the meaning of Abraham's story is that human sacrifice is no longer to be allowed, as part of worshiping God. That is from the experts on the old testament.
O'Reilly -Tides prove God!
- Thread starter Ramirez
- Start date
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2005
- Messages
- 9,930
- Reaction score
- 1,453
Name 2. :lol:
It's been a while and they were radio interviews. But that is the reason for the Abraham story.
Not my original source, but it can be found.
"There is no reference to this episode anywhere else in the Bible. Nor does it feature very prominently in post-biblical Jewish literature until the third century CE. Some biblical scholars, Jews included, have read the story as a protest against human sacrifice, the significant point being that the angel intervenes to prevent the murder as an obscene act that God, unlike the pagan deities, hates and could never really have intended.
But in traditional Jewish thought, the Akedah is used as a paradigm for Jewish martyrdom; the Jewish people are ready at all times to give up life itself for the sake of the sanctification of the divine name (Kiddush Ha-Shem)."
"There is no reference to this episode anywhere else in the Bible. Nor does it feature very prominently in post-biblical Jewish literature until the third century CE. Some biblical scholars, Jews included, have read the story as a protest against human sacrifice, the significant point being that the angel intervenes to prevent the murder as an obscene act that God, unlike the pagan deities, hates and could never really have intended.
But in traditional Jewish thought, the Akedah is used as a paradigm for Jewish martyrdom; the Jewish people are ready at all times to give up life itself for the sake of the sanctification of the divine name (Kiddush Ha-Shem)."
I settle for one....Other than Stossel...
From wikipedia:
But according to Rabbi J. H. Hertz (Chief Rabbi of the British Empire), child sacrifice was actually "rife among the Semitic peoples," and suggests that "in that age, it was astounding that Abraham's God should have interposed to prevent the sacrifice, not that He should have asked for it." Hertz interprets the Akedah as demonstrating to the Jews that human sacrifice is abhorrent. "Unlike the cruel heathen deities, it was the spiritual surrender alone that God required." In Jeremiah 32:35, God states that the later Israelite practice of child sacrifice to the deity Molech "had [never] entered My mind that they should do this abomination."
You were saying?
But according to Rabbi J. H. Hertz (Chief Rabbi of the British Empire), child sacrifice was actually "rife among the Semitic peoples," and suggests that "in that age, it was astounding that Abraham's God should have interposed to prevent the sacrifice, not that He should have asked for it." Hertz interprets the Akedah as demonstrating to the Jews that human sacrifice is abhorrent. "Unlike the cruel heathen deities, it was the spiritual surrender alone that God required." In Jeremiah 32:35, God states that the later Israelite practice of child sacrifice to the deity Molech "had [never] entered My mind that they should do this abomination."
You were saying?
Empty Hands
Senior Master
And yet God honored Abraham for his willingness to sacrifice his son on God's word. How much could He have hated the practice if He was willing to honor Abraham for being willing to go through with it?
Sounds like a little post-hoc rationalization to me.
Empty Hands
Senior Master
So what about wholesale genocide and rape?
How about actually addressing the point instead of getting bogged down into the minutiae of one example used to illustrate the point?
I am not at bible study class, I have other posts to type to annoy you guys.
Last Bible study topic for me. Dennis Prager has lectured on the old testament for about twenty years(?) and he relates the difference in the story of Noah's flood. He points out that off all the cultures that have flood stories with god's involved, the Hebrew God is the only one who saves Noah because he is a good man. The others save the various humans because they like them, with no emphasis on behavior. Thank you and good night, I will be here all week, please let the hateful rhetoric begin.
Yeah, Prager was the other 'expert' I am motion to exclude.
You really need to broaden your sources...you are too predictable...
Actually, Prager was the expert on Noah. I used two other randomly found passages on Abraham using google. So, two for Abraham, and one for noah.
G-d does not save Noah because he was a good man. Noah was 'righteous in his generation'. That phrase has been interpreted to mean that Noah was not righteous like say, Abrahem or Moses, but that he was the best available.
And the meaning of the Akedah is still being debated.
You do understand that the position of Chief Rabbi of the British Empire, is a ceremonial political appointment, right? That while the Rabbi chosen is indeed knowledgable, he does not represent the entire Jewish thought.
And the meaning of the Akedah is still being debated.
You do understand that the position of Chief Rabbi of the British Empire, is a ceremonial political appointment, right? That while the Rabbi chosen is indeed knowledgable, he does not represent the entire Jewish thought.
Bill,The Chief Rabbi doesn't even represent all Jewish thought in the UK let alone anywhere else.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Sacks
"As the spiritual head of the United Synagogue, the largest synagogue body in the UK, he is the Chief Rabbi of the mainstream British Orthodox synagogues, but not the religious authority for the Federation of Synagogues or the Union of Orthodox Hebrew Congregations or the other movements, Masorti, Reform and Liberal Judaism"
The one we have now is lovely brilliant man but not the authority on everything Jewish, in fact I find unimaginable that you could ever find such a person!
Of course there's always Google or Fiddler on the Roof.
Prager isn't THE expert on Noah, any Jewish scholar can give you his expert opinion. I suggest you ask as many as you can find.
So WOULD it spoil some vast eternal plan if I were a wealthy man? :lol2:
Empty Hands
Senior Master
So you have no answer to the challenge, and can't defend your position. Got it.
And yet, in some future thread I am sure you will repeat the same claims even though they have been challenged and shown to be false previously, to which you could not respond. Why not, that's pretty much your MO.
I find a quick jewish biblical scholar, at least someone who has studied the old testament and he isn't good enough. I find another source and that isn't good enough. the sources I found point to their being at least one interpretation of the Abraham story that deals with the end of human sacrifice. Obviously, there is some thought out there, among scholars, that this is an interpretation of the Abraham story. As far as the rest, I didn't plan on going into a bible discussion, I just thought I would add one point of view on the Abraham story. You got me. I am not going to discuss every aspect of the old and new testament on this thread. Not a big area of interest for me. In my wandering on the radio, I heard about the Abraham idea, and I decided to share it. The same for Noah. I'll see you on the thread about "torture, is it so 2010?"
I never said Prager or the other Rabbi were anything other than people knowledgeable about the old testament. I don't recall saying anything at all about the Rabbi to the british empire other than he was the first guy on google that talked about Abraham. My original source was years ago on a radio interview. You guys are really good. Can't get anything past you lefties. I am deeply impressed.
I never said Prager or the other Rabbi were anything other than people knowledgeable about the old testament. I don't recall saying anything at all about the Rabbi to the british empire other than he was the first guy on google that talked about Abraham. My original source was years ago on a radio interview. You guys are really good. Can't get anything past you lefties. I am deeply impressed.
Blade96
Senior Master
lol
SensibleManiac
Black Belt
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2007
- Messages
- 556
- Reaction score
- 14
This is not reason but rationalizing.
There is a big difference between rationalizing and being rational.
Quickly, rationalizing is trying to find reasons to back you up. Being rational is applying reason to the situation.
