Blog Post 12, Question 1

The creation of man also brought the creation of sin. The story of the Garden of Eden is one of the most well known stories of the Christian tradition. It is in this first story of man and God that we see Adam and Eve falling short of God’s expectations by eating the forbidden fruit. After this sin, God did not punish or condemn Adam and Eve, rather, they suffered because they no longer had the same capacity to respond to God’s love.

 A definite difference exists between human sin and wrongdoing against God’s people. When the Pharaoh in Egypt would not let the Israelites go, God sent ten plagues upon the people of Egypt. This, however, is not seen as a punishment by God because of the Pharaoh’s sins, rather it is a powerful act by God to protect his people. At times in the scripture God is angered with his people and does punish them, however, not to the same extent as these ten plagues. The fall of Israel and Judah, for example, exemplifies that human sin can distance Christians so far from God that He allows for bad things to happen (always with the hope that the people will return to Him). Even with the fall of Israel and Judah, God did not completely abandon the people. He sent prophets to provide hope of restoration. It seems that punishment only befell God’s people when they had distanced themselves a great deal from God. Regardless, God worked to restore the relationship, however, it was necessary that the people too work to restore the relationship and increase their capacity to respond to God’s unending love.

Understanding human sin is an important aspect of the Christian tradition. Before this course, I had always thought of sin as an act that is punished by God, on earth and in the after life. Looking at the story of Creation I came to realize that the real punishment a Christian suffers due to his/her sin is a distanced relationship from God. God loves his people and offers them salvation. He would not send frogs or gnats upon his people because they have sinned. Those who sin suffer internally and emotionally by distancing themselves from God. I have come to realize that this is why the sacrament of Reconciliation is so important. One does not ask God for forgiveness in order to get into heaven, rather one asks God for forgiveness in order to restore his/her relationship with God and live happily. 

Blog Post 11, Question 3

Though men of God, the decision to remain at the monastery was difficult for the monks. Throughout the film it was clear that the men were struggling with the decision individually. The struggle that the monks are facing is most evident through the character of Christophe. He poses the question, “Why be martyrs? For God? To be heroes? To prove we’re the best?” and is pictured in deep prayer as he decides whether to stay in the monastery, knowing that this will end his life.

 The monks know and understand that they are on a mission and to flee the country would be to abandon their mission. They held a responsibility to the people to stay. They were the “branch” and the people were the “birds.” If the branch were to disappear then the birds would “lose their footing.” Ultimately the men knew that they were responsible to God and to the country. Additionally, the men seem to have a common understanding that they already made this decision when they left their life to be monks. Brother Paul, for example, reflected upon how distant he felt at his mother’s 80^th birthday celebration because he had chosen a different life and could no longer return to the life he once knew – neither could the others.

It seems at first the monks struggle more with the idea of dying for their beliefs. At the table when discussing their options for the first time many men want to leave and save their lives. Whereas when they meet again, all men vote to stay at the monastery. The idea of dying for their beliefs is bittersweet. The scene in which the men drink wine at what is to be their last meal together, each one is shown smiling but with great sadness. This scene encapsulates how the men feel about being killed for their beliefs. They are happy to serve God, but sad to end their life on earth. I feel that the men made the right decision in staying at the monastery. They were responsible to both God and to the people to stay. For them to leave would be a sign of selfishness. Staying at the monastery proved their ultimate faith in and devotion to God. It also stood a sign of hope for others and a message to remain in good faith to God.

 

Blog Post 10, Question 1

Christ’s salvation stands one of the strongest points in favor of Alexander and Athanasius’ view the relationship between God and Jesus Christ as well as whether or not Jesus Christ is fully human, fully divine, or both. Alexander and Athanasius argue that Jesus is both fully human and fully divine. Jesus Christ had to be fully human in order to atone for human sin. Jesus must also be fully divine because he had the power to save us all. If, as proclaimed by Arius, Jesus was a “creature,” he would not have had the power to save mankind. A creature cannot redeem another creation, only a higher being can perform such a redemption. Arius proclaiming that Jesus was a creature challenges one of the core messages of Christianity in saying that the one who came was not truly God.

Additionally, looking toward scripture, strong arguments exist against the idea that Christ was a creature created by God and the belief that, “There was a time when He was not.” John 1:1 states, “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.” Here the Word, or Jesus Christ, is described as a separate being from God (with God), but also as a part of God (was God). Christ was in existence with and as God from the beginning therefore he could not be “created” for he had already existed. When Jesus walks on Earth he is sent as the Word of God in human form to be fully human and fully divine. Taking on human form allows for him to atone for human sin.

Jesus Christ is the Word and the Word is God. Though two distinct beings, they are of the same “substance.” Jesus Christ, Savior of the World was more than the “Son appointed to demonstrate how human beings might approach a divine, incomprehensible essence.” (Arius: Thalia). Others could teach of how mankind was to approach God, however, Jesus stood distinctive from Peter and Paul among others because they were only human, and He was both fully human and fully divine. Jesus cannot be seen as separate from God because it is his oneness with God that allowed him to suffer and die for our sins. It is his oneness with God that stands at the core of the scriptures and the Christian tradition. 

Blog Post 9, Question 1

The martyrdom of Polycarp was very similar to Christ’s passion. Polycarp was arrested, tried and executed for being a Christian. He awaited betrayal similar to Jesus Christ in order for, “not only o[him]self to be saved, but all the brothers as well,” (1,2). This message was important in Christ’s passion. Christ suffered and died in order for all peoples to be saved. The selflessness of Polycarp is also seen when, after hearing the news of his coming arrest, he “prayed for everyone and for the churches throughout the world,” (5,1). Polycarp did not pray that God be with him or protect him. He, similar to Christ knew that he was on a mission from God and to suffer in God’s name would not be to suffer at all. Both Polycarp and Christ show their true and ultimate faith by not once denying their faith even while undergoing “unceasing punishment,” (2,4).

 Polycarp was very calm in approaching his impending death. He stated, “May God’s will be done,” and placed his life in the hands of his faith (7,1). Polycarp did not try to run or escape, up to the point of his impending death he prayed for the world and the church, and all those who had ever come into contact with him (8,1). Polycarp’s submission to God’s will may have encouraged others to sustain their faith because Polycarp’s calmness was grounded in the idea that any punishment on Earth is far more favorable than eternal punishment (11,2).

 Polycarp’s death occurred in accordance with the pattern of the gospel of Christ (19,1). Polycarp’s flesh was made holy as the fire created an arch over his body and he was not  touched by its flames (15,1). When he was ultimately killed with a dagger, his blood put out the flames and the people were amazed. Polycarp was not worshiped, but was loved as a disciple. Though much of his martyrdom mirrored that of the Gospel and that of the Lord, only Jesus Christ, the Son of God was to be worshiped for he suffered for the salvation of all the world (17,3). 

Blog Post 8, Question 3

The church is one, baptized by one body and given to drink of one spirit (1 Cor 12:13). The oneness of the church is still relevant today. A definite sense of unity exists among Christians, not only stemming from the similarities of their religious views, but also because they share in the same body, blood, and spirit. Divisions and differences certainly exist between individual, local churches, however, the church, which represents the body of Christ remains a unifying force. Rausch states, the church today is, “divided, existing as separate denominations no longer in communion with each other,” however, this view is focused more on the local church bodies than the church as the body of Christ. The lack of unity seen in the church is a result of looking at individual churches as versus to the church as the body of Jesus Christ. No individual church is identical to another, but the core beliefs that Christians are taking part in the body and blood of their savior Jesus Christ, denotes great unity.

Unfortunately, today, there exist deep lines of division in the Church as one body because the unimportant matters such as worship styles are used to create divisions within the church. These matters should not create grounds for disunity so long as they do not go against the scripture in any serious manner. Many individuals today, however, become too narrow-minded and see any small difference between the churches to be a cause of disunity. The unity of the church is definitely still a concern in today’s age and steps are being taken to bring back unity in the church. Many more churches now co-exist on a level of mutual respect and cooperation, as opposed to the hostility that existed at the start of the twentieth century (Rausch, 131). Though it may be difficult to regain unity that was lost, it is still possible. The scriptures, the saving work of God, and the Holy Spirit stand as powerful forces that individuals can rely on to recreate unity that was lost.

It is undoubtedly difficult to see unity, which is an abstract idea, before differences, which are often more clearly and outwardly present (Rausch, 130). In many cases, it is easier to see that which separates us, as versus to that which unites us. In the church especially, individuals become passionate about their own opinions and worship styles and therefore see those who are different as being wrong. Right and wrong should not come down to differences of opinion in the church; rather it should be found in scripture. Christians today need to look to God, scripture, and Spirit in order to be more fully united.

Blog Post 7, Question 1

 

The resurrection of Jesus Christ is a key element of the Catholic faith.  The four gospels’ accounts of the resurrection differ mainly in detail; the core aspects of the story remain congruent. In each account an empty tomb is discovered where Jesus’ body should supposedly be, Jesus appears to those who love him, and Jesus asks that they spread the good news to the people. In the Gospel according to John, Mary Magdalene first sees that the stone has been removed from the tomb. The idea of the stone being removed from the tomb is important. The stone was not removed in order for Jesus to get out of the tomb; the removal of the stone is a clear, physical sign that Jesus is no longer inside. In John’s gospel, Mary runs to find Simon Peter and the other disciple; when inside the tomb, the other disciple “saw and believed,” (John, 20:8). However, still, the disciples did not understand that Jesus had to rise from the dead.

 In John’s gospel, Jesus performs many signs to prove his presence. John’s message is clearly stated when Jesus says, “Because you have seem me you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” Throughout the story of Jesus’ resurrection it seems as though the disciples need proof of Jesus’ existence before them. Thomas would not believe unless he saw the nail marks in Jesus’ hands and it was only when the other disciple went into the empty tomb that he said he believed. Today we cannot see, we can only read and believe. John’s account motivates readers to believe from Jesus’ statement, which recognizes that to believe in what we cannot see is difficult, but a blessed act of faith. The other gospel accounts do not include this statement from Jesus, John’s gospel creates a bridge with this statement to readers today who may have difficulty as the disciples did in believing in what they can not see.

 John depicts Jesus as a glorious savior. His story of Jesus’ resurrection continues to present Jesus in this way. When Jesus rises he continues to perform miracles, such as the Miraculous Catching of the Fish. Additionally, when Jesus appears to Mary and his disciples they exclaim, “Teacher!” (John, 20:16) or “My Lord and My God,!” (John, 20:28). Jesus’ encounters on earth, when he has risen, glorify him as the savior of the world.  

Blog Post 6, Question 2

Mark and John portray Jesus in a very different manner. Mark portrays Jesus as the Messiah who came to suffer and die on Earth. John portrays Jesus as a glorious savior. Jesus’ crucifixion is a historical event, however it is the details of the event that serve to portray Jesus differently. Through the words of Mark, the event portrays Jesus as a man forced to endure many sufferings, whereas the words of John glorify Jesus in his will to die for our sins.

One key difference between the Mark and John’s portrayal of Jesus’ crucifixion is the walk to Golgotha. In Mark’s gospel the soldiers brought Jesus to the place of Golgotha (15:22), whereas in John’s gospel, Jesus carried the cross himself and he went out to Golgotha (with the soldiers).  This somewhat subtle difference between the two Gospels gives light to exactly how the two authors want Jesus to be portrayed. Mark portrays Jesus as walking to Golgotha against his will and suffering all the while through, while John portrays Jesus as willfully taking the cross and walking to Golgotha to fulfill his mission on earth. 

Mark’s idea that Jesus was the Messiah who came to earth in order to suffer is exemplified in his telling of this event. Mark includes much detail to the suffering Jesus endured before his crucifixion as the soldiers, “kept striking his head with a read and spitting on him.” (15:19). Throughout his telling of the event, Jesus undeservingly suffers and endures strange punishment from the soldiers such as being dressed in a purple cloak and then stripped of it and returning to his own clothing. When Jesus is suffering on the cross seemingly all those around him are ridiculing and insulting him. This is contrasted greatly in the Gospel of John. John does not describe any insults or harshness directed toward Jesus. There is some debate over the inscription of his charge, however nothing severe is said in regards to Jesus. John also mentions Jesus’ mother, his Aunt Mary, and Mary of Magdala standing near by when Jesus was crucified, whereas in Mark they are mentioned when Jesus has already been laid. In the Gospel of Mark when Jesus died on the cross he was surrounded by individuals who despised him and wanted to see him die. Contrastingly in John, he is surrounded by those who love him and he is able to speak to his mother before he dies. Though both stories include the same basic points, the details that surround Jesus’ crucifixion are most important in how the reader comes to understand Jesus Christ.

Blog Post 5, Question 3

Luke’s gospel is written with a universal appeal that extends beyond the Jewish covenant. The Gospel according to Luke is written with the universal theme that salvation applies to all. The inclusivity of this theme appeals to the Gentiles and those on the margins of mainstream society. 

Luke is also more inclusive in his wording and phrasing. In his recount of The Last Supper, Jesus states, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you,” (Luke 22:20) Whereas, in the Gospel according to Matthew Jesus is stated saying, “This is my blood of the covenant which will be shed on behalf of many…” (Matthew 26:28). The idea of the “new covenant” appeals strongly to the Gentiles and emphasizes Luke’s central theme that salvation is for all. In comparing these two lines from Matthew and Luke it is clear that the intended audience and purpose of the Gospels is different.  According to Matthew, Jesus states that his blood is of the covenant (implications of that which is old/customary), whereas, according Luke the covenant is of his blood (implications of a new covenant for all peoples). Luke’s recount of Jesus’ statement implies that Jesus has come to be a savior to all, to “rewrite” the covenant to include all those in good faith.

In the eyes of the Pharisees, Jesus does not always follow the Jewish laws. He performed miracles on the Sabbath and ate with tax collectors and sinners (Luke 5:30). Jesus’ acting against these laws draws light to the lack of grounds that stand behind them. Jesus states, “Those who are healthy do not need a physician, but the sick do,” (Luke 5:31). Similarly Jesus proclaims, “There will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous people who have no need of repentance,” (Luke 15:7). These proclamations serve as a call to welcome those on the margins of mainstream society into faith. Jesus calls out to those who were previously pushed away. Luke’s gospel is written to show that Jesus came to serve as savior to all peoples. 

Blog Post 4, Question 1

The Gospel of Mark proclaims the Good News of Jesus as Messiah and Son of God. Jesus is revealed as the Son of God throughout the Gospel. The Baptism of Jesus first reveals his identity, “And a voice came from the heavens, ‘You are my beloved son; with you I am well pleased,’” (Mark, 1:11).  It is, however, through the Mystery of Jesus that his identity begins to unfold. In this section, and following, the Good News is told through a dynamic story (Senior, 388).  Throughout this dynamic story Jesus heals and cures many individuals that were struck with demons and unclean spirits. What is most interesting about these accounts is that Jesus does not cast any sort of blessing or spell on the sick. If the individual has faith then he/she is cured. In the story of the woman with the hemorrhage she merely reached out and touched Jesus’ cloak and was cured because she had faith (Mark, 5:24). Though is ability to cure the sick and afflicted gained him many followers, the stories of these events reveal Jesus as a mystery almost more so than as the Son of God. These healings represented the way of his ministry, but still even the disciples were unable to fully understand the position and the power of Jesus as the Son of God.

 Jesus performed many miracles including walking on water and feeding four thousand men with seven loaves of bread. The disciples were “astounded” by these events and the mystery of Jesus remained. Though Jesus healed those who were believed incurable and performed incredible miracles, he was still not fully understood as the Son of God. Later in the Gospel, Jesus begins to reveal more about the Mystery and what is to come – he will be suffer greatly, be killed, and rise on the third day. The mystery of Jesus Christ is finally revealed when Jesus calls out to God saying, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Mark 15:34). After he cries out to God, he takes his final breath and suffers no longer. After witnessing this account it is proclaimed, “Truly this man was the Son of God,” (Mark 15:39). For much of the Gospel, Jesus remains a mystery. Many believe and have faith in him, however, it is not until his relationship with God is witnessed, it is not until Jesus himself is saved that he is revealed and understood fully as the Son of God.

Blog Assignment #3, Question 1

If it is true that the human race is nothing compared to God (Heschel, 5) than a prophet falls somewhere between the human race and God. A prophet is unlike the rest of mankind. “We and the prophet have no language in common,” (Heschel, 9). A prophet has heard the word of God, he speaks the language of God, a language that we can not understand. That is not to say that we do not understand the words of God a prophet proclaims, rather, we do not understand how deeply the prophet understands the world so we can not fully comprehend the language he uses to describe this world. A prophet looks at the world through a lens that is unbeknown to the common man. He lives not only his life, sees not only through his eyes, but lives and sees as God, as well (Heschel, 26).

 

A prophet has been called upon by God and speaks the language of God. When Amos proclaims the Second Woe, it is clear that he sees the world through a more knowledgeable lens. He proclaims, “What will the day of the Lord mean for you? It will be darkness not light,” (Amos, 5:18). When most envision the day of the Lord, it is a day of great glory and light, but Amos does not see as most of mankind sees, for he was called upon by God. Heschel claims that the true greatness of a prophet is his ability to hold God and man in a single thought (21). The wrongdoing of man has brought humans to a level far removed from that of God. A prophet, in contact with both man and God, has the divine ability to understand both man and God. In the Oracles of the Nations, Amos speaks of both what mankind has done wrong and what the Lord will do to them on account of their wrongdoings. Amos was a man of God.

 

Today, technology provides individuals with the means to reach out to millions with the press of a button. With such ease, many individual claim they have heard God and spread his word, often for money or some level of attention/fame. If one actually is a prophet, that which they predict, that which they claim to be the word of God will come true. I do believe God may still call out individuals today, however, I believe it is far more difficult to believe in anyone who claims to be a prophet of the Lord.