What is "The Good News?"

[EBA]

Tell me, what is "The Good News?"

Peace be to all.

[onewithhim]

It would be great if, instead of repeating yourself, folks here would comment directly on what has already been posted, including the links provided.

It is toil enough to comment on the suggestions of other posters without having to correct the mistakes of unknown contributors from the Great and Holy Internet. I find their explanations generally flawed and sometimes silly.

Whether or not Jesus uttered his Father's actual name in his model prayer, the Father has a name. To tell people about the Father and not use His personal name is beyond reason. How can someone describe YOU without mentioning your name?

With tremendous ease. They discuss some article I have written and simply quote "the writer." Jesus would speak of "the father". It would be unusual, I think, for him to employ "Jehovah" since children do not normally use their parents' names when speaking of them. So in this you are completely wrong.

The kingdom does include paradise on Earth, and it is a real government. (Daniel 2:44) Jesus indicated that by means of the kingdom there would be conditions on Earth, of peace and harmony, just as there were peaceful conditions in heaven.

I feel this explanation is bordering on the fanciful. Why would heaven model itself on man's practices? The use of "government" and "kingship" in connection with future post mortem existence is fatuous, if meant literally. We can cope with figurative usage, which was almost certainly what was meant.

Heaven would not model itself on man's practices. Conversely, the earth would be modeled after what heaven is like---true peace, joy, harmony, love.

[marco]

It really is not a good explanation because he was speaking to the Pharisees who he compared to hypocrites and snakes. (See Matthew chapter 23.) How could they have the kingdom inside themselves?

I read the attempted explanation, onewithhim. First of all a comment made one day does not necessarily apply next day, else Peter would be perpetually Satan. (Matthew 16:23).

Jesus in Matthew condemned the hypocrisy found in Pharisees. Here, in Luke 20 he still has his general audience but is asked a question by some Pharisee; to which he answers that the Kingdom is not something to be seen, but it is a quality within a person, such as righteousness. This is a perfectly good explanation of what was intended. The "you" is meant to mean "people". His words are for everyone. Even us! He intends us to know that the location of heavenly goodness is inside a person, not a fixed building one can see. This makes more sense than the "explanation" offered. But if you wish to say there is some doubt (which apparently there is), then Jesus wasn't making himself clear. He was, to me, in this instance.

[JehovahsWitness]

The explanation given in your reference accepts that Jesus said the Kingdom is within you but then suggests that Jesus could not have meant inside the person when this is a perfectly good explanation

I dont accept your value judgement that a literal reading is a "perfectly good explanation", indeed such a reading is a perfectly ludicrous explanation which fails both to take into account what the Kingdom is or the immediate or greater context in favour of some preconceived notions based on religious dogma. While the "you" is indeed referring to the you "people", the "within" is what is under discussion.

References to the original Greek as well as a list of bible translations which support my view can be found within my explanation.

JW


RELATED POSTS


What do Jesus' words "the kingdom is within you" mean?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 934#865934

Did Jesus admit to Pilate to being a king
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 494#884494
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 960#886960

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 1 by EBA]

The Good News is announced in the opening verses of Matthew 5, enumerated in the Beattitudes.

[Elijah John]

The good news? People are sinners but can be saved from their addiction to sin and the legal consequences of that sin by faith, an unproven hope, in Christ as their Saviour.

Who taught that, Jesus or Paul? If Jesus, where did Jesus teach that?

Seems to me that the "Good News" according to Jesus involved proclaiming the Father's mercy, and calling folks to repentance. And teaching love of God and neighbor.

Though Paul may have considered Jesus the Savior, Jesus himself seems to have considered Father God the Savior. As did his mother Mary, "my heart rejoices in God my Savior" (from her Canticle)

[marco]

I dont accept your value judgement that a literal reading is a "perfectly good explanation", indeed such a reading is a perfectly ludicrous explanation which fails both to take into account what the Kingdom is or the immediate or greater context in favour of some preconceived notions based on religious dogma.

I didn't say "literal reading" since kingdom of heaven cannot be taken literally with the words "within you." I said the OBVIOUS meaning is what the words say. Regardless of how we see it, the phrase requires an interpretation, and so we have a problem. I maintain my reading is the one Christ intended. It ticks all boxes. No one listening could have deduced the one you refer to.


A I said I have read the attempt at an explanation and the attempt to define kingdom in such a way that it fits in with some plan that perhaps never entered Christ's head. I accept this attempt is an interpretation, though not a good one. Why? Because the obvious explanation: the kingdom of heaven is inside each person - we must look inside ourselves to discover it, else remain blind - has unjustly been discarded on the basis that Jesus would not position goodness inside Pharisees. Would he regard Peter as a source of goodness when he called him Satan?


The Kingdom of Heaven may be many things and the fact we are arguing over an interpretation illustrates the point that Jesus did not explain himself too clearly.

[OnceConvinced]

The bad news is all around us; it's the good news that requires faith.

Exactly. You need to believe on pure faith that by ignoring all these problems and refusing to be part of the solution some invisible Sky Daddy will somehow save you precisely because you refused to do anything constructive about these problems.

The thing is the invisible sky daddy is not actually saving us from any of this. It's happening and God is letting it happen, so where is the salvation?

One day we are all going to die, but once we're dead, what do we need saving from? If we're dead, we're dead, so have no need of being saved from all that sin and anguish because it's no longer an issue for us.

So why not leave us dead?

But oh no, the bad news is that we are going to be ripped from our graves and going to be humiliated in public on Judgement Day. Then we're going to be dragged off by the angels and cast into the lake of fire. That doesn't sound like good news at all.

The only supposed good news is for those who are believers already, ie they are going to go to Heaven, rather than be cast into Hell by the angels. However the "good news" is being preached to the lost not those who are already saved. For the saved it's not even news. For the saved, they're already saved anyway, so it's neither good nor bad. To the lost its absolutely horrendous news. ie we are all despicable people deserving of death at the hands of God.

Can the gospel of salvation truly it really be considered good news when first we have to embrace the truly horrible news? After all, the horrible news is only horrible news because God intended it to be that way.

We'd be far better off just recognizing that there is no God and deal with these very real problems the best we can instead of preaching to people that some imaginary God is going to save us from this God's own mean and cruel creation.

Absolutely. The real good news would be if men got off their butts and saved themselves, rather than waiting for Jesus to do it.

This is a lesson I had to learn the hard way. After many years of begging and asking God to help me, I realised I was getting nowhere. I learnt that if I wanted to improve my own life I had to be the one that saved myself. That's what we all need to realise, that for mankind to be saved, we need to save ourselves.

[onewithhim]

It really is not a good explanation because he was speaking to the Pharisees who he compared to hypocrites and snakes. (See Matthew chapter 23.) How could they have the kingdom inside themselves?

I read the attempted explanation, onewithhim. First of all a comment made one day does not necessarily apply next day, else Peter would be perpetually Satan. (Matthew 16:23).

Jesus in Matthew condemned the hypocrisy found in Pharisees. Here, in Luke 20 he still has his general audience but is asked a question by some Pharisee; to which he answers that the Kingdom is not something to be seen, but it is a quality within a person, such as righteousness. This is a perfectly good explanation of what was intended. The "you" is meant to mean "people". His words are for everyone. Even us! He intends us to know that the location of heavenly goodness is inside a person, not a fixed building one can see. This makes more sense than the "explanation" offered. But if you wish to say there is some doubt (which apparently there is), then Jesus wasn't making himself clear. He was, to me, in this instance.

Jesus spoke directly to the Pharisees. They asked him when the kingdom of God was coming. His answer was to them. He said that the kingdom would not come "with striking observableness" (or, "cannot be observed," NAB) because it is invisible to humans, always being in heaven and ruling from there. He then brought their attention to the fact that the representative of that kingdom---himself---was right there among them. That is what he was saying to those Pharisees. He THEN went on to speak to his disciples. (Luke 17:20,21)

That is quite clear to me. I have no doubt.


"Look! The kingdom of God is in your midst (or, is among you)."

[onewithhim]

I dont accept your value judgement that a literal reading is a "perfectly good explanation", indeed such a reading is a perfectly ludicrous explanation which fails both to take into account what the Kingdom is or the immediate or greater context in favour of some preconceived notions based on religious dogma.

I didn't say "literal reading" since kingdom of heaven cannot be taken literally with the words "within you." I said the OBVIOUS meaning is what the words say. Regardless of how we see it, the phrase requires an interpretation, and so we have a problem. I maintain my reading is the one Christ intended. It ticks all boxes. No one listening could have deduced the one you refer to.


A I said I have read the attempt at an explanation and the attempt to define kingdom in such a way that it fits in with some plan that perhaps never entered Christ's head. I accept this attempt is an interpretation, though not a good one. Why? Because the obvious explanation: the kingdom of heaven is inside each person - we must look inside ourselves to discover it, else remain blind - has unjustly been discarded on the basis that Jesus would not position goodness inside Pharisees. Would he regard Peter as a source of goodness when he called him Satan?


The Kingdom of Heaven may be many things and the fact we are arguing over an interpretation illustrates the point that Jesus did not explain himself too clearly.

THIS is inside each person?.......

"The God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be brought to ruin. It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it will stand forever." (Daniel 2:44)

[onewithhim]

The bad news is all around us; it's the good news that requires faith.

Exactly. You need to believe on pure faith that by ignoring all these problems and refusing to be part of the solution some invisible Sky Daddy will somehow save you precisely because you refused to do anything constructive about these problems.

The thing is the invisible sky daddy is not actually saving us from any of this. It's happening and God is letting it happen, so where is the salvation?

Our "sky daddy" is just about ready to tell Satan his time is up. The Devil has had quite enough time to prove his point that Jehovah isn't necessary to run His own creation. His point has bitten him in his butt, and he has been shown to be a big bag of wind. All of humankind that accepts God's gift of everlasting life will be saved from all evil---suffering, heartache, death. Aren't those good things to be saved from?