This book was first published in 1973. It’s not long, and quite readable, so I encourage you to read it.

Jesus said he had not come to change the law, but to uphold it. On the other hand, he and his disciples did things on the Sabbath that were fobidden – healing the sick, eating in un-approved ways. So which laws was Jesus upholding?

One suspects he means common-sense laws. He points out that nothing that goes into a man can defile him, but things that come out can (and often do).

He overturned the tables of the money-changers and cal them a pack of thieves. He was correct to do so – the temple authorities had rigged the system by requiring you to change your money at usurious rates.

Can you suggest other examples of him applying a common-sense take on Mosaic law? I’d lov to hear from you!

The Gospels are not as clear on this pint as one might wish. In Matthew 20:28, he says he is giving his life as ransom for many. Well, that sort of means that….. sort if. But it culd also me he is leading an uprising, and does not expect to survive the battle.

During the last supper, he reminds us to think of him when we eat or drink, and that the wine/blood is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Certain of the letters are more explicit on this point. First Corinthians 15:3 and Romans 5:8 both address the point. But these are the words of others, not Jesus.

I’ve always had a bit of trouble wth this concept. Which of my sins did he die for? If it’s all of them, that sounds like a free pass. I’m sure that is not what is meant. Centuries later, the church decided that we are all guilty of the original sin, of Eve eating the fruit in the Garden of Eden. This feels like something made up after that fact, to paper over a hole. If we are all guilty of at least this sin, then we all have to go to church, put money in the collection plate, and be forgiven. Bit of a racket, that.

What d you think about this?