Thoughts on this controversial interpretation?

[Drinkgasoline]

I recently watched this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AfFc...eature=related

And I am astounded by some of the claims made by John Spong.

Any thoughts on what he says?

[ahs]

It's important to note that he is NOT a Catholic Bishop...he's retired, and a former Anglican.(?). I've watched a video of him once, and I won't watch another. He is anti-religion...believing that Christianity can be molded to the individual person. In other words, if it's okay in my mind (whatever behavior) and I feel God is okay with it...then it's okay. In other words...we have a license to sin because there really is no sin...

As a side note, this would probably be better in Apologetics in general as opposed to Sacred Scripture. You might PM Michael Francis (moderator) and ask him to move it so it gets more attention.

[romedii]

I have read several of his books and once esteemed him, but have since rejected him as modernist of a most pernicious kind. He is a retired Episcopal bishop of a New England diocese, don't remember which.

[Edmundus1581]

Originally Posted by Drinkgasoline

I recently watched this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AfFc...eature=related

And I am astounded by some of the claims made by John Spong.

Any thoughts on what he says?

Thanks for the link. I watched most of it, and found it very interesting. I have heard quite a lot about John Spong - all negative - and couldn't understand how he could attract so much attention. Now I see why. He is very, very learned and intelligent, and argues calmly and with cogently. He is charismatic.

As I was listening I thought of some counter arguments, but found myself thinking "I bet he's already heard of that, and has an answer". So, I wouldn't start arguing with John Spong, but I'd rather just stick with what I have received from the Catholic church.

Still, just one objection comes to mind. He talks about "religion" as if it is something bad, and antithetical to knowing God. Yet, he is happy to remain a bishop (now retired) in the Episcopal Church, enjoying the comforts and eminence that come with that. He's sold a million books - how many would he have sold if he were just an "independent Christian" at a university? It seems to me to be like being against prostitution, but living off its earnings.

I once heard this response to him: Bishop Spong lost his faith, but instead of getting a new job, he decided to stay on and help others lose their faith too.

[Bill Martin]

He's just telling people what they want to hear and seems, to me at least, to be trying to capitalize on the reaction to the legalistic doctrines adopted by many Christians, including Catholics, over the years. I see two distinct extremes of belief about God that exist within Christianity today.

The first sees God as an Almighty Traffic Cop, sitting up in the clouds with a gigantic rulebook looking for people who slip up, then zapping them with lightning. This leads to belefs like Puritanism, where hundreds of rules exist that prevent parents from hugging their kids on Sunday, strict dress codes, and rigid enforcement. This is a distorted view of God because it disregards mercy and the concept of God as a loving father. Backlash against this leads to the next view.

If the first one saw God as an Almighty Traffic Cop, this one sees him as an Almighty Vending Machine, where you can do whatever you want as long as it feels good. If you pray, God will always give you what you want. This is usually adopted, in my experience, by people disillusioned with their experiences dealing with those who adopt the authoritarian idea of God. This is where people like Joel Osteen come in. I would classify Spong closer to this side. A life with virtually no real concepts of morality, authority, responsibilty for actions, or judgement for them either. This view leads to the most people leaving the faith. After all, when you don't get the candy you want from the vending machine, it must be broken. This view also leads to people who dislike it taking the other stance and declaring tons of rules in response to their (justifed) dislike of it.

The fact that it is easy to make money promoting the Almighty Vending Machine rather than the Almighty Traffic Cop means that we tend to see more purveyors of the former.

[Gorgias]

Oh... where to begin, where to begin?!?!?

OK -- first off, Spong has a rather negative view of 'religion'. Yes, when one hears about religion in the media, it's likely a negative report. However, does it follow that this is all that religion is? Let's try a thought experiment: when I see Obama on TV news, he's always making a speech or visiting a constituency. Does that mean that the total scope of who Obama is, or what he does, is simply caught up in giving speeches? Of course not! If I thought I knew Obama, based on what he does in front of the cameras, I'd be missing a whole lot of what it is that he is, and what he believes, and what he does!

On the Scriptural front, Spong advocates for a "late Gospel" development: he claims that Gospels don't appear until 70 years after Jesus (i.e., 100 A.D. or later). That's pretty dated theology; contemporary scholars are more willing to consider earlier dates for the synoptic Gospels (although John was likely written around 100-110 A.D.). In addition, he seemingly discounts (without comment) the notion of some Scripture scholars of an original Aramaic (or Hebrew) version of Matthew (and maybe Mark, too). Note that I'm not making the claim that all Gospels were originally in Aramaic (i.e., the Peshitta N.T.). Also, note that some scholars maintain that Aramaicisms were indeed present, but dealt with, in an (originally Greek) N.T. One last point: pay careful attention to Spong's discussion about the number of the apostles -- he says that this is "40 to 70 years after" Christ. In other words, at that point, even he admits (in a rather quiet way) that the Gospels may have originated around 70 A.D. ...! Then again, when talking about the resurrection, he dates the synoptics in a timeframe earlier than 100 A.D. !

As far as Mary goes, Spong makes a tired argument: since Mary isn't the focus of the Gospels, there's no reason to believe that she was important to early Christians. (As a counter-example, one might look to the fact that she's mentioned as present at the foot of the cross and at Pentecost.)

With respect to the 'virgin birth controversy', Spong holds for a Hebrew O.T., discounting the Septuagint as a "bad translation". Given that Jesus was a Galilean Jew, it naturally follows that his Scriptures were Greek, not Hebrew. Does it not bother Spong that the passage in Isaiah that he says is "poorly translated" is the passage that Christ would have read? Nevertheless, Spong suggests that the original Hebrew 'almah' means 'woman'; in fact, it means 'maiden' or 'young woman'. Now, unless you were positing that your savior was born of a "fallen woman" (wink wink nudge nudge), then the notion of a 'maiden' would implicitly refer to a woman who was a virgin! So, his point is somewhat unsatisfactory. Does the LXX change 'maiden' to 'virgin'? Yes. Does it do damage to the notion that 'almah' connotes? No.

Spong also discusses Justin Martyr's 'Dialogue with Trypho', dismissing it as originating in a period of time in which Christianity had great power. Really? In the second century A.D., the Christian Church was 'powerful'? C'mon... at that point, it was still clawing for official recognition from the Roman Empire! I mean, his name wouldn't be Justin Martyr if the Church was as 'powerful' as Spong would have us believe!

Well, about 15 minutes of Spong was about all I could handle, and I started nodding off. I hope the points I've raised will be helpful in your digestion of Spongian Christianity!

[patrick457]

Originally Posted by Gorgias

Oh... where to begin, where to begin?!?!?

OK -- first off, Spong has a rather negative view of 'religion'. Yes, when one hears about religion in the media, it's likely a negative report. However, does it follow that this is all that religion is? Let's try a thought experiment: when I see Obama on TV news, he's always making a speech or visiting a constituency. Does that mean that the total scope of who Obama is, or what he does, is simply caught up in giving speeches? Of course not! If I thought I knew Obama, based on what he does in front of the cameras, I'd be missing a whole lot of what it is that he is, and what he believes, and what he does!

On the Scriptural front, Spong advocates for a "late Gospel" development: he claims that Gospels don't appear until 70 years after Jesus (i.e., 100 A.D. or later). That's pretty dated theology; contemporary scholars are more willing to consider earlier dates for the synoptic Gospels (although John was likely written around 100-110 A.D.).

Yes, and yes.

In addition, he seemingly discounts (without comment) the notion of some Scripture scholars of an original Aramaic (or Hebrew) version of Matthew (and maybe Mark, too). Note that I'm not making the claim that all Gospels were originally in Aramaic (i.e., the Peshitta N.T.). Also, note that some scholars maintain that Aramaicisms were indeed present, but dealt with, in an (originally Greek) N.T.

Alternatively, I could also imagine that the Semiticisms in the NT are due to the constant use of and allusions to the language of the Old Testament via the Septuagint.

One last point: pay careful attention to Spong's discussion about the number of the apostles -- he says that this is "40 to 70 years after" Christ. In other words, at that point, even he admits (in a rather quiet way) that the Gospels may have originated around 70 A.D. ...! Then again, when talking about the resurrection, he dates the synoptics in a timeframe earlier than 100 A.D. !

The problem for Spong here is that a period of forty to seventy years is actually too short in the context of history.

As far as Mary goes, Spong makes a tired argument: since Mary isn't the focus of the Gospels, there's no reason to believe that she was important to early Christians. (As a counter-example, one might look to the fact that she's mentioned as present at the foot of the cross and at Pentecost.)

The apostles weren't really the focus of the gospels either (heck, some of them are mere names!), but that doesn't mean that they were not important.

With respect to the 'virgin birth controversy', Spong holds for a Hebrew O.T., discounting the Septuagint as a "bad translation". Given that Jesus was a Galilean Jew, it naturally follows that his Scriptures were Greek, not Hebrew. Does it not bother Spong that the passage in Isaiah that he says is "poorly translated" is the passage that Christ would have read?

Where do you get this?

[Drinkgasoline]

Originally Posted by Gorgias

Oh... where to begin, where to begin?!?!?

OK -- first off, Spong has a rather negative view of 'religion'. Yes, when one hears about religion in the media, it's likely a negative report. However, does it follow that this is all that religion is? Let's try a thought experiment: when I see Obama on TV news, he's always making a speech or visiting a constituency. Does that mean that the total scope of who Obama is, or what he does, is simply caught up in giving speeches? Of course not! If I thought I knew Obama, based on what he does in front of the cameras, I'd be missing a whole lot of what it is that he is, and what he believes, and what he does!

On the Scriptural front, Spong advocates for a "late Gospel" development: he claims that Gospels don't appear until 70 years after Jesus (i.e., 100 A.D. or later). That's pretty dated theology; contemporary scholars are more willing to consider earlier dates for the synoptic Gospels (although John was likely written around 100-110 A.D.). In addition, he seemingly discounts (without comment) the notion of some Scripture scholars of an original Aramaic (or Hebrew) version of Matthew (and maybe Mark, too). Note that I'm not making the claim that all Gospels were originally in Aramaic (i.e., the Peshitta N.T.). Also, note that some scholars maintain that Aramaicisms were indeed present, but dealt with, in an (originally Greek) N.T. One last point: pay careful attention to Spong's discussion about the number of the apostles -- he says that this is "40 to 70 years after" Christ. In other words, at that point, even he admits (in a rather quiet way) that the Gospels may have originated around 70 A.D. ...! Then again, when talking about the resurrection, he dates the synoptics in a timeframe earlier than 100 A.D. !

As far as Mary goes, Spong makes a tired argument: since Mary isn't the focus of the Gospels, there's no reason to believe that she was important to early Christians. (As a counter-example, one might look to the fact that she's mentioned as present at the foot of the cross and at Pentecost.)

With respect to the 'virgin birth controversy', Spong holds for a Hebrew O.T., discounting the Septuagint as a "bad translation". Given that Jesus was a Galilean Jew, it naturally follows that his Scriptures were Greek, not Hebrew. Does it not bother Spong that the passage in Isaiah that he says is "poorly translated" is the passage that Christ would have read? Nevertheless, Spong suggests that the original Hebrew 'almah' means 'woman'; in fact, it means 'maiden' or 'young woman'. Now, unless you were positing that your savior was born of a "fallen woman" (wink wink nudge nudge), then the notion of a 'maiden' would implicitly refer to a woman who was a virgin! So, his point is somewhat unsatisfactory. Does the LXX change 'maiden' to 'virgin'? Yes. Does it do damage to the notion that 'almah' connotes? No.

Spong also discusses Justin Martyr's 'Dialogue with Trypho', dismissing it as originating in a period of time in which Christianity had great power. Really? In the second century A.D., the Christian Church was 'powerful'? C'mon... at that point, it was still clawing for official recognition from the Roman Empire! I mean, his name wouldn't be Justin Martyr if the Church was as 'powerful' as Spong would have us believe!

Well, about 15 minutes of Spong was about all I could handle, and I started nodding off. I hope the points I've raised will be helpful in your digestion of Spongian Christianity!

Haha, thanks a lot.

[kentuckyliz]

Re "almah" young woman doesn't mean virgin like "parthenos" does:
Sure it does. To have sex with a young Hebrew virgin meant you were consenting to marry her immediately. Late evidence of this continuing practice is found in the Book of Tobit, written in the second century BC. Actually this same practice/rule has been true of most of Christendom/Western Civilization until the late 20th century. So...basically...how quickly Spong forgets!