I think that the character of Gandalf could be a symbol of God. In the passage, Gandalf was depicted as being very wise, good, and having much more knowledge than the other characters. This is similar to the Christian god, who is good, caring, and omniscient. Additionally,  Gandalf was able to read the inscription on the ring, something that no voice had ever “dared to utter”. This sets him apart from the other characters and makes him seem more powerful.

In contrast, the character of Sauron seems to represent evil, arrogance, and sin. Sauron is the one that made the ring, which causes a lot of problems throughout the story. Another interesting character was Saruman, who decided to follow Sauron. One quote in the passage made me think that Saruman could show how humanity started as pure, but was eventually tempted by sin. Gandalf noticed that Saruman’s robes, “which had seemed white, were not so, but were woven of all colors, and if he moved they shimmered and changed hue so that the eye was bewildered”. Saruman replied, “White! It serves as a beginning. White cloth may be dyed. The white page can be overwritten; and the white light can be broken”. This conversation reminded me of the fall and how humanity went from pure to sinful. The original white robe could represent purity and the new colors could represent temptations to sin.

According to the CCC, the Catholic Church is one because of her source, founder, and soul. The catechism points out that although the people and congregations of the Catholic church are all different and diverse, they are all one because they are bound by their profession of faith, common celebration of divine worship, and the apostolic succession through the sacrament of Holy Orders. Despite these similarities, there are some barriers that prevent the church from being completely unified. Even from the beginning of Christianity, there were rifts and disagreements between groups of Christians. Additionally, the catechism says that human sin can “wound the unity of Christ’s body”. Despite this, the church strives to increase its unity “until the end of time”. Even though Christ gave the church the gift of unity, “the church must always pray and work to maintain, reinforce, and perfect the unity that Christ wills for her”.  I find this convincing because despite the differences that people in a Christian denomination have, they are connected by similar beliefs, traditions, and practices. I was a little confused by the discussion of how heresy, apostasy, and schism are caused by sin and lead to further divisions in the church.

In the reading, I noticed that the church emphasizes that Jesus’s resurrection was not “a return to earthly life”. Earthly life is defined by ending in death. Even the people that Jesus raised from the dead returned to earthly life and would eventually die again. Jesus’s resurrection was different because after he was resurrected he “passed from the state of death to another life beyond time and space”. 

The church considers the resurrection to be the work of the trinity because when the Father brought Jesus back from the dead, he introduced Jesus’s humanity into the trinity. I thought it was interesting that Jesus wasn’t considered to be a part of the trinity while he was alive because he was still God’s son at that time.

Christ’s resurrection serves as a guarantee that all the faithful will also be resurrected. I thought it was interesting how Jesus was considered to be “the first born of the dead”. I found this phrasing a little bit confusing because people died before Jesus. I think it could refer to the special privileges and respect that the first born child usually gets in a family, but I’m not exactly sure what specific privileges these could be in this context.

This was my first time reading Revelation and all I can say is that it was pretty wild. I had heard a lot about it being strange and little scary yet beautiful, and it lived up to the hype for me.

Of the letters to the churches in Asia, I found the one to Thyatira to be the most interesting. In this letter, John mentions the people tolerating a woman named Jezebel who claimed to be a prophetess, but was “luring… servants away to commit the adultery of eating food which has been sacrificed to idols”. The footnote said that the choice of Jezebel’s name was symbolic, based on the Old Testament queen. However, I wasn’t sure if this meant that Jezebel herself was a metaphor for false prophets in general or if this character referred to a specific person in Thyatira but John changed her name to add more symbolism. I was surprised by the punishment that was suggested for the false prophetess: “I am consigning her to a bed of pain, and all her partners in adultery in great hardship, unless they repent their practices; and I will see that all her children die, so that the churches realize that it is I who test motives and thoughts and repay you as your deeds deserve”. I was surprised that Jesus, who was depicted as so merciful towards sinners in the Gospels would be willing to kill all of the followers of a false prophet.

In Romans 4, Paul uses the figure of Abraham to argue that “the uprightness of faith” is more important than following the law. Paul notes that Abraham was given a blessing by God before he was circumcised. Therefore, although circumcision can serve as a sign of uprightness, it doesn’t inherently make a person upright, good, or faithful. Abraham’s circumcision was a “guarantee that the faith which he had while still uncircumcised was reckoned to him as uprightness”. Paul uses this example to make the point that faith in Jesus is what leads to salvation, not following the law. Paul uses Abraham as an example of an extremely faithful person as a model to the readers of this letter. Even though Abraham was old, “he hoped and believed that he was to become father of many nations in fulfillment of the promise: just so will your descendants be”. 

Other than the importance of faith over the Law, I couldn’t quite tell what else Paul thought about the law. From the reading I got the sense that he had a general respect for it but didn’t expect gentiles to follow it because he saw the law is fulfilled in Jesus, but some parts of the letter seemed to make the law seem less important than in other parts.

In this reading, John seems to emphasize Jesus’s divinity. One place where I saw this was in Jesus’s prayer before his death and resurrection. Jesus said, “And eternal life is this: to know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent”. In his prayer, Jesus associates himself with God and makes it clear that Jesus and God are one. This point was also made when Jesus said that God loved him “before the foundation of the world”, which means that Jesus existed before he was born, which is interesting.

I also thought it was interesting that Pilate was reluctant to crucify Jesus. In popular culture, his name has a connotation of being a harsh and strict leader. However, from this reading it seems that Pilate was much more sympathetic to Jesus than the Jews were. Pilate “found no case against [Jesus]” and was “anxious to set him free”, but he was persuaded to crucify Jesus by the Jews. One thing that I was confused about was when Pilate wrote a note on the cross that said “Jesus the Nazarene, King of the Jews”. I wasn’t sure if this was Pilate’s way of acknowledging that he believed that Jesus really was sent from God, or if it was sarcastic or had some other meaning. I think that Pilate’s sympathy towards Jesus’s situation helps to make sure that the reader realizes that Jesus did nothing wrong, even in the eyes of Pilate. This perfection helps to support John’s point that Jesus is divine. 

One main difference I noticed between Luke and John is the writing style. The writing in John is very poetic and pretty, with a lot of metaphors and similes. The writing style in Luke was simpler and tended to feel more to the point. Although both books are mainly focused on writing an account of Jesus’s life that will lead the reader to faith, John seemed more interested in this goal whereas Luke seemed to also have the goal of providing a chronological and ordered, yet incomplete, account of Jesus’s life. Luke started with Jesus’s birth and followed his journey to Jerusalem, ending with his death. John started in the middle of Jesus’s death and felt more like a collection of stories instead of an ordered account. Also, Luke is mostly made up of short parables and stories, but John had more long, poetic speeches. John also seemed to include more foreshadowing. I noticed a few allusions to Jesus’s eventual death and resurrection throughout the reading. I think that although Luke felt more like a full, cohesive picture of Jesus, John was more interesting to read because of the beautiful language and the longer, more fleshed-out stories. Theologically, John seemed to emphasize the importance of Jesus being the son of God. It seemed like every time Jesus talked, he was telling someone about how God sent him to save the world. Although this was obviously a big part of Luke as well, it seemed like one of John’s main priorities.

One thing that I noticed about the structure and arrangement of Luke is that the book is mostly comprised of short parables and things that Jesus said. Other than the beginning and end of the book, there isn’t a lot of information about things that happened to Jesus throughout his life. Additionally I noticed is that Luke uses geography to separate and structure this gospel. Luke presents Jesus’s life like a long journey ending at Jerusalem. Along the way, he stops at many different places where he preaches and heals people. 

To me, the high points of Luke’s gospel were Jesus’s birth and his resurrection. I think that the stories and parables in between these events don’t really add to the plot or flow of the story of Jesus’s life but are mainly used to establish his message of love, mercy and forgiveness. This message is mostly shown through Jesus’s treatment of other characters, especially the poor, unappreciated, or those considered to be sinful or bad by others. Throughout his ministry,  Jesus shows mercy, respect, and compassion towards people that the rest of society has forgotten. In the book of Luke there are numerous examples of Jesus’s remarkable love towards those that others do not care about, which helps to encourage the reader to do the same.

Something that I found interesting is the Synoptic problem and the debate over whether Matthew, Luke, or John came first and which books influenced the others. Before reading this article I had assumed that all of the gospels were written around the same time. I was also very surprised by how similar some of the gospels are to each other. I knew that  the gospels tell many of the same stories, but I hadn’t realized that some of the material is exactly the same. I found it especially interesting that 80% of Mark’s 661 verses are reproduced in Matthew and 65% in Luke. I thought that the theory of a proto gospel to explain the similarities between the gospels to be very interesting. This theory makes a lot of sense to me but I don’t think the evidence presented in the reading was enough to be convincing. Another new insight I gained was the possible existence of Q, a hypothetical source to explain the similarities between Matthew and Luke but not Mark. I thought it was especially interesting that there are common themes and tones between the passages attributed to Q. To me, the Q theory seems like a logical way to explain the agreements between Matthew and Luke but it also raises questions about when the source was written and who it was written by.

The main wisdom I found in the Book of Job is to stay faithful and hopeful in difficult times. In chapter 1 after Job lost nearly everything, it seemed like his life was over. Job’s friends even gave signs of mourning when they came to visit him: “they wept aloud and tore their robes and threw dust over their heads. They sat there on the ground beside him for seven days and seven nights. To Job they never spoke a word, for they saw how much he was suffering. Even though Job kept his faith in God, he repeatedly cursed the day of his birth and said that he wished he hadn’t been born. In the end, God gave Job twice as much as he had before. Even though Job still believed in God, he did not seem to have any hope that his life would improve. I interpreted the Book of Job as teaching that God will reward those who stay faithful, so it is important to have hope and believe that he will make things right in the end.

Personally, I am conflicted about how God’s relationship with humanity is portrayed in this book. First, I think it is unethical for God to have allowed all of Job’s children, servants, and animals to die simply for the purpose of testing Job’s faith. I think that it would’ve been better if God had simply taken away some of Job’s material possessions, but honestly I find the whole premise of allowing Satan to make an innocent person miserable just to see if they stay faithful to be wrong.

Additionally, even though God gave Job more children and twice as many material possessions as he had before, that doesn’t necessarily take away all the pain and trauma from when he lost everything. In other passages we have read, the value and importance of human life is stressed because humans are created in the image of God, but in this passage, human life is treated as expendable. After their death, Job’s children are replaced with more children, but I would imagine that Job still would have had lingering feelings of grief and guilt about his first children.