Bog je naravno unaprijed znao da će Abraham vjerovati i proći kušnju, zato ga je i odabrao.

Kušnja je trebala da bi se pokazala Abrahamova vjera.

Ukoliko je to točno onda je u pitanju "fake test".

Pokazala vjera ili se apsolutna poslušnost definirala kao vjera ?

Nije

Koji je smisao testirati bilo što ukoliko su rezultati testa poznati prije izvršenja testa ?

Bog sve zna unaprijed pa tako i rezultate kušnje. To ne znači da je sve fake

Poslušnost podrazumjeva vjeru.

To znači da je kušnja fake. Samo uporabom nadnaravne logike može imati smisao.

Znači Židovi koji su poslušno išli u nacističke radne logore i logore smrti su vjerovali da su blagoslovljeni time ?

Po tvojoj logici je sve fake zato što Bog zna sve unaprijed, ishod apsolutno svega pa tako i kušnje.

Povezuješ nepovezivo i daješ primjer koji nema nikakve sličnosti s ovim o čemu pričamo.

Nije bitno tko kuša, ukoliko su rezultati kušnje unaprijed poznati nema smisla kušati. To je neutralna definicija kušnje.

To ima smisla samo u nadnaravnoj logici.

Neka ima. Koji je smisao ? Je li smisao, posljedica toga da je vjera definirana kao apsolutna poslušnost ?

Definiraj poslušnost i vjeru molim.

Kad pričamo o naravnom testiranje nema smisla ako se rezultati znaju unaprijed i to je očit fake, ali ovdje ne govorimo o tome nego o nadnaravnom gdje je Bog izvan našeg vremena i prostora i ima pregled svega od početka do kraja vremena.

vjera = apsolutna poslušnost

To što si ubacio poslušnost i vjeru u primjer ne znači da si naveo dobar primjer, naprotiv potpuno je promašen i nepoveziv s ovim.

Dobro, no čemu nas želi poučiti tim testom koji je za naše kapacitete shvaćanja fake test ?



?

Apsolutna vjera u Boga vodi u blagoslov.

Nije bitno tko kuša, ukoliko su rezultati kušnje unaprijed poznati nema smisla kušati. To je neutralna definicija kušnje.

To ima smisla samo u nadnaravnoj logici.

Neka ima. Koji je smisao ? Je li smisao, posljedica toga da je vjera definirana kao apsolutna poslušnost ?

Kao što se Abraham tada nije ustezao prinijeti svoga sina kao dokaz vjere u Boga, isto tako ni Bog niej poštedio svog sina nego ga je predao za otkupljenje svih ljudi.

Slažu li se i druge dvije monoteističke religije s tim ?

Ipak, štuju Abrahama i kušnju.

Abraham se i zeznuo jednom, jer je poslušao ženu, nije vjerovao Božjem obećanju i dobio Jišmaela sa Hagarom.

Ne bi bilo širenja ali bi postojao. Možda ne bi bilo širenja. Možda da nije bilo Krista Židovi bi uspjeli širiti sedmodnevni tjedan ?

Pretpostavimo da ne bi. Tebi je to dokaz da priča nije "izmišljena". A jesu li ti onda imena dana tog istog tjedna dokaz da ni rimski bogovi nisu "izmišljeni" ?

It is common to understand the binding of Isaac as a symbol of blind religious obedience. If not for the intervention of an angel, Abraham would have killed his son. Moreover, since Abraham in this story isn’t just the father of Isaac — he is also the father of monotheism — the narrative seems to teach that faith in general is synonymous with obedience, that God’s command overrides the command of the ethical. It is interesting to notice that even the philosopher Yeshayahu Leibowitz, the father of the Israeli “refusal movement,” which supported Israeli Army resistors who refused to fight in the occupied territories, accepted this interpretation of the binding and of religion. Leibowitz held that the essence of true faith, according to both the Bible and the great medieval Jewish philosopher Maimonides, is obedience.

What if the story, instead, is a metaphor? What if, instead of being about obedience to The Eternal, it is really about the dangers of religious fanaticism? What if, instead of The Eternal testing Abraham, Abraham is testing The Eternal?

There are a couple of ways to look at it. One way is to take The Eternal stopping Abraham not as an external vision as portrayed in the text, but rather an internal triumph of human compassion over a fanatical zeal that could lead a person to do violence in the name of God. This, in and of itself, would be a rebellious notion in an age when human sacrifice was not unheard of.

But perhaps even more rebellious is the idea that Abraham was testing The Eternal, calling The Eternal's bluff. Abraham has already called The Eternal to the carpet once, challenging God as the Judge of all the earth to do justly. What's to keep Abraham from doing it in this instance as well?

This would explain the silence, as well as the language of the text where Abraham indicated to the servants that both he and Isaac would return, and later to Isaac when he said that God would provide the ram for the offering. For the Judge of all the earth to do justly, the Eternal could not let Abraham kill his own son. If Abraham knew this, he could have been seeing how far things would go, but with no intention to actually go through with the sacrifice. And if The Eternal had not stopped him, Abraham himself would have stopped it and probably would have had another little chat with God about doing the right thing.

Rabbi J. H. Hertz (Chief Rabbi of the British Empire) wrote that child sacrifice was “rife among the Semitic peoples,” and suggests that “in that age, it was astounding that Abraham’s God should have interposed to prevent the sacrifice, not that He should have asked for it.” Hertz interprets the Akedah as demonstrating to the Jews that human sacrifice is abhorrent. “Unlike the cruel heathen deities, it was the spiritual surrender alone that God required.”

Many readers have noted Abraham’s prophetic Freudian slip. he says “I and the boy will go there, bow down, and we will return to you”. Many classical rabbinic commentators hold that Abraham knew that Isaac wouldn’t die.

Let’s also consider the view of Shlomo Hakohen Rabinowicz (1825 – c.1865) known as the Tiferet Shlomo, after the title of his classic work. Mark Kirschbaum writes

To him the word “nisayon” does not mean a test, there was no test here, and neither God nor Abraham read it this way. He states that the root of the word nisayon are the initial Hebrew letters “NS“, an acronym for “Somech Noflim“, meaning ‘support for those who are falling’, in this case, for those failing or flagging in spiritual resolve.

The purpose of this exercise was not to test Abraham, but rather as a ritual, a way for Abraham, mystical archetype of Love, to symbolically/textually bind Yitzhak, mystical archetype of Severity and Judgement, thus creating an eternal symbol of spiritual yearning overcoming personal self judgements of inadequacy and failing.

This strengthening of the weak needed to be done right at the beginning of Jewish history, where all the future descendants of the Abrahamic message are represented by Isaac, son of Abraham. Thus the akedah becomes a spiritual ritual enactment, a mystical exercise, meant as a symbol of will overcoming self doubt.