|
A great commentary from a bald eagle!
Dear Friends,
 |
| Daniel getting his head shaved for the Leukemia Foundation. Roll your mouse cursor over the image to see the "after effect" |
The newly toffed bald eagle in the Catholica Australia Stable of Commentators, Daniel Gullotta, has really pulled a rabbit out of the hat today with his commentary. I think it is his best yet.
On the front page of Catholica I've given three reasons why everyone should read it: (i) It provides a fascinating perspective on Jesus particularly on the speculations of who Jesus himself thought he was. (ii) It's fascinating looking at these questions through the mind of a young person engaging with these questions perhaps seriously for the first time in his life. (iii) This is simply the most well-written commentary yet submitted for our enjoyment, and enlightenment, by Daniel. It is simply a pleasure being part of the audience that is providing a sounding board for a talented new writer as he hones his technical skills as a writer and communicator.
Let me just expand on point (i) a little more: as you know there is much speculation in scholarly circles these days about how much Jesus would have had a self-understanding that he was God. In writing this essay I don't think Daniel was really entering into that question directly but I found one of the most valuable things in his essay a sort of "side-product" where he provides insight into that question. In following John the Baptist, doesn't Jesus come across as a very "human" person? Doesn't he come across as "searching for answers" just like all the rest of us do? These are hardly the behaviours of some "know all 'Son of God'" who already had all the answers. If he was "already God", or had a self-understanding that he was "God", there would hardly have been any need to be "baptised" or to wander off "following the Baptist"? What do you think? <Read Daniel's commentary>
|
