Have you heard the Gospel?

[live2blive]

How do you define the gospel?

The gospel can be defined in different ways. I use the definition which Paul used:
how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures” (1 Corinthians 15:1-4).

If I provided an example of the New Testament giving an example from the Old Testament would you then change your mind and post accordingly?

Then you understand there are both minor and serious needs for editing the op. As written, the op says things that are either not what you meant, or factually incorrect and also in need of editing, correcting, or clarification.

I sincerely don't see what is causing your confusion with the OP. The point is that the gospel of death, burial and resurrection according to the examples in the OT, which was preached by the Savior and Paul, is not commonly preached now (which is reflected in the fact that the participants did not post these examples with an exception of correctly mentioning Jonah). The gospel is usually preached by referring to the four gospels in the NT without giving the examples from the OT. The message is the same, but it is like complete vs incomplete. Evidence with the conclusion vs conclusion without the evidence. It does make the difference. Do you agree?

The premise that Church preaching is a different gospel because it either doesn't use the Old Testament or uses only the New Testament is a false-cause fallacy argument. You've got an error in logic there. A false dichotomy, too. It is possible that the exact same gospel could be preached from either the Old or New, but this op - as written - makes no room for that possibility.

I apologize if the OP did not make it more clear what I wanted to say. I would not mind to verbalize it better, but if I understand it correctly, there is no option to modify the OP.

Lastly, thanks for hanging in here with me. I know this is a lot of information and, while it is not intended in any way to offend, some of it means the op has to be clarified, if not corrected if your objectives to benefit others are to met. I can be exacting at times (or so I am told ) and that can be frustrating. You've done a commendable job so far of clarifying your own words without rancor and not resorting to ad hominem or other fleshly alternatives. I mean that sincerely and without condescension. Method is just as important as content and, as far as the trading of posts goes, you've set an example for everyone to emulate. Well done.

I appreciate both your desire for clarity and your kind words.

I, again, respectfully disagree. I suspect EVERY Christian knows the New Testament hadn't been written when the apostles began to preach. However, I think you also err because 2 Peter 3 has been neglected.

2 Peter 3:14-16
Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless, and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Peter stated Paul's writings were comparable to "the rest of the scriptures," by which we can both agree Peter was referring to the Tanakh, or what we call the Old Testament. In other words, by the time Peter wrote his second epistle at least some of Paul's writings were available to the Church and those writings were considered equal to Tanakh. Not only were they known, but their neglect was construed as something that might risk one's destruction!

One other point deserves mention because, according to the New Testament, much of the meaning of the Old Testament was veiled or hidden from those living in the Old Testament times. That which was previously "veiled" or "hidden" was made known in the preaching of Jesus and the apostles, and in the subsequent writings of the latter. Simply put, it was the newer revelation of God that revealed the meaning of the older revelation. The New Testament writers did, therefore, preach the Old Testament gospel AND added new revelation from God to it so that what had previously been previously obscured by God was now made known.

This is important because there is a significant portion of Christendom that 1) believes the Old Testament should be read exactly as written without regard to what the NT says about the OT, and/or 2) frequently Judaizes Christianity. Both practices should be avoided.

I completely agree with what you wrote. I don't see how what I wrote contradicts that.

Well, then, and again I mean no disrespect, word your posts better because, as written, the op contradicts both itself and scripture in various places. Good intent but bad execution.

So..... if you're willing. Let's start anew with the bedrock foundational truth everything else in this op MUST be built on: the correct definition of the gospel. Would you like to post your definition and have me affirm, add to, or correct it, or would you like me to offer a definition you can then affirm, add to, or correct?

While I await your answer, I offer this: many Christian think or say the gospel is the "good news" of Christ as Lord and Savior, but the word "gospel" (GK.: euangelion) is NOT "akoe kalon" ("akoe" means news and "kalon" means good). "Akoe kalon" is NOT the term Jesus or the New Testament writers used, and there is a reason they used the word "gospel," and not the phrase "good news." There is, therefore, a very good chance that anyone who doesn't know and understand the difference between "euangelion" and "akoe kalon" has a deficit in their defining of the gospel. A lot of noted theologians get this wrong. The correct definition of the term "gospel" is very well and firmly rooted in the OT, but it's a word the NT writers co-opted from the Romans.

So let me know whether you'd like to initiate the task and work from your definition or mine (Ideally there won't be any difference or disparity).

The Greek word euangelion (or euaggelion) means "good message". Please check it out:

Strong's Greek: 2098. εὐαγγέλιον (euaggelion) -- Gospel, Good News

 

[Josheb]

The OT gospel Jesus and the apostles preached was that the kingdom of God was nearby.
The NT gospel was that Jesus died for our past sins and was raised from the dead.

No. Neither of those statements is correct AND my question was asked specifically of live2blive and no one else. This is his op and only he can explain his position. To ask, "Have you heard the gospel?" but never define the gospel is to ask a meaningless question. To assert the Church does not preach the gospel without providing a definition of the gospel is to, likewise, make meaningless claim. In addition to those two very real problems, a third problem will result because ten different poster may have ten different definitions of the gospel and then engage each other never stating the definition from which they are working. That creates false conversations in which people are using the exact same word with entirely different meanings. That creates a completely fallacious discussion. The problem is one of ambiguity and it creates a fallacy of false equivalence. My definition of "gospel" is different from Fred's and Fred's is different from Ethel's and Ricky and Lucy are adding their say into the mix but their definitions don't reconcile with anyone else's, either.

The problem is easily solved....

If and when the op posts a definition of the gospel as s/he intends us to understand it and we either agree with and use that definition to avoid to problems of ambiguity and false equivalences and create a coherent conversation of shared understanding. or we correct that definition until we have one that accurately reflects whole scripture.

The gospel incorporates both of your sentences. The kingdom of God, the propitiation of sins, and the resurrection of Christ are ALL aspects of the gospel, not mutually exclusive gospels. So, let's give the op an opportunity to define the gospel and let's see if we can all work together with that definition.

 

[Josheb]

The gospel can be defined in different ways. I use the definition which Paul used:
how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures” (1 Corinthians 15:1-4)................................

That's good. Very good. I would ask you if you think those four verses are exhaustive, if that is all that the gospel is, but I'd like to move the conversation forward and not belabor the matter much, if any, further. I'll post my position....

.......The Greek word euangelion (or euaggelion) means "good message". Please check it out:

Strong's Greek: 2098. εὐαγγέλιον (euaggelion) -- Gospel, Good News

I like Bible Hub. It's my preferred resource for use in internet discussion boards. The problem with the Bible Hub definition is that it is void of context.

As I noted previously the Greek words for good and news are akoe kalon. Jesus preached akoa kalon but the New Testament writers did not use the words akoe kalon to describe Jesus teachings. They used the word euangelion. That term was taken from the Greeks and Romans. In the first century it was a term used by Rome to announce a great victory by a Caesar or a military general. It was also the term used to announce the deification of someone who accomplished some great feat (like a military victory) or, on occasion, someone who had served the empire in an extraordinarily noble manner. Therefore, inherent in the meaning of the word gospel is a great feat or victory, often including their deification.

When a Caesar was deified back then it did NOT mean that Caesar had actually become a god. In Roman, Greek, and the other pagan cultures a god could not become a human and a human could not literally become a god. In the pagan cultures when a person died, they went to live in the underworld where Hades or Pluto or some other god reigned. When a person was deified they received a promotion. They did not go to the underworld. They got to live in the Elysian Fields at the foot of Mount Olympus. They were still human, and they were still dead, but they got to live among the gods.

That is NOT what the New Testament authors taught. By using the term "gospel" those men were usurping a Roman term that had an already prescribed meaning and significance, and they were radically altering all of that. To the Romans and Jews the New Testament writers misappropriated the term. What the NT writers claimed was that God had become a man and that man was, in fact God. Not only had God become a man, but that man had won a great victory, a victory not even Caesar could accomplish. That man, Jesus of Nazareth, had defeated death. Not only had he done what Caesar could never do but, having defeated death, that Jesus was now King of all kings, Lord of all Lords and the only Savior from sin and the only means by which anyone could come to God - the one God, not the many gods of paganism. Jesus repudiated both the Jewish and the Gentile concepts of the afterlife. What Jesus taught it there is only one God and when your life ends you will stand before him and the only two options are eternal life in Christ, or eternal destruction (like that of the fiery lake). There are no lesser gods. The traditional view of first century Judaism was there was no life after death, but Jesus made it bluntly clear: every single one of those Sadducees was going to find what they taught was wrong.

This message enraged everyone.

To the Jew it was a stumbling block and to the Gentile it was foolishness.

Acts 2:29-36 ESV
“Brothers, I may say to you with confidence about the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. Being therefore a prophet and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would set one of his descendants on his throne, he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption. This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses. Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God and, having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing. For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he himself says, “‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.”’ Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.”

When God promised David an eternal throne God was speaking of the resurrection.

That verse still causes some Christians a lot of trouble because they are taught something different about the throne, the kingdom, the resurrection, and all that's connected to that statement.

The word "gospel" inherently means the good news of a great victory and/or deification occurred. When we speak of the gospel of Christ, the Christian gospel (and there is only one gospel in the whole of the Bible) we should necessarily be speaking of Christ alive, dead, resurrected, ascendant, and enthroned...... and as such he is the Savior from sin and wrath. Every knee will bow and confess him as Lord, but not everyone bowed will be able to confess him as Savior. That is because the latter has not believed the gospel.



And every bit of this is found in various places throughout the Old Testament. The OT and NT do not teach different gospels. The op is correct to say the apostles taught (predominantly) from the OT but that does not mean the gospel is not accurately revealed in the NT, nor does it mean the Church today teaches a different gospel.

So, if you can accept the above, then I have a few more comments and inquiries relevant to this op.

 

[Bruce.Leiter]

"Coming unto Jesus" is not the same as to have "the indwelling of His Spirit". Sorry, but you did not answer the question: Did the disciples have "the indwelling of His Spirit" when the Savior was alive?

The Gospel of Mark emphasizes the disciples' unbelief, probably because they expected an earthly Messiah-king instead of the suffering Servant of Isaiah 53. He told them plainly, but it didn't sink in.

On the other hand, John seems to emphasize their faith, because believing is his main theme. It appears that they had a mixture of belief and unbelief overall, as many Christians also have.

 

[Hopeful 2]

No. Neither of those statements is correct

Hmmm.

AND my question was asked specifically of live2blive and no one else. This is his op and only he can explain his position. To ask, "Have you heard the gospel?" but never define the gospel is to ask a meaningless question. To assert the Church does not preach the gospel without providing a definition of the gospel is to, likewise, make meaningless claim. In addition to those two very real problems, a third problem will result because ten different poster may have ten different definitions of the gospel and then engage each other never stating the definition from which they are working. That creates false conversations in which people are using the exact same word with entirely different meanings. That creates a completely fallacious discussion. The problem is one of ambiguity and it creates a fallacy of false equivalence. My definition of "gospel" is different from Fred's and Fred's is different from Ethel's and Ricky and Lucy are adding their say into the mix but their definitions don't reconcile with anyone else's, either.

The problem is easily solved....
If and when the op posts a definition of the gospel as s/he intends us to understand it and we either agree with and use that definition to avoid to problems of ambiguity and false equivalences and create a coherent conversation of shared understanding. or we correct that definition until we have one that accurately reflects whole scripture.

The gospel incorporates both of your sentences.

But you just said both were wrong ?

The kingdom of God, the propitiation of sins, and the resurrection of Christ are ALL aspects of the gospel, not mutually exclusive gospels. So, let's give the op an opportunity to define the gospel and let's see if we can all work together with that definition.

OK by me.

 

[live2blive]

The Gospel of Mark emphasizes the disciples' unbelief, probably because they expected an earthly Messiah-king instead of the suffering Servant of Isaiah 53. He told them plainly, but it didn't sink in.

On the other hand, John seems to emphasize their faith, because believing is his main theme. It appears that they had a mixture of belief and unbelief overall, as many Christians also have.

Agreed. For 3.5 years the disciples believed that Yahshua was somebody special who did the miracles and had the words of eternal life, but they did not really know what he was doing and what his purpose was. As some Christians today.

 

[live2blive]

That's good. Very good. I would ask you if you think those four verses are exhaustive, if that is all that the gospel is, but I'd like to move the conversation forward and not belabor the matter much, if any, further. I'll post my position....

I like Bible Hub. It's my preferred resource for use in internet discussion boards. The problem with the Bible Hub definition is that it is void of context.

As I noted previously the Greek words for good and news are akoe kalon. Jesus preached akoa kalon but the New Testament writers did not use the words akoe kalon to describe Jesus teachings. They used the word euangelion. That term was taken from the Greeks and Romans. In the first century it was a term used by Rome to announce a great victory by a Caesar or a military general. It was also the term used to announce the deification of someone who accomplished some great feat (like a military victory) or, on occasion, someone who had served the empire in an extraordinarily noble manner. Therefore, inherent in the meaning of the word gospel is a great feat or victory, often including their deification.

When a Caesar was deified back then it did NOT mean that Caesar had actually become a god. In Roman, Greek, and the other pagan cultures a god could not become a human and a human could not literally become a god. In the pagan cultures when a person died, they went to live in the underworld where Hades or Pluto or some other god reigned. When a person was deified they received a promotion. They did not go to the underworld. They got to live in the Elysian Fields at the foot of Mount Olympus. They were still human, and they were still dead, but they got to live among the gods.

That is NOT what the New Testament authors taught. By using the term "gospel" those men were usurping a Roman term that had an already prescribed meaning and significance, and they were radically altering all of that. To the Romans and Jews the New Testament writers misappropriated the term. What the NT writers claimed was that God had become a man and that man was, in fact God. Not only had God become a man, but that man had won a great victory, a victory not even Caesar could accomplish. That man, Jesus of Nazareth, had defeated death. Not only had he done what Caesar could never do but, having defeated death, that Jesus was now King of all kings, Lord of all Lords and the only Savior from sin and the only means by which anyone could come to God - the one God, not the many gods of paganism. Jesus repudiated both the Jewish and the Gentile concepts of the afterlife. What Jesus taught it there is only one God and when your life ends you will stand before him and the only two options are eternal life in Christ, or eternal destruction (like that of the fiery lake). There are no lesser gods. The traditional view of first century Judaism was there was no life after death, but Jesus made it bluntly clear: every single one of those Sadducees was going to find what they taught was wrong.

This message enraged everyone.

To the Jew it was a stumbling block and to the Gentile it was foolishness.

Acts 2:29-36 ESV
“Brothers, I may say to you with confidence about the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. Being therefore a prophet and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would set one of his descendants on his throne, he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption. This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses. Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God and, having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing. For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he himself says, “‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.”’ Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.”

When God promised David an eternal throne God was speaking of the resurrection.

That verse still causes some Christians a lot of trouble because they are taught something different about the throne, the kingdom, the resurrection, and all that's connected to that statement.

The word "gospel" inherently means the good news of a great victory and/or deification occurred. When we speak of the gospel of Christ, the Christian gospel (and there is only one gospel in the whole of the Bible) we should necessarily be speaking of Christ alive, dead, resurrected, ascendant, and enthroned...... and as such he is the Savior from sin and wrath. Every knee will bow and confess him as Lord, but not everyone bowed will be able to confess him as Savior. That is because the latter has not believed the gospel.



And every bit of this is found in various places throughout the Old Testament. The OT and NT do not teach different gospels. The op is correct to say the apostles taught (predominantly) from the OT but that does not mean the gospel is not accurately revealed in the NT, nor does it mean the Church today teaches a different gospel.

So, if you can accept the above, then I have a few more comments and inquiries relevant to this op.

Thank you for this interesting information. It is always good to have better understanding. Still, the Greek word euangelion means "good news":

Word Studies in the New Living Translation: εὐαγγέλιον (euangelion), εὐαγγελίζω (euangelizō) – New Living Translation

https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/strongs-number-G2098/

 

[Josheb]

Still, the Greek word euangelion means "good news":

https://wpmu2.azurewebsites.net/nlt...ngelion-[SIZE=4]εὐαγγελίζω-euangelizo/[/SIZE]

https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/strongs-number-G2098/

I just addressed that content. You could post as many extra-biblical sources as you like but that will not change the fact that a euanglion is a specific type of good news and NOT a generic form.

 

[live2blive]

In Roman, Greek, and the other pagan cultures a god could not become a human and a human could not literally become a god.

In Greek and Roman cultures a human could become a god:

Apotheosis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[live2blive]

I just addressed that content. You could post as many extra-biblical sources as you like but that will not change the fact that a euanglion is a specific type of good news and NOT a generic form.

I am simply showing the meaning of the word. I appreciate your explanation of what this word meant at that time.

 

[Josheb]

In Greek and Roman cultures a human could become a god:

Apotheosis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Think that through. Hercules/Heracles died. Gods are immortal. In biblical vernacular that would be comparable to a human becoming an angel, not God. Zeus and other gods sometimes took on the form of a human being but they were never actual humans. More importantly, Jesus never affirmed the notion there is one almighty God and a host of lesser gods. That's not the gospel at all.

 

[Josheb]

I am simply showing the meaning of the word. I appreciate your explanation of what this word meant at that time.

No, you're not. You're appealing to an extra-bibilical source that provided a basic, rudimentary definition void of all first century cultural significance. That's fine a for a basic study of scripture but it doesn't get anywhere near the depth of what Jesus and the New Testament authors were saying OR what the original first century readers would have understood. For those readers a herald came into their towns and cities and made a proclamation: "GOSPEL! GOSPEL! GOSPEL! CAESAR HAS BEEN DEIFIED!" That was the equivalent of say, "Announcement! Announcement! By official decree Caesar has been made a god!" So, when the apostles appropriated the term that was, in and of itself, a matter of controversy. When the content of that official proclamation of good news was heard it caused heads to explode. The innocent criminal the Romans had been manipulated to murder was God incarnate and that man, Jesus did something no Caesar can ever do: defeat sin and death. As a consequence of that victory, even Caesar will have to bow to Jesus.


So, they covered Christians in pitch, rammed pikes through them and lit them on fire while still alive to be used as streetlights.


Good news everyone!

 

[Follower Of Christ]

So, they covered Christians in pitch, rammed pikes through them and lit them on fire while still alive to be used as streetlights.

Plenty of posters in this forum light up fires here and there on various threads. Praise the Lord we still have enough faithful in Christ trying to quench those fires with living water.

Have you asked yourself this question Josheb: Am I a firefighter or firestarter?

 

[JLB]

Plenty of posters in this forum light up fires here and there on various threads. Praise the Lord we still have enough faithful in Christ trying to quench those fires with living water.

Have you asked yourself this question Josheb: Am I a firefighter or firestarter?

“I came to send fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! But I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how distressed I am till it is accomplished! Luke 12:49-50

The lukewarm church is desperate for fire starters.

 

[Follower Of Christ]

“I came to send fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! But I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how distressed I am till it is accomplished! Luke 12:49-50

The lukewarm church is desperate for fire starters.

First time around divine judgement by water, second time around divine judgement by unquenchable fire. In between Satan's quenchable fires of deception leaving behind smoke of confusion which the wind eventually clears out.

I don't see the lukewarm church boiling water yet for healing either. But if I see a boiling pot I shall let you know.

 

[Josheb]

Plenty of posters in this forum light up fires here and there on various threads. Praise the Lord we still have enough faithful in Christ trying to quench those fires with living water.

Have you asked yourself this question Josheb: Am I a firefighter or firestarter?

Relevance?

Whether firefighter, firestarter, both, or neither...... what I am is a person who generally eschews digressions, especially those that take the discussion far afield of the op. I like to respect an op and the author's stated purpose (assuming there is one stated). On the occasion where I entertain a tangent I typically try to bring whatever commentary I post back to the op.




This op asks if the reader has heard the gospel and asserts the premise there is an Old Testament gospel that is different than what is usually preached in churches today.

"The New Testament accounts are usually preached in a church, but this is not the gospel that Christ and the apostles preached, which, according to them, saves and delivers from sin."​

I find that part about the churches having a different gospel problematic for several reasons. I also think that's going to be a difficult conversation unless and until some agreed upon definition of what constitutes THE gospel is had. Various definitions have been asserted, and I think they are all parts of the gospel, not the whole of it. Therefore, taking them altogether is best (rather than pitting them against one another). The definition I provided, one that takes into consideration the significance of the word "gospel" is it was understood in the first century covers all these bases. The conditions of Lordship, Savior, kingdom, redemption, eternal life, etc. are all included in the description I provided.

 

[Follower Of Christ]

Relevance?

Whether firefighter, firestarter, both, or neither...... what I am is a person who generally eschews digressions, especially those that take the discussion far afield of the op. I like to respect an op and the author's stated purpose (assuming there is one stated). On the occasion where I entertain a tangent I typically try to bring whatever commentary I post back to the op.




This op asks if the reader has heard the gospel and asserts the premise there is an Old Testament gospel that is different than what is usually preached in churches today.

"The New Testament accounts are usually preached in a church, but this is not the gospel that Christ and the apostles preached, which, according to them, saves and delivers from sin."​

I find that part about the churches having a different gospel problematic for several reasons. I also think that's going to be a difficult conversation unless and until some agreed upon definition of what constitutes THE gospel is had. Various definitions have been asserted, and I think they are all parts of the gospel, not the whole of it. Therefore, taking them altogether is best (rather than pitting them against one another). The definition I provided, one that takes into consideration the significance of the word "gospel" is it was understood in the first century covers all these bases. The conditions of Lordship, Savior, kingdom, redemption, eternal life, etc. are all included in the description I provided.

Ok.

 

[live2blive]

No, you're not.

I wrote "I am simply showing the meaning of the word. I appreciate your explanation of what this word meant at that time." Which of these statements is your reply "No, you're not" referring to? I hope you don't imply that I don't mean what I say.