On his way to sacrifice his only son Isaac he told his accompanying servants that he and the lad would be returning to them. Since he knew he was to kill Isaac, the strong implication is that he expected that God would raise him from the dead.
Or, that he hoped he'd be able to weasel out of it - which he did.
Paul's commentary is more conclusive to us disciples of Jesus
I was commenting on the story of Abraham and Isaac and your claim that, "The evidence is that Abraham believed in God's raising the dead." At best, it is weak evidence that Abraham may have believed in the possibility of resurrection.
A poster says that Abraham may have expected to wiggle out of the sacrifice. It is hard to see he thought there was ANY wiggle room in raising up the knife to plunge it into his son.
1. Abraham told his servants that he and Isaac would be back. He didn't say that he'd be back and Isaac would be resurrected eventually. Either he lied to his servants or he didn't believe he'd have to kill Isaac.
2. Abraham told Isaac that God would provide a lamb for the sacrifice. Either he was misleading Isaac into thinking he wasn't the figurative lamb or he didn't believe he'd have to kill Isaac.
3. In Genesis 17:19 God said to Abraham, "Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him." So it was pretty clear that Isaac was not going to die childless.
Just reading Genesis, the case that Abraham believed in the God of resurrection, may be arguable to some, though not to myself.
That's not what I'm arguing. I just pointed out that Abraham knew that Isaac would live to have children:
quote:Genesis 17:19 And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him.
If he expected God to instantly resurrect Isaac, it wasn't much of a sacrifice.
Note that when Job went through his trials and tribulations, he got everything back except his children. That was a sacrifice. Why didn't God instantly resurrect them too?
It isn't about being clever. It's about reading what the Bible says. If you use such a weak argument, why would anybody take your other arguments seriously? Instead of thanking me for helping you, you mock me as a "skeptic".
So if we just look at Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac WITHOUT the words of the Apostle Paul in Romans 4 or the description in the book of Hebrews, just as a first time reader of the book of Genesis ... Okay. we may very well overlook his hope in resurrection.
I'm not overlooking his hope in resurrection. I'm saying that the story is weak evidence of that hope.
Sure, it may escape our notice even when he said they would come back after the sacrifice.
It is weak evidence because he said they would come back after the sacrifice.
Why be hostile to what the New Testament explains about Abraham's experience?
I'm not. I'm saying that Abraham's experience is weak evidence of his belief in resurrection. It is evidence - but it is weak evidence.
Do you have some basic reason why the NT should not be taken as legitimate discussion of the book of Genesis ?
The basic reason is that any work of literature supersedes second-hand discussion of it. What The Lord of the Rings says is automatically more important that what somebody else claims it says.
My arguments are based on seeing what is actually there.
Your arguments trip over the stumbling block of canon.
First Sect: "According to the Gospel of Flintstone, Jesus believed in reincarnation." Second Sect; "We don't accept the Gospel of Flintstone." First Sect: "Why not?" Second Sect: "Because it talks about reincarnation."