Gospel of Matthew

“Then Jesus came from Galilee to John at Jordan, to be baptized by him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?” But Jesus answered him, “Let it be so now; for it is proper for us in this way to fulfill all righteousness.” (Matthew 3.13-15, NRSV)

It struck me as very odd that Jesus, who is sinless and the Son of God, sought out his own baptism. I considered the possible messages that this baptism could imply for Christianity and one conclusion that I drew was this baptism helped to humanize Jesus.  While Jesus was sinless and thus had no need to be baptized, others could look at his baptism as a sign of humility. It might have been comforting to worship someone who does not consider himself above the common man. By being baptized, all Christians can identify with Jesus. Perhaps this was a way to make Christianity more appealing for its followers?

However, at the same time I don’t believe that it is common to want to worship someone who is relatable or human. It is easier to worship someone who is divine and infallible because it provides comfort in knowing that a higher power has a plan.

Another possible explanation for Jesus’s baptism is that it helps legitimize John the Baptist. If even Jesus is willing to be baptized by John then clearly John should be a respected religious authority. This explanation still seems to be an insufficient justification for the baptism in my opinion though. Does anyone else have any ideas as to what the appeal or benefit may be for John the Baptist baptizing Jesus?

The Gospel of Mark

My fellow classmates,
The role of the Pharisees in Mark's gospel is basically how Catholics have been conditioned to see the Pharisees. In chapter 3, verses 2-6, Mark states "They(Pharisees) watched him(Jesus) to see whether he would cure him on the sabbath, so that they may accuse him. And he said to the man who had the withered hand 'Come forward'. Then he said to them, 'Is it lawful to do good or to do harm on the sabbath, to save life or kill?' But they were silent. He looked around at them with anger; he was grieved at their hardness of heart and said to the man 'Stretch out your hand.' He stretched it out and his hand was restored. The Pharisees went out and immediately conspired with the Herodians against him, how to destroy him. (Mark 3:2-6) This plays right into the rude, strict, uncaring way people see them nowadays. However, at the plenary on emerging Christianity, Dr. Ullucci talked about how those were misunderstandings and that was not how things were. Taking his historical view as accurate, this would lead me to believe that Mark was manipulating the view the Christians reading his gospel would have of the Pharisees. I believe that Mark was attempting to make sure there was a clear delineation between the Jewish faith as practiced at Jesus' time, and the, in his opinion, better Christian faith that developed from Jesus. The Pharisees and Jewish elite were unjustly, according to Dr. Ullucci, portrayed, and this reason, I think, is to give Christians reading the gospel a more independent identity. What do you think the purpose of Mark's descriptions of the Pharisees is? Do you think the description is completely accurate?

The Gospel of Mark

In Chapter 4, Jesus compares the kingdom of God to a mustard seed, saying, "With what can we compare the kingdom of God, or what parable will we use for it? It is like a mustard seed, which when sown upon the ground, is the smallest of all the seeds on earth; yet when it is sown it grows up and becomes the greatest of all shrubs, and puts forth large branches, so that the birds of the air can make nests in its shade," (Mark 4:30-32). In this parable, Jesus is saying that although this religion is starting small, one day it will grow to be great, and will become the refuge of many. Jesus used many parables such as this to explain things in ways that all kinds of people could understand them. In this way, he could relate the truths of God in familiar settings and languages that were common to the people at the time. Using these stories, he was able to gain the attention of large crowds. Since these stories were easy to remember and filled with symbolism, they were also easily spread to other people. Parables also often provided an open-ended metaphor that allowed followers to interpret them for themselves. This made them think and reflect on their faith and on what Jesus was saying. Using parables, Jesus was able to take on a new approach to teaching and was also able to attract a lot more people to the faith. What do you think about Jesus's use of parables as a means of teaching? Do you think they were effective? Or were they just confusing?

Corinthians 12

In this chapter, we see lines such as "Indeed, the body does not consist of one member but many (1 Corinthians 12.14, NRSV)" and "But God has so arranged the body, giving the greater honor to the inferior member, that there be no dissension within the body (1 Corinthians 12.24-25, NRSV)." These lines represent part of Paul's metaphor of the human body. In this metaphor, Paul gives greater credence to the perceived inferior parts of the body rather than the apparent greater parts. He uses this metaphor to represent the societal paradigm in which he lived. Doing this, he opens up his parish to the greater part of the population; he opens it up to the lower classes, which is the most populous class. He also, though, insults the upper class calling them "the same (1 Corinthians 12.25, NRSV)" as the lower class. He does this for the only reason that could make sense. He does this to increase the attractiveness to the most populous class of society, while making his religion about equality; in doing this, Paul is making a statement about other religions and his own. He is differentiating his religion as one of equality no matter what: including socio-economic class. He is promoting the lower classes by stating, "giving the greater honor to the inferior member (1 Corinthians 12.24, NRSV)", but my question is: is Paul being passive-aggressive here? Is he insulting the perceived level of the higher classes, while at the same time making his religion more attractive to the lower class? If he is doing this, Paul is extremely cunning and manipulative in the way he uses his propaganda techniques.

Corinthians 7

"'It is well for a man not to touch a woman.' But because of cases of sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each her own husband. The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does" (1 Corinthians 7.1-4, NRSV).
When I read this statement, I openly laughed aloud. First, Paul is stating that it is not okay for a man to touch a woman unless it is for purely for reproductive means. He is denying the right of touch in the name of Christianity. How insane is this? We give up our right to touch one another for the right to go to heaven? Then, he goes on to give man's conjugal rights and his own body to his wife, and in turn, give the women's conjugal rights and her own body to the husband. How does this even make sense? We give up a right we're not even supposed to use unless for reproduction to our husband/wife. In the twenty-first century, we can easily see this as taboo, but I wonder if this was taboo in Paul's time. Was sexual behavior seen as immoral? Diogenes had sex in the middle of a town with his wife to challenge taboos, so how can touching a woman in this time period, 400 years after Paul, be seen as immoral?

1 Corinthians

"...women should be silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as the law also says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church," (1 Corinthians, 14:34-35). In this chapter, Paul is talking about what should be done when people gather together for church. He says that two or three prophets should speak and that everything should be done for the purpose of building up the church. He then makes sure to explicitly mention that women should not be a part of this tradition. Paul also addresses women in Chapter 11 saying that women must wear a veil as a "symbol of authority" over their head when they pray so as to not disgrace it.  I've obviously observed this oppression of women in most of the Bible, with the exception of a few key figures. I also am aware that the idea that women were subordinate to their husbands (and men in general) was the norm in the time period that this was written. However, sometimes I feel like Paul contradicts himself when putting women in this position. In Chapter 12, he uses the human body as a metaphor for the church of Christ. He writes that "the body does not consist of one member, but many members" (1 Corinthians 12:14)  and argues that no member is more important or less important than another, they are all essential. He says, "God has so arranged the body, giving the greater honor to the inferior member," (1 Corinthians 12:24). If this is the case, then why is the so-called "weaker sex" not given a greater role of authority within the church. It seems that the women are thought to be no where near as essential to the church as the males, and as the "inferior member," that they are not given any honor that could compare with the "superior member." What do you guys think about what Paul writes in his letter? Do you feel like he contradicts himself in saying these things?

Acts 9

"But the Lord said to him, "Go, for he is an instrument whom I have chosen to bring my name before Gentiles and kings and before the people of Israel; I myself will show him how much he must suffer for the sake of my name."" (Acts 9:15-16, NRSV).
I may be grasping at straws here, but reading this text, and this excerpt in particular, I thought I noticed some similarities between the god of Stoic belief described by Seneca, and the behavior of god in this passage. God takes a fatherly role over Saul as he chooses him to be his vehicle to spread his teachings. The Stoics believed that gods held a fatherly relationship with men, meaning that they wanted to better the men through adversity. The Stoics also embraced and welcomed adversity and suffering. Saul is going to face great suffering but it will be for a greater good according to the text.
"Saul, like the prophets, was chosen for a special purpose" (Acts 9:15, Annotations). The Stoics believed that the gods only subjected certain men to suffering because those men were the ones who were worthy of it because they had great potential. Here, god has hand chosen Saul for a great task, that will surely entail suffering, because he is worthy of such a task.
I will open this for discussion now. What are your thoughts?