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.

3 Parables Luke 15

On the way out of Life of Christ on Monday Dr. Foster drops the line don't forget to read Luke 15 because we will talk about it in more depth next lesson. I read the chapter which is broken down into three parables that Jesus speaks to sinners, taxcollectors, The Pharissees and other teachers of the law. There is a lost sheep and a lost coin these story pretty much are mirror imagesof one another. The shepherd leaves the 99 to find one and the woman searches the whole house for the one lost coin. They both rejoice when they find their lost possessions and call their friends and neighbours up on their mobile phones to rejoice with them. Jesus says in both of these parables that there is much celebration in heaven when a sinner repents. The parable of the lost son stills gets the same message across however Jesus doesn't talk about heaven rejoicing in this parable. Instead Jesus talks of the angry brother who refuses to party in the wake of his younger brother's return. His father says you don't understand "you are always with me, and everything I have is yours. But we had to celebrate and be glad, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found." I'm really interested in Dr. Foster's notes on this because sometimes stories that I'm so familar with I just skip over but the class lesson he talked about turning the other cheek. His performance with Abbott I will never forget, I never even considered that take on that passage. Warning to Dr. Foster though, I may steal your story on that for a sermon of mine.

Parables

I've always thought Jesus use of parables is interesting. He could have easily made his point without a creative story, and with a message that didn't require much interpretation. As I read the DJG, it points out that Jesus was not the first to use them. He was, however, the first to use them "consistently, creatively, and effectively." These parables "hold up one reality to serve as a mirror of another." I personally find it interesting to read the parables and find out more about the meaning Jesus had behind each one.

I Can Relate

Every news reporter in the history of the world puts his or her own political slant on a story. Why should Luke be any different? I think the fact that Luke and Matthew potray such different heros only serves as confimation that the accounts are real. I went to summer camp with my best friend and something crazy happened with a turned over canoe and silly middle-aged woman. I was convinced that my boyfriend had saved the day while she swore that hers was the hero (that really happened). The Great thing was no less great and both guys had a hand in the "rescue" but one was not really more of a hero than another. Most things are relative to perspective. This happens in politics especially. One party praises an event while another sees the end of the world around the corner because of it. If I were going to write a story the smart, non-denominational, public schooled, middle-classed, girls from Arkansas would probably be seen in the best light. I don't blame Luke for having a version that appealed to his people and Matthew a version for his; I can relate.

What the heck is that Spirit's deal?

Disclaimer: this probably is not coherent thought and could be with revision but It’s more fun to try to discern my confusion and irrelevancy isn’t it?
In class Foster brought up the role of the Holy Spirit in Luke-Acts and we talked briefly about Acts 21 where it appears that Paul blatantly ignores the words of the Spirit through the disciples he was staying with. I tried to speak up in class but as of most times my thoughts do not translate to English so well so I thought I would blog about some of my thoughts. First of all I have to acknowledge that I have no clue, it is a mystery and anything I say past this point is only hypothetical.
The Spirit seems to be sending conflicting messages, first to Paul in chapter twenty when Paul exclaims, “And now, compelled by the Spirit, I am going to Jerusalem, not knowing what will happen to me there.” Paul is compelled by the Spirit and then in 21:4 it says, “Finding the disciples there, we stayed with them seven days. Through the Spirit they urged Paul not to go on to Jerusalem.” I do not understand. Possibly Paul had some crossed wires and misunderstood the Spirit to begin with people have attributed things to God before when they most certainly are not but this is Paul the apostle and it is scripture so that is hard to swallow. The disciples could have only been warning Paul because they knew what was going to happen. The noun Spirit is used as an instrument of urging. They could have been urging Paul by the means of love that they have from the Spirit. The deep compassion given them with the revelation that Paul was going to suffer all came from the Spirit and therefore they warned Paul. They may not have been actually giving him a command from the Spirit. Its all very confusing. Maybe God was giving Paul an option, Paul to can do this or you cannot and that’s why I’m giving you warnings to not go. Paul is not thwarted; he sticks to what the Spirit originally told him. I mean if it is a command not to go from the Spirit then did God change his mind? Paul did exclaim in 20:22 that he didn’t know what was going to happen to him and then he is told by the Prophet later in chapter 21. It seems that Paul’s fate is being revealed to him.
Back to the disciples who urged Paul not to go. They could have received the revelation that Paul was going to be bound but rather than leaving it at a revelation they went to Paul and urged him not to go and it was their urging not the Spirit’s. The text doesn’t support any of my ideas I’m pretty sure but I can hypothesize can’t I. I chalk it up to another mystery of God but some interesting Ideas can be conjectured.

Luke Luke Luke

Luke is such an interesting book to lookat in its structure. I have found through studying Mark and through looking at the other gospels the differences in the gospels that I have never noticed before. Two years ago if i were to read the gospels i would have just read their stories and never looked at the differences that each writer incorporated into their texts, and thats why I find Luke interesting in the aspects of the way he writes and puts more of an emphasis on women playing a role in Jesus ministry. It appears that each writer wanted to bring out different aspects of Jesus' ministry so that the readers would not just see certain aspects of Jesus' ministry but instead all of the aspects such as showing women in the roles they played.

Jesus, by any other name would sound as sweet

This class has really made me appreciate the differences in the 4 gospels. The 4 pictures that Burrage talks about really illustrate the different personality each gospel has. This makes sense because they are written by different people and for different audiences. I have always understood this, but lately I have really been picking up on and loving the small details that make a big difference. For example, the only time Jesus is called "Son of David" in Mark is by blind Bartimaeus, whereas in Matthew he is addressed as "Son of David" by crowds and people who needed healing numerous times. Matthew also calls him "son of Abraham" which to a Gentile audience would mean little, but to Jews this is the Father of their nation. This makes him a Jew and a king. Jesus is really only called "Jesus" by Matthew in narration. I wonder if this means anything in regard to Jesus' power because they address him with an honor bestowing title. This really has no relation to the plot of each story, but in the book as a whole, these unique qualities are amazing and I am excited that I will recognize them more now.

Mark Never Ends

I have been given the pleasure of exploring how the book of Mark ends. Mark is a greater writer than we give him credit for. Of all the papers I've written I've enjoyed doing the research for this one the most. I've examined the possibilities of all the endings of Mark from the short ending to the lost ending. After the research I've done and based upon my conclusions I find that I am leaning very strongly towards the ending at Mark 16:8. Mark uses his skill as a dynamic writer to leave his Gospel with a suspended ending. We all know what happens after verse eight or else the book wouldn't exist. Mark ends his Gospel in the same abrupt way as it began. When reading the ending in light of the beginning light is shed upon that fact. Other factors play into the supporting evidence of verse eight but I have shared one with you. If you do take the longer ending as authentic then I would like to leave you with a quote from Word Pictures in the New Testament by A. T. Robertson. "The great doubt concerning the genuiness of these verses renders it unwise to take these verses as the foundation for doctrine or practice unless supported by other and genuine portions of the N. T.

Criticism textual

Though i myself don't believe that textual criticism is the profession i am going to pursue, it does interest me in that some people can look at a text and see its genealogical family from the style, punctuation, ect. I am though thankful for it and even though sometimes it may bring about more questions than answers; thankfully our faith does not require the complete understanding of everything in the Bible.
I do like being at a place in life where hearing all the questions about scribal errors and old a new manuscripts don't rock my faith, but can confirm it though the amazing preservation of the Bible.

I like resting in the mystery of the word, which in a since is like trusting God, who we don't fully understand... i mean it is "His Word".

Long, short, tall or fat

Why does our Bible have to contain such an argued portion of text. Is someone against Christianity trying to mess with our theology? Is God trying to help us learn textual criticism? I don't see why this can't be a starting point for textual criticism in our Bible. It is very obvious the wording and theology is very different from the rest of Mark. Maybe such an obvious part would lead us to be textual critics of more of the text to gain understanding of maybe the attitude of the writer as he wrote it. Which do I accept as the ending of Mark? I believe it ends at verse 8 pure and simple. The following verses are different that the rest of all of Jesus' teachings. I do not agree with the testing of God by grabbing snakes. If Jesus would not test God in the wilderness in Matthew then why would he challenge us to do so? Is there more that we don't even have in our Bible? I agree with Aaron when he says that if God wanted it in the scriptures He would have preserved it. So for today i rest on the conclusion that Mark ends on verse 8.

Is there more? Does it matter?

After class monday I thought about what I believed about how Mark ends. I decided if I had to pick one of the five choices that it would be out of the three most popular ones. I'm not a fan of the Longer Ending because I just don't think it sounds like the rest of Mark. So that narrows it down to two. As I thought more about it I wondered, "what IF there was more?!" I thought about what was accidently lost could have been important. Only a few seconds later I decided that if there was more and it's content was important, God would have preserved it like He did the rest of the text.
It reminded me a question a girl in my youth group asked me not too long ago. She wanted to know what if there were other books that could have gone in the Bible that were lost. I told her the same answer I ended up telling myself about the end of Mark. If they belonged in the Bible they would be there.

-Aaron Abbott

Indiana Jones

I was very excited to hear about the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The whole thing is very interesting to me, and I definately believe that they were divinely preserved. It seems almost like an Indiana Jones thing to find hundreds of lost scrolls tucked safely in jars hidden in caves. I was even more impressed that the older copies found only served to confirm the copies that we already had. I am not sure these scrolls have the answer to the ending of Mark question, but I am sure they help answer many other questions. I have heard the Dead Sea scrolls mentioned before and I really wish some class would talk about it more to answer some questions. Was there extra testimental literature with these scrolls. If so, could we be wrong in thinking they weren't divinely inspired if earlier Christians did, etc? I suppose I should do some reading on my own to fully understand this amazing modern miracle that connected us to the earliest Believers.

The Ending Of Mark

Well after finishing the excellent book of Mark in great detail, I'm pretty dissapointed that we don't know what was really the end of Mark. I haven't really discussed this ending anywhere else probably cause the church kind of hides this, not exactly Sunday School material. Right now to me the longer ending sounds quite foolish cause of the drastic change in the way it was written. So I'm actually stuck between Mark 16:8 is the intended ending and that we can't find the real ending, which is diffucult to determine. Is it out of the question that Mark himself never finished the book? Maybe he didn't know how to end it, so handed in the manuscript as is? Is this out of the question? If anyone else has an idea of their own put it forward to me; I'd love to hear it.

"I'm like peter"

I loved the point mad in class about peter only having a few bad days. In our culture we seem to always focus more on negative aspects of things or people instead of positive qualities.

as noted in class we identify with the weakness of peter rather than his strength. But we do this with david too, in the oppposite way, we focus on him defeating the giant and leave out his shortcommings.

What i see in these men are ordinary people used inspite of themselves to accomplish extrordinary feats for the Lord. and that is how i want to relate to these men. GOd can use me, plain old, messed up, trying, me.

Everybody is a M. Night Shyamalan (We love the twist)

Mark's resurrection, assuming that it ends with 16:8, has been called incredibly negative and literary genius at the same time. I am a reader and I know that happy endings, as good as they make you feel, are not always inspiring. It is those movies and book that give you something unexpected or unfinished that leave you meditating on it all day.
The Dictionary addresses the kind of “fear” the women had and explained that it was awe not a fear of disobedience. Also, this is not the end, there is still Galilee. In Mark 14:28 he tells the disciples that after he was resurrected he will meet them in Galilee. Granted they had denied him and possible even lost faith, but I think I would hang out in Galilee for a few days just to be sure. The angel tells the women that he is going to Galilee (that’s a surprise) and that they would see him there.
This ending is not negative, it leaves the reader with anticipation of Galilee and the choice of what to do with their own fear and belief. Mark has this misunderstanding disciples theme, and the women do the same. Mark wants us to see and understand and not to fear.

Eschatology is for the birds!

Just some ramblings...

So, I guess the class discussion that I will be referring to took place sometime during the week before Spring Break, but I have really been pondereing it over during the past few weeks and have even talked to others about it. I think that the dialogue of Jesus in Mark 13 says a lot about the role of the Trinity within the Gospels. The simple fact that Jesus did not know the hour of the socond coming is astonishing and something that I will never understand. I also believe that some Christians today get too wrapped up in trying to learn about the signs leading up to and the exact time of the eschaton that we forget to do the things that are important now, such as making disciples and showing the love of Christ to others. Jesus tells the disciples to 'Stay Awake" (13:37). Forgive me for using an allegory (Please don't tell Gore), but perhaps we should also "stay awake" not to the signs of the end of the age, but to the commands and the ministry that we have been given.

-Steven

The ending of Mark

As i was reading the ending of Mark today for my readings it made me think yet again what i really think abou it. I know there are a lot of different view points on whether it is true or false, and i have always kind of just sat on the fence and never taken a side for what i believe. As I read it, I noticed something that i have never really thought about myself, those few verses just don't really sound like any of Mark. It's like why would Mark go on for 15 or so chapters sounding exactly alike and then in the last little bit he changes. It raises a lot of questions and I'm still on the fence, I'm looking forward to trying to get off the fence through this class.

Think BIG! Think STRONG!

In the first few verses of Mark chapter 16 we see that the Marys were heading to the tomb of Jesus to take care of His body as they would commonly do for all those who had died. The thing I found so interesting was that they contiplated which one of them was going to move this stone that was placed in front of the grave so that no one could get in there and take the body, to fake the resurrection of Jesus. They must have been thinking BIG and thinking STRONG of themselves to have even gone there to annoint the body. I really think it was there unknown faith in the LORD that He would give them the ability to roll the stone away so they could honor this great Man. We sometimes need to just think BIG and think STRONG when it comes to the service of the LORD for the LORD!

I often wonder if...........

I often wonder which disciple I would have been if I was one of Jesus original twelve. In class Monday as we talked about Judas and Peter, it amazed me at how awful these "men of God" followed him. I mean one helped the chief the priest and scribes capture Jesus and then the other practically spit in his face by denying him. I often wonder would I be one of these guys. It seems as though in my life I tend to see little bit of characteristics from both of these individual types. I might not deny Jesus with my mouth, but I do deny him with my life. People might hear my proclaim I am a Christian, but according to the way they see me living sometimes, I have never known him.

It amazes me that in our society today preachers, teachers, or just your normal run of the mill Christians can mess up one time and their lives be over. In recent years we have seen many preachers come under fire for ethical decisions they made(or didn't) and most of the time we do not see those preachers rebound.(except Jim Baker of course) See what amazes me about Peter is that he did rebound. That day changed Peter's life forever, as we know from scripture he went on to be one of the most influential preachers of all time. WOW! Maybe I do want to be like Peter, hopefully though I can use my past denials and move on.

Concerning the Death of Christ

Looking at the events surrounding Jesus' death, I am amazed. It is clear he was no mere man. When he was on the cross, the sky grew dark. Who else had a sign on his cross saying Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews. In addition to all of this, when Jesus died the curtain in the temple was torning in two pieces from top to bottom. (I wonder how the pharisees handled that!) Then the earth shook and the bodies of many godly people were raised from the dead. According to Matthew, more believed than just one centurion. Matthew says other soldiers believed also.

Jesus did not go out of this world quietly. I wonder what the pharisees thought when all this happened. Were they like whoopsies..we just killed the real deal, or were they callous and hard? I wonder if any pharisees believed after this. Just imagine the stir this created! Your godly friend George was buried a week before, then you see him in town three days later. The God we serve is truly amazing! There is no limit to what he can do!

Which way to go, left or right?

God is so amazing. Peter denied knowing Jesus THREE times before the rooster crowed. The very thing Jesus called him to do, follow me. Highschool students in Columbine, CO had more guts than Peter did. Those students really did die with Christ. Peter, after seeing what he had done, breaks down into tears. He repented of his sinful act to become the eventual leader of the early church. We blame Peter so much, but think about how much he learned from this experience and was able to use later. There are two lessons i grab from the surface of this text. First, God is merciful and forgives us of our sin. If we are faithful he will use us to great things for his glory. Second, we should not bring ourselves down to depression like Judas did. Peter shows us how to learn from our mistakes and give God all the glory in the future. I will not make a statement that I would never deny Jesus like Peter was because I have never been faced with an environment like he was. I love God. I love Jesus. I want to be like Peter because he was a great preacher, learned from his mistakes, and gave the glory to God. Not to mention he was homeboys with Jesus.

two witnesses?

Jewish law required that if a man is to be condemned, two eye-witness accounts must be provided of his crime. Ironic that when Jesus comes back to life, as he said he would do on multiple occasions (Mt 16:21, 17:9, 23, 20:19), he gave the disciples an eye-witness and they didn't believe. Then he gave them two more and they still rejected the idea. Why were they so skeptical of the thought of Jesus doing what he said he would do? Multiple times Jesus said, "I'm gonna die and I'm gonna come back to life." When he did come back, not only did it take 3 eye-witnesses, but it took a personal appearance from Jesus himself.
Jesus then scolds them, or condemns them, and tells them to tell others...anyone who doesn't believe, as they didn't believe, will be condemned. Ironic.

Alex H.

Wicked Hands

Wicked hands seized Jesus. Wicked hands beat Him. Wicked hands tore out His beard. Wicked hands nailed Him to the cross. Wicked hands pierced His side. All of this happened to our Savior. The Father was watching and allowing the whole thing. He went through that for me, a sinner. If I was the only person He had to endure all that for, He still would have done it. What kind of love is that? After all this suffering, wicked hands would touch Him no more. The wicked hands did what they could do, being limited the whole time. Not a bone in His body was broken....what an amazing thing! Wicked hands did a lot to Jesus, but they were limited. Now wicked hands can touch Him no more, but only the loving hands of the Father. I can't wait until the time when wicked hands will touch us no more....

son of a father

i find the name of barabbas interesting. in fact, i find the whole scene interesting. we look at barabbas as nasty and deserving of murder and wonder why the crowd wanted him released instead of Jesus. we have to remember that the crowd was only trying to please the roman government and show them they were not rebellious and following this "king of the Jews". not only that, but its quite possible that barabbas was a "robin hood" type, stealing from the romans and giving to the poor. whatever the case, Pilate's decision was based on what they wanted! what irony in this situation! we find irony even in the name of barabbas, simply meaning "son of a father". while one son of a father is being realeased, the other, the Son of the Father, is condemned to death. i find this incredible and quite intriguing.

Mark and his compound verbs

I've been writing my paper over the ending of Mark and one of the most interesting things that I have noticed about Mark's vocabulary is his use of verbs. When looking in the greek its easy to see that Mark loves using compound verbs. He will take a normal verb and put a preposition on the front of that verb in order to be more specific. One verb in particular that sticks out is poreuomai (yes, some sweet transliteration). The simple verb actually never once occurs within the text of Mark except three times in 16:9-20 but of course those verses are under speculation. Mark always uses this verb in a compound form. I love his style of writing how he manages to squeeze so much detail into his small 16 chapters of text. Mark is not a simple Gospel but in fact a Gospel of great complexity in language and he is set on bringing more clarity upon the action of the verbs in his work.

Judas is a cuss word

I do not like the idea that we talked about in class Monday about the "comical scene" of the disciples all sitting around wondering, "Is it me?" That, to me, is a scary thought. Should betraying Jesus unto death have been so easy a thing to do that they thought themselves qualified. I applaud Peter for his answer, "No way Jose!" I think if someone had to sit around contimplating, "well, maybe it could be me" then something was extremely wrong. I know that I am flawed, but if I was sitting with Jesus and had known Him intimately, that question would not faze me. I would be scared for my leader and friend but I would not make myself a murderer. I do not think any Christian should call themselves Judas to make a point. Because unless you would walk up to physically living Healer Miracle Working Jesus and kiss Him sicking guards on Him to kill Him and then turn around and recieve a sack of money for being King Shady, then you can not call yourself Judas. We should let him be the scum that he is and us be the redeemed that we are.

I Feel Like Peter, but act like Judas

Peter often gets the bad reputation for his zealousness, speaking out of turn, and his denials, but look what became of him in Acts. This same man boldly proclaimed the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ in a hostile environment and 3,000 people were saved. To often we identify ourselves with Peter; i.e., I denied Christ, or I was walking on the water, but lacked the faith to stand once I noticed my circumstances. However, are we really as bold as Peter who said, I will follow you Jesus even if it means death? We are probably more like Judas, betraying our savior when the going gets tough, selling Jesus out for a moment of pleasure even though we were right there with Peter and the others saying we will follow him anywhere. I wish I could be more like Peter. I find comfort in the fact that even through the dark night of Peter's soul, his denials, God never left him or forsaken him and gave him the promised Holy Spirit that empowered him to die the martyrs death that he did (I think he was crucified up side down). But to often I act more like a Judas, selling Jesus out for my own agenda, because my idea of a messiah does not jive wit who Jesus is. Peter, however, followed in the way. The way that Jesus had prepared. The problem with this way, though, it is not always the way we want to travel. The way to glory is marked by a cross that I often do not want to bear.

TRAITOR!

I've often wondered and thought alot about Judas, asking questions such as Did Jesus know that when he caleed Judas that he would be the one to betray him and if so it had to of have been hard knowing throughout his ministry that this man would be the one to become the traitor. Is it possible that Jesus might have hinted at anytime before the last few moments of his death to Judas that he would be the one to betray him and what grew to make Judas finally make the final decision to say i am going to betray this man even though he has seen all of the miraculous things he has done. The whole idea of how Judas betrayed Jesus brings alot of questions to my mind and leads me to really think even though, if would have been there, would I have been the one to betray, what really pushed Judas to that final breaking point and would we break as well?

What makes our message different?

To go off of the idea about the t-shirt slogans that we talked about in class I though of something. When my oldest brother Tim and my dad and I went to the LSU game this past fall, Tim showed me how he kind of viewed Christians. He began to joke around about it and then said this to one of the LSU fans "Could I talk to you about making Darren McFadden your personal lord and savior?" When he said that at first I just laughed it off. But thinking back on it I realize that it is how he views Christians. And I think the reason he says things like that is partly do to Christians throwing around religious language in the same way that a beer commercial advertises. And when we do that we are basically saying that are message is no different from a beer commercial. But our message is different because it is the message that saves people through Christ's blood.

Tobias: Fisher Demon Slayer

I read Tobit 6-8 and I'm not sure what it has to do with anything that we covered in class, or Mark at all for that matter, but it was quite entertaining. Tobias was washing in a river and an angel told him to catch a fish and remove his innards. These he would use to cast away a demon. His cousin had married 7 men, all whom had died on the wedding night (stinks for them) and Tobias was told to marry her and use the fish heart and liver to make smoke and repel the demon in love with her.
Tobias did as was told despite his fear and was found asleep but very alive the next morning by his father in law, who filled in Tobias' already prepared grave (not much faith in the guy), praised God, and had a PARTY!!!
I guess the moral of the story is Don't throw your fish back, you never know when a demon is going to come around. It was really interesting to see the demon exorcism compared to Jesus' and how in-depth Tobias' was, when all Jesus did was speak.

Hello Mountain

I really enjoyed talking about the different possible contextes for the "mountain be moved" passage. I had never heard the story about Herod having the one mountain poured on to another so that his would be higher. I thought that was so rediculous and yet, it makes perfect sense. That was the power a king had. I do not think that that is what Jesus was making refrence to, though. I always have an image in my mind of Jesus walking up to a mountain, completely unintimidated, and asking it to move. Then, the Mountain gets up on "legs" of some sort and runs to the Ocean and jumps in. That seems so silly. It only seems so crazy because that is too much power/authority for me to wrap my mind around. I am too weak to imagine that God has intrusted that kind of power to me. The first mountain I would need to say hello to would be my Everest of unbelief.

The Irony of the Triumphal Entry

Prior to our discussion of the Triumphal Entry of Jesus I have to be honest and say that I was a bit confused as to exactly what was going on in the text. I think that Dr. Foster's description of Louisville during the Kentucky Derby was right on in regards to Jerusalem during this time. I never really understood why the people waved palm branches at Jesus until we talked about the Maccabean revolt. I suppoose the great irony of this passage is that the same people that shouted 'Hosanna' also cried 'Crucify Him' only a few short days later. I often wonder if we today do not ask God to be the main part of our lives and then do not acknowledge him as if our prior request to God was false. I think that we can (and should) learn a lot from the Jews who participated in the Triumphial Entry.

-Steven

Just a game!

As I read today's reading selection I was taken back at the motives of the guards and on lookers of Jesus' Crucifixion. I have read the story many of times and I have been alive for twenty one Easter's. I know the story. However, the older I get the more it feels as though I am able to process the reality of situations, especially this situation. It never occurred to me that the guards and priests cared so much about Jesus. That's right they cared. They cared about giving Jesus the best/worst treatment possible on the cross. The guards where doing their best to make sure nobody ever forgot the day, that the "King of Jews" was killed. It was a game to them, they wanted to see how much humiliation they could put the destroyer of the temple through. They did not care about who's son he was, they cared about pain. The one point that gets me thinking about this whole story is the part at the end of the Crucifixion story when the guard says, "Surely He was the son of God." This statement implies that the guard thought that he was God's Son, but he is now dead and will not be again. This guard as part of it right, He is God's Son. But the thing the guard missed is that He still is. Why after all the miracles Jesus preformed and exorcisms did this guard decide who Jesus was based on His last words. I can't figure it out, I wonder if I would have done the same.

What kind of shirts do you wear?

We've all seen the t-shirts that Dr. Foster talked about in class on Monday...the ones that take secular images and turn them into Christian sayings. To be honest, I never gave those shirts much thoguht before that class...I mean I see them all the time...especially in my hometown. We host numerous events and designing the newest and latest t-shirt is the highlite of planning the event....okay, maybe I'm exaggerating a little bit, but I'm not too far off. We should be original in what we have to say. Why do we need to take an idea that's already been used way too many times before? The slogan usually supports things that are most certainly not completely centered around Christ. So why use the secular slogans? It doesn't make that shirt any different from another one....and if it isn't different, then the message isn't portraid in a different way either. I think about it like this. If someone says they are a Christian, then they have to show it with everything they do, right? So when we see someone who conforms to the ways of this world but still says they are Christ-like, what impression does that leave? You know as well as I do that his or her witness is hindered by these actions. Same with the shirt...the wonderful message being written on that shirt shouldn't be hidden beneath the ideas of this world.

People existed before me and they were much smarter.

I was reading the section on apocalyptic in DJG and A new wave of dumb swept over me. The article kept repeatedly referring to apocalyptic literature that existed from the time. I knew that there was the apocrypha and pseudepigrapha but it came over me just how crazy it is the movement of numerous theological ideologies were circulating within the culture. A great deal more literature could have existed that didn't survive the wear of time. I struggle because I’ve always thought that ancient writings that weren’t considered to be the word of God were worthless, but that’s crazy because that’s like saying Robert Frost’s poetry meant nothing. There is a wealth of knowledge that can be learned from those texts about the culture of the day from doctrinal stances to heresies. I think trying to wrap my head around this fact will take me a while. Just the simple idea that a culture existed and that ideas were shared, I feel ignorant truly in neglecting how complex the society of the late B. C.’s early A. D.’s.

Transfiguration

The Transfiguration passage has always intrigued me. I have always wondered why this happened. Why did Moses and Elijah show up? Why did Peter, James, and John get to go with Jesus? I won't take the time to post them all, but Garland gives a chart comparing Jesus with Moses (342). Garland also talks about Elijah. I think it's interesting, and I like what Garland says about the Transfiguration: "It serves to confirm that the suffering Jesus will endure is not incompatible with His glory."
Mark mentions that Peter wants to build three shelters. Verse 6 though, says he did not know what to say because he was afraid. So did he really want to build three shelters? Or did he, in fear, just say something that might sound good to Jesus? I wonder what I would have done if I were one of the disciples that day....and that's something I still wonder, because I don't know what I would have done.

They Cant Treat my King that Way!

As we see blasphemy and mockery of Christ in modern media, as Christians we find ourselves to be overly offended, which we should be. However, do we consider the offense we should take at the mockery of Jesus prior to his crucifixion? I know I never really think about it much, but reading the Biblical passage for today and Garland’s commentary on the passage has made it more clear to me the mockery that occurred. As the passage in chapter 15 of Mark goes, Jesus has been scourged and given over to the Roman soldiers to be crucified. Prior to his execution, they throw robes on him and bow in mockery, and hit him with sticks and spit on him. Quite a gruesomely disturbing form of entertainment: to beat and spit and mock a man who was beaten within an inch of his life with leather, stones, bone, and metal. Garland says that the company of soldiers referred to in this passage was around 600. Just think, 600 over-powering, heartless men with nothing better to do than make fun of you. I never thought of the numbers being so great! I don’t like when 2 or 3 people make fun of me let alone 600! The humiliation our Savior endured; a humiliation of love for you and me. Truly Christ did suffer, but what a great conquest to rise again! Thank you, God.

Zach Pyron

Just in Acts and in the gospels?

While reading in dictionary of Jesus and the gospels it was talking about how often the crowd's were used in the bible. It brough up something that I have never thought about before the word crowd was only used in Acts and in the gospels. When they were referring to the crowd it often times meant pharisees or people of that nature. It again makes me think deeper about things and ask myself why isn't crowd mentioned other places. Did Jesus draw crowds more than any other person is that why? I know this is a small nit picky thing to blog about, but it's just another little thing that i have never thought about.

In God We Trust

In every time I have read the passage Mark 12:13-17 I have always come to the conclusion that it was about money and that we are required to pay taxes to our local government. When Dr. Foster made mention of the fact that the "graven image" was were some of the focus was placed I was confused. What did this mean, "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's"? I never really that about the fact that we are God's and we are created in His image for this passage. We are God's and we are to give all that we are to Him. The coinage says it all, "In God We Trust." Do we really believe and act upon that or do we still think the passage is only about what we owe to our government?

DO NOT RUN IN CHURCH

Maybe we should recover some of the sacredness of our Temples, i.e., church buildings. My son, Austin, who is two is not allowed to run in the sanctuary. He can run in the hall and in the fellowship center, but not in the place where we gather for corporate worship. Jesus would not let those carrying merchandise use the Temple mount as a short-cut, for that place is holy. Also, Jesus ran off those who were exploiting the poor and those robbers who found asylum on the Temple grounds. As I began to process the lecture, I began to ask myself if I really viewed the place I attended church as holy or just a building to keep the weather out. And why I did not let me son run in the sanctuary? Was this just because I did not want people talking bad about me as a parent, "Can you believe that Michael let Austin run through here?". I need to learn a deeper respect for those things that have been set apart for God's use. Not that my church building on Sunday morning is the only place that I can encounter God, but I should come there with this expectation and a reverent respect for that place. To often what happens on Sundays has been reduced to a social gathering of the saints, some feel good advice on some vague topic, and watching a choir perform. What would happen if when we gathered we came with fear and trembling, and the expectation that this place is truly the house of the Lord?

Two versions of the Faith of a Gentile Woman

Having read about the faith of the Syrophoenician woman in both Mark and Matthew, there are some subtle differences. In Mark, Jesus almost seems mean. It is a hard passage for me to understand. In Matthew (15) , however, Jesus almost seems like he is being sarcastic. This intrepretation may be incorrect, but I think it is at least plausible. a Canaanite woman comes and is crying out to Jesus to have mercy on her and heal her daughter. Jesus did not answer her. It almost seems like he is waiting for his disciples to do something. Finally, the disciples--get this--come and BEG him to send her away. Wow, aren't they compassionate. To me, Jesus' reply is almost sarcastic, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." But the woman is persistant, even though Jesus seems to return all her comments with cutting remarks. It almost seems like he is mocking the thoughts of the disciples. Then he shows that faith is for ALL people. I could be wrong, but I found this point of view interesting.

The Fig Tree Dilema

The part in Mark where Jesus cursed the fig tree I had never understood until Dr. Foster elaborated on why Jesus despised the tree. You see if a fig tree has leaves it must bear fruit because that the way God made it. Before knowing this I thought Jesus could have cursed all of the fig trees in the area cause non of them would bear fruit if it was not the season for figs. However now I realise that if any leaves are on the tree, it must have some fruit, it just may not ripe. Maybe Jesus planned to eat the unripe fruit. Who knows ? We do know that Jesus said to the tree "may no one ever eat fruit from you again." Now I realise his frustration because off in the distance when he was approaching tree he thought beauty, it has leaves on it, so I can eat from it. Only to realise when he got closer that the tree was deceiving and he could not eat from it.

The uniqueness of God's death

I had always thought of Christ's crucifixion as unique; specifically in light of the spiritual significance. I understand that the spiritual significance impacted the historical uniqueness
of Jesus' death, but I had never taken into consideration that uniqueness outside of the specifically spiritually significant events, such as the resurrection.
The unique things of Jesus' death play into the spirituality. For example, Jesus was taken off the cross after his death. The Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels states that most convicts were left on the cross to be eaten my carrion. However, if Jesus had been left, as was customary the resurrection would have turned out quite differently, to say the least. The fact that Jesus legs were not broken, is also untypical, according to DJG. That, along with Simon carrying Jesus' cross near the end of the journey to the crucifixion cite, was also unusaul.
It is interesting how the small, unique events in Jesus crucifixion either, prepared for certain following event, or fulfilled prophecies concerning Jesus death.

Alex H.

a vague prediction

matthew 24. luke 21. mark 13. what do they mean? much of my previous influence (through my mid teens) on the interpretations of these came from a well known book series that shall be left unnamed, perhaps put behind me, if you will. i find that Jesus addresses the destruction of the temple here with the disciples, not the coming of a 7 year period preluded by rapture. to them, the end of the world would be the destruction of the temple.
Jesus gives several hints to when it wouldnt be, but not signs to the coming of the end. he mentions that men will falsely come in His name, wars will break out and earthquakes will come, but those are not signs of the end. Instead, he tells them to be ready at all times because no one knows when.
the most dynamic thing i find in this chapter is the coming of the Son of Man. that comes without warning and there is no way to determine when it will happen. i like how Garland points out that Jesus was certainly ambiguous for a reason. we are not meant to know when, just that it will happen and be ready for it, whenever that might be.

Christmas shopping or Worshipping God?

I thought about the Triumphal Entry a lot since Dr. Foster told us about how it wasn't anything special for the people to be celebrating while Jesus came in. It was a triumphal entry, but it was for all people coming into the city of Jerusalem. Jesus was special and deserved a New York City caliber parade but most of the people didn't know who He really was and is. I always heard that "it was a big rush" and it always seemed to be compared to the mall on Saturday before Christmas but Dr. Foster was right in saying we didn't understand the size of the people there. I now have a "better" grasp on how it was instead of my church play version of 12 people walking down the aisle as a crowd. This is a wall to wall on the streets affair, and it wasn't just for a day during rush hour, this had to be for days. People were camping everywhere, most there to truly worship the Lord God that provides. I love the crowds here. They are all happy, but the crowds for Christmas are bitter because they do not understand the meaning of why they are even shopping other than because someone else is buying me a present i must repay.

PARTY!!!!!!!! or NOT

The closer I look at the entry into Jerusalem by Jesus and the disciples before his death the more i come to realize how crazy and unbelieveable it probably was there at this time. What really makes me think about there being so many people in Jerusalem and the people just having a huge party is this, this was Jesus last stop as he would be crucified here. Was it planned all along for him to be crucified while there were so many people in Jerusalem or did it just happen that way. I seem to feel like it was meant to happen, either for the fact of more people being there and witnessing it or whatever it might be but, that has just been something that has been running through my mind. The people in a matter of hours went from party time to kill Jesus, was it meant to b e during this crazy time??????

Andy Miller

beelzewho???

So I suppose I will blog on the state of my research paper. I am exegeting Mark 3:20-30 and comparing Christ’s accusation of casting out demons by the power of Beelzebul to his authority. I had always read this passage and not fully understood its meaning. Only after my studies have I understood fully that Christ was referring to Satan when he said that the strong man is bound. I also am concerned that the issue of honor/shame may be in use here. It may be a possibility that the Kingdom of God is now taking some of the honor that the Kingdom of Satan once had and that Jesus is the catalyst of that change. I still have much research to do to support/negate my theory and it may be the case that once I get further into my studies that I find that my hypothesis is completely incorrect. I believe this will be an exciting endeavor. I suppose that my thesis that was due in stage 2 has been changed as my research has matured. I guess that’s the point of doing papers in stages though huh?

-Steven

Critically Correct/Incorret

I never really thought much about the fact that there might be other valuable material out there for us to read concerning the area of religion, culture, and history other than the stuff that modern theologians have produced. The information that Dr. Foster shared our of 4 Ezra and Psalms of Solomon were amazing to me. I wondered though why, if so valuable, were they not put into the cannon. I found them to be such great help in the lecture. I do however understand that there are great works of literature out there that have been published like music and books that are very valuable for spiritual growth and these fit in that area. However, they are so historically and culturally right on that that even makes me question correctness or incorrectness with it all. I think that is good, because it is simply getting me to think and anything that makes me desire to think is GOOD!

Disciples

I think one thing that has really clicked with me lately, is the fact that the disciples didn't really know that much about who Jesus was....it took them a while to comprehend his greatness. That seems odd to me since they were next to him constantly and experienced his miracles first hand. It seems that if you were around someone as great as that, you would understand a little more about him. I can't imagine what it would be like to be a disciple, or even be alive in Jesus' time. I am thankful that I can read about their experiences and accounts of Jesus time here on earth.

OJ...watch carefully, take notes.

It's interesting how many accounts there are of Jesus' trial. I counted 10 (counting the four Gospels as separate accounts.) That's fascinating to me. Maybe it shouldn't be, but I imagine that most trials in that area and that time didn't have more than one or two accounts, if any. Maybe that's incorrect, but it seems that the spotlights seem to be on this trial. Even more interesting, is how much noise came form that trial, considering how little, the accused actually spoke. He offered no resistance, no pleads for mercy, not even any logical arguments as to why he shouldn't be killed. Strange, that the man who had never lost an argument, even against some of the brightest minds of his culture, didn't offer a single point of argument when death faced him. Paul describes his death as voluntary in several of his writings (like Rom 4:25). Strange that the biggest trial, most talked-about trial in history contained an innocent convict who was willing to die...for the ones who were killing him.

Alex H.

Ya know, the Pharisees werent all that bad...neither was Hitler...

Dr. Foster (as did some of my sources in my paper) talked about the Pharisees building a hedge of protection around the Torah in order to protect it. Somehow, I understand the concept and respect them for aspiring to a higher standard of righteousness than the people of their community would lean to, but I also understand Christ’s frustration with them. They enforced their traditions and regulations because they were widely practiced. Because it became normative, they began to hold it higher than the Law that they were attempting to protect. Beyond that, they took their oral traditions in order to deny responsibility to the Law that they were protecting (see Corban). I hold Pharisees in some level of respect because I too think that we should all be held to the same standard of holiness that God has called us to, but I don’t believe that it should be achieved through undermining the very source of the holiness to which we aspire. Is it unbiblical to believe that all are held to the same standard even in such a relativistic world? Are we Pharisees (Holiness Police) in our day and age?

Zach Pyron

Forget The New Testament the Psudepigrapha works just fine.

Well I reckon thats a pretty good title anyway, even if what I have to say is useless. Monday's lecture that encompassed the Psudepigrapha was very interesting, I knew this literature was out there but I guess I thought that it was completely rubbish worthy. Sure some of the text is not relevant like from the Testament Of Judah the godless are condemned. Well I'm pretty sure I'm screwed then. Now I realise that some parts of the text can be very true and on the right track like in 4th Ezra when the Messsiah was to come from the lineage of David. Sure it already says this in our copy of the old testament today. So why couldn't the bloody pharisees see that it was Jesus. Above all this lecture combined with a lecture in world lit on The Koran have taught me not disgard any literature, if only to understand from another viewpoint what the Jews thought and even the way the Muslims think. So 2nd Temple Literature does have a use. As for the way my title reads I think we all can say that the New Testament is worthy of cover to cover completion.

1, 2, 3, or 4 How many?

As I did the reading in Mark 14:1-10, I remembered studying this passage in Bib. Interp. a few weeks ago. It's the passage where a woman came in with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, and broke the jar and poured it on Jesus' head. When we studied it, I personally never decided how many stories it was throughout the gospels. This story has never intrigued me as much as trying to figure out how many stories it really is. Studying this passage a little bit bit deeper was interesting to me. This passage really intrigues me and I am ready to go over it in class and reading this again has inspired me to study more commentaries.

OT Pseudepigrapha-false writings but purposeful

In last class, when we were learning about the OT pseudepigrapha i thought it was interesting how transmission of the OT actually was only beginning a little before the pseudepigrapha. It must have been hard to discern real from the truth. All these ideas were circulating and indoctrinating the people with something that was not the truth. I do believe that these texts though that proclaim a falsehood do serve a purpose. They illustrate the mindset of the people in their expectations for a messiah. If the messiah was expected to be as Jesus was how would things have been different. Would Jesus have been crucified? I can't help but be amazed at the way God uses everything for his purpose, the bad and the good.

Thoughts on the Messianic Expectation

I found the discussion of the Messianic expection and its origins fascinating. I had never really considered that the Jew's view of the messiah had developed over the years from ideas that were not particularly scriptural. Even more than this, I did not consider that the disciples themselves had the same view and most of the Jews. They don't seem quite so dense to me anymore. More and more, this class is making me learn the history behind the things I just accepted with no explanation. I had always assumed that the Jews just thought up their own idea of a Savior, and that Jesus clearly wasn't it. Only now do I realize that the reason for their disbelief goes much deeper. The readings from the OT pseudepigrapha were eyeopening. For some reason, I had this idea that the apocrypha was the "Catholic" part of the Bible. It's amazing that it has taken me untill my fourth semester at Williams for this light to finally begin to come on in my head.

Jesus

It is amazing to me the more and more I read in the Gospel of Mark, how much Jesus cares for the little man. As we talked in class the other day about the blind man in Mark 8:22, it clicked in my head that the Son of God, cares about little eons like myself. The other thing I find interesting about that story is the ignorance of the disciples. I can fully empithize with the disciples, because I am not always at my sharpest. However, I think if I saw a man named Jesus heal a blind man, that means restore his vision. I am pretty sure that I would fully believe in him. However, so many times I tell God that he can't do things and that he needs to leave it to me. (the human) I do not always trust God to take care of things for me. It seems like the disciples that I will proclaim Jesus in my words and in my prayer, but deny His ability in my daily life.

Reading all of the screw-ups of the disciples has actually been convicting to me. Alot of the mistakes that the disciples make, I make everyday. I deny God the room to do things in my life and through my life. Like the disciples I let my human reasoning get the best of me.

Jesus Must Be Having An Idendity Crisis

I had heard for a while now that the disciples weren't always the brightest characters. This is something I did not learn in Sunday School, however. I had always thought of the disciples as the people who knew what Jesus was all about almost as well as Jesus Himself. After really getting into the Gospel of Mark, though, I can see just how little the disciples actually did understand. Even Peter, one of the closest people to Jesus, did not totally get it. It just blows my mind to think that the disciples really didn't understand the messiahship of Jesus until after the Resurrection.
I imagine I would have been in the same boat as the disciples. Unlike the disciples before the Resurrection, I have the privilege of knowing how the story ends.

Mark

I have been reading Matthew recently and i guess i have just noticed a few differances between it and Mark. In my ignorant youth i thought that all the gospels were the same, some just told different stories that the others had failed to mention. but in comparing the two after studying Mark in depth i can feel a difference, in the author's style and intention and miss the trends of Mark. It is encouraging to know i am learning and that this class is helping me see God's word in new and even exciting ways.

Wars, Earthquakes, and Famines OH MY!!

In Mark 13:7-8 Jesus warns about what "things must happen," before the end. Garland put this into a good prospective when he implies that the point Jesus was trying to make was not so much the individual signs we should look for to herald the end, because famine, earthquakes, and wars are constantly happening somewhere. Besides these signal that the end is "still to come" so they are no sign that the end is upon us. Jesus was telling his disciples that chaos and evil will happen, and often, but God knows this and is still in control. I enjoyed the lovely metaphor of "birth pains" and though I have never had a child, I have watched enough movies and meet to many women that have to know that it is a painful and exhausting experience that only gets worse before it gets better. Some women are even willing to endure it more than once, so it must be either against their will or rather rewarding.
Despite what it might seem, these two verses are a comfort for the passage that follows about persecution. God is in control and like a mother in labor, it will hurt real bad and you'll probably scream a lot, but the reward is worth the wile.