Mark vs. John: The Gospel Showdown

The way the texts of Mark and John approach the Gospel narrative is very different. Mark begins straight away with John the Baptist, the baptism of Jesus and the temptation in the desert, whereas John’s gospel begins with a profound theological statement of Christ’s preexistence and incarnation as the Word of God. The prologue of John’s gospel clearly states what other gospels such as Mark lead you to discover. What theological significance can we draw from the manner in which these two introductions are written? How does the use of induction versus deduction affect the way we approach the rest of each text? As in how does knowing that Jesus is God influence how we read the Gospel of John as opposed to how we read Mark?

While the beginnings of these texts may seem vastly different, there are also important parallels and likenesses that can help us better understand the theology behind the two Gospels. Neither begins with a birth narrative, and both go from the stories of John the Baptist to the ministry of Jesus in Galilee. Why is it so important that both Gospel writers chose this as the starting point for their respective narratives?

Considering that these texts are written by two different authors (or two different schools of authors) drawing from different sources, how does this enlighten the conversation?

Courtesy of Samantha Bognar and Laura Rothgeb

Mark 10-16

Mark 10-16

In these seven chapters of the Gospel of Mark, Jesus teaches His disciples through parables, words, and actions. These chapters include Jesus’ arrival in Jerusalem, His prediction of the destruction of the Temple, the anointing at Bethany, the Last Supper, the betrayal and arrest of Jesus, and His Passion, death, and Resurrection. In Chapter 16, Jesus appears to His disciples and sends them into the world to preach the Gospel.

Throughout these chapters, there is evidence that Jesus is the Messiah. Then, in chapter 15, when Jesus appears before the Sanhedrin, He is asked if He is the Messiah, to which He responds, “I am.”

Based on these seven chapters, how does Jesus fulfill the ideas of who the Messiah is (such as Healer, Teacher, Suffering Servant, Leader, etc.), considering what we talked about in Isaiah?

Jesus also warns about false prophets and messiahs. Looking back on history, do you think there have been false messiahs?

Also, consider the element of violence present in the “sacrifice” of Issac that we discussed in class. Do these chapters contain the same element of violence? Does our God require violence?

-Sarah Purple and Cristina Curtin (we're posting under Philip's account because we're technologically challenged)

Philosopher's Soccer Match

During our mid-term review, this Monty Python skit came up in discussion, and so I thought I would post it here for you. It is one of my favorite things in the world. Enjoy:

Handel's Messiah

The approach that our group decided to take on Handel's Messiah was to
explore the relationship between specific tracks from the list in the
Handel link to topics covered in class. The tracks that we will be
discussing are: 2 (“And the Glory of God shall be revealed”), 4(
“For unto us a child is born”), 5(“Rejoice greatly, O daughter
of Zion”), 10(“Why do the nations so furiously rage together?”),
and 11(“Let us break their bonds asunder.”)

“And the glory of the Lord shall
be revealed”-This line brings to mind the verse of
Isaiah discussed in class “The people who walk in darkness will see
a great light; those who live in a dark land, the light will shine on
them (Isaiah, 9:1),” because it implies that a light of
understanding shall come and reveal the glory of God. In the
Christian interpretation, this prophesy is fulfilled with Jesus when
he comes into the world, under the light of a star, to teach humanity
and allow them to 'see God;' after all, He explains to us that he is
“the way, the truth, and the light
(John 14:6).”

“For unto us a child is born”-The title of this track also refers to
a verse of Isaiah which we mentioned in class. This prophesy could
have referred either to Jesus or King Hezekiah, depending on whether
it was being interpreted in a Christian or Jewish context. In either
interpretation, it was fulfilled because Christ was born into the
world to reveal God to us and die for us, and Hezekiah became King
and led a peaceful reign, thus either of them could have been the
promised “Prince of Peace (Isaiah, 9:6).”

“Aria:Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion”-
The verse of Handel's Messiah that uses the line "Rejoice greatly, O daughter
of Zion" relates to our class discussions on Isaiah. We talked
about the divided kingdom, which became Israel in the north and Judah
in the south. The interesting thing about this verse is that "O
daughter of Zion" seems to be addressing all of the people at
once, rather than calling separate groups of people. All of God's
people are called to rejoice as one.

“Aria: Why do the nations so furiously rage together?”
The psalm"-Why do the nations so furiously rage together?" also relates to the
divided kingdom, as well as the other kingdoms around them. Israel,
Judah, and Assyria were constantly fighting with one another,
although they were all the people of Abraham. This fighting is
paralleled by the fighting we read about in Feiler's Abraham, when he
experienced the fighting that is still happening in Jerusalem today.
They are still people who all consider themselves to be descendants
of Abraham, but they continue to fight over details of which son of
Abraham each group descended from.

“Let us break their bonds asunder”-This track relates to the prophecy in
Isaiah 9:4 about deliverance from the “yoke that burdens them.”
The deliverance from the Assyrians, as well as the deliverance from
the Egyptians in the pas fulfills this promise.

Considering that the title of this musical work is “The Messiah,” do you think the pieces conveyed
the sense that the prophecies are messianic? If so, which ones?

-Regina Maimone, Isabelle Salimian, and Maria Meli

The Covenant and the Imago Dei

In class discussions, we have gathered a few different
definitions of what the image of God is.
There is the ancient/ medieval definition of the ability to reason, the
post-reformation definition of human relationality, the enlightenment
Schleiermacher definition of self-consciousness, and the modern definition of
“human continuity with nature.” The
Bible even describes an image of God in the Covenant Story. God acts like a random deity to Abram who is
a nomadic polytheist. But despite Abram’s
beliefs, he follows this in-charge but distant God who claims He will give him
blessings for following His orders. God
entered into a covenant with Abram to show His trustworthiness and to ensure
that his promises to Abram would be fulfilled.
Abram believes that it was a good thing to enter into this covenant with
God. His image of God from thousands of
years ago seems much clearer and stronger than that of our class discussions
recently. This might be because every
person’s image of God is different and concrete in their own mind. What is your image of God? How different or related is your image from
that of “Imago Dei” and the Covenant Story?
If we define that image of God as only being through reasoning, how do
the images of others that are incapable of reasoning change (i.e. people in a
coma, children, senile, mentally challenged, etc.)?

We have discussed what different generations have thought
about the image of God in our assigned texts.
How do we combine those different definitions on this subject? Who is right and wrong? Could there be an element of truth in each
definition?

By: Lucy Downey and Schultz McLean