Interplanner
Well-known member
The following statement should make the NT background and history cohere properly (instead of ignoring it) and should satisfy some people's need for 'another' gospel.
There is only one Gospel, but it was introduced in the early 1st century when the rebellion predicted by dan 9 was already showing. In Judas the Galilean in the days of the census. That is a fact of both history and Luke and Josephus. The Gospel of the Lamb of God had an 'angle' for Israel: if it became missionaries through the Spirit of the work of this Gospel it would be the fulfillment of all the lines of Genesis about blessing all the nations. It could get along with Roman admin, doing so.
The alternative: Israel could continue to resist Roman admin, because of beliefs from the prophets or all the way back to the Torah, without their meaning in Christ. Resistance would be futile, but obviously there were cracy messianics who believed God would fight for them. You will find these materials in the Dead Sea Scrolls etc.
This comes to a head in the letter of warning to the Hebrews because they are to hear the voice and enter the rest as did the 40 yr generation in the wildernness. If they do not, their land will be burnt. The only other allusion to this (well, the term desolation is general enough to include this too) is the parable in Mt 22:7, where those who don't come to the wedding have their city burnt.
In this view, there was a 'good announcement' for people of that time. Because most were dreading what would happen through the zealots. In acts 13, a group of Jews at synagogue in the 40s 3 countries away from Israel ask "Is there any encouraging news?" and the subject, Paul knew, was the country of Israel. The encouraging news was the ENVELOPEMENT of Israel's problems inside the resurrection and mission of the Gospel. For the resurrection fulfilled all promises to Israel.
In that sense only is there another good news, but it does not compete with justification in Christ as does MAD etc. It is simply a by-product benefit in those decades in Judea. To adopt any other Gospel is anathema, and it does no good to find a moment in Peter's mistaken slide and call that another 'legitimate' Gospel.
There is only one Gospel, but it was introduced in the early 1st century when the rebellion predicted by dan 9 was already showing. In Judas the Galilean in the days of the census. That is a fact of both history and Luke and Josephus. The Gospel of the Lamb of God had an 'angle' for Israel: if it became missionaries through the Spirit of the work of this Gospel it would be the fulfillment of all the lines of Genesis about blessing all the nations. It could get along with Roman admin, doing so.
The alternative: Israel could continue to resist Roman admin, because of beliefs from the prophets or all the way back to the Torah, without their meaning in Christ. Resistance would be futile, but obviously there were cracy messianics who believed God would fight for them. You will find these materials in the Dead Sea Scrolls etc.
This comes to a head in the letter of warning to the Hebrews because they are to hear the voice and enter the rest as did the 40 yr generation in the wildernness. If they do not, their land will be burnt. The only other allusion to this (well, the term desolation is general enough to include this too) is the parable in Mt 22:7, where those who don't come to the wedding have their city burnt.
In this view, there was a 'good announcement' for people of that time. Because most were dreading what would happen through the zealots. In acts 13, a group of Jews at synagogue in the 40s 3 countries away from Israel ask "Is there any encouraging news?" and the subject, Paul knew, was the country of Israel. The encouraging news was the ENVELOPEMENT of Israel's problems inside the resurrection and mission of the Gospel. For the resurrection fulfilled all promises to Israel.
In that sense only is there another good news, but it does not compete with justification in Christ as does MAD etc. It is simply a by-product benefit in those decades in Judea. To adopt any other Gospel is anathema, and it does no good to find a moment in Peter's mistaken slide and call that another 'legitimate' Gospel.