✝✝Christianity✝✝

It also tells us that faith without works is dead (James 2:14-26). It tells us that the best way to demonstrate our commitment to God is to love others (John 13:35), and to offer a helping hand to those having a hard time in life (James 1:27, Isaiah 56:7).

Adventists believe the actions and words that sum up our behavior can be the best witness there is to the love of Jesus Christ. By claiming Jesus as our savior from sin, we put away the self-focused behavior of the world and replace it with humble Christian behavior that glorifies Him (Colossians 3:1-17).

Fortunately the Bible gives us timeless guidance on what kinds of intentions, behaviors and attitudes are beneficial to us, to others, and to God. To help us apply that guidance, Jesus’ actions during His earthly ministry served as an example for living a Godly life. 

2. Changing water into wine - Miracles of Jesus

4. Healing of the Capernaum demoniac - Miracles of Jesus

11. Healing a withered hand - Miracles of Jesus

16. Raising Jairus' daughter - Miracles of Jesus

28. Healing a demon-possessed boy - Miracles of Jesus

34. Raising of Lazarus - Miracles of Jesus

37. Restoring a severed ear - Miracles of Jesus

38. The resurrection of Jesus - Miracles of Jesus

40. The ascension of Jesus - Miracles of Jesus

31. Healing a woman with an 18-year infirmity - Miracles of Jesus

22. Miraculous healing of many people in Gennesaret

14. Healing the Gerasene man possessed by demons - Miracles of Jesus

10. Healing a paralyzed man - Miracles of Jesus

Here you find an overview of all the miracles of Jesus recorded in the New Testament. He healed the sick, cast our evil spirits and performed other astounding miracles to show both His love for mankind and His power over creation. Study these miracles of Jesus to build your faith, so you can receive your own miracle as well. Jesus Christ has not changed and still does miracles to save and heal us.

The miracles of Jesus Christ show us that God is real, God loves us and God wants to heal and restore us to abundant life. Jesus didn’t only heal a few sick people, the Bible says many times that ALL who came to Him were healed. Huge multitudes of people came to Him, not only from Israel but also from surrounding nations and they brought all their sick to Jesus Christ to be healed. The Gospel of Matthew says several times that ALL were healed – not a lucky few.

Has the question, what are the 7 miracles of Jesus crossed your lips lately and you want to know the 7 miracles Jesus performed in the bible?

At a wedding in Cana, when the wine ran out, Jesus told the servants to fill six stone pots with water and take a cupful to the headwaiter. Putting the cup to his lips, the waiter tasted that Jesus had not only turned the water into wine but the best wine (John 2:1–12 ).

you can call this healing over distance.

Later, a royal official came to Cana to ask Jesus to heal his dying son in Capernaum, about twenty miles away. Without moving, Jesus told him, “‘Go back home. Your son will live!’” (4:50). He healed the boy from a distance.

By the pool of Bethesda, Jesus saw a man who had been disabled for 38 years. The Lord commanded him, “‘Stand up, pick up your mat, and walk!’” (5:8). It didn’t matter that the man had been lame for almost four decades; when Jesus said “walk,” he walked!

When a strong wind stirred up the sea and the terrified disciples strained at the oars to make it to shore, Jesus walked on the water and calmed the storm (6:16–21).

When Lazarus died, his sisters’ hopes died with him. However, Jesus transformed their impossibility into the perfect opportunity to glorify God by bringing Lazarus back to life (11:1–44).

“✝Christianity“✝

Ancient Jews usually had only one name, and, when greater specificity was needed, it was customary to add the father’s name or the place of origin. Thus, in his lifetime Jesus was called Jesus son of Joseph (Luke 4:22; John 1:45, 6:42), Jesus of Nazareth (Acts 10:38), or Jesus the Nazarene (Mark 1:24; Luke 24:19). After his death he came to be called Jesus Christ. Christ was not originally a name but a title derived from the Greek word christos, which translates the Hebrew term meshiah (Messiah), meaning “the anointed one.” This title indicates that Jesus’ followers believed him to be the anointed son of King David, whom some Jews expected to restore the fortunes of Israel. Passages such as Acts of the Apostles 2:36 show that some early Christian writers knew that the Christ was properly a title, but in many passages of the New Testament, including those in the letters of the Apostle Paul, the name and title are combined and used together as Jesus’ name: Jesus Christ or Christ Jesus (Romans 1:1; 3:24). Paul sometimes simply used Christ as Jesus’ name (e.g., Romans 5:6).

Although born in Bethlehem, according to Matthew and Luke, Jesus was a Galilean from Nazareth, a village near Sepphoris, one of the two major cities of Galilee (Tiberias was the other). He was born to Joseph and Mary sometime between 6 BCE and shortly before the death of Herod the Great (Matthew 2; Luke 1:5) in 4 BCE. According to Matthew and Luke, however, Joseph was only legally his father. They report that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was conceived and that she “was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 1:18; cf. Luke 1:35). Joseph is said to have been a carpenter (Matthew 13:55)—that is, a craftsman who worked with his hands—and, according to Mark 6:3, Jesus also became a carpenter.

Luke (2:41–52) states that Jesus as a youth was precociously learned, but there is no other evidence of his childhood or early life. As a young adult, he went to be baptized by the prophet John the Baptist and shortly thereafter became an itinerant preacher and healer (Mark 1:2–28). In his mid-30s Jesus had a short public career, lasting perhaps less than one year, during which he attracted considerable attention. Sometime between 29 and 33 CE—possibly 30 CE—he went to observe Passover in Jerusalem, where his entrance, according to the Gospels, was triumphant and infused with eschatological significance. While there he was arrested, tried, and executed. His disciples became convinced that he rose from the dead and appeared to them. They converted others to belief in him, which eventually led to a new religion, Christianity.

Palestine in Jesus’ day was part of the Roman Empire, which controlled its various territories in a number of ways. In the East (eastern Asia Minor, Syria, Palestine, and Egypt), territories were governed either by kings who were “friends and allies” of Rome (often called “client” kings or, more disparagingly, “puppet” kings) or by governors supported by a Roman army. When Jesus was born, all of Jewish Palestine—as well as some of the neighbouring Gentile areas—was ruled by Rome’s able “friend and ally” Herod the Great. For Rome, Palestine was important not in itself but because it lay between Syria and Egypt, two of Rome’s most valuable possessions. Rome had legions in both countries but not in Palestine. Roman imperial policy required that Palestine be loyal and peaceful so that it did not undermine Rome’s larger interests. That end was achieved for a long time by permitting Herod to remain king of Judaea (37–4 BCE) and allowing him a free hand in governing his kingdom, as long as the requirements of stability and loyalty were met.

When Herod died shortly after Jesus’ birth, his kingdom was divided into five parts. Most of the Gentile areas were separated from the Jewish areas, which were split between two of Herod’s sons, Herod Archelaus, who received Judaea and Idumaea (as well as Samaria, which was non-Jewish), and Herod Antipas, who received Galilee and Peraea. (In the New Testament, Antipas is somewhat confusingly called Herod, as in Luke 23:6–12; apparently the sons of Herod took his name, just as the successors of Julius Caesar were commonly called Caesar.) Both sons were given lesser titles than king: Archelaus was ethnarch, and Antipas was tetrarch. The non-Jewish areas (except Samaria) were assigned to a third son, Philip, to Herod’s sister Salome, or to the province of Syria. The emperor Augustus deposed the unsatisfactory Archelaus in 6 CE, however, and transformed Judaea, Idumaea, and Samaria from a client kingdom into an “imperial province.” Accordingly, he sent a prefect to govern this province. That minor Roman aristocrat (later called a procurator) was supported by a small Roman army of approximately 3,000 men. The soldiers, however, came not from Italy but from nearby Gentile cities, especially Caesarea and Sebaste; presumably, the officers were from Italy. During Jesus’ public career, the Roman prefect was Pontius Pilate (ruled 26–36 CE).

Although nominally in charge of Judaea, Samaria, and Idumaea, the prefect did not govern his area directly. Instead, he relied on local leaders. The prefect and his small army lived in the predominantly Gentile city Caesarea, on the Mediterranean coast, about two days’ march from Jerusalem. They came to Jerusalem only to ensure peace during the pilgrimage festivals—Passover, Weeks (Shabuoth), and Booths (Sukkoth)—when large crowds and patriotic themes sometimes combined to spark unrest or uprisings. On a day-to-day basis Jerusalem was governed by the high priest. Assisted by a council, he had the difficult task of mediating between the remote Roman prefect and the local populace, which was hostile toward pagans and wanted to be free of foreign interference. His political responsibility was to maintain order and to see that tribute was paid. Caiaphas, the high priest during Jesus’ adulthood, held the office from about 18 to 36 CE, longer than anyone else during the Roman period, indicating that he was a successful and reliable diplomat. Since he and Pilate were in power together for 10 years, they must have collaborated successfully.

Thus, at the time of Jesus’ public career, Galilee was governed by the tetrarch Antipas, who was sovereign within his own domain, provided that he remained loyal to Rome and maintained peace and stability within his borders. Judaea (including Jerusalem) was nominally governed by Pilate, but the actual daily rule of Jerusalem was in the hands of Caiaphas and his council.

Galilee and Judaea, the principal Jewish areas of Palestine, were surrounded by Gentile territories (i.e., Caesarea, Dora, and Ptolemais on the Mediterranean coast; Caesarea Philippi north of Galilee; and Hippus and Gadara east of Galilee). There also were two inland Gentile cities on the west side of the Jordan River near Galilee (Scythopolis and Sebaste). The proximity of Gentile and Jewish areas meant that there was some interchange between them, including trade, which explains why Antipas had telōnēs—often translated as “tax collectors” but more accurately rendered as “customs officers”—in the villages on his side of the Sea of Galilee. There also was some exchange of populations: some Jews lived in Gentile cities, such as Scythopolis, and some Gentiles lived in at least one of the Jewish cities, Tiberias. Jewish merchants and traders could probably speak some Greek, but the primary language of Palestinian Jews was Aramaic (a Semitic language closely related to Hebrew). On the other hand, the Jews resisted paganism and excluded temples for the worship of the gods of Greece and Rome from their cities, along with the Greek educational institutions the ephebeia and gymnasion, gladiatorial contests, and other buildings or institutions typical of Gentile areas. Because Jewish-Gentile relations in the land that the Jews considered their own were often uneasy, Jewish areas were usually governed separately from Gentile areas. The reign of Herod the Great was the exception to that rule, but even he treated the Jewish and the Gentile parts of his kingdom differently, fostering Greco-Roman culture in Gentile sectors but introducing only very minor aspects of it in Jewish areas.

In the 1st century Rome showed no interest in making the Jews in Palestine and other parts of the empire conform to common Greco-Roman culture. A series of decrees by Julius Caesar, Augustus, the Roman Senate, and various city councils permitted Jews to keep their own customs, even when they were antithetical to Greco-Roman culture. For example, in respect for Jewish observance of the Sabbath, Rome exempted Jews from conscription in Rome’s armies. Neither did Rome colonize Jewish Palestine. Augustus established colonies elsewhere (in southern France, Spain, North Africa, and Asia Minor), but prior to the First Jewish Revolt (66–74 CE) Rome established no colonies in Jewish Palestine. Few individual Gentiles from abroad would have been attracted to live in Jewish cities, where they would have been cut off from their customary worship and cultural activities. The Gentiles who lived in Tiberias and other Jewish cities were probably natives of nearby Gentile cities, and many were Syrians, who could probably speak both Aramaic and Greek.

Most people in the ancient world produced food, clothing, or both and could afford few luxuries. Most Palestinian Jewish farmers and herdsmen, however, earned enough to support their families, pay their taxes, offer sacrifices during one or more annual festivals, and let their land lie fallow in the sabbatical years, when cultivation was prohibited. Galilee in particular was relatively prosperous, since the land and climate permitted abundant harvests and supported many sheep. Although it is doubtful that Galilee was as affluent in the 1st century as it was during the late Roman and Byzantine periods, archaeological remains from the 3rd, 4th, and 5th centuries nevertheless confirm the plausibility of 1st-century references to the region’s prosperity. There were, of course, landless people, but the Herodian dynasty was careful to organize large public works projects that employed thousands of men. Desperate poverty was present too but never reached a socially dangerous level. At the other end of the economic spectrum, few if any Palestinian Jews had the vast fortunes that successful merchants in port cities could accumulate. However, there were Jewish aristocrats with large estates and grand houses, and the merchants who served the Temple (supplying, for example, incense and fabric) could become very prosperous. The gap between rich and poor in Palestine was obvious and distressing to the poor, but, compared with that of the rest of the world, it was not especially wide.

Most Jews based their faith and practice on the five books of Moses (slightly modified by the passage of time) and rejected the extreme positions of the three parties. The Pharisees were respected for their piety and learning, and they may have exercised substantial influence on belief and practice. The Essenes were a fringe group, and those who lived at Qumran had dropped out of mainstream Judaism. Their interpretation of the Bible led them to reject the priests and the Temple as they existed in Jerusalem, and they looked forward to the time when they could seize control of the Holy City. To the degree that any of these parties had power, however, it belonged to the Sadducees. More precisely, the aristocratic priests and a few prominent laymen had power and authority in Jerusalem; of the aristocrats who belonged to one of the parties, most were Sadducees. According to the Acts of the Apostles (5:17), those who were around the high priest Caiaphas were Sadducees, which recalls the evidence of the Jewish priestly aristocrat, historian, and Pharisee Josephus.

Although the vast majority of Jews did not belong to a party, the study of these parties reveals the substantial variety within the general framework of Judaism. Another indicator of this variety was the diversity of Jewish leaders. Among them were charismatic healers and miracle workers, such as Honi the Circle Drawer and Hanina ben Dosa; hermitlike sages, such as Bannus; eschatological prophets, such as John the Baptist; would-be messianic prophets, such as Theudas and the Egyptian; and apocalyptic visionaries, represented by the pseudepigraphal First Book of Enoch.

Most Jews had some form of future hope. In general, they expected God to intervene in history and to restore Israel to a state of peace, freedom, and prosperity. Not all Jews expected God to send a son of David as messiah to overthrow the Romans, though some did. The Qumran sect believed that there would be a great war against Rome, that the sect would emerge victorious, and that the main blows would be struck by the angel Michael and finally by God himself. Notably, a messiah plays no role in this war of liberation. Some Jews were ready at any moment to take up arms against Rome, thinking that if they started the fight, God would intervene on their side. Others were quietists, hoping for divine deliverance without having a more-specific vision of the future but entirely unwilling to fight. Whatever their specific expectations, very few Palestinian Jews were completely satisfied with the governments of Antipas, Pilate, and Caiaphas. As God’s chosen people, the Jews felt they should be free both of foreign domination and of ambitious worldly leaders.

In the final analysis, variety and commonality are equally important to the understanding of Palestinian Judaism in Jesus’ day. Jews agreed on many basic aspects of their religion and way of life, and they agreed that they did not want to surrender their covenant with God to accept the lure of pagan culture, but, when it came to details, they could disagree with one another violently. Since God cared about every aspect of life, competing groups and leaders often saw themselves as representing the side of God against his adversaries.

They certainly did a number on Peter's as he watched Jesus, the one Peter had seen perform miracles, allow Himself to be bound and arrested. Jesus was supposed to be the King who would deliver the Jewish people from the oppression of the Romans. How could this be happening? Peter didn't realize this was the only way he or anyone else could experience Jesus reigning as King in eternity.

Nearly all scholars agree that Jesus Christ existed. They don't agree on how well the Jesus in the Bible accurately reflects Jesus as a historical figure.[2]

Most Jews believe that Jesus Christ was not the Messiah and did not fulfill Messianic prophecy. They also do not believe that Christ was resurrected or divine.[8]

At the time of Jesus' birth, the town of Nazareth only had about 200–400 people. In the New Testament, the town is a literally joke, as seen in the Bible when someone says, "Can anything good come out of Nazareth?"

Jesus Christ is one of the most controversial figures in history. And one of the complicated things to understand about Jesus is His humanity. Isn’t it hard to imagine Jesus as a human, just like us? We think surely He did not experience what it was really like to grow up, beginning from a baby to the teen and young adult years. We think surely He didn’t struggle with anger, anxiety, or any other pain like we do today. But in reality, He experienced everything we do.

Jesus was not an only child. He actually had siblings. It might be hard to imagine what it was like to be Jesus’ little brother or sister, but Mary and Joseph would go on to have other children after His miraculous birth.

At the age of 12 years, Jesus went missing while traveling with His family. Jesus and His family had traveled to Jerusalem for Passover. After the festival ended, the family packed up and left Jerusalem, except for one family member who stayed behind, Jesus. And it took His family an entire day to realize He went missing! After searching for a few days, they found Him teaching in the temple. It must have been a little scary to lose the Son of God!

Jesus got angry. He even turned over tables in the temple. He did not appreciate people that were taking advantage of others in His Father’s house. It might be surprising that Jesus showed His anger, but it is refreshing to know He gets angry over issues such as injustice, just like you and me.

Jesus had more issues with church leaders than the people in the community. During Jesus' ministry, He extended grace and love to ordinary people, even "sinners." And He had some harsh words for the religious leaders of His time. He didn't like the way they treated the people He loved. It shows us that no matter how many followers or how much power and influence we have, it is important to lead others well because He cares more about how we treat others than how well we keep a set of rules.

Women helped fund Jesus’ ministry. Jesus had an incredible respect for women and even helped a woman who was about to be stoned to death. Not only did Jesus show us how to treat women, but women actually helped fund His ministry. In Luke 8, he talks about women who followed Jesus and His disciples and supported them through their own means.

Jesus struggled when faced with death. We all know Jesus came to sacrifice His life for us, but we forget He was a human who struggled, just like you and me. Upon facing His death in the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus was anxious and prayed that God would take this suffering from Him if possible.

Jesus came to Earth for more than to die on the cross for our sins. He came to experience life as a human so that He can empathize with us. He experienced heartache, rejection, deception, loss, sickness, and death, just like us. God wanted His Son, Jesus, to experience all the heartache of this world, so when we pray, it's not just to the Creator but to the God who understands our pain firsthand. We pray to the God who really hears our prayers, sees our hearts, and feels our pain.

One day, during my childhood, my mother and I were attending daily Mass. During the Gospel reading the priest proclaimed a passage from Matthew which describes the people of Jesus’ hometown reacting to his teachings and miracles, “They asked: Is this not the carpenter’s son? Isn’t His mother’s name Mary, and aren’t His brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas?” (Matthew 13:55). Upon hearing this I was shocked. My mother had taught me that Mary was a perpetual virgin and that Jesus was her only child. This passage appeared to contradict the Catholic Church’s teaching on Mary’s virginity. When the priest finished the Gospel and began to preach his homily, I anxiously waited for him to address this pressing issue. However, much to my dismay, the issue was not mentioned. I ended up setting the question aside to revisit later.

Years later I was directed to another text in the Gospel of St. Matthew. Here, Jesus has just been crucified and Matthew names the women who followed him to his death: “Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee” (Matthew 27:56). Here we see James and Joseph (two of the men called the brothers of Jesus) as the sons of another Mary. If this Mary were the mother of Jesus, it would not make sense for the Gospel writer to identify her as the mother of minor characters and not the main character. Hence, we can suppose that these two men were not Jesus’s blood brothers, and that the New Testament term ‘???????’ (brothers) has a broader usage than ‘children of the same parent.’ It is likely that the so-called brothers of Jesus are actually his cousins. Numerous places in the Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament and the original Greek New Testament explicitly use the term ‘???????’ to describe relationships between people who do not have the same parents (for just a few examples see Genesis 13:8, 1 Chronicles 23:21-22, and Acts 11:1).

The most important passage concerning the perpetual virginity of Mary comes from the Gospel of St. Luke where the angel Gabriel announces to Mary that she will give birth to the “Son of the Most High.” Mary responds by saying “??? ????? ????? ???? ????? ?? ???????” (Luke 1:34) which literally means “How shall this be done, because I know not man?” Her response is bewildering. Mary expresses shock—not at the news that she will give birth to the Messiah, but that she will give birth at all! A woman engaged to a man with whom she will have marital relations does not wonder how she will conceive a child. So why is Mary surprised that she will give birth? The answer is simple. She had previously made a decision not to have sexual relations with a man.

One may understandably find it odd that a woman planning to get married would remain a virgin. Nevertheless, this practice was not alien to the Jews of classical antiquity. As the Catholic scripture scholar Brant Pitre points out, “the ancient collection of Jewish traditions known as the Mishnah (usually dated around 200 AD) contains explicit references to married Jewish men and women taking ‘vows’ to abstain from ordinary marital relations [Ketuboth 7:3-7; Nedarim 11:1-12].” While the life of Mary and the completion of the Mishnah are separated by about 150 years, it is not implausible that Mary and Joseph participated in that same practice. While there is much more that can be said, we can say with confidence that the scriptures indicate Mary’s perpetual virginity.

There are some who claim that Mary had children in addition to Jesus, citing one or more of

the following Scriptural passages:

“...his mother and his brethren were standing without...” (Matthew 12:46)

“Is this not the carpenter, son of Mary, the brother of James and Joseph and Judas

and Simon? Do not his sisters live here near us?” (Mark 6:3)

“For even his own brothers did not believe in him.” (John 7:5)

“...with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers.” (Acts 1:14)

“...and the Lord’s brothers...” (1 Corinthians 9:5)

“But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son.” (Matthew 1:25)

The Church teaches us that Mary was perpetually virgin and this is what we affirm every

time we recite the Confetitor. Why the difference? It comes with the fact that almost 20

centuries have passed since the books of the Bible were written and customs have changed,

along with the fact that some people read into the text’s meanings which were not

intended. First century customs cannot be interpreted with 20th century values.

In the first case, what was the custom for calling someone your “brother,” “sister,” or using

the collective term of “brethren?” In Genesis 14:14, Lot is called Abraham’s “brother” but

Genesis 11:27 tells us that Lot was the son of Aran, Abraham’s brother. This shows that the

terms were used to include cousins, but they were not even limited to close relatives (see

Deuteronomy 23:7 and Jeremiah 34:9 for examples). Why was this? Neither Hebrew nor

Aramaic (the language most likely spoken by Jesus and the apostles) had a special word for

“cousin.” Instead, the words “brother,” “sister,” and “brethren” were commonly used. The

writers of the New Testament, although writing in Greek, were raised in the Hebrew

tradition and kept to this tradition as they were writing primarily to other Jewish

Christians. Acts 2:46 illustrates that these Jewish Christians went to temple in addition to

worshiping together.

Now back to Mark 6:3 where the “brothers” of Jesus are named and consider James and

Joseph. Compare the descriptions of the women at the foot of the cross in Matthew 27:56,

Mark 15:40 and John 19:25. From this we find that Mary the mother of James and Joseph

must be the wife of Cleophas. No one has ever suggested that the Blessed Virgin remarried,

especially since Jesus entrusted her care to John. Similar arguments can be made for the

other “brethren.”

Let’s go on to Matthew 1:25 and find the meaning of “until” (or “till” in some translations).

“He knew her not until she brought forth her first-born son” doesn’t necessarily mean that

Our Savior referred to Himself as the “son of man” over 85 times in the New Testament. This was a direct quotation to the prophecy of Daniel that says, “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed” (Daniel 7:13-14). By referring to Himself with this title, Jesus wanted the Jews to see Him as the One who was given dominion and glory and the kingdom, thus, fulfilling the Messianic prophecies of the Old Testament.

Also, the phrase “son of man” means that Jesus was truly a human being. At the incarnation, the Son of God took upon Himself the form of humanity (John 1:1–4, 12, 14; Philippians 2:7; Hebrews 2:14). And He became the Son of man (Mark 2:10). Thus, He united divinity with humanity by a tie which will never be broken. John the beloved wrote, “By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God” (1 John 4:2). It is a most comforting thought to repentant sinners to know that their representative before the Father is “One like” themselves but without sin (Hebrews 4:15).

Anyone who reads the Gospels understands that one of Jesus’ favorite titles to use of himself is the son of man. Interestingly, the son of man moniker is used 79 times in the Gospels, and once in Acts (7:56), but in each case it is Jesus using the phrase of himself. Nobody calls Jesus the son of man, nor is anyone else called the son of man.

Although there is debate about where the New Testament title son of man comes from, it almost certainly comes from the backdrop of Daniel 7:13-14, where “one like a son of man” comes before the Ancient of Days and is given dominion over the entire world with an everlasting kingdom. Daniel 7, which was understood as Messianic even before the time of Christ (cf. 4 Ezra 13) provides the vocabulary which Jesus could appropriate for himself—indicating He is the Messianic representative of humanity.

This understanding is affirmed by Jesus himself in passages like Mark 14:61-62. In response to the question, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” Jesus states, “I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven” (v. 62). The combination of the son of man title and the description of the clouds of heaven only fits with the Daniel 7:13-14 backdrop. So, the title son of man in the New Testament is best understood as a Messianic reference that Christ claims for himself from the background of Daniel 7.

Naturally, a follow-up question to the preceding observations relates to Ezekiel and the fact that he is called son of man 93 times. In fact, the singular phrase “son of man” (בֶּן־אָדָם), shows up a total of 107 times in the Old Testament. Why would Ezekiel be called son of man, when the New Testament seems to clearly indicate that the phrase as Messianic implications?

First of all, as others have noted, Jesus is referred to as “the Son of Man” (ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου) in the Gospels (the definite article being utilized). However, in contrast, Ezekiel is referred to as a son of man, generically (בֶּן־אָדָם). In Hebrew and Greek, the definite article is used to specify while the absence of the article is usually indicative of quality. So, in the case of Ezekiel and other Old Testament references, the quality of humanity is being stressed.

This point is illustrated well by one of the none-Ezekielian references in Numbers 23:19, “God is not a man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind.” In other words, deity and humanity are being put in contrast here. Son of man could simply be translated as “human being” in this context.

This understanding of the title son of man being an emphasis on humanity fits well with the overall message of Ezekiel. Compared to the divine majesty and transcendent glory of God as displayed in Ezekiel 1, it is an important reminder that Ezekiel is only just a man. He may be a prophet with an important message, but he is always one of them (humans), not comparable to the One he sees in his visions.

After Israel went into exile in 587 BC, the Jewish populace began to speak primarily Aramaic. Although the Hebrew language never died out, the primary usage of the Aramaic language continued among the Jewish population, even into the early first centuries. Because there was such a heavy usage of Aramaic as the lingua franca there was a need for the Jewish people to have access to the Scriptures in Aramaic. Thus, the Targumim (plural of Targum) were written.

The Targumim were Jewish Scriptures translated into the Aramaic language. One of the more famous of these Targumim was Targum Jonathan, a translation of the prophets (Josh–Malachi) sometime in the first two or three centuries AD.

Of interest to our present article, Alinda Damsma observes that the translator of Ezekiel in Targum Jonathan uses a unique translation of the title son of man. Rather than translating the phrase son of man (בֶּן־אָדָם) in Hebrew to the natural Aramaic equivalent (בר אנשׁא), the Ezekiel translation kept אָדָם as a proper name in the translation (בַּר אָדָם). This stands out all the more since in other places in Targum Jonathan, the phrase son of man is translated normally into Aramaic (e.g., Jer 49:33). Damsma argues that the Ezekielian translator was motivated to avoid the Messianic connotations of son of man (בר אנשׁא) as it appears in Daniel 7.

This evidence helps us understand that there was a difference between how Jewish people read Daniel 7 and Ezekiel. One was viewed as Messianic, and the other was viewed as a phrase underscoring the human mortality of Ezekiel in contrast to the divine visions which he had access to.

Here is the passage in Daniel 7… “I kept looking in the night visions, And behold, with the clouds of heaven One like a Son of Man was coming, And He came up to the Ancient of Days And was presented before Him. “And to Him was given dominion, Glory and a kingdom, That all the peoples, nations and men of every language Might serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion Which will not pass away; And His kingdom is one Which will not be destroyed. (Dan 7:13-14)

Notice the direction that the “Son of Man” is traveling. He is traveling UP to the Ancient of Days where He is given a dominion, Glory, and an everlasting kingdom that will never pass away!

This is the exact opposite of how futurists today take Jesus’ reference to Daniel 13. It is viewed as the “Glorious Return” of Christ. My NASB bible even labels it as “The Glorious Return” in Matthew 24.

Only when we go back and look at the passage that Jesus quotes from do we see its true meaning. His coming is not back to us, but rather Jesus is coming home to the Ancient of Days after accomplishing all that the Father had given Him to do. The viewpoint is clearly from the perspective of heaven.

Jesus is now currently ruling and reigning over all things in heaven AND earth. He is King over an Everlasting Kingdom where all the peoples and nations of the earth serve Him. Jesus informed His disciples in Matt 28:18… Ἐδόθη μοι πᾶσα ἐξουσία ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς. (All authority has been given to me in heaven AND on earth). Ἐδόθη is in the aorist passive indicative form meaning that Jesus believes that this had already happened at the time He informed His disciples. Of course, we know from Luke that later the disciples watched Jesus ascend into the clouds of heaven to be seated at the right hand of the Father.

Peter in his sermon at Pentecost in Acts 2 after quoting many Old Testament Messianic passages referring to Christ says this… “Brethren, I may confidently say to you regarding the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. “And so, because he was a prophet and knew that GOD HAD SWORN TO HIM WITH AN OATH TO SEAT one OF HIS DESCENDANTS ON HIS THRONE, he looked ahead and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that HE WAS NEITHER ABANDONED TO HADES, NOR DID His flesh SUFFER DECAY. “This Jesus God raised up again, to which we are all witnesses. “Therefore having been exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He has poured forth this which you both see and hear. “For it was not David who ascended into heaven, but he himself says: ‘THE LORD SAID TO MY LORD, “SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND, UNTIL I MAKE YOUR ENEMIES A FOOTSTOOL FOR YOUR FEET.” ’ “Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ—this Jesus whom you crucified.” (Acts 2: 29-36)

After stating that David was a prophet, Peter says that David looked ahead and spoke of One of his descendants sitting on His throne, speaking of the RESURRECTION and ascension of Christ. It was not David’s throne that Jesus would sit on, the promise was that One of David’s descendants would sit on God’s throne. To which Peter claims to be a witness along with the other disciples

stand upon thy feet] At the sight of the great glory of God the prophet had fallen to the ground (ch. Ezekiel 1:28). He is bidden stand on his feet. Not paralysis before him is desired by God, but reasonable service. The prophet’s falling down was natural, yet a condition unfit for God’s purposes, and not desired by him to continue. Those whom he calls to his service are his fellow-workers, who may look upon his face. It is man erect, man in his manhood, with whom God will have fellowship and with whom he will speak—stand upon thy feet “that I may speak with thee.”

1. Son of man—often applied to Ezekiel; once only to Daniel (Da 8:17), and not to any other prophet. The phrase was no doubt taken from Chaldean usage during the sojourn of Daniel and Ezekiel in Chaldea. But the spirit who sanctioned the words of the prophet implied by it the lowliness and frailty of the prophet as man "lower than the angels," though now admitted to the vision of angels and of God Himself, "lest he should be exalted through the abundance of the revelations" (2Co 12:7). He is appropriately so called as being type of the divine "Son of man" here revealed as "man" (see on [1018]Eze 1:26). That title, as applied to Messiah, implies at once His lowliness and His exaltation, in His manifestations as the Representative man, at His first and second comings respectively (Ps 8:4-8; Mt 16:13; 20:18; and on the other hand, Da 7:13, 14; Mt 26:64; Joh 5:27).Ezekiel’s commission, Ezekiel 2:1-5; his instructions, Ezekiel 2:6-8. The roll of heavy judgments spread before him, Ezekiel 2:9,10.

The ubiquitous vocative expression ‮בן־אדם‬‎ (literally ‘son of man’) in the Book of Ezekiel seems to underscore the prophet’s status as a mere mortal. In contrast to the other ancient versions, Targum Jonathan to the Prophets interprets the word ‮אדם‬‎ as a proper noun, and renders the phrase accordingly as ‮בר אדם‬‎ ‘son of Adam’. This translation runs counter to the Targum’s conventional practice of rendering ‮בן־אדם‬‎ with ‮בר אנש(א)‬‎. In the absence of a satisfactory grammatical explanation for the divergent rendering, this article examines the possibility that the Targumist’s eschewal of ‮בר אנשא‬‎ was motivated by doctrinal concerns. On the strength of the findings it is argued that ‮בר אדם‬‎ was a clever and subtle alternative for ‮בר אנשא‬‎ because, depending on the context, the latter phrase could evoke associations with the Danielic Son of Man figure and the Son of Man Christology.

❤️️✝Christianity✝❤️️

During the early years of Christianity, many of the church leaders or "Fathers" wrote down admonishments and instruction on what it meant to be a follower of Jesus as well as what liturgical ceremonies should be followed as a believer in these early Christian communities. One of these apostolic fathers, whose identity is unknown, wrote such a document entitled, The Teaching of the (Twelve) Apostles, or as it is commonly referred to today—The Didache.

This document, composed sometime between 70 and 150 CE in Syria or Egypt, presents to its readers a message of instruction regarding liturgy, personal behavior, and eschatological application and belief. The liturgical or common ceremonial practices of the church are thoroughly detailed in this document as are the admonishments towards individual holiness in specific and common circumstances. In the end, The Didache eventually synthesizes these two factors (public manner versus personal integrity) and shows their connection and grand purposes.

The influence and importance of this document to its original readers and even to modern-day Christian believers is impressive. The Didache presents a clear and concise advice on dealing with the pragmatic constructs of the Christian church. However, it still cleverly and successfully melds the functionality of Christianity with its spiritual side. Johannes Quasten, in his Patrology series states, "Scholars, constantly drawn to its precious contents, have gained repeated inspiration and enlightenment from this little book" (30). Kurt Niederwimmer, in The Didache: A Commentary on the Didache writes, "The whole composition is unpretentious as literature, nourished by praxis and intended for immediate application" (3). Furthermore, in The Apostolic Fathers, it proclaims that the Didache is "one of the most fascinating yet perplexing documents to emerge from the early church" (Lightfoot and Harmer, 145).

Thus, the importance of The Didache should not be dismissed merely because of its size or exclusion from the Scriptures. Like many other theological works written at the time, its usage was at times questioned, and a general opinion of it emerged as it being non–canonical. Theologian and monk Tyrannius Rufinus (340–410 CE) specifically makes reference to The Didache and said that it would have been "read in the Churches, but not appealed to for the confirmation of doctrine" (Schaff, 558). Athanasius of Alexandria (296–373 CE) states that this document was "appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness" (Schaff, 552). Eusebius Pamphilus, in his Ecclesiastical History, also speaks of The Didache as not being in the Canon of scripture. As such, it provides to the modern-day reader an understanding of the influence this work had on the early church despite its lack of canonical authority. It also shows that Christianity, like the Jewish faith, had its own unique ceremonies of religious value.

The Didache provides direction on the public worship in the church and furnishes to its reader clear examples of how certain ceremonial activities are to be handled. For instance, its 4th chapter refers to daily prayer and states, "In church you shall confess your transgressions, and you shall not approach your prayer with an evil conscience" (Lightfoot and Harmer, 152). This gives to the reader a pragmatic but still personal call to prayer. Communication with God is important, but a pure heart is quintessential. Later on in its 8th chapter, the reader is urged to pray three times a day as Jesus did in Matthew 6:9-13. Again, this prayer should come from a clean heart free from hypocrisy.

The New Testament contains four gospels attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The four gospels are not biographies of Jesus, nor are they history as we define it. What each gospel attempted to do was write a theological explanation for the events in the life of Jesus of Nazareth. By narrating his life, his ministry, and his death, the gospels argued that these events should be interpreted in relation to the history of Israel.

The word 'gospel' derives from the Anglo-Saxon for 'good news', and the writers are deemed 'evangelists' from the Greek euangelistes (bringer of good news). In this context, the 'good news' is the message of the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth that the kingdom of God foretold by the prophets of Israel was imminent.

Second Coming, also called Second Advent or Parousia, in Christianity, the future return of Christ in glory, when it is understood that he will set up his kingdom, judge his enemies, and reward the faithful, living and dead. Early Christians believed the Advent to be imminent (see millennium), and most Christian theologians since then have believed that the visible appearance of Jesus may occur at any moment and that Christians should be ever ready for it. Such believers find evidence for the Second Coming in the Gospels (Matthew 24–25; Mark 13; Luke 21:5–26; John 14:25–29), in the Book of Revelation, and in other biblical and traditional sources. See also Last Judgment.

The doctrine of the Second Coming of Jesus Christ is clarified by the Book of Mormon. It is a great testament of Jesus’ return. It contains prophecies about the last days, and it presents a history that in many ways is similar to our own. Its writers saw our time and wrote for our needs as they preserved the record of a people who experienced the coming of Christ. The Book of Mormon makes clear that with an understanding of the Second Coming and a knowledge of how to prepare for it, we can look forward to the event with anticipation and hope.

The Book of Mormon makes a profound contribution to our understanding of gospel doctrine. As Elder Bruce R. McConkie noted, “Almost all of the doctrines of the gospel are taught in the Book of Mormon with much greater clarity and perfection than those same doctrines are revealed in the Bible. Anyone who will place in parallel columns the teachings of these two great books on such subjects as the atonement, plan of salvation, gathering of Israel, baptism, gifts of the Spirit, miracles, revelation, faith, charity, (or any of a hundred other subjects), will find conclusive proof of the superiority of Book of Mormon teachings.

This is certainly true regarding the Second Coming of Jesus Christ to the earth in the latter days. The Book of Mormon clarifies the doctrine of the Second Coming in at least four ways: first, it contains specific prophecies about the last days preceding the Second Coming; second, recorded history in the Nephite record is a type of our day—our modern history echoes Book of Mormon history; third, the prophet-writers of the Book of Mormon saw our day in vision and spoke about modern events; and fourth, the Book of Mormon contains a record of a people who experienced a prophesied coming of the risen Christ. Their experience is in many ways a shadow of things to come.

With so much valuable information about the Second Coming and instructions about how to prepare for that great event, the Book of Mormon truly is a priceless possession in the hands of Latter-day Saints. It is “one of the most significant gifts given to the world in modern times. . . . [It was] prepared by the hand of the Lord over a period of more than a thousand years, then hidden up by Him so that it would be preserved in its purity for our generation.” [2]

The Restoration of the Gospel. In 1 Nephi 14, Nephi is shown a vision of the growth of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the opposition God’s restored kingdom would face in the latter days. He is shown the restoration of the gospel to the earth (14:7, 10). He sees that in proportion to the growth of the Church, wickedness would spread across all nations (14:11), and that as a result, the members of the Church, though few in number, would be “upon all the face of the earth” (14:12). Nephi also saw that the wicked would come against the Saints (14:13), but that the power of God would descend upon the “covenant people of the Lord,” and they would be “armed with righteousness and with the power of God in great glory” (14:14). The wrath of God would then be poured out on the wicked, and nothing would prevent the Father from fulfilling his covenants “which he hath made to his people who are the house of Israel” (14:15–17). The restoration prophesied by Nephi hasalready taken place. It is real, and its work is growing to fulfill its destiny.

The Ministry of the Prophet Joseph Smith. The Book of Mormon contains a prophecy recorded by Joseph who was sold into Egypt. He foresaw that one of his descendants would be a “choice seer” (2 Ne. 3:6). This seer would be “esteemed highly,” because through him the Father would “do a work . . . of great worth” that would restore a “knowledge of the covenants” God made with the ancient prophets (3:7). This seer would be “like unto Moses” (3:9). He would gather Israel and bring forth another record, which would “grow together” with the Bible to establish peace and bear witness of Jesus Christ (3:11–12). Like Joseph sold into Egypt, this choice seer’s name would be Joseph, as would his father’s (3:15).

The Savior also prophesied about Joseph Smith, telling the Nephites about the “great and marvelous work” the latter-day prophet would do, and how he would suffer persecution but have power to bring forth the Book of Mormon (3 Ne. 21:9–11).

Isaiah also foresaw the Prophet Joseph’s role in translating the Book of Mormon (2 Ne. 27:9, 15–20). Both Isaiah and Moroni described the calling of the three witnesses who, with Joseph Smith, would be privileged to see and bear witness of the angel Moroni and the Book of Mormon plates (see 2 Ne. 27:12–13; Ether 5:1–4).

Joseph Smith’s life, mission, and even his name were known long before he was born. Imagine how humbling it must have been for him to be reading these prophecies as he translated the Book of Mormon.

The Coming Forth of the Book of Mormon. 2 Nephi 27 describes the events of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon. It clarifies Isaiah 29, showing its fulfillment in the latter days. Isaiah saw that an apostasy from truth would cover the earth (2 Ne. 27:5), and that the Book of Mormon would contain the words of a fallen nation that would help end the long night of darkness (27:6, 29–30). He saw that a portion of the record would be sealed (27:7–8), that Joseph Smith would receive the record(27:9), and that Martin Harris would deliver a copy of some of the words from the book to the learned professor Charles Anthon, who, when hearing that part of it was sealed, would say, “I cannot read a sealed book” (27:15–18; JS-H 1:63–65). Isaiah also understood that Joseph Smith would not be “learned” but would be given power from God to translate the record. The translation would be a miraculous event, part of the Lord’s “marvelous work and a wonder” (2 Ne. 27:26). The speed with which the Prophet Joseph Smith translated the record was a miracle. The quantity of his work is impressive, but so also is the quality. It is obvious that the Book of Mormon came through, not from, Joseph Smith. The Savior, after the Book of Mormon was published, said that Joseph Smith “has translated the book, even that part which I have commanded him, and as your Lord and your God liveth it is true” (D&C 17:6).

Isaiah also foresaw the blessings that would result from the Book of Mormon coming forth—”the wisdom of their wise and learned shall perish” (2 Ne. 27:26), those ignorant of the truth would find it (27:29), righteousness would increase on the earth (27:30), the wicked would be reproved (27:31–32), the children of Israel would grow and prosper (27:33), the Savior would be honored again on the earth (27:34), those who “erred in spirit shall come to understanding,” and our Father’s children would again be able to “learn doctrine”—true doctrine (27:35).

The Restoration of Judah. Beginning in 2 Nephi, Nephi prophesies of the Jewish captivity in Babylon, the return of the Jews to the land of Israel, their rejection of the Christ during his earthly ministry, and the subsequent scattering of the Jews among all nations (2 Ne. 6:8–11; 10:3–6; 25:14–15). He then sees the latter-day restoration of the Jewish people to the Holy Land. The Book of Mormon prophesies that they will not be gathered to the “lands of their inheritance” until they “come to a knowledge of their Redeemer” (6:11), until “they shall be restored to the true church and fold of God” (9:2), until “they shall believe in me, that I am Christ” (10:7), and “worship the Father in [my] name, with pure hearts and clean hands, and look not forward any more for another Messiah” (25:16).

Over five hundred years after Nephi’s prophecy, the Savior added that Judah would be gathered together “in mine own due time” (3 Ne. 20:29). “When the fulness of my gospel shall be preached unto them; and they shall believe in me, that I am Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and shall pray unto the Father in my name. . . . Then will the Father gather them together again, and give unto them Jerusalem for the land of their inheritance” (20:30–31, 33). This prophesied gathering to the land of Israel is yet to come. Until then, the Savior warned, “Ye need not any longer hiss, nor spurn, nor make game of the Jews, nor any of the remnant of the house of Israel; for behold, the Lord remembereth his covenant unto them, and he will do unto them according to that which he hath sworn” (29:8). Truly there are some wonderful blessings awaiting all of God’s children in these latter days.

The Promised Land. The Americas are a consecrated land that has been placed under an everlasting decree. That decree is recorded in the Book of Mormon: “Wherefore he that doth possess [this land] shall serve God or shall be swept off” (Ether 2:9–10). This promised land can only remain “free from bondage, and from captivity, and from all other nations” on the condition of service to God (2:12). If the inhabitants of the promised land ever become “fully ripened in iniquity,” they will be “swept off” (2 Ne. 28:16). The Book of Mormon solemnly tells of two previous nations that were swept off the face of the American continent in fulfillment of God’s promise.

In addition to teaching about the promised land in general terms, Book of Mormon prophets were also shown specific historical events and the rise of modern nations in the land of promise (see 1 Ne. 13:1–19; 2 Ne. 1:6–11).

False Philosophies, False Prophets, and False Christs. Book of Mormon prophets saw that none would be able to stop their record from coming forth because it would be done by the power of God (see Morm. 8:25–26). They describe in detail many of the false ideas, foolish philosophies, and spiritual degeneracy that would abound in our day when their record would appear (Morm. 8:26–41). They wrote the Book of Mormon to help confound false doctrines and stop contention (2 Ne. 3:12). The Book of Mormon “fortifies the humble followers of Christ against the evil designs, strategies, and doctrines of the devil in our day. . . . God, with his infinite foreknowledge, so molded the Book of Mormon that we might see the error and know how to combat false educational, political, religious, and philosophical concepts of our time.” [3]

Besides identifying apostate doctrines, the Book of Mormon also depicts the character and nature of false prophets and false Christs (false ways to salvation). One of the prophecies of the last days is “false prophets [who] if possible . . . shall deceive the very elect” (JS—M 1:22). The types of apostates and dissidents in the Book of Mormon are similar to those we have today. The Book of Mormon “exposes the enemies of Christ.” [4] For example, Sherem was a member of the Church who denied Christ and taught that salvation could be found in the law of Moses, which he contended “is the right way” (Jacob 7:7; see 7:1–27). Nehor introduced priestcraft [5] into the Church, teaching that “all mankind” would “be saved,” so there was no need to fear or repent (see Alma 1). Korihor ridiculed belief in Christ and his Atonement as a “foolish tradition” coming from the effects of a “frenzied mind” (Alma 30:13–14, 16). Korihor’s false doctrine was composed of most of the false philosophies we are challenged by today, including (but not limited to): contradicting faith with logic and common sense (he said no one could “know of anything which is to come”), 30:13, 28; ridicule of sacred things, 30:14; empiricism (If I can’t see it, I won’t believe it), 30:15; ridicule of those who are righteous, 30:16; humanism (all ethics are relative because there are no eternal standards), 30:17; rejection of the doctrines of life after death and accountability for deeds done in the flesh, 30:18; and complete denial of the signs that testify there is a God and Creator greater than ourselves, 30:43–46.

In the Book of Mormon we also find valuable lessons for dealing with persecution from apostates and anger from dissidents. We are taught not to become anti-anti-Mormon (see 1 Ne. 8:26–27, 33–34; Alma 1:21; 4 Ne. 1:34; Moro. 7:3–5). We also learn that often those who persecute the Saints are those who were once members of the Church (see Hel. 4:4). Like Amulon, Amlici, Sherem, and their modern counterparts, people who leave the Church often cannot leave it alone:” After a people have been once enlightened by the Spirit of God, and have had great knowledge of things pertaining to righteousness, and then have fallen away into sin and transgression, they become more hardened” (Alma 24:30; see Mosiah 2:36–37; 16:5; 4 Ne. 1:38). We learn that charity, patience, and effective teaching that touches hearts enable people to change (see Hel. 5:17; 6:36–37).

As the world becomes more like it was in the days of Noah (JS—M 1:41), there will be an increased need to do good and resist evil. Reading the Book of Mormon, President Benson promised, can reveal false teachings and empower us to discern between Christ and anti-Christ (see Moro. 7:13–17): “It is not just that the Book of Mormon teaches us truth, though it indeed does that. It is not just that the Book of Mormon bears testimony of Christ, though it indeed does that, too. But there is something more. There is a power in the book which will begin to flow into your lives the moment you begin a serious study of the book. You will find greater power to resist temptation. You will find the power to avoid deception. You will find the power to stay on the strait and narrow path.” [6]

Missionary Work in the Latter-day Church. From the Book of Mormon we learn much about how to do missionary work (see, for example, how the sons of Mosiah—particularly Ammon—taught the gospel and won the hearts of the Lamanites in Alma 17–18). The prophet Zenos’s allegory alludes to the missionary work to be done preceding the Second Coming (Jacob 5:61, 71–72). His prophetic writings are now coming to pass as the gospel moves across the globe in preparation for the Lord’s return. The Savior declared that “this Gospel of the Kingdom shall be preached in all the world, for a witness unto all nations” (JS—M 1:31). This is part of the covenant God made with Abraham, and Nephi foresaw that the Abrahamic covenant would “be fulfilled in the latter days.” As the Saints share the gospel, they bless “all the kindreds of the earth” just as Abraham was promised (1 Ne. 15:18; Abr. 2:11).

The Savior also said that his “elect [shall] be gathered from the four quarters of the earth” (JS—M 1:27). The Book of Mormonis the instrument God prepared to gather out the righteous from all nations (Moses 7:62). It is the standard we are to use in proclaiming the gospel to every nation, kindred, tongue, and people (3 Ne. 21:2–7).

At the time of his appearance in ancient America, the Savior prophesied that the Gentiles living in the latter days who will not believe in the Book of Mormon “shall be cut off from among my people who are of the covenant” (3 Ne. 21:11). Once it came off the press, nothing could stop the Book of Mormon from fulfilling God’s promise to gather the elect from all nations.

The Building of New Jerusalem. The Savior described how latter-day Israel will build a city “which shall be called the New Jerusalem” (3 Ne. 21:23). When it is built, “the power of heaven [shall] come down among them; and,” the Savior declared, “I also will be in the midst” (21:25). The Father will commence his work among “the tribes which have been lost” (21:26–27). They shall be gathered in from “all nations” and eventually be led “home to the land of their inheritance” (21:28–29).

Secret Combinations. “From the Book of Mormon we see the evils of secret combinations portrayed in graphic and chilling reality” [7] (see Ether 8:11–18; Hel. 2:2–13). Moroni testified that he had been commanded to write about the destructive nature of secret combinations so “that evil may be done away.” And “that Satan may have no power upon the hearts of the children of men, but that they may be persuaded to do good continually” (Ether 8:26).

The Book of Mormon teaches that the Lord never works in secret combinations (Ether 8:19) and that these evil combinations caused the destruction of the Nephite and Jaredite civilizations (8:21). Moroni warned that any nation that upholds “such secret combinations .. . until they shall spread over the nation, behold, [that nation] shall be destroyed” (8:22). Moroni’s heartfelt plea to us is that we will “suffer not that these murderous combinations shall get above you” and that “when ye shall see these things come among you that ye shall awake to a sense of your awful situation”(8:23–24). He solemnly declared that secret combinations are “built up by the devil/’ and they seek to “overthrow the freedom of all” (8:25).

Wars and Rumors of War. One of the revealed signs of the Second Coming is that there would be numerous conflicts across the earth: “Behold, I speak these things unto you for the elect’s sake; and you also shall hear of wars, and rumors of wars; see that ye be not troubled, for all I have told you must come to pass; but the end is not yet. Behold I speak for mine elect’s sake; for nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom” (JS—M 1:23, 29).

Truly one of the most heart-rending signs of our time is war. Elder Marion G. Romney declared, “Latter-day Saints know that this earth will never again, during its telestial existence, be free from civil disturbance and war.” [8] General Omar O. Bradley said, “We have grasped the mystery of the atom and rejected the Sermon on the Mount.. . . Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants. We know more about war than we know about peace, more about killing than we know about living.” [9]

The Book of Mormon authors knew we would be living in just such a day. At one point in the narrative, Mormon suddenly stops writing about missionary work and states: “Now we shall say no more concerning their preaching, except that they preached the word, and the truth, according to the spirit of prophecy and revelation; and they preached after the holy order of God by which they were called. And now I return to an account of the wars between the Nephites and the Lamanites” (Alma 43:2–3).

Given that the Latter-day Saints would be actively engaged in missionary work, why would a prophet-editor turn to an account of their wars? President Benson answered, “From the Book of Mormon we learn how disciples of Christ live in times of war.” [10]

• When Christ spoke, his voice pierced the darkness and was heard everywhere at once,” I am Jesus Christ, the Son of God. . . . The scriptures concerning my coming are fulfilled” (3 Ne. 9:1, 15–16; cf. D&C 45:49).

"And as it was in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of Man: They ate, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all. Likewise as it was also in the days of Lot: They ate, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they built; but on the day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all. Even so will it be in the day when the Son of Man is revealed." - Jesus in Luke 17:26-30 (NKJV)

Yes, the people of the world in Noah's day ate and drank and married, but their destruction was brought about by their spiritual condition that also reflected in the rest of their behavior, which is clearly defined in the Bible as the reason for the Flood: "Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." - Genesis 6:5 (NKJV)

(Again, we are talking about New Believers who become True Believers... those who give up willful sin by worshipping God in the Truth. They are few. We are not talking about the multitude of others who follow the existing "beast" (Catholic) church to perdition, along with its harlot daughter (Protestant) churches who never really left the mother harlot. The mother harlot can be spotted by comparing her commandments-of-men to God's Commandments, and noticing she has attempted to change the times and Law, specifically Commandments 2, 4, 9, and 10 (notably because she wants her followers to be idolatrous, and to keep her "sabbath" instead of the Bible Sabbath). And not to be outdone by the mother, the harlot daughters mostly ignore God's Commandments altogether ! The mother harlot can also be spotted by her many other adulteries if one is willing to get a Real Bible and actually read it, beginning with the Four Gospels of Jesus Christ - Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John - and comparing what Jesus says to what a church actually does, starting with the costumes their leaders wear, the titles with which they refer to themselves, and the fact that no man stands in God's or Jesus' place on the Earth. In this sinful and adulterous world, it is no exaggeration to say that the devil's "false image" of Christianity is the extreme vast majority of it, while True Christianity - consisting of those who keep the Commandments of God and the Faith of Jesus Christ (Revelation 14:12) - is a tiny minority of it. It is not God's Will that so few are His and so many "worship the beast"; it's the choice of those who choose image over substance... the vast majority who find it easier to speak a lie than to live in the Truth.)

Has no one noticed the corresponding increase in selfishness, covetousness, and greed; in lies and deceit; in thefts and usury; in murders, violence, hatred, and disrespect; in gossip and slander; in self-righteousness, pride, and self-exaltation; in adulteries, lust, lewdness, and perversions; in the destruction of proper family structures; in blasphemies, the abuse of God's Name, and abuse of God's True Sabbath; in every form of immaturity and idolatry, including worship of money, people, culture, and self; and even in the very destruction of the Earth ?

Yes, the universe and existence of every precious thing God has created to sustain life from the beginning and Eternally should be enough to show His Love for us, but our God is much more generous than that. That He would provide us with His Word, His Spirit, and His Son, even on the Cross for the forgiveness of sins for those who Love Him and keep His Word... the addition of these things should be more than enough, but our God is still more generous than that. Indeed, we have a God who also seeks to help us by revealing to man the secrets He knows ahead of time.

Below we'll look at two wonderful prophecies in the Word of God - one that has already been fulfilled, and one that is yet to be fulfilled. They are separate but related, as you will see, and were given by God through Angels to His prophet Daniel, whom Jesus even points to during His own revelations of prophecy. Like many prophecies, these two were given hundreds and even thousands of years prior to the events they describe. Such prophecies are often like a puzzle that can only be completed over many years, because one or more world events might need to take place before the next puzzle piece can be seen in the proper light. As the centuries pass, and piece after piece is gathered, the pieces eventually begin to fit together, gradually bringing the entire picture into view. Truly, God gives certain such prophecies in a way that the final picture can only be fully clarified in God's intended timing, but that doesn't preclude early interest from forming before all the pieces are gathered. As long as it's not by pride or self-righteousness, it's okay if God's children sincerely take an interest in a prophecy that still has some hidden clues. Wouldn't God rather see that than disinterest or unbelief ? Of course. After all, it's the vigilant few who are guided by the Holy Spirit and attentive to God's Word whose efforts along the way can help as a basis for further clarity to others in the future. Finally, one day, if all have done their part, and all the pieces needed for clarity have been received, the final picture and its proofs can reach many others as God intends, and in enough time to enable proactive change, including repentance leading to Salvation for any who would receive it.

✝Christianity✝

Emerging from a small sect of Judaism in the 1st century CE, early Christianity absorbed many of the shared religious, cultural, and intellectual traditions of the Greco-Roman world. In traditional histories of Western culture, the emergence of Christianity in the Roman Empire is known as “the triumph of Christianity.” This refers to the victory of Christian beliefs over the allegedly false beliefs and practices of paganism. However, it is important to recognize that Christianity did not arise in a vacuum.

Jews claimed an ancient tradition with law codes for daily life (the Laws of Moses) and revelations from their god through Prophets. While recognizing various powers in the universe, Jews nevertheless differed from their neighbors by only offering worship (sacrifices) to their one god, Yahweh. After suffering several national defeats by the Assyrians in 722 BCE and the Babylonians in 587 BCE, their prophets claimed that God would eventually restore Israel to its former independence. In those 'final days' (eschaton in Greek), God would designate a descendant of David, an 'anointed one' (Messiah in Hebrew, or Christos in Greek), who would lead the righteous against the enemies of Israel. God would then establish a new Eden, which came to be known as 'the kingdom of God.'

After a short-lived rebellion against Greek rule (the Maccabean Revolt, 167 BCE), Galilee and Judea were conquered by Rome (63 BCE). By the 1st century CE, many messiah figures rallied Jews to call upon God to help them overthrow the overlords. Most of these figures were killed by Rome for stirring up mobs against law and order. A sect of Jews known as Zealots convinced the nation to rebel against Rome in 66 CE, which ended in the destruction of Jerusalem and their temple (70 CE).

From all of the evidence, Jesus of Nazareth was an end-time preacher, or an apocalyptic prophet, proclaiming that the kingdom of God was imminent. He was crucified by Rome (between 26-36 CE), perhaps for stirring up crowds at the festival of Passover. Crucifixion was the Roman penalty for rebels and traitors; preaching a kingdom other than Rome was subversive. Shortly after his death, his disciples claimed that he had risen from the dead. Whatever this experience was, it motivated them to mission or to spread the 'good news' ('gospel') that the kingdom of God would arrive soon.

The followers of Jesus first took this message to the synagogue communities of Jews in the Eastern part of the Roman Empire. Many Jews did not believe that Jesus was the expected Messiah, but to the surprise of these apostles (messengers), Gentiles (pagans) wanted to join the movement. This unexpected occurrence raised questions of inclusion: should these pagans become Jews first, entailing circumcision, dietary laws, and Sabbath observance? At a meeting in Jerusalem (ca. 49 CE, The Apostolic Council), it was decided that pagans could join without becoming Jews. However, they had to observe some Jewish principles such as draining blood from meat, sexual morality, and the cessation of all idolatry (Acts 15). By the end of the 1st century, these Gentile-Christians dominated the Christianoi (“the followers of the Christ”).

Paul, a Pharisee, was the founder of many of these communities. He claimed that Jesus told him in a vision to be his “apostle to the Gentiles.” Jesus was now in heaven but would soon return. This concept was known as the parousia (or 'second appearance'), and rationalized the problem that the kingdom did not appear during Jesus' lifetime; what the prophets proclaimed would be fulfilled upon his return. At that time, current society (and its social conventions and class distinctions) would be transformed.

With the belief that Jesus was now in heaven, Christ became an object of worship. Paul claimed that Christ had been present at creation, and that “every knee show bow” before him (Phil. 2). In the fourth gospel of John, Christ was identified as the philosophical principle of the logos, or the rational principle of the universe that became flesh (the doctrine of the Incarnation). We have very little information on how early Christians worshipped Christ. Worship in the ancient world consisted of sacrifices. For Jews (and then Christians), this element was removed with the destruction of their Temple in 70 CE. At the same time, ex-pagan Christians ceased the traditional sacrifices of the native cults.

In the Acts of the Apostles, we have stories of Peter and John healing people “in the name of Jesus.” There was an initiation rite of baptism, hymns and prayers to Christ, and a meal known as the Last Supper, a memorial of Jesus' last teaching. Christians addressed Jesus as 'Lord,' which was also a Jewish title for god. Jews could acknowledge the exaltation of Jesus to heaven as a reward for a martyr's death, but placing Jesus on the same level as God created a barrier between Jews and Christians.

In Greco-Roman culture people claimed ethnic identity from ancestors; you were literally born into your customs and beliefs. Conversion (moving from one religious worldview to another) was not common as your religion was in the blood. Christianity taught that ancestry and bloodlines were no longer relevant. According to Paul, faith (pistis, 'loyalty') in Christ was all that was needed for salvation. This new idea resulted in a religious movement no longer confined to a geographic area or an ethnic group. Christianity became a portable religion available to all.

The idea of salvation was another innovation. Jews had articulated salvation as the restoration of the nation of Israel. Pagans had no similar concept but some did have concerns about their existence in the afterlife. Paul wrote that Christ's death was a sacrifice that eliminated the punishment for the sin of Adam which was death (the doctrine of atonement). For this first generation of Christians, physical death was no longer a reality; they would be transformed into “spiritual bodies” when Christ returned (1 Cor. 15). As time passed and Christ did not return, Christians accepted the death of the body but were promised a reward in heaven.

The BCE/CE dating system was first used in the 17th century and has been used since in scholarly publications read by people of all faiths and cultures in an effort to be inclusive. This system is also more accurate in that it makes no claim to date the year of Christ’s birth which no one knows.

In recent years, a persistent criticism has been leveled against the use of the BCE/CE system (Before the Common or Current Era/Common or Current Era), rather than BC/AD (Before Christ/Anno Domini or 'Year of Our Lord'), in dating historical events. This designation, it is claimed, is nothing more than an attempt to "remove Christ from the calendar" in keeping with the "subversive" effects of political correctness. The use of BCE/CE, opponents claim, is offensive to Christians who recognize time as dated up to, and away from, the birth of Jesus. Further, it is claimed that BCE/CE makes no sense because it refers to exactly the same event as BC/AD. Those who oppose the use of the "common era" designation also seem to feel that the use of BC/AD is actually stipulated by the Bible or in some way carries biblical authority.

There is no biblical authority for BC/AD; it was created over 500 years after the events described in the Christian New Testament and was not accepted usage until after another 500 years had passed. The use of BCE/CE certainly has become more common in recent years but it is not a new invention of the "politically correct" nor is it even all that new; the use of "common era" in place of A.D. first appears in German in the 17th century CE and in English in the 18th. The use of this designation in dating has nothing to do with "removing Christ from the calendar" and everything to do with accuracy when dealing with historical events and including people of all faiths in discussions of history.

The Hebrew calendar, still in use, is based on a concept known as Anno Mundi ("in the year of the world") which dates events from the beginning of the creation of the earth as calculated through scripture. Ancient civilizations such as Mesopotamia and Egypt based their calendars on the reigns of kings or the cycles of the seasons as set by the gods. In Mesopotamia, for example, one might date an event as "five years from the reign of King Shulgi" and, in Egypt, as "three years after the last Opet Festival of Ramesses who was the second of that name" or, otherwise, "In the 10th year of the reign of Ramesses who triumphed at Kadesh". This method of dating was continued by the Romans who counted their years according to three different systems in different eras: from the founding of Rome, by which consuls were in power, and by which emperors ruled at a given time.

Julius Caesar (100-44 BCE) reformed the calendar and renamed the months during his reign (49-44 BCE). This calendar remained in use, with periodic revisions, until 1582 CE when Pope Gregory XIII instituted the Gregorian Calendar still in use in the present day. Christians used the Anno Mundi calendar and the Roman calendar in the early years of the faith. In c. 525 CE, however, a new concept in dating was introduced by a Christian monk named Dionysius Exiguus (c. 470-544 CE) which provided the groundwork for the later dating system of BC/AD.

Dionysius invented the concept of Anno Domini ("in the year of our Lord") in an attempt to stabilize the date of the celebration of Easter. At the time he was working on this problem, Christians of the influential church of Alexandria were dating events from the beginning of the reign of the Roman emperor Diocletian (284 CE) who persecuted members of the new faith. Dionysius was seeking to bring the eastern and western churches into agreement on a single day on which all Christians would celebrate Easter.

This goal had been decided upon by Constantine the Great at the Council of Nicea in 325 CE but had not yet been met. Toward this end, Dionysius changed the system of dating years from the Roman system and the Alexandrian system to his own in which his present Christian era dated from the birth of Jesus of Nazareth. His choice also eliminated another problem he found troubling: dating events from the reign of an emperor who had killed so many Christians.

The only problem with this dating system was that no one knew when Jesus of Nazareth was born. Dionysius himself did not know when Jesus was born and his system makes no claims at dating that event definitively. He seems to have arrived at his calculations through a reliance on scripture and known history of the time to create a Christian calendar which would be acceptable to both the western and eastern churches of the time in harmonizing the celebration of Easter.

Dionysius never makes the claim that he knew the date of Jesus' birth and no later writer makes that claim for him. He did not begin his efforts at reforming the calendar to accurately date the birth of Jesus of Nazareth; he did it in accordance with the wishes of the pope of the time who wanted Constantine's vision realized. The Easter celebration of the resurrection was considered the most important of the church and Constantine, and those in power who followed him, wanted the event observed by all churches on the same day. It was Dionysius' job to help make this happen and he tried to do so by reforming the calendar; calculating the date of Jesus' birth was a means to this end, not an end in itself.

Using the four gospels to determine Jesus' birth, however, is problematic since the Gospel of John does not agree with the other three and Matthew, Mark, and Luke do not always agree with each other regarding significant events. Scholar Robert R. Cargill explains:

According to the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great. According to multiple ancient sources, Herod died in 4 BCE. If the Gospel of Matthew is historically accurate, this would mean that Jesus of Nazareth was born on or before 4 BCE—meaning Jesus was born 4 BC (4 years Before Christ)! If we add to these 4 years the fact that Herod the Great did not die immediately after the birth of Jesus, but, according to Matthew, ordered the death of all children two years of age and younger in an attempt to kill Jesus, we can add an additional two years to the birth of Jesus, making his birth approximately 6 BCE. If we also add the missing year zero, it is most likely that, according to the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus was born around 7 BCE!

Thus, the BC/AD system is fundamentally flawed in that it misrepresents the birth of Jesus by approximately 7 years. This means that Jesus' ministry did not begin around the year 30, but instead around the year 23. Likewise, Pentecost and the origin of the Christian Church should not be dated to “33 AD,” but to about 26 CE.

An even greater problem still exists with the BC/AD system: the year of Jesus' birth differs depending on which Gospel one reads. While the Gospel of Matthew states in chapter 2:1 that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great, the Gospel of Luke states in chapter 2:1-2 that Jesus was born during the first census of the rule of Quirinius, governor of Syria. According to ancient sources, the date of this census is about 6 CE. Thus, the Bible is internally inconsistent regarding the year of Jesus' birth. (2)

Biblical inconsistency was not on Dionysius' mind when he was engaged in his computations, however. He never explains anywhere how he came to his conclusions regarding the date of Jesus' birth and never claims to have dated it accurately. He needed to make the Christian calendar work in accordance with the pope's wishes and he succeeded in doing that.

Dionysius is not responsible for the BC/AD designations, however. He was only interested in dating events from the incarnation of Jesus of Nazareth and this was another aspect of the problem he faced: was one to date Jesus' incarnation from his nativity or from the annunciation? Dionysius also never explains how he resolved this issue. The actual date of Jesus of Nazareth's birth remains unknown.

In Dionysius' work, events after Jesus' incarnation occur in the "year of the Lord" and events prior are not considered. The use of BC/AD to distinguish time periods came later following the publication of The Ecclesiastical History of the English People in 731 CE by Bede. The designations of BC/AD appeared in earlier works but Bede's book popularized them and, afterwards, other writers followed suit.

This was hardly a universally accepted designation, however, and would not become widespread until the reign of Charlemagne (800-814 CE) who instituted the system to standardize dating throughout Europe. Even after Charlemagne's efforts, however, the use of the Anno Domini calendar system was not accepted by every European nation and certainly was not recognized in other parts of the world. It was not until the 15th century CE that Europe adopted the Anno Domini calendar which would then enable Pope Gregory XIII to reform it in the latter part of the 16th century in 1582 CE.

In the 17th century the term "vulgar era" first appears as a replacement for Anno Domini in the writings of the German astronomer and mathematician Johannes Kepler (1571-1630 CE). At this time "vulgar" did not mean "uncouth" but "common" or "ordinary" and was used to designate events previously noted as "in the year of the Lord" or, simply, the present era. The phrase "vulgar era" was then used by writers interchangeably with "after the time of Christ" or "in the common era" which eventually came to be written simply as "common era" and then CE which gave rise to BCE in defining events prior to the common era. The first use of "common era" in English dates to the 1708 publication of The History of the Works of the Learned or An Impartial Account of Books Lately Printed in all Parts of Europe with a Particular Relation of the State of Learning in Each Country printed for one H. Rhodes in London. The phrase appears in a sentence from page 513 which mentions "the fourth century of the common era".

Non-Christian scholars, especially, embraced the new designations because they could now communicate more easily with the Christian community. Jewish and Islamic, Hindu and Buddhist, scholars could retain their calendar but refer to events using the Gregorian Calendar as BCE and CE without compromising their own beliefs about the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth. Since the BCE/CE designations corresponded to the Christian BC/AD, Christians could correspond back just as clearly. Throughout the 18th and 19th century, "common era" was used frequently with a respectful nod to Christianity in phrases such as "the common era of Christ" or "the common era of the Incarnation" until, by the late 20th century, it again reverted to simply "common era".

The use of BCE/CE in the present day, then, is not an attempt by the "politically correct" to remove Jesus of Nazareth from the calendar but has precedent in history. The usage began when people were questioning received knowledge and forming their own educated opinions about how the world worked and what constituted reliable sources. Kepler uses "vulgar era" at a time period when many institutions and understandings were being questioned and among these would have been how Dionysius arrived at his conclusions regarding the date of the birth of Jesus.

BCE/CE continues to be used because it is more accurate than BC/AD. Dionysius had no understanding of the concept of zero and neither did Bede. The calendar they dated events from, therefore, is inaccurate. The year 1 AD would follow 1 BC without a starting point for the new chronology of events. The BC/AD system, from Dionysius onward, was informed by Christian theology which took for granted that someone (Dionysius) actually knew the birth date of Jesus of Nazareth. In order to date a present event from a past event one must know when that past event occurred. One may say that one is twenty years old only if one knows for certain that one was born twenty years ago on a certain date. Dating events from an uncertain point is inaccurate because one is making an untrue statement based on a false assumption.

By the time people began questioning how Dionysius arrived at the date of Jesus' birth, or whether he was correct, over 1000 years had passed and a great deal of history had been recorded. Since there was no way to undo Dionysius' dating system, the claim that events were dated from Jesus' birth was changed to claim an event happening a certain number of years after Christian tradition supposed Jesus of Nazareth to have been born. This is more accurate in that one is not making a claim one cannot possibly support. While this dating system does refer to the same event, it does so simply out of necessity because Dionysius' system had been accepted and used for so long in written works. This dating system, like BC/AD, also has no year zero but does not need one because it is not claiming to date history from a specific event.

Aside from being more accurate, BCE/CE is inclusive. The use of BC/AD relegates every event prior to, and since, the birth of Jesus of Nazareth subordinate to the Christian understanding of who he was. For Christians, Jesus is the Christ, the anointed of God, the Messiah. The calendar "counts down" to the birth of Jesus and then proceeds to count away from it. To a Christian, this may seem like simple common sense and the way the world works but not so to someone outside of that tradition. People of different cultures and belief systems should be able to access and discuss history without having to date it according to the Christian belief in Jesus as the son of God and the Messiah.

It is for these reasons that World History Encyclopedia, following the international standard of scholarly guidelines in the 21st century, uses the designation BCE/CE instead of BC/AD. The encyclopedia has an international audience of readers who embrace multiple faiths and recognize many different belief systems. Therefore, World History Encyclopedia has adopted the BCE/CE designation in an effort to be accurate, adhere to scholarly principles, and be inclusive and welcoming to all.

Christianity

The Bible takes its name from the Latin Biblia ('book' or 'books') which comes from the Greek Ta Biblia ('the books') traced to the Phoenician port city of Gebal, known as Byblos to the Greeks. Writing became associated with Byblos as an exporter of papyrus (used in writing) and the Greek name for papyrus was bublos.

Although the Bible is often considered a single, cohesive, work, it is actually an anthology of ancient writings by many different authors over many centuries, which were collected in a single book. The Bible contains works of poetry, religious-themed narratives, philosophical musings such as The Book of Ecclesiastes, epistles, and the apocalyptic masterpiece known as The Book of Revelation.

The common thread in all these collected works is the existence of an all-powerful deity who is the creator of the universe and has an interest in the personal lives and final fate of human beings. The books of the Christian Bible were arranged in the sequence one finds them in today to tell the story of the creation of the world by a supreme deity, the fall of man from paradise, and humanity's redemption by the Son of God but these books were not written in that sequence nor would the original authors of the Old Testament works have had that particular story in mind.

The Bible of Judaism (collected and authorized by c. 3rd century BCE) contains the Torah (the first five books of the Bible) and the Tanakh (the stories of the judges and prophets) and makes no mention of Jesus Christ. The God of the Bible in these works is the God of Judaism - a single all-powerful deity - and, prior to the appropriation of Hebrew scriptures by early Christianity, the stories which made up the Bible told the story of God's care for and intervention in the affairs of the Israelites of the Middle East.

In Judaism, the scriptures are called the Tanakh and are recognized as comprising 24 books divided into three categories: The Pentateuch (or Teachings of the Five Books of Moses), The Prophets, and The Writings. Christianity, which appropriated the Tanakh and claimed it as their own early theological history, call it the Old Testament. Early Christian writers, years after the probable date of the death of Jesus, penned the gospels and The Book of Acts. Paul the Apostle wrote most of the epistles which make up the 27 books of the Christian New Testament and whose theology informs the gospels. The Book of Revelation, attributed to John of Patmos, is the last book of the Christian Bible.

It is difficult to accurately date the composition of the books which make up the Bible, but scholars generally agree that the Pentateuch dates to the 10th and 6th centuries BCE and that the Tanakh was fixed as scripture well before the 1st century CE. The books of the Christian New Testament were composed between 60-110 CE (the Gospels), 45-130 CE (the Epistles), and 68-100 (The Book of the Revelation of St. John). Many people of the ancient world, and even today, believe the Bible to have been written by God. It is held to be the bestselling book in history and has influenced religious thought worldwide for centuries.

The book of Genesis, the first book of the Old Testament, tells the story of the creation of the universe, the world, and humanity, the fall of man in the Garden of Eden, and the great flood which God sent on the world because of the evil of mankind. Following the flood, Noah's children repopulate the earth and the narrative then follows the stories of his descendents who are the Hebrew ancestors of the men who wrote the stories. The tale of Joseph and his coat of many colors brings the Hebrews from their land of Canaan to Egypt where, the Book of Exodus explains, they became slaves.

They were led from Egypt to freedom by the great lawgiver Moses who then passed his leadership to his second-in-command Joshua son of Nun whose army lay waste to the region of Canaan so the Hebrews could claim it as the land promised to them by their God (as told in the Books of Joshua and Numbers). Following the establishment of the people who called themselves Israelites in the land, famous kings such as David and his son Solomon ruled and great prophets such as Jeremiah and Isaiah, Ezekial and Jonah preached the will of their God.

The New Testament focuses on the life and teaching of Jesus Christ, the son of God sent to redeem humanity from sin. Jesus is born of the virgin Mary and begins his ministry, preaching a direct and personal relationship with God, when he is about 30 years old. He is betrayed by one of his followers and crucified by the Romans for inciting sedition. Three days after his death, he rises from the grave and ascends to heaven to rule at the right hand of God the father. In his place, he sends the Holy Spirit who will henceforth minister to believers on earth. The New Testament ends with the vision of the end of the world as told by John of Patmos.

The first four books (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) are often believed to be eyewitness accounts of Jesus' ministry on earth but are not. The practice of writing under a famous person's name or, at least, attributing what one had written to someone better-known was well established at the time the gospels were written, and it is probable that the authors chose the names of people who were already well respected in the Christian community to gain a wider acceptance of the material.

Because the gospels come before the Book of Acts and the Letters of Paul in the New Testament, many people seem to believe that these works were written first and the events they relate happened earlier than the later books; actually, the reverse is true. The letters of Paul came first and the gospels were written later. Paul's vision, in fact, informs all four of the gospels in the Bible and well as the Book of Acts.

Between 42-62 CE Paul the Apostle traveled throughout the Mediterranean on his evangelical missions preaching the new religion of the risen Christ. The Bible itself in the Book of Acts and I Peter allude to the possibility, explored in depth in the late 19th and early 20th century CE, that Paul's version of Christianity was different from the message preached by Jesus of Nazareth. Paul (formerly Saul) of Tarsus was a Jewish pharisee of Tarsus (in modern-day Syria) who claimed to have received a vision from God which convinced him of the reality of Jesus Christ as the risen son of the creator of the universe sent to earth to die for the sins of man.

Saint Peter the Apostle was a well-known figure in early Christianity. In Christian tradition, he is often depicted as the first on many occasions: the first to be called by Jesus, the first who recognized Jesus as 'the Christ', the first disciple to receive a post-resurrection appearance by Jesus; and retrospectively, the first pope of Rome. He is referred to as Simon Peter, Simeon, and Simon, son of Jonah. Paul often referred to him as Cephas, Aramaic for either 'crag' or 'stone', translated into the Latin 'Petrus', Peter. In biblical tradition, when someone was called by God (or in this case, Jesus), it was followed by a name change to indicate a new worldview.

Unfortunately, Peter did not write anything down. However, we can attest to the historicity of Peter from several of Paul’s letters (c. 50s-60s CE). Paul met with him twice in Jerusalem, in Antioch, and perhaps in Corinth. In 1 Corinthians 15, when reviewing what he taught, Paul said that Jesus "appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve." When the early missionaries encountered non-Jews (Gentiles) who wanted to join, both Luke (in the Acts of the Apostles) and Paul related a meeting in Jerusalem to decide what to do about these Gentiles. It was decided that they did not have to become Jews - no circumcision, no dietary laws, and no Sabbath observance - but all idolatry had to cease. They became the Gentile-Christians, as opposed to Jewish-Christians. There is an odd passage in Paul’s letter to the Galatians:

After Jesus drove out "an unclean spirit" from a man in the synagogue at Capernaum in Mark, the group then moved to Peter’s house: "Simon’s mother-in-law was in bed with a fever, and . . . Jesus took her by the hand and lifted her up. Then the fever left her, and she began to serve them" (Mark 1:29-31). The remains of a multi-layered synagogue are at Capernaum today. Next to it is the "house of Peter", which was an early pilgrimage site for Christians. The fourth gospel, John, however, claimed that Peter and his brother Andrew were from Bethsaida, a town on the northern end of the Sea of Galilee (John 1:44).

In between the mass feeding stories, Jesus was praying on a mountain while the disciples got into a boat to cross to the other shore. As a storm descended, Jesus came walking to them on the water. The disciples cried out in fear, "It’s a ghost!" Jesus said, "Take courage! It is I. Don’t be afraid." "Lord, if it’s you," Peter replied, "tell me to come to you on the water." Peter got out, but feeling himself beginning to sink, cried out, "Lord, save me!" Jesus reached out, but chastised him: "You of little faith ... why did you doubt?" (Matthew 14:25-31).

Gnosticism is the belief that human beings contain a piece of God (the highest good or a divine spark) within themselves, which has fallen from the immaterial world into the bodies of humans. All physical matter is subject to decay, rotting, and death. Those bodies and the material world, created by an inferior being, are therefore evil. Trapped in the material world, but ignorant of its status, the pieces of God require knowledge (gnosis) to inform them of their true status. That knowledge must come from outside the material world, and the agent who brings it is the savior or redeemer.

During the first three centuries of Christianity, there was no central authority until after the conversion of Roman emperor Constantine the Great in 312 CE. Christian communities taught many different views. In the 2nd century CE, some groups, now collectively referred to as Gnostic Christians, claimed to have access to 'secret knowledge' about the nature of the universe, the nature of Christ, and what his appearance on earth meant to believers. In the middle of the 2nd century CE, a group of Christian leaders retroactively referred to as the Church Fathers (Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and others) wrote volumes against these Gnostic Christians.

The Gnostics, as well as the Church Fathers, were educated in the various schools of philosophy. Many of the schools shared the theories of Plato (428/427 - 348/347 BCE) and his view of the universe. For Plato, "god" (or "the highest good") existed beyond the material universe, was perfect, and so would not have created an imperfect world. He posited the existence of a secondary power, the "Demi-Urge," who created matter, the substance of the physical realm. Most Gnostic systems promoted this view.

Gnostic concepts mirror a modern school of philosophy known as existentialism ("how and why do we exist?") Gnostics asked and answered such questions as: "Who am I?" "Where did I come from?" "What is the meaning of life?" "Why am I here?" and "What is my true self?"

Gnostics promoted concepts of radical dualism that govern the universe. This was polarized as the soul/spark against the flesh, light against darkness. God, who does not create, originally emanated archons (powers), like the light from the sun, seen, but not physical. One of the archons, Sophia ("wisdom"), in a moment of weakness, produced the Demi-Urge, who then created a physical universe, including humans. In philosophical thought, logos ("word") was the principle of rationality that connected the highest god to the material world.

Some systems claimed a mythic "pre-Adam-and-Eve" before their manifestation as humans in the Garden of Eden. In Gnostic understanding, the fall occurred as the result of physical creation. In keeping with the "oneness" of the eternal God, Gnostics promoted the idea of androgyny or the union of gender. After the fall, the logos, the pre-existent Christ, came to earth in human appearance to teach humanity how to return to this original androgyny and reunite with God. According to them, God sent Christ to restore the original cosmos. As the divine spark within humans had fallen asleep, it did not remember its origins. Humans had to be awakened to the presence of this piece of god within them; a concept mirroring Zen Buddhism. When this is accomplished, the rule of archons would end.

The Church Fathers reacted to Gnostic teachings by inventing the twin concepts of orthodoxy and heresy. These concepts did not exist in the ancient world. With the thousands of different native cults in the Mediterranean Basin, there was no central authority that determined what people were to believe. Orthodoxy ("correct belief") and heresy (from the Greek word haeresis, "a school of thought") are two sides of one coin. Heretics are called that by those who disagree with them, but both sides believe they have the correct beliefs.

Gnostics claimed that their teachings came directly from Jesus. In those scenes in the gospels when Jesus takes the disciples aside to better inform them, he also taught secret things that were passed down to them. The Church Fathers countered this with a claim of apostolic tradition; that their teachings came from Jesus to the original disciples, who passed it to the founding bishops of their communities.

Consisting of physical matter, the human body was evil. For most Gnostic systems, Jesus was not incarnated into a human body. They preached the concept known as docetic or "appearance." Jesus only appeared in the form of a human so that he could communicate with humanity. If Christ never had a material body, the central pillars of Christianity, the crucifixion and the resurrection of the dead, were nullified.

A Gnostic, after being awakened, studied the heavens and learned the means to navigate the various layers. In this sense, Gnostics viewed salvation as an individual matter, rather than involving the rest of the community. In other words, salvation could not be achieved through the cross, church hierarchy, or rules.

Once one successfully made it through the upper atmosphere, one's spark, now home, united with the godhead; in some systems one became God.

In Gnostic systems, there is a denial of what was becoming standard Christian teaching, eschatology, or the future return of Christ to usher in the kingdom of God. For Gnostics, the kingdom is within the individual.

Gnostic Christians were baptized, and they participated in the Eucharist (communion). Gnostics did try to promote female ministers in the Eucharistic celebration, bringing them into disagreement with the Church Fathers. The most controversial of Gnostic ritual was "The Bridal Chamber", where one attained "Christhood." In the Gnostic document, Exegesis of the Soul, the language and metaphors of marriage were applied in a union with Christ.

The schools of philosophy taught that one should care for the soul over the body (apathea - "no passions"), not letting the physical urges of the body rule one's life. Such teachings were construed as ascesis ("discipline"), as in athletic disciplining of the body. Gnostic Christians took control of the body literally. They were the first to practice celibacy (not entering into a marriage contract) as well as chastity (never indulging in sexual intercourse). In this way, the traditional life-cycle was broken; no more divine sparks would be trapped in a physical body.

A small minority of Gnostic sects may have taken the opposite view. As part of the evil physical world, governments, man-made laws, and social conventions were no longer valid. Several Church Fathers claimed that this led to sexual immorality. We cannot confirm such practices, but by the 18th century CE, these groups were labeled libertines after the publication of the writings of the French philosopher, the Marquis de Sade (1740-1814 CE). While deploring the Gnostics, nevertheless, the Church Fathers absorbed the concept of celibacy for the clergy. By doing so, it was understood as a living sacrifice (in giving up a normal wife and children). This concept elevated the clergy above the congregation with a sense of holiness.

Like everyone else who was trained in philosophy, Gnostics utilized the literary device of allegory. Allegory is a story, poem, or picture that can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning, typically a moral or political one. At the same time, if one is not attuned to the allegorical symbols or meaning, many of the Gnostic writings appear incredibly esoteric and puzzling to the average reader. Reading such texts, one gets the impression that they spent their lives in ivory towers, contemplating the universe. But they did participate in the congregations to which they belonged. They had study groups, but what they studied was the upper reaches of the universe where gradients of powers dwelt. When a Gnostic died, his spark/soul was released from his evil body, but then had to make the journey home. On the way, he/she had to know the passwords to get through and around the powers so that he/she was not distracted. Some systems claimed there were seven heavens, while others claimed 365 levels.

The Church Fathers were voracious in their criticism of Gnostic writings. Scholars, however, were skeptical and could not be sure that the quotations were accurate until 1945 CE. Then two brothers were digging nitrate in the Egyptian desert near the town of Nag Hammadi in Upper Egypt when their shovel hit a large jar filled with codices (early books). They took them to a man they knew who was active in the black-market antiquities business. There were 13 books containing treatises, gospels, and Gnostic myths. They are collected in one volume, The Nag Hammadi Library. As it turns out, the Church Fathers did a fair job of copying. Whereas they utilized quotes, we now have the complete texts for a better analysis of each document.

Gnostic gospels differ from the canonical gospels of the New Testament. They often lack a narrative or a story and consist of simply the teachings of Jesus in elucidating the existence of the true God.

The Gospel of Truth was thought to be written by Valentinus, a Gnostic teacher from Alexandria who was subsequently excommunicated from Rome (c. 150 CE). One of the most spiritual of the Gnostic gospels, he personified abstractions such as Error, Fear, and Hope as living beings. Christ is described as the manifestation of hope.

The Gospel of Thomas is claimed to be written by Jesus’ twin and consists of 114 logia, or sayings of Jesus. The author was familiar with many of the canonical parables and teachings, but the gospel also critiques the traditional concept of Jesus as messiah, promoting Jesus more as an enlightened philosopher. This Jesus says not to look for an earthly kingdom of God; it is found in the turning of the inner person. The Gospel of Thomas has become popular in recent decades in relation to a populist Christian movement known as Liberation Theology, which also teaches self-reflection of each person as the Christ within you. Gustavo Gutierrez coined the term in his 1971 CE book, A Theology of Liberation. He criticized the Catholic Church in Latin America for corrupting the original teachings of Jesus.

As the Nag Hammadi texts became available, many modern feminist theologians admired them for their inclusion of women in their study groups and for their promotion of women eucharistic ministers. At the same time, New Age groups admired what they saw as the elevation of the divine feminine in Sophia. However, the Gnostics were not the equivalent of modern feminists. Each text should be analyzed for its concepts. The Gospel of Thomas ends with:

The Gospel of Philip is an example of Gnostic attempts to compromise with the proto-orthodox teachings of the Church Fathers. This gospel promoted the dual form of Christ: Christ was the pre-existent redeemer figure, who possessed the human Jesus of Nazareth for the period of the ministry. Christ entered the man Jesus when the dove landed on Jesus at his baptism. At the time of the crucifixion, Christ left the body so that it was the human Jesus who was crucified. Another Gnostic school in Alexandria led by Basilides (120-140 CE) taught that a bait and switch had occurred at the crucifixion; it was Simon of Cyrene (in the canonical gospels) who was crucified, not Christ.

The Gospel of Judas consists of conversations between Jesus and Judas Iscariot. Its rediscovery and translation was published by the National Geographic Society in 2006 CE. Prior to this, it was only known from the 2nd-century CE writings of Bishop Irenaeus, in his Against All Heresies.

In contrast to the canonical gospels, which paint Judas as a betrayer, this gospel claims that Jesus ordered Judas to betray him. The other disciples had not learned the true gospel, which Jesus taught to Judas. Many of the scenes have Jesus and Judas discussing the other eleven disciples, who only perceive reality through the physical senses. They continue to offer animal sacrifices (Jesus mocks the Eucharist as cannibalism), and they believe that martyrdom will save them.

Many of the Gnostic texts challenged the traditional understanding of personhood. In ancient concepts of monism, the person consisted of a physical body and a personality. Both the ancient Persian religion, Zoroastrianism, and well as the schools of Greek philosophy introduced a second substance to a person, the soul (dualism). In most systems, the body and soul worked in harmony. In Gnostic texts, the body and soul oppose each other for dominance. In the more esoteric texts, Gnostics reverted to monism, one being, in that existence was undifferentiated. Going even further, some texts claimed that the material world and existence itself were an illusion. This is where Gnosticism dovetails with ancient concepts found in Hindu and Buddhist philosophy.

In 312 CE, Constantine I converted to the Christianity of the Church Fathers. Any dissent from their teachings was deemed heresy, and such texts were ordered to be destroyed. We think this is when someone (perhaps a monk?) buried the texts at Nag Hammadi. Heresy was now viewed as treason. Gnostics essentially went underground, only to reappear in the Middle Ages in the Balkans (the Waldensians) and southern France (the Albigensians). Their teachings were the motivation for the creation of the institution of the Inquisition by the medieval Church in the 12th century CE.