what is the gospel?

[Thomas]

The 'Council' at Jamnia around 90AD declared only those texts in Hebrew were authoritative.

This discounted the existings texts that only survived in the Greek - mostlty centred on the Jews in Alexandria. It was from these texts - in Hebrew and Greek - that the Christians took the Old Testament.

Thomas

 

[Saltmeister]

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

So what's RC? Reformed Church?

Church and tradition existing before the written text? Not exactly what I had in mind . . . As the idea of tradition and liturgy driving the faith is a very common idea, I was thinking more of a kind of Christianity (as another possibility) that was spread orally. It could have been a Christianity where, instead of some charismatic or intellectual leader speaking on the pulpit, it was people sharing with each other their thoughts on the faith. People would explain to each other what Jesus meant to them. In other words, it was not charisma and intellectual rambling from the pulpit, but the sharing of thoughts, feelings and ideas on Christ that kept the faith going. An oral gospel rather than a written gospel.

Not a hierarchical faith, but a participatory faith. Not an ideological faith requiring conformity to tradition or liturgy, but a faith that could allow for diversity. A faith where everybody was free to discover their own unique purpose in the community.

An Early Church driven by conformity to tradition and liturgy is one possibility, but an Early Church maintained by people from a diverse range of backgrounds, views and beliefs is yet another. Both were possible. We tend to affirm the former, but overlook the possibility of the latter.

So it was the Reformers who broke with Irenaeus and Polycarp, not the other way round.

The Reformers broke with Irenaeus and Polycarp? In what ways? What did they teach? I've recently read a book on the history of Christianity, but I can't remember exactly where in history Irenaeus and Polycarp appeared. I thought what we had now was pretty much what Irenaeus and Polycarp taught. It didn't ring an alarm bell while I was reading the history of Christianity, so I can't exactly remember what they taught. If the alarm bell had rung, I probably would have remembered.

 

[Abogado del Diablo]

The Reformers broke with Irenaeus and Polycarp? In what ways? What did they teach? I've recently read a book on the history of Christianity, but I can't remember exactly where in history Irenaeus and Polycarp appeared. I thought what we had now was pretty much what Irenaeus and Polycarp taught. It didn't ring an alarm bell while I was reading the history of Christianity, so I can't exactly remember what they taught. If the alarm bell had rung, I probably would have remembered.

Polycarp and Irenaeus were around in the Second Century (Irenaeus's surviving works date mainly from the 180s CE). The idea that the leaders of the Reformation were breaking with Ireneaus and Polycarp is rather fantastical. One need only read Irenaeus and see how many of Martin Luther's 95 Theses contradict their writings. I'm pretty sure neither Ireneaus nor Polycarp were advocates of Papal indulgences (Lutherans). Though Polycarp wrote, "the love of money is the beginning of all troubles," so I don't think he'd disagree with Luther. I don't recall either of them writing about the need for Papal annulment of marriage (Anglicans). And predestination (Calvinists) was a common theme in Irenaeus's writings:

"God predetermining all things for the perfection of man, and for the bringing about and manifestation of his dispositions, that goodness may be shown, and righteousness perfected, and the church be conformed to the image of his Son, and at length become a perfect man, and by such things be made ripe to see God, and enjoy him."

"being predestinated indeed according to the knowledge of the Father; ut essemus qui nondum eramus,that we might be, who as yet were not, made, or were the beginning of his creation."

 

[Abogado del Diablo]

So what's RC? Reformed Church?

"Roman Catholic"

 

[Thomas]

Hi Saltmeister -

Church and tradition existing before the written text? Not exactly what I had in mind . . .
Nevertheless, that's the case.

And what did 'tradition' mean? The 'handing on' of what had been made known to the Apostles:
"We announce to you the eternal life which dwelt with the Father and was made visible to us. What we have seen and heard we announce to you, so that you may have fellowship with us and our common fellowship be with the Father and His Son Jesus Christ" (1 John 1:2-3) - the 'church' is that body of people in common fellowship.

As the idea of tradition and liturgy driving the faith is a very common idea, I was thinking more of a kind of Christianity (as another possibility) that was spread orally.
It was - but the central focus of the faith was the participation in the Mystery of Sonship.

It could have been a Christianity where, instead of some charismatic or intellectual leader speaking on the pulpit, it was people sharing with each other their thoughts on the faith.
But how would they know about the faith unless they were told about it? What is the content of faith if one subtracts what was 'handed down' (tradition) and the participation in the Mysterium Crucis? The sharing of faith is after the fact - faith itself comes first, the sharing after.

People would explain to each other what Jesus meant to them.
I'm sure they did, as they do today - but that's not what faith is - that is how they respond to it.

Also, they were not close witrness as the Apostles were, and they did not understand much of what He said, so confusion would abound if this alone was the case. That's why Jesus chose the twelve, and of that twelve picked three to whom he would reveal more - Peter, James and John.

In other words, it was not charisma and intellectual rambling from the pulpit, but the sharing of thoughts, feelings and ideas on Christ that kept the faith going.
Why could not 'the pulpit' be a place of leadership, example, enlightenment, of inspiration? of spiritual sustenance? of uplifting?

But surely 'the sharing of 'thoughts, feelings and ideas' is an intellectual exercise? I would say it was faith that kept the faith going, faith in the 'good news' imparted to them through the Apostles, and their successors - and that's what they spoke of.

The Early Church was not an intellectual church - Celcus and the like were highly critical of it for precisely this reason. What little we do know of numbers and social groupings is that the 'first wave' were primarily poor, with a large proportion of women. It is the women who took Christianity into the upper echelons of society.

An oral gospel rather than a written gospel.
The written gospel is simply the record of the oral gospel.

Not a hierarchical faith, but a participatory faith.
It was a participatory faith, but it has a hierarchy. Hierarchy belongs to the natural order of things - even the Supernatural Order is subject to hierarchy.

Not an ideological faith requiring conformity to tradition or liturgy, but a faith that could allow for diversity.
It depends on direction - the Church as a body celebrates what it holds in common as a body - one-ness in the Son and with the Father, through the Holy Spirit - "I am the Way" as Christ said, not 'everyone is the way' nor 'go your own way' - in fact Christ's message was that humanity is going the wrong way.

The focus of the church is upward/inward into Unity first, then outward/downward into diversity. The diversity of charism within the faith is then limitless - but the faith itself is one - it is the Word of God to which man conforms his entire being, and not, as volative man would have it, the Word conformed to suit his individual weakness and circumstance. There is Unity in Diversity, but the Unity comes first - all diversity is subject to it, otherwise diversity becomes anarchy.

As said above, what was 'handed down' (tradition) and participation in it (liturgy) is all there was.

A faith where everybody was free to discover their own unique purpose in the community.
They are part of 'the Mystical Body of Christ' - the fact that this has no material or quantitative measure was immaterial - their faith was mystical, not sociological.

An Early Church driven by conformity to tradition and liturgy is one possibility, but an Early Church maintained by people from a diverse range of backgrounds, views and beliefs is yet another. Both were possible. We tend to affirm the former, but overlook the possibility of the latter.
But the Church was diverse - Jew and gentile, statesman and slave, all were on an equal footing, and in fact was the only social institution where a general, a statesman, a merchant, a farmer, a woman and a slave would meet on equal terms. The two existed together, but the fact is that all differences were set aside in the Mystery of the Liturgy. The Mystery transcends all, and all the rest is subject to it. Christ prayed that all become 'one in him' - that the lesser become one in the higher.

Originally Posted by Thomas
So it was the Reformers who broke with Irenaeus and Polycarp, not the other way round.

The Reformers broke with Irenaeus and Polycarp? In what ways?

Principally on the issue of tradition, and of the transmission of Revelation by the Apostles, and their successors - and thus the authority of the Church to speak 'in his name'. Polycarp was a disciple of St John. Irenaeus argued - as did they all - that the transmission of the Fides Quae, the Deposit of Faith, was entrusted to the Apostles by Christ, and by them to their successors, and logically then, they would ;have the truth of it'.

Thomas

 

[kenod]

The Reformers broke with Irenaeus and Polycarp? In what ways?

Principally on the issue of tradition, and of the transmission of Revelation by the Apostles, and their successors - and thus the authority of the Church to speak 'in his name'. Polycarp was a disciple of St John. Irenaeus argued - as did they all - that the transmission of the Fides Quae, the Deposit of Faith, was entrusted to the Apostles by Christ, and by them to their successors, and logically then, they would ;have the truth of it'.

Thomas

But who are the "successors"?

Not, in my opinion, those who were a part of the political church, but rather, those who preserved the doctrine of the Apostles. God constantly raised up men of His own choosing (Patrick, Martin, Columba, Francis, Wycliffe, Savonarola, Luther, Wesley, Moody, etc) to challenge the church’s teaching and conduct. The church did not treat any of them kindly, though later embraced some after their teachings were sanitized.

The kingdom of heaven is a spiritual kingdom, not a temporal one. Organisations, denominations, and political succession engineered by ambitious men, do not represent the Faith passed down from the Apostles.

The true Church of Christ is the universal body of believers, not any specific label we may choose to wear.

 

[Thomas]

Hi Kenod -

Not, in my opinion...

OK. Everyone's entitled to an opinion. I tend to side with J.H. Newman, who began his journey as an Anglican and ended up a Catholic on the grounds that, were the Apostles to turn up today, he was convinced that the only church they would recognise was the Roman Catholic Church.

There is a prayer:
"God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change... the courage to change the things I can...and the wisdom to know the difference."

The wisdom is that change happens organically from within - not from without - and is brought about by love, not violence.

The true Church of Christ is the universal body of believers, not any specific label we may choose to wear.

It is ever those impatient reformers who fracture the 'universal body' into many bodies, and gave rise to a prliferation of labels.

I would say the true Church of Christ are those who can love their neighbour, despite their faults, knowing that they themselves are not faultless, and pray that God may guide his Church towards its fullness.

I honestly believe that those reformers who broke with the church lack both love and wisdom. I admire and follow those who labour, without recognition or reward, to change from within, by changing themselves.

Thomas

 

[lunamoth]

Hi Thomas,

.. were the Apostles to turn up today, he was convinced that the only church they would recognise was the Roman Catholic Church.

But, perhaps if Christ showed up He would recognize us all.

There is a prayer:
"God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change... the courage to change the things I can...and the wisdom to know the difference."

And my favorite, attributed to St. Francis:
"Lord, make me an instrument of your peace.
Where there is hatred . . . let me sow love
Where there is injury . . . pardon
Where there is doubt . . . faith
Where there is despair . . .hope
Where there is darkness . . . light
Where there is sadness . . .joy
Divine Master,
grant that i may not so much seek
To be consoled . . .as to console
To be understood . . .as to understand,
To be loved . . . as to love
For it is in giving . . .that we receive,
It is in pardoning, that we are pardoned,
It is in dying . . .that we are born to eternal life

The wisdom is that change happens organically from within - not from without - and is brought about by love, not violence.

Amen.

The true Church of Christ is the universal body of believers, not any specific label we may choose to wear.

It is ever those impatient reformers who fracture the 'universal body' into many bodies, and gave rise to a prliferation of labels.

I don't think these are so much fractures of the body, but differentiation of the organs. Although I know not many would agree with that.

I would say the true Church of Christ are those who can love their neighbour, despite their faults, knowing that they themselves are not faultless, and pray that God may guide his Church towards its fullness.

This is nice; I agree.

I honestly believe that those reformers who broke with the church lack both love and wisdom. I admire and follow those who labour, without recognition or reward, to change from within, by changing themselves.

Thomas

I also admire those who labour to change from within, using the ladder built by the church to ascend toward Truth. But I can't agree that the reformers lacked love and wisdom. It seems to me that it's a human trait to try new perspectives; as well as a human trait to keep making the same errors. We do the right things for the wrong reasons, and the wrong things for the right reasons. I believe the Spirit is with us through it all, taking the 'mess' and making it a work of art. Sorry if this is a bit off-point. I take a somewhat 'evolutionary' view on the growth of the church throughout history.

What is the Gospel? 'Love one another' and 'Do not fear. I am with you.'

luna

 

[kenod]

I tend to side with J.H. Newman, who began his journey as an Anglican and ended up a Catholic on the grounds that, were the Apostles to turn up today, he was convinced that the only church they would recognise was the Roman Catholic Church.

I wonder what they would recognize - certainly not the gilded monuments I saw in Rome; certainly not the flamboyant dress and ceremonies; certainly not the political power; certainly not the liturgical rigidity; certainly not the traditions that have “enhanced” Scriptural doctrine; certainly not the lack of supernatural manifestation.


However, I do believe that they would recognize the personal faith in Jesus Christ that those such as you and Q display.

It is ever those impatient reformers who fracture the 'universal body' into many bodies, and gave rise to a proliferation of labels.

The Church of Christ cannot be fractured - as the universal body of believers, the Church was never meant to be hemmed in by denominational boundaries. The RC church, or the Lutheran church, or the Baptist church is irrelevant to the Kingdom of God, which embraces, but transcends all these man-made groupings. Our oneness with Christ does not depend upon where we worship, but Who we worship.


Ken

 

[BlaznFattyz]

based on many years of experience, i would not base on name that baptist, evangelical, and non-denominational, in particular, are fracturing christianity. the teachings of christ, and the continuation of his work thru the church are nearly identical in all three with no major difference other than name.

 

[taijasi]

One of the returned apostles is a full-time volunteer, and has no interest in churches, or creeds, whatsoever. He does, however, love his Brothers wherever he encounters them. His life is fully dedicated to Service, and he is one who certainly walks the walk, pretty much as well as any man can ... I'd say.

Another of the Apostles, living in the same city, is a very modest and practical man. He has been a friend to me for many a year, and has often given me wise counsel, usually undeserved. He has seen much adversity in his 50-some years. He is about twice as old as the first individual.

A third Apostle, St. Paul, has been known to esotericists for quite some while as Master H. (Hilarion Smerdis, or Illarion, a Cretan by birth).

A fourth former Apostle, once brother to the second man mentioned, and a co-disciple of John the Baptist along with the first, is facing his own adversity at present. And his views and understanding of the Church of Christ are not that different than lunamoth's.

And John the Baptist, though not an Apostle of Christ per se, has been a Teacher in this life to two of the people mentioned, and continues to be quite close to one of them. To the best of my knowledge, he isn't particularly concerned with church politics, and spiritually speaking it is safe to say that his views are much in line with those of Master H., though his own Ray line is the 6th, that of Master Jesus.

I have thoughts about another of the Apostles, James the Less, but my ideas along these lines are more speculative than in the other cases. Yes, I am stating my own beliefs and understanding, but while I'm at it, I'll add that I much appreciate the approach and position that Dondi holds, and which you have stated, as follows, Thomas:

I would say the true Church of Christ are those who can love their neighbour, despite their faults, knowing that they themselves are not faultless, and pray that God may guide his Church towards its fullness.
​

Christ's own statement, somewhere after 1930, expresses as much almost verbatim.

Love and Light,

andrew

 

[Saltmeister]

In other words, it was not charisma and intellectual rambling from the pulpit, but the sharing of thoughts, feelings and ideas on Christ that kept the faith going.
Why could not 'the pulpit' be a place of leadership, example, enlightenment, of inspiration? of spiritual sustenance? of uplifting?

Perhaps, but what if we became dependent on it? What if we relied on what people said on the pulpit? Moreover, what if it was the person's charisma that drove us, not personal faith? What if we relied so much on that person making a fantastic speech and supplying something spiritual, that we grew to expect that person to always make a good speech and supply something spiritual. That's the danger. A lot of people go to church to experience something spiritual. The danger is when they start expecting to receive it from certain people and certain places!!! The pulpit can be enlightening and fulfilling as well as dangerous.

The congregation I've attended from childhood has a pulpit. It has always had a pulpit. It's the same pulpit I saw there when I was a kid. But once again, people grow to expect spirituality to come from certain people, certain places and under certain labels and banners. They could, possibly, grow to put their trust on those things. Beware of the pulpit.

But surely 'the sharing of 'thoughts, feelings and ideas' is an intellectual exercise? I would say it was faith that kept the faith going, faith in the 'good news' imparted to them through the Apostles, and their successors - and that's what they spoke of. The Early Church was not an intellectual church - Celcus and the like were highly critical of it for precisely this reason.

Is everything that is shared about religion and spirituality also intellectual . . . or is it not . . .?
Did God say it was wrong to be intellectual?

An Early Church driven by conformity to tradition and liturgy is one possibility, but an Early Church maintained by people from a diverse range of backgrounds, views and beliefs is yet another. Both were possible. We tend to affirm the former, but overlook the possibility of the latter.
But the Church was diverse - Jew and gentile, statesman and slave, all were on an equal footing, and in fact was the only social institution where a general, a statesman, a merchant, a farmer, a woman and a slave would meet on equal terms. The two existed together, but the fact is that all differences were set aside in the Mystery of the Liturgy. The Mystery transcends all, and all the rest is subject to it. Christ prayed that all become 'one in him' - that the lesser become one in the higher.

But the question is, could they all be part of the body of Christian believers even if they had different ways of approaching the Mystery of Christ? For much of Christianity's history, it's been suffering from the splitting of churches, factionalism, formation of new denominations, people proclaiming their views as better than those of other Christian groups, etc.

We can all believe in the same central concept, but it seems that we are repeatedly told to believe in "creeds." It's the idea that if a group of Christians are having fellowship and worshipping together, they must all believe exactly the same things. Why should this be so?

We may have different ways of conceptualising our Messiah, but he would still be the same Messiah. The Messiah is the one who holds us together, not the creeds we follow. The Messiah is certainly the central concept, but it seems that people make other, peripheral or subordinate concepts more important than the Messiah. That's what's been causing many of the schisms in Christianity. Christ is no longer the most important thing, but the other, lesser concepts involved in Christianity.

Of course, we'd certainly like the idea that everybody would believe exactly the same things, but I guess people don't function that way. We all have a different way of approaching the Mystery of Christ and this must be understood. Yet it doesn't come easy. People who are different or have slightly different beliefs are often regarded as "outsiders" just because they're "just different." Moreover, what if Christ is the One who is supposed to hold us together despite our diverse backgrounds and diverse approaches?

 

[Saltmeister]

The kingdom of heaven is a spiritual kingdom, not a temporal one. Organisations, denominations, and political succession engineered by ambitious men, do not represent the Faith passed down from the Apostles.

The true Church of Christ is the universal body of believers, not any specific label we may choose to wear.

The idea of the "Universal Church" is one that seems to pervade so much of our Christian way of thinking. It's an ideal to which we all aspire. As for the schisms in Christianity, it's the attempt to establish this "Universal Church." Each denomination in Christianity could well voice the view "we are the most universal of all churches." Maybe that's what's been causing the schisms in Christianity. The concept being pursued is not the "Universal Messiah" but the "Universal Church." It's not the "agenda of Christ" that is being put forth, but the "agenda of Church."

I'm kind of thinking that maybe it's not a church that's "universal," but Christ who is universal. Christ is supposed to be our Universal Messiah, our universal spiritual leader. He is seen differently by different people, but he is the same man, the same Messiah, the same spiritual leader. He is the One who holds the "True Church" together -- it's not the Universal Church, but Christ, who holds us together.

Although this is just a theory on how it works, what if I have a point there? What if our schisms were because people have been making a church more important than their own spiritual leader, the one who died 2,000 years ago? A modern church today revolves around a creed, a body of principles, a body of people aligning themselves to the same systematic and theoretical framework. If a person doesn't conform to that framework, that person is not part of "that church." But the True Church is nothing without Christ, so why are we more focused on the Church than on Christ? Do we honour our own spiritual leader as much as we claim to?

The church, not Christ, is seen as the entity that the provides the spiritual milk and food -- that spirituality is provided by an organisation, an experience generated and confined in public a building, run by people with formal rank, formal offices, part of a formal hierarchy, rather than a personal indwelt leader.

Could we, perhaps, be ascribing the word, "universal" to the wrong entity here? -- that it's Christ who is universal, not the Church?

Now don't get the wrong idea here, I am not just picking on words here . . . In my view, there's a difference between the "gospel of the Universal Church" and the "gospel of the Universal Messiah." Each is driven by a different agenda . . . The "church's agenda" can be pursued at the expense of Christ. Christ can be pursued at the expense of the church, yet if Christ was pursued, it could be seen as building the church rather than letting it die? Church or Christ? Which comes first?

 

[wil]

The idea of the "Universal Church" is one that seems to pervade so much of our Christian way of thinking. ..."we are the most universal of all churches." Maybe that's what's been causing the schisms in Christianity. The concept being pursued is not the "Universal Messiah" but the "Universal Church." It's not the "agenda of Christ" that is being put forth, but the "agenda of Church.".... What if our schisms were because people have been making a church more important than their own spiritual leader, the one who died 2,000 years ago? ...Could we, perhaps, be ascribing the word, "universal" to the wrong entity here? -- that it's Christ who is universal, not the Church?... yet if Christ was pursued, it could be seen as building the church rather than letting it die? Church or Christ? Which comes first?

Ok, so at various levels Christians believe that Christ existed prior to Jesus existence on earth....and didn't die with the crucifiction...is and always was...as Son of G-d part of a trinity.

And it appears the position you are taking is that we need to focus on the universiality of this concept.

So to extend or expand this thought, not by a stretch, but just by a tad. It is also believed in various levels by Christians that the only way for us to be saved is to be saved in Christ. Now while Jesus walked the earth according to scripture he knew others thought he was an incarnation of someone else...and he discussed it with them. (and the writers thought it was important enough to include)

So many Christians take from scripture it is not only the only way for one to be saved is thru Christ, but also that we have a charge to go out there and save some as well, spread this Gospel.

Now the stretch, for Christians. These texts/gospels that were written over a period of a century of time, 2000 years ago, were written from the perspective and understanding of people at that time. But if Christ has been around forever....whose to say there weren't other incarnations previoiusly or since? Is it possible that other religions were formed around similar thought, around a different incarnation? But it was simply another time, with another set of social norms, another language, another group of writers putting their experience to paper?

 

[JustifiedByFaith]

what is the gospel?

Dear james,

Here is the gospel:

1. Christ died for our sins.
2. He was buried.
3. He rose again on the third day

 

[Thomas]

Hi Saltmeister:

We can all believe in the same central concept, but it seems that we are repeatedly told to believe in "creeds."

The Creed is a statement of the central concept.

There seems to be a constant resistance to 'being told what to think' - but I don't think that's quite what the creed is about.

If someone says, "what is it you believe?" then the Christian should be able to answer, not profoundly necessarily, but offer an answer ... but what happens when the inquirer asks, and everybody has a different story? OK if the differences are 'inconsequential', or personal, but what happens when someone says "He is the Incarnate Logos," and another says "He was a wise man"? ...

Remember that among the doctrines were:
1 - Jesus is God, and man;
2 - Jesus is man, but not God;
3 - Jesus is God, but not man;
4 - Jesus is neither man nor God, but an appearance;

(and latterly there have been others added to the mix).

The point is, only one of the above four can be right - this is not a different way of approaching the mystery, its fundamentally being mistaken ... that's the point.

And, from all the evidence we have, the Apostles, who were surely the only ones to know, were certain without doubt that Jersus Christ was God and man.

How He is both is the fundamental question of Christology, that is investigated today as it was 2,000 years ago.

There seems to be a view that by accepting the creed, all thinking ceases. This is not the case.

As Chesterton said "There are those who have a creed and know it, and those who have a creed and don't" but everyone has a creed - everyone believes in something.

Now there were those who did not accept the data of revelation, did not accept the message, but rather picked through it to see what they could make use of ... to recast scripture to fit their pre-conceived notions - the Manicheans who believed in a radically dualistic creation with a 'good god' and a 'bad god'; those gnostics who believed the cosmos was a place of punishment, that the world and the flesh was intrinsically evil and God would NEVER engage with the flesh, Marcion who believed that the God of the Old Testament was not the Father of whom Jesus spoke ... are the Christians supposed to simply keep quiet and say nothing? Have they no right to say no, that is not what we believe?"

Meanwhile, within orthodoxy, the diversity is there ... no two saints are the same ...

Christ said many things, but he never said 'anything goes...'

Thomas

 

[Dor]

Now there were those who did not accept the data of revelation, did not accept the message, but rather picked through it to see what they could make use of ... to recast scripture to fit their pre-conceived notions - the Manicheans who believed in a radically dualistic creation with a 'good god' and a 'bad god'; those gnostics who believed the cosmos was a place of punishment, that the world and the flesh was intrinsically evil and God would NEVER engage with the flesh, Marcion who believed that the God of the Old Testament was not the Father of whom Jesus spoke ... are the Christians supposed to simply keep quiet and say nothing? Have they no right to say no, that is not what we believe?" Thomas

Somethings never change do they.

 

[JustifiedByFaith]

Somethings never change do they.

Dear Dor,

I agree. A little of Jesus, a little of this and...let's add a little of that and... Oh! say, let's remove that first and WOW! a new religion.

 

[JosephM]

Oringinal Post Topic
What is the Gospel?

In my view, The True Gospel is the Good News that was initially preached by Jesus and if taken from the book called the NT needs to be examined in the Greek closely to be understood.

Matthew 4:17
From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

Repent (metanoeo) (in Greek) means to think differently for the (basileia) realm of (ouranos) by implication happiness or elevated state is (eggizo) made near or at hand.

Note: The kingdom of heaven and kingdom of God are used interchangeably in the New Testament yet are two different words in the Greek. Heaven denotes the elevated state and God denotes Divinity or the source.

John 3:3-6
Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. [4] Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? [5] Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. [6] That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Truly, Truly, unless a man is (gennao) regenerated or brought forth of the water (flesh) and of the (pneuma) Spirit/vital principle he can’t go in the realm of (theos) Divinity. The two are different. Flesh is (sarx) flesh as in meat of an animal and Spirit is Spirit/vital principle as in essence. To regenerate is to renew again which signifies that something of the Spirit was set aside or forgotten or lost and needs to be renewed to enter back in to the realm of Divinity. In reality nothing is really lost but in this world of duality it is as if it is lost.

Luke 17:20-21
And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: [21] Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

Here it is plainly told that the realm of Divinity does not (erchomai) appear or come with (parateresis) observation or ocular evidence. Further more he tells us the realm of Divinity is (entos) inside or within you. The outside world would not exist without the presence of the life force from within. (Within and without are from the perspective of this world as in true reality there is neither)


Col. 1:27
To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:

To whom God/Divinity would make known what is the (ploutos) wealth as in fullness of the glory of this (musterion) secret or mystery (as in hid) which is (Christos) his anointing (his Divinity) as in the idea of contact in you, the hope of glory (his apparent fullness or presence).

2 Cor. 5:17
Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

If any man be in the anointing contact of God, he is a new creature (as in regenerated freshness): old things are (parerchomai) neglected / set aside / passed away, all things are become ( kainos) new as in freshness.

Luke 18:29-30
And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or parents, or brethren, or wife, or children, for the kingdom of God's sake, [30] Who shall not receive manifold more in this present time, and in the world to come life everlasting.

Left (aphiemi) house or parents, or wife or children does not mean go away or abandon but rather ‘laying aside’ the attachment and desires associated for the realm of Divinity‘s sake. It is a preference of preferring one above the other and not necessarily a physical leaving. This is because there is no where to leave or go in the physical to find the realm of Divinity which is within. It is clear the reward for leaving the old is great in this PRESENT TIME and in the world to come. (See fruits below in Galatians 5:22)

Romans 6:11
Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.

We arrive at this state by the simple considering or reckoning ourselves (as in Repent or thinking differently) to be dead to sin (which is ignorance of the flesh or what some call ego, vanities of the flesh or the old creature which is a result of a false center of self or false thinking) and alive to our true being in Divinity through the same anointing that was in Jesus. In simpler terms the only task to be accomplished is to let go of the identification with the flesh nature (ego or old creature) as one’s real self. Of course, only when one is ready or sees through introspection the fruitlessness of his present state and path will he even be drawn to think differently in his search for truth. Removing the obstacles standing in the way brings revelation understanding and truth which is present all along but obscured. These obstacles include but are not limited to learned and preconceived perceptions of reality, subjective opinions, upbringing, subjective experience, false teachings, and mentations with a mind that operates on dualities, is limited, subjective and incapable of discerning truth from falsehood without the intervention of the Spirit. Since Truth is self evident and already present within, then the key to the kingdom and the fruit is letting go of that which is not true (or as most would say that which is false). This realignment of self to our true nature of Divinity brings about a change in context. (You are what you worship) That change reveals itself in fruit.

Galatians 5:22-23
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, [23] Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.




These are the fruits that are manifested from this anointing called Christ in you in Christianity, which is your hope of the presence of God/Divinity in you. The fruit of faith is not the same as believing but is truth itself as defined in Hebrews 11:1 (the substance or evidence of things not seen with the eyes)

Many are worried that by realignment of their thinking they may manifest evil instead of good with their fruits being the opposites of above. However, it is an impossibility to willfully remove the obstacle of duality and end up with opposites as they don’t exist except in the duality of the mind of man which has to be surrendered to God or reckoned dead. There is no such thing as death, evil, fear, anger, hate, pride, conflict, judgment, force or even time in the world of non-duality. They are not possible because they can exist only in mentations in the world of effects and form. That world is changing and evolving as the consciousness of man evolves by the transformation from the Divinity within us. Thy kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven. Amen.

1 Cor. 15:55-56
O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? [56] The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law.

When Christ/Divinity/Truth/Light/Enlightenment is realized, physical death loses its sting which is sin/ignorance. The grave loses its victory because fear of death is gone and we know that we are complete in Divinity and physical death has no power over us. For the strength of sin or ignorance was the law or belief system. (Judgments and measuring which manifests as un-forgiveness , condemnation and fear.)

It is recorded that Jesus prayed in John 17:21
That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us:

The questions will of course arise:
How did we get into this predicament of separateness in the first place? How did that which was enlightened to start become unenlightened?

The answer is Choice. By choice mans consciousness chose to know both good and evil (the false world of duality) and create a belief system, a melodrama and experience it with all of its attributes. As the human mind/soul gave reality to falsity, it then believed that the falsity had an independent existence. Man identified with that mind and body and became subject to suffering in the form of shame, guilt, pride and fear which existed only in his mind. And the mind creates that which it believes. Man then became unaware or as some say unenlightened of his true nature and subject to error. Creating the world of duality or opposites in a mind allows us to experience the world of form in a myriad of false ways as a separate reality of the minds creation. Being lost in its melodrama led to misidentification and ignorance of our true nature and manifested as positionality and subjective opinionating which is vanity. To the mind it appears we are many separate self existent beings but the nature of Divinity within us tells us we are one and sees allness in all of creation, both with and without form.


But not to worry.

Ephes. 1:9-10
Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself: [10] That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:
1 Cor. 15:23
But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

The end is sure. In the fullness of times, ALL will return (home or to source) from whence it came. In Reality, nothing is lost or gained. No one has really left in the first place as the presence of Divinity is the only reality of an omnipresent God. The absence of Divinity is merely a mentation of mind. To remove oneself from the presence of Divinity is an impossible scenario as existence itself whether in or out of form is Divinity by essence. Nonexistence is by linguistic definition a hypothetical and by definition cannot exist.)

Note: Christ is not a man. Jesus manifested Christ consciousness or the connection with Divinity. But his name was not Jesus Christ even though he is referred to that way. He was called “the Christ”. It is a nature or title. In the same way, Siddartha was called “the Buddha”. It is a nature and title meaning an awakened one and is not a name of a person though it is often used that way.

In my view, this is the True Gospel message and is not taken from any sect of christian religion. This is my own experience and studies and is shared with you freely. It neither seeks agreement or disagreement but you may respond as you like.

Love in Christ,
JM

 

[JosephM]

deleted... operator error ..... duplicate post of previous....JM