what is the gospel?

[james]

i read and have heard from educated christian scholars, that the gospel was sent down as word, not a book, and this can be used as an argument when talking sbout the new testament, i read once taht someone was trying to disprove it, but one person said, but it was not told to be written ,jesus didnt say write it, he preeched it. hearing this and watching a programme taht said the new testament was not fully written until about 100 ad i thought, do we know what the true meaning of the gospel is, becasue the one we could be looking at in the bible could just be pick and mix. and the bible is written 'according' to people, doesnt this show that it was written not at the time of jesus or that it was what other people had written it what they wanted?

 

[Dondi]

Hi James. Welcome to the CR.

How else are we to know what the Gospel is if we don't have a source to go to? I believe God's light shines through the pages of scripture, though it be written be imperfect men. The truths of the Gospel are evident in those pages, but we will always see through the glass darkly until come into His kingdom and meet Him face to face. Then we will see Him as He is.

Until that time, all we have are the scriptures and, in some Christian circles, tradition. We have to rely on what is revealed to us. Our life long quest ought to be as the Apostle Paul said:

"That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: For in him we live, and move, and have our being." - Acts 17:27-28

 

[Abogado del Diablo]

Here's my view . . .

The Law of God is written on the hearts of people, and the sheep know the Shepherd's voice. So we look into our own "heart" and the Gospel will be revealed to us. Then the real challenge begins: we must be carefully and constantly listening for the Shepard's voice, and deciding for ourselves what is and isn't the Gospel from those things told, written and preserved by men against what we know to be true.

 

[Quahom1]

Here's my view . . .

The Law of God is written on the hearts of people, and the sheep know the Shepherd's voice. So we look into our own "heart" and the Gospel will be revealed to us. Then the real challenge begins: we must be carefully and constantly listening for the Shepard's voice, and deciding for ourselves what is and isn't the Gospel from those things told, written and preserved by men against what we know to be true.

On this I agree with all my being.

v/r

Q

 

[Saltmeister]

i read and have heard from educated christian scholars, that the gospel was sent down as word, not a book, and this can be used as an argument when talking sbout the new testament, i read once taht someone was trying to disprove it, but one person said, but it was not told to be written ,jesus didnt say write it, he preeched it. hearing this and watching a programme taht said the new testament was not fully written until about 100 ad i thought, do we know what the true meaning of the gospel is, becasue the one we could be looking at in the bible could just be pick and mix. and the bible is written 'according' to people, doesnt this show that it was written not at the time of jesus or that it was what other people had written it what they wanted?

Here's one way of looking at it:

The Gospel was something the early Christians personally experienced, and was not written down on paper, as a written account of the Gospel did not exist at the time. The faith was spread orally by people simply explaining how they felt about Christ and what he meant to them. It came from deep within their heart and soul. But they knew that the faith couldn't be handed down from generation to generation just by word of mouth. It's a bit hard to convey your experiences to another person, so they chose a number of written texts that future generations could read if they wanted to learn about the Gospel.

The purpose of the New Testament is to remind us of what these early Christians experienced. The NT explains what these early Christians experienced. The NT doesn't define the Gospel in solid, concrete terms. It simply explains what it meant to people back then. The Gospel is something you experience personally, but not something anyone is supposed to define.

Not all written texts were written to convey this experience. There are those texts that were written by people who honestly and genuinely experienced the Gospel. But there were also others who simply wrote fantastically-sounding ideas that didn't really come from a genuine experience of the Gospel.

The fake documents were perhaps those that didn't come from a real experience of the Gospel, but people who had big-shot ideas and egos to fulfil. It's possible that some did have a "genuine experience" of some sort, but an experience that wasn't an experience of the Gospel.

The question of how we can tell which ones are fake and which ones are genuine depictions of the Gospel is perhaps also a question of whether we experience, from reading a text, a reinforcement of what the Gospel is supposed to mean. If all the texts in the NT come from people with a genuine experience of the Gospel, then what we have in the Bible is something we can really work with.

No solid answers here. The idea that the Gospel revolves around what you experience is one way of looking at it.

It's my view that the Gospel must be personally experienced. Getting people to follow a creed, to follow doctrine is pointless if it isn't personal and doesn't mean anything to the people who are told to believe in it. In that sense, creeds and doctrines can be dangerous, and experience is the only real measure of "truth." Creeds and doctrine don't lead to a personal experience of the Gospel. Experience is the only way to really understand the Gospel. We can pick on the details, but it's more important that we have a feel for what the Gospel is supposed to mean.

 

[Jeannot]

Yes, Paul constantly refers to the gospel, yet there were as yet no written gospels (that we know of).

 

[Quahom1]

Yes, Paul constantly refers to the gospel, yet there were as yet no written gospels (that we know of).

Perhaps because Paul was using the term literally (good news)...

 

[BlaznFattyz]

the gospel is the good news of salvation thru jesus christ, and it was made known to men by the prophets and apostles in written form, or in worship, or passed down as truth from one to another, thru the work of the holy spirit before, during, and after christ. the gospel need not always be in written form. the good news of the birth of christ was preached to the shephards, and they went out spreading the good news of what was written beforehand of his coming. john the baptist declared the good news coming in the lamb of god whom he baptized. jesus christ taught the good news and the way to inherit the kingdom of god. thru the work of the holy spirit many are saved thru evangelism on the street thru spoken word, and it is by faith they believe, and grace they are saved, and it is thru the bible they are nurtured. one can grasp the love of god before one can even read, because the spirit goes out and seeks the hearts of men, even the depths of god, and brings in those that open their hearts. the gospel is the birth, death, and resurrection of christ who gives us a way to be reconciled back to god thru repentence and forgiveness whether it be shared thru spoken word or reading scripture. either way, it is the good news.

 

[Jeannot]

So is this a point in the RC's favor? That is, there was a church and tradition before there were written gospels?

 

[Abogado del Diablo]

So is this a point in the RC's favor? That is, there was a church and tradition before there were written gospels?

There were many of them.

 

[lunamoth]

There were many of them.

And today there are many.

 

[Abogado del Diablo]

And today there are many.

I guess it's true. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

 

[lunamoth]

Here's my view . . .

The Law of God is written on the hearts of people, and the sheep know the Shepherd's voice. So we look into our own "heart" and the Gospel will be revealed to us. Then the real challenge begins: we must be carefully and constantly listening for the Shepard's voice, and deciding for ourselves what is and isn't the Gospel from those things told, written and preserved by men against what we know to be true.

This is very nicely said.

I believe that the Gospels, and Paul's letters, were written in response to an experience of Christ, God with us, Love enfleshed.

 

[kenod]

I believe that the Gospels, and Paul's letters, were written in response to an experience of Christ, God with us, Love enfleshed.

And that was very nicely said too

Sometimes there is a tendency to focus on the authority of the Bible that does not take into account that God was working through these men by the power of His Holy Spirit ... the Bible is a supernatural book.
If God's spoken Word created the worlds, then His written Word is equally infused with divine power.

 

[Thomas]

So is this a point in the RC's favor? That is, there was a church and tradition before there were written gospels?

Precisely. The church was teaching, and more importantly, the church was liturgical, before the Word was consigned to the written word.

We know that the liturgy consisted of readings, prior to the Eucharistic Mystery, and that the Pauline epistles were being read as liturgical texts, shortly after, if not during the lifetime of St Paul.

Other texts were also read, but were not considered divinely inspired, nor scriptural as such, the letters of Clement of Rome, for example, or The Didache, for example (c50-120AD).

This is a point that is coming to the fore more and more in RC theology. You might be interested to know that the RC Church, which defended Tradition in the face of 'sola scriptura' and the Reformation generally, has still not defined precisely what tradition is, and what the relationship between tradition and scripture is:

"This sacred tradition, therefore, and Sacred Scripture of both the Old and New Testaments are like a mirror in which the pilgrim Church on earth looks at God, from whom she has received everything, until she is brought finally to see Him as He is, face to face" (Dei Verbum 7 my emphasis)

"Therefore the Apostles, handing on what they themselves had received, warn the faithful to hold fast to the traditions which they have learned either by word of mouth or by letter - Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle. (2 Thess. 2:14)" (DV8)

In fact the whole of Dei Verbum - A Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation - is an extended meditation on Revelation, Scripture and Tradition.

It's interesting to note that it is the Church's tradition that the Old Testament, the Jewish Scriptures, forms part of the canon of the Christian bible - nowhere does Jesus say they are sacred or inspired texts - yet sola scripture overlooks this point when considering the Old Testament as scripture. Likewise, the Canon of the New Testament was no ratified until the sixteenth century (Council of Trent, 1545) - until then the books were considered 'according to tradition'.

So an inarguable point is that the canon was decided by tradition.

A parallel line of inquiry is into the nature of 'inspiration' - and the two go hand in hand.

Thomas

 

[kenod]

It's interesting to note that it is the Church's tradition that the Old Testament, the Jewish Scriptures, forms part of the canon of the Christian bible - nowhere does Jesus say they are sacred or inspired texts - yet sola scripture overlooks this point when considering the Old Testament as scripture.

A Protestant point of view:

I believe the Gospels show that Jesus validated the OT.

Matthew 22:29
Jesus answered and said unto them,
Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures,
nor the power of God.

Luke 24:47
And beginning at Moses and all the prophets,
he expounded unto them in all the scriptures
the things concerning himself.

John 5:39
Search the scriptures;
for in them ye think ye have eternal life:
and they are they which testify of me.



​

Likewise, the Canon of the New Testament was no ratified until the sixteenth century (Council of Trent, 1545) - until then the books were considered 'according to tradition'.

The Bible was first translated into English by John Wycliffe (1382) and William Tyndale (1525). Both men were persecuted by the church, and Tyndale was burnt at the stake. Luther's Bible also predates The Council of Trent. 1545 may be significant in the history of the RC Church, but it is not significant in the establishment of the NT canon. As far back as Irenaeus and Polycarp all the books of the NT were well accepted. Formal ratification by the political church, which did so much to keep the Scriptures from the people, had very little to do with the spiritual recognition of what is the Word of God.

 

[wil]

It's interesting to note that it is the Church's tradition that the Old Testament, the Jewish Scriptures, forms part of the canon of the Christian bible - nowhere does Jesus say they are sacred or inspired texts

Seems he does say he came to fulfill the prophecies, seems when he was asked what was the most importantant commandment he named the two that were the highest in Judaic tradition from the old testament, seems he quoted often, including 'ye are G-ds'...He may not have said, but he implied, repeatedly.

 

[Thomas]

1545 may be significant in the history of the RC Church, but it is not significant in the establishment of the NT canon.

My point was that the church saw no need to make a statement on the canon of either Old or New until this time. It was accepted by all until the Reformation, when the Church was obliged to state its affirmation of the traditional Canon, rather than the revisions instituted by the Reformers, that's all. So it was the Reformers who broke with Irenaeus and Polycarp, not the other way round.

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

He may not have said, but he implied, repeatedly.

Absolutely - but then that thinking is orthodox - the reformers would say 'implied' is insufficient - hence their rebuttal of the 'full implication' of Trinity, Eucharist, etc.,

It is an interesting debate, though. Is the OT necessary? I think generally 'yes', and the Fathers were in agreement on that point, but the point has to be considered ... it was not a given from the word go ... one could interpret Paul (literally, but erroneously), for example, to mean that the Jewish scriptures were made redundant by Christ, when he spoke of a 'new and better way'.

Thomas

 

[iBrian]

I believe the Gospels show that Jesus validated the OT.

I'm under the impression, though, that what we call the OT wasn't canonised by the Jews until at least 90AD, and that there was a wider set of Jewish apocrypha and pseudopigrapha doing the rounds.