The "Original" Gospel

[Ran77]

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.

Got it.


Thanks.

 

[Yekcidmij]

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.

I think it's the whole point of what Mark is writing - to demonstrate how it is that the Kingdom of God is here. It's not a small part; it's the theme of the entire book. It was a very Jewish idea started in the fires of the Assyrian and Babylonian Exiles and realized in the person of Jesus.

 

[Ran77]

I think it's the whole point of what Mark is writing - to demonstrate how it is that the Kingdom of God is here. It's not a small part; it's the theme of the entire book. It was a very Jewish idea started in the fires of the Assyrian and Babylonian Exiles and realized in the person of Jesus.

The Kingdom of God is here. Got it. I still feel that it is a small part of the gospel as a whole. A key part to be sure, but still only a portion.

 

[hedrick]

The Kingdom of God is here. Got it. I still feel that it is a small part of the gospel as a whole. A key part to be sure, but still only a portion.

You can think of everything as part of the Kingdom in one way or another. Jesus' teachings about how to live are often understood as ethics for the Kingdom. And Jesus' death was a covenant sacrifice to establish the new covenant on which the Kingdom is based.

 

[Phantasman]

You can think of everything as part of the Kingdom in one way or another. Jesus' teachings about how to live are often understood as ethics for the Kingdom. And Jesus' death was a covenant sacrifice to establish the new covenant on which the Kingdom is based.

Then why read the OT?

 

[Yekcidmij]

The Kingdom of God is here. Got it. I still feel that it is a small part of the gospel as a whole. A key part to be sure, but still only a portion.

That''s fine, I'm just not sure how to justify additional meaning to what the NT writers considered the gospel. It seems to me that their expectations, experiences and understanding are pretty well documented.

 

[hedrick]

Then why read the OT?

The terms Jesus used to explain his mission are all defined in the OT. This includes the covenant, and the various roles (e.g. prophet and king) on the basis of which our understanding of Jesus is based.

If you remove the OT from Christianity you get something like Gnosticism.

 

[RevelationTestament]

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…) 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

I came to see your view of "doctrinal debris" some years ago myself. It occurred to me that the reason so many pagan religions have similarities to Judeo-Christianity is not because the Hebrews copied them, but because they were satanic distortions ie half-truths of the original truth of God introduced before Moses - a view largely ignored by modern scholars, if it ever occurred to them.

 

[Phantasman]

The terms Jesus used to explain his mission are all defined in the OT. This includes the covenant, and the various roles (e.g. prophet and king) on the basis of which our understanding of Jesus is based.

If you remove the OT from Christianity you get something like Gnosticism.

When Jesus referred to the OT, many times it was to explain what it said differently than what people took it as.(ie, correcting it). And yes, Gnosticism uses non Canonical writings as well to see that Jesus continued to do just that. He tried to put them on the "correct path". So why go back to a path that may not be correct to be misled again?

 

[Heterodoxus]

... the Holy Spirit cannot be changed by others

Changed, perhaps not; misunderstood, yes.

 

[Phantasman]

Changed, perhaps not; misunderstood, yes.

I will agree that there are many who dictate what the Spirit says, rather than questioning it's validity. If the opposing force can appear as an "angel of light", one must pray for the truth. If the truth "sets us free", how can we say we know truth if it holds us "prisoner".

The Gospel is the good news, news that man shouldn't contain in one area. When they do, they miss out on the good news that all have experienced to just a few.