Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 5

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  PAUL
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
EN
This essay addresses three questions: Why did Paul preach? What did Paul preach? How did Paul preach? It argues that Paul preached because he was commissioned to do so at his call/conversion when the risen Christ was revealed to him. To preach the gospel was not Paul’s decision. He was commissioned and sent to preach, and so the content of his proclamation was not his own. Like a “herald” of the ancient world, he proclaimed the message of the gospel, the announcement of Christ’s death and resurrection that was entrusted to him. Because he was a herald of the gospel, Paul did not preach with rhetorical eloquence lest he conceal the scandal of the crucified Christ. Rather, he proclaimed the gospel in a way that those who heard it had to choose whether to believe or reject the message of the cross he proclaimed. Thus, there is an intimate connection between why Paul preached, what he preached, and how he preached, which has implications for preaching today.
EN
Christian mysticism is a broad field with a long and rich history. The article is a result of research into its origin and nature. The author shows that there has been mysticism in Christianity since its beginnings. He shows the New Testament data in this perspective, especially the data contained in the Corpus Paulinum. These texts allow us to show two characteristic points in the spirituality and mysticism of early Christianity. What matters in the first place is the relationship with the Holy Trinity, that is the moment when the Father, Christ and the Holy Spirit take abode in a Christian. The author also depicts the mysticism of immersion with Christ in death and resurrection, which concerns the whole Christian life.
EN
We know more about than about any other follower of Jesus in the 1st century. Nevertheless, the apostle remains somewhat of a mystery. The present article identifies the main points of his life and missionary work and pre¬sents a relation between his gospel message and the good news of the Kingdom of God proclaimed by Jesus. The article then attempts to answer the question, how much justified is the thesis about a reform Paul instituted in the sphere of theology and life of Christian communities in the 1st century.
EN
In addition to its other peculiarities, First Thessalonians features a relatively high number of faith terms. Apart from the paraenetical section, the remaining parts of the letter contain faith terminology in their various literary contexts, primarily in the genitival expression “your faith” in reference to the personal faith of the Thessalonians. This article, an exegetical study based on the principles of epistolary, rhetorical, and semantic approach, offers an analysis of the faith terminology of First Thessalonians, followed by a brief reflection on faith in light of the exegetical results. Its main conclusion suggests that good reasons exist for viewing Paul’s first writing as a letter of faith.
EN
The attempt to construct the philosophical concept of the "messiah" takes place in several steps. The starting point is Agamben's commentary on The Book of Romans of St. Paul. On the basis of this text I reconstruct the messianic structure. At one crucial point the structure coincides with Heidegger’s commentary on St. Paul. It is in light of these preliminary findings that I read the latter’s essay Overcoming Metaphysics. Thanks to this I reveal the structural similarities between Paul's messianic figure and the structure of overcoming metaphysics. In the context of Contributions to philosophy it appears that according to Agamben's version this structure lacks an important point, namely the expectation that constitutes messianic time. I argue that even Derrida's deconstruction project can be interpreted within this framework. In this light I consider the Agamben's objection to Derrida. Finally, I conclude that the structure reconstructed on the basis of Agamben's text is incomplete.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.