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.

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!

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.

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!

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.

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.

Gospel Project '07

I have to admit that, going into the project, I was less than thrilled about it. Taking eight hours away from my "me" time was not my idea of good fun. Coming away from it, I am a little ashamed at my hostile feelings toward the seminar. It was absolutely amazing! When I heard the assignment, at first I thought, "No problem," only to realize that I didn't know half as much about the Bible as I thought I did. It was amazing to me how much we all wound up compiling.

The lesson has also taught me to be less critical of my leaders--it's hard work! The hours seemed to race by after dinner (yummy...note the sarcasm). It was amazing to see all the teams pulling together. I was pretty proud at all we wound up compiling, then I opened the Bible the next day. We did a good job, but I was surprised at how much we missed. This seminar really taught me the value of having scripture memorized, of knowing it to the best of our ability. It also taught me a few things about how to work together with my brothers and sisters. I saw two sides of the spectrum: the one trying to be heard, and the one trying to lead. Both can be frustrating, and both can be fulfilling. It's amazing what can be learned at one little seminar!

Examples We Set

Mark is an amazing read, and a difficult read. Many things cause my brow to furrow with concentration and confusion. A passage I read today, however, was quite clear. Mark 9:42 and following begins, "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sn, it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea." These seem like harsh words, but lets think about them. As young adults, we have great influence on youth and children that we come into contact with. Many of them are our students in small groups or Sunday school class. They look up to us. We can mentor them correctly, or lead them astray with our actions. What kind of example are we setting for those who look up to us? What about the way we act causes them to grow apart from God. Jesus says that if we lead one of his children astray, it would be better for us to have an extremely heavy weight tied around our neck, followed by being thrown into the sea. To put it simply: you ain't comin' back up. There is no air, your tortured lungs cry out, but you are trapped. You drown...you die. I have always been terrified of death by drowning. It's obviously not a quick and easy way to die...but Jesus says something worse is in store for those who lead his children astray....YIKES!
Jesus goes on to instruct us to get rid of whatever is causing us to sin, even if it is a painful separation. His description of where sinners wind up is vivid, "Where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched." Verse 49, however, bewilders me...any ideas?

"The Word of God Was Like Little Bitty Seeds"

Do you remember that song from children's church? Even with the interpretation of that parable being provided in Mark, I still struggle with understanding what it means, but I at least have the basics. For some reason, until Dr. Foster mentioned it in class, I assumed those listening knew what the parables of Jesus meant. I don't know why I thought that, but I did. If Jesus pretty much called the disciples clueless, then I'm in the same boat with them. I listened intently as Dr. Foster read the parable, struggling to block the meaning I know it to have out of my mind. I found it impossible to understand. I get the meaning because of the interpretations provided, not because I am a holy genius. I wonder how those listening came to understand and believe. Was it Jesus' authority, his works, the work of the Spirit? This revelation has provoked my decision to read all the gospels during my quiet times and to read them like it is my first time to read them...not knowing what will happen next, wowed by Christ's power, and thirsty to find out what will happen. I am putting myself in the disciples' place and am finding myself amazed by the things I find!
--Melanie

Conflict over fasting...

I'd never fully understood Jesus' reply to the questions about fasting in Mark 2:18-22. The lightbulb came on during class on Monday. I had no idea that one was not supposed to fast on the Sabbath or at a wedding feast. Jesus often refers to himself as the bridegroom. As was pointed out in class, why would one want to fast when the bridegroom was actually present. I am still struggling to process all of the information. Much of it remains jumbled in my head. The part about the wineskins and the patches, even after going over it in class is so confusing. I often wonder why Jesus spoke in what seems like riddles...did the disciples understand these statements better. Here is all I can get out of it without wrinkling my brow in great confusion: the presence of the bridegroom calls for celebration, but the bridegroom will leave, and then the fasting will begin again.. If anyone remembers any insight about this passage that I have forgotten, please explain... The first half of the passage makes sense, the second makes my mind go in circles. I know the patches dialogue is discussing the new being incompatible with the old, but I simply cannot wrap my mind around what it means.

Jesus the Lion

This Post has been recoginzed as a POST OF THE WEEK! 1/31/2007 Great Quote! Great Connection!

After finishing Burridge's chapter on Mark, I came to appreciate the many examples the writer used to prove his point. The best of these examples, other than the ones from the Bible, came from the The Chronicles of Narnia. By using Lewis's work, it made his point so much easier to understand. Mark's just is powerful, almost fierce. I am incredibly appreciative of the reminder that my Jesus is no pansy God, He is powerful and mighty. Burridge ended his chapter with my favorite quote from The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe: "'Then he isn't safe,' said Lucy. 'Safe?' said Mr. Beaver, 'Who said anything about safe? Course he isn't safe. But he's good. He's the King, I tell you.'" I was excited at the reminder that Jesus isn't safe, isn't "tame", but he is good!

--Melanie

A Breath of Fresh Air

Normally, I find little instant gratification from reading a textbook, but Garland's commentary on Mark has been amazing! Reading it alongside the book of Mark is like reading the book of Mark for the very first time. I have even found the occasional use for the Greek I have been learning! I just want to share some of the little things from Garland's commentaries that have impressed me--some were WOW moments. I found that Mark is concerned with details that matter. He has his point, and he makes it. Page 30 contains an awesome testimony to the power of Christ, "When he speaks, the winds cease, demons flee, and the dead rise!" Garland's discussion of baptism was amazing. I'd often wondered about the point of water baptism, both then and now. For these Jews to come and be baptized was for them to say they were completely unclean. There was no self-righteous here... They needed to be cleansed...all of them. John the Baptist was basically saying that Israel was defiled. What a powerful words preceding the ministry of Christ! They speak volumes to me about Israel's need for a savior--about why God came down to us as Christ. Another point that Garland makes that wowed me refers again to Christ's baptism. The heavens were TORN open..not smoothly, or easily. Whether Garland's point is significant or not, the fact that the very heavens were ripped apart at the baptism of Jesus is fascinating! I could go on and on about the new things Garland brought to light. I don't know if he's 100% correct all the time nor do I understand everything he says, but the point is that for the first time in a while, I am excited about reading the scriptures, they are new and fresh, and I want to learn more about the powerful God that I serve!

Melanie Swaty

Sources vs. Personal Experience...some difficult reading

After reading the assignment involving Burridge's book, I was intrigued, and critical. I've gotten to where I overanalze things a tad too much. I'd never really thought of the fact that the gospel writers might have had a source, or that Mark was the first of such gospels. One thing, however, bothers me. Matthew and John were disciples...so why would they need to follow oral tradition, as Burridge discusses. John, especially, walked closely with Jesus. I'd always assumed that John had written his personal experiences with Jesus. Now I find myself reading that he used oral tradition to write his gospel. For example, when referring to the overlapping with other gospels, Burridge writes, "Any overlap is best explained by oral traditions coming to the evangelist independently" Could it not be considered that John knew these stories because he was THERE? (see page 12-13) Even concerning the other gospels, I had the assumption that the writer had spoken with those who were there and had written their first-hand account (or would that also be considered oral tradition?). Overall, the reading was fascinating, I'm just asking the questions that come to mind.

Melanie Swaty