Questor, here is the problem. You are guilty of doing exactly what you are accusing. You are saying, in no uncertain rerms, that your thoughts on the Gospel (that it has multiple meanings) are correct and everyone else is wrong. Obviously you don't realize you are doing this or you wouldn't, since, after all, it is hypocritical.TheQuestor wrote:Yes this is a discussion forum, where people discuss what they choose, and have the opinion that they choose, no one here is required to answer your questions. You may believe that they must, but this obviously is not so.Danieltwotwenty wrote:TheQuestor wrote:Are you a dictator, who must be obeyed? What happened to the free will of men that God respects? Then that is God, and you do not have to follow his lead, unless you choose to.
This is a discussion forum, if one does not answer a question then it is not a discussion and I am here to discuss, I am not forcing you to answer but I choose not to continue until you do.
Again, the gospel does not have a meaning. The gospels (plural) have many meanings, and different Christians and non Christians alike, will interpret these meanings differently. This has always been the situation, not understanding this, frankly seems quite egocentric and childish to me.
With that sad, I do agree that there are multiple Gospels (in one sense). The term Gospel, for anyone reading, simply means good news. One Gospel mentioned in the NT is the Gospel of the Messiah who would restore Israel. Just as we sing at Christmas, "and ransom captive Israel." But, we are not Israel and that isn't our Gospel. Now, that will likely offend many here, as some believe that every use of the term Gospel in the NT refers to the Gospel we preach today. But then what of Paul warning of other Gospels?
Now, it is important to understand that there is ONE Gospel FOR today. The Gospel of grace, which welcomes Jew and Gentile alike. It isn't contingent on the throne of David, the Temple, Jerusalem or the Law. It isn't ambiguous and it doesn't have multiple meanings. And when I use the term 'meaning' I am referring to intended meaning, not interpretive meaning.
If you were born on the 4th of July, you might interpret that all the fireworks displays are to celebrate your birth. Sure, you can ascribe that meaning to it, but that meaning doesn't correspond to reality, or the meaning INTENDED by such displays. Whatever meaning you assign to it doesn't make it true.
Earlier you said,
This is wrong on so many levels. Jesus Himself spoke of the meaning of His lifer, death and resurrection. And the Bible confirms that the Gospel for today was known since before the foundations of the world. (1 Peter 1:20, Eph. 1:4, Rev. 13:8)Why did Jesus come and die. He did not come and die, he was born, he lived and had great effect on others, then he was killed.
The purpose of the cross, was a public death, meant to kill criminals and others who caused troubles for the Roman Empire, and to keep the masses in line, with fear.
All other meanings, are the product of human writers after the fact.
Or must everyone, believe exactly as you do?
Here is the problem with your line of thought.
We can arrive at different meanings and I don't think that anyone disputes that fact. As already explained, that doesn't mean that the Gospel ACTUALLY has different meanings. Interpretive meaning isn't necessarily intended meaning. The Gospel is a message with an intended meaning. It isn't ambiguous or fluid based on what someone WANTS it to mean, or thinks it SHOULD mean.
Here we are dealing with the law of non-contradiction. You can't have contradictory interpretations both be true at the same time and in the same way. That is not how reality and truth work.
In fact, what you are saying is that your interpretation excludes PaulSac's understanding. So, your view is exclusive while claiming to be inclusive. It's self-defeating and contradictory because the Gospel can't mean what it means to Paul, according to you.
For example, perhaps an atheist interprets the Gospel to mean, "I'm OK, you're OK, and even if I don't believe in the life and work of Jesus, God will forgive me and grant me eternal life if I try to be a good person. Too me, that's the Gospel." Well, that opinion is in direct contradiction to the actual teachings, message and......wait for it......MEANING of the Bible. The atheist may say this is what the Gospel 'means to me,' but that doesn't mean he has arrived at a correct meaning. Do you know what I mean?
Any time you hear someone say, "Too me, the Gospel means....." they have committed the oldest sin in the book, idolatry. Truth should shape our beliefs, not the other way around.
The Gospel has a meaning, communicated in the scripture, and we will either align our minds with that Gospel or we will twist it to suit ourselves.
So, the question is can atheist, or whoever, arrive at the correct understanding of the Gospel? Yes, and they can arrive at the incorrect understanding as well.
All meanings other than what? What you claim the meaning to be? That's arrogant. You are saying your singular opinion is superior to 2,000 years of Christian teaching as well as the the scripture and words of Jesus Himself. So, the cross and death of Christ was not part of God's plan. When you say human writers after the fact, are you referring to the Paul and the Gospel writers?Why did Jesus come and die. He did not come and die, he was born, he lived and had great effect on others, then he was killed.
The purpose of the cross, was a public death, meant to kill criminals and others who caused troubles for the Roman Empire, and to keep the masses in line, with fear.
All other meanings, are the product of human writers after the fact.
Other than your opinion, how do you ground these claims?