As I read it, "Newsweek," in its cover story on Mel Gibson’s "The Passion", says Gibson misconstrues the evidence on who killed Jesus.
I am midway through "Desire of the Everlasting Hills," Thomas Cahill’s fascinating book on the world "before and after Jesus." Cahill takes great pains to point out that Jesus’ preachments were fundamentally Jewish; specifically, his emphasis on helping the weak, on equality and on justice. (Of course, his advice to love the oppressor was revolutionary; I suspect nobody, Jewish or gentile, liked it one bit.)
While I cannot wait to see the movie, I don’t care who killed Jesus. After all, if they had treated him well, there would be no Resurrection and, I guess, no Christianity.
I am fascinated by Cahill’s picture of Jesus as an advocate for the powerless.
If he was, most Christian churches have neglected that part of his teaching, emphasizing hierarchy, obedience and moral behavior instead.
That is why I am not surprised that conservatives and right-wingers march under church banners. However, I cannot, for the life of me, see how they can pretend to be following Jesus.
The young Rabbi who threw the money-changers out of the Temple, a Republican? The preacher who said, "You who are without sin throw the first stone" and "Judge not, lest you be judged" a law-and-order type?
Not being Christian, I may be wrong here. So please correct and guide me. And while you are at it, help me understand the connection between Paul, who said, "….and the greatest of these is love," and Bush, Chaney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft
If that’s what those guys are exuding, I am failing to pick up the vibes.