Who has the authority to call Spong's teaching false or a false theology or a heresy? (OzSpen)
Or come right out and say that he is a heretic? (aspen)
Spong himself. Here's what he says: "None of the actual apostles would have recognized it (the Apostles' Creed) as expressing their understanding of Jesus". He then states that the Nicene Creed is "convoluted". p. 4 Tales of a Jewish Mystic
He then claims that salvation or atonement theology "has collapsed under the onslaught of the expanding knowledge of the Western world". p.6 ibid. He includes Darwinian evolution as a major reason. He then denies the miracles of Christ by pointing to enigmatic words, unusual actions as mitigating "against these signs ever having been understood as literal events". p.13 ibid. His next task is "to pull creedal orthodoxy out of Christianity". p.18. ibid. He follows that up with this gem: "followers of Jesus today must learn how to live apart from Christianity...etc." p.18 He then refers to the birth narratives as "the stuff of fairy tales". p. 23 Jesus' genealogy is described as "clearly mythological". p.23
Or to say that Spongs scholarship was a bit shoddy or his ideas are just plain idiotic. (schnarkle)
One of Spong's premises is that John's gospel should not be read literally, he then proceeds to show that the geographical references in chapters 4,5, and 6 make more sense if the order of the chapters was 4,6, and 5. He does this by looking at the geographical references as literal. p.14 ibid.
He claims there "are about fifty generations between David and Joseph" p.23. There are 28. Then his argument builds as follows: "after fifty generations...if they had all survived, which of course they didn't, be in the billions. If they all returned to Bethlehem, as the story implies, there would obviously be no room in the inn!" p.23. This is supposed to be his argument as to why this story is obviously a fairy tale.
He then claims that Mary couldn't have endured the 90 mile donkey ride. Why? Because the women he knows are weak? He gives no reasons. He then claims that Mark's gospel couldn't have recorded Jesus' last words as his disciples had all fled. I guess the confession of the guard is of no consequence to Spong. "And when the centurion, which stood over against him, saw that he so cried out, and gave up the ghost, he said, Truly this man was the Son of God.". A convert's testimony doesn't count with Spong.
He then claims he is going to isolate the fourth gospel from the other three gospels, but then proceeds to do just the opposite. "There is in John no account of the miraculous or virgin birth. It is inconceivable to me that at least the last author or editor of John had not heard of this story, since it had been introduced into the Jesus tradition some ten to fifteen years earlier. So we have to wonder why there is no allusion to it. Not only is there no supernatural birth story in John's gospel, but on two occasions...Jesus is referred to in a rather matter-of-fact way as "the son of Joseph" p.26
So here again, he claims to isolate, but then turns to the synoptics themselves. He also violates his first claim to ignoring literalism as the gods aren't born. His use of "inconceivable" indicates that he actually doesn't even know he's utilizing a pun which actually points to the fact that an author who is portraying Jesus as God isn't going to present a birth narrative. Why? The gods aren't born. This is how idiotic this moron is.
The term son of God is used over a dozen times and yet Spong thinks these two examples of "the son of Joseph" are more noteworthy. He refers to Jesus' dialogues as "convoluted" p.27 In chapter 4 he states: "A literal approach to the reading of this book is worthy only of ridicule". He then makes this blatantly idiotic claim: "When we examine Mark closely we find that the one Passover is the climax of a series of Jewish Holy days and feast days". p.36 In point of fact, Passover isn't a feast day at all and occurs at the beginning of the Jewish calendar.
On page 40 Spong claims: "The gospel of John is a foreign book to anyone except a Jew". He then follows up that with this from page 44: "So much of that which we find in the Greek word logos was not as foreign to the meaning of dabar in Jewish thought as once was supposed". A contradiction to his previous statement.
He then makes this claim: "Human beings always create God in their own image and in an attempt to meet their own needs". One of Spong's most notorious claims is that the church perpetuates dogmatic assertions. Here Spong has introduced one of his own, presenting us with not only his own hypocrisy, but an incoherent dogmatic assertion at that. Only idolaters create gods in their own image; not all human beings are idolaters.
Here's another doozy: "There is probably not a single word in the Fourth Gospel that Jesus ever spoke". He cites as his defense of this claim, the "fellows at the Jesus Seminar" and their "monumental work The Five Gospels". This is a group of hacks that can't even be bothered to look at the manuscripts when coming to their conclusions.
He claims that there are no reputable scholars that believe the birth narratives are historical as "stars do not announce human births, nor do they wander across the sky so slowly that wise men can follow". p.80 Well, I'm no wise man, but even I can follow stars across the sky when I'm sailing across the ocean, and I wasn't the first one to figure this out.
He ridicules the literal assumptions of Nicodemus, and then turns right around and assumes the exact same position: "To be 'born of water' is simply to be born into the life of this world, a process achieved in the breaking of the maternal waters". p.90 These are the idiotic ramblings of someone who has no idea what he's talking about.
He then spends the next two pages pointing out that the mystical experience is all about "self consciousness"; "in the medium of time"; "to remember the past"; "anticipate the future", "to embrace finitude and mortality"; "to view...life from within the center of the self, to look out to the world from the perspective of one who is somehow separated and distinct from the world". The writings of countless mystics refute this nonsense. John's gospel refutes it as well. Self centeredness is the antithesis of the mystic experience.
I can point out many current teachings that "deviates from the teachings of the Apostles" (JimParker). Does that mean Spong is wrong or the teachings that Tom55 points out as wrong deviates from the apostles.?
Who is to say that I OR you OR Spong is right? Maybe Spong is right, we are all wrong, and we just don't know it yet?
Sounds like you are all being judgmental. (Matthew 7:1)
Is that your judgement? My claims are based exclusively upon the claims of Spong himself. He is a self proclaimed heretic and proud of it. His explicitly claimed purpose is to tear down the orthodoxy of historical Christianity. Perhaps you might want to look at what the guy actually says before you go assuming we don't know what we're talking about. If you believe in historical Christianity, and that the gospel narratives are presenting historical events then Spong thinks you are an idiot, and worthy of ridicule. You've put yourself out into an area where you're open to potshots from every angle imaginable.
