Spong: "Why We Must Reclaim The Bible From Fundamentalists"

by leavingwt 87 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  sizemik

  And there's the rub Ding . . .

  Just what did Jesus say? Who decides . . . "Well, Jesus would never say that . . . so we better trash that one" What else has been ignored because someone decided it wasn't in harmony with their version of "Jesus"? What might be included that he didn't say, or altered, for the same reason?

  As regards the statements you quoted . . . I can see how that would transpire. But they're not that bigger deal . . . I can see the WTS spin doctors putting a positive interpretation on it in 5 mins flat.

  I suspect a bit of electioneering going on. . . . still thinking

  It all seems very, very subjective doesn't it . . . what exactly is being "reclaimed?"
• 

  tec

  Shelby mentioned it somewhere before (Aguest, not Spong). Thomas did not doubt that Jesus was the Christ. He did doubt that Christ had been resurrected. He wanted proof of that. But he had already believed in Christ to begin with, dropped everything to follow Him when invited.

  Peace,

  Tammy
• 

  tec

  I'm not certain that those two lines are out of line with what we know of Christ, Ding.

  In the first, he is correcting his disciples who do not want a female among them, and that she was not worthy of life (perhaps in a way that they could understand)... and in the second, just seems to mean that He can be found anywhere.

  Peace,

  Tammy
• 

  Berengaria

  I like Spong
• 

  still thinking

  Thats exactly right sizemik...they didn't like it. Or they put their own spin on it. But WHO is telling the truth?

  Just because some men decided that the bible canon is correct...does it make it so? How do we know that they weren't actually the liars?

  Not even all the gnostics agreed with each other so take your pick there too. which version appeals?
• 

  still thinking

  tec...

  Thomas did not doubt that Jesus was the Christ. He did doubt that Christ had been resurrected. He wanted proof of that.

  According to who? Certainly not to Thomas if you believe his gospel...he was special.
• 

  tec

  I haven't read the gospel of Thomas, Still. What part do you refer to when you say 'certainly not to Thomas'... that Jesus was the Christ or that Christ had been resurrected?

  Peace,

  Tammy
• 

  soft+gentle

  Spong and the Gospel of Thomas are very alike in some respects particularly with regard to the verse Ding mentions

  Ding: It also contains a statement attributed to Jesus: "Split wood; I am there. Lift up a stone, and you will find me there."

  It seems to me, in thinking about the above and what i have read in Spong's books, is that Christ is found not in literal interpretations of the bible or in what is purported to be truth at any one time but in interstitial spaces which are everywhere. And this is where what we say is divine meets us.
• 

  still thinking

  In his version tec...he doesn't doubt....in fact...he has a leading role. Looks like someone was saying that to make him look bad...or at least diminish the value of what he has to say.

  here's a link to the gospel of Thomas for you....

  http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/gosthom.html

  here's a bit more interesting stuff

  Johannine Sayings in the Gospel of Thomas: The Sayings Traditions in their Environment of First Century Syria by Alexander Mirkovic, PhD (Graduate Dept. of Religion, Vanderbilt University). An exploration of the relationship between the Thomas and Johannine Gospels, suggesting that Thomas was a source document for John. This makes interesting reading in the context of Elaine Pagels' recent best-selling book, Beyond Belief.

  http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/nhl_thomas.htm
• 

  wobble

  soft+gentle said "........ that Christ is found in interstitial spaces everywhere. And this is where what we say is divine meets us."

  If that is Spong's conclusion then he is not a million miles away from many of the thinkers of the past, and present, not that many of them would identify the divine with the possibly fictitious Jesus of Nazareth . (fictitous as far as what we have that is written about him, he may well have existed).

  The Jewish philosophers called this divine force "En Sof" or similar, and many eastern philosophies have a similar concept, again of course , even such a "god" is not supported by testable evidence.