Blog Post #16

Similar to C.S. Lewis, many parallels to Christianity can be drawn in the literature of J.R.R. Tolkien. In this particular excerpt, there are numerous allusions drawn from Christian tradition. One such idea is the pitting of good vs. evil. Good and Evil are essentially locked in an eternal battle in which either refuses to back down. In this case, the Evil is represented by Mordor and Mount Doom and Sauron. Conversely, the good is represented by the present party at the Council of Elrond. Boromir and the dwarves are on the front line fighting against the evil, and it is taking a toll on them. More importantly for our case, though, is Aragorn and his rangers, who ride through the land hunting the enemy. They do not do this for glory or fame however; rather, they even conceal their true mission from the ‘simple folk,’ allowing them to live in peace. Aragorn even says he is called names by the very people he is trying to protect. This is reminiscent of Jesus’ message of doing good while at the same time not trumpeting your actions so you are congratulated. This is the opposite of the pharisees who pray loudly in the streets all day for the show of it but are not actually good people. Furthermore, Aragorn’s feeling of scorn mirrors Jesus’ own statement: “no prophet is accepted in his hometown.”

Another connection to be made is that of Gandalf to Jesus. Throughout the trilogy, Gandalf is a wise and steadying presence. He gives thoughtful advice, just as Jesus did, and is usually a leader. Of course, this connection is made much more explicit later on in the series when he is quite literally resurrected, throwing all attempts at subtlety out the window.

Finally, The Ring represents the concept of sin and the temptation we all feel pulled toward. This temptation is a direct agent of Satan, whose tricks worked on Adam in the Garden of Eden but failed on Jesus in the desert.

Blog Post #15

I would like to focus on the quality of the church being apostolic. This signifies the fact that the church is built upon the teachings of the apostles who walked with Jesus himself. In doing so, the church pays homage to its beginnings being passed down through oral tradition rather than sacred scripture. There is no better way to learn about the teachings of Jesus than from those who were the primary witnesses, except perhaps from Jesus himself.

An important part of this concept comes from the Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit descended upon the apostles and they were sent to bear witness to Jesus. They passed down their teachings to their disciples, who in turn passed it down, and so on, all the way forward to today, with us. Just as the original apostles, members of the body of the church today are to bear witness to the good works of the light. However, we were not present for the Resurrection, and thus the apostles bear a special significance, and form the foundational stones of the church. This goes along with Jesus himself, who is the “cornerstone,” and the apostles around him are there right alongside him to support him and build up and glorify his church.

Blog Post #14

When discussing the resurrection of Christ, the Church emphasizes the duality of the event in that it is both something that can be verified historically but also transcended time. Jesus really did come back and walk around on Earth at a certain point in time, which can be backed up by historical records and accounts of his disciples. However, there is also a mystery of transcendence as Jesus has passed into another realm. Despite being present on Earth, he now inhabits a new space.

To say the resurrection was the work of the Trinity means it took all three parts– Father, Son, and Holy Spirit– to accomplish. Each component plays an equally important role in making it happen. The Father’s powers raise up His Son, whose soul and body are reunited and filled with the Holy Spirit. This science of this mystery is not elaborated on in any of the texts of the time period and is likely one we are unable to comprehend or conceive of as humans.

Christ’s resurrection closely mirrors our own. His death enables our freedom from sin, while his resurrection three days later gives us hope for a new life in the world to come. It also signifies the reversal of Adam: though sin entered the world through him, it is conquered and banished by Jesus Christ.

Blog Post #13

I chose to examine the letter to the church at Laodicea. What immediately stands out about this church is that it is neither cold nor hot. To this Jesus says, “I wish you were one or the other, but since you are neither hot nor cold, but only lukewarm, I will spit you out of my mouth.” It is telling that Jesus would rather have them be against him than half-hearted in their praise. This indicates that having a faith which you are weakly committed to is no better than, indeed worse than, having no faith at all. He goes on to say that while they may be rich in earthly goods, they are in fact incredibly poor, and blind and naked too. Rather than condemning them for their failures, Jesus calls for them to repent. This letter is his call to them and anyone who answers that call in earnest is welcome to dine with him at the table of God.

On another note, I thought it was curious for John to begin his Book of Revelation with letters to churches at all. They could easily be placed in their own book like many other letters of the New Testament. However, when examining the book it is possible that John’s apocalyptic revelation is meant to invigorate and even scare the churches into a deeper and stronger faith, one that will ensure the continuation of the church and not let it die out in its early stages.

Blog Post #12

Paul turns to the figure of Abraham in chapter 4 to connect Old Testament readings with the new, bringing things full circle and showing the continuity of the love of God. Specifically, he does this to appeal to Jews who are not being easily convinced that Jesus is the Savior, by putting it in terms of someone they revere and respect, Abraham. Abraham kept his faith in God even when things weren’t looking good, and was rewarded with nations of descendants. So too must we keep our faith in God and so honor the example set for us by our descended father.

Paul also does this to signify a shift from the Old to the New, a changing of the guard. The Law of the old has been replaced as the chief means of judgement by the spirit, which represents the new. Through the coming of Jesus Christ, faith has supplanted Law. Paul makes it clear that this church is for everyone and does not adhere to the strict Jewish laws of old, for example, not discriminating based on circumcision. The allusion to Genesis continues when Paul signifies that Jesus brought full circle the story of Adam: sin entered the world through one man, and it was banished through another. 

One thing I did find problematic was the statement, “He decided beforehand who were the ones destined to be moulded to the pattern of his Son”. This would mean that God predetermined who was to be good and who bad, meaning he essentially caused the sin. This does not necessarily fit with a God who loves all. Similarly, when Paul said “God abandoned them to their degrading passions,” this cannot be reconciled with a God who loves all of us regardless of our actions.

Blog Post #11

John’s depiction of the passion of Christ is quite different from the one presented by Luke, both in content and in style. I find the symbolism of Jesus’ pierced side to be particularly elegant. The blood and water that pour out represent the baptism and Eucharist, two main pillars on which the church is founded on. Additionally, it can be read as the church being born from the side of Jesus, just as Eve had been born from Adam’s side at the beginning of time. 

The Jesus in John’s gospel is also extremely elegant and righteous. For example, as he is being questioned by the high priest about his teachings, he tells him to ask his followers, for they have heard what he has taught. After this, he is slapped, but even then maintains his composure, saying “If there is some offence in what I said, point it out; but if not why do you strike me?” Jesus remains incredibly composed even after just being struck, which is something no doubt that any human would struggle to do. Similarly, even as Jesus is suffering on the cross he retains his elegance. In this gospel, there is no cry out “why hast thou forsaken me?” Rather, he merely says, “I am thirsty,” and “It is fulfilled,” two calm statements devoid of questions or exclamations which make you feel like Jesus has everything under control. Then, as he dies John says he “gave up his spirit.” This particular choice of words shows that it is his choice to give himself up and go to the Father, just as it was his choice to allow himself to be captured and sentenced to death. He goes out on his own terms, and in doing so maintains an aura that is above anything a normal human could hope to replicate.

Blog Post #10

There are stark differences between the Gospels of Luke and John. The first one that jumps out is that John completely omits Jesus’ (and John the Baptist’s) origin story, rather electing to jump straight in as Jesus is providing his ministry. On the other hand, Luke gives an account of the birth of Jesus and presents the Magnificat (which John omits). Another difference is that John presents a lot of information almost in the form of an epic poem, usually in terms of dialogue by Jesus. In contrast, Luke focuses much more on Jesus’ actions and keeps the story moving, whereas John tends to dive deeper into events. Going along with this, the Gospel of Luke relies heavily on parables to convey Jesus’ lessons, whereas in the Gospel of John Jesus’ teaching is much more straightforward. Possibly the main difference in the two is that in the Gospel of John, Jesus openly declares “I am the Son of God” (or its many variations… “I am the Bread of Life”, etc.) repeatedly. However, in Luke, Jesus is much more mysterious and concealed, for when he is questioned by the elders and Pontius Pilate: “Are you the Son of God?” he replies, “It is you who say that I am”. Indeed, even as Peter professes his faith and identifies Jesus as the Christ of God, Jesus orders him not to tell anyone. These two accounts and philosophies are almost in direct opposition with one another and it is interesting that each provides a completely different account of how Jesus did his teaching. One can’t help but wonder that John’s gospel may be more accurate because he is believed to be one of the twelve apostles, whereas Luke is supposedly a follower of Paul and had all his information passed down. These are the primary differences between the two gospels which stood out to me.

Blog Post #9

When it comes to constructing the Gospel, it seems that Luke uses a different style than Matthew or Mark. This becomes clear by taking a look at the footnotes, which frequently mention how Luke’s gospel differs from the others. One that pertains to Mary’s time staying with her cousin does a particularly effective job enlightening the reader. After discussing Mary, Luke wraps up that portion of this segment by effectively saying “and three months later she left” before going back to describe what had likely happened while she was still there such as John’s birth. This is primarily because it would be unwieldy to go off on the tangent of Zecharia regaining his voice just to then double back and mention “and then Mary left.”

As far as the Gospel as a whole, I think it is a much more positive message than the one conveyed in the old testament, and ultimately one the Christian people can feel good getting behind. Jesus’ noble teachings inspire each of us to want to be better and follow him. A good example of this is when Jesus says “If someone slaps you on one cheek, offer the other cheek also.” That is certainly not our first instinct when we are attacked, but Jesus calls us to rise above Earthly retribution and let God do the judging. I think this is a powerful example because it would be rather bad ass if you were to do this as well. I would say my favorite part and the high point of the Gospel is when he is riding into Jerusalem with his followers, who are proclaiming “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.” I think this is a particularly powerful scene because everything sort of comes together as Jesus rides essentially to his doom with a huge crowd standing by his side.

Finally, Luke uses other characters to portray something about Jesus mainly through juxtaposition. Luke will present two types of people and Jesus will say that one is more holy than the other, often the one who is worse off. For example, Jesus blesses the prostitute but rebukes the Pharisee. This is all essentially to say that the joy of God’s Kingdom outweighs any prosperity or suffering on Earth, and we should focus on the former and not the latter.

Blog Post #8

I did not know very much about the Gospels or their origin before this reading. I did not know that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke were considered together while the Gospel according to John is considered separately. However, there were a few aspects of the reading which I found problematic. On page 106, the author claims that to depend on the historical representation of Jesus is a dangerous misunderstanding. While I understand the point he is attempting to make, isn’t the premise misplaced. Of course, were we able to gather accurate information, we should base our following and worship of Jesus around his actual actions and things that actually happened, not exaggerations or stories made up to increase his following. While it is understandably difficult to gather such accurate information, it seems logical that were we able to obtain that information, we would follow it. However, the author contradicts that statement on page 110 when he says “The Gospels might be judged untrue if the goal was strict reporting or exact biography,” and rather claims that the success of the Gospels is bringing readers to a faith in Jesus. What is problematic is that this viewpoint leaves the door open for exaggerated and fictional accounts so long as they seek to make the reader worship Jesus, with no regard for the actual events that transpired. If this line of thinking is true and much of the Gospels are fictional, then the very foundation of the Catholic church– the teachings of Jesus Christ– is built upon lies. While I was excited to finally get into more undisputed events after most of the Old Testament is recommended to be read allegorically, this article did nothing to assure me that the New Testament wouldn’t be more of the same.

Blog Post #7

The Book of Job takes a very long time to get at a point which could be stated in a page or two. If I had to pick one piece of wisdom to identify, I would say it comes in Job 9:3. Spoken by Job of God: “Anyone trying to argue matters with him, could not give him one answer in a thousand.” Essentially, Job is recognizing that it is impossible to anticipate God’s intentions or the reasons for things being the way they are. This is because God is so great and powerful that we cannot even comprehend what he has planned. Accordingly, this makes it impossible to criticize or question God even when he seems to be quite clearly wrong or at the very least, mistaken. Frankly, this seems all too convenient a cop-out. When we ask why there is so much evil and suffering in this world, God hits us with the “you wouldn’t understand.” Indeed, it turns out Job has a very valid point and that God essentially contradicts himself as to his own reasoning. There was no reason for him to punish Job; he was an upright man and a faithful servant, as God himself said. Rather, God inflicts suffering upon Job merely to settle a bet with Satan, who bet that Job would turn away from God. In this sense, all of God’s complex, behind-the-scenes reasoning is nullified; the Bible openly admits that Job’s suffering had no purpose other than to settle a bet.

Blog Post #6

One key moment which illustrates God’s relationship with Israel is when the ark is returned by the Philistines to Beth-Shemesh. Upon its arrival, the sons of Jeconiah do not rejoice; subsequently, God strikes down seventy of them. The people, seeing this, “mourned because Yahweh had struck them so fiercely.” The footnote for this quote says “the Israelites in their turn discover how terrible the ark can be for those who do not revere it,” which in itself is an alarming statement. This seems as if God is pressuring people into worshipping him, and the people, having seen this event, will continue to honor God out of fear, even if they do not necessarily want to. This relationship is not nearly as healthy as one built on trust and mutual respect, similar to a romantic relationship. In this case God is the crazy boyfriend/ girlfriend who attempts to change or reign in their cheating significant other in hopes that everything will go back to normal and be great again.

Another important moment is when God urges Israel not to take a king, but they do not listen. God is disappointed that he is not good enough for them, and tells Samuel to tell the people all the horrible things that will happen if they have a king. Nevertheless, the people choose a king, which is the beginning fracture point of Israel from a nation ruled by God to a nation ruled by kings. These subsequent kings all sinned against God in one form another and got progressively worse, angering God and causing him to act out with increasing forms of violence.

Finally, a last moment of interest is when Johnathan is condemned to die by God. The people, however, protest this decision and buy his safety from God by ransom. This goes back to the theory of God being a “pushover” that we discussed in class; he was quite easily persuaded from something it seemed he had his heart set on at the beginning.

Blog Post #5

There are two things that strike me as I read the laws that God gave to the Israelites. One is how old and outdated the laws are. Although this is to be expected from a source thousands of years BC, many of these laws are irrelevant and altogether not followed anymore. I have never in my lifetime heard of the Catholic church slaughtering animals and presenting burnt offerings, and the so-called “great feasts” are essentially obsolete. The other was the harshness of the laws that God gave the Israelites. Nearly an entire page is occupied by sins, the perpetrator of which would be “put to death”. It seems confusing to me that an all-loving God would have so much bloodlust and capacity for anger. Indeed, as Moses returns from Mt. Sinai and sees the Golden Calf, he and the Levites slaughter 3,000 of their countrymen. This is one of the most off-putting things about the Catholic religion: that God can approve and advocate for the slaughter of thousands of people, and then turn around in the New Testament and say that you should not kill no matter what and should never judge another soul.

Perhaps the most troubling law of all, and even aspect of the Bible, is the law concerning slaves. How is it that a God, who looks out for us and supposedly loves all his children, could allow slavery of any sort? Even we, as deeply flawed humans, were able to recognize that slavery was wrong. It seems clear that the traditional God we think of would not actually be for this practice. This results in an interesting dilemma: on one hand, the writers of the Bible were deeply mistaken in their writings and the roots of the Catholic faith are just plain inaccurate. This would altogether void the Jewish faith because they treat the Torah as law. Who knows where the writers got their inspirations but I am unwilling to accept a large part of the Old Testament. And if, on the other hand, the writers were entirely correct in their transcription, that means there is a God that allows for slavery to take place. That is not a God I would feel comfortable placing my faith in. This is just one example of a deeply flawed Catholic church that sidesteps many criticisms of their beliefs and has no real answer to any of them.

Blog Post #4

The beginning chapters of Exodus are mainly focused on the figure of Moses. I believe Moses is righteous and obedient. One defining moment of his righteousness is when Moses strikes down an Egyptian that he saw hitting an Israelite. Even though he was brought up as a royal, he still feels obligated to step in and defend his people. Moses is obedient because despite the Pharaoh constantly going back on his promise, Moses does not get impatient but rather goes to God for help. 

The author of Exodus portrays Moses a certain way. Number one is that he is God-fearing. This the author portrays when Moses comes to the burning bush. As he hears the voice of God, Moses covers his face, afraid to see God. Another important trait the author portrays Moses with is his poor speech ability. One can assume that because of his humility that God chose Moses for the job. Despite this, God admonishes Moses, reminding him that God is the one who has the power to make someone blind or mute, and thus he intended for him to be this way. Nevertheless, he allows Moses to use his brother Aaron the Levite as his spokesman.

EC Post

Section 1: The first section discusses the origin of the names of each book of the Pentateuch, which itself means ‘The Book in Five Volumes’. It is also called the ‘Torah’ by Jews, meaning the ‘Law’. This, along with the book ‘Leviticus’, which contains the laws of priests, indicates the emphasis on laws throughout the first five books of the Bible.

Section 2: Section 2 enumerates the history of the writing of the Pentateuch. It is revealed that it was written in four distinct traditions (Yahwistic, Elohistic, Priestly Code, and Deuteronomic), and then compiled together. This notion disputes the claim that Moses had written most of the Pentateuch, as it is unlikely that one person would alternate between so many styles of writing.

Section 3: The third section connects the events described in the Bible to their relevant points in history. Essentially the Pentateuch is divided into two parts: Genesis chapters 1-11, which are supposed to be largely allegorical, and the rest of the Pentateuch, which is claimed to be historical.

Section 4: Section four focuses on the laws enumerated throughout the Pentateuch. It also draws parallels between the covenants between God and man and similar ideas in Mesopotamian codes such as Assyria or the Hittite code.

Section 5: The last section incorporates the relationship of the Israelites with the Pentateuch in their journey to understand God’s mysterious ways. They say that Israel should be the People of God because they received the divine promise.

Blog Post #3

There is a clear contrast between Genesis Chapter 1 and Genesis Chapters 2-4. Chapter 1 is full of hope: God has just created a new world out of nothing, performing miracle after miracle. At the end, He caps it off with a day of rest. Overall, these images are happy ones that illuminate the goodness of God. Chapters 2-4, however, illustrate the inherent sin-filled nature of humans. God is betrayed by Adam and Eve, and the next chapters are spent detailing what happens when you go against God. The suffering, pain, and sin experienced by Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, and their descendants is in direct contrast to the happy story of creation. One even begins to feel bad for God, that almost as soon as he has created these humans for companionship and love, he has already been crossed. The first chapter seems to be in the Yahwistic style of the Bible, where there is imagery and happy tone. On the other hand, the next three chapters seem to be in the Elohistic style which is much more serious and straight forward. While the first chapter illustrates God’s love and wish to be loved in return, chapters 2-4 illustrate his disappointment and the inclination that God’s efforts to have a perfect, pure relationship with humans (as he had with Adam & Eve before the Fall) will always be a struggle.

Blog Post #2

Newbigin does a really good job at simplifying the Bible into an easy to understand, chronological story (even as he acknowledges that most people view it as more of an anthology of useful anecdotes than a novel to be read from the first page straight to the last). As someone who hasn’t studied the Bible extensively and knows of many of the stories within it but not their relation to one another, this book was helpful in piecing together sort of the timeline of the Bible so to speak. 

I think Newbigin sees two distinct key moments happening in the Bible, both concerning Jesus. Number one would be the decision of God to send a son in his image, to carry forward the “Kingdom of God” the Israelites had been searching and waiting for. After long periods of suffering and hardship, God decides that the time for his people’s prosperity was now and sends his son to spread his teachings and absolve the world from sin. 

The second key moment would be when Jesus rises again on the third day. Without this act, Newbigin argues the story of Jesus would be unremarkable. Another good man was killed for his deeds and it ends there, with Israel being without hope once again. But this is not the case; rather, Jesus gathers his Apostles and sends them to the far corners of the globe to spread his praise. This act causes many more to follow the light of Jesus than otherwise would have if his story had ended with death. Another important takeaway from this event is the ability of God to raise Jesus once again. As Newbigin recognizes, a reality where we are but filler between Jesus and the Second Coming where an eternal paradise is established is quite unappealing because we don’t get to share in that joy. However, Jesus’ resurrection gives us hope for our own resurrection, that we might one day also take part in the joy of God’s eternal kingdom even if our material bodies had passed away long ago.

Blog Post #1

This is my first time reading the Catechism. While growing up Catholic, this is my first time being at a Catholic school. I have never done a formal and serious study of the Catholic faith, although that is something I’d like to start. That being said, there were plenty of terms I didn’t know. The most prominent of these included: catechistic, exegesis, Magisterium, and dogma. 

There are many things that remain unclear to me; probably a majority, in fact. One aspect that my mind is drawn to is the way the Church presents the Bible and its teachings. In a sense, they seem to be hedging their bets. What I mean by this is that on one hand, they proclaim that every word in the Scriptures is absolutely true and even comes directly from God, who merely used inspiration of the authors to convey His message to us. On the other hand, the church emphasizes the importance of keeping in mind the bigger picture and the way things have changed from the time the Scriptures were written to the present and remind us to look for analogies. For example, take the case of Noah and the Ark. If this is a true story, when is it said to have happened? Are there historical and geological records corroborating this account? And if a member of the church were to concede that this story is merely a metaphor, how does that not invalidate God’s message? Furthermore, the Catechism states that the Old Testament “contains matters imperfect and provisional”. How can this coexist with the fact that the Bible is supposedly perfect and direct Word from God? Is God, then, imperfect? It is primarily this line of thinking that most confuses me and at the moment I remain largely unconvinced.

One thing I did find persuasive, however, was that human reason was evidence of God’s existence. Essentially, humans and God have a mutually symbiotic relationship. God created humans for love, and to love Him they have to be aware of Him. To be aware of Him, we must be reasonable enough to identify Him. This is what separates us most from other creatures and makes us special.

---

Follow My Blog

Get new content delivered directly to your inbox.