• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is the Gospel simple?

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
The Message is simple----Obey and Live.
That's not the message -- according to Mark, at any rate:
1:14 Now after John was arrested, Jesus came to Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God, 15 and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near; repent, and believe in the good news."
 

sincerly

Well-Known Member
That's not the message -- according to Mark, at any rate:
1:14 Now after John was arrested, Jesus came to Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God, 15 and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near; repent, and believe in the good news."

The "Gospel" is not just the portion of Mark 1:14. "Repenting" is the acknowledging that one should have been in "Obedience" from the beginning. However, since all have Sinned/broken those "Laws" which define what "Obedience/Disobedience" is in regards to one's relationship to GOD and neighbor, one now has the option of "repenting"/(resubmitting to GOD) and living---or dying.
 

Shermana

Heretic
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.

Except that he says that doing so is better than going to the fire. He was being literal. Does cut off your leg mean to stop going where you don't belong? How about casting off your member? What is that metaphorical for?
 

Shermana

Heretic
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

So thus, by this logic, viewing porn will in fact send you to "the fire"? Or do you think the "fire" is just metaphorical too? It doesn't even say hell there, it just says "The fire". Regardless how you view the afterlife, if it says "The fire" that means there's something painful to associate it with. What kind of punishment will viewing porn thus do?

Do not confuse "Sheol" with "Gehenna". As for what happens in Sheol, there are different arguments based on the context its used. But when it refers to "the fire", there is no reason at all to conclude that it's not being literal, or that the Israelites didn't believe in concepts like the place of fire, they apparently did.
 
Last edited:

javajo

Well-Known Member
I believe one could pluck out, cut off, etc. their eyes, ears, nose, mouth, hands, legs and every other part of their body, then still have to cut out their brain and basically be physically dead to not sin completely. This is because we all battle our sinful nature which will not be done away with until the Rapture/Resurrection when we shall be changed from sinful to sinless (this corruptible shall put on incorruptible). Until then everyone still battles "the flesh". But, we can have victory over it through He who lives in us, for he who is in us is greater than he that is in the world. Trusting God for the free gift of salvation is good, but trusting him that he knows what is best for our true happiness and obeying him as a result of that trust takes time and effort as one grows in grace. As God says that he corrects every son whom he receives.
 

Awoon

Well-Known Member
Except that he says that doing so is better than going to the fire. He was being literal. Does cut off your leg mean to stop going where you don't belong? How about casting off your member? What is that metaphorical for?


Envy leads to trouble. You cant envy without looking at another's possessions. The fire is getting put in prison for fulfilling the envy or getting killed by a jealous husband.

In plain English stop it.
 

Shermana

Heretic
Envy leads to trouble. You cant envy without looking at another's possessions. The fire is getting put in prison for fulfilling the envy or getting killed by a jealous husband.

In plain English stop it.

So what about people who never get caught?
 

sincerly

Well-Known Member
sincerly said:
The "Gospel" is not just the portion of Mark 1:14.

according to Mark, it is. the other gospelers may tell a different story.

Do any of the other writers of the "Gospels" and epistles and the "Prophets "tell a different story" than Mark had written from 1:1- 26:20??? Isn't it stated to be the "Everlasting Gospel"??

Tell me--What was so very different from your phraseology was my comments?? Doesn't "Repent" mean that one has disobeyed some "Rule/Command"?? Isn't that the reason for the "Repenting"?
Doesn't the message of Heb.4:1-2, "Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left [us] of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it. For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard [it]." inform one that the "Gospel" Jesus was teaching was, indeed, the "Everlasting Gospel"?? What was that "good news"??
Wasn't Mark beginning his account of the life and teachings of Jesus Christ?? and didn't he end with "believe"/ obey that which one has been informed concerning?
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Do any of the other writers of the "Gospels" and epistles and the "Prophets "tell a different story" than Mark had written from 1:1- 26:20???
There is not 26th chapter of Mark.
Yes. Each gospeler has a different theological take on the gospel. They're not telling the same story.
The prophets give us prophecy, not gospel.
I think this is why you're confused. You somehow seem to think that each biblical writer is telling the same story, and that the books are all highly cohesive. They are not. Sometimes, there's even great contradiction within books.
Doesn't "Repent" mean that one has disobeyed some "Rule/Command"??
Not necessarily. It means that one needs to turn one's life around.
Doesn't the message of Heb.4:1-2... inform one that the "Gospel" Jesus was teaching was, indeed, the "Everlasting Gospel"??
Have I suggested that it wasn't?
What was that "good news"??
According to Mark, at least, it was that God's kingdom had come near.
Wasn't Mark beginning his account of the life and teachings of Jesus Christ??
He began his gospel with the life and teachings of John, as prophesied.
and didn't he end with "believe"/ obey that which one has been informed concerning?
He ended with the women fleeing the tomb and telling no one, because they were afraid.
 

sincerly

Well-Known Member
There is not 26th chapter of Mark.
Yes. Each gospeler has a different theological take on the gospel. They're not telling the same story.
The prophets give us prophecy, not gospel.
I think this is why you're confused. You somehow seem to think that each biblical writer is telling the same story, and that the books are all highly cohesive. They are not. Sometimes, there's even great contradiction within books.

True, my typo---Mark has only 16 chapters.
"Theological take?" The theology is the same--Jesus Christ came to be the propitiation for the salvation of all sinners -- which we are.
No! I'm not confused. I know that each writer was writing the facts of the life and teachings which are most surely believed by those who witnessed and persons who accompanied and heard Jesus teach.
Those were not to be exact word for word duplications as details were either expressed or left out as each writer was recording those accounts from the witnesses and their own remembrances.

sincerly said:
Doesn't "Repent" mean that one has disobeyed some "Rule/Command"??
Not necessarily. It means that one needs to turn one's life around.

In connection with Jesus Christ and Sin, what is one turning their "life around" from and to What?

sinserly said:
Doesn't the message of Heb.4:1-2... inform one that the "Gospel" Jesus was teaching was, indeed, the "Everlasting Gospel"??

Have I suggested that it wasn't?

How about:
Originally Posted by sojourner
according to Mark, it is. the other gospelers may tell a different story.


Also, from above: """Each gospeler has a different theological take on the gospel. They're not telling the same story."""

sincerly said:
What was that "good news"??

According to Mark, at least, it was that God's kingdom had com near.

Yes, but that "good news" began with Marks remarks/comments in 1:1 to 1:14 and didn't end until 16:20.

He began his gospel with the life and teachings of John, as prophesied.
He ended with the women fleeing the tomb and telling no one, because they were afraid.

sojourner, the "good news" written by Mark wasn't about the life and teachings of John the Baptist, but the ONE John came to be the fore-runner for---Jesus Christ.
And ended with these words: "And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with [them], and confirming the word with signs following. Amen."
The "Good news" was Salvation to all believers comes by believing in what Christ did and said as revealed in the scriptures. Mark testified to those principles just as the other writers and Prophets had done.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
"Theological take?" The theology is the same
Not when you take a good exegetical look at the texts. You're assumption is the mistake you're making.
I know that each writer was writing the facts of the life and teachings which are most surely believed by those who witnessed and persons who accompanied and heard Jesus teach.
The writers are not writing "the facts of life." They're writing theology from their own take of oral sources.
Those were not to be exact word for word duplications as details were either expressed or left out as each writer was recording those accounts from the witnesses and their own remembrances.
None of the writers knew Jesus.
In connection with Jesus Christ and Sin, what is one turning their "life around" from and to What?
With regard to Mark, sin isn't mentioned in the message Jesus went about preaching.
according to Mark, it is. the other gospelers may tell a different story.
First of all, Hebrews isn't a gospel -- it's an epistle. And the writer wasn't using the same sources the gospel writers were using.
Nonetheless, did I ever once opine that the gospel is not "everlasting?"
Each gospeler has a different theological take on the gospel. They're not telling the same story.
Yeah? And? What's your point?
Yes, but that "good news" began with Marks remarks/comments in 1:1 to 1:14 and didn't end until 16:20.
...According to Mark. Not according to what Jesus actually preached. We need to differentiate between Mark's specific take on Jesus' message and what Jesus' message actually was.
sojourner, the "good news" written by Mark wasn't about the life and teachings of John the Baptist, but the ONE John came to be the fore-runner for---Jesus Christ.
Yes, but he begins with John. You can't just gloss over that.
And ended with these words: "And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with [them], and confirming the word with signs following. Amen."
Nope. That's a later addition, according to most experts. Mark actually ends with verse 8: "So they went out and fled from the tomb, for terror and amazement had seized them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid."

Tha-tha-tha-tha-that's all, folks!

The "Good news" was Salvation to all believers comes by believing in what Christ did and said as revealed in the scriptures. Mark testified to those principles just as the other writers and Prophets had done.
The term "gospel" was borrowed from the Romans. Originally, it was a specific political statement from the emperor. Since Mark is dealing with the establishment of God's kingdom (partially over against the Roman empire), what is the specific, message Jesus brings? "turn your lives around, because God's kingdom has come near."
 

outhouse

Atheistically
The term "gospel" was borrowed from the Romans. Originally, it was a specific political statement from the emperor. Since Mark is dealing with the establishment of God's kingdom (partially over against the Roman empire), what is the specific, message Jesus brings? "turn your lives around, because God's kingdom has come near."


Have you ever thought the "kingdom of god" may have originally been a jewish metaphor for the impending war that was 100% imminent with romans stomping out the jews??

The kingdom of god surely met 1,000,000 jews if we go by Josephus numbers, which at the time was a large chunk of the jewish community.



I havnt wrapped my mind tightly around this, but its a thought
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Have you ever thought the "kingdom of god" may have originally been a jewish metaphor for the impending war that was 100% imminent with romans stomping out the jews??

The kingdom of god surely met 1,000,000 jews if we go by Josephus numbers, which at the time was a large chunk of the jewish community.



I havnt wrapped my mind tightly around this, but its a thought
I don't think so. Mark is rather urban, and so would contain a certain affinity for the Romans. Objections would have more likely come from Q, which is more anti-Rome.
 

Awoon

Well-Known Member
A King is a counselor to the people. Jesus taught the council of God based on the law, and the prophets as he understood them. Hence the" Kingdom of God" is the underlying meanings of the law and the prophets sayings. Not the threats.

Do unto others as you would want them to do to you. Cant get any simpler then that.
 

sincerly

Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by sincerly
Doesn't "Repent" mean that one has disobeyed some "Rule/Command"??


Originally Posted by sojourner
Not necessarily. It means that one needs to turn one's life around.

sincerly said:
In connection with Jesus Christ and Sin, what is one turning their "life around" from and to What?

Not when you take a good exegetical look at the texts. You're assumption is the mistake you're making.

A "good exegetical look at the texts"/a good interpretation of the texts reveals not just that one verse, but why Mark took in hand(as the others) "to put in order that which is most suredly believed by us".
Yes, "the kingdom of GOD is at hand" today just as it was 2000 years ago. And all are in need of "Repenting"---returning to the Creator GOD of all things just as Mark and the other writers expressed in their writings.

The writers are not writing "the facts of life." They're writing theology from their own take of oral sources.

sincerly said:
I know that each writer was writing the facts of the life and teachings which are most surely believed by those who witnessed and persons who accompanied and heard Jesus teach.

Sojourner, please keep my answers in correct perspective. Jesus came to seek and to save those who were lost---not a sex class. (2) those things Jesus taught were in fulfillment from the O.T. Prophets and Laws given by GOD.
" Which are most surely believed by us".


None of the writers knew Jesus.

Matthew and John were apart of the twelve who followed Jesus for the 3 1/2 years of Jesus ministry. Regardless of that which some want to believe. I believed the Scriptures as written.(Inspired by the Holy Spirit).

With regard to Mark, sin isn't mentioned in the message Jesus went about preaching.

The specific word Sin may not be used in Mark's Gospel, but that doesn't mean equivelent words which have been labeled "SIN" aren't used in Mark. Indirectly and directly. See Mark 3:4; 7:1-23; 8:35


First of all, Hebrews isn't a gospel -- it's an epistle. And the writer wasn't using the same sources the gospel writers were using.
Nonetheless, did I ever once opine that the gospel is not "everlasting?"

The Book of Hebrews may be an epistle, but that "epistle" in 4:2 tells us that those who were at Sinai received the "Good News"/Gospel of Salvation/the entering into the ultimate rest the same as we. And that was the message Mark was giving in his written book.

...According to Mark. Not according to what Jesus actually preached. We need to differentiate between Mark's specific take on Jesus' message and what Jesus' message actually was.

Mark didn't contradict Jesus' message nor those other writers. The faulty exegesis you spoke of initially and from/seen in your posts accounts for the erroneous conclusions.

Yes, but he begins with John. You can't just gloss over that.

True, but neither can one make that the main massage of the Book of Mark.

Nope. That's a later addition, according to most experts. Mark actually ends with verse 8: "So they went out and fled from the tomb, for terror and amazement had seized them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid."

Later addition from when? All these translated Versions express the same thought. KJV; NKJV; NLT; NIV; ESV; RVR; NASB; RSV; ASV; YLT; DBY; WEB; HNV.

The term "gospel" was borrowed from the Romans. Originally, it was a specific political statement from the emperor. Since Mark is dealing with the establishment of God's kingdom (partially over against the Roman empire), what is the specific, message Jesus brings? "turn your lives around, because God's kingdom has come near."

"I am the way the truth and the life, no man cometh to the Father, but by ME."
There is no turning one's life around(Repentance) without the acknowledging that it is by the shed Blood of Jesus that one's SIN debt is paid. Once that is accomplished, and a total surrender of one's will is made then The FATHER'S Grace can be forthcoming. That is the message from Genesis to Revelation. (Mark's Gospel included.)
 

javajo

Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by sincerly

There is no turning one's life around(Repentance) without the acknowledging that it is by the shed Blood of Jesus that one's SIN debt is paid. Once that is accomplished, and a total surrender of one's will is made then The FATHER'S Grace can be forthcoming. That is the message from Genesis to Revelation. (Mark's Gospel included.)
I believe by trusting fully in Christ, that his shed blood, or death, paid our sin debt ALONE is what saves anyone. We bring our sin, he gives us his righteousness, all as a free gift. Of course when we turn to Christ we are turning from sin, but the "total surrender" idea is more along the lines of discipleship and the work of surrendering our lives more and more each day so we may be better used of God for the works he has for us. But salvation is simple, its free, and there is no "work" on our part or it is no longer a gift, but wages earned and God will not be a debtor to anyone and those who try to earn salvation, those "workers of iniquity" as in Matt. 7, will be denied. Salvation is a free gift we simply accept, not of works lest any man should boast, that all the glory goes to Christ who died for us. Call it splitting hairs, but it is this that separates all false religions from true Christianity. All other religions center on man and how he can save himself, whereas Christianity says it is God who loved us, who does the saving and God who does the keeping. We are just the recipients of his grace or undeserved, unmerited, unearned favor, if we simply trust Christ that he paid our sin-debt. God was satisfied, so should we be satisfied and try not to add something more to it that we contribute and detract from what Jesus did. Keep salvation separate from discipleship, growth and works and one will be ok. That is my belief.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
I don't think so. Mark is rather urban, and so would contain a certain affinity for the Romans. Objections would have more likely come from Q, which is more anti-Rome.


kind of my point

with only having the roman authors, we would never know the true translation of the kingdom of god.

as it stands now we have contradicting passages and almost evenly divided scholarship's on it's translation
 

sincerly

Well-Known Member
There is no turning one's life around(Repentance) without the acknowledging that it is by the shed Blood of Jesus that one's SIN debt is paid. Once that is accomplished, and a total surrender of one's will is made then The FATHER'S Grace can be forthcoming. That is the message from Genesis to Revelation. (Mark's Gospel included.)


I believe by trusting fully in Christ, that his shed blood, or death, paid our sin debt ALONE is what saves anyone. We bring our sin, he gives us his righteousness, all as a free gift. Of course when we turn to Christ we are turning from sin, but the "total surrender" idea is more along the lines of discipleship and the work of surrendering our lives more and more each day so we may be better used of God for the works he has for us. But salvation is simple, its free, and there is no "work" on our part or it is no longer a gift, but wages earned and God will not be a debtor to anyone and those who try to earn salvation, those "workers of iniquity" as in Matt. 7, will be denied. Salvation is a free gift we simply accept, not of works lest any man should boast, that all the glory goes to Christ who died for us. Call it splitting hairs, but it is this that separates all false religions from true Christianity. All other religions center on man and how he can save himself, whereas Christianity says it is God who loved us, who does the saving and God who does the keeping. We are just the recipients of his grace or undeserved, unmerited, unearned favor, if we simply trust Christ that he paid our sin-debt. God was satisfied, so should we be satisfied and try not to add something more to it that we contribute and detract from what Jesus did. Keep salvation separate from discipleship, growth and works and one will be ok. That is my belief.

Javajo, I'm not sure whether you believe that I believe one can work their way into God's kingdom or were just stressing your belief???
I assure you that Cain couldn't do it and no one else has produced any "works" of their own "which will pay the sin debt." Death was the only acceptable payment---and that was by GOD'S SON( for the Repentant).(A plan that was put in effect "before the foundation of the earth".)
"Works" isn't a unsatisfactory/negative word when speaking of salvation however.
There are the "works of righteous" which are contrasted with the "works which lead to damnation". One is to "Work out their own salvation" as Phil.2:12-13, says, "Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of [his] good pleasure."
And Heb.12:1-2, confirms, "Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset [us], and let us run with patience the race that is set before us,"...
2Pet.1:10, attests to that principle with this, "Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:"

Eph.2:10, followed the (2:8) which you quoted, "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them."
Eph.1:4, explains those good works, "According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:"

Didn't Jesus say the greatest commandments were founded in LOVE to GOD and love to one's fellow Beings??
I believe the Scriptures.

Following Jesus in HIS teachings(And all that HE taught was given to HIM by the Father, as HE acknowledges)is a combination of that which you are saying to """Keep salvation separate from discipleship, growth and works".(The "works" of obedience by which GOD says one is to live in harmony with the creation HE made.)
 
Top