GakuseiDon

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Paul has many quotes from Scriptures. Are you saying that the "Zion" passages added into Paul don't mean anything other than to show that Paul respects Jewish Scriptures? So "Zion" has no meaning there?

Let's be clear what you are saying. You are saying that up to the middle of the Second Century, there were early Christians who believed that Jesus was historical, but didn't regard showing the physical existence of Jesus as an item of high importance?

GakuseiDon

Symbolically to mean what, exactly?

rlogan

Maybe I will actually do some statistical analysis regarding the data Toto presented. In the meantime there are people actually paying me to do that and I'll have to do it on the plane or something on the way to the Philippines. Or when my wife is blowing everything I earn on dresses she can't wear here. I'll stay in the hotel and work & doodle here.

It is just amazing you don't "get" it. Zion is clearly used as a general "land of the Jews; Jewish religion". Being read in the mystical voodoo context....oooooo the saviour will be from zion.... wind rustling in the trees and moon shining through the mist...

This is not someone giving street directions to McDonald's.

Just blows me away you don't see this.

rlogan

Like I said. People are being precise about what they mean and you just keep saying "what do you mean"?


The only reason for that is because acknowledging the meaning carries with it the destruction of the whole ediface of the historical Jesus.

So therefore this meaning is inadmissable. It is not that it can't be understood. It is that the understanding threatens something too vital to you.

Toto

Or, possibly, many quotes from Scripture have been added to Paul's work. There is a cottage industry that analyzes Paul's use of Scripture; if I had a few years to spare I might be able to master it. From what I have read, no one so far has made the connection that you are trying to make.

I wouldn't say "no" meaning. Zion means what it means in that passage, but "Paul" (or whoever) isn't quoting that verse to refer to an event in Jerusalem.

The important dispute was over the quality of the Savior, and the evidence came from Scripture. It was a different mind set.

GakuseiDon

So, in your reading, Paul is saying that God has placed a stumbling block in the land of the Jews? Let's look at those passages again. I'll insert your meaning in italics below:

Rom 9:3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh,
Rom 9:4 who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises;
Rom 9:5 of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God...

Rom 9:32 For they [Israel] stumbled at that stumbling stone.
Rom 9:33 As it is written: "Behold, I lay in Zion a stumbling stone and rock of offense, And whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame"...

[Paul means that that the stumbling stone has been placed in the land of the Jews, and whoever believes in this rock of offense will not be put to shame]

Rom 10:9 ... if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.
Rom 10:10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
Rom 10:11 For the Scripture says, "Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame."

Does that capture what you are thinking here, rlogan?

GakuseiDon

Actually, "Paul" is taking two quotes from Isaiah in order to manufacture a passage from "Scriptures". Here is what Paul claims Scriptures say:

Rom 9:32 For they [Israel] stumbled at that stumbling stone.
Rom 9:33 As it is written: "Behold, I lay in Zion a stumbling stone and rock of offense, And whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame"...

Here is the context from where Paul manufactures his "quote" from Scriptures. Both are from Isaiah:

Isa 8:14 He will be as a sanctuary, But a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense
To both the houses of Israel, As a trap and a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem.

And:

Isa 28:14 Therefore hear the word of the LORD, you scornful men, Who rule this people who are in Jerusalem,
...
Isa 28:16 Therefore thus says the Lord GOD:

"Behold, I lay in Zion a stone for a foundation,
A tried stone, a precious cornerstone, a sure foundation;
Whoever believes will not act hastily."

For some reason, Paul has pulled in two separate passages, modified it, and given it his own meaning. Both are connected to Jerusalem, though only one uses "Zion".

Indeed it was, and that is something I've been saying also. But why cannot Paul have that mindset? Otherwise, it sounds like you are saying, "Paul couldn't have been a historicist, otherwise he would have been interested in showing the physical existence of Jesus. However, his letters were forged by historicists who were not interested in showing the physical existence of Jesus."

If there was a mindset whereby historicists weren't interested in the physical existence of Jesus, then why can't it be possible that Paul wasn't interested as well? Is it possible that Paul (assuming he was the original letter writer) had that particular mindset?

Toto

No, you haven't. You persist in referring to people of that era as historicists.

I can't even figure out how you got that.

The mind set of which I speak is that the historical existence of Jesus was not an issue. It's not that people were "not interested" in it, it is that it didn't make sense.

GakuseiDon

No, I mean what you said regarding there being a mindset whereby "the physical existence of Jesus was not an item of high importance." I think that this mindset existed beyond the Second Century as well. In fact, this was something I argued with Earl Doherty quite a few years ago, here.

I always wondered why Earl was so insistent on Tatian not believing in a historical Jesus at the time that Tatian wrote his "Oration to the Greeks". The evidence seems to indicate that Tatian almost certainly was orthodox in his beliefs. Then I realised Earl's dilemma: If there were Christians with that kind of mindset in the 160s, then why could Paul not have that kind of mindset? There are many examples of Christians with that kind of mindset. It almost is special pleading to claim that Paul was exempt from that kind of thinking.

That's the dilemma I think you face also, Toto. If you believe that the proto-orthodox had a hand in "Paul's" letters, and the proto-orthodox believed in a historical Jesus of some description but didn't include any firm historical details into Paul, then a historicist claiming that Paul was a proto-orthodox Christian who believed in a historical Jesus of some description but didn't include any firm historical details is not so unreasonable.

Toto

We are talking about different things.

You are talking about a mindset that is constructed to fit the evidence into your preconceived idea that there was a historical Jesus, even if no one talked about him.

You think that there was a charismatic, important person who started a religion, but the details of his person and life were of no interest to his immediate followers.

The mindset that I had in mind is the mindset where the question of whether there was a historical Jesus does not make a lot of sense. Their Jesus was a god. He could have come down to earth - if he wanted - maybe he did, maybe he didn't. If he was on earth, maybe he was only a spirit in the form of a man. The important point - was he one with the father, or subordinate?

I'm taking a break for the weekend, but I don't see this going anywhere.