Mark 3-5 Second Short Study

Giants Causeway, Northern Ireland: trekearth

Christianity Explored

Thank you for the more numerous 'Likes' for the first Mark post.

From the second week of facilitating at Christianity Explored. The first post mainly focused on Mark 1 with some work from Mark 2. Therefore the title:

Mark 1 Short Study

From Mark 3:7-5: 43

In the following events:

1. What does Jesus show authority over in these events?

a) calming of the storm (Mark 4: 35-41)

Jesus Christ demonstrated authority over the wind, storms and weather.

This was Biblically evident for everyone at our course table, based on the Marcan text. The Bible accepted as true religious history. I noted that accepting the text as historical documentation would minimally mean Jesus Christ had access to supernatural power and was perhaps supernatural in origin himself. I explained that the critic could opine that Jesus Christ was a god like Thor, for example.

Jesus Christ also healed a sick woman (Mark 5:24-34).

To be noted is the importance of human faith many times in the New Testament, in God acting for persons. The miraculous and supernatural was not typical even in Biblical times, but primarily occurred to demonstrate the power of the culminated Kingdom of God in Jesus Christ.

Any supernatural activity demonstrating power over life and death is a cumulative proof of an almighty God nature, not merely a god nature, This is infinitely beyond what could be reasoned in our modern age a finite god-like alien, like Thor and Superman. This was demonstrated by Jesus Christ as perfect man and incarnated God that raised the girl from death (Mark 5: 35-43).

Most importantly the resurrection of Christ documented in the New Testament, is the ultimate divine proof over life and death. This directly connects to the eventual and ultimate resurrection and perfection of those in Christ (1 Corinthians 15, Revelation 21-22).

It is simply reasonable that the infinite, divine author of life, even incarnated as a man, can recreate and resurrect life.

Again, in Mark 5: 36, and the New American Standard Bible, Jesus Christ asked the synagogue official to not be afraid any longer and only believe. God works through faith, although I would not state dogmatically that God always requires human faith. God is sovereign and acts accordingly.

The course handbook asks if it was a reasonable request by Jesus Christ. It was only if Christ has access to life and death and God's power. Christ went further in his ministry by forgiving sins and holding power over life and death as God.

2. How does this add to what we've already seen about his power and authority in earlier chapters.

I agreed with the church teacher that the disciples were gaining knowledge of the supernatural power and origin of Jesus Christ. Again, I pointed out that the resurrection of Jesus Christ from dead demonstrated infinite, almighty power from God.

Mark 2: 5-11 New American Version Bible (NASB)

5 And Jesus seeing their faith *said to the paralytic, “[c]Son, your sins are forgiven.” 6 But some of the scribes were sitting there and reasoning in their hearts, 7 “Why does this man speak that way? He is blaspheming; who can forgive sins [d]but God alone?” 8 Immediately Jesus, aware [e]in His spirit that they were reasoning that way within themselves, *said to them, “Why are you reasoning about these things in your hearts? 9 Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven’; or to say, ‘Get up, and pick up your pallet and walk’? 10 But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—He *said to the paralytic, 11 “I say to you, get up, pick up your pallet and go home.”

From the first article I stated in regard to the title 'Son of Man.'

Browning notes the phrase Son of Man is common from Jesus and is in the gospels and in Acts 7 and Revelation 1:13. Browning (1996: 349). Browning reasons that an increasingly accepted view is that Jesus meant the term in an elusive, roundabout way of acknowledging his significance as ‘I, being the man I am’.Browning (1996: 350).

Erickson writes that the resurrection established the fact that the Son of Man is Christ, and that he is both a man that walked on earth and a heavenly being who would come in the future in the clouds of heaven. Erickson (1994: 693). Erickson explains that Jesus used the term Son of Man of himself and that one person, Jesus Christ, was both earthly man and pre-existent divine God who became incarnate man. Erickson (1994: 726).

Reasons for God June 17, 2013 By Carson Weitnauer

Bart Ehrman objects to the idea of Jesus Christ being God:

Quote

'For instance, in his book Did Jesus Exist?, Dr. Bart Ehrman claims in at least three places that the Gospel of Mark never mentions that Jesus is God. Most emphatically, Ehrman states, “In Mark Jesus is certainly not God.”'

Quote

'Instead, Ehrman thinks history leads to a fundamentally different conclusion about the nature of Jesus. He writes, Moreover, I agree with Schweitzer’s overarching view, that Jesus is best understood as a Jewish prophet who anticipated a cataclysmic break in history in the very near future, when God would destroy the forces of evil to bring in his own kingdom here on earth (KL 176-178).'

Interestingly, Jesus Christ leads with 'Son, your sins are forgiven'.and not God the Father or God has forgiven your sins. He takes personal authority for forgiving sins. Jesus Christ claims to be the Son of Man and does not make the theological corrective in the story that he was only a prophet representing God.

In Acts, as example, disciples and Apostles would perform the supernatural in the name of Jesus Christ as part of the triune God-head.

Acts 3: 4-9

'4 But Peter, along with John, fixed his gaze on him and said, “Look at us!” 5 And he began to give them his attention, expecting to receive something from them. 6 But Peter said, “I do not possess silver and gold, but what I do have I give to you: In the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene—walk!” 7 And seizing him by the right hand, he raised him up; and immediately his feet and his ankles were strengthened. 8 With a leap he stood upright and began to walk; and he entered the temple with them, walking and leaping and praising God. 9And all the people saw him walking and praising God;'

The disciples and Apostles as would a Prophet healing in the name of the Biblical God, make the definite and definitive distinction between themselves as finite servant and healer and the infinite, almighty God. Even as incarnate man in the context of the text it is clear Jesus Christ healed and forgave sins as God.

3. What are the different ways in which people respond to Jesus?

In Mark 4: 40-41

Timid and with no faith (NASB). As we discussed in the course, there was a progression of faith occurring with the disciples.

In Mark 5: 15

The disciples feared the 'legion' of demons from the demon-possessed. In time, based on the New Testament many disciples that endured in the new Christian faith and philosophy would eventually be able to cast out demons through the power of Christ and the triune God.

In Mark 5: 27-28, 34

The use of human faith by Jesus Christ and God is shown. Philosophically, I would opine that God as first cause, causes and wills a second cause to have significant faith.

God can force or coerce human thoughts, acts and actions and then later the person having been molded by God could with what I call 'limited free will' within compatibilism, embrace it. But I reason significant moral accountability by human, angelic, demonic or other rational beings is only the case with a significant limited free will and choice. If God forces or coerces persons or rational beings in thoughts, acts and actions, in agreement with philosophers of religion such as Alvin C. Plantinga (God, Freedom and Evil), I hold that freedom is required for human and rational finite creature, moral accountability. It could be stated that divine force or coercion would eventually evolve to divine moulding and persuasion.

I have pondered on this issue recently and opine it would not be in error to pray that someone be forced or coerced by God to reason and perform within God perfect will as opposed to God's permissible will. This is acceptable in regard to human and rational creature moral responsibility, as long as eventually within the chain of events, human limited free will embraces what God has initially caused. This limited free will connected by chain to finite human nature that within this realm is corrupted (Romans).

I am not stating that God always uses force or coercion in dealing with fallen human beings. As I documented in my MPhil and PhD theses work, moulding and  persuasion were the preferred terms and meanings in the case of God's enlightening of the elect (Ephesians 1-2).

In Mark 5: 42

People were astounded by the power over life and death from Jesus Christ. I agreed with the church teacher that I would be too, until led by God with significant evidence.

I therefore answer the final workbook question that I do relate to these responses. It should be noted that as post-New Testament era Christians we have the benefit of theological hindsight via compiled volumes of historical Scripture and associated scholarship and teaching.

BROWNING, W.R.F. (1997) Oxford Dictionary of the Bible, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House. 

PLANTINGA, ALVIN C. (1977)(2002) God, Freedom, and Evil, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Mark 1 Short Study

Mission, British Columbia

Christianity Explored

Preface

I volunteered and was asked to sit in the Christianity Explored course at a local megachurch. I will answer the first set of questions online rather than writing in the pretty new handbook. I will attempt to fuse the more practical standards of the course with site standards.

Mark 1: 1-20

1. The word 'gospel' means 'good news'. Mark begins his book of good news with three statements about Jesus:

a) by the Old Testament prophets (messengers) (Mark 1: 2-3)

b) by John the Baptist (Mark 1:7)

c) by God himself (Mark 1: 11)

What do the each say about Jesus?

a) by the Old Testament prophets (messengers) (Mark 1: 2-3)

W.R.F. provides the theological view and perspective that the term 'Son of God' was designated of Jesus Christ and that a pre-existent divine being entered human life as Jesus Christ. Browning (1997: 149).  Browning seems not as dogmatic on this point as does the New Testament text. Quote: 'this could mean that  a pre-existent divine being entered human life...' Browning 1997: 149). But for the purposes of this article, the scholarship is useful. Accepting the New Testament as historical religious history inspired by God, the textual support of Jesus Christ as the eternal Son of God far outweighs theological and philosophical doubts of such a proposition.

Jesus Christ in the New Testament, is the eternal Word (John 1) and Son of God. The ministry and work of Jesus Christ was prophesied by the Prophet Isaiah to be prepared by another prophet, John the Baptist.

Millard Erickson in 'Christian Theology' expresses a Biblical, orthodox (not meaning Orthodox Church here) position that the Trinity via the Council of Constantinople (381), included ὑποστάσεις which expressed three separate persons that exist simultaneously in three modes of being or hypostases. Erickson (1994: 335). The idea being the Godhead is undivided in essential nature, in divided persons. Erickson (1994: 335). There are three distinctions within the triune God, but only one divine nature and therefore only one God. There is not tritheism. There is not modalism or Sebellanism as the persons of the trinity are simultaneously existing and not interchanging among one another. Jesus does not become the Father, for example. 

Greek scholar Walter Bauer defines 'Hupostasis' the original word: ὑπόστασις, εως, ἡit from the Greek as substantial nature, essence, actual being, reality. In the context of Hebrews 1: 3 the Son of God is the exact representation of God’s real being. (page 847). Erickson further explains that each member of the Trinity is quantitatively equal. Erickson (1994: 337).

This would be in spiritual essence accepting that God the Son took an additional human nature in the incarnation in order to accomplish the atonement and resurrection and also his future Kingship. This does not in any way alter the divine nature of God the Son or the Trinity. Erickson points out that the Son did subordinate himself to God the Father as fully human while on earth, but this was an aspect of will. God the Son did not become less than God the Father, or less God. Erickson (1994: 338).

Similarly, even though the Holy Spirit is the third person of the Trinity and is named the 'Helper' in the Gospel of John in the New American Standard Version as well as the English Standard Version, this does not mean the Holy Spirit is any less Almighty God. In that instance, functionally the Holy Spirit willingly takes that position.

b) by John the Baptist (Mark 1:7)

John the Baptist was a Prophet of God; Jesus Christ was and is God the Son, infinite and eternal, incarnated in human form in order to perform the gospel ministry of atonement, resurrection and the eventual culminated Kingdom of God.

John the Baptist was a servant of God, including to God the Son. Jesus Christ as fully human and fully divine, humbled himself in human obedience to God the Father and was baptized by John.

c) by God himself (Mark 1: 11)

Mark 1:9-12

English Standard Version (ESV)

The Baptism of Jesus

9 In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan.

10 And when he came up out of the water, immediately he saw the heavens being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove.

11 And a voice came from heaven, “You are my beloved Son;[a] with you I am well pleased.” The Temptation of Jesus

12 The Spirit immediately drove him out into the wilderness.

Footnotes: Mark 1:11 Or my Son, my (or the) Beloved

In a trinitarian context, God the Father is confirming God the Son, ontologically as God, and at the same time is pleased with Jesus Christ as God the Son, subordinating his incarnated human nature and will to God the Father.

2. In chapters 1 and 2 Jesus shows his authority in different situations...

When Jesus speaks or acts, what sorts of things happen?

Verses provided by the workbook

Mark 1: 16-20: Jesus Christ called his disciples that followed him. Note, what is unstated within historical Scripture is how this was exactly accomplished. Did Jesus Christ possibly use supernatural means?

Mark 1: 21-22: The disciples viewed that Jesus Christ had authority of teaching unlike the Scribes, even in the synagogue and on the Sabbath (Saturday).

Mark 1: 23-28: Unclean spirits, also known as fallen angels and demonic beings obeyed Jesus Christ when called out of a human being. The man in the story acknowledged Jesus Christ as the 'Holy One of God', this is likely primarily, at least, supernatural knowledge from the demonic beings. This man reasoned Christ had the power 'to destroy to us' (New American Standard Bible). Indicating the demonic beings acknowledged God the Son's power of potential destruction over them.

Mark 1: 40-45: Jesus Christ healed a man of leprosy. God the Son, as creator had the power of healing and in a sense, recreation.

Mark 2: 1-12: Jesus Christ healed a paralytic and forgave sins.

English Standard Version (ESV)

7 “Why does this man speak like that? He is blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?”

Another indication of Christ's deity as incarnated man.

Christ calls himself the Son of Man (v10).

Strong describes the term for son, υἱὸς which is used widely in an immediate context and also in the remote or figurative context of kinship, child, foal, son. Strong (1986: 99). The word man, aνθρώποs, is defined as man-faced, human being, certain, man. Strong (1986: 12). Each usage of a Greek word needs to be understood individually in context, of course. The exact term aνθρώποu, is used in Luke 9:22. The Greek New Testament (1993: 237). The term is used in the genitive as the Son of Man. Anthropos is the anglicized version of the word defined by Strong and relates to the English word anthropology.

Browning notes the phrase Son of Man is common from Jesus and is in the gospels and in Acts 7 and Revelation 1:13. Browning (1996: 349). Browning reasons that an increasingly accepted view is that Jesus meant the term in an elusive, roundabout way of acknowledging his significance as ‘I, being the man I am’.Browning (1996: 350).

Erickson writes that the resurrection established the fact that the Son of Man is Christ, and that he is both a man that walked on earth and a heavenly being who would come in the future in the clouds of heaven. Erickson (1994: 693). Erickson explains that Jesus used the term Son of Man of himself and that one person, Jesus Christ, was both earthly man and pre-existent divine God who became incarnate man. Erickson (1994: 726).

3. Early impressions of Jesus based on further reading from Mark 2: 18-3:6?

Jesus Christ declared that the Son of Man is even Lord of the Sabbath. Therefore, according to the Marcan Scripture, he is both God and man. Christ did miraculous healing on the Sabbath and as a result the Pharisees and Herodians made plans to kill him. This also serves as a classic example of how religious leaders and followers can become more concerned with maintaining the political and social workings of their religion than in God's truth and true divinely inspired religion.

BAUER, WALTER. (1979) A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Translated by Eric H. Wahlstrom, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.

BROWNING, W.R.F. (1997) Oxford Dictionary of the Bible, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

STRONG, J. (1890)(1986) Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Pickering, Ontario, Welch Publishing Company.

The Resurrection and Cultural Rebranding (PhD Edit)

trekearth.com

The Resurrection and Cultural Rebranding (PhD Edit)

Preface

Originally published 20160326, updated 20251217

March 2016 

Happy Easter

A recent online employment posting from an American Lutheran college did not mention Jesus Christ. Neither did the ‘About’ page on the college website. I used the Google Chrome ‘Find’ application to scan both the posting and the ‘About’ page on the site and the Lutheran denomination was mentioned a few times, but Jesus and Christ was not.

There is also not an emphasis on the atonement and resurrection.

The college site focus instead was the Lutheran denomination and mentioned faith and God. These terms of course can be reinterpreted outside of Biblical theology.

This sort of cultural institutional rebranding has been found often in my employment searches. I reason that regardless of one’s view on the historical resurrection of Jesus Christ, this is an example of cultural accommodation and could be termed as cultural rebranding. Others may call it evolution or progress, but it is still cultural accommodation of traditional, Biblical Christian faith and philosophy to make it more palatable in today’s academic market.

I earned my terminal degrees at secular Universities where this type of accommodation/rebranding, evolution began many decades ago and I am therefore not stating these institutions lack significant academic merit or that a Biblical Christian should never attend or seek academic employment at these institutions.

I am thankful to have completed my first two course work degrees in Canadian Christian institutions and my last two thesis research degrees in British, secular Universities. The Christian education providing the Biblical foundation and the British education emphasizing the need for robust theological and philosophical research, analysis and documentation.

This is an imperfect and fallen realm and the greater good, in Christ, needs to be prayerfully measured in a life.

I reason the Christian academic should be aware of the institutional context and also have academic freedom to express Biblical Christian views. This of course was an issue for me in the United Kingdom as a began my Doctorate at one institution and due to lack of academic freedom completed my projects at University of Wales, sites. All of these Universities being secular.

The Resurrection and Cultural Rebranding (PhD Edit)

Edited from

2010 Theodicy and Practical Theology: PhD thesis, the University of Wales, Trinity Saint David, Lampeter

PhD Full Version PDF: Theodicy and Practical Theology 2010, Wales TSD

I reason that the atoning and resurrection work of Christ for believers must remain an essential element of Christian preaching, teaching and ministry. However, Brown believes the Bible teaches that there is hope for those in the world who are poor and oppressed. Brown (1984: 14). Gebara (2002: 107). Brown explains that if God sided with these suffering persons in Biblical times, he also does today. Brown (1984: 14).

I can grant this proposition, and state that although the salvific work of Christ for humanity should remain the core of Christian faith and philosophy, simultaneous to this Christians must help in an earthly physical sense, those they are attempting to assist in a spiritual sense. This is an important and essential way of making theology practical.

Within my theology and philosophy of religion, the atoning and resurrection work applied to believers in the eventual culminated Kingdom of God is the ultimate remedy for the problem of evil. 

Jesus Christ the person is held in extremely high regard as is his ministry, atoning work and resurrection, and his person and work cannot be separated in importance. Franke (2005: 72). The New Testament not only demonstrates the witness of the redeeming act of God in Christ, but is also the summation of the man that is the word of God. Hughes (1990: 38). Erickson writes that Scripture teaches the resurrection of those who believe in Christ. Erickson (1994: 1194). He also reasons it is likely that unbelievers too will be raised, Erickson (1994: 1194), although this concept is not as clearly explained as is the idea of the raising of those who trust in Christ. Erickson (1994: 1200).

Thiessen bases the traditional Christian belief in physical resurrection in the texts from both Testaments and describes the resurrection bodies as both physical and spiritual in nature. Thiessen (1956: 491). Whale writes that the resurrection is not to be considered an addition to the Christian faith, but is the Christian faith. Whale (1958: 69).

The resurrection can be debated, and there are progressive liberal views within Christian society, such as Gebara that will question traditional doctrines. Gebara (2002: 121). It can also be denied outright by critics. Darrow (1928)(1973: 266-267). Phillips provides a negative atheistic critique of eschatological Christian concepts in his Chapter, ‘Last things.’ Phillips (2005: 247-275).

Within speculative, non-orthodox theology and in philosophy of religion, those such as Gebara are looking for the greater good now and not primarily in some future realm. She suggests for example, that we need ‘Everyday Resurrections.’ Gebara (2002: 121-132). Phillips reasons that there is not actual hope for persons after death in another realm. Phillips (2005: 248).

This would appear empirically true in one sense as resurrections typically are non-existent, but if the Biblical resurrection is true, there is hope for those in Christ. The resurrected Christ was empirically viewed within documented Scripture.

However, if one does not believe in the resurrection of Christ, God’s key witness through historical documented Scripture to the world that he wishes to save it from the problem of evil is gone. The remedy to sin and death would be non-existent and therefore concepts of a perfected world far-fetched.

BROWN, ROBERT MCAFEE (1984) Unexpected News, Philadelphia, The Westminster Press. 

DARROW, CLARENCE (1928)(1973) ‘The Myth of the Soul’, in The Forum, October, in Paul Edwards and Arthur Pap (eds.), A Modern Introduction To Philosophy, New York, The Free Press. 

DARROW, CLARENCE (1932)(1973) ‘The Delusion of Design and Purpose’, in The Story of My Life, October, in Paul Edwards and Arthur Pap (eds.), A Modern Introduction To Philosophy, New York, The Free Press.

ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

ERICKSON, MILLARD (2003) What Does God Know and When Does He Know It?, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

FRANKE, JOHN R. (2005) The Character of Theology, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids.

GEBARA, IVONE (2002) Out of the Depths, Translated by Ann Patrick Ware, Minneapolis, Fortress Press.

HUGHES, PHILIP, EDGCUMBE (1990) A Commentary On The Epistle To The Hebrews, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

PHILLIPS, D.Z. (1981) Encountering Evil, Stephen T. Davis (ed.), Atlanta, John Knox Press. 

PHILLIPS, D.Z. (2005) The Problem of Evil and the Problem of God, Fortress Press, Minneapolis. 

THIESSEN, HENRY C. (1956) Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

WHALE, J.S. (1958) Christian Doctrine, Glasgow, Fontana Books.

Brief: Aggression V Adaptation

From Amazon.com

Preface

This is not a book review or discussion of the text above. The book's title and use of the words 'Aggression and Adaptation' loosely relate to this brief and non-exhaustive article.

The two terms came to mind after reasoning out concepts recently with family and friends in discussion.

Both terms were suitable in this context beginning with 'A'. I then searched online to see if the two words had been used together in an academic context and they have as it turns out.

Admittedly there are other related words one could use to basically describe the two concepts I am describing and comparing.

Aggression 

From Oxford, the definition that fits in this context: '3 Self-assertiveness: forcefulness.' Oxford (1995: 26).

Examples of other related terms:

Intensity: '1 The quality or an instance of being intense.' (708).

Intense: '1...existing in a high-degree, extreme, forceful.' (708).

Adaptation

'1 The act or process of adapting or being adapted.' (15).

Adapt: '1 a...fit, adjust (one thing to another) (15).
'1 b...make suitable for a purpose.' (15).

Fit and adjust are also other related terms.

From Oxford Dictionary of Science it offers definitions more in regard to evolutionary science as opposed to psychology.

But a useful physiological entry is presented as in adaptation and 'the adjustment of the eye to vision in very bright or very dim light.' Oxford Dictionary of Science (2010: 13).

The human eye adjusting to degrees of light is an example of human adaptation to different situations.

Brief: Aggression V Adaptation

Propositions within this post and then my conclusion. Three areas of life.

Symbols

Party 1=P1
Party 2=P2
Party 3=P3

Thesis writing and academia

Aggression

An academic advisor and institution, P2, does not accept a thesis Chapter from the academic writer, P1.

P1 reasons spending four to six hours a day, five to six days a week, working on the thesis Chapter is insufficient.

Therefore, P1 aggressively and intensely spends eight to twelve hours a day, five to six days a week, working on the thesis Chapter in order to meet the academic standards of P2.

Adaptation

P2 does not accept the thesis Chapter of P1.

P1 seeks in greater measure to follow P2 instructions and educational institutional standards, adjusting and adapting the thesis Chapter to academic requirements of P2.

Relationships

Aggression

P2 does not want a relationship (business relationship, friendship, potential romantic relationship) with P1.

Therefore, P1 aggressively increases the intensity of interest in P2 and aggressively increases the intensity of the presentation of P1 value to P2.

Adaptation

Accepting a very wise statement made several times in class by a Trinity Western University, Dead Sea Scrolls scholar and professor: Dr. Peter Flint:

'Be true to yourself and be true to God.'

P2 does not want a relationship (business relationship, friendship, potential romantic interest) with P1.

P1 becomes more valuable through adjustment and adaptation to P2; attempting to meet the requirements and needs of P2.

It is reasonable and possible that advisement to P1 from P3 may be useful.

Employment

Aggression

P1 spends four to six hours a day, five to six days a week, in employment search and has not been hired by P2.

Therefore, P1 spends eight to twelve hours a day, five to six days a week, in employment search in order to be hired by P2.

P1 reasons a more aggressive and intense approach is required in order to be hired by P2.

P1 reasons more 'hustle' is required for employment opportunities from P2.

Adaptation

P1 spends four to six hours a day, five to six days a week, in employment search and has not been hired by P2.

Therefore, P1 needs to seek professional assistance from an employment facilitator or related, P3.

When qualified and reasonable professionals, P3 will state that four to six hours a day, six days a week is sufficiently aggressive and intensive and demonstrates required work ethic from P1.

However, P1 needs to adjust and adapt each and every resume, curriculum vitae and cover letter to each and every employment posting of P2.

P1 needs to research the potential employer, including the website of P2.

P1 seeking to meet the requirements and needs of P2.

Conclusion

In the three areas and examples listed:

Aggression, intensity and related is of secondary importance in achieving the good and in achieving success for P1.

Aggression, integrity, forcefulness and related can be beneficial in many cases when used in a limited and correct manner by P1, but if overused and used incorrectly can work against achieving the good and in achieving success for P1.

Adaptation, fitting in, adjusting and related is of primary importance in achieving the good and in achieving success for P1.

This needs to be done in truth and not falsely, in order to produce what is required.

There is of course in all three areas within being true to self (P1) and being true to God, the reasonable option and possibility of not seeking to meet the requirements of P2 with aggression and adaptation.

THE CONCISE OXFORD DICTIONARY (1995) Della Thompson, Editor, Clarendon Press, Oxford.

Oxford Dictionary of Science (2010) Sixth Edition, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Vancouver: 2015