Master of arts In Teaching - Essays in Professionalism and Commercial Teachers College Who Is A Teacher Do you want a teaching credential or you are just a master teacher with a dream to be the master of arts in teaching? I want to be a teacher or i am a teacher are some of the words echoed by my friends unlike any types of physicians, John, a sped teacher, Ethan the physics teacher and Grace one referred to as the best teacher at was at first afraid of taking the risk to be a teacher at our teachers college and institute of management. But the big mystery still remains: who exactly is a teacher? Teachers and Titles Associated As A Professional And Counselor A teacher, sometimes referred to according to the profession and professionalism such as the best teacher, the physics teacher, elementary teacher, early childhood teacher, high school teacher, elementary school teacher, master teacher, sped teacher, teaching fellow, preschool teacher, best teacher, counselors, or with a long
New Testament Key Events
The New Testament has in total 27 books starting with the Gospels and ending with Revelation. The New Testament discusses the teachings and person of Jesus, as well as events in first-century Christianity. The first great event in the New Testament is the conception and birth of John the Baptist. Thus this essay will discuss the key events of the New Testament looking at the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles and the book of Revelation. To reduce the margin of error and repetition, events that are appearing in more than one Gospel are only mentioned once in this whole essay like the Baptism, temptation and death of Jesus found in multiple Gospels, these will only be discussed in the Gospel of Matthew.
According to Kummel (1993), “the Gospel of Matthew is one of four short biographies about the life and ministry of Jesus.” Like the other Gospels (good news), the author of this Gospel of Matthew, Matthew formally known as Levi, also brings out a different perspective to the time Jesus was on earth and the things (miracles and wonders) he did. “Matthew links Jesus' actions with prophesies from the Old Testament, aiming to prove to fellow Jews that Jesus was the promised Messiah, the promised Savior identified by Jewish prophets throughout ancient Israel’s history,” (Carter 2006).
From the birth of the Messiah, the second key event in the Gospel of Matthew is the Baptism of Jesus found in Matthew 3:13 - 17, Mark 1:9 - 11 Luke 3:21 – 22 and John 1:28 – 34. According to Bart (2000), “Jesus is baptized, at the age of about thirty, not as a sign he was repentant or needed to ask God for forgiveness, the purpose of his baptism, stated to John the Baptist, was to fulfil one of the requirements of righteousness ‘Matthew 3:15’, this baptism was also a sign to the world that his ministry was starting.” Jesus like any other man was baptized by John the Baptist, but unlike others, He was not being cleansed of sin or repenting from anything because He was divine and human instead His baptism came with three signs; the Heavens opened up, the Holy Spirit came upon Him in form of a dove and a voice was heard from Heaven saying ‘this is my son, with whom I am pleased.
After overcoming these temptations, the Gospel of Matthew looks at another key event which is the Sermon on the Mount found in Matthew 5:1-11 and Luke 6:20-49. According to Bart (2009), “Given on Mt. Eremos, Jesus' most well known message explains the full spiritual intent of God's commandments. It also reveals profound principles of living that all people should strive to fulfil.”
The Resurrection and Ascension of Jesus both found in Matthew 28 mark the end of the key events in the Gospel of Matthew. His resurrection makes possible the gift of eternal life that is offered to all those who remain faithful to God unto death and as Jesus ascends to the right hand of God, Two angels, after Christ rises to heaven from the Mount of Olives, inform the disciples that the Lord will come back to earth in the same way he has left it.
The Gospel of Luke written by Luke another Evangelist is the most detailed and orderly written account of the gospel writers, it is also in chronological order and was written to the Gentiles (non-Jewish people). This Gospel begins with the annunciation: a very influential story also referred to as the ‘divine revelation.’ This is reflected in Luke 1:26-38. This was when God sent the Angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee to a virgin named Mary. Among the key events in the Gospel of Luke is the Turning to Jerusalem. According to (Luke 9:51), “as the time drew near when Jesus would be taken up to Heaven, he made up his mind and set out on his way to Jerusalem.” After the transfiguration, Jesus knew his time was drawing near and he went to the temple preaching about the distruction of Jerusalem and building it up in three days. Little did the people know that he was not referring to the actual Jerusalem Temple but referring to himself, how he would die and rise up again after three days.
The judgments of Jesus by the Sanhedrin, Pilate, and Herod become the second last major event in the Gospel of Luke. These trials were only there to fulfil the Old Testament prophecies, Christians today reflect on these trials and judgements as a way of knowing what Jesus went through which should be what they must also go through, suffering. Even Jesus himself clearly stated that anyone who was not willing to take up their cross and follow Jesus was not worthy of Him.
The last Gospel in the New Testament is the Gospel of John. We see the first miracle of Jesus being performed at the wedding in Cana. Bart (2000) state that “during the wedding at Cana, Jesus performed his first miracle which was turning water into wine.”
Another key event that can be looked at in Gospel of John is the triumphant entry into Jerusalem on a donkey. According to Bart (2000) “Jesus entered into Jerusalem like a king but riding on a donkey instead of a horse which symbolizes kingship.” This contradiction of actions resembles most of the things about him; human but divine, a king but lives like a lamb and his entry into Jerusalem which was like a warrior (king) but using a donkey like a traveller.
From the Gospels to the Acts of the Apostles, this book is mainly on the actions of the Apostles after the death of Jesus and the birth of the early Church. According to Mark (2009), “the Birth of New Testament Church is dated as the first key event in the book of the Acts of the Apostles.” The promise of the Holy Spirit, spoken by Christ, comes first to 120 of his disciples on the Day of Pentecost in 30 A.D and Another 3,000 people are baptized and become Christians after God's gift of power is manifested before those in Jerusalem.
According to Gerd (2004), “the First post-resurrection martyr is the second key event in the Acts of the Apostles.” A man named Stephen, one of the first seven leaders chosen by the brethren of the early church, becomes the first post-resurrection Christian martyr.
In the book of Revelation, one of the key events is the war in Heaven as David (2012) puts it. A woman gives birth to a son who is to "rule the nations with an iron scepter". She is then pursued by a Dragon with seven heads and ten horns, which wants to kill her baby. However, the child was taken away by God. After being defeated by the Angel Gabriel and other Angels, the dragon is pushed down to earth where it continues to wage war against the offspring of the woman who keep God’s commandments.
In conclusion, this essay has discussed most of the key events in the New Testament focusing on the four Gospels; Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, the Acts of the Apostles and the book of Revelation. These key events mentioned in this essay include Birth of the Messiah, his baptism and temptations, the Sermon on the Mount, leading to his last super, crucifixion and death. Also in this paper are events such as the resurrection and ascension of Jesus, the birth of the New Testament Church, First post-resurrection martyr and the Conversion of Saul to Paul.
REFERENCES
London, Oxford University Press.
Michigan, Baker Academics.
London, Oxford University Press.
Michigan, Baker Academics.
The Bible
The Jewish Bible, the Old Testament, was originally written almost entirely in Hebrew, with a few short elements in Aramaic. When the Persian Empire controlled the eastern Mediterranean basin, Aramaic became the lingua franca of the area, and for liturgical reasons it became necessary for the Jewish communities of the region to have the Torah, translated into the common language from traditional Hebrew. The Bible has been translated into many languages from the biblical languages of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. Thus, at least some portion of the Bible has been translated into 3,312 languages. The Latin Vulgate was dominant in Western Christianity through the middle Ages. Thus, this piece of writing justifies the translation of the Bible.
The Myunah
Myunah states that the Bible has come to be in so many languages because the gospel of Jesus was from the beginning intended to be proclaimed to “every nation, tribe and tongue” on the earth. With the Bible in one’s native tongue that people can read and learn for themselves the good promises of God. Translations appeared very early in history. The Bible started out in Hebrew (plus a little Aramaic). As early as the 3rd century BCE, it began to be translated into Greek by Jews living in Egypt.
This version, called the Septuagint, became the Bible for many Jews, and later for Christians.
It is believed that the Roman Catholic Church split and Protestantism emerged within many various political states and “denominations”. At this point the translation game took off, and even the Roman Catholic began translating the Christian scriptures. There was a revival of interest in the Bible’s original languages as well and translations began to base on these. Unfortunately, Protestants decided to remove a number of books from the Bible that had been accepted for over a thousand years by Christians.
They did this mostly because some of the texts appeared to not support their Protestant beliefs and they called these books the Apocrypha. Strangely, for a movement so focused on Sola Scriptura, they actually truncated the scriptures. Protestant translations did not include these books and today many Protestants are unaware of the Bible books they are missing (G. Classic 1989).
Blowm, (2002) assumes that Perhaps 200–150 years prior to Jesus Jewish scholars began the work of translated the ancient scrolls from Hebrew/Aramaic to Greek, given that the Greek language became predominate in the centuries following the conquest of Alexander the Great. The writings which make up the New Testament were written entirely in Greek although some have speculated that Matthew was written in Aramaic and then translated into Greek. There is absolutely no empirical evidence for such speculation with the exception of a statement of Papias (2nd century). At this point, all early manuscripts and papyri fragments of Matthew exist only in their Greek form.
Several ministries over the years have sprung up with the mission to translate a bible into a language for a particular culture, so they can have their own Bible to read, and so it makes sense for them. It’s a massive and exemplary undertaking that takes a biblical scholar that learns the native language himself, or works with a translator for several years. The end goal to present the people with their own language version of course has the Godly potential to inform and enlighten an entire cultural group of people (mhakhufi 1998).
Hebrew scholars at Talmudic schools in Palestine and Babylonia about the 6th century CE began trying to retrieve and codify the Hebrew Scriptures, restoring them authoritatively in the Hebrew language. Over centuries they labored to complete the traditional, or Masoretic, text, which since its completion in the 10th century has come to be universally accepted. The Masoretic version was transmitted by scribes with amazing fidelity down to the time of movable type in the 15th century. Jerome’s Latin Vulgate served as the basis for translations of both the Old and New Testament into Syriac, Arabic, Spanish, and many other languages, including English. The Vulgate provided the basis for the Douai-Reims Bible (New Testament, 1582; Old Testament, 1609–10), which remained the only authorized Bible in English for Roman Catholics until the 20th century (Shecks, 1982).
The Hebrew Scriptures were the only Bible the early Christian church knew, and as the young religion spread out through the Greek-speaking world, Christians adopted the Septuagint. In the meantime, many of the books of the Christian Bible, the New Testament, were first written or recorded in Greek and others in Aramaic. The spread of Christianity necessitated further translations of both the Old and New Testaments into Coptic, Ethiopian, Gothic, and most important Latin. In 405 St. Jerome finished translating a Latin version that was based in part on the Septuagint, and this version, the Vulgate, despite errors introduced by copyists, became the standard of Western Christianity for a thousand years or more (khoswell m 1950).
The first complete English-language version of the Bible dates from 1382 and was credited to John Wycliffe and his followers. But it was the work of the scholar William Tyndale, who from 1525 to 1535 translated the New Testament and part of the Old Testament that became the model for a series of subsequent English translations. All previous English translations culminated in the King James Version (1611; known in England as the Authorized Version), which was prepared by 54 scholars appointed by King James I. Avoiding strict literalism in favor of an extensive use of synonym, it was a masterpiece of Jacobean English and the principal Bible used by English-speaking Protestants for 270 years (Pavon C 2001).
This version, called the Septuagint, became the Bible for many Jews, and later for Christians.
They did this mostly because some of the texts appeared to not support their Protestant beliefs and they called these books the Apocrypha. Strangely, for a movement so focused on Sola Scriptura, they actually truncated the scriptures. Protestant translations did not include these books and today many Protestants are unaware of the Bible books they are missing (G. Classic 1989).
Writers Remarks
In conclusion, The Jewish Bible, the Old Testament, was originally written almost entirely in Hebrew, with a few short elements in Aramaic. When the Persian empire controlled the eastern Mediterranean basin, Aramaic became the lingua franca of the area, and for liturgical reasons it became necessary for the Jewish communities of the region to have the Torah, or Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible), translated into the common language from traditional Hebrew. The resulting Targums (from Aramaic meturgeman, “translator”) survived after original Hebrew scrolls had been lost.
The Church And The State
In 1791, the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States was ratified. Part of this amendment, often called the establishment clause, states that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
It is this phrasing that provides the idea of having a separation of church and state within the United States.
List of the Separation of Church and State Pros
1. It allows decisions to be made from experience instead of perspective.
One of the best aspects of personal faith, no matter what it is called or looks like, is that it is formed from an individualistic perspective. People choose to believe what feels right for their own perspective. From a societal standpoint, however, individual perspectives cannot apply in blanket terms. We are all each a little different, even if we believe similar things. By separating perspective away from real-life experiences, society benefits by having both.
2. It encourages capability over divine right.
In the past, many rulers governed because they claimed a divine right from God to do so. You won’t have to go far to find politicians and rulers claiming the same rights today. The difference between then and now is the separation factor. All we have is a person’s word that they have received a divine right to govern. That can be easily manipulated. By separating that belief from the governing process, it becomes easier to elect someone based on their capability instead of their claims.
3. It takes the church out of the role of governing.
In governments where the church is intertwined with the state, there is often a need to clear laws with the church before they can be implemented. If the church feels an action is morally wrong, such as requiring businesses to pay for birth control services through health insurance, then the government could not take any action. Because there is separation, the church is taken out of the role of governing. That allows the government to focus on the body while the church focuses on the soul.
4. It allows for personal choice.
Without a separation of church and state, there is the possibility of having the government dictate which religion a person can follow. Other religions could be fully outlawed. By separating these two entities, people have the freedom to pursue their own faith instead of having it dictated to them. It also allows for people to choose not to have a religion or religious faith if that is their personal preference.
5. It stops the government and church from influencing families.
Without a separation of the church and the state, schools could indoctrinate children in a “national religion” and families would be able to do little to stop it. Government jobs could be offered to only people from the national religion. Other religions might be welcome in that society, but they might not have the same rights or freedoms if publicly displayed. By keeping a separation between the two entities, people and families have the ability to make up their own mind when it comes to faith.
List of the Separation of Church and State Cons
1. Separation creates limitations for both.
With the church and state separate, both are limited in the scope of what they can accomplish. Many people take advantage of positive influences provided by both entities to carve out a life for themselves. Religion, at its core, should be based on love and acceptance when taken in context. Because there is separation, a religious education cannot be encouraged or enforced, which could impact the daily lives of the society.
2. Governments can take advantage of the separation.
Not having the church involved in the lawmaking process can be a strong negative, just as it can be a strong positive. If a group of leaders decide to pass unjust laws that encourage segregation, hatred, or worse, the church can be a positive influence on design process for the legislation. By pointing out places where ethics or morality may be lacking, society benefits because one group cannot be specifically targeted.
3. Churches can take advantage of the separation.
Churches can also take advantage of the separation between them and the state. They can encourage their members to not support the government or to rebel against it. The church can be used to create division within a society between those who share a similar faith and those who do not. Because these decrees come from the church, followers will feel that they are “right” and others are “wrong,” giving them the justification they need to commit negative actions – or even atrocities.
4. It can limit personal freedoms.
Many people in the United States find employment through some form of governmental work at local, state, or national levels. This ranges from a public-school teacher to a Federal contractor. The jobs may be different, but the approach to faith is still the same. If the employee is acting as a government representative, then they cannot act at the same time as a religious representative. That separation forces the worker to make a choice regarding their allegiances.
5. The establishment clause may not be an actual separation.
In the United States, the court system has ruled multiple times that the establishment clause in the First Amendment is a viable separation of church and state. Some argue that when the Constitution was written, the original purpose of the establishment clause was very different. The goal was to protect the church from the government, not to separate it from the government. There is no clear verbiage in the Constitution that directs a clear separation between the two entities.
The Pentateuch
The Jewish Bible, the Old Testament, was originally written almost entirely in Hebrew, with a few short elements in Aramaic. When the Persian Empire controlled the eastern Mediterranean basin, Aramaic became the lingua franca of the area, and for liturgical reasons it became necessary for the Jewish communities of the region to have the Torah, translated into the common language from traditional Hebrew. The Bible has been translated into many languages from the biblical languages of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. Thus, at least some portion of the Bible has been translated into 3,312 languages. The Latin Vulgate was dominant in Western Christianity through the middle Ages. Thus, this piece of writing justifies the translation of the Bible.Does The Bible Have Many Languages?
Myunah states that the Bible has come to be in so many languages because the gospel of Jesus was from the beginning intended to be proclaimed to “every nation, tribe and tongue” on the earth. With the Bible in one’s native tongue that people can read and learn for themselves the good promises of God. Translations appeared very early in history. The Bible started out in Hebrew (plus a little Aramaic). As early as the 3rd century BCE, it began to be translated into Greek by Jews living in Egypt. This version, called the Septuagint, became the Bible for many Jews, and later for Christians.
Myunah further says that after a thousand years, Latin evolved into the Romance languages of Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, French, Romanian and a few others. This helped nationalism to rise which became a threat to the Roman church’s political power. The evolving of these languages also caused a desire for translations into the vernacular. Political leaders who wanted to break away from Roman influence encouraged the translating of the Bible. The introduction of the printing press helped to get these translations spread out quickly and prolifically. On the downside, most of these translations were done from the Latin Vulgate translation and not from the original Hebrew and Greek texts. In other words, they were translations of a translation.
Did Catholic Church Split The Bible?
It is believed that the Roman Catholic Church split and Protestantism emerged within many various political states and “denominations”. At this point the translation game took off, and even the Roman Catholic began translating the Christian scriptures. There was a revival of interest in the Bible’s original languages as well and translations began to base on these. Unfortunately, Protestants decided to remove a number of books from the Bible that had been accepted for over a thousand years by Christians. They did this mostly because some of the texts appeared to not support their Protestant beliefs and they called these books the Apocrypha. Strangely, for a movement so focused on Sola Scriptura, they actually truncated the scriptures. Protestant translations did not include these books and today many Protestants are unaware of the Bible books they are missing (G. Classic 1989).
Blowm, (2002) assumes that Perhaps 200–150 years prior to Jesus Jewish scholars began the work of translated the ancient scrolls from Hebrew/Aramaic to Greek, given that the Greek language became predominate in the centuries following the conquest of Alexander the Great. The writings which make up the New Testament were written entirely in Greek although some have speculated that Matthew was written in Aramaic and then translated into Greek. There is absolutely no empirical evidence for such speculation with the exception of a statement of Papias (2nd century). At this point, all early manuscripts and papyri fragments of Matthew exist only in their Greek form.
Bible Translation
Several ministries over the years have sprung up with the mission to translate a bible into a language for a particular culture, so they can have their own Bible to read, and so it makes sense for them. It’s a massive and exemplary undertaking that takes a biblical scholar that learns the native language himself, or works with a translator for several years. The end goal to present the people with their own language version of course has the Godly potential to inform and enlighten an entire cultural group of people (mhakhufi 1998).
Hebrew scholars at Talmudic schools in Palestine and Babylonia about the 6th century CE began trying to retrieve and codify the Hebrew Scriptures, restoring them authoritatively in the Hebrew language. Over centuries they labored to complete the traditional, or Masoretic, text, which since its completion in the 10th century has come to be universally accepted. The Masoretic version was transmitted by scribes with amazing fidelity down to the time of movable type in the 15th century. Jerome’s Latin Vulgate served as the basis for translations of both the Old and New Testament into Syriac, Arabic, Spanish, and many other languages, including English. The Vulgate provided the basis for the Douai-Reims Bible (New Testament, 1582; Old Testament, 1609–10), which remained the only authorized Bible in English for Roman Catholics until the 20th century (Shecks, 1982).
The Hebrew Scriptures were the only Bible the early Christian church knew, and as the young religion spread out through the Greek-speaking world, Christians adopted the Septuagint. In the meantime, many of the books of the Christian Bible, the New Testament, were first written or recorded in Greek and others in Aramaic. The spread of Christianity necessitated further translations of both the Old and New Testaments into Coptic, Ethiopian, Gothic, and most important Latin. In 405 St. Jerome finished translating a Latin version that was based in part on the Septuagint, and this version, the Vulgate, despite errors introduced by copyists, became the standard of Western Christianity for a thousand years or more (khoswell m 1950).
The English Version Of The Bible
The first complete English-language version of the Bible dates from 1382 and was credited to John Wycliffe and his followers. But it was the work of the scholar William Tyndale, who from 1525 to 1535 translated the New Testament and part of the Old Testament that became the model for a series of subsequent English translations. All previous English translations culminated in the King James Version (1611; known in England as the Authorized Version), which was prepared by 54 scholars appointed by King James I. Avoiding strict literalism in favor of an extensive use of synonym, it was a masterpiece of Jacobean English and the principal Bible used by English-speaking Protestants for 270 years (Pavon C 2001).
In conclusion, The Jewish Bible, the Old Testament, was originally written almost entirely in Hebrew, with a few short elements in Aramaic. When the Persian empire controlled the eastern Mediterranean basin, Aramaic became the lingua franca of the area, and for liturgical reasons it became necessary for the Jewish communities of the region to have the Torah, or Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible), translated into the common language from traditional Hebrew. The resulting Targums (from Aramaic meturgeman, “translator”) survived after original Hebrew scrolls had been lost.
The situation in Palestine at the time Jesus began his teaching was very unstable and “ready for trouble”. This was mainly because of the Roman invasion, and because they still occupied the land. This meant that there became definite different groups of people, who had different beliefs and attitudes towards one another. Overall, there were five different groups of people, who had differences between themselves. I shall explain the five groups and state their beliefs and attitudes, which led to trouble.
The First Group - The Romans
The first group is the Romans. They had conquered many lands before the region of Palestine (now part of Israel). When the invaded to conquer the land they did it by force, their army was very important to them so pride was taken in it and so it became very powerful. When they had conquered a place, you really had to give in to them because they were so powerful, but when people gave in to the Romans their rules were quite fair. They had their own religion and they let you have yours. They built roads and cities, established law and order and generally kept the peace.
Although the Jews may have submitted to Roman rule on the surface, deep down they never gave in. They really hated the Romans because of their religion, the fact they had to pay tax to the Romans and probably the main reason – they were taking over and occupying their country. The Jewish people who showed their hatred and tried frequently to rebel against the Romans is the second group called the Zealots.
The second Group - The Zealots
The Zealots were Jewish people who wanted rid of the Romans, for the obvious reasons – they made them pay tax, they took their land and they did not allow them to practise their religion fully/properly. They tried to make life hard for the Romans and they were violent. Through doing this there was a constant Roman army presence. I think that the Zealots had a right to rebel, because I would not be happy if my country was taken over by another country, and then the other country expected me to pay tax to fund them.
Third Group - The Pharisees
The next group of people were called the Pharisees, their main aim was to try to live strictly by the laws of God (i.e. the Torah). The Pharisees believed in angels, resurrection and an after life. Most of them were good sincere men trying to do good, but some (the ones Jesus criticised were practising the religion in a showy way – doing it for attention and to win praise (hypocrites). Half of the Jewish ruling council (the Sanhedrin) were Pharisees and they voted for Jesus’ death. They disliked other religions and tried to keep away from them and be purely Jewish (the name Pharisee means separate one). This lot would have presumably disliked Roman rule and so, as you can see many of the people at that time disliked the Romans.
Fourth Group - The Saducees
Another group was called the Sadducees; these were priests who served in the Temple in Jerusalem. The Sadducees were very rich and powerful, so to stay that way, they were friendly with the Romans, just as they had been with the Greeks. In addition, their leader was seen by the Romans as the Jewish leader. Their religious difference to the Pharisees was that the Sadducees did not believe in angels, resurrection or the after life. They lived off the tithes and Temple tax that was paid by all Jews. Although some of the Sadducees may had been, at first reluctant to Roman rule, they saw that they could benefit from it so they did not rebel. The fact that they didn’t rebel can be seen from two angles, one (the positive) that they were being smart – there was no way they could defeat them so – “If you can’t beat them, join them” they could have thought, or you could see it as being unfaithful, a traitor to the Jewish people and religion.
The Last Group - The People
Finally, the last group was “The people”. Just the ordinary every day people who lived hard simple lives, growing crops, herding sheep or working as potters or weavers – just the working class people. These people, although not able to express their opinions and be taken as seriously as other groups had thoughts at that time. They saw the Romans making them pay more money, of the little that they had to fund the Roman army and such like. All they wanted was deliverance from the lives they were living. One of their only hopes was, as promised in the bible, a Messiah or Christ to come and deliver them from the pain and work of every day life.
About The Groups In Palestine
All these different viewpoints are all relevant and all contributed to the events that followed as Jesus began his teachings. Because the Romans had invaded, they split up the society into these groups, each with their different viewpoints. The biggest issue was probably religion and the differences it created. Even within Judaism, there were large differences, such as between the Sadducees and the Pharisees, the whole concept of an after life, resurrection and angels.
I think that the ordinary Jewish people would have been the worst off and the most unhappy. They earned little money already and had to pay a tithe (which is ten percent of your income) to the Temple, as well as Temple tax and then when the Romans came they had to shell out more money so the Romans could make powerful armies. The Jewish religion was changing rapidly with new ‘oral laws’ coming into place these laws made the ordinary people nervous because they were afraid to break a new law they had not heard of.
Because the Sadducees wanted to look after themselves, I think many people would dislike them. Also the Zealots, although fighting for a noble cause were going a bit over the top. It should have been a united effort from the Jewish people to stop the Romans, but then again it could have all ended horribly with thousands of deaths. The Romans were not really liked by any of the groups, the Sadducees only pretended to like them.
The differences needed to be sorted out – by answers, so when Jesus came people would want answers, but they would have already made up their minds on what they wanted the answers to be. If they were not what they wanted them to be, then there was a dislike instantly towards Jesus.
Overall, no one liked the Romans, the Sadducees were being selfish and looking after themselves – so people disliked them. The Pharisees only wanted to be Jewish and nothing else – they did not want the Romans interfering with their religion. The Zealots hated the Romans and were constantly trying to attack them, because their land was being stolen from them and they could not worship properly. The Romans wanted to take over peacefully, collect money from the people in the country and every one to obey them – which made every one hate them. Finally the people who only wanted to have more comfortable lives, all they wanted was the Messiah that God had promised them. I think the ordinary people would have disliked to some extent the Temple because it was costing them money and before Jesus cam, no benefit to them.
Comments
Post a Comment
Please leave a comment below and help us improve our blog, thanks...