Assignment:
How would you alter the professor's summary of the gospel? What support do you have for your position? (It is okay to disagree if you can support your case biblically and theologically.) If he is correct, why do you think so?
My Work:
Finding Overtones
I think the professor is okay, but I think it doesn't matter and that there are better ways to summarize the significance of the gospel in human history.
I agree that God and people say divine aliens make their presence known on earth at different intervals throughout time. Even if Jesus is accepted, it doesn't mean God's miracles have ended. Most people are too asleep, as Asians would seem to think, too distracted and preoccupied by sin and the importance of things like a racial consensus emotionally as a people. People want to preserve their race, and some people are mixed of certain either majority or minority races or heritages.
I had an interesting revelation in my New Testament course this week. I caught that the reason the New Testament is different from the Old Testament has to do with that Jesus may have been especially familiar with religion, the Jewish religion. The New Testament is friendlier than the Old Testament. The Old Testament speculates on "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." I think the New Testament can be backed up as being friendly to appeal to other races of people, like Europeans and Asians. The professor said the significance of the gospel is to understand we get punished for wrong things and that there are steps and categories of how this is, like we surrender to Jesus's way of life in the end after repenting and believing. I think that's obvious, but "the cat's out of the bag" in that I caught that Europe and Asia were brought up mostly a little in the beginning of the Acts of the Bible. I think Jesus meant to spread the word to Europe and Asia. I think it is more of a focus than looking at it like it's about spreading the news in general, like it's more of a geographical journey, like evangelism is emphasized today to be about following history and spreading the news throughout Europe mostly. I noticed that Asia and the Middle East other than the Near East where Jewish people are from is out of the picture. Evangelism today is more about how exciting it was to spread through the Middle Ages and Renaissance, for example. That's also when classical music seems to have been formed, like long group works of music, with a lot of it dedicated to religion if not initially. True, music was important, like with King David in the Bible. Europeans tired endlessly to record information, probably religious information. So, basically, the professor is focusing on religion itself, whereas Evangelism as the focus of this course too means it is more about how the New Testament is made to appeal to Europeans. It's a very cultural thing. That's why Jesus makes everything sound so friendly, rather than "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." See, in the Old Testament people were closer as it was more about the Near Eastern culture, sort of like the Ancient Greeks and Eurasians, for example. Russia is partially Eurasian, I think, too, in addition to Germanic. So, in the Old Testament, people were closer emotionally and therefore got into stronger arguments, too, so that's why it was so harsh in the Old Testament and more sentimentally of one's own race and heritage, rather than applying to others more. The people were already close, like Jesus was said to know much about the Jewish religion, so that they had a feeling of togetherness to get through hard times and put more meaning into each thing they did.
The professor concentrates on a more negative aspect that is necessary in religion, like focusing on our sin and how hard it is to focus on converting others. I think that times say that people who are difficult to deal with are not to be given attention as much as those who are nice. It's sort of unfair. Being an Evangelist is therefore more like being a police, where you care about the bad people. It's true that England and Germany following it and maybe Russia in their own way tend to scope out the bad people. Americans do it, too. Ever hear over and over throughout our lives that the bad people get all the attention? That encourages them. People pretend to care about the underdog, but instead they focus on the lost sheep. They ignore people who are good and deserve reward from God and pay attention to people who are causing trouble. The professor doesn't notice any problem outside of saying Jesus is that good and God is that true and he doesn't apply it to all the modern world issues that people usually know about. Perhaps we are all good, but it is definitely a problem I've often blogged about that it's true there is a problem that there are people who are treated badly because bad people feel embarrassed and want to say that good people are really channeling negative energy that puts them under pressure, makes them go out of control, and makes them unable to stop being annoying, like by talking in class and making others feel guilty for not being perfect, like they are more to blame in being bad somehow. My experience growing up was that people were always onto you like you have to all make sure you are being good, not about being saved in general. Bad people tend to get away with it because it's true that people were too critical religiously, but it left the good people in the dust to worry about nothing. Then, we get told we are bad for being preoccupied with this and that other people know that to be good you need to do other things that we were too busy feeling bad about to think about to do, like to think more about what people we know want, ways to meditate on our own, the fact we can go out and help others by organizing poor food, etc. etc. etc.
The professor seemed to mostly talk about facts and elaborations on the ice breaker of religion. He had it organized in different ways. He explained the handouts. It is what you basically need to know that some people may have not grown up with as much. He puts it in a positive light. You can think about it more and feel bad about Jesus dying, but I don't believe it's wise to say it's our fault as we weren't really born yet, like Jesus wasn't born until Christmas. It's like how the New Testament is made over the Old Testament, and people today would not do what they did before. It's like when animals evolved, they don't usually devolve. True, though, dolphins are descendants of something like a rodent on land, for example, if you relate that example. I also think that the professor described it like people describe religion mainly at Christmastime. They say it over and over, like it's special but sometimes people making it seem like they are so much smarter and better than the people who are there listening, like teachers, priests, grandparents, relatives, etc. etc. etc. It's very easy to grasp. It's like music in that you listen to a song and are so excited you think you always have it there for you and you find you get bored of it, but if it's good enough you come back later, changed, but hungry for it again.
So, while I think the professor is to be respected, I'd mainly say most leaders and people are wrong in that religion can be made to make sense in a lot of important issues not to be complacent about, as Jesus said, like racism, age-im and generation-ism, prejudices among peers etc., how people feel about different kinds of careers and paychecks and things that seem to matter, things like feelings and just living day-to-day, making goals applicable to life such as a "bucket list," etc. etc. So, instead of just saying it's about Jesus dying on the cross and turning to God again and again that you could be more specific and applicable to topics most people are uncomfortable about, it seems sometimes. You can even be academic if you notice things like that the New Testament is made to be more friendly than the Old Testament because Jewish people were in pursuit of Europe, to get them to follow Christianity. There are probably lots of things like that to notice, but this might be a big one. If you don't notice those things, I still think the professor is coming from a place I don't know. He did say that it's a summary of much work and translating the fine print to come up with the themes that God gives readers through the Bible. People even might have started schools in general, like Europe/America, in order that people learn to read the Bible. I think he basically did what he was supposed to, but if you're into all that gifted stuff maybe you'd come up with more personal things rather than a harsh description. Another important point I noticed was that it was about spreading Christianity, but there wasn't description of what it was like before for Europeans and how this changed their lives, how they did it and why they are not as personal with it as the Jews if they follow it so much.
🎺 🥁
"Blow the trumpet at the new moon. At the full moon, on our feast day." -
Psalm 81:3
"Again I will build you and you will be built, O Virgin Israel! You will again be adorned with your timbrels [small one-headed drums] and go forth in the dancing [chorus] of those who make merry." - Jeremiah 31:4
(I mentioned some things about music, and music is an important highlight of Biblical history, like the angels, and modern celebrations, also something that Christians strive to enjoy more and more, at church.)