Abraham and Jesus

[Kenny]

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?

I'm stirred.

 

[pearl]

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.

I may be wrong but technically or legally the Pharisees had no say or vote as they were not members of the Sanhedrin, not priests.

 

[Kenny]

I may be wrong but technically or legally the Pharisees had no say or vote as they were not members of the Sanhedrin, not priests.

Don't know the reliability of this information is:

Politics and the Sanhedrin

At the time of Jesus, two religio-political parties within Judaism were represented in the Sanhedrin: the Sadducees of the majority and the Pharisees of the minority. Caiaphas, the high priest, was a Sadducee. But most of the scribes were Pharisees.

The presiding officer of the council was usually the high priest. The council was connected with the minor courts, itself being the highest court of appeal from these. The Sanhedrin’s authority was broad and far-reaching, involving legislation, administration, and justice. There was religious, civil, and criminal jurisdiction.

history-of-the-sanhedrin

 

[pearl]

At the time of Jesus, two religio-political parties within Judaism were represented in the Sanhedrin: the Sadducees of the majority and the Pharisees of the minority. Caiaphas, the high priest, was a Sadducee. But most of the scribes were Pharisees.

But as I understand it the Pharisees, although members of the body, were not voting members as to the guilt or innocence of the accused, which belonged to the 71 priests alone.

 

[Kenny]

But as I understand it the Pharisees, although members of the body, were not voting members as to the guilt or innocence of the accused, which belonged to the 71 priests alone.

Intersting... do you have a site that would delineate that position?

 

[firedragon]

View attachment 57008 Assuming I have this on the right forum, I developed this for a University Class on Religion when asked to present Christianity to the students:

A comparison of Jesus and the request by God to Abraham to present His unique son as a living sacrifice.

So Isaac is a Son of God? Same as Jesus??

 

[firedragon]

Technically, no. Jesus was executed by the Romans.

But the Bible teaches that they did it out of "no choice". Some Christians even turned pilate into a saint.

 

[Link]

I hope to be killed by an enemy of God one day and be martyred for promoting truth. The Prophets (a) were all ready to sacrifice their lives for truth.

 

[Kenny]

So Isaac is a Son of God? Same as Jesus??

Actually, that is a good question.

What is obvious is that both were a God involved creation. For Abraham, God had to resurrect the womb of Sarah as well as the reproductive capacity of Abraham. It was God created.

Jesus was also "God created" in that he formed the body of Jesus without the ingredients to do so.

What takes a little more thought is that Jesus, as the only unique Son of God, in actuality represents each one of us as sons of God. Jesus is the reality of what God wants us to be.

The only difference between the two examples is that one was created without sin before he was naturally birthed (Jesus) whereas we are created without sin AFTER we were naturally birthed (born-again). Both both are still created by God - just a time frame difference.

 

[firedragon]

Actually, that is a good question.

What is obvious is that both were a God involved creation. For Abraham, God had to resurrect the womb of Sarah as well as the reproductive capacity of Abraham. It was God created.

Jesus was also "God created" in that he formed the body of Jesus without the ingredients to do so.

What takes a little more thought is that Jesus, as the only unique Son of God, in actuality represents each one of us as sons of God. Jesus is the reality of what God wants us to be.

The only difference between the two examples is that one was created without sin before he was naturally birthed (Jesus) whereas we are created without sin AFTER we were naturally birthed (born-again). Both both are still created by God - just a time frame difference.

Does that mean all are Gods children, the same as Isaac? Or lets say the Born Agains are the same as Isaac?

 

[Kenny]

Does that mean all are Gods children, the same as Isaac? Or lets say the Born Agains are the same as Isaac?

I really don't understand your question. This story about Isaac was a shadow of Jesus.

Would you like me to share how Jesus is like us?

 

[firedragon]

I really don't understand your question. This story about Isaac was a shadow of Jesus.

Would you like me to share how Jesus is like us?

So Isaac was a shadow of Jesus. Not that he was like Jesus.

I am just trying to figure out your thesis in the OP and the coherence of it with everything else you are saying. No problem. Just leave it.

Which class did you submit this to in the university?

 

[Kenny]

So Isaac was a shadow of Jesus. Not that he was like Jesus.

I am just trying to figure out your thesis in the OP and the coherence of it with everything else you are saying. No problem. Just leave it.

Which class did you submit this to in the university?

Yes... Isaac is a type and shadow pointing to what God was going to do through Jesus.

It was the Eastern Florida State College. The prof had an Iman, a Rabbi, myself and maybe one more to share about our statement of faith and have a Q & A at the end.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

View attachment 57008 Assuming I have this on the right forum, I developed this for a University Class on Religion when asked to present Christianity to the students:

A comparison of Jesus and the request by God to Abraham to present His unique son as a living sacrifice.

I'm not sure what you are talking about. Genesis 22 says nothing about Jesus. Absolutely nothing.

 

[Kenny]

I'm not sure what you are talking about. Genesis 22 says nothing about Jesus. Absolutely nothing.

We get the analogy from the following:

AKJV And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

Hebrews 8:5 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.

in other words, there are many types and shadows of what Jesus was going and did do that are painted in the Old Testament. Even the sacrifice of the Lamb was a type and shadow of what Jesus was going and did do.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

We get the analogy from the following:

AKJV And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

Hebrews 8:5 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.

in other words, there are many types and shadows of what Jesus was going and did do that are painted in the Old Testament. Even the sacrifice of the Lamb was a type and shadow of what Jesus was going and did do.

Those are verses from the New Testament. I don't really give a hoot what the NT says, anymore than I care what the Quran or Vedas say. You originally made a statement about Genesis, and I corrected you.

 

[Windwalker]

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?

This is an important distinction. To get focused on whether it was historically factual, misses the point of the actual story. One of the scholars who was part of the Jesus Seminar said in a lecture I was at she gave, "Is the Nativity story historically true? If not, it should be". I instantly got her point she meant to convey. It's what it evokes in our imaginations, what it inspires that matters. Wouldn't it be wonderous if it were actually true too? If not, that really doesn't matter.

But to some it does. And that is something James Fowler noted in his research about the Stages of Faith people go through. At earlier stages, the meaning of the symbol and the symbol itself are fused together and cannot be understood as different things. To not have the symbol, you don't have the meaning. In other words, if the Nativity didn't factually happen, then Jesus isn't Divine. If he didn't factually walk on water, he's not the Christ. And so forth.

Later stages are able to recognize that the meaning is still true, even if the story to convey it wasn't altogether factual in its details, or even in any of them at all. Jesus didn't need to factually ascend into the clouds up into the upper atmosphere and outer space, for the meaning to be clearly understood that he is risen victorious from the bondage of death. The Good Samaritan didn't need to factually exist, for the meaning of the story to be true.

 

[firedragon]

Yes... Isaac is a type and shadow pointing to what God was going to do through Jesus.

It was the Eastern Florida State College. The prof had an Iman, a Rabbi, myself and maybe one more to share about our statement of faith and have a Q & A at the end.

Sorry to keep asking on this. Was that a particular class? Or was that a random session? Please advice and I ask because this is a little important to me. Thanks in advance.

 

[Kenny]

Those are verses from the New Testament. I don't really give a hoot what the NT says, anymore than I care what the Quran or Vedas say. You originally made a statement about Genesis, and I corrected you.

Oh vey! It doesn't change the analogy. I'm not asking you to believe it.

 

[Kenny]

Sorry to keep asking on this. Was that a particular class? Or was that a random session? Please advice and I ask because this is a little important to me. Thanks in advance.

It is the class on world religions. Can I ask why it is important?