Rescuing The Bible From Fundmentalism

[Bro. Hex]

Amen

"Seek the truth; come whence it may, cost what it will." Amen indeed!

John Shelby Spong.

http://www.johnshelb...site/index.aspx

http://en.wikipedia....hn_Shelby_Spong

http://www.liberator...Mark/Spong.html

http://www.brainyquo...elby_spong.html

Although Spong is a liberal he did not invent the term "Liberal Christian" and he is not a lone voice in the field. Much that he says has been said before by other Liberal theologians. I would say that Spong's contribution has been in the highlighting of those views, building on them and living them.

"Contributions to biblical hermeneutics

The theology of liberal Christianity was prominent in the biblical criticism of the 19th and 20th centuries. The style of scriptural hermeneutics within liberal theology is often characterized as non-propositional. This means that the Bible is not considered a collection of factual statements but instead documents the human authors' beliefs and feelings about God at the time of its writing—within a historic/cultural context. Thus, liberal Christian theologians do not claim to discover truth propositions but rather create religious models and concepts that reflect the class, gender, social, and political contexts from which they emerge. Liberal Christianity looks upon the Bible as a collection of narratives that explain, epitomize, or symbolize the essence and significance of Christian understanding."

http://en.wikipedia....al_Christianity

Liberal Christian theologians and authors

Anglican and Protestant

Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher (1768–1834), often called the "father of liberal theology," he claimed that religious experience was introspective, and that the truest understanding of God consisted of "a sense of absolute dependence".

William Ellery Channing (1780–1842), pioneering liberal theologian in the USA, who criticized the doctrine of the Trinity and the strength of scriptural authority, in favor of more rationalistic and historical-critical beliefs. Unitarian.

Charles Augustus Briggs (1841–1913) early advocate of modern Biblical criticism

Henry Ward Beecher (1813–1887), US preacher who left behind the Calvinist orthodoxy of his famous father, the Reverend Lyman Beecher, to popularize liberal Christianity.

Adolf von Harnack, (1851–1930), German theologian and church historian, promoted the Social Gospel.

Charles Fillmore (1854–1948). Emerson-influenced Christian mystic and co-founder (with his wife, Myrtle Fillmore) of the Unity Church.

Harry Emerson Fosdick (1878–1969), Baptist founding pastor of New York's Riverside Church in 1922.

Rudolf Bultmann (1884–1976), German biblical scholar.

Paul Tillich (1886–1965), synthesized Protestant Christian theology with existential philosophy

Leslie Weatherhead (1893–1976), English preacher, and author of The Will of God and The Christian Agnostic

Lloyd Geering (1918–), prominent New Zealand theologian.

Paul Moore, Jr. (1919 - 2003), 13th Episcopal Bishop, New York Diocese

John A.T. Robinson (1919–1983), Bishop of Woolwich, author of Honest to God.

John Hick (b. 1922) British philosopher of religion and theologian.

William Sloane Coffin (1924–2006), Senior Minister at the Riverside Church in New York City, and President of SANE/Freeze (now Peace Action).

John Shelby Spong (1931–), Episcopal bishop and author.

Richard Holloway (1933-), Bishop of Edinburgh 1986-2000.

Keith Ward (b. 1938) British Anglican cleric, philosopher, theologian, and scholar.

Matthew Fox (priest) (b. 1940) American Episcopalian priest and theologian.

Marcus Borg (b. 1942) American biblical scholar and author.

Scotty McLennan (b. 1948) Unitarian Universalist Christian Minister, Stanford University professor and author.

Michael Dowd (b. 1958) Religious Naturalist theologian and Epic of Evolution evangelist.

Douglas Ottati, Presbyterian theologian and author, former professor at Union-PSCE, current professor at Davidson College.

Roman Catholic

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (1881–1955), a French Jesuit, also trained as a paleontologist; works condemned by the Holy Office in 1962. The condemnation was formally reaffirmed in 1981 but many theologians still refer to his writings, including Pope Benedict XVI.

Yves Congar (1904–1995), French Dominican ecumenical theologian.

Edward Schillebeeckx, (1914–2009) Belgian Dominican theologian.

Hans Küng, (b. 1928) Swiss theologian. Had his licence to teach Catholic theology revoked in 1979 because of his rejection of the doctrine of the infallibility of the Church, but retained his faculties to say the Mass.

John Dominic Crossan, (b. 1934) ex-priest, New Testament scholar, co-founder of the Jesus Seminar.

Joan Chittister, (b. 1936) OSB, a lecturer and social psychologist.

Leonardo Boff, (b. 1938) Brazilian, ex-Franciscan, ex-priest, co founder of Liberation theology.

Others

Thomas Jefferson, as author of the Jefferson Bible, which excised all the supernatural elements from the gospels.

also from :- http://en.wikipedia....al_Christianity

I believe there is a coming Anglican/Episcopalian rift between liberal and conservative that I do not see that there is any way of avoiding. I know writers like Robert Van de Weyer has made some sensible suggestions (IMO) in his book the Anglican Quilt but as long as the church continues to shelve the problem or tries to continue to bury it then I believe the debate will deepen.

See also:- http://news.bbc.co.u.../uk/7470297.stm

Thank you, Pete, for this EXCELLENT overview (just the highlights, really,

a difinitive list would be virtually impossible) of Liberal Christian authors.

Edited November 14, 2010 by Hexalpa

[Coolhand]

John Shelby Spong.

http://www.johnshelb...site/index.aspx

http://en.wikipedia....hn_Shelby_Spong

http://www.liberator...Mark/Spong.html

http://www.brainyquo...elby_spong.html

Although Spong is a liberal he did not invent the term "Liberal Christian" and he is not a lone voice in the field. Much that he says has been said before by other Liberal theologians. I would say that Spong's contribution has been in the highlighting of those views, building on them and living them.

"Contributions to biblical hermeneutics

The theology of liberal Christianity was prominent in the biblical criticism of the 19th and 20th centuries. The style of scriptural hermeneutics within liberal theology is often characterized as non-propositional. This means that the Bible is not considered a collection of factual statements but instead documents the human authors' beliefs and feelings about God at the time of its writingwithin a historic/cultural context. Thus, liberal Christian theologians do not claim to discover truth propositions but rather create religious models and concepts that reflect the class, gender, social, and political contexts from which they emerge. Liberal Christianity looks upon the Bible as a collection of narratives that explain, epitomize, or symbolize the essence and significance of Christian understanding."

http://en.wikipedia....al_Christianity

Liberal Christian theologians and authors

Anglican and Protestant

Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher (17681834), often called the "father of liberal theology," he claimed that religious experience was introspective, and that the truest understanding of God consisted of "a sense of absolute dependence".

William Ellery Channing (17801842), pioneering liberal theologian in the USA, who criticized the doctrine of the Trinity and the strength of scriptural authority, in favor of more rationalistic and historical-critical beliefs. Unitarian.

Charles Augustus Briggs (18411913) early advocate of modern Biblical criticism

Henry Ward Beecher (18131887), US preacher who left behind the Calvinist orthodoxy of his famous father, the Reverend Lyman Beecher, to popularize liberal Christianity.

Adolf von Harnack, (18511930), German theologian and church historian, promoted the Social Gospel.

Charles Fillmore (18541948). Emerson-influenced Christian mystic and co-founder (with his wife, Myrtle Fillmore) of the Unity Church.

Harry Emerson Fosdick (18781969), Baptist founding pastor of New York's Riverside Church in 1922.

Rudolf Bultmann (18841976), German biblical scholar.

Paul Tillich (18861965), synthesized Protestant Christian theology with existential philosophy

Leslie Weatherhead (18931976), English preacher, and author of The Will of God and The Christian Agnostic

Lloyd Geering (1918), prominent New Zealand theologian.

Paul Moore, Jr. (1919 - 2003), 13th Episcopal Bishop, New York Diocese

John A.T. Robinson (19191983), Bishop of Woolwich, author of Honest to God.

John Hick (b. 1922) British philosopher of religion and theologian.

William Sloane Coffin (19242006), Senior Minister at the Riverside Church in New York City, and President of SANE/Freeze (now Peace Action).

John Shelby Spong (1931), Episcopal bishop and author.

Richard Holloway (1933-), Bishop of Edinburgh 1986-2000.

Keith Ward (b. 1938) British Anglican cleric, philosopher, theologian, and scholar.

Matthew Fox (priest) (b. 1940) American Episcopalian priest and theologian.

Marcus Borg (b. 1942) American biblical scholar and author.

Scotty McLennan (b. 1948) Unitarian Universalist Christian Minister, Stanford University professor and author.

Michael Dowd (b. 1958) Religious Naturalist theologian and Epic of Evolution evangelist.

Douglas Ottati, Presbyterian theologian and author, former professor at Union-PSCE, current professor at Davidson College.

Roman Catholic

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (18811955), a French Jesuit, also trained as a paleontologist; works condemned by the Holy Office in 1962. The condemnation was formally reaffirmed in 1981 but many theologians still refer to his writings, including Pope Benedict XVI.

Yves Congar (19041995), French Dominican ecumenical theologian.

Edward Schillebeeckx, (19142009) Belgian Dominican theologian.

Hans Küng, (b. 1928) Swiss theologian. Had his licence to teach Catholic theology revoked in 1979 because of his rejection of the doctrine of the infallibility of the Church, but retained his faculties to say the Mass.

John Dominic Crossan, (b. 1934) ex-priest, New Testament scholar, co-founder of the Jesus Seminar.

Joan Chittister, (b. 1936) OSB, a lecturer and social psychologist.

Leonardo Boff, (b. 1938) Brazilian, ex-Franciscan, ex-priest, co founder of Liberation theology.

Others

Thomas Jefferson, as author of the Jefferson Bible, which excised all the supernatural elements from the gospels.

also from :- http://en.wikipedia....al_Christianity

I believe there is a coming Anglican/Episcopalian rift between liberal and conservative that I do not see that there is any way of avoiding. I know writers like Robert Van de Weyer has made some sensible suggestions (IMO) in his book the Anglican Quilt but as long as the church continues to shelve the problem or tries to continue to bury it then I believe the debate will deepen.

See also:- http://news.bbc.co.u.../uk/7470297.stm

lol......you really are not getting this.......

EXAMPLE:

"Spong claims X,Y, and Z in regard to Paul's writings not being the Word of God. I agree with Spong about this because of A, B, and C."

Pete, are you familiar with any arguments that Spong makes in regard to Paul's writings being or not being the Word of God?

Edited November 14, 2010 by Coolhand

[Bro. Hex]

lol......you really are not getting this.......

EXAMPLE:

"Spong claims X,Y, and Z in regard to Paul's writings not being the Word of God. I agree with Spong about this because of A, B, and C."

Pete, are you familiar with any arguments that Spong makes in regard to Paul's writings being or not being the Word of God?

Let's turn this inquiry on its head, Coolhand.

What part of Spong's claims do YOU DIS-agree with?

And what are YOUR A,B and C reasons for disagreement?

Pete has already invested a great deal of time and energy into answering YOUR inquiry,

Now in fairness, how about YOU investing a great deal of time and effort in your criticism of Spong?

Of course that's much more work than "just firing off more questions"

and then letting "the other guy" do all the heavy lifting.

[Coolhand]

Let's turn this inquiry on its head, Coolhand.

What part of Spong's claims do YOU DIS-agree with?

And what are YOUR A,B and C reasons for disagreement?

Pete has already invested a great deal of time and energy into answering YOUR inquiry,

Now in fairness, how about YOU investing a great deal of time and effort in your criticism of Spong?

Of course that's much more work than "just firing off more questions"

and then letting "the other guy" do all the heavy lifting.

You act like Pete is your kid brother or something and I am picking on him or something. I know you just kind of chime in and out but here is what has been going on, as I see it: I say something or ask something; Pete goes on talking about Liberal Christianity or some other unrelated point. I have now come to think that he is not at all familiar with Spong's work and has (the same way you have incidentally) made up his mind about the book by the title and author.

This “heavy lifting” you are talking about is nothing more the surfing the web. So far in this topic in regard to Spong’s book and Ehrman’s book I seem to be the only one that can quote and site the page number form the book so we can discuss it; you certainly haven’t.

Let Pete answer his own questions.

[Bro. Hex]

Let Pete answer his own questions.

Sure.

NOW YOU ANSWER MINE.

What part of Spong's claims do YOU DIS-agree with?

And what are YOUR A, B and C reasons for disagreement?

Edited November 14, 2010 by Hexalpa

[Cornelius]

I am going to put in a reminder here(and this will be the only one) that this is the reading room. Please everyone keep your cool and calm down a little. I don't want to have to lock the topic down.

[Pete]

lol......you really are not getting this.......

EXAMPLE:

"Spong claims X,Y, and Z in regard to Paul's writings not being the Word of God. I agree with Spong about this because of A, B, and C."

Pete, are you familiar with any arguments that Spong makes in regard to Paul's writings being or not being the Word of God?

I read this book about four years ago and have read other books since. The main reason that I quote Spong is not that I some how worship him or feel I hang on his every word but that what he says resonates with my own conclusions. When we talk about Paul we are talking about the very first writings of the new testament and I believe the bedrock upon every other book included had to be validated by and if they did not comply then they were modified or dismissed as Gnostic.

I believe you have asked me of the strongest argument from the book and you are asking me to reference it for you as you have referenced page 10. As I understand it you have started this topic on the book and now you want me to explain Spong's views on Paul and to leave out that which resonates for me and my views on the topic.

Yet, I have to speak about what resonates with my conclusions on Paul because to say that such and such is the stronger argument then one has to be somewhat subjective on the topic.

My view:-

We have a man who had taken upon himself the killing of those who did not comply with his view of Judaism. we have a sketchy story of his conversion and suggests to me a guilty man. He did not visit the disciples right away but went according to the bible to Arabia for three years and then went to Jerusalem for 15 days and says he met Peter and James and saw no one else (Galatians 1:116-18).

He then goes away for 14 year ad returns and falls out with Peter for what? We read Peter was still trying to keep his connections with Judaism. Sure it says he ate and behaved differently when visiting the homes of gentiles but I must point out so would I if I stayed at the home of a Jew. Even Paul talks about differing his arguments when he he is in the company of others (1 Corinthians 9:20-21). Now as I have pointed out that I believe his teachings were different from Jesus in that Jesus talked about the kingdom of God within and that which is to come and the beatitudes (Matt 5:1-16) seem to clearly say that by your fruits you will be known. Paul talks about being dead to the flesh, washing away ones sin with the blood of Christ and grace being freely given. All this suggests to me is that Paul differed from Jesus and his disciples who practiced as Jews. I believe Paul started the new faith and I do not see Jesus as promoting anything other than a liberal form of Judaism. I therefore argue that if Jesus spoke the word of God and his disciples followed that word then Paul was the outsider.

Now Spong on Paul from the book Rescuing the bible from fundamentalism

You say you have read the book and therefore you will note that the book is not about Paul per-se but takes a brief scan over the bible and argues how and the books of the bible came about. However, Spong does discuss Paul in Chapter 8 and suggests he was a torment man. Tormented by the nature of his flesh and desires. Paul mentions a number of times about the threat his members (personal members) have for him and how desires of the flesh can mislead and how God gives over people who give into these urges. Spong discusses Paul and how he tried to rationalize his urges that for him contradicted the law with his faith. Spong believes Paul was a gay man and death to the flesh and being reborn with grace is in his view the only option Paul had to resolve his torment of being a gay man who by the Jewish law should be stoned to death.

We say death to the flesh but then again we read about the resurrected Jesus allowing Thomas to touch his wounds and his eating with the disciples. All of which describe a flesh of a person (IMO).

So for me and I guess Spong, do not see Paul as speaking every word as dictated by God but as dictated by his own personal struggles with Judaism, and his faith, and his own physical being, and his relationship with God.

Edited November 14, 2010 by Pete

[Coolhand]

Sure.

NOW YOU ANSWER MINE.

What part of Spong's claims do YOU DIS-agree with?

And what are YOUR A, B and C reasons for disagreement?

If there is a point you want to discuss bring it up. I was asking Pete about a specific claim that he made.

If you read the first post in this topic you will see that I have begun doing what you are now demanding. And instead of discussing the points I made that topic went off topic.

I will continue to address ideas tht Spong presents in this book, but not because of your ALL CAPS DEMANDS.

How about you Hex: Do you agree with Pete inregard Spong's argument conserning Paul's writings not being the Word of God?

[Coolhand]

As I understand it you have started this topic on the book and now you want me to explain Spong's views on Paul and to leave out that which resonates for me and my views on the topic.

No, I asked you specifically, more than once: "What about Spong's argument that Paul's words are not the Words of God do you agree with?" I have Spong's book and I know what he has written. I don't need or want you to tell me what it says, I know what it says. I'm asking you what you think about what it says.

My view:- . . . .

...and here we go again.

Now Spong on Paul from the book Rescuing the bible from fundamentalism

You say you have read the book and therefore you will note that the book is not about Paul per-se but takes a brief scan over the bible and argues how and the books of the bible came about. However, Spong does discuss Paul in Chapter 8 and suggests he was a torment man. Tormented by the nature of his flesh and desires. Paul mentions a number of times about the threat his members (personal members) have for him and how desires of the flesh can mislead and how God gives over people who give into these urges. Spong discusses Paul and how he tried to rationalize his urges that for him contradicted the law with his faith. Spong believes Paul was a gay man and death to the flesh and being reborn with grace is in his view the only option Paul had to resolve his torment of being a gay man who by the Jewish law should be stoned to death.

We say death to the flesh but then again we read about the resurrected Jesus allowing Thomas to touch his wounds and his eating with the disciples. All of which describe a flesh of a person (IMO).

So for me and I guess Spong, do not see Paul as speaking every word as dictated by God but as dictated by his own personal struggles with Judaism, and his faith, and his own physical being, and his relationship with God.

Is this the argument that made by Spong that convinced you that Paul's writings are not the Word of God?

Well what about this:

either way if we are talking about Spong's book I believe he has given his thoughts on Paul:-

"Bishop John S. Spong (Episcopal Bishop of Newark)

"Paul's words are not the Words of God. They are the words of Paul – a vast difference." (Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism, p. 104, Harper San Francisco, 1991)"

Are you suggesting that there was no argument and you may have just grabbed that line off of page 104 because it resonates with your thinking?

I guess Hex is right; I should express agreement or disagreement with every statement and/or argument in the entire book, otherwise no one but me will know what is in the book.

How lame is that?

[Pete]

I have tried to stay close to the topic and the book "Rescuing the bible from fundamentalism" is not specifically about Paul but is a discussion on the bible as a whole. You say you have read the book and as such you should know that it is not specifically about Paul although chapter 8 does discuss him.

I have tried to give you info when ever you have asked for it but it seems you do not not give me back anything but scorn in return. Where is your justification that Paul's words are that of God's?

Where is your evidence for accepting Paul as the spokeman for God? I guess its because somone 2000 years ago wrote something and you have taken in whole. I have given you some of my reasons but is it discussed?No! All I get is you do not want to hear what I have to say and your leaving me with little point in replying to you in the future. I am not Spong and I have never professed to be. Much of what he says resonates with me, but if it does not for you, do I get upset? No. Have I mocked you on this topic? No. Have I got that from you? I believe so.

[Bro. Hex]

I guess Hex is right; I should express agreement or disagreement with every statement and/or argument in the entire book, otherwise no one but me will know what is in the book.

How lame is that?

I actually only asked about the parts that you DIS-agree with...and "Why"?

It has been many years since I read this book, and do not have a copy around for reference any more, so that is about as specific as I can make my question. Sorry if you find that to be "lame".

[Coolhand]

I actually only asked about the parts that you DIS-agree with...and "Why"?

I already answered this here:

I will continue to address ideas tht Spong presents in this book, but not because of your ALL CAPS DEMANDS.

However, you either missed or are dodging this:

How about you Hex: Do you agree with Pete inregard Spong's argument conserning Paul's writings not being the Word of God?

So Hex, do you agree with Pete in regard Spong's argument conserning Paul's writings not being the Word of God?

[Pete]

I already answered this here:

However, you either missed or are dodging this:

So Hex, do you agree with Pete in regard Spong's argument conserning Paul's writings not being the Word of God?

Just to qualify your statement. It is not just Paul. I do not believe the bible is the word of God. There are things that speak to the heart and I believe that is God speaking but there is much that is written that I think is just evil and tribal religion. Hence, I do not see the bible text as the word of God but that which is spoken to the heart. It is the heart that changes a person and not the text.

[Fawzo]

Just to qualify your statement. It is not just Paul. I do not believe the bible is the word of God. There are things that speak to the heart and I believe that is God speaking but there is much that is written that I think is just evil and tribal religion. Hence, I do not see the bible text as the word of God but that which is spoken to the heart. It is the heart that changes a person and not the text.

Spong doesn't just think Paul is not the word of God either. From what I've read so far he feels as if the Gospel of Mark is a Liturgical work based on 1 Cor 15 3:4 Mark then went back into Scripture and created his narrative based largely on Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53.

Corinthians was the earliest writing about the death of Jesus and as Paul didn't really expound more than that on it, he feels Mark took up the pen to take up the task.

I passed on to you what was most important and what had also been passed on to me. Christ died for our sins, just as the Scriptures said.4 He was buried, and he was raised from the dead on the third day, just as the Scriptures said. 1 Cor 15:3-4 (NLT)

He also feels that the birth narratives are Myth and the Miracles are not historical events either, and it is very likely that Judas never was an actual person.

I can't wait to get to the rest of the book to see what he does believe about Jesus and why he still claims to be a Christian.

I can't say that I agree with him 100% so far but he does make some interesting arguments that do seem plausible and gives one pause.

Edited November 16, 2010 by Fawzo

[Pete]

Spong doesn't just think Paul is not the word of God either. From what I've read so far he feels as if the Gospel of Mark is a Liturgical work based on 1 Cor 15 3:4 Mark then went back into Scripture and created his narrative based largely on Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53.

Corinthians was the earliest writing about the death of Jesus and as Paul didn't really expound more than that on it, he feels Mark took up the pen to take up the task.

I passed on to you what was most important and what had also been passed on to me. Christ died for our sins, just as the Scriptures said.4 He was buried, and he was raised from the dead on the third day, just as the Scriptures said. 1 Cor 15:3-4 (NLT)

He also feels that the birth narratives are Myth and the Miracles are not historical events either, and it is very likely that Judas never was an actual person.

I can't wait to get to the rest of the book to see what he does believe about Jesus and why he still claims to be a Christian.

I can't say that I agree with him 100% so far but he does make some interesting arguments that do seem plausible and gives one pause.

I have a utube link of Spong talking about what he thinks of Paul. I will post it when I get home from my night shift.

I admit when I first read Spong I felt very uneasy and at the same time very challenged, but it made more sense to me after a while. It was his writtings that got me onto other liberal sites and writtings. I am grateful for his challenge.

Edited November 16, 2010 by Pete

[Brother Michael Sky]

Do a little research on Irenaeus, he spend much of his life dealing with the gnostic heresy. Of his two writings that still exist, the best known is "Against Heresies", a work consisting of five books dealing with gnosticism. Until the discovery of Gnostic texts at Nag Hammadi in 1946, most information about gnosticism came to us through Irenaeus. This is accurate and grounded in historical truth.

Didn't mean to offend you Dan54... it really WAS funny.... I would suggest a little MORE research for you, however... mine own is ongoing... The Church Fathers, as they are called, had a specific thrust to their actions. You must understand the men, to understand the politics they were engaged in...

I honestly didn't mean to offend, but I can see how I should have been a little more reserved... sorry, Mate..

[Dan56]

I believe Paul started the new faith and I do not see Jesus as promoting anything other than a liberal form of Judaism. I therefore argue that if Jesus spoke the word of God and his disciples followed that word then Paul was the outsider.

IMO, Paul explained the New Covenant and his letters were confirmation of everything Jesus himself taught. Although Peter disagreed with Paul (at first) about taking the gospel to the gentiles, he later endorsed Paul after God revealed to Peter that the gentiles were not unclean. "Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction" (2 Peter 3:15&16) -NIV.

[Dan56]

Didn't mean to offend you Dan54... it really WAS funny.... I would suggest a little MORE research for you, however... mine own is ongoing... The Church Fathers, as they are called, had a specific thrust to their actions. You must understand the men, to understand the politics they were engaged in...

I honestly didn't mean to offend, but I can see how I should have been a little more reserved.

Don't worry, I've never been offended by anyone in my life.... I don't know specifically what you disagreed with, but it sounds like you believe the church fathers were faithful in delivering uncorrupted scripture. I personally disagree, and am convinced that some 3rd century church fathers intentionally misconstrued the manuscripts. They were Clement of Alexandria, Origen and Eusebius. Constantine commissioned Eusebius to prepare 50 copies of the bible, these are the main source for the corruptions we see today, they were the result of the work of Origen and Eusebius. Later, Westcott and Hort made some 5000 changes to the “Revised Greek Text” of 1881, I cited some of those changes in an earlier post. All the changes were based on the Alexandrian manuscripts (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus), basically a Vatican manuscript. It may be funny, but it is also a historical truth, I've already done extensive research on it.

[Pete]

IMO, Paul explained the New Covenant and his letters were confirmation of everything Jesus himself taught. Although Peter disagreed with Paul (at first) about taking the gospel to the gentiles, he later endorsed Paul after God revealed to Peter that the gentiles were not unclean. "Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction" (2 Peter 3:15&16) -NIV.

Spong on Paul.

Spong on the bible.

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=E8ieU1fVA-Q

Spong on fundamentalism.

Dan, Lets also not forget that outside of the conservative circles 2 Peter is thought to be a forgery.

"The Second Epistle of Peter, usually referred to simply as Second Peter and often written 2 Peter, is a book of the New Testament of the Bible, traditionally ascribed to Saint Peter, but in modern times widely regarded as pseudonymous."

and "Many scholars generally consider the epistle to be written between c 100–150AD"

(Peter was long dead by then)

from:- http://en.wikipedia....pistle_of_Peter

Edited November 16, 2010 by Pete

[Brother Michael Sky]

Don't worry, I've never been offended by anyone in my life.... I don't know specifically what you disagreed with, but it sounds like you believe the church fathers were faithful in delivering uncorrupted scripture. I personally disagree, and am convinced that some 3rd century church fathers intentionally misconstrued the manuscripts. They were Clement of Alexandria, Origen and Eusebius. Constantine commissioned Eusebius to prepare 50 copies of the bible, these are the main source for the corruptions we see today, they were the result of the work of Origen and Eusebius. Later, Westcott and Hort made some 5000 changes to the “Revised Greek Text” of 1881, I cited some of those changes in an earlier post. All the changes were based on the Alexandrian manuscripts (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus), basically a Vatican manuscript. It may be funny, but it is also a historical truth, I've already done extensive research on it.

what I thought was funny, was your stated belief that gnosticism was a " a religious/philosophical movement " which " corrupted " Early Christianity ", and your stated belief that the " more reputable Byzantine scribes " were somehow more faithful in reproducing the message of the Text....

History does not support either view... and it obviously comes from a place of bias....

You are, of course, referring to the infamous council of Nicea.... which had several pointed goals :

1. Settle the vexing problem of the Divinity of Jesus - which they did by introducing The Doctrine of the Trinity...

2. Figure out the Problems they were having involving the Date for Easter...

3. Smack down the rebellious Pope, who disagreed mightily with emperor Constantine...

and of course several more mundane matters......

and it is even funnier considering Eusebius was the author of one " Preparation for the Gospel " which was an argument why Jewish and Christian belief were superior to Pagan myth and Philosophy... all the while Christians were gathering Pagan holidays and believers like the pied piper....

Athanasius was there as well...the first to use the term " canon " to describe the " official sanction " of the contents of the Bible... A man who was exiled five times during his career.... exiled from ALEXANDRIA..... which had the biggest Library of the ancient world.... he didn't even agree with his buddy Eusebius on a regular basis.....

It seems ridiculous to me, that folks will make judgments that support their view of things directly in the face of proof otherwise...

There was only one thing the byzantine scribes could be trusted to do : EXACTLY what they needed to do to make their emperor happy... and Constantine had POLITICAL motivations - he used the religious belief of the Jews and Christians as a club to keep them in line.... he had his scribes find justification for the way he wanted things, and made sure that the Text which resulted from the imprisonment of clergy, supported his desires.... and the rest was hunted down and burnt, under the people who held the documents which disagreed....

I believe the Church Fathers had a genuine desire to get things right, but in the landscape of the time, accuracy was not the primary motivation.... THERE WERE TWO POPES at the time, for crying out loud..... and the Pope in Rome was at direct odds with Byzantium - ask yourself why.....