The differences and similarities between John’s birth in the Gospel of Luke and the Qur’an
In story of John the Baptist’s birth in both the Qur’an and the Gospel of Luke are very similar to one another. There are a few minor differences however. In Luke, John’s mother is name Elizabeth. However, in the Qur’an, she is unnamed. John’s father has (essentially) the same name in both texts; Zechariah in Luke, and Zakariya in the Qur’an. In Luke, Zechariah and Elizabeth do not ask God for a child as they do in the Qur’an. Zechariah is approached by an angel who tells him that Elizabeth will bear a son named John. In the Qur’an, Zakariya prays to God to give him a child, and God himself replies, telling him again that his son will be named John. In both versions of the story, Zechariah is stricken mute.
Women in Luke
In a time when women were seen as vastly inferior to men, Jesus’s treatment of women in his actions is very different from the way that the general public would treat them. Luke’s description of women seems to follow Jesus’s example, as he expresses respect to female characters such as Mary (Jesus’s mother) and Mary Magdalene. Mary is portrayed as a dutiful servant of God, and a loving and caring mother to Jesus. Mary Magdalene, after her initial devotion to Jesus, is one of Jesus’s most faithful followers. Mary Magdalene, along with several other women, were the first to discover the resurrection of Jesus, and attempted to convince the remaining eleven disciples of his resurrection.
How is Jesus portrayed in the Bible? In the Bible, Jesus is the son of God. An angel came to Mary and told her that she would conceive a child named, Jesus, who “will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High.” (1:32) When Jesus is older he stays in the Temple and asks questions to the teachers there. Later on he will be the one that goes around teaching. Jesus travels from city to city teaching the people. He tells the people many parables. Many have to do with the poor overcoming the rich and the outcasts that rise above their misery. For example, Lazarus and the rich man has to do with the rich man going to Hades after he dies to suffer and Lazarus is treated comfortably when he dies. Another example would be the parable with the two debtors. Jesus heals many people during his travels. He brings one woman’s son back from the dead and another’s daughter back from the dead. He cures lepers, a blind man, and a paralyzed man alike. He is not against sinners. He even dines with them. “But when you give a feast invite the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you.” (13:13-14) If someone repents for their sins “you must forgive them.” (17:4) He looks favorably on a sinner who repents even more than those that have always followed him faithfully which is shown in the lost sheep and the prodigal son parable.
How should a “good” person be? In the gospel of Luke, the poor are favored over the rich. If you have a hard life now, you will be rewarded later on. “Blessed are you poor…Blessed are you that hunger now, for you shall be satisfied. Blessed are you that weep now, for you shall laugh. Blessed are you when men hate you, and when they exclude you and revile you, and cast out your name as evil, on account of the Son of man! Rejoice in that day, and leap for joy…your reward is great in heaven.” (6:21-23) Jesus says to “love your enemies.” (6:27). I think it gets a little bit too ridiculous when it says that if someone strikes you, you should offer the other cheek and if someone steals your cloak to give him your coat as well but it holds the major principle argument that you should be above petty people like that. You should always try to do good and treat people the way you would want to be treated. Even sinners are seen as good people. Jesus associates with sinner and tax collectors, people that others wouldn’t normally associate with. Being rich doesn’t make you a good person. Jesus’ disciples had to cast away their riches in order to follow him. In two different parables Jesus states, “every one who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted.” (18:14)
How do people respond to Jesus/angels? When the angels visit both Zechariah and the shepherd, they are frightened. And the angels respond with “Do not be afraid.” Zechariah is also skeptical that what the angel said is true about his wife having a baby. Zechariah is punished and is “unable to speak until the day that these things come to pass” (1:20) because he didn’t believe the angels news. People come to Jesus to have their sick healed. Ten lepers came to Jesus because they heard that he could cure them but only one came back and thanked him. One woman is so bold as to touch Jesus without his permission because she believes that he can help her. The priests and scribes want to bring Jesus down and question him as to whether or not he is the son of God. They are unsure of him. Pilate finds Jesus not guilty of doing anything wrong and was going to “chastise him and release him” but the crowd kept chanting to crucify him. I don’t understand why people would want him to be killed when he was healing everyone and even brought people back from the dead. I don’t think I would care what other things he may have done or how you have no clue who he really is. If some person can magically heal people, I would think that people would try and keep that person around as long as they could.
1. From a historical standpoint, how can the crucifixion of Jesus be “rationalized” to the Roman polity?
As an anti-establisment force, Jesus’ works would have garnered much attention within the Roman Empire, regardless of location or intent. Threats to the stability of Rome should have been dealt with swiftly, and with great prejudice - harsh ways that defined antiquarian political realities. Rome’s power was predicated on it’s ability to project the will of the Emperor (and his troops) over great distance. Judaea, the Roman province where all this took place, was a frontier where Imperial authority was less certain than in areas like Dalmatia, or Latium. Dissent towards the Roman pantheon was perhaps the biggest reason for Jesus’ downfall, as it was the spiritual center of the entire empire, and the basis on which much military conquest was rationalized. Without that monolithic faith in the pantheon, the discipline of the troops would be compromised, and the empire would be lost, or at the very least thrown into turmoil. It’s in these terms that Jesus was in all likelihood betrayed, hence the price paid in Roman denarii.
2. Within Luke, how does Jesus portray himself? How does this differ from his supposed place of the Son of God?
For someone heralded as the Messiah, Jesus is remarkably unwilling to label himself as such (22:66-23:25). His humility in the light of undying adulation can be seen as one of the defining factor in his actually being the Son of God - and he says as much (21:8). It’s an incredibly high “office” to have bestowed upon oneself, and his piousness and adherence to the laws of God dictate his temperate demeanor. Humble can be the only way to describe the way Luke tells of Jesus’ procession of miracles. It’s a central theme to the entire construction of Jesus’ character, and is in many respects different from the rest of the bible - where Jesus seems to vary between God’s arbiter (Matthew), his authority (Mark), and his herald (John). Those three roles seem to be appropriately decisive with someone supposedly anointed with divine power, and the subdued grace of the Gospel of Luke is a little incongruous - but at the same time, the most historically probable.
3. What does the Gospel of Luke have in common with modern Marxist thought?
The thread that ties these two seemingly disparate notions (Marxism being fundamentally opposed to religiosity), is the framing of money, and it’s corrupting properties in the downfall of goodness. Jesus is “sold out”, quite literally, for a handful of silver and a pat on the head from an important man. Judas’ role as the betrayer of Jesus brings back the parable of the rich man attempting to enter the kingdom of heaven - his relatively modest take from giving up Christ in all likelihood condemned him to eternal damnation (that is, of course, if you’re inclined to believe in such things). Marx similarly considered captial to be “vampire-like”, in that it destroyed the life and health of the worker. Jesus, being portrayed by Luke as the ultimate working-man, could only be destroyed by something so seductive as cold, hard, cash. This inauspicious place for money sets a tone for almost the entirety of history following it - truly illuminating why it’s the root of all evil.
What are the differences between the gospel of Luke and the other gospels? There are many specific things that set the gospel according to Luke apart from the other gospels. First of all, Luke is the only non Jewish writer in the New Testament. Another interesting thing about the gospel of Luke is its length; it is the longest gospel. One striking difference in the gospel of Luke compared to the other gospels is that Luke says that Jesus is a descendent of Adam. This makes the gospel of Luke stand out because it speaks to a non- Jewish audience. Luke also focuses a great deal in this gospel on how Jesus helps the poor and outcasts of society. He tells about how people need to treat everyone well and be selfless and that is the way to go to heaven. What is the important role of women in the gospel of Luke? Luke pays attention to women's roles quite a bit in his gospel. Both the birth stories of John the Baptist and Jesus are told through their mothers, Elizabeth and Mary. Luke tells about Mary's excitement when she finds out she is going to give birth to Jesus. He says that both men and women follow Jesus which is significant because men and women were not equals during this time. Luke says that women helped support the men of this time by using all of the resources that they had. What is the significance of the story of the good Samaritan? I thought that the story of the good Samaritan was a very important story in the New Testament. It provides the basic idea that everyone needs to look out for one another no matter what. This is a notion that was important back then and still serves its purpose today. The story says that there was a man who came across another man who was beaten and robbed. The man helps the injured man by bringing him to an inn and giving him money. The moral of the story was to help out your "neighbor" no matter what. In the New Testament, the gospel of Luke tells about how Jesus treated everyone well and forgave those who had sinned and healed people no matter what they had done. This is an important proposal that still finds its place in society today. People need to look out for one another and be selfless when it comes to their fellow man.
Nicole Pfister Are women treated equal in “Jesus in the Qur’an”?
Women were still not equal to men. People still thought of men as superior to women and had very limited legal rights. For instance, in the Qur’an it states how if a man dies little to no inheritance money is given to the women in the family. This is shown when it states, “…If there are two sisters, they shall have two-thirds of the inheritance (between them): if there are brothers and sisters, (they share), the male having twice the share of the female.” So basically, if a father dies his son will get more money than his daughter. Therefore, this is one example of how women were not treated equally to men.
Lazarus After reading the story of Lazarus I thought it had an interesting point. The story begins with two men that had died, Lazarus who was a very poor beggar and a rich man who lived a luxurious life. When Lazarus died he went to heaven and the rich man went to hell. Since Lazarus had suffered on Earth, he went to have a luxurious after life in heaven. While the rich man who had no hardships on Earth, suffered in his afterlife in hell. After figuring out how he got to hell, the rich man asked Abraham, if Lazarus could go back to Earth and warn his rich friends of their fate. But Abraham said, "They have Moses and the Prophets, let them listen to them." Basically, saying that his friends had to deal with the fate that they choose. I found it interesting that there was a balance between suffering and happiness between life and afterlife. It wouldn’t be fair if someone who didn’t deserve it lived a greedy wealthy life and then had a luxurious afterlife. While others who are humble had to suffer through out their life, then suffered in their afterlife as well. Therefore, it brings a sense of equality and justice. How does Jesus treat other people in the Bible? In the bible, Jesus treats everyone equally and he identifies himself with societies outcasts. He helps the poor and has no sympathy for the rich. He heals people who society has thrown away, such as people with leprosy and those who have thought to be demonized. He treated women with equal respect and he even forgave a woman who had sinned, when others thought that she was not deserving of forgiveness. No matter where Jesus traveled he always healed people who needed him. On example of this is in the excerpt, Jesus at a Pharisee’s House, when it states, “There in front of him was a man suffering from dropsy. Jesus asked the Pharisees and experts in the law, is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath or not… he healed him…“ Jesus gave hope and supported people that were outcasts of society. Therefore, Jesus treated everyone with respect and equal.
There were a few lines I found very interesting. My favorite line from the Gospel of Luke was Luke 19:25 that said, "For it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdome of God." I understand the main concept of greed not being a wonderful trait, but initially I found it strange because I was thinking how it seems that God does not want anyone to be successful. No one is allowed to be rich or they're automatically a terrible person. Then I thought of what would make a person rich back in Jesus' time. There weren't really high paying jobs that required much skill back then. There were rulers that simply were born into their ruling class and that would be selfish and greedy or inherit all their money. Back then, the common person would view a rich man as a sinner and someone who does not look out for his fellow man. I'm sure the average person during the time of Jesus probably did not have much money, and for Jesus to attack the rich constantly probably played to what the poor wanted to hear. Nowadays I can imagine the idea would be different. Many people that have money now have done good things to get that money and have paid their dues to society at some time before they became rich. I believe the people that would now be targeted would be the celebrities and crooked politician that hoard their wealth. Those would be the people that Jesus say have the same likelihood of getting into heaven as a camel getting through the eye of a needle.
Another line I liked is Luke 21:1-20:4 which said, "He looked up and saw the rich putting their gifts into the treasury; and he saw a poor widow put in two copper coins. And he said, 'truly I tell you, this poor widow has put in more than all of them for they all contributed out of their abundance, but she out of her poverty put in all the living she had." This makes more sense to me because it always sticks out more when someone who has little gives because money is probably more vital and precious to them than to someone that has it readily available. It almost reminds me of appplying for scholarships. The panels that choose want to hear about people that maybe do less academically but have more burdens at home, like raising kids or being a single mother or taking care of an elderly grandparent. Those are the people that are more likely to get a scholarship over those who are just excelling socially and academically. They are giving less in the literal sense maybe to school, but in a genuine sense they are giving the time they can when they only have little time to spare.
How are women portrayed in the New Testament and how did Jesus treat them? Women are portrayed in a more positive way in the New Testament. Two strong females in the New Testament were Mary and Elizabeth. Mary was the mother of Jesus. She also taught Jesus everything he needed to know about the Old Testament and other things. Mary was the one who educated Jesus. In the New Testament Mary is a very important character and so was Elizabeth. Elizabeth gave birth to John the Baptist. Jesus was different from most people during his time because he always treated women as equals. During Jesus’ time, woman were not normally treated equally, they were treated as lesser beings. They were certainly not respected as much as men. Well eventually when Jesus got older he began to preach what he considered to be the way to get into heaven and according to Jesus, God would want men to treat women as equals. This is one way in which Jesus was different from everyone else.
How were Jesus’ views different from the views of the majority of people? Jesus’ views were very different from everyone else that he met for the most part. First off he treated woman as equals as I explained in the first section. Jesus was also much more forgiving than other people. He was willing to eat with and forgive sinners. He tried to help people in their time of need even though they seemed helpless. These kinds of people included the sinners, lepers, and people with illness. Jesus also did not believe that people should be rich, and if they are rich, they need to give a large amount of their fortune to the people that need it most like the poor. This is related to the parable Lazarus and the Rich Man. Lazarus was poor but always thankful and the Rich Man always wanted more. When they died Lazarus was sent to heaven and the Rich Man was sent to Hell. Jesus thought that people needed to share their wealth.
How was Luke’s version of the gospel different from the other versions written? Luke’s gospel was different from the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and John in a few ways. First of all, Luke’s version tends to focus on compassion for the poor. The other versions of the gospel tend to focus on things like the divinity of Jesus. In Luke’s version, Jesus seemed to be more like a human. He was surely a prophet but this gospel did not focus on the supernatural part of what Jesus did like his miracles. Luke’s version focused on the compassionate, caring part of Jesus, the part that cared for the sick and helped the poor. Luke’s version also is the most historically accurate version.
Lawton, Robert 4/2/2013 Bible v Qu’Ran Why is there so much conflict between the two religions? Does it stem from their holy texts and their wording, or is it a more fundamental difference that can never be rectified? One thing that I have noticed in the passages we have read from the Korna so far is how willing it is to illustrate the goodness or holiness of other religions (God worshipping religions) and their beliefs. However, the Koran does not shy away from proclaiming itself as the holiest, the most right either. I think these very obvious passages are interpreted by the masses that Averroes refers to, masses that exist in Islam, Christianity and Judaism. It seems to be a very easy mistake to be made to say that Islam (or any other) simply says it is best. In the passages that we read for this week we see examples of the perceived arrogance of the Koran. Line 18 says I seek refuge from thee to Most Gracious (Allah). In the Bible God says “Thou shall put no other (gods) above me. In Christianity, and it’s myriad sects there is a distinction between God And Allah. Islam does not seem to make this same separation, using many names for the same being – the inimitable truth Averroes speaks of. The Bible has been revised, rewritten and edited many, many times. It has been reworked to meet the needs and goals of governments, divisions of Christianity and prophets. The Koran is in a sense another version of the bible. According to the beliefs of Islam though, it is definitive. It is the word of God/Allah. This very assertion will put a euro-centric culture on edge. If we, as a western culture, have been at this book for so long, and we are the chosen people, who gives these heretics the right to come along and rewrite our book? If everything in the Bible s supposed to be rational, and not allegorical, then it cannot be rewritten with new truths, stories and focus. Can it? The Koran refocuses many of the prophets and heroes of the Bible. Some are given more power (Moses, Ismail), some perceived less. Jesus, particularly, as he is not the son of God in the Koran loses some of his inborn power. As they say in the Koran, Allah would not debase himself to sire a worldly heir. Jesus is for many the ultimate symbol, and for them losing this allegorical power of being the only begotten son of God is blasphemy. The idea is so core to the masses of Christianity that their entire faith is built on this one fragile concept. Even though Islam seems at least to be willing to question, in the end their adherence to the Koran becomes a dogma, and not a means of being set free. Christians and Muslims masses have much of the same belief, and act much the same way while each believing the other to be inherently flawed.
What are some of the main differences between the Gospels? There are obviously many differences between the stories told by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John however, the part that I found most interesting is the differences in how Jesus was portrayed. I had never read the Bible before and the only experiences I had with it has been religion classes when I was in elementary school and the few times a year my family would go to church. I didn’t really know much about the differences among the Gospels and I found it very interesting how the story is essentially the same but some minor details were different. These details can change the whole premise of the story. One of the main reasons why I thought the concept of how Jesus was portrayed was so interesting was because I always thought that the Bible was created to tell the stories of Jesus and the Lord and Savior. It never occurred to me that there would be multiple stories that depicted his life and portray him in different lights. Luke portrays Jesus and the Perfect Man, Son of Man and the Son of Adam (not Abraham like in the Gospel of Matthew). This was the story that I remember hearing in my religion classes. When I looked at the Gospels told by Matthew, Mark and John, they seemed almost foreign to me in this sense. I absolutely do not believe that one story is right and the others are simply wrong but I can’t help wonder which ones are more accurate than the others. Given Luke’s career and background knowledge and from our discussion in class, I believe that in a historical sense, Luke’s version of the story of Jesus was more accurate than the others.
How were women treated in the Gospel of Luke? In the Gospel of Luke, I found it very interesting that women were respected and were not seen as inferior to men. This first occurred to me in the beginning of the text when the angel comes to Zechariah and tells him that his wife is to give birth to a baby boy. Zechariah does not believe this angel and so he is punished with silence. After telling the good news to Zechariah, the angel goes to Mary and tells her that she will give birth. Mary is also slightly skeptic and wonders how this is possible when she doesn’t have a husband. The angel reassures Mary that she will give birth and does not punish her like the angel did with Zechariah. I immediately wondered why Mary did not receive punishment like Zechariah did. In an age where the mixing of sexes was unheard of, I found it unusual that the women were so accepted, for example, how women followed Jesus just as much as the men do. This concept is also demonstrated in the last part of the text when it is the women who find Jesus missing from the tomb. I definitely believe that this special concern for women translates into how he treats the outcasts and his actions towards them.
One of the parables that I enjoyed in the Gospel of Luke was that of the Rich Fool (12:16-21). This was about a man that had everything under the sun and more. “A man’s life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions” (12:15-17). I thought the reaction to this fool was exceptionally interesting and I found myself taking a lesson from this. I think it is important to not be greedy or take anything for granted. What is most important is to appreciate the things you have and not be in such dire need for more. I related this topic to Plato’s Republic and how the appetite for more will only leave you unhappy in life.
(my post is in two parts because this comment section won't let me post more than 4,096 characters, so the second part of this post is the first reply to it)
Various thoughts and comments on The New Testament
Part 1:
One thing I had wanted to bring up in class today, but forgot, was concerning the word “Christ.” Most people associate the word Christ with Jesus Christ, and use it as a name. That is totally fine given that it became really popular with it being synonymous with Jesus Christ over the past 2 millenia, and has become associated as part of his name. However, Christ is really a title given to Jesus, and was not originally intended to be a name. Christ comes from the Greek word “Christos” which means “anointed.” Christos is the Greek translation of the Hebrew word for “messiah” in the Hebrew Bible. In Jewish tradition messiahs were anointed with oil, hence, where the translation of “anointed” comes from as those who are anointed are messiahs. Therefore, when Jesus is called Jesus Christ, what is really being said is “Jesus the anointed” or “Jesus the messiah.” With that said, it is good for people to know this fact as it is a common misconception that Christ is part of Jesus' actual name, when in fact, it is supposed to be a title.
Part 2: On a different note, I would like to know what the empirical evidence is of the existence of a Jesus who could perform miracles, had special powers, and was even able to rise from the dead? The story of Jesus of Nazareth has affected billions of lives for over 2 millenia around the world, and many in a very significant manner, yet, as far as I am aware there is not a single shred of tangible evidence to substantiate that Jesus had all these powers and was able to do all the supposed miracles he could. I will point out that there is many pieces of writing from various non-Christian people during the first century AD mentioning a Jesus of Nazareth who had a following, so there is some evidence outside of the authors of the New Testament that he was possibly an actual person who existed at that time, but from my understanding even that is still debated (I am by no means an expert on this topic, and could be wrong, but from the various articles I've read the evidence is very weak as best). I'm not trying to argue that he didn't exist, or even that he wasn't able to do miracles. What I'm trying to say is there is no real evidence of this Jesus of Nazareth being anything more than a normal guy with some followers. If that is considered an acceptable amount of evidence to substantiate the existence of a being with god-like powers, then why is it not acceptable to believe in stories of Achilles, and him being dipped in the river of Styx, as historical events? There are multiple people who have written about the hero Achilles, and Troy was long thought to be a work of fiction yet has been discovered in more recent times, so why don't we accept Achilles as an actual historical figure, or even Hercules, as another example, who was written about by many different people? Now I realize those two examples aren't exactly the best comparisons, as the records of Jesus and this whole issue here is much more complex, and isn't exactly as cut and dry as I portrayed it. From all the research I've done though, the evidence is still quite lacking, which is especially disturbing to me considering how much has been invested in the stories of Jesus of Nazareth without some real solid evidence! Devoting your life and worship to Jesus based on these stories is one thing; to each their own. But it's another thing when in the name of these stories an immense amount of blood has been shed (some people even terribly tortured or burned at the stake in the darker periods), people have been imprison, and wars have been fought over this among many other atrocities. Yet there is still no rock solid evidence provided, and all too often the word “faith” comes up to fill that void. Faith is not enough for me though, especially considering how really old and really sketchy the whole history of all this is. I am by no means anti-Christian, or am trying to demean any Christians or their beliefs; I am just genuinely curious in where the evidence is, and how so many people for so many years can so zealously follow these stories with such little tangible evidence to substantiate it.
Does the story of Judas imply predestination? Most Christians, if not all, believe that Jesus was sent/came to Earth to die for our sins. However, Judas chose to betray Jesus. This raises the question “Did Judas really have a choice in the matter?” If Judas had chosen not to betray Jesus, he presumably would not have died on the cross, which was his intent/mission. If Jesus/God just decided to accept his crucifixion as soon as he learned of Judas’s betrayal, does this call into question his omniscience? The way I see it there are two possible literal interpretations. Possibility number 1: God is all knowing and all powerful. He had to know the result of Jesus coming to Earth was that he would be betrayed, and that Jesus would die for our sins. This interpretation leads to predestination, where God knows who among us will be sinners. If our choices are already known, are they really choices? If they can be predicted and planned on all we have is the illusion of control. If our decisions are able to be predetermined, do we have any more control than a rock that falls due to gravity? This interpretation is supported by Jesus correctly predicting that Peter would deny knowing Jesus. However, God appears surprised that Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge, and frequently asks humans the questions. If he knows the answer, what the humans will say, and whether or not they will lie, what purpose is there in God asking the question? Possibility number 2: God didn’t know what was going to happen when Jesus came to Earth, he merely knew once Judas had betrayed Jesus. As a result of this action, God gave his son to die for our sins. This interpretation suggests that God’s actions are dependent on our actions as humans, and calls into question why we view him as above us. This interpretation is consistent with God’s apparent surprise when Adam and Eve eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, but not consistent with Jesus’s prediction coming true. Jesus could have said someone would deny him without knowing it to be true, but can we call his certainty into question on this and assume his certainty in everything else he says in the Bible? As each of these interpretations conflicts with other parts of the Bible, I’m forced to assume a literal reading of the Bible is logically impossible, and some parts must be ignored for the Bible to be consistent.
Women in Luke Luke speaks of women in a very positive light that seems very uncharacteristic of most religions. He talks of Jesus’s mother as a faithful servant who was blessed to bear Gods son. He also speaks of Mary Magdalene in a positive light listing her as a follower of Jesus and when Jesus was found to be resurrected she was the one who had to convince the apostles of this. It is interesting that a woman would have to convince the “most devout” of Jesus’s followers to believe such a miracle. Yet Luke still does not come to full equality in the fact that if Mary was so devout why was she not an apostle? Christianity the religion for everyone Christianity had to compete with Paganism and the Jewish religion in its early days. Religion for most people is not easily swayed. So Christianity had to appeal to many different people and factions. Evidence of this is Luke’s telling of the story he did what every good author does, he tailored his story to the audience. If you are trying to gather support of the poor and Gentile people why would you speak of the rich being good and Jewish traditions. It would be the equivalent of writing a college paper and turning it into an elementary student to read. Luke had no problem saying that the rich would go to hell because of their possessions while the poor would go to heaven because the chances of converting the rich or people who are doing very well off with the system that is currently in place are not inclined to change. While those who suffer have everything to gain by converting. Christianity also had several advantages over the Jewish religion. To convert to Judaism one must be circumcised, for many this would be off putting (understandably) especially in the days where cleanliness was not at it’s height. Another advantage was that it did not put a restriction on the diet of it’s followers besides those special few days. Christians were not limited to animals that chewed their cud and could enjoy pork and other animals. Christianity spread so much because it had a great recruiting campaign. In the early days Christians would ride through towns and adopt orphans they would then convert these children to Christianity. The Prodigal Son For many the story of the Prodigal Son irritates people. The dutiful son is not as cherished as the son who returns a sinner. The key idea is that the dutiful son did not stay out of true love or devotion to his father but the sinner did. This again corresponds with the Christian recruiting technique of accepting the outcast and downtrodden and giving people second chances. The story of Lazarus The story of Lazarus clearly shows us that the rich will go to hell and the poor to heaven because of what they have been given in life. But what if a poor man was to work hard and ascend through the ranks to become rich? Would he now be put in the group bound for hell, or would god not see that this man toiled to gain his possessions and is just as worthy of heaven if not more so than a poor man.
What is the meaning of the parable of the sower and the seed?
“A farmer went out to sow his seed. As he was scattering the seed, some fell along the path; it was trampled on, and the birds ate it up. 6 Some fell on rocky ground, and when it came up, the plants withered because they had no moisture. 7 Other seed fell among thorns, which grew up with it and choked the plants. 8 Still other seed fell on good soil. It came up and yielded a crop, a hundred times more than was sown.(Luke 8: 5-8”
The parable of the sower and the said refers to Jesus being the sower and the seed being the word of God. Each different scenario represents one of the ways that a person may handle the word. The seeds that fell along the path and were trampled on or eaten up represent those that are influenced by the devil. The word is taken from their hearts and they do not believe. The seeds that fell to the rocky ground represent those that receive the word and rejoice when they hear it, yet it takes no "root." They believe for a while and fall away, or in a time of testing do not remain steadfast in their faith. The seeds that fall among the thorns represent those that hear the word, but are so consumed with life's temptations and worries that they are unable to mature in their faith. And finally, the seeds that fall amongst the good soil represent those that are of good heart, and those that not only hear the word, but retain it. They remain persistent in their faith and devotion and from them comes "100 times more than was sown."
What would the Original Bible have been like? There is speculation, that at one time there was over 600 books included in the Bible. That being said, what happened to all of them? Well, there were originally three torahs. One was of the Israelite, one from the Beta Israel, and one from the Samaritans. Of these books, there are variations and understandably different stories and many were not included in the 27 books of the old testament. These include, A third tier of religious writings that are important to Ethiopian Jews, but are not considered to be part of the canon, include the following "Nagara Muse (The Conversation of Moses), Mota Aaron (Death of Aharon), Mota Muse (Death of Moses), Te'ezaza Sanbat (Precepts of Sabbath), Arde'et (Students), the Apocalypse of Gorgorios, Mäṣḥafä Sa'atat (Book of Hours), Abba Elias (Father Elija), Mäṣḥafä Mäla'əkt (Book of Angels), Mäṣḥafä Kahan (Book of Priests), Dərsanä Abrəham Wäsara Bägabs (Homily on Abraham and Sarah in Egypt), Gadla Sosna (The Acts of Susanna), and Baqadāmi Gabra Egzi'abḥēr (In the Beginning God Created). In addition to these, Zëna Ayhud (the Ethiopic version of Josippon) and the sayings of various fālasfā (philosophers) are sources that are not necessarily considered holy, but nonetheless have great influence. It also doesn't include the Samaritans books Memar Markah (Teaching of Markah) and the Defter (Prayerbook). After this, there are books that were written specific to Jesus's message. Like the Apostles books, which were taken out of the Protestant Bible. Interesting that there was such a major censorship on texts that were so important to so many people. There are scholars that believe originally close to 600 books existed.
The Receptive Nature of People before Jesus Christ. Before the birth of Jesus, life was hard. Mary's story shows that women if they gave birth in wedlock they would be discriminated against, and that women in general were subjugated. There were diseases with painful, deadly cures. Leprosy and syphilis were treated with mercury. There was no cure for hemorrhaging in childbirth and people lived short lives. The three kings looked to the stars for signs of a harbinger of something better. Most people were looking for relief and inspiration. They were very receptive for a religious revival because from Jerusalem to Rome, people were experiencing a crisis of faith. There is belief that there was an occupancy of Jews in Rome before Christ was born and that they lived side by side with many 'Pagans', they shared in the culture that was Rome. Similar to the situation of any non-christian who lived in America today. Many Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, and Hindu American celebrates Easter, has the Sabbath day of work and gives and receives presents on Christmas. It is understandable to believe that the Jewish embrace the culture and the people who were their neighbors. To set the scene, women where undervalued and were starving for respect and better treatment, the sick were looking for magic because medicine was not an option, and the religious were struggling to coordinate the culture they lived in with their religions beliefs. Doesn't this sound like the perfect people to share a new invigorated Judaism that allows for many pagan holidays?
Were the scriptures created to help control the masses?
Power has always been an attribute that mankind always seemed to struggle with. It is probably one of the greatest and worst of our characteristics of our species. Though it is necessary for survival we always find ways of destroying each other or taking advantage of one another for some type of personal gain. The early philosophers knew this and that is why we have always fought to attain peace and try to create a system that is practices justice. Plato's Republic explains a perfect and just city, Kallipolis. He creates a city where every role is fulfilled and an even justice is distributed about the society. The only problem though is that there were still people with power over others. Perhaps scholars alike and individuals in power took to these ides to the next level and planed a course of action that would indefinitely rule over society. What better way to control an individual than to oversee their beliefs and create god itself? It is actually quite genius; to have power you do not have to enslave people or force them to work for the system of man but go to their very foundation and create their beliefs. E.g. The Bible or rather A Bible, One common handbook that is said to be the word of the one true god and rein over all other gods and religions. The recipe that the bible created was that of a flawless nature way beyond anything Plato ever had in mind. You create men as equal, you say the poor are rich, love thy enemy, and is open to any outsider. The analogy of the fruit baring tree is a perfect example "For a good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit; neither doth a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit" Luke; 6:43. The rules that the bible uses are in turn a perfect circle to grab ahold the untrained mind of the human and use it however your "scripture" sees fit. We are all lost sheep in the perspective of one or another. The plot of the story itself for the time period it was created is most entertaining, after hearing about "the one true god" and those who follow him you want nothing but to live like the virtuous people in the tale. The story of the selfless mother Mary being sweet innocent women that gives birth to the savior of mankind. It shows people a higher way of living that they themselves would never have achieved on their own. Mary was humble, smart and mysterious; her character alone more than likely surprised all people that herd of her. The point is that whoever creates a book such as this is in control, a control that they obtain by seizing the inside of someone rather than the outside. I would not convict the Bible alone for this conception but all books alike. The Quran is equally as guilty. It pretty much takes the same stories in the Bible rearranges them and presents it differently for the culture it was intended for. I would say all books such as this feed off the human need of entertainment. When these books were created there were few ways to receive entertainment. Even books were scarce. Constantine deciding what stories get to be a part of the Bible and which stories are insignificant was the first clue. The interpretation completely changes when you remove anything, that is the first clue that it is not real and one applies the train of thought; “hey, someone else could have done this before". If it is the true word of god then it should not be ok for a man to take stories out of the bible. The book of Luke itself is one of the major corner stones of the bible. It is said that it is probably the most historically correct but if you think about it creating a story to say all the other stories are true is quite ingenious in itself. I believe the Quran tries this also by repeating the fact that one does not need miracles to believe but must have faith and that all who denounces the Quran is a heretic. You see it’s a type of conundrum.
What is the purpose of the story of Lazarus? I had initially thought that the story of Lazarus was just another tale to help describe Jesus as a miraculous son of God, but there is clearly much more going on. The story of Lazarus makes promises to the poor that they will be rewarded in the afterlife for their suffering, and that those that had but did not give, will be punished. The story does contain the moral of sharing and nurturing ones neighbor, but a more nefarious message can be construed. The implication that being poor and downtrodden will give way to the ultimate paradise would seem to be as appealing of a message as there can be. It can also create complacency, which is the nefarious part of the message. People will live their whole lives awaiting salvation until the day comes, and it isn't true. While I think the term "opiate of the masses" is overzealous, it can be applied to the ideas presented in this story. How different was Mary's role the Bible and the Qur'an? Jesus' mother Mary stands out as strong and independent female character in the New Testament. Unlike the women of the Old Testament, and men of the New Testament, she immediately and wholeheartedly takes in and believes the word of God when approached by a miraculous being. This radical change from the role of women in the previous section of the Bible is what makes Mary so revered. This is further emphasized in the Qur'an, the whole 19th chapter actually being named after Mary. The stories are strikingly similar, and Joseph takes an even further step back from being integral to the part. While clearly the role of women in society was not really affected by the representation of Mary in these books, it was a step in the right direction.
The differences and similarities between John’s birth in the Gospel of Luke and the Qur’an
ReplyDeleteIn story of John the Baptist’s birth in both the Qur’an and the Gospel of Luke are very similar to one another. There are a few minor differences however. In Luke, John’s mother is name Elizabeth. However, in the Qur’an, she is unnamed. John’s father has (essentially) the same name in both texts; Zechariah in Luke, and Zakariya in the Qur’an. In Luke, Zechariah and Elizabeth do not ask God for a child as they do in the Qur’an. Zechariah is approached by an angel who tells him that Elizabeth will bear a son named John. In the Qur’an, Zakariya prays to God to give him a child, and God himself replies, telling him again that his son will be named John. In both versions of the story, Zechariah is stricken mute.
Women in Luke
In a time when women were seen as vastly inferior to men, Jesus’s treatment of women in his actions is very different from the way that the general public would treat them. Luke’s description of women seems to follow Jesus’s example, as he expresses respect to female characters such as Mary (Jesus’s mother) and Mary Magdalene. Mary is portrayed as a dutiful servant of God, and a loving and caring mother to Jesus. Mary Magdalene, after her initial devotion to Jesus, is one of Jesus’s most faithful followers. Mary Magdalene, along with several other women, were the first to discover the resurrection of Jesus, and attempted to convince the remaining eleven disciples of his resurrection.
Jessica Bourdage
ReplyDeleteHow is Jesus portrayed in the Bible?
In the Bible, Jesus is the son of God. An angel came to Mary and told her that she would conceive a child named, Jesus, who “will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High.” (1:32) When Jesus is older he stays in the Temple and asks questions to the teachers there. Later on he will be the one that goes around teaching. Jesus travels from city to city teaching the people. He tells the people many parables. Many have to do with the poor overcoming the rich and the outcasts that rise above their misery. For example, Lazarus and the rich man has to do with the rich man going to Hades after he dies to suffer and Lazarus is treated comfortably when he dies. Another example would be the parable with the two debtors. Jesus heals many people during his travels. He brings one woman’s son back from the dead and another’s daughter back from the dead. He cures lepers, a blind man, and a paralyzed man alike. He is not against sinners. He even dines with them. “But when you give a feast invite the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you.” (13:13-14) If someone repents for their sins “you must forgive them.” (17:4) He looks favorably on a sinner who repents even more than those that have always followed him faithfully which is shown in the lost sheep and the prodigal son parable.
How should a “good” person be?
In the gospel of Luke, the poor are favored over the rich. If you have a hard life now, you will be rewarded later on. “Blessed are you poor…Blessed are you that hunger now, for you shall be satisfied. Blessed are you that weep now, for you shall laugh. Blessed are you when men hate you, and when they exclude you and revile you, and cast out your name as evil, on account of the Son of man! Rejoice in that day, and leap for joy…your reward is great in heaven.” (6:21-23) Jesus says to “love your enemies.” (6:27). I think it gets a little bit too ridiculous when it says that if someone strikes you, you should offer the other cheek and if someone steals your cloak to give him your coat as well but it holds the major principle argument that you should be above petty people like that. You should always try to do good and treat people the way you would want to be treated. Even sinners are seen as good people. Jesus associates with sinner and tax collectors, people that others wouldn’t normally associate with. Being rich doesn’t make you a good person. Jesus’ disciples had to cast away their riches in order to follow him. In two different parables Jesus states, “every one who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted.” (18:14)
How do people respond to Jesus/angels?
When the angels visit both Zechariah and the shepherd, they are frightened. And the angels respond with “Do not be afraid.” Zechariah is also skeptical that what the angel said is true about his wife having a baby. Zechariah is punished and is “unable to speak until the day that these things come to pass” (1:20) because he didn’t believe the angels news. People come to Jesus to have their sick healed. Ten lepers came to Jesus because they heard that he could cure them but only one came back and thanked him. One woman is so bold as to touch Jesus without his permission because she believes that he can help her. The priests and scribes want to bring Jesus down and question him as to whether or not he is the son of God. They are unsure of him. Pilate finds Jesus not guilty of doing anything wrong and was going to “chastise him and release him” but the crowd kept chanting to crucify him. I don’t understand why people would want him to be killed when he was healing everyone and even brought people back from the dead. I don’t think I would care what other things he may have done or how you have no clue who he really is. If some person can magically heal people, I would think that people would try and keep that person around as long as they could.
1. From a historical standpoint, how can the crucifixion of Jesus be “rationalized” to the Roman polity?
ReplyDeleteAs an anti-establisment force, Jesus’ works would have garnered much attention within the Roman Empire, regardless of location or intent. Threats to the stability of Rome should have been dealt with swiftly, and with great prejudice - harsh ways that defined antiquarian political realities. Rome’s power was predicated on it’s ability to project the will of the Emperor (and his troops) over great distance. Judaea, the Roman province where all this took place, was a frontier where Imperial authority was less certain than in areas like Dalmatia, or Latium. Dissent towards the Roman pantheon was perhaps the biggest reason for Jesus’ downfall, as it was the spiritual center of the entire empire, and the basis on which much military conquest was rationalized. Without that monolithic faith in the pantheon, the discipline of the troops would be compromised, and the empire would be lost, or at the very least thrown into turmoil. It’s in these terms that Jesus was in all likelihood betrayed, hence the price paid in Roman denarii.
2. Within Luke, how does Jesus portray himself? How does this differ from his supposed place of the Son of God?
For someone heralded as the Messiah, Jesus is remarkably unwilling to label himself as such (22:66-23:25). His humility in the light of undying adulation can be seen as one of the defining factor in his actually being the Son of God - and he says as much (21:8). It’s an incredibly high “office” to have bestowed upon oneself, and his piousness and adherence to the laws of God dictate his temperate demeanor. Humble can be the only way to describe the way Luke tells of Jesus’ procession of miracles. It’s a central theme to the entire construction of Jesus’ character, and is in many respects different from the rest of the bible - where Jesus seems to vary between God’s arbiter (Matthew), his authority (Mark), and his herald (John). Those three roles seem to be appropriately decisive with someone supposedly anointed with divine power, and the subdued grace of the Gospel of Luke is a little incongruous - but at the same time, the most historically probable.
3. What does the Gospel of Luke have in common with modern Marxist thought?
The thread that ties these two seemingly disparate notions (Marxism being fundamentally opposed to religiosity), is the framing of money, and it’s corrupting properties in the downfall of goodness. Jesus is “sold out”, quite literally, for a handful of silver and a pat on the head from an important man. Judas’ role as the betrayer of Jesus brings back the parable of the rich man attempting to enter the kingdom of heaven - his relatively modest take from giving up Christ in all likelihood condemned him to eternal damnation (that is, of course, if you’re inclined to believe in such things). Marx similarly considered captial to be “vampire-like”, in that it destroyed the life and health of the worker. Jesus, being portrayed by Luke as the ultimate working-man, could only be destroyed by something so seductive as cold, hard, cash. This inauspicious place for money sets a tone for almost the entirety of history following it - truly illuminating why it’s the root of all evil.
What are the differences between the gospel of Luke and the other gospels?
ReplyDeleteThere are many specific things that set the gospel according to Luke apart from the other gospels. First of all, Luke is the only non Jewish writer in the New Testament. Another interesting thing about the gospel of Luke is its length; it is the longest gospel. One striking difference in the gospel of Luke compared to the other gospels is that Luke says that Jesus is a descendent of Adam. This makes the gospel of Luke stand out because it speaks to a non- Jewish audience. Luke also focuses a great deal in this gospel on how Jesus helps the poor and outcasts of society. He tells about how people need to treat everyone well and be selfless and that is the way to go to heaven.
What is the important role of women in the gospel of Luke?
Luke pays attention to women's roles quite a bit in his gospel. Both the birth stories of John the Baptist and Jesus are told through their mothers, Elizabeth and Mary. Luke tells about Mary's excitement when she finds out she is going to give birth to Jesus. He says that both men and women follow Jesus which is significant because men and women were not equals during this time. Luke says that women helped support the men of this time by using all of the resources that they had.
What is the significance of the story of the good Samaritan?
I thought that the story of the good Samaritan was a very important story in the New Testament. It provides the basic idea that everyone needs to look out for one another no matter what. This is a notion that was important back then and still serves its purpose today. The story says that there was a man who came across another man who was beaten and robbed. The man helps the injured man by bringing him to an inn and giving him money. The moral of the story was to help out your "neighbor" no matter what. In the New Testament, the gospel of Luke tells about how Jesus treated everyone well and forgave those who had sinned and healed people no matter what they had done. This is an important proposal that still finds its place in society today. People need to look out for one another and be selfless when it comes to their fellow man.
Nicole Pfister
ReplyDeleteAre women treated equal in “Jesus in the Qur’an”?
Women were still not equal to men. People still thought of men as superior to women and had very limited legal rights. For instance, in the Qur’an it states how if a man dies little to no inheritance money is given to the women in the family. This is shown when it states, “…If there are two sisters, they shall have two-thirds of the inheritance (between them): if there are brothers and sisters, (they share), the male having twice the share of the female.” So basically, if a father dies his son will get more money than his daughter. Therefore, this is one example of how women were not treated equally to men.
Lazarus
After reading the story of Lazarus I thought it had an interesting point. The story begins with two men that had died, Lazarus who was a very poor beggar and a rich man who lived a luxurious life. When Lazarus died he went to heaven and the rich man went to hell. Since Lazarus had suffered on Earth, he went to have a luxurious after life in heaven. While the rich man who had no hardships on Earth, suffered in his afterlife in hell. After figuring out how he got to hell, the rich man asked Abraham, if Lazarus could go back to Earth and warn his rich friends of their fate. But Abraham said, "They have Moses and the Prophets, let them listen to them." Basically, saying that his friends had to deal with the fate that they choose. I found it interesting that there was a balance between suffering and happiness between life and afterlife. It wouldn’t be fair if someone who didn’t deserve it lived a greedy wealthy life and then had a luxurious afterlife. While others who are humble had to suffer through out their life, then suffered in their afterlife as well. Therefore, it brings a sense of equality and justice.
How does Jesus treat other people in the Bible?
In the bible, Jesus treats everyone equally and he identifies himself with societies outcasts. He helps the poor and has no sympathy for the rich. He heals people who society has thrown away, such as people with leprosy and those who have thought to be demonized. He treated women with equal respect and he even forgave a woman who had sinned, when others thought that she was not deserving of forgiveness. No matter where Jesus traveled he always healed people who needed him. On example of this is in the excerpt, Jesus at a Pharisee’s House, when it states, “There in front of him was a man suffering from dropsy. Jesus asked the Pharisees and experts in the law, is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath or not… he healed him…“ Jesus gave hope and supported people that were outcasts of society. Therefore, Jesus treated everyone with respect and equal.
There were a few lines I found very interesting. My favorite line from the Gospel of Luke was Luke 19:25 that said, "For it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdome of God." I understand the main concept of greed not being a wonderful trait, but initially I found it strange because I was thinking how it seems that God does not want anyone to be successful. No one is allowed to be rich or they're automatically a terrible person. Then I thought of what would make a person rich back in Jesus' time. There weren't really high paying jobs that required much skill back then. There were rulers that simply were born into their ruling class and that would be selfish and greedy or inherit all their money. Back then, the common person would view a rich man as a sinner and someone who does not look out for his fellow man. I'm sure the average person during the time of Jesus probably did not have much money, and for Jesus to attack the rich constantly probably played to what the poor wanted to hear. Nowadays I can imagine the idea would be different. Many people that have money now have done good things to get that money and have paid their dues to society at some time before they became rich. I believe the people that would now be targeted would be the celebrities and crooked politician that hoard their wealth. Those would be the people that Jesus say have the same likelihood of getting into heaven as a camel getting through the eye of a needle.
ReplyDeleteAnother line I liked is Luke 21:1-20:4 which said, "He looked up and saw the rich putting their gifts into the treasury; and he saw a poor widow put in two copper coins. And he said, 'truly I tell you, this poor widow has put in more than all of them for they all contributed out of their abundance, but she out of her poverty put in all the living she had." This makes more sense to me because it always sticks out more when someone who has little gives because money is probably more vital and precious to them than to someone that has it readily available. It almost reminds me of appplying for scholarships. The panels that choose want to hear about people that maybe do less academically but have more burdens at home, like raising kids or being a single mother or taking care of an elderly grandparent. Those are the people that are more likely to get a scholarship over those who are just excelling socially and academically. They are giving less in the literal sense maybe to school, but in a genuine sense they are giving the time they can when they only have little time to spare.
Colin Moore
ReplyDeleteHUMN 220
The New Testament
How are women portrayed in the New Testament and how did Jesus treat them?
Women are portrayed in a more positive way in the New Testament. Two strong females in the New Testament were Mary and Elizabeth. Mary was the mother of Jesus. She also taught Jesus everything he needed to know about the Old Testament and other things. Mary was the one who educated Jesus. In the New Testament Mary is a very important character and so was Elizabeth. Elizabeth gave birth to John the Baptist. Jesus was different from most people during his time because he always treated women as equals. During Jesus’ time, woman were not normally treated equally, they were treated as lesser beings. They were certainly not respected as much as men. Well eventually when Jesus got older he began to preach what he considered to be the way to get into heaven and according to Jesus, God would want men to treat women as equals. This is one way in which Jesus was different from everyone else.
How were Jesus’ views different from the views of the majority of people?
Jesus’ views were very different from everyone else that he met for the most part. First off he treated woman as equals as I explained in the first section. Jesus was also much more forgiving than other people. He was willing to eat with and forgive sinners. He tried to help people in their time of need even though they seemed helpless. These kinds of people included the sinners, lepers, and people with illness. Jesus also did not believe that people should be rich, and if they are rich, they need to give a large amount of their fortune to the people that need it most like the poor. This is related to the parable Lazarus and the Rich Man. Lazarus was poor but always thankful and the Rich Man always wanted more. When they died Lazarus was sent to heaven and the Rich Man was sent to Hell. Jesus thought that people needed to share their wealth.
How was Luke’s version of the gospel different from the other versions written?
Luke’s gospel was different from the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and John in a few ways. First of all, Luke’s version tends to focus on compassion for the poor. The other versions of the gospel tend to focus on things like the divinity of Jesus. In Luke’s version, Jesus seemed to be more like a human. He was surely a prophet but this gospel did not focus on the supernatural part of what Jesus did like his miracles. Luke’s version focused on the compassionate, caring part of Jesus, the part that cared for the sick and helped the poor. Luke’s version also is the most historically accurate version.
Lawton, Robert
ReplyDelete4/2/2013
Bible v Qu’Ran
Why is there so much conflict between the two religions? Does it stem from their holy texts and their wording, or is it a more fundamental difference that can never be rectified?
One thing that I have noticed in the passages we have read from the Korna so far is how willing it is to illustrate the goodness or holiness of other religions (God worshipping religions) and their beliefs. However, the Koran does not shy away from proclaiming itself as the holiest, the most right either. I think these very obvious passages are interpreted by the masses that Averroes refers to, masses that exist in Islam, Christianity and Judaism. It seems to be a very easy mistake to be made to say that Islam (or any other) simply says it is best. In the passages that we read for this week we see examples of the perceived arrogance of the Koran. Line 18 says I seek refuge from thee to Most Gracious (Allah). In the Bible God says “Thou shall put no other (gods) above me. In Christianity, and it’s myriad sects there is a distinction between God And Allah. Islam does not seem to make this same separation, using many names for the same being – the inimitable truth Averroes speaks of.
The Bible has been revised, rewritten and edited many, many times. It has been reworked to meet the needs and goals of governments, divisions of Christianity and prophets. The Koran is in a sense another version of the bible. According to the beliefs of Islam though, it is definitive. It is the word of God/Allah. This very assertion will put a euro-centric culture on edge. If we, as a western culture, have been at this book for so long, and we are the chosen people, who gives these heretics the right to come along and rewrite our book? If everything in the Bible s supposed to be rational, and not allegorical, then it cannot be rewritten with new truths, stories and focus. Can it? The Koran refocuses many of the prophets and heroes of the Bible. Some are given more power (Moses, Ismail), some perceived less. Jesus, particularly, as he is not the son of God in the Koran loses some of his inborn power. As they say in the Koran, Allah would not debase himself to sire a worldly heir. Jesus is for many the ultimate symbol, and for them losing this allegorical power of being the only begotten son of God is blasphemy. The idea is so core to the masses of Christianity that their entire faith is built on this one fragile concept. Even though Islam seems at least to be willing to question, in the end their adherence to the Koran becomes a dogma, and not a means of being set free. Christians and Muslims masses have much of the same belief, and act much the same way while each believing the other to be inherently flawed.
Kelsey Davidson
ReplyDeleteHumn 220
Gospel of Luke
What are some of the main differences between the Gospels?
There are obviously many differences between the stories told by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John however, the part that I found most interesting is the differences in how Jesus was portrayed. I had never read the Bible before and the only experiences I had with it has been religion classes when I was in elementary school and the few times a year my family would go to church. I didn’t really know much about the differences among the Gospels and I found it very interesting how the story is essentially the same but some minor details were different. These details can change the whole premise of the story. One of the main reasons why I thought the concept of how Jesus was portrayed was so interesting was because I always thought that the Bible was created to tell the stories of Jesus and the Lord and Savior. It never occurred to me that there would be multiple stories that depicted his life and portray him in different lights. Luke portrays Jesus and the Perfect Man, Son of Man and the Son of Adam (not Abraham like in the Gospel of Matthew). This was the story that I remember hearing in my religion classes. When I looked at the Gospels told by Matthew, Mark and John, they seemed almost foreign to me in this sense. I absolutely do not believe that one story is right and the others are simply wrong but I can’t help wonder which ones are more accurate than the others. Given Luke’s career and background knowledge and from our discussion in class, I believe that in a historical sense, Luke’s version of the story of Jesus was more accurate than the others.
How were women treated in the Gospel of Luke?
In the Gospel of Luke, I found it very interesting that women were respected and were not seen as inferior to men. This first occurred to me in the beginning of the text when the angel comes to Zechariah and tells him that his wife is to give birth to a baby boy. Zechariah does not believe this angel and so he is punished with silence. After telling the good news to Zechariah, the angel goes to Mary and tells her that she will give birth. Mary is also slightly skeptic and wonders how this is possible when she doesn’t have a husband. The angel reassures Mary that she will give birth and does not punish her like the angel did with Zechariah. I immediately wondered why Mary did not receive punishment like Zechariah did. In an age where the mixing of sexes was unheard of, I found it unusual that the women were so accepted, for example, how women followed Jesus just as much as the men do. This concept is also demonstrated in the last part of the text when it is the women who find Jesus missing from the tomb. I definitely believe that this special concern for women translates into how he treats the outcasts and his actions towards them.
One of the parables that I enjoyed in the Gospel of Luke was that of the Rich Fool (12:16-21). This was about a man that had everything under the sun and more. “A man’s life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions” (12:15-17). I thought the reaction to this fool was exceptionally interesting and I found myself taking a lesson from this. I think it is important to not be greedy or take anything for granted. What is most important is to appreciate the things you have and not be in such dire need for more. I related this topic to Plato’s Republic and how the appetite for more will only leave you unhappy in life.
(my post is in two parts because this comment section won't let me post more than 4,096 characters, so the second part of this post is the first reply to it)
ReplyDeleteVarious thoughts and comments on The New Testament
Part 1:
One thing I had wanted to bring up in class today, but forgot, was concerning the word “Christ.” Most people associate the word Christ with Jesus Christ, and use it as a name. That is totally fine given that it became really popular with it being synonymous with Jesus Christ over the past 2 millenia, and has become associated as part of his name. However, Christ is really a title given to Jesus, and was not originally intended to be a name. Christ comes from the Greek word “Christos” which means “anointed.” Christos is the Greek translation of the Hebrew word for “messiah” in the Hebrew Bible. In Jewish tradition messiahs were anointed with oil, hence, where the translation of “anointed” comes from as those who are anointed are messiahs. Therefore, when Jesus is called Jesus Christ, what is really being said is “Jesus the anointed” or “Jesus the messiah.” With that said, it is good for people to know this fact as it is a common misconception that Christ is part of Jesus' actual name, when in fact, it is supposed to be a title.
Part 2:
DeleteOn a different note, I would like to know what the empirical evidence is of the existence of a Jesus who could perform miracles, had special powers, and was even able to rise from the dead? The story of Jesus of Nazareth has affected billions of lives for over 2 millenia around the world, and many in a very significant manner, yet, as far as I am aware there is not a single shred of tangible evidence to substantiate that Jesus had all these powers and was able to do all the supposed miracles he could. I will point out that there is many pieces of writing from various non-Christian people during the first century AD mentioning a Jesus of Nazareth who had a following, so there is some evidence outside of the authors of the New Testament that he was possibly an actual person who existed at that time, but from my understanding even that is still debated (I am by no means an expert on this topic, and could be wrong, but from the various articles I've read the evidence is very weak as best). I'm not trying to argue that he didn't exist, or even that he wasn't able to do miracles. What I'm trying to say is there is no real evidence of this Jesus of Nazareth being anything more than a normal guy with some followers. If that is considered an acceptable amount of evidence to substantiate the existence of a being with god-like powers, then why is it not acceptable to believe in stories of Achilles, and him being dipped in the river of Styx, as historical events? There are multiple people who have written about the hero Achilles, and Troy was long thought to be a work of fiction yet has been discovered in more recent times, so why don't we accept Achilles as an actual historical figure, or even Hercules, as another example, who was written about by many different people? Now I realize those two examples aren't exactly the best comparisons, as the records of Jesus and this whole issue here is much more complex, and isn't exactly as cut and dry as I portrayed it. From all the research I've done though, the evidence is still quite lacking, which is especially disturbing to me considering how much has been invested in the stories of Jesus of Nazareth without some real solid evidence! Devoting your life and worship to Jesus based on these stories is one thing; to each their own. But it's another thing when in the name of these stories an immense amount of blood has been shed (some people even terribly tortured or burned at the stake in the darker periods), people have been imprison, and wars have been fought over this among many other atrocities. Yet there is still no rock solid evidence provided, and all too often the word “faith” comes up to fill that void. Faith is not enough for me though, especially considering how really old and really sketchy the whole history of all this is. I am by no means anti-Christian, or am trying to demean any Christians or their beliefs; I am just genuinely curious in where the evidence is, and how so many people for so many years can so zealously follow these stories with such little tangible evidence to substantiate it.
Does the story of Judas imply predestination?
ReplyDeleteMost Christians, if not all, believe that Jesus was sent/came to Earth to die for our sins. However, Judas chose to betray Jesus. This raises the question “Did Judas really have a choice in the matter?” If Judas had chosen not to betray Jesus, he presumably would not have died on the cross, which was his intent/mission. If Jesus/God just decided to accept his crucifixion as soon as he learned of Judas’s betrayal, does this call into question his omniscience?
The way I see it there are two possible literal interpretations. Possibility number 1: God is all knowing and all powerful. He had to know the result of Jesus coming to Earth was that he would be betrayed, and that Jesus would die for our sins. This interpretation leads to predestination, where God knows who among us will be sinners. If our choices are already known, are they really choices? If they can be predicted and planned on all we have is the illusion of control. If our decisions are able to be predetermined, do we have any more control than a rock that falls due to gravity? This interpretation is supported by Jesus correctly predicting that Peter would deny knowing Jesus. However, God appears surprised that Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge, and frequently asks humans the questions. If he knows the answer, what the humans will say, and whether or not they will lie, what purpose is there in God asking the question?
Possibility number 2: God didn’t know what was going to happen when Jesus came to Earth, he merely knew once Judas had betrayed Jesus. As a result of this action, God gave his son to die for our sins. This interpretation suggests that God’s actions are dependent on our actions as humans, and calls into question why we view him as above us. This interpretation is consistent with God’s apparent surprise when Adam and Eve eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, but not consistent with Jesus’s prediction coming true. Jesus could have said someone would deny him without knowing it to be true, but can we call his certainty into question on this and assume his certainty in everything else he says in the Bible? As each of these interpretations conflicts with other parts of the Bible, I’m forced to assume a literal reading of the Bible is logically impossible, and some parts must be ignored for the Bible to be consistent.
Women in Luke
ReplyDeleteLuke speaks of women in a very positive light that seems very uncharacteristic of most religions. He talks of Jesus’s mother as a faithful servant who was blessed to bear Gods son. He also speaks of Mary Magdalene in a positive light listing her as a follower of Jesus and when Jesus was found to be resurrected she was the one who had to convince the apostles of this. It is interesting that a woman would have to convince the “most devout” of Jesus’s followers to believe such a miracle. Yet Luke still does not come to full equality in the fact that if Mary was so devout why was she not an apostle?
Christianity the religion for everyone
Christianity had to compete with Paganism and the Jewish religion in its early days. Religion for most people is not easily swayed. So Christianity had to appeal to many different people and factions. Evidence of this is Luke’s telling of the story he did what every good author does, he tailored his story to the audience. If you are trying to gather support of the poor and Gentile people why would you speak of the rich being good and Jewish traditions. It would be the equivalent of writing a college paper and turning it into an elementary student to read. Luke had no problem saying that the rich would go to hell because of their possessions while the poor would go to heaven because the chances of converting the rich or people who are doing very well off with the system that is currently in place are not inclined to change. While those who suffer have everything to gain by converting. Christianity also had several advantages over the Jewish religion. To convert to Judaism one must be circumcised, for many this would be off putting (understandably) especially in the days where cleanliness was not at it’s height. Another advantage was that it did not put a restriction on the diet of it’s followers besides those special few days. Christians were not limited to animals that chewed their cud and could enjoy pork and other animals. Christianity spread so much because it had a great recruiting campaign. In the early days Christians would ride through towns and adopt orphans they would then convert these children to Christianity.
The Prodigal Son
For many the story of the Prodigal Son irritates people. The dutiful son is not as cherished as the son who returns a sinner. The key idea is that the dutiful son did not stay out of true love or devotion to his father but the sinner did. This again corresponds with the Christian recruiting technique of accepting the outcast and downtrodden and giving people second chances.
The story of Lazarus
The story of Lazarus clearly shows us that the rich will go to hell and the poor to heaven because of what they have been given in life. But what if a poor man was to work hard and ascend through the ranks to become rich? Would he now be put in the group bound for hell, or would god not see that this man toiled to gain his possessions and is just as worthy of heaven if not more so than a poor man.
What is the meaning of the parable of the sower and the seed?
ReplyDelete“A farmer went out to sow his seed. As he was scattering the seed, some fell along the path; it was trampled on, and the birds ate it up. 6 Some fell on rocky ground, and when it came up, the plants withered because they had no moisture. 7 Other seed fell among thorns, which grew up with it and choked the plants. 8 Still other seed fell on good soil. It came up and yielded a crop, a hundred times more than was sown.(Luke 8: 5-8”
The parable of the sower and the said refers to Jesus being the sower and the seed being the word of God. Each different scenario represents one of the ways that a person may handle the word. The seeds that fell along the path and were trampled on or eaten up represent those that are influenced by the devil. The word is taken from their hearts and they do not believe. The seeds that fell to the rocky ground represent those that receive the word and rejoice when they hear it, yet it takes no "root." They believe for a while and fall away, or in a time of testing do not remain steadfast in their faith. The seeds that fall among the thorns represent those that hear the word, but are so consumed with life's temptations and worries that they are unable to mature in their faith. And finally, the seeds that fall amongst the good soil represent those that are of good heart, and those that not only hear the word, but retain it. They remain persistent in their faith and devotion and from them comes "100 times more than was sown."
What would the Original Bible have been like?
ReplyDeleteThere is speculation, that at one time there was over 600 books included in the Bible. That being said, what happened to all of them? Well, there were originally three torahs. One was of the Israelite, one from the Beta Israel, and one from the Samaritans. Of these books, there are variations and understandably different stories and many were not included in the 27 books of the old testament. These include, A third tier of religious writings that are important to Ethiopian Jews, but are not considered to be part of the canon, include the following "Nagara Muse (The Conversation of Moses), Mota Aaron (Death of Aharon), Mota Muse (Death of Moses), Te'ezaza Sanbat (Precepts of Sabbath), Arde'et (Students), the Apocalypse of Gorgorios, Mäṣḥafä Sa'atat (Book of Hours), Abba Elias (Father Elija), Mäṣḥafä Mäla'əkt (Book of Angels), Mäṣḥafä Kahan (Book of Priests), Dərsanä Abrəham Wäsara Bägabs (Homily on Abraham and Sarah in Egypt), Gadla Sosna (The Acts of Susanna), and Baqadāmi Gabra Egzi'abḥēr (In the Beginning God Created). In addition to these, Zëna Ayhud (the Ethiopic version of Josippon) and the sayings of various fālasfā (philosophers) are sources that are not necessarily considered holy, but nonetheless have great influence. It also doesn't include the Samaritans books Memar Markah (Teaching of Markah) and the Defter (Prayerbook). After this, there are books that were written specific to Jesus's message. Like the Apostles books, which were taken out of the Protestant Bible. Interesting that there was such a major censorship on texts that were so important to so many people. There are scholars that believe originally close to 600 books existed.
The Receptive Nature of People before Jesus Christ.
Before the birth of Jesus, life was hard. Mary's story shows that women if they gave birth in wedlock they would be discriminated against, and that women in general were subjugated. There were diseases with painful, deadly cures. Leprosy and syphilis were treated with mercury. There was no cure for hemorrhaging in childbirth and people lived short lives. The three kings looked to the stars for signs of a harbinger of something better. Most people were looking for relief and inspiration. They were very receptive for a religious revival because from Jerusalem to Rome, people were experiencing a crisis of faith. There is belief that there was an occupancy of Jews in Rome before Christ was born and that they lived side by side with many 'Pagans', they shared in the culture that was Rome. Similar to the situation of any non-christian who lived in America today. Many Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, and Hindu American celebrates Easter, has the Sabbath day of work and gives and receives presents on Christmas. It is understandable to believe that the Jewish embrace the culture and the people who were their neighbors. To set the scene, women where undervalued and were starving for respect and better treatment, the sick were looking for magic because medicine was not an option, and the religious were struggling to coordinate the culture they lived in with their religions beliefs. Doesn't this sound like the perfect people to share a new invigorated Judaism that allows for many pagan holidays?
Were the scriptures created to help control the masses?
ReplyDeletePower has always been an attribute that mankind always seemed to struggle with. It is probably one of the greatest and worst of our characteristics of our species. Though it is necessary for survival we always find ways of destroying each other or taking advantage of one another for some type of personal gain. The early philosophers knew this and that is why we have always fought to attain peace and try to create a system that is practices justice. Plato's Republic explains a perfect and just city, Kallipolis. He creates a city where every role is fulfilled and an even justice is distributed about the society. The only problem though is that there were still people with power over others. Perhaps scholars alike and individuals in power took to these ides to the next level and planed a course of action that would indefinitely rule over society. What better way to control an individual than to oversee their beliefs and create god itself? It is actually quite genius; to have power you do not have to enslave people or force them to work for the system of man but go to their very foundation and create their beliefs. E.g. The Bible or rather A Bible, One common handbook that is said to be the word of the one true god and rein over all other gods and religions. The recipe that the bible created was that of a flawless nature way beyond anything Plato ever had in mind. You create men as equal, you say the poor are rich, love thy enemy, and is open to any outsider. The analogy of the fruit baring tree is a perfect example "For a good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit; neither doth a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit" Luke; 6:43. The rules that the bible uses are in turn a perfect circle to grab ahold the untrained mind of the human and use it however your "scripture" sees fit. We are all lost sheep in the perspective of one or another. The plot of the story itself for the time period it was created is most entertaining, after hearing about "the one true god" and those who follow him you want nothing but to live like the virtuous people in the tale. The story of the selfless mother Mary being sweet innocent women that gives birth to the savior of mankind. It shows people a higher way of living that they themselves would never have achieved on their own. Mary was humble, smart and mysterious; her character alone more than likely surprised all people that herd of her. The point is that whoever creates a book such as this is in control, a control that they obtain by seizing the inside of someone rather than the outside. I would not convict the Bible alone for this conception but all books alike. The Quran is equally as guilty. It pretty much takes the same stories in the Bible rearranges them and presents it differently for the culture it was intended for. I would say all books such as this feed off the human need of entertainment. When these books were created there were few ways to receive entertainment. Even books were scarce. Constantine deciding what stories get to be a part of the Bible and which stories are insignificant was the first clue. The interpretation completely changes when you remove anything, that is the first clue that it is not real and one applies the train of thought; “hey, someone else could have done this before". If it is the true word of god then it should not be ok for a man to take stories out of the bible.
The book of Luke itself is one of the major corner stones of the bible. It is said that it is probably the most historically correct but if you think about it creating a story to say all the other stories are true is quite ingenious in itself. I believe the Quran tries this also by repeating the fact that one does not need miracles to believe but must have faith and that all who denounces the Quran is a heretic. You see it’s a type of conundrum.
What is the purpose of the story of Lazarus?
ReplyDeleteI had initially thought that the story of Lazarus was just another tale to help describe Jesus as a miraculous son of God, but there is clearly much more going on. The story of Lazarus makes promises to the poor that they will be rewarded in the afterlife for their suffering, and that those that had but did not give, will be punished. The story does contain the moral of sharing and nurturing ones neighbor, but a more nefarious message can be construed. The implication that being poor and downtrodden will give way to the ultimate paradise would seem to be as appealing of a message as there can be. It can also create complacency, which is the nefarious part of the message. People will live their whole lives awaiting salvation until the day comes, and it isn't true. While I think the term "opiate of the masses" is overzealous, it can be applied to the ideas presented in this story.
How different was Mary's role the Bible and the Qur'an?
Jesus' mother Mary stands out as strong and independent female character in the New Testament. Unlike the women of the Old Testament, and men of the New Testament, she immediately and wholeheartedly takes in and believes the word of God when approached by a miraculous being. This radical change from the role of women in the previous section of the Bible is what makes Mary so revered. This is further emphasized in the Qur'an, the whole 19th chapter actually being named after Mary. The stories are strikingly similar, and Joseph takes an even further step back from being integral to the part. While clearly the role of women in society was not really affected by the representation of Mary in these books, it was a step in the right direction.