The Simplicity of the Gospel in One Word

[Paprika]

Side question: What are you meaning by 'essential'? Something necessary to know for salvation or something necessary to the doctrine?

The latter.

[Teallaura]

Okay, thanks.

[Paprika]

Okay, thanks.

I would like to correct myself and be more precise: the gospel isn't doctrine per se. It's news. Before anyone thought of "Christian doctrine" it already was.

[RBerman]

I would like to correct myself and be more precise: the gospel isn't doctrine per se. It's news. Before anyone thought of "Christian doctrine" it already was.

Doctrine is just "teaching," conveying information about the truth. The news of the "gospel" is truth and thus is doctrine.

[Paprika]

Doctrine is just "teaching," conveying information about the truth. The news of the "gospel" is truth and thus is doctrine.

"Doctrine" and "Christian doctrine" carry certain connotations. We don't use "doctrine" to describe teaching about mathematical truths or historical truths in general, for example.

I don't think the euangelion, as preached by John the Baptist, Jesus, and Jesus' earliest followers - the preaching of which is recorded in the various texts of the New Testament - share all those connotations, which is why I think "doctrine" is not a very appropriate word.

[Teallaura]

Er, you lost me...

[Paprika]

Er, you lost me...

Argh. Let me try again. I don't see the gospel as doctrine, just as Jesus isn't doctrine. There is doctrine about the gospel, just as there is doctrine about Jesus. Just as Jesus isn't merely or necessarily what some teach about him through some doctrines, so the gospel.

[Pentecost]

I want to apologize for not replying to anyone yet, IRL has gotten in the way for the time being, I should have a response post to anyone who spoke to me either tonight or tomorrow.

[RBerman]

"Doctrine" and "Christian doctrine" carry certain connotations. We don't use "doctrine" to describe teaching about mathematical truths or historical truths in general, for example. I don't think the euangelion, as preached by John the Baptist, Jesus, and Jesus' earliest followers - the preaching of which is recorded in the various texts of the New Testament - share all those connotations, which is why I think "doctrine" is not a very appropriate word.

I can't think of any connotations of "doctrine" that I wouldn't want "gospel" to have. Which ones were you thinking of? Even if we restrict "doctrine" from all teachings to theological teachings, gospel (teachings about the saving work of Jesus) would still qualify in my book. Maybe we have different definitions of "gospel" also?

[Paprika]

Even if we restrict "doctrine" from all teachings to theological teachings, gospel (teachings about the saving work of Jesus) would still qualify in my book. Maybe we have different definitions of "gospel" also?

Indeed. I see gospel as the good news preached by John the Baptist and Jesus, and then later by his early followers. One main difference between the two is the shift in emphasis: for John and Jesus, the kingdom was at hand, with Jesus making little public predictions about his crucifixion and resurrection (with what little he does being cryptic), whereas for the early followers (ie in Acts, and the Pauline epistles) the kingdom is not often explictly mentioned, but the crucifixion and resurrection attain central significance.

One of my main concerns is to carefully distinguish between the various contemporary usage of 'gospel' and the euangelion of Jesus et al., such as to prevent any equivocation and anachonistic projection onto the Scriptural texts of our own conceptions. With respect to my discussion with dacristoy, some contemporary retellings of the story of Jesus, (which the tellers call "gospels"), have the virgin birth as essential to the story, but of course it isn't essential to the original euangelion, as revealed by the utter lack of any birth narratives in Mark's or John's narratives.

I can't think of any connotations of "doctrine" that I wouldn't want "gospel" to have. Which ones were you thinking of?

I see "doctrine" as something's that's normative, generally propulgated amongst the in-group and "religious" in nature. Whereas the euangelion is a public proclamation mostly for (though not limited to) people outside the group, and doesn't and shouldn't be divided by the Enlightenment "politics"/"religion" divide.

[dacristoy]

Look: you have offered no reason why the birth of Christ is essential to the gospel. Evading this by claiming your opponent is blind doesn't cut it.

Would we have the same Gospel without the virgin birth of Christ. Would we have the same "Emanuel" without the virgin birth as we have with it.

[FarEastBird]

........., such as to prevent any equivocation and anachonistic projection onto the Scriptural texts of our own conceptions. ........

Paprika, though you have spoken well, and perhaps, intended soundly, but you are merely ushering to give excuses of your own interpretations and own conceptions. It is a devilish approach that will gradually , and sooner, ignore the fact that only those who are sent will be able to unveil the mysteries of God. While endeavouring to fulfill what you said above, you will set guidelines as to which can be considered scriptural; so do not consider that your actions will not be a small matter. Even of your redefinition of gospel will have an impact of what the readers will consider as gospel; and for which I would like the readers to be cautious and remember Paul's epistle saying:


8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. Gal 1:8-9


Dear readers, don't be too naive.....

[Paprika]

Would we have the same Gospel without the virgin birth of Christ. Would we have the same "Emanuel" without the virgin birth as we have with it.

What point are you trying to make?

[Paprika]

Paprika, though you have spoken well, and perhaps, intended soundly, but you are merely ushering to give excuses of your own interpretations and own conceptions. It is a devilish approach that will gradually , and sooner, ignore the fact that only those who are sent will be able to unveil the mysteries of God. While endeavouring to fulfill what you said above, you will set guidelines as to which can be considered scriptural; so do not consider that your actions will not be a small matter. Even of your redefinition of gospel will have an impact of what the readers will consider as gospel; and for which I would like the readers to be cautious and remember Paul's epistle saying:


8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. Gal 1:8-9


Dear readers, don't be too naive.....

Of course the interpretation and conceptions I propound are mine, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they're false or inaccurate.

[FarEastBird]

Of course the interpretation and conceptions I propound are mine, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they're false or inaccurate.

You are well aware that every Cult leaders, as well as others who delved to understand the Bible, will say and claim the same thing you said. But when faced with the existence of diversity of these interpretations and conceptions, would obviously mean that some, or possibly even all, are lying. Are you sure nobody is objecting of your interpretations and conceptions?