Yes, he surely was linked to specific groups.

This is "globalize the intifada" in action.

So 14,000 Palestinian babies did not die in the past 48 hrs. Two Israeli embassy aides were shot and killed. Blood libels and demonization have consequences.

Three major groups could have done it: the Far right, the far left, and the Islamists. The culprit is from the far left—horseshoe theory at its finest.

*according to the UN aid chief, Tom Fletcher. — Punshhh

The UN retracted its latest blood libel against the Jewish state.

Not that it matters, as the news has already spread like wildfire. Since when has truth mattered to the "pro-Palestine" movement? Lies serve a purpose. Spout enough of them and you're unstoppable.

What will be next? Israelis drinking the blood of Palestinian children? Harvesting their organs to use for rituals? Possibilities are endless.

I know better than to try to convert Banno.

Why what?

I agree with you that the primary interpretation lauds Abraham's faith.

We should remember that in this story, God promises Abraham progeny through Isaac. Some commentators reason that if the sacrifice was allowed to take place, Abraham expected God to resurrect Isaac. God had already performed miracles for Abraham.

I was reading William Whiston's dissertation on this topic today (written around 1737), and he notes that in his day, Abraham's actions were often viewed unfavorably, lamenting the loss of religious virtue in his era.

If Abraham would have killed Isaac and burned him as an offering to God and that account was consistly interpreted as a prohibition against child sacrifice — Hanover

What are the grounds for such an interpretation? Did God step in and condemn it? Did something happen to Abraham? Interpretation isn't endlessly open. Some interpretations are plausible, others are not.

I'm not sure why you would disregard authorial intent. Try understanding the Levitical sacrifice from a modern lens. You can't do it. You need to try to examine things from the POV of the ancients. Of course, we could come up with flawed interpretations, but those interpretations would be subject to scrutiny throughout the process of biblical analysis.

I wish that would just be said as opposed to explaining what the right way of interpreting should have been had the interpreters just have been better literalists. — Hanover

Literal is only one mode of biblical interpretation. See PARDES. We can make a literal interpretation, but another could fit better.

I checked out Cline's 1177. He does not claim that the Israelites were the Sea People. He associates the Sea People with the Philistines.

Was there ever any community of Israelites in Egypt? So no Joseph then?

If the Israelites were the Sea People, then why did they need to invent a story about Egypt? They have their own history. Why not just tell their own story of arriving by sea instead of passing down a complete fabrication?

I would agree that there is no evidence of a large-scale Exodus, as described in the Hebrew Bible, where millions of people are said to have escaped Egypt. Numbers in ancient sources are notoriously unreliable.

The end of the Bronze Age. — frank

So around 1500-1200 BC? The Merneptah Stele mentions Israel in ~1208 BC, but I place the Exodus in the 13th century BC. One could put the Exodus earlier, around the 15th century BC. Sounds like Dewrell believes in an earlier Exodus because when I hear "late bronze age" I think slavery.

the deep history of the Israelites — frank

Which period is he referring to?

This would have been around the reign of King Ahaz. — frank

Plausible. We know that by the time of the Second Temple era, the practice had ceased among the Jews.

This moral question has been resolved, but in Abraham's day (2000 BC?), it wasn't.

What do you think? Should we allow the sacrifice of willing, compliant adults? — Banno

This is a political question, but my answer would be no. Admittedly, my perspective is shaped by my theology, and I can understand how others might disagree.

You might think that a father trussing up his son and holding a knife to his throat is fine if the child gives consent, but both I and the law disagree. — Banno

Would it be ok if Isaac were an adult? What's the issue with an adult consenting to be a human sacrifice?

That is, you can't "murder" an animal, but it is forbidden to kill an animal for the purposes of causing it suffering. — Hanover

Yes, killing animals is only acceptable for food, sacrifice, and necessity, as I understand it. Initially, I held Genesis 9:5 as demanding an accounting for the unnecessary slaughter of animals, but I was wrong. Interestingly, it holds the animal accountable for the shedding of human blood.

I'm not saying the distinction isn't relevant, but I do think that human sacrifice is a form of retzach, among other things. — Hanover

Yes, one is forbidden to offer their seed to Molech. Abraham pre-dates these firm commandments. Human sacrifice may have been defensible in Abraham's day. Sacrifice is established as a valid institution; the question is its proper boundaries.

There is not a reasonable interpretation that it is supportive of human sacrifice. — Hanover

Agree, although Dan McClellan argues that the earliest layers of the Hebrew Bible are supportive of human sacrifice. I mention this because McClellan is prominent in biblical scholarship today.

Since I see the story as metaphor, what is it that is added by concentrating on Isaac's complicity? — Hanover

Make it more palatable to Banno. Isaac's complicity in the matter would be a morally relevant factor for many secular moral theorists.

I don't understand this comment. Are you suggesting that ritual sacrifice by wililng participants is ok? — Hanover

No, I am merely distinguishing between murder and the institution of sacrifice. God lets us know very early on that murder (including the murder of animals) is wrong. Yet animal sacrifices were offered throughout the Second Temple era and were offered by many of the forefathers. Giving an animal as a sacrifice is not the same as murdering it, even though the animal is slaughtered in both.

there's also good argument Isaac was in his 30s at the time, meaning he wasn't even a child. — Hanover

This strengthens the idea that Isaac was a willing participant.

But generally I read the comment your responded to more innocuously, as in it was indicating that child murder is condemnable under any scenario, which I'd agree to. — Hanover

I read Banno as referencing the Akedah story as he has often done, and equating the institution of sacrifice with murder.

A non sequitur. I will happily judge that a faith sufficient to murder a child is not a good faith. — Banno

It's not murder, it's ritual sacrifice. Nothing in the text suggests Isaac resisted or didn't cooperate. Many interpretations portray him as a willing participant.

If you're ever genuinely interested in grappling with the concept of God, the Bible is how you do it. Not internet debates.

I'm not trying to convert an atheist. I'm interested in how you all think, and the differences could lead to an interesting dialogue. For example, if we were to start with, e.g., Ezra-Nehemiah and work backwards, when would the atheists start taking issue? Now that would be interesting. It could expose some interesting points of difference.

That's fair and all, but on the other hand, why the need for Jesus if "simul iustus et peccator" is all one anticipates; snow-covered dung? — Leontiskos

Apparently, "simul iustus et peccator" is originally an Augustinian concept. Anyway, I'm not the one to be asking about the need for Jesus. I enjoy Luther's insights on humanity and the Bible, but when it comes to Jesus, he loses me completely. I understand justification by God's grace; that's about as far as I get.

All we have is the information that a 13th king is listed. It's unconfirmed. — frank

I totally get that it's unconfirmed, but perhaps we could say that the sourcebook has some degree of credibility to it?

If it's you claiming the kings list is correct, yes, it's a baseless assertion. — frank

I'm not claiming this. Let's say we have 12 kings confirmed in chronological order. The question is whether King 13 exists. Do we have reason to believe so? Does the claim in the book count for anything?

Let me rephrase:

We can confirm the list dating back, e.g., 500 years, but the evidence becomes scarce after that. How ought we view claims of kingship in the book after the evidence stops? Would it be fair to view them as baseless assertions?

We can be more certain of the existence of some historical figures than others.

Wouldn't you agree that there are stronger and weaker forms of evidence? The existence of some biblical figures is established, while for others, the evidence outside the Bible is limited.

A few questions for the atheists:

- Let's say you have a book that contains information on an ancient people. It contains a list of rulers dating back 1000 years. We can confirm the list dating back 500 years, but the evidence starts to become less reliable after that. Does the record in the book count for anything, or would we consider the claims in the books to be baseless beyond 500 years?

-Let's say you were up with Moses on Mount Sinai. What would need to transpire for you to become a believer?

How are you finding The Lonely Man of Faith? Would you recommend it?

How are you finding the commentary? Who are the major commentators? I've never read Artscrolls or JPS. My primary source on the Tanakh is Robert Alter's translation, which primarily draws on academic biblical scholarship.

Martin Luther considered removing the book of James from the New Testament, based in large part on passages such as this which went against the grain of his "sola fide": — Leontiskos

I have a certain degree of sympathy for Luther's ideas. If one's Christianity consists primarily in going around and doing good deeds to elevate one's spiritual status, why not just be a Jew (or a Muslim?) Why the need for Jesus? You have your deeds.

Not a good man, but a man who delineated firmly between religious traditions to attempt to reform and preserve his own. A sharp mind.

The Lonely Man of Faith by Joseph Soloveithik. A dicussion of spiritual man versus obedient man. Interesting dichotomy.

Deuteronomy - The JPS Torah Commentary - by Yahweh Almighty. A retellling of a tale of a people. Questionable fact wise. — Hanover

Sounds interesting. I'd be interested to hear more about these, especially the JPS commentary. I take it that it draws from thinkers like Rashi and Nachmanides, as well as the Talmudic rabbis and others?

but to talk that takes some particular holy book as authoritative. — Banno

Would you consider other ancient literature as non-authoritative? What makes literature authoritative for you?

the assumption is that the bible, or some assumedly authoritative interpretation of it, should be accepted as evidence, and yet no one seems to be able to say why. — Janus

The Bible frequently records actual historical events. Much of the Old Testament is true ancient history and is supported by other ancient sources outside the Bible. Obviously, the further back we go, the less is established. As for the New Testament, Jesus surely had a ministry, so the broad outlines of it describe something factual.

I have read Buber on this in part. I tend to think he makes too much of the difference, but it would be worth discussing. Is the text publicly available? — Leontiskos

Not sure. I only have a superficial understanding of his work on this topic.

I don't think Buber would say that pistis is strictly Christian and emunah is purely Jewish. The Christian can have emunah. The question for me is the role of pistis in Judaism, which would relate to the historical Jesus.

Martin Buber writes of two types of faith:

The Hebrew Emunah, which involves an I-Thou/personal relation between human and the divine. E.g. Abraham has emunah in God.

The Greek pistis, which involves an I-It/impersonal relation. For example, Christians have pistis in Jesus' resurrection.

It would be beneficial to the discussion to clarify these points.

Surely, the US has had blood on its hands since its very inception. All countries have blood on their hands. Perhaps all countries are just tainted to their essence like some version of original sin.

Just finished:

Cassius Dio - Books 60-70 (Claudius through Hadrian).

Currently Reading:

Josephus - Against Apion (my final Josephus work in Whiston's translation.)

On deck:

Marcus Aurelius - Meditations
Leviticus as Literature - Mary Douglas (a key work on Leviticus.)

Similarly, the fixing of the Jewish and Christian Canons involved a lot of appeals to evidence and discursive justification. — Count Timothy von Icarus

It's interesting to me how canons shape religions. The early rabbis excluded texts like I and II Maccabees, but the Church found them acceptable. I can think of several plausible reasons for rabbinic exclusion. One would be the legacy of the Hasmoneans, who persecuted (but also cooperated with) the Pharisees. Another might be that the militarism and martyrdom of these texts didn't fit well with the destruction wrought by the two Jewish-Roman wars and Bar Kokhba spurred by Jewish messianism. It's fine to glorify violence and military struggle against a floundering Seleucid empire, not so much with the Romans. The Hasmoneans have an ambiguous legacy today among Jews.

Or the reason for exclusion could have just been that the books were written late, but so was much of Daniel.

Esther was hotly debated for canon among the Jews. Jewish Esther is a considerably different text from Septuagint Esther; in ours, there is no mention of the divine, and she is a less pious figure than Greek Esther. They're considerably different compositions.

Why does appearance matter? If the concern is the safety and well being of cisgender women, and if you say that trans women who pass as biological women ought use women's bathrooms, then there's the implicit claim that trans women who pass as biological women are less likely to sexually assault cisgender women in women's bathrooms than trans women who don't pass as biological women. Is there any basis behind such a claim? — Michael

Appearance matters. It reflects how one spends one's time and one's values. If the appearance doesn't match the claim, the claimant is not credible. I don't make the rules.

Trans women who don't pass might not even be on HRT. If a trans woman isn't on HRT, there is no way "she" should be using the women's bathroom. Even if a trans woman is early in her transition, she's likely essentially indistinguishable from a regular guy and should therefore not be using the women's restroom. It's those people who are mid-transition where things get dicey.

Also, trans women who have been on HRT for a while likely have very low T and a low sex drive. They are also weaker. So they should be less of a danger. It's also terrible PR for the trans movement.

On balance, I would place greater trust and safety in a woman who has been transitioning for years versus one who has just begun their transition for many reasons.

If a man decides to start using women's spaces, is anyone even allowed to confront him in your view? What is the proper response if he claims to be trans but just hasn't started transitioning?

Who gets to decide whether or not someone is passing? — Michael

It can be difficult. Ambiguity is inherent to gender transition; it is a process, not an immediate switch from A to B.

Yet just because dusk and twilight exist doesn't mean there's no such thing as day and night.

And yes, unisex toilets are one way out of this difficulty.

No. Trans people should generally strive to act in ways that facilitate social cohesion and integration. A very passable trans woman (e.g., Blaire White) belongs in a women's restroom even with male genitalia.