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.