Kingdom of God Essay Example for Free

Kingdom of God Essay Describing what is meant by the Kingdom of God can be very complex, because so many people has set forth to describe this phrase to the best of their own knowledge, and generally each of these descriptions differs. Personally, besides the many verses in the Bible that are relative to the subject, it is best described by Donald B. Kraybill. In Kraybill’s novel â€Å"The Upside-down Kingdom† he writes; â€Å"The Kingdom of God is a collectivity—a network of persons who have yielded their hearts and relationships to the reign of God. † â€Å"He also notes that people must enter the kingdom because it is a state of affairs rather than a state of mind (p.19).† The Kingdom then, represents God’s power of ruling, his authority, and basically his government. â€Å"His disciples asked him what this parable meant. He said, the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of God has been given to you, but to others I speak in parables† (Luke 8:9, 10). Unless an individual is a born again Christian he will not understand the secrets of the Kingdom of God. The Jewish sects Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, and Zealots are noted as being developed during the time of the second temple through the tenth century. This is the period that it seems that the Jewish sects were most generative. The Jewish people noted only three philosophical sects which are Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes, of the three Essenes is noted as being the one with the most severe discipline. According to Josephus, [War of the Jews] 1 chapter 8.2 Pharisees, Essenes, Sadducees, Zealots were divided into three groups which were criminal, nationalist and Philosophical (religious). The Sadducees and the Pharisees really seem to be as religious as they were political. History tells us that in ancient societies political and religious laws were pretty much the same. Moreover, the Sadducees and the Pharisees did seem to have a bit more interest in that of political power than what was religiously correct. This we know was absolutely not pleasing to our God. â€Å"Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever† (Hebrew 13:8). Regardless to the ways and or the thoughts of the Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes and the Zealots one thing that remains the same and will never change is the fact that our God does not change his mind or act indifferent towards his children regardless of the mishaps that we may allow ourselves to experience. â€Å"Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God† (Romans 13, 1). This verse pretty much says it all when referring to the political convictions discussed by Josephus, God is in control of all situations regardless to whether it is written in the Old or New Testament. According to Josephus, the Zealots were described as political and grouped as nationalists. However, it seemed that their religious beliefs were indivisible from their political convictions. Moreover, this is not an indication that all of the sects of the second temple were more political than religious, the truth of the matter is that there was not much partition between the two. The Essenes, Sadducees and the Pharisees stand out to more people than the rest of the sects because it is said that they were supposedly better known to people than the rest of the sects, and some people seem to think that the Pharisees were forefathers of the Rabbis. The Sadducees; were differ ent in their own way, they were not the Jewish people that simply did not believe in resurrection, nor did they believe that heaven exists. Strangely, the Sadducees were of the group that only accepted the Torah, as authoritative, this strange group of individuals were known to not be very popular with the rest of the Jewish population. â€Å"For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, nor angel, nor spirit, but the Pharisees acknowledge them all† (Acts 23:8). During or around the time of 2nd century B.C there existed a monastic Jewish sect that was referred to as the Essenes. They were known to reside somewhere not far from the Dead Sea. They were pretty much isolated from the entire Jewish community. Notably, the Essenes seemed to have had closer relationships towards each other than any other sects, and were said to be Jewish by birth. The Essenes neglected matrimony but choose out of other families children to be of their family and transformed them according to their personal likings, and had a huge amount of respect and obedience for their elders. If at any time they complained against their elders or authorities they would be expelled from their community, more strangely than that if an elder was even touched by a younger person they were casted as being dirty. There is an overwhelming amount of information that openly describes how the Messianic expectation of the various sects, differs from the Messianic role that Jesus presented. Examples would be as follows; The Essenes was known as a Jewish religious sect and was in fact not mentioned in the Bible, but was indeed mentioned on the Dead Sea Scrolls. This particular group adapted to their life according to the law of the Jews, and they opposed Temple priesthood. The Pharisees were different because they were more of a prominent sect of Jewish people in the time of Christ. They were in disagreement with Jesus and his teachings. â€Å"But the Pharisees went out and plotted how they might kill Jesus† (Mathew 12:14). The Pharisees had absolutely no love for Jesus and felt that the world would be a better place without him obviously. The Sadducees were additionally, another renowned Jewish religious sect. Their beliefs differed in another way because they only accepted more hideous things like the laws and rejections of the oral traditions; which included immortality of the soul; denial of body resurrection and existence of the spirit world. In addition, they supported families of Jewish patriots of the first and second centuries B.C. whom were totally active in the liberation of Judea from the Syrian rule. Lastly, we will discuss the difference in the Zealots concerning the Messianic expectations. The Zealots will take a total twist here from the above mentioned sects. The reason being is because according to the Bible Simon was a Zealot â€Å"Matthew, Thomas, James, son of Alphaeus, Simon who was called the Zealot† (Luke 6:15). The Zealots preferred armed mutiny against Rome, in doing so they thought that God would deliver Israel with the sword. Faithfully, acknowledging the Spirit of Jesus, he {Jesus} is lead into the wilderness for the sole intention of being tempted by the devil. â€Å"He was with the wild animals, and angels attended him† (Mark 1:13). This place of wilderness was not fit for human life, water was accessible but it was an unpopulated region. â€Å"When tempted, no one should say, God is tempting me, for God cannot be tempted by the devil, nor does he tempt anyone† (James 1:13), but instead, Jesus is lead, into a situation by the devil that could possibly tempt him. Jesus teaches us to pray that we are not lead into temptations, but yet he is lead into temptations while on earth so this is what the devil set out to do, which was take Jesus through the test of temptations. References Kraybill, Donald B. The Upside Down Kingdom Revised Ed. Scottsdale, Pennsylvania: Herald Press, 1990. 275pg. May 20, 2006 Second Temple Sects The Complete Works Of Flavious Josephus The Pharisees and other sects edited with a preface by Jacob Neusne, Retrieved from http://Judaism.about.com/gi/dynamicof Josephus/.HTM on January 7, 2013

Anne of Green Gables :: essays research papers

The book I chose for my book report is Anne of Green Gables. It is written by L. M Montgomery. I really liked this book. This book is a fiction book. It was funny in some parts. Anne is a really funny character and I liked reading about what she would do next. The main characters are Anne Shirley, Marilla, Matthew, Diana, and Gilbert. Anne is an orphan who has a wild imagination and loves to talk. She has red hair and freckles She is adopted by Matthew and Marilla. Matthew is a shy, old man and is very kind. His sister is Marilla. Marilla is very protective of Anne. She loves her very much, but doesn’t want to tell her. Diana is a very pretty young girl who is Anne’s best friend. Gilbert is a boy whom all the girls like, except for Anne. He gets on her nerves all of the time. The story takes place on Prince Edward Island in Canada. It also takes place in the town of Avonlea. The home that Anne, Matthew, and Marilla is called Green Gables. The story begins when Matthew and Marilla want to adopt a boy. Instead, when Matthew goes to Carmody to get him, he finds that there is a girl instead. Her name is Anne Shirley. He takes her anyway and Marilla gets mad. She tries to give her to someone else, but they don’t like her so Marilla decides to keep her. Anne met Diana one day. They become best friends. One the first day of school, Anne met Gilbert Blythe. He made Anne so mad by calling her carrots she hit him over the head with her slate and broke it. She never forgave him for saying that about her. One day Anne has Dianna over to her house and Diana drinks raspberry cordial and gets drunk. Anne gets in trouble and she can’t see Diana anymore. She couldn’t talk to her. A while later, Anne is at her home when she sees Diana running towards the door. She says that her sister is sick and Anne goes to Diana’s house and helps get her sister better. Matthew called the doctor. After that, Anne was allow ed to see Diana again. Diana had a birthday party and the girls started to play truth or dare. Anne got a dare to walk across the roof. She fell and broke her ankle and had to moss the first part of school.

Oedipus Rex Essay

Oedipus Rex was written during the fifth century. A time when Rome was in power and Athens was the center of the world. In this time people beleived that gods controlled all. Fate and destiny could never be escaped and as is shown in this play, no one can change their own destiny. The fact that this play takes place in less than one day’s time means that many desicions are made in a rash and uninformed fashion. After finding out that his destiny has been fulffiled Oedipus blinds himself out of pain and the wish that he would never look upon the misery and horror that he himself has unknowingly created. The play is set in Thebes, recently a great powerfull city, but has been stuck by sickness and death. Most of the action takes place within the coutyard of the King’s palace. This setting represents power and arrogance. The fact that Oedipus does not go to anyone, everyone, including his wife comes to him suggests this arrogance. He still fears the destiny foretold to him, but he beleives that he can change that destiny by staying away from his family. Pg. 59 line 360 tells of this fear and belief. â€Å"As, that I should lie with my own mother, breed children from whom all men would turn their eyes; And that I should be my father’s murderer. I heard all this, and fled. And from that day Corinth to me was ony in the stars. Descending in that quarter of the sky, as I wandered farther and farther on my way to a land where I should never see the evil sung by the oracle. † Most other men in this time would except their fate, but his arrogance will not let him. His beleif that he can cheat fate is ultimatly what is destroying the people of Thebes. Oedipus’s family is a complicated tangle of lies made by people who also tried to cheat fate. The family that he beleives is his own in fact is not. The fact that he is even alive to recieve this family is not supposed to be. He left his adoptive parents never to return once he learned of his destiny thinking that he could prevent this from comming true. He denied to himself the knowledge that these were not his real parents. This is told on Pg. 59 line 345 â€Å"At a feast, a drunken man maundering in his cups cries out that I am not my father’s son. I contained myself that night, thought I felt anger and a sinking heart. † This tells me that in his heart he knew that it was a true statement but could not admit it to himself. His true father was Liaos, King of Thebes. Liaos had been told of his fate by the oracle that he would be killed by his own son. So like father like son, Liaos also tried to cheat fate as told by Iokoste on Pg. 59 line 260 â€Å"But his child had not been three days in this world before the King had pierced the baby’s ankles and left him to die on a lonely mountainside. † Oedipus celebrated the death of his father and therefore his succesfull escape from the prophesies of the oracle. But as he was told this news he was also told again that he was not his father’s son. The messenger on Pg 62 line 137 states † Polybos is not your. father. † This conversation continues on to tell the tale of how he was found as a child by a shepard with his ankles bound by a skewer. Polybos who had no children took in this baby as his own. This is when Oedipus finally starts to reallize that he was Liaos’s son but he will not accept it until he confirms this with the shepard who had found him. Iokaste, his wife obviously realizes that his destiny has become fullfilled and that she is not only his wife but his mother as well. She is angry and wishes that Oedipus will not know the truth of his parentage. She states on PG. 62 line 217. † You are fatally wrong! May you never learn who you are! † But as oedipus speaks with the shepherd he learns again of his horrible fate. on Pg 64 beginning at line 110 Oedipus finally admits to himself after being told numerous times that he has already unknowingly fufilled his own destiny. † Shepherd : For if you are what this man says you are, no man living is more wretched and oedipus. Oedipus: Ah God! It is true! All the prophecies! – Now, O light , may I look on you for the last time! I, Oedipus, Oedipus, damned in his birth, in his marriage, damned, damned in the blood he shed with his own hand! â€Å"

What Is Contrastive Rhetoric

Contrastive rhetoric is the study of the ways in which the rhetorical structures of a persons native language may interfere with efforts to write in a second language (L2). Also known as  intercultural rhetoric. Broadly considered, says Ulla Connor, contrastive rhetoric  examines differences and similarities in writing across cultures (Changing Currents in Contrastive Rhetoric, 2003). The basic concept of contrastive rhetoric was introduced by linguist Robert Kaplan in his article Cultural Thought Patterns in Intercultural Education (Language Learning, 1966). Examples and Observations I am concerned with the notion that speakers of different languages use different devices to present information, to establish the relationships among ideas, to show the centrality of one idea as opposed to another, to select the most effective means of presentation.(Robert Kaplan, Contrastive Rhetorics: Some Implications for the Writing Process. Learning to Write: First Language/Second Language, ed. by Aviva Freedman, Ian Pringle, and Janice Yalden. Longman, 1983) Contrastive rhetoric is an area of research in second language acquisition that identifies problems in composition encountered by second language writers and, by referring to the rhetorical strategies of the first language, attempts to explain them. Initiated almost thirty years ago by the American applied linguist Robert Kaplan, contrastive rhetoric maintains that language and writing are cultural phenomena. As a direct consequence, each language has rhetorical conventions unique to it. Furthermore, Kaplan asserted, the linguistic and rhetorical conventions of the first language interfere with writing in the second language.It is fair to say that contrastive rhetoric was the first serious attempt by applied linguists in the United States to explain second language writing. . . . For decades, writing was neglected as an area of study because of the emphasis on teaching spoken language during the dominance of audiolingual methodology.In the past two decades, the study of writing has b ecome part of the mainstream in applied linguistics.(Ulla Connor, Contrastive Rhetoric: Cross-Cultural Aspects of Second-Language Writing. Cambridge University Press, 1996) Contrastive Rhetoric in Composition Studies As work in ​contrastive rhetoric has developed a more sophisticated sense of such rhetorical factors as audience, purpose, and situation, it has enjoyed an increasing reception within composition studies, particularly among ESL teachers and researchers. The theory of contrastive rhetoric has begun to shape the basic approach to the teaching of L2 writing. With its emphasis on the relations of texts to cultural contexts, contrastive rhetoric has provided teachers with a practical, nonjudgmental framework for analyzing and evaluating ESL writing and helping students see the rhetorical differences between English and their native languages as a matter of social convention, not cultural superiority. (Guanjun Cai, Contrastive Rhetoric. Theorizing Composition: A Critical Sourcebook of Theory and Scholarship in Contemporary Composition Studies, ed. by Mary Lynch Kennedy. Greenwood, 1998) Criticism of Contrastive Rhetoric Although intuitively appealing to writing teachers and popular among ESL writing researchers and graduate students in the 1970s, [Robert] Kaplans representations have been criticized a great deal. Critics have asserted that contrastive rhetoric (1) overgeneralizes terms such as oriental and puts in the same group languages that belong to distinct families; (2) is ethnocentric by representing the organization of English paragraphs by a straight line; (3) generalizes to the native language organization from the examination of students L2 essays; and (4) overemphasizes cognitive factors at the expense of sociocultural factors (such as schooling) as a preferred rhetoric. Kaplan himself has modified his earlier position . . ., suggesting, for example, that rhetorical differences do not necessarily reflect different patterns of thinking. Instead, differences may reflect different writing conventions that have been learned. (Ulla M. Connor, Contrastive Rhetoric. Encyclopedia of Rhetoric and Composition: Communication from Ancient Times to the Information Age, ed. by Theresa Enos. Routledge, 2010)