Bingo the Clown-O

This thread was inspired by this:
Here it is:

Mark 8:35
For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me and for the gospel will save it.

What did the author mean by ‘gospel’?

Was this an anachronistic slip-up?

Was this gospel a hollow literary device that had no meaning outside of its context?

What does it all mean?

Please provide a convincing answer and I will personally come to your house and make balloon animals.

Duvduv

In the epistles it has a meaning of religious doctrine but in the end of the gospels it isn't clear what the disciples are supposed to teach.

James Brown

I find it interesting that for years Jesus ordered his disciples to travel from town to town and preach the gospel.

Then, as they arrive at Jerusalem, Jesus announces that it is finally time to execute the gospel . . . and the disciples have no idea what he's talking about.

outhouse

in this context gospel just means yahweh ispired "words"

Net2004

when you say "execute the gospel" are you refering to the crucifixion?

Toto

The gospel is literally "good news"

Gospel

Some time later, "gospel" came to have the meaning of a story about Jesus contained in the Bible, leading to the confusion in the OP when the gospel of Mark talks about the gospel...

judge

Priene Calendar Inscription, ca 9 BCE:

“Since Providence, which has ordered all things and is deeply interested in our life, has set in most perfect order by giving us Augustus, whom she filled with virtue that he might benefit humankind, sending him as a savior [σωτῆρα], both for us and for our descendants, that he might end war and arrange all things, and since he, Caesar, by his appearance [ἐπιφανεῖς] (excelled even our anticipations), surpassing all previous benefactors, and not even leaving to posterity any hope of surpassing what he has done, and since the birthday of the god Augustus was the beginning of the good tidings for the world that came by reason of him [ἦρξεν δὲ τῶι κόσμωι τῶν δι’ αὐτὸν εὐανγελίων ἡ γενέθλιος ἡμέρα τοῦ θεοῦ],”

sotto voce

Or rather, what did Jesus mean by this word, εὐαγγέλιον, that has different shades of meaning in the Bible, in this sentence? Context, as they say, is everything. The author had commenced his account with the same word, that means 'good message' or 'good news', so he considered his whole biography of Jesus to be good news. Jesus himself had urged people, at the start of his ministry, to believe the good news, i.e., his overall message. This had no resonance with OT usage, because 'good news' in the OT was always of a mundane, secular nature. So there was a sense of newness and freshness in this, because everything else that Jesus did and said he related to the OT.

But Jesus had now given a particular context:

'He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again.' Mk 8:31 NIV

So why was this particular good news? The death of Jesus, that had been foretold from Genesis onwards, was to be the death of the power of sin to exclude immortal souls from eternal happiness. It was the culmination of his ministry, that would have been only bad news, without that death.

On the contrary, good news is good news, and was good news. The imperial cult of Rome had given it a particular connotation, arrogating good news to the 'Big Brother' imperium, though this presumably did not cut much ice with Jews, and Jesus' use should not be taken as contesting or even necessarily recognising the existence of the claim of Rome. Rome certainly did not take offence, in any case. However, there may have been seen a neat parallel of the claim for good news at the arrival of Jesus, whose kingship was spiritual, with the same claim of the advent for emperors, whose rule was earthly. What one cannot suppose is that Jesus or any loyal Israelite would have borrowed this motif from pagan Rome, because it was implicit in the tradition of Israel before Rome was even built, let alone had emperors.

It wasn't even a device. Again, good news is good news. In this case it should not be given a special religious meaning, because it never had one, semantically. It is given a special meaning by the English word 'gospel', which has a use in distinguishing the message of Jesus from good news that, say, the price of oil is coming down; but it disguises the proper meaning.

What was this good news? At its most basic, it was that bad consciences could be relieved. The expected reaction to that relief was love for the one who had provided the relief. That love prompted a change of behaviour, to love one's fellows. Loving others means self-control, patience, turning the other cheek, holding one's tongue, doing justly, loving mercy, and treating everyone else as one would want to be treated.

Now Jesus also said that a majority would treat good news as bad news, or at least, non-news. To accept atonement, one has to accept that one has done evil that requires atonement. So, if one does not perceive that one has done wrong, the alleged good news will be no news at all. Alternatively, a reaction may be that the good news is actually an insult to one's self-esteem; what the Bible calls 'the offence of the cross'. In the biblical perspective, human pride is the first obstacle. It is then likely to be followed by resistance to the idea of self-control, patience, turning the other cheek, holding one's tongue, doing justly, loving mercy, and treating everyone else as one would want to be treated. Which is why Jesus warned, here and elsewhere, that those who followed him and the evangelion would meet resistance.

Bingo the Clown-O

Good answer.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&s...0l63l173l3l3l0

Thanks.

Now, how does that fit in with Mark’s story?

judge

Well I suppose the Roman Empire presents the emperor as saviour and announces the good news of his salvation and Mark OTOH presents jesus as saviour and announces the good news of that salvation.