|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Kerygmania: What is the good news?
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
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?
That's all true but I don't see how you get that from 'God is for us'.
The statement 'God is for us' will mean something radically different to someone who already sees themselves as an unfaithful partner as opposed to someone who never really saw themselves as in a partnership in the first place.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
But that is what I mean by "God is for us". God has more than enough reason to walk away from the relationship with us and he isn't.
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 NJA:
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.
And not knowing the difference between good and evil and not being like God herself.
Strange God in that particular passage.
But he's pretty weird too in the Tower of Babel story. She's opposed to human technology and unification.
Weird God.
No wonder what Christians call the "fall" is not mentioned again in the Jewish scriptures. They probably grew out of J theology.
quote:
Originally posted by NJA:
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 The old rebellious heart that Adam & Eve showed is superceded by the new heart.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.
So God screwed up the first time?
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
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.
In other words, you think God is only for those that turn to her. (i.e. God's love is conditional)
Could be right.
But then again, we are his creation, we are her children.....the parent analogy works well here. Even if my son ignored me as his mother.....I would still love him. He is a part of me. It's not a relationship I can sever.
Think how much stronger that bond with God would be.
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
But that is what I mean by "God is for us". God has more than enough reason to walk away from the relationship with us and he isn't.
But that's like me rushing up to you with exciting news - "The wibbly-wobblies are coming!"
What I mean by that is pretty redundant unless you understand what I mean by it.
What is the point of a summary if people have to know all your assumptions to understand it?
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
In other words, you think God is only for those that turn to her. (i.e. God's love is conditional)
That's not quite what I said.
I said that our understanding of what 'good news' means must surely be consonant with how it is used in the gospels.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
But that is what I mean by "God is for us". God has more than enough reason to walk away from the relationship with us and he isn't.
But that's like me rushing up to you with exciting news - "The wibbly-wobblies are coming!"
What I mean by that is pretty redundant unless you understand what I mean by it.
What is the point of a summary if people have to know all your assumptions to understand it?
But they make bigger assumptions when you say "God is love" and that is why I put the codicil underneath which talks about for as being responsibility. It appears that though you quoted it, you did not bother reading it.
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
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
And not knowing the difference between good and evil and not being like God herself.
Adam & Eve knew, God told them!
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
But he's pretty weird too in the Tower of Babel story. She's opposed to human technology and unification.
No, from the beginning God wanted mankind to subdue the environment, seeking understanding of science, the laws and knowledge God used in animals & plants. And God wanted unity with Him, cos he wants what's best for man & the environment.
Posts: 1283 | From: near London | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
In other words, you think God is only for those that turn to her. (i.e. God's love is conditional)
That's not quite what I said.
I said that our understanding of what 'good news' means must surely be consonant with how it is used in the gospels.
I would think repentance or turning to God would be an intrinsic part of knowing God or hearing the Good News. Otherwise it wouldn't be relevant. If you're not turning to God, you wouldn't be interested in God. So yes, without repentance the Good News probably is irrelevant to the individual.
quote:
Originally posted by NJA:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
And not knowing the difference between good and evil and not being like God herself.
Adam & Eve knew, God told them!
They didn't know the difference between good and evil until they ate the apple which God told them not to eat. God did not want them to know the difference and become like him.(Gen3:4 and 22)
God also didn't want them to become immortal like him. (verse 22)
quote:
Originally posted by NJA:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
But he's pretty weird too in the Tower of Babel story. She's opposed to human technology and unification.
No, from the beginning God wanted mankind to subdue the environment, seeking understanding of science, the laws and knowledge God used in animals & plants. And God wanted unity with Him, cos he wants what's best for man & the environment.
Read the Tower of Babel story again. In Gen 11:6 God is opposed to human development.
In confusing language, God is opposed to human unity. This does not appear to accord with what is best for man.
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
p.s.
I think its Michael Ramsay that says the GN is dependent on context. This is most certainly true. The GN will vary.
I keep forgetting my sig, but in essence, this maxim can be applied to a number of situations.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
But they make bigger assumptions when you say "God is love" and that is why I put the codicil underneath which talks about for as being responsibility. It appears that though you quoted it, you did not bother reading it.
No, I'm responding to what you have written.
I'm saying that what you've come up with is an improvement on "God is love" but there is more work to do be done.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
The Good News is that in Christ there is the hope of redemption. That that hope can be personally applied. That there is a divine metanarrative and that post modernism as the loss of hope does not hold us in thrall.
--------------------
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
|
|
Gentleman Ranker
Shipmate
# 15518
|
Posted
Greetings.
If the OP is looking for a theologically-informed, biblically-literate answer, I am not qualified to answer; read no further.
It may be, however, than an outsider perspective may be helpful. As I've mentioned elsewhere, I'm an atheist-by-default in that I've had no religious upbringing, though I do not consider myself a "bright", or a militant red-A person.
Reading scripture from that perspective, to me the Good News would be something like:
1. The human world is not just the Empire of the Talking Monkeys, where our only real purpose is to breed and die. Those born to endless night rather than sweet delight (apologies to Wm. Blake) have something to look forward to other than temporary amelioration of suffering before a painless death.
2. The Master and Creator of the Universe, who supplies purpose and meaning apart from Point 1 above, is not simply the underwriter for a cosmic fire-insurance racket. He (She/It) is more like a loving parent who is trying to teach young children, and means well for us.
Not very sophisticated, I admit, but if you already take these points for granted it may be easy to forget that not everyone else does.
regards,
GR
Posts: 66 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gentleman Ranker
Shipmate
# 15518
|
Posted
Apologies for double post; one more thing.
3. The person of Jesus is both a bridge across the chasm that separates us from God (if only because He/She/It is incomprehensible to us) and evidence of God's love for us.
regards,
GR
Posts: 66 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
Quote from Evensong
quote:
Read the Tower of Babel story again. In Gen 11:6 God is opposed to human development.
In confusing language, God is opposed to human unity. This does not appear to accord with what is best for man.
That seems to me to be a total misreading of the Jahwist's intention in telling the story/
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gentleman Ranker:
...if you already take these points for granted it may be easy to forget that not everyone else does.
Thanks for this, GR; very true - the obvious can very easily become the oblivious.
Nigel
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Quote from Evensong
quote:
Read the Tower of Babel story again. In Gen 11:6 God is opposed to human development.
In confusing language, God is opposed to human unity. This does not appear to accord with what is best for man.
That seems to me to be a total misreading of the Jahwist's intention in telling the story/
Not when you include the garden of eden problems and the anti-civilization and technology ideas in the rest of Gen 1-11. God is a pretty weird God in these early myths.
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
Mythological maybe, but not weird.
I dont think Gen X1 has anything to say about civilisation or technology or God's relationship to either.
It is there to define the nature and consequence of sin
Sin is rebellion against God - reaching up to the heavens to usurp His place in the scheme of things.
Its consequence is the inevitable disruption and fracturing of human relationships.
Various languages are sign and symbol of this. And Luke was perceptive enough to have this story in mind when he told of Pentecost. The HS creates a new community and the fact that they all seemed to understand this new language is sign of the unity of Christians in Christ. Its is Babel reversed.
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Mythological maybe, but not weird.
I dont think Gen X1 has anything to say about civilisation or technology or God's relationship to either.
It is there to define the nature and consequence of sin
quote:
The Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which mortals had built. 6And the Lord said, ‘Look, they are one people, and they have all one language; and this is only the beginning of what they will do; nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them.
The God/s sound scared to me. Scared his creation will outdo him! Just like he was scared in the Garden of Eden that Adam and Eve would become like him/them.
Which is ironic really. Later Church doctrine says God became man so man could become God.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
You could read it as God(s) sounding scared.
On the other hand you could read it as a transcendent God compared to whom the petty 'creations' of humankind are so small and insignificant that He/She had to come down, put on His/her bi-focals to detect what man was doing. From outer space mans creation was invisible. Hardly a threat.
And it is true that "He became what we are in order that we might become what he is". The OT is not to be put on a revelatory par with the NT
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
You could read it as God(s) sounding scared.
On the other hand you could read it as a transcendent God compared to whom the petty 'creations' of humankind are so small and insignificant that He/She had to come down, put on His/her bi-focals to detect what man was doing. From outer space mans creation was invisible. Hardly a threat.
Why bother coming down then and ruining the party? Sheer petty spite?
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
And it is true that "He became what we are in order that we might become what he is". The OT is not to be put on a revelatory par with the NT
Ah, Marcionite are you? ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
[ 05. April 2010, 13:51: Message edited by: Evensong ]
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
Like all heretics Marcion had a point
But I am not in his camp
However I cant equate 1 Sam 15 with Jesus' injunction to love your enemies.
Maybe you can?
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
However I cant equate 1 Sam 15 with Jesus' injunction to love your enemies.
I think this goes straight to the heart of interpretation and question of where the OT is placed in it all. Personally, I've come to see that the Jesus and the NT writers were so heavily immersed in the Jewish Scriptures that they actually added nothing new to the principles already present in those Scriptures. All that was needed, as Jesus and the NT writers were keen to point out, was that the right interpretive approach was needed - eyes to see, ears to hear - requiring as it often did the need to shake off the blinkers that had obscured the vision and hearing and that were used by the teachers of Jesus' day.
It's taken a number of years for me to realise this, coming as I have from traditions that just assumed that the OT was a bit of history to provide a touch of black-and-white background to the colour 'real' message of the NT.
Seeing the OT in its context - linguistic, cultural and philosophical - provides a huge boost to seeing how it fits with what Jesus taught.
Nigel
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Like all heretics Marcion had a point
But I am not in his camp
However I cant equate 1 Sam 15 with Jesus' injunction to love your enemies.
Maybe you can?
Maybe you can equate Jesus saying he comes not to bring peace but a sword with the injunction to love your enemies?
Contradictions are rife all over scripture, not only between old and new testaments.
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
Personally, I've come to see that the Jesus and the NT writers were so heavily immersed in the Jewish Scriptures that they actually added nothing new to the principles already present in those Scriptures. All that was needed, as Jesus and the NT writers were keen to point out, was that the right interpretive approach was needed - eyes to see, ears to hear - requiring as it often did the need to shake off the blinkers that had obscured the vision and hearing and that were used by the teachers of Jesus' day.
Amen hallelujah. Christ is risen indeed. Total agreement from here Nigel.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
I hardly believe you are serious Evensong. Jesus saying he came to bring a sword and not peace does not mean he advocated violence and force. Dont know how you could even interpret it that way. After all, when Peter chopped off the ear of one of the arresting party Jesus told him to desist - and he restored the ear!
Bringing a sword was metaphorical. A sword cuts and divides. Fact of the matter is that loyalty to Christ cut across familial bonds and divided people. Such was not the purpose of his coming but its consequence.
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
Weeeeeelll, I reckon breaking up families is pretty hard core. And kinda makes fun of making peace with your brother before offering at the altar?
Or the love of God contrasted with spending an eternity in hell with weeping and gnashing of teeth? The OT you at least only get massacred once, you don't spend a tormented life in eternity.
So saith my OT lecturer. The NT is much more violent.
Or we can say this is metaphorical too.....or we can say the obliteration of the Amelakites is metaphorical. Or we can look at the conquest narratives in Joshua and compare them with archaeological digs and see they have few correlations.
Could the conquest narratives be folk tales? Is it possible the violent settlement of Israel after Egypt didn't happen at all? My understanding is evidence points to peaceful co=settlement.
But I can't even remember how we got here......
Ah that's right, we can dismiss the OT because the NT is better.
Well, Jesus is the fulfillment of the law right? Makes sense.
And when Jesus is asked what must I do to inherit eternal life he responds with obey the law.
I still hold the Gen 1-11 stories are weird. But that's probably because they are very old.
So back to the OP. What do you think the good news is?
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
I think that the good news is that God "has given us the light of His glory in the face of Jesus Christ" i.e. Jesus is the definitive revelation of God; His nature, His will and His purposes.
That we have seen in Jesus that God is love.
That God is "Immanuel" -- with us always.
That His Kingdom has come; inaugurated in Jesus.
That God;s truth and love - by which Jesus lived, has been vindicated by the resurrection.
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
MSHB
Shipmate
# 9228
|
Posted
The "good news" is the proclamation: Jesus Christ is Lord.
All else is commentary.
"How lovely on the mountains are the feet of him who brings good news ...proclaiming news of happiness: Our God reigns!" (Isa 52.7)
And Acts 2.26 "Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God has made that same Jesus, whom you have crucified, both Lord and Christ." - this is the conclusion of Peter's preaching on the day of Pentecost.
Also Phil 2.11 "and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father".
--------------------
MSHB: Member of the Shire Hobbit Brigade
Posts: 1522 | From: Dharawal Country | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
I can go for that shamwari ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Sure MSHB, but was does Jesus Christ is Lord mean?
I actually started this same thread in Purg about a year ago. Some great responses.....just wish I could find it.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I actually started this same thread in Purg about a year ago. Some great responses.....just wish I could find it.
I think it's here. I found it in Google using the search string
site:http://forum.ship-of-fools.com "what is" "good news"
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I actually started this same thread in Purg about a year ago. Some great responses.....just wish I could find it.
I think it's here. I found it in Google using the search string
site:http://forum.ship-of-fools.com "what is" "good news"
Thanks W Hyatt!
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
MSHB
Shipmate
# 9228
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I can go for that shamwari
Sure MSHB, but was does Jesus Christ is Lord mean?
I actually started this same thread in Purg about a year ago. Some great responses.....just wish I could find it.
1. So you want the commentary, not just the proclamation?
2. It is very tempting to reply with Christ's answer to the disciples who asked to see the Father: "You have been with me all this time and you ask me that?" Believing, and therefore understanding, the gospel that Christ is Lord is the basis of conversion (cf Acts 2 reference above), the basis of becoming a Christian. Of course, we can spend the rest of our lives filling that out and understanding it more, but you already have a notion, if you are a Christian.
3. "Lord" is one pole of the Lord-servant relationship: it is necessarily open-ended because this Lord is immeasurably greater than the servant.
4. So what does "Jesus Christ is Lord" mean to you at present? Is your mind completely blank when you hear this phrase (my mind goes blank all the time...)? I like Martin Buber's idea of God being the Eternal You (or the Infinite You, in my mind). So Christ is the one that I am called ever again to address with all my being (to love with all my heart etc) and to grow into. And yes, that is a problem to be solved anew every day, because I don't fully know what I should be doing next...
5. The question "What does it mean that Jesus Christ is Lord?" is a question that is constantly asked and answered with our whole lives (even if the answer is just "I don't care").
6. Paul gave a hint when he said "Walk in the Spirit ...."
7. "I belong to him".
8. Have a look at the great saints, the people who best model what it means to serve Christ as Lord. Who points you to God? (Paul said that we were to imitate him - and others - as they imitate Christ, which kind of justifies some interest in the saints.) The great saints show us what "Jesus Christ is Lord" means.
--------------------
MSHB: Member of the Shire Hobbit Brigade
Posts: 1522 | From: Dharawal Country | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Daffy Duck
Shipmate
# 13488
|
Posted
Having read all the above it sems to me that people are ignoring the fact that the OT is a record of Jewish history recorded by men who wanted others to see things their way. The exception to this, may well be the major prophets who tried to get people to see the true God through their own eyes, yet probablly distorting the message they had to give.
Then we come to the Gospel accounts, again written with a slant towards the people they were intended for, but written within living memory of the Christ. From those accounts we take the message of Hope and Love, and how to achieve a relationship with God. We also have the accounts of the Passion and Resurrection, on which Christianity is founded.
From this we take the message of life having a meaning, of that meaning being anchored in Love, and through Love Hope.
When we move on to the epistles of Paul we find a person starting to interpret those teachings, in fact you migt say Paul was the first recorded Christian theologian.
Revelation can be seen as the nightmare recordings of an old man in his dotage.
So we are left with the Gospel as it has been handed down to us, the Gospel, the Good News, the New Covenant, being a message of Love, God's love for us HIs children, and the need for us not only to Love God but to Love each other. A message of Hope and understanding for those that have the eyes to see and the ears to hear.
Jayne( in aroha, hope and Faith ) nz
mailto:enyaj@xtra.co.nz
* . (\ *** /) * .* Never pay back evil for evil.
* . * ( \(_)/ ) * * Do things in such a way that
* * (_ /||\_) . * everyone can see you are
* *. /____\ * * * honest clear through.
Romans 12:17 (TLB)
--------------------
Arohanui
Jayne( in aroha, hope and Faith ) nz
mailto:enyaj@xtra.co.nz
Posts: 259 | From: Gore, NZ | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Daffy Duck:
So we are left with the Gospel...
I have a difficulty, DD, with the basis for this. It implies that chunks of the Bible should be hived off from a pre-determined segment that we feel more at home with. What would be the basis for making the decision that parts of the Bible do not reflect "the true God?" What criteria should we apply?
If the sole criterion is 'love', then how exactly should we define that English word? What does the word 'love' mean?
Wouldn't the first 'Christian' theologian (canonically) really be the author of Genesis 1?
Nigel
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
Host hat on
Daffy Duck, your sig is five lines long. Four lines is the maximum permitted. Also, ASCII is strongly discouraged on the ship.
Host hat off
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
