Free Dating Site    

So what was the point of the story??

The majority of Jewish Biblical commentators argue that God was testing Abraham to see if he would actually kill his own son, as a test of his loyalty. However, a number of Jewish Biblical commentators from the mediaeval era, and many in the modern era, do not agree with this notion. They read the text in another way.

The early rabbinic midrash Genesis Rabbah imagines God as saying "I never considered telling Abraham to slaughter Isaac (using the Hebrew root letters for "slaughter", not "sacrifice")". Rabbi Yona Ibn Janach (Spain, 11th century) wrote that God demanded only a symbolic sacrifice. Rabbi Yosef Ibn Caspi (Spain, early 14th century) wrote that Abraham's "imagination" led him astray, making him believe that he had been commanded to sacrifice his son. Ibn Caspi writes "How could God command such a revolting thing?" But according to Rabbi J. H. Hertz (Chief Rabbi of the British Empire), child sacrifice was actually "rife among the Semitic peoples," and suggests that "in that age, it was astounding that Abraham's God should have interposed to prevent the sacrifice, not that He should have asked for it." Hertz interprets the Akedah as demonstrating to the Jews that human sacrifice is abhorrent. "Unlike the cruel heathen deities, it was the spiritual surrender alone that God required." In Jeremiah 32:35, God states that the later Israelite practice of child sacrifice to the deity Molech "had [never] entered My mind that they should do this abomination".

Other rabbinic scholars also note that Abraham was willing to do everything to spare his son, even if it meant going against the divine command: while it was God who ordered Abraham to sacrifice his son, it was an angel, a lesser being in the celestial hierarchy, that commanded him to stop. However, the actions and words of angels (from the Greek for "messenger") are generally understood to derive directly from God's will. In some later Jewish writings, most notably those of the Hasidic masters, the theology of a "divine test" is rejected, and the sacrifice of Isaac is interpreted as a "punishment" for Abraham's earlier "mistreatment" of Ishmael, his elder son, whom he expelled from his household at the request of his wife, Sarah. According to this view, Abraham failed to show compassion for his son, so God punished him by ostensibly failing to show compassion for Abraham's son.

In The Last Trial, Shalom Spiegel argues that these commentators were interpreting the Biblical narration as an implicit rebuke against Christianity's claim that God would sacrifice His own son.

In The Binding of Isaac, Religious Murders & Kabbalah, Lippman Bodoff argues that Abraham never intended to actually sacrifice his son, and that he had faith that God had no intention that he do so.

abraham may have misunderstood what god intended

??? Clarify this statement please.

There are those who manily as a reaction to two thousand years of Christianity at odds with Judaism in the Western world have flipped the story of Abraham on its head to dispell the notion of Jesus being a sacrifice. It is clear that Abraham is held in esteem for his willingness to sacrifice Isaac on the command of God. Yet when Abraham's willingness to sacrificae Isaac is used in support of Christianity, excuses and alibis for the same behavior are offered as a counter to the Christian argument.

I would have to say it depends on who is writing it at the time. passages in isaiah may very well have not been authored by the same writer as Zacheriah. But there are also other references to israel in the male:
Exodus 4:22


22And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn:

From here:
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-117772734.html


In Exodus 4:22, God declares, "Israel is my first-born son." This image of the individual, Israel, continues through this and the remaining books of Torah. The masculine singular for Israel, the son, occurs repeatedly. No imperative is addressed to Israel other than in the form of the masculine singular. There is no hint in any passage that the reader should think of Israel as feminine. The book of Deuteronomy brings to fullness the theme of Israel as the son of God. The focus on sonship suggests responsibility and growth for the individual, Israel.

Israel was an individual as well as a kingdom. The kingdom did not exist in the time of Pharoah, (exodus) so masculine singular would be used for the individual Israel which doesn't discredit the point of the "nation/kingdom" being referred to in feminine gender. (which in fairness is what I think you said:)

Patrilineal describes customs where family responsibilities and assets pass from father to son. By contrast, contemporary Judaism considers people to be Jewish if their mothers were Jewish, which makes this aspect of contemporary Judaism matrilineal. Biblical Judaism is, however, a classical example of a patriarchal society.

But if god was merely testing abraham's loyalty, as some jewish scholars contend, then sacrifice was never really in the cards, only to test.

If one is going to use this as a forerunner to jesus' sacrifice for all our sins, then don't you think that there should have been a sacrifice in the first place, and that the sacrifice was for atonement of sins? None of these happened.

I disagree with the "test" theory after all Abraham was an old hand at being tested, Sarah conceived, the whole Sodom thing, nah, Abraham was already tried and true.

But it did happen. A lamb/ram/goat was substituted/redeemed.

Isn't this what/where the codification of the Moasaic law came from to begin with? Why codify if it didnt happen? (the squeezing of sacrificial testicles from the bulls of ancient Greece is where we get the legal word "testify":).

Dictionary Fact: FACT: The word Testify, derives from the Latin Testis meaning Witness. MYTH: The word testify derives from testicle. Legend has it that ancient Romans would hold their testes while swearing oaths. FACT: Testicle also derives from testis. The testes are witnesses to a man's virility.

Also, this sacrifice was made on Mt Moriah where the Temple was eventually built (generally agreed II Chronic etc?) so the sacrifice was indeed in the "Holy Place" (also its an interesting translation of the name Abraham gave the place).

[here is also the belief that farther up the mt is Golgotha where another "redemption" took place in the same "holy place".

[19]Pilate had a notice prepared and fastened to the cross. It read:|sc JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS. [20]Many of the Jews read this sign, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city, and the sign was written in Aramaic, Latin and Greek.

You're going to have to be a little more clearer here. What are you referring to in regard to abraham "already being tested" ? Can you show a passage that explains this?

But it did happen. A lamb/ram/goat was substituted/redeemed.

There was NO human sacrifice, after god stopped abraham from carrying it out, abraham used a ram. That is what we are discussing, please reread the OP. And using "redeemed" in your statement does not apply here. Tell me how the soul of the ram was saved from it's sins by sacrificing it? Which passage establishes it?

And your etymology on the word "testify" is incorrect. Here:
http://results.about.com/dictionary/
Dictionary Fact: FACT: The word Testify, derives from the Latin Testis meaning Witness. MYTH: The word testify derives from testicle. Legend has it that ancient Romans would hold their testes while swearing oaths. FACT: Testicle also derives from testis. The testes are witnesses to a man's virility.

Uhhh no. Golgotha, or calvary, was mentioned that it was outside jerusalem itself. Not only outside the holy place/mt moriah, but the entire city as well. Gogotha was never located on mt moriah.
John 19:19-20 :[19]Pilate had a notice prepared and fastened to the cross. It read:|sc JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS. [20]Many of the Jews read this sign, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city, and the sign was written in Aramaic, Latin and Greek.

Gen 12 - left everything 'cause God was going to show him some far off land just because God told him to - faith - the one that really gets me is being circumsized (sp) at the age of 99 - now that is faith!!! Gen 17 - nope - Abraham wasnt being tested, he already proved his faith many times and received Covenants for it.

I did read the OP - my understanding:
back to Gen 15 - "the contracting parties passed between the parts of the slain animal and called down upon themselves the fate of the victim should they violate the agreement - the flame symbolizes Yahweh (Ex 3:2, 13:21, 19:18) for He alone passes between the parts because his Covenant is a unilateral pact."
As for using the word "redeemed - This story of Abraham and Issac is the basis of the ritual perscription for the "redemption" of the first born "which belongs to God. They are not to be sacrificed but to be brought back "redeemed" (Ex 13:11) - seen by Christians/Christ as the only begotten Son ie first born. IMO, this word does apply here but not in the context that the soul of the ram was saved from its sins by sacrificing it :P

And every firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a lamb; and if thou wilt not redeem it, then thou shalt break his neck: and all the firstborn of man among thy children shalt thou redeem.

It will cost you a sheep or a goat to buy any firstborn donkey back from the LORD. If you don't buy it back, then you must break the donkey's neck. You must also buy every firstborn son back from the LORD.

Pidyon HaBen, (Hebrew: ????? ????; trans. Redemption of the Son), is a ritual in Judaism whereby a firstborn son is redeemed from a Kohen in order to release him from his obligation to serve in the Temple. Although nowadays there is no Temple, the ceremony is still observed by Orthodox and Conservative Jews.

Ummm ... yes, "up" the mt of Moriah (Golgotha) is outside Jerusalem but near the city and I will have to disagree that Golotha was never located on mt moriah (just for the heck of it

This even emphasizes more that god would not want human sacrifices, ie this one test was not allowed to fruition.

Then you are not understanding it. It is basically asking us to cite from the OT where a human blood sacrifice is allowed to atone for the sins of others.

You will notice the info box to the upper right of this page indicating what passages this ritual is referred, it very clearly includes exodus 13:13.
Nothing to do with a blood sacrifice to atone for others... sorry. In fact, it's a ritual to release the first born from serving the temple, ie god.

Not understanding? It must have been accepted or why the sudden prohibition of it with the sparing of Isaac.

Why no hesitation from Abraham to do it (hence no test)? Was it because the practice of child sacrifice was common?

This ritual has nothing to do with releasing the"first born from serving the temple". IMO this ritual existed long before the concept of a "temple" from various ancient Semitic traditions/sources and found on the first pages with Cain/Abel sewn together by Elohistic/Yahwistic scribes. No matter what languages/interpretations the sum of the stories/lessons/direction is about "redemption" - the blending of heaven and earth/spirit and flesh.

Where do you get the authority to tell the jews what their rituals are and aren't? I have plainly shown that is EXACTLY what it is. You have offered nada except your "IMO". Well guess what, without anything else to back it up, your "IMO" only goes as far as the tip of your nose. You have shown NOTHING to support your assertions, nothing.

Ha! Nasty, nasty tsk tsk ....I'm using the same authority that you have been using.

Tell me .. do you believe the Hebrews were monotheistic from day 1 or do you think there was a gradual change of rituals, traditions from various cultures etc.???

I'm not going to engage this red herring. Stick to the OP's outlines.

There are those who manily as a reaction to two thousand years of Christianity at odds with Judaism in the Western world have flipped the story of Abraham on its head to dispell the notion of Jesus being a sacrifice. It is clear that Abraham is held in esteem for his willingness to sacrifice Isaac on the command of God. Yet when Abraham's willingness to sacrificae Isaac is used in support of Christianity, excuses and alibis for the same behavior are offered as a counter to the Christian argument.

In short, if Abraham had taken the same stand as those in modern times want to attribute to him, he simply would have said "no" and stayed at home that day. No mountain, no knife, no wood.

lol .... the "red herring" is integral to the OP's outlines which is only ONE verse. If you prefer to ignore the school of fish for the single herring so be it ... ty :)

They haven't endorsed the idea of Isaac as a human sin-atonement sacrifice.

...sigh ... niether does Christianity (at least some). OK , lets go with your assertion that Christians believe that this killing of Isaac was needed, so what? Obviously Abraham thought that Isaac would be reserrected as he had no qualms about killing his son. Oooops, another red herring... I respectfully bow out :)