What is the gospel?

[Mr GLee]

Perhaps you could provide a scripture where any of the OT or NT writers refer to the above verse as the gospel.

I would offer. The bruising of the heel parable

Genesis 15; And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his (Jesus Son of man heel.

The companion parable In Isaiah 53. Christ bruising the heel of the Son of man Jesus, crushing the head of the serpent (gospel)

The witness of two a dynamic duo is necessary to establish the law of faith (power) The other witness of two working as one is Isaiah 53 .

There in the garden the Holy Father the savior poured out His Spirit life on the Son of man Jesus. . . a promised outward demonstration of the work of the Holy Father not seen.

The Gethsemane garden demonstration the first of three different kinds. three days and nights. Three denotes the end of a matter throughout the Bible . using Jonah 3 day and night to aid the study. Three days Belly Whale or heart of Earth same thing (suffering)

Having bruised his heel. Jesus, the Son of man cried out for strength from the Father seeking strength from the other apostles. Three time the Father put them to sleep to fulfill the two prophecies Genesis and Isaiah. The Dynamic Duo

Work of the dynamic duo the father and son team three is a crowd. Two agreeing as one is company

Mathew 26:43And he came and found them asleep again: for their eyes were heavy.;And he left them, and went away again, and prayed the third time, saying the same words.Then cometh he to his disciples, and saith unto them, Sleep on now, and take your rest: behold, the hour is at hand, and the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners.

Then they moved to the second demonstration the bloody hill of the Skull the cross the last demonstration the tomb

Isaiah 53:4-11 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
;But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.;He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.;He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.;Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand. He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.

The Son of man Jesus is not the savior of the world. The unseen Holy Father alone is.

He is a copilot Both needed. The visible displaying the powerful "let there be" faith of the invisible.

He gives us little power of His faithfulness calling us you will little born again faith, plenty to please the faither the storeroom. Plenty of room in his mansion

 

[prism]

Galatians 3:8 does.

It does??...

Galatians 3:8 ESV
And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "In you shall all the nations be blessed."

There are many prophetic scriptures regarding the Gospel that do as well, but are not the Gospel themselves such as Gal 3:8.

 

[makesends]

That doesn't follow, for there are many instances where the writers of the OT and NT do not cite proof texts to support their claim.

Not to side with @Tambora , here, but that's not a very good argument. If I was her, I would be pointing out that you aren't writing scripture, and your claim needs authoritative backing.

 

[prism]

Not to side with @Tambora , here, but that's not a very good argument. If I was her, I would be pointing out that you aren't writing scripture, and your claim needs authoritative backing.

Let me cheat a bit. Do you believe Gen 3:15 has to do with the gospel, if so, why? ( I'll have a kibbitzer do my homework, hehe)

 

[makesends]

(Prism to Tambora): That doesn't follow, for there are many instances where the writers of the OT and NT do not cite proof texts to support their claim.

Then I pointed out that is a poor argument since you don't write scripture. You responded with the following.

(Prism to Makesends): Let me cheat a bit. Do you believe Gen 3:15 has to do with the gospel, if so, why? ( I'll have a kibbitzer do my homework, hehe)

Well cheated. Well, cheated. Yes, I do, but, since I'm too lazy to do the work of showing how it is shown from other scriptures, I'm saying your argument didn't show how it was unnecessary to show by other scriptures, (y'know, in my official position as Unsolicitor General) —I'm leaving it up to you to either prove your point or do as @Tambora asked.

Oh, and consistent with the methods @Tambora and every one of us uses, in our own ways, I don't like it very much when someone challenges me to show where in Scripture the exact words or phrases are used, (well, except, that is, where I know where they are used), but I do that too. But here, @Tambora didn't even ask that. So... it was left wide open for you.

Tambora said:
Perhaps you could provide a scripture where any of the OT or NT writers refer to the above verse as the gospel.

 

[Tambora]

It does??...

Galatians 3:8 ESV
And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "In you shall all the nations be blessed."

There are many prophetic scriptures regarding the Gospel that do as well, but are not the Gospel themselves such as Gal 3:8.

Yeppers.
Gal 3:8 quotes the OT "In you shall all the nations be blessed" and specifically calls it the gospel.
That's really good news.
But we don't have anywhere in scripture that refers to the curses of Genesis 3 to be the gospel.

Genesis 3 is about the fall and it's curses (ie. not good news) upon the serpent, the woman, and the man, while a blessing upon all nations is certainly good news.

Curse - bad.
Blessing - good.

 

[mailmandan]

The gospel is the "good news" of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ (1 Corinthians 15:1-4) and is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that BELIEVES.. (Romans 1:16) To "believe" the gospel is to trust in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ as the ALL-SUFFICIENT means of our salvation.

 

[prism]

But we don't have anywhere in scripture that refers to the curses of Genesis 3 to be the gospel.

I wasn't referring to the curses but the Gospel first spoken to Adam...

Genesis 3:15 (KJV) And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Actually it was spoken to the serpent, but it was good news to Adam, also known down through history as the 'proto-evangellium'

What is the protoevangelium? | GotQuestions.org

What is the protoevangelium (proto-evangelium / proto evangelium)? When is the Gospel first mentioned or prophesied?

www.gotquestions.org

 

[Tambora]

I wasn't referring to the curses but the Gospel first spoken to Adam...

Genesis 3:15 (KJV) And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Actually it was spoken to the serpent, but it was good news to Adam, also known down through history as the 'proto-evangellium'

What is the protoevangelium? | GotQuestions.org

What is the protoevangelium (proto-evangelium / proto evangelium)? When is the Gospel first mentioned or prophesied?

www.gotquestions.org

That the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent would cause trouble for each other is not "good" news.


Here are the other two scriptures where the Hebrew word for "bruise" is used:

Psalms 139 KJV​

(11) If I say, Surely the darkness shall cover me; even the night shall be light about me.​

​

Job 9 KJV​

(17) For he breaketh me with a tempest, and multiplieth my wounds without cause.​

The word does not mean kill or destroy, but simply means conflict or troublesome.
There would be conflict between the two seeds, and that is not "good" news.
And that is probably why scripture never refers to it as the gospel.

 

[prism]

That the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent would cause trouble for each other is not "good" news.

Yet, "it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." is great good news which the early patriarchs clung to. (Abel, Enoch, Noah, etc. Heb 11:4-7). It foretells satan's defeat at Calvary.

 

[Tambora]

Yet, "it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." is great good news which the early patriarchs clung to. (Abel, Enoch, Noah, etc. Heb 11:4-7). It foretells satan's defeat at Calvary.

Sorry bud, but the Hebrew word translated as "bruise" does not = "defeat" and is never used as "defeat" in scripture.
That should be obvious since both the seed and the serpent are bruised; so if "bruise" means "defeat" then both the seed and the serpent are defeated.
Don't read into the text things that are not there.
There are other scriptures that tell of satan's defeat but Gen 3:15 ain't one of them and I wish folks would study what Hebrew words mean before they jump to conclusions to suit their fanciful interpretations.
That's as bad of an interpretation as saying the locusts in Revelation are black helicopters.

The context of Genesis 3 is about the fall and the troubles that would happen because of it.

- enmity between the seed and the serpent​

- the seed and serpent are bruised by each other​

- woman would give birth in sorrow and would be ruled by the husband​

- man would have to sweat and toil with thorns and thistles growing among them to eat herbs and bread​

None of this is good news.

 

[Arial]

Sorry bud, but the Hebrew word translated as "bruise" does not = "defeat" and is never used as "defeat" in scripture.
That should be obvious since both the seed and the serpent are bruised; so if "bruise" means "defeat" then both the seed and the serpent are defeated.
Don't read into the text things that are not there.
There are other scriptures that tell of satan's defeat but Gen 3:15 ain't one of them and I wish folks would study what Hebrew words mean before they jump to conclusions to suit their fanciful interpretations.
That's as bad of an interpretation as saying the locusts in Revelation are black helicopters.

The context of Genesis 3 is about the fall and the troubles that would happen because of it.

- enmity between the seed and the serpent​

- the seed and serpent are bruised by each other​

- woman would give birth in sorrow and would be ruled by the husband​

- man would have to sweat and toil with thorns and thistles growing among them to eat herbs and bread​

None of this is good news.

The fact that it is the seed of the woman who does defeat the serpent at the cross (in a right now for the believer as to sins power to condemn and deaths power to hold them, and a not yet way that happens when Christ returns), shows us what Gen 3:15 means. Personally, I think those translations that translate it as "He will crush your head, and you will bruise his heel" better express what actually happens.

 

[Hazelelponi]

The fact that it is the seed of the woman who does defeat the serpent at the cross (in a right now for the believer as to sins power to condemn and deaths power to hold them, and a not yet way that happens when Christ returns), shows us what Gen 3:15 means. Personally, I think those translations that translate it as "He will crush your head, and you will bruise his heel" better express what actually happens.

I agree.

What Satan meant for evil - the death of the Messiah - God intended for our good. And the death ended in victory, and life eternal.

 

[Eleanor]

Sorry bud, but the Hebrew word translated as "bruise" does not = "defeat" and is never used as "defeat" in scripture.
That should be obvious since both the seed and the serpent are bruised; so if "bruise" means "defeat" then both the seed and the serpent are defeated.
Don't read into the text things that are not there.
There are other scriptures that tell of satan's defeat but Gen 3:15 ain't one of them and I wish folks would study what Hebrew words mean before they jump to conclusions to suit their fanciful interpretations.
That's as bad of an interpretation as saying the locusts in Revelation are black helicopters.

The context of Genesis 3 is about the fall and the troubles that would happen because of it.

- enmity between the seed and the serpent​

- the seed and serpent are bruised by each other​

- woman would give birth in sorrow and would be ruled by the husband​

- man would have to sweat and toil with thorns and thistles growing among them to eat herbs and bread​

None of this is good news.

The good news is the remedy of the seed (Ge 3:15) who will strike the head of the serpent, while the serpent will strike only his heel.

 

[makesends]

Sorry bud, but the Hebrew word translated as "bruise" does not = "defeat" and is never used as "defeat" in scripture.
That should be obvious since both the seed and the serpent are bruised; so if "bruise" means "defeat" then both the seed and the serpent are defeated.
Don't read into the text things that are not there.

That's a really lousy argument. You are reading into @prism 's post what is not there. He did not even begin to say that bruise = defeat, nor did what he said reduce to that.

There are other scriptures that tell of satan's defeat but Gen 3:15 ain't one of them and I wish folks would study what Hebrew words mean before they jump to conclusions to suit their fanciful interpretations.

Rule #2 https://christcentered.community.forum/threads/ccam-forums-rules-guidelines-part-1.2533/

That's as bad of an interpretation as saying the locusts in Revelation are black helicopters.

Rule #2

The context of Genesis 3 is about the fall and the troubles that would happen because of it.

- enmity between the seed and the serpent​

- the seed and serpent are bruised by each other​

- woman would give birth in sorrow and would be ruled by the husband​

- man would have to sweat and toil with thorns and thistles growing among them to eat herbs and bread​

None of this is good news.

If those are caused by God for our eternal good, then they are caused for good. Maybe you can agree with what @prism meant.

 

[prism]

Sorry bud, but the Hebrew word translated as "bruise" does not = "defeat" and is never used as "defeat" in scripture.
That should be obvious since both the seed and the serpent are bruised; so if "bruise" means "defeat" then both the seed and the serpent are defeated.
Don't read into the text things that are not there.
There are other scriptures that tell of satan's defeat but Gen 3:15 ain't one of them and I wish folks would study what Hebrew words mean before they jump to conclusions to suit their fanciful interpretations.
That's as bad of an interpretation as saying the locusts in Revelation are black helicopters.

The context of Genesis 3 is about the fall and the troubles that would happen because of it.

- enmity between the seed and the serpent​

- the seed and serpent are bruised by each other​

- woman would give birth in sorrow and would be ruled by the husband​

- man would have to sweat and toil with thorns and thistles growing among them to eat herbs and bread​

None of this is good news.

Please don't call me bud, you wouldn't call a person that if you didn't know them and were face to face with them.
Are you a Hebrew scholar? If so, are you on a translation committee? Otherwise, your interpretation seems a bit fanciful itself, running contrary to evangelical scholarship over the centuries.
Besides, there is a difference between 'head' and 'heel'.

Genesis 3:15 KJV
And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
Genesis 3:15 BSB
And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed. He will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.”
Genesis 3:15 NIV
And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.”
Genesis 3:15 AMP
And I will put enmity (open hostility) Between you and the woman, And between your seed (offspring) and her Seed; He shall [fatally] bruise your head, And you shall [only] bruise His heel.”
Genesis 3:15 NASB95
And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel."
Genesis 3:15 ESV
I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel."
Protoevangelium
The protoevangelium is a term for the Bible verse Genesis 3:15, which is considered the first announcement of the gospel. The term comes from the Greek words protos, meaning "first", and evangelion, meaning "good news" or "gospel".

 

[Tambora]

Please don't call me bud

Well OK, but it is not a derogatory or offensive term.
Bud is short for buddy and buddy means friend, which is a term of endearment.

you wouldn't call a person that if you didn't know them and were face to face with them.

I would and I do.

Besides, there is a difference between 'head' and 'heel'.

Doesn't change the fact that the Hebrew word translated "bruise" is never used in scripture for "defeat".
So neither the head or the heel are defeated.

 

[prism]

Well OK, but it is not a derogatory or offensive term.
Bud is short for buddy and buddy means friend, which is a term of endearment.

That's quite relative, depending on the area and time period one lives in.

I would and I do.

You must be a companion to black eyes and bloody noses.

Doesn't change the fact that the Hebrew word translated "bruise" is never used in scripture for "defeat".
So neither the head or the heel are defeated.

I think that was made clear with the various translations I posted. Do you know biblical Hebrew or are you getting your info from lexicons?

 

[Tambora]

The fact that it is the seed of the woman who does defeat the serpent at the cross (in a right now for the believer as to sins power to condemn and deaths power to hold them, and a not yet way that happens when Christ returns), shows us what Gen 3:15 means.

Can you show that the Hebrew word translated "bruise" is used in scripture to mean defeat?

We might have a slightly different perspective of the cross because I don't believe it was His death on the cross that freed us from death but was His resurrection.
For Paul tells us that if Christ was not raised then our faith is in vain.

1 Corinthians 15 ESV​

(17) And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.​

Personally, I think those translations that translate it as "He will crush your head, and you will bruise his heel" better express what actually happens.

I don't have a problem with either translation as long as the word being translated has a clear meaning.
My point is that the Hebrew word translated as "bruise" or "crush" does not = defeat.
If it did then the phrase would read: "He will defeat your head, and you will defeat his heel".

And I'll say it again.....
There are many scriptures that can be clearly used to show what the gospel is.
I just don't think Gen 3:15 is one of them, especially since no other scripture refers to it as the gospel and that the word used does not = defeat.

 

[Tambora]

Do you know biblical Hebrew

Yes.
And Greek also.

But in this instance, anyone can use a good concordance that shows where the same word is used elsewhere in scripture.
Which is why I keep asking for someone to show that scripture uses the word to mean "defeat".
Wouldn't practicing good exegesis demand that one seeks how scripture has used the word is other verses?