The records in Genesis is not true

1. Jesus was afraid of pain, but Isaac got a psychology disease, he was not killed, but he was hurt.
2. This story also told another custom, which is son is a property of father, so Abraham has right to sacrifice his son, and which is much different from our days, so this story shows moral was developing.

You may have misunderstood. I was raised as a Catholic but have since rejected those teachings. I am not a believer. I have struggled to understand religion and the role it has played in my life and in the world; in order to better understand myself and my place. But I am not a believer.

The church wants you to read and pray everyday to maintain their hold on your mind. I say read the Bible with a critical perspective. Read it for what is: ancient mythology from a specific and obscure middle eastern tribe.

The situation with Isaac and Abraham was just the opposite of a father regarding his son as mere property. Abraham loved Isaac above just about everything. I'm guessing that Abraham had almost made a God of Isaac.

I'm trying to read the Bible for what it is and Pastoral Bible published by Church is trying to read the Bible for what it is. Many miracles happened when I prayed, I believe our belief is right, the question is how to understand Bible and how to walk to God through Bible. My oppinion is Bible doesn't tell the truth, but Bible tells how religion was developing, and finnaly religion developed to Christianity. Religion was developing and is developing, morden christianity is much different to original christianity, and we shall believe all of the developing is in the lead of HOLY SPIRIT.

If you'll pardon my interjection... I've always seen God's demand for Abraham to sacrifice his son as a test of loyalty. The kind of loyalty a mob boss would demand of his underlings. They call it love and devotion in the Bible. I call it slavish subservience.
I don't have any idea if this is a true story or a parable. Either way it's sick.
If it's true, and Abraham actually heard a voice that demanded his son's life; it illustrates a mentally ill man who nearly killed his own son.
If it's a parable, it shows that this quality of devotion to God was much admired in those times and was something others were expected to live up to. That it was attributed to a Patriarch showed that it was set up as an example. It was the ruling class of priest-kings who decided what God's will would be, and this loyalty was ultimately to them.

Yeah, I don't know if it's allegory or literal either.
Just looking for an angle that makes sense of the whole thing. If that didn't exist I wouldn't waste my time even talking about it.

Thanks for all of your discussions. Now let's talk about another topic.
I think Abraham's belief is the same as Pharaoh and others in his time, all of them believed in a most high God and many gods. And I think this belief is the the religion belief of ancient Egypt. As a great emperor and advanced civilization, we can imagine Egypt had huge influance to the around areas, which includes Canan, so I believe religion belief in Canan is the same as Egypt. In Genesis, we found no conflict of religion belief, all of people in Genesis believe in God, and If we read the book carefully, we can find they also believed in many gods, including household gods and foereign gods.
Abraham's nephew Laban admired household gods, and his sister Rebecca stole his statue of household gods, this prove Rebecca believed in household gods also. In chapter 35, Jacob comanded to put away foreign gods from them, but he didn't command to put away household gods.Then Job buried these foreign gods seriously under Oaks, this illustrates that he believed these foreign gods were real gods, the reason that he commanded to put away the foreign gods was because these gods were protecting foreign tribes. In the opposite, household gods were protecting his own tribe, so he didn't command to put houesehold gods away. If both his nephew, his daughter in law, his grandson believed in God and gods, how can we believe Abraham believe in God only but not gods. Unfortunitely, the church told us one-God religion was existing from the beginning of the world, to Noah, to Abraham, to Moses, to David, the church call it "saint family".

When we understand what Genesis was recording is multy-god religion, many sentences are easy to be understood. When God say " we'll make human beings according to our image", we can imagine God was talking to many gods, that's why this sentence uses the word "our". And we can explain this sentence in another way. The word of "God" in Hebrew is "Elohim", which is a plural noun, so in ancient people's mind, God is not one, God is a group, that's why God apreared to Abraham and Lot in the way of three angles.

Since God's only begotten Son (later known as Jesus) was apparently begotten long before the world, I always assumed "Let us make man in our image" meant the two collaborated in that creation.

Yes, there have been other 'gods' but they were of our making and not the genuine article.

YMMV

Jesus has both nature of God and nature of man, his nature of man was gotten from Maria, that illustates that his nature of man was gotten after the world was created. Before the creation of world, there is no man, there is only God and gods, so "our image" is image of God or gods, but not of Jesus.

I'm discussing in this post, it's helpful to me, I hope it's helpful to all of you also.
https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateACatholic/comments/6xk2qn/abraham_believed_in_both_god_and_many_gods/

Sounds like your mileage varies a lot.

So what do you mean by 'nature'?
What is the difference in God's nature and Jesus? I assume you disagree with Jesus in saying that his and his Father's was the same? Or maybe you discount the bible record in part or whole?

I don't know whether they are genuine or not, but they were a part of the ancient Hebrew's beliefs. Your Yaweh had a mate, and he also was apparently the chairman of a "council" of gods. Eventually the council and the mate were forgotten and he alone was worshipped. The language in the ancient writing couldn't be changed, however and so the plural remained.

How am I to respond to these claims without attribution?
I can only guess that you are refering to mention of 'gods' like Baal in the bible. Taken out of context, these are meaningless. If you really want to discuss them, give me a quote and source and I'd be happy to.

The bible is a collection of writings by men, some of whom were seriously flawed. Their writings are not useless as they tell us about the struggles of men to understand spiritual truths, both successful and failure. The mention of other 'gods' is confusing only if you do not understand this obvious fact and accept the the the idea of misguided people who insist it is the literal word of God.

Lead,
Here is a link to an article. I of course can't vouch for it's validity. I saw a program on National Geographic a while ago. It featured a female archeologist working in the Holy Land and putting together this mother-goddess idea. I have since read an article in the newspaper on the same subject. I'm sure there are better sources. If you are interested in this, this is a good starting point.
I'm not a scholar or an archeologist and for all I know the archeologists working on this idea are crackpots. But maybe not. I take a special delight in contradicting the Bible, and this suits me just fine!

[quotehttp://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1143&context=masters][/quote]
...here's a little more.

I'm not sure what The author is trying to say in this article. They are by turns supportive of the bible, mocking, whimsical, philosophical and materialistic. They seem at times to be saying, 'ahah!, it's all BS, look! those chosen people the Israelites worshipped a female God! along with a bunch of others!'.

But the snippet I copied above along with the rest perfectly reflects what I said in my earlier post. Yes, they at times worshipped other gods. Yes, that is part of the bible's story.

The author waxes poetic at the end and seems to imply that the wrong God won. We should be worshipping the Mother God. That is their perogative but it is a religious belief, not an academic conclusion based on archeology.

In the first article it mentions the "monotheistic reformers" of the 7th century B.C. possibly rewriting what Moses had written. Or possibly passing off their own writings as coming from Moses. The point was to show the masses that Moses was a staunch monotheist. What if he wasn't? It means what we know of that time is reformist propaganda rewriting history for their own ends.
It's hardly the only example of religious fanatics appropriating history for their own benefit.

This second source is a more scholarly examination that goes into more detail and again shows the variety of beliefs at that time. I'm not qualified to comment on the quality of their analysis but I agree with the characterization that men of the time worshipped various gods and had some curious beliefs (God of rain, etc).

I don't find any of it hard to believe, it in fact agrees with the bible record. My main reaction is kind of 'ho hum' in view of the even more absurd beliefs present today. Following the progress of a few of the most mind bending examples is kind of a hobby of mine.

The problem with this is the same as all similar conspiracy theories. All of them eventually get shot down because it is so hard to keep anything like that a secret. It's simply too big and involves too many people. There will always be an 'Edward Snowden' that will blow the cover off. If it was a conspiracy, it would be the first one of its size and kind to succeed for such a long time.

Not that there are not people who will believe them, my 3rd ex wife firmly believes with all of her heart that George Bush plotted the blowing up of the Twin Towers