In Mark, I read a different point of view of the encounter between Pilate and Jesus. Now I see that the gospels tell the story of Jesus, from their own points of view. As I stated in one of my previous posts while reading John, I defended Pilate. In John, I found some arguments that led me to believe that Pilate wasn't completely guilty. In Mark, Pilate decides to crucify Jesus in less than a paragraph and his methods of defending him are completely useless and seem to require no effort. Here, "And so Pilate, willing to content the people, released Barabbas unto them, and delivered Jesus, when he had scourged him,to be crucified." (15:15) And that was it. So after reading Mark's point of view, I can say that I didn't see Pilate the same way as before.
While Jesus was carrying the cross, he said the following, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (15:35) This leaves me wondering. Didn't Jesus know that he was going to die in order to spread his religion and save his people? Didn't Jesus know that he was going to suffer? Didn't Jesus predict his death? Didn't Jesus know he would suffer for good? Then why did he think God had forsaken him? Was he in so much pain that he thought God had betrayed him and given up on him? Or maybe, he is just saying this for the Christian reader to know how much he suffered. For example, in the Catholic religion, we pay for our sins and we pay our debt to Jesus for carrying the cross for us. It's our duty. Maybe by stating that Jesus did actually suffer, even though he knew he was sacrificing for love, would encourage us to follow him? This is when I start thinking of the "commercial" side of the Bible, for lack of a better word. I mean, Jesus needed followers, he needed believers. Like Wal-Mart needs customers so they give discounts.
* I would just like to point out, completely removing myself from the subject at hand, how I found another passage mentioning "kissing" between 2 men, an issue that was heavily debated while we were reading Gilgamesh. Read at your own risk: "And he that betrayed him had given them a token, saying, Whomsoever I shall kiss, that same is he; take him, and lead him away safely. And as soon as he was come, he goeth straightway to him, and saith, Master, master; and kissed him." (14:45) So, there.
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Mark: The Middle of Romance and Exorcism
I must say that while reading this I felt a bit better about the way of life that the Bible encourages. The bible encourages equality, love, fairness, kindness, and even though it may come to an extreme that is way too conservative, most of it should be a guide for everyday life. What I am not exactly pleased to announce is that some of the lines in Mark reminded me of a Nicholas Sparks cheese marathon or just to make it sound a little better, an upgraded Nicholas Sparks novel. This is the one that made me remember The Notebook's "tear-provoking" lines: "For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."(Mark 10:9) "They twain shall be one flesh." How beautiful. And cheesy. But true. Or supposed to be true. Man and woman are one. But it's so contradictory. It's not like they are considered equals, even today, for some things. But things have advanced since the times when we weren't allowed to receive an education or to vote. But now man and woman can love each other as equals. But perhaps it wasn't even meant to be seen in a romantic way, saying that man and woman are one. Maybe I've been reading way too many romantic novels and watching way too many romantic movies, so my girly instinct was to think of this romantically. Maybe in a non-romantic way, it just means that they have to be equal in every single way. If the man gets a cookie, the woman should get a cookie as well. So don't treat the man as if he were greater than the woman because they are one and the same. Ah, but my fifteen-year-old self thinks the Nicholas Sparks version is a lot more entertaining and laughable.
There was this event mentioned in Mark that disturbed me a bit and that is quite often used in exclusive money-making, bad horror movies: exorcism. I'm not even going to google it, the word itself is so scary. But this is what I believe Jesus did to the boy who "hath a dumb spirit", I mean what other spirit could it be? What this boy is described as having is stated in the following quote, "And ofttimes it hath cast him into the fire, and into the waters, to destroy him: but if thou canst do any thing, have compassion on us, and help us." (9:22) I have to say that I really don't believe there is a bad spirit that needs to be driven away with the power of Jesus, I think that it's just an illness such as schizophrenia or Alzheimer's. This is where I start thinking of all the rest of the things that don't seem too believable in the bible. The water being turned into wine, the opening of the sea, a talking snake, an ark taking in the last survivors of the human race, etc... But it's all a question of faith. I just see these things as symbols rather than facts, taking them seriously would really drive me crazy.
Mark: The Beginning of Hope
In my personal opinion, I found the first chapter of Mark to have a few similarities with the first chapter of John. Here is one of the passages from the beginning of John:
"There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light." (John 1:7-1:8)
Here we are talking about some kind of messenger or witness that is there to see Jesus and perhaps, help him.
Now let's see the beginning of Mark: "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight. John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins." (Mark 1:1-1:5)
You can see that the same person is being talked about. We are talking about John the baptist that is "guiding" the "light". In other words, John is the messenger that is there to witness Jesus and to corroborate that he is the son of God.
The main difference between John and Mark is that John is not as straightforward as Mark. In John, metaphors and poetic-sounding words are used to represent God, Jesus, and John. John is a "witness" and Jesus is "the Light". After discussing with some of my classmates about John, Mark, and the rest of the gospels, I often heard them saying that John seemed to be the most boring gospel, and the one that required the most analysis because it isn't as direct as Mark or the rest of the gospels. I have to say that after reading the beginning of John, the beginning of Mark was a bit of a relief, events were stated in a clearer way, in my opinion. But in John, it's simply prettier or more decorative, so it makes for a nice read. You would much rather read about Jesus being a "Light" than being simply "Jesus." By stating that Jesus is a light we are saying that there is some kind of hope. Light signals hope. And by stating that John is a "witness", you can infer that Jesus is going to do something so magnificent and miraculous that is deserves or needs, a witness. Not that in Mark the reader doesn't know that it's heading into tat direction. Mark starts with the baptism of Jesus, and it's descriptions are very much obvious: "And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him" (Mark 1:10) The "spirit" of a "dove" was descending upon him. This is another influence I am reminded of that the bible had on Catholicism. In Catholicism, God exists in three different forms: the father, the son, and the holy spirit. The father is God, the son is Jesus, and the holy spirit is the dove. I'm not really sure why the dove, that is something I'd really like to look into. But, without knowing anything else, the first thing I think of when I see a dove is hope. To me, believers are the ones searching for hope, and believing in God gives them hope.
"There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light." (John 1:7-1:8)
Here we are talking about some kind of messenger or witness that is there to see Jesus and perhaps, help him.
Now let's see the beginning of Mark: "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight. John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins." (Mark 1:1-1:5)
You can see that the same person is being talked about. We are talking about John the baptist that is "guiding" the "light". In other words, John is the messenger that is there to witness Jesus and to corroborate that he is the son of God.
The main difference between John and Mark is that John is not as straightforward as Mark. In John, metaphors and poetic-sounding words are used to represent God, Jesus, and John. John is a "witness" and Jesus is "the Light". After discussing with some of my classmates about John, Mark, and the rest of the gospels, I often heard them saying that John seemed to be the most boring gospel, and the one that required the most analysis because it isn't as direct as Mark or the rest of the gospels. I have to say that after reading the beginning of John, the beginning of Mark was a bit of a relief, events were stated in a clearer way, in my opinion. But in John, it's simply prettier or more decorative, so it makes for a nice read. You would much rather read about Jesus being a "Light" than being simply "Jesus." By stating that Jesus is a light we are saying that there is some kind of hope. Light signals hope. And by stating that John is a "witness", you can infer that Jesus is going to do something so magnificent and miraculous that is deserves or needs, a witness. Not that in Mark the reader doesn't know that it's heading into tat direction. Mark starts with the baptism of Jesus, and it's descriptions are very much obvious: "And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him" (Mark 1:10) The "spirit" of a "dove" was descending upon him. This is another influence I am reminded of that the bible had on Catholicism. In Catholicism, God exists in three different forms: the father, the son, and the holy spirit. The father is God, the son is Jesus, and the holy spirit is the dove. I'm not really sure why the dove, that is something I'd really like to look into. But, without knowing anything else, the first thing I think of when I see a dove is hope. To me, believers are the ones searching for hope, and believing in God gives them hope.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
TTBA
LINK FOR WATER ENTRIES:
https://docs.google.com/document/edit?id=1rO1kXSbW5J4LVEMGnk8SNUREobO4iC6nfP3s81qsuck&hl=es
LINK FOR EARTH ENTRIES:
https://docs.google.com/document/edit?id=193a0SDBda5m6xtvH_DOh9pwIr5i81FmXFmKWOOHYyb4#
LINK FOR AIR ENTRIES:
https://docs.google.com/document/edit?id=1h6YO8Wky_YUPu-8Zq8F_z78MePDpFnbqOgz9_jd6vhw&hl=es
LINK FOR FIRE ENTRIES
https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AZh7AJIoaq1GZGZyZHE5ZGNfMjA0ZDI2NXRyYzI&hl=en
https://docs.google.com/document/edit?id=1rO1kXSbW5J4LVEMGnk8SNUREobO4iC6nfP3s81qsuck&hl=es
LINK FOR EARTH ENTRIES:
https://docs.google.com/document/edit?id=193a0SDBda5m6xtvH_DOh9pwIr5i81FmXFmKWOOHYyb4#
LINK FOR AIR ENTRIES:
https://docs.google.com/document/edit?id=1h6YO8Wky_YUPu-8Zq8F_z78MePDpFnbqOgz9_jd6vhw&hl=es
LINK FOR FIRE ENTRIES
https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AZh7AJIoaq1GZGZyZHE5ZGNfMjA0ZDI2NXRyYzI&hl=en
Sunday, May 23, 2010
John 13-21: Jesus and Destiny
What happened in these readings with Jesus and Pilate, were some events I'd been waiting to write about and discuss. Is Pilate thoroughly to blame for the death of Jesus? Yes, it was his destiny and Jesus knew he was going to die to later resurrect. But, there are always the what if's you can't help but wonder about. What if Jesus was saved by Pilate? Is Pilate really as bad as he seems to be? Did Pilate try to help Jesus? And if he did, why does it seem so overlooked?
At first, while reading John 18, I didn't see Pilate as a prejudiced leader, his actions made sense and were not unfair. Pilate asked the Jews to judge Jesus according to their own laws, separating himself completely from the issue as can be seen in the following quote: "If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up unto thee. Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death..." (John 18:31) But then the Jews went all complicated on Pilate and told him, basically, that the crime Jesus had committed was so felonious that he deserved death, and they weren't allowed to sentence him to death. Pilate is put on a very difficult position. To sentence a man ,for whom he is not responsible for, to death. To kill him for having committed a crime that does not deserve death. He even confirms it, "Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?" (John 18:35) Pilate did not find Jesus guilty of any crime as you can see in the following quote: "...he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all." (John 18:38)
So far, we can come up with a few conclusions. 1) Pilate did not feel responsible for Jesus as he was a Jew. 2) Pilate did not find Jesus guilty of any crime. 3) Pilate had to do something, the Jews were going to go crazy if Jesus did not receive a punishment for declaring himself as Son of God. So his next move made complete sense. Pilate "scourged" Jesus. This is the part in which we are supposed to feel bad for Jesus and hate Pilate because he is so unfair! But in my interpretation, isn't this Pilate's move to help Jesus? To scourge him and then release him? To please the Jews by punishing him, but being equitable by letting him go afterward? Pilate did not find any "fault" in Jesus at all, as he mentions several times. But there was nothing Pilate could do about a crowd's uproar and plea for Jesus to be crucified. I defend Pilate because there are these small and possibly meaningless (because he did allow Jesus to be crucified in the end) moments in which I felt sorry for him. I really do think that he tried to help Jesus, "Pilate sought to release him: but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar’s friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar." (John 19:12), he was just afraid. It was written that Jesus had to die and resurrect.
At first, while reading John 18, I didn't see Pilate as a prejudiced leader, his actions made sense and were not unfair. Pilate asked the Jews to judge Jesus according to their own laws, separating himself completely from the issue as can be seen in the following quote: "If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up unto thee. Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death..." (John 18:31) But then the Jews went all complicated on Pilate and told him, basically, that the crime Jesus had committed was so felonious that he deserved death, and they weren't allowed to sentence him to death. Pilate is put on a very difficult position. To sentence a man ,for whom he is not responsible for, to death. To kill him for having committed a crime that does not deserve death. He even confirms it, "Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?" (John 18:35) Pilate did not find Jesus guilty of any crime as you can see in the following quote: "...he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all." (John 18:38)
So far, we can come up with a few conclusions. 1) Pilate did not feel responsible for Jesus as he was a Jew. 2) Pilate did not find Jesus guilty of any crime. 3) Pilate had to do something, the Jews were going to go crazy if Jesus did not receive a punishment for declaring himself as Son of God. So his next move made complete sense. Pilate "scourged" Jesus. This is the part in which we are supposed to feel bad for Jesus and hate Pilate because he is so unfair! But in my interpretation, isn't this Pilate's move to help Jesus? To scourge him and then release him? To please the Jews by punishing him, but being equitable by letting him go afterward? Pilate did not find any "fault" in Jesus at all, as he mentions several times. But there was nothing Pilate could do about a crowd's uproar and plea for Jesus to be crucified. I defend Pilate because there are these small and possibly meaningless (because he did allow Jesus to be crucified in the end) moments in which I felt sorry for him. I really do think that he tried to help Jesus, "Pilate sought to release him: but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar’s friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar." (John 19:12), he was just afraid. It was written that Jesus had to die and resurrect.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
John 7-13: To Throw Rocks At Them
Jesus did not hide who he was. He was not cowardly and he was not embarrassed. This is a lesson to me. It must take lots of courage to learn how to be yourself without caring what the rest thinks. Just to get to the point when you only care what you think. This following quote from John states it very clearly, "For there is no man that doeth any thing in secret, and he himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou do these things, shew thyself to the world." (John 7.4) But Jesus wasn't talking about himself or what he was, He was talking in the name of God and God only. He didn't give himself credit for "deceiving" Israelites. He was the messenger, as I mentioned in my previous post. "My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me."(John 7.16)
After reading the Old Testament and comparing it to the New Testament, I have found that I enjoy Jesus as a character a lot more than any other character in the Old Testament. He is just so impartial and fair. A person who sees all flaws and understands humanity so well. Someone who knows what he's doing and how he guides his followers. What he said in John 8 was what affected me the most. It was about a woman who had committed adultery and Jesus was asked to throw the first rock at her. Could he be any more noble and just? What he said was perfect, "Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her". It just makes so much more sense than anything else in the world. It makes more sense than killing a man to get his wife, than sibling rivalry, even more than guiding people across Egypt to their promised land. "Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her". How can you punish a sinner for being discovered once, when you have sinned your whole life without knowing it? Or how can you punish a sinner when you are a sinner and you know it? Does it matter that she was a woman? No. She was a sinner. But so were all the rest who were willing to punish her. They were all willing to torment her and humiliate her in order to hide their own sins and be able to blame her for them. Because if she was the one punished, they weren't to blame. Or that is the way I saw it when reading this.
While reading this I felt a rush of relief because it was as if the world had been an unfair place with unjust ways of thinking until Jesus came along. Jesus came along with his then "unorthodox" ways and changed everything. All that was bad had the chance to become good. All the sins were forgiven. If Jesus had not been right there, right then, and if he wouldn't have spoken, things would have never been the way they are now. I mean, who really knows? This has all just been an amazing example to the world about goodness and values. And to be fair knowing boundaries. The Bible is sometimes called a way of life, and I don't think I could understand that at all until I read these chapters. It really did change after Jesus, and to be like Jesus is not wrong.
But it's not like they listened to him. I'm just saying that I would've listened to him. I forgot to mention that Jesus almost had rocks thrown at him for what he had just said. The crowd listening to him protest is furious. They must have been thinking, Who does this man think he is to change our ways of thinking? It was Jesus, Son of God.
After reading the Old Testament and comparing it to the New Testament, I have found that I enjoy Jesus as a character a lot more than any other character in the Old Testament. He is just so impartial and fair. A person who sees all flaws and understands humanity so well. Someone who knows what he's doing and how he guides his followers. What he said in John 8 was what affected me the most. It was about a woman who had committed adultery and Jesus was asked to throw the first rock at her. Could he be any more noble and just? What he said was perfect, "Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her". It just makes so much more sense than anything else in the world. It makes more sense than killing a man to get his wife, than sibling rivalry, even more than guiding people across Egypt to their promised land. "Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her". How can you punish a sinner for being discovered once, when you have sinned your whole life without knowing it? Or how can you punish a sinner when you are a sinner and you know it? Does it matter that she was a woman? No. She was a sinner. But so were all the rest who were willing to punish her. They were all willing to torment her and humiliate her in order to hide their own sins and be able to blame her for them. Because if she was the one punished, they weren't to blame. Or that is the way I saw it when reading this.
While reading this I felt a rush of relief because it was as if the world had been an unfair place with unjust ways of thinking until Jesus came along. Jesus came along with his then "unorthodox" ways and changed everything. All that was bad had the chance to become good. All the sins were forgiven. If Jesus had not been right there, right then, and if he wouldn't have spoken, things would have never been the way they are now. I mean, who really knows? This has all just been an amazing example to the world about goodness and values. And to be fair knowing boundaries. The Bible is sometimes called a way of life, and I don't think I could understand that at all until I read these chapters. It really did change after Jesus, and to be like Jesus is not wrong.
But it's not like they listened to him. I'm just saying that I would've listened to him. I forgot to mention that Jesus almost had rocks thrown at him for what he had just said. The crowd listening to him protest is furious. They must have been thinking, Who does this man think he is to change our ways of thinking? It was Jesus, Son of God.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
TTBA Entries
email: sickofarose@gmail.com
link for entries: https://docs.google.com/document/edit?id=1IxmG2twFvzp0Cho3c-6AYrX7cZzTkWEdabvjwG7_RhY&hl=es
link for entries: https://docs.google.com/document/edit?id=1IxmG2twFvzp0Cho3c-6AYrX7cZzTkWEdabvjwG7_RhY&hl=es
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)