show_no_mercy

I'm pretty sure "gospel" just means "good news". So Paul is preaching "good news" to his churches, he isn't retelling a narrative like the ones found in the "Gospels". "Gospel" as a narrative doesn't have this meaning until sometime in the 2nd century.

Steven Carr

Galatians 3:You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified.

DO they no longer accept Christ as crucified?

Ben C Smith

Spin on the crucified messiah:

1. The Pauline gospel was of a crucified messiah.
2. Paul got his gospel from no man.
3. Therefore, the men who preceded Paul in the faith did not believe in a crucified messiah.

Spin on messianism:

1. The Pauline gospel was messianic.
2. Paul got his gospel from no man.
3. Therefore, the men who preceded Paul in the faith... were messianists! (Somehow.)

Ben.

martini

gotcha. if this is so, though, and the "gospels" actually WERE written in the mid to late first century, why do THEY use this term given that it does not take on the meaning until then? eg, Mat 4:23 And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom. Mar 1:1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

this vague blanket "gospel" usage by Paul and in the orthodox gospels causes a lot more problems than it seems to solve.

Godless Raven

Well, I just finished reading this entire thread and I've concluded the following:

1. John W. Loftus had better hope that a link to this thread doesn't end up in the comments section of Amazon under his book title; because his attempt at debate in this forum could be summed up as "I'm open to the facts", "I have all the facts", "I present no actual facts", "I'll speak down to you if you disagree and keep telling you to read everything I've ever written if you disagree". Absolutely pitiful arguements - regardless of the side he's chosen to stand for.

2. I really enjoyed the entire read and there were plenty of differing percpectives involved that were argued much more skillfully than John's (thank the lawrd!)

3. John loosely throws his name with and around the term "historians" a lot and from what I've seen he really doesn't understand how history is interpreted.

4. John - It doesn't matter how high your opinion is of yourself - and based on your own words...it's pretty dang high...this doesn't mean you have a clue what you're talking about. It's nice to see someone who has so much self confidence, but it would be nice if it had less to do with your personal opinion and more to do with some evidence.

5. John - If you go back through all of your posts, as I just did, you'll note that multiple times you were either corrected due to being proven completely incorrect or you at least stated "and I may be wrong". Maybe you should do some more historical research in to just how many times you are wrong or are at least not sure because it sure seemed to come out a lot in your arguements. Considering you then follow those statements up with bold conclusions...I can only wonder what that arguement must be like up in your head.

Anyway, again...cheers to everyone for the nice read and info.

GR

show_no_mercy

It's just a translation issue, all of the original NT was written in Greek. "The gospel according to Mark", if we were to translate it completely into English would be "The good news according to Mark".

It's kinda like how people mistakenly refer to an "apocalypse" as the end of the world, when the Greek word "apocalypse" just means "revelation" or "to unveil".

GakuseiDon

On the "Paul's Gospel" thread, I linked to Bishop Carlton Pearson's webpage on his "Gospel of Inclusion", which he talks about as his Gospel. This is one that he received by revelation. One day, while Pearson watched TV, God apparently told him that there is no hell, and that Christ's sacrifice means that everyone is automatically saved.

Pearson was rejected by the fundamentalist church he was part of, and created his own church. As far as he is concerned, he is still teaching the same faith, but he now has a different gospel message.

If Pearson wrote "I received my Gospel from no man", no-one would have a problem with that, and no-one would misunderstand what he is saying. I have to scratch my head over how people suggest that Paul is saying that he got EVERYTHING via revelation, including the name "Jesus", even though he had been persecuting people of the same faith previously.

I think that Paul is claiming something similar to Pearson: he preaches the same faith as the others, but he has his own gospel message, one that he received via revelation and learned "from no man".

(ETA) Here is what Bishop Pearson says (my bolding):
http://www.newdimensions.us/content.cfm?id=2010

in the midst of all my work and my unmitigated commitment to the Lord Jesus Christ and my life’s dedication to the ministry of His great Gospel, I have come to a most liberating and encouraging realization, both through Scripture and personal revelation...

The message (Good News or Gospel) people need to hear, is not that they simply have an opportunity for Salvation, but that they, through Christ, in fact, have already been redeemed, reconciled and saved, and that this information, (Good News) frees them to enjoy the blessings that are already theirs in Him...

One of the accusations attributed to my “Gospel of Inclusion” is that it is a new heresy espoused by those influenced by the end-time or last days’ doctrines of demons mentioned by Paul in his 1st letter to Timothy, in Chapter 4 verses 1-5.

However, it has been my happy experience to learn that the idea of the ultimate salvation of all was the prevailing theological posture of the first 400 to 500 years of Christian Church history.

I'm not saying that the situation between Pearson and Paul matches exactly, but it would easily be possible to rewrite Pearson using the language of Paul, still keeping to the original meaning. For example:

"I had been dedicated to teaching Christ's great Gospel, but through the study of Scripture and personal revelation (and so "taught by no man"), I realised that we have all already been saved. My Gospel is not something that is new, but came from earliest times, and can be found in our Scriptures themselves."

I think that Paul is expressing something very similar, about bringing a new Gospel message (his own) concerning an existing faith.

aa5874

But, now Pearson would be preaching ANOTHER Gospel. And Galations 1.9-8 becomes applicable.

Galations 1.8-9 Pearson would have been deemed to be cursed by God.

spin

Is this a deliberate attempt at reductio ad absurdum, Ben C.? If so, [bitchslap!] don't be silly. You know what is wrong with what you posted. So SBASA.¹


It is sufficient for Paul with a change in behavior to call himself a believer in the christ for people who hadn't seen or heard him directly to believe that "The one who formerly was persecuting us is now proclaiming the faith he once tried to destroy."

The problem is the christ Paul believed in wasn't the regular christ, ie the military leader who would rid the Jewish homeland of foreign invaders and set up a divine superstate -- a notion that was still going strong in 135 CE. Paul's christ was dead and any average Jew would tell you that a dead christ is a false christ. But this is where Paul's revelation comes into play.

The notion of the messiah/christ existed, but Paul's revelation transmogrified the notion. He believed in a christ like all messianists, but his had already come, died and was resurrected without bringing salvation in this world. In fact Paul's messiah was no messiah at all: he had the trappings of a savior. Nevertheless, Paul did have antecedents. There were messianists before him. It's just that he obvious didn't know too much about it other than the fact that it wasn't conservative Judaism in his eyes.

It is easy for people to here that the persecutor had become what he persecuted, but it would only be when Paul started spreading his strain of messianism that his, umm, uniqueness would become apparent.

The problem cannot be reduced as you so patly try to do, Ben C. You're not dealing with the human issues and therefore omit relevant information.


spin

(I don't understand why this acronym isn't regularly used on the web.)

Ben C Smith

All that, you still evidently — and blissfully — have no idea what the problem is.

Ben.