Summations Only

John the Apostle, John the one who leaned on Jesus' chest, John one of the three who witnessed the Transfiguration, John the one who wrote a gospel, three letters and the Book of Revelation from the Isle of Patmos where he'd been exiled for his faith, John the brother of James and the son of Zebedee. He's well identified. And even if he were totally anonymous there is no valid reason to discredit his testimony, it holds together.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Not quite. What I'm saying is that you cannot give any reason for Abraham to make the statement at all. You've already denied that Abraham was simply lying. So what's left? Wrong. Because there are other possibilities, and also because one of your supposed "facts" is mere supposition. The only reason to pick the particular possibility you pick is to force a particular interpretation.God already made Abraham a son he did not expect despite Abraham's lack of faith that God could do so. Surely there was the possibility of God creating a new Isaac or any other son and fulfilling the prophecy, if in fact there was one. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Please try to get it right what I actually said. I did not DENY that Abraham was lying, it was my first thought, but then I considered that he might not be lying if he really had the expectation that Isaac would not die or would be raised from the dead. You then said that if he was resurrected there wouldn't be any need for another sacrifice anyway and that seems right, (abe: but I'm not sure, since his resurrection wouldn't mean what Jesus' did and a further sacrifice might very well have been expected/abe) so that seems to mean that Abraham was either lying or prophesying Christ as many of the commentators think he was doing, in order to avoid answering Isaac directly. After all this I think it is still a puzzle what was meant by that statement when he said it. It DID prophesy the ram in the thicket, however, whatever else it meant, and you are really making a mountain out of a molehile with your carrying on about this.It had already been clearly said that Isaac was the "son of promise," so your idea that God could simply have given him a new son is really not an option. And if Isaac was in his thirties, or even a teenager that would make Abraham well over a hundred and remember what a miracle it was that he and Sarah conceived Isaac at all at their ages. No, there is no way there would have been another son, the fanfare, the miraculous nature of the birth of Isaac was definitive. Isaac was the son of promise. Therefore my two facts -- that Abraham believed God's promise to bring a nation through Isaac, and that Abraham fully intended to sacrifice Isaac --
stand as proof that Abraham had to be expecting God to raise Isaac from the dead.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

So do lots of Protestants and so do Catholics. But what does a count of believers actually mean anyway. There are billions of Catholics and Muslims.And this particular example shows every sign of being shoe horned. Hebrews is written well after Jesus resurrection by who knows? In any event Hebrews 11 cannot confirm an interpretation of Genesis; instead Hebrews simply is an interpretation of Genesis 22 made after the fact. Maybe you'll spend some time showing us something that isn't after the fact manufacturing which makes no sense at the time it happened. But if they are all of the Nostradamus variety, you aren't going to convince anyone. Yes. A statement which might mean many things and still not make this example prophecy.

Cute.If you want to deliver private messages, you can choose to use the private messaging facility. But if you post it here, I will choose when I get in and when I stay out. No, it is the author of Genesis who assigns that phrasing to God. It is then you who takes that phrasing and claims it to be prophetic. I think it is reasonable to actually apply the facts when we decide whether a given statement or set of circumstances is prophetic.

There is no puzzle. Abraham lied, for quite understandable reasons. We know that Abraham will lie when it is convenient to do so. Recall the story of Abraham lying to Abimelech about his Sarah being his sister. Apparently Abraham passed that ability to his son Isaac who told the same lie about Rebecca in nearly identical circumstances.You claim that you are not denying that Abraham lied, but then you say things like. "How the statement about the lamb fits in I don't know for sure but the above are facts." and "It's a puzzle". Given that you've been provided with an explanation, I consider your statements simply denial of that explanation.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

You are reading too quickly. I said that God had not planned to resurrect Isaac. The clear meaning is that God was going to intervene before Isaac was killed, which is exactly what happened.

Oh good grief. Your interpretation is not set in stone, but hey I really could not care less, it doesn't make an important difference anyway. There is obviously no such thing as having a nuanced discussion with you so have it your way: Abraham must have lied. OK? Will you stop your ridiculous quest now?

AGAIN, the point of mentioning the NUMBERS of those I agree with is to counter the claims by the gaggle of lone wolf interpreters of the Bible at EvC. Sure there are billions of misguided people, but it's certain that lone wolves have no right to regard their views as right.

Read Jepthah again. You misread and purposely actually.
God has an arrangement with him. God keeps his end of the bargain. Jepthah completely his end of the bargain by sacrificing his daughter. Of course God was fine with the human sacrifice he agreed to the bargain with Jepthah to begin with. Kept his end of the bargain. Then did nothing to dissuade Jepthah from sacrificing his daughter. That's what happened.We have three ( at minimum) scenarios of incest. All god approved
- Adam and Eve's children
- Abraham to Sarah ( Abe's half sister) and god blesses that marriage.
- The righteous Lot screws his daughters. Drunk or not it's incest.Let's see what you managed to make up here now.
Adam and Eve's children screwing each other can't be considered incest. LOL. That's a beauty! How would you define it then?
Why would an all knowing god set up a situation where there has to be incest. Only to strongly condemn it later. I mean he knew it had to happen, he knew he was going to get all pissy later about it. Did he not think that out?The genetic thing is superb by the way. For sure they would be purer strains, we know that from genetics. And the diversity in genes we know occurs from evolution. It's nice to see your argument for genetics comes from the evolution argument.So what do you want to say about Abe with the blessed marriage from god to his sister and the righteous Lot screwing his daughters.Why did god like the incest early on but get so mad about it later, so much so he condemned it with death?. I mean he's all knowing so he knew it would all occur.

Well if you are going to insist on your own way of reading the text over what it actually says there is really no way to have a discussion with you at all.

I explained all that already you dolt.And that will no doubt put "dolt" on the censor list.Doalt, doooollllt, dohlt, dillitydollitydohlt.

Dolt? Really, okay.
Humor me then, I don't see you explained or answered anything.
I see you made stuff up and that can't be the best you can make up can it?

I did not say it was set in stone. However you don't have any better answer. Quite obviously you do care. Actually it does make a difference. It lends credence to the interpretation that Abraham's utterance was not prophetic. I'm a pretty direct guy. I make no apology for that. But if you had some nuances, it's way past time you brought them up.

And the point of my mentioning those billions is to show you that I'm not impressed by your numbers of misguided people.