1 Corinthians 15 makes the atonement central to the gospel: “Christ died for our sins”. The resurrection is central to the passage as evidence of his death being for sins when he also said, “if Christ has not been raised… we are still in our sins.” Atonement for sin in Christ IS the gospel and it is good news indeed.
Atonement and salvation are a huge theme in the gospels and the whole bible, of course. But when we ask the question “what are the gospel writers chiefly saying in these testimonies?” We do not think the central message is how to get saved, or how to get to heaven, or how to acquire eternal life. The emphasis of the 4 gospels, is about Jesus’ identity and the reign of God coming with Him as He is God with us. This has cosmic significance to all creation, in restoration and new creation. Which of course also has significance to us personally, as God’s image bearers in a fallen world and in our sin. Mark opens saying clearly, “The beginning of the good news of Jesus, the Messiah, the Son of God,” (Mark 1:1). Matthew opens with Jesus as the son of David, his identity as messiah, the fulfilment of scripture. And emphasises the good news as the kingdom of heaven “From that time Jesus began to proclaim, ‘Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near.’” (Matthew 4:17). And in John, he writes “These are written so that you may come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through believing you may have life in his name.” (John 20:31). See here in John, the gospel is the identity of Jesus, and the salvation comes through it. As in the passage of Corinthians you yourself cite, Paul says “The gospel... by which you are being saved” (1 Corinthians 15:2). The “by which” clearly posits salvation as something that happens through the gospel, not as the gospel itself. The preposition "by" (Greek: δι’, "through") indicates the gospel is the means or instrument leading to salvation. The statement separates the good news (the gospel) from the result (salvation). This suggests that salvation flows from the gospel but is not identical to it. The gospel itself is the proclamation of Christ's life, death, and resurrection as the fulfilment of God's plan for the world, a vindication and victory of Jesus. Salvation is the outcome of believing and embracing THAT gospel. Therefore, the good news is not salvation in itself but the announcement of what God has done in Christ, which, in turn, brings salvation to those who believe. The gospel is, in essence, an announcement of something that has happened - Jesus happened! and this is the good news - For God is good, and Jesus is God with us. Therefore/ thus/consequentially, etc. Repent and believe in Christ, make disciples of all nations, as He gathers up all things in Him, things in heaven and things on earth. And indeed, His blood has made atonement; a way into Him. As David’s victory over Goliath, and Moses leading a way through the seas, Jesus has indeed made a way.
I'm going to be honest I never really understood penial substitution. It just never seemed completely logical. I always just felt like a piece of the puzzle was missing for me.
Your comment seems to ignore the theology of Romans 2 and later. It makes the sacrificial system in the Old Testament and Jesus fulfilment of it almost irrelevant. Remember, Jesus is referred to in John’s Gospel as the lamb of God. Moreover, Holy Communion only really makes sense in the light of Jesus substitutionary and sacrificial death.
Thanks for your comment Jonathan. I understand your concern, and I am certainly not saying that atonement has nothing to do with the Gospel. Here is a direct quote from the transcript of the video: “…every aspect of the passion story is about the messiahship of Jesus and not so much about atonement--atonement, to be sure, is part of the story, but the central message is that Jesus is the true Son of God.” Jesus’ atonement work is an important subpoint of the Gospel but the central theme of the 4 Gospels and the preaching in Acts was to the identity of Jesus as Messiah, Son of God, predicted in the OT scriptures and validated by the resurrection. Included in the good new is that we have been atoned for and set free from the curse of sin and death. However, we are left with questions about which Lamb Jesus is. Jesus’ death at Passover would identify him closely with the Passover Lamb. Or is he all the Lambs in one? And when we say Jesus died for us, did he die in our stead, or did he represent us in death as our champion, like young David in his battle with Goliath? The word ‘for’ is also used to say Jesus rose from the dead for us, obviously he did not rise instead of us, rather he represented us in his resurrection in his defeat and victory over the power of sin and death giving us hope that we will follow him through death and into resurrection, joining him in his victory. Can I recommend reading Lamb of the Free by Andrew Rillera, a ground-breaking book and a must read for any serious investigation of atonement, and also Rethinking the atonement by David Moffitt. Also see a previous video on the subject of Jesus’ death here: ruclips.net/video/O60L2-1HOcY/видео.htmlsi=CXDCwtDe9IJRb59e
this seems almost like a "missing the forest for the trees" situation. "Messiah" means "rescuer" or "savior." so you're saying "Jesus is the Rescuer!" but that literally begs the questions, who is He rescuing? and what is He rescuing them from? yes, the gospel is that Jesus is the promised rescuer/savior/messiah, but that literally means *NOTHING* to us if we were not in need of saving in the first place.
Messiah/Christ certainly was the term for a hoped-for Redeemer/Saviour king in second-temple period Judaism, although the association is not a direct meaning. The direct meaning of this word is simply anointed one, or to be anointed or smeared with oil. But in a sense, you are right, this can seem like a lot of tree gazing and not appreciating the forest vista before us. But all this comes to what we think is a difference in approaching the text, and how we interpret the four gospels - hermeneutics in short. So much of church history - all history really - is not about the facts of the case, but the interpretation of the facts. What are the four gospels about, and what is the gospel? This is the question. So much of the traditional protestant response - and indeed this in reaction to the catholic response - is answered in forms of soteriology and atonement theories. The gospel in the wider western churches is “How God saves sinners.” Following from that, much of the church’s focus has been how to relate to God and this salvation. For Catholics, the gospel is how Jesus established the church (the roman church), and the means of grace (sacraments) by which sinners may receive justification and keep in a state of grace. For protestants, it’s how to have a personal relationship with God, how the atonement works, and how one is justified in faith, grace, Christ alone (Sola’s). From all this, we find many reduce the story of the four gospels to an over-simplification of hows. How to get to heaven when you die, how to get your sins forgiven, how this affects one’s own self and personal situation. Rather than the cosmic scope the gospel truly has. We are arguing that the gospel and the gospels, as understood by the apostles, is not first and foremost an answering of how to get saved. But rather a rich account of the identity, reality, and victory of Jesus as the resurrected messiah and Lord. From this, comes all the ology’s of the church. Soteriology, yes. But also, eschatology, ecclesiology, missiology, anthropology, etc. Evangelicals often speak of how people won’t accept a Saviour until they recognize they’re a sinner. And that increasingly, very few people will accept the premise that they are a sinner, or even the presumption of sin or evil itself. But perhaps the real challenge is not simply convincing people of their personal sin, but rather revealing the cosmic scope of the gospel-the good news that Jesus is not only the Savior of individuals but the reigning Messiah and Lord of all creation. The gospel is not just a personal salvation story; it’s the announcement of God’s reign breaking into history through Jesus, and this has far-reaching implications beyond personal moral failure. Before we ask, "Do you recognize your sin?" we should ask, "Do you recognize the reality and significance of Jesus if He really is who He claimed to be?” The gospel isn't merely about recognizing our need for a Saviour. It's about recognizing the reality that God has acted in history to make all things new in Christ. Once we see Jesus as Lord and King, then the need for salvation-both personal and cosmic-becomes clear, and the invitation to live in light of that kingdom vision becomes compelling. We would say that missing this cosmic story of the gospel, for a personal soteriology of how to get to heaven after you die, is missing the forest for the trees.
The Gospel of Paul is the good news that Jesus is Christ and Lord, risen from death. In Matthew, Peter declares ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ (Matthew 16:13-20). And Jesus affirms this, and says 'on this rock, I will build my church'. And goes on to explain the need for his death and resurrection. In this, the gospel of Paul and Jesus’ own understanding of himself and what must be done, and is done, are the same. In this, both preach the kingdom of God comes in Jesus as God with us, us in Him and Him in us, all things summed up in Him. In this, we see the gospel as being once proclaimed, and delivered, unchanged, and the gates of hades shall not overcome it.
@@Godwit_Ministries There are some problems with your statement about Paul and Matthew. Firstly, Paul, as I said, never ever refers to the words of Jesus (except when reciting the Lord's Supper story, which is clearly a ritual text he has learned from other Christians). Paul either did not know what Jesus taught or was not interested. The author of Matthew is writing after Paul's version of the Gospel has taken root in many churches, so his inclusion of the passage about Jesus explaining why he must suffer and die makes sense - although we can be certain that this never happened. The passage you pointed to is actually very vague - Jesus never mentions that this death somehow redeams people from sin. Note that the desciples in ALL the gospel accounts of the crucifixion clearly did not expect the ressurection - especially not after the very specific 3 days which Matthew says Jesus mentioned. Did they forget this very important information? No, Matthew is simply an not an eyewitness, and is including passages to try and link his Gospel to the emerging Christology of the church he belongs to.
While Paul may have few direct quotes from Jesus, we do find his epistles to be focused on Jesus’ teachings. On the sacraments, love fulfilling the law, non-retaliation and blessing those who persecute you, baptism of gentiles, and the kingdom of God which seemed central to Jesus’ ministry in the gospels. And of course, his life, death and resurrection, which Paul viewed as the fullness of Jesus’ ministry, as well as the whole narrative of the law and prophets, and God’s fulfilment of His ends. As for the historicity of the gospel of Matthew, the current consensus of scholars in textual criticism is that Matthew and Mark reference each and a potential Q source document, along with their own independent attestations, emphases and intentions. There does not seem to be any evidence the Matthew gospel was influenced by the Pauline epistles. We have to remember that Paul’s epistles where letters to particular churches, regarding particular theological and communal issues. Not in the genre ancient biographies like the gospels. Different genres breed differences in writing on a subject, naturally. But even with these literary differences and authorial focuses, we would contend that the emergence of these writings are the genuine expressions of the earliest beliefs of the church, which were unified by a central proclamation. Even as we acknowledge the disagreements that emerged in those early days, they are seen in the light of that central message, by which there is the epistles condemning false teaching, secondary issues, internal debate etc. These debates are all made downstream of a central belief. In most any interpretation, we must first come to an understanding of the facts of the case. There are the facts of the case, and the interpretation of the facts. Most of church history - indeed much of all social history - is not about the facts, but the interpretations and conclusions from them. What are the bare historical facts of the early church's rise, stripped of theological or philosophical interpretation, focus on what is observable through historical evidence of sociological, textual, and archaeological data? The Facts: the early church began as a Jewish movement in the 1st century CE, centred on the life, death, and believed resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, whom his followers understood to be the Messiah and Lord. After Jesus’ crucifixion, key figures like Peter, James, John and Paul spread his teachings across the Roman Empire, particularly in cities like Antioch, Corinth, and Rome. Christian communities, meeting in private homes, grew despite occasional persecution. Within decades, Christianity had established a presence in several Roman provinces, with writings like Paul’s letters and early Gospel accounts circulating, reflecting the belief in Jesus as lord of the world, rather than Caesar. Our understanding: As attested in the historical record, by all its earliest evidence, this movement of the church was founded on the life, death, resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah and Lord. That he was the fulfilment of scripture, bring God’s reign as the resurrected king of all creation. All the writings of the New Testament share in this gospel, and the church has held to it to this day. The only difference in our interpretation to the facts? We don’t merely hold the early church believed it, we hold that they were right to do so, for it was indeed true. Christ is the resurrected king, and Lord of all.
@@Godwit_Ministries You are mistaken on a lot of issues here. "While Paul may have few direct quotes from Jesus" - There is not a single one (apart from the Lord's Supper passage, which is almost certainly a tradition Paul is quoting) "we do find his epistles to be focused on Jesus’ teachings" - In almost every case where Paul's teachings seem to parallel Jesus, Paul quote the Old Testament in support. "On the sacraments," Once again, almost all Jewish teachings of the time. "love fulfilling the law, non-retaliation" - Paul quotes the Old Testament. "baptism of gentiles," - Never mentioned by Jesus as far as I can find. "and the kingdom of God which seemed central to Jesus’ ministry in the gospels." - Yes, but once again Paul never uses Jesus word's. The ressurection was an early belief of Christians, but it was not a teaching of Jesus. "There does not seem to be any evidence the Matthew gospel was influenced by the Pauline epistles. " - There is a great deal of schollarly writing about Paul's theology as an influence on the Gospels, including Mark and Matthew. "...we would contend that the emergence of these writings are the genuine expressions of the earliest beliefs of the church..." - Yes. "which were unified by a central proclamation" Absolutely not. Jesus teachings as recorded in the Synoptic Gospels bear only partial relation to the 'Gospel' as it developed in the early church. Most scholars acknowledge that there are levels of Christology and of the meaning of the Crucificion and Ressurection that developed. The various Jesus movements had very different ideas about Jesus. "In most any interpretation, we must first come to an understanding of the facts of the case." The facts are, as I said, Paul NEVER quotes Jesus. That's all I'm claiming. "After Jesus’ crucifixion, key figures like Peter, James, John and Paul spread his teachings across the Roman Empire" - We have no evidence for anyone except Paul travelling the Empire. "Our understanding: As attested in the historical record," The ones that were left by the 2nd and 3rd century church and after Nicea. "All the writings of the New Testament share in this gospel," - Only because the Gospels were written after Paul (and others) changed the Death of Jesus into a sacrifice for sin along the lines of the Old Testament. This idea is not present in most of the Gospel accounts.
Another much needed and well done presentation. Thank you, Brother Kowalick.
Thanks for your work in putting this together. Well done, prayers that it'll be used of God
1 Corinthians 15 makes the atonement central to the gospel: “Christ died for our sins”. The resurrection is central to the passage as evidence of his death being for sins when he also said, “if Christ has not been raised… we are still in our sins.” Atonement for sin in Christ IS the gospel and it is good news indeed.
Atonement and salvation are a huge theme in the gospels and the whole bible, of course. But when we ask the question “what are the gospel writers chiefly saying in these testimonies?” We do not think the central message is how to get saved, or how to get to heaven, or how to acquire eternal life.
The emphasis of the 4 gospels, is about Jesus’ identity and the reign of God coming with Him as He is God with us. This has cosmic significance to all creation, in restoration and new creation. Which of course also has significance to us personally, as God’s image bearers in a fallen world and in our sin.
Mark opens saying clearly, “The beginning of the good news of Jesus, the Messiah, the Son of God,” (Mark 1:1). Matthew opens with Jesus as the son of David, his identity as messiah, the fulfilment of scripture. And emphasises the good news as the kingdom of heaven “From that time Jesus began to proclaim, ‘Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near.’” (Matthew 4:17). And in John, he writes “These are written so that you may come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through believing you may have life in his name.” (John 20:31).
See here in John, the gospel is the identity of Jesus, and the salvation comes through it. As in the passage of Corinthians you yourself cite, Paul says “The gospel... by which you are being saved” (1 Corinthians 15:2). The “by which” clearly posits salvation as something that happens through the gospel, not as the gospel itself. The preposition "by" (Greek: δι’, "through") indicates the gospel is the means or instrument leading to salvation. The statement separates the good news (the gospel) from the result (salvation). This suggests that salvation flows from the gospel but is not identical to it.
The gospel itself is the proclamation of Christ's life, death, and resurrection as the fulfilment of God's plan for the world, a vindication and victory of Jesus. Salvation is the outcome of believing and embracing THAT gospel. Therefore, the good news is not salvation in itself but the announcement of what God has done in Christ, which, in turn, brings salvation to those who believe.
The gospel is, in essence, an announcement of something that has happened - Jesus happened! and this is the good news - For God is good, and Jesus is God with us. Therefore/ thus/consequentially, etc. Repent and believe in Christ, make disciples of all nations, as He gathers up all things in Him, things in heaven and things on earth. And indeed, His blood has made atonement; a way into Him. As David’s victory over Goliath, and Moses leading a way through the seas, Jesus has indeed made a way.
I'm going to be honest I never really understood penial substitution. It just never seemed completely logical. I always just felt like a piece of the puzzle was missing for me.
Your comment seems to ignore the theology of Romans 2 and later. It makes the sacrificial system in the Old Testament and Jesus fulfilment of it almost irrelevant. Remember, Jesus is referred to in John’s Gospel as the lamb of God.
Moreover, Holy Communion only really makes sense in the light of Jesus substitutionary and sacrificial death.
Thanks for your comment Jonathan. I understand your concern, and I am certainly not saying that atonement has nothing to do with the Gospel. Here is a direct quote from the transcript of the video: “…every aspect of the passion story is about the messiahship of Jesus and not so much about atonement--atonement, to be sure, is part of the story, but the central message is that Jesus is the true Son of God.”
Jesus’ atonement work is an important subpoint of the Gospel but the central theme of the 4 Gospels and the preaching in Acts was to the identity of Jesus as Messiah, Son of God, predicted in the OT scriptures and validated by the resurrection. Included in the good new is that we have been atoned for and set free from the curse of sin and death. However, we are left with questions about which Lamb Jesus is. Jesus’ death at Passover would identify him closely with the Passover Lamb. Or is he all the Lambs in one? And when we say Jesus died for us, did he die in our stead, or did he represent us in death as our champion, like young David in his battle with Goliath? The word ‘for’ is also used to say Jesus rose from the dead for us, obviously he did not rise instead of us, rather he represented us in his resurrection in his defeat and victory over the power of sin and death giving us hope that we will follow him through death and into resurrection, joining him in his victory.
Can I recommend reading Lamb of the Free by Andrew Rillera, a ground-breaking book and a must read for any serious investigation of atonement, and also Rethinking the atonement by David Moffitt. Also see a previous video on the subject of Jesus’ death here:
ruclips.net/video/O60L2-1HOcY/видео.htmlsi=CXDCwtDe9IJRb59e
@@Godwit_Ministries Thank you for your detailed reply, but I am not persuaded.
this seems almost like a "missing the forest for the trees" situation.
"Messiah" means "rescuer" or "savior." so you're saying "Jesus is the Rescuer!" but that literally begs the questions, who is He rescuing? and what is He rescuing them from?
yes, the gospel is that Jesus is the promised rescuer/savior/messiah, but that literally means *NOTHING* to us if we were not in need of saving in the first place.
Messiah/Christ certainly was the term for a hoped-for Redeemer/Saviour king in second-temple period Judaism, although the association is not a direct meaning. The direct meaning of this word is simply anointed one, or to be anointed or smeared with oil.
But in a sense, you are right, this can seem like a lot of tree gazing and not appreciating the forest vista before us. But all this comes to what we think is a difference in approaching the text, and how we interpret the four gospels - hermeneutics in short. So much of church history - all history really - is not about the facts of the case, but the interpretation of the facts.
What are the four gospels about, and what is the gospel? This is the question. So much of the traditional protestant response - and indeed this in reaction to the catholic response - is answered in forms of soteriology and atonement theories. The gospel in the wider western churches is “How God saves sinners.”
Following from that, much of the church’s focus has been how to relate to God and this salvation. For Catholics, the gospel is how Jesus established the church (the roman church), and the means of grace (sacraments) by which sinners may receive justification and keep in a state of grace. For protestants, it’s how to have a personal relationship with God, how the atonement works, and how one is justified in faith, grace, Christ alone (Sola’s).
From all this, we find many reduce the story of the four gospels to an over-simplification of hows. How to get to heaven when you die, how to get your sins forgiven, how this affects one’s own self and personal situation. Rather than the cosmic scope the gospel truly has.
We are arguing that the gospel and the gospels, as understood by the apostles, is not first and foremost an answering of how to get saved. But rather a rich account of the identity, reality, and victory of Jesus as the resurrected messiah and Lord. From this, comes all the ology’s of the church. Soteriology, yes. But also, eschatology, ecclesiology, missiology, anthropology, etc.
Evangelicals often speak of how people won’t accept a Saviour until they recognize they’re a sinner. And that increasingly, very few people will accept the premise that they are a sinner, or even the presumption of sin or evil itself. But perhaps the real challenge is not simply convincing people of their personal sin, but rather revealing the cosmic scope of the gospel-the good news that Jesus is not only the Savior of individuals but the reigning Messiah and Lord of all creation. The gospel is not just a personal salvation story; it’s the announcement of God’s reign breaking into history through Jesus, and this has far-reaching implications beyond personal moral failure. Before we ask, "Do you recognize your sin?" we should ask, "Do you recognize the reality and significance of Jesus if He really is who He claimed to be?”
The gospel isn't merely about recognizing our need for a Saviour. It's about recognizing the reality that God has acted in history to make all things new in Christ. Once we see Jesus as Lord and King, then the need for salvation-both personal and cosmic-becomes clear, and the invitation to live in light of that kingdom vision becomes compelling. We would say that missing this cosmic story of the gospel, for a personal soteriology of how to get to heaven after you die, is missing the forest for the trees.
@Godwit_Ministries oohhhhh i think i see what you're saying now. thanks for the clarification!
The thing is the teachings of Jesus and the Gospel of Paul have very little to do with each other.
The Gospel of Paul is the good news that Jesus is Christ and Lord, risen from death.
In Matthew, Peter declares ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ (Matthew 16:13-20). And Jesus affirms this, and says 'on this rock, I will build my church'. And goes on to explain the need for his death and resurrection.
In this, the gospel of Paul and Jesus’ own understanding of himself and what must be done, and is done, are the same. In this, both preach the kingdom of God comes in Jesus as God with us, us in Him and Him in us, all things summed up in Him. In this, we see the gospel as being once proclaimed, and delivered, unchanged, and the gates of hades shall not overcome it.
@@Godwit_Ministries There are some problems with your statement about Paul and Matthew. Firstly, Paul, as I said, never ever refers to the words of Jesus (except when reciting the Lord's Supper story, which is clearly a ritual text he has learned from other Christians). Paul either did not know what Jesus taught or was not interested.
The author of Matthew is writing after Paul's version of the Gospel has taken root in many churches, so his inclusion of the passage about Jesus explaining why he must suffer and die makes sense - although we can be certain that this never happened. The passage you pointed to is actually very vague - Jesus never mentions that this death somehow redeams people from sin.
Note that the desciples in ALL the gospel accounts of the crucifixion clearly did not expect the ressurection - especially not after the very specific 3 days which Matthew says Jesus mentioned. Did they forget this very important information?
No, Matthew is simply an not an eyewitness, and is including passages to try and link his Gospel to the emerging Christology of the church he belongs to.
While Paul may have few direct quotes from Jesus, we do find his epistles to be focused on Jesus’ teachings. On the sacraments, love fulfilling the law, non-retaliation and blessing those who persecute you, baptism of gentiles, and the kingdom of God which seemed central to Jesus’ ministry in the gospels. And of course, his life, death and resurrection, which Paul viewed as the fullness of Jesus’ ministry, as well as the whole narrative of the law and prophets, and God’s fulfilment of His ends.
As for the historicity of the gospel of Matthew, the current consensus of scholars in textual criticism is that Matthew and Mark reference each and a potential Q source document, along with their own independent attestations, emphases and intentions. There does not seem to be any evidence the Matthew gospel was influenced by the Pauline epistles.
We have to remember that Paul’s epistles where letters to particular churches, regarding particular theological and communal issues. Not in the genre ancient biographies like the gospels. Different genres breed differences in writing on a subject, naturally. But even with these literary differences and authorial focuses, we would contend that the emergence of these writings are the genuine expressions of the earliest beliefs of the church, which were unified by a central proclamation. Even as we acknowledge the disagreements that emerged in those early days, they are seen in the light of that central message, by which there is the epistles condemning false teaching, secondary issues, internal debate etc. These debates are all made downstream of a central belief.
In most any interpretation, we must first come to an understanding of the facts of the case. There are the facts of the case, and the interpretation of the facts. Most of church history - indeed much of all social history - is not about the facts, but the interpretations and conclusions from them. What are the bare historical facts of the early church's rise, stripped of theological or philosophical interpretation, focus on what is observable through historical evidence of sociological, textual, and archaeological data?
The Facts: the early church began as a Jewish movement in the 1st century CE, centred on the life, death, and believed resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, whom his followers understood to be the Messiah and Lord. After Jesus’ crucifixion, key figures like Peter, James, John and Paul spread his teachings across the Roman Empire, particularly in cities like Antioch, Corinth, and Rome. Christian communities, meeting in private homes, grew despite occasional persecution. Within decades, Christianity had established a presence in several Roman provinces, with writings like Paul’s letters and early Gospel accounts circulating, reflecting the belief in Jesus as lord of the world, rather than Caesar.
Our understanding: As attested in the historical record, by all its earliest evidence, this movement of the church was founded on the life, death, resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah and Lord. That he was the fulfilment of scripture, bring God’s reign as the resurrected king of all creation. All the writings of the New Testament share in this gospel, and the church has held to it to this day. The only difference in our interpretation to the facts? We don’t merely hold the early church believed it, we hold that they were right to do so, for it was indeed true. Christ is the resurrected king, and Lord of all.
@@Godwit_Ministries You are mistaken on a lot of issues here.
"While Paul may have few direct quotes from Jesus" - There is not a single one (apart from the Lord's Supper passage, which is almost certainly a tradition Paul is quoting)
"we do find his epistles to be focused on Jesus’ teachings" - In almost every case where Paul's teachings seem to parallel Jesus, Paul quote the Old Testament in support.
"On the sacraments," Once again, almost all Jewish teachings of the time.
"love fulfilling the law, non-retaliation" - Paul quotes the Old Testament.
"baptism of gentiles," - Never mentioned by Jesus as far as I can find.
"and the kingdom of God which seemed central to Jesus’ ministry in the gospels." - Yes, but once again Paul never uses Jesus word's.
The ressurection was an early belief of Christians, but it was not a teaching of Jesus.
"There does not seem to be any evidence the Matthew gospel was influenced by the Pauline epistles. " - There is a great deal of schollarly writing about Paul's theology as an influence on the Gospels, including Mark and Matthew.
"...we would contend that the emergence of these writings are the genuine expressions of the earliest beliefs of the church..." - Yes.
"which were unified by a central proclamation" Absolutely not. Jesus teachings as recorded in the Synoptic Gospels bear only partial relation to the 'Gospel' as it developed in the early church. Most scholars acknowledge that there are levels of Christology and of the meaning of the Crucificion and Ressurection that developed. The various Jesus movements had very different ideas about Jesus.
"In most any interpretation, we must first come to an understanding of the facts of the case." The facts are, as I said, Paul NEVER quotes Jesus. That's all I'm claiming.
"After Jesus’ crucifixion, key figures like Peter, James, John and Paul spread his teachings across the Roman Empire" - We have no evidence for anyone except Paul travelling the Empire.
"Our understanding: As attested in the historical record," The ones that were left by the 2nd and 3rd century church and after Nicea.
"All the writings of the New Testament share in this gospel," - Only because the Gospels were written after Paul (and others) changed the Death of Jesus into a sacrifice for sin along the lines of the Old Testament. This idea is not present in most of the Gospel accounts.