Tuesday, April 14, 2009
jesuschrist
Here are the key elements by which we become reconciled to the Father. Each is vitally important. Any, if absent, could keep our new relationship from being complete First, we must understand that we are separated from God. The chasm dividing us is both wide and deep. We inherited a fatal defect at birth. As a result, we have lived our lives independently from him. The Bible emphasizes this stark reality: “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). If we can’t come to grips with the fact that sin separates us from God, we’ll never come home spiritually, for there is no need for a savior Second, we need to be very clear in understanding who Jesus is and what he has done for us, in order that we might confidently place our faith in him. He bridged the chasm separating us from God. In the apostle John’s words: “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16). Jesus was not just a good man, a great teacher, an inspired prophet. He came to earth as the Son of God. He was born to a virgin. He led a sinless life. He died. He was buried. He rose again on the third day. He ascended into heaven where he became both Lord and Christ. Jesus’ death and resurrection on our behalf satisfied God’s requirement – complete provision for our sin. This Jesus, and he alone, is qualified to be the remedy for my sin and yours.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Philemon
The Epistle to Philemon is a prison letter from Paul of Tarsus to Philemon, a leader in the Colossian church. It is one of the books of the New Testament of the Christian Bible. The epistle is the most important early Christian writing dealing with forgiveness.It is now generally regarded as one of the undisputed works of Paul. It is the shortest of Paul's extant letters, consisting of only 335 words in the original Greek text, and twenty-five verses in modern English translations.
Paul, who is apparently in prison (probably in either Rome or Ephesus), writes to a fellow Christian named Philemon and two of his associates: a woman named Apphia, sometimes assumed to be his wife, and a minister named Archippus (see Colossians 4:17). If the letter to the Colossians is authentic, then Philemon must live in Colossae. As a slave-owner he would have been wealthy by the standards of the early church and this explains why his house was large enough to accommodate church meetings (v. 2). Paul writes on behalf of Onesimus, Philemon's slave. Beyond that, it is not self-evident as to what has transpired. Onesimus is described as having been "separated" from Philemon, once having been "useless" to him (a pun on Onesimus's name, which means "useful"), and having done him wrong.
The dominant scholarly consensus is that Onesimus is a run-away slave who became a Christian believer. Paul now sends him back to face his aggrieved master, and strives in his letter to effect reconciliation between these two Christians. What is more contentious is how Onesimus came to be with Paul. Various suggestions have been given: Onesimus being imprisoned with Paul; Onesimus being brought to Paul by others; Onesimus coming to Paul by chance (or in the Christian view, by divine providence); or Onesimus deliberately seeking Paul out, as a friend of his master's, in order to be reconciled.
There is no way of knowing what happened to Onesimus after the letter. Ignatius of Antioch mentions an Onesimus as Bishop of Ephesus in the early second century. It was suggested by some Bible scholars in the 1950s that these two Onesimuses are one and the same, and further that Onesimus could have been the first to compile the extant letters of Paul, including the letter that gave him his own freedom as an expression of gratitude. This is a pat explanation for why the oblique letter is included in the New Testament alongside letters of much greater theological import, but presently it is only a conjecture.
Paul, who is apparently in prison (probably in either Rome or Ephesus), writes to a fellow Christian named Philemon and two of his associates: a woman named Apphia, sometimes assumed to be his wife, and a minister named Archippus (see Colossians 4:17). If the letter to the Colossians is authentic, then Philemon must live in Colossae. As a slave-owner he would have been wealthy by the standards of the early church and this explains why his house was large enough to accommodate church meetings (v. 2). Paul writes on behalf of Onesimus, Philemon's slave. Beyond that, it is not self-evident as to what has transpired. Onesimus is described as having been "separated" from Philemon, once having been "useless" to him (a pun on Onesimus's name, which means "useful"), and having done him wrong.
The dominant scholarly consensus is that Onesimus is a run-away slave who became a Christian believer. Paul now sends him back to face his aggrieved master, and strives in his letter to effect reconciliation between these two Christians. What is more contentious is how Onesimus came to be with Paul. Various suggestions have been given: Onesimus being imprisoned with Paul; Onesimus being brought to Paul by others; Onesimus coming to Paul by chance (or in the Christian view, by divine providence); or Onesimus deliberately seeking Paul out, as a friend of his master's, in order to be reconciled.
There is no way of knowing what happened to Onesimus after the letter. Ignatius of Antioch mentions an Onesimus as Bishop of Ephesus in the early second century. It was suggested by some Bible scholars in the 1950s that these two Onesimuses are one and the same, and further that Onesimus could have been the first to compile the extant letters of Paul, including the letter that gave him his own freedom as an expression of gratitude. This is a pat explanation for why the oblique letter is included in the New Testament alongside letters of much greater theological import, but presently it is only a conjecture.
Titus
The Epistle to Titus is a book of the canonic New Testament, one of the three so-called "pastoral epistles" (with 1 Timothy and 2 Timothy). It is offered as a letter from Paul to the Apostle Titus. Its purpose is to describe the requirements and duties of elders and bishops. Many scholars today consider the pastoral epistles not to have been written by Paul.[1] They may have been written by an anonymous Christian schooled in Paul's doctrine, writing between 90 and 140
The author of Titus identifies himself as "Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ." According to Easton's Bible Dictionary, "Paul's Authorship was undisputed in antiquity, as far as known, but is frequently doubted today. It was probably written about the same time as the First Epistle to Timothy, with which it has many affinities."
Scholars who believe Paul wrote Titus such as Donald Guthrie date its composition from the circumstance that it was written after Paul's visit to Crete (Titus 1:5). That visit could not be the one referred to in the Book of Acts 27:7, when Paul was on his voyage to Rome as a prisoner, and where he continued a prisoner for two years. Thus traditional exegesis supposes that after his release Paul sailed from Rome into Asia, passing Crete by the way, and that there he left Titus "to set in order the things that were wanting." Thence he would have gone to Ephesus, where he left Timothy, and from Ephesus to Macedonia, where he wrote the First Epistle to Timothy, and thence, according to the superscription of this epistle, to Nicopolis in Epirus, from which place he wrote to Titus, about 66 or 67
The Pastoral epistles are regarded by some scholars as being pseudepigraphical. On the basis of the language and content of the pastoral epistles, these scholars today doubt that they were written by Paul, and believe that they were written after his death. Critics examining the text fail to find its vocabulary and literary style similar to Paul's unquestionably authentic letters, fail to fit the life situation of Paul in the epistles into Paul's reconstructed biography, and identify principles of the emerged Christian church rather than those of the apostolic generation.Those scholars who consider Titus to be pseudepigraphical date the epistle from the 80s up to the end of the 2nd century
The author of Titus identifies himself as "Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ." According to Easton's Bible Dictionary, "Paul's Authorship was undisputed in antiquity, as far as known, but is frequently doubted today. It was probably written about the same time as the First Epistle to Timothy, with which it has many affinities."
Scholars who believe Paul wrote Titus such as Donald Guthrie date its composition from the circumstance that it was written after Paul's visit to Crete (Titus 1:5). That visit could not be the one referred to in the Book of Acts 27:7, when Paul was on his voyage to Rome as a prisoner, and where he continued a prisoner for two years. Thus traditional exegesis supposes that after his release Paul sailed from Rome into Asia, passing Crete by the way, and that there he left Titus "to set in order the things that were wanting." Thence he would have gone to Ephesus, where he left Timothy, and from Ephesus to Macedonia, where he wrote the First Epistle to Timothy, and thence, according to the superscription of this epistle, to Nicopolis in Epirus, from which place he wrote to Titus, about 66 or 67
The Pastoral epistles are regarded by some scholars as being pseudepigraphical. On the basis of the language and content of the pastoral epistles, these scholars today doubt that they were written by Paul, and believe that they were written after his death. Critics examining the text fail to find its vocabulary and literary style similar to Paul's unquestionably authentic letters, fail to fit the life situation of Paul in the epistles into Paul's reconstructed biography, and identify principles of the emerged Christian church rather than those of the apostolic generation.Those scholars who consider Titus to be pseudepigraphical date the epistle from the 80s up to the end of the 2nd century
Timothy
The First Epistle to Timothy is one of three letters in New Testament of the Bible often grouped together as the Pastoral Epistles. (The others are Second Timothy and Titus.) The letter, traditionally attributed to Saint Paul, consists mainly of counsels to his younger colleague and delegate Timothy regarding his ministry in Ephesus (1:3). These include instructions on the forms of worship and organization of the Church, the responsibilities resting on its several members, including episcopi (overseers or bishops) and diaconi ("deacons"); and secondly of exhortation to faithfulness in maintaining the truth amid surrounding errors (iv.iff), presented as a prophecy of erring teachers to come.
The genuineness of Pauline authorship was accepted by Church orthodoxy as early as c. 180 AD, as evidenced by the surviving testimony of Irenaeus and the author of the Muratorian fragment. Possible allusions are found in the letters from Clement of Rome to the Corinthians (c. 95), Ignatius of Antioch to the Ephesians (c. 110) and Polycarp to the Philippians (c. 130), though it is difficult to determine the nature of any such literary relationships. Modern scholars who support Pauline authorship nevertheless stress their importance regarding the question of authenticity: I.H. Marshall and P.H. Towner wrote that 'the key witness is Polycarp, where there is a high probability that 1 and 2 Tim were known to him'. Similarly M.W. Holmes argued that it is 'virtually certain or highly probable' that Polycarp used 1 and 2 Timothy
Late in the second century there are a number of quotations from all three Pastoral Epistles in Irenaeus' work Against Heresies. The Muratorian Canon (c. 170-180) lists the books of the NT and ascribes all three Pastoral Epistles to Paul. Eusebius (c. 330) calls it, along with the other thirteen canonical Pauline Epistles, "undisputed"[6], despite the fact that Eusebius wrote in the 300s with little to no knowledge of the complex social structures which line the books of the New Testament. Exceptions to this positive witness include Tatian,,a disciple of Justin Martyr turned heretic, as well as the Gnostic Basilides
Marcion, an orthodox Bishop later excommunicated for heresy, formed a Gnostic canon of Scripture c. 140 around ten of the canonical Pauline epistles, excluding 1-2 Timothy, Titus and Hebrews. The reasons for these exclusions are unknown, and so speculation abounds, including the hypotheses that they were not written until after Marcion's time, or that he knew of them, but regarded them as inauthentic. Proponents of Pauline authorship argue that he had theological grounds for rejecting the Pastorals, namely their teaching about the goodness of creation (cf. 1 Tim 4:1 ff.).The question is indeed curious whether Marcion knew these three letters and rejected them as Tertullian says, since in 1 Timothy 6:20 "false opposing arguments" are referred to, with the word for "opposing arguments" being "antithesis", the name of Marcion's work, and so whether it is a subtle hint of Marcion's heresy. However, the structure of the Church presupposed which is less developed than the one Ignatius presupposes (who wrote c.110), as well as the fact that not only is "antithesis" itself a Greek word which simply means "opposing arguments" but as it has been noted, the attack on the heretics is not central to the three letters
The genuineness of Pauline authorship was accepted by Church orthodoxy as early as c. 180 AD, as evidenced by the surviving testimony of Irenaeus and the author of the Muratorian fragment. Possible allusions are found in the letters from Clement of Rome to the Corinthians (c. 95), Ignatius of Antioch to the Ephesians (c. 110) and Polycarp to the Philippians (c. 130), though it is difficult to determine the nature of any such literary relationships. Modern scholars who support Pauline authorship nevertheless stress their importance regarding the question of authenticity: I.H. Marshall and P.H. Towner wrote that 'the key witness is Polycarp, where there is a high probability that 1 and 2 Tim were known to him'. Similarly M.W. Holmes argued that it is 'virtually certain or highly probable' that Polycarp used 1 and 2 Timothy
Late in the second century there are a number of quotations from all three Pastoral Epistles in Irenaeus' work Against Heresies. The Muratorian Canon (c. 170-180) lists the books of the NT and ascribes all three Pastoral Epistles to Paul. Eusebius (c. 330) calls it, along with the other thirteen canonical Pauline Epistles, "undisputed"[6], despite the fact that Eusebius wrote in the 300s with little to no knowledge of the complex social structures which line the books of the New Testament. Exceptions to this positive witness include Tatian,,a disciple of Justin Martyr turned heretic, as well as the Gnostic Basilides
Marcion, an orthodox Bishop later excommunicated for heresy, formed a Gnostic canon of Scripture c. 140 around ten of the canonical Pauline epistles, excluding 1-2 Timothy, Titus and Hebrews. The reasons for these exclusions are unknown, and so speculation abounds, including the hypotheses that they were not written until after Marcion's time, or that he knew of them, but regarded them as inauthentic. Proponents of Pauline authorship argue that he had theological grounds for rejecting the Pastorals, namely their teaching about the goodness of creation (cf. 1 Tim 4:1 ff.).The question is indeed curious whether Marcion knew these three letters and rejected them as Tertullian says, since in 1 Timothy 6:20 "false opposing arguments" are referred to, with the word for "opposing arguments" being "antithesis", the name of Marcion's work, and so whether it is a subtle hint of Marcion's heresy. However, the structure of the Church presupposed which is less developed than the one Ignatius presupposes (who wrote c.110), as well as the fact that not only is "antithesis" itself a Greek word which simply means "opposing arguments" but as it has been noted, the attack on the heretics is not central to the three letters
Thessalonians
The First Epistle to the Thessalonians, also known as the First Letter to the Thessalonians, is a book from the New Testament of the Christian Bible.
The first letter to the Thessalonians was likely the first of Paul's letters, probably written by the end of A.D. 52[1], making it, so far as is now known, the oldest existant Christian document (almost all scholars hold that the gospels were written over a decade later). The majority of modern scholars believe Paul wrote this letter from Corinth, although information appended to this work in many early manuscripts (e.g. Codices Alexandrinus, Mosquensis, and Angelicus) state that Paul wrote it in Athens[2] after Timothy had returned from Macedonia, with news of the state of the church in Thessalonica (Acts 18:1-5; 1 Thes. 3:6). For the most part, the letter is personal in nature, with only the final two chapters spent addressing issues of doctrine, almost as an aside. Paul's main purpose in writing is to encourage and reassure the Christians there. Paul urges them to go on working quietly while waiting in hope for the return of Christ.
Paul was concerned because of the infancy of the church. He had only spent a few weeks with them before leaving for Athens. In his concern, he sent his delegate, Timothy, to visit the Thessalonians and to return with a report. While, on the whole, the news was encouraging, it also showed that important misunderstandings existed concerning Paul's teaching of Christianity. Paul devotes part of the letter to correcting these errors, and exhorts the Thessalonians to purity of life, reminding them that their sanctification is God's will for their lives.
Paul, as well as his associates Silas and Timothy, gives thanks for the news about their faith and love; he reminds them of the kind of life he had lived while he was with them. Paul stresses how honorably he conducted himself, reminding them that he had worked to earn his keep, taking great pains not to burden anyone. He did this, he says, even though he could have used his status as an apostle to impose upon them.
Paul goes on to answer some concerns which have arisen in the church. Notably, there was some confusion regarding the fate of those who die before the arrival of the new kingdom. Many seem to have believed that an afterlife would only be available to those who lived to see the kingdom. Paul explains that the dead will be resurrected, and dealt with prior to those still living, who will be taken up into the air (see rapture). Thus, he assures, there is no reason to mourn the death of fellow Christians, and to do so is to show a shameful lack of faith.
Unlike all subsequent Pauline epistles, 1 Thessalonians does not focus on justification by faith or questions of Jewish-gentile relations, themes that are covered in all other letters. Many scholars see this as an indication that this letter was written before the Epistle to the Galatians, where Paul formed and identified his positions on these मत्तेर्स.
The first letter to the Thessalonians was likely the first of Paul's letters, probably written by the end of A.D. 52[1], making it, so far as is now known, the oldest existant Christian document (almost all scholars hold that the gospels were written over a decade later). The majority of modern scholars believe Paul wrote this letter from Corinth, although information appended to this work in many early manuscripts (e.g. Codices Alexandrinus, Mosquensis, and Angelicus) state that Paul wrote it in Athens[2] after Timothy had returned from Macedonia, with news of the state of the church in Thessalonica (Acts 18:1-5; 1 Thes. 3:6). For the most part, the letter is personal in nature, with only the final two chapters spent addressing issues of doctrine, almost as an aside. Paul's main purpose in writing is to encourage and reassure the Christians there. Paul urges them to go on working quietly while waiting in hope for the return of Christ.
Paul was concerned because of the infancy of the church. He had only spent a few weeks with them before leaving for Athens. In his concern, he sent his delegate, Timothy, to visit the Thessalonians and to return with a report. While, on the whole, the news was encouraging, it also showed that important misunderstandings existed concerning Paul's teaching of Christianity. Paul devotes part of the letter to correcting these errors, and exhorts the Thessalonians to purity of life, reminding them that their sanctification is God's will for their lives.
Paul, as well as his associates Silas and Timothy, gives thanks for the news about their faith and love; he reminds them of the kind of life he had lived while he was with them. Paul stresses how honorably he conducted himself, reminding them that he had worked to earn his keep, taking great pains not to burden anyone. He did this, he says, even though he could have used his status as an apostle to impose upon them.
Paul goes on to answer some concerns which have arisen in the church. Notably, there was some confusion regarding the fate of those who die before the arrival of the new kingdom. Many seem to have believed that an afterlife would only be available to those who lived to see the kingdom. Paul explains that the dead will be resurrected, and dealt with prior to those still living, who will be taken up into the air (see rapture). Thus, he assures, there is no reason to mourn the death of fellow Christians, and to do so is to show a shameful lack of faith.
Unlike all subsequent Pauline epistles, 1 Thessalonians does not focus on justification by faith or questions of Jewish-gentile relations, themes that are covered in all other letters. Many scholars see this as an indication that this letter was written before the Epistle to the Galatians, where Paul formed and identified his positions on these मत्तेर्स.
Colossians
In the New Testament, Colossians is an epistle written, according the text itself, by Paul the Apostle. The epistle addresses the church in Colossae, a rather insignificant Phrygian city near Ephesus in Asia Minor. Members of the congregation had incorporated pagan elements into their practice, including worship of elemental spirits. Paul declared Christ's supremacy over the entire created universe and exhorted Christians to lead godly lives.
The letter is in two parts, first a doctrinal section, then a second regarding conduct. In both sections, Paul opposes false teachers who have been spreading error in the congregation. In the doctrinal sections, Paul explains that there can be no need to worship anyone or anything but Christ because Christ is supreme over all creation. All things were created through him and for him, and the universe is sustained by him. God had chosen for his complete being to dwell in Christ. The "cosmic powers" revered by the false teachers had been "discarded" and "led captive" at Christ's death. Christ is the master of all angelic forces and the head of the church. Christ is the only mediator between God and humanity, the unique agent of cosmic reconciliation. Further, Paul also denounces the ascetic practices or avoiding certain foods because Christ's death put an end to such distinctions. Believers are one in Christ, not divided between circumcised and uncircumcised, slave and free, and so on. He then calls on his audience to fulfill all domestic and social obligations. The letter ends with customary prayer, instruction, and greetings.
During the first generation after Jesus, Paul's epistles to various churches helped establish early Christian theology. Written in the 60s while Paul was in prison, Colossians is similar to Ephesians, also written at this time. Increasingly, critical scholars ascribe the epistle to an early follower writing as Paul. The epistle's description of Christ as pre-eminent over creation marks it, for some scholars, as representing an advanced christology not present during Paul's lifetime. Defenders of Pauline authorship cite the work's similarities to Philemon, broadly accepted as authentic
The letter is supposed (or intend) to be written by Paul at Rome during his first imprisonment there (Acts 28:16, 30), probably in the spring of AD 57, or, as some scholars think, 62, soon after he had written his Epistle to Ephesians. If the letter is not considered to be an authentic part of the Pauline corpus it might be dated during the late first century, possible as late as the 80's
The letter is in two parts, first a doctrinal section, then a second regarding conduct. In both sections, Paul opposes false teachers who have been spreading error in the congregation. In the doctrinal sections, Paul explains that there can be no need to worship anyone or anything but Christ because Christ is supreme over all creation. All things were created through him and for him, and the universe is sustained by him. God had chosen for his complete being to dwell in Christ. The "cosmic powers" revered by the false teachers had been "discarded" and "led captive" at Christ's death. Christ is the master of all angelic forces and the head of the church. Christ is the only mediator between God and humanity, the unique agent of cosmic reconciliation. Further, Paul also denounces the ascetic practices or avoiding certain foods because Christ's death put an end to such distinctions. Believers are one in Christ, not divided between circumcised and uncircumcised, slave and free, and so on. He then calls on his audience to fulfill all domestic and social obligations. The letter ends with customary prayer, instruction, and greetings.
During the first generation after Jesus, Paul's epistles to various churches helped establish early Christian theology. Written in the 60s while Paul was in prison, Colossians is similar to Ephesians, also written at this time. Increasingly, critical scholars ascribe the epistle to an early follower writing as Paul. The epistle's description of Christ as pre-eminent over creation marks it, for some scholars, as representing an advanced christology not present during Paul's lifetime. Defenders of Pauline authorship cite the work's similarities to Philemon, broadly accepted as authentic
The letter is supposed (or intend) to be written by Paul at Rome during his first imprisonment there (Acts 28:16, 30), probably in the spring of AD 57, or, as some scholars think, 62, soon after he had written his Epistle to Ephesians. If the letter is not considered to be an authentic part of the Pauline corpus it might be dated during the late first century, possible as late as the 80's
Philippians
The Epistle to the Philippians (or simply Philippians) is a book included in the New Testament of the Bible. It is a letter from St. Paul to the church of Philippi. It is one of the authentic Pauline epistles, written c 62
The letter was written to the church at Philippi, one of the earliest churches to be founded in Europe. They were very attached to Paul, just as he was very fond of them. Of all the churches, their contributions (which Paul gratefully acknowledges) are among the only he accepts. (Acts 20:33-35; 2 Cor. 11:7-12; 2 Thess. 3:8). The generosity of the Philippians comes out very conspicuously (Phil. 4:15).
"This was a characteristic of the Macedonian missions, as 2 Cor. 8 and 9 amply and beautifully prove. It is remarkable that the Macedonian converts were, as a class, very poor (2 Cor. 8:2), though the very first converts were of all classes (Acts 16); and the parallel facts, their poverty and their open-handed support of the great missionary and his work, are deeply harmonious. At the present day the missionary liberality of poor Christians is, in proportion, really greater than that of the rich"
The Philippians had sent Epaphroditus, their messenger, with contributions to meet the needs of Paul; and on his return Paul sent this letter with him. With this precious communication Epaphroditus sets out on his homeward journey. "The joy caused by his return, and the effect of this wonderful letter when first read in the church of Philippi, are hidden from us. And we may almost say that with this letter the church itself passes from our view.
To-day, in silent meadows, quiet cattle browse among the ruins which mark the site of what was once the flourishing Roman colony of Philippi, the home of the most attractive church of the apostolic age. But the name and fame and spiritual influence of that church will never pass. To myriads of men and women in every age and nation the letter written in while he was under house arrest in Rome, and carried along the Egnatian Way by an obscure Christian messenger, has been a light divine and a cheerful guide along the most rugged paths of life "
The letter was written to the church at Philippi, one of the earliest churches to be founded in Europe. They were very attached to Paul, just as he was very fond of them. Of all the churches, their contributions (which Paul gratefully acknowledges) are among the only he accepts. (Acts 20:33-35; 2 Cor. 11:7-12; 2 Thess. 3:8). The generosity of the Philippians comes out very conspicuously (Phil. 4:15).
"This was a characteristic of the Macedonian missions, as 2 Cor. 8 and 9 amply and beautifully prove. It is remarkable that the Macedonian converts were, as a class, very poor (2 Cor. 8:2), though the very first converts were of all classes (Acts 16); and the parallel facts, their poverty and their open-handed support of the great missionary and his work, are deeply harmonious. At the present day the missionary liberality of poor Christians is, in proportion, really greater than that of the rich"
The Philippians had sent Epaphroditus, their messenger, with contributions to meet the needs of Paul; and on his return Paul sent this letter with him. With this precious communication Epaphroditus sets out on his homeward journey. "The joy caused by his return, and the effect of this wonderful letter when first read in the church of Philippi, are hidden from us. And we may almost say that with this letter the church itself passes from our view.
To-day, in silent meadows, quiet cattle browse among the ruins which mark the site of what was once the flourishing Roman colony of Philippi, the home of the most attractive church of the apostolic age. But the name and fame and spiritual influence of that church will never pass. To myriads of men and women in every age and nation the letter written in while he was under house arrest in Rome, and carried along the Egnatian Way by an obscure Christian messenger, has been a light divine and a cheerful guide along the most rugged paths of life "
Ephesians
Described by William Barclay as the "Queen of the Epistles", the Epistle to the Ephesians is one of the books of the Bible in the New Testament. Saint Paul is traditionally said to have written the letter while he was in prison in Rome (around 62 A.D.). This would be about the same time as the Epistle to the Colossians (which in many points it resembles) and the Epistle to Philemon. However, some critical scholars have questioned the authorship of the letter, and suggest it may have been written between 80 and 100 AD, or perhaps as late as 170 AD
Paul's first and hurried visit for the space of three months to Ephesus is recorded in Acts 18:19–21. The work he began on this occasion was carried forward by Apollos (24–26) and Aquila and Priscilla. On his second visit early in the following year, he remained at Ephesus "three years," for he found it was the key to the western provinces of Asia Minor. Here "a great door and effectual" was opened to him (1 Cor 16:9), and the church was established and strengthened by his diligent labours there (Acts 20:20, 31). From Ephesus the gospel spread abroad "almost throughout all Asia" (19:26). The word "mightily grew and prevailed" despite all the opposition and persecution he encountered.
On his last journey to Jerusalem, the apostle landed at Miletus and, summoning together the elders of the church from Ephesus, delivered to them a farewell charge (Acts 20:18–35), expecting to see them no more.
The following parallels between this epistle and the Milesian charge may be traced:
1. Acts 20:19 = Eph 4:2. The phrase "lowliness of mind".
2. Acts 20:27 = Eph 1:11. The word "counsel", denoting the divine plan.
3. Acts 20:32 = Eph 3:20. The divine ability.
4. Acts 20:32 = Eph 2:20. The building upon the foundation.
5. Acts 20:32 = Eph 1:14, 18. "The inheritance of the saints
Galatians
The Epistle to the Galatians is a book of the New Testament. It is a letter from Paul of Tarsus to a number of early Christian communities in the Roman province of Galatia in central Anatolia. It is principally concerned with the controversy surrounding Gentile Christians and the Mosaic Law within Early Christianity. Along with the Epistle to the Romans, it is the most theologically significant of the Pauline epistles, and has been particularly influential in Protestant thought.
Galatians was presumably written between the late 40s and early 50s. There are three main theories about when Galatians was written and to whom. The North Galatian view holds that the epistle was written very soon after Paul's second visit to Galatia. The visit to Jerusalem, mentioned in Gal 2:1–10, seems identical with that of Acts 15, or Acts 18:22, and it is spoken of as a thing of the past. Consequently, the epistle seems to have been written after the Council of Jerusalem. The similarity between this epistle and that to the Romans has led to the conclusion that they were both written at the same time, namely, in the winter of AD 57–58, during Paul's stay in Corinth
This letter to the Galatians is written on the urgency of the occasion, tidings having reached him of the state of matters; and that to the Romans in a more deliberate and systematic way, in exposition of the same fundamental doctrines of the gospel. It should be noted that the Gospel of Luke and Acts which is said to be written by the same author as Luke were written much later than Paul's epistles therefore its most likely Paul's description of the Council or Jerusalem in c50 CE was written decades before Luke and Acts so the reference above is backwards. Paul's description of the Council of Jerusalem was written before Acts and is therefore the more accurate.
In Acts (c70-80CE) written later than Galatians , Peter claims that Jesus selected him to minister to the Gentiles which is the opposite of what Paul states in Galatians 2:7 "...they saw that God had given me the task of teaching the Gospel to the Gentiles,just as he gave Peter the task of teaching the Gospel to the Jews". According to Paul Peter was firmly in the camp of those insisting Gentiles must first be circumcised and follow Mosaic Law to the point of having sharp words with Paul Galatians 2:11 "But when Peter came to Antioch I rebuked him in public for he was clearly wrong." In fact when men sent by James, the Just (brother of Jesus and leader of the Jerusalem Jesus Movement) arrived there, Galatians 2:12 "Peter had been eating with the Gentile Believers but when these men arrived, he drew back and would not eat with the Gentiles".
Peter was certainly subservient to James the Just who was the leader of the Jerusalem Jesus Movement in Galatians while in the much later Acts Peter is the one chosen by God to preach to the Gentiles and the protagonist for the Gentiles at the Council of Jerusalem while it Galatians the situation is reversed. Its more likely the later Acts written by the same author as Luke whose works were slanted towards Gentiles was a rewrite to provide the basis for the claim of Peter as the Rock up which the orthodox Christian church was based alone with the invention of Apostolic succession. I was James the Just who succeeded Jesus and was executed by by Anas is c60CE and that until then Peter was one of the Apostles but not the leader of the group. If one must chose between a later autograph accepting as the argument goes above that there is no doubt Paul wrote Galatians then its likely author of Luke and Acts glossed the story to support the position the reapidly evolving Jesus Movement to support the views of those leading the movement (church) at that point.
Galatians was presumably written between the late 40s and early 50s. There are three main theories about when Galatians was written and to whom. The North Galatian view holds that the epistle was written very soon after Paul's second visit to Galatia. The visit to Jerusalem, mentioned in Gal 2:1–10, seems identical with that of Acts 15, or Acts 18:22, and it is spoken of as a thing of the past. Consequently, the epistle seems to have been written after the Council of Jerusalem. The similarity between this epistle and that to the Romans has led to the conclusion that they were both written at the same time, namely, in the winter of AD 57–58, during Paul's stay in Corinth
This letter to the Galatians is written on the urgency of the occasion, tidings having reached him of the state of matters; and that to the Romans in a more deliberate and systematic way, in exposition of the same fundamental doctrines of the gospel. It should be noted that the Gospel of Luke and Acts which is said to be written by the same author as Luke were written much later than Paul's epistles therefore its most likely Paul's description of the Council or Jerusalem in c50 CE was written decades before Luke and Acts so the reference above is backwards. Paul's description of the Council of Jerusalem was written before Acts and is therefore the more accurate.
In Acts (c70-80CE) written later than Galatians , Peter claims that Jesus selected him to minister to the Gentiles which is the opposite of what Paul states in Galatians 2:7 "...they saw that God had given me the task of teaching the Gospel to the Gentiles,just as he gave Peter the task of teaching the Gospel to the Jews". According to Paul Peter was firmly in the camp of those insisting Gentiles must first be circumcised and follow Mosaic Law to the point of having sharp words with Paul Galatians 2:11 "But when Peter came to Antioch I rebuked him in public for he was clearly wrong." In fact when men sent by James, the Just (brother of Jesus and leader of the Jerusalem Jesus Movement) arrived there, Galatians 2:12 "Peter had been eating with the Gentile Believers but when these men arrived, he drew back and would not eat with the Gentiles".
Peter was certainly subservient to James the Just who was the leader of the Jerusalem Jesus Movement in Galatians while in the much later Acts Peter is the one chosen by God to preach to the Gentiles and the protagonist for the Gentiles at the Council of Jerusalem while it Galatians the situation is reversed. Its more likely the later Acts written by the same author as Luke whose works were slanted towards Gentiles was a rewrite to provide the basis for the claim of Peter as the Rock up which the orthodox Christian church was based alone with the invention of Apostolic succession. I was James the Just who succeeded Jesus and was executed by by Anas is c60CE and that until then Peter was one of the Apostles but not the leader of the group. If one must chose between a later autograph accepting as the argument goes above that there is no doubt Paul wrote Galatians then its likely author of Luke and Acts glossed the story to support the position the reapidly evolving Jesus Movement to support the views of those leading the movement (church) at that point.
2 Corinthians
In Paul’s second letter to the Corinthians he again refers to himself as an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God and reassures the people of Corinth will not have another painful visit but what he has to say is not to cause pain but to reassure them the love he has for them. It was shorter in length in comparison to the first and a little confusing if the reader is unaware of the social, religious, and economic situation of the community. Paul felt the situation in Corinth was still complicated and felt attacked. Some challenged his authority as an apostle and compares the level of difficulty to other cities he has visited who had embraced it, like the Galatians. He is criticized for the way he speaks and writes and finds it just to defend himself with some of his important teachings. He states the importance of forgiving others, and God’s new agreement that comes from the Spirit of the living God (2 Cor. 3:3), and the importance of being a person of Christ and giving generously to God’s people in Jerusalem, and ends with his own experience of how God changed his life .
Romans in Paul's life
For ten years before writing the letter (approx. 47-57), Paul had travelled round the territories bordering the Aegean Sea evangelising. Churches had been planted in the Roman provinces of Galatia, Macedonia, Achaia and Asia. Paul, considering his task complete, wanted to preach the gospel in Spain, where he would not ‘build upon another man’s foundation’.[9] This allowed him to visit Rome on the way, an ambition of his for a long time. The letter to the Romans, in part, prepares them and gives reasons for his visit.
In addition to Paul’s geographic location, his religious views are important. First, Paul was a Jew with a Pharisaic background, integral to his identity. His concern for his people is one part of the dialogue and runs throughout the letter.[11] Second, the other side of the dialogue is Paul’s conversion and calling to follow Christ in the early 30s. The resulting evangelistic activity dominated the later years of Paul’s life. The letter therefore interweaves the concerns of Paul the Pharisee and the follower of Christ. Third, Paul’s missionary work caused opposition from Jews and fellow Jewish Christians.
One issue was whether Jewish Christians should continue to carry out laws placed on the covenant people regarding things such as food laws. The disagreement was partly between Paul and the Jerusalem Church, including figures such as Peter and Barnabas. Paul’s upcoming visit to Jerusalem to deliver a collection from the gentiles would therefore help maintain the unity of the Christian movement. The letter to the Romans written during this time includes Paul’s hopes and fears regarding his visit to Jerusalem and the relationship between Gentiles and more traditional Jewish Christians .
In addition to Paul’s geographic location, his religious views are important. First, Paul was a Jew with a Pharisaic background, integral to his identity. His concern for his people is one part of the dialogue and runs throughout the letter.[11] Second, the other side of the dialogue is Paul’s conversion and calling to follow Christ in the early 30s. The resulting evangelistic activity dominated the later years of Paul’s life. The letter therefore interweaves the concerns of Paul the Pharisee and the follower of Christ. Third, Paul’s missionary work caused opposition from Jews and fellow Jewish Christians.
One issue was whether Jewish Christians should continue to carry out laws placed on the covenant people regarding things such as food laws. The disagreement was partly between Paul and the Jerusalem Church, including figures such as Peter and Barnabas. Paul’s upcoming visit to Jerusalem to deliver a collection from the gentiles would therefore help maintain the unity of the Christian movement. The letter to the Romans written during this time includes Paul’s hopes and fears regarding his visit to Jerusalem and the relationship between Gentiles and more traditional Jewish Christians .
Gospel Galatians
The Epistle to the Galatians is a book of the New Testament. It is a letter from Paul of Tarsus to a number of early Christian communities in the Roman province of Galatia in central Anatolia. It is principally concerned with the controversy surrounding Gentile Christians and the Mosaic Law within Early Christianity. Along with the Epistle to the Romans, it is the most theologically significant of the Pauline epistles, and has been particularly influential in Protestant thought.
Galatians was presumably written between the late 40s and early 50s. There are three main theories about when Galatians was written and to whom. The North Galatian view holds that the epistle was written very soon after Paul's second visit to Galatia. The visit to Jerusalem, mentioned in Gal 2:1–10, seems identical with that of Acts 15, or Acts 18:22, and it is spoken of as a thing of the past. Consequently, the epistle seems to have been written after the Council of Jerusalem. The similarity between this epistle and that to the Romans has led to the conclusion that they were both written at the same time, namely, in the winter of AD 57–58, during Paul's stay in Corinth
This letter to the Galatians is written on the urgency of the occasion, tidings having reached him of the state of matters; and that to the Romans in a more deliberate and systematic way, in exposition of the same fundamental doctrines of the gospel. It should be noted that the Gospel of Luke and Acts which is said to be written by the same author as Luke were written much later than Paul's epistles therefore its most likely Paul's description of the Council or Jerusalem in c50 CE was written decades before Luke and Acts so the reference above is backwards. Paul's description of the Council of Jerusalem was written before Acts and is therefore the more accurate.
In Acts (c70-80CE) written later than Galatians , Peter claims that Jesus selected him to minister to the Gentiles which is the opposite of what Paul states in Galatians 2:7 "...they saw that God had given me the task of teaching the Gospel to the Gentiles,just as he gave Peter the task of teaching the Gospel to the Jews". According to Paul Peter was firmly in the camp of those insisting Gentiles must first be circumcised and follow Mosaic Law to the point of having sharp words with Paul Galatians 2:11 "But when Peter came to Antioch I rebuked him in public for he was clearly wrong." In fact when men sent by James, the Just (brother of Jesus and leader of the Jerusalem Jesus Movement) arrived there, Galatians 2:12 "Peter had been eating with the Gentile Believers but when these men arrived, he drew back and would not eat with the Gentiles".
Peter was certainly subservient to James the Just who was the leader of the Jerusalem Jesus Movement in Galatians while in the much later Acts Peter is the one chosen by God to preach to the Gentiles and the protagonist for the Gentiles at the Council of Jerusalem while it Galatians the situation is reversed. Its more likely the later Acts written by the same author as Luke whose works were slanted towards Gentiles was a rewrite to provide the basis for the claim of Peter as the Rock up which the orthodox Christian church was based alone with the invention of Apostolic succession. I was James the Just who succeeded Jesus and was executed by by Anas is c60CE and that until then Peter was one of the Apostles but not the leader of the group. If one must chose between a later autograph accepting as the argument goes above that there is no doubt Paul wrote Galatians then its likely author of Luke and Acts glossed the story to support the position the reapidly evolving Jesus Movement to support the views of those leading the movement (church) at that point.
Galatians was presumably written between the late 40s and early 50s. There are three main theories about when Galatians was written and to whom. The North Galatian view holds that the epistle was written very soon after Paul's second visit to Galatia. The visit to Jerusalem, mentioned in Gal 2:1–10, seems identical with that of Acts 15, or Acts 18:22, and it is spoken of as a thing of the past. Consequently, the epistle seems to have been written after the Council of Jerusalem. The similarity between this epistle and that to the Romans has led to the conclusion that they were both written at the same time, namely, in the winter of AD 57–58, during Paul's stay in Corinth
This letter to the Galatians is written on the urgency of the occasion, tidings having reached him of the state of matters; and that to the Romans in a more deliberate and systematic way, in exposition of the same fundamental doctrines of the gospel. It should be noted that the Gospel of Luke and Acts which is said to be written by the same author as Luke were written much later than Paul's epistles therefore its most likely Paul's description of the Council or Jerusalem in c50 CE was written decades before Luke and Acts so the reference above is backwards. Paul's description of the Council of Jerusalem was written before Acts and is therefore the more accurate.
In Acts (c70-80CE) written later than Galatians , Peter claims that Jesus selected him to minister to the Gentiles which is the opposite of what Paul states in Galatians 2:7 "...they saw that God had given me the task of teaching the Gospel to the Gentiles,just as he gave Peter the task of teaching the Gospel to the Jews". According to Paul Peter was firmly in the camp of those insisting Gentiles must first be circumcised and follow Mosaic Law to the point of having sharp words with Paul Galatians 2:11 "But when Peter came to Antioch I rebuked him in public for he was clearly wrong." In fact when men sent by James, the Just (brother of Jesus and leader of the Jerusalem Jesus Movement) arrived there, Galatians 2:12 "Peter had been eating with the Gentile Believers but when these men arrived, he drew back and would not eat with the Gentiles".
Peter was certainly subservient to James the Just who was the leader of the Jerusalem Jesus Movement in Galatians while in the much later Acts Peter is the one chosen by God to preach to the Gentiles and the protagonist for the Gentiles at the Council of Jerusalem while it Galatians the situation is reversed. Its more likely the later Acts written by the same author as Luke whose works were slanted towards Gentiles was a rewrite to provide the basis for the claim of Peter as the Rock up which the orthodox Christian church was based alone with the invention of Apostolic succession. I was James the Just who succeeded Jesus and was executed by by Anas is c60CE and that until then Peter was one of the Apostles but not the leader of the group. If one must chose between a later autograph accepting as the argument goes above that there is no doubt Paul wrote Galatians then its likely author of Luke and Acts glossed the story to support the position the reapidly evolving Jesus Movement to support the views of those leading the movement (church) at that point.
Romans in Paul's life
For ten years before writing the letter (approx. 47-57), Paul had travelled round the territories bordering the Aegean Sea evangelising. Churches had been planted in the Roman provinces of Galatia, Macedonia, Achaia and Asia. Paul, considering his task complete, wanted to preach the gospel in Spain, where he would not ‘build upon another man’s foundation’.This allowed him to visit Rome on the way, an ambition of his for a long time. The letter to the Romans, in part, prepares them and gives reasons for his visit.
In addition to Paul’s geographic location, his religious views are important. First, Paul was a Jew with a Pharisaic background, integral to his identity. His concern for his people is one part of the dialogue and runs throughout the letterSecond, the other side of the dialogue is Paul’s conversion and calling to follow Christ in the early 30s. The resulting evangelistic activity dominated the later years of Paul’s life. The letter therefore interweaves the concerns of Paul the Pharisee and the follower of Christ. Third, Paul’s missionary work caused opposition from Jews and fellow Jewish Christians.
One issue was whether Jewish Christians should continue to carry out laws placed on the covenant people regarding things such as food laws. The disagreement was partly between Paul and the Jerusalem Church, including figures such as Peter and Barnabas. Paul’s upcoming visit to Jerusalem to deliver a collection from the gentiles would therefore help maintain the unity of the Christian movement. The letter to the Romans written during this time includes Paul’s hopes and fears regarding his visit to Jerusalem and the relationship between Gentiles and more traditional Jewish Christians .
In addition to Paul’s geographic location, his religious views are important. First, Paul was a Jew with a Pharisaic background, integral to his identity. His concern for his people is one part of the dialogue and runs throughout the letterSecond, the other side of the dialogue is Paul’s conversion and calling to follow Christ in the early 30s. The resulting evangelistic activity dominated the later years of Paul’s life. The letter therefore interweaves the concerns of Paul the Pharisee and the follower of Christ. Third, Paul’s missionary work caused opposition from Jews and fellow Jewish Christians.
One issue was whether Jewish Christians should continue to carry out laws placed on the covenant people regarding things such as food laws. The disagreement was partly between Paul and the Jerusalem Church, including figures such as Peter and Barnabas. Paul’s upcoming visit to Jerusalem to deliver a collection from the gentiles would therefore help maintain the unity of the Christian movement. The letter to the Romans written during this time includes Paul’s hopes and fears regarding his visit to Jerusalem and the relationship between Gentiles and more traditional Jewish Christians .
Epistle
The Epistle of St. Paul the Apostle to the Romans is one of the letters of the New Testament canon of the Christian Bible. Often referred to simply as Romans, it is one of the seven currently undisputed letters of Paul. It is even counted among the four letters accepted as authentic by Ferdinand Christian Baur and the Tübingen School of historical criticism of texts in the 19th century.
The book, according to the Jesuit priest, Joseph Fitzmyer, "overwhelms the reader by the density and sublimity of the topic with which it deals, the gospel of the justification and salvation of Jew and Greek alike by the grace of God through faith in Jesus Christ, revealing the uprightness and love of God the father." N. T. Wright notes that Romans is "neither a systematic theology nor a summary of Paul's lifework, but it is by common consent his masterpiece. It dwarfs most of his other writings, an Alpine peak towering over hills and villages. Not all onlookers have viewed it in the same light or from the same angle, and their snapshots and paintings of it are sometimes remarkably unalike. Not all climbers have taken the same route up its sheer sides, and there is frequent disagreement on the best approach. What nobody doubts is that we are here dealing with a work of massive substance, presenting a formidable intellectual challenge while offering a breathtaking theological and spiritual vision.
The book, according to the Jesuit priest, Joseph Fitzmyer, "overwhelms the reader by the density and sublimity of the topic with which it deals, the gospel of the justification and salvation of Jew and Greek alike by the grace of God through faith in Jesus Christ, revealing the uprightness and love of God the father." N. T. Wright notes that Romans is "neither a systematic theology nor a summary of Paul's lifework, but it is by common consent his masterpiece. It dwarfs most of his other writings, an Alpine peak towering over hills and villages. Not all onlookers have viewed it in the same light or from the same angle, and their snapshots and paintings of it are sometimes remarkably unalike. Not all climbers have taken the same route up its sheer sides, and there is frequent disagreement on the best approach. What nobody doubts is that we are here dealing with a work of massive substance, presenting a formidable intellectual challenge while offering a breathtaking theological and spiritual vision.
Emergence of racial theories
While the early descriptions of hair, skin and eye color clearly have implications for defining Jesus' "race", they are not explicit in their desire to ascribe a racial identity to him in the modern sense. By the 19th century, however, theological arguments were increasingly replaced by more secular biological ones, as attempts were made to envisage Jesus in the context of the people and culture of the Middle East.
While some writers stressed his Jewishness, the growth of anti-Semitic racial theory led others, such as Emile Burnouf and Houston Stewart Chamberlain, to argue that he was racially an "Aryan." This led to portrayals of Jesus as a blond Nordic individual, a concept that was taken up by the Nazi ideologue Alfred Rosenberg and by Hitler. Hitler argued that Jesus was of Celtic ancestry, on the grounds that "Galilee was a colony where the Romans had probably installed Gallic legionaries, and it's certain that Jesus was not a Jew." A hypothetical reconstruction of someone from the same time and place of Jesus, created by forensic artist Richard Neave.
In more recent times the fact that the Middle East was a meeting point of cultures and races has led to suggestions that Jesus may have been African or Arabian. The ancient Near East was the primary means of access for traders and travelers seeking to access Africa via the adjoining Levant. Hence, the bordering Roman province Judea (Jesus' home region) witnessed multiple waves of immigrants passing through those primarily Semitic lands. As such, it is conceivable that Jesus' lineage could have borne traces of Arab, Aramean, Berber, Roman, Greek, Black African, Persian or Indian ancestry. The aggressive policy of territorial expansion and forced conversion to Judaism practiced by John Hyrcanus a century before Jesus' birth may also have affected the ethnic make-up of the local Jewish populations.
It is most commonly argued that Jesus was probably of Middle Eastern descent because of the geographic location of the events described in the Gospels, and, among some modern Christian scholars, the genealogy ascribed to him. For this reason, he has been portrayed as an olive-skinned individual typical of the Levant region. A team of forensic scientists recently attempted to recreate what Jesus may have looked like based on human remains from the area where and time period when Jesus is believed to have existed. However, this image does not reveal any specific details about what Jesus looked like; it is intended only to give a view of the typical person living in Jesus' time and place. In the December 2002 edition of Popular Mechanics, Jesus was shown as looking like a typical Galilean Semite. Among the points made was that the Bible records that Jesus' disciple Judas had to point him out to those arresting him. The implied argument being that if Jesus' physical appearance differed that markedly from his disciples, then he would have been relatively easy to identify
While some writers stressed his Jewishness, the growth of anti-Semitic racial theory led others, such as Emile Burnouf and Houston Stewart Chamberlain, to argue that he was racially an "Aryan." This led to portrayals of Jesus as a blond Nordic individual, a concept that was taken up by the Nazi ideologue Alfred Rosenberg and by Hitler. Hitler argued that Jesus was of Celtic ancestry, on the grounds that "Galilee was a colony where the Romans had probably installed Gallic legionaries, and it's certain that Jesus was not a Jew." A hypothetical reconstruction of someone from the same time and place of Jesus, created by forensic artist Richard Neave.
In more recent times the fact that the Middle East was a meeting point of cultures and races has led to suggestions that Jesus may have been African or Arabian. The ancient Near East was the primary means of access for traders and travelers seeking to access Africa via the adjoining Levant. Hence, the bordering Roman province Judea (Jesus' home region) witnessed multiple waves of immigrants passing through those primarily Semitic lands. As such, it is conceivable that Jesus' lineage could have borne traces of Arab, Aramean, Berber, Roman, Greek, Black African, Persian or Indian ancestry. The aggressive policy of territorial expansion and forced conversion to Judaism practiced by John Hyrcanus a century before Jesus' birth may also have affected the ethnic make-up of the local Jewish populations.
It is most commonly argued that Jesus was probably of Middle Eastern descent because of the geographic location of the events described in the Gospels, and, among some modern Christian scholars, the genealogy ascribed to him. For this reason, he has been portrayed as an olive-skinned individual typical of the Levant region. A team of forensic scientists recently attempted to recreate what Jesus may have looked like based on human remains from the area where and time period when Jesus is believed to have existed. However, this image does not reveal any specific details about what Jesus looked like; it is intended only to give a view of the typical person living in Jesus' time and place. In the December 2002 edition of Popular Mechanics, Jesus was shown as looking like a typical Galilean Semite. Among the points made was that the Bible records that Jesus' disciple Judas had to point him out to those arresting him. The implied argument being that if Jesus' physical appearance differed that markedly from his disciples, then he would have been relatively easy to identify
Emergence of racial theories
While the early descriptions of hair, skin and eye color clearly have implications for defining Jesus' "race", they are not explicit in their desire to ascribe a racial identity to him in the modern sense. By the 19th century, however, theological arguments were increasingly replaced by more secular biological ones, as attempts were made to envisage Jesus in the context of the people and culture of the Middle East.
While some writers stressed his Jewishness, the growth of anti-Semitic racial theory led others, such as Emile Burnouf and Houston Stewart Chamberlain, to argue that he was racially an "Aryan." This led to portrayals of Jesus as a blond Nordic individual, a concept that was taken up by the Nazi ideologue Alfred Rosenberg and by Hitler. Hitler argued that Jesus was of Celtic ancestry, on the grounds that "Galilee was a colony where the Romans had probably installed Gallic legionaries, and it's certain that Jesus was not a Jew." A hypothetical reconstruction of someone from the same time and place of Jesus, created by forensic artist Richard Neave.
In more recent times the fact that the Middle East was a meeting point of cultures and races has led to suggestions that Jesus may have been African or Arabian. The ancient Near East was the primary means of access for traders and travelers seeking to access Africa via the adjoining Levant. Hence, the bordering Roman province Judea (Jesus' home region) witnessed multiple waves of immigrants passing through those primarily Semitic lands. As such, it is conceivable that Jesus' lineage could have borne traces of Arab, Aramean, Berber, Roman, Greek, Black African, Persian or Indian ancestry. The aggressive policy of territorial expansion and forced conversion to Judaism practiced by John Hyrcanus a century before Jesus' birth may also have affected the ethnic make-up of the local Jewish populations.
It is most commonly argued that Jesus was probably of Middle Eastern descent because of the geographic location of the events described in the Gospels, and, among some modern Christian scholars, the genealogy ascribed to him. For this reason, he has been portrayed as an olive-skinned individual typical of the Levant region. A team of forensic scientists recently attempted to recreate what Jesus may have looked like based on human remains from the area where and time period when Jesus is believed to have existed. However, this image does not reveal any specific details about what Jesus looked like; it is intended only to give a view of the typical person living in Jesus' time and place. In the December 2002 edition of Popular Mechanics, Jesus was shown as looking like a typical Galilean Semite. Among the points made was that the Bible records that Jesus' disciple Judas had to point him out to those arresting him. The implied argument being that if Jesus' physical appearance differed that markedly from his disciples, then he would have been relatively easy to इदेंतिफ्य.
While some writers stressed his Jewishness, the growth of anti-Semitic racial theory led others, such as Emile Burnouf and Houston Stewart Chamberlain, to argue that he was racially an "Aryan." This led to portrayals of Jesus as a blond Nordic individual, a concept that was taken up by the Nazi ideologue Alfred Rosenberg and by Hitler. Hitler argued that Jesus was of Celtic ancestry, on the grounds that "Galilee was a colony where the Romans had probably installed Gallic legionaries, and it's certain that Jesus was not a Jew." A hypothetical reconstruction of someone from the same time and place of Jesus, created by forensic artist Richard Neave.
In more recent times the fact that the Middle East was a meeting point of cultures and races has led to suggestions that Jesus may have been African or Arabian. The ancient Near East was the primary means of access for traders and travelers seeking to access Africa via the adjoining Levant. Hence, the bordering Roman province Judea (Jesus' home region) witnessed multiple waves of immigrants passing through those primarily Semitic lands. As such, it is conceivable that Jesus' lineage could have borne traces of Arab, Aramean, Berber, Roman, Greek, Black African, Persian or Indian ancestry. The aggressive policy of territorial expansion and forced conversion to Judaism practiced by John Hyrcanus a century before Jesus' birth may also have affected the ethnic make-up of the local Jewish populations.
It is most commonly argued that Jesus was probably of Middle Eastern descent because of the geographic location of the events described in the Gospels, and, among some modern Christian scholars, the genealogy ascribed to him. For this reason, he has been portrayed as an olive-skinned individual typical of the Levant region. A team of forensic scientists recently attempted to recreate what Jesus may have looked like based on human remains from the area where and time period when Jesus is believed to have existed. However, this image does not reveal any specific details about what Jesus looked like; it is intended only to give a view of the typical person living in Jesus' time and place. In the December 2002 edition of Popular Mechanics, Jesus was shown as looking like a typical Galilean Semite. Among the points made was that the Bible records that Jesus' disciple Judas had to point him out to those arresting him. The implied argument being that if Jesus' physical appearance differed that markedly from his disciples, then he would have been relatively easy to इदेंतिफ्य.
Theological debate
Most early theological debate about Jesus' appearance arose from interpretations of Messianic prophecies and on the assumption that his physical form was the result of a miraculous virgin birth and so was determined rather more by divine will than ordinary biology. However, there were complex Christological debates about mechanisms of the divine incarnation into human flesh and about how Jesus may have inherited his mother's characteristics and the lineage of King David (since prophecies stated that the Messiah should be David's descendent).
This debate originated a dispute about the nature of Jesus' physical connection to the Jewish people, an issue that was later expressed in more racialized form.
Following Isaiah 53:2, most early theologians, such as Justin Martyr, insisted that Jesus was physically unprepossessing, with "no beauty that we should desire him." The anti-Christian author Celsus states that he was "short and ugly", an assertion that his Christian opponent Origen does not dispute. Whether these early debates reflect a purely scriptural view or a continuing oral tradition about his actual physique and physiognomy is not known.
In later centuries this early view was reversed. The Church Fathers Saint Jerome and Saint Augustine of Hippo argued that Jesus must have been ideally beautiful in face and body. For Augustine he was "beautiful as a child, beautiful on earth, beautiful in heaven."
This debate originated a dispute about the nature of Jesus' physical connection to the Jewish people, an issue that was later expressed in more racialized form.
Following Isaiah 53:2, most early theologians, such as Justin Martyr, insisted that Jesus was physically unprepossessing, with "no beauty that we should desire him." The anti-Christian author Celsus states that he was "short and ugly", an assertion that his Christian opponent Origen does not dispute. Whether these early debates reflect a purely scriptural view or a continuing oral tradition about his actual physique and physiognomy is not known.
In later centuries this early view was reversed. The Church Fathers Saint Jerome and Saint Augustine of Hippo argued that Jesus must have been ideally beautiful in face and body. For Augustine he was "beautiful as a child, beautiful on earth, beautiful in heaven."
Jesus in the Bible
Contemporary textual evidence on Jesus' life is scarce, and specific descriptions of his appearance even more so. There are no direct references to his appearance during his physical lifetime, though Revelation 1:13–16 describes his features as he appears in his heavenly form, as seen in a vision by John the Divine. These have sometimes been used in modern arguments concerning Jesus' race,
1:13 And in the midst of the seven candlesticks [one] like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.
1:14 His head and [his] hairs [were] white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes [were] as a flame of fire;
1:15 And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.
1:16 And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance [was] as the sun shineth in his strength।The whole of the book of Revelation is generally taken as highly symbolic, and this passage is no exception, especially since the remainder of the description clearly cannot be interpreted as being a natural description. Nonetheless this passage has been used to argue that Jesus was black, based on the description of his hair as being "like wool", which is interpreted to refer to hair that is tightly coiled, as many people of African descent have. However, the full phrase is "white like wool", and it is also compared to snow, complicating this interpretation.
In fact, the phrase "white like wool" is reproduced from the Book of Daniel. It is also comparable to language used in the Apocalypse of Abraham, which describes the angel Yahoel as having a body "like sapphire" a face "like chrysolite" and "the hair of his head like snow".The "feet of fine brass" line has also been used to argue for a dark-skinned race, but many often leave out burnished and glowing. Additionally, the references to having a white "head" and a countenance that is "as the sun shineth" has been used to argue for Jesus being racially white.
However, all of these descriptions are full of vague poetic imagery, seeming more like attempts to glorify the heavenly body of Jesus than to accurately describe his appearance when on earth. There is also debate whether John the Divine, the author of Revelation, was actually John the Apostle, who knew the earthly Jesus, or even if he was John the Evangelist (see authorship of the Johannine works). The relatively late date ascribed to Revelation by modern scholarship leads many scholars to argue that it seems unlikely that someone who had personally seen Jesus in life wrote the देस्क्रिप्शन.
1:13 And in the midst of the seven candlesticks [one] like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.
1:14 His head and [his] hairs [were] white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes [were] as a flame of fire;
1:15 And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.
1:16 And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance [was] as the sun shineth in his strength।The whole of the book of Revelation is generally taken as highly symbolic, and this passage is no exception, especially since the remainder of the description clearly cannot be interpreted as being a natural description. Nonetheless this passage has been used to argue that Jesus was black, based on the description of his hair as being "like wool", which is interpreted to refer to hair that is tightly coiled, as many people of African descent have. However, the full phrase is "white like wool", and it is also compared to snow, complicating this interpretation.
In fact, the phrase "white like wool" is reproduced from the Book of Daniel. It is also comparable to language used in the Apocalypse of Abraham, which describes the angel Yahoel as having a body "like sapphire" a face "like chrysolite" and "the hair of his head like snow".The "feet of fine brass" line has also been used to argue for a dark-skinned race, but many often leave out burnished and glowing. Additionally, the references to having a white "head" and a countenance that is "as the sun shineth" has been used to argue for Jesus being racially white.
However, all of these descriptions are full of vague poetic imagery, seeming more like attempts to glorify the heavenly body of Jesus than to accurately describe his appearance when on earth. There is also debate whether John the Divine, the author of Revelation, was actually John the Apostle, who knew the earthly Jesus, or even if he was John the Evangelist (see authorship of the Johannine works). The relatively late date ascribed to Revelation by modern scholarship leads many scholars to argue that it seems unlikely that someone who had personally seen Jesus in life wrote the देस्क्रिप्शन.
Imputation
The imputation of Christ's active obedience is a doctrine within Reformed theology. It is based on the idea that God's righteousness demands perfect obedience to his law. By his active obedience, Christ has "made available a perfect righteousness before the law that is imputed or reckoned to those who put their trust in him." The Heidelberg Catechism asserts that God grants to the believer "the perfect satisfaction, righteousness and holiness of Christ,"
so that the Christian can say that it is "as if I never had had, nor committed any sin: yea, as if I had fully accomplished all that obedience which Christ has accomplished for me" (Q&A 60). This imputation therefore constitutes the positive element of justification. The imputation of Christ's active obedience has its foundation in the idea of a covenant of works made with Adam, though this has been the subject of debate, since covenantal language is not employed until the Noahic covenant in Genesis 6.
Machen argues that "if Christ had merely paid the penalty of sin for us and done nothing more we should be at best back in the situation in which Adam found himself when God placed him under the covenant of works." As a result of this, our "attainment of eternal life would have been dependent upon our perfect obedience to the law of God," and we would be certain to fall. Machen goes on to say that Christ was "our representative both in penalty paying and in probation keeping," and that for those who have been saved by him, the probation is over since "Christ has merited for them the reward by his perfect obedience to God's law.
so that the Christian can say that it is "as if I never had had, nor committed any sin: yea, as if I had fully accomplished all that obedience which Christ has accomplished for me" (Q&A 60). This imputation therefore constitutes the positive element of justification. The imputation of Christ's active obedience has its foundation in the idea of a covenant of works made with Adam, though this has been the subject of debate, since covenantal language is not employed until the Noahic covenant in Genesis 6.
Machen argues that "if Christ had merely paid the penalty of sin for us and done nothing more we should be at best back in the situation in which Adam found himself when God placed him under the covenant of works." As a result of this, our "attainment of eternal life would have been dependent upon our perfect obedience to the law of God," and we would be certain to fall. Machen goes on to say that Christ was "our representative both in penalty paying and in probation keeping," and that for those who have been saved by him, the probation is over since "Christ has merited for them the reward by his perfect obedience to God's law.
The Hellenistic Period
The Hellenistic period of Jewish history began in 332 BCE when Alexander the Great conquered Persia. Upon his death in 323 BCE, his empire was divided among his generals. At first, Judea was ruled by the Egyptian-Hellenic Ptolemies, but in 198 BCE, the Syrian-Hellenic Seleucid Empire, under Antiochus III, seized control over Judea.
The Near East was cosmopolitan, especially during the Hellenistic period. Several languages were used, and the matter of the lingua franca is still subject of some debate. The Jews almost certainly spoke Aramaic among themselves. Greek was at least to some extent a trade language in the region, and indeed throughout the entire eastern portion of the Mediterranean. Judaism was rapidly changing, reacting and adapting to a larger political, cultural, and intellectual world, and in turn drawing the interests of non-Jews. Historian Shaye Cohen observed:
All the Judaisms of the Hellenistic period, of both the diaspora and the land of Israel, were Hellenized, that is, were integral parts of the culture of the ancient world. Some varieties of Judaism were more hellenized than others, but none was an island unto itself. It is a mistake to imagine that the land of Palestine preserved a "pure" form of Judaism and that the diaspora was the home of adulterated or diluted forms of Judaism. The term "Hellenistic Judaism" makes sense, then, only as a chronological indicator for the period from Alexander the Great to the Macabees or perhaps to the Roman conquests of the first century BCE. As a descriptive term for a certain type of Judaism, however, it is meaningless because all the Judaisms of the Hellenistic period were "Hellenistic." (Cohen 1987: 37)
The Hellenistic Period saw the canonization of the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible), according to some theories, see Development of the Jewish Bible canon for details, and the emergence of extra-Biblical sacred traditions
Prophets
In most ancient Near Eastern societies sacrifice was the primary form of worship, and many such societies also had myths about gods as well as laws which they believed were given to them by gods. The Children of Israel similarly had sacred texts (which would later be redacted into the Torah), which they believed were written by prophets under divine inspiration, or dictated by God himself.
In addition to being lawgivers and social reformers, various prophets also forcefully criticized the king, elites, or the masses and provided visions of a better life (stories about, and writings purportedly by, these prophets were eventually redacted into the Tanakh in the Second Temple Era). In the south (the kingdom of Judah, or Judea), the tradition was epitomized by prophets like Isaiah and Jeremiah, who primarily addressed issues of collective (national or communal) concern. In the north (the kingdom of Israel), it was epitomized by Elijah and Elisha, who healed people and performed other miracles, and who primarily addressed issues of individual (private or personal) concern (Crossan 1992: 137–167). These prophets were a potent political force.
In addition to being lawgivers and social reformers, various prophets also forcefully criticized the king, elites, or the masses and provided visions of a better life (stories about, and writings purportedly by, these prophets were eventually redacted into the Tanakh in the Second Temple Era). In the south (the kingdom of Judah, or Judea), the tradition was epitomized by prophets like Isaiah and Jeremiah, who primarily addressed issues of collective (national or communal) concern. In the north (the kingdom of Israel), it was epitomized by Elijah and Elisha, who healed people and performed other miracles, and who primarily addressed issues of individual (private or personal) concern (Crossan 1992: 137–167). These prophets were a potent political force.
Priests and Kings
The religion of ancient Israel, like those of most ancient Near Eastern societies, centered on a Temple, served by a caste of priests, who sacrificed offerings to their god. Priests (Kohens) claimed descent from Aaron of the tribe of Levi, who was believed to have been appointed by God to care for the Tabernacle and perform the priestly rituals. During the First Temple Era the priests were limited to their work in the Temple; political power officially rested in the hands of a king who was believed to rule by divine right.
In ancient Israel, as in most societies at that time, the priesthood was closely tied with the monarchy. According to the Hebrew Bible, the first Israelite king was Saul, of the tribe of Benjamin, although the tribe of Judah anointed Saul's protegeé and son-in-law, David as their own king after Saul's and his son's death in the battle with the Philistines (1 Samuel 31:2-10; 2 Samuel 2:4). After David reigned over Judah seven years and six months, he became king of all the tribes of Israel (2 Samuel 5:1-5).
Although this kingdom fragmented after the death of David's son Solomon, the dominant narrative in the Hebrew Bible portrays the house of David as the legitimate royal lineage, chosen by God (II Sam 7:11-16). Psalms 2: 7 and 89: 26–27 refer to David as the son of God; most interpret the word "son" in these contexts metaphorically, in accordance with usual ancient Hebrew poetic style, to mean that God loved David and that there would be a descendant of David
who would be as a son to God, either spiritually, or in terms of love, or pleasing to God, rather than literally. Geza Vermes has argued that the term "son of God" was often used to refer to the monarch.Both the Temple and the Davidic Monarchy were destroyed by the Babylonians in 586 BCE, when most Jews were forced into exile.
In ancient Israel, as in most societies at that time, the priesthood was closely tied with the monarchy. According to the Hebrew Bible, the first Israelite king was Saul, of the tribe of Benjamin, although the tribe of Judah anointed Saul's protegeé and son-in-law, David as their own king after Saul's and his son's death in the battle with the Philistines (1 Samuel 31:2-10; 2 Samuel 2:4). After David reigned over Judah seven years and six months, he became king of all the tribes of Israel (2 Samuel 5:1-5).
Although this kingdom fragmented after the death of David's son Solomon, the dominant narrative in the Hebrew Bible portrays the house of David as the legitimate royal lineage, chosen by God (II Sam 7:11-16). Psalms 2: 7 and 89: 26–27 refer to David as the son of God; most interpret the word "son" in these contexts metaphorically, in accordance with usual ancient Hebrew poetic style, to mean that God loved David and that there would be a descendant of David
who would be as a son to God, either spiritually, or in terms of love, or pleasing to God, rather than literally. Geza Vermes has argued that the term "son of God" was often used to refer to the monarch.Both the Temple and the Davidic Monarchy were destroyed by the Babylonians in 586 BCE, when most Jews were forced into exile.
cultural and historical background
Scholars examine the cultural and historical background of Jesus in order to better understand Jesus, his ministry, and the origins of Christianity. This examination treats the New Testament as one of many documents, written and perhaps later edited by people who wanted others to believe as they did, which can be used to piece together a more complete and authentic understanding of the life and times of Jesus and the founding of early Christianity.
The cultural and historical context of Jesus is that of Galilee and Judea (modern day Israel; Palestine; and Jordan) during the first half of the first century.Following the break-down of earlier Jewish kingdoms and a variety of contested rulership claims, various groups held differing political and religious points of view regarding possibilities of a revival of sovereignty — either nationalistic or religious in nature — creating social tension.
By 63 BCE, the partially-Hellenized territory had come under Roman imperial rule as a valued crossroads to trading territories. The Roman Prefect’s first duty to Rome was to maintain order, through his political appointee the High Priest. In general, Roman Judea was peaceful and self-managed, however riots, sporadic rebellions, and violent resistance were an ongoing risk. The conflict between the Jews’ demand for religious independence and Rome's efforts to impose a common system of governance upon its entire empire (including in religious and cultural matters) meant there was a constant underlying tension alongside peaceful governance, with minor outbreaks common. Four decades after Jesus’ death the tensions culminated with the first Jewish-Roman War and the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, which in turn catalysed the final stage in the birth and divergence of Early Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism, see also List of events in early Christianity .
The cultural and historical context of Jesus is that of Galilee and Judea (modern day Israel; Palestine; and Jordan) during the first half of the first century.Following the break-down of earlier Jewish kingdoms and a variety of contested rulership claims, various groups held differing political and religious points of view regarding possibilities of a revival of sovereignty — either nationalistic or religious in nature — creating social tension.
By 63 BCE, the partially-Hellenized territory had come under Roman imperial rule as a valued crossroads to trading territories. The Roman Prefect’s first duty to Rome was to maintain order, through his political appointee the High Priest. In general, Roman Judea was peaceful and self-managed, however riots, sporadic rebellions, and violent resistance were an ongoing risk. The conflict between the Jews’ demand for religious independence and Rome's efforts to impose a common system of governance upon its entire empire (including in religious and cultural matters) meant there was a constant underlying tension alongside peaceful governance, with minor outbreaks common. Four decades after Jesus’ death the tensions culminated with the first Jewish-Roman War and the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, which in turn catalysed the final stage in the birth and divergence of Early Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism, see also List of events in early Christianity .
Active obedience
The active obedience of Jesus Christ (sometimes called his preceptive obedience) comprises the totality of his actions, which Christians believe was in perfect obedience to the Law of God. In Reformed theology, Christ's active obedience is generally believed to be imputed to Christians as part of their justification
In Acts 3:14, Peter calls Jesus "the Holy and Righteous One", while in Acts 10:38 Peter says that Christ "he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him."
According to the Bible, in Hebrews 4:15, Jesus was "without sin". Robert L. Reymond interprets Romans 5:18 (which talks about his "one act of righteousness") as referring to Christ's "entire life work", and the references to Christ being a "servant" as indicating his obedience.
Christ's active obedience (doing what God's law required) is usually distinguished from his passive obedience (suffering for his people), but J. Gresham Machen argues that
Every event of his life was a part of his payment of the penalty of sin, and every event of his life was a part of that glorious keeping of the law of God by which he earned for his people the reward of eternal life. Machen also points out that Jesus was not subject to the law for himself, and that "no obedience was required of him for himself, since he was Lord of all .
In Acts 3:14, Peter calls Jesus "the Holy and Righteous One", while in Acts 10:38 Peter says that Christ "he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him."
According to the Bible, in Hebrews 4:15, Jesus was "without sin". Robert L. Reymond interprets Romans 5:18 (which talks about his "one act of righteousness") as referring to Christ's "entire life work", and the references to Christ being a "servant" as indicating his obedience.
Christ's active obedience (doing what God's law required) is usually distinguished from his passive obedience (suffering for his people), but J. Gresham Machen argues that
Every event of his life was a part of his payment of the penalty of sin, and every event of his life was a part of that glorious keeping of the law of God by which he earned for his people the reward of eternal life. Machen also points out that Jesus was not subject to the law for himself, and that "no obedience was required of him for himself, since he was Lord of all .
Year of death
One of the facts considered by historians to be practically beyond dispute is that Jesus was executed on the orders of the Roman prefect Pontius Pilate. Pilate held this position from 26–36 CE, during which the only years in which Nisan 14 fell on a Friday were 27 CE, 33 CE, 36 CE, and possibly also 30 CE (depending on when the new moon would have been visible in Jerusalem). Different scholars have defended all of these dates. Maximus Monachus, Eusebius, and Cassiodorus recorded the death of Jesus in 31 CE. The 3rd/4th century Roman historian Lactantius states that Jesus was crucified on 11 April 29 CE.
The most commonly cited dates are 7 April 30 CE and 3 April 33 CE. In the Gospel of Luke, it is stated that Jesus was "about 30 years old" when he was baptised by John the Baptist. However, if Jesus' birth was in 6 BCE, then this points to the beginning of the public ministry some time around 26 CE.
Another fact to be considered is Luke's statement that John the Baptist's ministry began in the fifteenth year of the reign of emperor Tiberius (Luke 3:1-2). Tiberius' reign began after Augustus' death on 19 August 14 CE, placing John's appearance in 28 or 29 CE by official Roman reckoning (counting August 14 CE to August 15 CE as the first year), too late for the beginning of Jesus's ministry as calculated above. On the other hand, Tertullian writes in his Adversus Marcionem of a Roman tradition that placed the crucifixion in the twelfth year of Tiberius' rule, i.e. 25 or 26 CE.
Evidence in the Gospel of John points to three separate Passovers during Jesus' ministry, which would tip the scales toward 33 CE. This is strengthened by details of the "reign" of Sejanus in Rome. Sejanus had ordered the suppression of the Jews throughout the empire, and after his death (in 31 CE), Tiberius repealed those laws (in 32 CE). This would fit with the Gospel accounts that seem to indicate that Pilate did not want to crucify Jesus, but was forced into it by the Jewish leaders
The most commonly cited dates are 7 April 30 CE and 3 April 33 CE. In the Gospel of Luke, it is stated that Jesus was "about 30 years old" when he was baptised by John the Baptist. However, if Jesus' birth was in 6 BCE, then this points to the beginning of the public ministry some time around 26 CE.
Another fact to be considered is Luke's statement that John the Baptist's ministry began in the fifteenth year of the reign of emperor Tiberius (Luke 3:1-2). Tiberius' reign began after Augustus' death on 19 August 14 CE, placing John's appearance in 28 or 29 CE by official Roman reckoning (counting August 14 CE to August 15 CE as the first year), too late for the beginning of Jesus's ministry as calculated above. On the other hand, Tertullian writes in his Adversus Marcionem of a Roman tradition that placed the crucifixion in the twelfth year of Tiberius' rule, i.e. 25 or 26 CE.
Evidence in the Gospel of John points to three separate Passovers during Jesus' ministry, which would tip the scales toward 33 CE. This is strengthened by details of the "reign" of Sejanus in Rome. Sejanus had ordered the suppression of the Jews throughout the empire, and after his death (in 31 CE), Tiberius repealed those laws (in 32 CE). This would fit with the Gospel accounts that seem to indicate that Pilate did not want to crucify Jesus, but was forced into it by the Jewish leaders
Day of death
Tradition holds that the Last Supper took place on the first night of Passover, which is defined in the Torah as occurring after the day of the 14th of Nisan (Lev 23:5-6). In the Biblical calendar, a new day begins after sunset, rather than at midnight as in the modern western calendar. However, in order to determine the Gregorian date of Jesus' death, one needs to know the year, because the 15th of Nisan – corresponding to one of the first two full moons after Vernal Equinox – can occur on any date in late March or April in the western calendar.
All Gospels agree that Jesus died and was taken off the cross on the day before the Jewish sabbath (Friday before sunset), around the time of Passover, (the Jewish calendar counts the day as beginning with the evening). However, before the year 500, the calendar was changed yearly to align with astronomical observations. Therefore, it is not possible to state on which day of the week the 14 of Nisan occurred for any year before 500 without historical documents that attest to a particular day of the week.
More precise calculation of Jesus' date of death is complicated by apparent inconsistencies in the reports in the Synoptic Gospels as compared to the Gospel of John. In the Synoptic Gospels, the Last Supper is generally interpreted to be the Passover meal. In this case Passover would have started on Thursday night. This is highly problematic from a historical standpoint — the first day of Passover is a holy day for Jews, during which no work can be performed and many rituals of Shabbat are observed, so many events described by the Gospels (particularly, the trial and the execution) could not have taken place.
According to John, however, the Passover meal was to be eaten on the last evening before Jesus was crucified, so that the Last Supper was eaten on the evening of the 14th of Nisan[16] and the crucifixion was on the 14th during the following daylight, with Jesus dying approximately at the same time that the lambs for the Passover were being slaughtered in Herod's Temple of Jerusalem — around 3 PM ("at the ninth hour"), so that the Jews could celebrate the Passover that evening
All Gospels agree that Jesus died and was taken off the cross on the day before the Jewish sabbath (Friday before sunset), around the time of Passover, (the Jewish calendar counts the day as beginning with the evening). However, before the year 500, the calendar was changed yearly to align with astronomical observations. Therefore, it is not possible to state on which day of the week the 14 of Nisan occurred for any year before 500 without historical documents that attest to a particular day of the week.
More precise calculation of Jesus' date of death is complicated by apparent inconsistencies in the reports in the Synoptic Gospels as compared to the Gospel of John. In the Synoptic Gospels, the Last Supper is generally interpreted to be the Passover meal. In this case Passover would have started on Thursday night. This is highly problematic from a historical standpoint — the first day of Passover is a holy day for Jews, during which no work can be performed and many rituals of Shabbat are observed, so many events described by the Gospels (particularly, the trial and the execution) could not have taken place.
According to John, however, the Passover meal was to be eaten on the last evening before Jesus was crucified, so that the Last Supper was eaten on the evening of the 14th of Nisan[16] and the crucifixion was on the 14th during the following daylight, with Jesus dying approximately at the same time that the lambs for the Passover were being slaughtered in Herod's Temple of Jerusalem — around 3 PM ("at the ninth hour"), so that the Jews could celebrate the Passover that evening
Birth of jesus
Our only sources of information on Jesus' birth are the gospels of Matthew and Luke of the Bible, which provide two different accounts of the nativity. Matthew describes the arrival of the Magi in Bethlehem, when Jesus has already been born. Subsequently, King Herod orders the "Massacre of the Innocents" - the killing of all male children in Bethlehem aged two years and under; the family of Jesus flee to Egypt and return after Herod's death while Jesus is still a child.
This implies that Jesus could have been up to two years old by the time of the massacre, which would have taken place some time, perhaps some years, before the death of Herod in 4 BCE.Luke on the other hand relates the birth to the Census of Quirinius which took place in 6 CE, although also implying that the conception took place during the reign of King Herod.Numerous commentators have attempted to establish the date of birth identify the Star of Bethlehem with some known astronomical or astrological phenomenon.
There are, however, too many possible phenomena to single out one of them with certainty, and none seems to match the Gospel account exactly. Raymond E. Brown, having studied the various astronomical explanations, concluded: "no astronomical record exists of what is described in Matthew". Many scholars regard the star as a literary invention of the author of the Gospel of Matthew, to claim fulfillment of an Old Testament prophecy (Numbers 24:17). Because both Gospel accounts seem to assume that the birth took place some time before the death of Herod, most historians assume that Jesus was probably born around 4 BCE or slightly before.
In the 6th century, Dionysius Exiguus made the birth date of Jesus the basis for his chart of Easter dates. Dionysius' labeled the years since Jesus' birth Anno Domini (meaning "in the year of the Lord" in Latin), which is now abbreviated "AD". Later the abbreviation "BC", which stands for Before Christ was added. Dionysius' estimate is generally thought to be inaccurate; "although scholars generally believe that Christ was born some years before AD 1, the historical evidence is too sketchy to allow a definitive डेटिंग.
This implies that Jesus could have been up to two years old by the time of the massacre, which would have taken place some time, perhaps some years, before the death of Herod in 4 BCE.Luke on the other hand relates the birth to the Census of Quirinius which took place in 6 CE, although also implying that the conception took place during the reign of King Herod.Numerous commentators have attempted to establish the date of birth identify the Star of Bethlehem with some known astronomical or astrological phenomenon.
There are, however, too many possible phenomena to single out one of them with certainty, and none seems to match the Gospel account exactly. Raymond E. Brown, having studied the various astronomical explanations, concluded: "no astronomical record exists of what is described in Matthew". Many scholars regard the star as a literary invention of the author of the Gospel of Matthew, to claim fulfillment of an Old Testament prophecy (Numbers 24:17). Because both Gospel accounts seem to assume that the birth took place some time before the death of Herod, most historians assume that Jesus was probably born around 4 BCE or slightly before.
In the 6th century, Dionysius Exiguus made the birth date of Jesus the basis for his chart of Easter dates. Dionysius' labeled the years since Jesus' birth Anno Domini (meaning "in the year of the Lord" in Latin), which is now abbreviated "AD". Later the abbreviation "BC", which stands for Before Christ was added. Dionysius' estimate is generally thought to be inaccurate; "although scholars generally believe that Christ was born some years before AD 1, the historical evidence is too sketchy to allow a definitive डेटिंग.
Chronology of Jesus
The Chronology of Jesus depicts the attempt to establish a historical chronology for the events of the life of Jesus depicted in the four canonical gospels (which allude to various contradictory dates for several events). Relating those externally known events to the chronology in the gospels themselves produces the following reconstructed chronology.
When correlated with external secular sources, the accounts of the four canonical gospels describe something like the following outline:
Jesus was born either around 6-4 BCE or 6/7 CE;
Jesus was baptised by John the Baptist during John's ministry, which according to Luke 3:1-2 began in the "15th year of Tiberius" (around 28/29 CE,and may have lasted up until CE 32;[2]
Jesus' ministry lasted around one year, according to the Synoptic Gospels, or three years according to the Gospel of John;[3]
Jesus was executed by Pontius Pilate, the governor of Iudaea province between 26 and 36 CE;
Jesus was raised from the dead by God "on the third day", appeared to the disciples and others; and according to Mark 16:19, Luke 24:51, and John 20:17, ascended to heaven.
See Historicity of Jesus and Historical Jesus for an exploration of the factuality of the gospels and the results of attempts to apply historical methodology to understanding the life of Jesus.
Christian healing
Healing is central to the gospel: healing the relationship between God and humankind is the very essence of Christ's work in his life, death, and resurrection.
During his ministry, Jesus healed lepers, blind men, the lame, a hemorraging woman, the demon-possessed, and even raised the dead. Morton Kelsey identifies 41 such instances in his book Healing and Christianity. Jesus involved his disciples in the work of healing; the book of Acts contains accounts of healing by Christ's followers, and the epistles of Paul discuss healing as a gift of the Spirit. For nearly 300 years, physical healing was an integral component of Christian life and faith as a sign of God's love, compassion, and care.
In the 4th century, influenced primarily by Western theologians, Christians began to regard illness as punishment or correction from God rather than a manifestation of evil or a condition contrary to God's perfect will. Spiritual and physical health increasingly became divided and compartmentalized. The grim realities of the Dark Ages, and an attitude in subsequent centuries toward faith as an intellectual rather than experiential exercise, further diminished the ministry of healing in the church. The Reformers continued to view salvation as health for the soul, not the body.
Despite these trends, individual Christians continued to receive healing from God, and history records their testimonies. In the mid-19th century, people began to reaffirm the relationships between mind, emotions, body, and spirit -- between faith and health. Today, while a holistic, integrated view of health emerges in medicine, a renewed church is opening up space for the Holy Spirit to move powerfully in the lives of the faithful in the ministry of healing.
Second Coming
According to the New Testament, he was raised from the dead by God on the third day following his crucifixion and appeared to his disciples; the Acts of the Apostles reports that forty days later he ascended bodily into Heaven and retains since then both of his natures, divine and human. Paul's letters to the Romans, Ephesians and Colossians, as well as the letter to the Hebrews (traditionally attributed to Paul) claim that Jesus presently exercises all authority in heaven and on earth for the sake of the Church, until all of the earth is made subject to his rule through the preaching of the Gospel, see also the Great Commission. Based on the New Testament, Most Christians believe that Jesus will return from heaven at the end of the age, to judge the living and the dead, and fulfill the rest of Messianic prophecy.
In many sects of the Latter Day Saint movement (Mormonism), it is believed that Jesus appeared in the Western Hemisphere after his resurrection and taught some early Americans, whom The Book of Mormon says were of Israelite descent. The New Testament (John 10:16) states: "And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice" and Jesus also states that he was "sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matthew 15:24). It is also believed by some Mormons that, because the Book of Mormon also refers to "other lost sheep," when Christ left America he may have visited other civilizations in different parts of the world, although it is not mentioned where.
In many sects of the Latter Day Saint movement (Mormonism), it is believed that Jesus appeared in the Western Hemisphere after his resurrection and taught some early Americans, whom The Book of Mormon says were of Israelite descent. The New Testament (John 10:16) states: "And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice" and Jesus also states that he was "sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matthew 15:24). It is also believed by some Mormons that, because the Book of Mormon also refers to "other lost sheep," when Christ left America he may have visited other civilizations in different parts of the world, although it is not mentioned where.
Crucifixion interpretations
While hanging on the cross, the Gospel of Mark has Jesus asking, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" Many readers find this theologically perplexing, believing that God left him to die on the cross. According to a common interpretation of the scriptures, God the Father was turning away from Jesus at this time because he was suffering in the place of sinners. Others recognise this as an exact quotation of the first verse of Psalm 22, a common way at the time to refer to an entire Psalm.
That Psalm begins with cries of despair, but ends on a note of hope and trust in God's triumph and deliverance. It also contains several details that have been taken to apply to Jesus' crucifixion, such as the soldiers casting lots for Jesus' garments and leaving his bones unbroken. Still, others of a long-held tradition see Jesus' words as the ultimate climax of Jesus' entering into the human condition; his exclamation here evinces his full experience and solidarity with humanity.
Even the experience of alienation from God. Yet, others consider "why hast thou forsaken me" to be a mistranslation of the original Aramaic: they argue that a better translation is "for this I was kept" or "why hast thou let me to live?." Jesus' final words as recorded in Luke 23:46 were "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit."
John 19:30 describes Jesus' final words as "It is finished" upon his death. Also, the account in John does not mention Jesus asking for the "bitter cup" to be taken away from him while praying in the Garden of Gethsemane the night before (eventually ending his prayer with the words, "nevertheless not my will, but thine be done"), but rather skips this and proceeds directly to Jesus' acceptance of God's will, expounding upon his attitude of surrender (John 18:11). Although, it does include his praying to God to watch over his followers.
That Psalm begins with cries of despair, but ends on a note of hope and trust in God's triumph and deliverance. It also contains several details that have been taken to apply to Jesus' crucifixion, such as the soldiers casting lots for Jesus' garments and leaving his bones unbroken. Still, others of a long-held tradition see Jesus' words as the ultimate climax of Jesus' entering into the human condition; his exclamation here evinces his full experience and solidarity with humanity.
Even the experience of alienation from God. Yet, others consider "why hast thou forsaken me" to be a mistranslation of the original Aramaic: they argue that a better translation is "for this I was kept" or "why hast thou let me to live?." Jesus' final words as recorded in Luke 23:46 were "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit."
John 19:30 describes Jesus' final words as "It is finished" upon his death. Also, the account in John does not mention Jesus asking for the "bitter cup" to be taken away from him while praying in the Garden of Gethsemane the night before (eventually ending his prayer with the words, "nevertheless not my will, but thine be done"), but rather skips this and proceeds directly to Jesus' acceptance of God's will, expounding upon his attitude of surrender (John 18:11). Although, it does include his praying to God to watch over his followers.
message of Jesus
Jesus taught love for God as the foremost responsibility of man and that this love would be demonstrated by obedience to the words of Jesus John 14:15. Some Christians believe his message to have been that universal love is a direct fulfilling of God's will, rather than observing the laws which were contained in the Hebrew Bible, see also Law and Gospel. Others believe that the Gospel message was not revealed to the disciples until after Jesus' resurrection from the dead and that people may obtain salvation through the substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ; these Christians believe that this salvation can be obtained through faith in the atoning sacrifice of resurrection of Jesus from the dead.
Very often, Jesus hid the specificity of his messages through the use of parables. When asked privately by his disciples Matthew 13:10 why he spoke in parables, Jesus told them in Matthew 13:11–16 that it was so those who were not his disciples would not understand. Some Christians believe that this was an act of mercy, because they believe sin and judgment increase with knowledge; by hiding this knowledge in parables, the ignorant remain less sinful.
The early fathers of the church further expanded on his message, and much of the rest of the New Testament is concerned with the meaning of Jesus' death and resurrection with the associated responsibilities of Christian life, along with prophetic revelations that show future circumstances and the final outcome of the current age (i.e., 1 Timothy 4 and The Revelation of John). One idea that has remained constant throughout Christian theology is the idea that humanity was redeemed, saved, or given an opportunity to come to salvation through faith in Jesus' divinity "Jesus died for our sins" is a common Christian aphorism.
While faith in Jesus' divinity and resurrection is sufficient for salvation within most Christian doctrine (John 3:16), good works are certainly expected as evidence of the convert's salvation (Titus 1:16). James 2:18 says Christians are expected to show their faith by their works. Revelations 3:2 asks the reader to "strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die," implying that failure to produce good works might lead to a loss of rewards at the believers' judgment. John 13:15 claims that Jesus' life is an example or role model for followers. In John 14:12 Jesus states that followers who believe in him can do the works that he does and even "greater works." This last scripture has provoked much debate on the role of miracles and healing in current times. See also Antinomianism.
However, the idea of "salvation" has been interpreted in many ways, and a wide spectrum of Christian viewpoints exist and have existed throughout history up to the present day.
Very often, Jesus hid the specificity of his messages through the use of parables. When asked privately by his disciples Matthew 13:10 why he spoke in parables, Jesus told them in Matthew 13:11–16 that it was so those who were not his disciples would not understand. Some Christians believe that this was an act of mercy, because they believe sin and judgment increase with knowledge; by hiding this knowledge in parables, the ignorant remain less sinful.
The early fathers of the church further expanded on his message, and much of the rest of the New Testament is concerned with the meaning of Jesus' death and resurrection with the associated responsibilities of Christian life, along with prophetic revelations that show future circumstances and the final outcome of the current age (i.e., 1 Timothy 4 and The Revelation of John). One idea that has remained constant throughout Christian theology is the idea that humanity was redeemed, saved, or given an opportunity to come to salvation through faith in Jesus' divinity "Jesus died for our sins" is a common Christian aphorism.
While faith in Jesus' divinity and resurrection is sufficient for salvation within most Christian doctrine (John 3:16), good works are certainly expected as evidence of the convert's salvation (Titus 1:16). James 2:18 says Christians are expected to show their faith by their works. Revelations 3:2 asks the reader to "strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die," implying that failure to produce good works might lead to a loss of rewards at the believers' judgment. John 13:15 claims that Jesus' life is an example or role model for followers. In John 14:12 Jesus states that followers who believe in him can do the works that he does and even "greater works." This last scripture has provoked much debate on the role of miracles and healing in current times. See also Antinomianism.
However, the idea of "salvation" has been interpreted in many ways, and a wide spectrum of Christian viewpoints exist and have existed throughout history up to the present day.
Only Son of God
According to the predominant Christian interpretation, the title "Son of God" is understood as an expression of Jesus' divinity and, specifically, his unique divine sonship as the Second Person of the Trinity.
The title is applied often in the Gospels, notably at the Baptism and the Transfiguration (Matthew 3:17, Matthew 17:5). Also significant is the confession of Peter: "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God" (Matthew 16:16). Jesus applies the title "the only Son of God" to himself in John 3:16 and 10:36. John's gospel uses the title as a short formula for expressing his divinity: "We have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth" (John 1:14).
This view is held by virtually all Christians, even most non-Trinitarians, though obviously not by those groups which do not believe that Jesus was divine. These groups, especially Liberal Christians, generally do not accept the theology of the canonical epistles, and reject the historicity of the specific events in the Gospels. Thus, because in the Old Testament the title "a son of God" was given to various creatures (e.g., angels, the children of Israel, Jewish kings, and specifically the promised Messiah), they understand it as nothing more than belief in Jesus' Messiahship.
The title is applied often in the Gospels, notably at the Baptism and the Transfiguration (Matthew 3:17, Matthew 17:5). Also significant is the confession of Peter: "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God" (Matthew 16:16). Jesus applies the title "the only Son of God" to himself in John 3:16 and 10:36. John's gospel uses the title as a short formula for expressing his divinity: "We have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth" (John 1:14).
This view is held by virtually all Christians, even most non-Trinitarians, though obviously not by those groups which do not believe that Jesus was divine. These groups, especially Liberal Christians, generally do not accept the theology of the canonical epistles, and reject the historicity of the specific events in the Gospels. Thus, because in the Old Testament the title "a son of God" was given to various creatures (e.g., angels, the children of Israel, Jewish kings, and specifically the promised Messiah), they understand it as nothing more than belief in Jesus' Messiahship.
Trinity
The Trinity is the doctrine that, in the unity of the One God, there are three divine persons: the Father, Son, and Spirit, distinct from one another yet of one substance. The three persons are co-eternal and uncreated: "the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God." Jesus is understood by Trinitarian Christians to be the person of the Son, eternally begotten by the Father, who came upon earth to deliver to the world.
Such language appears in Matthew 28:19, "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." This was incorporated into baptismal formulae, which also invoked a renunciation of Satan, contrasting the initiate's belief in the One God with the idolatry of polytheistic paganism. This language also appears in early doxologies (Galatians 5:25; Romans 8:9; Hebrews 13:15)[34] The doctrine found full articulation with the Council of Nicaea.
Such language appears in Matthew 28:19, "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." This was incorporated into baptismal formulae, which also invoked a renunciation of Satan, contrasting the initiate's belief in the One God with the idolatry of polytheistic paganism. This language also appears in early doxologies (Galatians 5:25; Romans 8:9; Hebrews 13:15)[34] The doctrine found full articulation with the Council of Nicaea.
Hypostatic
Hypostatic union is a theological term that expresses that Christ is one person (prosopon) who subsists in two natures human and divine; this is therefore related to the doctrine of the Incarnation. The term "hypostasis" means literally "that which lies beneath," and is also referred to as the mystical union. More simply, the doctrine states that Jesus is both fully human and fully divine. Included in this is the doctrine of Dythelitism, i.e., that Christ has two wills, which always act in union. These doctrines were pronounced by the Ecumenical Councils of Ephesus, Chalcedon, and Constantinople.
The term "hypostasis" was used by some Greek philosophers to distinguish reality from appearances, and, before its theological employment by the Council of Nicaea, it was synonymous with "substance" or "being" The subtle theological distinction was fully expressed by the Council of Chalcedon, which declared that the one substance and one person of Christ was in two natures, each perfectly united yet with each retaining its own properties .
Groups that reject either the divinity or humanity of Jesus obviously do not hold the doctrine of hypostatic union. However, some groups hold that Jesus is both man and God, but employ different teachings to explain this relationship. Nestorianism holds that Christ not only has two natures, but that he is two physical persons united morally, but not physically, by means of grace. Monophysitism holds that Jesus has only one nature: either his human nature is wholly absorbed by the divine, or the converse, or that the two are mixed such that a third nature results, which supersedes its constituent human and divine components. Monothelitism holds that, though Christ has two natures, he only has one will. Many of these views found renewed forms in Western Christianity at the time of the Reformation, especially among Adoptionists, Socinians, and Ubiquitarians.
christian view
Christian views of Jesus are derived from various sources, but especially from the canonical Gospels. Christians predominantly hold that these works are historically true. The specifically Catholic view is expressed in the Second Vatican council document, Dei Verbum:
Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute constancy held, and continues to hold, that the four Gospels just named, whose historical character the Church unhesitatingly asserts, faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ, while living among men, really did and taught... The sacred authors wrote the four Gospels, selecting some things from the many which had been handed on by word of mouth or in writing, reducing some of them to a synthesis, explaining some things in view of the situation of their churches and preserving the form of proclamation but always in such fashion that they told us the honest truth about Jesus.
Christians do not limit themselves to merely historical methods, but, because they believe the Bible is inspired by God, employ religious methods as well, such as typology and other forms of exegesis. Similarly, they follow the theological insights, concerning Jesus, of the New Testament epistles.
Furthermore, Catholic and Orthodox Christians develop their views of Jesus from Sacred Tradition, which includes the decrees of Ecumenical Councils, and material from the writings of the Church Fathers. Additionally, a prominent place is given for the teachings of certain theologians, called "Doctors of the Church," known for their orthodoxy, eminent learning, and sanctity. Most Protestant Christians also consider these sources valuable in developing their views of Jesus.
Some ancient texts, known as apocrypha or "secret writing," filled in the silence of the New Testament writings and the Apostolic Fathers on certain matters with often fantastic and picturesque accounts. Other texts had more doctrinal aims, some of which presented teachings condemned by the early Church. Concerning Christian use of these texts for developing views of Jesus, in antiquity Origen expressed the position still predominantly held by Christians today:
We are not unaware that many of these secret writings were produced by wicked men, famous for their iniquity.... We must therefore use caution in accepting all these secret writings that circulate under the name of saints... because some of them were written to destroy the truth of our Scripture and to impose a false teaching. On the other hand, we should not totally reject writings that might be useful in shedding light on the Scripture. It is a sign of a great man to hear and carry out the advice of .
Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute constancy held, and continues to hold, that the four Gospels just named, whose historical character the Church unhesitatingly asserts, faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ, while living among men, really did and taught... The sacred authors wrote the four Gospels, selecting some things from the many which had been handed on by word of mouth or in writing, reducing some of them to a synthesis, explaining some things in view of the situation of their churches and preserving the form of proclamation but always in such fashion that they told us the honest truth about Jesus.
Christians do not limit themselves to merely historical methods, but, because they believe the Bible is inspired by God, employ religious methods as well, such as typology and other forms of exegesis. Similarly, they follow the theological insights, concerning Jesus, of the New Testament epistles.
Furthermore, Catholic and Orthodox Christians develop their views of Jesus from Sacred Tradition, which includes the decrees of Ecumenical Councils, and material from the writings of the Church Fathers. Additionally, a prominent place is given for the teachings of certain theologians, called "Doctors of the Church," known for their orthodoxy, eminent learning, and sanctity. Most Protestant Christians also consider these sources valuable in developing their views of Jesus.
Some ancient texts, known as apocrypha or "secret writing," filled in the silence of the New Testament writings and the Apostolic Fathers on certain matters with often fantastic and picturesque accounts. Other texts had more doctrinal aims, some of which presented teachings condemned by the early Church. Concerning Christian use of these texts for developing views of Jesus, in antiquity Origen expressed the position still predominantly held by Christians today:
We are not unaware that many of these secret writings were produced by wicked men, famous for their iniquity.... We must therefore use caution in accepting all these secret writings that circulate under the name of saints... because some of them were written to destroy the truth of our Scripture and to impose a false teaching. On the other hand, we should not totally reject writings that might be useful in shedding light on the Scripture. It is a sign of a great man to hear and carry out the advice of .
Other views of jesus
Other groups hold different views concerning Jesus' divinity and humanity. Nestorianism teaches that Jesus was two persons, rather than one, rejecting the unity of Jesus' natures, whereas Monophysitism teaches that Jesus had one nature, rather than two.] Neither of these views differ concerning the other points. Docetism, conversely, teaches that Jesus' humanity was merely an illusion, and instead he is understood as purely divine. This view does not teach the incarnation or the mortal death of Jesus by crucifixion, and understands the resurrection in significantly different terms.
Non-trinitarianism does not define God in terms of three divine persons. Some of these groups teach that Jesus is not, or at least was not always, God. Others see Jesus as God, but not distinct from the Father or Spirit, often describing those as merely changes in appearance, or modes of existence. Mormons consider Jesus to be a separate being, united as one with the Father and Spirit only in purpose.
Some Liberal Christians generally consider Jesus to have been an ordinary man only. They generally believe that miraculous and prophetic events in Jesus' life were not historical. They sometimes find a metaphorical meaning in what they consider fictitious accounts of his life. Jesus' relationship with God is described in widely diverse views within this group
Non-trinitarianism does not define God in terms of three divine persons. Some of these groups teach that Jesus is not, or at least was not always, God. Others see Jesus as God, but not distinct from the Father or Spirit, often describing those as merely changes in appearance, or modes of existence. Mormons consider Jesus to be a separate being, united as one with the Father and Spirit only in purpose.
Some Liberal Christians generally consider Jesus to have been an ordinary man only. They generally believe that miraculous and prophetic events in Jesus' life were not historical. They sometimes find a metaphorical meaning in what they consider fictitious accounts of his life. Jesus' relationship with God is described in widely diverse views within this group
Predominant view
Christians predominantly profess that Jesus is the Christ (Matthew 16:16–17; 1 Corinthians 2:8), the only Son of the Living God, the Lord,] and the eternal Word. They profess Jesus to be the second of three divine persons, or hypostases, of the Holy Trinity: Jesus the Son constitutes, together with God the Father and the Holy Spirit, the single substance of the One God.[8] Furthermore, Jesus is defined to be one person with a fully human and fully God, a doctrine known as the Hypostatic union
Christians predominantly profess that Jesus became man in the incarnation, so that those who believe in him might have eternal life. They further hold that he was born of the Virgin Mary by the power of the Holy Spirit in an event described as the miraculous virgin birth. Christians predominantly profess that Jesus is the Messiah (Greek: Christos; English: Christ) prophesied in the Old Testament. In his life Jesus proclaimed the "good news" (Middle English: gospel; Greek: euangelion, ευαγγελιον) that the coming Kingdom of Heaven was at hand, and established the Christian Church, which is the seed of the kingdom, into which Christ calls the poor in spirit.
Jesus' actions at the Last Supper, where he instituted the Eucharist, are understood as central to worship and communion with God. They profess that Jesus suffered death by crucifixion, descended into hell (hades), and rose bodily from the dead in the definitive miracle that foreshadows the resurrection of mankind at the end of time, when Christ will come again to judge the living and the dead, resulting in election to Heaven or damnation to Hell.Christians predominantly profess that, through his life, death, and resurrection, Jesus restored man's communion with God in the blood of the New Covenant. His death on a cross is understood as the redemptive sacrifice: the source of mankind's salvation and the atonement for sin, which had entered human history through the sin of Adam
Christians predominantly profess that Jesus became man in the incarnation, so that those who believe in him might have eternal life. They further hold that he was born of the Virgin Mary by the power of the Holy Spirit in an event described as the miraculous virgin birth. Christians predominantly profess that Jesus is the Messiah (Greek: Christos; English: Christ) prophesied in the Old Testament. In his life Jesus proclaimed the "good news" (Middle English: gospel; Greek: euangelion, ευαγγελιον) that the coming Kingdom of Heaven was at hand, and established the Christian Church, which is the seed of the kingdom, into which Christ calls the poor in spirit.
Jesus' actions at the Last Supper, where he instituted the Eucharist, are understood as central to worship and communion with God. They profess that Jesus suffered death by crucifixion, descended into hell (hades), and rose bodily from the dead in the definitive miracle that foreshadows the resurrection of mankind at the end of time, when Christ will come again to judge the living and the dead, resulting in election to Heaven or damnation to Hell.Christians predominantly profess that, through his life, death, and resurrection, Jesus restored man's communion with God in the blood of the New Covenant. His death on a cross is understood as the redemptive sacrifice: the source of mankind's salvation and the atonement for sin, which had entered human history through the sin of Adam
living god
Christians believe that, as the Messiah, Jesus was anointed as ruler and savior of humanity, and hold that Jesus' first coming was the fulfillment of many messianic prophecies of the Old Testament and that the rest will be fulfilled on his second coming. The Christian concept of the Messiah differs significantly from the contemporary Jewish concept. The core Christian belief is that, through the death and resurrection of Jesus, sinful humans can be reconciled to God and thereby are offered salvation and the promise of eternal life.
While there have been theological disputes over the nature of Jesus, Christians (trinitarians) generally believe that Jesus is God incarnate, God the Son, and "true God and true man" (or both fully divine and fully human). Jesus, having become fully human in all respects, suffered the pains and temptations of a mortal man, yet he did not sin. As fully God, he defeated death and rose to life again. According to the Bible, "God raised him from the dead,"[3] he ascended to heaven, to the "right hand of God,"[ and he will return again[5] to fulfil the rest of Messianic prophecy such as the Resurrection of the dead, the Last Judgment and establishment of the physical Kingdom of God.
According to the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born from the Virgin Mary. Little of Jesus' childhood is recorded in the canonical Gospels, however infancy Gospels were popular in antiquity. In comparison, his adulthood, especially the week before his death, are well documented in the Gospels contained within the New Testament. The Biblical accounts of Jesus' ministry include: his baptism, miracles, preaching, teaching, and deeds.
While there have been theological disputes over the nature of Jesus, Christians (trinitarians) generally believe that Jesus is God incarnate, God the Son, and "true God and true man" (or both fully divine and fully human). Jesus, having become fully human in all respects, suffered the pains and temptations of a mortal man, yet he did not sin. As fully God, he defeated death and rose to life again. According to the Bible, "God raised him from the dead,"[3] he ascended to heaven, to the "right hand of God,"[ and he will return again[5] to fulfil the rest of Messianic prophecy such as the Resurrection of the dead, the Last Judgment and establishment of the physical Kingdom of God.
According to the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born from the Virgin Mary. Little of Jesus' childhood is recorded in the canonical Gospels, however infancy Gospels were popular in antiquity. In comparison, his adulthood, especially the week before his death, are well documented in the Gospels contained within the New Testament. The Biblical accounts of Jesus' ministry include: his baptism, miracles, preaching, teaching, and deeds.
st.Mark
Mark was born Emmanuel in 1392 in Constantinople to George, Chief Justice of the Sakellion and Orthodox deacon, and Maria, the daughter of a devout doctor named Luke. Mark learned how to read and write from his father, who died while Mark and his younger brother John were still children. Maria had Mark continue his education under John Cartasmeno, who later became Metropolitan Ignatius of Selmyria, and a mathematician and philosopher by the name of George Gemistos Plethon
He died peacefully at the age of 52 on June 23, 1444, after an excruciating two week battle with intestinal illness. On his death bed, Mark implored Georgios Scholarios, his former pupil, who later became Patriarch Gennadius of Constantinople, to be careful of the snares of the West and to defend Orthodoxy. According to his brother John, his last words were "Jesus Christ, Son of the Living God, into Thy hands I commit my spirit." Mark was buried in the Mangana Monastery in Constantinople.
The Eugenikos family celebrated each anniversary of Mark’s death with a eulogy consisting of a service (akolouthia) and synaxarion of a short life of Mark. Thanks in large part to Patriarch Gennadius Scholarius, veneration of Mark spread among the Church. In 1734 Patriarch Seraphim of Constantinople presided over the Holy Synod of the Church of Constantinople and solemnly canonized Mark and added six services to the two older ones.
There is an account of a posthumous miracle performed by St. Mark of Ephesus. Doctors gave up on trying to save the life of the terminally ill sister of Demetrios Zourbaios, after their efforts had worsened her condition. After losing consciousness for three days she suddenly woke up to the delight of her brother, who asked her why she woke up drenched in water. She related that a bishop escorted her to a fountain and washed her and told her, "Return now; you no longer have any illness." She asked him who he was and he informed her, "I am the Metropolitan of Ephesus, Mark Eugenikos." After being miraculously healed, she made an icon of St. Mark and lived devoutly for another 15 years.
He died peacefully at the age of 52 on June 23, 1444, after an excruciating two week battle with intestinal illness. On his death bed, Mark implored Georgios Scholarios, his former pupil, who later became Patriarch Gennadius of Constantinople, to be careful of the snares of the West and to defend Orthodoxy. According to his brother John, his last words were "Jesus Christ, Son of the Living God, into Thy hands I commit my spirit." Mark was buried in the Mangana Monastery in Constantinople.
The Eugenikos family celebrated each anniversary of Mark’s death with a eulogy consisting of a service (akolouthia) and synaxarion of a short life of Mark. Thanks in large part to Patriarch Gennadius Scholarius, veneration of Mark spread among the Church. In 1734 Patriarch Seraphim of Constantinople presided over the Holy Synod of the Church of Constantinople and solemnly canonized Mark and added six services to the two older ones.
There is an account of a posthumous miracle performed by St. Mark of Ephesus. Doctors gave up on trying to save the life of the terminally ill sister of Demetrios Zourbaios, after their efforts had worsened her condition. After losing consciousness for three days she suddenly woke up to the delight of her brother, who asked her why she woke up drenched in water. She related that a bishop escorted her to a fountain and washed her and told her, "Return now; you no longer have any illness." She asked him who he was and he informed her, "I am the Metropolitan of Ephesus, Mark Eugenikos." After being miraculously healed, she made an icon of St. Mark and lived devoutly for another 15 years.
Healing
”'Praise is inner health made audible' ”
A Healing House of Prayer contains daily readings for a month, each day covering a different theme. In addition readings for feast days and holy are included with a number devoted to various aspects of healing.
Healing is central to the gospel: healing the relationship between God and humankind is the very essence of Christ's work in his life, death, and resurrection.
During his ministry, Jesus healed lepers, blind men, the lame, a hemorraging woman, the demon-possessed, and even raised the dead. Morton Kelsey identifies 41 such instances in his book Healing and Christianity. Jesus involved his disciples in the work of healing; the book of Acts contains accounts of healing by Christ's followers, and the epistles of Paul discuss healing as a gift of the Spirit. For nearly 300 years, physical healing was an integral component of Christian life and faith as a sign of God's love, compassion, and care.
A Healing House of Prayer contains daily readings for a month, each day covering a different theme. In addition readings for feast days and holy are included with a number devoted to various aspects of healing.
Healing is central to the gospel: healing the relationship between God and humankind is the very essence of Christ's work in his life, death, and resurrection.
During his ministry, Jesus healed lepers, blind men, the lame, a hemorraging woman, the demon-possessed, and even raised the dead. Morton Kelsey identifies 41 such instances in his book Healing and Christianity. Jesus involved his disciples in the work of healing; the book of Acts contains accounts of healing by Christ's followers, and the epistles of Paul discuss healing as a gift of the Spirit. For nearly 300 years, physical healing was an integral component of Christian life and faith as a sign of God's love, compassion, and care.
Intercession
In Christian practice, intercessory prayer is the act of one person praying for or on behalf of another . The prayer intercedes on behalf of the subject, believing that God will answer the prayer accordingly.
intercession has several senses:
Prayer for the Living — As among Protestant Christians, intercession commonly refers to a Christian praying to God on behalf of others. This is common to all Christian traditions, though Protestant teaching normally limits intercessory prayer to that on behalf of the living.
Prayers of the Saints — Intercession may also refer to the Roman Catholic and Orthodox faithful asking members of the Communion of Saints in Heaven to intercede with God on their behalf or that of others. Both Eastern and Western traditions clearly distinguish between the prayer that is offered to the saints ("prayer" means, literally, "to ask"), and the worship that is offered to God alone.
Prayer for the Departed — Among ancient Christian churches, prayer for the departed has been practiced from ancient times.
Among Roman Catholics (both Western and Eastern rites), the faithful may pray (and celebrate Mass or Divine Liturgy) in intercession on behalf of those who are in Purgatory, for their speedy reception into Heaven.
In Eastern Orthodoxy, intercession for the dead is also common, with special services (Panikhidas) and the Divine Liturgy being offered frequently for the departed. However, Orthodox theology has no concept of Purgatory. The Orthodox doctrine of prayer for the departed has been clearly developed, though the Orthodox teach that there are questions which have not yet been answered by divine revelation. The Orthodox accept these as mysteries which will be revealed at the eschaton, and do not normally delve into speculation about them.
Intercession in liturgical Protestant churches is a regular part of the worship service, often spoken by one or more people with the congregation responding, "Hear our prayer." Protestant intercession is usually by the living and for the living, although many Anglo-Catholics and Lutherans share the Roman Catholic belief in the utility of the intercessions of dead saints
In some evangelical, Pentecostal and charismatic churches, the role of "Intercessor" or "Prayer Warrior" is believed to be a spiritual gift or ministry specifically chosen for some by God. The intercessor agrees to take on the burden of another; this kind of prayer is often an intense religious experience.
intercession has several senses:
Prayer for the Living — As among Protestant Christians, intercession commonly refers to a Christian praying to God on behalf of others. This is common to all Christian traditions, though Protestant teaching normally limits intercessory prayer to that on behalf of the living.
Prayers of the Saints — Intercession may also refer to the Roman Catholic and Orthodox faithful asking members of the Communion of Saints in Heaven to intercede with God on their behalf or that of others. Both Eastern and Western traditions clearly distinguish between the prayer that is offered to the saints ("prayer" means, literally, "to ask"), and the worship that is offered to God alone.
Prayer for the Departed — Among ancient Christian churches, prayer for the departed has been practiced from ancient times.
Among Roman Catholics (both Western and Eastern rites), the faithful may pray (and celebrate Mass or Divine Liturgy) in intercession on behalf of those who are in Purgatory, for their speedy reception into Heaven.
In Eastern Orthodoxy, intercession for the dead is also common, with special services (Panikhidas) and the Divine Liturgy being offered frequently for the departed. However, Orthodox theology has no concept of Purgatory. The Orthodox doctrine of prayer for the departed has been clearly developed, though the Orthodox teach that there are questions which have not yet been answered by divine revelation. The Orthodox accept these as mysteries which will be revealed at the eschaton, and do not normally delve into speculation about them.
Intercession in liturgical Protestant churches is a regular part of the worship service, often spoken by one or more people with the congregation responding, "Hear our prayer." Protestant intercession is usually by the living and for the living, although many Anglo-Catholics and Lutherans share the Roman Catholic belief in the utility of the intercessions of dead saints
In some evangelical, Pentecostal and charismatic churches, the role of "Intercessor" or "Prayer Warrior" is believed to be a spiritual gift or ministry specifically chosen for some by God. The intercessor agrees to take on the burden of another; this kind of prayer is often an intense religious experience.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Religious interpretations
he arrangement of the commandments on the two tablets is interpreted in different ways in the classical Jewish tradition. Rabbi Hanina ben Gamaliel says that each tablet contained five commandments, "but the Sages say ten on one tablet and ten on the other". Because the commandments establish a covenant, it is likely that they were duplicated on both tablets. This can be compared to diplomatic treaties of Ancient Egypt, in which a copy was made for each party.
According to the Talmud, the compendium of traditional Rabbinic Jewish law, tradition, and interpretation, the Biblical verse "the tablets were written on both their sides", implies that the carving went through the full thickness of the tablets. The stones in the center part of some letters were not connected to the rest of the tablet, but they did not fall out. Moreover, the writing was also legible from both sides; it was not a mirror image of the text on the other side. The Talmud regards both phenomena as miraculous.
The Torah includes hundreds of commandments (generally enumerated in Rabbinic Judaism as 613 mitzvot), including the ten from the Decalogue. When compared to the whole canon of Jewish law, the Ten Commandments are not given any greater significance in observance or special status. In fact, when undue emphasis was being placed on them, their daily communal recitation was discontinued. Jewish tradition does, however, recognize them as the ideological basis for the rest of the commandments; a number of works (starting with Rabbi Saadia Gaon) have made groupings of the commandments according to their links with the Ten Commandments.
The traditional Rabbinical Jewish belief is that the observance of these commandments and the other mitzvot are required solely of the Jewish people, and that the laws incumbent on humanity in general are outlined in the seven Noahide Laws (several of which overlap with the Ten Commandments). In the era of the Sanhedrin, transgressing any one of six of the Ten Commandments theoretically carried the death penalty.though this was rarely enforced due to a large number of stringent evidentiary requirements imposed by the oral law
According to the Talmud, the compendium of traditional Rabbinic Jewish law, tradition, and interpretation, the Biblical verse "the tablets were written on both their sides", implies that the carving went through the full thickness of the tablets. The stones in the center part of some letters were not connected to the rest of the tablet, but they did not fall out. Moreover, the writing was also legible from both sides; it was not a mirror image of the text on the other side. The Talmud regards both phenomena as miraculous.
The Torah includes hundreds of commandments (generally enumerated in Rabbinic Judaism as 613 mitzvot), including the ten from the Decalogue. When compared to the whole canon of Jewish law, the Ten Commandments are not given any greater significance in observance or special status. In fact, when undue emphasis was being placed on them, their daily communal recitation was discontinued. Jewish tradition does, however, recognize them as the ideological basis for the rest of the commandments; a number of works (starting with Rabbi Saadia Gaon) have made groupings of the commandments according to their links with the Ten Commandments.
The traditional Rabbinical Jewish belief is that the observance of these commandments and the other mitzvot are required solely of the Jewish people, and that the laws incumbent on humanity in general are outlined in the seven Noahide Laws (several of which overlap with the Ten Commandments). In the era of the Sanhedrin, transgressing any one of six of the Ten Commandments theoretically carried the death penalty.though this was rarely enforced due to a large number of stringent evidentiary requirements imposed by the oral law
Ten commanments
1 .I am the Lord your God
2 .You shall have no other gods before me
3 .You shall not make for yourself an idol
4 .You shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God
5 .Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy
6 .Honor your father and mother
7 .You shall not murder*
8 .You shall not commit adultery
9 .You shall not steal***
10 .You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor
11 .You shall not covet your neighbor's wife
12 .You shall not covet anything that belongs to your neighbor
2 .You shall have no other gods before me
3 .You shall not make for yourself an idol
4 .You shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God
5 .Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy
6 .Honor your father and mother
7 .You shall not murder*
8 .You shall not commit adultery
9 .You shall not steal***
10 .You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor
11 .You shall not covet your neighbor's wife
12 .You shall not covet anything that belongs to your neighbor
Holly week
Holly week is defined to be the week leading up to Christmas Day.
In this week it is traditional to cram in as much ringing as possible - fully-unmuffled ringing is preferred, although some religious types have decreed that half-muffled ringing is more suitable as "we are mourning the fact that an event that has already happened has not occured yet..." Special methods such as Holly Surprise Maximus should be rung to peals. If you are unable to achieve these methods then a close substitute is having a member of the band called Holly.
Holly can be wrapped around the sally for an authentic holly week experience. Legend has it that this was the way original ringers were punished for muffling/unmuffling the bells during this most sacred of weeks. In Eastern Orthodox Churches and Eastern Catholic Churches, Holy Week is referred to as "Great and Holy Week". Orthros (Matins) services for each day are held on the preceding evening.
Thus, the Matins service of Great Monday is sung on Palm Sunday evening, and so on. This permits more of the faithful to attend, and shows that during Holy Week the times are out of joint—Matins ends up being served in the evening, and in some places Vespers is served in the morning.Fasting during Great and Holy Week is very strict. Dairy products and meat products are strictly forbidden. On most days, no alcoholic beverages are permitted and no oil is used in the cooking. Friday and Saturday are observed as strict fast days, meaning that nothing should be eaten on those days.
However, fasting is always adjusted to the needs of the individual, and those who are very young, ill or elderly are not expected to fast as strictly. Those who are able to, may receive the blessing of their spiritual father to observe an even stricter fast, whereby they eat only two meals that week: one on Wednesday night and one after Divine Liturgy on Thursday.
The services of Sunday through Tuesday evenings are often called "Bridegroom Prayer", because of their theme of Christ as the Bridegroom of the Church, a theme expressed in the troparion that is solemnly chanted during them. On these days, an icon of the "Bridegroom" is placed on an analogion in the center of the temple, portraying Jesus wearing the purple robe of mockery and crowned with a crown of thorns (see Instruments of the Passion).
In this week it is traditional to cram in as much ringing as possible - fully-unmuffled ringing is preferred, although some religious types have decreed that half-muffled ringing is more suitable as "we are mourning the fact that an event that has already happened has not occured yet..." Special methods such as Holly Surprise Maximus should be rung to peals. If you are unable to achieve these methods then a close substitute is having a member of the band called Holly.
Holly can be wrapped around the sally for an authentic holly week experience. Legend has it that this was the way original ringers were punished for muffling/unmuffling the bells during this most sacred of weeks. In Eastern Orthodox Churches and Eastern Catholic Churches, Holy Week is referred to as "Great and Holy Week". Orthros (Matins) services for each day are held on the preceding evening.
Thus, the Matins service of Great Monday is sung on Palm Sunday evening, and so on. This permits more of the faithful to attend, and shows that during Holy Week the times are out of joint—Matins ends up being served in the evening, and in some places Vespers is served in the morning.Fasting during Great and Holy Week is very strict. Dairy products and meat products are strictly forbidden. On most days, no alcoholic beverages are permitted and no oil is used in the cooking. Friday and Saturday are observed as strict fast days, meaning that nothing should be eaten on those days.
However, fasting is always adjusted to the needs of the individual, and those who are very young, ill or elderly are not expected to fast as strictly. Those who are able to, may receive the blessing of their spiritual father to observe an even stricter fast, whereby they eat only two meals that week: one on Wednesday night and one after Divine Liturgy on Thursday.
The services of Sunday through Tuesday evenings are often called "Bridegroom Prayer", because of their theme of Christ as the Bridegroom of the Church, a theme expressed in the troparion that is solemnly chanted during them. On these days, an icon of the "Bridegroom" is placed on an analogion in the center of the temple, portraying Jesus wearing the purple robe of mockery and crowned with a crown of thorns (see Instruments of the Passion).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
