What else can I say?

To think that anything could be said or not said about the Jesus Seminar is ludicrous. Either way, whether one would agree or not agree with the findings of the Jesus Seminar you would have something to say. I found that after all was said and done no matter how you put the icing on the cake, if the cake tastes like poo, it is still icing covered poo. I know that is pretty harsh thing coming from me, but I realized this as Johnson was giving all the credentials for all the subjects in the book. Most of them were pretty accredited scholars who had put the time in to get the degrees, but who had never worried about all the ingredients in which the degree was based on.

To think that anyone could unbiasly or even deal with the scriptures without having them affect their lives is hard for me to believe. I know this to be true. I had a friend who was in the past a drug addict. When he would get high he would sit down and read books of the Bible. Not just incoherent passages but books in their entirety. This to me is how someone through the Jesus Seminar could evaluate scriptures and not get that these are the Words of God, and that is all I can say!

The Historical Jesus and the people who got it all wrong!!

The historical Jesus has been a very fascinating subject for me. To look at Jesus in the historical context has been something I never even had thought about or even existed. I had thought of the ideas but just vaguely never really has a study. To look at Jesus in this way has opened my eyes to many new ideas and thoughts within my own mind. But, in reading The Real Jesus and studying the Jesus seminar I can't help but to wonder about why people can't just read the bible and know its the truth. Instead they have to find ways around it, maybe because they can't take what itt says or maybe its just because they have a personal vendetta against it. Instead they have to come up with ridiculous storiess and try to get people to believe them when in reality there theories have no bases, they think they do when they really do not. What if the Jesus Seminar took the Bible for what it is really worth and really came to understand it, will probably never happen, what would happen then are they to hjard headed to see it or are would they change. The historical Jesus is a subject that may never truly be answered other than we knew he existed, I love thinking about though and find an amazing subject and hope to get more out of it in the future as well as I am right now.

Jesus Seminar

you know when i think of the word seminar i think of people gathering together to for a purpose to learn something. But what does it mean when a group of people get together to learn about nothing, the Jesus Seminar. just kidding. maybe there a small amount of something to learn from them, but mostly not. i am glad i have a better understanding of how all this 3rd quest literature fits together and can help people see and understand what the JS is really all about.

Incestuous Inbreeding of Ideas

The Jesus Seminar has forced us, hopefully, to develop a more complete understanding of who Jesus was, is, and will be. Some of Johnson's conculsions about the "real" Jesus left me with some disturbing questions. For example, according to Johnson, Christianity has never been based on the ministry of Jesus, but rather the continuing experience of the resurrection in the life of believers. My question is then, 'Is this an universial experience or individual one?' and 'Who decides what experiences are genuine?' If Christianity is based on only the resurrection experiences of believer then Paul and the other early church leaders are then the founders of what we know today as Christianity. Has the church then been influenced more by its leadership than the resurrected Christ? Johnson seems remaining to look at only half the picture. One the one hand we have the incarnation and on the other the resurrected Christ and the spread of the Gospel which has transformed life after life after life.

And the purpose of your research would be?

Johnson's book really brought up and interesting question amongst my own thoughts: When does academics become a burden to the religion it attempts to benefit? The Jesus seminar, although motives could be debated, attempted to discover the personality of the man worship by so many millions over the span of time. The results however, picked Jesus out of divine teacher/healer/savior into a zealous rioter/rabbi. The Jesus who saved humanity from sin became a misquoted/misperceived individual who was inflated to Godhead by some power hungry followers. The issue that we should be wary of when academically looking into Christianity is that our work benefits Christ, making it more accurate, giving God more glory.

Alex H

Never Mind The Bullocks

So the Jesus Seminar is pretty much made up of forty year old guys gathering a couple times a year at hotels around the country playing with some marbles debating whether or not to tie their shoes. What did that guy Jesus say? He never really rose from the grave and he was actually poisoned to death?....hmmmnnn...lets ponder on this. This book Real Jesus was an extremely difficult read for me because the whole direction of the book is evident in the prologue. The author wines through the whole book and gives examples of their false teachings which at times were amusing and other times very daunting. Someone out there is very midled by the teachings of Funk, Theiring and the rest of them. Also that some of the books described are on best seller lists is very disturbing. Thomas' point that we need to market ourselves with books of ours with the same marketing schemes is ludacris. We need to find our own new ways of marketing Christ and our faith to the people of the twenty-first century.

The Jesus Seminar's quest of the real Jesus is really misleading they don't want to find out the real Jesus. The real Jesus is discovered by faith and these guys just want to dismiss Jesus for people who are searching for him. Jesus said 'I am the way the truth, and the life. No one comes to the father except through me." I'm sure that this is one of the sayings that receives a grey or black marble.

"One big, heretical glob of unproven assumption."

I found it interesting that Johnson indicated that the scholars of the Jesus seminar wrote to their peers. One scholar writes his view of Jesus. The next liberal scholar builds off of the last scholar’s writing. The process just continues until there is a large mass of liberal heresies. The scope of influence isn’t expanded at all; it merely compounds until it is just one big, heretical glob of unproven assumption. Conservatives who read liberal writing on the Historical Jesus do not generally come to similar conclusions nor do they agree with them, but they understand the other side of the argument in order to know where the argument is going. This same concept is likewise for conservative scholars. It seems a bit futile to me for the liberal scholars (whose view does not seem to be widely accepted outside of the Jesus seminar) to write book after book about Jesus having made no real, affirmative conclusions about him.

This historical quest (according to my readings in Johnson’s book) removes faith from the equation and therefore undermines the very core of Christianity. That being said, I find liberal scholarship to be a blatant attack on Christianity, and frankly, sir, I don’t like it!

Zach Pyron

Is He real?

As I read through "The Real Jesus" the reoccuring theme of "what the heck are these people thinking" kept coming up. One thing I don't understand is how all these educated smart people can think in the most idiotic ways. It seems as though the Jesus Seminar people have totally dismissed the authority of the Bible. Christian made a good point in class the other day when he said these that the Jesus seminar people seem like they are looking for an excuse not to need a savior or for repentence of sin. I totally agree with that statement. If these "scholars" were following the life of Jesus and his actions and his teachings they would have no need to cast marbles to determine what he actually said or what he might have said.

The word of God is the very anchor that keeps me going day to day and my relationship with it's main character and for somebody to challenge the quality of that character is crappy. Jesus did not die on a cross or rise from the dead to be questioned by a group of people who want to question his very words. I understand "suspicous herminutics," but I think what they are doing is trying to disprove the very God breathed words that God ordained for Jesus to tell the lame, lost, and saved.

my thoughts on the real jesus

so, all my life i have never thought of Jesus as anything but real. as real as Plato, Caesar, Shakespeare or Beethoven. although i never heard about them in my world, i know they existed in the past and i believe the same with Jesus. I experience Jesus in my life and know the difference he makes changes me and encourages me to do better. He is real to me. So this idea of a historical Jesus that contradicts that which is found in the traditional gospels seems a non-issue to me. i don't worry about it either way. I at least appreciate the fact that they acknowledge his existence and do not just blow him off.
What i wonder about most is why they (the scholars in the Jesus Seminar) put themselves through such struggle in trying to find the "real" Jesus. is faith not enough? the Pauline texts encourage us to have faith and trust in Christ and let that be enough! if one denies the Jesus that has been followed for nearly 2 thousand years in search of a different person, one misses the point. I love how johnson pointed out that those NT professors who were in the Jesus Seminar ended up unable to do their task as a professor due to their concern over finding the real Jesus. my solution is just to have faith in the Jesus that brings change. real, genuine change for the better. that is all.

It wasn't that bad

That which does not kill makes you stronger...right? I dunno the reading was just difficult for me. Not that I was not intelligent enough to read it, but rather I was insulted by the ridiculous theories I was forced to endure. For one of my discussion points I actually played with the idea that Johnson exaggerated some of the theories just to dramatize the situation. I was shocked that such aweful ideas about Jesus could be made up by men and women who claim to be some sort of Believer. I am not sure that is possible, but I will let them work it out with their own fear and trembling. I found the reading about the liberal school verses the conservative very applicable to today's society. It makes no sense for a secular university to try to offer programs about a book that they are really hindered from fully understanding. It would be like wanting to study a book in a language you knew you could never speak... worthless. But in a world where everything is worthless, what is the alternative?

I was relieved when Johnson got to the point. My favorite was the support he offered from Pauline material. He systematically gave line after line of viable quotes that prove that a theology was rising up. It was not just Paul; it was many NT writings bringing to light a historical Jesus that was by no means an insult to the intelligent. I learned alot. I would never in my life have choosen that book for myself, but I am very glad to have come out alive.

And they call themselves scholars...

All the reading of the last week (since I, of course, waited until the last minute) has made my head spin. I spent the major of the reading horrified at the morons who call themselves scholars. I was so appalled that anyone could truly believe these bizarre depictions of Jesus. I must admit, I am not a big fan of Biblical criticism, even in our very conservative way here a Williams. The question comes to mind: how much is too much? There comes a point when what we believe can no longer be solidly proven. At what cost do we press the matter? While some criticism is good and healthy, I wonder if the degree given at our seminaries--based on Johnson's comments--takes it a bit too far. What Johnson described is more than knowing what and why you believe something...it is hurtful to the faith. I am the type that has been raised in a very conservative home, so I have often taken God's word for granted. I'd never really questioned it's authenticity, and I believe that Jesus was who the Gospels said he was (and is). That is why this book was a difficult read. It is hard for me to entertain the notion that the Jesus of the Gospels isn't the "real Jesus". The book, while informative, really (in its main point) told me about the Jesus I already know, and I don't think the scholars he addresses will put any more stock in his statements than he did in their's.

Mark in its entirity

As i was sitting down doing my complete read through of Mark it made me realize a lot of things. I read the book completely different now. There are so many things that i fill in the blanks or little things that i know now that help me read it differently. Little facts about the cities they travelled through what the disciples were possibly thinking. Even down to why Jesus was trying to keep the miracles a secret at first and later revealed them. It is a whole new book to me and is much more intriging of a read now.

Subjective Jesus

It seems that the search for the historical Jesus is tougher than the original proponents could have imagined. The subjectivity of it all is what really gets me. Even in the Gospels, the writers depict Christ as a different character according to their focus. Matthew depicts him as a rabbi because that was his focus in writing—Jesus’ teaching and connection to the Old Testament law. Mark depicts him as a sarcastic leader—probably, as a first-hand witness, he was able to gather personality traits himself; whatever wasn’t his own experience with the incarnate Christ came from witnesses like Peter who likely felt quite inferior and intimidated by him. (Even this lends to more subjectivity.) It amazes me that with all the witnesses of Jesus everyone saw him in a different way.

The modern quests for the historical Jesus really just make me laugh. There is so much assumption made about Jesus based on writers’ personal ideas that he ends up sounding like them. Even in light of all the eyewitnesses, Jesus still remains a mystery to the whole of humanity. Will there ever be a true depiction of the historical Jesus?

Zach Pyron

Jesus, Jesus how I trust him

I knew some day it would happen. One day the two would come to heavy disagreement; one day they would find themselves at odds. One would feel betrayed by the other; one would try to usurp the other. It could not be avoided. The two close friends had too many differences. One was bound to betray the other. And now, the mighty clash occurs...and it all took place because they tried to take Jesus apart... Rise Religion Majors! The history department seeks to steal our Precious Lord! (Yelled in a battle cry voice, like a Braveheart kinda deal. You may have to read it over a couple times out loud to get the right effect.)
I always thought it interesting that the Bible was not see as a historically dependable book. I understand that the purpose of its canonization was for religious rather than academic reasons, but the Gospel writings themselves, and Acts...I do not see why they are placed under such heavy doubt. Well, nevermind, I know why, but I still think that, although they are primarily seen as theological writings, they should be trusted as historically sound. Maybe I'm letting my religion cloud my judgement on this matter, but the Gospels. particularly the synoptics, are, for the most part, in agreement with each other and written at different times by different people for different audiences. How such agreement can take place- agreement that even contains subtle differences and variations, which I believes support their validity- without being seen as valid by any group outside the Christian church...I don't get it.
This is not the point I originally going to make, but since my first supporting point was rather lengthy...I digress.

Alex H.

Jesus, Jesus how I trust him

I knew some day it would happen. One day the two would come to heavy disagreement; one day they would find themselves at odds. One would feel betrayed by the other; one would try to usurp the other. It could not be avoided. The two close friends had too many differences. One was bound to betray the other. And now, the mighty clash occurs...and it all took place because they tried to take Jesus apart... Rise Religion Majors! The history department seeks to steal our Precious Lord! (Yelled in a battle cry voice, like a Braveheart kinda deal. You may have to read it over a couple times out loud to get the right effect.)
I always thought it interesting that the Bible was not see as a historically dependable book. I understand that the purpose of its canonization was for religious rather than academic reasons, but the Gospel writings themselves, and Acts...I do not see why they are placed under such heavy doubt. Well, nevermind, I know why, but I still think that, although they are primarily seen as theological writings, they should be trusted as historically sound. Maybe I'm letting my religion cloud my judgement on this matter, but the Gospels. particularly the synoptics, are, for the most part, in agreement with each other and written at different times by different people for different audiences. How such agreement can take place- agreement that even contains subtle differences and variations, which I believes support their validity- without being seen as valid by any group outside the Christian church...I don't get it.
This is not the point I originally going to make, but since my first supporting point was rather lengthy...I digress.

Alex H.

Beginnings

I've been thinking about the beginning of each of the gospels, and how each different beginning to each account sets the tone for things to come. I think that my favorite gospel beginning is that of Luke's. Luke gives us background information that is very interesting, and quite interesting. Dr. Foster is going over Luke in church on Wednesdays and that is what really got me thinking about the differences in the beginnings of the gospels. I had yet to read Luke this semester, so reading that first chapter was new to me, because I actually don't remember ever reading it. I think of how I used to think all the gospels were the same identical thing, word for word. Obviously, that was before I read the gospels. To hear four "different" accounts of the gospel that interweave together so beautifully is an amazing thing.

The Dead Sea Scrolls

I am going to see the Dead Sea Scrolls this weekend and I know it has been a while since we have discussed them in class, but I wanted to find out some more. As Foster said the scrolls include copies of every book in the Hebrew Bible, save Ester, and date over a millennium older than the 10th century text of the Hebrew Bible. Hows that for helping source criticism? The scrolls have answered questions of authorship and date. However, for every answered question, there was a new one. Some passages and Psalms are grouped differently than other manuscripts, and others have new psalms or passages. There is even evidence that the 3rd division of the cannon was sill in process at the time many of these scrolls were written.
Concerning the Gospels, there is a text that discusses a series of legal disagreements with the temple authority. This gives us, according to the dictionary, the only other resource besides the Bible that shows insight to what was happening in the temple in Jesus' day! This is just biblical text alone. There are hundreds of other non-biblical manuscripts discovered that give insight to culture and history of the time.
The Dead Sea Scrolls were an incredible find, to say the least, and translation work is till being done. I can't read them, but I am so excited to see these amazing manuscripts that are evidence to what I believe, and look forward to see what else they can teach us.

In my readings of L.T. Johnson, i have been somewhat, or at least i feel, enlightended on the subbject of the historical non-supernatural Jesus and the Jesus seminar. In this first part of the Journey i have been challenged to reflect on my faith and my beliefs in light of this so called quest.
in doing so i have decided that to simply believe in a higher being, that being GOD, it takes faith and the belief in the supernatural of some kind. so it is just not a stretch for me or my faith to believe in a supernatural birth or anything supernatural about what Jesus did or still does in peoples lives.
So weather or not the church throughout the ages has implemeted doctrines and had any kind of secret ambition, i don't care or believe, but i do know that we have writtings of works a hundred years old and we also have people who do biographies on people more than a hundred years old and we believe them, so after finding the dead sea scrolls, couldn't we view them in light of how we do stuff today, luke, though he may have gathered stories about Jesus or mark who even probably knew Jesus, wrote things after he died, it is safe to say that their sources are as good as the ones we use today to write a biogaraphy of a dead person. why cant what they say be literal of Jesus...

life of christ

i think back to January. Before the beginning of the class. I knew a lot about Jesus. I knew what I had learned in Sunday School, devotions and a couple classes here had taught me. Never before was I taught about the large controversry over finding the historical facts about who Jesus was, how he was and so on. The fact some people believe Jesus only said a minority of what is in our Gospels seems outrageous. Though I am not completely educated in the terms of form criticism, source criticism, and redaction criticism, I do have faith that Jesus did speak these things...except maybe then longer ending of Mark which I would be able to figure out if I had a knowledge of Greek New Testament writings. My own personal opinion of this matter of the Jesus Seminar is that Jesus did say these things, probably not word for word as the evangelicals have them, but then again with the power of the Holy Spirit it would be possible right? Well that's going back to defaulting to power of the Holy Spirit. Anyway, my opinion is that Jesus said these things and much more. Probably so much more was taught by him. I do believe what we have of Jesus sayings is sufficient for me to live a life that honors God...once Jesus took away my sin that is.

Coptic

In class we've briefly discussed an ancient gnostic text which was written in Coptic. Coptic is a language that I'm not very familiar with. I remember last year when the Gospel of Judas became a very big deal. A single copy of a shattered manuscript covered in so much controversy or at least that's what the commercials wanted you to believe. That was also written in Coptic. I was reading in the DJG about the Languages of Palestine and Coptic was not mentioned, that does not mean that it wasn't spoken there but it was not one of the primary languages from what I was able to gather. Coptic is an evolved written form of the Egyptian language from what I understand "Coptic was used from its Christian beginnings in the late second century AD. till the time of the Great persecution of Diocletian in the early 4th century AD. predominantly as a translational tool from Greek to Egyptian. "(Quote taken from THE ST. SHENOUDA THE ARCHIMANDRITE COPTIC SOCIETY's website which was written by Hany N. Takla who has delivered many lectures at colleges and universities such as UCLA) I'm wondering if these gnostic gospels were originally written in Coptic and if they were then how is it explained that they were written over 150 years after the Resurrection of Christ and more accurate than the Gospels we have. I have not done any extensive research on these manuscripts origins but they have become of an interest to me as well as a want for a better knowledge of the Coptic language.

Misguided Scholars

It is amazing to hear what many scholars have to say about Jesus and the sources of the scriptures. Some are right on the money, others are full of hot air--to put it a nice way. I will not give away the content of The Real Jesus, but after reading about the Jesus Seminar, I really wish someone would beat them over the head with one of their Bibles. Everything in the Bible does not have a clear explanation, and many times it is better NOT to try to explain everything. Just because thing about Jesus in the Bible does not live up to the way WE believe it should, that is not an excuse to thrown it out. The gospels are no less true with what seem to be inconsistences. We must remember that they are four DIFFERENT accounts of Jesus, apparent inconsistences lend to their truth, and do not detract from it. Christ's follows did a lot better putting the stories on "paper" than we do in the modern game of telephone!

A new way of thinking

I had always heard the words Source Criticism, Form Criticism and Redaction Criticism but never really knew what they were. I knew they had something to do with the Gospels and the way the text was formed, but beyond that I was pretty much ignorant. Monday's lecture opened my eyes to a whole new idea of how the text was constructed. When I was in middle school and even high school I always thought that God sat the biblical writers down and said "hey write this down," and 2000 years later we have the Bible. I had never really thought of the other possible factors (Mark used as an outline, Q, M, L).

Personally, as long as we remember that these ideas are not facts (hince the hypothesis title) I think that we can and should discuss the possibility of Source Criticism. During the entire lecture Monday I couldn't help but wonder as to what role the personalities of the writers (evangelists) and their audiences plays in the whole debate. For instance, are the things that are found only in Matthew (M) present because the letter was written primarily to Jews? Could the fact that Mark is smaller than Matthew and Luke not give evidence to the idea of Mark as an outline, but simply that Matthew and Luke had more to say than did Mark? Perhaps they had more to say because they were writing to a different group of people (see above argument on the intended audience of the gospel). I know that John had his own thing going on, but where does he fit into the whole picture? His gospel was written later than the others, maybe he had access to the prior three while writing. Since Luke also wrote Acts as a sort of continuation of his gospel, why should we not call the Book of Acts L? The actions of the Apostles are not present in the Gospels.

I think that we should all remember something that we learned relatively early in Bib-Interp. The Bible is written FOR us, but not originally TO us.

-Steven

Where do these ideas come from?

In reading the book for the in class book review and what we have been studying in class groups such as the Jesus Seminar have seemed to come up with some pretty crazy ideas. The belief that only about 15 % of what Jesus in the bible is what Jesus really said , and things such as how Jesus never really died on the cross. I just can not wrap my mind around those ideas it seems that they draw alot of their ideas and assumptions from thin air sometimes. Either I am not smart enough to come up with ideas or study enough to think or I actually put my faith in what the Bible says and what God meant it to be. I just can't figure out some of these things that they have come up with in their studies they just seem so crazy.

Humanity of Christ

I wrote my Christian Doctrine paper on the Humanity of Christ. This fell in line nicely with the quest for the historical Jesus. Most of my sources were more modern but most of them would refer back to ideas of Schweitzer and Bultman. I know in class we were really staying on the parameters of subjects but I hope in the next few classes that we get into the meat of who Jesus was as a man. I have never been so intrigued by Jesus as I was when I was studying Jesus the man. We really do forget his humanity. The quest for a historical Jesus is the quest for a man that really lived. He laughed, cried, got angry, made friends, ate food, traveled. He was fully God but also fully man. We looked at this matter in Doctrine but I am not sure you can have a Life of Christ class without looking at the fact that he was a physically alive man. The stories of Jesus that we have do have a theological slant to them but at least they something to go on. They do show Jesus having emotion and being a human man, so that is step one on the quest for some histoy on Jesus.

What's Historical About Jesus

What can we actually know, prove, or otherwise confirm about the historical person of Jesus? My thought is very little, yet I am left wanting to gain some insight into what he would of been like as a child or other "historical" facts about His everyday life. The historical reality of Jesus is, however, clear. There is no doubt, as Bultman confirmed, that Jesus was. For the person of Jesus to simply be some kind of mystical sage or some other kind of delusional prophet the world would not of been changed because of his death, burial, and resurrection. This is the message of the Gospel that is confirmed by the apostle Paul and other leaders of the early church. Does it really matter, or shake the foundations of Christian faith if what is recorded in the Gospels is not some kind of word for word account of the event. Of course the writers had a theological agenda rather than a historical one. Faith is not built on proof, but rather the substance of things hoped for and evidence of things unseen.

The Mystery Q

Well somehow with everything going on in my classes I still managed to stay tuned into Dr. Foster's lecture today. Perhaps it was the changing of rooms, why can't we always be in that one, it's beaut. So the lecture basically divided into three section entitled Source Criticism, Red-action Criticism and The Quest for the Historical Jesus. It was all interesting to me however the first section was wild. So we have this imaginery book called Q that Matthew and Luke supposedly have drawn from as well as Mark's gospel. Why couldn't they have just wrote about the stories that they had seen or heard and ofcourse what they saw in Mark's gospel. What is the majority of believe behind another document. I certaintly can't see a connection between Matthew and Luke that is not contained in Mark. Then we add M and L documentation to the mixture. Oh boy, what fun. Streeter are you serious about this Four Source hypothesis?

In our culture, as it seems in most women have been considered to not be as apt in certian leadership positions, and maybe in some cases that is true, in spiritual leadership i don't think it is the case. I know women personally who can better understand and teach the word then some preacher as well as women who are more motivated to serve than deacons.
So i wonder, why the big deal with women leadership within the church. I see it personally as a veiwing the situation in accordance to ephesians where pauls speaks of the family and how it relates to the church. wives submission to men, under the love of the Husband. I believe in love comes consideration and undrstanding where the voice and ministry of women can be heard and listened to in true consideration and even through authority from the Word of God.

Luke 15...huh?

Ever sense I took Bib-Interp I always thought that I understood what the parables in Luke 15 meant: Jesus was talking to Pharisees and he was preaching to them the importance of a soul. Yea, well, kindof. I especially like that in a sense I have been freed to use allegory to try to understand the parables. I definately agree that too much allegory is a wrong, and I suppose no allegory is better than too much, however some is needed. I also am avery interested in the fact that there is three subjects to the prodigal son (father, older son and prodigal) rather than the one that I had always though of (the older son). I think that we need to undestand this in order to understand what Jesus was saying in these parables. I also believe that his initial conversation with the Pharisees in the beginning of Luke 15 is iomportant to the overall understanding of the parables.

Women

I was really impressed with the class discussion on Luke's treatment of women. So many Baptist churches seem to view women as inferior. I found it fascinating to know that in New Testament times, women may have even been church leaders. I by no means think women should rule the roast, but the are valuable in more places in the church besides the nursery. God gives and calls women and men. Luke's gospel is unique because he actually speaks of the women in the life of Jesus, and the women in the church.

It is sad that, so often, passages in the Bible regarding women are taken so out of context that people believe they would always sit silently, humbly, never speaking or teaching. Luke's writings refutes such views.

Still Stuck on the Law

Like the Jewish Christians I seem to be stuck on the concept of the law and how that pretains to Christians. Is it now obsilete? But Jesus followed the law so should we do likewise? but we are free of the law so is the law bad? The audience of Luke/Acts seems to struggle with this concept too. According to the Dictionay, some scholars view Luke's approach to the law as conservative. Others say he is of two minds: Jews should keep it, whereas Christians are free of it. And others even say Luke understands the law is of the old era, but understands that the Jews are gonna take a while to get used to this whole "freedom" thing.
Luke basically shows that the traditions and customs are not required but Jewish Christians can follow them if they wish, as long as they don't drag the Gentile Christians along with them. Luke says that unity is more impotaint than these things, so do and accpet what you must (within the confins of reason) in order to mantain unity.
If the early church was ordered to be unified as a racially diverse community over an issue concerning their doctrine, how much more are we expected to be unified over an issue concerning the carpet color.

Luke and Acts are so interrelated through this portion of the class it almost is like the they were written by the same author. O wait a minute, they were. I find that to be so amazing because growing up in church all my life i have never been so taught that these books went together. i find that there is such need to go back and forth between the two books so that clear understanding of Luke's motivation and how the events in the book of Acts are comprised. Not that I had not learned that Luke wrote both books, but that learning Luke's representation of the life of Christ even through the book of Acts as well.

Luke and Acts are so interrelated through this portion of the class it almost is like the they were written by the same author. O wait a minute, they were. I find that to be so amazing because growing up in church all my life i have never been so taught that these books went together. i find that there is such need to go back and forth between the two books so that clear understanding of Luke's motivation and how the events in the book of Acts are comprised. Not that I had not learned that Luke wrote both books, but that learning Luke's representation of the life of Christ even through the book of Acts as well.

The Three Parables of Luke 15

I think something that is interesting in the three parables of Luke 15 is the use of ratios. In the parable of the lost sheep, you have 100, and one is lost. It seems as if it doesn't really matter because it's just 1/100, yet of course, Jesus cares about that 1 as much as the 99, and He would even leave the 99 in the pasture to go find the 1. In the next parable, the parable of the lost coin, you have a 1/10 situation. 10 coins, one is lost. And as in the first parable, rejoicing takes place when this 1 is found. And in the prodigal son, it gets more personal. It's not 1/100 or 1/10, it's 1/2. "A man had two sons." Again, when the one is found, rejoicing takes place. So with each parable, it seems to hit closer to him and each becomes more personal. Very interesting to me.

Sometimes It Is What It Is

The discussion in class on parables really got me to thinking the other day. I understand that some of the parables Jesus told had obvious allegory. What blew my mind was the allegory that so many of early church fathers tried to "force" into the parable, especially the good samaritan parable. I had almost forgotten about it when I overheard a classmate talking about a story they were reading in an english class. They were talking about symbolism and how sometimes a "cat" is just a "cat". I thought about that in relation to the parables. Sometimes there not some deeper meaning and some try to put more than is actually there into the parable.

Aaron Abbott

Readings in Luke.

When I was in high school, every years we would memorize the Christmas story out of Luke two. (i went to a private school) and we would study the book for a few weeks. I say that to say this, I have read Luke a lot more than any other Gospel. However, since I have been reading Luke in light of the things we have talked about in class, it has opened up a lot of new doors for me. I have been reading in Luke fifteen lately and kind of unpacking those verses. I think the story about the lost sheep is very encouraging, not because I am not a Christian, but because I am on a mission. I do not mean so sort of special individual pilgrimage. I am on the same mission that every other Christian is on and like most other Christians I struggle with that duty. However, according to Luke fifteen verse seven, all the blood sweat and tears that is put into evangelism is not in vain. Jesus is quoted as saying "there will be joy in heaven over one sinner who repents." Not only does that make me feel special to know that when I was saved there was joy in heaven, but it allows me to share with people that they are not just a number. Even though God is so immense and does so many things at one time, he is still intimate enough to allow heaven to become over joyed when someone gets saved. WOW! The more and more I read in the Gospel's and soak it in, the more I am astonished at God's power.

Parables

As Dr. Foster was talking about parables in class on Monday, it really made me start thinking about things. As I looked at more parables, the step that stuck out to me the most was that we need to look at the objects being used and what they meant back then. For instance, we have to remember what a farmer was back then, compared to what farming is like now. Today, it includes a tractor and is a whole lot easier. There are so many different things that pertain to parables that I began to realize I interpreted wrong. It's amazing how the meaning of a word can vary so much when we compare its meaning today to its history and how it is used in the Bible.