Introductions stopped being needed posts and posts ago...
First up is the book of John, again, a telling of the story of Jesus.
So, my first note has to do with Samaritans. After reading these books, I find myself faced with the age-old question: What the hell is a Samaritan? When I was a kid and I asked that in Sunday school, our teacher skirted the issue because she clearly did not know either. Fairly recently, it occurred to me that Samaritan sounds a lot like Semitism. Semitism is another way of saying Judaism, so Samaritan=Jewish person, which seemed pretty logical. However, there is a passage in Luke that threw me for a loop: "(Jews do not share things in common with Samaritans)" John 4:9. Maybe that was true in those days, but in these days, the two groups are very similar. Considering how Samaritans practice, it seems more likely that this was a human statement by John, rather than an objective statement based on fact...
"But Jesus answered them, 'My father is still working, and also I am working'" John 5:17
Jesus also only feeds the five thousand in John's chronicling of events.
"'The world cannot hate you [the disciples], but it hates me [Jesus] because I testify against it that its works are evil'" John 7:7. Also, according this section, not even Jesus's flesh-and-blood brothers believed he was who he said. (What about Joseph? No further mentions of him after Jesus's birth...)
"'Everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin'" John 8:34.
Oh, and the story 'A Man Born Blind Receives Sight'--that gets a 'super-metaphor' status. Jesus gives sight to a blind man? No further explanation is necessary.
Only in John's version of the story is it specifically Mary (Magdalene) who buys the ointment and rubs it on Jesus's feet with her hair. (True story! Yuck.) This is also the only time it is said that Judas was the one who protested her buying the ointment instead of giving money to the poor. After he says that, John adds in parenthesis: "(He said this not because he cared about the poor, but because he was a thief; he kept the common purse and used to steal what was put into it)" John 12:6. I'm going to say that's almost certainly slander.
"'The light is with you for a little longer. Walk while you have the light, so that the darkness may hot overtake you. If you walk in the darkness, you do not know where you are going. While you have the light, believe in the light, so that you may become children of the light'" John 12:35-36.
Only in this version does Jesus wash the disciples' feet.
Also, when Judas leaves, it is said he does so because Satan enters him. That's new, too.
"'How can you say, "Show us the Father?" Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me?'" John 14:10. Okay, come on, this is a hard thing for somebody to wrap their heads around, Jesus! It's harder for me to believe that he is in the father as well as vice versa. My brain does not bend that way well. What rubs me the wrong way is that Jesus says, if you can't believe that, then "'believe me because of the works themselves'" John 14:11. That sort of policy doesn't seem right to me... I suppose it's better than not believing at all, but it almost seems like, I don't know, cheating.
Also, in this version, Peter does not weep after he realizes he has denied Jesus three times and therefore fulfills Jesus's prophecy; rather, he goes to warm himself with the waiting soldiers and slaves.
Okay, and maybe I missed this in all four of the books, but that bit about the other crucified criminal who is forgiven by Jesus while they're hanging isn't in any of them. That kind of made me sad. In a weird way, I liked that story.
Acts of the Apostles is basically about miracles performed by the disciples after Jesus's crucifixion.
Now, Jesus heals a lot of lepers and those bedridden. Many more acts of this kind occur in this book, which leads me to wonder about the acts. I can't think of a cure for the lepers that could have occurred through regular means, other than those he made wash (since people hardly washed in those days, it is possible that a simple dip in a river could be enough to remove infection or other impurities)... But those who could not walk: perhaps Jesus was, well, silly as this may sound, a sort of early chiropractor? And before he died he taught his skills to Peter, hence why Peter (I mention Peter specifically because the notes pertaining to this are next to 'Peter Heals a Crippled Beggar') could do as he did. It sounds like a decent hypothesis...
For my next note--it may seem silly to compare this group with a group that wouldn't appear until about 1,800 years later--but I read The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test before this, so cut me some slack. That book is about Ken Kesey and his Merry Pranksters, a group which would rather reject mainstream society and make their own. They tried their best to live communally while sharing absolutely everything--no money was used, and even norms regarding monogamous relationships were disregarded. (Sounding familiar? Perhaps you've read Heinlein's Stranger in A Strange Land, one of the books that inspired Kesey.) Another thing they attempted to reject was religion, though KeseyLevite... [who] sold a field that belonged to him, then brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet" Acts 32, 34, 35-37. Granted, the Pranksters tried to eject money, but still. Just saying... And while I'm making the argument that I am, cleanliness is next to fordliness, and Ford is in his flivver--and all is well with the world.
Also, according to Acts, Jesus was crucified on a tree.
Romans are also referred to as 'Hellenists', which is rather strange, as that was what the Greeks called themselves. That would have gone into antiquity when Roman became a superpower and super-dominator of the ancient world, but okay, fine...
What I find really interesting is that while Paul is in Athens, he recognizes that the Athenians are very religious, and he commends them for it. He sees, among all the Athenian altars to all the Athenian gods, one that reads "'To an unknown god'" Acts 17:23. He goes on to say that that unknown god is his God, and though the Athenians have been worshiping incorrectly, it is good for them to be so full of faith and spirit, they need only to mend there ways but a little. "'From one ancestor he made all nations to inhabit the whole earth, and he allotted the times of their existence and boundaries of the places where they would live, so they would search for God and perhaps grope for him and find him--though indeed he is not far from each one of us'" Acts 17:26-28. I absolutely one-hundred percent love this passage.
My next note is from Romans--the full title of the book being 'The Letter of Paul to the Romans'. It is, from what I understand, Paul attempting to educate the Romans in the ways of Christ.
First of all, Paul is referred to as a servant of Christ--though a footnote tells us that in the Greek he is referred to as a slave of Christ! Not sure how I feel about that one...
"Claiming to be wise, they became fools" Romans 1:22.
Anyways, Paul says that in the beginning, and even now/then, people were aware of God's presence and existence through the majesty of the world and its workings that are obviously always surrounding. The people didn't honour God properly, and are basically called idiots in their inability to understand this, and from their misunderstanding created various other gods and deities. (Paul is being a lot harsher on the whole of Rome than on Athens...) And because of this, God "gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another" Romans 1:26-27. Roman men sleeping with other men? Unheard of! You must be thinking of some other empire that was notorious for its, er, sexual freedom.
"All those who have sinned apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all those who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law" Romans 2:12.
"For a person is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is true circumcision something external and physical. Rather, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter of the heart--it is spiritual and not literal. Such a person receives praise not from others but from God" Romans 2:28-29. At its base, this is saying, it's the heart, rather, your faith--you could go to church or synagogue or mosque or whatever else you may participate in every Sunday, Friday, Saturday, or whatever day you choose to go, and you could celebrate Purim or Christmas or Passover or Ramadan or Easter or what have you, but if you don't believe it doesn't mean a thing. People will say "What a fine, upstanding person, going to X every Y day, like a good, right Z should", but their words don't mean a thing, you see? It's just a symbol (as would the actual physical circumcision be). The heart is what counts most--and although this does not completely apply, or maybe not at all, I feel compelled to insert this here in relation to that last quote or at the very least what I just wrote: "People have good hearts whether or not they live like Dharma Bums"--Jack Kerouac
"'Rarely will anyone die for a righteous person--though perhaps for a good person someone might actually dare to die'" Romans 5:7. I'm not sure if I understand what is being said here exactly--the better a person is, the less likely someone is to die for them...? And this brings up what I've been thinking since reading Matthew. Perhaps this is too skeptical and cruel of me--undoubtedly it is--but I couldn't help it: "Martyrdom was to me merely a tragic form of scepticism, an attempt to realise by fire what one had failed to do by faith. No man dies for what he knows to be true. Men die for what they want to be true, for what some terror in their heart tells them is not true"--Oscar Wilde*
"The wages of sin is death" Romans 6:23.
'The Law and Sin' and 'The Inner Conflict' are rather intriguing--they voice some very common arguments and problems with religious teachings. (They're both located in Romans 7, and I'll provide you with a few quotes from both.) "What then should we say? That the law in sin? By no means! Yet, if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, 'You shall not covet'... Apart from the law sin lies dead" Romans 7:7-8.
From 'The Inner Conflict': "For we know that the law is spiritual; but I am of the flesh; sold into slavery under sin. I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate" Romans 7:14-15. That is, by acting good he is acting as he does not want, and in some way, hates it. It also treats sin as a sort of separate personality--"It is no longer I that do it, but sin that dwells within me" Romans 7:20--which takes over the body and acts as it wants.
"So then, with my mind I am a slave to the law of God, but with my flesh I am a slave to the law of sin" Romans 7:25.
"Let love be genuine" Romans 12:9.
"Rejoice in hope, be patient in suffering, persevere in prayer" Romans 12:12. Or, if you'd rather, persevere in hope or faith. Again, it is the heart of the matter, not exactly the matter itself...
"Extend hospitality to strangers" Romans 12:13.
"We do not live to ourselves, and we do not die to ourselves" Romans 14:7. It goes onto say that we live and die in God, but I like this just as well--if not more--just taken at that face value. It gives me hope.
"Whatever does not proceed from faith is sin" Romans 14:23. This I don't like a bit. I think it's quite unfair and unjust.
"The God of peace will shortly crush Satan under your feet" Romans 16:20. Again, this doesn't feel quite right at all.
Well, here we are. You're probably wanting a reaction to Jesus now--I promised I would include one--and I'd be willing to say he was a visionary, certainly. Clearly he was and still is an important figure. It bothers me, though, how flat a character he is. I mean, in Matthew his character bounces all over the place like a pinball, but by John he's just a flat fellow. He doesn't seem human (of course, depending on what you believe, there's a very good reason for that), though his words and teaching do carry a great power, regardless of your religious inclinations. Honestly, this is going to sound lame, but I preferred him in Jesus Christ Superstar (how does one treat a musical's title?)--because he was portrayed as a human with faults and fears. He was scared to die, he was upset that he'd be betrayed, and though he eventually accepted it, he certainly cried out to God about it. Only once in the books does Jesus cry out (in one situation, I mean, this occurs in the the first two books), and that is right before he dies--he cries out, "My father, why have you forsaken me?" Thus reality meets idealism, but, are you getting what I'm driving at?
I really like Romans. It's sort of like a latter version of Leviticus, at least that's how I see it. It's pretty interesting.
*I apologize if this seemed like a rude quote to include, considering what I am implying by including it, but again, I could not help it. It's simply my reaction to what I read.
MLA citation information: Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Edition. American Bible Society: New York, 1989.
Answer to last post's cryptic song lyrics: What's the Buzz? from the Jesus Christ Superstar soundtrack (I told you to expect a facepalm!)
This post's cryptic song lyrics: Keep my feet on the ground and my head in the clouds--I'm the arrow, you're my bow, shoot me forth and I will go
No comments:
Post a Comment