What's your conception of "the Gospel"?

[Cheetah]

A simple answer is that the Gospel is the four books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Those books were written by four of Jesus' twelve disciples about the birth, life, teachings, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Nitpicking: That may be the simple and straight-forward answer, but it is also simply wrong on a few points:
- Jesus did not have 12 disciples. He had 12 apostles. They (and others) can of course also be considered disciples however.
- Mark and Luke were not two of the apostles. Instead they are traditionally regarded as 'apostolic men': Mark was a follower of Peter, Luke was a close friend of Paul of Tarsus (Paul the Apostle).

I've never understood why they call it "good news". What they call "good news" is that if you don't do what they say, you will burn forever in hell. That's not good news at all. The fact that there's a high risk for you and everyone else to be forever damned is bad news, not good.

As I said earlier, it is only good news if you first accept the bad news:

The tricky thing is that the only way the "good news" can be of any value is if you also transfer the belief in the "bad news": That God says our forefather sinned and as such we are all guilty and will burn in Hell. But hey, listen to these good news too...!

My view is that spreading religious beliefs are wrong, and that it should not be done. However, I still think the people who do spread the beliefs peacefully do so with good intentions. Good intentions counts for nothing if the results are disastrous however.

 

[civ_king]

I don't belong to any '1' denomination if any
Its not so much what the message intended is, but , i find the different denominations tend not to preach the gospels but there own particular angle of dogma. i don't think most even realise this on a personal level, some do tho

you have the four ''gospels according to...''
but look at the leaflets, magazines, comic books, hip songs, DVDs, Web sites etc. they use to preach with, these often contain very conflicting messages ... usually from Revelations ... add to this they normally work as a team and outnumber you, 2/1
you spoke of communicating ... i think that stops the moment someone tells you they are saved and going to heaven, and I'm destined to go to hell unless...

that said I've met many people who have devoted their whole life to religion, two close friends are ordained, in different religions.. and these i find very open to communication but also very concerned with action... apart from the occasional "there's still hope for you..." we have a pretty good level of communication, open and very frank

They don't preach the message ...they live it

the two people thing is also for safety
read the Bible closely, there really is only one church, there is no possibility for it to be non-denominational or for a union of all the churches to be Jesus's church. Which Church did Jesus found? What church can literally trace it's lineage all the way to the apostles to Peter and Paul? And upon this rock I shall found my church. Who was that rock and who has that seat?

Why is that free gift better than the others on sale (some of which involve lots of virgins)?

Because Muhammed was a homicidal maniac?

I've never understood why they call it "good news". What they call "good news" is that if you don't do what they say, you will burn forever in hell. That's not good news at all. The fact that there's a high risk for you and everyone else to be forever damned is bad news, not good.

You live in a mostly Protestant area eh?

 

[El_Machinae]

A simple answer is that the Gospel is the four books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Those books were written by four of Jesus' twelve disciples about the birth, life, teachings, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

I don't think that this is true. It seems implausible that Jesus would be referring to books written well after his death, and specifically selected many decades later as being quite important.

He told his disciples to preach the gospel: they couldn't wait for a series of books!

I think a slightly more complex answer is that everyone sins and that God demands payment for those sins. You can burn in Hell and pay for your sins, or you can accept the free gift that Christ offers. He gave up his power and throne in Heaven and came to Earth in the form of a human. He lived and experienced the full range of human temptation and human emotions, but he still lived a perfect life. He died on the cross and suffered in Hell for three days, then was ressurected on Easter morning. Since he had lived a perfect life, but still sacrificed himself for everyone else's sins, anyone can accept the free gift of eternal life and live forever in Heaven with God.

This answer (and others similar to it, thanks!) are what my conception of 'the Gospel' is. In summary, it seems to state "you know those sins you do? You can be forgiven for them. Good news!". This is very, very good news if one believes that sins exist and that they keep us from God.

But if that's such a pressing instruction, it seems to be limited to me. The "good news" can only be taught to a small group of people: those who believe in God and who believe that sins exist.

To teach the 'good news' to a non-believer seems to be nearly an impossible task. One cannot teach me the 'good news' without first convincing me of the bad news, right? It would be somewhat lampooned suchly: "Sorry, chum, the Creator is quite irked that you've eaten some pork."

Because 'the message' is focused towards the theists, what tools are there to convince the non-theists that there's even a problem? I think it's been well-shown that just convincing people that 'god exists' isn't possible with evidence or information. The leap that 'he's irked about lobster-eating' seems insurmountable.

 

[Shekwan]

It means that you agree with the statement made by another person.

Eg. John: "The Bible is a load of bollocks"
Mary: "Well isn't that the gospel!"
John: "Aye"

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

It's a shame Jesus wasn't much of a writer.

 

[kosiosko 1]

the two people thing is also for safety
read the Bible closely, there really is only one church, there is no possibility for it to be non-denominational or for a union of all the churches to be Jesus's church. Which Church did Jesus found? What church can literally trace it's lineage all the way to the apostles to Peter and Paul? And upon this rock I shall found my church. Who was that rock and who has that seat?

yes i can see how some of jesus teachings are dangerous
I have and do read the bible closely
' no possibility " is pretty finale , i must be wrong, I'm non denominational, the majority of Christians i know must be wrong, they don't belong to that denomination, you seem to say, I am right, everyone else that sees it different is wrong... purely by the accident of my birth, or did you see this after reading the bible? and then choose the right church?, i think not

it just seems to me any one of his teachings is relevant or or its like saying forget what jesus said... read Corinthians 13 that guy knows better ... or maybe try revelations or romans,

 

[El_Machinae]

I'm quite sure that the Catholic Church cannot literally trace its Popes to Peter, directly. There was no council of bishops who were 'approved by Peter to choose his successor'.

 

[GoodGame]

The Bible encourages believers to "go into all the world and preach the Gospel." I'm expecting that most of us have been exposed to this idea. So, what's your conception of it? What do you feel the message is that's intended to be transmitted?

Please, no nasty strawmen, either. I know that the Christian message can be spun to sound ridiculous. I know it can be fun to do that. But that's not what I'm looking for.

Communication is a two-way street. It requires that both parties try to communicate with each other. If you've failed to understand, that's partly on you.

And, do the other religions have a similar command? What is it, and your conception? And do you have beliefs that you feel you've got a moral duty to transmit?

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, I take the question to be prejudiced towards the Christian faith since Bible implies only the post-Hebrew takes on it.

I'd say the main Christian message really is variable to "sect". Some preach repentance, others simply say you have to accept that Jesus was a real savior (died for our sins), others just preach acceptance and love, etc.. etc... Other faiths have older traditions and are largely preaching those traditions as much as they are preaching a particular message.

I think it's a lot like going to the art museum and interpreting some kind of modern/post-modern work. There's going to be lots of diverging interpretations.

 

[El_Machinae]

Yeah, it's biased towards Christians. If there's an alternate "gospel" for different faiths, I'm quite interested!

 

[Methos]

It seems implausible that Jesus would be referring to books written well after his death, and specifically selected many decades later as being quite important.

I agree. I find it humorous that people argue the Bible is 100% correct and then use statements made about the gospel as evidence. Yet, when you point out when the gospels were written and the fact the Bible wasn't "created" until over three hundred years later, they get upset and claim I'm not a Christian.

He told his disciples to preach the gospel: they couldn't wait for a series of books!

Very correct. Yet, even believers don't understand that.

I'm quite sure that the Catholic Church cannot literally trace its Popes to Peter, directly. There was no council of bishops who were 'approved by Peter to choose his successor'.

At one point there was a document that did trace itself to Peter, but it was found to be fraudulent. There may be other documents that I'm not aware of. I would suggest asking Plotinus about it.

 

[cav scout]

The gospel is the good news about the purpose and plan of God for humankind. It is not about Christ per se, but about the Kingdom of God: "Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, and saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel" (Mark 1:14-15).

1. God exists and is a divine family of beings that created and now governs the universe (the "Kingdom of God").
2. Humans were created in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1:26) for the purpose of becoming a part of this divine family and partaking in the governance of the universe. ("entering the Kingdom of God").

This is the LDS position right? I think it should be pointed out that most Christians would disagree and say that the good news is about Christ per se.

 

[Thoughtful Thug]

What's your conception of "the Gospel"? That there was many of them made by many authors. Some were accepted by some organizations while others were excluded as heresy. Blah blah...

 

[MagisterCultuum]

I'm quite sure that the Catholic Church cannot literally trace its Popes to Peter, directly. There was no council of bishops who were 'approved by Peter to choose his successor'.

There were not even bishops yet, in the conventional sense of the word. Early on a bishop was merely an elder, and churches were led by several elders rather than by a single man. There was not so much a vertical hierarchy as a horizontal division of labor, where some specialized in administration, some in charitable outreaches, some in evangelism, some in giving the weekly sermon, some in teaching catechumens, etc. Ecclesiastical monarchism developed later, and in fact Rome adopt the practice later than most cities. Even St Jerome claimed that the move from the church being led by a group of equal elders to a single bishop was due to the influence of the devil (although I think in the context he meant that having a single authority was deemed necessary in order to fight heresy, not that Popes and bishops were agents of Satan who conquered the church).


One thing that is clear is that the church in Rome existed long before Peter got there, and that he was not the most important elder in the city.

 

[civ_king]

yes i can see how some of jesus teachings are dangerous
I have and do read the bible closely
' no possibility " is pretty finale , i must be wrong, I'm non denominational, the majority of Christians i know must be wrong, they don't belong to that denomination, you seem to say, I am right, everyone else that sees it different is wrong... purely by the accident of my birth, or did you see this after reading the bible? and then choose the right church?, i think not

it just seems to me any one of his teachings is relevant or or its like saying forget what jesus said... read Corinthians 13 that guy knows better ... or maybe try revelations or romans,

Actually I did choose after reading the Bible, it can reasonably be expected that a Christian with access to the Bible should read it, I did not say anything about disregarding Jesus, I did however say the opposite

"The Catholic Church professes that it is the one, holy catholic and apostolic Church of Christ; this it does not and could not deny. But in its Constitution the Church now solemnly acknowledges that the Holy Ghost is truly active in the churches and communities separated from itself. To these other Christian Churches the Catholic Church is bound in many ways: through reverence for God's word in the Scriptures; through the fact of baptism; through other sacraments which they recognize."

5. The non-Christian may not be blamed for his ignorance of Christ and his Church; salvation is open to him also, if he seeks God sincerely and if he follows the commands of his conscience, for through this means the Holy Ghost acts upon all men; this divine action is not confined within the limited boundaries of the visible Church." 6

I'm quite sure that the Catholic Church cannot literally trace its Popes to Peter, directly. There was no council of bishops who were 'approved by Peter to choose his successor'.

The most probable order was Peter, Linus, Cletus and then Clement

 

[civver_764]

A bunch of nonsensical BS that's boring as hell.

 

[Janig]

germans capitalise all nouns or something, like the Book the Gospel the Dog etc so I think that makes the object of your question seem better without detracting

 

[DroopyTofu]

I don't think that this is true. It seems implausible that Jesus would be referring to books written well after his death, and specifically selected many decades later as being quite important.

He told his disciples to preach the gospel: they couldn't wait for a series of books!

I said that was a simple answer. That is what is commonly referred to as "The Gospels" in the modern day. "The Gospel" can have a deeper meaning as I said later in my post. That is just the simples, shortest way I know to answer it.

This answer (and others similar to it, thanks!) are what my conception of 'the Gospel' is. In summary, it seems to state "you know those sins you do? You can be forgiven for them. Good news!". This is very, very good news if one believes that sins exist and that they keep us from God.

But if that's such a pressing instruction, it seems to be limited to me. The "good news" can only be taught to a small group of people: those who believe in God and who believe that sins exist.

To teach the 'good news' to a non-believer seems to be nearly an impossible task. One cannot teach me the 'good news' without first convincing me of the bad news, right? It would be somewhat lampooned suchly: "Sorry, chum, the Creator is quite irked that you've eaten some pork."

Because 'the message' is focused towards the theists, what tools are there to convince the non-theists that there's even a problem? I think it's been well-shown that just convincing people that 'god exists' isn't possible with evidence or information. The leap that 'he's irked about lobster-eating' seems insurmountable.

That's why being a missionary is tough. It can be done, though. There are many ways to convince someone that God is real. Humans were made to glorify God, and they all have a longing somewhere, deep down to do so. You just need to help them realize that. (I realized I'm setting myself up for alot of people to tell me that they have no such feelings, but please refrain.) Another way is to show them love and do kind things for them. If they ask why, you can explain that you are living out the love Jesus Christ showed you.


A summary of what the Gospel is taken from Colossians 1:21-23:

21Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior. 22But now he has reconciled you by Christ's physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation— 23if you continue in your faith, established and firm, not moved from the hope held out in the gospel. This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant.

 

[Warman17]

As first a Jew and now Atheist my understanding of the gospels is both that
1) Its a bunch of crock from 2 points of view
2) It can be interpreted pretty much however you want

If I could choose how Christians view it I would want them to look at more for the ascetic and social gospel aspects (Christian left) and less the social conservatism (Christian right) aspects.

 

[Onionsoilder]

I am ambivalent about it. I feel that the message it holds helps many people do the right thing(albiet for the wrong reasons, maybe), but it has also been so twisted and subverted from the original message Jesus was preaching that it also causes a lot of intolerance and hate.

I was raised an atheist, but on several occasions I have had people attempt to convert me, and I entertained the idea and went to church a few times, and though I never actually converted, I was becoming more spiritual over time. Key Word: Was.

Recently, for the first time in my life I had a dire need, and for the first time in my life I prayed for weeks on end asking God for help. And God, if he exists, did nothing. I harbor no love or hate for any divine being or their followers, but I know I would never worship some entity that could not, or would not help.

 

[Reiser]

The Gospel as I was taught it was the five (or four) books (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and maybe Acts) starting the New Testament that told the story of Jesus's life, to put it simply. So to preach the good news is that to say that Jesus died from our sins, but "defeated" them as he resurrected three days later. We are forgiven and can go to heaven if we do the right thing (I'm saying "right thing" because different denominations of Christianity can have different requirements to get into heaven).


On another subject,

germans capitalise all nouns or something, like the Book the Gospel the Dog etc so I think that makes the object of your question seem better without detracting

Yes, the Deutsch language capitalizes all nouns, and also has genders for each noun. Weird and scary to learn when you first look at it.
But the Gospel is always capitalized, I believe, as there is one Gospel (in our religion) as there is one God.