John Shelby Spong - Separating the Fourth Gospel
Вставка
- Опубліковано 24 чер 2014
- John Shelby Spong gives an introduction and brief explication of his 5 day lecture series hosted by the Department of Religion, in the Hall of Philosophy. To learn more about Chautauqua Institution visit: www.ciweb.org/
Had almost forgotten how much I love this man.
I’ve never seen him before, he’s a revelation!
Enlightening. Thank you.
Deceived. Thank you
한국 기독교에 각성을 주는 깊은 신학적 성찰과 미래지향적 강의에 찬사를 보냅니다. 개신교인으로서 정신차리게 해주는 강연입니다.
Spong presents us with biblical truths, which cannot be denied. He is correct when he says that Jesus was not a "blabbermouth" given to long public monologues (as in John 13, 14, 15, 16). To speak like that in public with Roman spies listening would've got him arrested on the spot by the authorities.
God likes those who study his words but do not take those words LITERALLY (causing them to jump to the WRONG CONCLUSION). Isaiah 66:2-5, Psalm 51:17, Hosea 6:6 suggest this truth.
Many good and interesting points here for me. Especially about the church needing to allow study and scholarship to be brought forth. However, I still hear the judgement of others in his point if view. So he is simply carrying on the “My conclusions are correct. Others are not, and I have figured all this out, so listen to my version as “gospel.” For example, scholars do not single out the Gospel of John as uniquely not written by the the person it was named after. They all are. Oral tradition is how the message was carried until words were written down. There are many, many texts that were not allowed into the cannon, which itself evolved. There are many other conclusions that can be credibly argued (a number of ways) on many if his points. The most important thing we need to do in my view, is have an open mind and loving heart. Jesus was a revolutionary. Why be afraid to question the status quo? Keep studying people. There are so many great scholars out there and many of us lay people humbly seeking the truth. Why call out people’s issues (alcohol and anyone who disagrees with him) ❤ since we that is the antithesis of Jesus’s teaching? What good is decades of studying if your character cannot represent the message?
Philians 4:13 I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me. God/Christ gave John the strength, not only of Body, so that He could accomplish it.
It is MORE probable that Paul was satisfied that they were sufficiently cover, which in FACT they were, and He was.
Why did the Pharisees want to stone Jesus if they didn't understand that Jesus was saying that He IS God?.
Their ancestral home doesn't mean that they presently lived there, I don't live in My ancestral city, I could travel there in about an hour and a half by car, I live in the city in which I was born, so Joseph and Mary traveled to Bethlehem, and probably arrived there on the day of Jesus birth(which obviously wasn't the 25th of December) at least not where December is currently located in the year. December is derived from Deka, which is the Greek word for Ten, so it's possible that He was born in December but not Necessarily the 25th,.
I wish I had a Jewish understanding now!
He said "Jesus my Lord." Please...you can't deny the biblical Jesus existed and call him "my Lord" at the same time.
There were 28 generations between David and Jesus, why do You go the trouble of making that number almost exactly double, though if You're a descendant, You're a descendant, whether You're two generation apart or a hundred generations apart.
Devoted to the Gospel, John You sound like someone who HATES it with a Passion, I believe the latter to be the case, at least with You.
All those People came to hear You speak, and love, They musta had itchy ears. I'm only checkin' this out for research, Ya hear!
Bla bla
Scholars are keeping valuable knowledge to themselves, I’m a graduate give me the TRUTH?
If I get to heaven, I know there will be people of many different races and religions there. And that is comforting, to know that hateful people like the Nazis or the KKK or the heartless communists will not be planning any mischief or revolution there!
I am not a fundamentalist, nor a literalist, nor a conservative. The issue I have however, with Mr. Spong's presentation, is the way in which he uses his ecumenical charm to subvert the listeners' ability to catch his dubious methods. By "dubious", I do not mean: those which my sentiments don't resonate with or ideas that make me "feel" unsettled. Rather, it's the deductions and inferences he makes upon which to (re-?) build the entire edifice of 2,000 years of Christian history - - whether Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox (Greek, Coptic etc...). Frequently, and with his winsome humour, he equates "absence" with "to dismiss" ie. Luke "dismisses...Mark dismisses...Matthew dismisses" and what not, when he finds certain details present in one Gospel account, not present in another. "Dismiss" conveys intent of a somewhat sinister, or subversive sort, even if (in his opinion) the first writers (compilers?) were simply clumsy or careless. Because he uses all these bits of "dismissed" details, to erode the entire house of Christendom (both the 'temple' version and House Church, off-the-grid variety), Mr. Spong is actually dangerous and destructive, though his demeanor make him catch the unsuspecting arm-chair theologian unawares and the mass of skeptics giddy with fresh grist for their rants.
I like Your honesty Dan. I think it's ridiculous of Spong to say that because something isn't mentioned in one gospel or epistle means whatever was written in a preceding Gospel or Epistle was unknown or not believed in or known by the succeeding writer, or vice versa, as
with His claim that Mark was written first, He doesn't seem to understand that the other writers knew what was written elsewhere was sufficiently covered. we may not agree in some places, but again thanx for Your honesty
This is the problem with the new testament, it does n't make sense, it wasn't written by people who were around at the time. and what did Jesus mean when he said my G_D my G_D why have you forsaken me? and he told the thief, tonight you will be with me in paradise, because that's not where he went that night, someone told me he was preaching to sinners in hell.? Jesus said I have not come for the gentiles, but for the Jews. He never said anything about Christian, I think it is the biggest con of all times. I am now following the 7 laws of Noah.
+Patricia Treslove I can see you have quite a misconception about the thief on the cross and i don't blame you, but here's a little enlightenment: The translators have misplaced the comma after you," instead of today". He mean't verily i say to you "today", in other words i am telling you right now" that you will be with me in paradise (in the future) when the first resurrection takes place. Hope this helps)
7:10 what is speaking in tongues and prophecy if not miracles?
Lies. People don't speak in tongues. It's all a bunch of incoherent nonsense!
John Zebedee, got His Education right the TOP, By God, and You CAN'T get a BETTER education If You tried.
WTF are you talking about?!!!
The Jesus Seminar is a Marxist construct , The puckish John Dominick Crossan is a subversive Irish Marxist right out of the Plough and the Stars. As an Episcopal theologian, coming out of the 60s cultural wars on the same side as Dr. Fmae Tabor, John Shelby Spong is a Doonesbury caricature,
Here's the thing I love about the literature of the Gospels is that He gets a lot of things right about all the Gospels that is consistent with process theology . And his description of the Episcopal community as being like an ameba pretty well describes process theology, which assumes that the dialogue between humanity and The One is a work in process. It's just that the appendage he and John Dominick Crossan have developed subordinates the literature of the bible to the broken pottery of 19th century archeology and militant materialism. Which is why he wants to consign the Gospel of John to Jewish mysticism and to deny the literal elements of the 4th Gospel.
James Tabor is exactly correct with his speculation that the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of John are intended to be understood as entwined narratives. The Gospel of Mark is the Greco-Roman play-by-plsy commentary of Jesus's ministry and Tthe Gospel of John is the Jewish color commentary that provides the horseradish that of Passover that is missing from Mark.
And they are intended to be understood literally. John Mark is a bit more artful than Cornelius, but its for effect and not for embellishment or deception.
I didn't find his reading of John particularly informed by anything but appeal to modernist fluff, quite vapid actually. I'm not a literalist either.
I find the Gospel of John to be the most enlightened and theological of the gospels. And I mean that in its fundamental, literal interpretation.
I don't think it's a coincidence that Bishop Spong is taking time to subvert the Gospel of John-- the gospel which most clearly reveals Jesus as God in human flesh. John was the "beloved disciple" and I think it's ludicrous to say that John somehow paints a portrait of Jesus that isn't true, or is incomplete.
And to point out the differences between John's gospel and the other three proves nothing... THEY'VE ALWAYS BEEN CALLED "THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS" and John has ALWAYS been seen to be different in focus than Matthew, Mark, and Luke. It's just very poor scholarship, and it's too bad his charisma and comic quips can't change that.
John was NOT "the beloved disciple." He didn't write this gospel!
@@astrotherapist He sure was, and he certainly did!
You certainly creative right, but knowledge He is NOT.
John the Apostle, knew about the Resurrection, John 11:25 KJV
Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: John was as much aware of the resurrection as the rest of the Apostles, nor were the other Apostles unaware of the things John wrote, nor were the other Apostles unaware of what John wrote, they all knew what the others believed, they were together at time, the disciples were all together during the three years of Jesus' ministry, they knew each other, even the though they were martyred before the close of the first century with exception of John.
John knew full well that Jesus DIED for our SINS, John Spong and others who HATE the Gospel, don't believe it, so John "not" knowing about it is simply John Spong's just so story.
small Young Dinosaurs were sexually mature, so they could have reproduced shortly after leaving the Ark, and they would fit really well, about 16,000 animals about the size of a Sheep, including Dinosaurs, by kind not species, that would work, and DID WORK.
The New Testament was written in Koine Greek, which common Greek, it was used by lots of people including Jews, Why was the Christian faith such threat to the Roman if Jesus, the apostles and the Believers had NO idea of what they talking about and couldn't read or write, and why were Bible scrolls destroyed, Because the Roman knew that the Jesus and the Christians, apostles included knew EXACTLY what they were talking about.
The Early Christians weren't nearly as stupid as John Spong would have you believe. John Spong has ONE Mission in mind, that is to destroy the Christian faith from the inside. He knew that He wouldn't have had much chance in Bible Believing Church at least not in His days young days as a priest, most Christians would have had Him picked as an infiltrator and BOOTED Him out, so He had to join a group that was for the most part already watering the presentation of the Gospel down. This guy doesn't really Believe in Jesus, yet He calls Himself a Christian, His "Jesus" is Antichrist, a Jesus who is not God would a WICKED Jesus indeed.
You are a person full of hate.
YOU ARE SILLY AND INCOMPETENT SIR. YOU ARE HURT THAT YOUR BUBBLE HAS BURST
So You find the most profound gospel is John, which is IRONICALLY the Gospel You perceive to be the most DECEPTIVE, that makes sense in a way that only John Spong and others who HATE sound doctrine could make sense.
The deceiver is in hell now
This man's scholarship is greatly lacking. I feel great sorrow for those whom he has taught. Lack of details in one story compared to another simply means that the authors included different details. He is decades off in his dating of the authorship of the Gospels. The Jesus Seminar is comprised of mostly atheist scholars. This man is not a disciple of Christ, he is a follower of Satan
What you define as scholarship as it relates to Biblical manuscripts is an origin of study was initiated and funded by the church with those whose scholarship is predicated on confirming the Biblical manuscripts as true to history..........expecting to confirm their faith in history you have a whole industry that was built upon the foundation of confirmation bias..................that is not a pathway to truth or historical reality.
Only when objective analysis of such materials in a historical and not a theological context do you find that Biblical manuscripts do not have the confirmation of historical truth that has been preached by those with vested interest in wanting it to be true to begin with...........
It won't be long before Biblical literalism will be as irrelevant as the rest of classical mythology..........
Sadly his scholarship claims to use the historical critical method of studying the Bible yet he disallows the two primary means of historical critical method. What do contemporary writers say about the ancient manuscripts and what do the closest other writers say about the manuscripts. The earliest church fathers attested to the authorship of the gospels. Polycarp, a disciple of John, and Ignatius, a disciple of Polycarp both attest to the authors of the four Gospels. This man conveniently fails to include this fact.
We also have a missive of the Gospel of John that is dated app. 100 AD, clearly while John was still alive. I would trust the word of those who lived within decades of Christ on what His words were instead of scholars 2000 years later.
The statements you find in John are so different from those you find in the Synoptic Gospels that it is historically unlikely Jesus spoke them. Don't you think it is odd that 3 writers would leave out the "I am" statements for example. I am sure you know of multiple attestation in historical scholarship. If multiple independent sources give the same account, it is more historically likely to have happened. But you can take this the other way around as well. If there are three sources that don't mention an important event and one source does, it is historically less likely that the single source is correct in its affermation.
"We also have a missive of the Gospel of John that is dated app. 100 AD, clearly while John was still alive."
Please do tell which one you are talking about, I have never read anything like that on websites like: www.csntm.org
"clearly while John was still alive"
Are you seriously saying that a contemporary to Jesus lived in 100 AD? You realize you are claiming that John got at least 90-110 year old?
You had my attention until you inserted your own bias with your last sentence. If want to point people to "the literal truth" you shouldn't come across as a reactionary fundamentalist.
You didn't care for the Gospel of John in 2002, what You say about it now, shows that You still DON'T in 2019.
?
Being Gentiles has Nothing to do Understanding the Gospel, You understand it or You DON'T, and John Shelby Spong Clearly DOESN'T understand any of it. what He says in "Lecture" is designed to confuse You. eg "Not one of Jesus disciples is the Author of this book, including John Zebedee" "John would have to have been 95 to a hundred when He wrote that." These self contradictions DON'T help JOhn Spong at all