FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-05-2005, 01:58 PM   #1
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: England
Posts: 5,629
Default The subversive Gospel of Paul

http://www.whatischurch.com/sandbox/...ons/wright.htm

'Wright’s assertion is quite simply that the essence of Paul’s Gospel was “Jesus is Lord� and that meant, “Caesar isn’t.�'

What was 'subversive' about this?

Before his conversion to Christianity, Paul would have thought that the LORD was the Lord, and that meant 'Caesar isn't. So how can a declaration that a Jew did not regard Caesar as Yahweh, or the Lord, be subversive, or a breakthough in NT scholarship,or even a major part of any Gospel? All Jews believed it anyway.

Paul is not the least bit subversive. He tells everyone to remain in their places, whether slave or master, because he regards change as pointless when the entire social system is to be swept aside anyway.

Of course, that never happened. The Roman Empire , that 'parody' of an Empire , in Wright's word, outlasted Paul by centuries, and was never replaced by a kingdom of God.
Steven Carr is offline  
Old 03-05-2005, 02:29 PM   #2
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: LOS ANGELES
Posts: 544
Default

Quote:
Paul is not the least bit subversive. He tells everyone to remain in their places, whether slave or master, because he regards change as pointless when the entire social system is to be swept aside anyway.
Agree - good point.

Religiously, Paul was God-ordained "subversive".

When he arrived in Jerusalem a riot broke out.

James the epistle writer peacefully co-existed with the Jews while pastoring the Jerusalem church.

Quote:
Of course, that never happened. The Roman Empire , that 'parody' of an Empire , in Wright's word, outlasted Paul by centuries, and was never replaced by a kingdom of God.
False assumption that the Kingdom was supposed to manifest in the First century.

WT
WILLOWTREE is offline  
Old 03-05-2005, 02:35 PM   #3
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: England
Posts: 5,629
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WILLOWTREE



False assumption that the Kingdom was supposed to manifest in the First century.
So what was supposed to happen after Jerusalem was destroyed?

When was the Kingdom supposed to manifest?
Steven Carr is offline  
Old 03-05-2005, 04:36 PM   #4
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: LOS ANGELES
Posts: 544
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Carr
So what was supposed to happen after Jerusalem was destroyed?

When was the Kingdom supposed to manifest?
Thats the million dollar question.

Christians are supposed to expect it as happening very soon.

Thats why First centurian christianity thought Jesus would return anyday.

The Kingdom will come after the 7 year Great Tribulation period.

The 7 year G.T.P. cannot begin until a unknown world figure suddenly emerges with a Mideast peace plan that both sides will readily accept. Whoever that person is is called Anti-Christ in Scripture.

Just prior to the above event the true church of Jesus Christ will be raptured away then world peace will ensue THEN God will unleash His wrath on the world during the 7 year Great Tribulation Period.

At the end of the Great 7 year Tribulation is when Jesus will return in clouds of glory and set up His kingdom.

The signs of the end times are prevalent if you have Bible-sense.

IOW, we cannot be more than 20 years tops away from the G.T.P. - probably about 10 judging by advanced implant technology (mark of the beast).

http://www.adsx.com/prodservpart/verichip.html

http://www.adsx.com/faq/verichipfaq.html

WT
WILLOWTREE is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:21 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.