Blog Post 11:

4.

The statement that “I am a free man,” is rather contradictory to the essence of the lives of the monks. They do have freedom in the sense that nobody is dictating their every move, however this is a sort of restricted freedom. The lives monks choose to live have a very many rules and guidelines places upon their behaviors and actions. In the film, most of the portrayals of freedom show the freedom of the villagers that live near the monastery. Their freedom is shown, but even more so, their lack their of. While the monks are able to make the decision of if they should stay in the town despite the terrorism occurring, the villagers are said to have no choice in their relocation due to lack of money. While the monks are not supposed to leave due to their agreements when they decided to become monks, they could leave if they wanted to. The film portrays religion in an interesting way too. While Christianity is shown as the main religion and seemingly the religion that the movie supports, Islam is also shown. In today’s world, many people look down upon Islam because they just correlate the religion to those people of the religion who are terrorists. While the terrorists in the film are Islamic, they also point out that there are Islamic people who are good and are also victimized by the same terrorists. This also ties in to the displays of violence in the film. The violence in the film is done by the terrorists and is not shown as a good thing. Nobody in the film supports this violence and the main characters fight to find a way to balance this violence and their freedom. 

Blog Post 10:

3.

If I was a bishop without a strongly formed opinion on whether Jesus was fully human, fully divine, or somewhere in between, I would want some specific questions answered and verified before I made my final decision. Aside from general support of each side, I would want to know the specific definitions of what it means to be divine and what it means to be human. I believe this definition is where the root of the debate lies—does being divine mean one can have no human-like qualities? Does being human mean one can have no divine qualities? Does the fact that God created Jesus make him any less divine than God himself? Does full divinity only come from existing before all ages?

 

I would have found arguments dealing with the distinction between divine and human for other subjects to be most compelling. If someone explained where exactly other “divine” figures were on the spectrum of divine and human, that would help me to place the standing of Jesus. Where do saints and priests and bishops fall? Furthermore, arguments confirming or questioning Alexander’s key points of “being” versus “entity” would help me decide which side is most justified in its argument. What does it mean to “be”? What does it mean to be an “entity?” Once these clarification questions have been answered, I feel it would be much easier to make up my mind on which side is most correct.

Blog Post 9:

1.

In the martyrdom of Perpetua and Felicitas, their lives before their death resemble Jesus’s passion in many ways. In this account of martyrdom, both women know that they are to die ahead of time and they tell others of this fact beforehand. They are able to tell specifics of their deaths before they occur due to visions that Perpetua had leading up to the deaths of the martyrs. This is like Jesus because he told others, and especially his disciples at the Last Supper, about his death. He knew specific details such as Judas’s betrayal and Peter’s denial. The women knew they going to greatly suffer for their deaths (4, paragraph 8), but that their real battle would be against the devil (10, paragraph 8).  The martyrs here see their impending death as the path to heaven, for in one of Perpetua’s visions, she saw “a ladder of tremendous height…reaching all the way to the heavens,” (4, paragraph 3). They were both calm in the situation for they realized that just like Jesus, they needed to die to better society. It was in their deaths that some other people stated to believe; not only did their deaths save themselves, but it also helped convert other people to Christianity, which therefore saved the others too. Before Felicitas’s death, she delivers her child one month early, which allows her to die alongside her fellow martyrs rather than with common criminals. This allows her to enter the Kingdom of God with her compatriots rather than alone. This “transformation” was essential to characterizing the holiness of their deaths. 

Blog Post 8:

1. The leadership roles as taken from the Didache seem to be the roles of prophets, bishops, deacons, and priests. Those in the roles of either a bishop or a deacon are considered in a place of honor amongst humans. While prophets do play a large role in the church at the time, becoming a recognized prophet was tough work because so many false prophets had surfaced. This dilemma was a major issue facing the church at this time. In an attempt to quiet the talk of false prophets and simply to control the number of false prophesies, the church publicized a list of things to check for in a man claiming to be a prophet. Some of these guidelines for dealing with prophets and false prophets are simply courtesy like acting kindly with them. However, lines are drawn for detecting a false prophet, too, such as if they ask for things for themselves other than the necessities or if they attempt to stay at one’s house for longer then three days.

 

In reality these strategies were likely only marginally effective because anyone claiming to be a prophet could read the Didache and avoid the telltale characteristics of false prophet. While this change would lead such false prophets to not make a reliable income of money or goods, it would not deter all of them into a different occupation. To promote more honest and overall disciplined church members, it is likely that the Church would need to recall to the members the laws of God and remind the members exactly what they claim to believe in so as to ensure they act as God willed them to.

Blog Post 7:

The main aspect of the resurrection story that is missing in Mark’s shorter narrative is the fact that Mary Magdalene and Mary mother of  James go to tell others what they have discovered. When the shorter narrative ends with “they said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid,” it makes the two Mary’s seem almost less devoted to Jesus for they were portrayed as too scared to share the news of Jesus’s resurrection to his disciples. When verses 9-20 are also taken out of Mark’s narrative, there is also the lack of Jesus’s reappearance to other disciples and his affirmation of his own rising from the dead. This part of the narrative is integral to creating a similarity between the different gospels, and more specifically the synoptic gospels. This aspect of the story also relates to the disciples and to the readers the importance of faith for one last time. Even though the disciples had been told by Jesus himself that he would rise from the dead, they did not believe Mary Magdalene when she told them of this news. Later Jesus reprimands them for not believing. This again goes to show the readers why there is an importance in faith and why they should blue vein and follow what Jesus says. 

 

It is plausible that Mark chose the end the account this way because it portrayed all the information from this story that he knew of; but it is likely that this ending was there to give the message of Jesus triumphing over death. He had died, but he had then risen and essentially had “beaten” death. By extending the story, Jesus becomes directly involved in worldly woes rather than the larger troubles he would deal with after his resurrection.

Blog Post 6:

3. The final words uttered by Jesus before his death reflect the message each Gospel author was trying to portray through Jesus. In both Matthew’s and Mark’s account of the story, Jesus’s last words were, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” This shows that Jesus has a personal connection with God. It also shows that Jesus knew he had a mission to make the people holier and by them being willing to kill him, they clearly hadn’t learned their lesson yet. Jesus could have been asking for help from God to guide the people on the right path because Jesus knew that he had no time left to do so (and thus complete his mission). 

Luke’s choice phrase for Jesus to utter just before his death was “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.” This phrase is very different from that of Matthew and Mark’s choice. In Luke’s version, Jesus is easily portrayed as a rejected prophet. These final words, then show Jesus talking with God for the last time from Earth saying he will see God again soon.

 Finally and most differently, John has Jesus say, “It is finished.” This ending makes Jesus seem less attached to his life on Earth, for he knows it is just a transient stage on his way to saving the human race. He knows that when he dies for mankind, others are now able to follow him to heaven after their own deaths. 

Blog Post 5:

4.

The biggest difference that I noticed between these two accounts was the seeming motivation of the host in inviting different people. In Matthew’s account it seems the king just wanted enough people to fill his dining hall as opposed to the host in Luke’s account specifically telling his servant to invite the poor and the less fortunate. Luke’s account seems more civilized and considerate overall. In Matthew’s account there were also many more destructive happenings. The people who refused to attend the wedding banquet killed the king’s servants, so the king sent his army to kill those who had murdered and mistreated his servants.

From my interpretation of Ralph’s definitions of allegory and parable, I believe Matthew’s account is more allegorical and Luke’s account is closer to a parable. Since a parable draws a comparison, Luke’s story compares the host to God and how the rich in life will not be praised by God for they are too concerned with themselves, but the poor and crippled will seize any opportunity they can with God. This relates to the quote that says how the rich will have a harder time getting into heaven than the poor because they have already had glory in life. In Matthew’s account it makes more sense for it to be an allegory because the message that Matthew is trying to send is not a message of death and destruction even though that is a major part of his story. The true message is supposed to be that people should be grateful for what they have, but should also realize that there is more in the world than themselves and their priorities. Since this message is not directly expressed in the passage, this is the deeper implied meaning of the text that accompanies allegories.

Blog Post 4:

1. Jesus does a variety of divine things to show that he is the Messiah. He first is tested by Satan in the wilderness for forty days. He passes this test and is therefore shown to be holier than most because the average person could not have survived that long without succumbing to the evils of the devil. Later, Jesus heals a man with leprosy through his divine power.  He continues to do miracle works such as this for many other people. Jesus heals those who need help and rebukes those who mock the needy. Furthermore, in Mark 10:46-52 Jesus helps blind Bartimaeus receive his sight again. In this situation when he called to Jesus for help, the others surrounding him told him to be quiet.  Jesus also knows what is going on in other places or what will be happening in the near future when other people would typically not be able to know such information. This happens in Mark 11:1-4. Jesus tells his disciples to go into the nearby village and retrieve a colt that would be tied to a fence post along with how to successfully navigate the situation so as to achieve their plan. Everything that Jesus said here was accurate and true. These examples are just a few of the ways that Jesus shows he is Messianic and the Son of God.

Blog Post 3:

(2) The main point of Amos’s message is to show how God is righteous and to portray God as a figure to be feared and revered. Amos makes this point through the repetition of stating the wrongdoings committed by different global areas and the punishment God doles out in return. One such example being, “For the three crimes of the Ammonites, and now four—I will not take it back,” (Amos 1:13). This exemplifies that God is merciful to an extent (for crimes one through three), but is still willing to punish His people when they do not act according to His will.

 

The imagery used by Amos to describe God portrays Him in a very powerful and angry light. In Amos 1:2, it says “The LORD roars from Zion and the raises his voice from Jerusalem…and the summit of Caramel withers.” Then later in Amos 3:15, God says, “I will strike the winter house and the summer house; the houses of ivory shall lie in ruin, and their many rooms shall be no more.” The two preceding quotes show the ferocity of God through His own words. The imagery used to describe God’s people portrays them more as sinners who can be forgiven. In Amos 4:6-12, God tells the Israelites what he has done to bring them back to Him, but each time ends it with “yet you did not return to me.” This shows how the Israelites sinned by casting God aside for other concerns in their lives. Reaching the conclusion of the Book of Amos, in 9:14, God says “I will restore my people Israel,” which shows God’s forgiveness and His ability to love even after one has sinned.

 

The relationship between God and the world s portrayed in this book as one in which the people do not live up to God’s expectations for them, yet he is still their loving father and is willing to forgive them for their offenses laid against Him.

Blog Post 2:

In the movie Moses, the biblical account of God delivering the Ten Commandments to the Israelites is portrayed in a skewed way. The main difference between the two accounts is the Israelites’ attitude shown toward God. In the biblical account they are much more reverent and grateful to God even before he spoke directly to them, for they knew it was by his doing that they escaped slavery. In the movie, after Moses relays God’s first message (Exodus 19:4-8) to the people, one man says, “Did the LORD appear to you Moses?” which blatantly demonstrates his lack of belief in God; however, in the Bible there is no such statement of doubt.  Furthermore, in the biblical account Moses take a second trip up Mount Sinai to report the reaction of the Israelites to the LORD before he knows that God will talk to them in person in three days time. In the movie depiction this entire scene is left out and it seems almost as if Moses made promises to the Israelites before he knew that God planned to talk to them directly.  Additionally, God speaks the Ten Commandments to the Israelites in the Bible, but in the theatrical account, the people speak for God as though he talks to them on an internal level rather than a physically audible one.

Contrarily, some aspects of the movie portrayed the event from the Bible very accurately. For example, the passage listed earlier, Exodus 19:4-8, was delivered word-for-word from the Bible. Additionally, the Ten Commandments were given in the same order as they appear in the Bible. Though this part was not verbatim, it was likely done to shorten the scene in the movie to make the movie as a whole flow better, which is an understandable reason for the discrepancy.

Overall, the version of the story portrayed in the movie did not make a large impact on my interpretation of the event, but this is because I have seen many different renditions of this crucial biblical scene over the years and each time it varies slightly. From reading the passage in the Bible and combining the variety of interpretations I have seen, my understanding of this event is very similar to the account in the Bible.