Antony vs. The Average Joe

"...How great Antony, the man of God was.  Who from his youth to so great an age preserved a uniform zeal for the discipline, and neither through old age was subdued by the desire of costly food, nor through the infirmity of his body changed the fashion of his clothing, nor washed even his feet with water, and yet remained entirely free from harm,"(93).  

The life of Antony was one one of seclusion and characterized by strict discipline.  It was very different in comparison to the lives of those who lived at the same time period. The quote above shows the discipline of Antony throughout his life, and the result it had in the end.  Because of his devotion to living his life in accordance to God, his life is often regarded as prosperous and virtuous.  The life of Antony is "a sufficient pattern of discipline." My question to you my fellow classmates is, how might this recount of the life of Antony who lived a life of very strict discipline, appeal to the masses about who did not live by such a strict adherence to a life of simplicity, moderation and devotion to God?

What made monastic life appealing?

The reading guide encouraged us to think about "what might make the monastic life appealing?" Most people would not enjoy a life of such intense seclusion so what makes it appealing to those who devote their life to monastic religious practices? "...but to keep all his desire and energy for perfecting his discipline." I believe that this short piece of "Life of Antony" best answers why some people are drawn to monastic life. The people that devote their life to secluded discipline of a religion are already very serious about their religion and perfecting their discipline. This means that the opportunity to devote "all their desire and energy to perfecting the discipline" would be very attractive for such a person. What other reasons do you think could possibly attract people to monastic life?

The Martyrdom of Sts Perpetua and Felicitas

"Next she asked for a pin to fasten her untidy hair: for it was not right that a martyr should die with her hair in disorder, lest she might seem to be mourning in her hour of triumph." (paragraph 20)
I find it very interesting that martyrdom is such a thing of pride in this era. I was under the impression that after their death people admired the martyrs, along the lines that they did not die in vain, but rather for their faith. But throughout this piece, the people seem to be relishing their condemnation and death, and see it as their "hour of triumph." Rome turns it into a spectacle through the use of wild beasts and gladiators, but the martyrs accept this show and go along with it, putting their hair up and giving birth prematurely so that they can all die together. This honor of death is due in part to the honor that came with Jesus's death, and also partially the Stoic idea of an honorable death, according to the reading guide. These people seem to me to be dying to gain glory, rather than for their beliefs in Jesus. When a death becomes this much of a spectacle, is it really out of faith, or is for the honor that came along with being a martyr? 

Pliny to the Emperor Trajan

"I have used the following procedure: I asked them whether they were Christians. Those who admitted it I asked a second and a third time, menacingly. The persistent, I ordered to be led away (for execution)." I found it interesting that Pliny gave those on trial a second and even third chance to deny that they were Christian and to be let free with no more questions asked. It seems to be that they did not want the Christians to have martyrs because it actually strengthened instead of weakening their movement as intended. Jewish martyrs "adopted the ideal of martyrdom as a witness that imitated the suffering and death of Jesus." Being a martyr for Christianity was considered to be a great and noble act for followers of Christianity. It served to strengthen their movement as well. What speaks more highly of a movement than followers who are willing to die for their beliefs? It is because of this that those persecuting Christians did not want more martyrs. "They are not to be sought out," Trajan says to Pliny. They did not wanted to aid the Christian movement by creating more symbols for possible followers to look up to. I would like to hear other opinions on this subject. Do you agree or do you think there is another possible reason for why the persecutors seem hesitant to create more martyrs?

John 18

"After Jesus had spoken these words, he went out with his disciples across the Kidron valley to a place where there was a garden, which he and his disciples entered" (NRSV John 18:1). Each of the other gospel authors recount Jesus' time in the Garden of Gethsemane with detail. Mark, Matthew, and Luke each include a verse where Jesus prays to God and asks him to allow Jesus to avoid crucifixion if there was any other option. This is not seen in the Gospel of John. I believe that the author of John is trying to portray Jesus as a stronger figure that does not show fear or hesitancy in such a trying time. I believe he does this to make Jesus a more attractive figure to want to follow and commit to the teachings of because it is natural for people to want a strong and fearless leader. I'm interested to hear other thoughts on why the recount of the Garden of Gethsemane is so skimpy in the Gospel of John.

The Gospel of John

"And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father's only son, full of grace and truth," (John 1:14). When I was looking at the chart you gave us that compared and contrasted the four gospels, I noticed that the idea of Jesus as the eternal Word and the Word made "flesh" was only depicted in the gospel of John. This is made me wonder why John found it necessary to include something like that. Rather than beginning with a genealogy, he begin with tracing Jesus back to God as the "word" becoming "flesh," or Jesus coming as God's only son coming down to earth in the flesh. So why might John have included this striking passage? Maybe he is trying to relate Jesus back to the beginning of creation, when, according to the bible, God used his "word" to create everything. Saying that Jesus is the "word made flesh" could mean that God used the same rationality and power in creating his son that he did in creating the world. It could also help identify Jesus as being a part of God because if God is the word, and Jesus is the word made flesh, then that would make Jesus a part of God. By saying that Jesus was the "word made flesh" John might also be emphasizing Jesus's human qualities. Although Jesus is God, he is also a human and he is portrayed to be imperfect, possibly as a way for people to relate with him. Jesus suffers from temptation, anger, and eventual death, which are all very humanistic characteristics. We saw an example of this in Aeneas, describing him as a very 'human' hero. Attributing these characteristics to Jesus shows that even though he was one with God, he was also very human in his struggles, giving the people hope that they could be forgiven for their human sins. What do you think the significance of this passage is? Why do you think that John was the only Gospel writer to introduce this idea?  

The Gospel According to Luke

My fellow classmates,
The Bible, both the New Testament, as well as the Hebrew Bible, are viewed differently than many other texts since it is a holy text. Given that, one thing that does not sit well with many readers is the idea that there are inconstancies in the Bible, leading to confusion in what message to follow. In the middle of Luke, chapter 12 to be precise, in the midst of a parable, " He (Jesus) said to his disciples 'Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat, or about your body, what you will wear' "( Luke 12.22). While this can be seen as Jesus saying to just not worry about earthly life and your body here, that in and of itself contradicts the teachings and philosophy of Paul. Paul, a believer that the end of the world would be coming in his lifetime and that the body would be made immortal, was preaching for people to take utmost care of their bodies. He even said if you are a virgin, don't get married. This message is quite contrasting to the explanation Jesus gave in Luke. I think that the differences in message is entirely based on the time, and the corresponding belief about the return of the Messiah. Luke, writing later perhaps now believes the return is not imminent and will put these words into Jesus' mouth telling people not to worry about life on earth. Paul, with his belief about the com in and end of the world happening soon, stresses taking utmost care of the body. What do you think? Is there anything else that could influence this change in idea? Would having these two sources confuse early Christians?
Andrew DaRosa