I felt a very positive impression of who Jesus was after
finishing the Book of Matthew. I had a new image of someone who
was a down-to-earth, caring individual. I did not find quotes of
Jesus that claimed being superior to the common man, of whom
sinners could not look upon (a view that most people had of their
Gods for centuries before). Matthew 12:49-50, Jesus announces to
multitudes that they are his mother and brothers. In that way,
he puts himself at an equal level to the people, rather than
claiming to be a God above them. This reflects the whole
attitude of the book.
Chapters 6-7 of Matthew quote Jesus as he is presenting
rules to live by to the multitudes. To me, all of these sounded
like hints to leading a happy life for yourself. Jesus reflects
a God that does not expect virgins or animals to be sacrificed in
His name; but, a God that is pleased by followers that love not
only God, but each other also. These seem like simple, logical
rules to live by. But, they reflected a time in history where
that kind of love for one another was hard to find because of the
hardships inflicted upon the people.
I find some conflict in Jesus' actions, however. Jesus
never (as far as I know) says to ignore to commandments of God in
the Hebrew Scriptures; however, constantly breaks the Sabbath
(Matt 12:13 and others), and gives VERY flimsy and unconvincing
explanations for it. I am not sure what his message was in those
actions. Perhaps he didn't care?
In general, Matthew was a good, entertaining story to read,
with a very dramatic ending, and great character development (a
little sarcastic humor here)!
I was very surprised to find much of the Book of Mark a
repeat of what was written in Matthew, but with a little less
detail, and a few stories omitted.
Jesus goes a little overboard on the parables! Most of the
parables needed to be explained to his disciples, and some of
them I wasn't able to understand either! Although many parables
have a good, inspiring morals to them, I would question Jesus as
to if they were an effective way to witness to common people.
Even today, too many people read parables as TRUTH, rather than
"just a story." Plus, they are misinterpreted.
But, I have to tell you that an amazing coincidence happened
to me after I finished reading the Parable of "The Pearl of Great
Price." A couple of hours later, I was watching an old episode
of Star Trek on TV, and 'Scotty' had actually quoted the same,
exact parable at the end of the show! Funny that the writers of
Star Trek predict the future to still hold the same religion as
now, and 2000 years ago.
Both Matthew and Mark write about the part of Pilate in His
crucifixion. It seems to me that Pilate was a "good-guy", and
did not really want to have Jesus killed because he did not see
anything that He did wrong (as compared to Barabbas, the
murderer). (Mark 15:1-15) As a matter of fact, I see that Pilate
tried to give Jesus another chance by asking the crowd to choose
to punish the Murderer, or Jesus. Then, 'washed his hands' of
this crucifixion after the decision was made. Why is Pilate
portrayed as a 'Good-Guy' in these books while we know,
historically, that Pilate was NOT a friend to the Jews?
After reading these books, I get the feeling that Jesus was
here to save the Jewish people, not the gentiles (like most of
today's Christians). I can't find the spot, but Jesus seemed
reluctant to pay attention to a sick gentile, but finally healed
her because of her faith. Yes, he is the king of the Jews, that
is said in many places. But, was Jesus here to save only Jews, or
the people in all the world (like Rome, the Sumarites, etc.)?
That kind of makes me feel unsure of why Christianity has become
the primary religion of Non-Jewish people. My God, the
expansion of the Church was incredible from the time of Jesus!
After reading Matthew and Mark during the time of Jesus on earth,
and then reading Acts, I was shocked at the change! A few things
that happen in Acts are strangely different than what I had
expected after reading about Jesus and His religion.
As I said before, I felt good about what Jesus had said
in the previous books. But, it seems that things that happen
in Acts are like a contradiction to Jesus. The biggest example
is the administration of Punishment to people. Some particularly
bothersome stories are: (Acts 5:1-11) The death of the husband
and wife for not presenting 100% of their possessions to the
Church. And, (Acts 12:23) the violent death of Herod. Also,
(Acts 13:11) blindness to Bar-Jesus. Although my Bible, in all
three cases, tells that Angels or God had punished these people,
I could believe that a different translation could accurately
suggest that the deaths were caused by people of the church (the
translation is fuzzy in that sense). Either way, no matter
who caused the death(s), it seems that these kinds of punishments
would not happen if Jesus were around; He always seemed to bless
those who did wrong to Him.
From stories in Acts, I can see how the power of the
Catholic Church had progressed to where it was in the 1400's. I
had always felt that many of Catholic acts in history were direct
mis-translations of the teachings of Jesus. Now I see, things
like The Crusades could be backed by all of the punishments I
previously talked about; also, The Rich Catholic Church claiming
all the possessions of poor followers can be backed by the
Apostles' re-distribution of wealth in chapter 4 of Acts.
Another thing that I thought was a mis-translation by the
Catholics was the use of confession to priests by the Catholic
followers (I felt that each indiv. should confess only to God,
not to a Man); however, throughout Acts, you see the power
increasing for certain Apostles, until they were regarded very
highly to everyone. And, supposedly, the Apostles say that Angels
come to them often, and tell them who to go out and convert. The
Pope, and other priests could easily put themselves in the places
of the Apostles to say that Angels directly command them to do
things that aren't necessarily written in the Bible. I got a very
different impression of Jesus and his religion than Paul, after I
read Jesus' written words. However, Paul's letter in Philippians
reminded me of the attitude from the Christian religion churches
that I have been accustomed to for years. Versus like: 'I can do
all things through Christ who strengthens me' (P 4:13), and
'..not look out for your own interests, but the interests of
others' (P 2:4).
However, I felt that P 2:10 showed a direct contradiction to
Hebrew Scripture or any sayings from Jesus. '...Name of Jesus,
every knee should bow, of those in heaven, those on earth, and
those under the earth.' If Paul is implying that people are
living under the earth, in hell, then he is adopting that belief
without any backup, for there is no one in hell now. People who
are dead must wait for the coming of God and Judgement day.
Anyway, that is what +? always thought. The strongest, overall
impression that I got after reading Matthew, Mark, Acts and
Philippians, was that the teachings of Jesus were not very well
understood/followed during the formation of The Church years
later. Issues I discussed before, like 'punishment and Fearing
God's wrath', 'wealth re-distribution' (Jesus lived as a
peasant), 'the position assumed by certain influential apostles'
seem very foreign to Jesus.
It seems that many of the new beliefs in the New Testament
can only be backed-up if you belive that Angels really did come
to men on earth as often as the N.T. says, rather than looking to
the Hebrew Scripture for validation.
The rest of this class should be interesting. I expect some
big changes in my religious beliefs to come from it.
|