[phpBB Debug] PHP Notice: in file /viewtopic.php on line 943: date(): It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected 'America/New_York' for 'EDT/-4.0/DST' instead
[phpBB Debug] PHP Notice: in file /viewtopic.php on line 943: getdate(): It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected 'America/New_York' for 'EDT/-4.0/DST' instead
Spengler Forum at First Things • View topic - Cardinal Koch: "Israel Remains the Chosen People"

For discussion of David P. Goldman's writings

Cardinal Koch: "Israel Remains the Chosen People"

Discussion on Spengler's blog postings and essays.

Re: Cardinal Koch:

Postby oao » Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:08 pm

Spengler wrote:Oao,

Reasoned and informed criticism of the other person's religion is allowed; your posts don't meet the standard. This "trash" (as someone appropriately put it) can be found anywhere. Spare us.

Hakeem,
To anthropomorphize God as "Father in heaven" (Avinu shebashamayim) is typically Jewish; also as mother (Isaiah), husband (Amos) and bridegroom (Song of Songs). There is not a single such characterization in the Koran. That helps clarify why Judaism and Christianity have so much in common (along with expiatory sacrifice), and much less in common with Islam.


I never said that there was NO similarity between judaism and christianity. How could it not be if judaism was the only monoteistic religion and christianity sprang from it. But it is also clear that Paul gradually and increasingly deviated from Judaism and over the years it was also made less and less similar.

The notion that it is possible to unify them today based on some commonality is, in my opinion, an illusion. It stems, I think, from an underlying erroneous notion that religion is the source of morality. It is easy to demonstrate that this is not the case: it is agreed today that religion has both moral and immoral aspects and, if so, one must have criteria external to religion to decide which is which. Furthermore, there are much more serious arguments and evidence for this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... ood-debate

Pay attention to A.G. Grayling's comments and specifically:

AA: Anthony, you’re nodding in agreement. But is there an argument that the good perhaps even in atheist people today is something that is the result of religion’s influence?

AC Grayling: “No. If you think about the dominance of Christianity in Europe, which really took hold right about the fourth century AD, that was nearly 1,000 years after Socrates and Plato and Aristotle had begun to think about the nature of the good and the good society. Have a look at the New Testament documents or those that were selected by the church as canonical. They say: give away all your money, turn your back on your family if they don’t agree with you. If people do bad things, help them to do them more, turn your other cheek. Take no thought for tomorrow, make no plans.

“This was a morality, an unliveable morality premised on the idea that the world was very shortly to end, it was going to end next week or next month.

“And when after several centuries had passed by and the parousia hadn’t happened, they began to import wholesale the wonderful heritage of ethics that had been discussed by the Stoics and the Epicurians and the Aristotelians for centuries before their time.

“What we think of as distinctive of western morality has its roots in the non-religious secular tradition of ethics that comes from classical antiquity.”
oao
 
Posts: 56
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 12:29 am

Re: Cardinal Koch:

Postby Michael » Tue Nov 23, 2010 4:11 am

Pastaneta wrote:Tacitus only speaks of the followers of Christus who lived in the past. It is like I speaks of the followers of Buddha... I don't know if Buddha existed (and do not care) but it is a way of Characterizing them

Suotenius writes:
Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus [Emperor Claudius in 49 CE] expelled them from Rome." (Claudius 5.25.4)


To say that Chrestus (an actual Greek name) is Christus is a stretch especially if you take that this Chrestus was in Rome.

Even if it means Christians all it says is that there were Christians in Rome, not that Christ existed.


Tacitus says in terms that it originated with one Christus, put to death by Pontius Pilatus in the reign of Tiberius and gives Judea as the origin of the cult
ergo abolendo rumori Nero subdidit reos et quaesitissimis poenis adfecit, quos per flagitia invisos vulgus Chrestianos appellabat. auctor nominis eius Christus Tibero imperitante per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio adfectus erat; repressaque in praesens exitiablilis superstitio rursum erumpebat, non modo per Iudaeam, originem eius mali, sed per urbem etiam, quo cuncta undique atrocia aut pudenda confluunt celebranturque.

Therefore, to get rid of the remourt, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exqxtreme tortures on those who were hated for their abominations, and whom the mob called Christians. The origin of the name was Christus, who, in the reign of Tiberius, was put to death by the procurator Pontius Pilatus; and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.


That a bilingual Roman should connect the name [i]Chrestianos[/] with χρηστός is hardly surprising. The same reading occurs in Acts 11: 26 in both the Codex Sinaiticus and in Minuscule 81

Those who suggest the passage is an interpolation are proposing a conjectural emendation, unsupported by a single manuscript, and they have no grammatical, syntactical or stylistic grounds to support them. Nor surprisingly, the pasage appears in every modern critical edition, without variations, exactly as I have quoted it
Michael
 
Posts: 745
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2008 6:46 pm
Location: Alba

Re: Cardinal Koch:

Postby Michael » Tue Nov 23, 2010 5:07 am

oao wrote:As far as I know Paul did not stress jewishness anywhere near the way you do.

But even if he did, in those times there were only pagan religions and monoteism proved very attractive, it's one reason the 3 big ones took. Furthermore, the pre-christian gentile world was not anti-semitic and the jewishness of the source was not a negative. It took christianity to introduce it.

It looks like Paul initially thought he was bringing Judaism to the gentiles. He seems to have realized at some point that this was not working and he altered it as he went in order to make it work. In the process he lost the jews and he became increasingly anti-semitic.

You are looking at that time with 20th century eyes.

There was a good deal of anti-semitism in the pre-christian gentile world. A good and easily accessible example is to be found in the first five chapters of Book 5 of Tacitus's Histories, much of which is drawn from the Alexandrian writer Apion, against whom Flavius Josephus wrote his famous Apology It is easy to find similar ideas in Seneca (De Superstitione) and in Dio Cassius. Juvenel is so xenophobic, it is difficult to know whether he had a special animus against Jews.
Michael
 
Posts: 745
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2008 6:46 pm
Location: Alba

Re: Cardinal Koch:

Postby Pastaneta » Tue Nov 23, 2010 6:41 am

Tacitus says in terms that it originated with one Christus, put to death by Pontius Pilatus in the reign of Tiberius and gives Judea as the origin of the cult


True but this is what Christians (of which he is talking) were saying. He didn't do an outside investigation...

Pontius Pilates did exist and it is not at all surprising that having been told by Christians about the origin of their cult, he would add some historic details so as to put it in context for the Romans who would read his text. On the other hand maybe even that is a retelling of what he was told by Christians as we know that Pontius Pilatius real title was prefect or governor from the discovery at Caesarea. Tacitus would not have made such a mistake as calling him a procurator when he was a prefect.

The lack of serious outside sources on the existence of Christ is the reason why, on balance, I doubt it. I know that what is for me a minor historic puzzle is crucial for others. But then, this is why I am a Jew and not a Christian.
Last edited by Pastaneta on Tue Nov 23, 2010 9:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Pastaneta
 
Posts: 1023
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 7:05 am

Re: Cardinal Koch:

Postby Spengler » Tue Nov 23, 2010 7:52 am

More ink has been spilled about the life of Christ than any other topic I know, and it is a mystery to me why anyone would want to revive this topic.

The more interesting question is: what did the life and death of Jesus mean? There is no real consensus about this among Christians. And none of the answers are quite satisfying to Jews.

Virtually all Christians agree that they need observe the "ethical" rather than the "ritual" commandments. But why? They are all equally commandments. The most consistent answer is that Jesus sacrificed himself for all humankind so that individuals don't have do the sacrifices themselves (although does not explain why dietary laws are suspended). If detailed observance of commandments no longer is required, it is because (as Paul says) God's law is written on men's hearts; but if that is true, and we have such a propensity towards good, what is original sin? Jesus' sacrifice does not appear directed at the ordinary sins for which Jews brought Temple sacrifices (and offer equivalents in prayer today) but towards original sin, for which there is no Jewish equivalent. Some Protestants think the unbaptized go straight to hell, no questions asked; the Catholic Church believes that pagans ignorant of Christianity well may go to heaven. Natural law theory, moreover, believes that some or all of ethics can be derived from unaided reason. So the question that confuses Jews is: how much of man's salvation is up to him, and how much is pure grace offered by the crucified Christ? The position that seems logically most consistent to me (as an outsider with no stake in the outcome) is Calvin's a modified by Arminius; man is utterly depraved and rescued by grace, but is capable of responding to grace. The natural law approach brings up a difficult problem of degrees; just how much are we depraved by original sin, as opposed to having God's law written on our hearts?
User avatar
Spengler
Site Admin
 
Posts: 622
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 6:18 am

Intentional offense?

Postby Marcus » Tue Nov 23, 2010 9:16 am

Spengler wrote:More ink has been spilled about the life of Christ than any other topic I know, and it is a mystery to me why anyone would want to revive this topic. . .

The better question is why anyone would want to revive this topic here where it is obviously bound to offend.
"There is no work, however vile or sordid, that does not glisten before God." —John Calvin
User avatar
Marcus
 
Posts: 1050
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 5:08 pm
Location: Alaska

Re: Cardinal Koch:

Postby Michael » Tue Nov 23, 2010 10:45 am

Spengler wrote:More ink has been spilled about the life of Christ than any other topic I know, and it is a mystery to me why anyone would want to revive this topic.

The more interesting question is: what did the life and death of Jesus mean? There is no real consensus about this among Christians. And none of the answers are quite satisfying to Jews.

Virtually all Christians agree that they need observe the "ethical" rather than the "ritual" commandments. But why? They are all equally commandments. The most consistent answer is that Jesus sacrificed himself for all humankind so that individuals don't have do the sacrifices themselves (although does not explain why dietary laws are suspended). If detailed observance of commandments no longer is required, it is because (as Paul says) God's law is written on men's hearts; but if that is true, and we have such a propensity towards good, what is original sin? Jesus' sacrifice does not appear directed at the ordinary sins for which Jews brought Temple sacrifices (and offer equivalents in prayer today) but towards original sin, for which there is no Jewish equivalent. Some Protestants think the unbaptized go straight to hell, no questions asked; the Catholic Church believes that pagans ignorant of Christianity well may go to heaven. Natural law theory, moreover, believes that some or all of ethics can be derived from unaided reason. So the question that confuses Jews is: how much of man's salvation is up to him, and how much is pure grace offered by the crucified Christ? The position that seems logically most consistent to me (as an outsider with no stake in the outcome) is Calvin's a modified by Arminius; man is utterly depraved and rescued by grace, but is capable of responding to grace. The natural law approach brings up a difficult problem of degrees; just how much are we depraved by original sin, as opposed to having God's law written on our hearts?

A lot of ink has been spilt, too, over the question of grace and free will.

The difficulty is that, when we talk of God’s action on the one hand and our action on the other, we have to bear in mind that God is, all the time, causing our existence. So, in some sense, both the Creator and the creature are both enacting the creature’s existence: our minds and wills are constantly welling up, as it were, from his creative act.

The Fathers approach to this mystery of the interaction of the finite and the Infinite was to cite certain Scripture texts:
Turn to the Lord (Hos 14:2)
Turn back, turn back from your evil ways (Ez 33:11)

And, then

Turn us, O God of our salvation (Ps 85:4)
Turn thou me, and I shall be turned (Jer 31:18)
Turn you us to you, O LORD, and we shall be turned (Lam 5:21)

And, again

Make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit! (Ez 18:31)
A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you; (Ez 36:26)

And from St Paul

Continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who is producing in you both the desire and the ability to do what pleases him (Phil 2:12-13)


Insisting that each of these antitheses is true, even if we cannot see how to reconcile them.

Like them, that is where I am content to leave it.
Michael
 
Posts: 745
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2008 6:46 pm
Location: Alba

Re: Cardinal Koch:

Postby oao » Tue Nov 23, 2010 1:00 pm

Let me get this straight: Arguments are offered here about judaism and christianity and their commonality, at the root of which is the existence and death of Jesus and it is REACTIONS who question this that are unnecessary, not the original arguments? So what, questioners of religion should not participate here because they "offend"? If so, I assume we should not question Islam either, because muslims are quicker to offend, no?

It is curious that informed, reasoned doubts about religion are offending while calling them trash is OK.

The more interesting question is: what did the life and death of Jesus mean? There is no real consensus about this among Christians. And none of the answers are quite satisfying to Jews.


It is only interesting if you accept Jesus' existence and the nature of his death, which is precisely what some of us are questioning and what the Jews at the time did too. As Vermes stated "Without resurrection, faith is rubbish".

But again, even if Jesus did exist and died on the cross, there is no significance to it of the type that Christianity claims.
I won't even get into the morals of a god who tortures his son for the sins of others, it is much simpler to take the story -- and that is just what it is, a myth from religious gospels -- at its possible historical meaning: Jesus, if he existed, was deemed troublesome by the Romans because he instigated Jews to stop cooperating with them and to rebel against their regime. He was punished like anybody else who would do that. Period.

There was a good deal of anti-semitism in the pre-christian gentile world. A good and easily accessible example is to be found in the first five chapters of Book 5 of Tacitus's Histories, much of which is drawn from the Alexandrian writer Apion, against whom Flavius Josephus wrote his famous Apology It is easy to find similar ideas in Seneca (De Superstitione) and in Dio Cassius. Juvenel is so xenophobic, it is difficult to know whether he had a special animus against Jews.


Well, perhaps my language was not sufficiently careful. I should have said "not as anti-semite as it was after christianity contributed to it" and that is what I meant. Based on the known history it is hard to assume that there was a period in which jews were not hated at all. But I would still argue that jewishness was probably not THE obstacle for Paul and that christian anti-semitism started with him. This does not negate, however, the argument about Paul's alteration of the dogma over time in order to attract gentiles, making it less attractive for jews. And am I wrong in thinking that he did not emphasize jewishness, or that he emphasized it less and less over time?

I've seen a lecture by Eisenman where he reads from Paul and considers the psychological roots of some of his dogma and teachings. Ignore that at your peril.
oao
 
Posts: 56
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 12:29 am

Re: Cardinal Koch:

Postby CognitiveDistoibance » Tue Nov 23, 2010 1:24 pm

oao wrote:... But I would still argue that jewishness was probably not THE obstacle for Paul and that christian anti-semitism started with him. ...

Gee, the folks that think christian anti-semitism started with the gospel writer John are really gonna be disappointed that John wasn't the first... :?

oao wrote:... This does not negate, however, the argument about Paul's alteration of the dogma over time in order to attract gentiles, making it less attractive for jews. And am I wrong in thinking that he did not emphasize jewishness, or that he emphasized it less and less over time?

Yup... I think so. Have you, like, read the NT, including the Pauline writings, instead of just reading what other folk write about them? I'm not saying some fanciful reconstructions aren't possible. Indeed, within academia the pressure is to research and publish something new, interesting, and revolutionary. (Rather than, say, staid confirmation of orthodoxy...)

IMV, such reconstructions are much easier using a couple few selections from John's writings than Paul's...
User avatar
CognitiveDistoibance
 
Posts: 1189
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2009 7:46 pm

Poor me . . .

Postby Marcus » Tue Nov 23, 2010 1:41 pm

oao wrote:. . I should have said "not as anti-semite as it was after christianity contributed to it" and that is what I meant. Based on the known history it is hard to assume that there was a period in which jews were not hated at all. . .


Pitiful Pearl has milked the tits right off that cow . . move on.
"There is no work, however vile or sordid, that does not glisten before God." —John Calvin
User avatar
Marcus
 
Posts: 1050
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 5:08 pm
Location: Alaska

Re: Cardinal Koch:

Postby Jeffrey555 » Tue Nov 23, 2010 2:11 pm

Dear Spengler,
A stab at why the dietary laws were suspended. I think the purpose of part of the law instituted under Moses was to separate the Jews from the Gentiles, to make them distinct from the peoples, to set up a boundary. Abraham before Moses happily served the Lord beef and milk in one meal and was under no obligation that I see to be kosher. His distinctiveness was the worship of the true God before the Canaanites by sacrifice, he did this before his circumcision. Noah wasn't circumcised and was told by the Lord after leaving the ark he could kill and eat anything that moved. But he too worshipped the God of heaven via sacrifice. Until only a century ago the emperors of China as priest for the Chinese people would yearly offer a bull in sacrifice before the idol-less Temple of Heaven, a last echo of Noahic and Abrahamic worship.

As Christians our separation is seen in our eating the bread of Christ and drinking his blood, this eating and drinking is done by having him be our perpetual lamb we offer to the Father as our means of worship. As Christ said at the Last Supper, the new covenant in his blood, replacing the old. The eucharist is a reminder, a bringing to our remembrance of this spiritual worship via the Lamb of God. This participation in Christ is our circumcision, our statement to the world we are God's people. Christ brought a return and completion to the spirituality of Noah who wasn't Jewish, this also was the religion, faith of Abraham.
Jeffrey555
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 2:26 pm

Re: Cardinal Koch:

Postby Pastaneta » Tue Nov 23, 2010 2:13 pm

. As Christ said at the Last Supper, the new covenant in his blood, replacing the old.


This has always been a problem for me. How can you trust a God who doesn't respect his word? If God is worthy of Trust, the covenant he made with Moses cannot be replaced.
User avatar
Pastaneta
 
Posts: 1023
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 7:05 am

Re: Cardinal Koch:

Postby CognitiveDistoibance » Tue Nov 23, 2010 2:31 pm

Pastaneta wrote:
. As Christ said at the Last Supper, the new covenant in his blood, replacing the old.


This has always been a problem for me. How can you trust a God who doesn't respect his word? If God is worthy of Trust, the covenant he made with Moses cannot be replaced.

Did the covenant with Moses replace the covenants with Abraham? Noah? Adam? :?

That said, the phrase used, "replacing the old" was not said, insofar as I can tell, by Christ. That would appear to be interpretation, if not interpolation.

Speaking of new covenants...

Jer 31:31 “Behold, days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah,
32 not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,” declares the Lord.
33 “But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the Lord,“I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.
User avatar
CognitiveDistoibance
 
Posts: 1189
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2009 7:46 pm

Re: Poor me . . .

Postby oao » Tue Nov 23, 2010 2:54 pm

Marcus wrote:Pitiful Pearl has milked the tits right off that cow . . move on.


Uhuh. Is this what passes for informed, reasoned here? Can't say I am surprised.

I know facts are inconvenient for some and it's obvious why too.
oao
 
Posts: 56
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 12:29 am

Re: Cardinal Koch:

Postby oao » Tue Nov 23, 2010 3:03 pm

Well, speaking of significance: The real question is whether is on what grounds did Paul or Moses have any authority to create/abrogate covenants.

While Moses was at the time some sort of leader of his people, who exactly was Paul? And what happens if we take anybody who claims such authority at his word?
oao
 
Posts: 56
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 12:29 am

PreviousNext

Return to Spengler's Writings

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest