Question

[synderon]

Here is a simple question. How did Abraham know it was God telling him to kill Issac and not Satan? How do we ever know for sure?

Comments

[sargonepsilon]

I think that is the definition of Faith for starters, but my answer is that Abraham would never suspect Satan since he didn't know about him. As I said in a previous post of yours, Satan is a New Testement creation, and Abraham had only even known God for a decade or so at the time, and knew almost nothing about him. God literally remained nameless until the time of Moses, when he claimed the name that we usally translate as Lord, but which is actually a derivation of the Hebrew words for I am. Prior to that, he was referred to only as the God of Abraham

[synderon]

That answers it for Abraham but what about us? You rarely ever hear of people actually HEARING God's voice. Normally you just feel pushed in a certain direction. As deceitful as Satan is, how can we know if these spiritual nudgings are benevolent? I don't think it's as easy as saying it's just faith. I'm pretty sure most Christians will tell you they have felt Satan trying to do something in their lives. Is it so easy to tell what the source is?

[sargonepsilon]

For that matter how do you even know the "nudgings" are supernatural at all? If you acknowledge that they may not come from God, then you should also acknowledge that they are just as likely to come from you as Him, or any other power, Satan included. For Christianity this is where faith has to come in. You are supposed to trust that God will take care of you, despite any errors on your part in perception of his will.

That's part of why I stopped being Christian. You can never get any real answer to these sorts of questions, and the doctrine discourages curiosity about such matters because the only answer you ever receive is "just have faith and it will work out." I never was able to "just have faith." Not for an extended period anyway, and I don't think I ever could.

[mad_dog_bowers]

I at least agree with your first paragraph. This is what is meant by faith, and although I feel your view of faith expressed in the second paragraph is a bit cynical, I hae nothing at hand that I feel would sway you in particular. I would like to add though that even if you can't say this about all Christians, not that I feel you need to be able to, that you are talking to a group of Christians who faith is at least in part derived from and solidly rooted in historical understanding of the Bible.

[mad_dog_bowers]

Hopefully it's comforting for you that this is something I have wondered about very often. Yet the circumstance has neve come up where I seriously wondered between the two. Im not informed enough on the symbolism contained in that event, or even its practical significance, but would you consider it a fair answer that we know because he did not ask Abraham to finish the deed? It seems less than saisfactory, but its hard for me to call scripture to mind on it. I have nothing to add to this at the time from a secular standpoint, and I may not ever. However I do believe that as a Christian we fundamentally have an ability to sense the presence of evil, and that it would be a mistake we can be protected of if we observe the rules we are supposed to as well as not doing anything stupid, like seances etc. Then you have to wonder about things like Mormonism. We are told never to accept any second Gospel, yet I have trouble believing a person would take something that far and believe it was divinely inspired. So I am left wondering whether

[sargonepsilon]

Where does it say not to accept a second gospel? That would be an interesting requirement since the four gospels in the bible were not chosen as the definitive ones until about 300 years after the deaths of the figures involved, and many others were written, some from first hand sources, of which only two of the chosen ones are.

The choice was made by the First Council of Nicaea, basically at the sword point of Emperor Constantine. I assume you believe divine intervention at the council assured the correct books were chosen, but it still seems an odd command since the gospels we follow are not the oldest ones we have, and, in reality, the entire story of Jesus is actually a "second gospel" to the original tenets of the religion (Judaism).

[synderon]

I'll let Tony respond to this himself, but I would like to add one thing. While the New Testament wasn't canonized for 300 years after the books were written, the four gospels we use now were the primary ones being circulated. I can dredge up some actual references if you would like but I believe the evidence is in the writings of Clement and a couple other of his contemporaries.

[mad_dog_bowers]

Dont tell me this like you are giving me new information. I will try to find the reference in scripture if you like but it may take some time as I don't remember what book it was in. Let me reiterate that I am telling you this from a Christian standpoint, assuming Biblical veracity as a premise, not trying to prove said veracity to you.

[sargonepsilon]

P.S. Aaron I really like what you're doing with this blog. I wish more people were weighing in. After the first couple posts, comments have been scarce.

[synderon]

Thanks. I know Tony doesn't have his own computer now, Heather isn't Christian and doesn't really know enough about it to reply to much (I think that was her reason anyway), Steffan is busy with school, and Dave CLAIMS to be busy although i'm not sure what it is he does (hopefully me saying this will get him to reply). Those make the bulk of my intelligent friends. If you have anyone you know that could contribute I wouldn't have a problem hearing their input.

[zovick_84]

Ya got me...I just moved and don't have my computer set up yet. And honestly, I haven't felt the most motivated to do it...I promise I'll get to it tomorrow....if I don't, you can shoot me.

[synderon]

I had forgotten to mention Tyler, so I thought I should correct that. He I think has been busy with school as well.