Friday, January 13, 2012

Bodily Resurrection and 1 Corinthians 15

One of the most significant issues concerning nearly all religions,
Christianity among them, concerns the fate of men following their death.
Believing in an inevitable resurrection of the body among the faithful, Paul, a
principle founder of Christianity, asserted his beliefs on the nature of bodily
resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15: 42-54. As eternity tends to last a long time,
believing Christians (even agnostics such as myself) would likely be somewhat
eager to arrive at an accurate interpretation of Paul's message found in the
above verses, so as to glean insight as to what might await them following their
last heartbeat. The approach I will take in analyzing 1 Corinthians: 42-54 will
be to: 1) explain how the verses fit in with the overall structure of the book;
2) to explain and paraphrase the meaning behind the passage; 3) relate the
verses to similar passages expressed elsewhere by Paul; 4) and lastly to touch
upon some of the controversy associated with the verses.
1 Corinthians was written around 54 C.E. and was addressed to the
congregation which was made up primarily of gentiles and was located in Corinth.
At the time, Corinth was a highly urbanized and religiously diverse city which
made it very conducive to the early Christian movement. Paul's first letter to
the Corinthians was written as a response to a letter he had received (which did
not survive) from the Corinthians in which Paul was asked to settle various
disputes that were arising within the struggling congregation. Writing in
apostolic fashion to the congregation he had founded, Paul's letter while
pastoral, answered numerous questions and demanded numerous changes ranging
from: the rich eating with the poor at the church suppers (11:18-22); to curbing
the acceptance of sexual immorality (5:1-13); to abstaining from taking fellow
Christians to court (6:12-20); to answering the question on the acceptability of
eating meat begot from pagan sacrifice (8:1-13); to the role of women in the
church (11:2-16); to the importance of prophesying (14:1-40); and much, much
more.
It was under these auspices that Paul answered the question of whether
man would be with or without a body following resurrection. Although all of
the 15th chapter deals with issues of resurrection, the place of the body is
curtly addressed in verses 42-54 and is prefaced with the 35th verse which asks,
"But someone will ask, ŒHow are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they
come?'"(15:35).
Paul believed that at the time of the resurrection the perishable body
would be transformed into an imperishable body, that would neither be a ghost-
like spirit nor a fleshly body, but rather some sort of combination of the two.
As Sanders phrases it, "...resurrection means transformed body, not walking
corpse or disembodied spirit." As William Wrede describes Paul's transformation
of the body, "He says that they Œare dead' or Œare risen again' Œwith Christ';
or more specifically Œthey are dead to sin, to the Law,' Œcrucified to the world'
; Œthe body of sin is destroyed'; Œthey are no longer in the flesh'; or else he
says simply that they are Œdead'" Paul, whether because he does not recognize
the need for further elaboration, or equally as likely, as he does not know how
to accurately elaborate further, does not offer any greater explanation as to
the nature of the new imperishable body.
Seemingly similar to changing one's clothes, Paul simply explains the
transformation, in the capacity of the mortal body Œputting on' immortality.
The nearly tautological backbone behind Paul's reasoning is that the since the
mortal, by definition isn't immortal, in order to gain an eternal life, the
mortal must necessarily become immortal. As Wrede interestingly interprets it, "
If the misery of man consists in his habitation in the flesh, his happiness must
depend on his liberation from the flesh, that is, on his death." Moreover, once
immortality is put on, death, the previously inevitable enemy of the mortal,
will be destroyed. As Paul crisply writes in verse 54, "When this perishable
body puts on imperishability, and this mortal body puts on immortality, then the
saying that is written will be fulfilled: ŒDeath has been swallowed up in


victory.'"(15:54).
The single implied description Paul does make sure to include regarding
the body, is the notion that the resurrected imperishable body will bear a
likeness and similarity to the fleshly body that preceded it. Having believed
he had seen Jesus's resurrected body (as he wrote in 1 Corinthians 9:1) which
presumably outwardly appeared as Jesus's previously fleshly body, in order to
establish the continuity of personhood, in verses 37-38 Paul used the analogy of
man as a seed that although when planted is in one form (physical-earthly)
becomes something different when grown (spiritual-heavenly) yet throughout the
metamorphasis it is still the same plant. Maintaining the theme of continuity
in verse 44 Paul writes, "It is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual
body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual body."(15:44).
In verses 45-49 Paul refers to both passages from the
Old Testament and also some of his other letters in order to explain the
different domains of the two Adams. Believing in an actually historic Adam, in
verse 45 Paul writes "Thus it is written, "The first Adam became a living being;
the last Adam became a life-giving spirit" (15:45). Demonstrating his command
of the scriptures (at that time the bible only consisted of the Old Testament)
takes this from the verse in Geneis 2:7 which says, "then the Lord God formed
man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of
life; and the man [Adam] became a human being."(Genesis 2:7).
The last Adam refers to Jesus Christ. In 1 Corinthians
15 Paul writes, "For since death came through a human being, the resurrection of
the dead has also come through a human being; for as all die in Adam, so all
will be made alive in Christ."(21-22). The idea that the presence of death can
be destroyed and that man can gain eternal life through the grace given by Jesus
Christ (who is considered the second Adam) is congruent with other letters
written by Paul. In Romans 5:21 Paul writes, "...so that, just as sin exercised
dominion in death, so grace might also exercise dominion through justification
leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."(Romans 5:21).
Because he believed the Lord's return was very near, Paul thought
that not everyone living at the time of his writing would die. More
specifically, Barrett argues that Paul thought that not only was the coming of
the Christ very near, but that it was already actually taking place. Arguing
for what he believes Paul thought, Barrett writes, "The coming of Christ is not
an event that has somehow to be hurried along; it has already happenned. Yet it
has not finally happened; he has come, and he will come." In verses 51-52 Paul
writes, "Listen, I will tell you a mystery! We will not all die, but we will
all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet.
For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we
will be changed."(51-52).
The above passage has well generated a good deal of controversy
for some modern day Christians. When we are all changed, will we all Œbe
zapped' up into heaven? If we aren't zapped into heaven, will we remain living
for eternity on this earth? Since in verse 52, Paul mentions the dead rising
before the transformation among the living, will the dead necessarily rise prior
to our transformation? When they do rise, will they, like Jesus, remain on this
earth for any period of time? Or rather will they go straight to heaven? If
they do go straight to heaven, will we see them? Perhaps more importantly, if
the dead will rise only after the trumpet has sounded, assuming the trumpet hasn'
t sounded, where or in what state are the dead now? Are they not currently in
heaven? Of particular interest (via necessity) to this author, what happens to
bad persons when they die? Do or will they be forced to put on an immortal body
that will allow them to suffer forever in an eternal torment? Is not an
immortal body only for the righteous? Does not the last trumpet have to play
for them to gain that immortal body? If so, when will that last trumpet sound?
As Paul thought, has the first trumpet really began yet?
As people have a natural curiosity of what awaits them following
death, issues related to resurrection and Paul's views concerning those
issues, will likely be sought for years to come. Although we know that Paul
thought the perishable body must be transformed into an imperishable body in
order to gain everlasting life, and that the spiritual body would be congruent
with the physical body; as we do not have much concensus regarding the answers
to the questions in the preceding paragraph, it is evident that there is much we
do not (and perhaps cannot) know concerning the truths of life after death,
according to Paul or any other biblical author for that matter. Perhaps, if and
when the Lord does return, we will be made aware. Hopefully, the experience of
gaining that awareness will be a pleasant one for us all.

Bishop Francis X Ford

A Martyr's Victory in a Spiritual Sense
Bishop Francis X. Ford was a well educated, enormously gentle man, that was kicked, beaten, insulted, and surrounded by hatred. All this because of one mans beliefs. He was born in Brooklyn in 1892. He was the founder of the Maryknoll Missionaries and was the first bishop of Kwantung, China. He was killed in the late 1950's in China, he was charged with anti-Communist, counterrevolutionary, and espionage activities, his real "crime" was for being a Christian and a foreigner.
During his life Bishop Ford illustrated the cardinal virtue of fortitude, which is the ability to overcome fear in order to pursue good; "it is an active sake to overcome evil for the sake of gods kingdom" said Huggard. When he took office in China, the country was already feeling the effects of the massive Japanese advance across Asia. In a short time millions lost there lives and were driven from there homes. Bishop ford refused to leave the war-torn country, even after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor brought the United States into the war.
During this time he distinguished himself by the way he cared for war refugees.
Chinese paid a terrible price during this war with Japan, but even more costly was a civil war that followed. Bishop Ford exemplified the virtue of fortitude, by not leaving the war-torn country and staying to try to pursue good.
During this time of war, many would wonder what was the reason for him to stay in China, and what was his why to live? In the Novel A Mans Search For Meaning, Nietzsche says "he who has a why to live can bear with almost any how". If Ford had left the country during the time of war, there would have probably been no hope for the war refugees that didn't have the option to stay or go. His why to live was not to save himself, but to save others. In the Novel Frankl describes the human person as a meaning maker, who has the last human freedom namely to choose one attitude in a given set of circumstances. In 1950, he moved from his Diocese in Kaying China, to a political prison in Canton 200, miles away. At every stop along the way he was put on public display and humiliated. His attitude during these stops was not to give and let the humiliation make get to him, but to use it as a stepping stone to fight harder, he did the inevitable he used the humiliation to make him better.


In his life he examplified many of the things Frankl wrote about, but he also depicted many of the quotes in the hallway of Kellenberg Memorial High School. There is one quote that stood out to me more than any of the quotes on the wall it is..........
COURAGE
"Don't follow where the path may lead ......go instead where there is no path and leave a trail".
When Bishop was young he developed his own idealism. While a student in Cathedral college in New York he took an interest in the Christian Foreign Mission Society, this society was new and had few members. At the age of 20, he became the first seminarian of the Maryknoll Missionaries to go abroad. In time, many followed and the missionaries began a movement to Christianize foreign lands. Bishop Ford is consider the pioneer of this movement. Just like the quote said, he led the path.....and many followed.
Bishop Ford died at the mercy of those who despised him, with-out any comfort or support. His death was martyrdom it's truest sense, despite the isolation and horror he held to his beliefs.
Works Cited
Funk & Wagnalls. Microsoft Encarta: Bishop Ford. New York: Houghton Mifflin Comp, 1994.
Welk, Donald. Asian Missionaries. Minnesota: Patch Publishing, 1981.

Bible - Book of Job

One area in the bible which I have a problem understanding is the story in the beginning of Job. In this book, God talks to Satan and brags about His servant Job. He then goes on to bet with Satan, that whatever Job does, he will not renounce his faith in God. There are a couple of reasons this strikes me as odd. First of all, why would God, who is all knowing want to have anything to do with making deals with Satan? Secondly, why would Satan be interested in making deals with God, if he knows God already has the future planned out? Lastly, why would God put unnecessary affliction on His best man if it were only to prove a point to Satan? Maybe one of the reasons God would take a bet on by Satan in the book of Job is to teach a lesson to, not only Job and Satan, but the reader of the story. I think an important point of the story is the underlying theme; bad things don't just happen to bad people. There is no other apparent justification for what God put on Job. Maybe something has to happen to one person, to be able to save a thousand.


The other side of the story is seen on the part of the Satan, who unwisely, decided to challenge God to a contest, which you think he would know he was unable to win. So why would Satan waste his time making a bet that he knew he would lose? The only reason I can see is that he truly thought Job would fall under the circumstances. This exchange between Satan and God seems like a no win situation. God, on one hand would never have made a bet, which would result in Him, appearing weaker or him losing. But, Satan was stupid enough to make a bet with God, which he surely knew wasn't going to result in a victory. The last question I presented was, why God would put unnecessary affliction on his most honorable and blameless man? This part of the story is what I think of as the most important. Job, just because he was righteous, thought that he didn't deserve to have anything bad happen to him. God made a point in the story when he chose Job as the object of His bet. Not only did God prove something to Satan, but to Job as well. I think Job put it best when he said "With nothing from the ground I came, and with nothing I shall return."
In conclusion, I think it important to acknowledge how strong Job was during his time of trial. If we can all learn something from this story, it's that we have to have faith, in ourselves, in each other and in God. Without faith one is sure to crumble. If Job were any less of a man, he surely would not have delt with the scrutiny place on him. Maybe the real reason God displayed his power over Job is because He knew he could take it.

Bhagavad-Gita

The Bhagavad-Gita begins with the preparation of battle between the two opposing sides: on the left stands the collected armies of the one hundred sons of Dhritarashtra and on the right lies the soldiers of the Pandava brothers. Warring relatives feuding over the right to govern the land of Kurukshetra, both forces stand poised and ready to slaughter one another. The warrior Arjuna, leader of the Pandava armies, readies himself as his charioteer, the god Krishna, steers toward the opposition when the armies are ready to attack. Arjuna stops Krishna short before the two sides clash together. Hesitation and pity creeps into Arjuna’s heart as he surveys his family and relatives on the other side; he loses his will to win at the cost of the lives he still loves. As Arjuna sets down his bow and prepares for his own death, the god Krishna begins his council with Arjuna, where Krishna uses various ideas on action, self-knowledge, and discipline to reveal to Arjuna the freedom to be attained from the suffering of man once Arjuna finds his devotion to Krishna. Before Krishna begins his teachings, Arjuna analyzes his emotions and describes to Krishna the way his heart feels. “Krishna, I seek no victory, or kingship or pleasures” (The Bhagavad-Gita, p. 25). Arjuna admits that he stands to gain nothing of real worth from the war. He knows he cannot consciously triumph over family for his own wealth and glory. “We [Pandava brothers] sought kingships, delights, and pleasures for the sake of those assembled to abandon their lives and fortunes in battle” (The Bhagavad-Gita, p. 25). Arjuna continues on to state that once the family is destroyed and family duty is lost, only chaos is left to overcome what remains. 


He goes so far as to describe how chaos swells to corrupt even the women in the families, creating disorder in society. Arjuna tells Krishna that the punishment for men who undermine the duties of the family are destined for a place in hell. Finally, Arjuna asks Krishna which is right: the tie to sacred duty or reason? Krishna begins his explanation by stating that all life on earth is indestructible. “Never have I not existed, nor you, nor these kings; and never in the future shall we cease to exist” (The Bhagavad-Gita, p. 31). Because life has always been, reasons Krishna, then how can man kill or be killed when there is no end to the self? Also, Krishna tells Arjuna that his emotions of sorrow and pity are fleeting, and that endurance is all that is necessary to outlast the temporary thoughts. “If you fail to wage this war of sacred duty, you will abandon your own duty and fame only to gain evil” (The Bhagavad-Gita, p. 34). Krishna reinforces the idea of dharma, reminding Arjuna of the consequences faced when one does not fulfill the duty set before him. “Your own duty done imperfectly is better than another man’s done well. It is better to die in one’s own duty, another man’s duty is perilous” (The Bhagavad-Gita, p. 46). Doing one’s job poorly is preferable to doing another’s well. Even if talents lie in a different area, the duty one is assigned to is the responsibility of the individual. Failure of Arjuna to abide by his duty would have a profound effect on his worldly life as well. Enemies would slander Arjuna and companions would lose faith and respect in the man they once held in such high favor. If Arjuna loses his life, then he gains heaven and if he wins then he gains the earth; thus there is no need for Arjuna to fear for his own fate. To complete his sacred duty, Arjuna must perform the necessary actions for the duty to be achieved. “Be intent on action, not on the fruits of action; avoid attractions to the fruits and attachment to inaction!” (The Bhagavad-Gita, p. 36). In the third teaching, the abstinence from action fails because one cannot merely reject one’s actions and find success. Inaction threatens the well-being of the physical body, warns Krishna. Discovered through techniques like yoga and inner reflection, action allows the freedom of the self to be found and attained. Once Arjuna loses desire in the consequences of his actions, then a new kind of discipline can be realized. Understanding, rated superior to action by the god Krishna, provides the necessary tools to perform the skills needed to execute the action. Krishna warns Arjuna that this understanding can be lost once man begins a downward process by lusting after pleasurable objects which creates desire, and from desire anger is born, from anger arises confusion, from confusion comes memory loss, and from this the loss of understanding, signaling the ruin of man. Krishna blames Arjuna’s current emotions on worldly desires, and encourages Arjuna to seek a detachment from these worldly ties, so that the duty may be completed and Arjuna will achieve his release from human suffering. The discussion of passion in the fourteenth teaching illustrates one of many inconsistencies in Krishna’s argument. “Know that passion is emotional, born of craving and attachment, it binds the embodied self with attachment to action” (The Bhagavad-Gita, p. 122). Previously, Krishna counseled that a strong detachment from action, as well as from the fruits of action, is necessary for the success of the endeavor. In a sense, Krishna says that passion creates the drive and will needed to accomplish an action. “When passion increases, Arjuna, greed and activity, involvement in actions, disquiet, and longing arise” (The Bhagavad-Gita, p. 122). Exactly what merits the longing remains to be seen; Krishna gives the impression that this craving may deal with the fruits of action, a clear contradiction to Krishna’s past words. In this sense, Krishna describes a unit of the three qualities that bind man to the self. Including passion, lucidity, and dark inertia, these qualities (while being praised by Krishna) must be transcended for the achievement of liberation. To receive all knowledge of the cosmos and the self, Arjuna learns of Krishna himself. Krishna describes himself as having eight aspects: earth, fire, water, wind, space, mind, understanding, and individuality. These are his more worldly factors labeled as his lower nature. His upper nature is Krishna’s ability to sustain the universe, and be the source of all in existence. The three qualities of nature arise from him, as well as the beneficial aspects of strength without desire and desire without imposing on the duty all man must possess. “The disciplined man of knowledge is set apart by his singular devotion; I am dear to the man of knowledge, and he is dear to me” (The Bhagavad-Gita, p. 73). To Krishna, the man of wisdom and knowledge goes hand in hand with the man who has complete devotion to the god. Krishna likens the man of knowledge to himself, saying “...self-disciplined, he holds me to be the highest way” (The Bhagavad-Gita, p. 73), once again establishing the need for complete submission. Knowledge, while seen as a way to achieve freedom, requires enough discipline to be able to fully devote oneself to the god Krishna. It is through devotion, Krishna reveals, that man can truly achieve freedom from life and death. “By devotion alone can I, as I really am, be known and seen and entered into, Arjuna” (The Bhagavad-Gita, p. 108). In his teaching on devotion, Krishna tells Arjuna to “renounce all actions to me” (The Bhagavad-Gita, p. 112) In the fifth teaching, Krishna calls for the release from attachment and the fruit of the action, saying that once this occurs, then joy is found in the detached individual. Yet, freedom can not be achieved through renunciation alone; it is action with discipline that is essential for the success of the enlightened. As Krishna continues his discourse, he begins to talk about the divine and demonic qualities inherent in all of man. “All creatures in the world are either divine or demonic;” (The Bhagavad-Gita, p. 133). Apparently, all creatures are naturally good or evil. “...do not despair, Arjuna, you were born with the divine” (The Bhagavad-Gita, p. 133). Born with the quality of good or evil, the individual is fated to be what is in his nature. If it is his duty to be evil, then it is at evil that the man will succeed. Krishna states that living in evil leads to the bondage of the self in worldly things. Unable to free himself, the demonic man is forced to repeat the cycle of life and death in an everlasting pattern as Krishna casts each evil man back into demonic wombs. Krishna also identifies the evil man as a slave to his own desires. Controlled and dictated by futile efforts, “they hoard wealth in stealthy ways to satisfy their desires” (The Bhagavad-Gita, p. 134). The god also warns against three gates of hell: desire, anger, and greed. The renunciation of these allows for the release of the self. In the seventeenth teaching, Krishna discusses the differences in the nature of man. As stated before, these three aspects (also thought of as aspects of faith) are lucidity, passion, and dark inertia. The lucid man sacrifices to the gods, eats of the rich and savory foods, and sacrifices with all the traditions met. The man of passion sacrifices to the spirits and demons, eats harsh and bitter food that cause suffering, and sacrifices only to gain. The man of dark inertia sacrifices to the dead and ghosts, eats food that has long spoiled, and sacrifices void of faith or any real emotion. Into one of these three types fits every human on earth. Krishna praises the lucid while warning of the passionate and the darkly inert. The discussion comes to a close when Krishna begins to summarize and conclude the points he has already mentioned. He specifies the difference between “renunciation” and “relinquishment”. Renunciation is the refusal of action grounded in desire, while relinquishment is the rejection of the fruit of action. In death, the relinquishing of the fruits allows the self to lose all ties to the body and the desires that go with it. Krishna reminds him that resistance to his duty, that is, refusal to go into battle is futile because Arjuna’s nature compels him to it. Krishna spurns Arjuna to go against his will and do what his heart forbids. Arjuna learns to take refuge in Krishna and to commit fully to him. Krishna vows that Arjuna will be received to him in good time. “Arjuna, have you listened with you full powers of reason? Has the delusion of ignorance now been destroyed?” “Krishna, my delusion is destroyed, and by your grace I have regained memory; I stand here, my doubt dispelled, ready to act on your words.” (The Bhagavad-Gita, p. 153) Thus Arjuna, through his discourse with the god Krishna, accepted his duty with devotion and learned how to overcome his desire, while freeing himself from all worldly suffering.

Betrayal by God

To tell you the truth I have never really felt betrayed by God. It's most likely due to the fact that I haven't had many significant life experiences come up. Also when something goes wrong I don't look at God as a scapegoat. I feel you should blame whoever or whatever caused the tragedy. Blaming God is just the easy way out or just a quick answer to your problems. All this aside and even though I've never felt betrayed, I know others who have.
I work at a deli in my town and it recently burnt down. If I were the owner, I would have felt betrayed or denied. I mean, it's his life. It's the way he supports his family. One day he woke up and it was gone. Even worse is the time of year it happened, Christmas. This is the time when you need every penny but the only thing he's getting now is lost-wages paid by his insurance company. It doesn't even close to what he would be making if the deli were still up and running. But it's better than nothing, I guess.
His business has been through a lot of hardships over the last 16 years. Another difficulty was the building of the Blue Route near his business. The construction blocked almost everyone from entering the building. I don't know if you could blame God for that sort of problem or maybe it was just fate. But with these dilemmas and problems, he didn't question why God allowed these things to happen. He looked insstead to the way he benefited from the experiences.


One benefit was it made him stronger mentally aand spiritually. To keep a business going for three years with minimal customers is hard. It takes dedication and will to show up every morning and basically prepare for nothing, but he did . He was much more grateful when people came in and developed a better business. Perhaps God knew what He was doing.
Even the fire was a blessing in disguise. Some of the equipment was getting old and things just weren't all in top condition. So now he will have new equipment, walls, ceiling and so on. He wouldn't have had the pocket money to do this alone. Now you might be thinking it was just an insurance scam, but he had many inspectors come in and checked the cause . It was faulty wiring.
God might have seen that things weren't exactly great and things needed to be done to help out in the future. The deli equipment might have not been falling apart but in the future it could have and possible at an even worse moment when money was even more scarce. So having a fire around now might have been easier to deal with then say if his daughter was getting married and then equipment broke. Money for a wedding is ten fold compared to the money for Christmas. My boss didn't dispair when the fire took his business. He trusted God. In a sense maybe everything did work out for the better becaause he will have newer deli to better support himself and his family. .
Now I don't really know if any of this had anything to do with God but if my boss looked to God to comfort, he probably got it. For some people God is involved in everything and therefore people look to Him for help and guidance and that's how they pull through things. I don't think you should blame your problems on God. Instead think about them, look to God for strength and possibly problems and disappointments will be easier to bear.

Barnabas

I. Who was Barnabas?
II. Where is he first mentioned in the Bible?
III. Barnabas' introduction of Saul to the apostles
IV. His mission work with Paul
V. His departure from Paul
VI. Barnabas as a writer
VII. His Death


Barnabas was a native of the island of Cyprus. His birthplace makes him a Jew of
the Diaspora, the dispersion of Jews outside Palestine or modern Israel. He was originally
named Joseph but the apostles called him Barnabas, he probably acquired this name
because of his ability as a preacher. The name Barnabas was understood by Luke to mean
"Son of Encouragement" (Acts 4:36). Barnabas was an apostle of the secondary group,
companion of Paul on his mission to Cyprus and the Pisidian mainland.
Barnabas first appears in Luke's account of communal living in the Jerusalem
church, as a man of some means who gave to the church the proceeds from the sale of a
piece land, "Barnabas sold a field he owned and brought the money and put it at the
apostles' feet" (Acts 4:36-37).
After the stoning of Stephen in Acts 7:54-8:1, the church was persecuted and
scattered, "On that day a great persecution broke out against the church at Jerusalem, and
all except the apostles were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria. Godly men buried
Stephen and mourned deeply for him. But Saul began to destroy the church. Going from
house to house, he dragged off men and women and put them in prison" Acts 8:1-3. In
Acts 9:26-27, "Saul tries to join the disciples, but they were all afraid of him, not believing
that he really was a disciple. But Barnabas took him and brought him to the apostles. He
told them how Saul on his journey had seen the Lord and that the Lord had spoken to him,
and how in Damascus he had preached fearlessly in the name of Jesus." Barnabas thus
belongs to the company of first converts in Jerusalem who were won by the apostolic
preaching, if not by Jesus himself.
Though not a native, Barnabas had the confidence of the apostles. Later he was


sent to join the company of workers at Antioch, to preach to Jews, Hellenists, and Greeks
(Acts 11:19-22). As the work of the Antioch church expanded and more workers were
needed, Barnabas went over to Tarsus and brought back with him Saul. It seems that
Barnabas was the leader of the Antioch church, and the order which Luke gives,
"Barnabas and Saul," indicates the pre-eminence. It was "Barnabas and Saul" who carried
relief funds from Antioch to the famine-stricken Jerusalem (Acts 11:30). Barnabas was
commissioned by the Antioch church, along with Saul and John Mark, to undertake the
missionary journey which led them to Cyprus and later to the provinces of the mainland.
While on the island of Cyprus, two major changes occur, Saul is now called Paul and the
leadership role changes from Barnabas to Paul (Acts 13:9). Once on the mainland the
group would be referred to as "Paul and his company" (Acts 13:13). In Lystra there was a
wave of enthusiasm on the part of the natives, and Barnabas was given the title "Zeus",
while Paul was only "Hermes" the spokesman (Acts 14:12). The reason for the fanfare in
honor of Barnabas and Paul was occasioned by an ancient legend that told of a supposed
visit to the same general area by Zeus and Hermes. They were, however, not recognized by
anyone except an old couple. So the people of Lystra were determined not to allow such an
oversight to happen again. Leadership again changes back to Barnabas after the stoning of
Paul in Lystra and "he and Barnabas left for Derbe" (Acts 14:19-20). Luke's account of the
conference at Jerusalem (Acts 15) again places Barnabas at the front, indicating that
Barnabas was in better standing than Paul in Jerusalem. "Barnabas and Paul" made the
report in the conference relating to the work which had been done among the Gentiles
(Acts 15:12). The document which was sent by the conference recommending "Barnabas
and Paul" to the Syrian and Cilician churches again shows Luke's knowledge of the
relative standing of the two men in Jerusalem.
The separation of Barnabas from Paul and their divergent missionary activity
began in Antioch after the Jerusalem conference. The issue which Luke gives was the
taking of John Mark on another journey (Acts 15:36). John Mark's defection at Cyprus
(Acts 13:13) seemed to Paul to be sufficient grounds for dropping him from the party.
Barnabas was extremely devoted to John Mark because they were cousins (Col 4:10), and
leaving Paul, Barnabas took John Mark on a separate mission again to Cyprus. Luke's
cryptic words "sailed away to Cyprus" (Acts 15:39) are his farewell to Barnabas.
The testimony of the later church gives Barnabas a role as writer. Tertullian
assigned to him the authorship of the Letter to the Hebrews. Both Clement of Alexandria
and Origen gave him credit for the epistle which bears his name and they gave it canonical
standing because they rated its author as an apostle. However, the nature of both Hebrews
and the Epistle of Barnabas is hard to reconcile with the conservative tendencies of
Barnabas as indicated in Galatians, and the identification of Barnabas with Jerusalem in
the book of Acts. Moreover, the Epistle of Barnabas seems to be dated A.D. 130 on
internal evidence, and too late for our Barnabas.
An exact date for the death of Barnabas was not found, Luke ends the book of Acts
around A.D. 67 so Barnabas must have died sometime after this. However, Barnabas died
by martyrdom in Cyprus.

Baptism

Baptism is the door to life and to the kingdom of God. Baptism in Christian churches, the universal rite of initiation, performed with water, usually in the name of the Trinity or in the name of Christ. Orthodox and Baptist churches require baptism by total immersion. In other churches, pouring and sprinkling are more common. Most churches regard baptism as a sacrament, or sign of grace; some regard it simply as an ordinance, or rite, commanded by Christ. Therefore, Baptism is the sacrament of faith by which we, enlightened by the Spirit's grace, respond to the Gospel of Christ.
Scriptural Basis Jesus was baptized by John at the beginning of his public ministry. Although it is uncertain that Jesus himself baptized, the risen Christ commanded his disciples to preach to and baptize the nations as the sign of God's coming rule. Thus, from the outset, baptism became the Christian rite of initiation. Purpose and Symbols The purpose of this sacrament is to purify your soul and to destroy all evil. That is one of the main reasons why water is used for a symbol.


Water is both destructive and creative which matches baptism. Water was used as a symbol of purification in many religions at a very early date. Other symbols of baptism include oil, a white cloth, and a candle. People able to receive Baptism Infants were probably baptized in the early church. Baptism was often postponed as long as possible. Between the 4th and 6th centuries, however, infant baptism began to be required. Now almost anyone can receive this sacrament old or young depending on what religion you are. The church believes that baptismal celebration should be: a) Made as soon as possible, and even before the child is born, the parish priest should be informed so that the proper preparations can be made. b) Done without delay, if the child is in danger of death. c) Made within the first weeks after birth if everything is all right. Part II Interview Mom- My mom was a baby when receiving baptism so it didn't mean much to her. She said that once you receive baptism that you cannot receive again so she would not like to receive it again. Her life changed because she became a member of the Church. Her godparents went through a two week course, she did nothing. Dad- My dad said, "I felt saved and believed I will go to heaven." Yes was his answer right away to the question, "Would you go through the sacrament again." He replied that he is a very religious guy. He felt it was a milestone in his religious development. He received this sacrament a late stage so he prepared by praying and reading the bible with his parents.
Sister- My sister was a child when receiving this sacrament and didn't recall what it meant to her. She said that she would go through it again because it is a sign that you are a Christian. Her life has changed because she is now a Christian. She didn't go through any kind of preparation because she was so young. Part III I believe that this sacrament is a very special one. It is so important that you get godparents to help your spiritual growth. I have received this sacrament at an early age and if given the chance to receive it again, I would. In my opinion baptism should be given around the age of seven when the child is able to commit sin in the eyes of God. Never-the-less baptism is a very important step in one's life no matter when it was received

Nicholas Ferrar

Nicholas Ferrar was assumed to be born in 1592. I have found that his most probable birth
date was in February of 1593. This is due to the usual calendar confusion: England was
not at that time using the new calendar adopted in October 1582. It was 1593 according
to our modern calendar, but at the time the new year in England began on the following
March 25th.
Nicholas Ferrar was one of the more interesting figures in English history. His family was
quite wealthy and were heavily involved in the Virginia Company, which had a Royal
Charter for the plantation of Virginia. People like Sir Walter Raleigh were often visitors to
the family home in London. Ferrars niece was named Virginia, the first known use of this
name. Ferrar studied at Cambridge and would have gone further with his studies but the
damp air of the fens was bad for his health and he traveled to Europe, spending time in the
warmer climate of Italy.
On his return to England he found his family had fared badly. His brother John had
become over extended financially and the Virginia Company was in danger of loosing its
charter. Nicholas dedicated himself to saving the family fortune and was successful. He
served for a short time as Member of Parliament, where he tried to promote the cause for
the Virginia Company. His efforts were in vain for the company lost their charter anyway.
Nicholas is given credit for founding a Christian community called the English Protestant
Nunnery at Little Gidding in Huntingdonshire, England. After Ferrar was ordained as a
deacon, he retired and started his little community. Ferrar was given help and support
with his semi-religious community by John Collet, as well as Collet s wife and fourteen
children. They devoted themselves to a life of prayer, fasting and almsgiving (Matthew
6:2,5,16).
The community was founded in 1626, when Nicholas was 34 years old. Banning together,
they restored an abandoned church that was being used as a barn. Being of wealthy
decent, Ferrar purchased the manor of Little Gidding, a village which had been discarded
since the Black Death (a major outbreak of the bubonic plague in the 14th century), a few
miles off the Great North Road, and probably recommended by John Williams, Bishop of
Lincoln whose palace was in the nearby village of Buckden. About thirty people along
with Mary Ferrar (Ferrars mother) moved into the manor house. Nicholas became
spiritual leader of the community.
The community was very strict under the supervision of Nicholas. They read daily offices
of the Book of Common Prayer, including the recital of the complete Psalter. every day.
Day and night there was at least one member of the community kneeling in prayer at the
alter, that they were keeping the word, Pray without ceasing. They taught the
neighborhood children, and looked after the health and well being of the community. They
fasted and in many ways embraced voluntary poverty so that they might have as much
money as possible for the relief of the poor. They wrote books and stories dealing with
various aspects of Christian faith and practice. The memory of the community survived to


inspire and influence later undertakings of Christian communal living, and one of T.S.
Eliots Four Quartets is called Little Gidding.
Nicholas was a bookbinder and he taught the community the craft as well as gilding and
the so-called pasting printing by means of a rolling press. The members of the community
produced the remarkable Harmonies of the scriptures, one of which was produced by
Mary Collet for King Charles I.. Some of the bindings were in gold toothed leather, some
were in velvet which had a considerable amount of gold tooling. Some of the embroidered
bindings of this period have also been attributed to the so-called nuns of Little Gidding.
The community attracted much attention and was visited by the king, Charles I. He was
attracted by a gospel harmony they had produced. The king asked to borrow it only to
return it a few months later in exchange for a promise of a new harmony to give his son,
Charles, Prince of Wales. This the Ferrars did, and the superbly produced and bound
manuscript passed through the royal collection, and is now on display at the British
Library.
Nicholas Ferrar, who was never married, died in 1637, and was buried outside the church
in Little Gidding. Nicholass brother John assumed the leadership of the community.
John did his best to make the community thrive. He was visited by the king several times.
At one time the king came for a visit with the Prince of Wales, he donated some money
that he had won in a card game from the prince. The kings last visit was in secret and at
night. He was fleeing from defeat from the battle of Naseby and was heading north to try
to enlist support from the Scots. John brought him secretly to Little Gidding and got him
away the next day.
The community was now in much danger. The Presbyterian Puritans were now on the rise
and the community was condemned with a series of pamphlets calling them an Arminian
Nunnery (Ariminius was a Dutch reformer and theologian who opposed the Calvinist
doctrine of predestination and election)
In 1646 the community was forcibly broken up by Parliamentary soldiers. Their brass
baptismal font was damaged, cast into the pond and not recovered until 200 years later.
The village remained in the Ferrar family but it was not until the 18th century that the
church was restored by another Nicholas Ferrar. Ferrar restored the church, shortened the
nave by about 8 feet and built the dull facade that Eliot spoke of.
In the mid 19th century, William Hodgkinson came along and restored the church more.
He installed the armorial stain glass windows, (4 windows with the arms of Ferrar, Charles
the 1st and Bishop Williams inserted). He then put in a rose window at the east end (this
rose window was later replaced by a Palladian-style plain glass window). Hodgkinson
recovered the brass font, restored it and reinstalled it in the church. An elaborate 18th
century chandelier now hangs in the church, installed by Hodgkinson.
from _Little Gidding_ by T.S. Eliot
If you came this way,
Taking any route, starting from anywhere,
At any time or at any season,
It would always be the same: you would have to put off
Sense and notion. You are not here to verify,
Instruct yourself, or inform curiosity
Or carry report. You are here to kneel
Where prayer has been valid. And prayer is more
Than an order of words, the conscious occupation
Of the praying mind, or the sound of the voice praying.
And what the dead had no speech for, when living,
They can tell you, being dead: the communication
Of the dead is tongued with fire
beyond the language of the living.
Here, the intersection of the timeless moment
Is England and nowhere. Never and always.

Baptism

Baptism is the door to life and to the kingdom of God. Baptism in Christian
churches,
the universal rite of initiation, performed with water, usually in the name
of the Trinity or in the name of Christ. Orthodox and Baptist churches
require
baptism by total immersion. In other churches, pouring and sprinkling are
more
common. Most churches regard baptism as a sacrament, or sign of grace;
some
regard it simply as an ordinance, or rite, commanded by Christ.
Therefore,
Baptism is the sacrament of faith by which we, enlightened by the Spirit's
grace, respond to the Gospel of Christ.
Scriptural Basis
Jesus was baptized
by John at the beginning of his public ministry. Although it is uncertain
that Jesus himself baptized, the risen Christ commanded his disciples to
preach
to and baptize the nations as the sign of God's coming rule. Thus, from the

outset, baptism became the Christian rite of initiation.
Purpose and Symbols
The
purpose of this sacrament is to purify your soul and to destroy all evil.
That is one of the main reasons why water is used for a symbol. Water is
both
destructive and creative which matches baptism. Water was used as a
symbol
of purification in many religions at a very early date. Other symbols of
baptism
include oil, a white cloth, and a candle.




People able to receive Baptism
Infants
were probably baptized in the early church. Baptism was often postponed
as
long as possible. Between the 4th and 6th centuries, however, infant
baptism
began to be required. Now almost anyone can receive this sacrament old
or
young depending on what religion you are. The church believes that
baptismal
celebration should be:
a) Made as soon as possible, and even before the child
is born, the parish priest should be informed so that the proper
preparations
can be made.
b) Done without delay, if the child is in danger of death.
c)
Made within the first weeks after birth if everything is all right.
Part II
Interview
Mom-
My mom was a baby when receiving baptism so it didn't mean much to
her. She
said that once you receive baptism that you cannot receive again so she
would
not like to receive it again. Her life changed because she became a
member
of the Church. Her godparents went through a two week course, she did
nothing.
Dad-
My dad said, "I felt saved and believed I will go to heaven." Yes was his
answer right away to the question, "Would you go through the sacrament
again."
He replied that he is a very religious guy. He felt it was a milestone in
his religious development. He received this sacrament a late stage so he
prepared
by praying and reading the bible with his parents.
Sister- My sister was
a child when receiving this sacrament and didn't recall what it meant to
her.
She said that she would go through it again because it is a sign that you
are a Christian. Her life has changed because she is now a Christian. She
didn't go through any kind of preparation because she was so young.
Part III
I
believe that this sacrament is a very special one. It is so important that
you get godparents to help your spiritual growth. I have received this
sacrament
at an early age and if given the chance to receive it again, I would. In my
opinion baptism should be given around the age of seven when the child is
able
to commit sin in the eyes of God. Never-the-less baptism is a very
important
step in one's life no matter when it was received.

Aztec Religion

Like all the Mexican peoples, the Aztecs worshiped a multitude of gods, each of whom demanded offerings and sacrifices. Above all, the Aztecs considered themselves the chosen people of HUITZILOPOCHTLI, the sun and war god, in whose name they were destined to conquer all rival nations. Huitzilopochtli shared the main temple at Tenochtitlan with Tlaloc, the rain god, important to the farmers in a land where drought was a constant threat. Another important god was QUETZALCOATL, the feathered serpent, patron of arts and crafts and the god of self- sacrifice. Religion was ever present. Each place and each trade had its patron deity: each day, and each division of the day, was watched over by its own god. Priests were expected to live in chastity, to mortify their flesh, and to understand astronomy, astrology, the complex rituals and ceremonies, and the art of picture writing. Games also formed part of the religious ritual. A popular ball game was lachtli, in which a small rubber ball had to be struck by the hips or thighs and knocked across a special court. In another ritual game, men attired as birds and attached to ropes were slung in a wide circle around a pole.



The official state religion of the soldiers and noblemen was concerned primarily with the great and powerful gods: the creators, the solar deities, the patrons of the warrior orders. By contrast, the common people seem to have preferred the lesser, more accessible gods: the patrons of the craft guilds, the protectors of local shrines, and the deities who looked after the things of everyday life. For everyone, however, rich or poor, each month of the Aztec calendar had its festival, with music, dancing, processions, and sacrifices. All this came to an end with the Spanish conquest and the introduction of the Christian religion, although at the peasant level certain traditions from the Aztec heritage still survive in modern Mexico.

Atonement

Atonement in the larger sense deals with a common factor which is sin. The definition is a making at on which points to a process of bringing those who are enstranged into a unity(Douglas, 107). It is a theological term which derives from the Anglo-Saxon. The word atonement appears eighty seven times in the Old Testament in the RSV Bible(Nelson, 55). According to Strongs Exhaustive Concordance, which is using the King James Version, appears seventy seven times in the Old Testament and only once in the New Testament. In Leviticus, atonement appears fifty one times, more than any other book of the bible. In Numbers it appears seventeen times and in Exodus eleven times. The reason why it is used so much in Leviticus is that during that time period priest were intercessor's between the people and God. In the New Revised Standard Concordance, atonement appears eighty seven times. Out of those eighty seven times, eighty one appear with the word make or made. This would constitute that an atonement in these uses would cause the person who prepares the atonement to work at making an atonement. We find that in the New Testament we don't have to work to receive a pardon from our sins. The whole bible leads up to the cross and everything after the cross points back to the cross. Christ was the ultimate and final atonement for us.
In the Old Testament their atonement to God was to always be unblemished for the sake of perfection (Morris, 147). They believed that the perfect atonement would set them free from all their sins and thus make them clean in God's eyes. The Hebrew word for atone is . It is used frequently for the process of sacrifice. It was thought that a man must make and atonement to God that was adequate to give to Him to pay for his sin. In Ezekiel 16:63 atonement is translated to mean "forgive".
Words in the Old Testament are translated from the kpr word group in Hebrew. The Hebrew word for atonement is Kaphar. This is the main usage of the word but there are other words that are associated with atonement. or Kaphar means to cover. The figurative word which is used quite often is to expiate or condone. Other words associated with Kaphar are to be merciful, pardon, to pitch, purge(away), and to make reconcile. Or Kaphar is used for a village that is protected by walls. Or Kopher is also a cover or village covered. It is also bitumen which was used for a coating and dyeing colors. Words associated with Kopher are redemption, price, bribe, camphire, pitch, ransom, satisfaction, village. An interesting side point to the word Kopher is that it also denotes finger nail polish. Oriental females make a powder of camphire leaves then made the powder into a paste by use of water and put in on their finger which gave them a reddish color. The word camphire comes from the same root as atonement just as a sinner could pray for a colorful cover for his soul that was ruined by sin. Or Kippur means expiation but only in the plural. Expiation is found numerous times in the Old Testament for example in 2 Samuel 21:3, 1 Chronicles 6:49, and 2 Chronicles 29:24. The denominative verb which is to make an atonement, make reconciliation, or to purge is or Kapar.
There are three parent nouns for atonement and they are Koper, Kippur, and Kapporet. Koper or
means ransom or gift to secure favor. Exodus 30:12 and Isaiah 43:3 uses ransom and this is parallel to the word redeem. In 1 Samuel 12:3 Koper is used as "bribe". Kapar means to atone by offering a substitute. This may be better understood if you use ransom with Koper (Harris, 453). Kippur or
is used in the "Day of the Atonement". This was celebrated by a special sin offering for the whole nation and only the high priest could be allowed to sacrifice a goat. A second goat was released as an escape goat to symbolize a total removal of sin.
Kapporet is a noun which means mercy seat. It is used twenty seven times and always refers to the golden cover of the sacred chest in the inner shrine of the tabernacle or temple (Harris 453). Kapar or
is to cover over with pitch. The cognate word is used in the Babylonian flood story and denominative verb is used only once in Genesis 6:14 in waterproofing of the ark.


Atonement is use much more in the Old Testament because all of this was before Christ suffered for our sins. A lot of the books always kept saying that He died for our sins and that's true. But He also rose from the dead and they often times leave that part out. Sacrifices were made to redeem themselves in the eyes of God before Christ but since he atoned our sins, we no longer must give sacrifices.
In the New Testament, atonement is found only once according to Strong's exhaustive concordance and that is in Romans 5:1. In the NRSV it is found twice in Romans 3:25 and Hebrews 2:17. Translated in Greek it means Katallage or reconciliation. Reconcile is found two times, reconciled five times, reconciling one time, and reconciliation four times. In Greek the most common verb is
and the noun . Paul is the only other in the New Testament that uses the word atonement or reconciliation. The basic meaning of reconciliation is to make otherwise. The transitive of it is to alter or to give exchange (Kittel, 251). Is to alter by removal, to do away, to liberate, to withdraw, or to escape. Means to reconcile. Means the exchange effected. Then the reconciliation, ( for which and are generally use). "It denotes the result of the diving salvation, i.e. the new molding of the relation in which the world stands to God, so far as it no longer remains the object of His wrath(Bullinger, 75).
Reconciled or reconciliation seems to be the main usage in the New Testament. In 2 Corinthians 5:19, Paul writes "God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, no longer holding people's misdeeds against them, and has entrusted us with the message of reconciliation." Christ was referred to as reconciling the world to himself. He was atoning the world to himself. He no longer held our bad deeds against us, our sins where forgiven and that is the message of reconciliation.
There are two main different ways of using atonement. One is in a human trying to make an atonement so that he may be forgiven. The other is that we no longer need to make an atonement because the price has been paid with Jesus Christ. As said in class by yourself, "words don't have meaning, they have uses." There are many uses of the word atonement in the Old Testament but that was before the cross. After the cross there was no need to make an atonement for ones sins. Without sin, there would be no atonement in the Old Testament. Sin is the factor that of all atonement's. Sin is the reason for atonement which is no longer needed because of Christ.


On a personal note, I would like to express how much more this paper did for me just learning about how to do a word study or learning about atonement. I was hungry one night so I headed to McDonalds to go eat. I took my research with me to organize it and work on it. I met this couple with a five year old daughter. They began asking me what I was working on and why. What my major was and questions like that. I began to witness to them and they were so receptive and want to know what I believed and stuff like that. They did not seem to know a whole lot about the church, they did not even know what a youth minister was. I felt sorry for their daughter. She probably didn't have the best home life and they did not seem to care about her a whole lot. I don't write this to try to get a better grade, I hope it doesn't affect my grade at all. I just wanted to share with you how this paper was the reason I was able to witness to a couple and their daughter and to spread happiness into their lives.