TromboneChat

Quote from: drizabone on Nov 13, 2016, 11:46AM1) Selah: may be a musical direction.  Its interresting that when the septuagint was written they didn't know what it meant either, which indicates to me that the Psalms with Selah in were not recent at that time.

Yes, this is interesting. The authorship of the Septuagint took place over many years, beginning in the 3rd century BC, and by then the meaning was forgotten. Let us be cautious though about suggesting that that supports David as author... As we noted when going through Samuel and Kings, the historicity of pretty much nothing before the division of the kingdoms has been confirmed, despite a great deal of trying. And David, as given in the stories here, lived about 1000 BC, 800 years before the Septuagint was begun. We don't need 800 years to see the meaning of a word forgotten - sometimes a couple of generations will do it. It isn't a huge stretch of the imagination to think of the priests at some court in between that was keen on Yahweh writing these songs for devotional purposes - a king like Josiah, for example.

Quote from: drizabone on Nov 13, 2016, 11:55AMPsalm 4 text
I am sometimes struck with surprise at the apparent tones of authority in which Yahweh is addressed in the Bible. "Answer me when I call" is not a phrase I would use to a capricious being of ultimate power.

Quote from: drizabone on Nov 13, 2016, 11:55AM1) This and the previous Psalm seem to have been written for camp at night when the soldiers were worried about the enemy.  This is possibly written on the second night when he's fleeing from Absalom.

See my thoughts above on the sensibility of concluding that David definitely did write these. But we can leave that as a standing note on how to think about it (my noting it every time will be tiresome), and instead in much the same terms talk about the setting that the authors intended them to be read as coming from.

Quote from: drizabone on Nov 13, 2016, 12:07PMPsalm 5 text

1) David is very into emotional stuff song writer.  Things are morally black and white too.  The good are good and the bad are his enemies and are really bad.
2) interesting that v6 pretty much describes David in his dealings with Uriah
Yes, it's easy to forget as we move forwards through the material quite how morally ambiguous a character David was in this story. He strikes as a bit of a narcissist in general; not sure what you think of that?

Quote from: drizabone on Nov 13, 2016, 12:07PM3) the standard format seems to be working

Yay!

Quote from: drizabone on Nov 13, 2016, 12:16PMPsalm 6 text

Verse 5 intrigues me:
For in death there is no remembrance of you;
    in Sheol who will give you praise?

This is quite different to Christian theology. Yahweh is not remembered in the afterlife? Not heard that one before.

Quote from: MoominDave on Nov 14, 2016, 02:36AMEdit: And everyone got rather more than "Trust me, I know the maths". They already had access to the papers that demonstrated that it was just scaremongering. But of course people preferred to read the scary simple stories rather than bother to learn the knowledge required to verify things.

Mostly joking.  While there may have been papers proving that the micro black holes were not a problem they wwere not understandable by us plebs.  We had to take you on your word that it was ok.  You may not have noticed but lots of science is not understandable to the non-experts.  You can only communicate lots of it via illustrations and we have to take your word that they are right.

QuoteI didn't mean that a military man couldn't be a poet (not sure from your response if you've heard that from my post?) - rather I meant that the focus on national triumph to come seemed like a preoccupation of a mind that enjoyed matters military.

I did misunderstand you.  Fixed now.

Quote from: MoominDave on Nov 14, 2016, 03:13AMI am sometimes struck with surprise at the apparent tones of authority in which Yahweh is addressed in the Bible. "Answer me when I call" is not a phrase I would use to a capricious being of ultimate power.

Job and David?  They have both done this when they were in great need and under great stress.  I read it as a plea rather than a command.  But it could be either.

QuoteSee my thoughts above on the sensibility of concluding that David definitely did write these. But we can leave that as a standing note on how to think about it (my noting it every time will be tiresome), and instead in much the same terms talk about the setting that the authors intended them to be read as coming from.

Yep.  Just pointing out that Davidic authorship is not excluded.

QuoteVerse 5 intrigues me:
For in death there is no remembrance of you;
    in Sheol who will give you praise?

This is quite different to Christian theology. Yahweh is not remembered in the afterlife? Not heard that one before.

There is a minority view in Christianity that we are not inherently imortal and that when we die we are dead and not alive in any way.  The afterlife is gained through resurrection.  I think the majority position, that we have an immortal soul that continues after death is more a result of human imagination and Greek Platonism than the bible.

Quote from: drizabone on Nov 14, 2016, 12:29PMMostly joking.  While there may have been papers proving that the micro black holes were not a problem they wwere not understandable by us plebs.  We had to take you on your word that it was ok.  You may not have noticed but lots of science is not understandable to the non-experts.  You can only communicate lots of it via illustrations and we have to take your word that they are right.
Oh sure. And I'm aware that there's a certain unhelpful flippancy in telling people to go study enough to understand it if they want to comment on it. It's worth noting that the vast number of fields found within "Science" require a vast number of specialisms; and the further from one's field one travels, the closer to a layman one becomes. What one is able to carry across is the sceptical/curious mindset and familiarity with general applied mathematical concepts that allows one to learn routes to understanding in a new scientific field much more rapidly than the average. And it's also worth noting that the drop-off is rapid - as a plasma physicist I would not be able to explain the details of the particle physics of the LHC to you with any depth or clarity - in fact, for me, less so than for many of my colleagues, as my bachelor's degree was in mathematics, not physics.

So I sympathise! But the trouble with the black hole story was that it was nonsense, spun up by a press eager to simultaneously sell papers and talk down the 'snooty intellectuals in their ivory tower'. There is a worrying climate of anti-intellectualism around at the moment, and this was part of it.

Wikipedia has some write-up on it.

Quote from: drizabone on Nov 14, 2016, 12:37PMThere is a minority view in Christianity that we are not inherently imortal and that when we die we are dead and not alive in any way.  The afterlife is gained through resurrection.  I think the majority position, that we have an immortal soul that continues after death is more a result of human imagination and Greek Platonism than the bible.

Hmm, intriguing. So immortal life is a reward over nothingness for faithful behaviour. Makes a lot more sense motivationally. Do you have any interesting places to point me at on this?

Psalm 7 text

Highlights

 - David asks Yahweh for justice and support

Summary

 - David sings to Yahweh.
 - He places himself in Yahweh's protection and asks to be judged for his faults
 - He asks Yahweh to smite his enemies
 - He says that the wicked get what they deserve

Questions and Observations

1) It isn't clear who Cush the Benjaminite was, or what his words were that his psalm is headlined as a response to.
2) This psalm is a "shiggaion", a poem composed in an agitated mental state.
3) What goes around comes around. Job came around to this line of thinking eventually, though he argued forcefully against it for a long time.

Psalm 8 text

Highlights

 - Awe at what Yahweh has done

Summary

 - Awe at the heavens
 - Awe at his interest in something so unimportant as humans

Questions and Observations

1) The direction at the start "according to the Gittith". Apparently this was a type of harp. Does this make sense here?
2) We touch a regular biblical theme in this one that we've discussed before - that humans have dominion over animals and that this is divinely intended. There are interesting topics of animal rights lurking in that one, which we've also touched on before.

Psalm 9 text
Psalm 10 text

Highlights

 - An invocation to Yahweh asking for military support

Summary

These two included together because they form an acrostic in Hebrew between them, and have been treated as one psalm in the past.

Chapter 9
 - The author praises Yahweh
 - They talk of their military successes, attributing them to Yahweh
 - Yahweh shall afflict other nations, and their people will go to Sheol
 - Finishing with an invocation to Yahweh to actually do this stuff

Chapter 10
 - The author asks Yahweh why he lets bad things happen
 - They lament that the wicked prosper
 - They exhort Yahweh to strike the wicked down
 - They praise Yahweh some more

Questions and Observations

1) "According to Muth-labben" is a rather obscure direction.
2) Psalm 9 finishing with a request to perform the actions listed is interesting - not such a foregone conclusion, then?
3) ...and then the opening of Psalm 10 continues the same thought
4) The preoccupations of Job are quite prominent in these, aren't they?

Quote from: MoominDave on Nov 15, 2016, 02:45AMWikipedia has some write-up on it.

interesting

QuoteHmm, intriguing. So immortal life is a reward over nothingness for faithful behaviour. Makes a lot more sense motivationally. Do you have any interesting places to point me at on this?

Wikepedia has got a couple of articles
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_conditionalism

Its sometimes known as Annihilationism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annihilationism

John Stott, a fellow of Cambridge, was one of the few evangelicals that thought that it was right.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stott

Quote from: drizabone on Nov 14, 2016, 12:37PMThere is a minority view in Christianity that we are not inherently imortal and that when we die we are dead and not alive in any way.  The afterlife is gained through resurrection.  I think the majority position, that we have an immortal soul that continues after death is more a result of human imagination and Greek Platonism than the bible.

I'm not sure that is a minority view.  Well, let me check Pew.  Okay, I stand corrected. 
http://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/
So, Mainline Protestant is 14.7% of the population, and this is a mainline Protestant doctrine - Lutheran for example.  Since evangelicals are 25.5% and Catholics 20.8%, it is technically a minority view.

But my point is it is far from being fringe idea - it has been standard traditional doctrine.  Clergy would all know it.  Parishioners in the pews might not, more of their theology comes from movies and television than preaching. 

Quote from: timothy42b on Nov 15, 2016, 04:51AMI'm not sure that is a minority view.  Well, let me check Pew.  Okay, I stand corrected. 
http://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/
So, Mainline Protestant is 14.7% of the population, and this is a mainline Protestant doctrine - Lutheran for example.  Since evangelicals are 25.5% and Catholics 20.8%, it is technically a minority view.

But my point is it is far from being fringe idea - it has been standard traditional doctrine.  Clergy would all know it.  Parishioners in the pews might not, more of their theology comes from movies and television than preaching. 

That's interesting Tim, I had no idea that it was held by any larger christian groups. 

Psalm 11 text

Highlights

 - Trusting the Lord

Summary

 - David identifies the Lord as his refuge
 - He is incredulous at advice to fell the wicked
 - The Lord can see everything: he tests the righteous and opposes the wicked
 - The Lord is righteous, loves righteous deeds and will reward the righteous


Questions and Observations

1) I'm assuming that the heading re David is correct.
2) We see that the Lord tests the righteous here like he did in Job

Psalm 12 text

Highlights

 - The Lord is righteous and will protect us

Summary

 - where are all the good people? every one is wicked
 - may the Lord stop all lieing and boasting
 - the Lord will protect us from the wickedness that is all around us
 - the words of the Lord are pure


Questions and Observations

1) in this Psalm it is words that are wicked or pure.

Psalm 12 text

Highlights

 - David trusts God

Summary

 - David is feeling depressed and deserted by the Lord
 - he prays that the Lord will save him
 - he is confident that the Lord will save him and he because he trust's the Lord he is happy


Questions and Observations

1) David transitions from relying on his perceptions to trusting God.  His perceptions make him depressed because he's in a bad situation.  His trust makes him joyful as he remembers what the Lord has done for him.

Psalm 14 text

Highlights

 - Things are bad, but hold fast and they'll get better

Summary

 - The fool ignores Yahweh
 - Yahweh looks down and judges all wanting
 - Israel is in a shambles
 - Things will be better when Yahweh favours Israel again

Questions and Observations

1) Well-known first line, this one: "The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”"
2) Bit of a catch, this... Things are bad because Yahweh has withdrawn his support; Yahweh has withdrawn his support because of a lack of faith; things will only get better when faith returns; but there's no reason to have faith in support when it is absent.

Psalm 15 text

Highlights

 - Criteria for being holy

Summary

 - David asks who will live with Yahweh
 - Then he enumerates the good qualities that one needs to do so

Questions and Observations

1) Quite straightforward, this?

Psalm 16 text

Highlights

 - Expression of obedience to Yahweh

Summary

 - David pledges himself to Yahweh
 - Admires saints
 - Abhors followers of other gods
 - Considers options in light of Yahweh's precepts
 - Takes pleasure in knowing that he will not go to Sheol

Questions and Observations

1) "Miktam" as a description is obscure.
2) Saints... Have we heard this word mentioned before? Christianity is big on them, but I hadn't heard of the concept in Judaism. Of course, there are extra-holy people, such as Elijah. Is this what is meant?

Psalm 17 text

Highlights

 - David asks for Yahweh's military back-up

Summary

 - David asserts that he is pure despite being tested
 - Asks for Yahweh's response and support
 - His enemies cause him trouble, and he asks for Yahweh on his side

Questions and Observations

1) This is not the first psalm where David has urged Yahweh to tilt the military field on his behalf. Do Christians think that this actually happened, or simply that he took the belief that it would and used that to fortify himself?

Psalm 18 text

Highlights

 - David praises Yahweh after military victory

Summary

 - David sings of his deliverance from military danger
 - Things were tight, but he prevailed
 - And he puts it down to his faith in Yahweh
 - He describes striking phenomena - earthquake, flames, hail
 - He is extremely grateful

Questions and Observations

1) This psalm is also given in 2 Samuel 22.
2) Do we think that the phenomena described are to be taken as literal or metaphorical?

Btw, I'm away visiting the in-laws next week, so updates may be a little sporadic. I'll try to bring back some new Scottishisms for you, Martin.

Quote from: MoominDave on Nov 17, 2016, 06:25AMPsalm 15 text

Highlights

 - Criteria for being holy

Summary

 - David asks who will live with Yahweh
 - Then he enumerates the good qualities that one needs to do so

Questions and Observations

1) Quite straightforward, this?

And it doesn't warrant the listing of said good qualities in your review?

Quote from: ddickerson on Nov 17, 2016, 06:53AMAnd it doesn't warrant the listing of said good qualities in your review?

For you, Dusty, I'll quote the whole psalm:


1
O Lord, who shall sojourn in your tent?
    Who shall dwell on your holy hill?

2
He who walks blamelessly and does what is right
    and speaks truth in his heart;
3
who does not slander with his tongue
    and does no evil to his neighbor,
    nor takes up a reproach against his friend;
4
in whose eyes a vile person is despised,
    but who honors those who fear the Lord;
who swears to his own hurt and does not change;
5
who does not put out his money at interest
    and does not take a bribe against the innocent.
He who does these things shall never be moved.


which is nothing more (or less) than a simple list.

Quote from: MoominDave on Nov 17, 2016, 07:00AMFor you, Dusty, I'll quote the whole psalm:
Thank you!

Quote
1
O Lord, who shall sojourn in your tent?
    Who shall dwell on your holy hill?

I see this as who will actually be saved and go to Heaven. Holy Hill and the Lord's Tent.

Quote2
He who walks blamelessly and does what is right
    and speaks truth in his heart;

a - who walks blamelessly - Without blame, or innocent of wrongdoing with special emphasis on 'walks' as opposed to just talking. He who walks the talk, not just talk the talk.
b - again special emphasis on the verb 'does' what is right. Not do as I say, but do as I do.
c - then, after emphasizing how we should live, then we should speak the truth. But not speak the truth, but put the truth in our heart, so that we can speak from the heart, what is right.


Quote3
who does not slander with his tongue
    and does no evil to his neighbor,
    nor takes up a reproach against his friend;

a - One should not speak non truths about others. It is said that our tongue can be our biggest weapon to use against others, and here, the Lord rebukes that.
b - Not only should we not use our tongue as a weapon against others, but we should do no evil to our neighbors, and hear, I get the sense, that the use of neighbors, is someone who is close to us, people that we may be more intimate with, than strangers. IOW, it is worse to do evil against our close friends.
c - The good man does not, even when it is true, spread an ill report concerning his neighbour. He prefers to keep silence, and let the report die out

Quote4
in whose eyes a vile person is despised,
    but who honors those who fear the Lord;
who swears to his own hurt and does not change;
a - We should not celebrate a vile person. (Boy, our society is violating this in spades.)
b - But, we should honor those that live their lives that manifest themselves as true Christians.
c - He who takes an oath against himself, and makes no change. We should take making oaths as more serious as we usually do.


Quote5
who does not put out his money at interest
    and does not take a bribe against the innocent.
He who does these things shall never be moved.[/i]

a - In the bible version you quoted, 'interest' was used, but typically, it is defined as Usury. Usury, when one Israelite borrowed of another, was strictly forbidden by the Law. When the borrower was a foreigner, it was lawful, and no discredit can attach to the practice, so long as the rate of interest charged is moderate. So, I see this as one should not loan money with high interest, but in other times, when you see a person in need, it would be better to make a gift as opposed to making a loan.
b - Bribery. We should do what is right for the innocent, and not allow ourselves to be bribed into doing what we know we shouldn't do. (politics in general)
c - he who does these things make their heart grow hard, and makes them less likely to have a change in heart. "Change of Heart" is a phrase that we use a lot. Maybe it sprang from this verse?

Quotewhich is nothing more (or less) than a simple list.

Simple list? Maybe simple as a list, but very hard to live by.

Quote from: ddickerson on Nov 17, 2016, 07:38AMThank you!
Not a problem! Glad you have an interest.

Quote from: ddickerson on Nov 17, 2016, 07:38AMI see this as who will actually be saved and go to Heaven. Holy Hill and the Lord's Tent.
Certainly that's how modern Christianity of all flavours would be expected to view it. Judaism of the first millennium BC I suspect would have had similar concepts, though I'm not clear exactly what they were.

There are some excellent precepts in this psalm. Consider that I like what I read and find no cause for comment unless I make one below...

Quote from: ddickerson on Nov 17, 2016, 07:38AMa - who walks blamelessly - Without blame, or innocent of wrongdoing with special emphasis on 'walks' as opposed to just talking. He who walks the talk, not just talk the talk.
b - again special emphasis on the verb 'does' what is right. Not do as I say, but do as I do.
c - then, after emphasizing how we should live, then we should speak the truth. But not speak the truth, but put the truth in our heart, so that we can speak from the heart, what is right.


a - One should not speak non truths about others. It is said that our tongue can be our biggest weapon to use against others, and here, the Lord rebukes that.
b - Not only should we not use our tongue as a weapon against others, but we should do no evil to our neighbors, and hear, I get the sense, that the use of neighbors, is someone who is close to us, people that we may be more intimate with, than strangers. IOW, it is worse to do evil against our close friends.
Do you think so? My reading of 'Christian' attitudes has always been that one is expected to treat everyone with equal civility and respect. Cf. Jesus washing feet and so forth. But that is a long way in the future here - do you differentiate between attitudes within Judaism of this era and your version of modern Christianity?

Quote from: ddickerson on Nov 17, 2016, 07:38AMc - The good man does not, even when it is true, spread an ill report concerning his neighbour. He prefers to keep silence, and let the report die out
a - We should not celebrate a vile person. (Boy, our society is violating this in spades.)
I'll give you a hearty secular 'amen' on that one...

Quote from: ddickerson on Nov 17, 2016, 07:38AMb - But, we should honor those that live their lives that manifest themselves as true Christians.
Point of order - also those that "honour the Lord" within Judaism and Islam? Same deity.

Quote from: ddickerson on Nov 17, 2016, 07:38AMc - He who takes an oath against himself, and makes no change. We should take making oaths as more serious as we usually do.


a - In the bible version you quoted, 'interest' was used, but typically, it is defined as Usury. Usury, when one Israelite borrowed of another, was strictly forbidden by the Law. When the borrower was a foreigner, it was lawful, and no discredit can attach to the practice, so long as the rate of interest charged is moderate. So, I see this as one should not loan money with high interest, but in other times, when you see a person in need, it would be better to make a gift as opposed to making a loan.
b - Bribery. We should do what is right for the innocent, and not allow ourselves to be bribed into doing what we know we shouldn't do. (politics in general)
c - he who does these things make their heart grow hard, and makes them less likely to have a change in heart. "Change of Heart" is a phrase that we use a lot. Maybe it sprang from this verse?

Simple list? Maybe simple as a list, but very hard to live by.

Absolutely.

Quote from: MoominDave on Nov 17, 2016, 08:45AM
Point of order - also those that "honour the Lord" within Judaism and Islam? Same deity.


While Mohammed recognizes that his God was the same God, the one that Abraham worshipped, he falls short in his writings.

I won't go in to any detail, but a good education in Islam would reveal that there aren't much in common between Islam and Judaism and Christianity.

Just a small example:

Islam 'honours' those that kill others.

The Ten Commandments definitely does not support this.

While you're welcome to honour who you will, don't ascribe that same view to Psalm 15:1-5.

Quote from: ddickerson on Nov 17, 2016, 09:02AMWhile Mohammed recognizes that his God was the same God, the one that Abraham worshipped, he falls short in his writings.

I won't go in to any detail, but a good education in Islam would reveal that there aren't much in common between Islam and Judaism and Christianity.

Just a small example:

Islam 'honours' those that kill others.

The Ten Commandments definitely does not support this.

While you're welcome to honour who you will, don't ascribe that same view to Psalm 15:1-5.



Having taught a section on Islam for a number of years in my survey of Western religions, DD is correct that the claim that the 3 Abrahamic religions worship the same God needs to be highly qualified.

M apparently, as best as we can reconstruct, had come into contact with some very minority versions--some have called them the offbeat, declared heretical by the mainstream of Christianity-- of the Christian faith.  This can be seen in M's claim that Christians worship 3 gods, the Father Son and the Virgin Mary (Sura 5:73-75,116).  There are a number of others as well.  It is tied with M's claim that Abraham was actually a Muslim and that the Jews and the Christians have distorted the original monotheistic faith-- a staple in all versions of Islam

Classic Christian-- and I would assume Jewish, although I don't know the Jewish-Muslim debates-- responses to this is that M simply had a very faulty understanding of anything that resembles historic mainstream Christianity.

In other works the Muslim claim that the 3 worship the same God must be seen in the context of Muslim apologetics.

Christians, of any historic/orthodox variety would counter that the differences are far too great to make without sweeping qualifications.  I'm among those who believe that the claim basically dies with all of the qualifications.

Quote from: John the Theologian on Nov 17, 2016, 11:05AM

M apparently, as best as we can reconstruct, had come into contact with some very minority versions--some have called them the offbeat, declared heretical by the mainstream of Christianity-- of the Christian faith.  This can be seen in M's claim that Christians worship 3 gods, the Father Son and the Virgin Mary (Sura 5:73-75,116). 


Hmm.  Interesting.  You may have something there.  The concept of the Trinity is a late development.  I'm not sure how widespread it was by M's time, mid 500s.  The Arian-Athanasian debate ended in about 381, but this was a time without television or widespread literacy.  Would Christians in general have known about the Trinity, or would it have been a minority version?  According to my Muslim coworkers Muslims have always seen the Trinity as dangerously close to the edge of polytheism, and not the right edge. 

QuoteIt is tied with M's claim that Abraham was actually a Muslim and that the Jews and the Christians have distorted the original monotheistic faith-- a staple in all versions of Islam

Again my Muslim friends told me Abraham was the Patriarch of both, that the Jews are descended from his son Isaac born of his wife Sarah, and the Muslims are descended from his son Ishmael born of Haggai.  (If I'm remembering the names correctly.)  Where Christians distorted the story, according to them, was in the myth of God ordering the sacrifice of Isaac - they say He would never have done that. 

QuoteChristians, of any historic/orthodox variety would counter that the differences are far too great to make without sweeping qualifications.  I'm among those who believe that the claim basically dies with all of the qualifications.
I don't see qualifications here, but a denial.

Sure, there are a number of differences in the history and stories, but all three religions (some say four) worship a very similar monotheistic Deity. If these are not the same, then that is the same as saying the Christian God is correct and the other two do not exist, unless you believe there are three coexisting supreme beings, which sounds silly to me. 

Full disclosure, some of my thinking comes from reading Hans Kung, so if he's considered a wacko so be it. 

Quote from: timothy42b on Nov 17, 2016, 12:02PMWhere Christians distorted the story, according to them, was in the myth of God ordering the sacrifice of Isaac - they say He would never have done that. 

I think you got a little confused? The sacrificing of Isaac narrative was in the Old Testament book of Genesis, which was before Jesus was born.

QuoteSure, there are a number of differences in the history and stories, but all three religions (some say four) worship a very similar monotheistic Deity. If these are not the same, then that is the same as saying the Christian God is correct and the other two do not exist, unless you believe there are three coexisting supreme beings, which sounds silly to me. 


That would be a big 'if' for me anyway. I believe that there is only ONE God, and there are many viewpoints of who that God is. To make matters worse, those differing viewpoints occupy everything from the East to the West (not physically or geographically speaking).

Quote from: timothy42b on Nov 17, 2016, 12:02PMHmm.  Interesting.  You may have something there.  The concept of the Trinity is a late development.  I'm not sure how widespread it was by M's time, mid 500s.  The Arian-Athanasian debate ended in about 381, but this was a time without television or widespread literacy.  Would Christians in general have known about the Trinity, or would it have been a minority version?  According to my Muslim coworkers Muslims have always seen the Trinity as dangerously close to the edge of polytheism, and not the right edge. 
 

Again my Muslim friends told me Abraham was the Patriarch of both, that the Jews are descended from his son Isaac born of his wife Sarah, and the Muslims are descended from his son Ishmael born of Haggai.  (If I'm remembering the names correctly.)  Where Christians distorted the story, according to them, was in the myth of God ordering the sacrifice of Isaac - they say He would never have done that. 

I don't see qualifications here, but a denial.


Sure, there are a number of differences in the history and stories, but all three religions (some say four) worship a very similar monotheistic Deity. If these are not the same, then that is the same as saying the Christian God is correct and the other two do not exist, unless you believe there are three coexisting supreme beings, which sounds silly to me. 

Full disclosure, some of my thinking comes from reading Hans Kung, so if he's considered a wacko so be it. 

Best recommendation is to read Philip Jenkins' book Jesus Wars-- very accessible and from an academic at at a major American university-- on the Christological debates in the early centuries.  Jenkins clearly shows that there was vigorous debate with a multiplicity of nuances, but that ideas such as the Trinity and the deity of Christ are clearly not new on the scene in the 4-5th centuries.

Yes, all 3 are monotheistic, but the real issue is the nature of the one God, not the number of Gods.  Each of the 3 has its own unique take and simply saying that they are the same because they are all monotheistic is to overlook the large number of differences, especially between the distant God of Islam and the covenant making God Judaism and Christianity.  None of the Christological options discussed in Jenkin's book would likely satisfy any kind of traditional Muslim at all.

You need a 2nd opinion if all you've read is Kung.  I can give you some suggestions if you want them, but I won't bother if you really aren't interested.

Here's the link to Jenkins:

https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Wars-Patriarchs-Emperors-Christians/dp/0061768936/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8

Quote from: John the Theologian on Nov 17, 2016, 01:23PMBest recommendation is to read Philip Jenkins' book Jesus Wars-- very accessible and from an academic at at a major American university-- on the Christological debates in the early centuries.  Jenkins clearly shows that there was vigorous debate with a multiplicity of nuances, but that ideas such as the Trinity and the deity of Christ are clearly not new on the scene in the 4-5th centuries.

Yes, all 3 are monotheistic, but the real issue is the nature of the one God, not the number of Gods.  Each of the 3 has its own unique take and simply saying that they are the same because they are all monotheistic is to overlook the large number of differences, especially between the distant God of Islam and the covenant making God Judaism and Christianity.  None of the Christological options discussed in Jenkin's book would likely satisfy any kind of traditional Muslim at all.

I have read Jenkins but it was several years ago and many books since, I don't really have a clear memory.  I'll see if it's still lying around. 

The nature of God has always been an issue, even within Christianity.  Was it Marcion or Origen?  One of those i think, who denied that the old testament God could possibly be the same as the NT one. 

Quote from: MoominDave on Nov 17, 2016, 06:22AM2) Bit of a catch, this... Things are bad because Yahweh has withdrawn his support; Yahweh has withdrawn his support because of a lack of faith; things will only get better when faith returns; but there's no reason to have faith in support when it is absent.

I read it saying that things are bad because the people are foolish and have rejected God. The psalmist prays for God to save Israel so that things will be better.

Incidentally Paul quotes from this Psalm in Romans 3

Quote from: MoominDave on Nov 17, 2016, 06:29AM - Takes pleasure in knowing that he will not go to Sheol

the NT apostles thought that this passage was primarily about Jesus see Acts 2:27, Acts 13:35

QuoteQuestions and Observations

2) Saints... Have we heard this word mentioned before? Christianity is big on them, but I hadn't heard of the concept in Judaism. Of course, there are extra-holy people, such as Elijah. Is this what is meant?

soul is used in the OT.  FYI you can find where words are used in the bible by doing a search in the box at the top of the bible gateway page - where the book and chapter normally is.

Soul, especially in the OT really just means life, being, creature, eg Gen 2:7 is the first use in the bible.  Everyone is a soul its not something that is restricted to "special" people.

So the Psalmist was just saying that God would not leave him in sheol.

Quote from: MoominDave on Nov 17, 2016, 06:33AM1) This is not the first psalm where David has urged Yahweh to tilt the military field on his behalf. Do Christians think that this actually happened, or simply that he took the belief that it would and used that to fortify himself?

I'm not sure about Tim's mainstream denominations, but us conservatives think that God routinely intervened in OT battles.  Remember Exodus, Joshua, Judges ...

I don't think it correct logic to conclude that because God did it back in the day, that he will support your favourite army nowadays though.

Quote from: MoominDave on Nov 17, 2016, 06:39AM2) Do we think that the phenomena described are to be taken as literal or metaphorical?

we think this text is redolent with metaphor.  God is my rock, the cords of death, the wings of the wind ...  very poetic, but you get the picture.

So its unlikely that God breathed out fire etc.

Its interesting that nowhere in Davids story do we read of God zooming in like a LoTR dragon or a hobit on a giant eagle to wipe out the opposing army.  David was delivered by more mundane events. 

So assuming that the bible is God's word then I think it is talking about how God works in the background to achieve supernatural ends: using Philistine raids, hiding in caves ...

God was David's rock and refuge concealing his glory to protect David, but ready to relaease his power at the prayer of his servant.

QuoteBtw, I'm away visiting the in-laws next week, so updates may be a little sporadic. I'll try to bring back some new Scottishisms for you, Martin.

I look forward to them with bated breathe.  I'll be away the week after, driving around the worlds largest sand island.  Fraser Island Its amazing.

Hi Dusty,

great contribution.  Look forward to some more.

Martin

Psalm 19 text

Highlights

 - 3 voices witness to the Lord

Summary

 - the voice of the created order declares the glory of the Lord who created.
   - it pours out speech but there is not speech or words
 - the voice of the word is perfect: whole, trustworthy, pure, enduring, precious
 - the voice of the sinner


Questions and Observations

1) did you notice the paradox in the first section, the creation declaring, but not having a voice. what do you think is the point of this?
2) I reckon it means that natural revelation can tell us that God is great and glorious but can't give us details.  Creation is sometimes
3) But the word gives us the details and is reliable and true.
4) And the sinner is warned, enlightened and enriched

Quote from: drizabone on Nov 17, 2016, 07:29PM

Its interesting that nowhere in Davids story do we read of God zooming in like a LoTR dragon or a hobit on a giant eagle to wipe out the opposing army.  David was delivered by more mundane events. 

So assuming that the bible is God's word then I think it is talking about how God works in the background to achieve supernatural ends: using Philistine raids, hiding in caves ...


That is one interpretation, but I think if you look beyond this particular story you'll see a lot of examples of direct supernatural intervention. 

Caveat:  the Psalms are poetry and music, with poetic license and flowery language - it is risky to use them too literally. 

But think back to Joshua's long day, where the sun and moon stopped during a battle, or the Plagues of Moses, the parting of the sea, etc.  Lots of times miracles WERE miracles, to win a battle for God's Chosen People. 

As to mainstream denominations, I dunno.  I have a sense of what they think but I can't back it up.  But here's my opinion:  they believe it happened, that God did intervene.  But they avoid dwelling on it or even mentioning it too often, because it implies a legitimacy to early Judaism that makes them a bit nervous. 

Quote from: ddickerson on Nov 17, 2016, 12:30PMI think you got a little confused? The sacrificing of Isaac narrative was in the Old Testament book of Genesis, which was before Jesus was born.
So you don't believe in the trinity ... ?

Quote from: Baron von Bone on Nov 18, 2016, 05:05AMSo you don't believe in the trinity ... ?

I read it the wrong way when I made that post. MyBad.

However, I've never been taught that it was a myth. I've never read any Christian writings making that claim either, so I don't know what sources you're is using.

The answer to your question is that I do believe in the Holy Trinity.

Quote from: ddickerson on Nov 18, 2016, 06:57AM

However, I've never been taught that it was a myth. I've never read any Christian writings making that claim either, so I don't know what sources Tim is using.



The Bible story of Abraham being ordered to sacrifice Isaac has always been a bit problematic.  Would a just God really do that?  Would a decent parent really agree so readily? 

There are a variety of answers especially from apologists:  it was really about trusting God but Isaac was never at risk; God never intended Abraham to do what He had just ordered him to; etc. 

The Muslim coworker I had conversations with had a much simpler explanation: two versions of the story, and the Christians had the wrong version.  God wouldn't have and didn't order something so reprehensible. 

So, yeah, my source is a personal conversation, and is not Christian in nature.  Hope that unconfuses it a bit. 

Quote from: timothy42b on Nov 18, 2016, 07:32AMThe Bible story of Abraham being ordered to sacrifice Isaac has always been a bit problematic.  Would a just God really do that?  Would a decent parent really agree so readily? 

There are a variety of answers especially from apologists:  it was really about trusting God but Isaac was never at risk; God never intended Abraham to do what He had just ordered him to; etc. 

The Muslim coworker I had conversations with had a much simpler explanation: two versions of the story, and the Christians had the wrong version.  God wouldn't have and didn't order something so reprehensible. 

So, yeah, my source is a personal conversation, and is not Christian in nature.  Hope that unconfuses it a bit. 

The NT addresses that incident:

Hebrews 11:17-19(NIV)

17 By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had embraced the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son,
18 even though God had said to him, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.”
19 Abraham reasoned that God could even raise the dead, and so in a manner of speaking he did receive Isaac back from death.


Hebrews 11 is famous for it's illustrations of Faith. It's clear that the Christians saw this not as a myth, but an example of Faith. If they believed that it was a 'myth', then it wouldn't qualify to be an example of faith. In fact, it would manifest a non-faith in the writings of the Old Testament. At least in the narration of Abraham's life.

Quote from: ddickerson on Nov 17, 2016, 09:02AMWhile Mohammed recognizes that his God was the same God, the one that Abraham worshipped, he falls short in his writings.

I won't go in to any detail, but a good education in Islam would reveal that there aren't much in common between Islam and Judaism and Christianity.

Just a small example:

Islam 'honours' those that kill others.
Hoooo, this is a contentious assertion and a half. Here's some stuff on why so-called 'honour killings' are utterly unislamic. If you are talking about war, Christianity should take the mote out of its own eye before criticising, given its long and bloody history - and some would argue present. There is an awful lot more to Christianity than the ten commandments... Just as there is an awful lot more to Islam than what extremists do.

To be honest, I'm not really interested in pursuing this as an argumental sidetrack; little profit in it, and we have a thread purpose to pursue in the meantime. But the lack of perspective shown badly needed to be highlighted.

Quote from: ddickerson on Nov 17, 2016, 09:02AMThe Ten Commandments definitely does not support this.

While you're welcome to honour who you will, don't ascribe that same view to Psalm 15:1-5.

All I asked was whether non-Christians honouring the same deity (and we can leave Islam out of it if you like for now, but the god of Judaism is unarguably the same entity) also qualified. In fact, rereading Psalm 15, I see now that there isn't even a stipulation that one must worship this deity to get in. The only mention of him is "who honors those who fear the Lord". So simply treating believers with respect would do it if these were the sole criteria.

I would say that this list would be treated in Christianity as a necessary but not a sufficient condition to be accepted.

Note that, in my worldview, adhering to any particular faith is nothing to be admired. Rather it is simply an attribute of a person's character, which may mean any one of a number of things.

Martin, I think your last summary was for Psalm 19, despite being labelled Psalm 20?

Psalm 20 text

Highlights

 - An expression of hope in faith

Summary

 - Those that are faithful hope to be treated well by Yahweh
 - They trust that he will take care of them

Questions and Observations

1) What does the closing "O Lord, save the king!" mean? In a psalm supposedly written by David, is this talking about David?

Quote from: drizabone on Nov 18, 2016, 02:15AMPsalm 19 text
1) did you notice the paradox in the first section, the creation declaring, but not having a voice. what do you think is the point of this?
I've adjusted the link in the quote to 19 from 20, btw.

I didn't read it quite like that. It says "There is no speech, nor are there words, whose voice is not heard". So if there is speech, then it is heard. I think the psalmist is saying that the world proclaims the deity by its very existence. Back in metaphorland again.

Quote from: MoominDave on Nov 18, 2016, 08:08AMHoooo, this is a contentious assertion and a half.  why so-called 'honour killings' are utterly unislamic. If you are talking about war, Christianity should take the mote out of its own eye before criticising, given its long and bloody history - and some would argue present. There is an awful lot more to Christianity than the ten commandments... Just as there is an awful lot more to Islam than what extremists do.


Islam has a commandment that says "thou shalt not kill, except when it's justified."
The Ten Commandments say do not kill, but modern Christians seem very comfortable with war, self defense, capital punishment, etc.  

They aren't that dissimilar - there are analogues to all Ten of the Commandments in the Qu-ran, and probably to most of the 624.  

I would agree that there are differences in standards of behavior between the four Abrahamic religion.  But they share rather similar attitudes toward God (at least, to God the Father) and have a common history with founders, patriarchs, etc.  

Quote from: MoominDave on Nov 18, 2016, 08:08AMBut the lack of perspective shown badly needed to be highlighted.

Certainly, that is why I pointed it out to you.

QuoteThe only mention of him is "who honors those who fear the Lord". So simply treating believers with respect would do it if these were the sole criteria.

"Fear the Lord" can be confusing, because most of us interpret "fear" differently than what is meant here. People that have entered into a relationship with Our Lord do Fear the Lord, and one can conclude that one means the other. No one would expect a non believer to be one who Honours and Fears the Lord in the way it was meant. So, it's not the open door you think it is.

QuoteNote that, in my worldview, adhering to any particular faith is nothing to be admired. Rather it is simply an attribute of a person's character, which may mean any one of a number of things.

You're welcome to believe that, but you realize that you're being judgmental by saying that such a person is a person not to be admired?

OK, we can let this go because I don't want to derail what you guys are doing.

Keep up the good work!

Accidentally made a redundant post or something. Sorry MyBad.

Quote from: drizabone on Nov 18, 2016, 02:15AMPsalm 20 text

Summary

 - the voice of the created order declares the glory of the Lord who created.
   - it pours out speech but there is not speech or words

"1 The heavens declare the glory of God;
    the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
2 Day after day they pour forth speech;
    night after night they reveal knowledge.
3 They have no speech, they use no words;
    no sound is heard from them.
4 Yet their voice goes out into all the earth,
    their words to the ends of the world."

This is a great scriptural reference to Creation! This reminds the believer to worship the Creator, not the creation. Something that our tree loving souls should do some soul searching over.

It also speaks to the critics that say, what if you've never been exposed to the Bible, Old or New, and lived somewhere where no one ever introduced you to the Faith, shouldn't they be saved too?

This scripture says that even though you may have never heard, or read the Word, His creation shouts His Presence! To the ends of the World! The Heavens declare the Glory of the Lord!


Quote - the voice of the word is perfect: whole, trustworthy, pure, enduring, precious

"The law of the Lord is perfect,
    refreshing the soul."

Can't pass this reference up without commenting that the Word is the Word of God, unerring, infallible, or "Perfect".


Quote - the voice of the sinner

"11 By them your servant is warned;
    in keeping them there is great reward.
12 But who can discern their own errors?
    Forgive my hidden faults.
13 Keep your servant also from willful sins;
    may they not rule over me.
Then I will be blameless,
    innocent of great transgression.
"
A great passage that describes that we should recognize that we are sinners. None of us are perfect. Recognizing this is the start. Repent: The Perfect response is to ask for forgiveness, and to help us from continuing in our willful sins. Especially those that we recognize as sins, but we don't change. Asking God to help us break our bonds to our sins, so that they don't rule over me.

Then. That's a big word. Then, after we Repent, I will be blameless and innocent.

I would also like to point out that this scripture is the OT version for Salvation.

 

Quote from: timothy42b on Nov 18, 2016, 04:41AMThat is one interpretation, but I think if you look beyond this particular story you'll see a lot of examples of direct supernatural intervention. 

I agree that God had intervened spectacularly in other situations and I was thinking of that when I wrote, but didn't articulate it.  Sometimes God shows off and gives us something really spectacular: but not very often.  Most of the time he works in the background using mundane means to achieve his purposes. I think that this psalm is about God working in the background but using metaphors that paint him working spectacularly in the foreground.  I thunj he does this to tell us that he thinks the background action is just as supernatural as the foreground action.

Quote from: drizabone on Nov 18, 2016, 12:08PM I thunj he does this to tell us that he thinks the background action is just as supernatural as the foreground action.

Slippery slope though, don't you think?

Quote from: MoominDave on Nov 18, 2016, 08:19AMMartin, I think your last summary was for Psalm 19, despite being labelled Psalm 20?

oops. thanks.  fixed

QuotePsalm 20 text

Highlights

 - An expression of hope in faith

excuse me for being pedantic but faith by itself is not the object of their prayers, it's the Lord.  So I would say its an expression of hope or faith in the Lord.

Quote1) What does the closing "O Lord, save the king!" mean? In a psalm supposedly written by David, is this talking about David?

I think that this Psalm is written to be said by different voices. I think this because of the way different pronouns are used in the Psalm: in v1-4 its you, in 5 its we, 6 is I and then in 7-9 its we.  We do this in church sometimes with prayers and songs.  The closing is in a we section so it sounds like all the congregation is to pray for the king.  The Psalm is ascribed to David indicating that he is the author.

Quote from: timothy42b on Nov 18, 2016, 12:29PMSlippery slope though, don't you think?

No.  But I don't see what the problem you think I might be sliding towards is.  What is it?