Boston University the Covenant Between God and Christians Thesis Paper theology essay, THE TOPIC OF THE ESSAY WILL BE ATTACHED. LOOK AT THE ATTACHED DOCUME

Boston University the Covenant Between God and Christians Thesis Paper theology essay, THE TOPIC OF THE ESSAY WILL BE ATTACHED. LOOK AT THE ATTACHED DOCUMENT I ADDED

papers must be between 2000-2200 words, 12 point Times Roman font, and double-spaced in MICROSOFT WORD format. Grammar and spelling mistakes WILL be considered in the final grade, so please PROOFREAD in addition to revising for content and style.

I WILL ATTACH THE INSTRUCTIONS AND RUBRIC OF THE ESSAY.

THE ONLY ASSIGNED READING TO USE FOR THE FOLLOWING ESSAY: since it is a theology class about Christian ethics you need to use to following reading: use the link:

http://www.newadvent.org/bible/gen001.htm

the verses U need for the essay are those.

-The Gospel of Matthew: 1:1-7:28; 26:1-28:20
-The Gospel of Luke: 2:1-6:49; 10:25-10:37; 22:1-24:53 -The Letter of Paul to the Romans: 1:1-15:14
-The First Letter of John (note this is DIFFERENT from The Gospel of John): 1:1-5:21 THST 1060: God and the Good
First Paper Assignment
Prof. Petrusek
Writing Assignment Instructions
I)
Develop your paper around the topic below.
a. There is NOT one right answer to the question. There are, however, stronger and weaker arguments,
so be sure to make your case clearly and forcefully with adequate supporting evidence.
II)
Structurally, each paper should have an INTRODUCTION that both introduces the reader to the problem
the paper intends to address and shows why that problem is important. It is crucial that the introduction
also contain a THESIS statement—that is, a sentence or two that describes, concisely and precisely, what
your principal argument is in relation to the question.
a. The paper also must have several BODY PARAGRAPHS (there is no “correct” number of body
paragraphs—just make sure you have enough to get the job done) that do the following:
1) Put the problem in context (what, in more detail, is the problem you intend to address in the
paper? How does the problem arise? In what text or texts do you see the problem appear?)
2) Make your position on each point clear (given the nature of the problem as you have defined it,
what solutions do you offer?). This part of the paper usually has at least two components:
a. Make an argument about how best to INTERPRET the authors/ideas the paper is
engaging in relation to the overall question the paper is addressing.
b. ASSESS and EVALUATE the authors/ideas you are engaging both in relation to each
other and individually.
3) Provide evidence for BOTH the INTERPRETIVE and EVALUATIVE positions in the paper
(why should I be persuaded that the answer you’ve provided is satisfying? On what grounds are
you supporting your argument?)
4) Consider one or two possible counter arguments to your main points (how might someone who
disagrees with you respond to your argument?); and
5) Respond to the counter argument(s) (why does that person who disagrees with you fail to
undermine your position?)
b. Finally, the paper must also have a CONCLUSION—that is, a final paragraph or two that concisely
summarizes the most important points you’ve made in your paper, restates your position in its fullest,
most compelling form, and illuminates avenues for further inquiry
III)
Logistics: papers must be between 2000-2200 words, 12 point Times Roman font, and double-spaced
in MICROSOFT WORD format. Grammar and spelling mistakes WILL be considered in the final grade,
so please PROOFREAD in addition to revising for content and style.
a. Late papers will receive a substantial grade reduction. Please consult the syllabus for more
information.
NOTE: do NOT use ANY materials except for the ASSIGNED READINGS for this assignment.
This is NOT a research project! I want to know what YOU and YOU alone think. This also
means, of course, that you MUST NOT PLAGIARIZE!
1
THST 1060: God and the Good
First Paper Assignment
Prof. Petrusek
Paper Topic #1
This semester, we have devoted significant time to discussing how God’s covenantal relationship with human beings
and/or a particular religious community is foundational to defining and understanding “Christian ethics.” We have used
the following grid to identify and categorize different kinds of possible covenantal relationships, asking, in particular,
which category best describes the covenant God makes in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus:
CONDITIONAL
UNCONDITIONAL
UNIVERSAL
Christianity?
Christianity?
PARTICULAR
Christianity?
Christianity?
In your paper, choose TWO authors we have read in the NEW TESTAMENT and/or in the Wogaman collection of
primary texts (please do not select any readings from the Old Testament or from the Wogaman background text) and write
a paper that completes the following tasks:
1) Briefly describe what a “covenant” is in a theological context and explain how a covenant could be conceived of
as conditional and universal, particular and conditional, unconditional and universal, or unconditional and
particular.
2) Describe which category best captures the theological views of EACH author you select. For example, if you
select the Gospel of Matthew and St. Clement, explain which covenantal category YOU BELIEVE accurately
categorizes the theological viewpoint of each.
a. Note: you are making an ARGUMENT here. Be sure to EXPLAIN why you believe the authors you have
chosen belong in their respective category and DEFEND your explanations with specific evidence from
the text. It is okay if you believe that both of the authors you are interpreting and analyzing belong in the
same category—just be sure to explain how and why that is the case.
3) Describe the ETHICAL IMPLICATIONS of each author’s interpretation of the covenant. For example, if I John
appears to describe the event of Jesus’s life, death, and resurrection as pertaining only to a particular community
of believers, how might that influence its conception of what defines the good life and what moral obligations one
has?
NOTE: In this section of the paper, you are also making an ARGUMENT. Identify what you take to be the moral
implications of each author’s view and DEFEND your interpretation by drawing on the texts.
4) Finally, identify what YOU take to be the most accurate categorization of the “new covenant” represented in
Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection.
NOTE: Here you are NOT expected to argue which interpretation of Jesus you think is true; you do NOT, that is, have
to draw on or share any of your personal religious beliefs (though, of course, you are welcome to do so, if you think it
helps strengthen your argument). Rather, the task in this section of the paper is for you to TAKE A STAND in an
INTERPRETIVE sense: which category to you think best defines the event of Jesus’s life, death, and resurrection,
independently of whether you believe that that event is actually “true”?
ALSO NOTE: In this section of the paper, you can draw on your conclusions from your discussion of the two authors
you have analyzed; however, your argument should be YOUR argument and not merely a repetition of one of the
points of view you have identified and analyzed.
2
Essay-Grading Rubric
Prof. Petrusek
Content
Intro
and
Thesis
Use of
Evidence
&
Engagement
with
Text(s)
A (22.5-25 pts)
B (20-22.5 pts)
C (17.5-20 pts)
D (15-17.5 pts)
F (less than 15 pts)
The intro
commendably
generates interest
in the topic and
clearly identifies
the problem the
paper will address
and how it will
address it. The
thesis is easy to
identify, precise,
and
comprehensive.
The intro generates
interest in the topic
and indicates the
nature of the
problem the paper
will address and
how it will address
it. The thesis is
easy to identify,
but still needs to be
more precise
and/or
comprehensive.
The intro demonstrates
some interest in the
topic, though leaves the
reader in doubt about
what problem,
specifically, the paper
will address and how it
will address it. The
thesis is identifiable, but
otherwise unclear and
undeveloped.
The intro does not
generate interest in the
topic (it is trite and/or
muddled) and only
faintly indicates to the
reader what problem the
paper will address and
how it will address it.
The thesis is very
difficult to identify.
The paper completely
lacks a proper
introduction. It fails to
generate any interest in
the topic and/or to
demonstrate to the
reader what problem
the paper will address
and how it will address
it. There is no thesis.
A (22.5-25)
B (20-22.5 pts)
C (17.5-20 pts)
D (15-17.5 pts)
F (less than 15 pts)
The paper
supports ALL its
arguments with
relevant and
specific evidence,
including textual
evidence when
needed. The
paper ALWAYS
provides a clear
explanation for
how/why the
evidence defends
the point the
paper is seeking
to make.
The paper supports
ALL its arguments
with evidence,
including textual
evidence where
needed; however,
the evidence is not
as specific and/or
relevant as it could
be. The paper
ALWAYS provides
an explanation for
how/why the
evidence defends
the point the paper
is making; however,
these explanations
could be clearer
and/or more
developed.
The paper supports
ALMOST all its
arguments with
evidence, including
textual evidence when
needed; however, the
evidence is not
specific and it is often
ambiguous how/why it
is relevant. This
indicates that the
writer did not read the
texts and/or think
about the paper topic
with sufficient care.
The paper does NOT
always provide
explanations for
how/why the evidence
supports the point the
paper is making,
and/or the
explanations it offers
are unclear.
The paper frequently
does not support its
arguments with
evidence, including
textual evidence
when needed. This
indicates that the
writer did not read
the texts closely
and/or think about
the paper topic
carefully. The paper
also provides only
minimal explanations
for how/why the
evidence it provides
defends the point the
paper is making,
and/or the
explanations it offers
are highly
ambiguous.
The paper never, or
almost never, supports
its arguments with
evidence, including
textual evidence where
needed. This suggests
the writer did not read
the texts and/or think
about the topic with any
care at all. The paper
also often fails to
provide explanations for
how/why the evidence it
does cite defends the
point the paper is
seeking to make, and /or
the explanations it
provides have little or no
relation to the
topic/problem the paper
is addressing
Total
Score
Total
Score
Content (continued)
Structure of
Paper,
Comprehen
-siveness,
and
Coherence
Critical
Thinking,
Sophistication,
and Creativity
A (18-20 pts)
B (16-18 pts)
C (14-16 pts)
D (12-14 pts)
F (less than 12
pts)
The paper
demonstrates
exceptional
organization and
coherence; each
section is internally
sound, and it is
always clear how
each section of the
argument relates to
the sections that
precede and follow
it. It is also clear
how all the sections
of the paper
together form one
unified argument
that answers every
part of the paper
topic. There are no
contradictions or
non-sequiturs. The
paper defends the
thesis precisely and
comprehensively—
and thus
persuasively.
The paper
demonstrates good
organization and
coherence. It is evident
how each section of
the argument relates to
the sections that
precede and follow it;
however, one or more
sections could be
clearer internally
and/or in relation to
other sections of the
paper. Taken together,
the sections form a
unified argument that
addresses every part of
the paper topic, and
there are no
contradictions or nonsequiturs; however,
the overall argument
needs refinement. The
paper effectively
defends the thesis, but
the defense could be
more precise and/or
comprehensive.
The paper
demonstrates fair
organization and
coherence. Each
section makes some
basic point;
however, one or
more the sections
needs substantial
work internally
and/or in relation to
other sections.
Taken together, the
sections form only a
weak, ambiguous
single argument that
does not adequately
address every part
of the paper topic.
There may be one or
more contradictions
or non-sequiturs.
The paper attempts
to defend the thesis,
but does so with
little attention to
precision and/or
comprehensiveness.
The paper
demonstrates poor
organization and
coherence. It has
one or more
sections that do not
make a clear point,
and it is also
unclear how one or
more of the
sections relate to
other sections.
Overall, it is very
difficult to identify
a single,
overarching
argument in the
paper, and/or the
paper does not
address key parts
of the paper topic.
There are
contradictions
and/or nonsequiturs in the
argument. The
paper does not
effectively defend
the thesis.
Overall, it is
difficult to define
the paper as a
“paper.” There is a
general lack of
cohesion and
coherence
throughout. One or
more sections of the
paper fail to make a
reasoned point, and
it is frequently
unclear how one
section of the paper
relates to others.
The paper fails to
answer fundamental
parts of the paper
topic, and the
argument contains
several
contradictions
and/or nonsequiturs. In
general, the paper
fails to provide a
defense for its
thesis.
A (18-20 pts)
B (16-18 pts)
C (14-16 pts)
D (12-14 pts)
F (less than 12
pts)
The paper provides
a sophisticated and
creative argument
that demonstrates an
admirable level
initiative, insight,
and intellectual
rigor. The paper has
a compelling thesis.
Overall, it does
excellent
interpretive,
critical/comparative,
and evaluative work.
The paper makes a
strong effort to
make a
sophisticated and
creative argument,
though the
arguments needs
additional insight,
refinement, and/or
intellectual rigor.
The paper has an
interesting thesis.
Overall, it does
good interpretive,
critical/comparative,
and evaluative
work.
The paper
demonstrates the
author took the
assignment seriously;
however, the paper
only displays a
minimal effort to
address the topic in a
creative and
intellectually
challenging way. The
paper has a
moderately
interesting thesis.
Overall, it does fair
interpretive,
critical/comparative,
and evaluative work.
The paper meets
only the minimum
standards of
creativity and/or
intellectual rigor. It
is evident the author
did not challenge
herself/himself in
crafting the
argument. The paper
has a banal thesis.
Overall, it does poor
interpretive,
critical/comparative,
and evaluative work.
The paper fails to
make a sophisticated
and/or creative
argument. The paper
has an unintelligible
or otherwise
hackneyed thesis. It
does not meet the
basic standards of
interpretive,
critical/comparative,
and/or evaluative
work.
Total
Score
Total
Score
Style and Mechanics
Style and
Felicity of
Expression
Grammar,
Mechanics, &
Citations
A (4.5-5 pts)
B (4-4.5 pts)
C (3.5-4)
D (3-3.5 pts)
F (less than
3 pts)
The paper’s prose
is vibrant, lucid,
and engaging.
The language is
in the active
voice, except
where the passive
voice is more
appropriate.
Overall, it is a
pleasure to read.
The paper’s prose is
clear and interesting.
The language is
mostly in the active
voice, except where
the passive voice is
more appropriate.
Overall, it is pleasant
to read, though the
language could be
more natural and
engaging at points.
The paper’s prose is
accessible; however, it
often employs awkward
language and/or
sentence construction
(including the overuse
of the passive voice)
that muddles the
paper’s argument and
makes it difficult to
understand.
The paper’s prose is
difficult to read and
understand. The
language and/or
sentence construction
(including the
overuse of the
passive voice)
obstructs the reader
from understanding
the paper’s argument.
The paper’s
prose is often
unintelligible.
A (4.5-5 pts)
B (4-4.5 pts)
C (3.5-4 pts)
D (3-3.5 pts)
F (less than 3
pts)
The paper is free
from significant
grammatical
and/or mechanical
problems. The
paper always cites
texts properly.
The paper has a few
minor grammatical
and/or mechanical
problems. The
problems do not
undermine the
paper’s
comprehensibility.
The paper almost
always cites properly.
The paper has
significant grammatical
and/or mechanical
problems. The problems
undermine the paper’s
comprehensibility. The
paper often does not
cite properly.
The paper has major
grammatical and/or
mechanical
problems. The
problems are deeply
distracting and
prevent the reader
from understanding
the paper’s
meaning. The paper
rarely cites
properly.
The paper does
not meet the
minimal
standards of
basic grammar
and mechanics.
The paper
never, or
almost never,
cites properly.
Total
Score
Total
Score
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
FINAL COMMENTS:
FINAL GRADE:

Purchase answer to see full
attachment