Is the Gospel simple?

[e.r.m.]

Guys, this is not a thread on Bible History.

 

[Shermana]

allthough allegory often gets misused

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

I would disagree heavily and say that it's not an allegorical parable at all. What do you think the parable is a metaphor about to begin with? I don't think it was used figuratively at all. I think the Gospel text was 100% intended to convey the idea of a literal hell, not some abstract metaphor which apparently not one of the Church Fathers or apologists understood for 1800 years (and apparently they still don't.)

I see no reason at all to believe that it's a figurative parable especially when examined in the style of the text compared to the style in places where it specifically says "This is a parable". Heck, when Jesus said that it doesn't matter what goes in your mouth but what goes out, THAT is called a parable, and rightfully so, what Jesus said wasn't 100% true but still retained a point.

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.

I disagree. I think the beauty is in the totality of the message as far best as we can ascertain is transmitted correctly, what beauty is there even in these metaphors for hell? What's the point? At some point we have to say that we don't know Jesus did NOT say the things attributed as well, but which one do you want: That Jesus said it and it was really an allegorical parable, or that he didn't? Can't have both. Nonetheless, we do have no way of knowing what was in the originals except through a process of figuring what would match the historical context (i.e. a Nazarene Jewish context much to the chagrin of Paulinists)

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

It may very well.

it does have everything to do with helenistic romans that followed judaism,

Perhaps.

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.

This may very well have been the case with the Epistles of Paul and the gentile churches.

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

I strongly disagree, I think how they are interpreted is what does not reflect the original movement within Judaism, also issues like that Matthew probably was originally "Gospel to the Hebrews", I do completely agree that there may have been interpolations added by anti-Judaizers later on, but Matthew and even Luke are very Jewish in character, John is a bit different but still retains the basic Jewish identity, even Mark. But they are all heavily redacted nonetheless. But do we assume that we can't know ANYTHING Jesus said just because? At what point can we say that Matthew and Luke contain enough of what "Q" may have contained (or whatever source material) to be authentic enough to make a claim on what he probably did say?

 

[Shermana]

Guys, this is not a thread on Bible History.

Well, technically if you want to discuss whether the Gospel is Simple or not, it's important to examine its historical foundations to compare it to what the later gentile sects said about the same texts.

 

[e.r.m.]

Well, technically if you want to discuss whether the Gospel is Simple or not, it's important to examine its historical foundations to compare it to what the later gentile sects said about the same texts.

This is funny, cause on another forum, on this thread, the members avoid Biblical specifics like the plague and rely mostly on rhetoric and colorful language, lol. They're at one extreme and this forum is on the other. I appreciate the effort to examine. You do have a point in that simplying of the gospel is predominantly a gentile doing. But I think the reformation sheds more light on this than the original manuscripts. These are my thoughts.

 

[Shermana]

I don't even think the Catholics and Greek Orthodox consider their doctrine "Simple", so yeah it's probably a Reformation and Lutheran residue. Ultimately, to make the Gospel "Simple" you have to kind of ignore the fact that Jesus gives many instructions and teachings, and boil it down to the loosest of Lutheranisms possible.

 

[e.r.m.]

I don't even think the Catholics and Greek Orthodox consider their doctrine "Simple", so yeah it's probably a Reformation and Lutheran residue. Ultimately, to make the Gospel "Simple" you have to kind of ignore the fact that Jesus gives many instructions and teachings, and boil it down to the loosest of Lutheranisms possible.

My thoughts exactly. You're right, protestants are the main proponents of the Simple Gospel. I very much agree that Jesus gave many teachings and examples from his own life. You wouldn't believe how fiercly the other forum members believe in an inherent simplicity of Jesus and the gospel. I originally suspected Luther, but with further research came to find out it was Zwingli's and Calvin's doing. I believe the idea of simplicity has grown beyond residue to mainstream. Funny thing too is that they meet attempts at Biblical scrutiny with accusations that Bible study robs one the foundation of God's love and grace. I take it as avoidance.

 

[outhouse]

Guys, this is not a thread on Bible History.

without history

your clueless in trying to figure out meaning and context of scripture.

 

[outhouse]

This may very well have been the case with the Epistles of Paul and the gentile churches.

No

this applies to every bit of scripture we have.

as best we may have some oral tradition that remained accurate, but thats a guess.

more often then not we only have what amounts to jesus enemies version of jesus.

Paul hunts down this sect for years targetting its leaders, and does his best not to go into detail about it. Why would he after the fact, after eliminating original sources and promoting "his" version.?

 

[e.r.m.]

without history

your clueless in trying to figure out meaning and context of scripture.

I'm thinking the right time of history to look at is the reformation.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Guys, this is not a thread on Bible History.

But isn't it recorded first-century Bible history that Philip explained to the Ethiopian official of Acts chapter 8 what he did not understand ?

So, the 'deep things' of God does not have to mean difficult things.
Rather, unlike the Ethiopian official, people reject help.

 

[outhouse]

I'm thinking the right time of history to look at is the reformation.

why ??


did they redefine christianity to your liking then?

 

[e.r.m.]

why ??

did they redefine christianity to your liking then?

Sorry it took me a while to reply.
Ahaha! No. Quite the opposite. I am not downplaying at all the importance of understanding the original manuscripts. I do think though that the reformation time period is pivotal in that, although people intended to get closer to the Bible, they actually got further away. They did away with some catholic traditions and added their own. The outcast anabaptists had partially the right idea. They took the position of trashing everything, including infant baptism, that didn't match the scriptures. The trio Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin kept infant baptism and devised a lot of theology to artificially fit it in into the Bible. The reformers attempted to go back to the scriptures, but not far enough. Reformers still slaughtered people who didn't agree with them. Anabaptists were peaceful. They just morphed christianity into a different form. I believe the philosophical dualism of the day took a foothold in reformation theology and, long story short, led to the oversimplifying of protestant Christianity today.

 

[javajo]

The simplicity of the Gospel is nothing new:

3 But I 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. from 2 Cor. 11

...Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved...from Acts 16

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. John 6:47

Salvation is a FREE GIFT, it cannot be worked for or earned or it is no longer a gift:

Romans 4

Abraham's Faith Made Him Right With God

1...What did our father Abraham discover about being right with God? 2 Did he become right with God because of something he did? If so, he could brag about it. But he couldn't brag to God. 3 What do we find in Scripture? It says, "Abraham believed God. God accepted Abraham's faith, and so his faith made him right with God."—(Genesis 15:6) 4 When a man works, his pay is not considered a gift. It is owed to him. 5 But things are different with God. He makes evil people right with himself. If people trust in him, their faith is accepted even though they do not work. Their faith makes them right with God.
6 King David says the same thing. He tells us how blessed some people are. God makes those people right with himself. But they don't have to do anything in return.

Salvation comes from God and we are kept by God, it is all of God, not us. Works and growth and conquering sins, etc are a result of our salvation, our growing in grace, in Christ. Sin has its consequences and loss of reward and position and works have their reward, so its not unimportant how a Christian lives their life. But, salvation is free, totally undeserved, cannot be earned and is all of God through faith in Jesus' work on the cross so HE gets all the glory and NO man can boast.

16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. 17 ...much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
18 ...even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. Romans 5

24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Rom. 3

23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Rom. 6

8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. Eph. 2

3 Blessed be...God...which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us...4 To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you, 5 Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. 1 Peter 1

 

[waitasec]

Many today advertise that the gospel is simple, as if it is a rule of law. 'Truth is simple, the gospel is simple, salvation is simple.' The less we have to do to get saved, the more loving God is.

This Gospel reads like: "God loves you and wants you to have a personal relationship with Him. He sent his son Jesus to die for you. Now just believe in Him and accept His gift."

for me, selling my culpability is immoral.

 

[sojourner]

What's so difficult about the message: "Turn your lives around, because God's rule has come near?"

What's difficult is the actual application of the injunction.

 

[sincerly]

What's so difficult about the message: "Turn your lives around, because God's rule has come near?"

What's difficult is the actual application of the injunction.

The Message is simple----Obey and Live.
The difficulty is the putting away from one's self the "lust of the eyes, the lust of the flesh, and the pride of life".

 

[URAVIP2ME]

The Message is simple----Obey and Live.
The difficulty is the putting away from one's self the "lust of the eyes, the lust of the flesh, and the pride of life".

Doesn't the word 'gospel' mean: good news ?________

Luke wrote that Jesus must preach the kingdom of God. [Luke 4 v 43]

Matthew wrote that the 'gospel' [good news] of the kingdom would be preached on an international scale before the end comes of all badness on earth.
-Matthew 24 v 14; also Acts 1 v 9 .

Scripture connects the good news [gospel] with God's kingdom.[Daniel 2 v 44]
'Obey and live' then by the rules or rulership under God's kingdom government in Christ's hands as King or Ruler of God's theocratic kingdom.
So, besides putting away [denying] one's self, it would also include one's displaying the action to proclaim to others the good news of God's kingdom in the hands of Christ Jesus who will be the one to usher in global Peace on Earth among men of goodwill.

 

[sincerly]

Doesn't the word 'gospel' mean: good news ?________

Luke wrote that Jesus must preach the kingdom of God. [Luke 4 v 43]

Matthew wrote that the 'gospel' [good news] of the kingdom would be preached on an international scale before the end comes of all badness on earth.
-Matthew 24 v 14; also Acts 1 v 9 .

Scripture connects the good news [gospel] with God's kingdom.[Daniel 2 v 44]
'Obey and live' then by the rules or rulership under God's kingdom government in Christ's hands as King or Ruler of God's theocratic kingdom.
So, besides putting away [denying] one's self, it would also include one's displaying the action to proclaim to others the good news of God's kingdom in the hands of Christ Jesus who will be the one to usher in global Peace on Earth among men of goodwill.

Hi URAVIP2ME, Yes, that "Everlasting Gospel" is/has been "good news" since it was "planned" before the foundation of the world in the "Lamb which was slain". That Kingdom was established to last from Genesis 1:1 and will continue even when this sin corrupted earth is replaced with the "earth made new".
The principle of "Obey and Live" seen in the Garden of Eden was to be that seen in all the teachings givenby GOD. Remember, Jesus said that nothing HE taught was from HIM, but HE spake those things HE heard/received from the FATHER.
Yes, the "New earth" will be theocratic.

 

[Awoon]

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?

Two eyes means you know what you are in for when you envy someone or something someone has. Pluck out your eye means stop envying others and their possessions before you get in trouble for stealing from or harming others.

Cut off your hand is the same principle.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

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 was not advocating self-mutilation but stressing metaphorically for effect being willing to 'cut out', so to speak, of one's life anything that would harm one's spirituality.

Just as a painful operation [amputation] could save a life. That action would be painful but would protect life. So, cutting out of one's life [eye viewing porn for example] would save one's spiritual life and lead to everlasting life.

The' biblical hell' [sheol] of Matthew [5 v 30 B] is Not a burning place, but where the dead sleep until resurrected to either heaven [Rev. 20 v 6], or resurrected back to life on earth during Jesus 1000-year reign over earth.


-John 11 vs 11-14; Ecc. 9v5; Psalms 6 v 5; 13 v 3; 115 v 17; 146 v 4; Daniel 12 vs 2,13