The "Original" Gospel

[Ran77]

How can any of us tell if our belief system is the "Original" Gospel?

Are there any indications in the Bible that would guide us in answering that question?

 

[he-man]

How can any of us tell if our belief system is the "Original" Gospel? Are there any indications in the Bible that would guide us in answering that question?

Gosh, I don't know, is that a statement or a question? How about 400 million quotes and references, and historical events proven by archeology?

 

[rEACHout4all]

How can any of us tell if our belief system is the "Original" Gospel?

Are there any indications in the Bible that would guide us in answering that question?

Everyone has different beliefs.

I don't know why you quote original. A person who has no means of communication because they are disabled can still receive the gospel.
There's only one gospel. It revolves around love.

The gospel is greater than paper and ink.

 

[peebly63]

How can any of us tell if our belief system is the "Original" Gospel?

Are there any indications in the Bible that would guide us in answering that question?

the original rules are more than than 200 years old...

 

[Phantasman]

How can any of us tell if our belief system is the "Original" Gospel?

Are there any indications in the Bible that would guide us in answering that question?

If you check the Bible, the word "rule" appears many times in the OT, and is only used by Paul. Rulers are looked down on by Christ. People shouldn't rule others. Nor did he make reference to rules.

The original Bible was Luke and 10 of Pauls writings.

Could someone learn of Christ if they had only one of the Canonical Gospels? Sure. But understanding what the disciples knew and experienced, comes from many other scriptures, both Canon and non.

 

[Hoshiyya]

"How can any of us tell if our belief system is the "Original" Gospel?
Are there any indications in the Bible that would guide us in answering that question?"

The Bible is in a sense the very basis for the belief system we refer to as the Gospel.
Interpretation of the Bible either is or is not done with the intention of faithfully transmitting the true and original, the intended, message and meaning.

 

[hedrick]

Unfortunately people disagree on how to judge what's original.

 

[TasteForTruth]

Unfortunately people disagree on how to judge what's original.

Excellent observation! It is pretty much impossible for multiple persons to come to consensus about the authenticity of something, when they cannot agree on the means of verifying its authenticity. There must exist a shared standard before such a feat can be achieved.

 

[ChetSinger]

How can any of us tell if our belief system is the "Original" Gospel?

Are there any indications in the Bible that would guide us in answering that question?

The letters of Paul are recognized almost universally as the earliest Christian writings, dating to the mid-50's. So if you're looking for the earliest gospel in print, they're it.

 

[Ran77]

Everyone has different beliefs.

Yes.

I don't know why you quote original. A person who has no means of communication because they are disabled can still receive the gospel.
There's only one gospel. It revolves around love.

Because someone on the forum offered me the original Gospel. Meaning, the Gospel that was fully in effect during Christ's ministry.

The gospel is greater than paper and ink.

Yes. But does that mean there isn't a quantitative way of determining the original Gospel that Christ taught?

 

[Ran77]

If you check the Bible, the word "rule" appears many times in the OT, and is only used by Paul. Rulers are looked down on by Christ. People shouldn't rule others. Nor did he make reference to rules.

The original Bible was Luke and 10 of Pauls writings.

Could someone learn of Christ if they had only one of the Canonical Gospels? Sure. But understanding what the disciples knew and experienced, comes from many other scriptures, both Canon and non.

Are you indicating that it would be difficult to define what is the "original" Gospel because in comprises so many things, and possibly continues even today? Or something along that line?

 

[Ran77]

The Bible is in a sense the very basis for the belief system we refer to as the Gospel.

Interpretation of the Bible either is or is not done with the intention of faithfully transmitting the true and original, the intended, message and meaning.

I disagree with you somewhat. I believe that probably most people interpret the Bible with the intent of transmitting the intended message. The problem seems to be that we all come from a different perspective. Our life experiences alters how we perceive the world around us and thus people will often interpret the same passage in a wildly different manner - even though both have done their best to seek out the truth.

 

[Ran77]

Unfortunately people disagree on how to judge what's original.

That is true. So I guess this will be a thread where we disagree on how to judge what is original. Care to throw in your two cents worth?

 

[Ran77]

The letters of Paul are recognized almost universally as the earliest Christian writings, dating to the mid-50's. So if you're looking for the earliest gospel in print, they're it.

I'm not really looking for that. I am happy to go with the premise that the Bible can helps us define the "Original" Gospel of Christ. If you want to offer some of Paul's writings on the subject, I would like to see what you suggest.

 

[Ran77]

Let's take a look at the Gospel/Church as it existed during Christ's time on Earth.

Hebrew 4: 10-15

10. He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)

11. And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

12. For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

13. Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

14. That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

15. But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:


If Christ set up apostles, prophets, evangelists, teachers, and pastors to guide His church, do you think that is an important part of the "Original" Gospel?

I think that at the very least the presence of apostles and prophets must be important to the Gospel and were obviously had in the original Church.

 

[Heterodoxus]

Are there any indications in the Bible ....?

No, not direct indications. For those, a good place to look first is extrabiblical (outside the Bible itself) in the extant pre-Nicene manuscripts dated earlier than 325 CE (i.e., pre-Catholic Church, so to speak).

Other good extrabiblical places to look are in the commentaries and letters of the pre-Nicene "church fathers" to see if they commented upon any of the second or third generation copies of NT manuscripts to which they might have had access during their lifetimes. And one can always search for extant, extrabiblical, historical writings which might reference things biblical (e.g., the works of Josephus, letters of Pliney the Younger, and the like).

 

[Ran77]

No, not direct indications. For those, a good place to look first is extrabiblical (outside the Bible itself) in the extant pre-Nicene manuscripts dated earlier than 325 CE (i.e., pre-Catholic Church, so to speak).

Other good extrabiblical places to look are in the commentaries and letters of the pre-Nicene "church fathers" to see if they commented upon any of the second or third generation copies of NT manuscripts to which they might have had access during their lifetimes. And one can always search for extant, extrabiblical, historical writings which might reference things biblical (e.g., the works of Josephus, letters of Pliney the Younger, and the like).

Why these rather than the Bible itself? Wouldn't the Bible be closer to the source?

 

[hedrick]

That is true. So I guess this will be a thread where we disagree on how to judge what is original. Care to throw in your two cents worth?

I've been asked how I would define the original Gospel. That's a fair question. I accept critical scholarship. So I'm open to the possibility that there are different concepts of the Gospel in the Bible. Just looking at occurrences of "gospel" and "good news", I think some of the differences we see today reflect differences that go back to the NT itself. The synoptics use good news is a fairly characteristic way: It's the fact that the Kingdom is with us now, in the person of Jesus, we are called to be part of it, and we will be held accountable for our response.

In Acts and even more in the letters, this tends to morph slightly, to focus more on Jesus and personal salvation and less on the Kingdom of God, though the change is really one of emphasis. It starts moving in the direction of the later Christian definition of the Gospel: Jesus died to save us from our sins and let us go to heaven.

It's not a matter of contradicting each other, exactly, but of where the center is. Most Christianity takes its priorities from Paul and John. I take it from Jesus in the Synoptics. (Don't believe people who say they don't make choices. They're making choices just as much as everyone else. They just don't realize what they're doing. That makes them more dangerous.)

I view the Bible through current critical scholarship, meaning in the light of 1st Cent Judaism to the extent we know it. Of well-known writers today, N T Wright is closest to my views. He has an excellent book on the question of the Gospel, "How Jesus became King." His point is roughly speaking mine: that current Christianity tends to get the Gospel wrong, by misplacing emphasis and at times misunderstanding the context of NT teachings.

 

[Clearly]

Ran77 asked in The OP : “How can any of us tell if our belief system is the "Original" Gospel? Are there any indications in the Bible that would guide us in answering that question? “

Hi Ran77 – I think Hedrick made some good points.

Another other historical point is that the OP doesn’t specify whether you are referring to (1) the προτο-ευαγγελιa and its the theme of redemption during the apostolic period (most posters refer to this period in their comments) or does one refer even earlier to (2) the announcement/promise επ-αγγελω made to Adam of a redeemer in early Christian textual tradition (that is, the original announcement and teaching of the gospel in mortality), or does one refer to (3) the pre-creation time period when the plan originated (ie. the plan of God the Father which motivated and necessitated the material creation of the earth) as the "original announcement of the gospel?

The time period one considers will not change the characteristic of God's plan, but it will change which groups are able to participate in the question. For example, any of the more modern Christian interpretations lacking pre-existent theology will not be able to speculate on #3 and non-historian/non restorative theology will not be able to discuss #2. I hope this make sense to you?


Regarding limiting historical information to the modern western biblical text :

If you are going to speak of “original” ευαγγελια in any historical detail, and, at the same time, avoid simply discussing the many personal interpretations of biblical text, then you are going to have to refer to early judeo-christian texts outside of the 4th century western biblical text (IF you want to explore how early judeo-christians themselves interpreted "original christianity").

If we limit the historical data flow to a trickle then we limit the credibility of any conclusion and we may exclude important early judeo-christian textual witnesses. The limiting of data may encourage the many modern interpretations to simply claim they are “original”.

For example, the "modern western" biblical text does not describe "original (early) gospel traditions" in periods #2 and #3 in great detail, and where it does, one often cannot be perfectly sure how the early judeo-christians themselves interpreted the text.

In any case, it is an interesting question. Good luck in having a historical discussion on this issue.

[FONT=&quot]Clearly
eivineon [/FONT]

 

[Ran77]

I've been asked how I would define the original Gospel. That's a fair question. I accept critical scholarship. So I'm open to the possibility that there are different concepts of the Gospel in the Bible. Just looking at occurrences of "gospel" and "good news", I think some of the differences we see today reflect differences that go back to the NT itself. The synoptics use good news is a fairly characteristic way: It's the fact that the Kingdom is with us now, in the person of Jesus, we are called to be part of it, and we will be held accountable for our response.

In Acts and even more in the letters, this tends to morph slightly, to focus more on Jesus and personal salvation and less on the Kingdom of God, though the change is really one of emphasis. It starts moving in the direction of the later Christian definition of the Gospel: Jesus died to save us from our sins and let us go to heaven.

It's not a matter of contradicting each other, exactly, but of where the center is. Most Christianity takes its priorities from Paul and John. I take it from Jesus in the Synoptics. (Don't believe people who say they don't make choices. They're making choices just as much as everyone else. They just don't realize what they're doing. That makes them more dangerous.)

I view the Bible through current critical scholarship, meaning in the light of 1st Cent Judaism to the extent we know it. Of well-known writers today, N T Wright is closest to my views. He has an excellent book on the question of the Gospel, "How Jesus became King." His point is roughly speaking mine: that current Christianity tends to get the Gospel wrong, by misplacing emphasis and at times misunderstanding the context of NT teachings.

Excellent post.