Where are you even getting the anarchist thing? The only thing I can think of is when they go to the temple and Jesus gets mad because it's being used as a market place. And that's more like him telling people off for being disrespectful than being an anarchist.
Granted it's been awhile since I've looked at that excerpt in any way shape or form.
"Anarchist" isnt' really the right word, but he basically tells people to withdraw from the practices of the world, as their loyalty isn't to worldly institutions but to God and other people (ALL other people, even their enemies).
Well, he does say "I came not to abolish the law but to fulfill it", which certainly doesn't look anarchical at all.
OK, but the "Law" he's referring to is Jewish law as described in the Torah, not "law" in general
The gospels are different because they were written by different people, with differing viewpoints and experiences, each trying to send what they considered the most important message in the world to a specific audience. Greeks, Romans, Egyptians etc.
To be exact, three rather Hellenized/Romanized Jews and a Hellenized/Romanized gentile. (the writers that is)
The apocryphal gospels (many of them Gnostic) are also really interesting. The reasons why they aren't canonized are obvious - their message deviates too much from the others. Of course, John also deviates from the synoptic gospels, but get this...some guy argued that there should be four gospels, just as there are four corners of the earth and four winds. Seriously. I don't know if the idea of the Trinity had been developed yet by that time, but if so...seems there's quite a bit of a stronger argument for three.
If you believe the Gospels are God's word (and the gnostic ones aren't) I guess there's a problem there.
Also, Gnosticism is quite out there. I'm not surprised it was considered heresy, as it goes even farther away from Jewish cosmology than orthodox Christianity does.
Author
Topic: Religious/Catholic influence on politics (In US) (Read 15516 times)