1. 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!

Featured Which Son?

Discussion in 'Religious Debates' started by Rival, Nov 24, 2015.

  1. Rival

    Rival Noahide Fundamentalist
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2012
    Messages:
    6,544
    Ratings:
    +6,203
    Religion:
    Noahide
    Was Abraham going to sacrifice, Isaac or Ishmael?

    Imo it's pretty clear cut for me that it was Isaac, the OT and the NT agree. The Qur'an never actually names the son, though contemporary Muslims believe it was Ishmael. I say "contemporary" because within historic Islam the issue was not as clear cut and some Muslims were arguing pro-Isaac.

    Who was it?
     
  2. Saint Frankenstein

    Saint Frankenstein Et Ducit Mundum Per Lucem
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2012
    Messages:
    22,552
    Ratings:
    +9,129
    I've never heard that some people claim it was Ishmael. I guess it makes sense for Muslims to claim that because of their attachment to Ishmael.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Nietzsche

    Nietzsche The Last Prussian
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2010
    Messages:
    6,672
    Ratings:
    +6,901
    Religion:
    Heathen King
    'Binding of Isaac' sounds much better than 'Binding of Ishmael', though the latter does make for a rather nice alternate name for Moby Dick.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  4. Augustus

    Augustus the Unreasonable

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2014
    Messages:
    5,637
    Ratings:
    +4,481
    Religion:
    none
    There was certainly a tradition known across multiple communities that the Arabs were 'Ishmaelites'.

    Here is John of Damascus, "Heresies", from Font of Knowledge (8th C):

    There is also the superstition of the Ishmaelites which to this day prevails and keeps people in error, being a forerunner of the Antichrist. They are descended from Ishmael, [who] was born to Abraham of Agar, and for this reason they are called both Agarenes and Ishmaelites. They are also called Saracens, which is derived from Sarras kenoi, or destitute of Sara, because of what Agar said to the angel: ‘Sara hath sent me away destitute.’ [99] These used to be idolaters and worshiped the morning star and Aphrodite, whom in their own language they called Khabár, which means great. [100] And so down to the time of Heraclius they were very great idolaters. From that time to the present a false prophet named Mohammed has appeared in their midst. This man, after having chanced upon the Old and New Testaments and likewise, it seems, having conversed with an Arian monk, [101] devised his own heresy. Then, having insinuated himself into the good graces of the people by a show of seeming piety, he gave out that a certain book had been sent down to him from heaven. He had set down some ridiculous compositions in this book of his and he gave it to them as an object of veneration.

    http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/stjohn_islam.aspx

    As an interesting aside, despite showing a fair degree of knowledge of Islamic teachings (if you read the whole text), he is completely unaware of the word 'Muslim'.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Nietzsche

    Nietzsche The Last Prussian
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2010
    Messages:
    6,672
    Ratings:
    +6,901
    Religion:
    Heathen King
    I find it hilarious he manages to include a barb at Arianism in that spiel.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. raph

    raph Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2015
    Messages:
    190
    Ratings:
    +48
    Religion:
    Bahai
    Imo it was Ishmael. I believe that the Bible is a true book from God and the spiritual truth has been preserved. But I dont trust the Bible on unimportant details. The Bible also says in that verse, that Isaac was the only son, and there are more errors on unimportant details in the Bible. The spiritual lesson was about Abraham sacrificing a son, it does not matter which one.

    Contrary to the Bible, the Quran is said to be preserved word by word. And it was Ishmael who was almost sacrificed in the Quran.

    Also Bahaullah, whom I believe to be the manifestation of God, confirmed that it was Ishmael.
     
  7. Useless2015

    Useless2015 Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2015
    Messages:
    398
    Ratings:
    +61
    Religion:
    Let us know your religion
    Who it was has no value. Did you get the message?
     
  8. David1967

    David1967 Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2015
    Messages:
    4,597
    Ratings:
    +3,171
    Religion:
    Christian
    I don't know what Islam teaches concerning this, however, hasn't it always been Isaac? I mean you really cant come along centuries later and decide you prefer it to be Ishmael can you?
     
  9. Rival

    Rival Noahide Fundamentalist
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2012
    Messages:
    6,544
    Ratings:
    +6,203
    Religion:
    Noahide

    Muslims believe it to have been Ishmael. That is the general consensus among them.
     
  10. Rival

    Rival Noahide Fundamentalist
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2012
    Messages:
    6,544
    Ratings:
    +6,203
    Religion:
    Noahide

    Isaac was Abraham's only son in the sense that he was the chosen son; the son of promise. Ishmael was not a promised son.
     
  11. Saint Frankenstein

    Saint Frankenstein Et Ducit Mundum Per Lucem
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2012
    Messages:
    22,552
    Ratings:
    +9,129
    It's because Christians believed that Islam was an Arian heresy. We're just generally too nice to say that now.
     
  12. outhouse

    outhouse Atheistically

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    35,805
    Ratings:
    +1,850
    Why would you insult the god concept like that ?

    If a god made that many mistakes, and wrote in mythology, and rhetoric, it would be sad.

    The bible factually is not inerrant. Humans wrote it, not god.
     
  13. outhouse

    outhouse Atheistically

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    35,805
    Ratings:
    +1,850
    Um why not? Its been done.

    Mythology can be changed willy nilly, people redefine and changed mythology to meet changing cultural needs.


    It was never static, until the last 1500 years. For 1500 years all abrahamic traditions evolved into their current form.

    Abraham by our best accounts never existed anyway. We see him as a literary creation of the 5th and 6th century, created to meet the needs of this exact time period.


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham

    By the beginning of the 21st century, archaeologists had "given up hope of recovering any context that would make Abraham, Isaac or Jacob credible 'historical figures'".
     
  14. David1967

    David1967 Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2015
    Messages:
    4,597
    Ratings:
    +3,171
    Religion:
    Christian
    If you are coming at it from an atheistic view I cant comment, as I do believe Abraham was an actual person. Totally respect your opinion though.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. Nietzsche

    Nietzsche The Last Prussian
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2010
    Messages:
    6,672
    Ratings:
    +6,901
    Religion:
    Heathen King
    Here's the thing; from a purely historical perspective there is no evidence that these people existed. I'm of the opinion that someone(or more likely a number of individuals slowly synthesized over the eons) like them existed, but we'll never find anything about them. Their remains & artifacts likely ended up in the "trash heap" of history. Weathered away by centuries, misplaced by events or individuals intentionally or accidentally.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  16. Unification

    Unification Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2015
    Messages:
    3,040
    Ratings:
    +341
    I don't think that the story's intended meaning had anything to do with sacrificing a literal son, or anything to do with a literal nation of literal people, or that the characters were historical and that the events took place exoterically and historically.

    If Sara had Ishmael and Hagar had Isaac, the stories intended meaning would still be the same. Can change the names to Martha having Steve and Debra having Leroy and the intended meaning would be the same.

    There are some fundamentalists who think that only their culture/heritage are the "seed of promise" and are "special" and "chosen" so I agree, to some.... it matters significantly whether it was the one or the other.
     
  17. outhouse

    outhouse Atheistically

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    35,805
    Ratings:
    +1,850
    Nope. has nothing to do with an atheist.

    It is factually the academic position. It is the factual status of the REAL history of Israelites.

    You do understand monotheism in Israelite culture really was not accepted by all the people until roughly 200-400 BC????

    These people were very polytheistic before King Josiahs monotheistic reforms after 622BC and after exile from Babylon.


    I'm sorry, but do we match history to personal belief, or do we report what we know based in evidence and study?


    Thank you David.


    I don't use bias one way or the other, I just follow the knowledge.


    Think about it. If islam changed it willy nilly to meet their needs, why not believe Israelites did the same thing, "IF" evidence points in that direction?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  18. outhouse

    outhouse Atheistically

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    35,805
    Ratings:
    +1,850
    That is true.

    Its not because of a lack of evidence. Its because the cultural anthropology shows us it was a literary creation to meet specific needs that came about ay a specific time.
     
  19. outhouse

    outhouse Atheistically

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    35,805
    Ratings:
    +1,850
    Depends on which version you want to place faith in.

    Historically none of them existed.

    In its original literature Isaac would be the one.

    In islam Ishmael

    They just put what they thought, and holds no credibility on the matter what so ever.

    They just put what they wanted, they had no problem changing the original story.

    It also holds no credibility on the matter what so ever.
     
  20. Tumah

    Tumah Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2013
    Messages:
    9,268
    Ratings:
    +5,431
    Religion:
    Mega-Super-Ultra-Orthodox Judaism
    I wonder why though. There's nothing in the story that a Muslim will gain by claiming it for themselves. And logically it doesn't really follow either: why would Allah throw in a story about Ishmael in the middle of a book about Jewish heritage? It seems like that would be a story more appropriate to tell the sons of Ishmael than the sons of Isaac.
     
    • Like Like x 1
Loading...