Cardinal Koch: "Israel Remains the Chosen People"

[Michael]

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.

I would have said that Alexandria was a hot-bed of anti-semitism from Hecataeus of Abdera and Manetho onwards, but thank you for clarifying. certainly some of those ideas were adopted (or never relinquished) by Alexandrian Christians, in particular. I was merely arguing that such ideas were current in the 1st century, long before Chritianity started to have a strong cultural influence, which cannot have been later than the early 4th century.

The idea of Christ's death as "penal substitution" or satisfying Divine justice is merely one theological interpretation and there is little evidence of it in the early Church.

Thus Athanasius in the 4th century says

He takes from us a nature similar to ours and, since we are all subject to corruption and death, He delivers His body to death for us

For the Fathers, the result of the Fall is mortality as the devil's victory, rather than inherited guilt, with sin and corruption as its consequence. Christ's death and resurrection are seen as a victory over death and thereby breaking the devil's power. A very different idea, this, than the suffering substitute. The legal idea of crime, punishment and satisfaction is comparatively late and, characteristically, Western. It was first fully developped by St Anselm in the 11th century.

[oao]

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...)

The short answer is yes, I did, some. But I also rely on others who have dedicated much more time, effort and resources in studying the subject than I could ever do and I do not do so blindly: informed and reasoned is a criterion I use to judge, as Spengler demands, if not consistently. I've also read critiques of those sources before I finalized judgment. And usually there's no contest, although some of the questioning is valid, but it does not invalidate the thrust of the arguments.

[oao]

The idea of Christ's death as "penal substitution" or satisfying Divine justice is merely one theological interpretation and there is little evidence of it in the early Church.

My point, though, is that ALL such interpretations are unjustified because either (1) jesus did not really exist, but is a myth or (2) he did exist, but there is no reason to imbue him and his death with those kinds of interpretation.

[oao]

The legal idea of crime, punishment and satisfaction is comparatively late and, characteristically, Western. It was first fully developped by St Anselm in the 11th century.Michael

Further proof that theological interpretations have much more mundane, social and political roots, than divinity.

[oao]

To clarify further: wanna discuss right and wrong, fine, but why do you need a supernatural divinity to do so?

[Pastaneta]

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

No... But all the old covenants held. With Noach, it is the source of the Noachide laws. The covenant with Abraham was renewed at Sinai. This is why Jews are still circumcised.

With Adam? This is a good question. Adam was given dominion over the earth and the animals...

[Jeffrey555]

. 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.

The writer in Hebrews said speaking of the replacement of the covenant made with Moses - "A better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God" Hebrews 7:19

In modern terms the New Covenant was a technology upgrade from God, the cumbersome system of tabernacle/temple/ sacrifices, priesthood, circumcision, sabbath, dietary laws, geographic location in Israel, seasonal gatherings, even clothing and hair cuts was miniaturized and universalized in the person and work of Jesus Christ, access to God was simplified and made available more easily and more effectively. Try it sometime, when I trusted Christ in my early twenties after a stint in eastern religions and a nonreligious childhood my eyes flew open in mid prayer in surprise at the sudden closeness of the God of Abraham, Jacob, and Isaac.

[Marcus]

The writer in Hebrews said speaking of the replacement of the covenant made with Moses - "A better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God" Hebrews 7:19

In modern terms the New Covenant was a technology upgrade from God, the cumbersome system of tabernacle/temple/ sacrifices, priesthood, circumcision, sabbath, dietary laws, geographic location in Israel, seasonal gatherings, even clothing and hair cuts was miniaturized and universalized in the person and work of Jesus Christ, access to God was simplified and made available more easily and more effectively. . . when I trusted Christ . . my eyes flew open . . in surprise at the sudden closeness of the God of Abraham, Jacob, and Isaac.

Amen . . .

[CognitiveDistoibance]

. 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.

The writer in Hebrews said speaking of the replacement of the covenant made with Moses - "A better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God" Hebrews 7:19

...

There is that replace terminology again. From whence do you draw it? The original remark seemed to place it in the mouth of Christ ... which I (perhaps too gently) suggested was an embellishment of the record. Now you repeat it. Do you think "better hope" yields a sufficient justification for replacement?

Or are you knowingly trying to stir up a conflagration?

[oao]

In modern terms the New Covenant was a technology upgrade from God, the cumbersome system of tabernacle/temple/ sacrifices, priesthood, circumcision, sabbath, dietary laws, geographic location in Israel, seasonal gatherings, even clothing and hair cuts was miniaturized and universalized in the person and work of Jesus Christ, access to God was simplified and made available more easily and more effectively. . . when I trusted Christ . . my eyes flew open . . in surprise at the sudden closeness of the God of Abraham, Jacob, and Isaac.

Ah, yes, how convenient. Isn't that what I said about Paul's "ease of use" modifications?

[oao]

There is that replace terminology again. From whence do you draw it? The original remark seemed to place it in the mouth of Christ ... which I (perhaps too gently) suggested was an embellishment of the record. Now you repeat it. Do you think "better hope" yields a sufficient justification for replacement?

Which is precisely what Ehrman argues about the making and use of the gospels: when some scribe did not exactly agree with the manuscript he was copying, he "improved" on it, or "corrected" it and so forth. And based on those copies plus the mistakes made in them people make claims of historical facts, themselves embedding in them what they wish and want to believe and making it up along the way with the certitude of eyewitnesses.

Ah, well, that's faith by definition.

[Hakeem]

Michael and Jeffrey333,

I did not get the answers I was looking for. Perhaps I could elaborate on the questions further.

How did the apostles of Jesus pray? Meaning what was the mode of prayer and what did they say in the prayers.

Meaning, is it recorded how they performed their prayers? Were these prayer sessions in groups, or were these individually performed? Did Jesus team them how to pray and is it recorded?

Did Jesus ever lead them in prayer and how? Did any of them ever lead others in prayers?

Related to the first one, but still what evidence is there as to the how the prayers were performed. Were they similar to the way Jews performed prayers, or were they different and how? Did they all pray to the same God?

If Jesus was, say, a Jew, how did he pray to the almighty? Did he practice the Jewish form of prayer?

Michael said:

In Matthew's Gospel (6: 5-14)

“And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. 6 But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. 7 And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. 8 Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.

Does that mean that the people praying to God at that time (performing public prayers) were hypocrites? Were they hypocrites only because they prayed publicly in the synagogues? If Jesus is a Jew and a teacher, why would he change how the prayer was performed?

Jeffrey333 said:

In every day terms, we realize we are before the Living God who loves us and we speak to him, His response to our prayers is his life in us. The New Testament Writers saw Jesus as the one who connects us to God, the bridge or mediator, we trust in Jesus as our way to connect to God and God places his life in us - the Holy Spirit

Again I was after the questions above.

Spengler,

Father in heaven is fine, by physical father in heaven is...

[Hakeem]

God does not replace anything for anyone.

The message is the same for all the mankind, brought to this world by different messengers. And when the messengers have done what God has commanded them to do, they do not stand between man and the almighty.

[Pastaneta]

Or are you knowingly trying to stir up a conflagration?

Well the replacement theology is pernicious...

[Marcus]

. . replacement theology is pernicious...

Supersessionism (also called fulfillment theology or, pejoratively, replacement theology) is a Christian interpretation of New Testament claims, viewing God's relationship with Christians as being either the "replacement" or "fulfillment" or "completion" of the promise made to the Jews (or Israelites) and Jewish Proselytes. Biblical expressions of God's relationships with people are known as covenants, so the contentious element of supersessionism is the idea that the New Covenant with the Christians and the Christian Church replaces, fulfills or completes the Mosaic Covenant (or Torah) with the Israelites and B'nei Noah. One question in supercessionism is how or to what degree the ethics of the Mosaic Covenant are replaced or abrogated by the New Covenant.

—from The Westminster Confession of Faith 1649

Chapter XIX: Of the Law of God

II. This law, after [Adam's] fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness; and, as such, was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments, and written in two tables: the first four commandments containing our duty towards God; and the other six, our duty to man.

III. Besides this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, His graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits; and partly, holding forth divers instructions of moral duties. All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated, under the New Testament.

IV. To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging under any now, further than the general equity thereof may require.

V. The moral law does forever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof; and that, not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator, who gave it. Neither does Christ, in the Gospel, any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation.

Never, in fact, has any papal or conciliar document affirmed that the covenant God made with Israel through Moses, with all its distinctive cultic, civil, dietary and other prescriptions that still form the basis of Judaism, still remains valid and “unrevoked” for Jews after the coming of Christ. It is a great relief, therefore, to see that he United States bishops voted overwhelmingly in August 2008 to eliminate a statement to that effect that had made its way into the new Catechism published with the authority of the episcopal conference. The uncorrected version stated, “Thus the covenant that God made with the Jewish people through Moses remains eternally valid for them.” The new version is content to quote a key passage from St. Paul: “To the Jewish people, whom God first chose to hear his word, ‘belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ’ (Rom 9:4-5; cf. CCC, No. 839) ”.

Understanding the relevant magisterial statements and formal liturgical texts in a way that gives due emphasis to the irrevocable covenant made by God with Abraham and his descendants thus clarifies this issue. It enables us to see both the perennial consistency and the true meaning of the Church’s witness regarding the supersession (or replacement) of the specifically Mosaic covenant by that which was anticipated at the Last Supper and sealed with the blood of Christ, shed once and for all on Calvary.

Rev. Brian Harrison, O.S., S.T.D. is an Australian-born convert to the Catholic faith and an emeritus professor of theology of the Pontifical Catholic University of Puerto Rico. He is now scholar-in-residence at the Oblates of Wisdom Study Center in St. Louis, Missouri. Father Harrison's two books and many articles stress the importance of upholding the continuity of the Church's doctrine and worship before and after Vatican Council II.