You can take something seriously without believing it to be 'literally true', and you can also take something seriously without trying to kill other people for having a different and contrary notion about it.

'Seriously'.

"What kind of “test” can it be regarded when God had already told Abraham that Isaac will live to have “generations” before asking him to sacrifice the same as a boy?"

May 20, 2012 -- 10:56PM, ffb wrote:

The kind meant when the test explicitly says "god tested abraham" (gen 22:1) as god tests abe's faith by appearing to change the terms of the deal and abe goes along with it.

There was no "change of terms" unless you meant change of the whole covenant. 

May 20, 2012 -- 10:56PM, ffb wrote:

If god had NOT promised that isaac would live and yet now asks that abe sacrifice him, what kind of test would it be?

Test of truly obeying God: the test of faith in God. There was no test once Abraham knew that Isaac will live.

May 20, 2012 -- 10:56PM, ffb wrote:

it only becomes the test of faith BECAUSE god had promised that isaac would live and yet here is demanding something else. I'm not sure why you are having trouble with that.

Because promise of God is always true, and Abraham knew it.  

"not only God knew but Abraham knew also that his son, Isaac, will live. "

May 20, 2012 -- 10:56PM, ffb wrote:

Well, actually, god knew and abe had to show that he had faith that god knew what he was doing even though the request seemed to fly in the face of what abe thought he knew. thus, a test.

No. No test because Abraham knew that promise of God is always true.

May 20, 2012 -- 10:56PM, ffb wrote:

so all the times you keep repeating what you insist abe "knew" and how that invalidates what the text explicitly says about isaac (by name) getting the blessings, the covenant and such, you miss the point. abe was faced with what seemed to be a divine contradiction and yet he forged ahead. this was a test of his faith.

No. Abe knew that he would not sacrifice Isaac as explained by his answer (Genesis 22:8) to his son's question. Abe was not faced by what you assume to be "divine contradiction" but his faith in God was so strong that he knew that God never lies. God had promised him that Isaac will have generations and had not changed His mind by asking him to sacrifice his son. It would be a test only for those who do think that God can change His mind.  

"There was no "change of terms" unless you meant change of the whole covenant."

May 22, 2012 -- 9:48AM, ffb wrote:

I don't think you understand the notion of a test of faith.

I do but your notion of a test is slightly different than mine. In this case, what exactly was the “test” of Abe; to obey every command from God or to believe in promise of God?

May 22, 2012 -- 9:48AM, ffb wrote:

God makes a promise that, intellectually, Abe accepts. God then commands an action which seems to contradict that promise.

So, what is the “test”?

May 22, 2012 -- 9:48AM, ffb wrote:

Abe intellectually knows that God won't go back on his deal but on a rawer, emotional level, he has a temptation to argue, disagree, complain etc. This is a manifestation of the negative inclination, to doubt God's word even while trying to be of perfect belief in the completeness and unchanging nature of God's word.

Of course he intellectually knew that God won’t go back on His Word. That has been my point all along in this discussion. Not everyone believes or intellectually knows that God does not break His promises; the difference between the faith of Abraham and faith of many others.   

May 22, 2012 -- 9:48AM, ffb wrote:

Abe didn't "know" that God would keep his word.

Why, when God had not broken any promise made to him so far? Did Abe not enter into a covenant with God at circumcision to obey Him?

May 22, 2012 -- 9:48AM, ffb wrote:

He believed it the same way that I can believe that the sun will rise tomorrow with a level of certainty approaching knowledge, but I can't empirically know it until it happens.

But when you have entered into a covenant with God by signing and sealing it with your blood, you have no choice but to keep to the terms of the covenant. Abe was aware of the consequences of breaking covenant with God.

May 22, 2012 -- 9:48AM, ffb wrote:

The test of faith is when one follows a command even though it seems to contradict what one thinks one knows or understands.

Exactly! The test is of following (obeying) command regardless of whether one likes it or not. That was the part of the covenant that Abe had entered into with God.

May 22, 2012 -- 9:48AM, ffb wrote:

It is a handing off of power to another. How will God reconcile this seeming contradiction?

Yes, reconciling does not come into it but obeying the command is the point of test. And it is a much difficult test when one has to sacrifice his son when God hasn’t promised that the son will live than God has already promised that the son will live and have generations.

May 22, 2012 -- 9:48AM, ffb wrote:

Abe says "I don't know, but I have faith that God can find a way. I'll let him make the call."

He had made a call and Abe obeyed. By “obeying”, he passed the test.

May 22, 2012 -- 9:48AM, ffb wrote:

Imagine a man of faith during the Holocaust. Sure, God promised in the bible that the Jews would be redeemed, saved and raised up etc. But a singular man, having seen his family killed, might lose faith in that promise even though his belief systrem dictates that the promise of continued living and success comes from God.

Perhaps that man did not understand the meaning of being redeemed, saved and raised up. Perhaps he expected every Jew to be redeemed, save and raised up, regardless.

May 22, 2012 -- 9:48AM, ffb wrote:

Abe was faced with that same tension between what he understood/believed and what he could truly know about God's methods.

He had a faith in God from an early age but certainly after entering into a covenant with God at the circumcision. He did not need to know God's "method".

May 22, 2012 -- 9:48AM, ffb wrote:

We pray thrice daily about the resurrection of the dead. God promised it. Do we have absolute faith that it will happen? We should.

Yes. We should if we really believe in promise of God.

May 22, 2012 -- 9:48AM, ffb wrote:

Can we "know" it will happen? Is our faith tested by time and personal tragedy which fly in the face of what we should "know"? Yup.

Personal tragedy is part of life. When we want to drive on any highway, on a rainy day or when it is snowing, we might think twice before driving as we can expect accident and injury at any time. But if God promises you before driving that you will not get injured or have accident then you are certainly going to drive without any fear.

May 22, 2012 -- 9:48AM, ffb wrote:

Your citation of 22:8 as some sort of proof that Abe knew that God didn't want Isaac is flatly refuted by two factors -- one, that ultimately, God got a ram, not a lamb, so if Abe "knew" that he was to sacrifice a lamb, he was wrong, and as the T"Y has it (via rashi) the text means "God will choose what he wants as his lamb, and if if it isn't a lamb, the offering will be my son".

I did not say that Abe knew that he would sacrifice ram or lamb but that he knew that he would not sacrifice Isaac otherwise he would have told Isaac that he would sacrifice him.

May 22, 2012 -- 9:48AM, ffb wrote:

Note that Isaac lets himself be bound and doesn't say "I thought you said there was to be a lamb involved."

That indicates contradiction in the text rather than Isaac knowing that he is about to be sacrificed and had accepted it.

"his faith in God was so strong that he knew that God never lies. God had promised him that Isaac will have generations and had not changed His mind by asking him to sacrifice his son"

May 22, 2012 -- 9:48AM, ffb wrote:

his faith was PROVEN to be that strong by the test. How could anyone know what he would do in a case like this before the case happens and how can we judge the volume of his faith without seeing it in action.

Not much of test of obeying God when Abe knew that God had promised him that Isaac will live and have generations!

May 22, 2012 -- 9:48AM, ffb wrote:

The test was designed to give Abe a chance to succeed and us to learn.

Learn and succeed in obeying commands.

May 22, 2012 -- 9:48AM, ffb wrote:

When God first told Abe that he was to have a son, Abe was taken aback. And yet God said so. Clearly, absolute faith develops through situations which test it. The Abe at the binding was a more advanced and spiritually connected man of faith then he was in 17:17. Did he accept God's word in 17? Sure because he "knew that promise of God is always true", but he still answered with what looks like surprise.

Surprise is not the same as refusing to obey commands. And you are illustrating my point that if Abe "knew that promise of God is always true" in 17 then why would he not know in 22?  

May 22, 2012 -- 9:48AM, ffb wrote:

At the binding, he accepted and didn't answer with anything remotely skeptical. He passed which is why we can sit back thousands of years later and explain how he had complete faith. Until that moment, how was that proven?

He had faith in God when in his youth. He had faith in God when he left his father. He had faith in God when he had sent Ishmael away into a desert. He had faith in God even before the news of the birth of Isaac had come to him. Time to ultimately test Abe was when he had only one son rather than when he had two sons. It is more difficult test to lose the only son rather than one of the two.

May 30, 2012 -- 9:58AM, visio wrote:

2.   By virtue of Genesis 15 : 4, Isaac didn’t qualify as Abraham’s heir.   The conception of Isaac of Sarah was abnormal, in the same manner as the latter Jesus of Mary.  Isaac, therefore, didn’t come from Abraham’s bowels (spermatic enzyme).   Isaac was therefore not a seed of Abraham. 

Isaac may not have been the "only son" of Abraham at the time but I am not going to accept that Isaac was not son of Abraham. The Qur'an confirms that Isaac was son of Abraham. There is no way I can dispute it. Therefore, please let us not go too far in this discussion but be polite with our Jewish brethern on this board and not say anything that may sound disrespectful. Thanks. 

May 30, 2012 -- 7:39PM, visio wrote:

The point I was highlighting in my last post was to draw a distinction between scriptural "son" and "seed".   Many would overlook the differences.  Anyway, thanks for reading this.

Actually, there is no similarity between Isaac and Jesus in terms of being "spiritual sons". The distinction is quite clear: one had no human father, had not married, had no descendants and, therefore, could be called "spiritual son" but the other one had a human father, had married and had children and grandchildren (descendants). If we begin to regard the latter as spiritual son then his descendants also will have to be regarded as spiritual descendants only.