COMMUNITY NOTICE: If you are having trouble in your account access, please do send us a message at [email protected] for assistance.

What is the Gospel?

Many think that the Gospel is the book written and compiled and composed by four different authors, matthew, mark, luke & john; actually, what they used to read is only an account of the life of Jesus and his teachings --- the gospel is only incorporated within their writings.

The gospel is a testimony of events that eyewitnesses guaranteed the veracity of its occurence; this testimony is communicated by verbal (preaching) and through writing... it focuses on the death and resurrection of Jesus and his going up to heaven... the disciples testified about what they saw; these are literal events...

The testimony of the eyewitnesses is what we heard or read --- either we accept it or we do not is up to us what is important is that they were preached to us, and they were the only ones who where in the position to preach because they were the ones who literally saw and experienced these events (death, resurrection & ascension) but the rest of the world are made only to listen to what they were about to say.

The gospel is a close statement wherein you could not add to it or subtract anything from it --- it is exact; afterall it is only an event that were unfolded in the eyes of Jesus' disciples, if nothing did not happened therefore the eyewitnesses will not testify about it.

Comments and questions are very much welcome...
«13456716

Comments

  • tontontonton Let's stop and talk awhile. PExer
    In other words, hearsay.
  • tonton wrote: »
    In other words, hearsay.

    well, that is what others might think...
  • marcus_huntmarcus_hunt Member PExer
    Who among these authors are eyewitnesses?
  • Who among these authors are eyewitnesses?

    technically, we do not know who the eyewitnesses were, but what we only know is their testimony...
  • tontontonton Let's stop and talk awhile. PExer
    technically, we do not know who the eyewitnesses were, but what we only know is their testimony...

    Eh di hearsay nga.
  • tonton wrote: »
    Eh di hearsay nga.

    hearsay but not in a sense as in gossip...
  • tontontonton Let's stop and talk awhile. PExer
    hearsay but not in a sense as in gossip...

    Nobody is saying it's gossip.
  • tonton wrote: »
    Nobody is saying it's gossip.

    of course there are; there is no complete agreement in accepting the Gospel...

    either one believe the testimony to be true or one believe it not to be true...
  • there are many exceptions to the hearsay rule. for example, if a testimony is part of the res gestae, it may still have evidentiary value even though it is not based on the personal knowledge of the witness.

    res gestae is a reference to events speaking by themselves through the instinctive words and acts of participants, rather than the words and acts of participants when narrating events.

    suppose, tonton is nonchalantly speed-walking in the neighborhood. he suddenly hears a loud sonic boom in the sky. he looks up and sees a trail of white clouds reaching up into the heavens. he has no idea what it is. suddenly, he hears a startled man screaming, "Holy sh!t! Holy sh!t! it's jesus freaking christ himself! i'd recognize that man anywhere. i saw him standing right there, and when he noticed me, he sonic-boomed into a rainbow-colored spaceship yonder!"

    suppose further that the startled man leaves the scene even before the authorities arrive making tonton the only witness to the event. in this case, tonton's narration of the event, even though hearsay, may still be accepted as competent because the statement of the declarant (the startled man) relates to the circumstances of the startling event or occurrence. the declaration of the startled man was made under conditions suggestive of the truth. accordingly, the basis for the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule is that the perceived event produces nervous excitement, making fabrications about that event unlikely.

    be warned, however, that the admissibility of evidence does not necessarily translate to its veracity. admissibility is one thing, veracity is another. the former refers to the question of whether a purported piece of evidence is to be considered at all, while veracity or probative value addresses the question of whether an admitted evidence proves an issue. in my example, the testimony of the startled man as told by tonton is simply pathetic, for lack of a better term. no tribunal will find that believable. and that, my friends, is the story of the bible. amen. tonton, mangolekta ka na ng love offering, i'm done preaching.
  • PyrosPyros Faith Under Fire PExer
    One must take more than the proverbial grain of salt before swallowing everything written in the gospel.
  • SmartDessaSmartDessa Things divide;Christ unites PExer
    TS wrote:
    ...these are literal events...

    ops ops ops, be very careful when using that word.

    :D
  • ManunuwagManunuwag 5tutokNaSungay PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    SmartDessa wrote: »
    ops ops ops, be very careful when using that word.

    :D
    bakit ?
    pakisagot
  • redeemedredeemed Member PExer
    The Gospel is good news. Hell and judgment are real, but they’re not

    good news. Any gospel that leaves you fearful of an angry and

    judgmental God is no gospel at all. Any gospel that leaves you insecure

    and uncertain, forever wondering, Am I accepted? Am I forgiven? is not

    good news. Any gospel (doctrine/teaching) that demands you sign up for

    a lifetime of progressive sanctification and yet offers no guarantee

    that you will ever make it, is not good news. Any gospel that forces

    cripples to jump through hoops of religious performance is no gospel at all.



    The Gospel is the glad & merry news that God is good, He loves us, and

    He will happily give up everything He has so He can have us. He is for

    us, and He wants to share His life w/ us forever. Jesus is proof of

    this. On the cross God showed that He loved us while we are sinners and

    that He would rather die than live w/out us. And through the

    resurrection He proved that nothing, not even death can separate us

    from the love that is ours in Jesus Christ. Going to church, praying nth times

    a day, avoiding sin would not save us, and only that pleases God is faith

    in Jesus. Because of what Jesus has done, we are forgiven, we have been

    clothed with His righteousness (not of our own good work--self-righteous),

    and we have been adopted into His family.



    The Gospel is true whether we believe it or not, but it won't do us any

    good unless we believe it.


    :)
  • almario38almario38 Member PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    The love gospel of only believing without even seeing the kingdom of God.
    As such a shadow of the universal salvation doctrine

    We have to be in after entering as a converted little child.

    matt 18:3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the
    kingdom of heaven.
  • almario38almario38 Member PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    SmartDessa wrote: »
    ops ops ops, be very careful when using that word.

    :D
    Manunuwag wrote: »
    bakit ?
    pakisagot
    Where is your one liner answer here ?
  • tontontonton Let's stop and talk awhile. PExer
    of course there are; there is no complete agreement in accepting the Gospel...

    either one believe the testimony to be true or one believe it not to be true...

    But why believe it instead of disbelieving in it or vice versa?
  • tonton wrote: »
    But why believe it instead of disbelieving in it or vice versa?

    (People do not consider the question why they do not believe the gospel... they end up putting up reasons; rationale of why they should not accept it... but some people did not even consider it too as to why they believe -- they just have to accept it as it is... both have their own justifications as to whether why they responded to the gospel and this is the gospel design -- that men should be divided and be separated as the chaff from the grain...

    The gospel -- the testimony -- is only meant to be preached; to be heralded and it is not designed to be scrutinized and to write books about it to eithr refute or uphold... the gospel searches men's hearts to be able to see its core for what it is worth either for good or for evil...)

    The veracity of the witnesses testimony is not meant for the world but only for a handful of men (the witnesses)... What is given to the world is the option either to believe or not to believe their testimony -- and without the gospel there is no option but to accept the non-gospel -- the bad news -- by default...

    The non-gospel or the bad news is this: you are going to die (biologically) but the gospel or good news is: you are going to live (also biologically -- but in newness -- even after your cadaver decayed!) and how this event would happen can be seen inside the gospel's message...
  • tontontonton Let's stop and talk awhile. PExer
    (People do not consider the question why they do not believe the gospel... they end up putting up reasons; rationale of why they should not accept it... but some people did not even consider it too as to why they believe -- they just have to accept it as it is... both have their own justifications as to whether why they responded to the gospel and this is the gospel design -- that men should be divided and be separated as the chaff from the grain...

    The gospel -- the testimony -- is only meant to be preached; to be heralded and it is not designed to be scrutinized and to write books about it to eithr refute or uphold... the gospel searches men's hearts to be able to see its core for what it is worth either for good or for evil...)

    The veracity of the witnesses testimony is not meant for the world but only for a handful of men (the witnesses)... What is given to the world is the option either to believe or not to believe their testimony -- and without the gospel there is no option but to accept the non-gospel -- the bad news -- by default...

    The non-gospel or the bad news is this: you are going to die (biologically) but the gospel or good news is: you are going to live (also biologically -- but in newness -- even after your cadaver decayed!) and how this event would happen can be seen inside the gospel's message...

    If it is not meant to be scrutinized, pag may nag preach, maniwala nalang basta. Ganon ba?
  • marcus_huntmarcus_hunt Member PExer
    Writings: Not only that some of them were pseudographics, these writers werent eyewitnesses.

    Then they were collected and the majority, those who were in power, decided which is to be "The Gospel". From then on, they are. Those that were rejected were declared either of minor importance, heretic or just plain wrong and evil.

    To defend the selection, was the Church of the majority and in power. The gospel is never wrong, if its seems that way then it must be your interpretation. If your interpretation does not agree with the official one, your's is wrong. If the official interpretation seems out of place, just remember that The Church made The Gospel.

    If you still think its wrong, do it ALA Christianity, call the Jews wrong, create a new The Gospel maybe call it the Newer Testament, and with it a new cult. Dont be a freeloader and then brand The Church as wrong in interpreting "their Gospel" and create a new cult with it.
  • ItugkibsItugkibs Member PExer
    There are many gospels which is why the Catholic Church decided to compile and canon those scriptures inspired by God. The Catholic Church made the selection and decided what are the inspired books and what are not.

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file