Це відео не доступне.
Перепрошуємо.
Lecture # 2 on Bishop John Spong's book about the Fourth Gospel
Вставка
- Опубліковано 4 сер 2014
- This is the second lecture in a series of four lectures Bishop John Shelby Spong delivered at a Progressive Faith Conference in Springfield, MO over the weekend of August 1-3, 2014 on his latest book: The Fourth Gospel
Anyone who has ever met Bishop Spong knows that he spent years wrestling with the book of John before he ever wrote about it. He always introduced his wife as the love of his life. He died September 12, 2021. I am so glad to find these lectures.
Love Bishop Spong. He has filled in many of the blanks that remained when I left mainstream Christianity a number of years ago after 35plus frustrating and dead-ended years. I still love the faith and support and encourage those who seek the closer walk with Jesus, but my own journey is much more relaxed than it previously had been.
This progressive and sensible interpretation of the Bible is a breath of fresh air in the stagnant and disgusting era of Christian fundamentalism and ignorance.
incredible! glad i came across this bishop.
I want this whole book in audio maybe I should do it myself my voice is good enough !
Brilliant!
I find odd the assumption -- Spong asserts this time and again -- that the first time something entered the Christian tradition was when somebody wrote it down in a gospel.
Whenever he compares one of the gospels with Paul's letters, for example, he claims that "this is the first time" a specific story entered the Christian narrative -- as if Jesus' disciples and their followers hadn't been telling one another stories about certain episodes in the life of Jesus and passing on his teachings orally in the decades before those began to be written down.
We literally don't know and will never be able to determine the date when a particular episode or story first entered the corpus of narratives that has come down to us -- in most cases, the first time of the telling must have been during the oral period of transmission, a period that did not end with the first of the Pauline letters we have, now dated ca. 51 CE. As a Biblical scholar, Spong knows this as he's perfectly well acquainted with the postulate of a now lost early written (or possibly oral) body of narratives called Quelle ("the source" in German) thought to be discernible in the synoptic gospels. This means that many of the details he here -- and in his other lectures and sermons -- describes as being first heard of in 70 or 80 C.E. must have been circulating orally (and possibly in written form, too) from 30 CE on. I'm puzzled about why he seems so keen on suppressing this by claiming that a detail in Matthew or Mark or Luke (or John for that matter) is "the first time we hear xyz".
+Vaska X Tumir MA Hello, Vaska XAs much as I admire Bishop Spong, I also have noticed a few instances where he has either jumped to a wrong or vague conclusion or misappropriated some instance of history. I agree he can do better but I generally overlook these on two counts; 1. he made a mistake or does not fully understand how his words are being taken. and 2. It is my own reading of his work which needs to be interpreted differently. For example, when he says "this is the first time we hear...." as you aptly pointed out, he means it quite literally, that this is the first time we who are reading the book become aware of something which was being passed around back then. It has become, at that point from our perspective, part of this new tradition which became known as Christianity. This does not excuse any underlying reason he may have for doing so, but nor does it negate the greater points he wishes to make. I find most of his work, both written and here on You Tube, to have the integrity necessary for me to continue to view him as an honest person. By a bizarre coincidence, I bought a book of his at a second hand sale a couple of years back and found it had been signed by both him and his wife as a gift for someone over 20 years ago. I always find that sort of thing pretty neat. :)
+Vaska X Tumir MA I've been listening to Spong since the early 90s when I attended a bunch of his lectures. When we "first hear" about something in 70-80 CE, that in no way evidences that they "must have" been in circulation since 30 CE. So no, he isn't suppressing anything. Also, he is building on a fairly large corpus of very solid Biblical studies--he seems to appreciate Bultman for example, and builds on ideas that Bultman proposes and evidences.
+Karlis Lejnieks (Kruelaid) Your remark would of course be correct if we were talking about things in the abstract. In this case, however, as I noted in my original comment, the issue at question is a well-established scholarly postulate -- and we have to call it a postulate only because the actual original document or oral source is no longer available to us -- of a common source or Quelle (in German) used by the writers of the synoptic gospels. As a long-time scholar of biblical literature, Spong is fully aware of it and uses the concept or the postulate in his own writings. When I wrote that "This means that many of the details he here -- and in his other lectures and sermons -- describes as being first heard of in 70 or 80 C.E. must have been circulating orally (and possibly in written form, too) from 30 CE on", I was referring not to some mere speculation (as perhaps the use of the verbal form "must have been" suggests) but to a fact of biblical scholarship that is not in dispute by any reputable non-fundamentalist scholars.
I must have had a brain cloud or misread you because I totally agree.
Vaska X Tumir -Spong goes into great detail in his book A Gentile Heresy
How does John give the Pauline perspective a very interesting balance?
In religious jargon, specifically Jesus' language in which sinners are "whitewashed tombs", it follows that any of the statues of Rome or Catholicism are empty tombs, shrines without souls--- just let that be applied unto the interpretations. The light will prevail.
Bishop Spong, I applaud what you are saying here, you're vocalising the suspicions I've long held about religion and in doing that I guess you were trying to get a point across by saying something controversial about Geraldine Dougue (pronounced Doog) and her show called Compass where she interviewed you. But with the deepest respect I think you're misrepresenting her here and being a little unfair.
Geraldine Dougue was FOR you, not against you in her documentary. She didn't criticise you for 'upsetting people', quite the reverse. Her documentary about you was made specifically to present you as a leading light in understanding and explaining to the viewers how religion can be deliberately misinterpreted and misused by some to gain power over others.
She was very sympathetic to your point of view and if anything that first question was a devil's advocate statement designed to attract attention and draw the viewer in to listen to you. I think you should have listened to her documentary fully before you dismissed what she had to say.
Geraldine is from Australia, not from New Zealand. These two countries are several thousand miles apart and culturally very different. That's important to mention because you made a mistake and are therefore not infallible so it's also quite possible that you might have erred in your judgement of Geraldine Doogue.
If you said what you did here to grab the audience attention I can understand that but you have to do it thoughtfully and convincingly where no one can dispute it and it's reasonably accurate. Unfortunately we have electricity here in Australia and even the inter webs and are able to see what you said. You bite the hand that was gently feeding you. She was a convert. So was I, because of her show about you. I do applaud your points of view and respect you very much.
He clearly said she was from Australia.
Bishop John Shelby spong - the sins of scripture
God bless you my beloved. the moment I want through my comment I saw a revelation concerning you, your family and things around you. my dear, I saw God favour, success, joy, breakthrough. behind that I saw more spiritual attacks, from the enemies working on holding such blessings, causing your set back, but you are lefted above any spiritual tower. so the Lord is instructing you to sow a seed of faith into to a motherless babies home.(orphanage) this is going to be a covenant seed between you and God. the Lord ask me to tell you before the end of,3 three days, you should try as much as possible to sow the seed the into godstime motherless babies home (orphanage) located in somewhere in Nigeria to bring spiritual and divine breakthrough in your life and that of your family because there is power in sowing of seed contact the (orphanage) home management or you can also WhatsApp them on this numbers,+2348025125218 if you are through with this let me know, so I will give you guide line on how you should pray God bless you,.
Just purchased that book. Can’t wait to read it.
I have the answer. There never was a Jesus and apostle Paul lied or hallucinate. We evolved and death is the end. Sorry about this. Enjoy life while you can.
@Joe Siegfried Well, aren't you special?!
Too bad he doesn't heal amputees and feed the hungry children that are starving all over the world. I would expect no less from an all powerful god.
The problem with Spongs ministry is that he does not tell the listener how to decipher which sentences in the Bible to take "literally." For instance, consider Luke 10:27 "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and mind." Mr. Spong, is this just another piece of scripture that we aren't supposed to take literally? I can ascertain that, that one seems like we should, and I think you would say the same, so please make that clear to the listener or reader as to which scriptures a person should be a fundamentalist about and which scriptures should not be taken literally (such as the story of Jonah and the big fish...)
@Tom Riley but he claims The Bible is his favorite book...a lie?
And this? This, is what you live your life by???
How sad. And hopeless. And confused.
But…
he’s the most eloquent heathen I’ve ever seen.