Cardinal Koch: "Israel Remains the Chosen People"

[oao]

The victim card is wore out, Pasta . . get a new deck . .

I guess that's what passes for informed and reasoned around here.

I reiterate: truth is inconvenient, I know, but we learned what happens if we stop reminding of it.

[oao]

Today most Jews couldn't care less. But in the past it was a question of life and death...

That's a big mistake, as jews are learning anew in Europe and elsewhere, even the US.

Do you really think that the likes of Tutu are anti-Israel because of the palestinians? Is there any doubt in your mind that it has at least something to do with a persistent perception of deicide?

[Michael]

Hello, Hakeem,
Any response I would write to your questions would be quotations from the New Testament or words based on ideas presented in the New Testament. The New Testament is the best available record we have of Jesus and the activities of the apostles so I suggest you read through it carefully to have your questions answered as best they may two thousand years later. A accessible and accurate translation is the New Kings James Version or the New American Standard. The Reliability of the New Testament by F.F. Bruce presents arguments that what we have in the New Testament is what was written originally with few discrepancies from the original manuscripts and those discrepancies not affecting any key teachings of the New Testament, it also presents arguments that the documents we have were written in the lifetimes of the apostles, are historically accurate, and written by the authors they are ascribed to. I have a very rough paraphrase of something Marin Luther said - "Reason and Logic are whores, they will serve any master", ask the God who created you to lead you to the truth.
Best Wishes

A side note, for those who reject the "penal substitute theory" - a crabbed and limited term for a deep and rich gift - I can only think once you realize the reality of sin in your life, then the thought of Jesus dying for your sin, "being bruised for our transgressions" with "the chastisement for our peace (being) upon him - Isaiah 53 - would make your feet dance and your heart sing. The blood of Christ is not primitive, it is primal and primary for access to God. I am with the the Brazilian voodoo priestess who said "I once worshipped the devil with the blood of chickens and goats, now I worship God with the blood of His Son." The wrath of God is a very real, it being unfashionable and unseemly to modern minds doesn't negate the fact we need the blood of the Lamb for the angel of death to pass over us.

Another obvious source is the actual practice of the early Christian communities. Polycarp and, doubtless others, who had conversed with Jesus’s disciples, were still alive in the middle of the second century and Irenaus, who remembered Polycarp, lived on into the 3rd century.

Hippolytus of Rome describes the liturgy that he published in 216 as already ancient, so it would appear to date from, at least, the time of the Apostolic Fathers, i.e. those who remembered the Apostles and other original disciples of Jesus.

On your second point, I never denied “penal substitution” as a valid theological interpretation; I merely said you would look for it in vain in the writings of the Nicene and Ante-Nicene Fathers.

Consider these words from the Liturgy of Hippolytus, remembering that it embodies the form of public prayer of the church of, at the latest, the mid-2nd century and probably modelled on Apostolic practice:.

He did your will, and,
to win for you a holy people,
he stretched out his hands in suffering to rescue from
suffering those who believe in you.
When he was about to surrender himself to voluntary suffering
in order to destroy death,
to break the devil's chains,
to tread hell underfoot,
to pour out his light upon the just,
to establish the covenant, and manifest resurrection... [The Words of Institution follow]

Of course, this is compatible with a theory of Christ’s death as a satisfaction of divine justice (although it does not say so, in terms), but its primary focus is clearly on the victory over death and the devil. The teaching of the first centuries was that Adam’s sin, with mortality as its consequence, was the devil’s victory over the human race, bringing corruption and sin in its train; Christ’s death and resurrection (always viewed as a single, saving act) was his victory and triumph.

[oao]

Hakeem asked much more than just how Jesus prayed. His questions were exceedingly broad, too broad to answer whilst standing on one foot. Ergo, my answer was essentially "Go and learn it."

Sorry, does not pass muster. Jut an excuse for not answering.

Yes, I can.

Sure you can. But you know what happens when you ass-u-me, no?

I don't besides the NT. Neither do you, or Erhman. If all historical documents subject to any conjectured agenda bias are to be rejected, well then, you just erased pretty much all of written human history. You're welcome to that...

Not so fast. Ehrman has specified a set of criteria on how to assess the factual veracity of historic documents and has provided reasoned evidence of how the gospels fail to satisfy those criteria in obvious ways. Since the gospels are the only evidence we have of Jesus, and cannot be corraborated, the burden is on you to demonstrate how the totality of Ehrman's argument fails. Without that, he is most probably more correct than your superficial assumptions.

This is interesting to me, because while Jesus is formally, publicly and audibly praying in front of other people, the implication is that such formality is not required, and perhaps not the norm for Jesus. (And perhaps, or perhaps not, the norm for christians.)

And that hearsay and that alone (outside the gospels) is for you sufficient proof that Jesus existed and abrogated most of the judaic faith, even though historians share the consensus that if he existed he was trying to return the jews to their religious roots and stop romanizing themselves? Do you have any idea how this evidence compare with the informed and reasoned Ehrman's position? Not to mention Maccoby's? Please.

[oao]

Any response I would write to your questions would be quotations from the New Testament or words based on ideas presented in the New Testament. The New Testament is the best available record we have of Jesus and the activities of the apostles so I suggest you read through it carefully to have your questions answered as best they may two thousand years later.

Not so fast.

The NT is not the best available record, it is the ONLY available document, a theological one whose purpose is not to objectively record history, but to preach in order to induce faith (the variations in the 4 gospels is testament to that--pun intended). Furthermore, it is not based on an eyewitness view of the Jesus period, but written decades after his death in a time where most of the information was disseminated by word of mouth and, thus, subject to numerous mistakes, alterations and intended misleading.

[Pastaneta]

I guess that's what passes for informed and reasoned around here.

Well Marcus consider Jews are people who couldn't see the "Truth" of Christianity and are blind. I consider him a garden variety Jew-hater.

Do you really think that the likes of Tutu are anti-Israel because of the palestinians?

Of course Tutu is an antisemite... So are most (not all) of the anti-Israel crowd. This we know.

[Michael]

Any response I would write to your questions would be quotations from the New Testament or words based on ideas presented in the New Testament. The New Testament is the best available record we have of Jesus and the activities of the apostles so I suggest you read through it carefully to have your questions answered as best they may two thousand years later.

Not so fast.

The NT is not the best available record, it is the ONLY available document, a theological one whose purpose is not to objectively record history, but to preach in order to induce faith (the variations in the 4 gospels is testament to that--pun intended). Furthermore, it is not based on an eyewitness view of the Jesus period, but written decades after his death in a time where most of the information was disseminated by word of mouth and, thus, subject to numerous mistakes, alterations and intended misleading.

The difficulty with this view of the canonical gospels is that it overlooks the existence of widely dispersed Christian communities, whose existence can be traced back to the middle of the 1st century, in the case of Rome (see Tacitus) in Bythinia, on the shores of the Black Sea, by the end of the century (see Pliny the Younger’s letter to Trajan), in Palestine & Syria (Justin Martyr) and so on. Of course, errors and distortions can occur in the transmission of the original oral teaching, but not the same errors in places widely separated. What they held in common, therefore, represents the original Apostolic teaching.

The acceptance of these four (and the rejection of others, such as Papias’s Sayings) indicates their harmony with the pre-existing beliefs of those communities and the traditions preserved in them about the life and teaching of the founder. What is more, they are in harmony with the earliest Christian writings, by authors who show no evidence of having read any of them – The Didache, Shepherd of Hermas, Letters of Clement of Rome, Letters of Ignatius of Antioch &c.

In fact, there is every reason to think the early liturgies (like that of Hippolytus, which I quoted earlier) and the early baptismal creeds that form the basis of the later Symbol of Nicea would have been identical, had none of the four gospels, or Paul’s letters, for that matter, ever been written.

Have you noticed how rarely they are appealed to, in the great controversies of the first four centuries and, on the contrary, the frequency of appeals to the traditions preserved in particular, local churches and to the succession of local bishops, as guardians of those traditions?

[Marcus]

. . an antisemite... So are most (not all) of the anti-Israel crowd. This we know.

That never was a card, Pasta . . just the Joker. Really, get a new deck . .

[oao]

Well Marcus consider Jews are people who couldn't see the "Truth" of Christianity and are blind. I consider him a garden variety Jew-hater.

Noooooooo, really? It's impossible, he's a christian after all, they don't hate. In fact, I don't think he hates jews as much as he deems them an inconvenience of inconsistency with the perspective on the world he has deriving from his religion.Cognitive dissonance tends to induce hostility.

But it is telling that some here are so bothered by "jews whining about their victimhood" and would like it to stop, don't you think? No surprise there. What is surprising is that what is deemed informed & reasoned vs. trash is upside down here.

BTW, just came across this: http://www.spiegel.de/international/wor ... 20,00.html. I wonder what jesus would say about this.

[Pastaneta]

BTW, just came across this: http://www.spiegel.de/international/wor ... 20,00.html. I wonder what jesus would say about this.

Don't know about this but my late mother always told that if he existed, he would feel at home with the lubavicher and would scream "Hillul hashem" to all Christian theology... I think she was right.

[Marcus]

Well Marcus consider Jews are people who couldn't see the "Truth" of Christianity and are blind. I consider him a garden variety Jew-hater.

Noooooooo, really? It's impossible, he's a christian after all, they don't hate. In fact, I don't think he hates jews as much as he deems them an inconvenience of inconsistency with the perspective on the world he has deriving from his religion.Cognitive dissonance tends to induce hostility.

But it is telling that some here are so bothered by "jews whining about their victimhood" and would like it to stop, don't you think? No surprise there. What is surprising is that what is deemed informed & reasoned vs. trash is upside down here.

BTW, just came across this: http://www.spiegel.de/international/wor ... 20,00.html. I wonder what jesus would say about this.

Pasta is a liar, oao, I don't at all hate Jews or even dislike them. Nor, where you're concerned, do I find Jews or Judaism an inconvenience in any fashion whatsoever. As for the Pitiful Pearl whine, you're only making yourselves look foolish.

That said, there are facets of Zionism with which I disagree . . that's all.

Reasoned debate? A stupid notion in this case and more—mere pissing into the wind. One's presuppositions define what constitutes "reasoned."

Understand: I had been a reader of and a subscriber to First Things for over 20 years and always considered it a Christian magazine. Why such anti-Christian trash is now allowed under FT's auspices is beyond me.

Carry on . .

[oao]

The difficulty with this view of the canonical gospels is that it overlooks the existence of widely dispersed Christian communities, whose existence can be traced back to the middle of the 1st century, in the case of Rome (see Tacitus) in Bythinia, on the shores of the Black Sea, by the end of the century (see Pliny the Younger’s letter to Trajan), in Palestine & Syria (Justin Martyr) and so on. Of course, errors and distortions can occur in the transmission of the original oral teaching, but not the same errors in places widely separated. What they held in common, therefore, represents the original Apostolic teaching.

No difficulty at all. As I stated more than once, the region was in those times in a fluid soup of groups, sects and beliefs, many apocalyptic, that had commonalities with and differences from each other. That had a lot to do with the lack of knowledge about the world and the strive to comprehend it. I see, therefore, no evidence in this that everything I stated about jesus, paul and the NT is negated by that. And I certainly don't see it as evidence that jesus, rather than paul, invented a new religion. In fact, even if one takes what the gospels say about jesus at face value, he would likely be turning in his grave (wherever his body ended up) to read paul, let alone see what the catholic church is.

The acceptance of these four (and the rejection of others, such as Papias’s Sayings) indicates their harmony with the pre-existing beliefs of those communities and the traditions preserved in them about the life and teaching of the founder. What is more, they are in harmony with the earliest Christian writings, by authors who show no evidence of having read any of them – The Didache, Shepherd of Hermas, Letters of Clement of Rome, Letters of Ignatius of Antioch &c.

First of all, we seem to have read a different history regarding how the canon was selected -- it was a highly political process, with the state often actively involved (speaking of Nicea), including violence. Second, what you say is consistent with what I argue paul did -- he altered jesus' judaic religion in order to make it more acceptable to existing gentile beliefs, something that jesus had nothing to do with.

Have you noticed how rarely they are appealed to, in the great controversies of the first four centuries and, on the contrary, the frequency of appeals to the traditions preserved in particular, local churches and to the succession of local bishops, as guardians of those traditions?

Not really, but even so, it's not surprising given the nature of the world at that time and the status of christianity in it. Indeed, that was a major if not the only reason why there was interest in imposing a canon on it. I also read about what was left out of the canon and I saw nothing in that had anything to do with jesus if he existed and everything to do with what states and organized are all about: power and control. For how could beliefs in a personal direct link between an individual and god be tolerated by an increasingly hierarchic priestly organization and a state that needed to exploit it.
Seen in this light, is there any surprise in what the catholic church has become?

[Hakeem]

C'mon guys. I asked very simple and narrow questions for which you want me to go and search the NT.

If you asked a Muslim or an orthodox Jew about prayer and how to pray, you'd get an answer. I am sure you wouldn't be asked to search thru the scriptures.

Again, how did Jesus pray? Did he pray as was the norm of the day of the Jews? Did the apostles pray to him (Jesus) or the almighty?

Seems there are no clear answers. This can't be such mystery.

[oao]

Marcus,

I am unaware that I accepted his claim of jew hatred, even if I did it somewhat facetiously. And in fact I did provide an alternative perspective on your attitude to jews, particularly those who insist on the past. I will, however, urge some sensibility to how we may interpret your positions, given that history and increasingly the present is chockful of anti-semites presenting their perspective just like you do. I would think this would not be inconsistent with being a christian, no?

You may also want to be sensitive to the fact that anti-zionism is today the sophisticated's anti-semitism, denials notwithstanding. They increasingly come out of the woodwork as this becomes not only accepted again, but fashionable.

Last time I looked questioning religious claims and believs is not automatically trashing, as long as it is well informed and reasoned. At least that's what Spengler suggested, if he wasn't consistent in applying the principle.

Reasoned debate? A stupid notion in this case and more—mere pissing into the wind. One's presuppositions define what constitutes "reasoned."

It is indeed important to state one's presupositions. But they DO NOT DEFINE what constitutes reasoned, and certainly not what constitutes informed. One can question presupositions based on knowledge (evidence) and reason (logic), but I know that faith is not exactly big on that.

I also observed that "pissing in the wind" and other such language is much closer to trashing than questioning religious presupositions. If that is deemed offensive, it is due to the weakness of the presupositions.

[oao]

If you asked a Muslim or an orthodox Jew about prayer and how to pray, you'd get an answer. I am sure you wouldn't be asked to search thru the scriptures.

Let's assume that you would get an answer to that from at least some christians. So what?