Paul indicated Jesus was crucified on earth.

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3256
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Paul indicated Jesus was crucified on earth.

Post by Bernard Muller » Mon Feb 02, 2015 4:15 pm

Strangely enough, on that forum, I often provided the link for my blog post on "Paul indicated Jesus was crucified on earth", but I never got any reaction.
Here is the blog post in question, its title and its introduction:
http://historical-jesus.info/19.html
>> Is there evidence in Paul's epistles about the Crucifixion on earth? Yes
That's right: Yes, there is. It may not be the most direct, but certainly it's a lot better than whatever Doherty has for his own world of myth! With updates from Carrier "On The Historicity Of Jesus" (OHJ)

I want to hear your criticism.

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed

Stephan Huller
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: Paul indicated Jesus was crucified on earth.

Post by Stephan Huller » Mon Feb 02, 2015 6:13 pm

I don't have a dog in this fight but the question boils down to whether or not Paul is only thinking of one 'scandal' or many. Is the reference to the rejected cornerstone a crucifixion reference? I think that to strengthen your case you should cite early Church Fathers who held every reference to scandal in the Pauline letters as a crucifixion reference. While I don't know exactly every reference if memory serves me well the more consistent use of scandal is that god would be born from a virgin - but I could be wrong.

Stephan Huller
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: Paul indicated Jesus was crucified on earth.

Post by Stephan Huller » Mon Feb 02, 2015 8:46 pm

Score one for Bernard: "The stone," says He, "which the builders rejected, is become the head-stone of the corner. This is the Lord's doing."1427 Now it would be idle, if we believed that God had predicted the humiliation, or even the glory, of any Christ at all, that He could have signed His prophecy for any but Him whom He had foretold under the figure of a stone, and a rock, and a mountain.1428 If, however, He speaks of His own coming, why does He compare it with the days of Noe and of Lot,1429 which were dark and terrible----a mild and gentle God as He is? Why does He bid us "remember Lot's wife,"1430 who despised the Creator's command, and was punished for her contempt, if He does not come with judgment to avenge the infraction of His precepts? [Tertullian Against Marcion 4:35:15]

Stephan Huller
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: Paul indicated Jesus was crucified on earth.

Post by Stephan Huller » Mon Feb 02, 2015 8:48 pm

The next reference in Tertullian contradicts this assumption. The cornerstone is the church and Paul the wise master builder - For when (the apostle) calls himself "a wise master-builder,"263 we find that the Creator by Isaiah designates the teacher who sketches264 out the divine discipline by the same title, "I will take away from Judah the cunning artificer,"265 etc. And was it not Paul himself who was there foretold, destined "to be taken away from Judah"----that is, from Judaism----for the erection of Christianity, in order "to lay that only foundation, which is Christ? "266 Of this work the Creator also by the same prophet says, "Behold, I lay in Sion for a foundation a precious stone and honourable; and he that resteth thereon shall not be confounded." [Tertullian Against Marcion 5:6.10]

outhouse
Posts: 3573
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Paul indicated Jesus was crucified on earth.

Post by outhouse » Mon Feb 02, 2015 9:06 pm

Bernard Muller wrote: "Paul indicated Jesus was crucified on earth",




I want to hear your criticism.

Cordially, Bernard

Honestly there is no debate here. If you want to criticize Carrier and Doherty's idiocy, I am all with you and agree.


But there is no debate here. Your giving this line of reasoning more credibility then it deserves, by elevating into this position of being debatable.


This is like debated evolution with a YEC, you wont change their mind, and you get to sit back and laugh at how they twist evidence to meet their personal agenda.

Stephan Huller
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: Paul indicated Jesus was crucified on earth.

Post by Stephan Huller » Mon Feb 02, 2015 9:54 pm

But the ambiguities in Paul's writings are always an interesting topic. Certainly not the worst conversation at the forum.

User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 843
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Paul indicated Jesus was crucified on earth.

Post by GakuseiDon » Mon Feb 02, 2015 11:11 pm

It's probably worth giving Carrier's explanation for that passage from Bernard's site, though as Bernard notes, Carrier ignores the "Zion" reference in Rom 11:26.

Carrier writes on page 572 of OHJ:
  • Paul likewise says God put 'in Zion a stone of stumbling' although anyone who trusts in it will not be ashamed (Rom. 9.33); but he is quoting scripture here (not citing a historical fact), and the context is the Torah and the gospel (Rom. 9.30-32), not Jesus. [79] Thus Paul does not mean Jesus was crucified 'in Zion' as some sort of geographical fact. Even if Paul believed he had been (as could be the case on minimal historicity), that is not what Paul is talking about here. The subject is not Jesus at all, but the old Torah law that Jews were still trying to obey, yet could never succeed at (Rom. 9.30-10.6). They are thus stumbling over the gospel's concept that faith succeeds where works fail (9.32), as God intended (9.33); but it was still Paul's hope that the Jews would be saved (Rom. 10.1).[80] It is thus the gospel that originated 'in Zion'. And even that is not geography but ethnography: he simply means it originated within Judaism.
    -----
    79. The scripture he quotes is a conflation of lsa. 8.14 with Isa. 28.16. Most likely Paul's copy of Isaiah had a variant reading for the latter, which had been contaminated by the former (or vice versa).
    80. One might read Paul here as saying it was the Torah law they were stumbling on, but the whole line he quotes from scripture implies he means the gospel (in which Christians trust), by analogy to 1 Cor. 1.23 and Gal 5.11 (and 1 Pet. 2.7-8). See Hans Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians: A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1975), pp. 612-14.
This is Romans 9.30 thru 10.1:
  • 9.30. What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.
    31. But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.
    32. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;
    33. As it is written, Behold, I lay in Zion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
    10.1. Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.
This is the Rom 11 entry on Zion that Carrier does not address in OHJ:
  • 11.25. For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
    26. And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Zion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
    27. For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
Beyond Bernard's excellent analysis of how Paul is mashing scriptures together to create a new scriptural saying, note how confusing Carrier's explanation is. That isn't a one-off either. I encountered many "WTF?" moments going through OHJ, where I had to reread Carrier a number of times to try to understand what he is saying. Take his explanation above:

1. First, he makes the point that Paul "is quoting scripture here (not citing a historical fact), and the context is the Torah and the gospel (Rom. 9.30-32), not Jesus". Okay, fair enough. Paul is quoting scripture, not citing a historical fact.
2. But what Paul is saying, according to Carrier, is that the Jews "are thus stumbling over the gospel's concept that faith succeeds where works fail (9.32)" But aren't "the Jews stumbling over the gospel's concept" a 'historical fact' in itself? What's the point of saying that Paul is quoting scripture and not citing a historical fact, if the scriptures are in fact referencing what appears to be a historical fact?

I suppose, to be consistent, Carrier could claim that Paul got that idea from scriptures, i.e. Paul doesn't really know if the Jews are stumbling or not, but since he derived it from scriptures he assumed that had to be the case. Otherwise, if Paul is referring to current historical facts by citing ancient scriptures it opens an interesting can of worms.

See also Carrier's comment in note 79: "The scripture he quotes is a conflation of lsa. 8.14 with Isa. 28.16. Most likely Paul's copy of Isaiah had a variant reading for the latter, which had been contaminated by the former (or vice versa)."

No, most likely Paul is mashing up scriptures, to get them to say what he wants them to say. Paul does it again in Rom 11, as Bernard explains. Does Carrier really think that Paul's copy of Isaiah had a variant reading that Paul reproduced here??? Seriously? Far easier to propose that Paul is mashing up scriptures to get them to say what he wants them to say.

Anyway, some additional thoughts to what's on Bernard's site. It's well worth reading Bernard's examination of this important addition to a cumulative case.
It is really important, in life, to concentrate our minds on our enthusiasms, not on our dislikes. -- Roger Pearse

ericbwonder
Posts: 58
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2014 11:41 am

Re: Paul indicated Jesus was crucified on earth.

Post by ericbwonder » Tue Feb 03, 2015 10:57 pm

Will read and maybe offer some thoughts

User avatar
cienfuegos
Posts: 346
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2014 6:23 pm

Re: Paul indicated Jesus was crucified on earth.

Post by cienfuegos » Fri Feb 06, 2015 6:33 am

Bernard Muller wrote:Strangely enough, on that forum, I often provided the link for my blog post on "Paul indicated Jesus was crucified on earth", but I never got any reaction.
Here is the blog post in question, its title and its introduction:
http://historical-jesus.info/19.html
>> Is there evidence in Paul's epistles about the Crucifixion on earth? Yes
That's right: Yes, there is. It may not be the most direct, but certainly it's a lot better than whatever Doherty has for his own world of myth! With updates from Carrier "On The Historicity Of Jesus" (OHJ)

I want to hear your criticism.

Cordially, Bernard
This is interesting. Just taking an example that Bernard provides:
bernard wrote:Isa 28:16 NKJV "Therefore thus says the Lord GOD: "Behold,I lay in Zion [Jerusalem] a stone for a foundation, a tried stone, a precious cornerstone, a sure foundation; whoever believes will not act hastily.""
For Paul, the "stone of stumbling" and the "rock of offence" for the Jews is Christ ("For Christ is [the] end of law for righteousness to every one that believes." Ro 10:4 Darby)
I am not sure how we can conclude (note I said "not sure") that "Zion" in Isaiah 28:16 doesn't refer to "Israel" as a community of people, just as the Suffering Servant is thought to be an allegory for Israel. Isn't the stumbling block the gospel that frees people from legalistic Judaism? The Romans 10:4 quote conflates Christ with the Good News.

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3256
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Paul indicated Jesus was crucified on earth.

Post by Bernard Muller » Fri Feb 06, 2015 10:32 am

to cienfuegos,
I am not sure how we can conclude (note I said "not sure") that "Zion" in Isaiah 28:16 doesn't refer to "Israel" as a community of people, just as the Suffering Servant is thought to be an allegory for Israel. Isn't the stumbling block the gospel that frees people from legalistic Judaism? The Romans 10:4 quote conflates Christ with the Good News.
First, I do not think the suffering servant is an allegory for Israel.
Second, even if Zion refers to Israel, or community of people (Jews), that place or community would be on earth and nowhere else.

On my blog post, I gave many example from the OT (including Isaiah 1st and 2nd part) to show "Zion" means the heartland of the Jews.
Here are some more, in the 1st part of Isaiah:
4:3 Those who are left in Zion, who remain in Jerusalem, will be called holy, all who are recorded among the living in Jerusalem.
33:20
Look on Zion, the city of our festivals; your eyes will see Jerusalem, a peaceful abode, a tent that will not be moved; its stakes will never be pulled up, nor any of its ropes broken.

"Isn't the stumbling block the gospel that frees people from legalistic Judaism?"
That's Carrier' argument. I addressed that in my blog post:
From OHJ page 572
"Paul likewise says God put 'in Zion a stone of stumbling' although anyone who trusts in it will not be ashamed (Rom. 9.33); but he is quoting scripture here (not citing a historical fact), and the context is the Torah and the gospel (Rom. 9.30-32), not Jesus. Thus Paul does not mean Jesus was crucified 'in Zion' as some sort of geographical fact. Even if Paul believed he had been (as could be the case on minimal historicity), that is not what Paul is talking about here. The subject is not Jesus at all, but the old Torah law that Jews were still trying to obey, yet could never succeed at (Rom. 9.30-10.6). They are thus stumbling over the gospel's concept that faith succeeds where works fail (9.32), as God intended (9.33); but it was still Paul's hope that the Jews would be saved (Rom. 10.1)." It is thus the gospel that originated 'in Zion'. And even that is not geography but ethnography: he simply means it originated within Judaism."
I objected:
"Paul's gospel is never considered a 'skandalon' anywhere else in his epistles (or just shameful), but the crucifixion of Jesus is, for Jews (and others), as I have shown.
And in 'Hebrews' (12:2), we have "... Jesus the pioneer and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame ..."
I'll comment later on "Zion", which is consistently a geographical location in the Old Testament; it is certainly the case in Isa 28:16. And if ever "in Zion" here meant "within Judaism", then, according to Carrier, we would have Paul saying his gospel came from within Judaism, which is absurd, more so when he admitted he received it through revelation from Jesus Christ (Galatians 1:12)."


Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed

Post Reply