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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
allthough allegory often gets misused
would you not claim its a allegorical parable? it was used figuratively.
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)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.
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
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.
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.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.
Guys, this is not a thread on Bible History.
This may very well have been the case with the Epistles of Paul and the gentile churches.
without history
your clueless in trying to figure out meaning and context of scripture.
Guys, this is not a thread on Bible History.
I'm thinking the right time of history to look at is the reformation.
Sorry it took me a while to reply.why ??
did they redefine christianity to your liking then?
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."
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".
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.
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?
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?