On the basis that the fall of Jerusalem is never mentioned in the New Testament writings as a past fact, Dr.
Robinson defends that the books of the New Testament were written before A. 70....contradicting, of course, the consensus of generations of Bible scholars.
I think you will appreciate the honesty with which they lay out the problem and the freshness of their proposal for the delay of the parousia (Greek for “appearing” or “arrival” and is used in theological studies to refer to the Second Coming). He is currently Professor of New Testament at the Biblical Seminary of Colombia, where he serves as a missionary of United World Mission. ” *Cut to a music video of DC Talk singing At this, a senior scholar arched an eyebrow and pointedly replied, “Ja, and I think this shows a disturbing lack of attention to theological progress.” The subtext of this rebuke was this: Jesus has not come back, so it’s time for theology to move on without the parousia. In our next post, my buddy Casey will don the white Stetson and begin to explain the solution we’ve proposed. Obviously, scholars have suggested other solutions, but none have struck me as satisfying. However, Mark -38 indicates that the coming of the Son of Man is a , rather than ascending to rule in heaven after his death. So, insofar as I don’t think that the judgment transpired during the first century, it’s hard to take refuge in Wright’s thesis. In this first post, I am going to put on my black hat and describe the problem of the delay of Jesus’ return. And since we are still here, it seems like he was pretty wrong! It’s an intriguing possibility, since Mark definitely alludes to Daniel , in which the “one like a son of man coming” is indeed enthroned in heaven. And both Mark -9:1 and -31 say that the coming in judgment is supposed to occur within a generation.Every message Kefa preached, the company he kept, and the great works of faith the the Almighty accomplished through him are herein recorded.This 300 page volume has been 'hidden' in the back of an obscure volume of the "Church Fathers" all this time. Robinson (1919-1983.) Robinson definitely came from the more liberal tradition of Anglicanism, and wrote many things that many of us would not support; however, his redating of the New Testament was, in the opinion of many of us, long overdue and it solved many former problems and questions.
After much research and analysis, Robinson came up with new proposed dates for the New Testament books which, in my opinion, make far more sense.
His book is a prodigious virtuoso exercise in inductive reasoning, and an object-lesson in the nature of historical argument and historical knowledge.
It is, I think, the finest of all his writings, and its energy is marvellous' (The Listener).
Robinson was considered a major force in shaping liberal Christian theology.
Along with Harvard theologian Harvey Cox, he spearheaded the field of secular theology and, like William Barclay, he was a believer in universal salvation.
Wasn't Peter the stone upon which the "church" was to be built?