Trying to Right Ishmael

Sign*Reader wrote:

Bismarck:
We had researched and discussed timeline study about Ishaq and Ismaeel within our study group many years ago. And we knew the OT account didn't jive and we left it at that it was one of those things nobody could any thing about. But there was an additional discovery from the NT which your post has confirmed.
Now all was well and good till your conclusion turned into concoction and that doesn't sit well with Muslim faith.
You wrote:
And the message that emerges also agrees perfectly with the New Testament message, most clearly shown in the Gospel of John, that Almighty God does not need us to sacrifice our children to Him, but, completely in the reverse, Almighty God so loved the World that he gave His only son for us (from John 3:16)! That is, Almighty God is the Creator of Life, and has no need for us to undo His work by killing our own children to �appease� of �feed� Him, as for example the Canaanites taught. Indeed, Almighty God loves us, and so we have no need to live in such fear of Him (see 1 John 4:18) that we kill our own children to placate His Wrath � as, for example, the Canaanites taught, and the Gentiles to whom John addressed his �Gentile Gospel� were subjected to. In other words, in perfect agreement with the message of the Gospel of John, the message of the Aborted Sacrifice is that Almighty God does not need His Believers (embodied by Abraham) to murder their own children, but rather is the Source of Life who gives us more children---------

The world was divided on the race lines around the birth of Jesus. There Persians, Brahmins and Romans all fair skinned who enslaved the colored people of the known world.

Do not "throw out the baby with the bathwater".

Let's start with "Persians".

Let me give you a name: Khorvash Vazraka (Cyrus the Great).

Is Khorvash Vazraka a "good guy" or a "bad guy" from the perspective of Abraham and Abrahamic Faiths?

Khorvash Vazraka lived from about 570 - 529 BCE. I claim I can argue hegemonically overwhelmingly that Khorvash Vazraka was a "good guy", and that all the Abrahamic Beliefs owe him a gigantic "Thanks man!"

But by 499 - 490 BCE, the liberation of Khorvash Vazraka had been permuted into tyranny, and the Greeks began chafing under their yoke and rebelled -- as they had earlier rebelled against the Canaanites in the Trojan War.

For the next 150 years, the Persians invaded Greece with armies, and undermined Greece with their Secret Police. Finally, in 333 BCE, the Greeks rose up under Alexander the Great, and marching under the banners of Nemesis -- the Greek Goddess of Revenge -- destroyed the Persian Empire that had molested them for most of 2 centuries.

But, just as the Persians before him had started off as liberators to whom all Mankind owes a debt of gratituted, but then quickly became corrupted into tyrants, so too Alexander the Great quickly let his victories go to his head, and in under 10 years Alexander became such a tyrant to his own Greek men that they rebelled against him and, arguably, Alexander was poisoned.

Power corrupts.

Absolute Power corrupts Absolutely.

The lurings and traps and temptations and lies and honied words of the Snake are quite capable of playing upon the weaknesses of all the Sons of Adam -- irrespective of how much pigment they have in the outer layers of their skin.

The Persians lost their roots. They didn't last but 200 years before the Greeks swept them aside. Alexander didn't last 10 years, and even the Greek Successor States only lasted at most 250 years until the Romans swept them aside. Then the Romans bit into the same corrupted fruit, and after 500 years they were swept aside by the Germans under Odovakr in 476 CE, who gained final revenge for 600 years of rape, murder, theft, pillaging, and enslavement of Germans by the Roman empire.

The point is, that there is no way you can say, "races X, Y, and Z are bad, but races A, B, and C are good". Dark skin does not make you a saint, nor light skin a demon. There are good and bad people of every race and color. It's what's inside that counts. Your saying that dark skin is "good", and light skin is "bad", is actually racist. It is. Your saying, "this skin color is automatically good, that skin color is automatically bad". Almighty God does not judge by something so superficial as skin color. Rather, God deems men worthy or unworthy based upon the intents of their hearts:

1 Samuel 16:7
But the LORD said to Samuel, "Do not look at his appearance or at the height of his stature, because I have rejected him; for God sees not as man sees, for man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart."

and by the deeds men do (their "works"):

1 Samuel 2:3
"Boast no more so very proudly,
Do not let arrogance come out of your mouth;
For the LORD is a God of knowledge,
And with Him actions are weighed.

These words say that any man who earnestly strives with all his heart and soul to do Almighty God's Will, and strives with all his strength and might to bring God's Will into this World (see Deuteronomy 6:5), will find favor in the Sight of Almighty God. Man's vision stops at the skin, Almighty God has "x-ray" vision.

These were trinitarians but the Jews supposedly monotheistic group didn't behave any better. It was fine for fair skinned children of Ibrahim to look down upon their own colored cousins who were living in Arabian peninsula.

Trinitarianism is ancient. It is the "tri-functional" theory of society -- divide men into "Shepherds (Priest Kings), Sheepdogs (Police-Military), and Sheep (Slaves)". In Rome, the Imperial Party swept aside the Republican Old Guard, destroyed the ancient Freedoms of the Roman Citizens, and instituted brutal totalitarian Police-State that ground the whole Mediterranean Basin, Roman and non-Roman alike, into the mud and mire.

Racism, which merely boils down to believing that some characteristic of your own self makes you inherently better than others, no matter what you do, is exactly how the Snake tricks, dupes, games, and plays everybody.

With all respect due, your saying that "Dark Skin = Good, Light Skin = Bad" is itself a form of racism. No matter what a Light Skinned man does, he's evil; no matter what a Dark Skinned man does, he's good. That type of racism is exactly what caused the Jews to reject their own Messiah 2,000 years ago, and hence exactly what John the Baptist (or, Dunker) preached against in Matthew 3:9.

Racism is bad. I think that the current arrangement of the story of Hagar and Ishmael in the OT does, as you say, teach Jews to hate their own cousins! It teaches the sons of Abraham to hate the sons of Abraham! It fosters dischord in Abraham's family! That is exactly what I find so offensive! Please read Genesis 12:1-3 -- Father Abraham was so Righteous (Rightwise) that, thank God, he made the world such a better place, by actually and truly doing God's Will and bringing Godliness into this World, that Almighty God, as written in Genesis 12:1-3, made it a crime to curse Abraham! And the current arrangement of the OT actually curses the blood of Abraham, through Ishmael! So I cannot see how it could possibly be true. But just because it is a crime to curse Abraham, does not mean it is good to curse others.

Some whites in America are racist. They hate blacks and all colored people. Why? Because they're poor. They're called "Poor White Trash", which you'd have to admit is pretty damn harsh. I offer that it's the single most offensive racial slur in English. And it's aimed at Whitefolk! Poor, hungry -- so hungry that, historically, they've often been driven to barely scratching out a living by eating clay -- and powerless. And so they are especially vulnerable to racism -- because it gives them some reason to feel good about themselves, after everybody else spits on them. Everybody else scorns them, but at least they aren't as bad as those other people way over there. It's the same way with sexism. That's why poor men are more likely to beat their wives -- everybody else mocks them, and they take out all their pent up fears and frustrations on their own wives, just so they at least aren't the bottom of the totem pole, so at least somebody is beneath them, so at least they have some power over somebody. It's actually weak. If Jack messes with you, you're supposed to mess with Jack -- not Sally way over there, who had nothing to do with any of it. Jack hits you, you hit Jack -- eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. But not some random eye or tooth. Only the exact person who did it. Otherwise, you're letting them off. They stepped to you, and you let them off. You feel better, but you still let them off. You're soft. But many poor men are too malnourished, hungry, tired, and despondent to know any better. It's heart-breaking. It's still wrong. Racism is wrong. Understandable, but wrong.

I understand the Prophet Muhammad said in his "Final Sermon":

You will neither inflict nor suffer any inequity.

Beware of Satan, for the safety of your religion.

Do treat your women well and be kind to them for they are your partners and committed helpers.

All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over black nor a black has any superiority over white except by piety and good action.

I do not read this as condoning Racism.

It was ironic when the European knocked down the Temple for second time some of them did end up in Arabian territory. Our conclusion was bcs it was Paul (a self styled prophet) totally obsessed with creating a new dogma of redemption to sell to European Mithraic trintarian cultists added the racist content into his prolific writings. He left his jewish faith but perpetuated the racist superiority mindset for the Christian generations to come. Most of the time he didn't know what he was talking about--Mount Sinai in Arabia? Setting up standards for the slave traders to come? Who should be free and who should be slave. Any how the Europeans could not ask any better package than this.
They ended up colonising the whole darn world. What goes around comes around, the time for rechoning will come. It is just a matter of time
till Jesus gets back to settle this -

Read the following from NT Galatians

21 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?

22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a abondmaid�, the other by a freewoman.

23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.

24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to a bondage, which is bAgar�.

25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.

26 But aJerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

27 For it is written, aRejoice�, thou bbarren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.

28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the achildren� of promise.

29 But as then he that was born after the aflesh bpersecuted� him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.

30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? aCast� out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.

31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.

If this is not the formula for human slavery what is ?

Quick Answer:

Saul Paulus is speaking metaphorically. Abraham has 2 types of "sons", that is, 2 types of "followers". The first are the "True Sons" of "Spirit/Promise". The other are "Blood Sons" who have Abraham's blood but don't follow in his footsteps, don't do as he did. Here, Saul Paulus exactly and precisely echoes the notion of "True Family" that the Messiah espouses in the NT. For example,

Matthew 12:47-49
47 Someone said to Him, "Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You."
48 But Jesus answered the one who was telling Him and said, "Who is My mother and who are My brothers?"
49 And stretching out His hand toward His disciples, He said, "Behold My mother and My brothers!

Here, the Messiah shows that those who actually hear and heed him are more precious to him than even his own blood kin! As much as the Messiah surely "Honored his Mother and Father" and his family and kinsfolk, those who did the Will of Almighty God are even more precious still! And the Prophet Muhammad echoes exactly this point in his "Last Sermon":

Learn that every Muslim is a brother to every Muslim and that the Muslims constitute one brotherhood.

And, again, John the Dunker (Baptist) points out exactly this distinction in Matthew 3:9, "and do not suppose that you can say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham for our father'; for I say to you that from these stones God is able to raise up children to Abraham." So, Saul Paulus is here speaking metaphorically. He is using the story of Abraham and his 2 wives and 2 sons as a metaphor to describe the 2 types of people who claim Abraham as their "Father" (not "Dad" or "Papa" or "Abba", which is the for Almighty God alone, but the more formal and distant "Father"). Some say they are good because they have the Blood of Abraham in their veins. But others are Abraham's "True Family", they Truly do as Abraham did, they Truly walk in Abraham's footsteps, they Truly follow the "Submission to the Will of Almighty God" that 'Father Abraham' taught. They are Abraham's "True Family".

So, Paul is not speaking literally, but metaphorically. Also, "Arabia" in the 1st Century included the Sinai peninsula as well as the "Arabah", the region just east of the "Dead Sea" ("Salt Sea") where Petra and even Qumran were located. Recall, that the Nabateans were the sons of Nebayoth, the eldest son of Ishmael -- and they lived in Petra in the "Arabah". It is my understanding that what was considered "Arabian" in the 1st Century was somewhat broader than just "Saudi Arabia" today. (Also, please see http://www.baseinstitute.org/Sinai_1.html, which seems reasonable, although it is certainly a website, not a formally published book or peer-reviewed journal article.)

Please accept the following:

2 Peter 3:14-16

14 Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless,

15 and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you,

16 as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Another take:

Saul Paulus (Saul "the Least" (see 1 Cor 15:9) ) was a Pharisee. He was fully versed in the Scriptures of the OT. He was trying to show, persuasively and unambiguously, from those OT Scriptures that all Jews acknowledged as "the Inerrant Words of God" that those OT Scriptures revealed Yeshua haMashiach was indeed the True Messiah.

Therefore, Saul Paulus never ventured into the realm of doubting that those OT Scriptures were the "Inerrant Words of God".

Had he done so, please think of what would have happened! All Jews would have flat out rejected the Messiah by merely claiming, "Hey, that guy's claims to be the Messiah are so preposterous, he has to claim Scripture is WRONG for him to be the man!"

Therefore, Saul Paulus is merely echoing the OT to support the case of Yeshua haMashiach actually being the Messiah. That is, Saul Paulus is merely showing the 1,001 ways the OT proves Yeshua is the Mashiach (Messiah). There is no more to it than that.

Therefore, the fact that Saul Paulus quotes the Hagar & Ishmael story as it currently is in the OT is merely proof that it was also arranged that way 2000 years ago too.

But, I have argued that the current arrangement is so offensive that I just can't buy it. And I understand that, indeed, Islam holds that the OT is corrupt to some unspecified, but important, degree. Therefore, I am naturally inclined to agree with Islam here.

Yet, Saul Paulus 2000 years ago could not possibly have publically doubted the OT Scriptures without destroying all support the Messiah had amongst his people. In fact, I sense that, in some way, the corruption of the OT Scriptures was such a "hamstring" on Godliness in this World that it made necessary the Prophet Muhammad's ministry to call it to everybody's attention.

So, I am very inclined to agree that the current arrangement of the OT has an offensive twist in it. But Saul Paulus couldn't say such to the Galatian "gentiles" (so-called) who were under the influence of Jews who were trying to get them to revert back to Judaism against the Messiah, because were he to say the Scriptures were wrong, he would just give perfect ammo to the very people who were trying to lead his followers astray.

Paul does not need to be doubted.

The real problems with Christianity did not start to arise until about 150-190, and by about 200 CE we start having our first "anti-popes" showing clear dischord and disharmony in Christian ranks. The first formal schism was that of Novatius in about 250 CE. That was the beginning of the problems. But even as late as 385 CE, there were at least many Arian Christians -- and Islam has much nicer things to say about Arian Christians, over against Trinitarianism. Even note, that Arian Christianity survived amongst the Germans, particularly the Goths, until about 600 CE -- when Rome started a civil war between their own puppet rulers and the Gothic Old Guard who were Arians. And at exactly the same time, the Culdee British Church founded by Joseph of Arimathea, was also beset by Rome. And at exactly the same time, the Prophet Muhammad was called in about 605 CE.

So, no sooner did Rome choke out Arian and Culdee Christianity in the western limits of the Mediterranean basin, than Almighty God called the Prophet Muhammad to the east of Mediterranean basin. I don't know, of course, but I feel there might be a link, sort of a "Providential Preservation" (see Psalm 119:152, Psalm 12:6-7, Psalm 119:89, I Peter 1:23, I Peter 1:25, Matthew 24: 35). That is, Almighty God promised He would preserve His Words, and so when Rome perverted it in the west (Goths in Italy and Iberia, Celts in Britain), Almighty God brought it forth again in the east (Prophet Muhammad).

So, my own sense is, Christianity cannot be viewed as "functionally perverted" until the Calling of Prophet Muhammad around 600 CE (ballpark). Up until ~600 CE, Christianity needs to be given credit as The True Way (at least in the last strongholds of Arian-following Germans and Culdee Britains). But when the Arians and Culdees started to be ground down by Rome, the torch was passed to Prophet Muhammad in Arabia amongst the sons of Abraham through Ishmael.