Which son of Abraham did God ask him to sacrifice?

[Stacmon]

I find this to be rather insulting in its insinuations. The Jewish tradition is based on commentary and study, our clergy are rabbis, literally "teachers." The rabbinic tradition of commentary is one thing that no faith can match, not even Islam. In traditional Haredi (ultra-Orthodox) society in fact the man is expected to spend every living moment he can learning and studying so much so that many do not have full time secular jobs and rather their wives earn the living as well as care for the children. Additionally, to suggest that Muslim commentary is inherently more rational than rabbinic is nonsense.

It seems you managed to take the whole thing out of context . In general, I'd agree with you that Jews have also spent a great deal of time investigating their scriptures and that some people devote themselves to it fully (as you mentioned).

To clarify, I started that reply with "I disagree" and the comment that I was disagreeing with was:

What is the point of this?

If you're christian or jew you'll belive this, and if you're muslim you'll believe that, there no way to debate here.

What I was trying to say is that Islam applies to a person's rationality and intellect. It is not a requirement that one have blind faith in the religion, with nothing to substantiate one's belief, and instead the Qur'an frequently mentions that God has sent Signs to people (inside and outside the Qur'an).

Basically I wasn't making that point to suggest that the same items I mentioned don't apply to some other religions (in fact, I hold Judaism in very high regard, and also think that education, study and scholarly pursuits are encouraged in the religion).

The vast majority of the great rabbis were not only commentators, but scientists. Many of the greatest advancements in astronomy, mathematics, and physics were made by rabbis.

I'm confident you'll agree that the case is very similar in Islam. Not only were people celebrated scientists (often contributing in many diverse fields) but they were also scholars of the Qur'an and Islam.

The reason behind that (which we see to great measure in both Orthodox Judaism and Islam) is that there is no separation of day to day and religious life. This meant that study of a community's religion was seen as worthwhile and complimentary to the study of science.

To contrast, if you look at the world today, many scientists are western and therefore have Christian backgrounds (that is after all where the majority of the world's "advanced" economies are, and therefore the opportunities) holding very secular/agnostic beliefs or being decidedly atheistic. Nowadays there is a much stronger separation between religion and science and obviously most non-religious people feel that's totally normal and preferred.

I'll reiterate that I feel Islam and Judaism have much more in common than either have with Christianity. They both believe in the unity of God, ascribe no divinity to what they consider a man (or in the case of Judaism, are even skeptical of his existence) and allow for the existence of one another. What I refer to when I say that are the Noahide Laws set out in Judaism, which Muslims fulfill (it's very debatable if Christians do, since they don't believe in the unit of God and ascribe divinity to Jesus) and the acceptance of the people of the book in Islam, a definition that Jews clearly meet since they don't assign partners with God (again, believe in His absolute unity).

 

[classical_hero]

What? That makes no sense. The older the book, the more likely it's message has been lost in translation/corruption . Of the three religions that we're talking about, only the Qur'an can be proven to be the same now as the time in which it was revealed.

That is not true, because we have seen via the Dead Sea scrolls that the Old Testament is accurate because the version that we have right now, the Masorite text is extremely accurate. The reason for this is that the scribes would throw away the copy of the scriptures if they made more than three mistakes. You can see that the Old Testament is very accurate and since it is much closer to the time than the writing of the Qur'an, thus it is the more accurate text. The Qu'ran was written some thousands of years after the event and the Genesis Account would have only been some hundreds of years after the event.

In the Qur'an, God even states that (since this is his final revelation for man), He will protect it from corruption/tampering, and that's exactly what we see to this day.

How many times does the Qur'an say that it is God's word? The Bible mentions it thousands of times. It also mentions that it his very word and describes the actual process of how the Bible is his word.

This is the reason why we see one version of the Qur'an from Makkah in Saudi Arabia, all the way to the smallest, most rural and isolated town in Indonesia.

On the other hand, there are dozens of versions of the bible in the English language alone .

There is a reason for that and it depends on many factors. One is the method of translation. There are two main ways that people have translated the Bible, one is word for word and the other is thought for thought, which is not as accurate as the other method. This had lead some people calling the NIV, the Nearly Inspired Version, since is very loose with it's translation. The only version that I would go for are those that go for the word for word translation method, but then that brings up difficulties of it own.

Another reason is the various Greek Manuscripts that are available. For the most part the vast majority of the texts agree with each other, but there are some Greek Manuscripts that do vary differently from others, so it depends if the Greek Text has taken a majority reading of the manuscripts around or if the have relied on some of the more variation readings of the texts. Now it depends which you believe to be the Textus Receptus (The Received Text) that being the one that closest resemble the original manuscripts, which we just do not have.

Another consideration is that we have a translation (English) from three totally different languages and thus this makes translation very difficult since the way the different languages use the language is often different. While Aramaic and Hebrew a similar, Greek is in a totally different language sub group and English is again total different from the three. So a translation made into English will never be the same as reading it in the original languages, but it is easier for us to be able to read it in our own language. It is interesting just having a quick look at the original languages to see how difficult it is to translate into a different language, since the many difficulties.

 

[zenspiderz]

I don't normally weigh in on these kinds of religious debates that argue over scripture as I am not very knowledgable on any of the texts being refered to (qu'ran, torah etc.) That said one argument of stacmon I found rather convincing.

Islam does not deny God's blessings on Isaac and his descendants, but the son of promise is Ishmael, from whom arose Muhammad as the seal of the prophets.

Because of the above verses (along with other reasons) Muslims believe that God's promises are fulfilled through Ishmael, rather than Isaac. These promises include:

Genesis 12:2: "I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing."

Genesis 13:16: "I will make your offspring like the dust of the earth, so that if anyone could count the dust, then your offspring could be counted."

Genesis 13:5: "He took him outside and said, 'Look up at the heavens and count the stars—if indeed you can count them.' Then he said to him, 'So shall your offspring be.'"

Genesis 17:4: "As for me, this is my covenant with you: You will be the father of many nations."

Genesis 17:8: The whole land of Canaan, where you are now an alien, I will give as an everlasting possession to you and your descendants after you; and I will be their God."

Note that the Arabs, the children of Ishmael, made Canaan (Palestine) home after conquering it from the Romans.

The verses above are certainly consistent with the history of the Arabs and could certainly apply to them better than they apply to the Hebrews (there are about 300 million Arabs compared to about 15 million Jews).

Some one said (perfection I think) that the stories can't be tested. Well perhaps the test is in which line of abraham has measured up the to 'son of promise'. To me the Ishmael's arabs clearly fit better than Isaac's hebrews in this regard.

 

[bhsup]

Regarding the quoted material above about the land promised by God to the descendents of Abraham, later Biblical quotes clearly lay out that the promise was for his son Isaac and his descendents.

2 And the LORD appeared unto him, and said, Go not down into Egypt; dwell in the land which I shall tell thee of:
3 Sojourn in this land, and I will be with thee, and will bless thee; for unto thee, and unto thy seed, I will give all these countries, and I will perform the oath which I sware unto Abraham thy father;
4 And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed;

12 And he dreamed, and behold a ladder set up on the earth, and the top of it reached to heaven: and behold the angels of God ascending and descending on it.
13 And, behold, the LORD stood above it, and said, I am the LORD God of Abraham thy father, and the God of Isaac: the land whereon thou liest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed;
14 And thy seed shall be as the dust of the earth, and thou shalt spread abroad to the west, and to the east, and to the north, and to the south: and in thee and in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed.
15 And, behold, I am with thee, and will keep thee in all places whither thou goest, and will bring thee again into this land; for I will not leave thee, until I have done that which I have spoken to thee of.

 

[Stacmon]

One thing I'm curious about is the following:

History is filled with Jews that converted to Islam (and Christianity). Since the promise made by God (according to the Jewish Scripture, which I don't concede as being completely accurate) is made to the seed of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob/Israel, and not to "Jews," doesn't that mean that Christian and Muslim descendents of the three mentioned have just as much right to the land? Regardless of their religious affiliation, they may very well descend from Jacob.

On a similar train of thought Jewish converts don't suddenly descend from Jacob by adopting Judaism.

Also, the promise that he would build Abraham's seed into many nations need not be limited to Isaac and Jacob, it could still apply to Ishmael, while subsequent promises could apply specifically to Isaac and his descendents.

 

[bhsup]

Christian Jews are still Jews, yes? Simply because they may practice the Christian faith rather than Judaism make them no less Jewish, right?

 

[Stacmon]

Christian Jews are still Jews, yes? Simply because they may practice the Christian faith rather than Judaism make them no less Jewish, right?

Agreed, but remember that Judaism didn't start until much after Abraham. Abraham, Isaac and Israel weren't Jews in the sense that we understand it today, they were prophets and followers of God. Remember that there is a difference between the Hebrews and Jews/Judaism.

Furthermore, how do you address the question posed about converts to Judaism?

 

[bhsup]

Agreed, but remember that Judaism didn't start until much after Abraham. Abraham, Isaac and Israel weren't Jews in the sense that we understand it today, they were prophets and followers of God. Remember that there is a difference between the Hebrews and Jews/Judaism.

I see no difference. All of the descendents of Jacob/Israel, constituting the twelves tribes, are Hebrews/Jews.

Furthermore, how do you address the question posed about converts to Judaism?

Personally, I don't address it. That's between those who practice Judaism and not really my business. I guess ultimately, given it is God who made the Jews his chosen people, it's God's call on how to address it.

 

[Stacmon]

I see no difference. All of the descendents of Jacob/Israel, constituting the twelves tribes, are Hebrews/Jews.

I don't mean to be presumptuous but I think it's a bit inaccurate to claim that Hebrews and Jews are the same.

From Wikipedia on "Hebrews":

Hebrews (or Heberites, Eberites, Hebreians; Hebrew: עברים or עבריים, Standard ʿIvrim, ʿIvriyyim Tiberian ʿIḇrîm, ʿIḇriyyîm; meaning "descendants of biblical Patriarch Eber"), were people who lived in Canaan, an area encompassing Israel, both banks of the Jordan River (The West Bank and Jordan), Sinai, Lebanon, and the coastal portions of Syria.

Claiming that Hebrews and Jews is the same is like claiming that Arabs and Muslims are the same.

For example, before the exodus of Palestinians from what is now known as Israel, and the exodus of Jews from Arab countries that followed, the vast majority of Arab Jews identified their ethnicity as "Arab", not "Jewish." Judaism is a religion, but it does not actively evangelize and seek converts, so it's taken on somewhat of a "tribal" nature.

Similarly, American Jews are not Israelis today, Israelis are the people that inhabit the country of Israel, were born there, or have citizenship. There is of course a large minority of Arab Israelis (almost 20% of the country's population). They are predominantly Muslim but include some Christians. They are certainly not Jews (or Hebrews ).

 

[bhsup]

Well, given your use of Arab and Muslim as a comparison, I guess you're equating Jew with the faith of Judaism. I made no such claim. I was using a blood claim back to the twelve tribes, not their religious beliefs.

 

[Stacmon]

Well, given your use of Arab and Muslim as a comparison, I guess you're equating Jew with the faith of Judaism. I made no such claim. I was using a blood claim back to the twelve tribes, not their religious beliefs.

If a Jew is, as you say a "blood claim" that involves belonging to one of the twelve tribes and not one who follows Judaism, what is the proper word (in your vocabulary) to refer to an adherent of Judaism?

 

[bhsup]

Honestly, they usually go hand in hand, so Jew, Israelite, Hebrew would usuall fit, but I don't actually have a word for the converts who are not of the bloodline. Judian?!

EDIT: Wait! Since there are Messianic Jews (Christians of the twelve tribes), couldn't there be, to coin a very weird and seemingly contradictary phrase, Gentile Jews (those who practice Judaism but are not of the twelve tribes)?

 

[Stacmon]

EDIT: Wait! Since there are Messianic Jews (Christians of the twelve tribes), couldn't there be, to coin a very weird and seemingly contradictary phrase, Gentile Jews (those who practice Judaism but are not of the twelve tribes)?

According to my understanding of Judaism, once a Jew converts, there is a special term for them, however they are not to be treated differently than any other Jew. Furthermore, as soon as they have a child, that child is in no way distinguished from any other Jew (again, we're speaking in the religious sense). No one keeps track of whose forefathers were converts and whose forefathers were biblical patriarchs (there's pretty much no way to be sure anyway), so in the end, Jews are simply Jews.

Personally, I disagree with you completely that "Jew" is a racial term, but on that topic we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[Speedo]

Some might choose to argue that "Ishmael" doesn't really count as Abraham's son, since he was the son of Abraham and Hagar (who he slept with because Sarah couldn't bear a son), not Abraham and Sarah (who was his beloved wife). However, this completely contradicts other verses in the Torah/Old Testament.

All of which was handed down after the events with Abraham took place. Making the assumption that previous events would follow the same rules is just that - an assumption - and a silly assumption at that.

 

[Speedo]

Personally, I disagree with you completely that "Jew" is a racial term, but on that topic we'll have to agree to disagree.

How then do you account for the numerous non-religious individuals who "enjoyed" Hitler's "hospitality"?

 

[Stacmon]

How then do you account for the numerous non-religious individuals who "enjoyed" Hitler's "hospitality"?

Just because Hitler believed it, and convinced others of it, does not make it true.

For example, Jews among one another, don't share much of the same genetic information, there has also been a great deal of mixing with local populations in Jewish communities.

I'm not denying that there is some feeling of "ethnic" identity among Jews (and again, this can be explained by the religion's reactive approach to conversion), I'm saying that Jews, Hebrews and Israelis are not the same thing, despite what some other people think .

 

[bhsup]

Personally, I disagree with you completely that "Jew" is a racial term, but on that topic we'll have to agree to disagree.

I'm a bit confused by that, given this thread is entirely based on lineage. Which son of Abraham and the promised land and all that. Given that, it's critical to trace the bloodlines back to the twelve tribes and the great patriarchs. As the Biblical verses show, the promised land was for the Israelites, Jacob's/Israel's children and their offspring. They are God's chosen people.

 

[Stacmon]

I'm a bit confused by that, given this thread is entirely based on lineage. Which son of Abraham and the promised land and all that. Given that, it's critical to trace the bloodlines back to the twelve tribes and the great patriarchs. As the Biblical verses show, the promised land was for the Israelites, Jacob's/Israel's children and their offspring. They are God's chosen people.

But once again, even if you believe the above, that doesn't mean Jew = Hebrew/Israelite/Descendent of Jacob.

 

[warpus]

God's chosen people have been inbreeding with God's unchosen people for the last couple thousand years, resulting in most Jews today being 37% chosen and 63% unchosen.

 

[Israelite9191]

I'll reiterate that I feel Islam and Judaism have much more in common than either have with Christianity. They both believe in the unity of God, ascribe no divinity to what they consider a man (or in the case of Judaism, are even skeptical of his existence) and allow for the existence of one another. What I refer to when I say that are the Noahide Laws set out in Judaism, which Muslims fulfill (it's very debatable if Christians do, since they don't believe in the unit of God and ascribe divinity to Jesus) and the acceptance of the people of the book in Islam, a definition that Jews clearly meet since they don't assign partners with God (again, believe in His absolute unity).

This I agree with whole heartedly (I also go to a Jesuit school so my experience of Christian theology is much more broad and in depth than that of most Jews or Muslims), although I must point out that the vast majority of Jews accept that it is a historical fact that Jesus existed, we simply do not accept that he was more than a slightly heretical, yet very charasmatic, rabbi and false messiah.