For Class

In 1 Corinthians, Paul has a lot to say concerning men and women, sex, marriage and divorce. He begins chapter 7 by stating that "It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman", but goes on to say that, because of the temptation of sexual immorality, "each man should have his own wife, and each wife her own husband". So, in this context it seems as though Paul is saying men and women should marry only to protect themselves from the sin of sexual immorality. This seems like a pretty bleak existence.  The question then, is this: According to Paul and the 1st Century Roman Empire, is there an acceptable reason to divorce one's spouse? The answer is not as cut and dried as one might think. In fact, and unsurprisingly, the two groups' opinions are split on the subject. It should be noted that Paul, as a disciple of Jesus, was taught that marriage is absolute . In Matthew 19:6 and 19:9 Jesus addresses a Pharisee who is badg

    Although it is generally accepted that Paul wrote most of the epistles, there are still questions surrounding the authorship of several letters. The six in question are 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Colossians, Ephesians, and 2 Thessalonians. For this blog, I want to focus solely on 2 Thessalonians and try to uncover who wrote this letter and why this letter was even included.    1 Thessalonians was written by the apostle Paul to a church in Thessalonica with the intention of encouraging them in their new-found Christianity and guiding them onto the correct path. "Rather than a correction of any doctrinal or behavioral error, then, 1 Thessalonians is a hortatory letter of friendship with the goal of guiding the readers in the development of Christian character. (Akerlund 20)". The newly converted Christians in Thessalonica were under extreme persecution and ostracism from the Roman society and, in today's terms, would have been considered "alternati

                                                                   While putting my Matthew blog together, I hit brick wall after brick wall. To be completely honest, the end result of my research on this blog topic is, partially, supposition. However, the facts that I did find, are truly fascinating.       To begin, we must first delve into a quick background of Herod Archelaus. Archelaus was the first son of Herod the Great and the principal heir  to the throne of Judea. After the,  possibly very gruesome , death of his father, Archelaus had to travel to Rome to defend his birthright. His brothers, Antipas and Philip, both made equal claims to the Judean throne. Emperor Augustus, however, recognized that he should receive the largest portion of the inheritance, but he did not go as far as to name him king. Instead, Archelaus had to settle for the lesser title of ethnarch, which is equal to the governor of a specific region. This emphasized his dependence on the Roman Empire

Is The Gospel of Mark a Biography of Jesus Christ? Can the gospel of Mark be considered a biography of Jesus Christ? Some would answer affirmatively. Of course it is. Is it not an overview of His life, ministry, crucifixion, and resurrection? However, many others would say no. The Book of Mark does not meet the basic criteria for a biography.                 First, let’s look at the definition of a biography. A biography, as defined by Webster’s dictionary, is an account of the life of something . So in this sense, yes. The Book of Mark is a biography of Jesus Christ. Many would argue, however, that Mark skips over several, key instances of Jesus’ life. This is a failure so egregious that it completely changes the purpose of the book. For example, the Book of Mark does not cover Jesus’ birth or childhood. Instead, it begins with Jesus’ baptism by John the Baptist and the inception of His ministry.