A comparison of Jesus and the request by God to Abraham to present His unique son as a living sacrifice.
Last edited:
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Abraham and Jesus
- Thread starter Kenny
- Start date
A comparison of Jesus and the request by God to Abraham to present His unique son as a living sacrifice.
jesus was murdered because of the pharisees and saducees. god would be a hyprocite if saying I require mercy and not sacrifices. also would go against isaiah 66. love does no harm
isn't it amazing how peolpe get caught up in dogma and don't see the simplicity. jesus too would be a hypocrite in advocating the slaughter of innocent people.
1st Samuel 15:22
Hosea 6:6
Isaiah 66
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Even though time in both Christianity and Judaism is linear, thus not circular, nevertheless there are what I call "loops" [like flashbacks], whereas a more recent person is depicted as being a "new version" of a previous person , if you know what I mean.
This is a reoccurrent theme, so thanks for the above.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Technically, no. Jesus was executed by the Romans.
Would not all have been involved? God definitely imputed guilt to them in the affair (as the Lord Himself said), for they turned Him over. So He was murdered because of both and executed by both.
I find some of the details of the comparison to be a bit of a stretch, such as saying Isaac willingly got on the altar. The verse says nothing of that, and unlike Jesus, Isaac believed there would be a lamb to sacrifice. Jesus knew he himself was the lamb to be a sacrificed. I could nitpick other points above, but you get the point.
That the authors of the passion narrative drew from the stories of the OT is pretty clear though. They clearly intended to draw parallels to many of the famous Jewish stories, such as comparing him to Moses, for instance, in order to make connections for the readers in their stories.
This won't necessarily convince the students that these stories foretold of Jesus, but rather that the authors of the gospels knew of the stories and crafted their stories to include these elements to add a prophetic sense to them. It's unlikely to be seen as miraculous by university students, but rather as literary devices. But that does add value and a richness to the stories. It shows the vision of Jesus they had in their minds and wanted their readers to see. That has value in an academic setting.
That the authors of the passion narrative drew from the stories of the OT is pretty clear though. They clearly intended to draw parallels to many of the famous Jewish stories, such as comparing him to Moses, for instance, in order to make connections for the readers in their stories.
This won't necessarily convince the students that these stories foretold of Jesus, but rather that the authors of the gospels knew of the stories and crafted their stories to include these elements to add a prophetic sense to them. It's unlikely to be seen as miraculous by university students, but rather as literary devices. But that does add value and a richness to the stories. It shows the vision of Jesus they had in their minds and wanted their readers to see. That has value in an academic setting.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
The Pharisees and Sadducees had no legal power with the Romans, and it was Pilate who made that decision representing Caesar, plus crucifixion was a Roman form of execution, not Jewish.
And what of them bringing Him to him repeatedly and calling for His execution when he gave them a choice in the matter?
technically true but the jews falsely accused him and pontius pilot said he found no guilt in him.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Please realize that when you say "them", this is a reference to only a very small fraction of Jews, including Pharisees and Sadducees.
Again, the Romans tried Jesus and executed him, thus not the Jews.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Whether Pilate actually said that or not is really quite conjectural theologically, but either way Pilate represented Caesar, thus he must do Caesar's bidding. Jesus probably was tried for sedition against the Empire with his activity at the Temple and also his declaration about his "Kingdom". For some reason monarchs don't like competition.
technically complicity is a crime in wrong doing. a judge and an accuser con be complicit in committing injustices. goes to the spirit of the law and not the letter.Whether Pilate actually said that or not is really quite conjectural theologically, but either way Pilate represented Caesar, thus he must do Caesar's bidding. Jesus probably was tried for sedition against the Empire with his activity at the Temple and also his declaration about his "Kingdom". For some reason monarchs don't like competition.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Please see my posts #10 & 11. "Complicity" involves being "involved with others in an illegal activity or wrongdoing" [dictionary]. Speaking out by itself is not necessarly illegal.
Thus, legally it was Pilate's decision, and he's the one who made it.
Altfish
Veteran Member
The Bible writers were not J K Rowling were they?
I think we can get too laser beamed into the exactly "who done it" at that moment when there are two points of more importance:
- No one really had the power to take his life John 1018 AMP No one takes it away from Me, but I lay it down voluntarily. I am authorized and have power to lay it down and to give it up, and I am authorized and have power to take it back. This command I have received from My Father.”
- We could say that we did it: Is 53: AMP But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was crushed for our wickedness [our sin, our injustice, our wrongdoing]; The punishment [required] for our well-being fell on Him, And by His stripes (wounds) we are healed.
Let me look that up in Wikipedia... you may just be right
Of course, this is an interpretation but I can't see Abraham tying Isaac up and Isaac (who I'm sure was no pushover) not fighting him unless he was willing.
I'm trying to imagine that. "What do you mean, there is no lamb? I'm going to be killed? Well, that's news! Okay, sure, why not...." It seems a little too unexpected of news to be okay with it, going against such a natural instinct to not die. I mean, even Jesus, knowing well in advance he was going to die, agonized over that and prayed if it was possible to avoid that, to the point of sweating blood. Isaac was no Jesus, and this was last minute news.
Of course though, details like that are not the real point of the story. It's about the story, not the facts of what actually happened that is the point. In real life history however in such a story, the actual details would be quite a bit different in flavor and texture. Quite a bit more messy, I would imagine.
I'm trying to imagine that. "What do you mean, there is no lamb? I'm going to be killed? Well, that's news! Okay, sure, why not...." It seems a little too unexpected of news to be okay with it, going against such a natural instinct to not die. I mean, even Jesus, knowing well in advance he was going to die, agonized over that and prayed if it was possible to avoid that, to the point of sweating blood. Isaac was no Jesus, and this was last minute news.
Of course though, details like that are not the real point of the story. It's about the story, not the facts of what actually happened that is the point. In real life history however in such a story, the actual details would be quite a bit different in flavor and texture. Quite a bit more messy, I would imagine.
That may be because of one's personally level of belief. Abraham's faith certainly beyond ours and received the title "Father of the faith". And, of course, we can only go by what is written and not what isn't written.
Maybe Isaac agonized? We won't ever know. What we do know is that Abraham's faith was much greater that anyone else's (even mine). He saw the hand of God in the birth of his son, the resurrection of the womb of 90 year old Sarah. He saw God give him favor, victories, and renewed life.
We also see Jesus saying: John 8:56 MSG If I, in false modesty, said I didn’t know what was going on, I would be as much of a liar as you are. But I do know, and I am doing what he says. Abraham—your ‘father’—with elated faith looked down the corridors of history and saw my day coming. He saw it and cheered.”
Apparently Abraham saw more than just the act.
Certainly, in its totality, Isaac was not Jesus. He is but a shadow of the real deal that Jesus went through.
But one thing is certain, the types and shadows of Abraham and Isaac certainly have great similarities in the life of Jesus.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Storytelling, which are forms of "myths" [doesn't mean nor imply falsehood], is an art that was and is used in virtually all societes historically. So, is the Abraham/Isaac narrative a real event or a myth?
The answer is that it doesnt make a difference, much like whether the "Good Samaritan" parable was a myth or a real event. Today, what different does it make if it was either?
How's that for stirring the pot?
The answer is that it doesnt make a difference, much like whether the "Good Samaritan" parable was a myth or a real event. Today, what different does it make if it was either?
How's that for stirring the pot?