Toto

Just to repeat the basis of your claim

So your "logic" is that

A. Christ crucified was a "stumbling block" to the Jews
B. Isaiah says that a stumbling block was laid in Zion
C. Isaiah says that the deliverer will come out of Zion (not Galilee?)
D. Zion is Jerusalem
E. Therefore Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem.

???

The most obvious problem is that "stumbling block" was a common metaphor. It was a common experience in an unpaved environment to stumble over some obstacle.

See Dictionary of Biblical Imagery (or via: amazon.co.uk), p. 823 (on google books) See more at that passage.

The stumbling block, like Zion, is highly metaphorical. If there were only one stumbling block in the world, you might have a tenuous connection. But as it is, I can't take this seriously. There is no logical connection, however confident you seem to be.

GakuseiDon

It's a fair point, Toto, and I agree the connection between 1Cor 1:23 and Rom 9:32 is weak. But it isn't just "stumbling block" that Paul is using, but "Israel stumbled at that stumbling block". Look at 1Cor 1:23, where "Christ crucified" is a stumbling block to the Jews, and foolishness to Gentiles.

If Paul is trying to tie Christ back to the Scriptures as a legitimate Messiah, then it wouldn't be surprising for him to repeat in a number of places that Israel has stumbled at that particular stumbling block, precisely because it is found in Scriptures. Paul wants to show that Christ dying and resurrecting was somehow part of Scriptures. Since Scriptures doesn't say it directly, I am speculating that in 1 Cor 1 he is using "Jews stumbled at that stumbling block" in order to invoke Isaiah. But I agree that it is speculation on my part, even though I believe that it isn't coincidence myself.

But looking at Rom 9 and 10 only for now (my bolding):

Rom 9:30 What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness of faith;
Rom 9:31 but Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness.
Rom 9:32 Why? Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, by the works of the law. For they 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."

...
Rom 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes...
Rom 10:9 that 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."

So:
* Israel pursued the law of righteousness, but they stumbled at a stumbling stone that was laid in Zion
* Christ is the end of the law of righteousness
* "Whoever believes in Him will not be put to shame"
* If you believe that God raised Christ from the dead, you will be saved, and will not be put to shame.

What do you think was laid in Zion, and how? And how does it square with "The Deliverer will come out of Zion" and "Christ crucified is a stumbling block"? I propose this is evidence towards Paul understanding that Christ was crucified and resurrected in Jerusalem. Is there a better explanation for these passages?

(ETA) Toto, keep in mind that we are looking at different hypotheses here. So you can say:
1. "GDon, that doesn't make sense. Paul can't have thought that Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem, for these reasons...", or:
2. "GDon, that makes sense, but here is a better hypothesis to explain these passages..."

But please don't leave it at: "I'm not convinced. You haven't PROVED your case." It isn't about convincing you (or dog-on or bacht) or about proving anything, but to see what the best explanation is.

rlogan

Hi GakusiDon

It's religious melodramatic midrash gobbledygook.

When writers say "Person X crucified and died in Jerusalem" then it means just that.

It is the superstitious scribblings of bronze-age goat herders, mined from previous scribblings of even less developed goat-herders. Mystical subject matter, mystical personages, vague anchoring to reality because there can be nothing but vague anchoring of the mystical to reality.

rlogan

We are in agreement about this.

Toto

GDon, that doesn't make sense. There is no indication that Paul knew where Jesus was crucified, or even that he thought Jesus was crucified on earth.

The stumbling block, after all, is a metaphor. Surely you do not think that Isaiah or Paul thought that God put a literal rock in Zion/Jerusalem designed to trip the Israelites up, like a pratfall on a banana peel in some slapstick comedy from the 30's?

The stumbling block is there metaphorically to divert those Jews who sought righteousness; they could not reach their ultimate goal because they relied on the law and not on faith. Jesus represents faith, and his crucifixion is what trips them up (metaphorically.) Nothing anywhere in all this requires that Jesus was on earth or crucified, much less that the site of the crucifiction can be identified.

The "deliverer coming out of Zion" doesn't relate to any of this. Did Jesus come OUT of Zion/Jerusalem? Under which historicist scenario?

And don't we agree that Paul uses Jerusalem metaphorically at times? Do you really feel any confidence that his references to Zion refer to the earthly location of Jerusalem?

I still think that you are not making any sense at all. You don't even have the makings of a coherent hypothesis, much less the basis for asking for an explanation.

GakuseiDon

OK. Christ's crucifixion is the stumbling block that trips them up. That stumbling block was laid in Zion. So what was laid in Zion in your opinion?

:huh: Paul could be talking about the resurrection appearances, the ascension to Heaven, something else entirely. Unless you think it is important, I can't see it affecting the reading. It is what Paul says, make of it what you will:

Rom 11:26 And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: "The Deliverer will come out of Zion, And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob
Rom 11:27 For this [is] my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins".

Paul seems to be talking about a person, "the Deliverer". The Deliverer appears to be Jesus Christ. I suggest he is saying that Jesus came out of Jerusalem.

What do you think it means? Who came out of Zion? And what does "Zion" mean in this context? Is my view reasonable (even if not proof), in your opinion?

I'm suggesting that this is the best explanation. Is there a better explanation, that makes better sense of the passages? That's the whole purpose of this thread -- to see competing hypotheses.

It may be wrong, but it is coherent. I am suggesting that Paul believes that Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem, and that those passages support this conclusion, at least on face reading. Simply saying that "maybe Paul meant something else" doesn't show my reading isn't incorrect or isn't the best one. I'll grant that it is always possible that Paul meant something else. So, please present your hypothesis, and show how that hypothesis is a better fit to those passages. That's the purpose of this thread.

rlogan

First of all, again, you have to be almost blind not to see that the whole of the Bible is mystical religious scribblings from cover to cover. No God creating things in six days, no moses, and all the way to revelations no chariots in the sky with thunderbolts and LSD-trip type horse pucky.

Instead you start from the assumption, as you stated earlier, that Paul is writing about a historical Jesus.

So of course your methodology is to take all these obviously metaphorical statements and ascribe historical meanings to them.

At face value they are exactly that: metaphors. And you admit so directly by saying he means something other than what he is writing. That the writing is a metaphor for Jerusalem instead of SAYING Jerusalem.

It is weird to me that a person would be essentially frank that the whole thing is metaphorical, except that it is a bizarre case where it is really just a history book that writes metaphorically instead of in "plain english".

Cheers.

Analyst

So this supports the "Paul was a revisionist of Judaism just as Joseph Smith was a revisionist of Christianity" idea?

Toto

Something that trips up those who seek the law. But I see no reason to concretize it to a crucifixion in a particular place.


The original Deliverer in Isaiah was probably a military hero. Paul is discovering Jesus in the Scriptures. I think that Jerusalem is irrelevant here.

I am suggesting that this is an explanation that makes no sense. It is just something you want to believe. A better explanation is that Zion is a mythical place and Jesus a mythical Savior.

"Ad hoc" would be a better description.

"Jerusalem" is not in the face reading. On face reading, Paul was engaged in creative interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures. Or maybe he was on drugs.

It isn't that maybe Paul meant something else. It is that Paul does not mention Jerusalem at all, and you are trying to force that reading.

Admitting that you do not know exactly what Paul meant is far superior to reading something into Paul that is not there.

And the original purpose of this thread was to split of Elijah's ramblings.

GakuseiDon

My hypothesis is that Paul is talking about (1) an earthly Jesus, (2) who was crucified in Jerusalem, and (3) died in Paul's recent past.

IF that is the case, then the most likely explanation IMO is that Paul believed this because there was a historical Jesus.

Fine. So, what does Paul mean in those passages, then?

Look, if you want to claim that Paul "meant something else", then let's see your explanation.

It seems bizarre to me what you and Toto are doing. "Oh, we don't know what Paul means, but he COULDN'T have meant THAT". :banghead:

I'm happy to admit that I can't prove anything for sure, but I believe my readings are reasonable. If you have a better reading that takes in these passages, by all means I'd like to hear it.

But if you just want to say, "hey, you might be wrong about Paul" without providing a reading that makes better sense than the ones I've proposed, then I'm more than happy to agree with you that I might be wrong.