Secular Pinoy

Note:This seems to be a paid service by Beliefnet, where you get access to various essays by prominent Historical Jesus Scholars and theologians. The price is quite steep for me. Anyone interested? (BTW, by going to the sign up form you get access to a freebie essay.)

The Search for Jesus:Disclaimer: I am not advertising. I merely pointed out a service some members might find interesting.

Old Man

Ah! "Bishop John Shelby Spong "

There isn't any belief in that man. I guess its just another deist orientated WWW site to make money for those who see religion as a way of making money. Those sorts are seldom worth reading from the Christian perspective.

There are enough free Christian articles on the WWW from early 20th and earlier theologians, commentators, etc, to keep one occupied for a life time. Try

http://www.christianwritings.net

for a freebie site (also has good links to other free sites).

Toto

I got that offer from Beliefnet and declined. Beliefnet is trying to make a buck (they were in bankruptcy a while back) but it's hard to imagine any of those scholars saving an exclusive insight for those who fork over $19.95.

I find Beliefnet fascinating and repulsive at the same time. Their overt commercialism and syncretism seem to be in opposition to any real religious values, or to any real examination of religion. They do occasionally publish some good interviews and articles.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Well, Old Man, some might say that Spong's beliefs are just about the only way to reconcile ol' Christianity with the modern age, and with modern knowledge...

This is not to say that I agree with him on everything. In particular his apparent veneration of Goulder and his Synoptic theories seems highly problematic to me. IMHO, Goulder is just another professional NT drone, wedded to the early date of gospels' composition.

But I agree that lots and lots of such articles can be found on the Web for free...

Cheers,

Yuri.

Old Man

I must say I am not aquainted with the disputes on the origins of the gospels. For me, the testimony of Irenaeus , a pupil of Polycarp, suffices to lend validity to the whole enterprise. Anyone who knew Polycarp was certainly no liar. The letter of Polycarp indicates that his saintlyness was almost on a par with John himself. It is inconceivable that Irenaeus was making it up, and at the end of the day, there is almost no evidence that he was. He said:

'Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who had leaned upon his breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.'


Spong is a deist through and through. He does not believe the gospels and the church he comes from is an anti-church, whatever his reputation as a biblical critic.

Kosh

<chuckle>

As evidenced by your many ridiculous posts, there is quite a bit of research and scholarship that you are not acquainted with. Unfortunatly, that doesn't seem to stop you from making unsupported assertions, sticking your head up your arse, and then running away when you're challenged.

Old Man

If your post is typical of the fruits of modern critical scholarship (and it probably is for the most part), then there is not much reason to waste time becoming acquainted with it.

The history of biblical scepticism over the past 150 years has occupied huge numbers of scholars, writing trees of verbiage, and their only practical result has been to dispel Daniel as 6th century BC - something which could have been deduced in 5 minutes from reading Sirach.

Sceptics are the ones burying their heads in their arses. You accuse all men of being liars unless they prove themselves to the contrary. Waste of time arguing with you.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Great logic here, Old Man... "Irenaeus knew Polycarp, so he must have always been truthful"?

For example, St. Peter knew Jesus himself, and yet he lied 3 times!

Don't you read your Bible from time to time?

Quote:

The letter of Polycarp indicates that his saintlyness was almost on a par with John himself. It is inconceivable that Irenaeus was making it up, and at the end of the day, there is almost no evidence that he was.

I'm sure he said what was politically convenient to say.

Quote:

Spong is a deist through and through. He does not believe the gospels and the church he comes from is an anti-church, whatever his reputation as a biblical critic.

He doesn't claim to be a big biblical critic per se. But AFAIAC Spong redeemed the Episcopalians with his progressive interpretations of the NT that are found in his many books.

Yuri.

Old Man

I'm impressed. But that was before he received the Holy Spirit.

He was a humble man.

From http://www.cin.org/saints/polycarp.html

ST POLYCARP was one of the most illustrious of the apostolic fathers, who, being the immediate disciples of the apostles, received instructions from their mouths, and inherited of them the spirit of Christ in a degree so much the more eminent as they lived nearer the fountain head. He embraced Christianity very young, about the year 80, was a disciple of the apostles, in particular of St. John the Evangelist, and was constituted by him Bishop of Smyrna, probably before his banishment to Patmos in 96, so that he governed that important see seventy years. He seems to have been the angel or bishop of Smyrna who was commended above all the bishops of Asia by Christ himself in the Apocalypse,[1] and the only one without a reproach.


If the Episcopalians had looked to Polycarp rather than Spong, they might have redeemed themselves.

CX

I wouldn't paint with too broad a brush, there, OM. My father is an Episcopal Deacon and he couldn't disagree with Bishop Spong more. For that matter the Rector of his church also thinks Spong is a kook.