God said kill you first son
- Thread starter GodLied
- Start date
"So, which is it, young feller? If'n we freeze, well we can't get down on the ground. And if'n we get down on the ground, well I'm going to be in motion."
--Paraphrased from <i>Raising Arizona</i>
--Paraphrased from <i>Raising Arizona</i>
ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
And your point is what?
Killing for God
For someone to "offer" someone else, especially from a superior person (adult) to an inferior person like a child, means to take away their rights, their freedom, or their life. In every version of this story I have ever read or seen on film, Abraham was about to take Isaac's life, not just "offer" him to God. And what kind of a God would ask for such a thing as telling you to kill your own child? All these patriarchs were always talking to some deep-voiced "god" out there in the heavens. This wasn't God, it was Satan. Also, Abraham wasn't sacrificing Isaac, this was Ishmael he had on the sacrificial altar. Ishmael was the first-born son and the true inheritor of Abraham's legacy. Not Isaac. Just like Abraham "offered" Sarah to the Pharoah as his concubine. Just like Lot offered his "virgin" daughters (here we go again with this mistranslated word "virgin") to the mob outside his house so they could rape them but leave the "visitors" alone! The Biblical meaning of "offer" means to "kill or otherwise destroy." You should check the authenticity of your Bible. You misquote a lot of scripture that bears no truth anyway, but if you must quote the Bible, please get one which is more accurate than the one you are quoting from.
For someone to "offer" someone else, especially from a superior person (adult) to an inferior person like a child, means to take away their rights, their freedom, or their life. In every version of this story I have ever read or seen on film, Abraham was about to take Isaac's life, not just "offer" him to God. And what kind of a God would ask for such a thing as telling you to kill your own child? All these patriarchs were always talking to some deep-voiced "god" out there in the heavens. This wasn't God, it was Satan. Also, Abraham wasn't sacrificing Isaac, this was Ishmael he had on the sacrificial altar. Ishmael was the first-born son and the true inheritor of Abraham's legacy. Not Isaac. Just like Abraham "offered" Sarah to the Pharoah as his concubine. Just like Lot offered his "virgin" daughters (here we go again with this mistranslated word "virgin") to the mob outside his house so they could rape them but leave the "visitors" alone! The Biblical meaning of "offer" means to "kill or otherwise destroy." You should check the authenticity of your Bible. You misquote a lot of scripture that bears no truth anyway, but if you must quote the Bible, please get one which is more accurate than the one you are quoting from.
God still did not say for Abraham to kill Issac, otherwise God would have changed his mind. I'm specifically going by what the bible says here to avoid contradiction.
Offered means "offered". Abraham presented Issac's life to the LORD. The LORD rejected his offer.
You've been talking to too many muslims. Nevertheless the firstborn is not a bastard child. Abraham never married Hagar.
Offered means "offered". Abraham presented Issac's life to the LORD. The LORD rejected his offer.
No it does not. Exodus 13:1 "The LORD spoke to Moses and said, 'Consecrate to me every first-born that opens the womb among the Israelites, both of man and beast, for it belongs to me." Numbers 6, the vows of a nazarite.
What do you want me to quote from?
Quoting the Bible
Nevertheless the firstborn is not a bastard child.
I never said the firstborn was a bastard child! Where did you get that? Not from me!
Abraham never married Hagar.
That was their custom in those days. They had wives and concubines. A concubine had just as high (sometimes higher) status than the wife. Marriage ceremonies didn't take place in that time like they do now. Abraham's relationship with Hagar was a legal one. Don't you remember that Sarah arranged this "relationship" so Abraham could bear a son? Sarah's barren state was considered an abomination. You misunderstand the word marriage. It was not a concept at this time.
Offered means "offered". Abraham presented Issac's life to the LORD. The LORD rejected his offer.
Exodus 13:1 "The LORD spoke to Moses and said, 'Consecrate to me every first-born that opens the womb among the Israelites, both of man and beast, for it belongs to me." Numbers 6, the vows of a nazarite.
IsSHMAEL WAS Abraham's FIRSTBORN son--NOT ISAAC!!!
My point exactly!!! The LORD rejected Isaac (in your context of the word "offered.") The LORD did NOT reject Ishmael!!!
What do you want me to quote from?
okinrus, we all know what the Bible says, even Muslims know what the Bible says. Your obsessive quoting from the Bible is so redundant it reeks of ignoramity. As I've suggested to you before, your efforts to cram the Bible down our throats are wasted. If there is anyone on this website who wanted to use the Bible as a source of reference, we would do so. We don't need you to quote for us. The Bible is not reliable. What saddens me is that nothing you say is from your own thoughts. Like most Xians, you do not have a mind of your own. If this isn't hell, I can't imagine what is.
okinrus, you don't need to slur Muslims. They are people of God (Allah=Eli=Sun=God)
Nevertheless the firstborn is not a bastard child.
I never said the firstborn was a bastard child! Where did you get that? Not from me!
Abraham never married Hagar.
That was their custom in those days. They had wives and concubines. A concubine had just as high (sometimes higher) status than the wife. Marriage ceremonies didn't take place in that time like they do now. Abraham's relationship with Hagar was a legal one. Don't you remember that Sarah arranged this "relationship" so Abraham could bear a son? Sarah's barren state was considered an abomination. You misunderstand the word marriage. It was not a concept at this time.
Offered means "offered". Abraham presented Issac's life to the LORD. The LORD rejected his offer.
Exodus 13:1 "The LORD spoke to Moses and said, 'Consecrate to me every first-born that opens the womb among the Israelites, both of man and beast, for it belongs to me." Numbers 6, the vows of a nazarite.
IsSHMAEL WAS Abraham's FIRSTBORN son--NOT ISAAC!!!
My point exactly!!! The LORD rejected Isaac (in your context of the word "offered.") The LORD did NOT reject Ishmael!!!
What do you want me to quote from?
okinrus, we all know what the Bible says, even Muslims know what the Bible says. Your obsessive quoting from the Bible is so redundant it reeks of ignoramity. As I've suggested to you before, your efforts to cram the Bible down our throats are wasted. If there is anyone on this website who wanted to use the Bible as a source of reference, we would do so. We don't need you to quote for us. The Bible is not reliable. What saddens me is that nothing you say is from your own thoughts. Like most Xians, you do not have a mind of your own. If this isn't hell, I can't imagine what is.
The word Allah stems from an ancient arabic Moon God but this is really speculation though.
No. Ishmael was an egyptian slave woman.
Any your evidence is? Abraham mentions the high priest Melichidec(sp?) so religious ceremonies did exist.
The first born gets the inheritance. Because neither Abraham or Sarah wanted Ishmael to get the inheritance, Ishmael is not the firstborn. We consider Christ to be Father's firstborn. However Adam was born before Christ was. So the story parallels Christ. The firstborn is just a term denoting who gets the inheritance.
Your Bible references
I accept that Allah means God in arabic. However the roots of this word is unknown. Here are some <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%2BAllah+%2B%22Moon+God%22+site%3A.edu">sites</a>.
The firstborn recieves the inheritance. You could probably get away with calling Jacob the firstborn because Esau's birthright was sold to him. Another clarfication. Abraham's firstborn is the firstborn of his wife. Also from this definition we see the the perspective is on the wife not on the husband. "If a woman's first child is a male child born by natural childbirth, then the child must be redeemed from a kohein (priest) by a procedure called Pidyon Ha-Ben. In addition, firstborn males must observe a special fast the day before Pesach (Passover), commemorating the fact that they were saved from the plague of the first born."
http://www.jewfaq.org/glossary.htm
There is nothing in the bibical account to suggest anything extraordinary here. Melchizedek means in hebrew "rightous king". In context of the bible, he was king of Salem(Jerusalem).
Not more than Sarah. Otherwise he would have kicked Sarah out.
Abraham did not take them there.
I don't think a hundred year man would make that kind of voyage. Te bibical account has Abraham marrying another woman.
The term firstborn does not imply the first born. All it means is that Issac was chosen to have the rights of the firstborn.
Let me clear up the issue about offering the firstborn. It is first mentioned here:
Exodus 13
2___"Sanctify to Me every firstborn, the first offspring of every womb among the sons of Israel, both of man and beast; it belongs to Me."
12___you shall devote to the LORD the first offspring of every womb, and the first offspring of every beast that you own; the males belong to the LORD.
"Devoting" your life to God means giving it to Him. In this sense it equals death (cf. the story of Solomon). If anybody wants to read up on this: Ex 13:12,13,15; 22:29; Lev 27:26; Num 3:13; 8:16f; 18:15; Deut 15:19; Luke 2:23. We see what it means to "give your life to God to people(=death), and what it means to God(=life).
God asked Abraham to offer Isaac as a burnt offering specifically. It was common practice among pagan religions at the time to offer at least one child, but despite any doubts or objections Abraham obeyed. But God 1)saved Isaac (as He saved us from certain death) and 2)provided a replacement (as He provided Jesus to die in our place). See the offering up of Isaac
If Isaac was really sacrificed it would have been a different story, but it's not - it's this one.
Exodus 13
2___"Sanctify to Me every firstborn, the first offspring of every womb among the sons of Israel, both of man and beast; it belongs to Me."
12___you shall devote to the LORD the first offspring of every womb, and the first offspring of every beast that you own; the males belong to the LORD.
"Devoting" your life to God means giving it to Him. In this sense it equals death (cf. the story of Solomon). If anybody wants to read up on this: Ex 13:12,13,15; 22:29; Lev 27:26; Num 3:13; 8:16f; 18:15; Deut 15:19; Luke 2:23. We see what it means to "give your life to God to people(=death), and what it means to God(=life).
God asked Abraham to offer Isaac as a burnt offering specifically. It was common practice among pagan religions at the time to offer at least one child, but despite any doubts or objections Abraham obeyed. But God 1)saved Isaac (as He saved us from certain death) and 2)provided a replacement (as He provided Jesus to die in our place). See the offering up of Isaac
If Isaac was really sacrificed it would have been a different story, but it's not - it's this one.
Need I say anything further to someone who has difficulty with simplicity and reading.
Why is it always the christians who confuse the hell out of me...
They say:
* One god doesn't really mean one, it means three in one.
* The bible says don't eat pork, but it really means eat pork.
* The bible says first son, but it really means second son because the first is already sacrificed.
* yeah god gave us ten commandment, but we are not supposed to follow them because we are saved by grace.
* Who knows, christians may interpret the right to be wrong and the wrong to be right and we will have to stand helpless at the atrocities.
You have reversed the standards on everything known, can you tell me if the bible includes a prophecy on judgement day that all standards will be reversed.
No. There is one God and three persons.
The old testament laws were to manifest physical laws into spirtual laws. As you know, Pigs like to roll around in the mud. This was all prepared for us to eat the body of Christ not Satan's food. Christ said what enters into your stomach does not defile you. So only keeping these rules is useless if you still hate God. But if you want to fast and do it for the love of God then by all means do so.
The firstborn son not first born. Issac was the firstborn son of his wife. Romans 9:8 "This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as descendants. For this is the wording of the promise, "About this time I shall return and Sarah will have a son."
Hebrew 11:17 "By faith Abraham, when put to the test, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was ready to offer his only son, of whom it was said, "Through Issac descendants shall bear your name."
The footnotes of the bible here say, "Only one: uniquely precious, especially loved; therefore the same term is rendered in vv 12,17 as 'beloved'"
By grace we keep the ten commandments. 1 John 3:24 "Those who keep his commandments remain in him, and he in them, and the way we know that he remains in us is from the Spirit that he gave us."
Atrocities what are you talking about. Answer the WTC. Oh these guys were just reading a few verses differently right?
One god and three persons only, I thought we have one god and 5 billion of them persons or creations living today and many more who died before.
Bull shit, Pigs were not prohibited because they roll in mud, cows roll in mud too, I just saw them at my grandfather farm last March. Pigs were prohibited because they don't chew the cud and that's a health hazard. Read your bible and you'll see the justification for not eating the pig.....It eats like humans, dirty style, without chewing appropriately, plus it's a carnivore that may eat it's own young or even a human if it was tossed to it.
By your standard, the bible doesn't prohibit eating the dead meat of human.....You are on your own eating pigs and dead human.
I'm sick and tired of debating the first son issue, you make absolutely no sense, and the only way I can put some sense in you is to spank you, but you are far away, you guys have such a thick head that you'll never get it.....fine enjoy the ignorance....Isaac is the first son who have been sacrificed and you're his son along with the jews and the dirty muslims are the sons of the illigitimate Hager....Are you happy now?
You really know shit, but that's fine, as long as you are happy and convinced that a spirit dwells in you that is telling you how to be......That's right, I saw a church pastor performing an exorcist on a member, they speak crap and scream at a satan and all sort of bull shit....I guess those guys convinced them selves real well that Jesus is inside of them commanding these Satans.
You guys make me laugh, so gullible, what if I pulled a trick on you and made it look like an audible visual Jesus is talking to you, I bet you would go to church quickly and share with everyone the holly experience.
Perhaps those 19 people out of a two billion muslims drank the same breast milk as Hitler or the Aklahoma city bombers or David Quresh, or Stalin, ect.....Or Perhaps you are as cruel as them and view the world and others as the actions of a few fools. I don't think Jesus appreciate your behavior.
My specific referance is to clean animals verses unclean animals.
Pigs are known to roll in the mud. They live in the mud and the mud offers them protection against the sun to keep cool. The cow might get dirty but usually they stay in the grass.
Now Satan does have food and he does offer it to us. Just as Christ ate his last super Satan as made us a table as well. Eating the dead of a human would not be consider sinful in itself. However it is medicallly dangerous, other humans would find it distasteful, etc. Also God commands us to respect the dead and burry them.
The Qur'an doesn't even say who was sacraficed. Also I dispute the fact that all muslims are the sons of Hagar. The only possibility is that some arabs are the sons of Hager. Even then, that's highly questionable.
I don't think that was a Catholic church pastor because the Catholic exorcism follows specific set of prayers. Anyways yes, Christ as given us the power to tread on serpents and scorpians. Exorcism's are a reality and people do get possessed.
Not only those 19 members but the entire Al-Qaida network. At the same time, the entire country of afganistan apparently agreed with Bin Laden. Like I said before, what enters your stomach does not defile you.