Who Is This Man? (Blog post 9)

Jesus (by Kaichou Angel 

Luke 8:22-25 tells the story of Jesus calming the storm. You know the narrative - Jesus and his friends plus a boat; very bad storm; danger danger; boat filling with water; friends freak out; friends wake up Jesus (probably because they need more help bailing the boat); Jesus doesn't bail the boat; Jesus tells the wind and the waves to STOP; they stop; his friends (who've known him for awhile now) are terrified and amazed.

"Who is this man?" they ask each other.

That is the million dollar question.

Who is this man?

Luke's gospel gives us more details about Jesus' life than similar texts. And yet even this carefully organized and thoughtful account of his life is replete with unspoken backstory - or "fraught with background" as we discussed early in the semester.

Still, all we have to go on is what Luke (and the other gospel authors) actually wrote. It is much and little, all at the same time.

Choose two accounts/narratives in Luke's gospel and discuss how they illuminate the character of Jesus. You can focus on something Jesus said (or didn't say), something he did (or didn't do), or something someone else said or did in response to him.

Analyze the two accounts and offer an answer to the question "who is this man?" Your answer can be practical, literary, descriptive, relational, theological, philosophical - anything goes, as long as you craft a substantive and thoughtful response based on what Luke wrote.

Be sure to include references.

DUE: Friday, Dec. 1 before MIDNIGHT

The Jury is Out (Blog post 8)

John Cleese as a British judge - you're welcome.

(If you don't know who John Cleese is, shame on you. Look it up. Then watch Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Many times. And also the Dead Parrot skit. And the Ministry of Silly Walks sketch. Over and over and over again.

Respond to one of the recent oral papers on Samuel, Psalms, and/or Job with either a thumbs up (agree with the thesis) or thumbs down (disagree with the thesis - but not rendering judgment on the presenter or the paper itself; they were both likely quite awesome).

You must provide THREE supporting pieces of evidence for your viewpoint. In other words, offer three additional textual observations in support of the thesis OR three textual observations in opposition to the thesis (they can be entirely new pieces of evidence or new observations of evidence already submitted for consideration).

As always (ho hum - you've heard it before) be concise, articulate, and substantive. There is no room in a blog post for meandering, yammering, wandering, or ummming/ermmmming.

No need to wear a British judge wig while writing - but bravo if you attempt it.

POSTS ARE DUE WEDNESDAY 8 NOVEMBER BY MIDNIGHT. (Put in on your calendar. Set an alarm. Write yourself a note.)