Posted on 03/11/2006 10:50:25 PM PST by Lorianne
March 20, 2006 issue - Garry Wills's latest book, "What Jesus Meant," should affront most of his fellow Christians—right from the foreword, which argues that Christ was not one of them. The megachurch set won't care to hear that "Jesus did not come to replace the Temple with other buildings, whether huts or rich cathedrals." The Christian left, committed to good works, won't care to hear that Jesus "does not work miracles from humanitarian motives." The Christian right, cozy with secular power, won't care to hear that "if they want the state to be politically Christian, they are not following Jesus." Pope Benedict XVI really won't care to hear that he, "like his predecessors, is returning to the religion that Jesus renounced, with all its paraphernalia of priesthood." What parishioner of any denomination wants to hear that the Gospels are "a deep threat to the institutional church," since Jesus opposed "just about every form of religion we know"?
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
Except for the "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church." stuff.
The Christian right, cozy with secular power, won't care to hear that "if they want the state to be politically Christian, they are not following Jesus."
I am what would probably be classified as part of the Christian right, and I, for one, do not expect the US to become politically Christian...I will, however, stand up for what's right, which is exercising not only my rights but my responsibility as a citizen of this nation and is not a violation of attempting to be salt, nor a city set on a hill.
Jesus was a socialist radical. It was Paul who tempered the message.
Ahhhh...Newsweek. The Christian left is committed to good works, while the Christian right is cozy with secular power...
NEWSWEEK LIVES IN A BUBBLE!
Ping to self for a later read
In context, it could also be said that the 'rock' that Jesus was immediately referring to was the fact that 'flesh and blood' (man) did not reveal to Peter that Jesus is the Christ, the son of the living God, but it was revealed to Peter from the Father within Peter. What sturdier foundation of the 'church' could there be than one that was built by God Himself, against which even the gates of hell could not prevail? Man did not give it to him, and man could not take it away from him.
It was Peter's personal experience . . . the Revelation of Jesus Christ.
I find "I'm not religious, I'm Christian!" almost as annoying as "I'm not religious, I'm spiritual!". Just more affected navel-gazing.
In any case, if you read the entire article you'll find that what he's really trying to do is cast Jesus as a radical social leftist. Check this bit out:
"Wills was identified with the conservative movement in its more intellectually respectable days—he wrote for years in National Review—but in this book he praises Jesus as a "radical egalitarian," a proto-feminist and a subversive who "was never afraid to speak truth to power." (Smart as he is, Wills isn't above a cliché now and then.) He critiques the lingering notion that sex is somehow "unclean," and he sticks up for the Dobsonites' latest punching bags: "Those persecuting gays are persecuting Jesus."
Of course, all the Apostles, all the disciples, and the Church from its earliest beginnings and for centuries understood Christ to mean just what he said, that Peter was the foundation of His Church, but who are they to quibble with your hindsight?
I brought home his big thick last book, but I could not get into it. Sems to me that he starts with a democrtic platform and tries to prove it is more Christian than the Republican. The thinking is tortured and boring.
Please. No quoting of actual Gospels.
Newsweek has found wisdom (yet again) in the Gospel According to Garry.
Good thing for us our Founders recognized that our rights are an endowment from our Creator. If we ever lose that concept, I think we can kiss the USA good-bye.
Perhaps it means both.
In the first chapter of Acts it is recorded that Peter, before Pentecost, stood up and said that Judas had to be replaced. Not because Judas was a wonderful human being but because the office that he occupied had to be filled.
It is not recorded that anyone disagreed and left the room.
"Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's" was one of Jesus' most brilliant lines. Of course, what Jesus was really saying is: "Render nothing unto Caesar because all things are God's." The Pharisees wanted to trap Jesus into a proclamation of treason and Jesus was so clever that his reply goes over many people's head even today. Your post being a case in point..
NewsWeek: redefining the definition of the word "News".
Your interpertation of scripture is not by me. Jesus was not a socialist radical.
That's OK. It's your right to be wrong. :p
I agree with you...and sadly, I think the US will eventually bury that fact. I recall a while back that there was a teacher who got into trouble presenting the Declaration of Independence to his class because of the reference to God.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.