Steven Carr

On the Richard Dawkins forum, Gakusei Don made some intriguing comments about where Paul thought Jesus came from.

I quote part of his post :-

'Paul refers to "Zion" (an old name for Jerusalem) twice. Paul puts Zion into his own created "scripture" saying, which he creates by bringing together two separate passages from the OT.

Next, he quotes scriptures to say that the Deliverer will come out of Zion, in terms of a new covenant. This strongly identifies the "Deliverer" with Jesus:

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'

Gakusei Don thinks this means only that Paul thought Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem.

But did Paul think Jesus came from Jerusalem?

Chaucer

If he thinks that Jesus came from Jerusalem, then apparently he doesn't think Jesus came from somewhere outside Earth (unlike the suppositions of many a myther), but from a solid city here on terra firma!

Chaucer

Toto

GDon posted something like that here. It was remarkably unpersuasive.

Here it is?: GDon on Paul's stumbling block, Zion, Jerusalem split from competing hypotheses

Steven Carr

I think a Bible quote might be in order here...

Galatians 4
Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother.

aa5874

But, that passage in Romans 11.26-27 appears to have been lifted out of Isaiah 59.20-21.

This is Isaiah 59.20-21 The Pauline writer does NOT have to know one single thing about Zion or Jesus to lift the verses from Hebrew Scripture.

Now, if there was no written Scripture what would the Pauline writer know about Jesus?

Nothing! And the Pauline writer was supposed to be a contemporary of Jesus who persecuted the faith.

Chili

Persecuting the faith is the same thing as running away from God. That is how sheep get lost and when found they are a contemporary of Jeus as 'the way to follow.'

brianscott1977

As time passed “Zion” took on a symbolic meaning as the city of God, more than just the literal city of Jerusalem.

I think that both Isaiah, and Paul quoting Isaiah, are saying that salvation will come from God, not necessarily from a particular city.

spamandham

It seems to me that 'Zion' is being used figuratively to refer to Jews, not literally to Jerusalem in Romans 9.

30What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. 32Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the "stumbling stone." 33As 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."

Romans 11 is all about Paul, not Jesus. The deliverer referred to is Paul, who claims to be Jewish. It seems to me he is setting himself up to deliver the Jews after he delivers the gentiles.

storytime

Jerusalem is the literal city that God chose to place his name in honor of David the King, who was "a man after Gods own heart." (OT) Jerusalem was the ancient Salem by which Melchizedek was King and Priest.

David ran out the Jebusites and claimed victory, but it may have been Solomon, Davids son, who set up the throne of God in the building of the first temple.

Clivedurdle

Is not the discussion of faith and works actually about the unseen and the seen, the glorious light and the glass darkly, the gods and man, the new Jerusalem and the old one, the Christ sacrificed in the heavens and the Paul on the earth?