I have no idea if Abraham really existed or not. It's quite immaterial if he lived or not. He is the achtype of a man who would be "rigtheous." Like Job, or Jonah, he serves a purpose in the devlopment of Judaism and through Judaism of Christianity and Islam. He give it legitimacy of sorts.
I call him "righteous" because that's how his character is presented in the Bible. No different than Job.
Yes, any Godly work for any Godly reason. The verse says: Matt 12:12 : How much more valuable is a man than a sheep! Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath."
So, does that means we can do a "little" on the Sabbath for creatures of "little value?" I think you are missing the point, FK: Jesus here is telling the Jews they got the whole thing wrong. He is redefining what Moses wrote. He is telling them that 1300 years of Judaism had it all wrong and that it's okay to do work on a Sabbath, even though the OT Bible says it isn't.
He is introducing ther new mindset. One that is not steeped into rules but one that is based on the heart, on mercy, and not the letter of the Law.
Where does that come from??? The context was a man with a shriveled hand and its healing
Mark 3:4 and Luke 6:9
And, it would make perfect sense if the Church taught that God is simple as a Being...In Apostolic theology I see no concept of the totality of scripture at all. I see only the concept of hierarchy of scripture determined by a hierarchy of men.
As St. John of Damascus, the last of the Desert Fathers, wrotes in his Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith," Ch. IV
For how could that possess body which is infinite, and boundless, and formless, and intangible and invisible, in short, simple and not compound? How could that be immutable which is circumscribed and subject to passion? And how could that be passionless which is composed of elements and is resolved again into them?
For combination is the beginning of conflict, and conflict of separation, and separation of dissolution, and dissolution is altogether foreign to God."
Of course, the Refomed theology still has eons of years to evolve into a theological faith and understand why the Church teaches God is simple, indivisible, and incomprehensible. The Reformed are still on the Zeus-like level of deity, no offese meant. It's like comparing the story of the Red Riding Hood with Shakespeare, or Grimm's Fairytales with Tolstoy, if that close.
But doesn't this lay out the same foundation for the OT (Christian) God as for say, the Greek gods, i.e. myth? Using this approach, I don't see how following the one and only God is any better than following the Greek gods. Lots of men blindly believed in and wrote about them too.
[Re: Matt. 12:12] I think you are missing the point, FK: Jesus here is telling the Jews they got the whole thing wrong. He is redefining what Moses wrote. He is telling them that 1300 years of Judaism had it all wrong and that it's okay to do work on a Sabbath, even though the OT Bible says it isn't.
The OT wasn't wrong. Properly interpreted it teaches that God is to be honored on the Sabbath. Doing good honors God. Declaring the OT wrong countermands what Jesus taught.
As St. John of Damascus, the last of the Desert Fathers, wrote in his Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith," Ch. IV ...... "But what He [God] is in His essence anti nature is absolutely incomprehensible and unknowable. For it is evident that He is incorporeal. For how could that possess body which is infinite, and boundless, and formless, and intangible and invisible, in short, simple and not compound? How could that be immutable which is circumscribed and subject to passion? And how could that be passionless which is composed of elements and is resolved again into them? ......"
All this says to me is how could God be God if He was subject to human frailty. I would agree with that. It seems that on the one hand the Orthodox position is that we can know nothing of the essence of God, but on the other hand we CAN KNOW that His essence is both mono-faceted AND definable as "love"???