Luke 19-24

The first difference I see in this ending with the other gospels is that Pilate said that he was going to let Jesus go. He never gave them the choice of Jesus or Barabbas. The multitude in fact insists on Jesus being crucified. Next comes his resurrection. In the two previous gospels he appears before them on a hill, while in this one he walks with two people along a path. Next, as the apostles are eating dinner, he appears again before them.

Overall, I like this gospel much better than the other ones. I found that it was more fun to read, and its differences made it better. I hope there are also other changes in the next gospels that make Christ's story more interesting.

Luke Books 11-18

I once again see a common cliché that is used in many movies. Luke 11:23 "He that is not with me is against me…" The following line is the reason that religion has so much control, and why I think it is ridiculous. Luke 12:5 "But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him." Religion, in this case Christianity, is a celestial dictatorship which doesn't allow you to think what you want. It has an invisible surveillance system which is always watching, and if you do not do according to what it says, you will not only die, but suffer eternal damnation in a place full of fire. Yes, it controls people and gives them a sense of safety, but it also does the opposite. It restrains your thoughts and keeps you constantly afraid. This line proves it completely.

I like what Jesus says about humbling yourself and eventually you will rise. I also like his idea that it's better to heal a sinner or make him become good then just preach to a bunch of good people.

Luke Books 6-10

Why was Simon named Peter? Why did Jesus change his name? Why would his original name change anything?

Mary Magdalene appears for the first time in these pages before Jesus' resurrection. It says that seven devils were taken out of her, but that's all; no prostitute, no wife, nothing. Even though at first this gospel was more exciting, it has turned monotonous like the other ones. They all say the same thing and the only reason I liked the gospel of Luke better was because it was different at first.

Luke Books 1-5

The format of this gospel is different, and it even starts in first person. It seems that it is a letter to some Theophilius; like a story sort of. It starts with the story of a baby that appears to be John the Baptist and apparently something similar happened with him like Jesus. Then it goes to Jesus' story but keeps the two intertwined. This is more like in a story format and is thus less monotonous. I like this gospel a lot better. It also first mentions the Romans. The two gospels before only slightly mentioned the Romans in the end of the story; when Jesus is crucified. It also gives a specific time period.

It also goes back to a lot of the stories from the Gospel of Matthew; things like his lineage, all the Devil's temptations and so forth.

Mark Books 11-16

I had read this in the Book of Matthew, but didn't really remember where it was from. In the summer before 8^th grade, I read a book about the crusades in which the main character's horse was named Hosanna. Even though I don't understand why they chant this in the bible, I now understand why they named the horse Hosanna. The scribes mentioned are like extremists now days. They use religion for power and mostly use it to excuse behavior that would be wrong under normal circumstances.

After having read two of the Gospels, I thought they would be more personal. Maybe they would tell the stories from their point of view or how they saw it. However, to me it seems that the story is just repeated with little or no changes. Why are there so many gospels that I assume, after reading two of them, say the same thing?

Mark Books 1-10

The hating of Jesus starts much earlier in the Book of Mark than in the Book of Matthew. I guess because it is shorter, but the entire thing seems to be less great or less complete than the first gospel. There also seems to be more of an order in which he gets his disciples. In the Book of Matthew, it just randomly says he had twelve disciples after barely mentioning the fishermen. A lot of the stories are the same, and Jesus repeats the wine thing to explain why his disciples do not fast.

"The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath." I really like this line because I agree with it. A lot of people blindly follow not only religion but other things as well without any concern for their own well-being. People have to start realizing that the only reality is what you know, so even if you are going to worship a god, you must realize that you come first. Always try to be happy first, and then do the rest.

There is no mention of Jarius' daughter in Matthew. I'm guessing that all of these gospels are just trying to convey the message that he healed people. Surely they will each have different stories. I've also come to understand that Jesus' disciples are idiots just like everyone else. The only thing that makes them difference is the simple fact that Jesus chose them to follow him around. In reality though, anyone could've been a disciple.

Mark 9:35 "For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel's, the same shall save it." I can easily see how this was used later on in any of the religious wars that were started by Christians. It was so easy for men in power to manipulate these words in order to manipulate men.

I don't get why he is referred to as The Son of man and The Son of God. Although I understand he's supposed to deliver God's message to men, why does he call himself both? One thing that really pisses me off is that while Jesus goes around calling all the scribes hypocrites, he is a huge hypocrite himself.

Every time he heals someone he tells them not to tell anyone. He even tells his disciples not to tell of his great actions. However, shouldn't he stop healing people if he really doesn't want word to get out about his greatness? I'll use a kind of bad analogy. If I invite some people over my house, but tell them not to tell anyone, when more people than expected come, I throw them out of my house. I don't let them in and tell them not to tell. It's the same with Christ. I get being modest, but come on.

Matthew 23-28

The first thing which I have been thinking about because of the times is that there is no date to specify Jesus' birth. When did it become common to celebrate his birth on the 25^th of December? In fact, there isn't even a Jewish calendar date for his birth. Perhaps it is mentioned in the other gospels. Secondly, knowing what eventually occurred because of Jesus, I find it funny that when he preaches all these people to be hypocrites, he has no idea that in the future, people do even bigger hypocrisies in his name.

The Last Supper appears in these pages, and I didn't know that it was actually the Passover meal. There are a couple of things that are confusing however. When they say high priests, are they Jewish high priests, or pagan high priests of the Roman Empire? It is never clear whether the people who kill him are Jews or Romans. After reading more, I now understand the situation. It was the Jewish men and priests that wanted to kill Jesus, but they needed the Romans to do it. It's also curious that Judas hangs himself after he sees what will happen to Jesus. Didn't he know what he was getting himself into? He literally sold Jesus for thirty silver pieces.

In the end, I recognize a lot of things. The first is of course, Mary Magdalene. I read "The Da Vinci Code," which states that Mary Magdalene wasn't in fact a prostitute, but Jesus' wife. While she appears here, there is no mention of either. The second is "el padre, el hijo y el espiritu santo." I understand that it comes when Jesus tells his disciples what to preach and how to continue his teachings.

Matthew Books 13-22

I really am starting to like how Jesus shuts up all the people who are offended by his teachings. He finds real sins that aren't considered sins and says that little things like not washing your hands before eating bread aren't really sins. I also like when he says that you have to have faith. In my own words, it's like the bible is telling us that nothing is really impossible. If you truly believe in something, then it will happen. I like that to a certain extent, but walking on water, come on…I also didn't know that Peter also walked on the sea. Even though it was only for a short moment, he also did what Jesus could do and my interpretation is that he only didn't last as long because he didn't have as much faith as Jesus. It seems that towards the end the disciples start to ask a lot of questions. They kind of seem lost now that they now that Jesus was going to be killed. It reminds me of the movie Mean Girls, when the two friends start following Katie around when Regina is no longer at the head. They seem lost and they turn to the next best thing. I wonder where the disciples will turn after the death of Christ.

The chief priests and Pharisees being afraid of the multitude when they want to put their hands on Christ is perfectly foreshadowing everything that will happen when the Church comes into power. Everyone is scared of the Church because of its power and thus do nothing. Just like these Pharisees and chief priests cannot touch Jesus, no one will dare do bad against the Church for the same reason.

Matthew Books 1-12

Before reading this, I thought that Mary was of the line of David. It turns out, that her husband, Joseph was. Why is Jesus then of noble descent? If indeed his father is God, then he's just a normal person with God for a father. If Joseph's blood was never in Jesus, then he is not the descendant of the kings of Israel. Make up your mind. Is he divine or is from kingly descendants? Technically, not that I actually believe that God was his father; he can't be of the royal line of David. It's like if my parents got a divorce (god forbid) and one of them married someone of royal descendants, would I be of the royal blood line? NO! Thus, either Jesus was of the royal line but was the biological son of Joseph, or he's divine but simply the son of Mary.

Apart from the fact that I think that it's all bull crap that Jesus is the son of God, I really like what he preaches. Turn the other cheek, if you've already thought about committing adultery, you have already committed it and so forth. It's really good stuff. I can see why the Jews eventually get mad. His preaching goes completely against the Ten Commandments. I also started thinking though, did God want this? Did He want his son going around telling people to stray from the laws that he already put down? Even if his teachings were noble and towards good, was God happy with what he was doing? Is Jesus a rebel son?

Tao Te Ching 44-64

The book is starting to stress more and more wu-wei. It isn't in not doing, but in not being greedy, not wanting excess things; things like that. I now understand the reason for why wu-wei is so important. "The world is ruled by letting things take their course. It cannot be ruled by interfering."

I love book 50. It says that he who knows how to live has no place for death to enter. Thus, that person cannot be wounded in battle, killed by a tiger or rhinoceros. The way of the Tao is being simple. Don't have too many things. Value the small things in life. "It is not wise to rush about. Controlling the breath causes strain. If too much energy is used, exhaustion follows." I like this because I have started to realize this lately by myself. There is no reason to run if you aren't playing sports. It only causes you to get more stressed. It isn't good at all.

"Rule a nation with justice. Wage war with surprise moves. Become master of the universe without striving." This is really similar to the Analects when Confucius really stresses being a ruler without forcing it and being just. The fact that greatness starts from little things is also heavily pronounced in these books. The book says that everything starts from the little things. These little things are what will eventually achieve greatness.

Tao Te Ching 29-43

In book 29, we see once again how one of the main themes is taking it easy and letting things flow. "So sometimes things are ahead and sometimes they are behind; sometimes breathing is hard, sometimes it comes easily…" In book 30, the Tao Te Ching is similar to Confucian teachings in that they both say that a ruler cannot rule through strength. From this we can learn to be peaceful and to always try to be a leader without forcing people.

Like I said before, the Yin-Yang has to be from Daoism. As I have read on, all the sayings seem to lead to a good and an evil; a whole coming from two parts. "The low is the foundation of the high." "The ten thousand things carry yin and embrace yang. They achieve harmony by combining these forces." There's my proof. All my thoughts were prior to reading that line, and it makes perfect sense.

Tao Te Ching 13-28

I don't know whether the Yin-Yang is from Daoism, but these pages stress a lot the complete whole that is achieved with the good and bad sides. "Know the white, but keep the black!" I'm beginning to feel that it is one of the main teachings, and in order to follow the Tao, you must be aware of this. "Yield and overcome; bend and be straight; empty and be full; wear out and be new; have little and gain; have much and be confused."

I like what it says in book 13 about misfortune being the human condition. I believe that to be very true. We have to accept it as unavoidable and unpredictable. We have to; going back to the Yin-Yang thing, take the good with the bad. In book 19, we see the concept of wu-wei once again. It isn't actually not doing or not acting, but it talks about giving up things. It talks about not striving to do things but letting them come naturally.

Tao Te Ching: 1-12

In the first I noticed a similarity to Judaism. The name that can be said is not the eternal name. Kind of like Yaweh. You aren't supposed to say that name so you say Hashem. I don't know whether any one ever noticed before, but the theory of Relativity came way before Einstein. "All can know good as good only because there is evil." I find it amazing that this comes up. Books 3-5 are extremely confusing. What I can extract, however, is that Tao is greater than the gods. There is some difference between heaven and Earth that I can't really comprehend but is there.
It's cool that they give a lot of importance to a woman spirit. In a lot of religions women seem to be much inferior to men. "No fight. No blame." I like the passage that talks about the Primal Virtue. It basically says that you have to try and not do bad things in good situations. It is a werird explination, but that's my interpretation. Another big quality seems to be instinct. To stop taking percious things and value only what you need.

"Go" Game

The flash that is required to play the game simply wouldn't work in my house. Thus, I didn't get to complete the lecture, but from what I played in class, I think it is a great game.
It reminds me a little of the game Othello, where you also use black and white pieces on a board. All the strategies and rules are amazing, and it's cool to think how they invented it. How did they come up with the thought?