Shocking truth about Abraham's descendants!

Medicine*Woman

Jesus: Mythstory--Not History!
Valued Senior Member
I was going to shorten this, but I didn't want to take out anything that might slant the article.

THE ARTICLES OF THE BISHOP OF URAMIAH, ON THE CREATOR, HOLY BOOKS AND PROPHETS BY PROFESSOR DAVID BENJAMIN KELDANI, B.D., Former Roman Catholic Bishop of the Uniate Chaldean

THE QUESTION OF THE BIRTHRIGHT AND THE COVENANT

There is a very, very ancient religious dispute between the Ishmaelites and the Israelites about the questions concerning the Birthright and the Covenant. The readers of the Bible and the Koran are familiar with the story of the great Prophet Abraham and his two sons Ishmael (Isma'il) and Isaac (Ishaq). The story of Abraham's call from the Ur of the Chaldees, and that of his descendants until the
death of his grandson Joseph in Egypt, is written in The Book of Genesis (chapters xi.-l). In his genealogy as recorded in Genesis, Abraham is the twentieth from Adam, and a contemporary of Nimrod, who built the stupendous Tower of Babel.

The early story of Abraham in the Ur of Chaldea, though not mentioned in the Bible, is recorded by the famous Jewish historian Joseph Flavius in his Antiquities and is also confirmed by the Koran. But the Bible expressly tells us that the father of Abraham, Terah, was an idolater (Jos. xxiv. 2,14). Abraham manifested his love and zeal for God when he entered into the temple and destroyed all the idols and images therein, and thus he was a true prototype of his llustrious descendant Prophet Muhammad. He came out unhurt and triumphantly from the burning furnace wherein he was cast by the order of Nimrod. He leaves his native land for Haran in the company of his father and his nephew Lot. He was seventy-five years old when his father died at Haran. In obedience and absolute resignation to the divine call, he leaves his country and starts on a long and varied journey to the land of Canaan, to Egypt and to Arabia. His
wife Sarah is barren; yet God announces to him that he is destined to become the father of many nations, that all the territories he is to traverse shall be given as an inheritance to his descendants, and that, "by his seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed"! This wonderful and unique promise in the history of religion was met with an unshaken faith on the part of Abraham, who had no issue, no son. When he was led out to look at the sky at night and told by Allah that his posterity would be as numerous as the stars, and as
innumerable as the sand which is on the shores of the sea,
Abraham believed it. And it was this belief in God, that "was counted righteousness," as the Scripture says.

A virtuous poor Egyptian girl, Hagar by name, is a slave and a maid in the service of Sarah. At the bidding and consent of the mistress the maidservant is duly married by the Prophet, and from this union Ishmael is born, as foretold by the Angel. When Ishmael is thirteen years old, Allah again sends His Angel with His revelation to Abraham; the same promise is repeated to Abraham; the rite of Circumcision is formally instituted and immediately executed. Abraham, at his ninetieth year of age, Ishmael, and all the male servants, are circumcised; and the "Covenant" between God and Abraham with his only begotten son is made and sealed, as if it were with the
blood of circumcision. It is a kind of treaty concluded between
Heaven and the Promised Land in the person of Ishmael as the only
offspring of the nonagenarian Patriarch. Abraham promises allegiance and fealty to his Creator, and God promises to be forever the Protector and God of the posterity of Ishmael.

Later on - that is to say, when Abraham was ninety-nine years old and Sarah ninety, we find that she also bears a son whom they name Isaac according to the Divine promise.

As no chronological order is observed in the Book of Genesis, we are told that after the birth of Isaac, Ishmael and his mother are turned out and sent away by Abraham in a most cruel manner, simply because Sarah so wished. Ishmael and his mother disappear in the desert, a fountain bursts out when the youth is on the point of death from thirst; he drinks and is saved. Nothing more is heard of Ishmael in the Book of Genesis except that he married an Egyptian woman, and when Abraham died he was present together with Isaac to bury their dead father.

Then the Book of Genesis continues the story of Isaac, his two sons, and the descent of Jacob into Egypt, and ends with the death of Joseph.

The next important event in the history of Abraham as recorded in Genesis (xxii.) is the offering of "his only son" a sacrifice to God, but he was ransomed with a ram which was presented by an angel. As the Koran says, "That was indeed a clear trial" for Abraham (Koran, Ch. 38:106), but his love for God surpassed every other affection; and for this reason he is called the Friend of Allah, "Allah has taken Abraham for a Friend". (Koran)

Thus runs the brief account of Abraham in connection with our subject of the Birthright and the Covenant.

There are three distinct points which every true believer in God must accept as truths. The first point is that Ishmael is the legitimate son of Abraham, his first-born, and therefore his claim to birthright is quite just and legal. The second point is that the Covenant was made between God and Abraham as well as his only son Ishmael before Isaac was born. The Covenant and the institution of the Circumcision would have no value or signification unless the repeated promise
contained in the Divine words, "Throughout thee all the nations of the earth shall be blessed," and especially the expression, the Seed "that shall come out from the bowels, he will inherit thee" (Gen. xv. 4). This promise was fulfilled when Ishmael was born (Gen. xvi.), and Abraham had the consolation that his chief servant Eliezer would no longer be his heir. Consequently we must admit that Ishmael was the real and legitimate heir of Abraham's spiritual dignity and
privileges. The perogative that "by Abraham all the generations of the earth shall be blessed, "so often repeated though in different forms - was the heritage by birthright, and was the patrimony of Ishmael. The inheritance to which Ishmael was entitled by birthright was not the tent in which Abraham lived or a certain camel upon which he used to ride, but to subjugate and occupy forever all the
territories extending from the Nile to the Euphrates, which were inhabited by some ten different nations (xvii. 18-21). These lands have never been subdued by the descendants of Isaac, but by those of Ishmael. This is an actual and literal fulfillment of one of the conditions contained in the Covenent.

The third point is that Isaac was also born miraculously and specially blessed by the Almighty, that for his people the land of Canaan was promised and actually occupied under Joshua. No Muslim ever thinks of disparaging the sacred and prophetical position of Isaac and his son Jacob; for to disparage or to lower a Prophet is an impiety. When we compare Ishmael and Isaac, we cannot but reverence and respect them both as holy Prophets of God. In fact, the people of Israel, with its Law and sacred Scriptures, have had a unique religious history in the Old World. They were indeed the Chosen People of God. Although that people have often rebelled against God, and fallen into idolatry, yet they have given to the world myriads of prophets and righteous men and women.

So far there could be no real point of controversy between the descendants of Ishmael and the people of Israel. For if by "Blessing" and the "Birthright" it meant only some material possessions and power, the dispute would be settled as it has been settled by sword and the accomplished fact of the Arab occupation of the promised lands. Rather, there is a fundamental point of dispute between the two nations now existing for nearly four thousand years; and that
point is the question of the Messiah and Prophet Muhammad. The
Jews do not see the fulfillment of the so-called Messianic
prophecies either in the person of Christ or in that of Prophet Muhammad. The Jews have always been jealous of Ishmael because they know very well that in him the Covenant was made and with his circumcision it was concluded and sealed, and it is out of this rancor that their scribes or doctors of law have corrupted and interpolated many passages in their Scriptures. To efface the name "Ishmael" from the second, sixth, and seventh verses of the twenty-second chapter of the Book of Genesis and to insert in its place "Isaac," and to leave the descriptive epithet "thy only begotten son" is to deny the existence of the former and to violate the Covenant made between God and Ishmael. It is expressly said in this chapter by God: "Because thou didst not spare thy only
begotten son, I will increase and multiply thy posterity like the stars and the sands on the seashore," which word "multiply" was used by the Angel to Hagar in the wilderness: I will multiply thy offspring to an innumerable multitude, and that Ishmael "shall become a fruitful man" (Gen. xvi. 12). Now the Christians have translated the same Hebrew word, which means "fruitful" or "plentiful" from the verb para - identical with the Arabic wefera - in their versions "a wild ass"! Is it not a shame and impiety to call Ishmael "a wild
ass" whom God styles "Fruitful" or "Plentiful"?

It is very remarkable that Christ himself, as reported in the Gospel of St. Barnabas, reprimanded the Jews who said that the Great Messenger whom they call "Messiah" would come down from the lineage of King David, telling them plainly that he could not be the son of David, for David calls him "his Lord," and then went on to explain how their fathers had altered the Scriptures, and that the Covenant was made, not with Isaac, but with Ishmael, who was taken to be offered a sacrifice to God, and that the expression "thy only begotten son" means Ishmael, and not Isaac. Paul, who pretends to be an apostle of Jesus Christ, uses some irreverent words about Hagar (Gal. vi. 21-31 and elsewhere) and Ishmael, and openly contradicts his Master. This man has done all he could to pervert and mislead the Christians whom he used to persecute before his conversion; and I
doubt very much that the Jesus of Paul was Jesus, the son of Mary who according to Christian traditions was hanged on a tree about a century or so before Christ, for his Messianic pretensions. In fact, the Epistles of Paul as they stand before us are full of doctrines entirely repugnant to the spirit of the Old Testament, as well as to that of the humble Prophet, Jesus of Nazareth. Paul was a bigoted Pharisee and a lawyer. After his conversion to Christianity he seems to have become even more fanatical than ever. His hatred to Ishmael and his claim to the birthright makes him forget or overlook the Law of Moses which forbids a man to marry his own sister under the pain of capital penalty. If Paul were inspired by God, he would have either denounced the Book of Genesis as full of forgeries when it says twice (xii. 10-20, xx. 2-18) that Abraham was the husband of his own sister, or that he would have exposed the Prophet to be a liar! (God forbid). But he believes in the words of the book, and his con-
science does not torment him in the least when he identifies Hagar with the barren desert of the Sinai, and qualifies Sarah as the Jerusalem above in heaven! (Gal. iv. 25,26). Did ever Paul read this anathema of the Law:- "Cursed be he that lieth with his sister, the daughter of his father, or the daughter of his mother. And all the people say: Amen"? (Duet. xxvii. 22).

Is there a human or divine law that would consider more legitimate one who is the son of his own uncle and aunt than he whose father is a Chaldean and his mother an Egyptian? Have you anything to say against the chastity and the piety of Hagar? Of course not, for she was the wife of a Prophet and the mother of a Prophet, and herself favored with Divine revelations.

The God who made the Covenant with Ishmael thus prescribes the law of inheritance, namely: If a man has two wives, one beloved and the other despised, and each one has a son, and if the son of the despised wife is the first-born, that son, and not the son of the beloved wife, is entitled to the birthright. Consequently the first-born shall inherit twice that of his brother. (Duet. xxi. 15-17). Is not, then, this law explicit enough to put to silence all who dispute the just claim of Ishmael to birthright?

Now let us discuss this question of the birthright as briefly as we can. We know that Abraham was a nomad chief as well as a Messenger of God, and that he used to live in a tent and had large flocks of cattle and great wealth. Now the nomad tribesmen do not inherit lands and pastures, but the prince assigns to each of his sons certain clans or tribes as his subjects and dependents. As a rule the youngest inherits the hearth or the tent of his parents, whereas the
elder - unless unfit - succeeds him to his throne. The great Mongol conqueror Jenghiz Khan was succeeded by Oghtai, his eldest son, who reigned in Pekin as Khaqan, but his youngest son remained in his father's hearth at Qaraqorum in Mongolia. It was exactly the same with Abraham's two sons. Isaac, who was the younger of the two, inherited the tent of his father and became, like him, a nomad living
in tents. But Ishmael was sent to Hijaz to guard the House of Allah which he, together with Abraham, had built as referred to in the Koran. Here he settled, became Prophet and Prince among the Arab tribes who believed in him. It was at Mecca, or Becca, that the Ka'aba became the center of the pilgrimage called al-hajj. It was Ishmael that founded the religion of one true Allah and instituted
the Circumcision.

His offspring soon increased and was multiplied like the stars of the sky. From the days of Prophet Ishmael to the advent of Prophet Muhammad, the Arabs of Hijaz, Yemen and others have been independent and masters of their own countries. The Roman and Persian Empires were powerless to subdue the people of Ishmael. Although idolatry was afterwards introduced, still the names of Allah, Abraham, Ishmael, and a few other Prophets were not forgotten by them. Even Esau, the elder son of Isaac, left his father's hearth for his younger brother
Jacob and dwelt in Edom, where he became the chief of his people and soon got mixed with the Arab tribes of Ishmael who was both his uncle and father-in-law. The story of Esau's selling his birthright to Jacob for a dish of pottage is foul trick invented to justify the ill-treatment ascribed to Ishmael. It is alleged that "God hated Esau and loved Jacob," while the twins were in their mother's womb; and that the "elder brother was to serve his younger one" (Gen. xxv Rom. ix. 12, 13). But, strange to say, another report, probably from another source, shows the case to be just the reverse of the above-mentioned prediction. For the thirty-third chapter of Genesis clearly admits that Jacob served Esau, before whom he seven times prostrates in homage, addressing him "My Lord," and declaring himself as "your
slave."

Abraham is reported in the Bible to have several other sons from
Qitura and "the concubines," to whom he gave presents or gifts and sent them towards the East. All these became large and strong tribes. Twelve sons of Ishmael are mentioned by name and described, each one to be a prince with his towns and camps or armies (Gen. xxv.). So are the children from Qitura, and others, as well as those descended from Esau mentioned by their names.

When we behold the number of the family of Jacob when he went to Egypt, which hardly exceeded seventy heads, and when he was met by Esau with an escort of four hundred armed horsemen, and the mighty Arab tribes submitted to the twelve Amirs belonging to the family of Ishmael, and then when the last Messenger of Allah proclaims the religion of Islam, all the Arab tribes unitedly acclaim him and accept His religion, and subdue all the lands promised to the children of Prophet Abraham, we must indeed be blind not to see that the Covenant was made with Ishmael and the promise accomplished in the person of Prophet Muhammad (upon whom be peace).

Before concluding this article I wish to draw the attention of the students of the Bible, especially that of the Higher Biblical Criticism, to the fact that the so-called Messianic Prophecies and Passages belong to a propaganda in favor of the Davidic Dynasty after the death of King Solomon when his kingdom was split into two. The two great Prophets Elias and Elisha, who flourished in the Kingdom of Samariah or Israel, do not even mention the name of David or Solomon.
Jerusalem was not longer the center of religion for the Ten Tribes, and the Davidic claims to a perpetual reign was rejected.

But Prophets like Ishaia and others who were attached to the Temple of Jerusalem and the House of David have foretold the coming of a great Prophet and Sovereign.

As it was said in the first article, there are certain manifest marks with which the coming Last Prophet will be known. And it is these marks that we shall attempt to study in the future articles.

Official website: http://www.angelfire.com/pa/greywlf/jesusdebate.html
 
There is at least one contrived remark here, revealing a certain lack of objectivity:

It is very remarkable that Christ himself, as reported in the Gospel of St. Barnabas, reprimanded the Jews who said that the Great Messenger whom they call "Messiah" would come down from the lineage of King David, telling them plainly that he could not be the son of David, for David calls him "his Lord,"
Barnabas 12:10
Behold again it is Jesus, not a son of man, but the Son of God, and
He was revealed in the flesh in a figure. Since then men will say
that Christ is the son of David, David himself prophesieth being
afraid and understanding the error of sinners; The Lord said unto
my Lord, Sit thou on My right hand until I set thine enemies for a
footstool under Thy feet.
11 And again thus sayith Isaiah; The Lord said unto my Christ the
Lord, of whose right hand I laid hold, that the nations should give
ear before Him, and I will break down the strength of kings. See
how David calleth Him Lord, and calleth Him not Son.

This is also found in the Bible - Matt.22:44, Mark.12:36, Luke 20:42 and Acts 2:34, and comes from Ps.110:1.

Of course this solves the problem of Jesus' "invalid" lineage, but since Joseph, the legal father of Jesus, was descended from David, Jesus was a rightful heir to the throne.
and then went on to explain how their fathers had altered the Scriptures, and that the Covenant was made, not with Isaac, but with Ishmael, who was taken to be offered a sacrifice to God, and that the expression "thy only begotten son" means Ishmael, and not Isaac.
This isn't written at all. Read for yourself:

Barnabas 13:1
Now let us see whether this people or the first people hath the
inheritance, and whether the covenant had reference to us or to them.

Wherupon two examples are given:
1.God overlooked Isaac's firstborn son Esau, and said he would serve the younger, Jacob.
2.Jacob crossed his hands to bless Ephraim the younger with his right hand, and his older brother Manasseh with his left.

Nothing is said about Isaac and Ishmael.

It concludes:
Barnabas 14:1
Yea verily, but as regards the covenant which He swear to the
fathers to give it to the people, let us see whether He hath actually given it. He hath given it, but they themselves were not found worthy to receive it by reason of their sins.

- source: the Epistle of Barabbas.

God did not find those who should have received his blessings deserving, and instead gave it to those who were considered by people undeserving. There are a few more examples:

*Abel's sacrifice is accepted over his elder brother Cain's.
*Joseph is chosen above his eleven older brothers to rule Egypt, and they have to bow to him.
*Samuel overlooks 7 older brothers to anoint the eighth, David, as king.

The son of the promise was promised to Sarah specifically:

Genesis 17:19
Then God said, "Yes, but your wife Sarah will bear you a son, and you will call him Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him.

He is right: Ishmael deserves the right of firstborn. But I would not rest my case too strongly on that point.

His hatred to Ishmael and his claim to the birthright makes him forget or overlook the Law of Moses which forbids a man to marry his own sister under the pain of capital penalty. If Paul were inspired by God, he would have either denounced the Book of Genesis as full of forgeries when it says twice (xii. 10-20, xx. 2-18) that Abraham was the husband of his own sister, or that he would have exposed the Prophet to be a liar!
He obviously misread or ignores half of what is written:

Gen.20
11 Abraham replied, "I said to myself, 'There is surely no fear of God in this place, and they will kill me because of my wife.' 12 Besides, she really is my sister, the daughter of my father though not of my mother; and she became my wife. 13 And when God had me wander from my father's household, I said to her, 'This is how you can show your love to me: Everywhere we go, say of me, "He is my brother." ' "

"Endogamic marriages (i.e., within the circle of one's relatives) were preferred by ancient tribes. The chosen suitor for a girl was her cousin; it was actually forbidden for the eldest daughter to marry outside the family. By analogy, then, the conclusion is safe that marriages between very near relatives were permitted among the ancient Hebrews also. In fact, there is no lack of evidence for this. Abraham, whose wife Sarah was also his half-sister, may be mentioned as an example of a marriage between brother and sister (Gen. xx. 12). Even in David's time, although it is represented as unusual for a royal prince to marry his sister (II Sam. xiii. 13), it was still regarded as neither objectionable nor forbidden. It should be noticed that in both these cases the union was with a paternal half-sister; the husband and wife being of one father, but not of one mother.

- source: JewishEncyclopedia: incest
Also take note, Abraham lived before the time of Moses or when God's laws were made explicit.
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by Jenyar
There is at least one contrived remark here, revealing a certain lack of objectivity:
----------
M*W: Jenyar, this is your problem. You think you know more than a learned man of the cloth. You don't. You pick and choose what is convenient for you to make your point. This article was written by a Biblical scholar of which you are not.
----------
Nothing is said about Isaac and Ishmael.
----------
M*W: Of course, xians would alter their Bible about this.
----------
He obviously misread or ignores half of what is written:
----------
M*W: This Biblical scholar happens to be a xian who is an expert on both the OT and NT (which you are not). You are Islamiphobic.
 
He makes too many mistakes to be a very good scholar, and he is not a "man of the cloth" or a Xian, as you say. The article describes him as a "former Catholic bishop", and from it I gather, a Muslim apologist. Refuting his arguments does not make me "Islamaphobic", but that his errors are so obvious to even a layperson like me, does not count in his favour.

First of all, he misrepresents the epistle of Barnabas (which he calls the "gospel" of Barnabas). Secondly, he doesn't tell you that it is pseudogryphical and therefore not doctrinal. Thirdly, he contrives God's promise as reaching fulfilment only in Ishmael, as if Isaac was not part of the covenant that Abraham would have many descendents. He fails to mention that God confirmed his covenant after Ishmael was born; he fails to mention God's covenant with Sarah.

He fails to mention that the epistle of Barnabas contradicts his position. It establishes a pattern (as I indicated in my previous post), which he subsequently ignores in his article.

In fact, the Epistles of Paul as they stand before us are full of doctrines entirely repugnant to the spirit of the Old Testament, as well as to that of the humble Prophet, Jesus of Nazareth. Paul was a bigoted Pharisee and a lawyer.
What the good "bishop" doesn't seem to realize, is that the Pharisees were a particularly law-abiding sect of Jews; "and so devoted were they to the prescriptions of the Law that on one occasion when attacked by the Syrians on the Sabbath they refused to defend themselves (I Mach., ii, 42; ibid., v, 3 sq.)." So Paul was either a Pharisee and a lawyer, or preaching against the Old Testament, but impossibly both. Paul himself describes "the Law" as that of Moses.

The Jews have always been jealous of Ishmael because they know very well that in him the Covenant was made and with his circumcision it was concluded and sealed, and it is out of this rancor that their scribes or doctors of law have corrupted and interpolated many passages in their Scriptures.
There should be no contradiction, and there is no reason to suppose interpolation. Ishmael is the firstborn according to the flesh, and the legal inheritor, and Isaac is the son promised to Sarah (in both the Bible and the Koran), the spiritual inheritor. As it is written in Galatians 4:

29At that time the son born in the ordinary way persecuted the son born by the power of the Spirit. It is the same now.

The two sons are symbolic of two covenants, both from God - the law of the flesh, sealed by fleshly circumcision, and the law of the spirit, sealed by circumcision of the heart.

*EDIT*
I have since looked up his credentials, and lo and behold...
I have checked the enormous and fully indexed eighth volume of "Hierarchia Catholica Medii et Recentioris Aevi," which gives detailed biographical information on every Catholic bishop, archbishop, and cardinal between 1846 and 1903. There is no mention of Keldani (or "Benjamin") anywhere in the book, so he was clearly never a Catholic bishop.
...
The only person I have ever seen a Muslim bring forward as a Catholic bishop who converted to Islam is Keldani. As we have seen, however, his biography never lists him as anything more than a simple priest. At the moment he left the Church he was taking orders from a simple bishop, and the only places that he could have been placed in charge of if he had been consecrated bishop -- Urmiah and Salmas -- were already filled with bishops during the five-year period between when he was ordained a priest (1895) and when he left the Catholic Church (1900)

- source: Answering Islam, hoaxes: David Benjamin Keldani
 
The Talmud answers the question.

Originally posted by Jenyar
He makes too many mistakes to be a very good scholar, and he is not a "man of the cloth" or a Xian, as you say. The article describes him as a "former Catholic bishop", and from it I gather, a Muslim apologist. Refuting his arguments does not make me "Islamaphobic", but that his errors are so obvious to even a layperson like me, does not count in his favour.

First of all, he misrepresents the epistle of Barnabas (which he calls the "gospel" of Barnabas). Secondly, he doesn't tell you that it is pseudogryphical and therefore not doctrinal. Thirdly, he contrives God's promise as reaching fulfilment only in Ishmael, as if Isaac was not part of the covenant that Abraham would have many descendents. He fails to mention that God confirmed his covenant after Ishmael was born; he fails to mention God's covenant with Sarah.

He fails to mention that the epistle of Barnabas contradicts his position. It establishes a pattern (as I indicated in my previous post), which he subsequently ignores in his article.


What the good "bishop" doesn't seem to realize, is that the Pharisees were a particularly law-abiding sect of Jews; "and so devoted were they to the prescriptions of the Law that on one occasion when attacked by the Syrians on the Sabbath they refused to defend themselves (I Mach., ii, 42; ibid., v, 3 sq.)." So Paul was either a Pharisee and a lawyer, or preaching against the Old Testament, but impossibly both. Paul himself describes "the Law" as that of Moses.


There should be no contradiction, and there is no reason to suppose interpolation. Ishmael is the firstborn according to the flesh, and the legal inheritor, and Isaac is the son promised to Sarah (in both the Bible and the Koran), the spiritual inheritor. As it is written in Galatians 4:

29At that time the son born in the ordinary way persecuted the son born by the power of the Spirit. It is the same now.

The two sons are symbolic of two covenants, both from God - the law of the flesh, sealed by fleshly circumcision, and the law of the spirit, sealed by circumcision of the heart.

*EDIT*
I have since looked up his credentials, and lo and behold...
----------
M*W: Okay, here's the Jewish side of the coin.

In all actuality Peter, you do not have to ask the Rabbis for their
opinions, all you need to do is look at the Hebrew word used and you
will find the word i.sha which literally means wife as it was also
used to describe Sarah and Keturah who were also the Wives of the
Prophet and not concubines.

This does put Genesis and the long tradition of assuming that Isaac
was Abrahams only real son because, of a marriage with Sarah into a
dilemma. Genesis clearly shows that Hagar is also a wife(i.sha) which
would make Ishmael the true Firstborn son if Abraham.

As I have stated in my previous posts the scribes and doctors of the
Torah had an agenda in keeping the Jewish status of the "Chosen
People" alive, even to the point of changing the scripture of God.
Even though, many believe that Hagar is a concubine, the bible still
holds small pieces of Gods truth, even through all the distortion
caused by mans Jeolousy and Supremecy.

It is impossible to argue the point that Hagar is the wife of
Abraham as it is impossible to argue the point that Ishmael is the
Firstborn son of Abraham. It is possible to argue that Isaac is not
Abrahams "Only Son". God's truth is clear even in a sky full of
falsehoods. You be the Judge.

--- In TheJesusDebates@yahoogroups.com
 
Instead of creating an argument out of nothing, why not just read what I posed:

"There should be no contradiction, and there is no reason to suppose interpolation. Ishmael is the firstborn according to the flesh, and the legal inheritor, and Isaac is the son promised to Sarah (in both the Bible and the Koran), the spiritual inheritor."

Nobody is questioning the legitimacy of Hagar as Abraham's wife, or of Ishmael as his son. We want to know which will survive, the fleshly inheritance, or the spiritual one?
 
Originally posted by Jenyar
Instead of creating an argument out of nothing, why not just read what I posed:

"There should be no contradiction, and there is no reason to suppose interpolation. Ishmael is the firstborn according to the flesh, and the legal inheritor, and Isaac is the son promised to Sarah (in both the Bible and the Koran), the spiritual inheritor."

Nobody is questioning the legitimacy of Hagar as Abraham's wife, or of Ishmael as his son. We want to know which will survive, the fleshly inheritance, or the spiritual one?

This has nothing to do with "spiritual" inheritance. That is something all human beings have! Ishmael included!!! The point I wanted to make was that ALL of Abraham's seeds were blessed at great nations. Abraham had a third wife (her name escapes me right now, but it was like "Ketura" or something), and she bore Abraham additional children which would be progenitors of blessed nations, too, and not just limited to the descendants of Ishmael and Isaac.
 
Aha. There is no doubt that Abraham's children became great nations - such was God's promise in the Bible for both Isaac and Ishmael. But if that is the only difference, what is the controversy about? It becomes controversial when you see the difference between the two sons.

Genesis 17
20 And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him; I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers. He will be the father of twelve rulers, and I will make him into a great nation. 21 But my covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah will bear to you by this time next year."

As you can see it is impossible to exchange the names of Isaac and Ishmael in this passage, because Ishmael is and always was the elder.

Genesis 21
12 But God said to him, "Do not be so distressed about the boy and your maidservant [thus, Ishmael]. Listen to whatever Sarah tells you, because it is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned. 13 I will make the boy of your maidservant [Ishmael] into a nation also, because he is your offspring."

Also in the Quran:

Sura 11
71 And his wife [Sarah], standing by laughed when We gave her good tidings (of the birth) of Isaac, and, after Isaac, of Jacob.

Sura 51
28 Then he conceived a fear of them. They said: Fear not! and gave him tidings of (the birth of) a wise son.
29 But his wife came forward (laughing) aloud: she smote her forehead and said: "A barren old woman!"

It wasn't because Isaac was better, or younger, or anything we measure favour by. It was because Isaac was the son God promised to Abraham and Sarah. Ishmael was not that son. The conditions of God's covenant depends on His decisions alone, not any man's. If it depended on people, David would never have become king. We can't remain caught up in quarrels about physical inheritance. At one stage it must have a spiritual significance.

Gal. 4
22For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. 23His son by the slave woman was born in the ordinary way; but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a promise.
24These things may be taken figuratively, for the women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. 25Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. 26But the [spiritual] Jerusalem that is above [the kingdom which God established in heaven] is free, and she is our mother.
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by Jenyar
Aha. There is no doubt that Abraham's children became great nations - such was God's promise in the Bible for both Isaac and Ishmael. But if that is the only difference, what is the controversy about? It becomes controversial when you see the difference between the two sons.
----------
M*W: I see no difference between Ishmael and Isaac. Besides, Abraham had a third wife, Ketura, or something like that, and he had more sons and daughters. Their see, too, would become great nations. Why does Paul leave this out of the NT? The covenant established after Ishmael and before Isaac was circumcision. However, this doesn't mean anything if Sarai was impregnated by the Pharaoh and delivered Isaac as a result of that union.
----------
It wasn't because Isaac was better, or younger, or anything we measure favour by. It was because Isaac was the son God promised to Abraham and Sarah. Ishmael was not that son. The conditions of God's covenant depends on His decisions alone, not any man's. If it depended on people, David would never have become king. We can't remain caught up in quarrels about physical inheritance. At one stage it must have a spiritual significance.
----------
M*W: Like I said, Ishmael was born BEFORE the covenant of circumcision. (This is what the Rabbi told me.)
----------
Gal. 4
22For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. 23His son by the slave woman was born in the ordinary way; but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a promise.
24These things may be taken figuratively, for the women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. 25Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. 26But the [spiritual] Jerusalem that is above [the kingdom which God established in heaven] is free, and she is our mother.
----------
M*W: Again, Abraham had another wife (maybe others) and many more children besides the two boys. Hagar and Ishmael and his descendants were not slaves. Hagar was a prominent woman from the house of the pharaoh.

A question on another subject: Why was the Jewish temple destroyed twice, and the Jews blamed for everything evil when Ishmael's descendants still have their shrine at Mecca and are more peaceful than the Jews? It just seems that Allah loves them more.
 
Originally posted by Medicine*Woman
M*W: I see no difference between Ishmael and Isaac. Besides, Abraham had a third wife, Ketura, or something like that, and he had more sons and daughters. Their see, too, would become great nations. Why does Paul leave this out of the NT? The covenant established after Ishmael and before Isaac was circumcision. However, this doesn't mean anything if Sarai was impregnated by the Pharaoh and delivered Isaac as a result of that union.
Maybe you should consult your rabbi again. Sarah was barren. If Abraham didn't father her child, there is even less reason to think the pharoah could after she had been married to Abraham for so long.

And Paul wasn't talking about what great nations they would become. He was comparing two covenants.


M*W: Like I said, Ishmael was born BEFORE the covenant of circumcision. (This is what the Rabbi told me.)
He definitely was: 24 Abraham was ninety-nine years old when he was circumcised, 25 and his son Ishmael was thirteen; Maybe you should read Gen. 17 again:

14 Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant."
15 God also said to Abraham, "As for Sarai your wife, you are no longer to call her Sarai; her name will be Sarah. 16 I will bless her and will surely give you a son by her. I will bless her so that she will be the mother of nations; kings of peoples will come from her."

M*W: Again, Abraham had another wife (maybe others) and many more children besides the two boys. Hagar and Ishmael and his descendants were not slaves. Hagar was a prominent woman from the house of the pharaoh.
Your source for this fact?

You also misunderstand the "slavery" I'm talking about: it is slavery to the covenant of the flesh, because it is an everlasting covenant that can't be broken. But when the flesh is destroyed by death it cannot bear that covenant anymore, and circumcision became a spiritual covenant.

A question on another subject: Why was the Jewish temple destroyed twice, and the Jews blamed for everything evil when Ishmael's descendants still have their shrine at Mecca and are more peaceful than the Jews? It just seems that Allah loves them more.
God might have blessed them more, but if that blessing is only in this life it isn't of much lasting use, is it? I don't know who you think is blaming the Jews for "everything evil", but those who do blame them for anything do it to their own condemnation. They are like the people who mocked and insulted Jesus while he was suffering.

Isaiah 49
25 But this is what the LORD says:

"I will contend with those who contend with you,
and your children I will save.
26 I will make your oppressors eat their own flesh;
they will be drunk on their own blood, as with wine.
Then all mankind will know
that I, the LORD , am your Savior,
your Redeemer, the Mighty One of Jacob."

Israel was like a suffering servant. Through their suffering they have been purified, and have been a sign of the purification of the rest of the world - their flesh was put through fire so that their spirit could be purified and made victorious over death.

Isaiah 53:11
After the suffering of his soul, he will see the light of life and be satisfied; by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities.

Islam is an heir to the covenant of the flesh; slave to the laws which they have to follow for hope of salvation just like the Jews were. They can despise the Jews - whom they claim as their fathers in faith - and call them liars, or they can accept that God brought salvation to all the world by submitting His own flesh to death and saving him.

Genesis 16:5
Then Sarai said to Abram, "You are responsible for the wrong I am suffering. I put my servant in your arms, and now that she knows she is pregnant, she despises me. May the LORD judge between you and me."
 
Originally posted by Jenyar
Maybe you should consult your rabbi again. Sarah was barren. If Abraham didn't father her child, there is even less reason to think the pharoah could after she had been married to Abraham for so long.
----------
M*W: This was not from the Rabbi. Of course, the Rabbi believes Isaac is Abraham's son.
----------
Jenyar: 15 God also said to Abraham, "As for Sarai your wife, you are no longer to call her Sarai; her name will be Sarah. 16 I will bless her and will surely give you a son by her. I will bless her so that she will be the mother of nations; kings of peoples will come from her."
----------
M*W: God favored Sarah. The names "Abram" and "Sarai" were there Egyptian names. I don't believe anyone who interprets the OT could be authentic unless they spoke and read Hebrew. Also, the Rabbi I consulted says that there is NOTHING in Isaiah that refers to Jesus.
 
Originally posted by Medicine*Woman

M*W: God favored Sarah. The names "Abram" and "Sarai" were there Egyptian names. I don't believe anyone who interprets the OT could be authentic unless they spoke and read Hebrew. Also, the Rabbi I consulted says that there is NOTHING in Isaiah that refers to Jesus.
Then you should read the Talmud, so you might learn from the same source as the rabbi's. I'm busy with Everyman's Talmud - it's a good condensed version that covers the whole spectrum of Jewish thought. They can write a whole page about a single word in one verse of the Bible.

Of course Isaiah says nothing about Jesus. Jesus wasn't born when it was written! But no rabbi will deny that it says a lot about the coming messiah. And where do you think the concept of a Christ came from? Christians didn't invent it you know...
 
Originally posted by Jenyar
Then you should read the Talmud, so you might learn from the same source as the rabbi's. I'm busy with Everyman's Talmud - it's a good condensed version that covers the whole spectrum of Jewish thought. They can write a whole page about a single word in one verse of the Bible.

Of course Isaiah says nothing about Jesus. Jesus wasn't born when it was written! But no rabbi will deny that it says a lot about the coming messiah. And where do you think the concept of a Christ came from? Christians didn't invent it you know...
----------
M*W: Unless I could speak, read and understand Hebrew, there is no point in my reading the Talmud. That's why I consult a Rabbi. I'll get the Rabbi's information on Isaiah. The references in Isaiah to the coming messiah was written about Isaiah's own son. The concept of Christ came from Paul who invented the name "Christianity" and the title of "Christ" as well as the salvation MYTH to go along with it. The CONCEPT of a dying demi-god (messiah) was predated to Christianity. There are at least 16 earlier messiahs who were born of virgins, died and were resurrected. So all Paul did, essentially, was plagarize the earlier messiah stories. He didn't get his reputation for being a liar for nothing!
 
Originally posted by Medicine*Woman
----------
M*W: Unless I could speak, read and understand Hebrew, there is no point in my reading the Talmud. That's why I consult a Rabbi.
Is this a human Rabbi or an alien Rabbi. You're such a fraud. :D
 
Originally posted by Medicine*Woman
M*W: Unless I could speak, read and understand Hebrew, there is no point in my reading the Talmud. That's why I consult a Rabbi. I'll get the Rabbi's information on Isaiah. The references in Isaiah to the coming messiah was written about Isaiah's own son. The concept of Christ came from Paul who invented the name "Christianity" and the title of "Christ" as well as the salvation MYTH to go along with it. The CONCEPT of a dying demi-god (messiah) was predated to Christianity. There are at least 16 earlier messiahs who were born of virgins, died and were resurrected. So all Paul did, essentially, was plagarize the earlier messiah stories. He didn't get his reputation for being a liar for nothing!
That's why Everyman's Talmud is in English. The rabbi you consulted spoke to you in English, not in Hebrew. What we are interested in is Hebrew thought.

I wouldn't necessarily call you a fraud, but you do have an alarming tendency to believe fraudulent claims rather than reasonable ones. For instance,

"If one would ask the average Jew what Christ means, he would have no idea. Actually, the concept of Christ did not originate with the Greeks. It is found in the Hebrew Scriptures. The Hebrew word for Christ is Messiah."

- the Baruch Hashem messianic synagogue: "the Meaning of Christ"
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by Jenyar
That's why Everyman's Talmud is in English. The rabbi you consulted spoke to you in English, not in Hebrew. What we are interested in is Hebrew thought.
----------
M*W: That's WHY I consult a Rabbi--not just for the translation, but for the meaning.
----------
I wouldn't necessarily call you a fraud, but you do have an alarming tendency to believe fraudulent claims rather than reasonable ones. For instance,

"If one would ask the average Jew what Christ means, he would have no idea. Actually, the concept of Christ did not originate with the Greeks. It is found in the Hebrew Scriptures. The Hebrew word for Christ is Messiah."
----------
M*W: This was not my quote. The "average" Jew knows very well who Jesus was and the MYTH surrounding him. They just don't accept it. Have you visited any Jewish forums? (I'm not recommending you visit them, because you would be offended at what they say about your god).
 
Originally posted by Medicine*Woman
This was not my quote. The "average" Jew knows very well who Jesus was and the MYTH surrounding him. They just don't accept it. Have you visited any Jewish forums? (I'm not recommending you visit them, because you would be offended at what they say about your god).
I know it wasn't your quote. I was providing an example of a valid fact which you don't believe - you'd rather believe Paul invented the term Christ.

Or you might be deliberately trying to confuse the issue. You wanted to expose the "myth" of Christ by showing that a Christ was not prefigured in the Old Testament, while he was. Or that it wasn't a term the Jews weren't familiar with and therefore Jesus can't be the Christ of Hebrew thought, which is also not true.

What makes you think the Jews will recognize their Christ when He does come, and not denounce him also? What is the only source they can recognize him from? The Old Testament.

What they say about their God is no different to my God, except that they do not accept Jesus as the messiah, which both the Muslims (although almost empty of its meaning) and the Christians do. M*W, you just end up calling everybody liars.
 
Originally posted by Jenyar
I know it wasn't your quote. I was providing an example of a valid fact which you don't believe - you'd rather believe Paul invented the term Christ.
----------
M*W: Jenyar, who in the Bible was the first to call Jesus "Christ" and his followers "Christians?"
----------
Or you might be deliberately trying to confuse the issue.
----------
M*W: Yeah, right! Like I really have a lot of time to think up confusing issues to thwart you all with!
----------
You wanted to expose the "myth" of Christ by showing that a Christ was not prefigured in the Old Testament, while he was.
----------
M*W: There is absolutely NO REFERENCE in the OT to Jesus or Christ. The Isaiah passages xians refer to is NOT about Jesus. It refers to Isaiah's own son.
----------
Or that it wasn't a term the Jews weren't familiar with and therefore Jesus can't be the Christ of Hebrew thought, which is also not true.

What makes you think the Jews will recognize their Christ when He does come, and not denounce him also? What is the only source they can recognize him from? The Old Testament.
----------
M*W: I cannot determine what the Jews will do when their messiah comes.
----------
What they say about their God is no different to my God, except that they do not accept Jesus as the messiah, which both the Muslims (although almost empty of its meaning) and the Christians do. M*W, you just end up calling everybody liars.
----------
M*W: The only people I consider to be liars are xians. They believe in a fairy tale. They lie to each other and to themselves believing that a rabbi died for their sins!
 
Originally posted by Medicine*Woman
M*W: Jenyar, who in the Bible was the first to call Jesus "Christ" and his followers "Christians?"
The diciple Simon Peter. The word "Christian" only came as a description of Jesus' followers, for instance by Pliny.

CLNT- cristianos - cristianos - christianos - ANOINTED (Latin suffix) - a term of contempt for the followers of Christ.

The word "Christian" had a similar connotation as your "Xian".


M*W: There is absolutely NO REFERENCE in the OT to Jesus or Christ. The Isaiah passages xians refer to is NOT about Jesus. It refers to Isaiah's own son.

I cannot determine what the Jews will do when their messiah comes.
But you do. You imply they won't ever be able to put a name on their messiah, because Isaiah only refers to his "own son" and doesn't give him a name. You imply they won't recognize him as their salvation or from where he comes from. In short, you agree that they wouldn't have recognized Jesus even if He was their messiah.

Ask your rabbi if he believes in a coming messiah. Then tell him the Greek word for 'messiah' is Christ, and ask him if he still believes in a coming messiah. Then tell him that neither the words 'messiah' or 'christ' appear in his Bible, and ask him again. If he says "yes", ask him why, and come back to me.

M*W: The only people I consider to be liars are xians. They believe in a fairy tale. They lie to each other and to themselves believing that a rabbi died for their sins!
We believe in God, and that He sent His salvation to die for our sins - who incidentally was also the Jewish Messiah, the suffering servant, the priest in the order of Melchizedec, the wandering Jew, the King of David, and the wisdom of God.

Ultimately, M*W, you are calling the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob a myth. I just wish you would admit it and quit hiding behind other religions as if you agreed with them.
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by Jenyar

Ultimately, M*W, you are calling the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob a myth. I just wish you would admit it and quit hiding behind other religions as if you agreed with them.
----------
M*W: I don't hide behind ANY religion. The God I know and understand is the one in the Ark--a positive energy field. Why do you continue putting words in my mouth? Even when I consult a rabbi and post replies I got from him, you STILL decry everything I post! It seems that you think YOU can interpret the OT! Are you proficient in Hebrew? Then you cannot possibly understand and translate what the OT says with any accuracy. As far as my "hiding behind other religions," I have no reason to hide. Religions were created by humans to fulfill their spiritual needs. There may be a lot of religions out there that have useful human instructions for controlling the populace (since they were created by humans, for humans, and of humans), but xianity is a detriment to the human spirit. Its basis is to remove the One Spirit of God from the human race and place it in only one human being whom God would kill for his beloved human race. This is Satanic. To remove the One Spirit of God that dwells within the human race is the epitomy of evil. The end-stage of it is that this is just an illusion anyway, but it does affect the cumulative reality. It is against this false cumulative reality that I xade.
 
Back
Top