The "Original" Gospel

[Clearly]

POST TWO OF TWO

[FONT=&quot]2) Similar tutelage of other prophets regarding the “original” gospel plan of redemption[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Such early doctrines and textual traditions form consistent and repeating doctrinal themes as they describe other prophets undergoing similar divine tutelage in similar ways. For example, the early Abrahamic literature describes Abrahams enlightenment concerning the gospel as he exits his relative ignorance of his idolatrous milieu of childhood into the process of discovering the true God and the gospel. In one early ascension text Abraham speaks to God and asks for gospel knowledge, saying : ”... you make the light shine before the morning light upon your creation from your face to spend the day on the earth, and in your heavenly dwelling place (there is) an inexhaustible light of an invincible dawning from the light of your face. ....Receive me favorably, teach me, show me, and make known to your servant what you have promised me. The Apocalypse of Abraham 17:1-2, 7, 18-21[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]Just as Adam was taught more than the simple promise of redemption, the Prophets also were taught concerning many details regarding the unfolding of God’s plan to sieve and redeem mankind even to the end times. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]In the same manner that Jewish Haggadah tells us that Adam was shown : “each generation and its leaders; each generation and it’s prophets; each generation and its teachers ...”. When the prophet Baruch expresses concern over the destruction of earthly Jerusalem and the earthly temple, God teaches him that the ultimate Jerusalem of the end times, together with it’s temple will be revealed in the end times, AND, that this plan was revealed not merely to Baruch, but to Moses, and to the earlier Prophet Abraham, and even to the earliest man, Adam. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Thus God explained to the prophet Baruch : “... It is not this building that is in your midst now; it is that which will be revealed, with me, that was already prepared from the moment that I decided to create Paradise. And I showed it to Adam before he sinned. But when he transgressed the commandment, it was taken away from him–as also Paradise. After these things I showed it to my servant Abraham in the night ....” And again I showed it also to Moses on Mount Sinai when I showed him the likeness of the tabernacle and all its vessels. The Apocalypse of Baruch (Baruch 2) 4:1-5 (Compare this version with ps-phi8lo 23:6 and GenR 44:12).[/FONT]



[FONT=&quot]3 And (I saw) there the earth and it’s fruit, and it’s moving things and it’s things that had souls, and it’s host of men and the impiety of their souls and their justification, and their pursuit of their works and t....I saw there a great crowd of men and women and children, half of them on the right side of the portrayal, and half of them on the left side of the portrayal. Ch 22 1 “And I said, “Eternal, Mighty One! What is this picture of creation?” 2 And he said to me, “This is my will with regard to what is in the council and it became good before my face. And then, afterward, I gave them a command by my word and they came into existence. Whatever I had decreed was to exist had been outlined in this and all the previously created (things) you have seen “came to stand before me.” 3 And I said, “O sovereign, mighty and eternal! Why are the people in this picture on this side and on that?” 4 And he said to me, “These who are on the left side are a multitude of tribes who existed previously...and through you. some prepared for judgment and order, others for revenge and perdition at the end of the age. 5 those on the right side of the picture are the people set apart for me of ....what will be and how much will be for your name among people in the last days. ...And what you cannot understand, I will make known to you because you have been pleasing before my face and I will tell you what I have kept in my heart.” The Apocalypse of Abraham 21:1-7 and 22:1-5 and 23:1-3[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The LDS version of this event described in the ancient texts reads : “...I rule in the heavens above, and in the earth beneath, in all wisdom and prudence, over all the intelligences thine eyes have seen from the beginning; I came down in the beginning in the midst of all the intelligences thou hast seen. 22 Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was; and among all these there were many of the noble and great ones; 23 And God saw these souls that they were good, and he stood in the midst of them, and he said: These I will make my rulers; for he stood among those that were spirits, and he saw that they were good; and he said unto me: Abraham, thou art one of them; thou wast chosen before thou wast born. (3:21-23)[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]Similar descriptive themes weave through much of the early Judeo-Christian literature. For example, in a manner similar to Adam and Abraham, the Prophet Enoch in a similar ascension text describes being shown “the curtain of the Omnipresent One, which is spread before the holy One ...on which are printed all the generations of the world and all their deeds, whether done or to be done, till the last generation.” [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The Prophet Enoch, looking over these representations of broad sweeping swaths of earths history says : “...I saw each generation and its potentiates, ...3...and I saw Adam and his generation, their deeds and their thoughts; Noah and the generation of the flood, their deeds and their thoughts;....Abraham and his generation, their deeds and their thoughts......the teachers of the children in Israel and their generations, their deeds and their acts; the teachers of the children of the gentiles and their generations, their deeds and their acts;...all the prophets of Israel and their generations, their deeds and their acts; all the prophets of the gentiles and their generations, their deeds and their acts...And I saw: the Messiah the son of Joseph and his generation, and all that they will do to the gentiles.....” 3rd Enoch 45:1-5[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]3) The effect of a seeding of an “original” gospel being given to Adam and episodically revealed to later prophets such as to Enoch, then later to Abraham, then later to Moses.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]IF the gospel of a redeemer was revealed to Adam, who taught it to his children, then some principles of this gospel would have spread out in varying levels of purity with his children as they spread out across the world. Thus, some “doctrinal debris” should exist from the revelation of the gospel to Adam, though one would expect it to have undergone a great deal of contamination and change. Then, with each new revelation and restoration of this plan of redemption, we should see further doctrinal debris and forms of these religious themes just as we see many versions of the Christianity revealed through Jesus that have split, changed, and evolved into the multiple modern Christian movements, related, but different.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Certainly this is what seems to be the case, many versions and a great deal of “doctrinal debris” and versions that are similar in nature to very basic Judeo-Christian morality and themes and traditions. Bits and pieces thrown out from a narrow source, bits and pieces found in distant places “like shot from a shotgun.” If, original pieces are found, they may be seen to be related by one who is expecting to find them and with an eye prepared to compare the pieces.[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]Good luck in your journey Ran77[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Thanks for your thought soulgazer.[/FONT]

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

[FONT=&quot]p.s. rEACHout4all said in post 34 “All the talk about resurrecting flesh makes me think of egyptian theology.”[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Me too. The various Egyptian parallels contain examples of what I mean by “doctrinal debris” from adam and early prophets . [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] I had a conversation with an Egyptian theist who claimed that early Judaism stemmed FROM early egyptian theology (and the Christian parallels that Christianity inherited from Judaism). His data consisted of the many parallels between Egyptian/Ugaritic/etc. religions and later Judaism. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Parallels notwithstanding, IF the “original” gospel of a redeemer was taught to adam and early prophets, then these early versions of the Christian gospel in the earliest periods and their movement into the later Egyptian theology better explain the source of similarities rather than vice versa. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]If clement was correct regarding his claim of pre-creation christian theology that “…[/FONT][FONT=&quot] the Books and the Apostles declare that the church not only exists now, but has been in existence from the beginning. For she was spiritual, as was also our Jesus, but was revealed in the last days in order that she might save us. Now the church being spiritual, was revealed in the flesh of Christ[/FONT][FONT=&quot], …” 2nd Clement 14:3 [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]It is in this same context of gospel principles existing prior to Judaism that Ignatius said : [/FONT][FONT=&quot]“It is utterly absurd to profess Jesus Christ and to practice Judaism. For Christianity did not believe in Judaism, but Judaism in Christianity,...” Ignatius to the Magnesians 10:3[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]This last claim reminds us of the initial excitement among Jewish Scholars regarding the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. However, once the description of the Jewish beliefs found in them began to be translated, the excitement waned mainly due to the fact that they did not confirm Jewish concepts of early Judaism but were “too Christian”. (Teicher in fact claimed that they were Christian&#8230 The Christian Scholars should have been excited about this, but they too were bothered by a form of “christianity” that existed before Jesus. Historians and restorationists seemed to be the only groups that remained enthusiastic about such descriptions.[/FONT]

Clearly

 

[Ran77]

Considering that Pauls letters were the first to be written, 20 years after Christ was crucified, and the first Gospel 15 years after that (round about), one wonders how many people simply spread the word by mouth.

I suspect the answer is that many people did that.

 

[Ran77]

[FONT=&quot]POST ONE OF TWO
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Ran77[/FONT][FONT=&quot] : I think Soulgazers analogy is poignant in its image of the spread of portions of gospel in a widening arc from an initial source and it makes the point I also was trying to make in my point in post #19. The belief that Adam was taught the gospel as taught by early judeo-christianity; by historians and by restorational christian movements such as the LDS creates doctrinal harmonies and improves models as to why certain “christian” themes and parallels are to be found in many ancient theologies.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1) “original” gospel plan of redemption taught to adam and others in historical and restorational theology [/FONT][FONT=&quot]:[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

Obviously, as a member of the LDS Church I believe that the Gospel taught to Adam, the Gospel taught by Jesus, and the Gospel restored to Joseph Smith Jr. are one in the same.

However, there is a difference. The law of sacrifice was done away with once Jesus atoned for our sins and the Holy Ghost joined the picture. So for the purpose of this thread I am considering the Gospel taught by Christ to be the original gospel. I am interested in determining what is, and what is not, a part of that original Gospel and how we would go about determining that.


But I love your posts. They were both very educational.

 

[Heterodoxus]

What an excellent point. Validation does not come from within, but from the testimony of another.

Or, in the Bible's case, 2 or 3 other witnesses. Not just that of the "God" pointed to in (usually via self-authenticating and subjective proof texts from within) the Bible itself. Not just that of the "Holy Spirit" that is said to motivate the thinking and behaviors of Bible-believing Christians. But that of 2 or 3 witnesses other than either of those 2 spiritual (supernatural) entities.

 

[Ran77]

Or, in the Bible's case, 2 or 3 other witnesses. Not just that of the "God" pointed to in (usually via self-authenticating and subjective proof texts from within) the Bible itself. Not just that of the "Holy Spirit" that is said to motivate the thinking and behaviors of Bible-believing Christians. But that of 2 or 3 witnesses other than either of those 2 spiritual (supernatural) entities.

Good point as well.

 

[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.

I don't think I got a response to this post. If Jesus set up apostles, prophets, evangelists, teachers, and pastors to guide His church, do you think it is an important part of the "Original" Gospel?

 

[Phantasman]

I don't think I got a response to this post. If Jesus set up apostles, prophets, evangelists, teachers, and pastors to guide His church, do you think it is an important part of the "Original" Gospel?

Gospel-Middle English, from Old English gōdspel (translation of Late Latin evangelium), from gōd good + spell tale

The old Greek doesn't even use the word. But man has convinced us that gospel is the life of Christ. The good news (wisdom) is what Jesus wanted preached. I don't believe that includes the OT or Revelations. And when one reads the good news from the other apostles, it is clearly evident that it didn't.

 

[Ran77]

Gospel-Middle English, from Old English gōdspel (translation of Late Latin evangelium), from gōd good + spell tale

The old Greek doesn't even use the word. But man has convinced us that gospel is the life of Christ. The good news (wisdom) is what Jesus wanted preached. I don't believe that includes the OT or Revelations. And when one reads the good news from the other apostles, it is clearly evident that it didn't.

Oops, I somehow missed your response.

The thing is, we also employ English in our understanding of the Gospel.

Doctrine:

1. a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion or government: Catholic doctrines; the Monroe Doctrine.

2. something that is taught; teachings collectively: religious doctrine.

3. a body or system of teachings relating to a particular subject: the doctrine of the Catholic Church.


The English meaning of the word works for the context in which I have presented it. However, I am willing to look at Strongs to see how it applies to the New Testament. (Keep in mind that I am comparing doctrine today to the doctrine of Christ's time. As such, the Old Testament has much less bearing on the topic.)


Euaggelion:

1) a reward for good tidings

2) good tidings

a) the glad tidings of the kingdom of God soon to be set up, and subsequently also of Jesus the Messiah, the founder of this kingdom. After the death of Christ, the term comprises also the preaching of (concerning) Jesus Christ as having suffered death on the cross to procure eternal salvation for the men in the kingdom of God, but as restored to life and exalted to the right hand of God in heaven, thence to return in majesty to consummate the kingdom of God

b) the glad tidings of salvation through Christ

c) the proclamation of the grace of God manifest and pledged in Christ

d) the gospel

e) as the messianic rank of Jesus was proved by his words, his deeds, and his death, the narrative of the sayings, deeds, and death of Jesus Christ came to be called the gospel or glad tidings


I would say that according to "E" that not only is the New Testament, Gospel, but the deeds and words which are not recorded as well.

 

[hedrick]

I don't think I got a response to this post. If Jesus set up apostles, prophets, evangelists, teachers, and pastors to guide His church, do you think it is an important part of the "Original" Gospel?

Jesus gave the Church the power of the keys. This is a rabbinic concept, the authority to make authoritative interpretations. And they did. You can see in church history the early church trying to explain Jesus to the culture of the time. Then during the medieval period, you can see further adaptation, e.g. a new concept of the atonement based on the feudal concepts of honor. These are all completely legitimate efforts.

But today's culture finds the neo-platonic Greek philosophy on which Christian doctrine was based unhelpful, and honor/shame culture was never a very good fit to Jesus' teaching anyway. I actually find Jesus, and even the early rabbis, closer to my way of thinking than the terms in which later Christians understood him.

I honor past attempts, and find helpful things in them. E.g. I am a Trinitarian, though I don't think the classical descriptions of the Trinity are ideal. But I'd rather start my own attempts at interpretation from the original than from someone else's interpretation, in a culture very different from my own. Of course I don't do this in isolation, but as part of a community of Christians who are engaged in the same activity. I don't think the power of the keys has left the Church, even if I think many parts of the Church have misused it.

 

[Heterodoxus]

I'd rather start my own attempts at interpretation from the original than from someone else's interpretation,....

Are you claiming that "the original" from which you'd rather "start my own attempts at interpretation" exists

Please clarify what you mean when you say "the original"?

 

[Ran77]

Jesus gave the Church the power of the keys. This is a rabbinic concept, the authority to make authoritative interpretations. And they did. You can see in church history the early church trying to explain Jesus to the culture of the time. Then during the medieval period, you can see further adaptation, e.g. a new concept of the atonement based on the feudal concepts of honor. These are all completely legitimate efforts.

But today's culture finds the neo-platonic Greek philosophy on which Christian doctrine was based unhelpful, and honor/shame culture was never a very good fit to Jesus' teaching anyway. I actually find Jesus, and even the early rabbis, closer to my way of thinking than the terms in which later Christians understood him.

I honor past attempts, and find helpful things in them. E.g. I am a Trinitarian, though I don't think the classical descriptions of the Trinity are ideal. But I'd rather start my own attempts at interpretation from the original than from someone else's interpretation, in a culture very different from my own. Of course I don't do this in isolation, but as part of a community of Christians who are engaged in the same activity. I don't think the power of the keys has left the Church, even if I think many parts of the Church have misused it.

It sounds that you believe, on some level, that there has been some departure from the "Original" gospel. But not perhaps not important enough to cause concern. Is that correct?

 

[Yekcidmij]

The "original" gospel is that the Kingdom of God is here.

 

[Ran77]

The "original" gospel is that the Kingdom of God is here.

Okay. I accept that as your briefly offered opinion.

 

[Yekcidmij]

Okay. I accept that as your briefly offered opinion.

I'm just quoting from Isaiah 52 and Mark 1.

Mark 1:14 Now after John was imprisoned, Jesus went into Galilee and proclaimed the gospel of God. 1:15 He said, “The time is fulfilled and the kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the gospel!”

Is 52:7 How delightful it is to see approaching over the mountains
the feet of a messenger who announces peace,
a messenger who brings good news, who announces deliverance,
who says to Zion, “Your God reigns!” http://classic.net.bible.org/bible.php?book=Isa&chapter=52#n10

 

[hedrick]

It sounds that you believe, on some level, that there has been some departure from the "Original" gospel. But not perhaps not important enough to cause concern. Is that correct?

Yes and no. I believe it was translated into a different cultural framework. Things lose in any translation. But it's inevitable. Every generation has to apply the Gospel to current questions.

When theology moved from Latin to native languages we translated the Bible directly from the original languages, rather than translating from the Latin translation. Similarly I think each generation need to look at the Gospels and not just the understanding of the previous generation. Note that I say "not just" rather than "not." We'll want to keep many of the insights from the past.

One thing that definitely happened is that the early church distanced itself from Judaism. It's easy to see why. But in the process some of the context of Jesus' teaching was lost. I'm not saying, like some, that the Church lost the Gospel completely. But the focus changed from Jesus' focus on the Kingdom being present in his ministry, to a focus on how people could go to heaven. The extent to which this narrowing happened differs. Christians, ancient and modern, have always maintained an understanding of how Jesus wants us to live. While I think we can see changes in focus even in the 2nd Cent, certainly types of modern Protestantism have probably been the worst offenders at narrowing the meaning of Gospel.

It's easy to show that a change actually happened. Look at any discussion here about the Gospel, and see how people understand it. By and large they understand it as Jesus dying to save us from our sins, so that we don't have to go to hell. I'm not arguing against the statements that Jesus died for us. But look though a concordance or you favorite Bible search program for "Gospel" and "good news" in the Gospels, and see how Jesus used it. One of the biggest developments in recent theology (say that last half of the 20th Cent onward) has been a reappreciation of the Jewish background of Jesus.

Also, the Trinity came to be understood in terminology such as essence and hypostasis, which are quite different from the NT terminology, and also different from categories today.

I would argue that the concept of the atonement going back to Anselm was a result of thinking about the significance of Jesus' death in the light of medieval cultural assumptions. But those assumptions are no longer present except in certain parts of theology.

We can see all of these developments in Church history. We can see why they happened, and appreciate what the people who made them were trying to do. But I don't think it makes sense for us to be committed to every interpretation from the past. There's no reason why we can't try to understand the Gospel in a context closer to the original, understand the atonement using older models that may be more understandable today, etc.

You ask whether it causes concern? I think the answer depends upon the person. To people brought up within Christianity, often it's not a concern. Even non-Christians interested in Christianity are often more interested in a traditional Christianity. But there are also people who start investigating the Bible and theology, and are bothered by the distance between the Bible and traditional interpretations. Certain parts of the tradition (e.g. the atonement) even seem to them to be immoral. For those people the difference matters.

There's also a danger that even for those satisfied with traditional formulations, they may be missing some of the challenge of the Gospel. Being comfortable with something doesn't necessarily mean that it's right. Traditional Christianity has been far too comfortable with injustices of various kinds, racial, economic, etc. I think at least some of this can be traced to narrowing down Jesus' teachings to saving our souls. Much of the pioneering work on reappreciating older theories of the atonement has been associated with Christian groups that value peace and reconciliation. I'm not a pacificist, but I do think Christians have been too comfortable with use of force to resolve problems.

 

[Ran77]

I'm just quoting from Isaiah 52 and Mark 1.

Mark 1:14 Now after John was imprisoned, Jesus went into Galilee and proclaimed the gospel of God. 1:15 He said, “The time is fulfilled and the kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the gospel!”

Is 52:7 How delightful it is to see approaching over the mountains
the feet of a messenger who announces peace,
a messenger who brings good news, who announces deliverance,
who says to Zion, “Your God reigns!” http://classic.net.bible.org/bible.php?book=Isa&chapter=52#n10

Okay.

But that is a very small portion of the New Testament. That leaves a whole lot more of the Gospel left uncovered by your statement. I believe that the "original" gospel is more than what you offered. Although, I respect your right to believe that.

 

[now faith]

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).

Pre Nicene,is my greatest,curiosity.

 

[Ran77]

Yes and no. I believe it was translated into a different cultural framework. Things lose in any translation. But it's inevitable. Every generation has to apply the Gospel to current questions.

Gotcha.

However, if something is lost as it is translated into a different cultural framework, then what we have is a variation of the original - as it has been adapted to that culture.

When theology moved from Latin to native languages we translated the Bible directly from the original languages, rather than translating from the Latin translation. Similarly I think each generation need to look at the Gospels and not just the understanding of the previous generation. Note that I say "not just" rather than "not." We'll want to keep many of the insights from the past.

Sounds reasonable.

One thing that definitely happened is that the early church distanced itself from Judaism. It's easy to see why. But in the process some of the context of Jesus' teaching was lost. I'm not saying, like some, that the Church lost the Gospel completely. But the focus changed from Jesus' focus on the Kingdom being present in his ministry, to a focus on how people could go to heaven. The extent to which this narrowing happened differs. Christians, ancient and modern, have always maintained an understanding of how Jesus wants us to live. While I think we can see changes in focus even in the 2nd Cent, certainly types of modern Protestantism have probably been the worst offenders at narrowing the meaning of Gospel.

I agree that during the process "some" of the context was probably lost. And for the purpose of this thread that would mean that the "original" doctrine no longer exists in its entirety.

It's easy to show that a change actually happened. Look at any discussion here about the Gospel, and see how people understand it. By and large they understand it as Jesus dying to save us from our sins, so that we don't have to go to hell. I'm not arguing against the statements that Jesus died for us. But look though a concordance or you favorite Bible search program for "Gospel" and "good news" in the Gospels, and see how Jesus used it. One of the biggest developments in recent theology (say that last half of the 20th Cent onward) has been a reappreciation of the Jewish background of Jesus.

I'm with you on that point.

Also, the Trinity came to be understood in terminology such as essence and hypostasis, which are quite different from the NT terminology, and also different from categories today.

Okay.

I would argue that the concept of the atonement going back to Anselm was a result of thinking about the significance of Jesus' death in the light of medieval cultural assumptions. But those assumptions are no longer present except in certain parts of theology.

We can see all of these developments in Church history. We can see why they happened, and appreciate what the people who made them were trying to do. But I don't think it makes sense for us to be committed to every interpretation from the past. There's no reason why we can't try to understand the Gospel in a context closer to the original, understand the atonement using older models that may be more understandable today, etc.

It sounds reasonable to me to try and understand the Gospel in the original context.

You ask whether it causes concern? I think the answer depends upon the person. To people brought up within Christianity, often it's not a concern. Even non-Christians interested in Christianity are often more interested in a traditional Christianity. But there are also people who start investigating the Bible and theology, and are bothered by the distance between the Bible and traditional interpretations. Certain parts of the tradition (e.g. the atonement) even seem to them to be immoral. For those people the difference matters.

There's also a danger that even for those satisfied with traditional formulations, they may be missing some of the challenge of the Gospel. Being comfortable with something doesn't necessarily mean that it's right. Traditional Christianity has been far too comfortable with injustices of various kinds, racial, economic, etc. I think at least some of this can be traced to narrowing down Jesus' teachings to saving our souls. Much of the pioneering work on reappreciating older theories of the atonement has been associated with Christian groups that value peace and reconciliation. I'm not a pacificist, but I do think Christians have been too comfortable with use of force to resolve problems.

Also reasonable.

Thank you for your contribution.

 

[Phantasman]

Oops, I somehow missed your response.

The thing is, we also employ English in our understanding of the Gospel.

Doctrine:

1. a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion or government: Catholic doctrines; the Monroe Doctrine.

2. something that is taught; teachings collectively: religious doctrine.

3. a body or system of teachings relating to a particular subject: the doctrine of the Catholic Church.


The English meaning of the word works for the context in which I have presented it. However, I am willing to look at Strongs to see how it applies to the New Testament. (Keep in mind that I am comparing doctrine today to the doctrine of Christ's time. As such, the Old Testament has much less bearing on the topic.)


Euaggelion:

1) a reward for good tidings

2) good tidings

a) the glad tidings of the kingdom of God soon to be set up, and subsequently also of Jesus the Messiah, the founder of this kingdom. After the death of Christ, the term comprises also the preaching of (concerning) Jesus Christ as having suffered death on the cross to procure eternal salvation for the men in the kingdom of God, but as restored to life and exalted to the right hand of God in heaven, thence to return in majesty to consummate the kingdom of God

b) the glad tidings of salvation through Christ

c) the proclamation of the grace of God manifest and pledged in Christ

d) the gospel

e) as the messianic rank of Jesus was proved by his words, his deeds, and his death, the narrative of the sayings, deeds, and death of Jesus Christ came to be called the gospel or glad tidings


I would say that according to "E" that not only is the New Testament, Gospel, but the deeds and words which are not recorded as well.

Yes. Good find.

 

[hedrick]

Are you claiming that "the original" from which you'd rather "start my own attempts at interpretation" exists

Please clarify what you mean when you say "the original"?

The best we can do is the NT. I accept the normal scholarly view that the Synoptics are the closest to Jesus' own frame of reference. While they may all have been written for a Gentile audience, they appear to preserve much of the Palestinian Jewish background. I'm not a fundamentalist, so I look at the NT critically. But still, compared to 4th or 16th Cent interpretations, the Synoptics are very close to being "original" in the definition of what the Gospel is.