Assignment #12 Prompt #3

The Feeding of the Five Thousand seems to describe I guess a festive or rather communal meal with the five thousand people divided up into groups of about 50. There is not the typical structure of a ritual meal because the meal elements come from just five loaves of bread and two fish. The actions taken in relation to these elements are to divide them up among all of the five thousand and then there is still some left over. Luke describes this saying, “Then taking the five loaves and the two fish, and looking up to heaven, he sais the blessing over them, and gave them to the disciples to set before the crowd.” (Luke 9:16)

The Last Supper was more of an ordinary meal that definitely had the structure of the ritual meal. I suppose it could be called festive as well because it was Passover. According to Luke, there is a cup and bread specifically mentioned and with the cup we can assume that there was wine also. So Jesus took the cup and gave thanks before sharing it and took the bread, said the blessing, and broke it and gave it to the disciples in memory of Him.

The Appearance on the Road to Emmaus ends with a meal with more of a typical structure of an ordinary meal as Jesus, “…took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them.” (Luke 24:30) The bread element is mentioned specifically but no wine is mentioned or any cups. The action in relation to the bread as mentioned before was that Jesus took it and broke it and blessed it.

I think that the Gospel writers were trying to put across the point that Jesus was spreading his message and legacy in various ways that would be easiest for those groups of people to remember. Also, Jesus performed actions that would be beneficial for those he was with to learn something at the time as well. The Feeding of the Five Thousand allowed all to be satisfied while also seeing his glory. The Last Supper allowed Jesus to give his disciples one last message of encouragement. The Appearance on the Road to Emmaus allowed him to solidify those people’s faiths and help them want to spread His message. And today we can remember all of these things when we partake in the Eucharist. 

Assignment #11 Prompt #1

These lines of Psalm 82 characterize the content of the film Of Gods and Men quite well as they embody the message and lives of the monks being viewed. By being monks, and devoted to God in that vocation, they were people “of the Most High”. They lived simple lives only for God and prayed and were accepting of all but, they were still men. They too had to fear death but they had to choose whether they should fear God more. This was their struggle, as they had to decide whether to flee or face the gunmen if they came again.

I think that God was evident in the film not just through the songs and prayers and clear church and religious setting, but in the monks and in their followers and actions as well. Every time they committed an act of love or gave advice or searched their own souls, especially when the gunmen willingly left on Christmas, God was present through all of that. He gave them strength while also helping them to come to terms with being potential martyrs. 

The film is about men and their different religions and “gods” in the way that everyone is trying to come to terms with life and follow the orders they think are right. The monks clearly are following a moral God with values in the Koran and the gunmen are conflicted following a different and immoral path. The helpers and followers of the monks show the aspect of men getting help from people “of the Most High” to keep their own faith in God. 

Assignment #10 Prompt #1

I am on the side of looking at the case in favor of Alexander and Athanasius’ Position. As was stated in the prompt, this is the side that really wins but I think it is important to look at why. The end of the excerpts from Orations Against the Arians says it best when it states, “Again the Father is in the Son, while giving his essence to the Son, like the essence of the sun is passed on to its rays, as the mind is present in a word… therefore the one who contemplates the Son contemplates also the essence of the Father and is able to understand that the Father in in the Son.” (3.3-3.4)

This point clearly states the distinction, or rather the coherence, of Jesus and the Father. They are one in the same because they are of the same essence. Jesus reiterates this point several times in scripture especially in the Gospel of John. From the very beginning John recognizes that essence is what brings together God and extensions of his being as it says,  “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (John 1:1)

Along with those passages, I think that there are stronger counterpoints stated in these excerpts and while they may seems to make sense while reading them, if one stops to think about what we are supposed to know about God from scripture, claims like, “For what can they say from it, but that ‘God was not always a Father, but became so afterwards; the Son was not always, for He was not before His generation; He is not from the Father, but He, as others, has come into subsistence out of nothing; He is not proper to the Father’s essence, for He is a creature and work?’ (1.9) seem ridiculous.

I guess for me, all of these points and defenses really come back to the same thing and argue the same point. Any quote or scripture reference I would pull would be further to show the point that Jesus and the Father are one and the same and they would all be strong arguments.

Assignment #9 Prompt #1

Looking at the account of martyrdom of Polycarp and how it imitates Christ’s Passion it is evident in the text that this story truly reflects the Passion. Examples from the text to support this claim start at the beginning of the account by saying, “For he waited to be betrayed, just as the Lord did, in order that we too might be imitators of him… For it is the mark of true and steadfast love to desire not only that oneself be saved, but all the brothers as well.” (P1) He recognized that what was coming to him needed to happen for the welfare of others. There was also a meal leading up to the event, and he was seated on a donkey and brought into the city.

Polycarp views his impending death with anticipation and without concern as Paragraph 5 says; “Now the most admirable Polycarp, when he first heard the news, was not disturbed.” Even coming to the realization that he needed to be burned alive did not cause too much concern. He refused to leave after several chances and his only justification was, “May God’s will be done.” (P7)

The example set by the martyr of courage, calm, and even joy in the face of death has encouraged and sustained other Christians facing potential martyrdom by helping them see the error of their ways partly by feeling a little guilty. Paragraph7 says, “…those who heard him were amazed, and many regretted that they had come after such a godly man.”

The transformations that occur in and through Polycarp’s death come as Paragraph 12 describes his face being filled with grace and Paragraph 15 describes the physical changes as the fire blazed, it took the shape of an arch and surrounded the martyr shining like bread baking and people could smell something like incense. Paragraph 16 talks of the lawless men that wanted to then stab Polycarp when he would not burn but when blood spilled out “the whole crowd was amazed that there should be so great a difference between the unbelievers and the elect.”

Assignment #8 Prompt #1

As found in the Didache, the leadership of the early church seems pretty cut and dry in terms of what they were willing to tolerate.  This is easy to see just in the first few lines that say, “Now, you should welcome anyone who comes your way and teaches you all we have been saying. But if the teacher proves himself a renegade…pay no attention to him.” So, I got the impression anyway that it was a sort of ‘my way or the highway’ scenario. They also do not seem too willing to help guide people on their path to goodness if they go astray as it says, “…do not reprove each other angrily, but quietly, as you find it in the gospel. Moreover, if anyone has wronged his neighbor, nobody must speak to him and he must not hear a word from you, until he repents.”

The problems this particular church were having have to do with false prophets or as it states in the introduction, “wandering…and of dubious moral character.” The characteristics that define a prophet are a little too specific though as in “If he stays three days, he is a false prophet.”

It deals with them by putting out the signs and telling people how to identify a false prophet but mainly people should recognize, “Everyone who comes to you in the name of the Lord must be welcomed. Afterward, when you have tested him, you will find out about him, for you have insight into right and wrong.” So, it is good that it takes the innocent until proven guilty approach but prophets are still people and it seems like they might slip up on one of these specific rules from time to time like accepting the wrong amount of food.

In real life I don’t know how effective these strategies would have been because people, at least today, have a hard time just looking the other way or ignoring problems especially when it comes to church teaching. I think that it would be hard to get everyone to abide by just keeping quite until that other person figures out what they did wrong. Honestly I don’t know what kinds of changes would be necessary other than a more open and caring relationship all the way around rather than just saying, “…do everything just as you find it in the gospel of out Lord.”

Assignment #7 Prompt #3

In Luke’s story about the encounter between the risen Jesus and two disciples on the road to Emmaus, the disciples experience a sensation within as it is said, “They said to each other, ‘Didn’t our hearts burn within us as he talked with us on the road and explained the Scriptures to us?’” (Luke 24:32) They come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah rejected by his own people but vindicated by God as Jesus took the bread and blessed it. After he broke it and gave it to them, “Suddenly, their eyes were opened, and they recognized him.” (Luke 24:31)

They might have known too, or at lest had a feeling, when Jesus sort of scolds them for not believing what the prophets wrote, as Jesus explains how it was all “…clearly predicted that the Messiah would have to suffer all of these things before entering his glory?” (Luke 24:26)

Some aspects of this encounter that early followers of Jesus might incorporate into their regular gatherings in His memory would be recounting the Scriptures themselves so as not to forget or doubt the message of the prophets again. Also, I think it is fairly clear that they would incorporate the breaking of the bread as it has been used as a sign several times already, and especially this time it brought about great revelation as to the identity of their Savior. Breaking the bread would also be a great reminder to not forget their faith again.

Assignment #6 Prompt #3

To put it plainly, I will start with listing what Jesus says from each Gospel in his “last words” from the cross before he dies.

(Matthew 27:46,50) “And about three o’clock Jesus cried out in a loud voice…’My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? …Jesus cried out again in a loud voice, and gave up his spirit.”

(Mark 15:34,37)”And at three o’clock Jesus cried out in a loud voice… ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’…Jesus gave a loud cry and breathed his last.”

(Luke 23:46) “Jesus cried out in a loud voice, ‘Father, into your hands I commend my spirit’; and when he had said this he breathed his last.”

(John 19:28,30) “After this, aware that everything was now finished, in order that the scripture might be fulfilled, Jesus said, ‘I thirst.’ …When Jesus had taken the wine, he said, ‘It is finished.’ And bowing his head, he handed over the spirit.”

 

All of these statements seem to have the same message or theme really but Matthew and Mark both recognize Jesus asking why this is happening to Him and Luke and John both acknowledge giving himself over to the spirit. These statements reveal Jesus’ identity and mission according to how the authors of the Gospels understand it.

Matthew seems to view Jesus by really recognizing his human traits by including the fact that He is asking why this is happening to him. Saying He gave up his spirit implies though that Jesus still had main control over himself and fulfilling his fate that he had to “give up” his spirit. I guess the same could be said for Mark expect for the fact that it just says, “…he breathed his last” (Mark 15:37) implying that human life was taken from him. Luke really recognizes the fact that Jesus is there to do God’s work as he clearly gives himself up to God and allows Himself to be taken up. John shares a similar message as he emphasizes Jesus wanting to fulfill the scripture. He does not allow Himself to succumb to His human needs until He is certain that God’s will, will be done. In John, Jesus is also made to clearly hand over his spirit.

Assignment #5 Prompt #4

Comparing Matthew’s account of the wedding feast to Luke’s version, one can see that the stories are fundamentally the same and carry the same message. However, the way in which they are told makes them different and points to them being aimed at different audiences.

Matthew starts off with saying; “Jesus again in reply spoke to them in parables…” (Matthew 22:1) This states point blank that the following story will be a parable. Luke begins with, “He replied to him…” (Luke 14:16) and then goes on to tell the story, but we know it is a parable because of the paragraph heading. Matthew does not say why the guests refused to come specifically and the king takes actual vengeance upon those dishonorable guests, especially those that harmed his servants. Luke states directly why the guests refused and makes no note of servants being murdered. Also, Matthew only says for the servants to, “Go out, therefore, into the main roads and invite to the feast whomever you find.” (Matthew 22:9) Luke makes a point to say, “Go out quickly into the streets and alleys of the town and bring in here the poor and the crippled, the blind and the lame.” (Luke 14:21) So, both of the gospels chose to be detailed and specific on different elements of the story to speak to their respective gospel audiences. 

These two stories function in terms of Ralph’s categories of parable and allegory because Ralph states, “In making the words applicable to a contemporary audience, the early church treated the parable as though it were an allegory.” (Ralph 213) This parable could be used to directly criticize whomever Jesus was talking to at the time, or it could be applied to a modern audience and adapted for a still relevant message. 

Assignment #4 Prompt #2

There is evidence of the “messianic secret” all through the text of Mark’s gospel. It begins though, after Jesus cures a demoniac, by saying “His fame spread everywhere throughout the whole region of Galilee.” (Mark 1:28) From that point on, it seems that Jesus instructs all of the people he heals and all of the witnesses to not speak of the healing itself or how he did it. Mark describes these demands as he states after the Woman with a Hemorrhage, “He gave strict orders that no one should know this and said that she should be given something to eat.” (Mark 5:43) Other evidence is found pretty much after every miracle or healing but stops being mentioned so much when we get into the actual crucifixion.

It is curious when Jesus tires of requests for a sign as he says, “Amen, I say to you, no sign will be given to this generation.” (Mark 8:12) Perhaps Jesus is waiting for people to make the connection themselves and come to faith of their own accord. He may not want to have to convince them just by rewarding them; they should see reward comes only through personal faith.

I have to admit this concept seemed a little strange to me while reading and I never really realized before how adamant Jesus was about keeping his true identity a secret. Reading the gospel in one sitting, seeing this idea repeated time and again, really solidified the message though. I think it helps explain when Jesus says to the disciples, “The mystery of the kingdom of God has been granted to you. But to those outside everything comes in parables, so that ‘they may look and see but not perceive…’” (Mark 4:11-12) I suppose Jesus is simply trying to keep the mystery and fear of God alive while demonstrating to the people that there is still so much that they will not understand but they should just follow God and they will be blessed.

Assignment #3 Prompt #1

Based on the readings of Amos and Herschel on prophets, the manner of man that the prophet is would be that which people today may think is ridiculous and overreacting. I feel inclined to say this because Herschel points out, “Their breathless impatience with injustice may strike us as hysteria,” and “They speak and act as is the sky were about to collapse because Israel has become unfaithful to God.” (Herschel 4) In the article it is repeatedly articulated that the prophets basically go crazy with the burden of their work. They did not choose to be in the position that they are in and sometimes question the things they are made to do. Herschel also says, “The prophet is an iconoclast, challenging the apparently holy, revered, and awesome.” (Herschel 10)

 

Amos demonstrated the characteristics of a prophet as Herschel describes them, “stern, sour, stinging.” (Herschel 12) This is shown all through Amos starting with the fact that after the section entitled “Threefold Summons to Hear the Word of the Lord” is “Three Woes”. These woes declare ill will to seemingly all people who go against God. People may also think the prophets to be a bit righteous as they can claim, “This is what the Lord God showed me.” (Amos 7:1) It is said too though, “It would be wrong to maintain that the prophet is a person who plays the role of ‘the third party,’ offering his good offices to bring about reconciliation. His view is oblique.” (Herschel 24) Herschel points out that in Amos, “It must have sounded like treason when Amos called upon the enemies of Israel to witness the wickedness of Samaria,” and he then goes on to quote Amos 3:9. (Herschel 20)

 

Honestly, I am not sure if there are still prophets in the world today. As mentioned earlier, I think it would be hard for anyone to take a prophet seriously in the past, let alone today, because if they can say, “this is what God showed me”, I would wonder what really gave them the authority to say think that they really were chosen to speak by and for God. I think our world is too cynical really to believe that there could be prophets because we would all just assume it was a passionate person who had a very realistic dream and they were not really correct.