I'm not buying it (literally, as in the book, or much of its thesis), but it is fascinating that they at least get--even though the section is largely misguided--the cruciality of the temple encounter and economic issues ("the bankers and the preachers nailed him to the cross," , as U2, covering Woody Guthrie, once sang..in another song of Jesus' death without resurrection, though such may be hinted at) issues
...But here the authors’ disavowal of faith leads them to conclude that money – not claims about God or Judaism – is the real reason the Sanhedrin wanted Jesus killed. In interrupting the money flow by overturning the tables in the Temple, “Jesus has committed a grave offense,” and Annas, father-in-law of the high priest Caiaphas, desires to eliminate Jesus as “a cautionary tale for anyone who considers challenging the authority of the Temple courts.”
In the Gospel according to Bill O’Reilly, then, the trial of Jesus for blasphemy – a religious charge if there ever was one – is ultimately a front for protecting the position of the high priest’s family and the Temple’s money supply from a God-centered rabbi who spent three years preaching the Kingdom of God while insinuating that he was God’s Son.
The historical Jesus remains undiscovered in Killing Jesus, and for good reason. By removing faith from the history, the authors have also removed much of the evidence for a comprehensive understanding of Jesus. O’Reilly notes that “[t]he Pharisees believe in miracles but not in Jesus.” Perhaps someday history will believe in faith and not only in itself. link
Related;
No comments:
Post a Comment
Hey, thanks for engaging the conversation!