ALEXAMENOS SEBETE THEON
Graffiti: Alexamenos worships his God, Palatine Hill, Rome, ca. 200 CE
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Graffiti: Alexamenos worships his God, Palatine Hill, Rome, ca. 200 CE
Graffiti: Alexamenos worships his God, Palatine Hill, Rome, ca. 200 CE
Can we explore this study question further?
ReplyDeleteIrenaeus argues against Marcion and other Gnostics that it makes no sense to think of Jesus as a super-human or a disembodied spiritual being. Why, according to Irenaeus, did God have to become an actual, living human being? What was the purpose of God’s “incarnation” (or “enfleshment”) in the man Jesus? (Irenaeus gives several answers.)
- Merry Chin
Can we also explain this question? I couldn't really understand this particular primary source.
ReplyDeleteHow does Irenaeus interpret the creation story from the Hebrew Bible in order to refute Marcion’s views about Jesus?
- Kopal Gupta
Can we also further discuss this question in terms of specificity:
ReplyDeleteWhat point is tertullian trying to make when he mocks marcion's habit of "cutting?" What is he referring to?
I'm also pretty confused about the "cutting" reference in question 9, but reading past that, I think I understand the answer to number 10.
ReplyDeleteWhat is Tertullian talking about when he boasts the "indispensable dishonor of our faith"?
I think Tertullian is referring to the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, God's only son, as the dishonor of [their] faith that is indispensable because it is a crucial element in their religion. It's dishonorable because Jesus had to made an example of and get brutally killed, but through this sacrifice, he was able to able to rise again and save humanity.
--Nemo Baker
The article I find interesting, but at the same time, confusing, is "The Didache". I found that, although they try to be as specific as possible in articulating what the ritual of passover entails, the difference in time era makes it difficult to know exactly what they are trying to point at or what they are describing.
ReplyDeleteTo provide some examples, in the first section of the article, they go into excruciating detail about just what kind of bodies of water are allowed in the ritual. They go into so much detail about the hierarchy of what types are allowed but finish with an "end-all" type answer that just pouring water on the head 3 times is sufficient. My question is about the significance of this. Why is there such a hierarchy of a simple portion of the ritual when you can simply skip right to the end step?
Secondly, I am curious about who specifically the "hypocrites" are. And why must they fast on Wednesday and Fridays? (What is the significance of these days)
Finally, in the final line of the article, it says "But permit the prophets to give thanks however they wish." This seems to coincide with the first question I posed. Were all the passages listed before this last line part of a prayer they must recite during the passover meal? Or is it just a grouping of text describing the original ritual. It seems to go on to contradict the original text in the final line once again by adding a "catch-all" "end-all" answer that the prophets can recite it however they want at their discretion.
---Brian Kiang
I didnt understand this line in particular from 'Apology'
ReplyDelete"See that no one beguile you through philosophy and vain deciet, after the tradition, and contrary to the wisdom of the Holy Ghost"
Here he is criticizing Aristotle and asking not to believe in philosophy but the rest of it I didnt understand.
Mallika R Gunupati
Can we talk more about the Synoptic Apocalypse? Especially question 8. I am lost and also wondering why there is so much more in Matthew than the other gospels here.
ReplyDelete-Madeline Berry
My question goes back to the "First Letter To The Corinthians 10-11"
ReplyDeleteWhen speaking of head coverings, it is said that a man shouldn't veil himself because he is the image and reflection of God. But it goes on to say that women should always have their heads veiled. What I don't understand is why women were believed to be unequal compared to men even though it said "but all things come from God."
-Bryan Le
Im having trouble answering question 9,
ReplyDelete"What point is Tertullian trying to make when he mocks Marcion's habit of 'cuting'?
-Ryan Kennedy
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFor "Assumption of Moses and 2 Baruch," question #1 asks, what are the four basic elements, or plot events, common to these two examples of apocalyptic literature (which they share with many similar texts)? I'm not seeing a lot of commonalities other than the suffering before God comes and the destruction of the world. What should be pay attention to to answer that question? Also the 2 Baruch passage is a bit confusing. What does it mean when it makes references to the "consummation of the times?"
ReplyDelete-Jason Li
Oh it finally works! Thank you :)
ReplyDeleteIn Justin Martyr, First Apology question #6, Is the prophetically learned skill to baptize & sprinkle water on men to bless them? I'm having a little trouble comprehending the significance behind the question a bit.
On the paper it is says "What happens textually after Jesus' death?"
ReplyDeleteI don't know how to interpret this question...or what the answer would be.
---Haley Oneel
In Irenaeus' "Against Heresies" he mentions that people can become a Son of God by believing in the incarnation. In what way do they mean Son of God here? They can't be suggesting that anyone can be divine right? Or do they just mean a member of God's kingdom? The use of similar phrases here kind of throws me off.
ReplyDelete-- Katie Carpenter
It works for me now! Thanks!
ReplyDeleteBecause I'm completely new to the subject, it would be helpful for me if we could talk about the readings in context with the chronology of the events as often as possible, especially because they jump around in time in our readers. I'm getting the history confused.
"Irenaeus argues against Marcion and other Gnostics that it makes no sense to think of Jesus as a super-human or a disembodied spiritual being. Why, according to Irenaeus, did God have to become an actual, living human being? What was the purpose of God’s “incarnation” (or “enfleshment”) in the man Jesus? (Irenaeus gives several answers.)"
I have always found it confusing this confusing: Jesus was God but also a person. In the reading the question references, Irenaeus quotes "Since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead." I think that Irenaeus is trying to show that God became a man in order to die, and so that people would feel guilt and remorse for His death. Because of that event, people can appreciate their lives and opportunities because Christ died for them. Whereas, I think, Jews appreciate their lives and reflect upon their own ancestors' suffering, because without sacrifice in the past we wouldn't be here.
-Alexa Schwartz
After seeing the study questions, I realize I don't really understand “On the Flesh of Christ” in general.
ReplyDelete9. What point is Tertullian trying to make when he mocks Marcion’s habit of “cutting”? (What is
he referring to?)
10. What is Tertullian talking about when he boasts of the “indispensable dishonor of our faith”?
In response to Bryan Le's question:
ReplyDeletePersonally, I don't think that clothing has anything to do with equality as much as it does with having to do with protecting the image of women and how they were/are portrayed in society. I feel like the less clothing that a woman wears is directly tied into how much of a "sex object" she appears to be, and ultimately, I feel as if people wanted these women to cover as much as possible so that they wouldn't be looked at in such a manner.
Furthermore, the idea of not wearing a veil today is made out to be of the norm, but in the time period that the text was written, not wearing a veil was basically forbidden and appears to have been thought of as promiscuous.
I was confused by the "Ecclesiastical History" reading. Can anyone answer the question What were Montanus and his followers doing that upset early Christian "overseers?" How did the bishops react?
ReplyDeleteErin White
After reading "Against Heresies" by Irenaeus and "Against Marcion" by Tertullian I'm still confused by Marcion's beliefs and religious practices in general. Did Marcion choose to stay affiliated with the Christian sect? Why did he still deem Jesus an appropriate religious leader when Jesus was so closely linked with God, or the Creator of evil as Marcion suggests? Why did Marcion so thoroughly mutilate the gospels rather than creating his own gospel based off his unique beliefs?
ReplyDeleteSterling Phillips
In Irenaues' "Against Heresies," I didn't understand how to answer How does Irenaus interpret how does the creation story from the Hebrew Bible in order to refute Marcion's views about Jesus. I would like to go over this excerpt in discussion.
ReplyDelete-Steph Chow
I am having a little trouble understanding what this question is asking:
ReplyDelete"How does the “manifestation of the Word” as Christ affect the status of Greek philosophy and
religion, according to Clement?"
The phrase "status" is a little vague. Could you please clarify?
-Melanie Kaplanek
There was a question on the blog that I would like to answer:
ReplyDelete(written by Bryan Le)
My question goes back to the "First Letter To The Corinthians 10-11"
When speaking of head coverings, it is said that a man shouldn't veil himself because he is the image and reflection of God. But it goes on to say that women should always have their heads veiled. What I don't understand is why women were believed to be unequal compared to men even though it said "but all things come from God."
My answer:
The Bible talks about how man should be the head of a household and how wives need to submit to their husbands but this does not necessarily make women inferior. The Bible draws comparisons in First Corinthians, between husbands being the head as Christ is the head of the church and how God is the head of Christ. In this comparison, the church is of extreme importance since Jesus died for the body of Christ (the church). Although, Jesus has the authoritative role, the responsibilities of the body of Christ is just as important since Jesus was the one who sacrificed Himself for them.
Women, just as the church, is told to be submissive but their role is unique and has a completely different importance not necessarily unequal.
So in conclusion, according to the Bible women are not inherently unequal or lesser than men.
Culturally, women are probably considered less than man since in Genesis it describes woman being "taken out of man" making them appear to be from man and therefore in mans control.
----Jonathan Rusnak
Since I did not grow up with a christian background, it is sometimes hard for me to piece together the context of each reading. For example, the reading Tertullian, "On the Flesh of Christ," what exactly the context of this piece? Also, how does this tie into Professor Albertson's lectures?
ReplyDelete-Jordan Wong
I was confused by Part 3 of the First Letter of John. In particular, I was confused by the part that talks about "lawlessness."
ReplyDeleteIt was unclear to me what was trying to be communicated. This may also which part of this text pertains to the study question: "What elements of early Christian rituals are referred to in this letter?"
___Kate Flexter
In the text “The Second Treatise of the Great Seth” the speaking, whom I assume to be Jesus, did not take on a human form at all? he says “for my death which they think happened...since they nailed their man unto their death.” what is he referring to in this line, did Jesus really die, or was someone else in his place?
ReplyDelete----Meagan Hauser
Anyway, for now here is a difficult paragraph that I found. It's the second paragraph in Exhortation to the Heathen: "This is the New Song, the manifestation of the Word that was in the beginning, and before the beginning. The Saviour, who existed before, has in recent days appeared. He, who is in Him thattruly is, has appeared; for the Word, who "was with God," and by whom all things were created, has appeared as our Teacher. The Word, who in the beginning bestowed on us life as Creator when He formed us, taught us to live well when He appeared as our Teacher; that as God He might afterwards conduct us to the life which never ends. He did not now for the first time pity us for our error; but He pitied us from the first, from the beginning. But now, at His appearance, lost as we already were, He accomplished our salvation. For that wicked reptile monster, by his enchantments, enslaves andplagues men even till now; inflicting, as seems to me, such barbarous vengeance on them as those who are said to bind the captives to corpses till they rot together. This wicked tyrant and serpent, accordingly, binding fast with the miserable chain of superstition whomsoever he can draw to his side from their birth, to stones, and stocks, and images, and such like idols, may with truth be said to have taken and buried living men with those dead idols, till both suffer corruption together."
ReplyDelete---Eric Wallace
As I read the excerpt from "the Second Treatise of the Great Seth",I was lost as in "the Savior entered a human body but remained somehow quite distinct from the body, and Simon of Cyrne not only carried Jesus's cross but also died on it in Jesus's place". I didn't understand this part. Does it mean that Jesus came to us in a human form and when he died Simon died with him? What is the significance?
ReplyDeleteKristel Chan
I'm having trouble with Tertullian's "On the Flesh of Christ", particularly with study question #9, when he's asking about "cutting." I'm not sure I'm fully understanding what that is referring to.
ReplyDeleteLike many of you, I have trouble answering question 9, "What point is Tertullian trying to make when he mocks Marcion's habit of 'cutting?' (What is he referring to?)" While I understand that Tertullian is stating that Marcion's view of Christianity is a "cut-out" or butchered version of the Truth, I do not know what "cutting" is exactly referring to?
ReplyDeleteI also agree with Nemo Baker in answering question #10, "What is Tertullian talking about when he boasts of the 'indispensable dishonor of our faith'?" Tertullian here refers to how Christ is indispensable, that He is absolute necessity in order for the Christian faith to thrive, as it after all revolves around Him and what He has done. It is dishonorable, however, because such a high and exalted figure like Him had to suffer and die in place of the rest of us, undeserving and broken. Tertullian explains that we must "be ashamed of" this act.
-Andrew Lee
I'm having trouble answering Questions 9 and 10. I understand in the reading that Tertullian is mocking Marcions view of christianity and christ, however I don't understand what he is referring to when he says "cutting".
ReplyDeleteFor the text "Against Heresies", I did not quite understand part on the bottom of page 138 when Paul says "God assigned everything to disobedience so that he may have mercy over all". Then the following sentence says that man needs to "obtain mercy". The wording is a little bit confusing to me.
ReplyDelete- Garrett Moore
I was confused on whether or not the Son, the Father, and the Spirit were different entities. The text in "Against Heresies" says "This is what his name indicates, since the name "Christ" implies him who anoints, him who has been anointed, and the unction with which he is anointed. He who anoints is the Father, and the Son has been anointed in the Spirit, which is the unction; as the Word said through Isaiah (61:1)" Does this mean that each are separate entities or are they all connected in some sense?
ReplyDeleteI was personally wondering about a couple of questions from the Communal portraits of Jesus worksheet.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, #3 - "In this text we find Jesus as shape-shifter, singer, and dancer. What common function do these literary features have? What do they suggest to readers about the identity of Jesus?"
I can see in the reading what this question is referring to, but am having trouble understanding their function as literary devices, let alone what it says about Jesus' identity. I am assuming that it is trying to symbolize the fact that Jesus is both man and spirit in accordance with the Holy Trinity, which he references at the end of the passage (He refers to himself as the Logos).
Additionally, question #3 is slightly unclear - "What happens textually after the death of Jesus?"
How far do we go with this? Does the professor want us to continue past the ripping of the curtains and the earthquake? Continuing to his burial/resurrection? or even further to the commissioning of the disciples?
-Parker Ashley*
ReplyDeleteI'm confused on question #3. I'm not sure how shape-shifting relates to singing and dancing. Shape-shifting might suggest the God=like characteristics of Jesus but the singing and dancing points to his human qualities. How would these three descriptions have a common function?
ReplyDelete-----
Carlos Alamilla
I am curious about the background of the "angels" that greeted the two Marys when they visited the empty tomb depicted in the Gospel parallel of Jesus's death and resurrection. Were they a part of God? Where did they come from? What role do they play in the controversy between divinity and humans?
ReplyDelete- Patrick Lee
In the third question on Study Questions #4, it refers to Jesus as a singer, dancer, and a shape-shifter. I don't really understand the question about the common function of the these specific literary features. Is it symbolizing his all-being presence or maybe referring to the Holy Trinity? Any help would be great.
ReplyDelete-Jacob Balley
In the text “The Second Treatise of the Great Seth” the speaking, whom I assume to be Jesus, did not take on a human form at all? he says “for my death which they think happened...since they nailed their man unto their death.” what is he referring to in this line, did Jesus really die, or was someone else in his place?
ReplyDelete-Meagan
Answer to Study Question from
ReplyDelete"Freedom of a Christian" (R 631 - 36) by Martin Luther
1. Luther makes the anthropological distinction that Man has a twofold nature, a spiritual and a bodily one. The scriptures assert contradictory things concerning the same man becasue of this diversity of nature. The spiritual nature is the soul and the bodily nature is the flesh. No external thing has an influence on producing righteousness or unrighteousness.
- Haley
Answer to Study Question from
ReplyDelete"To the Chirstian Nobility of the German Nature" (R 636 - 41)
2. The first wall is the distinction the papacy has made between the temporal power and the spiritual power. The papacy has said that the spiritual power is above the temporal. The second wall is that only the pope may interpret the Scriptures. The third wall is that only the pople can summon a council.
-Meagan
Answer to Study Question from
ReplyDelete"To the Christian Nobility of the German Nature" (R 636 - 41)
3. Luther's argument against the first wall is that the concept of the spiritual estate being superior to the temporal estate is pure invention, deceit, and hipocracy. Every Christian belongs to the spiritual estate according to Luther, and there is no difference among Christians other than this title of office.
Luther attacks the second wall by saying that it is not substantial. Luther says that the papacy wants to be in control of Scriptural interpretation, but do not learn anything from the scriptures at all. Instead, all Christians are equals through faith, and should have equivalent access to the scriptures.
Luther argues against the third wall by saying that if the Pope acts contrary to the Scriptures, then we must stand by the Scriptures and reprove him according to Matthew. Furthermore, to not punish the pope by a council is harmful to Christiandom.
-Christen
Answer to Study Question from
ReplyDelete"Lectures on Galatians" (BB)
4. The "beast" is Reason. Luther believes that God encourages faithful Christians to kill the beast through faith. By doing so, devout people are offering a highly pleasing sacrifice and worship to God.
-Merry