Is the Gospel simple?

[F0uad]

It's God-inspired. but not God-revelation. It's a product of people -- not God.

Can you maybe clarify the ''God-inspired'' thing..
Because i don't fully understand how God inspires people to make errors or time over time..

And how are they witnesses if they lived in different times..

 

[sojourner]

Can you maybe clarify the ''God-inspired'' thing..
Because i don't fully understand how God inspires people to make errors or time over time..

And how are they witnesses if they lived in different times..

I didn't say they were witnesses. I think you said they were witnesses.

God inspires the writing. The errors are human. Since humans wrote the thing, there are bound to be errors. God communicates. But we don't listen perfectly.

 

[F0uad]

I didn't say they were witnesses. I think you said they were witnesses.

God inspires the writing. The errors are human. Since humans wrote the thing, there are bound to be errors. God communicates. But we don't listen perfectly.

So god inspired people to write (who we do not know), who lived in different times and different places. What do you mean we don't listen perfectly i mean if God ''inspires'' you then you write what god inspired you to write right? So then god did inspire those people to make errors.

Also who is giving the history the people or god?


(sorry for asking this much i want to know more about your opinion)

 

[sojourner]

i mean if God ''inspires'' you then you write what god inspired you to write right?

No.

Look -- It's this simple: People wrote the texts of the Bible. We know who few of the authors are. It is believed that God inspired them to write, but not necessarily dictated what they write. The bible is very much part of the Tradition of humans. It didn't fall out of the sky.

 

[e.r.m.]

Even if the the Bible wasn't dictated as with the old testament prophets. However, I believe it's still from God. But the divinity of the Bible seems to me a different issue than the simplicity of the gospel as per the Bible.

 

[sojourner]

Even if the the Bible wasn't dictated as with the old testament prophets. However, it's still from God. But the divinity of the Bible seems to me a different issue than the simplicity of the gospel as per the Bible.

I respectfully disagree. It's only "from God" in the sense that we are from God.
You're right. The question of divinity differs from the issue of simplicity. Thanks for pointing that out.

 

[e.r.m.]

I have begun to notice a pattern. I've made no conclusions as of yet, so feel free to fill me in if I'm wrong.

Many suggest the gospel is ridiculously simple. According to conversations I've had outside this forum, the simple "Gospel" includes only, "THE NAME OF JESUS", the cross, scriptures on belief and salvation (and sometimes the story of the prodigal son).

The simple "Gospel" excludes everything else (not with all protestants/baptists, of course, just a general pattern).
When protestants/baptists share "the Gospel" with non-believers, they do not include the beatitudes, the sheep and the goats, the parable of the treasure in the field, estimating the costs of following Jesus, Luke 14:25-30, denying one self Luke 9:23, etc. They do not emphasize the character, thoughts, & convictions of Jesus, within those three years, as part of "the Gospel".
This would vastly simplify the gospel and strip it clean of so many things non-believers would need to learn as well.

Before you blast me, I speak only of my own experience with whom I have spoken. I'm not saying that all protestants/baptists are doing what I just described.

Would love to hear anyone's thoughts.

 

[Shermana]

I like your OP. It almost sounds like a "grace vs. works" thread (I believe it takes both). The concepts of being loving, don't be bitter, forgive one another, repent - the concepts are simple, but the application can sometimes be tricky.

It's true, we'd like to sugar-coat everything, and make it easy, do what you want, everything is peachy kind of a feel-good deal - but there is work involved, things we need to overcome, evil in the world, refinement to be had in the fire.

If anything the whole "Simple Gospel" concept is overwhelmingly espoused by those who are trying to do away with any trace of works involved.

 

[e.r.m.]

If anything the whole "Simple Gospel" concept is overwhelmingly espoused by those who are trying to do away with any trace of works involved.

Hmm..., you could be right on that. I think it might also come from Zwingli's dualism, which states that God must do everything and we cannot participate in our own salvation. So what you say makes sense, in that the simple gospel is designed to exclude anything we might do, by calling it a work.

What I don't understand is why THE NAME of Jesus is so much more emphasized that the actual person Jesus.

 

[Reverend Richard]

But by having four different perspectives, one does get a more complete picture.

I would have to agree with F0uad on this. The (Synoptic) Gospels are incomplete. Some parts of each Gospel are redundant, and some Gospels include stories that the others do not. As you are probably aware, there is some evidence that there is another missing "Gospel" sometime referred to as "Q", that was used as a scriptural source.

 

[Reverend Richard]

I didn't say they were witnesses. I think you said they were witnesses.

God inspires the writing. The errors are human. Since humans wrote the thing, there are bound to be errors. God communicates. But we don't listen perfectly.

Perfectly stated, sojouner!

 

[e.r.m.]

I would have to agree with F0uad on this. The (Synoptic) Gospels are incomplete. Some parts of each Gospel are redundant, and some Gospels include stories that the others do not. As you are probably aware, there is some evidence that there is another missing "Gospel" sometime referred to as "Q", that was used as a scriptural source.

If you are baptist or similar to baptist. When proclaiming the Gospel to the lost, do those who belong to your beliefs emphasize THE NAME of Jesus for salvation more than the person and character of Jesus? If so, why?

 

[Reverend Richard]

As a reverand, perhaps you can share your experience on this matter. When proclaiming the Gospel to the lost, do those who belong to your beliefs emphasize THE NAME of Jesus more than the peron Jesus? If so, why?

While I am a minister, I am afraid my comments on this won't help you much. I do believe in God. However, I don't believe that the Bible (nor any scripture) is literally true, I do not believe in "original sin", I do not believe in the devil as personified evil, I don't believe that hell is a physical place of torment, and the only thing man needs to be "saved" from is himself.

We can each awaken to the spirit of the divine (God) that lives within each of us, but how we interpret that is between you and God, not between me and a priest, not between me and a rabbi, and not between me and an imam.

 

[Shermana]

So what was Jesus talking about when he said it's better to pluck your eye out than to have two eyes to enter the fire with?

 

[e.r.m.]

While I am a minister, I am afraid my comments on this won't help you much. I do believe in God. However, I don't believe that the Bible (nor any scripture) is literally true, I do not believe in "original sin", I do not believe in the devil as personified evil, I don't believe that hell is a physical place of torment, and the only thing man needs to be "saved" from is himself.

We can each awaken to the spirit of the divine (God) that lives within each of us, but how we interpret that is between you and God, not between me and a priest, not between me and a rabbi, and not between me and an imam.

Ok, thanks. You're right. You are not the audience this question is intended for.
Take care.

 

[outhouse]

While I am a minister, I am afraid my comments on this won't help you much. I do believe in God. However, I don't believe that the Bible (nor any scripture) is literally true, I do not believe in "original sin", I do not believe in the devil as personified evil, I don't believe that hell is a physical place of torment, and the only thing man needs to be "saved" from is himself.

We can each awaken to the spirit of the divine (God) that lives within each of us, but how we interpret that is between you and God, not between me and a priest, not between me and a rabbi, and not between me and an imam.

and that is exactly how i feel the ancients looked at it as well.


Paul even describes how the feeling of jesus came to be within him, it was a personal experience.

Not like the author of Gluke states on the road to Damascus

The funny part is were getting this feeling straight from Paul, not someone who may or may not have known him and wrote from oral tradition building a deity

 

[outhouse]

So what was Jesus talking about when he said it's better to pluck your eye out than to have two eyes to enter the fire with?

jesus may have never stated such. Gmarks author did.

all we know is the unknown authors wrote this down, and we dont know if it is based on oral tradition or not. Gmarks author was to far displaced from a sect of judaism in Galilee to ever answer this with certainty.


first, hell is not the proper translation. Gehenna is. hell is a later translation. using hell changes the mythology to dramatically from the original meaning

second, it is a parable not a literal hell.

 

[Reverend Richard]

and that is exactly how i feel the ancients looked at it as well.


Paul even describes how the feeling of jesus came to be within him, it was a personal experience.

.............

Yes.
Personal experience.
Just as it must have been for anyone who is "divinely inspired" to write scripture like Paul, or even Mohammad. All anyone (any human) can ever do is attempt to relate that internal experience, but even by attempting to relate the experience to someone else, it loses something. As someone once said, the map (scripture) is not the territory (the experience of living it).

 

[Shermana]

jesus may have never stated such. Gmarks author did.

all we know is the unknown authors wrote this down, and we dont know if it is based on oral tradition or not. Gmarks author was to far displaced from a sect of judaism in Galilee to ever answer this with certainty.


first, hell is not the proper translation. Gehenna is. hell is a later translation. using hell changes the mythology to dramatically from the original meaning

second, it is a parable not a literal hell.

Whenever there's a parable, it specifically says it's a parable. Otherwise, you can say anything Jesus says is a parable you want if you don't go by the scriptural formula. I'm well aware that the word is Gehenna, and the idea that it was never perceived as a literary hell, or rather purgatory is a totally modern idea, the DSS for examples gives weight that ancient Jews (in addition to the Talmud) did in fact believe that Gehenna was somewhere you went after you died. The idea that it's all metaphorical is post 1800 views, the Sadducee mentality was not dominant until much later.

While it's true we have no idea what Jesus actually said compared to what is attested, at what point do we say that anyone who wants to be a Christian can just go by whatever they think Jesus said, without regard to manuscript and scholarly issues that can actually pinpoint direct interpolations?

Wouldn't you find it silly if a person claimed to be a Buddhist and made their own little collection of sayings of Buddha based on what they think Buddha would have thought without regard to any actual historical or manuscript tradition? At what point do we draw the line and decide what Jesus most likely did say? The references to Gehenna as a literal place are in all the Gospels. This would be a good thread topic.

 

[outhouse]

allthough allegory often gets misused

would you not claim its a allegorical parable? it was used figuratively.




look you know very little if anything can be directly attributed to what jesus may have said with any certainty what so ever. Focusing on this aspect draws away from the beauty of what was originally written.

The references to hell are in all the Gospels.

yes and it has nothing to do with what jesus might have taught

it does have everything to do with helenistic romans that followed judaism, who never knew, met or heard jesus, and didnt even live in the same culture or geographic place as jesus. And they relied on cultural oral tradition.

the gospels do not reflect the original movement within judaism, it reflects the hellenistic unknown authors roman authors who followed judaism