End of Luke

Gospel of Luke 17-24

The rest of the story was pretty much the same as that of the Gospel according to Mark, except for maybe the story of Zacchaeus, a rich man, who came to repent, and th last meal of Jesus and his disciples.

The rest of the story was, really, the same (except for the fact that the wording was different between the gospels). Judas betrays Jesus, Jesus gets crucified, and he dies.

In the Gospel according to Mark, the last words of Jesus were:
"My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (Gospel of Mark 15:34)
This suggested that Jesus didn't exactly want to die, even though it was sort of his mission. In contrast, the last quote of the Gospel according to Luke was somewhat different.
"Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit." (Gospel of Luke 23:46)

Last post, I said something about how the Gospel according to Luke portrayed Jesus' character as more noble. This can also be seen in the last thing Jesus said before he died. Here, he sounds calm and as if he had done all that he was supposed to do. It's funny how each gospel has a different version of Jesus' character.

Then Jesus resurrects, then flies up to heaven.


The gospels were pretty fun to read. It was also fun to see the differences and similarities between the two gospels I read, and how it carried much more meaning than how much I thought it had before reading it.

Noble-er Jesus

Gospel of Luke 9-16

The miracles of Jesus continue.

There were many things different from the Gospel according to Mark as I read. It didn't mention the death of John the Baptizer, and it didn't mention Jesus walking on water either. The Gospel according to Luke also had some of it's own unique short stories, such as the one where a lawyer asks Jesus of how to have eternal life.

Other than these stories, most were pretty much the same as that of the Gospel of Mark. Oh, forgot one thing. The Gospel of Luke also included the Lord's Prayer.

The part that I liked the most of this particular part of the gospel that I read was the metaphor Jesus made about the lost sheep.

"What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it? And when he hath found it,he layeth it on his shoulders, rejoicing. And when he cometh home, he calleth together hisfriends and neighbours, saying unto them, Rejoice with me; for I have found my sheep which was lost. I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance." (Gospel of Luke 15:4-7)

From here, I saw that the Gospel according to Luke tried to make Jesus a more 'noble' character. He was made into someone who actually looks like he is here to fulfil his mission (unlike the Gospel according to Mark, where Jesus shows signs that he maybe didn't actually want to be who he was, shown by the quote "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (Gospel of Mark 15:34) )

In my personal opinion, the Gospel of Luke seems more fun that the Gospel of Mark. It's just me.

Same Guy, Different Story?

Gospel of Luke 1-8

Luke. I am your father.

Just kidding. Not that Luke.
I started reading the Gospel according to Luke.

This gospel started with the story of how John (the baptizer) was born. Then, unlike the Gospel of Mark, talks about how Joseph and Maria came together, and how Jesus was born. It shows a short bit of his childhood. It talks about how John baptizes Jesus.

Time out here. Supposedly, John didn't know about Jesus.
"And as the people were in expectation, and all men mused in their hearts of John, whether he were the Christ, or not; John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire." (Gospel of Luke 3:15,16)
From here, you can infer that John didn't actually know that Jesus existed until John baptized him. If so, how did he find out Jesus was who he was at first glance? Did God tell him? If so why is it not said in the text? I don't know.

The Gospel according to Luke didn't have the battle between Jesus and Satan. Here I thought: Why are all the gospels different from each other? Why couldn't they have just have had one master gospel? Well, whatever. Many means more credible.


The gospel told the story on Jesus collecting his disciples, and performing miracles, some which I haven't seen before. There was one where Jesus made this 'young man' come back to life:
"Young man, I say unto thee, Arise. And he that was dead sat up, and began to speak. And he delivered him to his mother." (Gospel of Luke 7:14,15)

The Gospel of Luke is indeed different from that of Mark in its context. I hope it gets more interesting.

The End of Mark

Gospel of Mark 9-16

Here’s the rest of the Gospel of Mark.

The Gospel of Mark has sort of taken a turn. Instead of stories of Jesus performing miracles in the middle of nowhere, it now talks more about people testing Jesus and Jesus teaching people of the right way.

In this point of the story, Jesus enters Jerusalem, where the people greet him and ask him for help. It’s too bad that this won’t last too long, since we all know what happens to Jesus. You know what would be cool? Terminator going back in time to save Jesus.

As I saw Jesus answer every question/test the people gave him, I thought ‘Wow, this guy sure knows how to stay out of trouble’. Every time Jesus said something to someone else about what they should do and stuff like that, I was like ‘Yeah, that is true’, or something like that.

Look at this quote Jesus said to his disciples when they see a poor widow put in all her money in the treasury:
“Verily I say unto you, That this poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury: For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living.” (Gospel of Mark 12:43,44)

I totally agree with this quote. Think about it. If you are Bill Gates and you donate one million dollars to an orphanage, it would actually cost less than a poor person donating that much money. You know what I mean.

From here, the story is known by most ‘somewhat knowledgeable people’. Judas betrays Jesus, but then suicides. Jesus is crucified, but then reincarnated in three days.


Yay. I finished the gospel. This was actually more interesting than some other things I have read, one of them being ‘The Analects’.

So yeah. Cool. I’ll be starting a new gospel next week.

Miraculous Jesus

Gospel of Mark 5-8

Still reading.
I started wondering why it's called the Gospel of MARK. Is that the name of the person who wrote this? I don't know, and I'm too lazy too go to Wikipedia.


In these chapters, Jesus keeps performing miracles, some of them which we know very well, such as walking on water. Another was multiplying five loaves and two fish (one basket) into twelve baskets in the end after everyone had eaten. The people start following him (while some don't believe in him). Jesus then predicts that he will die and revive in three days.

This part of the Gospel of Mark is, I believe, very well known to people. Yet, reading it from the original (well, not really, since the King James Bible is a translation) piece was somewhat unique.

Anyways, Peter doesn't accept Jesus' prediction. Jesus then replies to him. Here's what I thought was interesting:
"Get thee behind me, Satan: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men." (Gospel of Mark 8:33)
It's funny how just before Peter rejects what Jesus says, he said something that Jesus liked. Right afterwards, Jesus addresses Peter as Satan. Haha. Is it because the bad/evil thoughts of Satan are inside Peter? Something like that? If so, Satan can make people do anything he wants. Does he have as much power as God? (Of course not, but I'm just saying)

But then remember Job from before? If Satan wanted Job to question/insult God, he could have done it right? Why didn't he?

Oh, and I still have the unanswered question of 'Who is Satan anyways?' I still don't know how he came to be. Whoops, I'm getting off topic.

Anyways, everything's cool until now.
Hopefully, the text will become fun-er.

People, Meet Jesus

Gospel of Mark 1-4

Back to the Bible. Well, now it's the New Testament. What does that mean? Jesus, that's what it is.

The Gospel of Mark starts from when Jesus is already an adult. As in, it doesn't include the birth of Jesus, his childhood, and that kind of stuff. That information was, if memory serves, in the Gospel of Matthew.

John baptizes Jesus with water, and the Holy Spirit appears and acknowledges him as his son. Satan tests Jesus, and Jesus wins, of course. Jesus gathers his disciples, the first ones being Simon and Andrew. In Galilee, Jesus cures many people and performs miracles.

That's pretty much it, said in a few words.

This part emphasizes the fact that Jesus was a good miracle-performer. Jesus does it with a 'this-is-nothing I-can-do-anything' manner of way. When Jesus calms down the sea and the wind on the boat with his disciples, he wasn't all proud, saying 'Oh, I calmed down the water and wind. Ain't I cool?' He rather says it in a very noble God-ish way:
"Why are ye so fearful? How is it that ye have no faith?" (Gospel of Mark 4:40)

Then all the disciples are like 'What the fudge? Who is this guy to make the sea and wind obey him?'

Well, I'm just getting started, so let's hope there's much more fun events involving Jesus ahead of us.

No More Tao is Not Tao

Tao Te Ching 48-81

No, I don't get the title either.
SO SHUT UP!

Sorry about that.
I have finished the Tao Te Ching. Hm. It was shorter than I expected it to be. After all, it is the second most printed book, the first bring the Bible. A few last comments before I really finish the Tao Te Ching.

The book was nice. It really showed me what Daoism was, unlike Confucius, who left me confused. Even as I finished reading the book, it kept emphasizing balance. Even if it wouldn't be considered 'balanced', there were always at least two sentences that complimented each other, helped understand the other, and stuff like that. Look at the following quote for example.

"Truthful words are not beautiful.

Beautiful words are not truthful.

Good men do not argue.
Those who argue are not good.

Those who know are not learned.

The learned do not know." (Tao Te Ching 81)

The quote was from the last page of the book. Even until the end of the text, it had to be balance-ish, didn't it? Well, it was cool. Actually, this was one of the quotes that I liked. I quite agree with what it says here, maybe except for where it says that the learned don't know. It's so true that true words are not pretty. Reality is harsh. Yup. That, it is. I also thought that arguing too much isn't that good either, unlike my English teacher, who insists on teaching us how to argue. Well, it contradicts the book. I'm not sure if the last two lines have some kind of 'secret meaning' or something, because to me, it doesn't make sense.

Speaking of balance, look at this photo!

It's the picture of the Andromeda Galaxy, taken by NASA.
When I see pictures like this, I sometimes do think that nature is full of balance. I mean look at that! It's balance-ish. Haha, sorry. I don't have a good word to explain that. I'm just saying.

Tao Te Ching. The book of Daoism.
Very cool, short, not that bad to read.
NEVER READING IT AGAIN, thank you very much.

More Tao

Tao Te Ching 29-47

Nnnnnnggghhh. I'm bored of this book now. I guess I'm not much of a teaching reading guy. Nevertheless, the reading must go on.

This quote (quoteS, actually) caught my eye:
"Achieve results,
But never glory in them.
Achieve results,
But never boast.
Achieve results,
But never be proud.
Achieve results,
Because this is the natural way.
Achieve results,
But not through violence." (Tao Te Ching 30)

I like how it repeats. It's simple, yet it carries a lot of meaning.
This is practically saying that you shouldn't show off (I don't know what word to use) when you achieve things. I agree with this, except for a bit: where it says 'But never be proud'. I personally think we should be proud of the things we do. What did the author of this book want us to be, low self-esteemed Asians? If that was his intention, I won't become one.


"For one gains by losing
And loses by gaining." (Tao Te Ching 42)
This quote also made me think. It made me think about how gaining would be bad in the long run. The conclusion I got was that people get greedy and stuff. In the end, losing is better than gaining. But according to this quote, if you lose, you gain. When you gain, you will lose. It makes a cycle! Never mind. Stupid brain trying to work out logic.

He Who Follows the Tao

Tao Te Ching 13-28

Still reading the Tao Te Ching. Yay.

The book isn't bad. Although it's just teachings and stuff, it's not all that boring. I think it's because the text is divided up into very short sections. We go to the next part before getting bored. Something like that. I don't know. I'm just saying.

I noticed that the text kept saying something that was either obvious, or was the same thing that was stated. What do I mean? Look at the following quote:
"He who follows the Tao
Is at one with the Tao.
He who is virtuous
Experiences Virtue.
He who loses the way
Is lost." (Tao Te Ching 23)

Yeah. It's obvious someone who is virtuous experiences virtue.
This wasn't the only part of the book that said something like that. The book is full of those things. Stuff like 'He who is **** is ****'.


I found a quote that I quite agree with.
"He who does not trust enough
Will not be trusted." (Tao Te Ching 23)
That's the typical quote that you would hear from a good, noble man. I'm just saying. Anyways, I agree. I mean, who will trust you if you won't trust anyone else? You know the saying: 'You reap what you sow'. Be good to others, and they will be good to you too. Is that what the quote means? I don't know. I'm sleepy.

Yay. I'm almost already halfway through the book.
Let's hope I don't get bored of it just yet.

Balance

Tao Te Ching 1-12

As you might have noticed, I am reading a new book. It's called Tao Te Ching. Wow. My English teacher sure knows how to choose books. We read the Bible, Greek mythology, Confucianism, Hindu, and now, Daoism. Don't we ever get to read fun (some were fun. I mean like more of a sci-fi or some teenage *beep* like that) books? Well, whatever. It's English class.

So, the Tao Te Ching.
It's a book about Daoism. Right.
This book was different yet again. But this time, there was something VERY different. It was the first book without main characters. Even the Analects had characters like the Master and Zigong. This book, however, has none. It's basically a bunch of short teachings (kind of) of Daoism. They're just statements. No dialogues, no questions, no teenage vampires (thank goodness), and no plot.

The Tao Te Ching's main key term seems to be balance, as can be seen from some of the quotes in the text:
"Difficult and easy complement each other.
Long and short give each other contrast.
High and low require each other.
Voice and music harmonize with each other.
Front and back follow one another." (Tao Te Ching II Chapter 2)


I like this idea. Without this, there can't be that.
Stuff like that.

I don't remember where I heard it, but there was a saying that said: If there were no evil, there would be no good. Therefore, it must be good to be evil. Something like that. I thought it was cool.

Anyways, I hope this book gets more interesting (unlike the Analects).
Looking forward to it.

The Bible vs. Logic

In a case some years ago (also shown in the movie 'Inherit the Wind'), professor Cates was tried for teaching the evolution theory of Darwin. He had decided to teach the ways which were not on the Bible, therefore breaking the law. People went against each other: some thinking that the event of human creation should be based on what the Bible says, some saying that it was a course of evolution. The topic might seem stupid, but it wasn't back then.

Although today, there are almost no problems like this, people have argued throughout time about the creation of humans. Some claim that we have evolved from apes through a long period of time. Others claim the Bible to be true, saying that God had created the humans on the sixth day. But now, is the Bible exactly a reliable source?

God created Adam and created Eve out of one of his ribs according to the text, “And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.” (Genesis 2:22) That’s what the Bible says. Now, is there evidence that this happened? Although Darwin’s theory of evolution at least has some evidence or data from the past to back it up, the Bible doesn’t. The only proof that we know of the contents of the Bible is the Bible itself. Is that reliable? I believe not.

The Bible has many flaws that can’t just be overlooked. Take a look at this for example: “And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch.” (Genesis 4:17)Let’s get this straight. Where did Cain’s wife come from? The only humans existing were Adam, Eve, Cain, and Abel (who is now dead). If the Bible doesn’t make logical sense, it’s probable that the contents are not true. Also, if the years are to be tracked back from the birth of Jesus, the creation of the world was at most three to four thousand years ago. Look at the discoveries people had made. They had found dinosaur fossils, ancient organisms, the time in which earth was created, and many other things that are from far before the time of the creation. Did dinosaurs precede God? How can the events from the Bible be true if it goes against nature and logic?

God has his problems in the Bible as well. Although he is shown as the superior ‘perfect’ entity, he is not as perfect as we think. Why did God create the snake if it were to trick Eve? God knew everything of every creature, right? I guess not. When Cain kills Abel, what did God do? Did God do anything to prevent the first murder from happening? Nope. God isn’t perfect as the Bible states. This lowers the reliability of the Bible even more.

The Bible, its events and its belief shouldn’t stop anyone from believing what they want to. Although less than before, there are still problems caused by people who yet don’t understand this. Just know this: The Bible is a book. It’s actually a good book. But guess what? It’s not the only book.

Teachings Forgotten?

Reading the Analects isn't as fun as I expected. There was nothing that made you go 'Oh! I love this quote!' or 'Hey! I know this quote!'.

Well, at least that was until I read book 15.
There was the quote: "Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself." (Analects 15:24)
Hey! I know that! More commonly known as the golden rule, and used one million times every day by teachers. The 'don't-do-anything-to-others-that-you-don't-want-done-to-you rule. To say the truth, I didn't know that it originally came from Confucianism. Well, I guess it is, and everyone at least knows something from it.


It was interesting how the teachings in the book are divided into two: the useful and the we-don't-need-these-teachings. What do I mean? Although some teachings are taken into consideration (like the golden rule), some are just thrown away to the floor (like respecting the elders. Maybe you do, but it's very different from what Confucian people do).

It's too bad that the Confucian teachings are not being applied much around the world. The new generations are forgetting or not applying it to their lives. Now the teachings from the book are treated like some old Asian traditional teachings, even in Asian countries. Although reading it is sort of boring, I think it shouldn't be forgotten. At least in Asia, you know?

Confused ≠ Confucius

Let's start with how I'm already tired of this book after a few chapters (books, actually). Each line always (or most of the time) starts with 'The Master said' or something like that. This is so monotonous and tedious that I'm not sure if I can keep reading this. But nevertheless, the content and the teachings are not bad.

The Master said, "I will not open the door for a mind that is not already striving to understand, nor will I provide words to a tongue that is not already struggling to speak." (Analects 7.8)
Wow. That's just mean. If you're not ready, you won't get it. If you're confused, no Confucius stuff for you, mister. Aww. I guess I'm not ready for this yet. Well then, that's the end of this post.


Just kidding!

This reminded me of this video I saw in school. There was a woman being asked who Confucius was. She claimed it to be the people who invented confusion, whom happened to be Chinese and Japanese people. Wow. What are the limits for human ignorance anyways? Our class had a good laugh.

Anyways, until now, the book doesn't have any super-big special idea or anything. Nothing much interesting. Just a bunch of monotonous talking and teachings. I hope there will be a quote that will catch my eye sooner or later.

Asian Confucian Tradition

Here I am, reading the Analects. The Analect is basically a book with Confucius teaching in no particular order. The 'Master' is usually saying the teachings to the student, both of them whom we don't know.

It seems that the book is quite different from other books (like most other books I have read and analyzed on this blog). First of all, the fact that it doesn't matter from where you start reading from. It will still make sense. Another thing was that the whole book was sort of a conversation. Dialogues. This was a weird form a book could have, and it's one that I personally wouldn't use for books.

This book had many key terms and teachings, many that I was already fond with, just because I am Korean. You see, although many people in Korea are Christian (like me), Buddhists, etc., they still have the Confucius attitude and ways of doing things left in us from long ago. We consider it more as 'tradition' rather than 'beliefs' or 'religion'.

Back to what I was saying. The key terms seem to be very important in this particular book. See this sentence for example:
“Without Goodness no one can remain constant in adversary and cannot endure enjoying happiness.” (Analects 4.2)
Did you notice the 'Goodness' with a capital G? I'm not sure whether it is like that because it is very important, or because it was actually considered a proper noun or something when being translated.

I guess the book will be interesting.
Time to go back to the good ol' Asian religion.

Random Chunks of Writing?

Psalms 23, 42, 51, 137

These pieces were different from the others.
Unlike the others in which there actually was a beginning, middle, and an end, these just seem to pop out of nowwhere.

Psalm 23 was one in which David praises God. He says,
"The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want." (Psalms 23:1)
Obviously, this shows that David is very loyal to God, believes in him and knows that God will guide him through the right path.

However, the tone was different in a different part of a Psalm of David.
"Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy lovingkindness: according unto the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my transgressions." (Psalms 51:1) says David. He rather sound sadder and regretful. If you knew the story of David, this is the part in which David is begging to be forived for how David indirectly killed Uriah to get his wife, Bathsheba.

In Psalm 42, the person sort of questions God. Now, now, don't do that. Remember Job? Hahaha. Anyways, although he questions God, he still praises God and believes him in the end.

Here, after I had read some parts of Psalms, I noticed that these don't sound like songs. They sound rather more like random chunks of stories. Is it because it's a translation? Is it because there's no melody to it? Maybe both?

In Psalm 137, the person singing this 'song' seems to remember something from his past. Something about Zion. Ooh. Now I know where the 'Zion' from the 'Matrix' came from. It did come from the bible, right?

All of these parts that I have read show people generally praising God. I guess that's the whole point. However, it is somewhat harder to understand than most other stories due to the lack of background information.

Fairness

Second Samuel 2~18

To be very simple, Joab kills Abner, David mourns for him. Ish-bosheth is betrayed and killed. David becomes officially the king of Israel. They attack Jerusalem and win the castle. They bring the Ark of Covenant into the castle. He indirectly 'steals' the wife of a soldier (through the deth of the soldier in war), and is punished through the death of their first son. Absalom kills Amnon (both are David's sons). A few years later, Absalom is forgiven by David. Absalom becomes the king of Hebron.

Although these chapters had much more information than just this, if said simply, that's pretty much it.

I thought it was cool that all the situations in the story involved fair and even judgement. When Ish-bosheth's soldiers betrayed him, killed him, and took his head to David, David ordered to cut their arms and legs off. That's what they get for betraying their own king.

Mephibosheth, who was Jonathan's son, was given all the land that Saul previously had, for although his grandfather (Saul) was evil, his father was 'righteous', so David made a fair decision for him.

When David killed Uriah and married his wife, the child died, which was God's fair judgement towards the sin that Davd had commited.
"Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun." (Second Samuel 12:11) said Nathan to David. God sure is very fair (and is a very good promise-keeper), for all that God had told Nathan to tell David has or will come true. Too bad David couldn't live all his life as a righteous-loved-by-God guy.

Judging by all that has happened, Absalom will soon recieve fair judgement too. He killed his brother, and although David did forgive him, I don't think God will stay happy about it. Whatever.