None of us now possesses the whole truth

ON GAROTH: In addition to his babblings here, Garoth stated on Mohler's thread, "The atonement is such a doctrine, requiring a God who is vengeful, who must have someone to kill, to serve his own justice. The doctrine, although having seeds in the Gospel of John, was not fully developed until the second and third century. It was never proclaimed by Jesus. Nor was his deity, for that matter. The oldest layers of scripture, reflecting what he actually said, such as in Mark and the Q source, neither declare him to be God or the Messiah."

Jesus' words which proclaimed His purpose and mission:
Matthew 20:28 "Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many."

TO BE CONTINUED ~

Continued ~

John 3:14-15 "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life."

Mark 8:31 And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.

Mark 14:21 "The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! good were it for that man if he had never been born."

Luke 9:44 "Let these sayings sink down into your ears: for the Son of man shall be delivered into the hands of men."

Matthew 26:53,54 "Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?"

On His Diety:
John 10:30 "I and my Father are one."

Matthew 16:15-23 "He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ. From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day. Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee. But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men."

That last sentence, Garoth, can be applied to you as well. I hope you didn't have to pay for your education. Two PHDs. WOW!

It amazes me that people who know so little about scripture or faith seem to be able to sit in judgement on someone who has given his life to studying and living out his faith. Spong is right about the development of Christian faith. The oldest sources we have for the life of Jesus, Q and Mark (some also see some sources behind Q), are largely the sayings of Jesus, and do not portray him as calling himself either the Messiah, or in any respect identifying himself as diety. These were growing understandings, mostly of the Gentile church. Paul seems to know very little of what Jesus actually said (in fact, admits so), but sees Jesus' death and resurrection as central to the budding Christian faith. His understanding of Jesus became determinative in the spread of Christianity, with its more Hellenistic appeal. Jesus' death and resurrection, rather than his teachings, became the focus of faith. Anselm popularized the idea of Jesus as substitutionary sacrifice - going well beyond Paul or the Gospel According to John. So, in fact, as Bishop Spong says, "for those who have ears to hear," Christianity has evolved. It is also free to "devolve" to its basic components. Those who would do so are not athiests, nor are they unbelievers. They are still "Christians."

TO: ARCHYBOI AND BIOS

Well, well, look who's back! Spong's little puppet, Archyboi.

You answered your own question as to why I don't regularly post on Mohler's thread. You stated he and I agree so wholeheartedly, that one of us is rendered redundant. So, your suggestion that I post there is as nonsensical as your usual, inane comments. Besides, who would be left here to fascinate you? I find it quite heady that I am able to take your breath away. I should charge you a fee to read my postings. Too bad that you are not learning anything.

BIOS:

The reason we despise Spong's teachings is because he is leading people down the road to hell. When the final curtain comes down, it's all about where you are going to spend eternity. You either follow Christ and His Truth, or you perish, believing the lies of Satan and his followers.

I still don't get why some people despise Spong when he is so moderate in his comments.

Even when he says pastors have a responsibility to pursue truth, not to enforce institutional propaganda, he's being very mellow. Anyway, if this is what he believes, why do some people get all excited?

Niko, up to your tired tricks again. Why don't you post on Mohler's thread instead of here. You and he agree so wholeheartedly one of you is rendered redundant. You just don't get it. What are you so affraid of that you cannot contenance an A-Theistic viewpoint? Your rantings are endlessly fascinating to me.

You ought to clue in. Belief is the boobyprize for those who are incapable of faith. Faith is beyond beleif. Your continued inability to grasp this simple truth is remarkable. You don't even "believe" in G-d anymore. You believe in your beliefs in G-d. This isn't the same thing at all. It's merely your clinging desperately to a collection of anachronistic premises that have outlived their usefulness and you aren't even aware of this. It really is quite breathtaking in its arrogance and ignorance.

My perspective revolves around two insights.
The first was in my expression:
"every event in the universe is mysteriously connected to another in an
infinity of possibilities".The operative phrase is mysteriously connected. The
only *thing we can do is acknowledge the notion that we will always live an
"eventful" existence with mystery at it's center.

Our consciousness has now moved beyond old narratives from the past. It has risen to a state where we can acknowledge that our received knowledge is based on those more primitive narratives. Their experiences and understandings can be viewed as necessitating the creation of myths and stories. That's how our ancestors found peace of mind then.

The second pole upon which my notions revolve is the Latin phrase:
sub specie aeternitatis: "from the viewpoint of eternity".Now, we can confront mystery by seeing our perspective as not that of an Almighty who sees "sub specie aeternitatis". We must deal with ultimate mystery for what it is...ultimate mystery.

"Thus sayeth the Lord' has gone by the boards.

Our lot is confined to "quit trying to define the indefinable"; at least in any direct way and take up, with fuller appreciation, the art of story telling and myth making, which indeed helps to provide virtual meaning and not literal meaning for our lives.

John Shelby Spong has said, "So often the language of our inner life is literalized into becoming the language of our outer lives. That is when it loses its meaning and becomes a burden to our souls. "

5AMEFA91, did your ADD kicked in before you got to the end of my post?

"The more I read from John Spong, the more I like. His is a religious voice I just can't argue with."

If two people agree completely, one of them is unnecessary.

TO NAN_

Now, here's something that I didn't spin and it's right on cue. This was posted just this morning by R. Albert Mohler Jr., one of the Post's commentators. He must have been thinking of you when he stated,
"Some theologians and denominations have embraced a theology so fluid and indeterminate that even an atheist cannot tell the believers and unbelievers apart. Will it take a report from an atheist to awaken the church to the danger?"

You really fit the bill because you think that John Spong is a believer. I'm sure you will want to read Mr. Mohler's commentary. It is also posted under the Post's current discussion. I think that God is trying to get your attention.

The creeds are statements of belief that were created in response to Christian splinter groups (such as the Gnostics) who felt they had "discovered" secret knowledge about God - knowledge that was contradictory to what was taught and passed down by the Apostles.

A few years before Luther nailed his 95-Theses on the door of the church at Wittenberg, a Dutch scholar named Erasmus acquired several manuscripts of the New Testament written in the original Greek during the second and third centuries. Using these documents, he did something that had not been done in a thousand years. He translated the Bible and discovered that the version of the Bible used by the Catholic Church had been modified from the originals. That the Church would change the words of the Apostles to suit its own purposes is a primary outrage behind the Reformation movement. The Reformation was intended to be a return to the early Apostolic traditions and teachings of the Church. Even today, many denominations insist on Bibles translated directly from the oldest known copies of scripture to avoid the tampering by well-intentioned (and some not so well-intentioned) revisionists.

I understand that a person's spiritual voyage may take them closer or farther from God. That is natural. But if you reach a place where you believe that Jesus is not God, then stop calling yourself a Christian. If you do not believe that Jesus died for our sins, then continue your search for truth elsewhere.

There are a few key elements of the Christian faith that cannot be ignored or disputed without Christianity ceasing to be Christianity. If Jesus is nothing more than a Hebrew Gandhi or MLK (in other words just a really swell guy) then you serve neither yourself or anyone else by trying to reshape the faith to fit your egocentric life experiences.

Muslims believe that Jesus was a really swell guy. Many Hindus think him a good roll model. Atheists such as Thomas Jefferson admired the teachings and example of Christ. If in truth you are no worshiper of Christ, the son of God who died for our sins, then be like these others and change your label to fit your beliefs.

Christ, from Kristos, meaning the messiah promised by God to reconcile Him to us.

Niko, don't you see that you can spin the quotes from your dusty, old book to mean anything you want them to mean? Doesn't the irony just fall on you like a sack of bricks as you call other interpreters false and mistaken? Spong at least admits it is heady, big stuff. Hard to understand, otherwordly. But not you. You always have a cut and paste ready to 'prove' you have it straight.

Enough theatrics and threats. No more cryptic quotes and gibberish. Forget the fire and brimstone and come out of the Bronze Age, Niko.

TO NAN_

It may be boring, today, to hear us thumping our Bibles, but it won't always be that way. Unfortunately, the time will come when you will wish you had the chance to do it all over again.

You've got me pegged right. I'm just a little voice crying out in the wilderness. By the world's standard, I'm really a nobody. In fact, the Bible agrees with you. It states in 1 Corinthians 1:25-27, "Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;"

Spong is well published and is world reknown because he appeals to the masses. People flock to him because he tickles their ears with his false teachings. The Bible speaks of the narrow way that leads to life. It also states that broad and wide is the gate/way that leads to destruction and that the majority will follow it. This is found in Matthew 7:13-15. This same scripture warns of false prophets which come in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Such a one is John Spong.

Well, WMarkW, I say that if someone is going to believe in a god, and they clearly can believe in whatever type of god they choose, I say they might as well interpret their god and whatever source material comes with it as kind, generous and understanding. But sadly, most people choose to believe in a god that is an extension of what they want to be true anyway, like discriminatory and vengeful. Weird how that happens. It's like they are just imagining it, or something.

Spong's tradition (before he became a rouge non-traditionalist) the Anglican church, uses the Apostles and Nicean creeds, which say nothing about believing the bible is true. They contain superstitious statements incompatible with modern knowledge, but as metaphors they allow a very simple understanding of what Christianity is with a lot room for personal interpretation.

Niko, the "True Christian." If I had a nickel for all the times I have heard someone describe themselves as such. Carry on living in fear of some invisible sky fairy and informing everyone who differs in their beliefs from you that they are bound for hell. How boring. Saying Spong doesn't know anything is pretty rich. I mean, he actually has credentials and published works while you are just some preachy bible-thumper on a message board trying hard to sound ominous. I guess he is too kind for you? Isn't singling anyone out for stoning?
I don't believe what Spong believes about the nature of the universe, but at least he isn't trying to beat anyone up with it.

Actually the bible(s?), both old and new books, speak of unrevealed mysteries. So by literal interpretation what he says is correct, and not in a sense of mere pedantry.

Christians don't pay enough mind to the mysteries of creation, or the promises of revealing, and I don't understand this theological convenience very well. They focus on what they want to focus on at the expense of reading what's on the page. I think this is a product of it being broken down chapter and verse, it creates plenty of room for selective interpretation.

TO PALAMAS AND NAN_

PALAMAS, Amen. This false teacher, Spong, has written his own gospel. He does know absolutely nothing about Christianity and the Bible. Isn't it ironic that he would choose the scripture bit, "once delivered to the saints" which is from Jude 1.

The whole Book of Jude is just that one chapter and it is all about, "...... certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ." Spong really needs to study that chapter so that he will know where he is going to be heading on the Day of Judgment.

TO NAN_: Since you are an atheist, I'm sure that Spong really does speak to you. He certainly doesn't speak to a true, Bible believing Christian. The god that Spong talks about isn't the God of the Bible. So, in reality, he's an atheist also. It's nice that you like him because you are both heading for the same place. As long as you're still breathing, there is time for you to change your mind.

The more I read from John Spong, the more I like. His is a religious voice I just can't argue with. His faith is not forced on anyone. If someone is interpreting his god to alienate or persecute, they are doing it wrong. His god is not a god of racism or sexism. Wow, it's like his god is actually big, awesome and mysterious, not sitting with him in the toilet stall telling him how to screw people over.
I like him. And I'm an atheist.

If everything that John Spong thinks he knows about Scripture, church history, and the history of theology were put on paper, it would fill volumes. If everything that he actually knows were put on paper, it would also fill volumes--of blank pages.