Faith writes:
Isaac is called Abraham's only son --> emblematic or prophetic of God's only Son who would appear almost 2000 years later
isaac is not abraham's only son. or even his first son. isaac is in fact his
second son. it's a theme in genesis (in the J source in particular) that the first son is passed over for the inheritance.
note also that isaac is the one being saved. if anything is emblematic of christ, it should be the ram, and
not isaac. we are the ones being saved by substition: we're isaac.
Abraham's name means father --> emblematic or prophetic of God the Father's sacrifice of His only Son to come almost 2000 years later
"father of many", again, not just one son. abraham is named because he is the father (ab) of many (hamon) nations.
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.
in the one above, you appeal to jewish tradition. jewish tradition regards this passage as meaning that human sacrifice is abhorrent.
Abraham, according to Hebrews 11, believed God would raise Isaac from the dead.
there are lots of themes in christianity about conquering death, resurrection, etc. there aren't so many in first temple judaism (when this text was written), and you don't get them until the temple is destroyed. it is unsurprising to see christianity frame the story this way.
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
no, you missed one. abraham may not have thought he was the right isaac. god tells him that his (barren) wife will become pregnant, and to call that child isaac, and he'll bless abraham's line through isaac. but... sarah actually gets pregnant right after spending the night with abimelech. abraham may have thought isaac
wasn't his.
The cross is a vertical representation of the altars of sacrifice which were used throughout the Old Testament
this simply isn't true. we know exactly what ancient canaanite and israelite altars looked like from archaeology (i lump them together because they happen to be identical). they are stout, square pillars, with a prong at each corner. stone ones sometimes had fire pits. wood ones aren't well documented. sometimes they are on raised platforms. there is, in fact, a description of yahweh's official altar in the bible:
quote:
And thou shalt make the altar of acacia-wood, five cubits long, and five cubits broad; the altar shall be four-square; and the height thereof shall be three cubits. And thou shalt make the horns of it upon the four corners thereof; the horns thereof shall be of one piece with it; and thou shalt overlay it with brass. And thou shalt make its pots to take away its ashes, and its shovels, and its basins, and its flesh-hooks, and its fire-pans; all the vessels thereof thou shalt make of brass. And thou shalt make for it a grating of network of brass; and upon the net shalt thou make four brazen rings in the four corners thereof. And thou shalt put it under the ledge round the altar beneath, that the net may reach halfway up the altar. And thou shalt make staves for the altar, staves of acacia-wood, and overlay them with brass. And the staves thereof shall be put into the rings, and the staves shall be upon the two sides of the altar, in bearing it. Hollow with planks shalt thou make it; as it hath been shown thee in the mount, so shall they make it. (Exodus 27:1-8)
now, i realize that's a boring part of the bible, so most people skip it. but does that sound like a cross, to you? worse is the fact that roman crosses actually aren't particularly cross-shaped. a better image in the old testament is the nehushtan. but you're not going to like the connotations there.
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:
quote:
Then Solomon began to build the house of the LORD at Jerusalem in mount Moriah...
i think you've misunderstood something. mt. moriah is revealed as the temple mount -- the location of the first temple. the "house of yahweh" that solomon builds there is the first temple. the second temple, which existed in jesus's day, was located there, and the islamic holy site the dome of the rock is located there today. jesus was not crucified in the temple. the synoptics name the place "golgotha" (and
not the temple mount), and john says it is "near the city" (the temple mount was inside the city).
At the very least Jesus was crucified in the same general area of Moriah where Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac was to be enacted.
jerusalem, yes.
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
so was abraham lying about the animal?
and in all of this, you somehow missed that the crown of thorns is clearly playing on the thicket?
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.
sure they did: the people writing the new testament had read the old testament.
אָרַח
™ Version 4.2
