In my opinion, the nature of God, Christ, and his (their) relationship with humanity is a little clouded by our perception of God. Many people imagine God as a solid being, a divine body in the form of man. This probably comes from when Genesis says He created us in His own image. However, in my opinion, God is more of an ethereal presence. For lack of a better analogy, it is easy to imagine Him as the Force from Star Wars. He is everywhere and in everything. The mystery of Christology and the Trinity make a lot more sense when God is thought about in this sense. God does not necessarily divide himself into separate persons, as he is all powerful. In this sense, he is able to take multiple forms at the same time without dividing Himself. I think my interpretation is similar to that of Irenaeus of Lyon. The concept of Jesus being the Logos, or Word of God, is a definitive way to put this into perspective. It is easy to try to fall into the trap of trying to define the mystery that is God. When you think about it on a grand scale, humans are relatively simple creatures, especially compared to God. In my opinion, some things are meant to remain slightly ambiguous with only a very general understanding.
Post #12
The main themes in “Christology” mostly deal with the incarnation of Christ. According to the New Testament, Jesus was God in the form of man. This created some issues as it is a difficult doctrine to interpret. One of the core beliefs of Christianity, and for that matter Judaism as well, is that there is one and only one God. When the concept of God made man is introduced, many can come close to interpreting this as there being two Gods. The difficulty arises when one considers that the divine world and the mortal world are different things. Some even believed that as it seems impossible for a divine being to have flesh, a worldly form which is sort of below par to the greatness of God. They argue that Jesus was not actually made flesh, but moreover had the image of it, like a sort of phantom.
Tertullian of Carthage has a view that combats these questions. Tertullian believes in the “Logos doctrine”, in which the Logos, or Word of God, is expressed through Jesus. Tertullian uses images such as “a fountain and the stream which issues from it” or “light and its radiance” to express that these two divine entities are not separate, but one whole entity being expressed in different ways.
Post #11
The Book of Revelations begins with a group of letters to the seven Churches of Asia. While these letters are written by John, it is intended to be interpreted that Jesus Himself is speaking to these people. The second letter, the letter to Smyrna, is directed at a Church stricken with poverty and persecution. When it is said that, “I know your hardships and your poverty, as — though you are rich — the slander of the people who falsely claim to be Jews but are really the members of the synagogue of Satan.”, there are a few things going on. First of all, the author John, and therefore Jesus as John is His vessel, is acknowledging that Smyrna is having a hard time. What they lack in material wealth, they make up for in spiritual wealth and perseverance. The “synagogue of Satan” that is mentioned is the Romans and Jews responsible for the persecution. It is believed that this is to be interpreted as Satan influencing the Romans and “false Jews”. The letter goes on to say that the devil will send some of the people to prison, but that this is a test. It specifies that they will be in prison for “ten days”, meaning a short period of time. He warns that even if they have to die, they should stay faithful. Basically, this letter is a warning. Jesus is telling the people of Smyrna that they will be persecuted and tested, yet they must stay strong and have faith.
Post #10
I think Paul chose to turn to the example of Abraham in Romans 4 because he was the original follower of God. If you are going to discuss how to be faithful, why not start at the beginning. I also think that Paul believed Abraham was an good example of someone who exhibited faith. The main point Paul is trying to make is that being circumcised is not enough to be a good follower of God. Paul was less concerned about the circumcision itself, and more about the distinction between truly follow God and just considering yourself a follower of God. The reason Abraham works as a good example is that, although God made the pact with him that resulted in the Jews all being circumcised, Abraham was still faithful and served God prior to this. Paul is trying to say that the act of circumcision itself does not guarantee a spot in heaven or that one is being a good servant of God. One must follow role models such as Abraham, having faith at all times, in order to be an ideal servant of God. In my opinion, this lesson is particularly aimed at Gentiles who want to convert. Paul makes it clear that the fact they are uncircumcised should not be a deterrent and that they too can be good in God’s eyes.
Post #9
The Gospel of John is typically considered to be far different from the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke). One major and very apparent difference is the absence of much of Jesus’s ministry in Galilee. For example, John tells a story of a conversation Jesus had at a well with a woman in which he basically told her that those who follow God will want for nothing in life. The significance of this story is that the woman was a Samaritan, and Jesus was a Jew. Jews did not typically interact with Samaritans, as they were seen on a lower level than Jews. The Gospel of Luke, as well as the other Synoptic Gospels, lack this story entirely. Also, the introduction of the Gospel of John is far different than that of the Synoptic Gospels. While the Synoptic Gospels open up with a story, usually of or shortly before Jesus’s birth, the Gospel of John begins with a preface that starts at the very beginning of creation. Another difference is that the Gospel of John includes lengthy conversations with Jesus. One example is the conversation that Jesus has with a man named Nicodemus in John 3. On the other hand, the Synoptic Gospels tend to resort to quick proverbial sayings said by Jesus.
Post #8
I found the section in which Jesus stays back in Nazareth as a twelve year old boy particularly interesting. This story takes place in 2:41-50. In my opinion, this story is full of meaningful things. In line 51, Jesus says that he is in His Father’s House. This is the first time in the gospel of Luke that Jesus has directly claimed to be the Son of God, which is obviously incredibly significant. I think the intended message of this passage was to show that even from a young age, Jesus was very intelligent and understood the ways of God. That being said, I also think that this story could be taken to mean nearly opposite of that. I found it very interesting that Jesus is depicted as a normal, albeit of above average intelligence, boy who was just trying to understand the ways of his father as opposed to an all knowing God. This sort of reminded me of God’s relations with Noah in the Old Testament in which He was almost humanized and had a much closer relationship with mankind. I believe that Luke intended this passage to be taken very literally, as seems to be the case of most of the readings. Luke’s writing seems very factual, as if it were a biographical account of Jesus’s ministry.
Post #7
I found this reading to be very confusing. I had to take a long time reading slowly to understand exactly what was being said. I was pretty disappointed that there is really no conclusion as to the source of the Gospels, as well as the order in which they were written. I found the existence of the Q source very interesting. Honestly, I had assumed that all four Gospels were written shortly after the life of Jesus by various disciples that either experienced first-hand or had heard from those that were present for Jesus’ life. It was somewhat disheartening to hear that much of the Gospels could have been made up, rather than recountings of His life with some exaggeration. Particularly, I found the existence of other gospels very interesting. The fact that there was possibly once a Gospel of Peter, Gospel of Thomas, and Secret Gospel of Mark, is incredibly intriguing. I found all of the different solutions as to which Gospel was written first, and which drew from which, incredibly hard to follow. The fact that there is overlap in all of them is interesting. Particularly, if they were written separately, the existence of an overlap solidifies the truth behind the stories contained in them. All in all, I concluded from the text that there is really no solution as to which Gospel was created first, and which drew from which.
Post #6
In my opinion, God seemed to treat Job quite unfairly. Job did his best to be a good person and stay faithful to God his entire life, and God took everything away from him just to test him. Job was resolute in his faith for a while, but eventually decided it was too much. God then decides to intervene explaining to Job how great he is. God goes through all of the things he has done and shows Job his omnipotence. I was a little confused by this because I felt like Job had a reasonable understanding of this in the first place, yet God did His best to challenge this. I am sure He has reasons for doing what He did, as God knows all, but it seemed cruel. Job handles the situation well, all things considered. I think there are a few reasons he is convinced by God’s response. First of all, I am sure Job was terrified. God basically told him He can do anything, including speaking about beasts such as the Behemoth and Leviathan. It almost seemed like an implied threat. Second, Job was already faithful in the first place. Convincing someone of something they already believe is a lot easier than if Job was a rampant sinner. Putting myself in Job’s situation, I do not think I would have been able to remain faithful for as long as he did. On the other hand, it would have taken a lot less convincing from God to show me the error of my ways.
Post #5
I think the episode that stands out to me in this series of reading is the battle of David and Goliath. The context is the most important part of this story in my opinion. The current king during this battle is Saul. Saul was chosen by God to be the king of Israel, but eventually disobeyed God and lost His favor. God had chosen a new person to be king, a boy named David that took care of sheep. However, Saul did not relinquish power, and continued to act as king. David even ended up being Saul’s servant. When the Israelites and the Philistines faced off in battle, Goliath came forward as a champion for the Philistines. The Israelites saw how massive of a man Goliath was, and it was clear none of them would be able to defeat him. However, David happened to be there. As God was with him, he was confident he could defeat Goliath. He ends up killing Goliath with a sling and stone. This stood out to me as a clear message of the purpose of these books of the Bible. In summation, the Israelites could accomplish anything through God. Conversely, those who do not follow God’s will are punished accordingly. Saul and his army, having lost favor with God, would not have stood a chance against Goliath. Yet, this small boy could stand up to him, as God was behind David. Basically, the state of Israel was dependent on the people’s’ relationship with God.
Post #4
God gives many laws to Moses and the Israelites. Nearly everyone, regardless of religious affiliation is aware of the Ten Commandments. These are very basic guidelines to live a good and holy life; do not kill, do not steal, do not cheat, honor your father and mother, do not take the Lord’s name in vain, and so on. These all make sense. God intended to make sure they live the best and most righteous lives possible. In addition to this, he added many extra rules. For example: sacrifice first born animals, celebrate three holidays throughout the year, do not harvest the crops every seventh year leaving them for the hungry, and more. Most of these are more aimed at worshipping God and His power. One important rule God set was no worship of false idols, as he is the one and only true God. He made this rule very clear, which is why it was such a big deal to the author when the Israelites broke this rule not long after receiving the list of rules. The Israelites had begun to question where Moses had gone and God’s intentions, so Aaron, who seems to serve as Moses’s right-hand man, melted down all of their gold jewelry and fashioned it into the Golden Calf. The people then worshipped this idol as a God. This infuriated Him, and Moses had to plead forgiveness. Eventually, God agreed, after punishing the perpetrators, to forgive them and remake the Covenant. One thing that confused me was the fact that Aaron created the idol, yet remained unpunished and became a priest. It seems unjust that he would still be able to hold this privilege.
Ryan's Theo Blog 