|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Kerygmania: What is the good news?
|
Joel74
Apprentice
# 14099
|
Posted
Jesus said, “The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor.”
And throughout the gospels it talks of Jesus preaching the good news.
But what was that good news?
Was it the forgiveness of sins? Was Jesus able to talk to people about what was going to happen to him in the future?
Was it that there is an afterlife? So don’t worry about the death thing.
Was it that Israel would one day be free of the Romans? So have hope for your people.
Is the good news that Jesus preached, the same good news that the disciples preached after the resurrection?
Is it the same good news today, or do we have a slightly different slant on it?
Lots of questions I know. And I am sure at first sight the main question, ‘What is the good news?’ seems so elementary that any Christian should know it. But the more I think about it, the more the answer seems to slip away.
Maybe it’s just me.
Your thoughts are much appreciated.
[ 19. November 2013, 01:20: Message edited by: Mamacita ]
Posts: 36 | From: London | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
Well I think carrying on your Luke 4 quotation might give you a bit of an idea.
--------------------
We believe there is, and always was, in every Christian Church, ... an outward priesthood, ordained by Jesus Christ, and an outward sacrifice offered therein. - John Wesley
Posts: 5769 | From: A world of my own | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
I don't think it's very clear as to what those "good news" were supposed to be. Nobody seems to have a clear understanding of what the gospel is, which is why various NT authors (and various Christians today I might add) go on saying all kinds of different things, instead of being explicit and clear about what the gospel actually is.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joel74
Apprentice
# 14099
|
Posted
Well, if I take it as straight-forwardly as you're suggesting I can go and find some prisoners and proclaim freedom, some blind people and tell them not to worry they'll soon get sight, then preach general happiness for oppressed people every where.
What am I telling the poor people at the beginning of the quote? Just the bits that come next?
It's very specific for prisoners, the blind, and the oppressed. But if you don't read it that way, it's still seems vague to me.
Posts: 36 | From: London | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jack o' the Green
Shipmate
# 11091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Joel74:
Well, if I take it as straight-forwardly as you're suggesting I can go and find some prisoners and proclaim freedom, some blind people and tell them not to worry they'll soon get sight, then preach general happiness for oppressed people every where.
I realise that you're asking a serious question and I'm not extracting the urine, but that did make me laugh! ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Posts: 3121 | From: Lancashire, England | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joel74
Apprentice
# 14099
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yonatan:
quote:
Originally posted by Joel74:
Well, if I take it as straight-forwardly as you're suggesting I can go and find some prisoners and proclaim freedom, some blind people and tell them not to worry they'll soon get sight, then preach general happiness for oppressed people every where.
I realise that you're asking a serious question and I'm not extracting the urine, but that did make me laugh!
I don't mind. But I'm still trying to find the answer to the question[s].
Posts: 36 | From: London | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
These are normally seen as signs of the reign of God however Jesus does seem to have cured some people who were physically blind and healed some who were lame.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
The good news is that God is love and that we are to love one another and love God.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joel74
Apprentice
# 14099
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
The good news is that God is love and that we are to love one another and love God.
That is good news, but it doesn't seem to be anything new from the Jewish point of view. Didn't they already know that? And weren't other teachers telling them the same thing?
Posts: 36 | From: London | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
I think the good news was that Jesus came to save humankind from personal and corporate destruction.
If only.....
Cynicism is inadequate. I think what I mean is that if humankind were capable of - or interested in - following Jesus (Or Confucius, or Lao Tse, or Buddha....) We wouldn't need any of them.
But that's not a good argument for doing away with religion or philosophy, any more than human viciousness is an argument for not having policemen.
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Squibs
Shipmate
# 14408
|
Posted
In a nut shell: God is love (that probably needs unpacking) and just, and despite our unworthiness, he, through Christ, had a plan to redeem each one of us and all of fallen creation. The power of sin and death were defeated by the resurrection and that same event was also the inauguration of the new heavens and the new earth.
Posts: 1124 | From: Here, there and everywhere | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
quote:
That is good news, but it doesn't seem to be anything new from the Jewish point of view. Didn't they already know that? And weren't other teachers telling them the same thing?
Where they really? I do often wonder. I think in the Old Testament there is far more of a dialogue going on about these things, and there is always the possibility that when things start going wrong that it might be because God is having yet another really bad day. I guess it's the difference between seeing through a glass darkly and seeing face to face.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
It's a cracking (OP) question and one that has been floating around my mind for a number of years. Perhaps this is finally the time to nail an answer down!
As the posts so far demonstrate, there is quite a wide range of things associated with the Good News. For example:-
There is a link between the 'good news' (GN) and better health in the NT, e.g.,:
quote:
Matthew 4:23 (see also Matt. 9:35)
Jesus went through Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the GN of the kingdom, and healing every disease and sickness among the people.
quote:
Matthew 11:5 (and parallels)
“The blind receive their sight, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, the poor have GN preached to them.”
Matthew also often links the GN to “the kingdom.”
Mark, it could be argued, sets his whole book up as the beginning of the GN (Mark 1:1 – Beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ...). As part of that he links GN with the Kingdom of God and a prior need for repentance (1:14f - “The time has come...the Kingdom of God is near, repent and believe the GN”). He also emphasises reward for those who devote themselves to the GN (8:35, 10:29), along with potential suffering (13:10).
Luke records John the Baptist as preaching the GN and this includes a context of judgement (Luke 3:15-18). Luke emphasises the fact that the GN is something that can be preached and taught.
Paul majors heavily on the GN in his letters. He makes an important observation for our purposes: the GN was not a NT invention. It was always there in the OT (see, e.g., Romans 1:1-5). Pretty much the entire book of Romans traces the development of that GN through biblical history.
That last point is crucial it seems to me. We won't find a definition of the GN in the NT. The one exception, I think, is the whole book of Romans. For the most part in the NT the GN is presupposed, because it was already available to Jewish believers in their Scriptures. What we have in the Gospels, I believe, is not a definition, but rather a series of impacts, or significances, of the GN. Thus, for example, the linking of GN with better health is not an attempt by the writers to define the GN as the delivery of better health, but rather to say that the GN – which would have been presupposed by the readers – was associated with a number of things, including better health.
This is why, as has been pointed out already, there are a number of 'definitions' proposed for the GN. To me this seems to miss a more fundamental point. We need to delve further back into the OT to find a real definition, rather than a mere significance, of that term.
Can I also say that I don't the word “love” will capture what we want either. As Squibs said, that word needs unpacking. In English it is far too loose a word and covers a wide range of meanings. I fear too that it might actually cause some Christians to wander down the wrong alley when they think that word 'means' the GN. We would need to define just exactly what we mean by the English word “love” when we use it as a definition of GN.
I think when we look at the background presuppositions we will find that the GN means things that some Christians do not like to hear: justice and vengeance included.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Well, if you look at the only Gospel where we get long, sustained conversations (as opposed to action clips and sound-bites), the interesting thing is that in the end, the conversation always comes around to Jesus--his person and his (mysteriously described) work. I mean, he talks to Nicodemus, and after going on about the Holy Spirit for a little bit, he gets into a classic description of himself (=Son of Man) and what faith in him entails.
Go to the next chapter, and you have another intimate conversation with a very different person, the outcast woman at the well. He doesn't talk philosophy to her but rather touches on the practicalities of her life situation (and courteously allows her to derail the conversation onto ethnic matters when it gets too near the bone!). Nevertheless, the conversation ends up the same way--"I know that Messiah is coming"--"I who speak to you am he."
Then you get the long contentious discussion (argument?) between Jesus and the crowd in John 6, the one that ends with tons of people walking off offended. Same pattern. Start with something they are already interested in (bread, food) and gradually lead the conversation to claims about himself and his work ("you must eat the flesh of the Son of Man" and etc.)
Even with Martha at Lazarus' death, you see the pattern. He starts with the death and the mourning, but eventually comes round to "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me" and etc. "Do you believe this?" "Yes, Lord, I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God..."
So what about dem miracles? They were signs--that is, the kingdom itself does not CONSIST in the miracles, but rather the miracles point to the kingdom. They are Jesus' ID, as it were. You want to know who this is? Look at the miracles and compare with the OT prophecies. Now you know. But don't stop with the miracles, because they are not the primary point. That comes with the cross, the resurrection, and the sending out of the believers to tell the Good News of forgiveness and eternal life offered free of charge to anyone who trusts in Jesus--the Son of God. That is the Good News.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Lamby, you can't use John's gospel as a record of what Jesus really did. It was written in 1947, long after the events depicted therein.
>>walks off shaking head and sighing<<
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444
|
Posted
Can't quite work out the '1947'. Was that just any old exaggeration or does it have some significance?
--------------------
'You must never give way for an answer. An answer is always the stretch of road that's behind you. Only a question can point the way forward.'
Mika; in Hello? Is Anybody There?, Jostein Gaardner
Posts: 2592 | From: The wizardest little town in Oz | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
exaggeration.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anna B
Shipmate
# 1439
|
Posted
As part of my preparation for Easter this year, I've been reading N.T. Wright's Surprised by Hope, repeatedly jumping out of my chair, punching the air, and shouting ecstatically, "YES! YES! YES!"
(I infinitely prefer this to giving up chocolate.)
So anyway, I quite like Wright's take on this question. The good news is that God's kingdom is come to meet us in Jesus, in whom heaven and earth interlock, and that we are invited to be a part of that kingdom, which has already begun, in the here and now.
--------------------
Bad Christian (TM)
Posts: 3069 | From: near a lot of fish | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
1947? A.D.?!!!!
[ ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif) more in sorrow than in anger]
I fear you must be one of those no good essentialists with an unhealthy attachment to Tradition and outdated forms. Everybody knows John was written in 42 BTI (Before Teh Interwebz).
[ 24. March 2010, 01:36: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
churchgeek
Have candles, will pray
# 5557
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anna B:
So anyway, I quite like Wright's take on this question. The good news is that God's kingdom is come to meet us in Jesus, in whom heaven and earth interlock, and that we are invited to be a part of that kingdom, which has already begun, in the here and now.
I haven't read that book, but that is how I would "define" the Good News.
I think it's also fairly safe to say the Good News can't be a one-size-fits-all sort of thing. Because the Kingdom of God came in a person, Jesus, we see that it is relational. How it relates to individuals will depend on their situation. (Jesus didn't feed the lame and preach to the deaf, e.g.) If you're a millionaire head of a large corporation, the Good News will be different than if you're living in the ghetto somewhere or don't have safe drinking water.
--------------------
I reserve the right to change my mind.
My article on the Virgin of Vladimir
Posts: 7773 | From: Detroit | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fuzzipeg
Shipmate
# 10107
|
Posted
Surely the Good News is the advent of The Kingdom of God.
Everything Jesus says and does is to proclaim the coming of the Kingdom. Everything else is secondary to that.
--------------------
http://foodybooze.blogspot.co.za
Posts: 929 | From: Johannesburg, South Africa | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
Personally, I would paraphrase Zacharias' prophecy in Luke 1:67-80 by saying that God visited us from love and compassion to show us the way of peace.
It's a prophecy heavily indebted to OT concepts, that one. I'd paraphrase it:
quote:
Israel's God finally comes to rescue his people from their enemies and he does this by appointing a powerful leader along the lines of that great warrior, David. All this is clear from the Jewish Scriptures – it's not new or unexpected – God always promised that he would defeat those who persecute us. This was a binding promise he made in the covenant to Abraham. Now we will be able to serve God openly and without fear. Jesus will tell his people how they can be purified, how they can follow the faithful God and become whole again.
The victory theme mirrors that of Isaiah 40, where a highway is prepared for God (Jesus as the road-maker according to Zechariah in Luke 1) who comes in victory and power. Also themed is Isaiah 52, with the 'good news' announcement that God has won the battle and therefore he has proved that he alone is King – all other gods have had the stuffing kicked out of them. Now he is returning to his city and people where everyone will see his muscles.
Another theme of interest is the wholeness theme: healing people (Isaiah and the Gospel writers pick this up) is a fulfilment of the requirements in Leviticus. A blemished animal could not be offered as a sacrifice, and a blemished human could not partake fully as part of God's people. Such a person was kept apart until they were healed. The healing offered by Jesus puts that person back in a position to enter God's presence and be fully part of his people again. This is the 'wholly' part of 'holy'.
So in one sense 'peace' is acquired in that God has overcome enemies, though I think that the word 'peace' should more fully reflect the Hebrew word it relies on: a sense of well-being and wholeness, not just putting the feet with a cuppa (though I certainly subscribe to that theology).
Yet – and there's a bit 'Yet' in all this – the NT also presents with a future victory following current struggle. A fight is still on. There are still enemies that God has to overcome. I'm wary of ditching that aspect of biblical theology; it's just too engrained in the text, both old and new, to be jettisoned, it seems to me. We don't all live in peace, we are not all surrounded by love. Justice does not always prevail, evil gets away with it. I think the Good News need to be powerful for it be relevant: 'tough love' perhaps? Certainly walking softly with a big stick! Sanctions alongside mercy.
Now where does one balance the two? That's where I think churchgeek's point about more sizes than one can shake the stick at is relevant. The application of the Good News requires some thought in every situation.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fuzzipeg:
Surely the Good News is the advent of The Kingdom of God.
I would agree, though it does rather push the question back to: "What is a definition of the KoG?" I would argue that the definition should encompass the points about the OT raised in my earlier posts: that Jesus and his hearers would have understood the term in OT terms.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joel74
Apprentice
# 14099
|
Posted
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Anna B:
[QB] As part of my preparation for Easter this year, I've been reading N.T. Wright's Surprised by Hope, repeatedly jumping out of my chair, punching the air, and shouting ecstatically, "YES! YES! YES!"
Yes, I loved that book. Found it very helpful. Probably should revisit it in the light of my question.
I remember that after I read it, maybe just over a year ago now, everything about my faith seemed clear. But then the experience of living it, the experience of the church....you know, it all starts to get fuzzy again.
Posts: 36 | From: London | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
quote:
Originally posted by Fuzzipeg:
Surely the Good News is the advent of The Kingdom of God.
I would agree, though it does rather push the question back to: "What is a definition of the KoG?" I would argue that the definition should encompass the points about the OT raised in my earlier posts: that Jesus and his hearers would have understood the term in OT terms.
I think the KoG needs to be seen also in terms of the threat that Jesus removed. According to Swedenborgian theology:
quote:
"at that time the power of hell prevailed over the power of heaven, and upon the earth the power of evil over the power of good, and in consequence a total damnation stood threatening at the door."
The good news is that Jesus removed this threat by overcoming the "ruler of this world":
quote:
John 12:31 Now is the judgment of this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out.
This is why the "good news" imagery is about freedom from the enemy, redemption, and salvation. They were saved from imminent destruction.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joel74
Apprentice
# 14099
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
"at that time the power of hell prevailed over the power of heaven, and upon the earth the power of evil over the power of good, and in consequence a total damnation stood threatening at the door."
The good news is that Jesus removed this threat by overcoming the "ruler of this world":
quote:
John 12:31 Now is the judgment of this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out.
This is why the "good news" imagery is about freedom from the enemy, redemption, and salvation. They were saved from imminent destruction. [/QB]
That's quite a hard sell these days..'There's all this bad stuff that could have happened, that was invisible, and which you knew nothing about, cared nothing for, but it's been averted..good news hey!'
Posts: 36 | From: London | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I think the KoG needs to be seen also in terms of the threat that Jesus removed. According to Swedenborgian theology:
quote:
"at that time the power of hell prevailed over the power of heaven, and upon the earth the power of evil over the power of good, and in consequence a total damnation stood threatening at the door."
The good news is that Jesus removed this threat by overcoming the "ruler of this world":
quote:
John 12:31 Now is the judgment of this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out.
There's a feel in the NT of the “already – but also not yet” theme, though, isn't there? I would balance that statement in John 12:31 with, e.g., 1 John 5:19 -
quote:
We know that we derive from God, but the whole world lies in the power of the evil one.
Even after the resurrection, the Christians had a sense of reality in that they felt the power of freedom, but had to balance it with the rather obvious entanglements still around them. How does Swedenborg interpret this tension? Is this seen as a spiritual versus physical thing? I know that line is taken by quite a few Christians today as they try to make sense of it all.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
Yet – and there's a bit 'Yet' in all this – the NT also presents with a future victory following current struggle. A fight is still on. There are still enemies that God has to overcome.
Absolutely. God came to show us the path of peace, but following it still requires a struggle.
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
God came to show us the path of peace, but following it still requires a struggle.
To what extent is this struggle a fight against physical entities - including other humans - and what form should this struggle (if there is one) take? Paul refers to a fight against the devil's schemes, over against any physical struggle (Eph. 6:11-12), and this accords with the famous Romans 13 passage. Still, there are other contexts. Mark 13 provides an example of a context where the Good government context has turned Bad, and Revelation 13 offers up the Ugly government option.
To me, these reactions are also bound up in the Good News action. Or at least they need to be kept in the balance somewhere.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
quote:
Originally posted by Fuzzipeg:
Surely the Good News is the advent of The Kingdom of God.
I would agree, though it does rather push the question back to: "What is a definition of the KoG?" I would argue that the definition should encompass the points about the OT raised in my earlier posts: that Jesus and his hearers would have understood the term in OT terms.
John Dominic Crossan says the expected Kingdom of God was the Good News. God was coming (within that generation) to do a clean up job and all would be well.
This clean up job started in Jesus; in his healings, in his ministry.
Trouble is, the Kingdom of God did not arrive in that generation and it still hasn't today.
So the Good News back then, is different from the Good News today.
The trouble with the Christus Victor notion of Atonement and the Good News is that evil, suffering etc still exist. Paul's " powers and principalities" have not been conquered in any visible way.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
To what extent is this struggle a fight against physical entities - including other humans - and what form should this struggle (if there is one) take?
I know you've raised this issue before, so I know it's important to you, but I'm not at all sure I really understand what you're asking. However, I am confident you've given it a lot more thought than I have, so allow me to try to summarize my views (as one Swedenborgian) without attempting to answer your specific question so you can then help me understand what you're getting at.
I can see three dimensions to the struggle: a spiritual/physical dimension, a good/evil dimension, and a community/individual dimension.
Consistent with Swedenborg's view of the Gospel as having primarily a symbolic message about spiritual qualities, I see the struggle as being a spiritual one at its root. And since for us Swedenborgians, spiritual qualities are primarily about motives, that means the struggle is between good and evil motives. This basically comes down to a struggle between our inclination to be selfish on the one hand and our inclination to obey God (or some external moral standard) and to be genuinely kind on the other.
However, we can't control our motives, only our actions, so the struggle is really about choosing which motives we express in our actions as part of a community. And, since we can't really struggle with our motives directly and can only even recognize what they are indirectly, our choices are about how we allow our spiritual motives to play out in the physical world. In other words, I have no hope of stopping myself from being selfish by simply telling myself to stop, but if I resist acting from a selfish motive in specific ways then I'm allowing God to incrementally reduce the strength of my selfish inclinations and correspondingly increase the strength of my good motives.
Furthermore, since I have a hard enough time discerning my own motives, there's no way I can tell what someone else's motives are and I am in no position to participate in or judge their own spiritual struggle. That said, I still have to choose which motives I act from in my own response to any evil I might see manifested in someone else's actions.
But that's all very abstract, so here's an example. If my boss is pressuring me to do something like lie, or cheat a customer, I might decide that what he's doing is wrong, but I can't judge his motive because I can't really know what his motivation is - that's his concern, not mine. However, I will be tempted to respond from a purely selfish motive, which might mean going along simply to avoid getting fired or perhaps trying to get him fired. However, I should resist that inclination and instead try to respond from an altruistic motive and consider not only my own interests, but also the long-term welfare of my boss, my group, the company, and society in general without any feeling of ill will for my boss. So my spiritual struggle is not with my boss directly, it's with my own motives in choosing how to respond to him.
So for us, the struggle is about our individual spiritual motives, but as they are expressed in our actions and words in the physical world. The good news is that God became visible as one of us to show us the way, but not that he came to make things easy for us.
Now I realize that this is not a mainstream Christian view of spirituality and some people will think of all sorts of NT passages about the need for faith and of how good works don't merit salvation, but I would respond by saying that I recognize faith as what drives the process and the need for good works as being unrelated to merit: God does the work of changing me - my act of struggling to obey only serves to make me willing to freely accept his changing me.
Now, does any of that relate to your question?
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
John Dominic Crossan says the expected Kingdom of God was the Good News. God was coming (within that generation) to do a clean up job and all would be well. ... Trouble is, the Kingdom of God did not arrive in that generation and it still hasn't today.
So the Good News back then, is different from the Good News today.
...and...
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
Now, does any of that relate to your question?
Thanks both for your efforts!
One thing I found quite helpful in this regard is the point made by Sanders and Wright (and others tagged with the New Perspective label) that Israel did not really consider itself back from exile after release from Babylon around 538 BC. Yes, they were back in the land, yes they had a temple (eventually) and yes they could practice pretty much the ritual they wanted. They were not, however, in receipt of the full promises God had given regarding end of exile and defeat of enemies.
Their condition has an interesting overlap with ours today. They too were between the times, in that “already, but not yet” phase. Partly John 12:31 and partly 1 John 5:19 (referred to earlier).
Now I appreciate that this whole “Thanks for what we've got, but when will the rest come?” stance appears to some (Christians and non- alike) as a cop out. It's an attempt to reconcile the differing takes on historical events by biblical writers, return from exile for Jews and resurrection of Jesus for Christians. Shouldn't we just accept that some writers were just pain mistaken, others deluded, and yet others much more realistic. Nevertheless, I think the continuity of belief here between two religions over two different historical events is significant. If Jews (by and large) considered themselves to be in between the times, and Christians (by and large) also, then the Good News has a continuity in theme and definition. The only issue outstanding is the degree to which God's people are expected, or believe themselves expected, to be involved in physical action to assist in ushering in the “not yet”, so that all is completed.
This is the issue that has never been resolved when it comes to discussing the GN, it seems to me. It is bound up in the definition, but not worked out. Should we be a Daniel, or a Maccabeus? A submitter or a transformer? Romans 13 or Mark (or even Revelation) 13? Reactive or Proactive? Just what does the GN mean for a Christian? Is it really simply about salvation – the entry into a people – but there it stops, or does it not have a component inherent in the whole bible that continues to apply to all Christians everywhere, throughout their lives (and beyond)?
As an anecdote to this: the past few decades have seen a flowering of the various forms of liberation theologies that have sought to emancipate those who have not the power to free themselves. I'm sure most people reading this thread will have encountered reading material on this at some point in their past. The irony is that in the very places and among the very people who were to have benefited from this work, the poor and downtrodden have voted with their feet, not in favour of liberation theologies, but for the fastest growing component within Christianity today: Pentecostalism. Latin- and African-Americans, Africans, Women, are saying that they find security and worth in that environment. Predominantly women-based congregations under male-dominated leadership, with focus on spiritual worship and little involvement in practical politics outside.
This is definitely worth an analysis, but this is probably not the forum. It just interests me that after 2,000 years of Christianity and more of Judaism, Jerusalem still has such a problem in relationship to Athens (gratiis, Tertullian)!
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
The irony is that in the very places and among the very people who were to have benefited from this work, the poor and downtrodden have voted with their feet, not in favour of liberation theologies, but for the fastest growing component within Christianity today: Pentecostalism. Latin- and African-Americans, Africans, Women, are saying that they find security and worth in that environment. Predominantly women-based congregations under male-dominated leadership, with focus on spiritual worship and little involvement in practical politics outside.
This is definitely worth an analysis, but this is probably not the forum. It just interests me that after 2,000 years of Christianity and more of Judaism, Jerusalem still has such a problem in relationship to Athens (gratiis, Tertullian)!
So transcendence matters more than social justice or philosophical questions?
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong
So transcendence matters more than social justice or philosophical questions?
It appears to matter more to those who vote with their feet.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joel74
Apprentice
# 14099
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong
So transcendence matters more than social justice or philosophical questions?
It appears to matter more to those who vote with their feet.
Moo
I agree that it does seem to be the case that people do find solace in the Pentcostal branch of Christianity and a more transcendent faith. But I also think there is a move in the opposite direction. Yes, amongst Catholics and Liberation Theology, but also amongst evengelicals and a rediscovery of roots in social action, and even amongst more charismatic churches.
From my own personal experience I would say I have seen a much greater recognition amongst evengelicals/charismatics of the need for action now - of working to bring the future promises into the hear and now. All very NT Wright.
The more I look into it, the more I see happening - even amongst the Rick Warren's of the mega church.
Hence my original question about the GN.
Posts: 36 | From: London | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
Yup - an intriguing question indeed!
Perhaps it would be useful to set out thoughts on Good News (GN) by way of a series of thesis statements: -
1] The Christian NT presents the message about the person and work of Jesus in terms of GN.
2] The Jewish Scriptures (Christian OT books) refer to news about the actions of God on behalf of his people in terms of GN.
3] Jesus and his followers would have understood the message about GN to be in line with their understanding of [2] above.
4] This GN message was that God has acted, is acting, or is about to act to defeat his people's enemies.
5] This action is understood by his people to be in accord with promises God had already made under covenant with his people.
6] It follows that the content (definition) of GN lies in the promises made and actions performed by God, dependent on covenant.
The next set of statements concentrate on the content of the GN ([6] above), which would need include a recognition of: -
7] The role and responsibility intended by God for humans as his 'image' over creation (Gen 1) to rule in obedience to God.
8] The promises made to Abraham under covenant, on the basis of his obedience, concerning engagement with the nations on behalf of God (Gen 12, 15).
9] The associated 'curses' that go with covenant – judgement on those who reject God and his people.
10] The promises advanced through the prophets by God to the effect that he would stand by his covenant promises for his obedient people.
11] Judgement on those within the people who fail to live up to their responsibilities and are disobedient.
These threads then work towards: -
12] The person and work of Jesus as a demonstration of the correct way to understand and work out the GN, thus fulfilling the content of the GN ([7] to [11] above),
All this, it seems to me, is wrapped up in what Paul understands by the GN. It is essentially an announcement that God has been faithful to his covenant (this is the “righteousness of God” phrase) by working through Jesus, a model for all to follow.
It occurs to me that Christianity might be missing out when it considers the GN in the light of more modern individual and internalised approaches to religion. The world within which the OT writings were formed – and even the NT within that tradition – is not one where religion and politics were considered in separate compartments. I'm not even sure that a typical resident of Shiloh, Jerusalem, Bethel, or Nazareth would even have been able to conceive of such a divorce. Gods were gods of nations, clans, villages and families. The fate of one was the fate of the other. It's an interesting question to ask how we today should live the GN when we are prone to spiritualise our religion away, individual and internal. Could the local church even be hindering the GN? Hmmm!
[Retires to the kitchen to sup a meditational cup of tea]
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joel74
Apprentice
# 14099
|
Posted
For anyone interested (and it may not be everyone's cup of tea) I noticed that one of the chapters in Brian Mclaren's new book is listed as, 'What is the Gospel', which I guess is a similar if not the same question.
You can see the frist couple of pages of each chapter here - A New Kind of Christianity
Posts: 36 | From: London | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
Well, for me when Jesus quoted Isaiah in the book of Luke and claimed that he was the fulfillment of the prophecy, he was then, as now, pointing people to himself as saviour. Before he came there was no salvation possible. the good news is that God has intervened in history in the form of Christ!
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
I think if I was asked to sum up the Good News it would be:
God is for us
Where "us" is "us, human beings".
That is God believes in us, believes humans are capable of being involved in running the world, works with and through us (although I don't limit him to this sort of intervention), and is not going to walk away in disgust at the mess we make of things.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Well, for me when Jesus quoted Isaiah in the book of Luke and claimed that he was the fulfillment of the prophecy, he was then, as now, pointing people to himself as saviour. Before he came there was no salvation possible. the good news is that God has intervened in history in the form of Christ!
I'm afraid this ignores the Old Testament. If your tradition is at all orthodox, you can't ignore the Old Testament.
Your statement implies there was no salvation for the people before the time of Christ and it ignores the millions of times God intervenes in history in the OT.
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
I think if I was asked to sum up the Good News it would be:
God is for us
Where "us" is "us, human beings".
That is God believes in us, believes humans are capable of being involved in running the world, works with and through us (although I don't limit him to this sort of intervention), and is not going to walk away in disgust at the mess we make of things.
Jengie
I can go for this idea. But again, does it differ from any Old Testament Good News? I don't think so.
But perhaps I'm completely missing the point. The bible in its entirety claims such a thing. Why am I trying to split the OT and the NT?
I shouldn't.
Or perhaps its just that as Christians, we believe Jesus is the definitive revelation in a specific point in history that God is for us.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
I have my doubts that the Old Testament understood it in two ways
1. "us" being most importantly all humanity.
2. The level at which "God is for us". Seriously if you can kill a guy and he still wants to be involved with you, that is a pretty radical way of being for someone. See Paul in Romans 4:6-8 on who somebody will be prepared to die for, but to come back once killed is going further. I don't believe Jesus had to show himself post resurrection, I think the fact he did speaks tons.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Well, for me when Jesus quoted Isaiah in the book of Luke and claimed that he was the fulfillment of the prophecy, he was then, as now, pointing people to himself as saviour. Before he came there was no salvation possible. the good news is that God has intervened in history in the form of Christ!
I'm afraid this ignores the Old Testament.
Fair enough. 'Salvation' as a concept existed in the Psalms.(27:1 'The Lord is my light and my salvation.'
There was, however no personal renewal in the sense of an indwelling Holy Spirit.
What Jesus proclaimed went beyond what was available there as I'm sure we'll agree.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Well, for me when Jesus quoted Isaiah in the book of Luke and claimed that he was the fulfillment of the prophecy, he was then, as now, pointing people to himself as saviour. Before he came there was no salvation possible. the good news is that God has intervened in history in the form of Christ!
I'm afraid this ignores the Old Testament.
Fair enough. 'Salvation' as a concept existed in the Psalms.(27:1 'The Lord is my light and my salvation.'
There was, however no personal renewal in the sense of an indwelling Holy Spirit.
The Chronicler's theology is quite individualistic.
If you go for the idea that the presence of God is with people more during and after the life of Jesus, then you wonder why God didn't give everyone the Holy Spirit before?
Probably didn't need it as much.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Well, for me when Jesus quoted Isaiah in the book of Luke and claimed that he was the fulfillment of the prophecy, he was then, as now, pointing people to himself as saviour. Before he came there was no salvation possible. the good news is that God has intervened in history in the form of Christ!
I'm afraid this ignores the Old Testament.
Fair enough. 'Salvation' as a concept existed in the Psalms.(27:1 'The Lord is my light and my salvation.'
There was, however no personal renewal in the sense of an indwelling Holy Spirit.
The Chronicler's theology is quite individualistic.
If you go for the idea that the presence of God is with people more during and after the life of Jesus, then you wonder why God didn't give everyone the Holy Spirit before?
Probably didn't need it as much.
Not about the need ..we all always had the need. It's actually about the fact that the atonement enabled the Holy Spirit in a new way. Is the ghost of 'Christus Victor' about to return.
The holy God of scripture needed to deal with sin before the Holy Spirit could indwell. This possibility is the real good news that Christ proclaimed as he looked to the cross and that Paul proclaimed, as he looked back on it.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
The holy God of scripture needed to deal with sin before the Holy Spirit could indwell. This possibility is the real good news that Christ proclaimed as he looked to the cross and that Paul proclaimed, as he looked back on it.
As usual, it always comes down to an individuals atonement theory doesn't it? And then the complicated games begin and normal people get left behind in a maelstrom of jargon and convoluted ideas.
This morning's lectionary reading was John 14. There were two things about the reading that caught my attention:
1) Jesus in John (and like in many other places in the NT) is an intermediary of sorts. He goes to prepare a place in "God's house" for us.
2) He says if we see him we see the father.
You can condense that quite nicely into a statement of Good News.
In Jesus, we see God more clearly that we ever have before. And as Jengie says, God is for us.
Basic, but it works for me.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
The holy God of scripture needed to deal with sin before the Holy Spirit could indwell. This possibility is the real good news that Christ proclaimed as he looked to the cross and that Paul proclaimed, as he looked back on it.
As usual, it always comes down to an individuals atonement theory doesn't it? And then the complicated games begin and normal people get left behind in a maelstrom of jargon and convoluted ideas.
This morning's lectionary reading was John 14. There were two things about the reading that caught my attention:
1) Jesus in John (and like in many other places in the NT) is an intermediary of sorts. He goes to prepare a place in "God's house" for us.
2) He says if we see him we see the father.
You can condense that quite nicely into a statement of Good News.
In Jesus, we see God more clearly that we ever have before. And as Jengie says, God is for us.
Basic, but it works for me.
And me ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
I think if I was asked to sum up the Good News it would be:
God is for us
Where "us" is "us, human beings".
That is God believes in us, believes humans are capable of being involved in running the world, works with and through us (although I don't limit him to this sort of intervention), and is not going to walk away in disgust at the mess we make of things.
This definition seems to jar somewhat with Jesus and JtB both declaring Repent and believe the good news.
If someone came along to me and said, "God is for us" I'd think 'alright then' and just carry on with my life, I wouldn't think it would have any connection with or indeed need for repentance.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
If in a partnership one of the pair is unfaithful and then the other agrees to take them back without penalty, is it business as usually for the unfaithful partner?
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
NJA
Shipmate
# 13022
|
Posted
Well, the "bad news" was the fall of man out of the relationship with God that God wanted, based on trust in God, following his instructions.
The good news is that man can now rely on God because he can now receive God's Spirit and know and understand God and thereby want to obey him. The old rebellious heart that Adam & Eve showed is superceded by the new heart. Sure people can receive God's Spirit and later turn back to "the flesh", but the opportunity to overcome temptation by having a new vision and power is now given.
While Jesus walked the earth it wasn't yet given but they were expected to believe it was on it's way soon.
Posts: 1283 | From: near London | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
