Social Icons

Showing posts with label Jesus Christ. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jesus Christ. Show all posts

Friday, April 27, 2012

My Many Jesuses

[This paper is the final for my Jesus Through The Ages class at Capital University, where I am seeking a minor degree in religion.]
Jesse Harmon
RELIG 210
May 1, 2012
The Many “Jesuses”
            My favorite prayer of all time is this: “Help!”  This is the prayer that I usually say throughout the day.  I know that God is there to help me and that Jesus was there to take my sins away.  Jesus was divine, and yet, so human.  I am not a perfect person.  I’m very far from it.  I have major flaws that affect my relationship with God.  I have many demons that affect my relationship with people.  I pray to God to help me get past these flaws and demons and be a good person and a good friend.  I will be assessing the various “Jesuses” (a term I heard before class once) that are known throughout the ages, and then I will give my views on them.  In this paper, I will be describing my views on Jesus.
            Everyone teaches and everyone learns.  Jesus was the ultimate teacher.  His morals were very progressive and controversial for his time.  He taught things like love your neighbor, love your enemy, and love God.  Thomas Jefferson’s book called, The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth, is a compilation of the four gospels cut up and pasted together into a new story of Jesus.  Jefferson’s book says, “[Jesus said,] ‘How much then is a man better than a sheep?  Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the Sabbath days,’ And he said, ‘The Sabbath was made for man, and not the man for the Sabbath.’  Then the Pharisees went out and held a council against him…” (Jefferson).
            I am reminded of Mark chapter 7.  In it, Mark talks about the ceremonial washing of the hands.  Jesus and his disciples were eating without washed hands.  The Pharisees and teachers asked Jesus why they didn’t wash their hands because it was suppose to be done according to tradition, and Jesus replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written, ‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.  They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men,’” (Bible Across America 1743).  Jesus then goes on to explain that we should follow God’s rules, and not man’s.  I guess this section sums up what the Anabaptists believed in the 1500s.  In a document called “Sixty-seven Theses,” Ulrich Zwingli said, “…all who consider other teachings equal to or higher than the gospel err, and do not know what the gospel is,” (Janz 189).  What does this mean?  Zwingli believed that anything not given by God in the Bible should not be in church.  There shouldn’t be any instruments in church that are not spoken of in the Bible, and that if something taught by humans isn’t in the Bible, it shouldn’t be taught at all.  I am a strong believer in having a liturgy in any worship service.  I support this by stating that many aspects of the liturgy are Biblically based.  For example, the Lord’s Prayer is comprised of sections from both Matthew 6:9-13, and 1 Chronicles 29:11.  I remember going to a non-denominational mega church in Columbus a few years ago, and they didn’t even recite the Lord’s Prayer, a prayer given to us by Jesus as a model for prayer, as well as a prayer to recite regularly.  I was actually offended that this worship service at this mega church did not recite this.  It is such an easy prayer to memorize, and the actual words and phrases themselves seem to propel you forward toward that final Amen.  I guess I just have a problem with the contemporary worship style that is very popular today.  I have actually debated with, and even started yelling at, people because of my views on the contemporary church, (I’ve even lost a friend because of it).  I know I shouldn’t, for any noise is pleasing to God’s ears. 
            Jesus is a lover, not a fighter.  Jesus said to love your enemies.  Luke 6:35 says, “…love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back.  They your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked.  Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful,” (Bible Across America 1788).  A famous logic puzzle goes like this: A friend of a friend is a friend, and an enemy of an enemy is a friend.  A friend of an enemy is an enemy, and the enemy of a friend is an enemy.  Jesus turns this logic completely backwards.  What he is saying here is the enemy is a friend in the first place.  Jesus states at the Sermon on the Mount that anger is the same as murder.  This was completely turned around from what people were taught up to that point in time.  How can anger be the same as taking someone’s life?  I still find this hard to comprehend, since I do have quite a temper.  I hold grudges against people.  I still hold a grudge against someone from middle school that did nothing but harass me and insult me in front of others.  I know I shouldn’t, but I do.
If we follow Jesus’ logic, how can the anger of the nations of our world be justified?  I don’t think it can.  Iran is a current threat against Israel.  North Korea and South Korea are at odds with each other (again).  Sudan is bombing border towns of South Sudan as I type this paper (CNN Wire Staff).  Of course Jesus did say that there would always be wars.  I don’t like it though.  Jesus came to be a Prince of Peace.  Jesus did not refer to himself as the Prince of Peace, but a book in the Old Testament did.  Isaiah 9:6 says, “For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders.  And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace,” (Bible Across America 1212).  Why didn’t Jesus refer to himself as this?  He was human, and he felt emotion.  Jesus expressed his outrage at the vendors in the temple, and he went through and flipped the tables and cast everyone out.  I don’t see flipping tables as a sign of peace.  That was a violent act.
            At the beginning of the year, I discussed a lot about the stained glass windows I saw at my church, but I mistakenly forgot to delve into what they were of.  The big stained glass window at the back of the church (standing about 20 feet high) used to be the entryway into the church until the present belfry and vestibule was built.  This image shows Jesus on the cross with the Mary Magdalene, Mary (James’ mother), and Mary of Cleopas.  The image is a typical crucifix, with a Jesus hanging limp on the perfectly built cross, with a blue or green sash around his waist.  Only recently have I come to realize the kind of pain that Jesus was in when he was crucified.  An image was shown in class of a South American Jesus screaming on a cross.  This picture is shown in a Brazilian church, which is very surprising.  I still have trouble understanding a painting of such pain and physical torment being shown in such a holy place.  I am reminded of this after watching The Passion Of The Christ for my movie review paper.  That film was horrifying!  In the film, we could see the actual flesh being torn away from Jesus’ body, while in the Brazilian painting, we could see the agony that was expressed by Jesus’ face.
            As recently confirmed by my pastor, one of the main problems I have with the conservative church, such as the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, is that they preach mainly the idea that God is damning you.  I think this is a turn off to potential future members of the church, as seen by the 30-year decline of membership, although donations have increased (Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod).  The liberal church, such as the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, (which I am a member of), tends to preach nothing but, as my pastor once put it, the “cute bunnies and flowers” of Jesus.  There needs to be some sort of balance between the teachings of Jesus.  God is not our buddy.  He can’t be.  When our time comes, he will be the one to give us that final judgment that may or may not send us to hell.  It is very important to respect him.  I know that I will not be running up to Jesus and patting him on the back saying, “Hey dude! How’s it goin’?”  I will be bowing down at his feet asking for forgiveness of all of my sins.  I fear that many young people today are viewing Jesus as their best friend.  I’m worried that when judgment does come, they will be shocked to see that whom they were so hoping to spend time around a campfire with will be the same person who is telling them whether they are going to heaven or hell.  Yes, Jesus is a good guy.  He’s a teacher of morals.  He’s a healer of the sick.  He’s the guy to comfort me in time of pain and sorrow.  He’s the man who was a servant to human kind.  He’s the man to save me from my sins.  He’s the man who will eventually judge me…
            Stephen Colbert once said, “If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn't help the poor, either we have to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition and then admit that we just don't want to do it.”  Jesus was very supportive of helping the poor.  The parable of the Good Samaritan in Luke is a great example.  According to this parable, a man was attacked and robbed.  A priest and a Levite walked by this man and did nothing.  However, a Samaritan, a person from a group of people who broke away from Israel and God after the reign of Solomon, came up to the man and helped him out.  The Judeans, whom Jesus is a part of, generally looked down upon the Samaritans.  Why would a shunned person help out a Judean?  The reason is simple: love and kindness.  Jesus gives many examples of love and kindness, reflecting the idea of “Son Of Man” that he mainly refers himself to.  After telling his followers to go to the other side of a lake, Jesus said, “Foxes have holes and birds…have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head,” (Matthew 8:12) (Bible Across America 1672).  It’s interesting to note that in the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus says something very similar, although a little more poetic.  “Jesus said, “Foxes have their dens and birds have their nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay down and rest,” (Patterson).  A similar phrase is found in Luke 9:58.  What does this apparently common saying mean?  I googled “did Jesus have a permanent residence?” because I was curious as to what other people were thinking.  I found something that I already knew.  Jesus did not have a permanent residence, because this world is not his to stay, for he said in John 18:21, “My kingdom is not of this world.  If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews.  But now my kingdom is from another place.” 
Why would Jesus say, “my servants”?  Let’s take a look at when Jesus washed his disciples’ feet.  John 13:5-10 says,
…he poured water into a basin and began to wash his disciples’ feet, drying them with the towel that was wrapped around him.  He came to Simon Peter, who said to him, “Lord, are you going to wash my feet?”  Jesus replied, “You do not realize now what I am doing, but later you will understand.”  “No,” Peter said, “you shall never wash my feet.”  Jesus answered, “Unless I wash you, you have no part with me,” (Bible Across America 1877).
 Washing the feet of someone seems to be something a servant would do.  I think it’s interesting to note how Peter was telling Jesus how to act.  Jesus then chastised him for doing so, stating that if Peter does not accept this, he will not be part of the kingdom.  Feet are very important in the Bible.  Jesus walked on water using his feet.  Moses walked on his feet when he was to encounter the burning bush.  Without feet, the statue that Nebuchadnezzar saw would have had stubs of clay instead.  We need feet to kick off the dust in areas where we are rejected.  Without feet, we would have no sole!  As you can see, feet are very important to Jesus.  They are the things that connect directly with the earth.
Jesus was a servant.  He was a good servant.  He was also a king.  He was the kind of king who would take care of and protect his tenants-in-chiefs, lords, and peasants in a feudal system.  In Luke 1:32-33, the angel Gabriel says to Mary, “[Your child] will be great and he will be called the Son of Man of the Most High.  The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, his kingdom will never end,” (Bible Across America 1772).  I have always viewed Jesus as a king.  As I mentioned before, I would most likely not be giving Jesus piggyback rides and wrestling with him.  I would be at his feet trembling and asking for forgiveness of my sins.  The hymn “Crown Him With Many Crowns” shows the many Jesuses, paying close attention to the King of Kings.
Crown him with many crowns, the Lamb upon his throne
All hail him as thy matchless king, throughout eternity.
Crown him, ye kings, with many crowns for He is King of all.
I wrote my –now updated– verse to show my view on the “kingness” of Jesus.
Crown him the King of Kings, with power, evermore
Let every tongue on earth confess that Jesus Christ is Lord!
With faith, and only faith, let us be justified
Let every knee bow down and say, “All hail Him, Jesus Christ.”
The words, “crown,” “king,” “throne,” “hail,” and “knee bow down,” are all references to royalty.  Even Handel’s “Hallelujah Chorus” displays Jesus as king.
Hallelujah! 
For the Lord God Omnipotent reigneth.
And he shall reign forever and ever.
King of Kings, and Lord of Lords.
If done properly, the “Messiah” can be a majestic thing, which symbolizes the majesty that Jesus is.
            The following analogy may be quite a stretch.  I love the television show NCIS.  One of the most power series of episodes happened at the end of season 2 and the beginning of season 3.  Special Agent Leroy Jethro Gibbs (the protagonist) was in the process of getting up from the ground of a rooftop, with Special Agents Tony DiNozzo and Katelyn Todd also getting up.  A terrorist named Ari Haswari, sent to kill Gibbs, was at a building 600 yards away, and was aiming a sniper rifle (incidentally called a “Kate”) at the group.  He shot and killed agent Todd in the forehead after she stood up.  She was standing between Gibbs and DiNozzo, and she was the one shot.  This ended season 2.  At the beginning of season 3, Gibbs and his NCIS team are mourning the loss of agent Todd.  A new character is introduced named Ziva David.  After another episode, Ari found his way into Gibbs’ basement.  Gibbs went down in the basement, and was just about to be killed, when a shot rang out from the stairs.  Ziva David was the one who shot Ari.
            What’s the point of all of this?  Agent Todd could be seen as Adam and Eve, taking a bite of the forbidden fruit (taking the bullet in the head).  Ari could be seen as our sins and the serpent, and Gibbs could be seen as humans.  Ziva David (who happened to be the half-sister of Ari) could be seen as Jesus.  Ziva killed Ari, just like Jesus killed our sins.  Of course, the impact of our sins is still felt, just like the impact of the death of agent Todd is still felt to this current season.
            I believe 1 Corinthians 15 is the ultimate destination if someone wants to know why Jesus died.  Paul said to the people of Corinth, as seen in verses 2-4“…By this gospel you are saved, if you believed in vein.  For what I received when I passed on to you as of the first importance: that Christ died four our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,” (Bible Across America 2012).  Paul then goes on to tell the Corinthians that we too will be raised from the dead.  No, our “immortal spirits” won’t be taken out of our bodies and flung into heaven with God.  Way back in Genesis, God breathed into dust and life came to Adam.  God will do the same to us today.  He will take our bodies –even those cremated –and breathe new life into them.
This isn’t a new idea.  The oldest book of the Bible, Job, states, “I know that my Redeemer lives and that in the end he will stand upon the earth.  And after my skin has been destroyed, yet in my flesh I will see God,” (Bible Across America 975).  The term “immortal spirit” appears nowhere in the Bible, much to many people’s surprise.  Do we have a spirit?  Of course we do, but it’s not immortal, (sorry Thich Nhat Hanh).  Jesus just appeared after being raised from the dead.  He does not constrain to the physical aspects of humans such as walking through doors.  When we die, we turn into ash.  God will breathe to us new life into that ash, (ashes to ashes; dust to dust).  “When the last trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable [or incorruptible] and we will be changed.  For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality.”  When this is done, “death [will be] swallowed up in victory,” (Bible Across America 2024). 
As seen here, there are many Jesuses that affect all of humanity, including me.  I think all of these images still speak to the human race.  While Jesus isn’t our buddy, he is our teacher, lover, king, Lord, prince of peace, and most importantly, savior.  After analyzing my view of Jesus while writing this paper, I guess I could add one more image of Jesus.  He seems to be like a big brother.  He will love you, but he will let you know when you’ve done wrong.  He will protect you, but he will rough you up if needed be.   When all is said and done, two verses pretty much sum up my faith, and they come from 1 Corinthians 15:57-58.  “[Thanks] be to God!  He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.  Therefore, my dear brothers, stand firm.  Let nothing move you.  Always give yourselves fully to the work of the Lord, because you know that your labor in the Lord is not in vein,” (Bible Across America 2024).


Works Cited
Bible Across America. New International Version. Grand Rapids. Zondervan, 2008, Print.

CNN Wire Staff, . "Witness: Sudanese warplanes strike at South Sudan border towns." CNN. Turner Broadcasting Systems, Inc., 23 Apr 2012. Web. 24 Apr 2012. 
<http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/23/world/africa/sudans-conflict/index.html?hpt=wo_c2>.

Janz, Denis, ed. Zwingli, Sixty-seven Theses. 2nd ed. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2008. 189. Print.

Jefferson, Thomas. The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth. 1. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1903. Print.

Patterson, Stephen, ed. "The "Scholars' Translation" of the Gospel of Thomas." Misericordia University. Misericordia University, n.d. Web. 24 Apr 2012.

"Synod membership declines, giving increases." Synod membership declines, giving increases. Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, 13 Oct 2010. Web. 23 Apr 2012. <http://reporter.lcms.org/pages/rpage.asp?NavID=17865>.

Thursday, April 19, 2012

Jesus in Movies Analyzed


[This paper was written for my Jesus Through The Ages class at Capital University, where I'm seeking a minor degree in religion.  In this assignment, I was to analyze three films that depict the images of Jesus: one a traditional film, a non-traditional film, and a film that isn't about Jesus, but could be seen as a metaphor for Jesus.]

Jesse Harmon
RELIG 210
April 16, 2012
Movie Images
            I chose to watch the following movies to see their various depictions of images of Jesus: The Passion of the Christ (2004), Jesus Christ, Superstar (1973), and The Matrix (1999).  This paper will analyze all three films to find literal, figurative, and metaphorical images of Jesus.           
            The first film I am analyzing is The Passion Of The Christ.  This movie, released in 2004, is a direct story of the death of Jesus, so analyzing it for the image of Jesus wasn’t hard at all.  This movie portrays Jesus just like the image at a Brazilian church.  Jesus is horrifically mortified and mangled, and in intense pain.  I think this is one of the most graphically detailed films I have ever seen.  I have never seen such intense pain and agony in one person than I have with this film. 
            During the start of the film in the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus is obviously tortured mentally about his impending doom.  He is pleading to be spared.  He prays so hard that he is sweating blood.  When Judas and the authorities come to arrest him, his confidence grows and his golden eyes pierce you.  When Judas kisses Jesus, Jesus’ expression changes to one of disappointment.  After a fight ensues between Jesus’ followers and the police, and one of the guard’s ears is cut off, Jesus heals the man and reattaches the ear; the man is in shock and awe the rest of the scene.  This shows the compassion that Jesus has for everyone, and reflects what he said at the Sermon on the Mount: love your neighbor, and love your enemy.
            Jesus doesn’t resist or put up a fight when he was arrested.  He just accepts his fate and goes along with the brutality that is upon him.  The guards whip him and wrap chains and rope around him.  Arrests that are made today are much more human than thrown a man over the side of a bridge and catching him with a chain around his torso before he hits the ground.  I cannot imagine the internal damage done when something like this happens. 
            When the movie cuts to the scene in the woodshop, Jesus is seen working hard building a table.  Jesus is seen conversing with his mother about the rather tall table, and then when he washes his hands before dinner, he playfully throws water onto Mary.  Why would he do such a thing?  It’s because he’s human, just like us.  He likes to have fun and enjoys a good laugh.  I like to have fun and enjoy a good laugh.
            Back to the arrest scene, Jesus expresses disappointment after Peter denies him three times.  Peter, who then goes crazy, leaves the area crying.  Jesus again is shown with human attributes.  After confronting the Pharisees, Judas goes nuts as well and is assaulted by hallucinations of demonic children.  I would think any normal person would have a mental breakdown after turning someone so special, like Jesus, into the police (I know I would). 
            One of the more surprising things about the trial scene is how gently the Romans treat Jesus at first.  They don’t throw him around.  Pilate, as I will describe later, is very adamant about prosecuting an innocent man.  Jesus, who by now has about 75% of his skin torn off, is in dire need of help.  A King of Kings wouldn’t be seen as this bloody and this mangled.  A King of Kings would probably be seen in a nice air-conditioned courtroom with seven lawyers and many supporters around him.  This man, who is mangled and writhing in pain, is not a king.  He doesn’t even look like a king.  He is stooped over and desperately wanting to sit down.  I couldn’t even watch the scene where Jesus is being whipped.
            Along the Via Dolorosa, Jesus is in dire need to rest.  The cross (which interestingly is pre-made, unlike the other two) appears to be very heavy, making it nearly impossible for the very fragile and weak Jesus to carry alone (he eventually gets help).  Jesus here isn’t the superman that some pictures show.  He doesn’t have a rock-hard six-pack of abs and his biceps and triceps aren’t bulging.  His flesh is nearly falling off, and he can barely walk.  Why would a king or a savior be in such a condition?  Only a man could be like this.
            When the movie cuts to the Last Supper scene, Jesus is seen as a calm and compassionate man, unlike what I will describe later in Jesus Christ, Superstar.  He is talking calmly to his disciples and has a smile on his face.  He is happy explaining to his disciples that the only way to God is through him.
            Even though the nailing on the cross was graphic, it was nothing compared to what he had previously endured.  I don’t think it really makes any difference, after watching this movie, if Jesus died while nailed to the cross.  He suffered so much in this movie, and death seemed almost kind.
            His followers obviously see Jesus as a sweet savior.  His mother gently kisses his feet while he is on the cross, as to signify that she is kissing the feet of God himself.  Her hands are trembling a lot when she does this.  Who wouldn’t think he is God after experiencing an earthquake right after a man has died?  That seems too much like a coincidence to me.  The priests are obviously wondering what just happened.  Are they wondering if the death of a man caused this?
The second film I will analyze is the film adaption of the hit musical Jesus Christ, Superstar, by Andrew Lloyd Weber and Tim Rice from 1973.  This film portrays Jesus very differently than The Passion Of The Christ or The Matrix. I believe this film portrays Jesus as humanly as it can, much like the Gospel of Mark does.  It does so by showing Jesus’ emotions, and his almost being tempted by what appears to be a seductive Mary Magdalene.  We will discuss this later.
            I was reminded why I never liked this musical to begin with.  I think the story and the plot are fantastic, but the music, words, and acting can be severely improved upon.  Since I am seeking a degree in music technology, I tend to analyze things as an audio engineer.  The sound in this film is atrocious.  There are many horrible tape edits that I noticed (since digital recording wasn’t prominent until about 1982).  Recording was mainly done on old reel to reel tapes, which were poorly made to save money.  I noticed that there were absolutely no background noises.  I didn’t hear any birds chirping, or any sounds of sand shifting in the wind.  I wonder if this was intentional.  Did the director want us to focus on the storyline and the words instead of distracting us with noises from the background?  This also seems to reflect the Gospel of Mark.  Mark was probably the first gospel written that is included in the canon, and it is the shortest gospel.  Mark is very fast paced, almost like a journalist who wants to be the first person to get his story out.  He writes down just the basic facts, and doesn’t elaborate much on it.  For example, the story of Jesus’ temptation (which is not in the movie, but written here to explain a point), is fairly short.  Mark 1:12-13 says, “The Spirit immediately drove him out into the wilderness.  And he was in the wilderness for forty days, tempted by Satan; and he was with the wild beasts.”  While Luke’s account of the temptation is nearly 13 verses long, and Matthew’s is 10 verses long, both are about equal length (Aland). 
            Jesus Christ, Superstar can reflect the style of the Gospel of Mark.  Each song is a different part of the story of the Holy Week.  The first song shows us Judas’ personal conflict with Jesus.  He sees Jesus as a person, and not divine.  The song, “Heaven On Their Minds,” talks about Judas’ doubts about Jesus being the Son of God.  One of the lines is “strip away the myth from the man.”  I’m reminded of what Thomas Jefferson did to two Bibles back in the 1700s.  He took a razor, destroyed the sections of scripture that describe the “supernatural” aspects and miracles of Jesus.
Mary Magdalene is very touchy of Jesus during the song, “Everything’s Alright.”  She is putting oil on his face and being very seductive of him.  Some of Jesus’ expressions make me wonder what he’s thinking.  It’s not very obvious, but I think he’s very tempted to have sex with her by the way she’s seducing him.  I know I would be tempted by if a woman were to start caressing me and touching me like Mary Magdalene was touching Jesus.  Judas was obviously upset about the way the disciples were talking to Jesus and how they marveled at his works and teachings, since he thinks Jesus is simply a teacher of morals.
            Something interesting happened during the scene that comprised of the song called “Hosanna.”  I’m not sure if this was intentional, or just a glitch in the copy of the film that I have, but when the chorus was singing, “Hey J.C. J.C. would you die for me,” the camera froze on Jesus’ expression, and his expression was that of, “oh, no.”  If it is a glitch on my DVD, then it’s a great coincidence.  The expression shown also shows that Jesus was a human just like everybody else, and that he felt pain and emotion. 
            I never really imagined what would have gone on in the Temple when Jesus drove out the venders, but this film really showed me what might have happened.  I was horrified when I saw strippers and women prostituting themselves in the Lord’s house!  “This is appalling,” I thought, and then I wondered if Jesus thought of the exact same thing.
            The Jesus in Jesus Christ, Superstar experienced stress after being overwhelmed by the sheer amount of people outside the city of Jerusalem after driving the venders out of the temple.  I can only imagine what really happened to Jesus when hundreds of people storm him and crowd around him wanting to be healed.  I’m reminded of when country superstar Garth Brooks appeared at the old Fan Fair in Nashville, Tennessee, unannounced.  Fan Fair, now renamed the CMA Music Festival, is a day long event where country music stars conglomerate together in one place and sign autographs for fans.  They usually stay 3-5 hours and then leave.  Garth, on the other hand, signed for 23 hours.  I can only imagine how much time Jesus spent healing people and performing miracles.  Scripture says that many of the miracles haven’t been included in the Bible.  He stood on his feet for 23 hours straight signing autographs for people who didn’t expect him to be there.
            The Last Supper was an interesting scene.  In this scene, Jesus and Judas reach their climax.  Jesus and Judas are yelling at each other.  Judas, who has already offered to turn Jesus into the authorities, has asked Jesus who will betray him.  Jesus gets up, and storms over to Judas and yells that Judas will betray him.  I remember from the Bible that Jesus took Judas aside, and from what I understand, had a very calm and collected conversation about what is going to happen.  Matthew 26:20-25 shows a very calm and collected Jesus.  “Truly I tell you, one of you will betray me.”  It is fairly hard to express emotion on paper, but to me that seems calm.  The Jesus in the movie is very different.  His fuse is short, and his temper is flaring. 
            During the scene in the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus is pleading with God to not die.  He even says, which surprises me, “If I die what will be my reward?”  I’ve never wondered what reward Jesus got for dying.  I really cannot come up with any conclusions as to what Jesus got out of dying except to say that he has been the only person who has been to hell, earth, and heaven.  This obviously shows the confusion and the sadness and anxiety expressed by someone who knows he or she is about to die.  There are five stages of death: Denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance.  This scene obviously shows the bargaining aspect.  The depression and acceptance stages are seen during the scene when Jesus and Pilate meet for the second time.  Pilate, in the movie, is a very condescending character, unlike what I see in the gospels.  The Pilate in the gospels seem confused and bewildered, and not at all the uptight and conceited man seen in the film.  He seems to have the “guilty until proven innocent” mind set (recall the Casey Anthony trial and the mindset that many people had about her killing her child, even though the evidence wasn’t there).  Pilate is like this the first time he meets Jesus, and also after the second time (after the atrocious King Herod Song). 
            The crucifixion itself is not at all bloody and gory that The Passion Of The Christ was.  This was like the first picture I showed during my art presentation; very modest and calm and collected.  The Passion Of The Christ, as I mentioned before, is like the image of Jesus at the Brazilian church.  The final stage of death, acceptance, takes place when Jesus says the last words, “Into your hands I commit my spirit.”
The third and final film is The Matrix, released in 1999.  The main character indirectly shows attributes to various Biblical characters such as Doubting Thomas and Jesus himself.  Trinity, another main character, is an obvious play on the Holy Trinity (God: The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit).  The Matrix (seen in a green color scheme) can be seen as the world of sin, and the real world (seen in a blue color scheme), can be seen as the salvation.
Neo, or Thomas Anderson, is not a direct parallel to Jesus, but has a lot of similarities to Jesus.  He was a man who was found to be “The One” to help the people of Zion (a Biblical city) survive.  Morpheus, who can be seen as John The Baptist, gives Thomas Anderson (whose first name, Thomas, can be seen as Doubting Thomas, and his last name means “son of man”), or Neo, the choice of taking a red pill or a blue pill.  This choice could mirror the belief or unbelief in the teachings and salvation that Jesus Christ brought to us when he died on the cross.  The One could be seen as God, and Neo could be seen as Jesus.  Why is this?  Neo is called as a successor to The One.  I find it interesting that the name Neo has the same letters as the word One.  Not only is Neo a good representation of Jesus, but also the whole story line can be paralleled to that of the Bible.  The first matrix was designed to be perfect.  This could parallel what God had in mind before destroying the world with a flood.
When Agent Smith captures Morpheus, he is drugged and nearly dies.  This struggle can be seen as someone entering the world of sin (the Matrix) and becoming stuck.  Sin is the pulling away from a relationship with God, and Morpheus can be seen as pulling away from the real world.  Neo and the gang go back into the Matrix to retrieve Morpheus from his captors.  Jesus came into this world to retrieve us from the bondage of sin. 
The climax of the movie involves Neo getting shot.  He is in a great battle with Agent Smith, and as Agent Smith shoots Neo, he dies in the Matrix and in real life.  This can sort of be seen as Jesus dying on the cross.  Neo was crucified.  Jesus was crucified.  After three days, Jesus rose from the dead.  In the movie, Trinity (acting as the Holy Spirit) kisses Neo and he comes back to life.  Neo has been resurrected from the dead, and is in love with Trinity.  After being resurrected, Neo is now Super-Neo is enters Agent Smith.  Agent Smith’s skin then starts to bubble, and eventually Neo destroys Agent Smith from within, just like Jesus destroyed sin and death from within. 
I personally believe The Passion Of The Christ portrays Jesus the best.  It shows the humanness of Jesus, while still maintaining a mystic figure.  It shows the humanness of Jesus.  It shows the Son of Man.  Jesus died on the cross to save us from sin and death.  The brutality that is shown in this film is almost too much to believe.  It’s hard for me to wrap my mind around the fact that someone took a bullet to save my life.  Sometimes, when I think about what Jesus did, I tear up because I know I’m not worthy of being saved.  I’ve done some horrible things in my life that aren’t worthy of being forgiven.  I’m very grateful for Jesus and what he did for me.  I wrote before that a king or a savior cannot be in such a condition that his skin is nearly falling off.  Only a man could do that.  However, Jesus wasn’t just a man.  He was God, and Man.  He had the best (or worst) of both worlds.  He had the divine power that God had, and he had the weight of the world on his shoulders.  He had the intimacy to be close to people, and he felt pain and suffering.
I’ve come to the conclusion that the main difference between The Passion of the Christ and Jesus Christ, Superstar, is that in The Passion, Jesus mainly feels physical pain and agony.  In Jesus Christ, Superstar, Jesus mainly feels emotional turmoil, rage, and frustration.  The Matrix really made me think about what it meant for someone to die from someone else.  I would really like to find a good movie that shows the divine aspect of Jesus, as well as a film that shows the continuing influence of Jesus on people today. 







Works Cited
Aland, Kurt. Synopsis of the Four Gospels. 3rd. United Bible Societies, 1979. Print.
Gibson, Mel, dir. The Passion Of The Christ. Newmark Films, 2004. Film.
Jewison, Norman, dir. Jesus Christ, Superstar. Universal Studios, 1973. Film.
Wachowski, Andy, dir. The Matrix. Warner Bros. Pictures, 1999. Film.


Thursday, March 22, 2012

The Death of a Nazarene


[This paper was for my Jesus Through the Ages class at Capital University, where I'm seeking a minor degree in religion.]
Jesse Harmon
RELIG 210
March 19, 2012
The Death of a Nazarene

Crucifixion: the worst and cruelest form of torture according to Cicero, who lived from 106-43 B.C.E.  Notice how he said torture and not death.  This paper will describe two pieces of art.  One is a digital piece, and the other is a sculpture made of metal.
Since this is Year B in the Lutheran lectionary, I have chose the Gospel of St. Mark, the fifteenth chapter, and beginning at the twenty-first verse.  Various verses have been removed.
A certain man from Cyrene, Simon, the father of Alexander and Rufus, was passing by on his way in from the country, and they forced him to carry the cross. They brought Jesus to the place called Golgotha (which means “the place of the skull”)… And they crucified him. Dividing up his clothes, they cast lots to see what each would get. It was nine in the morning when they crucified him. The written notice of the charge against him read: THE KING OF THE JEWS…
I can’t seem to find what the name of this, when it was created, or who created it.  I like this piece because it will show a stark contrast to the statue that is to follow.  This maybe a fairly new picture, either digital art, or pen and ink.   In this picture, Jesus is a very handsome man with a masculine jaw, trimmed beard, toned arms, chest, and legs.  He even has six pack abs.  I think the artist is trying to portray Jesus as a handsome man.  To me, it looks like the artist is trying to make Jesus sexy.  It looks like he’s Jersey Shore’s “Situation” of the early part of the previous millennium. 
            One of the more interesting things about this piece is the beauty of the women.  They are all very young.  Mary Magdalene, assumed to be the woman on the left, looks just as young as Mary, the mother of Jesus, who is probably next to her.  If you notice, Mary, the mother of Jesus, looks just as young, maybe even younger, than Jesus himself. 
Notice also that the pierce wound is on the left side of the body.  Why would the artist put it there?  I’ve noticed that many pictures of Jesus on the cross show the spear wound on the right side of his body.  I wonder if this has any significance.  There is a statue at my church where Jesus has his hands opened toward the altar, with the wounds in his hands and feet, and the spear wound on his right side.  There is also a stained glass window of Jesus on the cross with the spear wound on his right side.  Could this signify the “right hand of God?”
This picture shows the three characteristics of Beauty, Love, and Goodness.  The beauty of this piece is the faces and bodies of each person.  The love is the fact that the women are surrounding Jesus as he dies.  The goodness is the fact that Jesus actually died on the cross to save us from our sins.  The cross itself is also beautiful.  It’s not as rugged as expected.
            I don’t know what I would think of this picture if I wasn’t Christian and I had not heard about the story of Jesus.  It would be difficult for me to imagine someone being held onto a wooden T with nails through his hands and feet.  Why would he do such a thing?  Is this punishment?  Is this an act?  

The following comes from the Gospel of St. Mark, the fifteenth chapter, and beginning at the thirty-third verse.
At noon, darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon. And at three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” (which means “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”). When some of those standing near heard this, they said, “Listen, he’s calling Elijah.” Someone ran, filled a sponge with wine vinegar, put it on a staff, and offered it to Jesus to drink. “Now leave him alone. Let’s see if Elijah comes to take him down,” he said. With a loud cry, Jesus breathed his last.
This image is actually a statue that comes from Saint Joseph Catholic Church in Grand Rapids, Minnesota.  The first thing that you may notice about this statue is that Jesus only has one hand nailed to the cross, (I’ll go in depth on how crucifixion actually was).  Why would the artist do such a thing?  Well, it was probably created to give the sense that people weren’t always crucified in the same way.  I’ve seen many pictures of Jesus with nails in his wrists and heels, and I’ve seen many pictures of Jesus with nails in his hands and through his feet.
This statue is impossible.   If Jesus were really hung from the cross with a single nail through the palm, he would have fallen off.  If you take your finger, and press down in the center of your palm, and bring your finger upward, you’ll notice that there are two bones to the left and to the right of your finger, but your finger is unobstructed as you move toward the area between your fingers.  Now imagine the skin ripping itself apart as you do that.  You can see it wouldn’t be possible for someone to be held up on the cross with a nail in just one hand, let alone both hands.
The nails were most likely driven into his feet, as it would be nearly impossible to drive the nail into the ankle or leg bone of someone, although I saw a documentary once that had a heel fragment of someone with a nail still in the bone.  Although nailing someone’s wrists or forearms to the cross was not uncommon, people were usually hung with ropes around their wrists or forearms. 
Death usually came from suffocation, instead of blood loss.  Imagine you’re doing pull-ups in the Capital Center.  Instead of pulling yourself up, just hang there with your feet off of the ground.  Try breathing normally.  Now imagine what happens to your lungs when you do that.  They will get compressed inward because your ribcage is getting squashed.  This will cause great pain, and restrict the lungs from breathing properly.
This statue seems to be made of maybe aluminum or some sort of softer metal than can easily be hammered or molded into shape.  Jesus doesn’t look healthy at all.  His ribcage may have been exaggerated, but you can still almost feel the pain that he’s in.  His legs are bent at an extreme angle to prevent him from hoisting himself up on his feet, increasing the pain in his hand.  One can probably guess where Jesus is trying to reach his right hand to…I think he’s trying to reach out to God in Heaven to save him.  
In this picture, you can see how big the statue actually is.  From what I can guess it’s about 12 feet tall.  For comparison, if you look on the bottom right of the picture, you can see a man on the ground.  (From what I understand, he’s using a hair dryer to pull up wax off of the ground).  It looks as if the actual metal statue of Jesus is the size of an average man.
This statue, I think, shows evil, ugliness, and lies.  The evilness is the fact that Jesus was crucified.  The ugliness is the actual body of Jesus, being contorted and with a ribcage being shown.  The lies about this statue is the fact that Jesus is being held onto the cross with only one hand. 
This image is also difficult to comprehend if I did not know about the story of Jesus.  I think I would see a man being held onto this wooden T by two nails as punishment instead of execution.  What did he do to deserve this?  Did he murder someone?  Did he steal?  When in history did this happen?  He appears to have a towel around him.  Is this humiliation?
Both images show the same scene, but in very different ways.  The first picture shows Jesus as a sexy man, with three women surrounding him.  The second picture shows Jesus all alone and pleading to be saved.
Remember that Jesus was not only fully God, but he was fully human as well.  He felt emotion and he felt pain.  In fact, he actually prayed that God would spare him the death that was imminent.  The second image, even though it’s incorrect, shows the crucifixion as it actually was.  Jesus was in pain, and he was crying out to his father to save him. 




















Works Cited
"Jesus Was Nailed to the Cross." The Jesus Police. The Jesus Police, 10 03 2006. Web. 4 Mar 2012.


Wednesday, March 21, 2012

Luther Versus Zwingli: A Critical Comparison of The Eucharist


[This paper was for my Reformation and Enlightenment class at Capital University, where I'm seeking a minor degree in religion.]

Jesse Harmon
RELIG 321
March 15, 2012
Luther Versus Zwingli: A Critical Comparison of the Eucharist
Luther and Zwingli’s views on the Eucharist, or communion, will be discussed.  This essay will compare Zwingli’s On True and False Religion, and Luther’s The Large Catechism.  Although both Luther and Zwingli were both very prominent protestant leaders who agreed on many things, Zwingli’s view on the Lord’s Supper was vastly different, and more liberal than Martin Luther’s view.
Martin Luther was born on November 10, 1483 in Eisleben, Germany.  He was originally a Catholic monk, who taught at the University of Wittenberg in Saxony, Germany. On July 17, 1505 after a near death experience, he decided to enter a monastery after studying law for a year.  As a professor, he lectured on various aspects of the Bible including Paul’s letters.  There were two specific verses that really struck him.  These verses were Romans 1:16-17, which states, “I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile.  For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it written: ‘The righteous will live by faith.’” 
This verse, along with the writings of Erasmus, set off Luther to write the 95 Theses, which he famously nailed to the doors of the University of Wittenberg, thus beginning the protestant reformation Luther died shortly after a stroke stole his ability to speak (Gallar, 2002.)
Ulrich Zwingli was born just nearly six weeks after the birth of Martin Luther, in Wildhaus, Switzerland, on January 1, 1484.  He is considered the leader of the Swiss reformation movement, which later became known as the Anabaptist movement.   Zwingli was ordained at the age of twenty-two in 1506.  He and Luther famously debated in Marburg in 1529.  They both agreed on fourteen of the fifteen debate topics, but clearly clashed on the discussion about the Eucharist, or communion.  Zwingli, who was very heavily into the politics of the time, was very stern on his belief that communion was nothing but symbolism of the actual event that took place the day before Jesus was arrested in the Garden of Gethsemane.  Zwingli died after being killed in a bloody battle fought by the Catholics against the Protestants in Switzerland.
            Martin Luther virtually started the reformation movement.  Even though Erasmus had previously written pamphlets on reforming the Catholic Church, Martin Luther really set things off by nailing his 95 Theses to the front doors of Wittenberg University in Germany.  Luther disagreed from withholding the cup from laity.  This practice began in 1416 AD ("Roman catholic doctrinal.”)  Martin Luther’s The Large Catechism, which was written to go a little more in depth on the Christian tradition, asked a question.  “What is the Sacrament of the Altar?”  Luther’s response is, “It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, in and under the bread and wine, which we Christians are commanded by Christ’s Word to eat and to drink.”  As stated, Luther obviously believed that both the host and the cup should be taken by the communed.  Luther also states, “Take, eat; this is My body…Drink of it, all of you; this is My blood of the new testament,” (Luther, 1529.)
            According to The Lutheran Confessions blog, the Council of Lambeth in 1281 outlawed the serving of the cup to parishioners (McCain 2007.)  Why would the church withhold the cup from the laity?  Paul Timothy McCain, author of The Lutheran Confessions blog, as well as editor of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod’s edition of the Book of Concord, stated that the bread, or host, was good enough to serve to the laity.  However, it appears to the reader that McCain didn’t quite state exactly why the cup was withheld. 
A History of Christianity holds the answer.  In this book, the author states that the denial of the cup to the laity was because of the danger of simply spilling the wine Since Catholics believe in transubstantiation (which is the actual conversion of bread and wine to flesh and blood), many were afraid of spilling the newly converted blood.  Thus, priests started only serving the bread to the laity.  (Latourette 1975.)  Luther believes that, “[just] as we have said that Baptism is not simply water, so here also we say that though the Sacrament is bread and wine, it is not mere bread and wine, such as are ordinarily served at the table,” Luther stated after answering the question, “Now, what is the Sacrament of the Altar?”  Luther believed all believers should receive both the body and the blood of Jesus Christ, just like the original apostles did. 
            Luther believed the only sacrifice that one should have was at the Lord’s Table, and nothing else.  He believed the Catholic Church’s view on “good works and a sacrifice” was the “most wicked of all,” according to Trevin Wax’s blog post called, “Luther vs. Zwingli 2: Luther on the Lord’s Supper,” (Wax, 2008.)
            Zwingli (1484-1531), a much more mild and subdued Swiss man, was at work also reforming the church.  In his book called, On True and False Religion, (from 1525), he states his positions on the Eucharist.  First, he believes that, “[the church] will not even brook the question whether the body of Christ is in the sacrament of the Eucharist in actual, physical, or essential form,” (Zwingli, 1525.)  He states, “…I do not think we have to listen to those who are so bold as to say, ‘I have always firmly believed that in this sacrament I eat the essential body, or the bodily and sensible flesh, of Christ.’”  Zwingli is saying that he believes we should not listen to those who believe in transubstantiation (Zwingli 1525.) 
The Catholic Church believed the bread and the wine changed form into the body and blood of Christ.  They believed the accidents, or the senses, sensed the consistency of bread and wine.  Luther believed that the bread and wine contained the body and blood of Christ, but wasn’t actually converted into flesh and blood (a term called consubstantiation).  Zwingli believed the bread and wine symbolized the body and blood of Christ, with no conversion of bread to flesh, and wine to blood at all.  Zwingli later said, “I have no use for that notion of a real and true body that does not exist physically, definitely and distinctly in some places, and that sort of nonsense got up by word triflers.”  The Gospel of St. John, chapter six, verse sixty-three tells us, “It’s the spirit that gives life; the flesh is of no avail.”  This text shows that Zwingli thinks that it’s only the spirit that will save people (Payne, 1984.)  Luther, Zwingli claimed that many of his views were normal trains of thought. 
Zwingli believed that since Jesus rose into Heaven (where there is no time), and no longer on Earth (where there is time), Jesus is no longer limited by space and time.  Thus, he cannot be both in Heaven and on Earth at the same time, proving that he cannot be part of the bread and the wine of communion. 
There was no need for ceremonies and rituals since the bread and wine weren’t actually flesh and blood (Wax, 2008.)  “It is eaten spiritually,” Zwingli wrote.  “For body and spirit are such essentially different things that whichever one you take, it cannot be the other,” (Zwingli, 1525.)
            One of the more interesting things in On True and False Religion is when Zwingli states, “They err…in applying faith to things of sense, and in saying that through these it brings us certainty.”  He is quite clearly stating here that our senses should not govern our faith.  Zwingli was not troubled by his own soul like Luther was.  Luther was paranoid about his sins, while Zwingli wasn’t.  Zwingli was more worried about the salvation of his people, while Luther was more worried about the salvation of himself.
            What’s the purpose of all of this?  It is to show that Zwingli really took things far when he started his own reformation movement.  He claims that the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ are not present in the Eucharist.  This is completely against scripture which says, “…he took bread, gave thanks, and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, ‘This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.’  In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, ‘this cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you,” (The Gospel of St. Luke, the twenty second chapter, versus nineteen through twenty.)  The word is is the third person singular present form of the infinitive to be.  Is does not mean “not really.”  Zwingli had it all wrong when he decided he had had enough with the Catholic Church himself.  If he hadn’t started his own, there would probably be only two church bodies in the world today: Holy Catholic Church, and the Lutheran Church. 



















Works Cited
Gallar, J. S. (2002, November 05). Martin Luther and the reformation. Retrieved from https://webspace.utexas.edu/gallerjs/www/LutherReformationLecture.html

Latourette, K. S. (1975). The history of Christianity: Volume 1. (p. 531). New York, NY:             HarperCollins Publishers. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?id=Q4pzuXCiDdYC&pg=RA1-PA231&lpg=RA1-PA231&dq=denying cup to             laity&source=bl&ots=iRpULaYCId&sig=dul-Zeau5SOIF1QQaDwAH9DPtCw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=g5FeT_maPIPc0QGt8oHJBw            &ved=0CCoQ6AEwAg

Luther, M. (2005). The large catechism. In P. McCain (Ed.), Concordia: The Lutheran Confessions (pp. 622-624). Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House.
McCain, P. T. (2007, August 07). [Web log message]. Retrieved from http://bookofconcord.blogspot.com/2007/08/round-table-23-various-abuses-corrected.html

Payne, J. B. (1984). Zwingli and Luther: The giant vs. Hercules. Christianity Today International/Christian History magazine, Retrieved from http://www.christiantodaylibrary.com

Roman catholic doctrinal evolution: Doctrinal flip flops. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.bible.ca/catholic-flip-flops-eucharist-withholding-communion-cup.htm
Wax, T. (2008, February 11). [Web log message]. Retrieved from http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevinwax/2008/02/11/luther-vs-zwingli-2-luther-on-the-lords-supper/

Wax, T. (2008, February 12). [Web log message]. Retrieved from http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevinwax/2008/02/12/luther-vs-zwingli-3-zwingli-on-the-lords-supper/

Zwingli, U. (1525). On true and false religion. In D. R. Janz (Ed.), A Reformation Reader (pp. 193-198)