Solo

Who could it be ?

Jiri

rlogan

You are clearly starting with an assumption and moreover asked others to start with exactly the same assumption, and then asked them to interpret the evidence given that you already assumed Paul was writing about a historical Jesus.

Clearly circular.

right. Circular. Assume Paul is writing about a historical Jesus first, and then interpret all evidence accordingly. Therefore he wrote about a historical Jesus

Can't be clearer circularity than this.

That is what drives me nuts. You cannot see that you are assuming your conclusion.

That is why I have chosen the block as an example. Because you "get" that it is a metaphor.

Now the hard part: is it even remotely possible that in this gigantic screed consisting of metaphors from one cover to the other, full of people that never existed - that the mystical and metaphorical might even extend to Jesus.


Zion does not mean Jerusalem. There is no need for both words if they mean the same thing. You do not see the need to look for anything except what you need the word to mean in order to fit the assumption of a crucifixion in Jerusalem.

You did not deduce that the crucifixion was in Jerusalem because you read "Zion". Independent of this discussion if someone asked what "Zion" meant, you would not have replied "It means Jerusalem".

Your methodology was to assume there was a crucifixion in Jerusalem and then choose the meaning of "Zion" to fit that assumption.

Ben - take a look in the mirror when you are busy being a hypocrite by insulting people with comments like "inane" whilst pretending to be so polite.

"Inane: asinine; devoid of intelligence..."

Take a hike with that attitude. It would have been one thing to suggest to someone to be more polite. But when you are insulting me at the same time then you can just take your attitude and kiss my butt with it.

You take back that comment though and I will reciprocate accordingly.

It would be following your own hypocritical advice.

Cheers.

aa5874

To show the letter writer called Paul is irrelevant to the historicity of Jesus, reference to a passage in 1 Corintinians will be made.

1Cor 15:3-4 Now, if the Jewish Scriptures are examined not a single mention is made of the name Jesus of Nazareth anywhere. If the Jewish Scriptures are examined there is no mention whatsoever of any Jesus who would die for the sins of the Jews, and no mention that there was a Jesus who would rise on the third day.

In effect, nothing in 1 Corinthians 15.3-4 can be found in the Jewish Scriptures.

So, how did the letter writer manage to get information about Jesus? How did he know that there was a resurrected Jesus in heaven that could reveal things to him?

The letter writer appears to have received his information from the scriptures, not Jewish Scriptures, but the scriptures that contained the Jesus stories.

Matthew 12:40
The author of Matthew is the only author in the NT to directly link the Jonah story to the Jesus of the NT. In the book of Jonah, the book with the fish story, there is no mention whatsoever of Jesus or his death.

The writer called Paul is irrelevant, his sources for Jesus are bogus. Jesus of the NT is nowhere in the Jewish scriptures.

GakuseiDon

If I was asking people to assume that Zion is Jerusalem, for example, in order to prove that Zion is Jerusalem, then you would be right.

I am not asking people to assume that Zion is Jerusalem. I am saying that there is a variety of readings for Zion. I am arguing that the historical Jerusalem is the best fit for this, since it makes the best sense in context. (Note that Ben doesn't necessarily agree with me here).

The very fact that we are having this discussion shows that I am not concluding what I am assuming. If that was the case, I wouldn't be inviting discussion on this.

Unless you don't want to go beyond "We don't know what Paul meant, but he couldn't have meant that", I invite you to give what you think "Zion" means in context. Is it meaningless? If so, and Paul was getting his information from Scriptures, why would he ignore it? Or if it does have meaning, what do you think Paul meant?

Some have given various possibilities about what Paul MIGHT have meant, and I agree that they are possible. But alternate possibilities don't necessarily invalidate my reading as the best one. Do the alternate readings make better sense with the rest of Paul? That's the question I am asking.

No, I'm not. I'm inviting you to propose a better reading, in context with the letters we have from Paul that are generally attributed to him as being genuine. I'm proposing that my reading makes sense in context of those passages, and may be the best reading available.

Then why accuse me of claiming there was a literal one so many times? C'mon, you sounded like a damn fool. We both knew that I understood "stumbling stone" as metaphor. Why not just make your point that other things (like Zion) could be metaphor as well? (Or make the point again, I suppose. Heck, I'd already agreed at least twice before that Paul might have meant something else than Jerusalem)

I an not saying "That's the only possible reading, and that's all there is to it!" I WANT you to argue with me. I WANT you to propose a hypothesis that better fits the data, so we can examine it with the rest of Paul's writings.

Anyway, this is how you so eloquently put it:

EXAMPLE:

STUMBLING BLOCK is a METAPHOR Don. Get it? There is no fucking BLOCK of STONE Don.

But you are so blind that you insist there must be a REAL BLOCK. That is your methodology applied to the block.

WE ACCEPT THE DAMN METAPHOR AT FACE VALUE. NO GOD DAMNED BLOCK.

METAPHOR DON. METAPHOR. Golly, this is a real hard one too. What is the metaphor referring to? Duh.

You insist we have to go BEYOND THE METAPHOR and supply you with some STONE BLOCK.

THERE IS NO BLOCK.

YOU are the one going beyond the face-value meaning insisting that there must be a REAL BLOCK with this methodology. WE are the ones sticking with THE TEXT which is clearly METAPHORICAL.

Zion is not Jerusalem, Don. That is YOU struggling to turn what is clearly a metaphor into a SPECIFIC CITY.

I think you could have just used the last sentence, and still made your point, though I guess you disagree, even though I had said at least twice earlier that Paul might have meant something else.

So: Zion is NOT Jerusalem. It is metaphor. Fair enough. What is it metaphor for? How does it fit into a wider view of Paul's writings, IYO?

Sure, it is most definitely possible. It's one of several possibilities that we can discuss. Can you expand on it, please?

The hard part is trying to get mythicists to present their own hypotheses in a cohesive and comprehensive manner. What did Paul mean by "Zion", and how does that cohere with the rest of Paul, in your opinion?

Actually, historically, it did mean Jerusalem, or a part of it. Metaphorically it can have a variety of meanings.

But okay. "Zion" doesn't mean Jerusalem. What DOES it mean, then, in context? What do you really honestly propose that Paul was saying by using "Zion"? Is it just a hangover from a passage that Paul wanted to use?

I don't just care what you DON'T think it means, I want to understand what you DO think it means.

My methodology is that "Zion" could have a variety of meanings, and that "Zion" as the historical Jerusalem is the best fit.

Can you give the passages, and explain what Zion means in context of those passages, please? Then we can compare and examine the nuances of both arguments.

At the end of the day, the best reading will probably rely on other aspects of our cases, e.g. when did Paul think that Jesus died? Did he think Jesus was an earthly being or not? These "minihits" (as Ben called them) are needed to add weight to my claim about "Zion" being Jerusalem. I agree that just those passages mentioning "Zion" alone are not enough to establish my case about where Paul thought the crucifixion occurred.

So: unless you want to argue "We don't know what Paul meant, but he couldn't have meant that", can you explain what you thought Paul meant in those passages? Then we can expand this to see how consistent it is with other passages within Paul.

aa5874

The letter writer called Paul is irrelevant to the historicity of Jesus. The writer claimed Jesus is found in the scriptures but upon examining the Jewish Scriptures no information whatsoever can be found about any one named Jesus who would die and resurrect after three days.

Again, in Romans, the writer called Paul wrote about information that is supposed to be in the scriptures about Jesus.

Romans 1.1-3 The writer called Paul claimed that in the scriptures that Jesus was of the seed of David, but there is no such information any where at all in the Jewish Scriptures. The writer gives bogus information, he may be bi-polar, have major problems with veraciry, hallucinating or believed what he wrote was true.

The Jesus of the NT is nowhere in Jewish Scriptures and nowhere is it stated in them that Jesus is of the seed of David.

But, in the scriptures or the NT with the Jesus stories, it was Jesus himself who told John that he was the offspring of David.

Revelation 22:16 - The writer called Paul appear to have received his information from the scriptures found in the NT.

The writer called Paul is irrelevant to the historicity of Jesus, his information is bogus.

Toto

No, you are asking people to assume that Zion is Jerusalem in order to prove that Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem.

It only makes the best sense if your underlying assumptin is that Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem.

You have invited discussion, but you are not prepared to modify your assumptions, so it is not clear what we are discussing.

How about, "We don't know what Paul meant, and we have no reason to assume that he meant Jerusalem."

Since your reading does not make sense to anyone but you, it's not clear what kind of a standard this is.

Perhaps you should start by showing that your reading does in fact make sense.

Paul does not otherwise mention Zion, and he uses Jerusalem in a metaphorical sense at times. In fact, Paul is rather ungrounded. He never seems to refer to an actual place (other than the churches that he is presumed to be writing to.) This argues against this passage referring to an actual historical crucifixion in Jerusalem.

Is this an argument or just baiting?

<snip overly repetitive portions.>

But that is what Paul's epistles lack - any hard specifics on Jesus. Otherwise we would not be having this argument. Does that not argue against reading a historical crucifixion in Jerusalem into this passage?

GakuseiDon

No, I'm saying that one of the options is that Zion is Jerusalem. That's because Zion is used to refer to Jerusalem (and other things) on occasions. Do you think it is impossible for it to be used to refer to Jerusalem here? If so, please say why. Otherwise, you have to agree that it is one of the options.

Are there other options? Then let's list them out. It may be possible that we can discard the weaker ones (with mine being one of them), or show that one is stronger than another.

Part of examining the options is seeing how they fit into particular hypotheses.

For example, do you propose that Paul gets his information from Scriptures? If you do so, and you think that Paul is ignoring the "Zion" part of the passage, then you would need to explain this.

Or if you propose that Paul gets his information from Scriptures, and therefore "Zion" has meaning, then what is it? What are the options? Which ones are stronger?

These aren't rhetorical questions. In a cumulative case, no argument stands or falls on its own, but helps to build strength for an overall conclusion.

But we do have reason to assume that he COULD mean Jerusalem. That is because Zion is used for Jerusalem. What are the other possible options? Are they any stronger than this?

And that is a good point! So, you are saying that "Zion" is meaningless in those passages? Or that "Zion" does have meaning? If it has meaning, then what does it mean, IYO?

It does, most definitely! It's a good point. So then, how does this impact on "Zion"'s meaning in those passages? What does it mean, IYO?

Toto

GDon: let's look at Paul's use of Jerusalem and Zion.

A keyword search reveals 2 mentions of Zion in Paul, both in Romans, and both quoting the Hebrew Scriptures:

On the other hand, Paul does talk about Jerusalem in a concrete sense - never in relation to Jesus, but always in relation to his own travels or church business:

Paul also uses Jerusalem symbolically:

And there is this reference in Hebrews: So we see that Paul is perfectly capable of referring to Jerusalem when he means Jerusalem; that Jerusalem can be symbolic; and that Paul does not have to use Zion when he means Jerusalem.

Your interpretation just does not make sense. It would require that Paul felt a need to refer to the place of Jesus' crucifixion in code language. But Paul spoke openly of the crucifixion - why would the place be hidden?

GakuseiDon

Yes, I can agree with all of that.

It isn't hidden, Toto. We need to be careful to not underestimate how central the Hebrew Scriptures were for early Christians to prove the validity of their beliefs. Early Christians, even well into the Second Century and beyond, used the Hebrew Scriptures to show that Jesus was the predicted Christ. We can all see how this almost certainly affected the development of stories in the Gospels. We can see how the crucifixion scene is affected by Psalm 22, for example.

I know that there may be little history in Acts, but I think this accurately depicts the mindset of those times:

Act 17:2 Then Paul, as his custom was, went in to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures,
Act 17:3 explaining and demonstrating that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead...

That's "the code", if there is any. Nowadays apologists try to show that Christ actually rose from the dead. But in Paul's day, the primary concern was trying to show that the Christ dying and rising from the dead conformed to Scriptures. I'm sure the Jews would have been asking Paul, "What did it matter about someone rising from the dead? That didn't make them the Christ, did it?" And that is what Paul had to prove -- that his Jesus matched the Christ found in Scriptures. (THAT is part of the mystery that was hidden from the beginning of time, along with its significance to Gentiles, IMO.)

Another example can be found in Acts:

Act 17:11 These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.
Act 17:12 Therefore many of them believed, and also not a few of the Greeks, prominent women as well as men.

Why did they believe? It wasn't from some brute historical fact, but because it could be resolved with Scriptures. They heard what Paul said, and then searched the Scriptures to see if it was so.

Now, imagine Paul coming along and quoting from Scriptures:

For they [the Jews] stumbled at that stumbling stone.
As it is written: "See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame." ...
For the Scriptures says, "Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame."

...

And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: "The deliverer will come from Zion; he will turn godlessness away from Jacob."

He's trying to prove that Jesus is the Christ (regardless of whether this is a HJ or an MJ). Given the importance of the Hebrew Scriptures to prove that Jesus is the Christ, what would Paul's detractors have made of these passages?

aa5874

There is no Jesus in Jewish Scriptures anywhere at all. There is no name, no predicted time of birth, no place of birth, no miracles to be performed, no crucifixion, no death, no resurrection or ascension of any one called Jesus in Jewish Scriptures anywhere at all.

Jesus of the NT was presented as the son of the God of the Jews, born without sexual union. No such creature is any where in the Jewish Scriptures.

Jesus of the NT was a complete fabrication for theological purposes.