What is the Gospel?

[firedragon]

There's some sort of strange logic fallacy embedded in this - if I can't 'prove' there were hundreds of surviving fragments of the letters
and the Gospels during the Roman era then my arguments are invalid. But the surviving fragments are in the public domain - in Wiki I
just found this, 'The New Testament has been preserved in more manuscripts than any other ancient work of literature, with over 5,800
complete or fragmented Greek manuscripts catalogued, 10,000 Latin manuscripts and 9,300 manuscripts in various other ancient
languages including Syriac, Slavic, Gothic, Ethiopic, Coptic and Armenian.'

Absolutely irrelevant.

Your statement in question was : The Gospels and Epistles were widely read, memorized and copied.

Your cut and paste on manuscripts is so irrelevant, absurd and just an evasion of your bogus claim.

Tell me, if people memorised the NT, and copied them so widely, read the so widely, can you tell me if memory failed or memory was invented between codex Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Alexandrines, Bazae and the TR and KJV?

Don't do some cut and paste. Think about the question.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Saying some one has to respond with "what the Bible says what the Gospel is" which is not in the OP. Strange you didn't understand that in the post you responded to.

The OP was mainly addressed to Christians but anyone could answer, so isn’t that what @Rival meant The Gospel according to the Bible ?

 

[ElishaElijah]

So now that you think you have achieved your goal of shifting the focus away from whatever questions you could not answer, can you at least try to go back and answer those questions to yourself?

I’m keeping the conversation where it belongs, on the question of What is the Gospel message. So it’s you trying to shift the conversation away from that question and unsuccessfully at that, why would you want to derail a thread? Stick to the OP

 

[ElishaElijah]

I don't know. Look it up. If you cant bother, don't make some accusations like "you didn't". If you don't know, simply and humbly say you don't know and then with that humility others will respond with respect.

Well I didn’t go through all the comments, I answered the question in the OP and you interjected yourself and asked an off topic question. So don’t answer the OP question, or cite your answer, I don’t care, but stick to the OP or if you make your own be happy to answer the other questions, although probably not now seen as I can see how that will go. Not interested

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I’m keeping the conversation where it belongs, on the question of What is the Gospel message. So it’s you trying to shift the conversation away from that question and unsuccessfully at that, why would you want to derail a thread? Stick to the OP

First of all, I find the Gospel message about declaring the Kingdom of God (Daniel 2:44; Daniel 7:13-14,18) was very important to Jesus as per Luke 4:43; Matthew 4:23.
God's Kingdom is the reason why Jesus' 'healing and other miraculous works' took second place.
The healing and resurrecting that Jesus performed was a sample preview for us, a coming attraction.
What Jesus did on a small scale Jesus will do on a GRAND scale during his 1,000 year Kingdom reign over Earth.-Revelation 22:2
So, the good news Gospel message is: Jesus as King of God's Kingdom will come and undo all the damage Satan and Adam brought upon humanity. 1 Corinthians 15:24-26
This is why we are all invited to pray the invitation to God for Jesus to come ! - Rev. 22:20

 

[PruePhillip]

Absolutely irrelevant.

Your statement in question was : The Gospels and Epistles were widely read, memorized and copied.

Your cut and paste on manuscripts is so irrelevant, absurd and just an evasion of your bogus claim.

Tell me, if people memorised the NT, and copied them so widely, read the so widely, can you tell me if memory failed or memory was invented between codex Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Alexandrines, Bazae and the TR and KJV?

Don't do some cut and paste. Think about the question.

The earliest surviving 'bible' was the Mt Sinai book. But here scribes had a problem - there were simply so many copies of the New Testament
works, with spelling errors, missing sections, candle wax and the like that you are left asking - where do I start? Some of these were hundreds
of years old - which has authority?
And this happened in the Old Testament too - I wonder if, in the centuries that the Jews were divided between Juda and Israel, that their bible
slowly changed by the same process. And when it came to compiling the works of the Tanakh that scribes were left to ask, 'Which is the authorative?'
(ie account of David meeting Saul.)
But the SUBSTANCE of the Gospel is preserved in all accounts (not counting the apocrypha such as Gospel of Thomas etc..)

 

[firedragon]

The earliest surviving 'bible' was the Mt Sinai book. But here scribes had a problem - there were simply so many copies of the New Testament
works, with spelling errors, missing sections, candle wax and the like that you are left asking - where do I start? Some of these were hundreds
of years old - which has authority?
And this happened in the Old Testament too - I wonder if, in the centuries that the Jews were divided between Juda and Israel, that their bible
slowly changed by the same process. And when it came to compiling the works of the Tanakh that scribes were left to ask, 'Which is the authorative?'
(ie account of David meeting Saul.)
But the SUBSTANCE of the Gospel is preserved in all accounts (not counting the apocrypha such as Gospel of Thomas etc..)

Thats irrelevant. Your script is so far from an answer.

Your statement in question was : The Gospels and Epistles were widely read, memorized and copied. I asked "when".

 

[firedragon]

The OP was mainly addressed to Christians but anyone could answer, so isn’t that what @Rival meant The Gospel according to the Bible ?

It doesnt say it. Could be.

 

[firedragon]

I’m keeping the conversation where it belongs, on the question of What is the Gospel message. So it’s you trying to shift the conversation away from that question and unsuccessfully at that, why would you want to derail a thread? Stick to the OP

You quote anonymous book. So obvious question is how do you make it authoritative. You got affected. Not anyones fault.

 

[ElishaElijah]

It doesnt say it. Could be.

This is the OP:
Mainly aimed at Christians but open to everyone.

What is the gospel message? If someone asked you 'What is the good news?' What would you say?

Do you have an answer?

 

[firedragon]

Well I didn’t go through all the comments, I answered the question in the OP and you interjected yourself and asked an off topic question. So don’t answer the OP question, or cite your answer, I don’t care, but stick to the OP or if you make your own be happy to answer the other questions, although probably not now seen as I can see how that will go. Not interested

Thats cute, but I am not your servant to go through the thread and find my post for your convenience. Why don't you pay someone minimum wage to do that sort of minions work to satisfy your ego?

 

[firedragon]

This is the OP:
Mainly aimed at Christians but open to everyone.

What is the gospel message? If someone asked you 'What is the good news?' What would you say?

If someone asked me what's the Gospel, I would say it was a revelation given to Jesus that he came to preach. As said in the New Testament in some places, he went to places and preached the Gospel. That does not mean he preached any of the four canonised books that were named gospels, but "The Gospel" as the Bible itself says.

 

[firedragon]

The earliest surviving 'bible' was the Mt Sinai book. But here scribes had a problem - there were simply so many copies of the New Testament
works, with spelling errors, missing sections, candle wax and the like that you are left asking - where do I start? Some of these were hundreds
of years old - which has authority?
And this happened in the Old Testament too - I wonder if, in the centuries that the Jews were divided between Juda and Israel, that their bible
slowly changed by the same process. And when it came to compiling the works of the Tanakh that scribes were left to ask, 'Which is the authorative?'
(ie account of David meeting Saul.)
But the SUBSTANCE of the Gospel is preserved in all accounts (not counting the apocrypha such as Gospel of Thomas etc..)

Though your post does not respond to my simple question to your statement, let me respond to this script anyway.

Mr. Sinai book as you referred to, was named codex sinaiticus. It not only has error corrections, but it also has no pericope adultarae, no comma, has two extra books in the New Testament, all the so called "Apocrypha" in the Old Testament, contains the Septuagint, no markan ending.

You claimed that "The Gospels and Epistles were widely read, memorized and copied.". I asked when, and you have so far just skirted around that question and you will never answer. Because you made that up. There is no indication of a memorisation tradition of the Gospels and there was no history written on it. So that was just something someone made up without any substance.

So obviously you cant provide any information on it and you have to skirt around that question. So you repeated some script about sinaiticus which was such lay information for no reason.

 

[PruePhillip]

Though your post does not respond to my simple question to your statement, let me respond to this script anyway.

Mr. Sinai book as you referred to, was named codex sinaiticus. It not only has error corrections, but it also has no pericope adultarae, no comma, has two extra books in the New Testament, all the so called "Apocrypha" in the Old Testament, contains the Septuagint, no markan ending.

You claimed that "The Gospels and Epistles were widely read, memorized and copied.". I asked when, and you have so far just skirted around that question and you will never answer. Because you made that up. There is no indication of a memorisation tradition of the Gospels and there was no history written on it. So that was just something someone made up without any substance.

So obviously you cant provide any information on it and you have to skirt around that question. So you repeated some script about sinaiticus which was such lay information for no reason.

Memorisation was a big deal in Greek-Roman times. Indeed, the whole of Homer's work Ilyad was often memorized.
And Jews, to this day, still memorize whole books of the bible. I knew a Jew, who as a boy, had to memorize the entire
Psalms - in six months. His father would ask, 'Read to me the Psalm 'The Lord is my Shepherd' and that boy would
recite Psalm 23. There were no Psalm numbers early days, just identified by first verse. So when Jesus cried 'My God
My God, why hast thou forsake me?' he was really saying to his followers, and the Jews too, 'Read Psalm 22, that's
about my on the cross.'
But I digress.
First Epistle was about AD 55. Luke's Acts was 'completed' ca AD 65 - and Luke drew extensively from the Gospels
of Matthew and Mark (probably Peter's own Gospel, written by his secretary Mark.)

 

[firedragon]

Memorisation was a big deal in Greek-Roman times. Indeed, the whole of Homer's work Ilyad was often memorized.

Thats the fallacy of composition.

Nevermind. I would like to read the scholar who claimed the New Testament was memorized during the early period of Christianity and had a tradition of memorisation. Not just claims, a scholarly book.

And Jews, to this day, still memorize whole books of the bible.

Not relevant to New Testament tradition.

First Epistle was about AD 55. Luke's Acts was 'completed' ca AD 65 - and Luke drew extensively from the Gospels
of Matthew and Mark (probably Peter's own Gospel, written by his secretary Mark.)

Why do you repeat the same old repeated thing? It's not relevant.

 

[PruePhillip]

Thats the fallacy of composition.

Nevermind. I would like to read the scholar who claimed the New Testament was memorized during the early period of Christianity and had a tradition of memorisation. Not just claims, a scholarly book.



Not relevant to New Testament tradition.



Why do you repeat the same old repeated thing? It's not relevant.

Was the NT ever memorized? No doubt - all great literature was memorized, particularly by people who couldn't
read or have access to expensive scripts. But I doubt this practice played much part in the transmission of the
Gospels. I suppose having scripts on you in Roman times could have been a death sentence.
But I have forgotten what this line of argument even was...

 

[firedragon]

Was the NT ever memorized?

Thats not the question. Your claim was not that "The NT was memorized by someone", your claim was "it was memorized" as in a tradition.

False. Thats why you have to now beat about the bush with a lot of non-information unrelated.

Quote a scholar and a book. If you cant, just own up and be a gentleman.

 

[PruePhillip]

Thats not the question. Your claim was not that "The NT was memorized by someone", your claim was "it was memorized" as in a tradition.

False. Thats why you have to now beat about the bush with a lot of non-information unrelated.

Quote a scholar and a book. If you cant, just own up and be a gentleman.

I didn't mean it in that way. Attention to written scripture was paramount. The 800 lb gorilla in the room is that around the First
Century there was this transition from 'sense to sense' to 'word to word' with writing or translating scripture. But which one
are we looking at here? Like all things in scripture, it's a mystery.

But to be frank, for all the variations between these early books, there is one thing paramount - none of them impinge in any
way upon the account of Jesus and his doctrine.

 

[firedragon]

I didn't mean it in that way. Attention to written scripture was paramount. The 800 lb gorilla in the room is that around the First
Century there was this transition from 'sense to sense' to 'word to word' with writing or translating scripture. But which one
are we looking at here? Like all things in scripture, it's a mystery.

Its like this. When someone says "the Bible was memorized" that cannot be substantiated by saying "are you saying it was never memorized". Maybe someday someone memorized the whole New Testament and we dont know about him or her. Thats not evidence to your claim.

Anyway, that conversation over.

The rest of those words you are just preaching to the gallery and I cant respond to that.

But to be frank, for all the variations between these early books, there is one thing paramount - none of them impinge in any
way upon the account of Jesus and his doctrine.

This is just irrelevant as usual. AND, its absolutely false.

The only verse in the entire Bible that says God, Holy Spirit, and Jesus are one was a textual variant. If you are a unitarian, the variant proves your statement false, and if you are a trinitarian, the variant still proves your statement false.

The existence of this proves that it is not uniform in the theology or doctrine about Jesus.

 

[PruePhillip]

Its like this. When someone says "the Bible was memorized" that cannot be substantiated by saying "are you saying it was never memorized". Maybe someday someone memorized the whole New Testament and we dont know about him or her. Thats not evidence to your claim.

Anyway, that conversation over.

The rest of those words you are just preaching to the gallery and I cant respond to that.



This is just irrelevant as usual. AND, its absolutely false.

The only verse in the entire Bible that says God, Holy Spirit, and Jesus are one was a textual variant. If you are a unitarian, the variant proves your statement false, and if you are a trinitarian, the variant still proves your statement false.

The existence of this proves that it is not uniform in the theology or doctrine about Jesus.

Re God, the Spirit and Jesus are 'one' - that's Trinitarian from the fourth or fifth century Catholic tradition - about as valid as purgatory,
indulgences, praying the rosary, monasteries and Mary, Queen of Heaven. Frankly, reading Constanines declaration on Trinity does my
head in.