Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Surely he would have mentioned it at least once if he believed in it? I mean it's such a big deal and it's so important to prevent people from going into it, right?
He only mentioned that the "wrath of God is about to fall on people of the earth".
And this was referring to the wrath of God of the last days (the one described in Revelation). Paul said "it's about to fall" becasue he believed that he lived in the last days. And he even said something like there was no time to get married, as though he believed that he lived in the last days and Jesus was coming soon and there was no time to live a normal life. People needed to focus on preparing themselves and serving God.
John also believed that Jesus was coming soon. That's why he said: "See, I am coming soon" (as though Jesus said that). Christians see that the promise did not come true. So they have to find an explanation. So the explanation is this: "soon" in God's time could be thousands of years. Well, that's one explanation.
But another one is that John simply believed that Jesus was coming soon, for real. And he wrote what he believed. And Paul believed it also. And then Christians of every decade probably believed it also. Each time something major happens, they would have this feeling that maybe the end is near now.
And so when Paul said: in the last days people will be so and so, he was actually referring to his own last days. I did wonder about that before. I thought: why would Paul say that people like this are only in the last days? As far as I know, people were like that always. But it made sense from Paul's perspective to write that because he wasn't thinking about the entire human time period and comparing how people were. He just saw all this 'bad" stuff in his current day people and wrote that: look what this would came to (at the end of it).
I don't think he needed to remind people about Hell (a Norse/Germanic realm) people already believed in Hades (the plutonic "rich" realm of ghosts) and how ghosts wallowed in their regrets at the mercy of the Gods. The Muslims and John's apocaliptic writings did an ample job of spreading ideas about infernos. But with the influence from Zoroastrian Mythraism and the Jewish story of Genesis there would probably be ample room to be reminded that this world was a hell enough for them
Here are some things Paul dd say;
Romans 5:8,9 says, "But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be SAVED FROM WRATH through him."
Ephesians 5:5,6 says, for because of these things cometh THE WRATH OF GOD upon the children of disobedience."
I Thessalonians 1:9,10 says, "And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from THE WRATH TO COME."
I Thessalonians 5:8,9 says, "But let us, who are of the day, For God hath NOT APPOINTED US TO WRATH, BUT TO OBTAIN SALVATION by our Lord Jesus Christ."
Great verses! This was referring to the wrath of God to be poured unto the Earth, as per John's writings in Revelation. (not about eternal torment in hell). And since Paul kept saying "wrath" instead of "hell" it's much more logical to assume that he meant "wrath" of the tribulation and not "eternal hell".
I don't think he needed to remind people about Hell (a Norse/Germanic realm) people already believed in Hades (the plutonic "rich" realm of ghosts) and how ghosts wallowed in their regrets at the mercy of the Gods. The Muslims and John's apocaliptic writings did an ample job of spreading ideas about infernos. But with the influence from Zoroastrian Mythraism and the Jewish story of Genesis there would probably be ample room to be reminded that this world was a hell enough for them
But then why he kept reminding of "wrath" and of "death"? I am sure they would have known about these as well.
I think he means things such as the gospels not being familiar of the concept of salvation through faith alone .
That is a great point. The Gospels were a modification of Jewish faith. Such as when Jesus said: the law said this, but I tell you this... (I am changing it for you). But I don't remember Jesus talking about salvation through grace. And I guess it's because Jesus didn't die yet and that faith was not in place yet. But that also means that the Gospels were not talking about the kind of faith that Paul was talking about.
Paul's faith was yet another modification, which now included the salvation of grace.
So that means that when people try to compare the verses of the Gospels with Paul's writings (in regards to salvation), they are comparing apples to oranges.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
