Re: Paul indicated Jesus was crucified on earth.
Posted: Fri Feb 06, 2015 7:29 pm
The question though is what does Paul mean when he uses the term? One point, and I do think I was wrong on my initial reaction, but I think "stumbling stone" refers to the Law (for Paul, not the OT).Bernard Muller wrote:to cienfuegos,First, I do not think the suffering servant is an allegory for Israel.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.
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
This has no reference to Jesus crucified in Jerusalem that I can see. I'm still looking at the second case.StPaul wrote: But the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone.