www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Scripture and Patristic Writings A real human sacrifice under Jewish Law

Hi Ray,

I'm not certain what you are trying to state here??? Scriptures can't be secondary to the Church's theology, though of course, the Church was here before the New Testament Scriptures were written. The Church is able to tell us authoratively what certain passages of Scripture mean, and to help guide our understanding of all of Scripture, though she generally seems to leave us a lot of leeway in interpretation.

Our Church's teachings are based on SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION....are they not?

Anyway, back to the topic of "codes".....I was reading on your personal website....and you talk about "Ennead"....????

Thanks for your friendly words, Ray....

Peace....

Unity In Christ

Well I have noticed a bad habit of mine that is easiy misconstrued.

When I write - I write like the stuff I often read. I use "you" in a generic way which means - anyone... but the reader can easily take it to mean himself personally.

So I went over my last post and changed many 'you' to 'one' as in generic like I mean.

Christmas Day! What and I doing here??

Christ is born!

-ray

Allow me to carry on this discussion by replying in an order. We can deal with what a cosmogony is in Genesis and the ennead structure later. It is really a bit simple as a form of literature. I will only say here that if one were to wish to write a book then he would follow the form appropriate to a novel

Cover
Cover page with the name of the book and author in huge letters.
Dedication page (if it is dedicated to anyone)
Preface if there is one
Introduction
Body separated in chapters.
Closing chapter which is a summary or conclusions drawn.
Index
Bibliography

It is a form and structure which we are so used to that we make no note in mind that it exists. Each section of this form gives a context to what is written in that section. For example we would not read the bibliography section as if we were reading a chapter in the body. A book of poetry has its own form to follow - a legal document has its own form to follow. A personal journal has its own form to follow. Decades ago the form of a personal letter in the English speaking countries was very strict. For example to read a personal letter written in Colonial times - the form is followed very strictly - the salutation (�Dear Esquire so and so�) the greeting follows - then the body of the letter and most of the time written in the third person.. Etc.. The Epistles of the apostles mostly follow forms of letter writing commonly used in surrounding cultures of that time. There are differences between the letter to the Hebrews (using a Jewish structure for the letter) and say the letter to the Romans (which follows the Roman letter structure and form. Suffice it to say for now that a cosmogony is simply a common form and structure used 2000 years before Christ. All Semitic tribes used it as did the Egyptians, Romans and the Greeks. The Greeks used it longer than anyone else (Plato�s Dialogs are in ennead form and so are Plotinus� theses.

Theology�.

Both the Eastern Churches and the Roman Catholic church agree on the definition of �theology�.

�theo� = God
�ology� = body of knowledge.

Meaning knowledge that belongs to God. God�s knowledge.

As such - theology is reserved for the Trinity alone. God may give that knowledge but man can not attain to it by the use of human reason.

For example �God is a Trinity�. This fact had to be revealed by God. In fact the doctrine that God is a trinity is nowhere laid out in the Old or New Testament. None of the apostles speak the word �Trinity� even once. The Trinity is a theological truth that was defined by Council - long after the apostles. We can see evidence of God being a Trinity in the New Testament when Jesus speaks about the Father The Son and the Holy Spirit and himself and God being �one� - but we can see that evidence precisely because we already have knowledge of the theological doctrine of the - Trinity.

So theology in the strictest senses is an - act done by God where God himself reveals knowledge that human reason cannot come to on its own. Neither by thought, analysis or reasoning. Theology is fact that God is a Trinity. The fact of seven sacraments. The fact that the Eucharist is the very body and blood of Jesus Christ, etc�

In the churches of the East, a Theologian is given to someone in whom it has been clearly displayed that their unity with Christ has enlightened them. For example Symon the New Theologian. This title is akin to the Roman Catholic title of �Doctor of the Church�. In both East and West - a theologian does not - produce theology. Neither by learning, nor study of even scriptures. Theology is reserved to an act of the Trinity.

Once given� theology becomes available knowledge. For example� that God is a Trinity has been given through Council - long long ago. It has been revealed already. So we can learn that fact through the church and then study how that fact is applied within the church and its teaching and the life of the church and its members.

So the study of theology (theologia) is the study of that body of knowledge which God alone has revealed and has given to the church through the defining and confirmation of it by Councils - and it is knowledge that human reason cannot attain to on its own. The Church�s teaching comes from and is based upon its theology.

The study or the reading of scriptures is the study of - economy (oikonomia) or the evidence or witness (Testament or written testimony of witnesses) of the actions of God as displayed in the world.

Scripture does not contain theology (remember our Eastern definition of theology being a revelation to the human mind - an act of God within a human). While one may say �scripture contains theology because it tells us there is a God.� that is not true because to know that there is a God can be attained through human reason.

Theology is independent of scriptures and not dependent upon any translation, understanding, or interpretation of scriptures. Theology may be evidenced in scriptures if one already knows some theology of the church - but it cannot be derived from scriptures and it cannot be produced in the mind through the reading or study of scriptures. Therefore the Church may explain scriptures and tradition in light of the Church�s theology - but the churches theology is not derived from scriptures or traditions.

Again� theology is that body of God�s own knowledge which has been revealed - and cannot be attained to by the use of human reason alone. That is why the East says that theology is reserved to the Trinity alone and is best treated in silence (meaning human reason cannot attain to it). But as I say, once revealed it becomes knowledge we can learn and discuss and study in the aspects of how it informs the Church and is taught and lived by the church and its members. In the West - someone who makes this his study is called a theologian - but again - the theologian does not produce theology or derive it from scriptures or reasoning etc.

The Church may use the tools of scriptures and tradition (economy) to give witness to theology (God is Trinity, the statements are seven, etc..) but since the scriptures and tradition are - economy - and do not contain theology - the church uses these both to teach Christian morality and spirituality.

That scriptures may contain not only a literal level, but may contain a moral and spiritual and an allegorical meaning at the same time - should be no surprise to anyone. Since the time that Liturgy (the Mass) was established - it has been the practice that during it - the Lectionary is read. Before there was a New Testament - that reading consisted of just reading from the Old Testament (of course) and after the New Testament was made cannon then the Lectionary might include a reading from the gospels also. The reading are given as read and it is the literal form that we initially understand. Through the reading - we envision the events and the action taking place in the reading. We begin then, with the literal level. After that - the priest begins the sermon and draws from the literal readings some moral or spiritual lesson which he explains as it applies to us today in our normal lives. While it is true that today a priest may go off on his own and make his sermon about things that are not directly derived from the Sunday reading just done - in the early Church the �sermon� was always drawn from the readings.

In the Eastern Church and the Roman Catholic Church - the readings (the Lectionary of the Sunday) are always associated on a moral or spiritual level. The reading are not taken from scriptures at random. So while there may be no literal thread or connection between the reading - there will always be moral or spiritual connection between the readings. That is - each of the three readings will have the same spiritual or moral meaning.

So while some people say that there is only one meaning to scriptures and that is a literal meaning - they have become unconscious to the fact that the Church herself gives first the literal meaning (reading it), and then the moral or spiritual meaning as it applies to us today - of portions of scriptures - each Sunday.

The tradition of explaining the moral, spiritual or allegorical meaning of portions of scriptures carried over from Jewish Synagogue services. In the gospels we see Jesus, at synagogue, being sleeted to read the Lection (I think it was a portion of Isaiah) and then explain it (�Today - this has been fulfilled.�). They were surprised at his explanation ! But it was the proper thing to do as the explanation of that daily reading was, as it still is today, an explanation of how the scripture reading has moral or spiritual application - today. So it is plain to see that is exactly what Jesus did �Today - this scripture is fulfilled.�

In summation: Theology is that knowledge of God (God�s own knowledge) that has been directly revealed. It is knowledge that can not be attained, deduced, or reach of figured out by human reason. And we call the study of that knowledge (as it is already known by the church) as Theology. And it is entirely independent from scriptures (but since we know most if it so well we automatically see evidence of it within scriptures).

The Churches teaching of theology may be evidenced within the economy of scriptures - but is not derived nor based on that witness (scriptures) or the witness of tradition.

The witness or testimony of a fact - is always secondary to the fact itself.

And so scriptures is always secondary to the Church�s theology - which theology is not contain in, derived from, or obtained from - scriptures - but is rather a direct revelation of enlightenment to the human mind and becomes the theology of the Church when it is declared such by Church Council.

Private revelation is not theology. Only revelation declared by the Church becomes - theology and guaranteed.

People (others) have made these things much more complicated than they are.

Thank you for the further opuortunity to express my opinion and to think about this stuff.

If you agree with most of this, I will try to find you other reliable resources to learn about what a cosmogony and an ennead form - are - and how used in Genesis. I really do not feel that I am a propepr resource to learn that from. My research papers were posted on the net for others intereted in that subject of study but I find that too many people of the general public are comeing there and they are not really prepaired for that study. My site will son contain audio on Cussade's Abandonment to Divine Providence instead and my research papers go to another restricted site.


-ray

Hi Ray,

I spoke too quickly regarding Theology,and without enough research. I apologize. I think your statements are closer to correct than mine in this regard..... although I must admit that I still need to read more of the early fathers, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and others of the good old and new reliable sources.

My fear about ennead as a method isn't that is is a "structured" way of laying things out....or that it goes beyond the literal interpretation of Scripture..... that sounds fine to me....after all, one must look beyond the outer structure of the Psalms to see Christ's passion portrayed, etc.

My fear,(perhaps based on ignorance),is that "ennead" is too close to the character-analysis tool, "enneagram," which is highly suspect according to the Vatican.

Since you mentioned unusual interpretations of Scripture, ones I had never heard of before, (Isaac being raised from the dead on the third day....etc.) I was afraid you were laying things out according to a "code" and reading into them intentions which the inspired authors may not have had. I also wondered if you knew of any of the Church fathers who held the same interpretation.

I am willing to be told that I misunderstand your position entirely, but I really do want to know more about where these Scripture understandings are coming from, because, sometimes, in trying to gain extraordinary insight, we may miss the truth.

Thank you for the dialog.

Unity In Christ

I can see how you might be worried that 'ennead' is a bit sound alike for 'enneagram' - I assure you they have nothing in common. The enneagram is malarky and the ennead is an accedemically recognisied form of ancient literature which was also used by several desert fathers and monastic communities of the early church.

Perhaps it would be good for me to make clear to reads in here - that my opinion regarding Isaac - is that no human life was taken. It is not a historical account in the way we assume it is. The human life taken was Jesus Christ - and the narrative of Isaac is a �pre-figure� of that sacrifice. For me to say �Isaac - died� is to say that according to the Hebrew of the narration - and according to Peter of the Epistle to the Hebrews - the sacrifice was completed and Isaac died within the context of the narration and its purpose.


I learned a long time ago that Providence = reality. It is - what is - and there is nothing to fear from reality or truth. And so a dedication to both is good - but may be difficult at times when you find yourself in the minority. Which difficulty alone does not necessarily mean that is it up to one to �upset the apple cart�. There are times when upsetting the apple cart just does no one any good including ones-self. That is called prudence I believe.

My �insights� into scripture (and I will readily admit I occasional have them otherwise I would not be posting �hard things� here on occasion and facing the occasional blasting I sometimes get for it) my insights as they are - are not extraordinary at all. My attraction to the stories of Adam and Eve etc� goes back 30 years or so. Reading such spiritual luminaries such as Saint Gregory of Nyssa (Life of Moses) has always been food for my soul. The early desert fathers such as John Climacus, etc.. So it became a hobby of mine to research and study many of the early fathers - and to study the cultures within which the Old Testament and New Testament arose. There is nothing out of line in this - many people study the New Testament Greek and a study of that necessarily includes portions of these cultures. This type of study gives �flesh� to the �bones� - in other words fills in the human backdrop in which these things took place. It is unavoidable that one then begins to understand these cultures more and one can place himself �in the shoes� of the gospels and come to understand better (in human ways) some of the events. I believe it was Saint Paul who advises that the study of scriptures - is good.

There are some who are very satisfied with their own interpretation of scriptures (where ever that came from) and dislike any changes to it. I am not saying that you yourself are like that. I am speaking in general. I have never been like that. For me to hear Arch Bishop Sheen or Bishop Kallistos Wares speak about events in scriptures and fill in the blanks and background - fascinates me and settles peace in my soul at the same time. These �insights� from such as these remain etched in my mind. I have almost - a �photographic� memory for them. Arch Bishops Sheens tapes are very old now and I first hear them 30 years ago - but I still pull them out at least once a year and lay on my bed in complete silence and soak them up all over again.

Much of what I �give� in my posts such as Isaac - is really me just re-presenting something originally presented by someone such as Arch Bishop Sheen, or Endershim, or from some of the wonderful authors I have read (most of them recognized and well respected by the either the Roman Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church) and adding more details that I have myself found, over time, that has confirmed the original presentation (such as what Simon�s nick-name must have meant - remember that discussion?). So if people do not agree with me and even a few thing me weird and in �danger� - that does not bother me too much. I can well stand being �alone� in my opinion because of knowing myself where and with whom these things ordinate. And I realize that it is the tendency of human nature to be resistive and beware of biblical views that are not commonly held. So I do not really blame anyone who is suspicious of my views. I know full well also that I am not a writer - and so I often do not explain well and my posts are easily misconstrued.

If you are interested in how Genesis is a cosmogony and what that means to a reading of Genesis - I can point you to some good reliable sources in order to begin to research such a thing - but I myself would not, nor should not, be the one to �teach� anyone about such a subject. I believe some what, that you yourself have the capability to research and understand many of the aspects of advanced biblical research - knowing that I do that you well understood Erick Fromm (not an easy task). Fromm is not 100% correct but to grasp him takes a good study and good mind. Which you have.

If you are interested in what the ennead structure is I can probably give you good reference to begin to study that also. It is related to a cosmogony but that is not its exclusive use as the Coptic desert fathers and many of the early Greek fathers used it at times for monastic literature.

There are some great - and reliable - resources available over the net. Biblical research journal and such. I myself am assisting the Orthodox Church to launch a major web site for the advancement of Orthodox biblical research - which has as it members many internationally recognized Orthodox professors (they are not called Theologians in the Eastern Church). My assistants and friendship with them is not an endorsement of my own views. We are drawing together brilliant minds and spirits of Orthodox biblical research from around the world� Lebanon, Palestine, Canada, the US, far places - for the first time in history. I am proud to be the only Roman Catholic (so far) associated with this effort. So I can tell you for a fact that the Eastern Churches (at least Orthodox) biblical research and the study of Hebrew, Aramaic, etc� as well as the traditional study of the Greek of the NT - Jewish culture and Roman culture of biblical times - is vibrant and alive. I am privileged as a Roman Catholic - to be invited to attend Orthodox seminars on biblical research that have knocked my socks off with how well done and insightful they have been. They are spiritual food - indeed. So I have first hand experience at the underlying unity of the Catholic and Orthodox worlds. Truth and reality - is not the exclusive possession of any one man nor group.

With this post - I have probably said too much about myself. But I would make me happy to see you more involved in biblical research and study. You may be already (for all I know)� which would also make me happy because I recognise your own capability to do well and grow spiritually.

I have always said, there was something about you that I liked� but please do not ever come to agree with me too much - you are my most worthy challenge to my views and I thank you for that and the discussions it engenders. There is not much discussion that I could have if everyone agreed with me or - said nothing.

-ray

I suppose an excellent reference for Genesis being a cosmogony would be this which I happen to come across just today - which is only one reference in the early fathers - as to the fact that Genesis is that form of early literature called a cosmogony. This was not a special knowledge to these fathers - it was a given.

Title: NPNF2-05. Gregory of Nyssa: Dogmatic Treatises, Etc. Creator(s): Gregory of Nyssa Schaff, Philip (1819-1893) (Editor) Print Basis: New York: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1886

Hi Ray,

Thanks for your clarifications. I have done very little research on such subjects as Ennead and Cosmogony....so I have very little basis for arguing or even asking much on these subjects right now.

I am not a "Bible Scholar" but I have been reading the Bible frequently, and at times intensely for about 20 years....

My main interests in religious studies are:

Eucharist, Church Authority, Papacy, Eastern and Western unity, apologetics, and understanding the types and figures of the Old Testament, and how they relate to their fulfillment in Christ and Christianity.

The last of these, is where our paths cross.....

Personally, I believe that the Old Testament prefigurements can be understood both literally and symbolically.

For example: Isaac really carried wood up the mountain for his "sacrifice," and Christ carried the wooden cross for His sacrifice......

I believe that the type is fulfilled in Christ, but that the Isaac incident is also a true happening in history.

This is my understanding, but I would certainly defer to the Church should she find me in error.

Are we at all on the same wave-length?

Unity In Christ

Ray,

Your Biblical exegesis is amazing.

Is there any type of correlation between Sarah and Mary? I feel there is some type (well, many types) of parallels, but I can't pinpoint them. While reading your posts a couple of days ago, suddenly many similarities between the two women and their places in history popped up in my head, but for some reason now I can't remember what they were for the life of me.

Logos Teen

Ray,

I looked up the Greek in Hebrews 11:11-12. It goes something like:

Which, using the KJV, is rendered: "(11)Through faith also Sarah herself received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had (12) therefore sprang there even of one, and him as good as dead, so many as the stars of the sky in multitude, and as the sand which is by the sea shore innumerable."

Which literally translates into something like: "(11)Through reliance upon God/moral conviction also, Sara herself attained, by a miracle, to conceive an offspring and to give birth/produce *when she was* near/in the vicinity of a proper time/age since she considered him trustworthy who had professed/announced (12) consequently was born/procreated *there* even of a man who was dead/subdued *so many* as the constellations of the heavens in large number, and as the innumerable [particles of ] sand which is on/at/by the seashore."

*Asterisks imply that the word was inserted by English translators to make the text flow more smoothly. Words with asterisks on either side are not in the Greek original.

And yes, I'd agree with Ray that the text seems to imply that Isaac (the one who was born/procreated) died (who was dead). The KJV version says "as good as dead," but the Greek original simply uses "dead" (nekros).

However, I am totally lost when the author speaks about the stars in the sky and the sand on the beach. Apparently he's drawing a parallel between the huge numbers of stars and sand particles and something else, but I don't understand what it is or why it's relevant to the rest of the passage.

Logos Teen

Hi Logos Teen,

It's nice to hear another voice entering this dicussion.

I've never heard that Scripture interpreted that way. I have always believed that when the passage in Hebrews said "he who was dead" or "he who was as good as dead" it referred to Abraham's being of an age where one would think he could no longer father offspring.....

In other words, Sarah was past age....and Abraham was as good as dead (as far as bringing forth decendendants)....and yet miraculously from this couple came Isaac.

Do the Church Fathers say anything on this point? How is it usually interpreted?

As to the sand of the sea and the stars...I think it refers to the great number of Abraham's decendants.

Unity In Christ

Teen of the Incarnate Logos�

Interesting name .. It means Providence or Creating-Word which God speaks and which became flesh. If you look up Logos as used by the Greek philosophers (where John borrowed it from) Logos is the reasoning and governing (intelligence) that God exercises upon created things and events. That governing is heaven itself (not a place but a government in the sense of all things being totally subject to the governing of a King).

Interesting.

Marshall interlinear Greek/English (a word for word transliteration) has...
This seems to say that Sara received the power to conceive seed even though she was too old to do so by nature. A miraculous conception as has been noted by some early commentators. And because of that birth (Isaac) there became generation as innumerable as the stars and the sands of the sea shore.

The interesting thing is the insertion, the modifier� �and that[one] also having died� with clear meaning that the generation which is as innumerable as the stars came after Isaac an event of Isaac�s death. The author add it as an exclamation. Having-died and generating all these after the event of death - seems to speak of a resurrection (which is not uncommon in either the Old Testament nor the New - Lazareth resurrected before Jesus resurrected - however Lazareth died again and Jesus does not). Several people resurrect to die again in the Old Testament. Apparently Isaac (whatever he represents) was the first.

Interesting about that line is �offered-up� which is a specific Greek term meaning a burnt-offering. Offered up as a burnt offering. The Greek term �has� indicates an act - completed. Done. Past tense. So if Isaac died - he died in flames of the altar. As I said, Abraham was told not to use the knife himself. If this were a real human sacrifice as they were done throughout early history - the victim would have been killed first by knife - and then the fire started. It was certainly practical that you did not want the victim twitching himself involuntarily off the altar because of the pain of the flames.

May I remind you this here is a cosmogony and any historical fact is secondary to what the author wish to give to us as its primary meaning. You are - supposed - to notice the oddness and wonder about it.

�Even from dead to-raise� no question that is a resurrection and it refers to the Isaac who �having died� still became the father of generations innumerable. The Greek word �reckoned� used here was a word used in accounting which means to �credit�. So this means that Abraham credited to God the power to rise the dead. He had faith that God could raise the dead. But having faith does not necessarily mean that ones body agrees and so our human nature can still be very upset with things even as our mind holds to faith.

Here are the essential parallels. I am certainly not the first to notice them.

Both Isaac and Jesus conceived miraculously.

Isaac is named �God mocks me or God makes of me a mocking� and Jesus is �mocked� by the crowd as well as the suffering servant of Isaiah being the subject of mocking. In as much as it is God�s will that Jesus suffer - it is God himself making Jesus be mocked.

Both are described as only begotten sons who will have generation as countless as the stars.

Both were offered as sacrifice.

In as much as the Jews were �sons of Abraham� then it is like Abraham (the Jews) who preformed the sacrifice. They sacrificed their own son through whom the promise was to be fulfilled.

Both are described as a burnt-offering.

It is to be understood with both - that it was God himself who preformed the sacrifice.

The test of Abraham was not if he would do the sacrifice of killing his own son - but how to believe God about his promise to Abraham of �generations innumerable� through Isaac - if died before having seed??

The test of the apostles was - how could Jesus build a church - when Jesus apparently ended up dying on the cross and lay now �stink� in the sealed tomb?? All the forensics of death present.

To Abraham God said �Because you have done this and NOT spared your son� your only son� that in blessing I will bless you� etc.. etc..�

In any and all cases referring to Isaac in the Old and NT - not once does any of the original authors indicate �almost� as if� faith was good enough and Isaac was spared��. All speak to the effect that Isaac actually died - and also went on to father generations. Resurrection plain and simple.

Translators have had difficulty with this in several ways. Most obviously, translators know little about a cosmogony its structure and purpose. First - it does not seem reasonable for the literal narration in as much as Isaac appears alive later with Amibiecth. Secondly - the idea of human sacrifice in connection with Jews is aberrant and against Jewish law. In as much as Genesis is written as if it were historical fact - than the translators did as well as can be expected to maintain the narration even while they could not carry over the peculiarities of the Hebrew text and still maintain a reasonable and literal narration well within other languages. A choice had to be made and highlighting the literal or narrative is the right choice.

Of course, throughout history there has been division between those who take certain text of scripture literally and those who take the same text figuratively with emphasis on the spiritual meaning. And of course there are those who go off the deep end by going into wild and unfounded allegory. Either extreme can be a bit of a danger at time. So it is only good and reasonable that scriptures are secondary to the theology of the church.

The Jews of Jesus� time claimed that literal generation from the seed of Abraham made Abraham their father - to which Jesus claimed that the literal generation (being a physical and genetic descendent of Abraham) mattered not and what mattered was having the same faith that Abraham exhibited. This is all the more poignant when it came time for Jesus to die - and the faith required of the disciples during his own crucifixion and death would be the same faith that Abraham �reckoned to God� when Isaac died (�reckoning that even from dead to-raise was able God�). It is easily overlooked but it is clear the way Jesus himself took the text of Isaac. In a comparison of opinions on what the text of Isaac means - I know which I would tend to want to understand better - the opinion of Jesus and Peter.

But of course, examining these views must be done with reason. One of the other oinion has no impact upon theology (nothing changes there). And to hold too tightly to one of the other �pole� does one not much good at all. In both versions the spiritual point (the only point that really matters) is for us to be like Abraham in our faith as Abraham was in his faith - he is our spiritual model.

Further interesting in the Hebrew is that Abraham is told �Your are not to harm the boy - yourself.� and Abraham looks up to see two things that are one thing (that is how the text puts it). He looks up and sees the presence of God (which Hebrew word can mean God himself or the presence of God as an angel). Which presence in Genesis and Exodus is usually represented as a form of fire and smoke (think of Mt Sinai and the pillar they followed in Exodus or the fire and smoke as a burning brazier which passed between the two halves of the calf carcass to seal the covenant).

This is NOT a material presence in anyway you read it. It is not the physical presence of a ram. And the second thing about what he saw he calls it an �under-ram�. Which in Hebrew signifies that this young/male/under-ram was the REAL sacrifice and Isaac was the �copy�. So did Abraham see a ram? No - he saw the presence of God which was at the same time the real sacrificial item. Exactly what that is yet - gets described also.

Now I know I will hear argument of this but I will present it anyway.

This �presence of God� which is generally associated with fire in the Old Testament - this REAL sacrifice of which Isaac was only the imitation or copy of - appears with thorns - about his head. The Hebrew word used is �head� and that is modified by the word which indicates a thorn bush. What Abraham �sees� is the presence of God in the form of fire and this presence has a head in association somehow with a thorn bush and this presence will be the RAEL sacrifice of which Isaac is the symbolic copy.

The traditional translation assumes that the thorns about his head suggest that this ram is caught within a thorn bush. A reasonable assumption for one expecting this narration to be grounded in a physical and literal way. But rather than smoothing over the peculiarities of the text we should rather take note of them as they are.

So Abraham looks up and sees the Real sacrifice - which is somehow the presence of God - is usually associated with fire - and has about its head - thorns. Do we know anyone else like that?

The Hebrew literally says that this under-ram that Abraham sees is �in the place of Isaac�. Which the translators in assuming the narration so far to mean �instead of� in the sense of Isaac gets up and the ram takes his place. But the Hebrew actually means just what it says, that is, to be placed in the same place as Isaac. It is quite a different thing if I were to ask you to place the salt shaker on the table in the stead of the pepper shaker - or if I were to ask you to place the salt on the table in the same place as the pepper shaker.

The image given in the cosmogony is that this presence of fire now comes on Isaac and consumes Isaac (a burnt oblation as Peter says it). It was not Abraham�s hand which completed the sacrifice but the presence of God which completed the sacrifice.

It is significant that Jewish Misnah sources (explanation of scriptures) agree that Isaac was consumed by fire. It is said that the wood on the altar was so wet from the tears of Abraham and Isaac - that it could not be ignited by a natural fire and so the fire was supernatural.

In as much as I will not be presenting a bibliography of source - what I say here remains only a possibility (noted by others and I concur) of the Hebrew text. But the fact that all Temple sacrifices were patterned upon the event in the cosmogony of Moses of the sacrifice of Isaac - is solid fact. Temple ceremony looked back upon the sacrifice of Isaac just as the sacrifice of Isaac looks forward to the sacrifice of the Son of God identified in the NT as Jesus.

All this remains a curiosity and my own opinion on matters. Good for personal meditation but not a teaching one way or the other by the Church.

-ray

Thank you, Ray. You've certainly deepened my perspective of the similarities between Isaac and Jesus.

However, I was actually inquiring as to possible similarities and parallels between Sarah and Mary, besides the fact that both were the mothers of Isaac and Jesus. I feel there are many paralells, but the only one that comes to mind right now is that Sarah was the Mother of the Jewish People/Nation and Mary is the Mother of the new People of God.

Logos Teen

Mary and Sara??

I have never looked at that. You seem to have found some that I never looked at... and they seem quite legitimate.

Do you see more?

I am not sure what the name Mary represents. In Hebrew I think it would have been Miriam (same name as Moses' sister?? wife - I can remember which) all Jewish names have a meaning... all Arabic names have a meaning.

Certainly Mary was a 'laughing stock' because of the pregnancy with Jesus. Joseph almost �put her away� because of it but, not knowing what to believe of do - he did not want to bring more public attention to her and then the angel told him not to fear the situation. So no doubt people talked about her in a mocking way behind her back. There she was - a Temple virgin - plus a direct descendent of David through Nathan - and to be found with child that Joseph knew nothing about! Tisk tisk tisk, �A miraculous pregnancy - indeed!� I am sure they would have thought.

Both experience the presence of an angel which announced to them the miraculous seed. Both were told that the child to be born was a child of �the promise� and through him generations would come to God.

What do you see?

-ray

Ray,

Yes, Mary's name was actually Miriam (MRYM), which means either means "to rebel," "bitter," or "to be fat." Some actually believe "to be fat" really means "beautiful," since this quality was supposedly the essence of beauty to the Semites.

Miriam was Moses' and Aaron's sister.

I'm not sure what other similarities I see. I saw more a couple of days ago, but they've totally escaped my mind. I'll have to think about it. Any more thoughts on your behalf are much appreciated.

Logos Teen