Is the Gospel simple?

[InfidelRiot]

However, when one reads the Scriptures from GOD'S intended sent message, it is Simple and truth. Believe as you choose.

When each individual with a different interpretation states that s/he is reading it from god's "intended sent message", it leads to more confusion because whom is to be believed? Everyone is pointing fingers and calling the interpretation across the way wrong.

 

[Shermana]

Hi IR, Welcome to the Forums.
The Gospel is simple, but it is the multiple persons who prefer that it not say That which it does and who then twist the messages to please themselves.
You know---"I can't let my pet sin be gored. A little manipulation of the message will
not hurt and will allow one to remain in contradiction to the scriptures".

Since there are many topics to agree or disagee upon there are the many "interpretations."
However, when one reads the Scriptures from GOD'S intended sent message, it is Simple and truth. Believe as you choose.

The Gospel is indeed very simple, it's basically a continuation of Nazarene-sect Judaism with belief in Jesus as the prophecied Guilt Offering.

Because it's so Jewish, "Christians" have to try to come up with all kinds of unsimple (needlessly complex and winding) doctrines and Theologies to escape the most simple straight forward interpretation of the Jewish Messiah's saga. You'd be amazed at how many plain verses they scramble to "re-interpret" to give it the exact opposite meaning of what it directly says.

I think any objective person who reads the Gospels with a decent understanding of historical context should easily get that it's a story about obedience to the Jewish religion apart from Pharisee deviation. You have to already come from an orthodox Christian background to convolute it and cherry pick it into something radically different, which is most often the case. They usually want to ignore practically everything Jesus says and go by some Church sanctioned Theology where you basically don't have to do anything than claim to believe in Jesus, very convenient. It's truly sad how apologetics and exegetes torture the hell out of the text. Literally.

 

[sincerly]

When each individual with a different interpretation states that s/he is reading it from god's "intended sent message", it leads to more confusion because whom is to be believed? Everyone is pointing fingers and calling the interpretation across the way wrong.

IR, Isn't the "Reader" reading the one book? Then what is the "intended message" that reader is obtaining from his/her reading of those pages? One would have to be comparing the multiple opinions offered by the many interpretations with the "Gospel". Would those other "opinions" necessarily void the message given in the Gospel???
ALL on these debate forums express their "Opinions" based upon the information gleaned from whatever source and compared to other information. The "wisdom of man" is not something one can always rely upon as being accurate.
Therefore, one will make their "conclusions" based upon who/what one has decided to be factual/in agreement with Truth/reality.

 

[InfidelRiot]

Therefore, one will make their "conclusions" based upon who/what one has decided to be factual/in agreement with Truth/reality.

Many religious people confuse fact/truth with faith. Faith is the veritable absence of evidence. Therefore, one who has faith in god does not have evidence or knowledge of his existence.

 

[sincerly]

Many religious people confuse fact/truth with faith. Faith is the veritable absence of evidence. Therefore, one who has faith in god does not have evidence or knowledge of his existence.

IR, that isn't quite true.
While I have not seen or had physical contact with GOD, I have felt HIS presence and as far as evidence, all of the things I see about me (that isn't man-made) is a validation of the Creator GOD and HIS Existence.

 

[InfidelRiot]

IR, that isn't quite true.
While I have not seen or had physical contact with GOD, I have felt HIS presence and as far as evidence, all of the things I see about me (that isn't man-made) is a validation of the Creator GOD and HIS Existence.

There is evidence that church goers "feel" god because of the music played there. Music is actually a verified proven stimulant in advertising and in feeling a divine being much as mind altering drugs were used in primitive days.

 

[Shermana]

IR, that isn't quite true.
While I have not seen or had physical contact with GOD, I have felt HIS presence and as far as evidence, all of the things I see about me (that isn't man-made) is a validation of the Creator GOD and HIS Existence.

I've heard Mormons claim they have a "burning in the Bosom", why is that not evidence that their faith is right to them? Can you prove that what you felt was His presence?

 

[sojourner]

The Gospel is indeed very simple, it's basically a continuation of Nazarene-sect Judaism with belief in Jesus as the prophecied Guilt Offering.

Because it's so Jewish, "Christians" have to try to come up with all kinds of unsimple (needlessly complex and winding) doctrines and Theologies to escape the most simple straight forward interpretation of the Jewish Messiah's saga. You'd be amazed at how many plain verses they scramble to "re-interpret" to give it the exact opposite meaning of what it directly says.

I think any objective person who reads the Gospels with a decent understanding of historical context should easily get that it's a story about obedience to the Jewish religion apart from Pharisee deviation. You have to already come from an orthodox Christian background to convolute it and cherry pick it into something radically different, which is most often the case. They usually want to ignore practically everything Jesus says and go by some Church sanctioned Theology where you basically don't have to do anything than claim to believe in Jesus, very convenient. It's truly sad how apologetics and exegetes torture the hell out of the text. Literally.

Except that the gospels, themselves, are not written from a purely Jewish perspective. Each has its own agenda. In order to be an "objective reader," the reader has to understand the origins, hermeneutics, culture and theology of each gospel, how they relate to each other, and how they are dissimilar. When one reads objectively, one concludes that they are not particularly "a story about obedience to the Jewish religion."

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by Shermana
The Gospel is indeed very simple, it's basically a continuation of Nazarene-sect Judaism with belief in Jesus as the prophecied Guilt Offering.

Except that the gospels, themselves, are not written from a purely Jewish perspective. Each has its own agenda. In order to be an "objective reader," the reader has to understand the origins, hermeneutics, culture and theology of each gospel, how they relate to each other, and how they are dissimilar. When one reads objectively, one concludes that they are not particularly "a story about obedience to the Jewish religion."

The Bible is a compilation of the OT Writings and the NT writings. It is the Creator GOD'S Everlasting Gospel message concerning HIS Creation and HIS plan for Redeeming it from and the human Beings and disobedient Angels who corrupted it.
It is simple and easy to comprehend.

The Everlasting Gospel isn't Jewish nor Gentile(in all its forms/beliefs) related because the Creator GOD isn't the respecter of persons.
The Gospel message is that ALL Persons who seek after GOD in the manner GOD placed in those "Oracles"/Scriptures are redeemed by the manner written therein.

Therefore, one chooses to Believe what is written or disbelieve--- Believe GOD or Believe Man(self)---It is that simple.

 

[sincerly]

There is evidence that church goers "feel" god because of the music played there. Music is actually a verified proven stimulant in advertising and in feeling a divine being much as mind altering drugs were used in primitive days.

Music in its-self and varieties doesn't mean one is in-touch with GOD---that in-touch "feeling" can be a manifestation in the worship of another "god".

However, music was/is used used in praise to the Creator GOD. The "singing"/"music" is a result of the "heart feeling toward GOD".

 

[sojourner]

Originally Posted by Shermana
The Gospel is indeed very simple, it's basically a continuation of Nazarene-sect Judaism with belief in Jesus as the prophecied Guilt Offering.




The Bible is a compilation of the OT Writings and the NT writings. It is the Creator GOD'S Everlasting Gospel message concerning HIS Creation and HIS plan for Redeeming it from and the human Beings and disobedient Angels who corrupted it.
It is simple and easy to comprehend.

The Everlasting Gospel isn't Jewish nor Gentile(in all its forms/beliefs) related because the Creator GOD isn't the respecter of persons.
The Gospel message is that ALL Persons who seek after GOD in the manner GOD placed in those "Oracles"/Scriptures are redeemed by the manner written therein.

Therefore, one chooses to Believe what is written or disbelieve--- Believe GOD or Believe Man(self)---It is that simple.

the whole bible isn't "the gospel." Nor is it simple and easy to comprehend. It's amazingly complex and difficult to deal with.

 

[Shermana]

It's amazingly complex and difficult to deal with.

I don't think, that even with the required understandings of context and Jewish Law and history, it's that complex and difficult at all. I think it gets complex and difficult when people try to rip it out of its Jewish-sect works-based-salvation mold into some Universalist anti-works "You just gotta believe" Mentality. Such a simple watering down of Christian doctrine that the Mainstream Church ha done requires an incredible amount of twisting, re-visioning, denial of historical context, and such. It's much simpler to say "The Logos in John's time was considered the Angel of god according to Philo" than to come up with entire discourses on the Trinity (a concept that is "not comprehensible by the human mind" according to many apologists). It's much simpler to say that Jesus didn't actually teach you could eat whatever you wanted since it says what he taught was a parable and it was about ritual handwashing, than to come up with convoluted arguments on why the dietary laws, and others which are "FOR ALL GENERATIONS" suddenly ceased.

In its original "Jewish" form, "Christianity" is not that complex. It's really not much more complex than understanding the Nazarene sect and applying the prophetic ideas of the Moshiach that were prominent in the community. Defending it in gentile "Orthodox church" terms requires so much Mental Gymnastics and twisting and turning that it should be an olympic sport.

 

[sojourner]

I don't think, that even with the required understandings of context and Jewish Law and history, it's that complex and difficult at all.

Which is why the Jews have the Talmud, and which is why we make heavy use of the Anchor Bible Commentary, and other peer-reviewed articles in order to properly exegete texts.

We're not talking about orthodox theological construction here. We're talking simply exegeting the texts.

 

[Shermana]

Which is why the Jews have the Talmud, and which is why we make heavy use of the Anchor Bible Commentary, and other peer-reviewed articles in order to properly exegete texts.

We're not talking about orthodox theological construction here. We're talking simply exegeting the texts.

I think a lot of those commentaries have to make some very complex contortions to get the conclusion they want to arrive at through "Exegesis" in which ultimately is their attempt to prove Orthodox Theological construction. I think a plain exegesis of the concepts is very simple so long as one has a reliable grammar and language guide. Can you name a single example that you think is so complex?

And I say similarly with the Talmud, I have a lengthy exchange about how many Rabbinical concepts are complex, overcomplicated distortions that in many ways say the exact opposite of what the plain face text says. http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...26-why-do-gentiles-assume-they-should-63.html

 

[javajo]

I believe the Gospel is simple. I also believe the whole New Testament (and Old). I don't think anyone can have a true understanding of the Gospel if they don't believe and study all of the Bible.

 

[Awoon]

The gospel was simple until it became institutionalized.

 

[Shermana]

The gospel was simple until it became institutionalized.

***This!

 

[sojourner]

I think a lot of those commentaries have to make some very complex contortions to get the conclusion they want to arrive at through "Exegesis" in which ultimately is their attempt to prove Orthodox Theological construction. I think a plain exegesis of the concepts is very simple so long as one has a reliable grammar and language guide. Can you name a single example that you think is so complex?

And I say similarly with the Talmud, I have a lengthy exchange about how many Rabbinical concepts are complex, overcomplicated distortions that in many ways say the exact opposite of what the plain face text says. http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...26-why-do-gentiles-assume-they-should-63.html

If that's really what you think, then I don't think you clearly understand the process or aim of exegesis.

There are literary, historical, etymological, textual, anthropological, cultural, and translational problems to overcome before we can render a thorough interpretation. Plus, we have to overcome our own cultural biases.

If all you're talking about a cursory read, then the process can be simple. But if you really want to delve into interpretation, then the bible is extremely complex -- not only from a literary standpoint, but also from a theological standpoint, because each author brings a certain theological agenda to the writing.

I've rarely encountered an instance in which good, scholarly exegesis doesn't make a fair attempt to be unbiased.

 

[sojourner]

The gospel was simple until it became institutionalized.

I think so too, but I also think that, with the passage of time and the complexity of a plurality of cultures who add their voices to the gospel, it becomes a complex matter to filter through things in order to determine just what impact that simple message has upon any given cultural understanding.

 

[punkdbass]

I don't think, that even with the required understandings of context and Jewish Law and history, it's that complex and difficult at all. I think it gets complex and difficult when people try to rip it out of its Jewish-sect works-based-salvation mold into some Universalist anti-works "You just gotta believe" Mentality. Such a simple watering down of Christian doctrine that the Mainstream Church ha done requires an incredible amount of twisting, re-visioning, denial of historical context, and such. It's much simpler to say "The Logos in John's time was considered the Angel of god according to Philo" than to come up with entire discourses on the Trinity (a concept that is "not comprehensible by the human mind" according to many apologists). It's much simpler to say that Jesus didn't actually teach you could eat whatever you wanted since it says what he taught was a parable and it was about ritual handwashing, than to come up with convoluted arguments on why the dietary laws, and others which are "FOR ALL GENERATIONS" suddenly ceased.

In its original "Jewish" form, "Christianity" is not that complex. It's really not much more complex than understanding the Nazarene sect and applying the prophetic ideas of the Moshiach that were prominent in the community. Defending it in gentile "Orthodox church" terms requires so much Mental Gymnastics and twisting and turning that it should be an olympic sport.

Shermana, if the gospel should be as simple as you say it is, why do you suppose so few people today(im guessing less than 100,000) believe as the original Jewish followers of Jesus did(which you claim to do)?

IMO its because combining Judaism and Jesus just doesnt work. Its just like Rabbi Gamiliel supposedly said in the NT, that if the - original Jewish followers of Jesus - end up being an unstoppable force, then surly it be a sign from God.. and yet the type of religion held by the original Jewish followers of Jesus is literally non-existent today and has become something very, very different.

If you are following the true religion that God and Jesus(whom you think is the messiah) wants, why do you suppose there are sooooo few people doing the same?