this is what I've found to be the case regarding Islam.

 

[scipian]

Are you saying that Islam is more rational and logical than Christianity? Ha! If anything, Christianity is one of the more rational, down to earth religion there are. And Islam is one of the more abstract, unverifiable religions. Islam has much more mumbo-jumbo and contradictions than Christianity has. If you're trying to say that Islamic tradition can be verified better than Jewish or Christian, I'd love to see your evidence.

 

[El_Machinae]

Do you honestly think it's easier to lie all the time (and maintain those lies) than it is to constantly tell the truth? Aren't you more likely to slip up doing the former than the latter ?

The word "Isaac" and "only son" appear in the same sentence. The author's would notice something like that.

 

[Red Door]

This whole thread is rather silly as Abraham makes Ishmael and his mother leave in Genesis 21, so it's quite obvious from that that Isaac is the one to be sacrificed. Then, in Genesis 22:2, God says "Take your son Isaac, your only one, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah. There you shall offer up as a holocaust on a height that I will point to you."

 

[scipian]

Yeah, but the others are saying that Abraham was crazy and used God to excuse his madness in almost killing Isaac or that the Islamic scriptures are better verified and thus more factual. Still, I do agree that it's pointless.

 

[Stacmon]

This whole thread is rather silly as Abraham makes Ishmael and his mother leave in Genesis 21, so it's quite obvious from that that Isaac is the one to be sacrificed. Then, in Genesis 22:2, God says "Take your son Isaac, your only one, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah. There you shall offer up as a holocaust on a height that I will point to you."

I wouldn't say this is silly, we're discussing which of the accounts, the Jewish/Christian one or the Islamic one regarding the status of Ishmael as Abraham's first son is the one more likely to be true.

Obviously if the authors/modifiers of the Torah wanted to portray Isaac as Abraham's only son and the target of the various blessings ascribed to him, they would. My argument however is that there is reason to think that this wasn't the original intent and that the story could have later been applied to Isaac in order to bolster his position and paint Ishmael in a worse light (this is indeed the case, with the Old Testament calling him "a wild ass of a man").

I'll admit though that some of your arguments (referring to everyone contributing) have made it clearer to me why Jews and Christians hold the belief that the son to be sacrificed was Isaac. Nevertheless, I don't find it more convincing than the Islamic account.

Are you saying that Islam is more rational and logical than Christianity? Ha! If anything, Christianity is one of the more rational, down to earth religion there are. And Islam is one of the more abstract, unverifiable religions. Islam has much more mumbo-jumbo and contradictions than Christianity has. If you're trying to say that Islamic tradition can be verified better than Jewish or Christian, I'd love to see your evidence.

Can you offer up some examples of why you believe the above to be the case?

I am always interested in hearing justified and well-founded criticism.

 

[Perfection]

I wouldn't say this is silly, we're discussing which of the accounts, the Jewish/Christian one or the Islamic one regarding the status of Ishmael as Abraham's first son is the one more likely to be true.

The problem is you have no way of determining other then presupposing all the religious crap contained in each text, and then it's just a matter of faith and not rational stuffs.

 

[Stacmon]

Yeah, but the others are saying that Abraham was crazy and used God to excuse his madness in almost killing Isaac.

That's something that we can disagree with them together about .

 

[Stacmon]

The problem is you have no way of determining other then presupposing all the religious crap contained in each text, and then it's just a matter of faith and not rational stuffs.

Well if one account has more (potential) holes in it than another, this may give more credence to the more credible of the two, at least in my eyes.

 

[Perfection]

Well if one account has more (potential) holes in it than another, this may give more credence to the more credible of the two, at least in my eyes.

Well, if they both have a lot of holes then they both have no credibility. Plus, it's not like there's any way of testing the stories.

 

[JonnyB]

Maybe they just added an extra comma when it was translated.

Genesis 22:2: "Take now thy son, thine only son, whom thou lovest, Isaac"

becomes
Genesis 22:2: "Take now thy son, thine only son whom thou lovest, Isaac"
If Abraham didn't love Ishmael then "Take your son, the only son you Love, Isaac" is not contradictory.

 

[scipian]

I asked you, but I'll be happy to oblige. Mind you, it's pointless to say that "my Koran is less incorrect than your bible". It can't be proven and even if it could, it doesn't mean anything.

Here's one major discrepancy:

002.062
YUSUFALI: Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish
 (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in Allah 
and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their 
Lord;on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

VS.

005.072 
YUSUFALI: They do blaspheme who say: "Allah is Christ the son of Mary."
 But said Christ: "O Children of Israel! worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord." 
Whoever joins other gods with Allah,- Allah will forbid him the garden, and the 
Fire will be his abode. There will for the wrong-doers be no one to help.

And, more importantly, neither can be justified historically. We can't find proof of individuals who did not get recorded into history (like Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Ishmael) and for those who do, others could just say that it is like the Greeks (based myths on real life events/places).

And I actually do have to go now. I'll try to come back later and look some more at the Koranic texts.