The story of the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth has been one of the most analyzed narratives in human history. From ancient philosophers to contemporary thinkers, many have attempted to formally establish a chronological and logical account of the events that led to the death of the son of God. Two of Jesus’ disciples, John and Matthew, offer similar first-person delineations of the events surrounding this historical occurrence. Nevertheless, there are critical differences between both accounts, especially regarding the way that the populace interacted with Jesus. The disciple Matthew starts his chronicle by introducing an incident where Jesus heavily criticized the scribes and Pharisees of the village for their hypocritical tendencies. …show more content…
John starts his anecdote by introducing a straightforward conversation between Jews and Jesus regarding Abraham and freedom. This interaction extends for various paragraphs and shows a clear lack of exacerbated emotional response from the Jewish community. The Jews in this passage simply aspire to learn more about Jesus’s ideology and thoughts instead of threatening him with death. This short interaction is crucial to the humanization of the Jewish community in the reader’s eyes. Contrasting the emphasis on hate and anger that Matthew portrays on the Jew population, John depicts them as people who are simply obeying the law. When asked if they desire to crucify the King of Jews, the Jews answer with “We have no king but the emperor.” This small, yet powerful line, demonstrates that the Jewish community was not furious due to the claims performed by Jesus, but rather by the threat to the social status that had been established in the era. Many philosophers believe that Jews had strong connections to the head of the government and they might have believed that if Jesus was to become the new king, their advantages and benefits would suddenly
Although the Bible’s description of Jesus and his crucifixion has not been changed, the perception of the people about Jesus has been changing throughout the ages. The poem “The Dream of the Rood” is good example of a unique view of Jesus and his crucifixion. The poem is referred as “one of the first and most successful treatments of the crucifixion” in Old English poetry (Burrow 123).
Matthew’s Christology is one that emphasises to a Jewish audience the Jewishness of Jesus. It will be the purpose of this paper to argue that the raison d’etre of Matthew’s Christology is to portray Jesus as entirely compatible if not with the Judaism of his day then with ancient Judaic tradition, namely the Old Testament. Whilst there are numerous titles given to Jesus that are exclusive/predominant within the Matthean account, such as that of Son of God, it is the writer’s assertion that these merely complement Matthew’s central theses; this being the portrayal of Jesus as Messiah and so, as such, will not be investigated except where they promote this conclusion. This fulfilment of Judaic tradition will be
The foundation of the Christian faith is cradled within truth of the virgin birth, life, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. As diverse as the world-wide Christian culture is, the truth in the birth and life of Jesus stands without border and language limitations. Just as each individual life story can be adapted to be relevant for a variety of audiences, the birth story of the Messiah was also. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke are an example of the well-rounded and diverse narration of the birth story of Jesus—Matthew’s narration spoke to the history of the Jewish people and Luke presented to the citizen of Rome.
It is possible to write on the life of Jesus from the information gathered from the bible. I will be dividing my essay into three parts. In the first part of the paper, I will talk about the nature of the gospels, John’s views vs. the Synoptic, discuss if the authors of the gospels are eyewitnesses and how they used written sources. Also I will talk about the Q source. Then I will elaborate on the topic of how Matthew and Luke were similar. Then I will continue on by discussing how the Old Testament uses Moses, Samuel and Elijah to interpret Jesus, and finally whether or not the Sermon on the Mount happened. In the second part of my paper, I will talk about Jesus’s birth and childhood, his miracles, his resurrection, and what Jesus did to cure people, spirits and how they are interpreted to the prophet, magician and the mad man compared to Saul and Elijah. The final part of the paper I will talk about what Jesus talked about as regards to the Kingdom of God vs. the Kingdom of the Romans and what he intended by speaking of the end of the world. I will also speak of the reasons behind the Romans executing him. My sources for this paper will be the New Jerusalem Bible Readers edition as my primary source and lecture notes from Professor Trumbach.
Some scholars argue that evidence of Jesus of Nazareth 's existence can only be found within the writings of the New Testament. They believe that the New Testament is a biased and unreliable source for the existence of Jesus. They therefore claim that Jesus did not exist. The historical existence of Jesus is necessary to demonstrate the truth of Christianity. While Christian scholars do not discount the reliability of the New Testament as a historical document, they are also able to point to other historical documents and consider non-Christian writings which support the existence of Jesus. In this paper I will argue that Jesus the Nazarene was an actual, historical person and that this can be demonstrated through extra-Biblical resources.
One of the many things that puzzle people even today; is how Jesus was portrayed and how he became a part of history throughout the centuries. Fortunately, within the book Jesus Through the Centuries, written by Jaroslav Pelikan, readers are able to get a sense of what societies viewed Jesus as and how he was/is important to many aspects of the world such as; the political, social, and cultural impact he had left. As Pelikan discusses this very topic and theme in his book, we see how there’s a connection between his audience in this book and Jesus’s are closely similar. When he got his motivation to write about Jesus through the Centuries, Jaroslav had an open audience, which was intended for anyone of all ages, races, and beliefs to read
When it comes to the crucifixion of Jesus, there are many different arguments that appeal to specific peoples’ beliefs or arguments as to what makes the most sense. What really is the determining factor though when we are deciding how we portray Jesus’ death? Is it our faith? Is it what logically makes the most sense to us? Is it what we are taught growing up by our parents or Sunday school? Could it possibly a mixture of all of those factors? Either way, we all have different beliefs and ideas when it comes to His death. One of the most popular arguments for Jesus’ crucifixion is that the reason he died was purely in place of us due to our sins; he was the ultimate sacrifice. In this paper, I will argue from a logical standpoint that not only does this theory not make sense, but Jesus’ life and choices were related to his crucifixion as well. The most logical circumstance is that, instead, Jesus died as a ransom.
It can be argued that the similarities and differences of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke can cause the reader to either see both of these accounts to complement one another with their different perspectives or that they contradict one another by certain events being mentioned in one birth narrative but not the other. Different aspects of both of these birth narratives such as the way Matthew and Luke treat Mary, the extent to which they use the Old Testament and the audience to whom they are writing to reveals the authors’ agenda as they allow their culture and own personal beliefs to influence what they write. These factors could be argued to have an effect on the historical authenticity of these texts as it could be possible that they could have caused the authors to twist the truth to fit in with their own beliefs.
Two thousand years ago, the birth of Jesus, arguably the most influential man the world has ever seen, altered history forever. Christians know him as the Messiah, the son of God who came to save all of mankind, and for others, he may just be a great teacher and person of history. It is the latter that Reza Aslan attempts to shed an unbiased light on by comparing the Jesus that modern Christians believe in to the Jesus that Aslan believes would have fit into first-century Palestine: a violet revolutionary, dedicated to the eradication of the Roman government in Israel and the deposition of the rich priestly class. Aslan paints a portrayal of Jesus using knowledge of the time period, Scripture that has been taken out of context and misinterpreted, and most of all, the author’s imagination and powerful rhetoric to cover up his faulty argumentation. In his book Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth, Reza Aslan recreates an interesting but purely speculative image of the historical Jesus through exploring the political and social history of first-century Palestine, the life and teachings of Jesus, and the development of early Christianity.
important and who are wondering how Jesus fits into history of the Jewish people. This problems means that Matthew’s community was largely Jewish Christian and needed to be reassured that being a Christian did not separate then from the Jewish heritage.
The Early Netherlandish period holds its place in time as one of the most important periods of art history. The progression of Western culture is certainly demonstrated by the more sophisticated techniques and new styles seen during this era. Early Netherlandish art is fascinating because of how ahead of the Italian Proto Renaissance it is in terms of refinement, and yet by later standards it is so basic because of the lack of linear perspective. Furthermore, this era brought with it many new artists that are still appreciated to this day for their ingenuity; one of them being Rogeir van der Weyden. Rogier van der Weyden’s The Crucifixion, is a very important representation of art from the Early Netherlandish period because of its great religious
The books of Matthew and John though have many similarities, also have many differences due to the goals that they are trying to achieve and the importance of points/events they are trying to get across. The reason behind the initial portrayals of Jesus helps achieve the goals of each book; whereas Matthew’s book tries to ‘convince’ the educated readers and quarrelers (Pharisees), John’s book does not care much about reputation per se. For example, Jesus turns on the Jews who believe in him to generate a readers response to him as the definitive expression of God 's will or revelation as opposed to Matthew’s intentional readers response to God 's will as expressed in the Mosaic Law. While there are many qualities I could delve into regarding the difference in characters of Jesus, my essay in particular will look at what each book views is especially important with regard to Jesus and his intentions. Specifically, my main focus will be on the presentation of Jesus and reasons for doing so; setting in context what the book is basically about.
The two books of the Bible, Matthew and Mark are alike in many ways, they do tell some of the same stories. On the other hand, if one takes a closer look there are small changes to the stories that bring a whole new meaning to the way that the story is told. I will focus on the stories of Jesus walking on water and the transfiguration of Jesus. In this paper, I will review the changes that Matthew made to the Gospel according to Mark. I will also explain the reasons why he may have made those changes and to what purpose those changes served.
Jesus' decision to physically cast out the moneylenders from the temple stands as one of the most interesting events of his life, because it represents what seems to be the only moment in the Gospel narratives where he becomes visibly angry to the point of physical action. While one could argue that Jesus is frequently (and justifiably) angry with the disciples from time to time, this is the only moment that Jesus' anger moves him to physical force. Although the event is recorded in all four of the Gospels, this study will focus specifically on its rendering in Matthew, because when considered in the context of Matthew's larger narrative, one can see how Jesus' decision to cleanse the temple does not represent an aberration in either his character or theological message, but rather the natural culmination of Jesus' life and works prior to that point, and demonstrates a kind of revolutionary, anti-authoritarian element of Jesus' message of salvation that is all too often overlooked by Christians and critics alike.
This is a summary of a No Travel Seminar on a Study of the Gospel of Matthew. The seminar was lead by Dr. John Dunaway who is a professor at NTS and has served as a pastor for over 50 years. After his brief self-introduction, he began his presentation with an overview of the Gospel of Matthew, followed by a more elaborated narrative summarizing the gospel, and he finished with brief closing remarks. Throughout this enthusiastic presentation, Dr. Dunaway made reference to remarks by multiple prominent commentators, which added substance to his narrative, even though none were explicitly stated upfront.