Jesus, the crucifix, and salvation

[MarleVVLL]

I relayed to you what the Bible documents. Jesus preached 'the gospel', then he died. His message prior to his death went mostly without mention to his atoning death and redeeming resurrection; hence my discussion.

[Noeb]

So what did his hearers, not you, think the gospel was? How did Jesus define it?

[smcllr]

The gospel or "good news" as preached by John the Baptist and Jesus was the "Kingdom of God is at hand". Later in 1 Cor 15 it appears that the good news evolved just as news does today. When new information comes out, then it is included with the message. No one is still saying that planes struck the world trade centers as if it is news. They are telling the lives of those since then but remembering the horrible event. I think John and Jesus reported on the good news as it developed and after Jesus died that became part of it, especially because God raised him from the dead demonstrating something about this King and his policies. Obviously one would want to include that with the former good news. So I can see how the gospel could be preached without the inclusion of the death and resurrection because news changes over time and if the news gets better as it goes it could in some way eclipse the former but the good news is nothing more than good news. It merely demonstrates that you have every reason to put your faith in Christ's teaching and adopt his policies. Modern preaching has narrowed that down to belief in the news, as if knowing something about the man Jesus is some sort of key to heaven. So when we see it changing or progressing in the Bible, we think it curious because we are taught that this knowledge has to be complete in order to have the magical key. That concept is foreign to the Bible though. It was reconciliation and obedience that brought one into the "life of the age".

[MarleVVLL]

This is a digression, but there is a difference (in my lowly opinion) between the 'gospel' which was introduced at least after Isaiah was born (Is 40:9; 52:7) and the 'remission of sins', which is a preface of the Isaian 'gospel' which is, as smcllr mentioned, the rulership of God (as seen in Jesus via the NT witness?).

This explains or offers another perspective to the evolution of the good news. I am not against historical evolution of ideas, but histo-critical historians like to use this as ammo against confessionalists or conservative scholars. If the 'remission of sins' is a different message, but nonetheless related to the 'gospel', it works in light of Christian theological progression. "Remissions of sins" is still good news nonetheless, but may not be what Isaiah had in mind, ie., it was not the 'gospel' in an exegetical sense according to the original meaning of the former passages.

[Noeb]

Neither was the good news to Abraham and the people of Moses' day, but they knew without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins. Tribes in the remote jungle know that w/o any good news.