I have never read any of the Lord of the Rings books, though I have read The Hobbit (in middle school) so I am familiar with J.R.R. Tolkien’s work and some of the characters. 

Upon reading the except from The Council of Elrond, it is easy to draw a connection between the Catholic faith and the characters, story, and symbolism. Gandalf, especially, seems to be a Christ-like figure. Gandalf, throughout the passage, is portrayed as wise and powerful, similar characteristics held by Jesus Christ. Gandalf’s long speeches, in a way, resemble sermons. At one point, during one of his speeches, “A shadow seemed to pass over the high sun, and the porch for a moment grew dark. All trembled, and the elves stopped their ears” (Tolkien 271). This quote emphasized how, similar to the miracles that Christ performed, Gandalf is able to impact the people listening to him. 

Another connection that could be drawn between the Lord of the Rings and Christianity is with the Council of Elrond itself. The council draws everyone together to discuss the fate of the ring, similar to how Christ brings the 12 apostles together. Both gatherings involve people convening in order to execute a certain mission. Gandalf plays a large role in the discussions of the gathering, much like Christ does for his apostles. 

In conclusion, there are many similarities in this passage to Christianity and Christian beliefs. Though not explicitly stated, it is clear that the characters and symbolism at least hold similar principles and roles which ultimately convey a similar message (though manifested differently). 

I chose to focus on the “holy” quality of the Catholic Church that is discussed in the CCC. This quality involves the Catholic Church  as a whole, from its traditions, followers, and clergy. In particular, it involves what the is and what it is not. This, at first, was confusing to me. I kept thinking back to how Jesus himself was persecuted by followers of God. I also thought about the issues and scandals that the church has faced over the years. However, as I read more, I began to understand more and it became less confusing. The CCC states that while the Church is “unfailingly holy”,  it is not perfect in any way. The phrase I found  powerful was “The Church is therefore holy, though having sinners in her midst, because she herself has no other life but the life of grace…. she has the power to free her children through the blood of Christ and the gift of the Holy Spirit”. When reading this, I began to understand the connection between what we read in the Bible and what the CCC was saying. While the Church (and its followers) are not perfect or free of sin, Christ is “alone holy” and his unification with the Church (that is sanctified through him” makes the church holy despite its imperfections.

The account and commentary of the resurrection of Christ that the Church exemplifies the notion that the event is actually a true historical fact. The Church references the facts and testimonies that solidify its occurrence in history. This, to me, is the first point in these passages that the Church seems to address anyone questing the religion or the resurrection. As the passage continues, the Church addresses the specific events and why they occurred in the way that they did. The fact that the church addresses the fact that even the apostles had their doubts further adds to the credibility, not doubt, to the claims. The Church states that “the hypothesis that the Resurrection was produced by the apostles’ faith (or credulity) will not hold up. On the contrary their faith in the Resurrection was born, under the action of divine grace, from their direct experience of the reality of the risen Jesus”.  This, ultimately, makes the argument that the resurrection itself is the root of all faith, and should also be for all Catholics. 

The emphasis of the resurrection as a work of the Trinity connects the dots, in a way. This solidifies the connection between God’s power and glory and that of his son, Christ. The Church states that ““Christ’s Resurrection is an object of faith in that it is a transcendent intervention of God himself in creation and history”. The resurrection did not occur on its own or for no reason, but was the work of God and should be viewed as such. This also connects Christ’s resurrection with our own. The resurrection occurred, by God and through God, as to liberate all from sin and open us to a new life in God’s grace, setting up for our future resurrection. 

I chose the first letter in chapter 2 of Revelation, Ephesus. Like the other 6 letters, the letter to Ephesus begins with a statement about the condition of the church and is followed by “eschatological promises or threats” (pg. 2031 n. a). In this particular letter, is addressed to the capital of the province of Asia, though the other 6 letters are addressed to places in the same province (pg. 2031 n.b). 

Jesus begins by calling himself “the one who hold the seven stars in his right hand and who lives among the golden lamp stands” (Rev 2:1). To me, the way he characterizes himself seems to emphasize two things: his power and his presence. He not only stresses his authority over the church and its people, but also stresses that he is present among them always. 

As the letter continues and Jesus addresses the church’s condition (as he does in the other letters) he uses the phrase “I know” often, which stresses the fact that Christ has knowledge of the Church’s doings and once again seems to assert his authority, power, and presence. 

When the letter begins to make threats, Jesus says “Think where you were before you fell; repent, and behave as you did at first, or else, if you will not repent, I shall come to you and take your lamp-stand from its place” (Rev 2:5). This threat calls for change in terms of “love” and threatens the loss of Ephesus as the religious capital (pg. 2031 n.e). 

In the end of the letter, Jesus uses the same “formula” as his other letters and emphasizes the role of the spirit in the relations and communications between Christ and the Church (pg. 2031 n.f). He calls upon the people of the churches to evaluate themselves based on God’s truth and his communication of what they are to do. 

However, despite the threats, the letter goes on to promise that Jesus will “feed from the tree of life set in God’s paradise” (Rev 2:7). This is very reminiscent of what we read about paradise in Genesis, and almost references the idea of a ruined paradise (like Adam and Eve caused). However, Jesus promises to restore this greatness if the proper actions are followed. 

Romans 4 provides a powerful narrative about choosing to follow the Law specifically for those who are “uncircumcised” or rather, gentiles. This passage specifically references Genesis 15:6, which states “Abram put his faith in Yahweh and this was reckoned to him as uprightness”, which seems to set an example and quantify the arguments made for God’s love in Romans chapters 1-3. This example makes it clear Abraham’s righteousness came directly from his faith in God and speaks greatly about the value of faith in terms of one’s relationship with God. 

A quote that I found particularly interesting was Romans 4:4-5, which states “When someone works, the wages for this are not considered as a favour but as due”. This to me, is meat to exemplify that God rewards hard work (strong devotion) by means of a debt. When we are faithful to God, he owes us righteousness, it is not just something handed out as a favor or courtesy. The passage continues and says “it is this faith that is reckoned as uprightness” (Romans 4:5) which quantifies arguments made earlier in Romans 4 about Abraham’s righteousness. Like Abraham, others can enter this relationship with God and achieve the same outcome. Another phrase that I found particularly interesting was “Abraham is our father in the eyes of God” (Romans 4:17). By using the word “our”, this quote brides the connection between Abraham and the reader, even if the reader is uncircumcised or a gentile. In conclusion, I think that the goal of Romans 4 is to make the argument that righteousness can be achieved through faith and love of God even for people who may not be initially devout.

Chapters 16-21 of the Gospel of John provide a very insightful and revealing account of Jesus’s death and resurrection. The beginning, in particular, stood out to me. Jesus speaks of the world’s sin, unbelief, when he says “in that they refuse to believe in me, about who was in the right” (John 16:9), referring to the coming events and his arrest. What manifests Jesus’s glory and power, in my opinion, is when Jesus tells his disciples that “because the Father himself loves you, for loving me” (John 16:27). To me, John uses this moment between Jesus and his disciples to convey a message about how if someone believes in, loves, and follows Jesus, they will be in God’s favor.  Chapter 17 of this gospel uncovers the great love that Jesus has for his followers, which is shown in the way he prays for them. Jesus says “It is for them I pray. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, because they belong to you” (John 17:9). To me, this again exemplifies that Jesus will reciprocate his love and loyalty to those who show it to him. This same concept is exemplified in Jesus’s interactions with Peter at the end of the gospel. After Jesus asks whether Peter “loves” him for the thirds time, Peter replies “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you” (John 21:17).  When Jesus replies to Peter’s three professions of love, he returns the favor in a way, entrusting Peter with ruling his flock. This is another example, like before, that Jesus looks after and is loyal to those who love him.   

The Gospel of John has a very distinct nature that has quite a few differences when compared to the Gospel of Luke. The first few lines, in John 1:1, state “ In the beginning was the Word, The Word was with God, and the Word was God”. To me, this immediately sets the tone of the Gospel for what is to come because when John 1:14 states “the Word became flesh”, it emphasizes the divinity of Jesus which continues through the rest of the chapters. This elevated status is visible through the way Jesus carries himself also. I think that Jesus seems more self assured in his status as the Son of God when compared to the Gospel of Luke. In those passages, Jesus refers to himself as the “Son of Man” and seems to be more humble, but in John he seems more confident in his role and his actions. 

In addition, the Gospel of John and Gospel of Luke vary in terms of perspective. The content of the Gospel of Luke seems to be gathered by various witnesses and complied while the Gospel of John provides an eyewitness account of Jesus’s life and actions. John 1:7 states that “He came as witness, to bear witness to the light”. 

In terms of the sequence of events of Jesus’s life, the Gospel of Luke begins with his conception and childhood, talking about his “coming of age” in a way. The Gospel of John, on the other hand, seemingly begins in the midst of Jesus’s ministries. One specific passage that I found most interesting was when Jesus encountered the Samaritan woman in 4 John. This specific depiction of Jesus’s encounter with a non-Jew who is clearly disrespectful to him speaks greatly to the Gospel as a whole. Much like Luke, this emphasizes compassion towards all people, but I thought this was especially prominent when applied in this scenario. 

The Gospel of Luke provides a detailed account of the story of Jesus Christ (and that of John the Baptist). The beginning of Luke provides the story of Jesus’s conception, birth and ancestry, emphasizing his ties to Adam, the first son of God. This beginning account’s purpose is to establish the life story of Jesus and establish his authority as the Christ. 

As the Gospel of Luke continues, the life of Jesus is accounted for through recordings of his actions and sayings. In my opinion, the most significant thing that the Gospel of Luke established is Jesus’s power over the people and the land. His ability to pray, heal, overcome evil, forgive sins, and bless people, is expressed through stories and first-hand accounts, which serve to prove his influence and love of all individuals rather than simply discuss it. The end of the Gospel of Luke that we read, Luke 17-24, presents the details of the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus, ending with the ascension into heaven. 

One particular passage that I found very interesting is towards the beginning, in Luke 2:49-50. When Mary and Joseph confront Jesus about staying behind, he says “Why were you looking for me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father’s house?”. According to footnote q on page 1691, this is a point in which Jesus asserts in front of Joseph, that God is in fact his father and that this is the “first manifestation of his consciousness in being ‘The Son’”. To me, this consciousness is especially important because it reaffirms that all of the actions Jesus took that are described later in the Gospel of Luke are being conducted with this knowledge that he has a unique connection to God. The fact that Jesus did not call himself the Son of God and helped even less desirable people emphasizes compassion and humility to all.  

The book of Job, at first glance, seems to be all about human suffering and hardship. However, upon looking closer, it becomes clear that the story of Job provides wisdom about life and God. 

In Job 1:6, Satan approached God among his “sons”, referring to angels ( n. f, p. 757). I found this very interesting because I always thought of Satan as God’s equal opposite and enemy,  yet in this chapter Satan is absolutely not of equal stature to God. Instead, it almost seems that God must give Satan permission to temp Job. Job 1:12 sheds light on this when God states “all he has is in your power. But keep your hands of his person”. This exemplifies God’s superiority and authority. To me, this stands out because it almost immediately shows that while Satan has the capacity to inflict suffering and induce temptation, God is ultimately more powerful. 

Another lesson that is exemplified in the book of Job is one of trust. Job was always faithful and obedient to God, and thus he had certain expectations of what God would provide him. Much of the beginning chapters portray Job’s suffering and his effort to understand what he has done.  One of the biggest questions that this book raises, in my opinion, is about suffering inflicted upon those faithful to God and act with merit. Why would God allow Satan to inflict anguish upon Job when he has not acted against him?  However, the lesson that arises from this is that God acts in unexpected ways, but that his intentions are in the right place. In Job 

17:20, Job asks God “Why do you choose me as your target?” demonstrating his lack of understanding of the harm that has been inflicted to him. Despite this cry, among many others, God has been noticeably absent, unlike other texts we have read. God does not initially answer Job’s pleas and once again, acts in a way that is unexpected. Ultimately, in Job 38, God answered Job and emphasized his lack of understanding when he says “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundations? Tell me, since you are so well informed” (Job 38:3-4). This ultimately exemplifies the importance of faith in God’s process and that ultimately, it is only God, the one who created humanity and the earth, that knows what is the best course of action. Thus, this book emphasizes maintaining faith and trust in god even during hard times when it seems like he has disappeared. 

In I Samuel, God’s actions toward Eli and his family illustrate Yahweh’s relationship with Israel. He says, through a man of God, to Eli, “Those who honour me I honour in my turn, and those who despise me will be an object of contempt” (2:30). Eli and his family’s narrative, in my opinion, show the importance of personal accountability and free will in one’s relationship with God. While God is angry at Eli’s sons about their actions, he is even angrier, and thus more unforgiving, when Eli does nothing to correct their actions or stop them. Even though they were sinning against God, it still seems that God was willing to be somewhat lenient. However, Eli does nothing and God wills both of his sons to die on the same day. This, however, raises another question. If God knew that both of Eli’s sons were to die on the same day, was he also aware of the battle that would happen against the people of Israel? If so, why did he not warn or intervene in any way?

Another moment that illustrates God’s relationship with Israel occurs in II Kings, when King Josiah sends messengers to ask Yahweh about the book that was found in the Temple. God says that he will “bring disaster on this place and the people who live in it” (22:15). Despite this proclamation, however, he still shows kindness and grace towards Josiah. He says “when I gather your ancestors, you will be gathered in your grave in peace; you will not live to see the great disaster” (22:20). I think this moments shows that while God can hold on to and foresee his anger towards the people of Israel that have betrayed him, he still values individual commitment to worshiping him and his laws. This is further shown later in II Kings when Josiah has taken extensive action to re-commit the people to God. While God recognizes these actions, his anger still exists, which shows that while God values individual love and commitment, he also knows that one person’s commitment cannot and does not supersede the actions of all the people. Even if God had allowed Josiah’s actions to repatriate the wrongs done against him, it’s true that “[no] king like him arose again”, and God knew that it wouldn’t last.