Month: October 2020

Monotheism is defined as “the doctrine or belief that there is only one God”. I always assumed that the Bible was a monotheistic work, as Christianity only worships one God, however after class today I am not sure. According to our first reading, monolatry is defined as “the belief that there are more deities but only one is to be worshipped”. I did not think this was a good word to describe the Bible, but as I did more research I learned that the Bible may be more of a monolatrous work than a monotheistic one. The Bible insists that only Yahweh is to be worshipped, no other god. Simply saying this phrase assumes the existence of other gods, it just claims the superiority of God as the one who deserves worship.

In class, we talked a lot about prophets. First, we tried to think of any people in today’s world that are similar to the prophets of Biblical times. Some people compared prophets to scientists, who foretell the future through research, or social justice figures, who are listened to by some and hated by others. After that discussion, we began to think about monotheism in the Bible. Prophets played a major role in the development of monotheism. The people of the Bible were not monotheistic, they worshipped many deities and were under the impression that gods were meant to specialize. It took prophets coming to earth and teaching these people to change their minds about monotheism and even the prophets were ineffective in convincing the people to change their ways and become monotheistic.

I was never familiar with the infancy stories before. In sunday school not much was taught about baby Jesus. All that I knew was that Jesus was born by the virgin Mary on December 25. I knew that he was a carpenter, and that Jesus was actually Jewish. When it came to the stories of Jesus it was primarily focused on his journey of young adulthood. It is interesting to think of the Bible as a biography of Jesus. Primarily in the first few sections of Matthew. I was surprised to see that Herod would try to kill Jesus as an infant. I never knew this didn’t realize that even earlier on Herod saw Jesus as a threat. I never knew that the three wise men that visited Jesus when he was born were visited by an angel and were told to not report back to Herod. I always had the belief that that were sent by god to witness his birth. But from their his story jumps in my mind to his early adulthood. When I think of Jesus, I think of him as 20+ year old with a beard and long hair. Not as 6lb 8oz baby Jesus but this is also because his early adulthood is really when his journey of faith begins.

Everything in this class is new to me as I really don’t know anything about the Bible, but I was very interested in the fact that parts of the gospels are drastically different. I thought it was interesting that they differ in the stories that they both have, but also the fact that they have different stories in them. Based on the other reading it’s clear that they come together to tell a specific story about the life of Jesus. I would be kind of curious to hear more about what scholars and historians have to say, and also how it differs from what preachers and religious people have to say about them.

While reading the first few sections of Matthew, I found it surprising that Herod would try to kill Jesus as an infant. Herod saw Jesus as a threat to his rule over Jerusalem, and thus ordered every child in Bethlehem born of the last two years to be killed. The three wise men that visited Jesus when he was born in Bethlehem were visited by an angel and were told to not report back to Herod and to return to their homes. Joseph was visited by an angel and was told to flee to Egypt until Herod passed. Reading through Matthew 3 and 4, it seems that Matthew is focused on the deeds and portraying Jesus as a role-model . Matthew writes in a way that highlights Jesus’s conviction and devotion to God is second to none.

As with many subjects in this course, the Gospels have much more to them than what churches tend to emphasize. I never knew that “gospel” means “good news,” and that fact adds much more meaning to the stories within them. Every Christian knows the story of Christmas and how Jesus’ family had to flee–but not the fine details. One interesting thought I also learned from class was who figured out what the “good news” was going to be. Kings and royalty from Jesus’ area had access to scriptures and books and census information, but it was the “lowly” shepherds who witnessed this momentous occasion. Even from a secular, academic approach, this is an important theme in the stories of the Bible.

Even though different translations tell unique stories, the Gospels give readers another chance to interpret what they want from the text. Certain aspects of the retellings (Joseph’s visions, Mary’s Song, etc) are slightly different or nonexistent across the other books. One of the defining features of the Bible is its translations, and everyone finds meaning in the passages that speak to them.

It is interesting to see how the gospels are different from one another including what information that is in each one. There are times that we get in a habit of letting our preconceived notions and beliefs shade the reading of the texts. The most significant time being when reading through the story of Jesus’ youth. From the manger scene, which was part of the house, to the number of magi, when they came and what their profession was. Our version of the Christmas story as shown in pageants most of the time is not representative of the real story as accounted for in the Bible. Moreover, this preconception makes it harder for us to accept some of the aspects of the Bible. Some of this might even feed into the understanding of each of the gospels. For Matthew, there is a focus on the inclusion of all people. This permeates into the message that God was trying to send to people on Earth through Jesus. The genealogy of Jesus includes women, the angel spoke to Mary instead of Joseph, and the crowds that Jesus spoke to were all diverse. When viewed in pieces the stories line up to have the aspects of Jesus including all people, but once we get out of viewing the stories from a shaded aspect, we can see that there is more to the scriptures than what meets the eye.

Since Christ was not just fully divine, He was also fully man that is, to take on a true flesh and soul. Christ’s mother Mary bore Him in the presence of Joseph and the Shepards and animals thereof. In the Icons, the nativity is often depicted in a cave with the three Magi, Joseph, and the Mother of God herself, often resting gracefully after the birth itself. As far as the monastic charter is concerned, many Orthodox fast (you’re essentially vegan) for forty days prior to Christmas in spiritual preparation for the feast day.

If you don’t know, historically accurate St. Nicholas is better than whatever consumerist abomination “Santa Claus” is. St. Nicholas was born in Myra, Greece and was ordained as a priest by his uncle who at that time was the residing bishop. Upon his ordination, he frequently distributed wealth to the poor, his legendary philanthropy is what attributed him to great generosity. The story he is most well known for is the time he was able to pay off the dowries of three women so that they could marry, not marrying would’ve most likely meant a reliance on prostitution. He then (but many scholars continue to debate this) attended the council of Nicaea in 325 where he slapped Arius out of his great love for the truth. Arius was proposing the Aryanism heresy which proposed Christ as a subordinate to God The Father. In short, tell you’re family about real St. Nicholas slapping heretics as you sit around the fireplace, happy holidays!

The canonical Gospels, also known as Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, tell the stories of Jesus Christ. Today, I want to focus on the initial stories of Matthew and Luke. Both of these tell the same story, but differently. Each has different aspects that seem similar to the stories we’ve heard, which makes me think that details have been chosen from both stories and merged into the story told to us in Sunday School.

The Gospel of Matthew brings us the details that an angel came to Joseph when Mary was pregnant, telling him to stay by her side. This was an important piece of the story, but it was not in the Gospel of Luke. In the Gospel of Luke we have the detail that Mary and Joseph were turned away from the Inn due, and the fact that Jesus was laid in a manger. That detail is not in the Gospel of Matthew. However, it makes for a more cohesive story if those details are together, does it not?

Since I was a child I always thought that these were collective details. However, since the details are not collective, how can we tell what details of the story are true? I think that it all comes down to how you want to see it. Each of the Gospels tell the story differently because they are taking different angles and are different writers, who pick up different details. As time has passed, we have just seemed to merge the details together to make a conclusive story and every person reads into the Bible differently, so it really depends on how you as a person want to read it.

I was never familiar with the infancy stories before. All I had heard of was that Jesus was born by the virgin Mary. I also heard the Christmas was celebrating the birth of Jesus. I also knew that he was a carpenter. Other than this, however, I did not know anything else. It is interesting to think of the Bible as a biography of Jesus. Thinking of the infancy of Jesus is an interesting concept. When I think of Jesus, I think of him as an adult. I can’t even picture Jesus growing up and being a child. One part of the reading that was interesting was the Jesus supposedly performed exorcisms on sick and disabled people. It is a bizarre concept to think about Jesus performing exorcisms. I see how it would make sense that a sick person has an evil spirit that is making them ill. This was a new idea to me, however.

In class, we discussed the book of Psalms and how it related to music, especially in popular culture. I actually never fully realized that these passages were meant to be put to song. It’s quite frustrating that we don’t, and probably never will, know how they were originally put to sound. I’m mad at myself for not knowing that they were supposed to be songs, but then I remembered that it’s kind of hard to tell since they don’t rhyme. In class I learned that they do in fact rhyme, but since it’s translated to English, it looses that rhyming scheme. Personally, I really enjoyed the songs that we listened to in class and hearing the different interpretations that the bands put on the psalms. I really enjoyed the “Rivers of Babylon” song by both The Melodians and Boney M.—I actually added both to my music playlist and have been listening to them a lot ever since.