For Christ's Sake

Rating:
Summary: For Who's Sake?
Review: Early on in this book (p. 14) Tom Harpur states, "Clearly, then, we need to be wary of those who would set forth the alleged psychology of Jesus or venture to tell us precisely what all his motives and intentions are." He then spends the rest of the book doing just what he has warned the readers against. "(Jesus) did not think..." "(Jesus) was as aware as anyone could be that..." "(Jesus) better than anyone else knew..." "Jesus understood..." "We can infer that he meant to say..." "We know he must have..." "Jesus himself probably....." "(Jesus) sees himself as...." "(Jesus) would have been shocked and offended by..." "It is clear... that such a thing would have scandalized (Jesus)..." "the idea of speaking in a literal or factual way about God was totally foreign to Jesus." "Here, as nearly always, Jesus is speaking spiritually...." "this was how Jesus understood himself and his entire ministry.." ..." "Thus we can define the intention or mission of Jesus as..." and so on.
Tom Harpur has his own version of Jesus and will do anything necessary to make it seem plausible, no matter whom he has to discredit to do so. The writers of the New Testament are not exempt from his vilification. Thus Mark 'invents' and John puts words in Jesus' mouth in order to achieve his hidden agenda of one-upping Judaism. Both Luke and Matthew "followed a natural impulse" to add "pious embroidery" here, added to Jesus's words to clarify there, and re-interpreted Old Testament verses, "even if it meant taking them out of their original context and twisting them" to fit their purposes. The Apostle Paul wrote not truth but "mythological construct"; the earliest Christians "began to weave around Jesus every exalted Messianic concept available," and all of them made "the Jesus of history...a cosmic quasi-deity ...in the realm of theological speculation and of myth."
Next, the established church - Roman Catholic, Anglican, Reformed Protestant, Fundamental Evangelical - all who dare to believe the Bible and profess Jesus as God - are lumped together and attacked. According to Mr. Harpur, they are "obsessed with sex", "have more credulity than common sense" "want to avoid thinking for themselves" "at one time or another justified every possible crime against humanity"; have committed "horrible acts of violence"; possess an "archaic and anthropomorphic attitude" and "a deep anti-social bias"; spout "ecumenical rhetoric and doublespeak", "silly speculation...",and "a theology of hostility" whose "basic concepts... are irrelevant and incomprehensible...and "distort the good news preached by Jesus" ; "preach a diety who masqueraded as a man and only pretended to die" and are responsible for everything from the Holocaust to "the torments and divisions the world suffers today."
This leaves the reader with a dilemma. If we cannot believe the Bible, the Apostles, the early believers, or the church, who can we trust? Mr. Harpur wants us to trust him and his version of Jesus, which he introduces with phrases such as " As I realized..." "What quickly becomes apparent...""It is significant that.." "What can be surmised..." "There is no other way to take this passage that makes sense" " We have to see..." "We need to see..." "The important thing to remember is..." "I cannot accept..." "I can't help but conclude..." What he concludes and presents as truth is not, after all, that Jesus was not divine, but that the same divinity he possessed is within and at the core of every human being.
Mr. Harpur remains a member of the Anglican church, though he denies its teachings and despises its rituals, believes that it distorts who Jesus was and what He came to do, and that its prayer and creeds "legitimized relationships of hostility, isolation, and defensiveness towards other denominations and other points of view within the Christian church itself." He continues to take part in its communion service, with its "long wordy ritual" that "mask(s) the reality of Jesus' intentions", "inevitable churchy perambulations... less relevant prayers...", "distortions of Jesus' original intention and action at his last meal with his disciples" and that he contends has caused "massive violence and bloodshed." Hardly the mark of an intellectually honest man whom we should trust our understanding of Jesus to.

Rating:
Summary: Page turner
Review: I have read the book twice. It is hard to put down. Mr Harpur makes you think - even if you dont agree with all of his points you will have gained a tremendous insight into the gospels. My faith has been kicked into overdrive after reading this book and his other book "Thinking persons guide to God". Thank you Mr Harpur for putting into words what I have been tring to express.

Rating:
Summary: A revelation about the true, loving spirit of God
Review: I've just returned to Christianity after many years away, yet could not reconcile myself to the notion of an angry god demanding part of Himself to die on a cross for people's sins. I remembered reading For Christ's Sake years ago and enjoying it, so I read it again. What a revelation! With compassion and intelligence, Harpur shows, repeatedly and through investigating the New Testament, why Christ is not and never was God in the flesh. After much reading of other Christian writers -- and through his own training and education (he's an Oxford-trained, Anglican minister) -- Harpur suggests a loving, positive reason for Christ's death and resurrection. It's a reason I can easily understand and joyfully accept. And that brings me fully back into the fold of Christianity. If you have questions, if there are things that you don't understand or things that you find repugnant about aspects of Christianity, READ THIS BOOK. It won't take long, but you might finish it the way I did...with tears in my eyes and saying a prayer of thanks to God.