The Simplicity of the Gospel in One Word

[Paprika]

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?

Of course they do. Which is why I have used evidence from my claims (ie the lack of mention of the virgin birth in Mark's and John's narratives).

[dacristoy]

What point are you trying to make?

That the virgin birth of Christ is essential to the gospel of salvation taught in scripture...

[dacristoy]

Of course they do. Which is why I have used evidence from my claims (ie the lack of mention of the virgin birth in Mark's and John's narratives).

How many times, and by how many authors is it necessary that it be mentioned before its place can be established in the Gospel...

[RBerman]

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 do see your point, though I view the four Gospels as intending to interrelate, so that "the gospel" is the story that arise from their summation.

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.

I don't mind observing that doctrine necessarily has implications for human interactions, a.k.a. politics.

[FarEastBird]

How many times, and by how many authors is it necessary that it be mentioned before its place can be established in the Gospel...

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

I believe there is a possibility of misconception........ even misinterpretation?

[Paprika]

I do see your point, though I view the four Gospels as intending to interrelate, so that "the gospel" is the story that arise from their summation.

I take a different view. There is no explicit or implicit intention of the authors that their texts interrelate. But let's say, for the sake of argument, that they were supposed to interrelate. Before the four gospels₁ were written (where gospel₁ roughly denotes a certain genre of writing), telling about the story of Jesus which can be denoted as gospel₂, (cf. Mark 1:1), Jesus preached the euangelion: "Repent, for the Kingdom of God is at hand". Call this gospel₃ (cf Matthew 4:23, Mark 1:14). This gospel₃ precedes the other two and is not synonymous with the rest of them.

I am interested in this one. What was it? What did Jesus say? What did Jesus do? What does it mean?

I don't mind observing that doctrine necessarily has implications for human interactions, a.k.a. politics.

Inasmuch as the euangelion, the gospel is about a King and a Kingdom, is it not necessarily and intrinsically political?

[Paprika]

How many times, and by how many authors is it necessary that it be mentioned before its place can be established in the Gospel...

With reference to my earlier post:
Later persons have called the four texts gospels₁. However, only Mark's text self-describes as a euangelion. If the virgin birth is essential to this euangelion, it would be present in Mark's text. But it isn't present, so it isn't essential.

[Paprika]

To all: part of the blame for misunderstanding lies with me, as I have hardly clarified in which sense I was using the word gospel. I hope this post will clarify:

εὐαγγέλιον is often translated as 'good news' or 'gospel'.

Gospel has three primary meanings:
1. The rough denotation of genre: eg Gospel of Mark, Gospel of Judas, Gospel of Thomas
2. A story of Jesus's life and work eg. Mark 1:1's "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God."
3. The gospel as preached by
There is also
4) Paul's usage of εὐαγγέλιον

a) The gospel which he serves and preaches (Romans 1)
b) "other gospels" (Galatians 1)

Hovering behind all these are
5) εὐαγγέλιον as denoting good news in general

a) the Roman imperial proclamation of the birthday of or the accession of a new emperor (eg. Priene inscription, Josephus Jewish Wars 4.618)

6) The Isaianic "good news" (eg Isaiah 40:9 and Isaiah 61:1 in the Septuagint)

(There are other meanings in English which are not relevant to the discussion such as
7) 'gospel truth'

[RBerman]

Inasmuch as the euangelion, the gospel is about a King and a Kingdom, is it not necessarily and intrinsically political?

Yup. It is teaching (doctrine) with definite political implications.

[37818]

Sincerely, Jedidiah, do you really believe that every one who trusts in Christ are saved? The Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, the Catholics, Arminians, Calvinists, Presbyterians, and also those who follow the likes of Creflo Dollar, Joel Osteen, etc? There are sure ardent followers of these beliefs and preachers, and they sincerely trust in Christ, but whoever is deceived is not saved.

And here is good word from apostle Paul:

1 Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved. 2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. 3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. Rom 10:1-

Jesus himself said: "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." If one does not know the truth, he cannot be set free from the bondage of sin. One cannot submit to the righteousness of good if s/he is still under the bondage of sin.

John said, "5 And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin. 6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him." (1John 3:5-6) While Paul said, "1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? 2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?" Rom 6:1-2

You probably do not understand what John and Paul was talking about.

Which Jesus?
"Whosoever believes Jesus is the Christ is born of God, . . ." -- 1 John 5:1.

Claims about a "Christ" that is not God's Christ will not result in the new birth.

[Teallaura]

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.

Okay, I get what you mean. I agree more with RB but this does clear up the question I had. Thanks!

[37818]

"Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . ." -- 1 John 5:1.

"Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. " -- 2 John 1:9.

". . . fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or [if] ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, . . . _ . . . For such [are] false apostles, deceitful workers, . . . _ . . . whose end shall be according to their works." -- 2 Corinthians 11:3, 4, . . . 12, 15.

[Paprika]

I hope this post will clarify

With my previous post, we can now clear up "is the virgin birth essential to the 'gospel'?"

1) gospel as genre: No.
2) gospel as a story of Jesus' life and work: not necessarily so, as two canonical accounts do not include any mention at all. For the canonical stories that do include it, while the story will be changed by its omission, it is hardly central or essential. For dacristoy's version, I gather that it is essential.
3) a) gospel as preached by Jesus: Unlikely, as we have no records of Jesus preaching of his virgin birth
b) gospel as preached by his disciples: ditto

4) gospel as preached by Paul: ditto.

Conclusion: the virgin birth is not essential to the gospel preached by Jesus, his disciples or Paul. It is not essential to the genre. It is not essential to the stories about Jesus in general - notable are Mark's and John's, though for some specific ones it is.

[Paprika]

Okay, I get what you mean. I agree more with RB but this does clear up the question I had. Thanks!

Perhaps this post, in which I try to carefully distinguish between the various semantic ranges of the word 'gospel'/εὐαγγέλιον will clarify further.

[Teallaura]

I did see it, Pap - still digesting.