Abraham, A Side Thread

[torn asunder]

I read it all.

I beleive in it all.

and because I know what it is, and what its telling me to do, I do as Im told.

and all its telling me to do is to follow after Christ.

I cant say it any plainer than that Mike.

its not a process of ommission - that question does not fit into what I do, or others like me.

i know you guys dont get that - but its the best I can do to explain it.

phee asked what you follow literally, and what you feel is outdated (meaing, i assume, what you take as allegory) - are you saying you take all of the bible literally!?!? because if that's true, i'd like to ask your opinion on something i received as an email a while back...

[Steven]

We have... I agree...

I have given you lots and lots of different translations.

and it seems that that is an impass... where I see clear differences... you don't.

I know.

Im not bent about this though Phee - it just is what it is.

I dont see you as an idiot because you dont recognize what i do. Nor do I see you as a sinner and myeslf as Not a sinner.

and honestly the only thing I'd like (here's my admission - you guys get a freebie) is that you can at least recognize that I truly do do my homework, and that I dont take any of it lightly and allow myself to be challanged by it - and that my willingess to stand publically for it could possibly....slightly...possibly....mean that there may be something more to it than is so easily explained away.

of course that maybe a pipe dream too Phee, but one can dream....

[Steven]

K one last thing.

In regard to dismissing Biblical texts, The bible (Let's just talk about New Testament here) was written by men based on second, third, fourth and fifth hand telling of stories that may or may not have happened. It was not written by Matthew mark, Luke and John because they were not living during the time of Jesus. If they were they would have been almost 200 years old when they wrote their texts, which is not possible.

So, the bible is flawed factually, but who cares! It's one huge book of myths with a little bit of fact. And it's not even complete, if you can call myths complete. The ecumenical council threw out hundreds of pages of text, why? If they were words from god then why not include them all? They needed to create a cohesive manual for their members plain and simple. They had to define the doctrine, and decided what Jesus relationship with his father was, among many many other biblical issues. Men decided how the stories would be told, that doesn't sound like divine prophecy to me, and it isn't based on factual evidence so while I don't entirely dismiss it, I can't see using it as the basis for for every argument about catholicism or christianity because of it's non-factual nature.

That's all I got, thanks for the debate, very interesting.

Actually Pandora Ive read studies that siad the earliest sets of writings began about 60 years after Christs crucifixion....that would put these guys in their golden years.....and it was written by more peopel than the four you cited.

[phee]

I know.

Im not bent about this though Phee - it just is what it is.

I dont see you as an idiot because you dont recognize what i do. Nor do I see you as a sinner and myeslf as Not a sinner.

and honestly the only thing I'd like (here's my admission - you guys get a freebie) is that you can at least recognize that I truly do do my homework, and that I dont take any of it lightly and allow myself to be challanged by it - and that my willingess to stand publically for it could possibly....slightly...possibly....mean that there may be something more to it than is so easily explained away.

of course that maybe a pipe dream too Phee, but one can dream....

that's fair... but I do my homework too (literally in college) and I have humored you quite often when you have asked for more information from me, and I obliged.

[Steven]

phee asked what you follow literally, and what you feel is outdated (meaing, i assume, what you take as allegory) - are you saying you take all of the bible literally!?!? because if that's true, i'd like to ask your opinion on something i received as an email a while back...

I see what you mean.

ok first - yes send me what you wanted to send me and I'll do the best I can with it.

Next - of course i see allegory and symbolism throughout the texts, Ive no issue with that. But I also take a great deal literally that would probably suprise you. Go ahead and send me what you were talking about.

[Pandora]

Actually Pandora Ive read studies that siad the earliest sets of writings began about 60 years after Christs crucifixion....that would put these guys in their golden years.....and it was written by more peopel than the four you cited.

These men were supposedly in their early thirties and late forties when they walked around with Jesus. So if they were written in AD 91 then they would be in their late 90s and early 100s, not possible.

[phee]

These men were supposedly in their early thirties and late forties when they walked around with Jesus. So if they were written in AD 91 then they would be in their late 90s and early 100s, not possible.

And I would like to add that the earliest accepted (canonized?) documentation did not start showing up for about another 200 years A.D.

[torn asunder]

I see what you mean.

ok first - yes send me what you wanted to send me and I'll do the best I can with it.

Next - of course i see allegory and symbolism throughout the texts, Ive no issue with that. But I also take a great deal literally that would probably suprise you. Go ahead and send me what you were talking about.

i will, but first i'd like to ask if it's necessary, because as i understand it, it's taken from the old testament, and i'm not sure that you're coming from there - it seems like, in the past, you've mentioned focusing more (or solely) on the enw testament. also, the email is sarcastic/tongue-in-cheek - i wanted to preface it, so as not to offend you when/if you read it...

[Steven]

that's fair... but I do my homework too (literally in college) and I have humored you quite often when you have asked for more information from me, and I obliged.

I know. And yes you have supplied me with stuff to consider and look at. Im actually more appreciateive of that than you might realize - because my being the resident bible thumper means I am constantly being challanged with a high degree of distaste - it comes with the territory in DGN.

Likewise - you and I both know that I've given you plenty to chew on as well in return. I hope that that too - counts for something.

[Steven]

i will, but first i'd like to ask if it's necessary, because as i understand it, it's taken from the old testament, and i'm not sure that you're coming from there - it seems like, in the past, you've mentioned focusing more (or solely) on the enw testament. also, the email is sarcastic/tongue-in-cheek - i wanted to preface it, so as not to offend you when/if you read it...

to me the two work togethor as parrales to one final figurehead and series of events...so I work with both. I often cite from New Testament scripture primarily because alot of topics in here turn to what "christians" are or believ eor are not....and thats all centered on "Christ" - so there you go - buncha new testament stuff.

im cool with you telling me the email is sarcastic - i can take it.

[Steven]

Hi everybody...

Just a not so gentle reminder...

YOUR OFF THE SUBJECT...

you know to be perfectly honest with you Rev it seems that you and I were on differetn wavelenghts of what we wanted to discuss concerning Abraham.....but we'll get there. I was never concerend with who was Abrahams blessed offspring - I wa sactually talkign about the downfalls of many wives and had used Sarah and Hagar as a first example...

[phee]

I went ahead and split off the side discussion to a new topic... hopefully this defuses any slights made about the drift of the conversation...

thanks

[torn asunder]

I went ahead and split off the side discussion to a new topic... hopefully this defuses any slights made about the drift of the conversation...

thanks

thanks, phee!

[Sybil]

getting back to Rev's original line on Abraham, Issac, Ishmael, Sarai and Hagar.....

if I remember correctly the original prophesy given to an aging Abraham and Barren Sarai was that she would give birth to a mighty nation, specifically from a joining of Abraham an Sarai (Sarah). Abraham ended up jumping the gun and moving ahead of the promise of YHWH, by taking his maidservant Hagar and having a child with her in order to begin this lineage, but this was not what YHWH had promised him - the promise - concerned Sarah his barren wife - and it was specifically due to her barren state that YHWH chose her - in order to express his ultiamte authority over that which we are faced wtih in the "natural" world.....the start of the nation of Israel therefore was intentionally born of a miracle.

In Abraham's short sighted vision, he went with the temperol solution: Hagar. and she did have Ishmael, born of Abraham. But Ishamel was not the intended vessel as promised, Issac was. Sarah was shown favor and also had a child - an extension of the prophesy as intended.

Not only was there a bitter root between Hagar and Sarai - where hagar held a maidservents position - not a position of equality with Sarai - but there was the ultimate history of future strife between the liineage of the half brothers. This too, was prophesied.

..and Issac was the "blessed" son because Jesus would come from this line and not the first born, yea? (they didnt know this then...... but....)

[Rev.Reverence]

..and Issac was the "blessed" son because Jesus would come from this line and not the first born, yea? (they didnt know this then...... but....)

That wasn't my point,

the Hebrews and Muslims say the opposite thing as each other..... (that's redundant but I'll leave it anyway)

I think it is silly now...

[Sybil]

That wasn't my point,

the Hebrews and Muslims say the opposite thing as each other..... (that's redundant but I'll leave it anyway)

I think it is silly now...

I came into the thread late, I know.. but ..

Your point was not to favor one over the other? Not necessarilly a good idea.. right?

All I was adding was the REASON that the 2nd child was said to be the blessed child...

Because Jesus would eventually come from his line... causing the prophesy to be true YEARS later.

But didnt Abraham ask that Ishmael be blessed also? and didnt God say He would bless him, too..???

It wasnt so much ABRAHAM favoring one child over the other as God made a promise. And He keeps them.

Were you saying nowadays we shouldnt put one child over the other?

And wasnt Steven simply siting that having more than one wife can get ya in trouble.. look at that situation...

hahaha It always comes down to "we do what feels good NOW." and a loving Father says "wait." Or, "No."

[Rev.Reverence]

I came into the thread late, I know.. but ..

Your point was not to favor one over the other? Not necessarilly a good idea.. right?

All I was adding was the REASON that the 2nd child was said to be the blessed child...

Because Jesus would eventually come from his line... causing the prophesy to be true YEARS later.

But didnt Abraham ask that Ishmael be blessed also? and didnt God say He would bless him, too..???

It wasnt so much ABRAHAM favoring one child over the other as God made a promise. And He keeps them.

Were you saying nowadays we shouldnt put one child over the other?

And wasnt Steven simply siting that having more than one wife can get ya in trouble.. look at that situation...

hahaha It always comes down to "we do what feels good NOW." and a loving Father says "wait." Or, "No."

Both gave birth to nations...

I was saying that we should not raise one child over the other, and we are ALL God's children, so logic dictates that we should treat eachother as equals.

Jesus never said anything about one wife... he said 'Love thy neighbor, as ye love thy God.'

Touching little girls whether or not you paid for them is still RAPE.

That's no kind of love I heard of...

[Sybil]

Touching little girls whether or not you paid for them is still RAPE.

That's no kind of love I heard of...

I am not following the way you are putting this together??

[Steven]

Both gave birth to nations...

I was saying that we should not raise one child over the other, and we are ALL God's children, so logic dictates that we should treat eachother as equals.

Jesus never said anything about one wife... he said 'Love thy neighbor, as ye love thy God.'

Touching little girls whether or not you paid for them is still RAPE.

That's no kind of love I heard of...

careful here Bro - Jesus did indeed have ALOT to say about one wife or one husband and divorce in general, to include the history of it from time of Moses when he decreed it

[Steven]

Your point was not to favor one over the other? Not necessarilly a good idea.. right?

All I was adding was the REASON that the 2nd child was said to be the blessed child...

Because Jesus would eventually come from his line... causing the prophesy to be true YEARS later.

But didnt Abraham ask that Ishmael be blessed also? and didnt God say He would bless him, too..???

It wasnt so much ABRAHAM favoring one child over the other as God made a promise. And He keeps them.

Were you saying nowadays we shouldnt put one child over the other?

And wasnt Steven simply siting that having more than one wife can get ya in trouble.. look at that situation...

hahaha It always comes down to "we do what feels good NOW." and a loving Father says "wait." Or, "No."

exactly. exactly.

[Rev.Reverence]

Can / Can't,

I'm not going to argue...having one mate can be troublesome. Period.

I learned in Catechism...

Jesus Christ said the most important thing is to love one another as you love thy God.

This is the lesson I, live by.