Summations Only

You are reverse quote mining. And it doesn't support a thing you say.
You have ( apologists) made up everything you are writing to try and explain why a god would torture a father psychologically, to make him think he had to kill his son, for God.
In short, you are rewriting the bible the way you'd like it to be.Edited by Admin, : Fix quote.

As I was writing out the story for NoNukes, of Abraham's being called to sacrifice Isaac, and spelling out the prophetic elements in it that point to Christ, it seemed to me that this prophetic meaning of the event in itself demonstrates that the Bible is God's own work. Certainly if the events it reports are in themselves prophetic, quite apart from what the human participants in those events understand about them, a greater context, and therefore a greater intelligence, than the mere historical facts and their human participants is implied. So perhaps this should be my main argument for the Bible as God's word.I've already listed some of the prophetic elements in the story of the sacrifice of Isaac in Genesis 22, but here they are again with a few new ones:

• Isaac is called Abraham's only son --> emblematic or prophetic of God's only Son who would appear almost 2000 years later
  ​
• Abraham's name means father --> emblematic or prophetic of God the Father's sacrifice of His only Son to come almost 2000 years later
  ​
• Jewish commentators put Isaac's age in his thirties --> same age Jesus was when he preached and then died on the cross for us. I saw this when I was reading the commentaries but I'd have to track it down again to quote it. I think it was in David Guzik's commentary.
  ​
• Abraham had every intention of sacrificing Isaac, there is no doubt about that, and would have if God hadn't stopped him --> emblematic or prophetic of God's actually sacrificing His Son almost 2000 years later.
  ​
• Abraham, according to Hebrews 11, believed God would raise Isaac from the dead. This is also implicit in Genesis 22 because he was committed to going through with sacrificing Isaac, and yet he believed God's promise to him that He would bring a great nation out of Isaac. There is no other possible resolution of these two facts except that he must have expected God to resurrect him --> and of course resurrection from the dead is prophetic of the resurrection of Jesus from the dead almost 2000 years later.
  ​
• The cross is a vertical representation of the altars of sacrifice which were used throughout the Old Testament, by which the sacrificial animal was lashed to the four corners. This representation is also seen in the lashing of Isaac to the sacrificial altar. Jesus was nailed but it's the same concept of being affixed to the altar.
  ​
• Abraham was told to perform this sacrifice in the region of Moriah on a particular mountain which God would reveal to him. It was a threshingfloor on Mt. Moriah in what was by then the city of Jerusalem that some nine hundred years later was bought by King David for a place to erect an altar for burnt offerings (2 Samuel 24). Its identity is revealed later, in 2 Chronicles 3:1:
  ​
  Then Solomon began to build the house of the LORD at Jerusalem in mount Moriah, where the LORD appeared unto David his father, in the place that David had prepared in the threshingfloor of Ornan the Jebusite.
  ​
  This site is considered to be the same place where Jesus was crucified:
  ​
  There is some archaeological evidence to suppose that the place of the crucifixion of Jesus was at the summit of Mt. Moriah, probably near the present-day Damascus Gate and the Garden Tomb which would of course be a literal fulfillment of Abraham's offering of Isaac when God said, "On the mount of the Lord it [the final offering for sin] will be provided."
  ​
  At the very least Jesus was crucified in the same general area of Moriah where Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac was to be enacted.
  ​
• When God stops Abraham from killing Isaac, He shows him a ram caught in a thicket which he can use for the sacrifice instead. This is exactly what Abraham himself had prophesied when he told Isaac on the way to Moriah that God would provide Himself a lamb to sacrifice. Which he must have expected to happen since he expected God to raise Isaac from the dead --> This is emblematic or prophetic of the fact that God would Himself provide the Sacrifice that saves the world almost 2000 years later.

Of course I think these are marvelous "coincidences" that span almost 2000 years of history, that could only have been engineered by God since the human participants had no way of doing it or even recognizing it at the time. This being the case I think this makes good evidence for the Bible as God's word and what we mean by its inerrancy.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Is that the geographic equivalent of numerology?

Refresh my memory on this. For approximately how many hours was he sacrificed?

How do you think you logically came to this camp, when you haven't shown the ability assess the validity of what your camp tells you?
What you've done is parrot what you've been told. Accept it and rationalize it. But there hasn't been any independent thought shown.
Why should we be expected to believe you are capable of assessing one camp vs. another camp.Edited by Golffly, : spelling

What you post are great examples of attempting to create prophecy after the fact, a con game. It it is just another attempt to try to shoehorn Jesus into the Old Testament and is no more successful today than it was 2000 years ago. It is at best an example of willful ignorance but more likely simply dishonesty.

Abraham could not "explain" any such thing because Abraham himself did not expect any such thing. What Abraham told Isaac was completely at odds Abraham believing that Isaac was to be killed.If you are insisting that Isaac was the "lamb", then what Abraham believed was that God had already provided the lamb and not that one would be provided. In short, there is no way to view what Abraham said to Isaac as anything other than a lie to ease Isaac's participation in what was to come. It was not a prediction or any indication that Isaac would be resurrected. How could it be? How could saying that a lamb will be provided hint at any such thing?What you are insisting on here is exactly what you deny saying later. Namely, that Abraham expected the ram that was provided later and thus his willingness to kill his own son was not actually tested at all because he knew the whole thing was a farce.And calling this a prophecy is nonsense. The whole story was written done after the fact of Isaac's survival.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I did get confused about what the lamb remark meant, except that it was prophetic of the ram in the thicket which is right. Isaac asked where the sacrifice was and Abraham said God would provide it. At first I thought it was a way of protecting Isaac from the truth, although it WAS prophetic of the ram God DID provide, but as I thought it through in the light of his expectation that God would raise Isaac from the dead I realized that he had to be expecting that God would provide a sacrifice in the place of Isaac after he was brought back to life. So are you agreeing with my first thought that he was lying to keep the truth from Isaac? This would also fit with my original thought that he was lying to Isaac, but after thinking it through I came to understand that he probably wasn't lying because he expected God to raise Isaac from the dead, and would then provide a lamb in his place. Otherwise I don't know what to make of it. But I don't see any big problem with it in any case and don't know why you do.

Clearly nobody here read or thought about my Message 1502 since nothing anyone said is the slightest bit relevant to it. The facts are in the text, nothing I could have made up myself, or "quote mined" out of context. But such kneejerk unthinking debunkery is typical here.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

That's how things work in a deterministic universe. However we don't live in such a universe. Some happenings have no causal chain. Coin flipping does have such a chain.Radioactive decay is completely random. If we build a 'coin flipping' simulation based on whether the 1000th decay of some radioactive sample occurs in an odd or even time interval, the simulated coin flips will not be deterministic.

I read it. I'm sure it appeals to you, but the most important features of your post are not in the text. Instead we see a narrative laid over the top of the text after the events have occurred and not before.For example, if the words in Hebrew 11 were actually written in Genesis 22 before Jesus was resurrected, then we'd have a prophecy. Instead we have the same thing you provide here. After the fact rationalization.Which makes gives your post a lot in common with those Nostradamus prophecies that nobody can sort out until after the events occur. Perhaps it is your presentation that is lacking? How about some introspection for once?

Obviously I agree with that statement. I've said it myself several times. I do not agree with the revisionist description of posting history. Thank you.

And a good response to that; Dishonesty from whoever started your theology. Followed up by followers who lack the capacity to think or question because it often leads to a lack of faith.

Do you count the hours that he sweated blood in anticipation?

I offer Message 1502 again, for anyone who will actually THINK about it, since nobody who has responded so far has done so.