Christian view of Abraham?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Atheist OP asks a theological question about Christianity's views on Old Testament personages.

Numerous PPs give responses to theological question.

Atheist OP rejects all responses because they are based on Bible and not on non-Biblically based texts.

Christianity is based on the Bible, ergo its theology is based on the Bible, particularly when it concerns personages appearing in the Bible.

Here's a riddle: How does one answer a Christian theological question about Biblical personages with a response based strictly on non-Biblical influenced texts?

This is like asking a question about people's rights in America and refusing to accept any answer based on texts that reference the Constitution.

No one is saying that you don't use the bible as a source. However, true sources are often cross-referenced in other sources. No true believer on these threads has cited anything other than lines from the the bible and theories from modern day theologians who also have cited from the bible. So the reasoning becomes cyclical.

However, in terms of Abraham, Catholics (the Vatican) have an interest in part of the land, too, as the Cenacle is believed to be the site of the Last Supper.

Wow, you are obtuse.

A question about the theology of Biblical personages can only be answered in reference to the Bible and theology based upon that. This reasoning is NOT circular (I think that's the term you are thinking of).

If you are continuing to insist that the Bible cannot be used as a source because there are no non-Biblical works contemporary to the Bible that cite the Bible, give it up. Accounts of Abraham were written down for the first time more than two and a half millenia ago at a time when few could write and writing materials were very friable. It is a ridiculous demand that shows ignorance of the conditions of the time.

BTW, PPs have offered many thoughtful posts explaining the Biblical theology of Abraham

really?

THE FAITH OF ABRAHAM
According to the Bible, the first person to form a covenant with God is Abraham. He is the great patriarch. Is there archeological evidence for Abraham?

One of the first efforts of biblical archeology in the last century was to prove the historicity of the patriarchs, to locate them in a particular period in the archeological history. Today I think most archeologists would argue that there is no direct archeological proof that Abraham, for instance, ever lived. We do know a lot about pastoral nomads, we know about the Amorites' migrations from Mesopotamia to Canaan, and it's possible to see in that an Abraham-like figure somewhere around 1800 B.C.E. But there's no direct connection.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/archeology-hebrew-bible.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Atheist OP asks a theological question about Christianity's views on Old Testament personages.

Numerous PPs give responses to theological question.

Atheist OP rejects all responses because they are based on Bible and not on non-Biblically based texts.

Christianity is based on the Bible, ergo its theology is based on the Bible, particularly when it concerns personages appearing in the Bible.

Here's a riddle: How does one answer a Christian theological question about Biblical personages with a response based strictly on non-Biblical influenced texts?

This is like asking a question about people's rights in America and refusing to accept any answer based on texts that reference the Constitution.

There are numerous disagreements about biblical meaning among Christians and between Christians and Jews. There are also facts about how the bible was written and archeology that are known to academics and are not a matter of belief. Like any other academic field, biblical scholars use critical thinking and evidence to understand their field. The view that the whole bible is about Christ is a Christian devotional view, not an academic view. I think that any professor of the new or old testament in a non-fundamentalist academic setting (e.g. not Bob Jones or Liberty university) would not accept that point of view. There is nothing in academic religion to back it up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Atheist OP asks a theological question about Christianity's views on Old Testament personages.

Numerous PPs give responses to theological question.

Atheist OP rejects all responses because they are based on Bible and not on non-Biblically based texts.

Christianity is based on the Bible, ergo its theology is based on the Bible, particularly when it concerns personages appearing in the Bible.

Here's a riddle: How does one answer a Christian theological question about Biblical personages with a response based strictly on non-Biblical influenced texts?

This is like asking a question about people's rights in America and refusing to accept any answer based on texts that reference the Constitution.

There are numerous disagreements about biblical meaning among Christians and between Christians and Jews. There are also facts about how the bible was written and archeology that are known to academics and are not a matter of belief. Like any other academic field, biblical scholars use critical thinking and evidence to understand their field. The view that the whole bible is about Christ is a Christian devotional view, not an academic view. I think that any professor of the new or old testament in a non-fundamentalist academic setting (e.g. not Bob Jones or Liberty university) would not accept that point of view. There is nothing in academic religion to back it up.

The original question specifically asked a question about the CHRISTIAN theology of Abraham. You then fault the thoughtful answers because you do not think they are ones that Jews or Muslims would accept. Well if they bought into Christian theology, they wouldn't be Jews or Muslims, would they?

BTW archaeology is very hit and miss--what part of the historical record a particular site illuminates is really a matter of luck. If would be easier to find a needle in a haystack than to find direct archaeological evidence of a specific person, especially one who was not a ruler of a settled civilization, who lived three millenia ago.

You cannot use absence of an archaeological evidence as proof of absence.

[Anonymous]

Wow. On another thread, they were saying Jesus didn't exist. Now Abraham doesn't exist, either?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Atheist OP asks a theological question about Christianity's views on Old Testament personages.

Numerous PPs give responses to theological question.

Atheist OP rejects all responses because they are based on Bible and not on non-Biblically based texts.

Christianity is based on the Bible, ergo its theology is based on the Bible, particularly when it concerns personages appearing in the Bible.

Here's a riddle: How does one answer a Christian theological question about Biblical personages with a response based strictly on non-Biblical influenced texts?

This is like asking a question about people's rights in America and refusing to accept any answer based on texts that reference the Constitution.

There are numerous disagreements about biblical meaning among Christians and between Christians and Jews. There are also facts about how the bible was written and archeology that are known to academics and are not a matter of belief. Like any other academic field, biblical scholars use critical thinking and evidence to understand their field. The view that the whole bible is about Christ is a Christian devotional view, not an academic view. I think that any professor of the new or old testament in a non-fundamentalist academic setting (e.g. not Bob Jones or Liberty university) would not accept that point of view. There is nothing in academic religion to back it up.

The original question specifically asked a question about the CHRISTIAN theology of Abraham. You then fault the thoughtful answers because you do not think they are ones that Jews or Muslims would accept. Well if they bought into Christian theology, they wouldn't be Jews or Muslims, would they?

BTW archaeology is very hit and miss--what part of the historical record a particular site illuminates is really a matter of luck. If would be easier to find a needle in a haystack than to find direct archaeological evidence of a specific person, especially one who was not a ruler of a settled civilization, who lived three millenia ago.

You cannot use absence of an archaeological evidence as proof of absence.

I think you're referring to apologetics -- a field which defends particular religious beliefs.

Academic theology does not adhere to the tenets of any particular religious belief. It's not faith-based. It makes statements, develops theories and and draws conclusion like any other academic field, irrespective of the "beliefs."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow. On another thread, they were saying Jesus didn't exist. Now Abraham doesn't exist, either?

Abraham didn't exist even more than Jesus didn't exist -- same for Moses. There are various theories and academic dissent about Jesus - but not about Moses and Abraham. They are characters in an ancient story.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow. On another thread, they were saying Jesus didn't exist. Now Abraham doesn't exist, either?

Abraham didn't exist even more than Jesus didn't exist -- same for Moses. There are various theories and academic dissent about Jesus - but not about Moses and Abraham. They are characters in an ancient story.

Oh man. Moses, too?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow. On another thread, they were saying Jesus didn't exist. Now Abraham doesn't exist, either?

The atheist troll's claim that Jesus didn't exist was quickly disposed of by reference to near-contemporaneous Roman sources, such as Tacitus and Suetonius.

Unfortunately, Abraham and Moses pre-dated Jesus by centuries and we don't have contemporaneous sources outside the Bible (which was probably written later, as well). Of course, that doesn't prove that Abraham or Moses didn't exist, just that we don't have non-Bliblical sources for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow. On another thread, they were saying Jesus didn't exist. Now Abraham doesn't exist, either?

The atheist troll's claim that Jesus didn't exist was quickly disposed of by reference to near-contemporaneous Roman sources, such as Tacitus and Suetonius.

Unfortunately, Abraham and Moses pre-dated Jesus by centuries and we don't have contemporaneous sources outside the Bible (which was probably written later, as well). Of course, that doesn't prove that Abraham or Moses didn't exist, just that we don't have non-Bliblical sources for them.

Here is the quote from Suetonius:

As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome.

In this case, the belief is that Chrestus is Christ. However, scholars have shown that Chrestus was a common name during that period.

So that proves nothing.

If Jesus was so popular, we would have more accounts of his miracles, for example.

But we don't.

And yes, there's no historical proof of Moses and Abraham.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow. On another thread, they were saying Jesus didn't exist. Now Abraham doesn't exist, either?

The atheist troll's claim that Jesus didn't exist was quickly disposed of by reference to near-contemporaneous Roman sources, such as Tacitus and Suetonius.

Unfortunately, Abraham and Moses pre-dated Jesus by centuries and we don't have contemporaneous sources outside the Bible (which was probably written later, as well). Of course, that doesn't prove that Abraham or Moses didn't exist, just that we don't have non-Bliblical sources for them.

Here is the quote from Suetonius:

As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome.

In this case, the belief is that Chrestus is Christ. However, scholars have shown that Chrestus was a common name during that period.

So that proves nothing.

If Jesus was so popular, we would have more accounts of his miracles, for example.

But we don't.

And yes, there's no historical proof of Moses and Abraham.

Hey
Show me the evidence, and I may change my mind.
but until then . . .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow. On another thread, they were saying Jesus didn't exist. Now Abraham doesn't exist, either?

The atheist troll's claim that Jesus didn't exist was quickly disposed of by reference to near-contemporaneous Roman sources, such as Tacitus and Suetonius.

Unfortunately, Abraham and Moses pre-dated Jesus by centuries and we don't have contemporaneous sources outside the Bible (which was probably written later, as well). Of course, that doesn't prove that Abraham or Moses didn't exist, just that we don't have non-Bliblical sources for them.

Here is the quote from Suetonius:

As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome.

In this case, the belief is that Chrestus is Christ. However, scholars have shown that Chrestus was a common name during that period.

So that proves nothing.

If Jesus was so popular, we would have more accounts of his miracles, for example.

But we don't.

And yes, there's no historical proof of Moses and Abraham.

Hey
Show me the evidence, and I may change my mind.
but until then . . .

How do you feel about Big Foot? and Paul Bunyan? and the Lock Ness Monster?

[Anonymous]

Darwin didn't exist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow. On another thread, they were saying Jesus didn't exist. Now Abraham doesn't exist, either?

The atheist troll's claim that Jesus didn't exist was quickly disposed of by reference to near-contemporaneous Roman sources, such as Tacitus and Suetonius.

Unfortunately, Abraham and Moses pre-dated Jesus by centuries and we don't have contemporaneous sources outside the Bible (which was probably written later, as well). Of course, that doesn't prove that Abraham or Moses didn't exist, just that we don't have non-Bliblical sources for them.

Here is the quote from Suetonius:

As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome.

In this case, the belief is that Chrestus is Christ. However, scholars have shown that Chrestus was a common name during that period.

So that proves nothing.

If Jesus was so popular, we would have more accounts of his miracles, for example.

But we don't.

And yes, there's no historical proof of Moses and Abraham.

Hey
Show me the evidence, and I may change my mind.
but until then . . .

How do you feel about Big Foot? and Paul Bunyan? and the Lock Ness Monster?

He's as real as Zeus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow. On another thread, they were saying Jesus didn't exist. Now Abraham doesn't exist, either?

The atheist troll's claim that Jesus didn't exist was quickly disposed of by reference to near-contemporaneous Roman sources, such as Tacitus and Suetonius.

Unfortunately, Abraham and Moses pre-dated Jesus by centuries and we don't have contemporaneous sources outside the Bible (which was probably written later, as well). Of course, that doesn't prove that Abraham or Moses didn't exist, just that we don't have non-Bliblical sources for them.

Here is the quote from Suetonius:

As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome.

In this case, the belief is that Chrestus is Christ. However, scholars have shown that Chrestus was a common name during that period.

So that proves nothing.

If Jesus was so popular, we would have more accounts of his miracles, for example.

But we don't.

And yes, there's no historical proof of Moses and Abraham.

Why didn't you use Tacitus instead? Oh, here's why! From Wikipedia:

The Roman historian and senator Tacitus referred to Christ, his execution by Pontius Pilate and the existence of early Christians in Rome in his final work, Annals (written ca. AD 116), book 15, chapter 44.[1]

[Anonymous]

Well, the troll finally figured out how to use jpegs. Took him/her long enough!