Cardinal Koch: "Israel Remains the Chosen People"

[CognitiveDistoibance]

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.

Wrong. Not all of reality fits into a neat, tidy soundbite. Try this:

http://www.google.com/#q=christian+prayer&hl=en&prmd=ivnbs&source=univ&tbs=bks:1&tbo=u&ei=PMnuTLmCPIWdlgf0jaWQDQ&sa=X&oi=book_group&ct=title&cad=bottom-3results&resnum=12&&fp=1

That's a search for books on "christian + prayer". Over 2.4 million hits. Enjoy.

Yes, I can.

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

Yeah. I think we covered that in 7th grade.

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 If all historical documents subject to any conjectured agenda bias are to be rejected, well then, you just erased pretty much all of written human history.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.

Is Ehrman's area of expertise the veracty of historic documents in general? Or is it a bit more narrow than that? In short, the guy has found an axe to grind--that, wonder of wonders, also just happens to constitute his professional career.

As to burden ... from wiki:

... In March 2006, he joined theologian William Lane Craig in public debate on the question "Is There Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus?" on the campus of the College of the Holy Cross.[6] In April 2008, Ehrman and evangelical New Testament scholar Daniel B. Wallace participated in a public dialogue on the textual reliability of the New Testament.[7] In January 2009, Dr. Ehrman debated Dr. James White, Director of Alpha and Omega Ministries, an Evangelical Reformed Baptist scholar on "Did the Bible Mis-Quote Jesus?"
...

wake me up when Craig, Wallace and White are converted, repent in sackcloth and ashes, and join the church of Ehrman...

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.

Who said I said abrogate? If you were paying attention to this thread, you might notice I've taken also exception to the "replacement" terminology that others have used here. Please.

[CognitiveDistoibance]

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

Dude, it's just not a simple question--not if you want a complete answer. And, ummm..., if you want to understand the christian perspective, the NT isn't exactly an irrelevant document. Nor is it all that fearsomely lengthy, as documents go...

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.

Well, the Jewish scriptures are about 3 times as lengthy as the NT. But we christians gotta deal with that as well. It's survivable. (At least in the English translations--not sure I'd actually survive learning to read Hebrew. )

Books on Jewish prayer, FWIW:
http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&tbs=bks:1&q=jewish+prayer&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=e710c4bae863ad46
Under 900,000. Comparatively managable.

If you insist on soundbites:

Again, how did Jesus pray?

Regularly, sometimes audibly, often alone. He talked to God.

Did he pray as was the norm of the day of the Jews?

Well, for one thing, He also was God, which would seem to kinda set Him apart from other Jews of the day. (Or since.)

His disciples asked Him to teach them to pray, so that kinda implies that whatever He did was a tad different from at least that group of Jewish fishermen, tax collectors, etc.

Did the apostles pray to him (Jesus) or the almighty?

He told them to pray to the Father in His name. Jn 16:23,24,26. (Sorry for the verse references, can't help it...)

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

There can be much mystery. Your last question touches in no small part on the nature of the trinity. How can you even expect me (or anyone else) to soundbite that one?

At one level, prayer is something a little child can do, and a learned theologian can marvel at his ignorance of it.

[oao]

Cognitive Distobance you're trying to hard to avoid cognitive dissonance.

You don't seem to be too familiar with logic and reasoning, so communication is hard.

I suggest you reread my challenges and try to address them instead of pushing evidence irrelevant for them, whose purpose is to advance dogma without ability to defend it.

[Marcus]

You don't seem to be too familiar with logic and reasoning, so communication is hard.

Actually it is you who are deficient as regards the above. Your presuppositions define your logic.

For instance, your total denial of the Christian Christ defines the whole of the New Testament as illogical and unreasonable.

Save your breath . . you ain't gonna convince me, I ain't gonna convince you . . our respective presuppositions preclude any possibility of agreement . . pissing in the wind.

All you get is wet pants . .

[Calinescu]

Reading this thread through reminds me why I stopped posting on the Internet. What a pity, what a waste, that Mr. Goldman's articles so often come to have threads like these attached to them.

[Michael]

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?

All exegetes accept that the three synoptic gospels existed in their present form around the years 70-80. This is confirmed by the early versions (translations) and by patristic citations.

Accordingly, for some 200 years before the Peace of the Church in 313, these gospels had been copied, disseminated and read in the various local churches. That certain other works had been similarly received in particular places does not affect this. The canon was settled by the time of Irenaeus, around 200.

As to later state interference, the establishment of the Christian church took place on iii kal. mart (27 February) 3880 at Thessalonica, by the decree of the divine and august Emperors, Gratian, Valentinian and Theodosius, known as “Cunctos Populos.” This enjoined the whole of the peoples subject to the moderation of their clemency to exercise the religion “delivered by the divine apostle Peter to the Romans” and “now professed by the Pontiff Damasus and by Peter, bishop of Alexandria...”

Once again, and very significantly, Christianity is defined, not by doctrine, still less by its canonical books, but by its history and living interpreters; the point I have been trying to stress.

Certainly, the decree goes on to speak of the “deity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, in equal majesty and in a holy Trinity,” but this merely served, in the troubled conditions of the times, to differentiate the belief of Damasus and Peter of Alexandria from the “foolish madmen (reliquos vero dementes vesanosque) whom the decree subjects to exemplary punishment, in accordance with the words of Jesus in the gospel of John 15: 6

ἐὰν μή τις μένῃ ἐν ἐμοί, ἐβλήθη ἔξω ὡς τὸ κλῆμα καὶ ἐξηράνθη, καὶ συνάγουσιν αὐτὰ καὶ εἰς τὸ πῦρ βάλλουσι, καὶ καίεται. (If you do not remain in me, you are like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned.)

(In which, of course, the decrees of the devout emperors are more to be admired, than emulated)

[oao]

Actually it is you who are deficient as regards the above. Your presuppositions define your logic.

By logic I meant reasoning, not the result of the reasoning.

Not all presuppositions are alike. If they are about facts, then they can be assessed and validated/invalidated via evidence and reasoning.

For instance, your total denial of the Christian Christ defines the whole of the New Testament as illogical and unreasonable.

First I do NOT "totally deny" jesus. In fact, I explicitly said that am willing to accept that a jesus may have existed, but that the evidence for the CHRISTIAN christ -- the extraordinary claims made for him long after he died -- is at best insufficient.

Second, I do NOT deem the NT illogical and unreasonable. For its purposes and given that state of knowledge and communication at the time, it is quite logical and reasonable. What it is not is a sound reliable and unbiased historical record on the basis of which to accept claims, particularly the supernatural ones.

Save your breath . . you ain't gonna convince me, I ain't gonna convince you . . our respective presuppositions preclude any possibility of agreement . . pissing in the wind.

On that we agree. But not for the reason you give. The difference between us is that I am prepared to change my mind if offered convincing evidence for the claims. It is true that I deem the probability for such evidence very close to 0, but I will accept it if it pops up. Faith, OTOH, precludes a change of mind--evidence and reason are irrelevant. That's how faith is defined.

When I bother to exchange with faithers I usually ask one question: Is there ANY evidence you would accept as invalidating your belief? In 100% of the cases I get a blank stare, a leave, or a no.

[Marcus]

. . The difference between us is that I am prepared to change my mind if offered convincing evidence for the claims. It is true that I deem the probability for such evidence very close to 0, but I will accept it if it pops up. Faith, OTOH, precludes a change of mind--evidence and reason are irrelevant. That's how faith is defined.

When I bother to exchange with faithers I usually ask one question: Is there ANY evidence you would accept as invalidating your belief? In 100% of the cases I get a blank stare, a leave, or a no.

"Faithers"? You still don't get it. You are every bit as much a "faither" as am I.

As for your definition of faith, it is, well, stupid. Faith is rather the evidence of things not seen, the substance of things hoped for.

You say there is evidence for your claims? And little to no evidence for mine? How do you know your evidence constitutes evidence? How do you know your "facts" constitute facts?

Fundamentalists come in many colors . .

[CognitiveDistoibance]

Cognitive Distobance you're trying to hard to avoid cognitive dissonance.

You don't seem to be too familiar with logic and reasoning, so communication is hard.

I suggest you reread my challenges and try to address them instead of pushing evidence irrelevant for them, whose purpose is to advance dogma without ability to defend it.

Cognitive dissonance?

Look, you have found your Apostle Bart, who has tailored a gospel that seems especially well suited for your presuppositions. Which, as far as it goes, is fine. Free country, free speech and all that...

Indeed that would leave us all fat, dumb and happy, except your gospel seems to insist that it abrogates that of others. Somewhat remarkably, you are ok with this.

Cognitive dissonance, indeed.

[Marcus]

. . your gospel seems to insist that it abrogates that of others. . .

Bingo! And so it is with all Fundamentalists of whatever color. Only they know what the facts really are, you see, and condescendingly look down on and abuse any who disagree with their definition of the facts.

Problem is, they know they have the "facts" how? Why by faith, just like everyone else . .

OH, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet,
Till Earth and Sky stand presently at God’s great Judgment Seat; . .

—Kipling

[oao]

All your efforts to equate us humanists to you faithers won't do the trick, no matter how skilled you have become in playing that game.

Bingo! And so it is with all Fundamentalists of whatever color. Only they know what the facts really are, you see, and condescendingly look down on and abuse any who disagree with their definition of the facts.

No, what we claim is that when it comes to jesus we don't know any reliable facts and neither do you. And extraordinary facts which defy the laws of nature require extraordinary evidence, which does not exist. Until we get such evidence we behave as if the laws of nature still hold. But you want/need so hard to believe that your evidence requirements are practically nil.

Look, you have found your Apostle Bart, who has tailored a gospel that seems especially well suited for your presuppositions. Which, as far as it goes, is fine. Free country, free speech and all that...

If you dk the difference between Ehrman and an apostle, and a historic record which can be corraborated from multiple unbiased sources and a gospel, what can I say? It certainly explains a lot about religious belief. Ehrman used to be like you, but having looked long and hard at the evidence he had no choice but yield to it, which was a very hard thing to do, much harder than suspend critical faculty.

And Ehrman is hardly the only one who's knowledge and reasoning I appreciate. I mentioned Maccoby, there are others.

[oao]

As for your definition of faith, it is, well, stupid. Faith is rather the evidence of things not seen, the substance of things hoped for.

Geez, and Spengler thought I was trashing.

Thank you for your definition which equates hope with evidence. Couldn't have validated my points any better.

You say there is evidence for your claims? And little to no evidence for mine? How do you know your evidence constitutes evidence? How do you know your "facts" constitute facts?

Well, I don't make extraordinary claims. I just argue that such claims by others require extraordinary evidence and there is nothing that even approaches even normal evidence in this case.

Probably the simple answer is that is that I don't confuse evidence with hope and I prefer many more "seeings" from many more sources to consider the former persuasive.

[Marcus]

. . what we claim is . . facts which defy the laws of nature require . . evidence, which does not exist. . .

And you know this how? How do you know that the only "facts" are those "facts" which do not defy the laws of nature?

How do you know that?

***************************

Sounds like Philosophical Materialism to me.

The dispute is irresolvable. To an outsider, the scientific materialist looks like a closed-minded fundamentalist dogmatically (even angrily) asserting the sole primacy and validity of his worldview and on a holy mission to destroy anyone who disagrees. To a scientific materialist, all others seem like the dogmatists that have clung to old beliefs and inhibited the progress of mankind since time immemorial. Furthermore, scientists are something like psychopathic serial killers in their single-minded and obsessive need to seek out problems and solve them . . When you are a hammer, everything looks like a nail, ya know? And they don't take kindly to people telling them that some problems are immutable, unsolvable, non-rational mysteries. It is not only a personal insult but, since most scientists are staunch humanists, it is an insult and challenge issued to mankind from the depths of the universe itself; another defense thrown up as nature attempts to elude its master. Yes, there is something Luciferic in all this. And that's OK, too.

—from an anonymous but very perceptive person

[Pastaneta]

I explicitly said that am willing to accept that a jesus may have existed

He may have existed but there are no proof whatsoever...

[Marcus]

I explicitly said that am willing to accept that a jesus may have existed

He may have existed but there are no proof whatsoever...

And you know this how?