Summations Only

You are so full of yourself that you believe that if people just "THINK", they will see that you were right all along. How well does that tactic work for you when you aren't on the internet?We've considered your remarks and found them wanting. In some cases we've provided our reasons for so doing, and you've summarily dismissed them. Instructions to think aren't going to advance your argument.

Faith's post is way more convoluted than you suggest here. According to Faith, the lamb was required because Isaac was going to be resurrected. So apparently, Isaac's resurrection would invalidate the sacrifice requiring another lamb. Surely that's not the lesson here? Missed only one? So there were only one (or two) ways God could have worked through this?

Maybe if I say less, you'll understand more.Your claim is that Abraham prophetically spoke of a lamb that would be provided, and was provided. Abraham you say, knew that after he killed Isaac, Isaac would be resurrected.Assume all of that to be correct. Why would Abraham need to make a second sacrifice simply because Isaac was resurrected? On the other hand, we know why a lamb would be needed if Isaac was not killed at all? Isaac was not atoning for any sin, so it is not a matter of Isaac's insufficiency.Your scenario makes no sense at all.

Yet you cannot make sense of why the ram would be needed. Well, facts intermingled with your interpretation. For example: You have not shown any such thing. You've asserted that yours is the only possible interpretation, but you cannot explain where the alternatives you've been offered break down.

The problem with your statement is that the parallel is not true. Apparently nothing stops prophecy. Not even the facts. Right, and we don't call Jesus "Mary's only son" despite the fact that the other sons have paternity differs from that of Jesus. Not sure what point you can make by drawing Mary into things.Edited by NoNukes, : 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.

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.

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.

Faith, the way to prove that the text says what it says is to quote text along with your line of reasoning. The way for me to rebut you is to quote text and provide superior or more persuasive reading or to rebut your reasoning.Here again you indulge in the delusion that you are merely reading the text and reaching the only possible conclusion and that the people who disagree with you have no case. I'm sorry that you feel frustrated, but your frustration is of your own making. Get a better argument.

Now how does that prove your point that it was prophetic regarding Jesus. Answer: It does not. How does that help show that Abraham was anticipating resurrection. Answer: It does not and is supportive on a quite different conclusion. I accept that the story describes Abraham's faith. And God may well have provided a ram to vindicate Abraham's statement.But the reason for exploring the intent of the statement is to determine whether or not we can infer that Abraham was expecting Isaac to be resurrected. And the answer is that we cannot. In fact, Abraham's statement is inconsistent with the notion that he was expecting resurrection. There is, in fact, nothing in Genesis 22 that helps us understand Abraham's thinking on that point.Again, yes there is Hebrews 11, but the author of Hebrews does not seem to have any more information about Abraham than is present in Genesis. Perhaps I have been disrespectful or insulting in my participation? I apologize for any disrespect of you personally that I am unaware of, but not for my disagreement with your interpretation.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

No I did not call it a lie and I'm not doing so here. I am not saying that you are lying when you agree with Hebrews 11. However, the author of Hebrews 11 is simply providing an interpretation of scripture that we can all read for ourselves. And I disagree with his interpretation. Put into context, Hebrews 11 makes a persuasive (IMO) argument about faith which even a disagreement about Abraham example does not diminish. Outside of discussions like this one, I would not even bother with this issue.On the other hand, for you inerrant literalists, which is the topic under discussion, even the smallest nit pick is a cause for accusations that this or that person is not a Christian.So far the only thing lies I've pointed out were those told by Isaac and Abraham. Yes. that's what you thought. However I've presented an argument that it does not fit. So far you haven't managed anything that looks like a rebuttal. That's not correct. I've made a couple of arguments, so no your argument does not "still stand". I've repeatedly pointed on the areas of your posts that are merely your interpretation rather than facts detailed in the Bible. I agree that there is nothing complicated about Genesis 22. You seem to be the only one here who admits to not understanding any part of it. In my opinion, the reason for your misunderstanding is that the facts do not support your conclusion. I don't believe I've done anything more than comment on your posts and avoid getting personal. In particular I might note that you are by far the person who spends the most effort dispensing insults and name calling in this thread.I don't owe you any more respect than giving your idea a thorough evidence and logical argument based thrashing if I disagree with them. Respect does not mean agreeing with you.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.