Cardinal Koch: "Israel Remains the Chosen People"

[Spengler]

Cardinal Koch: "Israel Remains the Chosen People" on the Spengler Blog


by David P. Goldman


Kurt Cardinal Koch is the new Vatican head of ecumenical relations, responsible among other things for relations with the Jews. The Swiss cleric replaces Walter Cardinal Kasper, whom I praised for his frankness and sincerity on this site earlier this year.

The acid test issue for Jewish-Christian relations, in my view, is the Election of Israel. And in an October 29 issue with the German newspaper Die Welt, Cardinal Koch had this to say (I translate)

DIE WELT: Now St. Paul was a Jew and was quite close to the synagogue.

Koch: That's right. Everywhere he went on his journeys, he made the synagogue his first stop and preached to the Jews, and only afterwards did he go to the pagans. In his Letters to the Romans he later described why the Gospel went its own way. He understood the deeper meaning of the rejection of the Gospel by the majority of Jews, so that thereby the message of Jesus would then be brought to the entire world. It is a great mystery that Israel remains the chosen people even though it rejects the Messiah. That is the great question that occupies him.

It is a great mystery. As I wrote in an essay entitled "Zionism for Christians" in 2008,

Ultimately, Jews and Christians must remain a mystery to each other. Christians cannot help but recognize that Providence has sustained the Jews through their long exile, yet they cannot explain why Jews do not recognize Jesus Christ as the fulfillment of their prophecy. Jews cannot help but recognize that Christians are inspired by the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, yet they cannot explain Christian belief in the divinity of Jesus, except to dismiss it as a “world-historical fiction” (in Franz Rosenzweig's words).

This is a place for Cardinal Koch to start. I look forward to hearing more from him.

[oao]

No, it's no mystery at all.

paul hijacked jesus for personal purposes that were anathema to judaism. He wanted the jews to accept jesus as messiah on just his say so, because he, an unknown, was "spoken to by god". Imagine if any and all such claims for messiah were accepted, what would happen.

The fact is that paul's was a man with serious psychological problems who invented a religion that had nothing to do with jesus who -- to the extent that he actually existed in history -- was striving to return the jews to their true judaism from their cooperation with the romans. There is no connection between jesus' religion and the paulian invention.

moreover paul showed himself in his later writings to be an anti-semite, probably because the jews would not accept his invention.

for a very persuasive argument and evidence of the above see Hyam Maccoby's THE MYTHMAKER.

[Michael]

No, it's no mystery at all.

paul hijacked jesus for personal purposes that were anathema to judaism. He wanted the jews to accept jesus as messiah on just his say so, because he, an unknown, was "spoken to by god". Imagine if any and all such claims for messiah were accepted, what would happen.

The fact is that paul's was a man with serious psychological problems who invented a religion that had nothing to do with jesus who -- to the extent that he actually existed in history -- was striving to return the jews to their true judaism from their cooperation with the romans. There is no connection between jesus' religion and the paulian invention.

moreover paul showed himself in his later writings to be an anti-semite, probably because the jews would not accept his invention.

for a very persuasive argument and evidence of the above see Hyam Maccoby's THE MYTHMAKER.

Where this theory breaks down is with the early writers of the non-Pauline Churches in Syria and Asia Minor - Justin Martyr represents the Palestinian/Syrian church and Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp of Smyrna both knew the apostle John, "and others, who had seen the Lord," as is confirmed both by Polycarp himself and by Irenaeus, originally from Smyrna, too, and later bishop of Lyons, who remembered Polycarp.

[Colonel Sun]

Sure. Whatever. And my bollocks remain the Chosen Bollocks.

[Marcus]

No, it's no mystery at all.

paul hijacked jesus for personal purposes that were anathema to judaism. He wanted the jews to accept jesus as messiah on just his say so, because he, an unknown, was "spoken to by god". Imagine if any and all such claims for messiah were accepted, what would happen.

The fact is that paul's was a man with serious psychological problems who invented a religion that had nothing to do with jesus who -- to the extent that he actually existed in history -- was striving to return the jews to their true judaism from their cooperation with the romans. There is no connection between jesus' religion and the paulian invention.

moreover paul showed himself in his later writings to be an anti-semite, probably because the jews would not accept his invention.

for a very persuasive argument and evidence of the above see Hyam Maccoby's THE MYTHMAKER.

If anyone posted this sort of vulgar insult of Judaism or Zionism, would they be banned or censured? Utter trash.

[charleston]

If anyone posted this sort of vulgar insult of Judaism or Zionism, would they be banned or censured? Utter trash.

Anyone?

A sect called Christianity,and a cult called Islam!

You are hilarious!

[Marcus]

If anyone posted this sort of vulgar insult of Judaism or Zionism, would they be banned or censured? Utter trash.

Anyone?
A sect called Christianity,and a cult called Islam!
You are hilarious!

The operative word in my post is not "anyone" but "posted." Has anyone posted here, on these fora, a like trashing of Judaism or Zionism without being censured or banned?

Just asking, chiquita . . . . show me . .

[Richard Greene]

If anyone posted this sort of vulgar insult of Judaism or Zionism, would they be banned or censured? Utter trash.

Anyone?
A sect called Christianity,and a cult called Islam!
You are hilarious!

The operative word in my post is not "anyone" but "posted." Has anyone posted here, on these fora, a like trashing of Judaism or Zionism without being censured or banned?

Just asking, chiquita . . . . show me . .

Marcus:

I have news for you. The most self-critical "holy book" bar none is the Talmud. Prominent rabbis attacked the teachings of Moses Maimonides — the most influenmtial Jewish sage of the last millenia — for centuries as heretical, even though today they are regarded as canonical. So if Jews are hypercritical re Jewish dogmas, what do you expect when they look at non-Jewish ones? Furthermore, it just so happens that Christianity has much more theological dogma than does Judaism, so perforce there is much more material to question, attack and criticize. Normally, Orthodox Jews don't really care about Christian dogma any more than they care about Hindu dogma. But this forum is about the "Abrahamic faiths", not the Dharmic ones...

[oao]

confirmed both by Polycarp himself and by Irenaeus

Oh, sorry, I stand corrected. Then, of course it must be true

"and others, who had seen the Lord,"

More people with psychological problems.

Sure. Whatever. And my bollocks remain the Chosen Bollocks.

An impressive intellectual contribution.

If anyone posted this sort of vulgar insult of Judaism or Zionism

Unfortunately for you, I also provided a reference which demonstrates via reason and evidence that the argument is valid. All you gotta do is check it out and show, also via reason and evidence, where he goes wrong.

As to vulgarity and insults of Zionism/Judaism, you can't be serious. What else is being posted/published these days?

None of the various emotional responses here has tackled the substance of the argument.

[oao]

Has anyone posted here, on these fora, a like trashing of Judaism or Zionism without being censured or banned?

You've got a unique definition of "thrashing" -- it includes telling the truth.

[Jeffrey555]

Dear Mr. Goldman,
Over the years I have deeply enjoyed your insights and writing. The mystery between Jews and Christians and their shared spiritual reality touches on more than the divinity and humanity of Jesus. The New Testament presents the God Of Abraham as being richer than a singular unity though I believe there is clear intimation of this richness and depth and strangeness of the Godhead in the Old Testament - there is truly none like God. Note how Paul dances and shifts among the persons of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in his writings as do other New Testament writers. Look at the words of Christ in John 14-16. The peak of Christian spirituality is presented in Revelation - "For the Lamb at the center of the throne will be their shepherd, he will lead them to springs of living water and God will wipe away every tear from their eyes." Revelation 7:17 and "Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb down the middle of the great street of the city" Revelation 22:2. Water as I am sure you realize represents the Third Person - the Holy Spirit. In a sense Christians get to have it both ways - monotheism and polytheism! What a scandal to the Jew and Muslim.

[Michael]

confirmed both by Polycarp himself and by Irenaeus

Oh, sorry, I stand corrected. Then, of course it must be true

"and others, who had seen the Lord,"

More people with psychological problems.

Sure. Whatever. And my bollocks remain the Chosen Bollocks.

An impressive intellectual contribution.

If anyone posted this sort of vulgar insult of Judaism or Zionism

Unfortunately for you, I also provided a reference which demonstrates via reason and evidence that the argument is valid. All you gotta do is check it out and show, also via reason and evidence, where he goes wrong.

As to vulgarity and insults of Zionism/Judaism, you can't be serious. What else is being posted/published these days?

None of the various emotional responses here has tackled the substance of the argument.

Given that Polycaro was born in 69 and died in 159, his claim, corroborated by Irenaeus, that he conversed with the apostle John and with others who had know Jesus is plausible enough.

Likewise Justin Martyr (103-165) lived at a time when many people would remember the apostles. He was born less than 40 years after Paul's death and John certainly survived into the 2nd century.

To suggest that Pul's views could have influenced either John or his companions is what I find, frankly, incredible, especially in the churches of Palestine, Syria and Asia Minor. The tradition that the churches of Asia Minor was current in Rome in the time of Pope Sixtus (c 120) The church in Alexandria, too, was established by John Mark, a companion of Peter.

That is where the claim that Paul influeced these churches breaks down, unless, which is the point in dispute, his teaching and that of the other apostles was the same.

[oao]

I suggest you check out Bart Ehrman and his definition of what proper historical evidence is. In particular what
you don't want is partisan sources, which is what believers, let alone bishops, were.

If Jesus was indeed "the Lord" and something as amazing as his miracles and resurrection happened, that he is practically inexistent in historical record, except the religious sources, is something to behold.

But you know what? Even if Jesus existed, he was a jewish preacher who had nothing to do with Paul's invention. He certainly was not "the Lord" and given that Paul's invention also plagiarized from ancient cults, what reason did jews at that time to believe in all that nonsense?

I understand believers in the days when religions were invented. They were man's attempt to explain the world in a state of ignorance. What's today's believers' excuse?

[oao]

To suggest that Pul's views could have influenced either John or his companions is what I find, frankly, incredible, especially in the churches of Palestine, Syria and Asia Minor.

I did NOT suggest that Paul has influenced John and those who supposedly knew Jesus. In fact, last time I checked, there was a serious schism and conflict between the latter and Paul stemming precisely from theological differences between Jesus' followers and what seems to have been an epileptic Paul.

The reality in those times was very fluid theologically, there was a multitude of cults, sects and groups expecting the end of the world, etc. It was in this atmosphere that Paul came up with his invention. It does not exclude the possibility that others came up with similar ideas.

None of this, however, validates the claim that Pau'l invention had anything to do with what Jesus was preaching. Jesus did not invent any new religion.

[Michael]

To suggest that Pul's views could have influenced either John or his companions is what I find, frankly, incredible, especially in the churches of Palestine, Syria and Asia Minor.

I did NOT suggest that Paul has influenced John and those who supposedly knew Jesus. In fact, last time I checked, there was a serious schism and conflict between the latter and Paul stemming precisely from theological differences between Jesus' followers and what seems to have been an epileptic Paul.

The reality in those times was very fluid theologically, there was a multitude of cults, sects and groups expecting the end of the world, etc. It was in this atmosphere that Paul came up with his invention. It does not exclude the possibility that others came up with similar ideas.

None of this, however, validates the claim that Pau'l invention had anything to do with what Jesus was preaching. Jesus did not invent any new religion.

But, surely, that concession undermines your whole argument: if there were, in the 2nd century, churches "uncontaminated" by Paul's teaching, we should expect to find them holding a very different view of Christ's person and office. After all, Ignatius and Polycarp repeatedly stress the oral tradition handed on by the bishops and the churches of Asia Minor vigourously defended their own customs against Rome in the Paschal contorversy.

In making these points, I am appealing to the only historical documents that actually exist, rather than to conjecture. After all, what better evidence exists for the actual belief of those churches in the 2nd century?