Abraham and Isaac

[rustywest4]

And guys, nobody took the bait on my "string search for word of God" suggestion (typical, it's a tough nut to crack), but framing is everything. The question "whether God would ever lead us to do something that contradicts his Written Word" is a trick question built on unquestioned assumptions and dogma. It's more useful to ask whether God will ever lead us to do something that is different from something we believe He told someone else in some other place at some other time. Is your faith in your understanding of a book about other people's experiences with God or in a Resurrected Lord Who has in these last days poured out His Spirit on all flesh?

Ohhhhhhhh!!!!! @andrew drops the mic!

 

[andrew]

How is it wasting your time to force you to respond lol.
argumentum ad absurdum, "argument to absurdity") see wikipedia

No, Ish, you look up reductio ad absurdum on Wikipedia and figure it out on your own. More time wasted.

Nice to feel the love just back 1 day!

Got nothing but love for ya, friend. That doesn't change the fact that you're still wasting my time.

Why are you spelling out the name?
I've never seen you do that in these forums.
Is it specially sensitivity for me?

Nothing personal, and if you've actually checked every post I've made in these forums (go you!) and I've never used that name, then it's just a coincidence. Anything else you want to pick on?

Meanwhile, nothing has changed. God told Abraham to do something nobody in their right mind would think is acceptable or lawful by scriptural standards, that has never been a practice of the people of God. Abraham was about to do it and would have done it (from God's own mouth) if an angel hadn't stayed his hand. Are you saying it's scripturally acceptable to kill your children if it's a burnt offering to God or aren't you?

 

[rustywest4]

Greetings Ish, glad to see you are back. I enjoyed your breakdown of the Hebrew for kill/murder.



I don't have much time tonight but the few logic errors/fallacies that spring to mind are inconsistent comparison, presenting out of context (the Peter episode), intentionality fallacy, post hoc, there are a few others but these will suffice.

I totally get the light to heavy for the interpretation.

I see no need in revisiting the dietary permissions/restrictions. That's been done elsewhere and isn't pertinent to the Abraham/Isaac thread. (I think)



My question for this perspective is what was Peter refusing? Answer: a direct imperative order/command by God repeated 3 times! Though Peter heard a voice from heaven, He identifies the speaker as kyrios (Lord) who then tells him that what theos (God) has cleansed call not common.

The commonality between the Abraham/Isaac story and the Peter story is that both were commanded to do something apparently contrary to established norms for the purpose of obedience testing. In Abraham's obedience to the undeniable command of God, God both protected him and his son and blessed them exceedingly for exhibiting faith through obedience. In Peter's case, he failed because the issue wasn't dietary restrictions/permissions, it was a failure of faith through obedience. Thankfully, Peter finally gets it after it's spelled out in black and white and obeys by traveling/commingling/sharing the gospel with the Gentiles.



According to James 1:13, because of God's nature, he cannot be tempted with evil, therefore it is impossible for God to tempt man with evil. Thus, for God to command Abraham or Peter to do something apparently contrary to established norms cannot be considered evil in these cases, therefore obedience to the directly spoken command of God trumps all. If God commands it, obedience either does not violate His statutes, or there is an exception to the statute for obedience.

As to the nature of God, it is my contention that the works of his hands are conflated with His identity. It's kind of the "no True Scotsman" fallacy. People have used His actions at cherry picked moments to define His infinite nature. They have then created a god (straw man) that conforms to their definition of His nature (based on His actions in said cherry picked moment) and when another passage seems to contradict this created straw man nature, the discrepancy is ignored, rationalized, and discredited instead of being used to clarify and correct a misunderstanding of the true nature of God. There's no contradiction, the actions do not define the nature.

It is the nature of God and who He is that is unchanging. The evidence that He utilizes similar but different methods, permissions and restrictions for different eras, families and priesthoods simply point to a singular Creator who is not bound or restricted by the permissions and restrictions that He has established for His creations. He is bound by His nature, but not by His creations. There are lots of Scriptures that verify that He is bound by His nature, also lots of Scriptures that verify that He changes His mind at times on how to accomplish different things with His creations. None that I can find that state directly or indirectly, deductive or inductive that He is bound by the same restrictions as His creations. In fact the very nature of God would be proof that He is not bound by Creation's limitations.

Must . . . . Stop . . . . Now . . . .
Peace and love and all the Good stuff.

"God is Light, and in Him is no darkness at all!"

 

[Mojo]

Is your faith in your understanding of a book about other people's experiences with God or in a Resurrected Lord Who has in these last days poured out His Spirit on all flesh?

Please humor me and my lack of intellect. Explain what you mean. You asked the question, now expound on it. You didn't like my response, now enlighten us.

The way I see it, he has poured out his Spirit so that we can more plainly see the mystery of his redemption plan laid out since the foundation of the universe as laid out in this book.

 

[IshChayil]

No, Ish, you look up reductio ad absurdum on Wikipedia and figure it out on your own. More time wasted.

yes, thank you for the synonym.

Got nothing but love for ya, friend. That doesn't change the fact that you're still wasting my time.

in the voice of Dr. Evil "riiiiiight...."

More time wasted....Are you saying it's scripturally acceptable to kill your children if it's a burnt offering to God or aren't you?

You have yet to produce a command violated.
G-d doesn't violate His commands or ask others to do so and we find no examples in scriptures of this happening.

Hebrew is specific for a reason and it's a general lack of torah study in Christendom which results in a lack of appreciation for the legal language. This is also where some of the beauty of Hebrew lays, when you see that apparent contradictions in translations resolve nicely in the original language.

The whole issue is linguisticly solvable without the need to extrapolate or philosophize...

If you feel my first time back posting in months is "wasting your time" then just don't respond; you don't need to correct argumentum to reduxio nomenclature if you don't want to since wikipedia lists them as synonyms anyway. My teacher taught argumentum your's taught reduxio.

This thread is not vital to proper polygamy application in families right

Take a breath,
and if you need I won't respond to you as well so you don't feel the need to continue wasting time.
We can have a protocol of mutual ignoring. (you don't need to correct my English grammar on that, I know it's off-see I'm already saving you time!)

Thanks for the love though.
I feel it

p.s. did you guys resolve yet why Philippines is blocked just as of today from BiblicalFamilies?
Can you check with your Admin / server software.

 

[andrew]

The way I see it, he has poured out his Spirit so that we can more plainly see the mystery of his redemption plan laid out since the foundation of the universe as laid out in this book.

So the whole point of pouring out His Spirit was so we could understand the book better?...

Brother, I have to tap out for tonight. I have other matters here to tend to that have waited long enough for my attention. More tomorrow.

 

[Mojo]

I'm not saying God promotes child sacrifice to Him, but I must also be consistent.

When folks ask us why we don't believe polygyny is a sin, a simple "where does God say it is?" usually shuts others down. We are either proponents of looking to the Law as a basis for determining what is sin, or we are not. I can call lots of actions objectionable, horrible, and unconscionable, but the true definition of sin is transgression of a law.

 

[andrew]

You have yet to produce a command violated.
G-d doesn't violate His commands or ask others to do so.

Okay, so you are arguing that child sacrifice is permissible under God's law. Either that or you're saying that the whole episode with Abraham is just kabuki theater to prove a point, a point which happens to not be made if the test weren't "real" (as in Abraham really understood God's command to be to slay his son (sorry, Zec, I meant offer him as a burnt offering), so he picked up a knife to slay his son (which is the first step in offering the burnt offering, and is specifically mentioned in the scripture story as Abraham's direct intention), and he would have slain his son if he hadn't been forcibly stopped at the last minute, and that's how God could say that now He knew that Abraham was legit). In the immortal words of Inigo Montoya, "I do not think that word 'escape hatch' means what you think it means". Or something like that.

Good night, friend. More tomorrow.

 

[IshChayil]

Ohhhhhhhh!!!!! @andrew drops the mic!

How in heaven is that a "mike drop"?

The clear presentation of scripture is to not obfuscate or contradict itself.
G-d isn't tricky or sneaky; He's true and unchanging.

The stretch comes when people do mental gymnastics and Greek philosophizing in an attempt to escape the plain meaning of scripture.
No 1st century Jew in his right mind is eating pork. Peter included, Paul included etc.

Really it's a microphone in ones' eye by accident followed by accidental twist up in the cable followed by falling off the stage; not a mike drop

 

[andrew]

I'm not saying God promotes child sacrifice to Him, but I must also be consistent.

What does this mean?

 

[andrew]

I'm out. See you guys in the morning.

 

[IshChayil]

Okay, so you are arguing that child sacrifice is permissible under God's law. Either that or you're saying that the whole episode with Abraham is just kabuki theater to prove a point, a point which happens to not be made if the test weren't "real" (as in Abraham really understood God's command to be to slay his son (sorry, Zec, I meant offer him as a burnt offering), so he picked up a knife to slay his son (which is the first step in offering the burnt offering, and is specifically mentioned in the scripture story as Abraham's direct intention), and he would have slain his son if he hadn't been forcibly stopped at the last minute, and that's how God could say that now He knew that Abraham was legit). In the immortal words of Inigo Montoya, "I do not think that word 'escape hatch' means what you think it means". Or something like that.

Good night, friend. More tomorrow.

maybe you are accidentally putting words in my mouth because it's very late by you.

I'm saying exactly as I wrote.
There is no command being violated here. Show me the command.
Don't philosophize or overgeneralize.
Quote scripture please.

The purpose of testing Abraham is clearly listed before the account "G-d put Abraham to the test" not "kabuki theater". I think you are confusing my argument with someone else's.
sleep time for sure, I get like that too when I'm sleep deprived.
I'm in agreement with you that Abraham intended to kill his son; perhaps he just hoped G-d would change His mind.

 

[IshChayil]

yes sleep already @andrew
we'll be here for you tomorrow
sleep sleep, peace

 

[Mojo]

So the whole point of pouring out His Spirit was so we could understand the book better?...

Brother, I have to tap out for tonight. I have other matters here to tend to that have waited long enough for my attention. More tomorrow.

Now who's being ridiculous? I clearly said to understand his plan of redemption...the mystery! The vehicle for communicating that is in the book. "All scripture is given by inspiration....you know the rest. Would it be better if it was only oral, via radio frequency, from Benny Hinn? Scribes spent countless years of training trying to preserve it. I think they understood why it was important.

BTW-Nice dodge. You never explained your question, nor expounded on it. Plan on doing that? We mere mortals wait with baited breath.

Peace brother!

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Gen. 9:6. Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

Noahic Covenant Command which Abraham would have been subject to.

Talmud Sanhedrin 56a states that there were 7 commands given to Noah and his descendants, bloodshed of man being one of them as listed in Gen 9:6 above.

Josephus records the same conversation 1.3.8, However, I require you to abstain from shedding the blood of men, and to keep yourselves pure from murder, and to punish those that commit any such thing.

 

[andrew]

BTW-Nice dodge. You never explained your question, nor expounded on it. Plan on doing that?

What part of "more tomorrow" failed to communicate?...

 

[Verifyveritas76]

The only instance that I can find where bloodshed was acceptable was if you were the (kinsman redeemer) brother in verse 5.

Or Abraham going to war to get Lot back (another kinsman redeemer passage)

 

[Mojo]

What does this mean?

Consistent in how I define sin...transgression of a law.

But I don't want to go down this rabbit hole. I won't comment on this line of thinking any more. I will let Ish carry the load on that one.

Care to expound on your question about the book?

 

[Mojo]

What part of "more tomorrow" failed to communicate?...

It's already tomorrow where Ish lives...thought you meant that!

Just joking....buenos noches!

 

[IshChayil]

It's already tomorrow where Ish lives...thought you meant that!

Just joking....buenos noches!

haha it's afternoon here here.
yeah, I live in the future