Have you heard the Gospel?

[Consecrated Life]

Do you mean that when the Savior said these words the disciples had "the indwelling of His Spirit"?

There is only one way to " Come Unto" Jesus .
Matthew 11:28
Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.

 

[Tenchi]

I didn't acuse you or anybody. "Dogma" is not an offensive word.

That depends upon how you employ the word. Typically, dogma is what a person holds to as incontrovertibly true. Being dogmatic, though, or a dogmatist, often refers to one who is bull-headed in their refusal to adjust their point of view - usually for reasons that have little or nothing to do with facts, good argument and evidence. Anyway, you wrote:

"This is exactly the problem! You are choosing what fits your dogma, even though these translators insert in the text their own interpretation."

"What fits your dogma" certainly seems to me to imply a certain dogmatism on my part. If this wasn't what you intended, that's fine.

Notice, that it is you who accuses me in having ill-motives. Do you know my motives?

I noted a parallel between your statements and those of dogmatists, and suggested you were projecting onto others an attitude you possessed, but did I write, "You are a dogmatist"? And I didn't merely accuse you of having an ill-motive, I pointed directly at what you wrote where this is evident.

Let us follow Paul's advice: And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth (2 Timothy 2:24,25).

Certainly. I have been all along. Being as described in this verse, though, does not require avoiding calling a spade, a spade. And so, we read in Scripture instances where Paul himself employed frank and direct language. Read his first letter to the Corinthians, for example.

Apparently, you did not watch the video with other examples and explanation.

It wasn't necessary. I can consider the text of Matthew 13 directly and see very easily that a natural, straightforward reading of it doesn't comport with your "3 stages of spiritual birth" idea.

If you did, you would have found that there is a pattern in the Bible.

There have been many patterns drawn out of Scripture, some legitimate, some not.

Matthew 13:23, as you said, describes the "hearer of the Gospel who is saved" and steps of this salvation. He who is saved is born again.

Being "saved," in the Gospel sense, and being "born-again" are synonymous in Scripture. Both are accomplished in and through the Holy Spirit coming to dwell within a lost person and imparting to them the life of Christ. See Titus 3:5, Romans 8:9-16, 1 John 4:13, John 3:5-7. There is no place in the NT that teaches that the Holy Spirit indwells a person gradually, through a process making of them his temple. He is either within a person and so they are saved/born-again, or he is not and they are not. In any case, Matthew 13:23 doesn't indicate otherwise. Yes, the man heard, understood and lived in the Truth as a natural, necessary logical progression but his spiritual birth would have been a single, discrete event in time (see: Acts 2:1-4, 38-41; 10:44-47; Romans 8:9-11), just as is a physical birth.

Therefore, according to the Bible, invisible or spiritual things of Yahweh such as being born again are reflected in visible or physical things that He made, in this case being physically born:

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse (Romans 1:20).

The Bible draws parallels between physical realities and spiritual ones, Christ's own parables doing this constantly. But these are analogical parallels, not strict, one-for-one parallels where everything about the nature of the physical has a perfect, spiritual counterpart. Jesus was the "Lamb of God," but he did not bleat like sheep, or grow a wool coat, or eat a lot of grass. Being "born" spiritually involves no labor pains of a woman, or afterbirth, or the cutting of an umbilical cord. God the Father is an immaterial Spirit, though He is said to have "hands," and "arms," and "eyes." We understand that these things are figurative and, as such, only approximate. In light of this, I think it's rather odd how far you're wanting to push the analogy/parallel between physical birth and spiritual.

 

[Bruce.Leiter]

You don't understand that a person cannot rest IN Him if he is not IN Him. During Yahshua's life the disciples were not In Him (and therefore could not have His rest). Only after Pentecost they were In Him and He IN them. This is what He told them in John 14:16-20:

And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.

Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.

At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.

You are right about Jesus' disciples except that Jesus gave them the Holy Spirit on his resurrection evening:
Joh 20:21 Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you.”
Joh 20:22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit."
The Holy Spirit's coming on them during Pentecost was to enable them to witness, as Peter did to the crowd.

 

[live2blive]

There is only one way to " Come Unto" Jesus .
Matthew 11:28
Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.

"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?

 

[live2blive]

The Bible draws parallels between physical realities and spiritual ones, Christ's own parables doing this constantly. But these are analogical parallels, not strict, one-for-one parallels where everything about the nature of the physical has a perfect, spiritual counterpart. Jesus was the "Lamb of God," but he did not bleat like sheep, or grow a wool coat, or eat a lot of grass. Being "born" spiritually involves no labor pains of a woman, or afterbirth, or the cutting of an umbilical cord. God the Father is an immaterial Spirit, though He is said to have "hands," and "arms," and "eyes." We understand that these things are figurative and, as such, only approximate. In light of this, I think it's rather odd how far you're wanting to push the analogy/parallel between physical birth and spiritual.

Why don't you criticize Paul for "pushing" the analogy of Christ and a lamb? If you watched the video, you would have seen several other examples of the similar pattern, confirming the analogy of the spiritual and physical births.

 

[live2blive]

You are right about Jesus' disciples except that Jesus gave them the Holy Spirit on his resurrection evening:
Joh 20:21 Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you.”
Joh 20:22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit."
The Holy Spirit's coming on them during Pentecost was to enable them to witness, as Peter did to the crowd.

I consider John 20:22 as the prophetic statement/promise of what wouldl happen with the disciples on the Day of Pentecost. Why would people need to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit several times?

 

[Consecrated Life]

Exactly!
The indwelling of His Spirit gives the complete Peace rest of God unto the soul.
Something never before available until the day He spoke these Words of Salvation.
Matthew 11:28
Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.

"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?

Anybody that comes unto Him has the indwelling of His Spirit, any disciple that comes unto Him included
It certainly is His Spirit indwelling those who come unto Him.
Only by coming unto Him will His Spirit indwell you & give rest unto your soul and Life eternal
John 5:40
And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.

 

[live2blive]

Exactly!
The indwelling of His Spirit gives the complete Peace rest of God unto the soul.
Something never before available until the day He spoke these Words of Salvation.
Matthew 11:28
Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.

Anybody that comes unto Him has the indwelling of His Spirit, any disciple that comes unto Him included
It certainly is His Spirit indwelling those who come unto Him.
Only by coming unto Him will His Spirit indwell you & give rest unto your soul and Life eternal
John 5:40
And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.

Apparently you don't see that the disciples did not have rest after these words. They still had to "labor and were heavy laden" because they lived under the Old Covenant and had to keep the Mosaic Law. Yahshua had to DIE to redeem them from that law:

Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree (Galatians 3:13).

 

[live2blive]

TO ALL PARTICIPANTS:

In more than one month, nobody could provide examples from the Old Testament of the Savior’s death, burial and resurrection on the third day (first message). This means that nobody reading this thread heard the Gospel of salvation preached by Yahshua and Paul (1 Corinthians 15:1-4, Luke 24:26,27;44-46).

Here are the links to two videos preaching this Gospel: the first one presents the Biblical examples, and the second one gives examples from the Creation according to Romans 1:19,20.

(from 1hr12min to 2hr02min)

(from 18min to 49min)

I sincerely hope that the brothers and sisters in faith will find this revealing and edifying.

 

[Consecrated Life]

Apparently you don't see that the disciples did not have rest after these words. They still had to "labor and were heavy laden" because they lived under the Old Covenant and had to keep the Mosaic Law.

You are lacking knowledge of what Word the disciples had received & been indwelt with is concerned .
They Had been given the Word of Eternal Life from Jesus.

John 6:68
Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

 

[Hopeful 2]

TO ALL PARTICIPANTS:

In more than one month, nobody could provide examples from the Old Testament of the Savior’s death, burial and resurrection on the third day (first message). This means that nobody reading this thread heard the Gospel of salvation preached by Yahshua and Paul (1 Corinthians 15:1-4, Luke 24:26,27;44-46).

Nobody pointed out Jonah's three days and nights in the great fish ?
Or the three days Joseph threw his brothers into prison ? (Gen 42:17)
Or the three days of darkness Moses brought onto Egypt ? (Ex 10:22)
There are many more examples.

 

[Tenchi]

In more than one month, nobody could provide examples from the Old Testament of the Savior’s death, burial and resurrection on the third day (first message).

??? Jesus was crucified long after the canon of the OT was completed. Why, then, would we read of his death, burial and resurrection in the OT? If you mean is there foreshadowing of his atoning sacrifice in the OT, obviously there is. All of the sacrifices for sin in the OT prefigure in various ways the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. Since these "prefigurings" are obvious and abundant in the OT, why should we be pointing them out to you? Don't you know where they are? You can read also of prophetic descriptions of Christ's crucifixion throughout the OT, particularly in Isaiah and the Psalms. You should check them out some time, if it's something that interests you.

This means that nobody reading this thread heard the Gospel of salvation preached by Yahshua and Paul (1 Corinthians 15:1-4, Luke 24:26,27;44-46).

??? Do you know what a non sequitur is? Well, if you don't, consider your own statement here; it's a good example of this fallacious form of reasoning. It in no way follows (i.e. non sequitur) that, because we have not satisfied your desire for certain OT references to Christ's sacrifice at Calvary, we are therefore ignorant of the Gospel. This is, on its face, a plainly irrational assumption on your part. What we might know about what the OT indicates concerning Christ as "the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world" (John 1:29) we are none of us obliged to explain to you merely because you demand that we do so.

Watching only the first five minutes of the first video I could see that it was going to be silly. The fussing over the "correct" name of God and Jesus made this quite plain. The JW cult does this, too. Assigning "Yahweh," "Elohim" and "Yahshua" to God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit respectively is nowhere supported by Scripture itself. These assignments of names/titles are just asserted as fact by the presenter without any supporting Scripture whatever. Anyone with any concern for biblicality and proper reasoning would have "red flags" rising all over these bald assertions about a relatively trivial matter. In the Bible, God is called by a variety of names/titles that He appoints to himself, as is the case for Jesus and the Holy Spirit, too, and nowhere in Scripture does God ever make the restrictive, across-the-board stipulations about what to call Himself, Jesus and the Holy Spirit that the presenter in the first video does, nor do any of the writers of the NT teach on this matter in the way the video presenter does. This "straining at the gnat" of what God's "correct" name is in the video heralds the likelihood of much "swallowing of camels" to follow (Matthew 23:24).

 

[live2blive]

Nobody pointed out Jonah's three days and nights in the great fish ?
Or the three days Joseph threw his brothers into prison ? (Gen 42:17)
Or the three days of darkness Moses brought onto Egypt ? (Ex 10:22)
There are many more examples.

This is what I asked for in the first message. Only one person mentioned about Jonah, this is it. You joined the thread from the beginning but did not provide any examples then.

 

[Josheb]

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.

Is it being asserted there is a difference between the gospel written about in the Old Testament and the gospel written about in the New Testament? (a simple and direct "yes" or "no" will suffice and be appreciated) Is it being suggested that the New Testament writers, like Paul, who knew the Old Testament's gospel, taught a New Testament alternative that is not the same as the Old Testament gospel?

Think about your own words. You just went on record stating the New Testament accounts are not what the apostles preached. That is self-contradictory. Either you misspoke and that is an unintended mistake that needs correction, or that is a complete nonsensical falsehood that needs correction. Think also about the method here as well, because you've come into a Christian discussion board populated with Christians (many of whom are very intelligent, well read, highly educated, and experienced with life in Christ) and implied they do not know the gospel if they have believed "the New Testament accounts". Surely, none of this can be what you intended.

Clean it up and clarify it.

Have you heard the witnesses in the Old Testament of how Christ died for our sins, was buried, and rose again on the third day? Please share if you know.

Yes, I have.

Having read the op, I wonder if you can define the gospel, and do you know it? If so, then please succinctly define and explain the gospel.

 

[Hopeful 2]

This is what I asked for in the first message. Only one person mentioned about Jonah, this is it. You joined the thread from the beginning but did not provide any examples then.

After having reviewed some of the early posts, it seems I was drawn to the discussion by the side-tracking of the sinlessness of those who believe the truth can indeed set one free from committing sin.
The OP wasn't "my" topic.
Psalm 16:10 seems to be the clearest example portending a resurrection from the dead.
Psalm 22 is another OT message, about Christ's suffering.

 

[live2blive]

??? Jesus was crucified long after the canon of the OT was completed. Why, then, would we read of his death, burial and resurrection in the OT? If you mean is there foreshadowing of his atoning sacrifice in the OT, obviously there is. All of the sacrifices for sin in the OT prefigure in various ways the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. Since these "prefigurings" are obvious and abundant in the OT, why should we be pointing them out to you? Don't you know where they are? You can read also of prophetic descriptions of Christ's crucifixion throughout the OT, particularly in Isaiah and the Psalms. You should check them out some time, if it's something that interests you.

I asked the participants to share what they know. Where is the crime in that? Isaiah and Psalms are not appropriate here: they prophesy about the sufferings and death of the Savior, but don't show death, burial and resurrection on the 3rd day.

??? Do you know what a non sequitur is? Well, if you don't, consider your own statement here; it's a good example of this fallacious form of reasoning. It in no way follows (i.e. non sequitur) that, because we have not satisfied your desire for certain OT references to Christ's sacrifice at Calvary, we are therefore ignorant of the Gospel. This is, on its face, a plainly irrational assumption on your part. What we might know about what the OT indicates concerning Christ as "the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world" (John 1:29) we are none of us obliged to explain to you merely because you demand that we do so.

Please show where I demanded anything.
"Demand" - to ask for something forcefully, in a way that shows that you do not expect to be refused.

demand

1. to ask for something forcefully, in a way that shows that you do not expect…

dictionary.cambridge.org

Watching only the first five minutes of the first video I could see that it was going to be silly. The fussing over the "correct" name of God and Jesus made this quite plain. The JW cult does this, too. Assigning "Yahweh," "Elohim" and "Yahshua" to God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit respectively is nowhere supported by Scripture itself. These assignments of names/titles are just asserted as fact by the presenter without any supporting Scripture whatever. Anyone with any concern for biblicality and proper reasoning would have "red flags" rising all over these bald assertions about a relatively trivial matter.

You probably are unaware of the fact that there are Bibles with Yahweh, Elohim and Yahshua in them. Do you know that in Hebrew Old Testament the name of God, YHWH (Yahweh) is used more than 6,000 times, but this name in most (not all) Bibles was replaced by "The LORD"?

In the Bible, God is called by a variety of names/titles that He appoints to himself, as is the case for Jesus and the Holy Spirit, too, and nowhere in Scripture does God ever make the restrictive, across-the-board stipulations about what to call Himself, Jesus and the Holy Spirit that the presenter in the first video does, nor do any of the writers of the NT teach on this matter in the way the video presenter does. This "straining at the gnat" of what God's "correct" name is in the video heralds the likelihood of much "swallowing of camels" to follow (Matthew 23:24).

In the Bible God has one name, as you have one proper name. And He was very restrictive about how to call Him (e.g., Exodus 3:15; Malachi 2:1,2). If you would like to discuss the importance of the Names (or lack thereof as you assert), please read and/or join that specific thread: https://christianforums.net/threads/what-is-his-name-and-what-is-his-sons-name.110201/

 

[live2blive]

Is it being asserted there is a difference between the gospel written about in the Old Testament and the gospel written about in the New Testament? (a simple and direct "yes" or "no" will suffice and be appreciated)

No, the Gospel is the same. However, the New Testament does not give the examples from the Old Testament or Scriptures.

Is it being suggested that the New Testament writers, like Paul, who knew the Old Testament's gospel, taught a New Testament alternative that is not the same as the Old Testament gospel?

No, I did not mean that at all. Paul preached the Gospel with the examples from the Old Testament (1 Cor 15:1-4).

Think about your own words. You just went on record stating the New Testament accounts are not what the apostles preached. That is self-contradictory. Either you misspoke and that is an unintended mistake that needs correction, or that is a complete nonsensical falsehood that needs correction. Think also about the method here as well, because you've come into a Christian discussion board populated with Christians (many of whom are very intelligent, well read, highly educated, and experienced with life in Christ) and implied they do not know the gospel if they have believed "the New Testament accounts". Surely, none of this can be what you intended.

Yes, I wrote, "The New Testament accounts are usually preached in a church, but this is not the gospel that Christ and the apostles preached". And explained why: because "the books of the New Testament had not yet been written, i.e., the Scriptures were the books of the Old Testament, not the Gospels of Matthew, Luke, Mark, and John". What I meant to say is that the Savior and Paul did not quote the Gospels of Matthew, Luke, Mark, and John, but they preached death, burial and resurrection according to the witnesses in the Old Testament. This is not commonly known and appreciated.

Think also about the method here as well, because you've come into a Christian discussion board populated with Christians (many of whom are very intelligent, well read, highly educated, and experienced with life in Christ) and implied they do not know the gospel if they have believed "the New Testament accounts". Surely, none of this can be what you intended.

My desire is to share with brothers and sisters in Christ these witnesses from the OT. With the right attitude it will make the faith stronger by proving that what written in the NT is true. True faith is always supported by evidence:

Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:
Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?
And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. (Luke 24:25-27).

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen (Hebrews 1:1).

 

[live2blive]

After having reviewed some of the early posts, it seems I was drawn to the discussion by the side-tracking of the sinlessness of those who believe the truth can indeed set one free from committing sin.
The OP wasn't "my" topic.
Psalm 16:10 seems to be the clearest example portending a resurrection from the dead.
Psalm 22 is another OT message, about Christ's suffering.

I understand, thank you.

 

[Josheb]

No, the Gospel is the same. However, the New Testament does not give the examples from the Old Testament or Scriptures.

How do you define the gospel?

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?

No, I did not mean that at all. Paul preached the Gospel with the examples from the Old Testament (1 Cor 15:1-4).

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.

Yes, I wrote, "The New Testament accounts are usually preached in a church, but this is not the gospel that Christ and the apostles preached". And explained why: because "the books of the New Testament had not yet been written, i.e., the Scriptures were the books of the Old Testament, not the Gospels of Matthew, Luke, Mark, and John".

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.

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.
.

What I meant to say is that the Savior and Paul did not quote the Gospels of Matthew, Luke, Mark, and John, but they preached death, burial and resurrection according to the witnesses in the Old Testament. This is not commonly known and appreciated.

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.

My desire is to share with brothers and sisters in Christ these witnesses from the OT.

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.

With the right attitude it will make the faith stronger by proving that what written in the NT is true. True faith is always supported by evidence:

Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:
Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?
And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. (Luke 24:25-27).

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen (Hebrews 1:1).

That won't happen with misinformation.


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).

 

[Hopeful 2]

How do you define the gospel?

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.

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.

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, 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.

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.

That won't happen with misinformation.


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 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.