A turn of phrase that I saw in the reading that reminded me of Christianity were “and the realm of Moria shall be yours forever.” This reminded me of the phrase in the Bible which reads “and yours shall be the Kingdom of Heaven.” This phrase is found throughout the Bible and is usually offered to those who carry out the will of God. Just as in the Bible, in this phrase is offered to one who finds the thief and returns his spoils with good will. The wording between the two phrases is very similar, except the realm of Moria is referenced instead of the Kingdom of Heaven. The entire concept of the realm of Moria and its description in the text also is symbolic of the concept of Heaven. In the text Moria is described by Glóin as, “greater wealth and splendor will be found in a wider world.” Like Moria, Heaven is thought of a place of infinite happiness and fulfillment. Although the happiness and fulfillment in Moria seems to be through material things (like wealth), unlike in Heaven where happiness and fulfillment come from contemplation and company of God. “Long have its vast mansions lain empty since the children of Durin fled” is resonant of the story of Adam and Eve. The flee of the children of Durin in this sentence is symbolic of The Fall of Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve fell out of God’s favor, so God released them from the gates of the Kingdom of Heaven the same way in this sentence the children of Durin freed from the vast mansions of Moria. The word “fled” in this sentence is important because it shows that the children of Durin left the realm of Moria by their own free will. Both Adam and Eve and the children of Durin acted on their free will forcing them out of their version of heaven. (Most of my quotes come from pages 257-258)

Based on the Nicene Creed, I am choosing to discuss the quality “one” of the Catholic Church. The source of the church’s oneness is the Trinity. The Trinity is three persons under one God, just as the church is a great number of people under the image of one God. The most convincing point to me in the CCC was the statement that the church is one because of the Holy Spirit or her “soul.” It was explained by stating that the Holy Spirit’s presence in the souls’ of all the members of the church contribute to oneness. This presence connects all people of the church under one God; this presence is what creates the sense of community of the Catholic Church. This part of the oneness of the church seemed clear to me.

I learned that God’s gifts and those who receive his gifts (his creation) are incredibly diverse but the Holy Spirit unites all souls under God. The diversity of the Catholic Church does not take away from its oneness or unity because each person/item of God’s creation places a special role in the Church and makes her whole. The bonds within the church are made up of love or charity (especially the love of the church by Christ). Salvation can only be gained through the Church when it is united as one body under Christ. Christ died to unify the church, and the church must continue to work and recover this sense of oneness with Jesus. Sin works against the oneness of the Church, but the unity or oneness of the church can never be lost.

The CCC emphasizes recognition of the reality of the Resurrection. The CCC does not try to push “proof” of the Resurrection down the throats of it readers, yet it offers “signs” that suggest Christ’s Resurrection. Some of the signs mentioned are Jesus’ clothes lying on the ground of His tomb or the testimonies of Mary and the apostles (which involve direct contact). The CCC also makes an interesting point, in order to recognize the reality of the Resurrection, one needs to have faith. This faith is needed to notice that “signs” of the Resurrection. The Resurrection is described as “a work of the Holy Trinity” because each part of the triune God played a role in the Resurrection. God the Father used his power to raise God the Son from the dead, but when God the Son ascended into Heaven after another 40 earthly days, God the Holy Spirit was sent to live among us. The Holy Spirit “gave life to Jesus’ dead humanity” after his ascension into Heaven. The connection between our resurrection and the Resurrection of Christ is Christ’s Resurrection resurrected our fait/our souls. He brought about an ability for humans to go to Heaven, which is essentially a resurrection of our souls after death. Jesus Christ’s resurrection reignited God’s grace or favor upon humanity, which was initially lost in The Fall. Jesus has resurrected himself within our hearts giving us a sense of faith, which gifts us with a purpose in life: living according to God’s will.

I chose to comment on Revelations 2. The format of this chapter is a series of letters to Angles of different churches with “Here is the message of (insert different names of Jesus)” Then the speaker comments on the perseverance and faithfulness of the people of each church. After praising each church, the speaker comments on the sins of the people of each church which range from adultery to worshipping false gods. The speaker calls the people of each church to repent for their sins. The speaker explains that in each situation, the repentance will come with suffering. Finally, the speaker closes each letter assuring that if the people repent, they will be members of the Kingdom of God. I believe in these letters, the speaker is meant to be Jesus. Jesus seems to be offering advice to the angels of each church, and the angels are meant to act as messengers and convey Jesus’ message to the people of each church. The letter I will be discussing is the letter to Smyrna 2:12. The structure follows what I wrote above. The letter begins with a request by Jesus to write to the angel of Smyrna. Jesus’ name in this letter is “First and Last”, which speaks to how he is the center of Salvation History (all parts of salvation including the first and last revolve around him). Then Jesus comments on Smyrna’s material poverty and contrasts it with spiritual richness. He then points out how they claim to be Jews, which is inaccurate because the Church of Jesus Christ is the true center of the Jewish religion and Smyrna’s people do not yet place Jesus at the center of their faith lives. Jesus then explains that they will experience suffering because of their false worship, but that this suffering is only temporary. Jesus uses “ten days” of suffering not literally, but to demonstrate that the suffering will be short lived in comparison with one’s lifespan on Earth and in Heaven. Although, He does not minimize the pain the people of Smyrna will soon face. Jesus acknowledges that this suffering may even bring about an earthly death, but he follows that by saying an earthy death if one keeps their faith is not an ending. Finally Jesus says if through this suffering, the people of Smyrna keep their faith they will be rewarded with the “Crown of Life” or eternal life. Being prized with the Crown of Life ensures a resurrection to the Kingdom of Heaven during the Second Coming of Christ. The message of this letter, to me, is faith can bring about suffering, but that suffering is only temporary. Steadfast faith will bring about eternal rewards.

Paul interprets the story of Abraham in Genesis by saying that Abraham’s faith earned him favor with God. Paul argues that being upright before God is dependent on one’s faith. Abraham’s faith made him an upright man and led him to sacrifice his son before God, because of his faith God looked upon him with favor. Paul declares that faith and uprightness is inseparable. Also Paul argues, that Abraham’s justification does not come from his works or actions, but from his faith in God. He makes this clear when he contrasts the story of Abraham’s sacrifice in Genesis with an experience of a working man. A working man expects to be paid, being paid is not considered to him a favor. On the other hand, God expects Abraham’s faith, it is not considered a favor. Paul also argues that circumcision recognizes one as upright, but already present faith is necessary for this recognition. Circumcision is a sign of already present faith, and intermarries this faith with uprightness. Abraham is a leader of all faithful people, whether circumcised or uncircumcised. Paul also argues that living the Laws just for inheritance of the earth is not enough, and that humans must live the Laws with an uprightness of faith, which requires believing with a living faith. Inheritance of the earth is not a reward for those who live by God’s laws; it is a fulfillment of a promise to those with upright faithfulness. Further, Paul states that “the Law produces nothing but God’s retribution”, meaning God expects us to follow his laws because those laws are necessary for humans to live in peace. God also expects our faith, but this means much more because it is a “free gift” given by us to God (there is no expected reward). Paul’s main argument throughout this verse is that we must keep faith in God, not only because we will be “reckoned” as upright but because faith is all-powerful and allows us to see God’s power within us. Paul turned to Abraham because he saw it as a way to related the God of the OT with the God of the NT. He also could have turned to Abraham because Abraham, a human, as our “father” is a much easier concept to understand than omnipotent God as our father. Abraham “is our father in the eyes of God”, yet God is our true father. Abraham is also an ideal example of unwavering faith which reckoned to God as uprightness, as seen in God allowing Abraham’s son to live.

In the way John accounts the events of the Passion, John emphasizes Jesus’ acceptance of his suffering. During his arrest he is very honest about his identity and asks Peter not to defend him. Jesus is undeniably himself and does not attempt to conceal his identity or his teachings. John’s account of the Passion also emphasizes how Jesus took on most of is suffering completely alone because he was betrayed by his disciples and the Jews. They often mocked him for his identity as a “king”. Another theme I noticed in John’s account of the Passion was the power of mob mentality. The “mob” left Peter feeling like he needed to betray Jesus and left Pilate feeling helpless in his defense of Jesus. Some particular phrases that I find important are in 19:21-22. I thought it was interesting how Pilate justified his writing of King of the Jews above Jesus’ head on the cross with the statement, “What I have written, I have written.” I believe this is significant because it leaves the reader wondering whether Pilate pitied Jesus, believed that he was being truthful, and someday would be a king of some sort. I believe Pilate’s role in this passion emphasized the innocence of Jesus and how there was no good reason for him to be killed. Pilate’s fear was rooted in guilt for what he was about to do and guilt for disappointing his people. I also found Jesus’ request, “I am thirsty” important. I believe this was a final reference to the Passover and the symbolism of Jesus’ blood as life-saving. I do believe this line has significance, but I am not sure my interpretation is correct. By drinking the wine, Jesus departed from His earthly life and was saved, and His death or bloodshed saved us all from sin. Finally, I believe Peter was used to symbolize humanity in these verses. Peter’s betrayal of Jesus foreshadows how humanity will relate with Jesus. We will betray and sin, yet we will always come back for forgiveness; this is revealed in Peter’s betrayal during the interaction with the high priest and then his visit to Jesus’ tomb to pay his respects.

John’s Gospel definitely differs from Luke’s in style. John’s Gospel features Jesus teaching through long speeches, while Luke’s Gospel features Jesus teaching through responses to questions asked by those around him. John’s depiction of Jesus’ ministry is much less dependent on other people. In John’s Gospel, Jesus teaches more actively or individually. Examples of these instances are his lengthy responses to Nicodemus in chapter 3 or his speeches to the Samaritan woman. While Luke’s Gospel is written in a more conversational tone, to me, John’s gospel features more of a formal tone. In John’s gospel, the infancy narratives and Jesus’s childhood are glossed over. John’s Gospel focuses on Jesus as an adult. It also does not mention Mary or Elizabeth, which I think is interesting becase without these important women, Jesus’ life story is incomplete. The ordering of the events of Jesus’ life is also different in John and Luke’s Gospel. In John’s Gospel, Jesus teaches in Jerusalem before He teaches in Galilee. John also has much less of a focus on the disciples. The distinct theological teaching or message in which I see John advancing is that Jesus was sent to humanity by God to save us. In close to all of Jesus’ long speeches something along these lines is mentioned including, “For this is how God loved the world: he gave his only Son” (3:15), “since he whom God has sent speaks God’s own words” (3:33-34), and “whoever listens to my words, and believes in the one who sent me, has eternal life” (4:24-26).

I thought it was very interesting that Luke begins his Gospel by stating that he wrote this story based on accounts from eyewitnesses and ministers of the word. He makes it clear that HE was not an eyewitness of the life of Jesus, which is a common misconception about the Gospel writers. Luke begins his Gospel by speaking about Jesus’ birth and ends it detailing His death and resurrection, following a typical biographical format. But what is interesting about the way Luke arranged his Gospel is his emphasis on Jesus’ teachings and parables. The “meat” of Luke’s Gospel is comprised of stories regarding Jesus’ ministry in Galilee and Jerusalem, emphasizing Jesus’ role as a teacher or minister. Luke frequently uses other characters to say something about Jesus. Usually, questions asked by gentiles or followers of Jesus prompt his parables or “teachable moments.” For example, in The woman who was a sinner (11:36-51), Jesus uses the Pharisee’s harsh condemnation of the repenting woman as an opportunity to teach the ignorant Pharisee. The Pharisee’s words prompted Jesus to tell the story of two men with debt, one who owed 500 and one who owed 50. Both men were unable to pay, yet their creditor let them off. Jesus emphasizes that the man who owed 500 will love and appreciate the creditor more than the man who only owed 50. He used this metaphor to teach the Pharisee that God forgives those who show great love and humble repentance. This story is one of many in which Jesus uses others’ commentary to teach how to love God and follow His will. The high points of this Gospel include Jesus’ baptism by John the Baptist, Jesus’ parables, the Transfiguration, the Resurrection, and the Ascension.

Although I have been exposed to the New Testament for as long as I can remember, reading this article taught me a lot about the origins and nature of the four Gospels. First, I learned the nature of the word “Gospel”, I previously thought this word was not used for anything outside of the writing of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. I came to find out that this word is used to refer to non canonical works in an attempt to dismiss the authority of the canon. Are the authors of these non canonical works Christian? Are they trying to use the word Gospel in a demeaning way to promote their own non-Catholic religious beliefs? In addition, I was not aware of the two categories of writing in the New Testament which are the “Jesus materials” and the “gospels.” The Gospels were written after the life of Jesus, following some oral tradition. From the article, I came to understand how likely it is that the writing in Mark’s Gospel, and therefore the other three Gospels, is factual. I did not know that a larger number of scholars believed Mark’s account to be factual. These scholars believe, “Jesus himself would have supplied the material that ultimately went into the Gospels.” This brings me to my next point; it was very interesting to me to read that the evangelists (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) were not eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus. The argument made to justify this point is very valid; because the evangelists were not eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus Christ, there are differences among the four Gospels detailing the life of Jesus. The source mentioned that the similarities between the Gospels, especially between Matthew, Mark, and Luke, suggests that the evangelists could have drawn from a common source or received accounts from eyewitnesses. What makes John’s Gospel so different than the other three Gospels? I also was not aware of the amount of time that has been spent trying to resolve this issue, which would require harmonizing Gospel differences. As the article states, I believe trying to combine these narratives would ultimately just distort the message of the writings. I believe that each Gospel has a different purpose, and that each narrative works with the others to leave a unique impact on the reader. Finally, before reading this article I had never heard of the existence of “Q”. “Q” is the hypothetical common source which results in the many similarities between Matthew and Luke. Could the similarities simply result from them being written at similar times? 

In the book of Job, I found wisdom in chapter 1. All at once, Job was told that he had lost close to all of his most important possessions. He lost his oxen, sheep and shepherds, and camels; which probably was how he made a living. He not only lost his livelihood, but seconds later he was told that he lost his children. Instead of pitying himself, he took this experience as an opportunity to praise Yahweh and His power. Job used this experience to humble himself before God and praise Him. I believe this is a great lesson about how to overcome difficulty in one’s life. Job, in this chapter, models with his behavior that one should not blame God for hardship. Instead of looking outward to find someone to blame, humanity look inward. When thrown an obstacle, humanity should appreciate the opportunity to follow God’s will. This chapter essentially encourages humanity to look on the bright side, and see challenges as opportunities to grow closer with God. Another passage in which I found wisdom was chapter 5. The quote, “No, misery does not grow out of the soil, nor does sorrow spring from the ground.” in some way reiterates the message of optimism I described above. This quote reminds humanity not to make something out of nothing. It also recognizes that negativity does not come into our lives without reason. God has a plan for each and every human, and any obstacle He puts forth is meant to encourage growth and learning. This lesson is an attempt to help humanity understand God’s will, which will strengthen humanity’s relationship with God.