 |
|
|
|
 The Bible presents us with an evolving story, writes John Shelby Spong.
December 29th, 2011
09:10 AM ET
My Take: The 3 biggest biblical misconceptions
By John Shelby Spong, Special to CNN The Bible is both a reservoir of spiritual insight and a cultural icon to which lip service is still paid in the Western world. Yet when the Bible is talked about in public by both believers and critics, it becomes clear that misconceptions abound. To me, three misconceptions stand out and serve to make the Bible hard to comprehend. First, people assume the Bible accurately reflects history. That is absolutely not so, and every biblical scholar recognizes it. The facts are that Abraham, the biblically acknowledged founding father of the Jewish people, whose story forms the earliest content of the Bible, died about 900 years before the first story of Abraham was written in the Old Testament. Actually, that's not in the Bible Can a defining tribal narrative that is passed on orally for 45 generations ever be regarded as history, at least as history is understood today? Moses, the religious genius who put his stamp on the religion of the Old Testament more powerfully than any other figure, died about 300 years before the first story of Moses entered the written form we call Holy Scripture. This means that everything we know about Moses in the Bible had to have passed orally through about 15 generations before achieving written form. Do stories of heroic figures not grow, experience magnifying tendencies and become surrounded by interpretive mythology as the years roll by? My Take: Bible condemns a lot, so why focus on homosexuality? Jesus of Nazareth, according to our best research, lived between the years 4 B.C. and A.D. 30. Yet all of the gospels were written between the years 70 to 100 A.D., or 40 to 70 years after his crucifixion, and they were written in Greek, a language that neither Jesus nor any of his disciples spoke or were able to write. Are the gospels then capable of being effective guides to history? If we line up the gospels in the time sequence in which they were written - that is, with Mark first, followed by Matthew, then by Luke and ending with John - we can see exactly how the story expanded between the years 70 and 100. For example, miracles do not get attached to the memory of Jesus story until the eighth decade. The miraculous birth of Jesus is a ninth-decade addition; the story of Jesus ascending into heaven is a 10th-decade narrative. In the first gospel, Mark, the risen Christ appears physically to no one, but by the time we come to the last gospel, John, Thomas is invited to feel the nail prints in Christ’s hands and feet and the spear wound in his side. Perhaps the most telling witness against the claim of accurate history for the Bible comes when we read the earliest narrative of the crucifixion found in Mark’s gospel and discover that it is not based on eyewitness testimony at all. My Take: Yes, the Bible really condemns homosexuality Instead, it’s an interpretive account designed to conform the story of Jesus’ death to the messianic yearnings of the Hebrew Scriptures, including Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53. The Bible interprets life from its particular perspective; it does not record in a factual way the human journey through history. The second major misconception comes from the distorting claim that the Bible is in any literal sense “the word of God.” Only someone who has never read the Bible could make such a claim. The Bible portrays God as hating the Egyptians, stopping the sun in the sky to allow more daylight to enable Joshua to kill more Amorites and ordering King Saul to commit genocide against the Amalekites. Can these acts of immorality ever be called “the word of God”? The book of Psalms promises happiness to the defeated and exiled Jews only when they can dash the heads of Babylonian children against the rocks! Is this “the word of God? What kind of God would that be? The Bible, when read literally, calls for the execution of children who are willfully disobedient to their parents, for those who worship false gods, for those who commit adultery, for homosexual persons and for any man who has sex with his mother-in-law, just to name a few. The Bible exhorts slaves to be obedient to their masters and wives to be obedient to their husbands. Over the centuries, texts like these, taken from the Bible and interpreted literally, have been used as powerful and evil weapons to support killing prejudices and to justify the cruelest kind of inhumanity. The third major misconception is that biblical truth is somehow static and thus unchanging. Instead, the Bible presents us with an evolutionary story, and in those evolving patterns, the permanent value of the Bible is ultimately revealed. It was a long road for human beings and human values to travel between the tribal deity found in the book of Exodus, who orders the death of the firstborn male in every Egyptian household on the night of the Passover, until we reach an understanding of God who commands us to love our enemies. The transition moments on this journey can be studied easily. It was the prophet named Hosea, writing in the eighth century B.C., who changed God’s name to love. It was the prophet named Amos who changed God’s name to justice. It was the prophet we call Jonah who taught us that the love of God is not bounded by the limits of our own ability to love. It was the prophet Micah who understood that beautiful religious rituals and even lavish sacrifices were not the things that worship requires, but rather “to do justice, love mercy and walk humbly with your God.” It was the prophet we call Malachi, writing in the fifth century B.C., who finally saw God as a universal experience, transcending all national and tribal boundaries. One has only to look at Christian history to see why these misconceptions are dangerous. They have fed religious persecution and religious wars. They have fueled racism, anti-female biases, anti-Semitism and homophobia.They have fought against science and the explosion of knowledge. The ultimate meaning of the Bible escapes human limits and calls us to a recognition that every life is holy, every life is loved, and every life is called to be all that that life is capable of being. The Bible is, thus, not about religion at all but about becoming deeply and fully human. It issues the invitation to live fully, to love wastefully and to have the courage to be our most complete selves. That is why I treasure this book and why I struggle to reclaim its essential message for our increasingly non-religious world. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of John Shelby Spong. soundoff (6,068 Responses)« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 Next »
« Previous entryBelief Blog's Morning Speed Read for Thursday, December 29
|
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
Editor’s note: John Shelby Spong, a former Episcopal bishop of Newark, New Jersey, is author of "
-Not only do they have to claim this whole ludicrous tale is true;
-Not only do they have to claim this revolting murderous villain the biblical god is pure love;
but...
they have to do this with a straight face....
What an elegant and profound view of the Bible! Bishop Spong has a thoroughly rational, deeply humanitarian, unapologetically historical, and thoroughly Christian concept of this book. As a non-believer with a strong background in Christian theology, I am impressed with the beauty of his perspective. What a contrast with the simpleton view that motivates Southern Baptists and their hateful kin.
Agree 100%
Hi Kraig. How do you understand that Southern Baptist (and their kin) are hateful?
I'm a Christian but I don't read the Bible neither do I defend it.
Hey Ricardo. If you don't read the Bible, what do you base your belief in? In other words, how/why are you a Christian.
That's good Ricardo. The Bible is worthless and indefensible. So what mystical nonsense do you base your belief on, then?
Ahhhh,,, religious left censorship. Gotta love it. I think that the religious left, led by CNN, is opposed to a healthy respectful debate, especially when it comes to their sacred cow of hom-os-exua=lity because they certainly won't let one post an opposing view to their closely held BELIEFS.
Dream on. CNN allows all kinds of comments including those of hypocritical Christians trashing gays.
Or maybe it's because your a dumb.ass that hasn't figured out the buzz words that get blocked?
Ah! PT's agenda is finally out of the closet...
Observer,,, sorry buddy. I've tried to post five times now and they just won't let me. Let me try different words. I'm mostly just using the same words you are but for some reason, mine doesn't go through.
Let's try this again. 1 Who is trashing gays. 2 it isn't hypocracy to state, as Mr. Spong's article did that the Bible says ho.mo s ex u ality is wrong. It is only hypocracy if one says that it is wrong then participates in it.
There we go. Maybe the CNN filter just doesn't like the word ho mo s ex ua lity.
Maybe so Lucifer. Maybe if I spent as much time on here as you do, I'd be as smart as you.
Anything is possible, if you practice hard enough.
PleezThink,
CNN apparently automatically censors h0m0 and s3x so h0m0s3xuality doesn't stand a chance.
PleezThink,
Christians who use the Bible as an excuse to trash gays are HYPOCRITES because they select negative passages while intentionally ignoring the more important GOLDEN RULE that also could apply. They are HYPOCRITES because they CHOOSE to pick on gays when there are FAR FAR MORE Christians guilty of the Ten Commandment SIN of adultery by remarriage than there are total number of gays who commit an "abomination" like eating shellfish.
K. My bad. Thanks Luc and Observer. Back to the question. Who is trashing gays and it isn't hypocritical unless you are doing what you say you shouldn't.
Pray REAL hard, and you can say bad words.
homosexuality
The entire concept of organised religion is at its base about control. Perhaps in its infancy, control was a good thing, but one should never, ever allow any body (govt, church, etc) to assert control over the minutae of your daily lives. That way lies tyranny, as has been proven many many times in the past.
As a small 'c' christian, I do believe that the man we call Jesus existed, but I find it hard to beleive that a Jewish woodsmith who spent most of his life in a very small village and away from outside contact, would be fluent in Greek. He may have been familiar with certain phrases, but based on their pre-apostolic occupations, I doubt he or any of his apostles spoke Greek fluently during Jesus' lifetime, although as they travelled later in their lives. Thus I support the views above
Organised Christianity as we have come to know it is largely a Roman creation, brought about nearly 250 years AFTER the crucifixion as a means of uniting rival sects under the patronage of Rome (Constantine was a Roman Emperor first, a Christian -possibly- much much later). From that, over time, evolved the Holy Roman Empire, the codification of the books of the bible into the so-called Canon. BTW- it is worth noting that the 4 canonized gospels in the NT were chosen in part due to the long-held Roman belief in the power of the number 4 (4 seasons, 4 phases of the moon, 4 points of the compass, etc). Yes there were other factors, but the official 'discrediting' of the remaining gospels had as much to do with what melded into the evolving canon as it did any pledge to publish only the truth. Had Rome held the number 6 in similar esteem, who knows what the Bible might have included?
Ever since, the Church has been as much about power and control as it has been about religion. In many ways, what we know now as the Roman Catholic Church is the evolution of the Roman Empire. Caesar (the Pope) lives in Rome (Vatican City) and is considered infallible and nearly divine; his senate (the council of Cardinals) are the primary advisors, Legionnaires (priests) are sent out into the world under a common banner (the Cross) to persuade the populations of distant lands to send tribute (taxes) back to the Holy See (Rome). The parallels are obvious.
And from this has come virtually every Christian sect out there. And in many ways they pretty much all function in the same manner- controlling believers while seeking control (conversion) of those who do not believe, all while enriching the coffers of the base of operations (Rome, Lund, Anaheim, London, etc) through "gifts" to the church (taxes to Caesar).
So why are you a christian, then, if you see through the bs? Pascal's Wager? You like going to potlucks and most everyone you know is christian? What is it in your case?
"Small c" christian. I beleive in the man, not the Church... There is a difference.
@ Small c: so when the 'man' says to Peter: "on this rock I will build my Church & the gates of Hell will not prevail against it" (Mt.16:18), how do you follow that?
Still waiting for a straightforward answer to any of my questions....
Russ: Note that Jesus was speaking to Peter when he said that, and it's fairly widely accepted that Peter was the "rock" referred to (As in "he is my rock, my right hand man"). Jesus was appointing Peter as the leader of the Apostles. I can accept, given that I accept the existence of Jesus as a man in his time, that such a person would appoint a leader of his tribe of followers.. That doesn't upset my personal beliefs one whit. As an aside, the naming of Matthew as author arose toward the end of the 2nd Century, many years after all the original followers of Jesus had passed away. No one really knows who wrote what, and as not many men wrote at all in Jesus' time, the idea that the gospels (all of them) are oral 'histories' transcribed after the fact has merit.
What else is in Matthew? Some beleive that Matthew was written intially in Hebrew and then translated in to Greek later. However, the accepted 'hooks' found in typical translations of the period are missing in the Greek text, so it is likely that the original text was written in Greek, and most likely in response to the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem around 70 AD. A schism developed among Jewish sects, with one side insisting on absolute adherance to the Torah, and the other favoring a more moderate approach uniting Jew and Gentile under the teachings of Jesus. Much of this moderation emanated from the Syrian city of Antioch (under Roman control). There is a school of thought that Matthew was originally written to try and preserve the Jewish character of the emerging religion, but if that was the case, the author(s) failed, as the new religion became almost exclusively Gentile, while Judaism became more isolated than it had been.
I guess that proves there's no god....again. Thanks, small c christian. You proved your god doesn't exist. 1 point for me.
Eh
So why are you a christian, then, if you see through the bs? Pascal's Wager? You like going to potlucks and most everyone you know is christian? What is it in your case?
Eh- I don't usually feel any need to present my case to you or to anyone else as I feel that my religion and it's tenets are purely a personal thing. However, this is what I beleive in as short a space as I can make it fit:
There was a man whom for the sake of convenience we can call Jesus who, around the time of the Passover between the years 28 and 32 AD, was arrested for sedition, tried and executed by crucifixion- a common public method of execution in those times. This man, whose true origins are unknown, had become a thorn in the sides of both the Romans and the Jewish leaders for his preaching of a new "way" which attracted a large number of followers, some of whom went so far as to proclaim this wandering preacher to be superior to the established order. Secondary evidence of this can be found -in limited amounts- in non-biblical contemporary writings (Joephus, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger). Thus it is easy for me to accept the existence, and ultimate execution of the preacher Jesus. I do believe in the basic tenets he espoused.
What I have trouble with it the embellishment of the tale that came after the fact. With only one exception, the apostles came from small, impoverished villages under Roman occupation. While they may well have been excellent raconteurs (storytellers), their ability to write coherent classical Greek many years after the fact is somewhat doubtful and so far, unproven. Thus, years after the fact, oral stories about a wandering priest or rabbi became the written words of others, only ascribed to the four apostles after their deaths. If yo have ever played the child's game "I've got a secret", you know how even with the best intentions, stories change with retelling, you can see my basic issue with the Gospels as they existed by the time they were collected by Iraneus and ultimately canonized at Nicea in 325. Until Nicea, beleivers held to anything from a single gospel to more than ten. Nicea changed that forever, as I mentioned earlier.
After NIcea, the Church became an arm of the Roman state, and as such it's prime purpose was altered forever. Thus, while I do beleive in Jesus, and in his basic tenets, I also beleive the Bible is merely an edited collection of tales (esp the New Testament) chosen by a growing, powerful centralized Church for the purpose of growing the church as much as for spreading the "good news".
And as for Pot Lucks.... no, I don't have much use for them, either. And Pascal's Wager doesn't apply in this case. We aren't discussing belief in God.. just Jesus and the collected speculative fiction he is featured in.
Russ
They "wrote that in", obviously, to affirm themselves, and their activity. You don't really think he actually said that do you ? Do you think they would have him say "never mind" ?
the evil witch or evil man burned to death for their sins is real...that is religion what it's about killing evil people.
all you sinners and theives and liars are gonna die! that is what religions is about.
So we'd better start with the religious people, then. They are liars, thieves, frauds, cheaters, murderers, and "sinners" on top of it all, at least some of them are anyway. Why not start where the worst is to be found? And let's burn the lies known as "holy writ" while we're at it. Burn a Bible, Koran, or Torah today! Spread the love of reason and common sense!
the reason for religion or state religion is to create civlity like moral conduct like no lying no stealing no killing ,no adultery...that is the essence of 'religion' with so much evil and criminal activity in this world...millions in jail and civil disrespect like kids robbing store..you want 'religiion' if it means more civility....even the ideas or are men are born equal is from religion...equal under the law...it's the laws of the bible that matter all other is nonsense...so many liars,,killers and theives etc in society there is not enough 'religion.
@DamianKnight;
Thanks for agreeing with me and yes I too understand the difficulty of living up to the "nearly impossible" standard set forth in the Bible and I also agree that is why there is failure and ultimately forgivessness when asked.
However as the end of your comment eludes to, the "believers" I have DISDAIN and utter DISRESPECT for would do the following (just an example there are many, many more examples), live together as man and woman and engage in the carnal sins that a living situation like that would provide which are clearly forbidden by the so called "believers" doctorine (ie: Bible). The "believers" have NOT simply fallen off the wagon and committed a sin which they feel guilty about while asking for forgiveness and making a committment to refuse to engage in the sinful activity again. Oh no, in fact they feel no guilt whatsoever because they have simply chosen NOT to follow that portion of the docotrine (ie: Bible) for which they claim to believe in. Again like a menu, picking and choosing what they will and will not follow based on how it fits in their life. How many quote/unqoute "believers" would fit this example. This is why I have disdain for so many quote/unqoute believers, they preach and preach while ignoring sections that do not fit in their life. And others including pastors overlook it. Either accept it as a whole or accept none of it BUT do not sit on the fence and accept only what you choose to based on how it feels at the time. To do so displays a "hollow" faith / belief.
JQP1122
I have more respect for someone who "does not believe" and chooses to follow their own path as opposed to someone who says "they believe" but refuses to follow the tenants set forth within their belief (ie: The Bible).
That is the inherent failing of religion and Christianity today, not that all men and women are sinners and as such need to be saved BUT that many "believers" use the Bible and religion as a menu of choices / options and they will only choose to follow that which suits them at any given time. You either accept it and try repeat try to follow it as a whole or accept none of it. Sitting on the fence is wholly and utterly unacceptable and warrants disrespect.
December 29, 2011 at 7:23 pm | Report abuse | Reply
DamianKnight
Very succinct. I can understand what you are saying.
The problem is, Christians have a very hard, nearly impossible standard to live up to. So we fail. We're human, just like anyone else. But it is not following the tenants when someone deliberately ignores the teachings. So there, I will agree with you.
December 29, 2011 at 7:29 pm | Report abuse |
Hey theists! If everything needs a creator, then what created God? If God is allowed an exemption to that logic, then why doesn't the Universe get an exemption? Perhaps the Universe is infinite and eternal with no need of a creator.
Brett. So you are capable of believing in the unknown huh?
What a shame that the mighty CNN is afraid of differing opinions. Refusing to allow comments because they don't jive with the sensibilities of the religious left would be called censorship if the shoe were on the other foot.
CNN blocks comments based on buzzwords. check your comment for potentially censored words...
for example: as'sumption must be broken up or it will be blocked...
assumption
nope, that one works fine
You just don't understand the automatic censoring of words. It works the SAME FOR EVERYONE. Sorry your conspiracy theory just went down the toilet.
Another one of your delusions, based on your faulty interpretation, and as'sumptions.
religion is about morals, ethics, and respect for the nature of things...these atheist don't know that your sins will be punished....the grim reapers is coming for your evils souls.,,,it's time to die demons..
LOL. Yeah okay, I'll hold my breath.
Just more HYPOCRISY from the religion that condemns JUDGING OTHERS. Well done.
Haven't had time to break down all but his logic behind the four gospels is flawed. While Mark may have been written first, the gospels of Matthew and John were written by apostles of Jesus, meaning they travelled with and were personally taught by Jesus (firsthand accounts). Mark's account is secondhand at best, possibly thirdhand or further. What other facts has he twisted to fit his own tales.
Remember that the Gospel of Matthew doesn't actually say that Matthew wrote it. Some bishop wrote that he thought Matthew was the author and the name stuck.
How fragile one's belief must be if it depends on the Bible being an accurate historical record.
If the Bible is mythical then it belongs in the same category of ancient writing as the Odyssey, which means that it's character deity, God, is just as real as the Greek gods, right?
I have never read anything more misleading about the Bible than this post. My question is, why is it that everyone, theolo-theists and atheists seem to feel so comfortable criticizing the Bible in public but they never talk about the Stupid Quran, the false muhammad and their idiotic and satanic mass murderers, women abusers and pedophiles? The Bible has been rewritten hundreds if not thousands of times, and for that reason GOD Himself warns those who add or delete anything from it. It's because he knew the devil was going to play it's "You are a powerful person, start editing the Bible" trick with a lot of people in the past and today.
This post is about theology, which is human wisdom. The bible is about Faith, which is craziness for the human mind.
God bless everyone who stands behind their believes and knows that the Bible is the ONLY word or God.
Crack is whack. You should ease up on the pipe.
"The bible is about Faith, which is craziness for the human mind."
Yes, exactly! Pure irrational craziness. Glad you cleared that up.
If it wasn't so sad, this post would be humorous. "Satanic" mass murders, abusers of women and pedophiles exist in the Baptist Church, the Catholic Church (think about it) and everywhere else in Christian society as much as in Muslim.
Fundamentalist Christian sects are every bit as dangerous as fundamental Muslim sects. Any time someone in a position of power demands absolute obeidience, the doorway to madness opens a little wider; whether the name on it is "Ali" or "George" makes no difference.
Being a pastor beats producing goods or services for a living. And the complaints department is infallible.
So, pastors don't produce any good, or service people?
I propose we start a little uprising, "Occupy Heaven" and throw the rascal out.
@ nominal: now, that's honesty about the human heart. But that was also Satan's plan (Isa.14:13-14; Lk.10:18; Rev.12:7-9).
Stop brainwashing the kids with the religious nonsense! That will eliminate religion in a hurry. Look at Vietnam, where religion was not taught during the Communist era. I believe the number of atheists are around 90%. It really is that simple.
You bet nominal. Don't give them a choice and they'll always see it your way.
@pleez – that's a two way road, isn't it now?
if you can read this sentence then God is real. God is the consciousness because of which everything exists. That consciousness is shining through you now while you read this. the Hindu mind figured this out some 3000 years ago. it is pure science and will withstand the rigors of logic and reason. Abrahamic religions are just a bunch of historical anecdotes.
Then why not just call god, consciousness and say we are conscious beings and leave all of the god nonsense out of it?
@ashrakay...sure. absolutely can be done without affecting the underlying truth in any way.
@krishna: "God is the consciousness because of which everything exists" I'm trying to make sense of that... How do you know that? How do you know what God is?
Hindus, other group of people who are going to hell for not repenting. Recognizing we are all sinners and believing Jesus is the Lord is the only way to save your soul. Neither you nor anyone else have to like it for that to be true. You don't accept it, live your life the fullest, cause that's all the enjoyment you are going to get. Harsh, yes. Realistic, yes!
@tonyleonx...believing that i am a sinner is the greatest sin. and to expect someone else to deliver me from my sin is preposterous.
tonyleonx it's is idiotic to make a series of claims that are not supported neither by logic or facts. You say "realistic" but apparently you have no idea what such a word entails, especially when you talk about supernatural spaghetti monsters.
The Hindu mind also brought us reincarnation.
@@krishna, I'm pretty much with you... I just think that bringing god into the conversation is confusing for the weak minded and easily conned.
Bishop Spong follower of the wife-slayer, Henry VIII, forgot to mention the Infamous Angelic Cons:
To wit:
Joe Smith had his Moroni.
Jehovah Witnesses have their Jesus /Michael the archangel, the first angelic being created by God;
Mohammed had his Gabriel (this "tin-kerbell" got around).
Jesus and his family had Michael, Gabriel, and Satan, the latter being a modern day dem-on of the de-mented.
The Abraham-Moses myths had their Angel of Death and other "no-namers" to do their dirty work or other assorted duties.
Contemporary biblical and religious scholars have relegated these "pretty wingie thingies" to the myth pile. We should do the same to include deleting all references to them in our religious operating manuals. Doing this will eliminate the prophet/profit/prophecy status of these founders and put them where they belong as simple humans just like the rest of us.
Added details available for the asking.