Read Book Of Luke In December? Top 50 Best Answers

According to ancient sources, Luke died as a martyr at the age of 84 in the Greek city of Thebes. His remains were taken to Constantinople around AD 338 and later moved to Padua, Italy, where they are preserved in the Basilica of Santa Giustina. A rib is buried at his original burial site in Thebes.

According to tradition, Saint Luke was a physician and possibly a pagan. He was not one of the original 12 apostles, but may have been one of the 70 disciples appointed by Jesus (Luke 10). He may also have accompanied St. Paul on his missionary journeys.

summary

Written Sources

Luke is mentioned for the first time in Paul’s letters as his “collaborator” and as “beloved physician”. The former designation is the more significant, identifying him as one of a professional cadre of itinerant Christian “workers,” many of whom were teachers and ministers. His medical skills, like Paul’s tent making, may have contributed to his livelihood; but his chief preoccupation was the advancement of the Christian mission.

If Luke was the author of the third gospel and the Acts of the Apostles, the course and nature of his ministry can be sketched in more detail from both texts. He excludes himself from those who were eyewitnesses to Christ’s ministry. He indicates participation in the Pauline mission by using the first person in the “we” sections of Acts. They suggest that Luke was involved in instructing individuals in the Christian message and possibly performing miraculous healings.

The “we” sections are stylistically analogous to travelogues found elsewhere in Graeco-Roman writing. They assign the author to Paul during his first mission to Greece—i.e. H. to Philippi in Macedonia (c. AD 51). There Luke later meets Paul again and accompanies him on his last journey to Jerusalem (ca. 58 AD). After Paul’s arrest in that city, and during his prolonged imprisonment in nearby Caesarea, Luke may have spent considerable time in Palestine, collaborating with the apostle when occasion permitted, and gathering material for his future two-volume literary work, the Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles to collect. In any case, he appears two years later with Paul on his prison journey from Caesarea to Rome and again, according to 2 Paul at Timothy 4:11, at the time of the apostle’s martyrdom in the imperial city (c. 66 CE).

Get a Britannica Premium subscription and get access to exclusive content. subscribe now

More direct information about Luke is scarce in the New Testament, but certain conclusions can be drawn. The literary style of his writings and the breadth of his vocabulary distinguish him as an educated man. The distinction between Luke and other colleagues “from the circumcision” (Colossians 4:11) has led many scholars to conclude that he was a Gentile. If so, he would be the only New Testament writer clearly identifiable as a Gentile. However, this conclusion is based on a dubious equation of “the circumcision” with Jewish Christians. In fact, the phrase probably refers to a specific type of Jewish Christian, those who strictly observed the rituals of Judaism. It therefore offers no support for the view that Luke was a heathen. Overall, his intimate knowledge of the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible) and the focus of interest in his writings support the view that he was a Jewish Christian who lived a Greek lifestyle and was comparatively lax in ritual observances.

New from Britannica New from Britannica A ten gallon hat only holds about ¾ gallon. The name is believed to derive from the Spanish tan galán, meaning “very gallant” or galón, “braid”. See all the good facts

Writings from the second half of the second century provide further information. Some of them—St. Irenaeus’ Against Heresies, the anti-Marcionite prologue to the Gospels, and the Muratorian canon listing the books received as holy by Christians—identify Luke as the author of the third Gospel and Acts. The Prologue specifically notes that Saint Luke was “a man of Antioch, Syria,” writing “moved by the Holy Spirit”—that is, as a prophet. This interpretation is supported by the Lucanian writings: the city of Antioch features prominently in Acts, and there is a particular interest in contemporary (Christian) prophets and prophecies. Whether, as some scholars believe, Luke is identified with the prophet Lucius mentioned in Acts 13:1 and with St. Paul’s “collaborator” (and relative) in Paul’s Epistle to Romans 16:21 is rather questionable, if not impossible either. Also less than certain is the commentary of the prologue, which places the writing of the gospel and the death of Luke in Greece; but on the whole it is more probable than the later traditions to place his literary work in Alexandria (or Rome) and his death in Bithynia. The identification of St. Luke as “disciple of the apostles”, while generally correct, probably reflects the concern of the second-century church to bring all canonical Christian writings under one apostolic umbrella. Subsequent claims that Luke was one of the 70 disciples appointed by the Lord, that he was Cleopas’ companion, and that he was an artist seem to be legendary.

An instructive relic of the long struggle survives in our feast of Christmas, which the church seems to have borrowed directly from its pagan rival. In the Julian calendar, the twenty-fifth of December was counted as the winter solstice and considered the birth of the sun because the day begins to lengthen and the sun’s power begins to increase from this turning point of the year. The birth ritual, as apparently celebrated in Syria and Egypt, was remarkable. The revelers retired to certain inner shrines, from which they emerged at midnight with a loud cry: “The maiden is born! The light is increasing!” The Egyptians even represented the newborn sun through the image of an infant whom they brought forth on his birthday, the winter solstice, and presented to his worshipers. Undoubtedly the maiden who thus conceived and bore a son on December 25th was the great Oriental goddess, whom the Semites called the Heavenly Maiden, or simply the Heavenly Goddess; in Semitic countries it was a form of Astarte. Now Mithra was regularly identified by his worshipers with the sun, the unconquered sun, as they called him; hence his birth fell on the twenty-fifth of December. The Gospels say nothing about the day of Christ’s birth, and accordingly the early church did not celebrate it. In time, however, the Christians of Egypt came to regard January 6 as the date of birth, and the custom of commemorating the Savior’s birth on this day gradually spread until it was generally introduced in the East in the fourth century. But by the end of the third or beginning of the fourth century, the Western Church, which had never accepted the sixth of January as the day of Christ’s birth, accepted the twenty-fifth of December as the true date, and thus his decision was also accepted by the Eastern Church. In Antioch the change was not introduced until about AD 375.

What considerations prompted the ecclesiastical authorities to introduce Christmas? The motives for the change are stated with great frankness by a Syrian writer who is himself a Christian. “The reason,” he tells us, “why the fathers moved the celebration from January 6 to December 25 was this. It was a custom of the pagans to celebrate the birthday of the sun on the same December 25, on which they would light candles in token of celebration. In these celebrations and celebrations, the Christians also took part. When the Doctors of the Church realized that Christians were inclined towards this feast, they took counsel and decided that the true birth should be celebrated on this day and the Feast of the Epiphany on January 6th. Accordingly, alongside this custom, the practice of kindling bonfires until the sixth has prevailed.” The pagan origin of Christmas is clearly hinted at, though not implicitly admitted, by Augustine when he exhorts his Christian brethren not to celebrate this solemn day as the pagans do, because of the to celebrate the sun, but because of him who made the sun. Similarly, Leo the Great rejected the pernicious belief that Christmas was celebrated because of what it was called the birth of the new sun, and not because of the birth of Christ.

So it seems that the Christian Church decided to celebrate the birthday of its Founder on the twenty-fifth of December, in order to transfer the worship of the pagans from the sun to him, who was called the sun of righteousness….

birth of Jesus

Adoration of the Shepherds by Dutch painter Matthias Stomer, 1632

c. 1350 Medieval crib miniature,

The birth of Jesus, Nativity, Nativity of Jesus, or Nativity is described in the biblical Gospels of Luke and Matthew. The two accounts agree that Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea, his mother Mary was engaged to a man named Joseph who was descended from King David and was not his biological father, and that his birth was caused by divine intervention. Many modern scholars regard the birth narratives as unhistorical because they are laced with theology and present two distinct accounts that cannot be harmonized into a single coherent narrative, but also many regard the discussion of historicity as secondary, as gospels are primarily considered as theological documents were written as chronological timelines.

The crib is the basis for the Christian Christmas festival and plays a major role in the Christian church year. Many Christians traditionally display small nativity scenes depicting the birth of Christ in their homes, or attend nativity plays or Christmas processions that focus on the nativity cycle in the Bible. In many continental European countries, ornate nativity scenes, so-called “nativity scenes”, with life-size statues are a tradition during the Christmas season.

The artistic depiction of the nativity scene has been an important subject for Christian artists since the 4th century. Artistic renderings of the nativity scene since the 13th century have emphasized Jesus’ humility and encouraged a gentler image of him, a major change from the early “Lord and Master” image, reflecting the changes in common approaches to Christian pastoral ministry during the same era.

Comparison of gospel accounts[ edit ]

Only the Gospels of Matthew and Luke provide narratives of the birth of Jesus. Both draw heavily on the Hebrew Scriptures, indicating that they both view history as part of Israel’s salvation history and both present the God of Israel as controlling events. Both agree that Jesus was born in Bethlehem during the reign of King Herod, that his mother’s name was Mary, and that her husband Joseph was descended from King David (although they disagree on details of the lineage), and both deny Joseph’s biological lineage Parenthood while birth, or rather conception, is treated as divinely effected.

Beyond that, they agree on very little. Joseph dominates Matthew and Mary dominates Luke, although the suggestion that one is from Joseph and the other from Mary is no more than a pious inference. Matthew implies that Joseph already has his home in Bethlehem, while Luke indicates that he lived in Nazareth. In Matthew the angel speaks to Joseph, in Luke one speaks to Mary. Only Luke has the stories surrounding the birth of John the Baptist, the census of Quirinius, the adoration of the shepherds and the offering in the temple on the eighth day; only Matthew has the Magi, the Star of Bethlehem, Herod’s Conspiracy, the Massacre of the Innocents, and the Flight into Egypt. The two itineraries are quite different, Matthew’s Holy Family begins in Bethlehem, after the birth moves to Egypt and settles in Nazareth, while in Luke they begin in Nazareth, journey to Bethlehem for the birth and an immediate return to Nazareth 1 ] The two accounts cannot be harmonized into a single coherent narrative or traced to the same Q source, leading scholars to categorize them as “particular Matthew” (or simply the M source) and “particular Luke” (the L source ) to classify.

Gospel of Matthew[edit]

Annunciation to Joseph[ edit ]

Mary, the mother of Jesus the Messiah, was betrothed to Joseph, but was found by the Holy Spirit to be pregnant. Joseph wanted to quietly divorce her, but an angel told him in a dream to take her as his wife and name the child Jesus, “because it is he who will save his people from their sins.” This would fulfill the prophecy that a virgin would give birth to a son who would be known as Emmanuel, meaning “God is with us.” Joseph awoke, took Mary to wife, had no intercourse with her until she gave birth to a son, and called his name Jesus. (Matthew 1:18-25)

These verses pose a problem because in the previous Matthean genealogy of Jesus, Joseph was shown to be the descendant of David (the angel addresses him as “son of David”) and heir to the kingdom of Judah, but Matthew 1:16 revealed that Jesus is not Joseph’s son, and Matthew is careful never to refer to him as such. Joseph’s role in naming the child indicates that he will be lawfully adopted and thus, like his now lawful father, will become a “son of David.”

Adoration of the Magi[edit]

The birth took place in Bethlehem of Judea in the time of King Herod (Herod the Great). Wise men from the east came to Jerusalem and asked where they could find the child-born King of the Jews, for they had seen his star rise and wanted to pay homage to him. Herod and all Jerusalem were afraid when they heard this, but Herod, learning from the chief priests and scribes that the Messiah was prophesied to be born in Bethlehem, sent the wise men there with instructions to return and tell him when they had found him. The magi worshiped the child in Bethlehem and gave him gold, frankincense and myrrh, but an angel in a dream warned them not to return to Herod, and they returned home by a different route.

Massacre of innocents, flight to Egypt and return to Israel

When Herod learned that the magicians had tricked him, he was furious and killed all the children in and around Bethlehem under the age of two (the Massacre of the Innocents). This was the fulfillment of the prophet Jeremiah: “A voice was heard in Rama, lamentations and loud lamentations, Rachel weeping for her children; she refused to be comforted because they are no more.” But an angel had appeared to Joseph in a dream and warned him to take the child and his mother and flee to Egypt, and the Holy Family stayed there until Herod died to fulfill the words of the prophet: “Out of Egypt I have my called son.” At the death of Herod, an angel appeared to Joseph in a dream and told him to return to Israel with the child and his mother, but Herod’s son was now ruler of Judea, and having been warned in a dream Instead, Joseph went to Galilee, where he worshiped in Nazareth, “to fulfill what had been said through the prophets, ‘He shall be called a Nazarene’.” Matthew 2

In this chapter Matthew is required to prove that “Jesus of Nazareth” was indeed born in Bethlehem, the city where David was born, for the “son of David” born there will be “King of the Jews” (a designation the will reappear in Matthew up to the crucifixion). The fear of Herod and the visit of the Magi underscore the royal birth, as do the various prophetic texts quoted or mentioned in this chapter.

Gospel of Luke[edit]

Angel Gabriel’s Annunciation to Mary, from c. 1660, by Murillo

When Herod was king of Judea, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth in Galilee to announce to a virgin named Mary, who was betrothed to a man named Joseph, that a child would be born to her and that she should name him Jesus be the son of God and rule over Israel forever. As the time of the birth drew near, Caesar Augustus ordered a census of the Roman domains, and Joseph, being of the house of David, took Mary to Bethlehem, the ancient city of David. Jesus was born in Bethlehem; With no place to stay in the city, the child was placed in a manger while angels announced his birth to a group of shepherds, who worshiped him as Messiah and Lord.

In accordance with Jewish law, his parents represented the infant Jesus in the temple in Jerusalem, where two people in the temple, Simeon and Anna the prophetess, gave thanks to God who had sent his redemption. Joseph and Mary then returned to Nazareth.

Birth of Jesus, c. 1473-1475, by Botticelli

Matthew and Luke agree that Jesus was born in Bethlehem during the reign of Herod the Great. In Luke, the newborn baby is placed in a manger “because there was no place in the katalyma. “Katalyma” could mean a private house (this has little support among scholars), or a room in a private house, or an inn, but it is impossible to be sure what is meant.

In the 2nd century Justin Martyr explained that Jesus was born in a cave outside the city, while the Proto-Gospel of James described a legendary birth in a nearby cave.[11][12] The Church of the Nativity in the city, built by St. Helena, contains the Cave Nativity traditionally revered as the birthplace of Jesus and may originally have been a place of worship of the god Tammuz.[13] In Contra Celsum 1:51 Origen, who traveled all over Palestine from about 215, writes about the “crib of Jesus”.[14]

The date of birth of Jesus of Nazareth is not given in either the Gospels or secular texts, but a majority of scholars place it between 6 B.C. and 4 B.C. to.[15] The historical evidence is too ambiguous to provide a definitive date,[16] but the date has been estimated from known historical events mentioned in the Gospels of Matthew chapter 2 and Luke chapter 2,[17] or by working backwards from the estimate Beginning of Jesus’ ministry.[18][19]

Themes and analogies[ edit ]

Thematic analysis[ edit ]

Helmut Koester writes that while Matthew’s narrative originated in a Jewish setting, Luke’s narrative was modeled to appeal to the Greco-Roman world.[20] In particular, Koester says, while shepherds were viewed negatively by Jews in Jesus’ day, in Graeco-Roman culture shepherds were viewed as “symbols of a golden age when gods and men lived in peace and nature was in harmony”.[ 20] C. T. Ruddick Jr. writes that Luke’s accounts of the birth of Jesus and John were modeled on passages from Genesis chapters 27-43.[21][22] Regardless, Luke’s birth depicts Jesus as the Savior of all men, tracing a genealogy back to Adam and demonstrating their common humanity, and also for the humble circumstances of his birth. Luke, writing for a Gentile audience, portrays the infant Jesus as a savior for both Gentiles and Jews.[23] Matthew uses quotations from Jewish scriptures, scenes reminiscent of Moses’ life, and a pattern of numbers in his genealogy to identify Jesus as the son of David, Abraham, and God. Luke’s Prelude is much longer and emphasizes the Age of the Holy Spirit and the coming of a Savior for all people, both Jew and Gentile.[24]

Mainstream scholars interpret the birth of Matthew as depicting Jesus as a new Moses with a genealogy going back to Abraham,[25] while Ulrich Luz simultaneously regards Matthew’s depiction of Jesus as the new Moses and the inversion of Moses and not simply a retelling of the Moses story.[27] Luz also points out that a fulfillment quote is given again in the massacre narrative: Rachel, the progenitor of Israel, weeps for her dead children (Matthew 2:18).[28][29]

Scholars who interpret Matthew as casting Jesus in the role of a second Moses argue that, like Moses, the infant Jesus is saved from a murderous tyrant; and he flees the land of his birth until his pursuer is dead and he can return safely as the savior of his people.[30] From this point of view, the account in Matthew is based on an earlier narrative that draws on traditions about the birth of Moses. The birth of Moses is announced to the Pharaoh by Magi; the child is threatened and rescued; the male Israelite children are similarly killed by an evil king.[25][30]

According to Ulrich Luz, the beginning of Matthew’s narrative resembles earlier biblical stories, e.g. Genesis 16:11, Genesis 17),[32] Isaac (Genesis 21:1),[33] Samson (Judges 13:3, 13:5),[34] and recalls the Haggadic traditions the birth of Moses. But from Luz’s point of view, the contours sometimes seem strangely superimposed and vice versa: “Egypt, once the land of oppression, becomes a place of refuge, and it is the king of Israel who now assumes the role of pharaoh. However, Matthew did not simply retell the Moses story. Instead, the story of Jesus is really a new story: Jesus is both the new Moses and the opposite of Moses.”[27]

Parallels to the Old Testament

Scholars have debated whether Matthew 1:22 and Matthew 2:23 refer to specific Old Testament passages. Fourth-century documents such as the Codex Sinaiticus do not mention the prophet Isaiah in the statement at Matthew 1:22, “All these things happened to fulfill what the Lord had spoken through the prophet,” but some copies of Matthew from the fifth century B.C .–6. Century, like the Codex Bezae, read “Isaiah the prophet”.[35] The statement at Matthew 1:23, “Behold, the virgin shall conceive,” uses the Greek term parthenos (“virgin”) as in the Septuagint of Isaiah, while the book of Isaiah 7:14 uses the Hebrew word almah, meaning “virgin.” can “,”, “young woman” or “virgin”.[36] Raymond E. Brown states that the Septuagint translators in the 3rd century B.C.

The statement at Matthew 2:23 that “he shall be called a Nazarene” does not mention any specific passage in the Old Testament, and there are several scholarly interpretations as to what it might refer to.[37] Barbara Aland and other scholars consider the Greek “Ναζωραίος” (Nazoréos) used for Nazarene to be of uncertain etymology and meaning,[38] but M.J.J. Menken states that it is a demonym referring to a “resident of Nazareth”.[39] Menken also states that it may refer to Judges 13:5, 7.[40] Gary Smith explains that nazirite can mean someone dedicated to God, i.e. an ascetic; or may refer to Isaiah 11:1.[41] The Oxford Bible Commentary notes that there may be a pun on the use of “Nazirite,” “Holy One of God,” at Isaiah 4:3[42] to identify Jesus with the Nazarenes, a Jewish sect who the Pharisees turned away from him only in regarding Jesus as the Messiah.[30] The Swiss theologian Ulrich Luz, who locates the Matthean community in Syria, has stated that Syrian Christians also called themselves Nazarenes.[43]

Christian theology[edit]

The theological significance of Jesus’ birth has been a key element in Christian doctrine from the early Church Fathers to 20th-century theologians.[44][45][46] The theological issues had already been raised by the apostle Paul, but continued to be debated and eventually led to Christological and Mariological differences among Christians that led to early divisions within the church in the 5th century.

Birth of the new man[edit]

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For through him all things visible and invisible were created in heaven and on earth. Colossians 1:15-16 considers the birth of Jesus as the model for all creation.[47][48][49][50]

Paul the Apostle viewed the birth of Jesus as an event of cosmic significance that produced a “new man” who undid the damage done by the fall of the first man, Adam. Just as the Johannine view of Jesus as the incarnate Logos proclaims the universal significance of his birth, the Pauline view emphasizes the birth of a new person and a new world in the birth of Jesus.[51] Paul’s eschatological view of Jesus contrasts him as a new man of morality and obedience with Adam. Unlike Adam, the new man born in Jesus obeys God and leads into a world of morality and redemption.[51]

In the Pauline perspective, Adam is positioned as the first man and Jesus as the second: Adam, who had corrupted himself by his disobedience, also infected mankind, leaving a cursed inheritance. The birth of Jesus, on the other hand, compensated for the fall of Adam, bringing redemption and repairing the damage done by Adam.[52]

In patristic theology, Paul’s juxtaposition of Jesus as the new man and Adam provided a framework for discussing the uniqueness of Jesus’ birth and subsequent events in his life. The birth of Jesus thus began to serve as a starting point for a “cosmic Christology” in which Jesus’ birth, life and resurrection have universal implications.[51][53][54] The concept of Jesus as the “new man” is repeated in the cycle of birth and rebirth of Jesus from his birth to his resurrection: After his birth, Jesus, through his morality and obedience to the Father, began a new harmony in the relationship between God and God father and husband. The birth and resurrection of Jesus thus created the author and model of a new humanity.[55]

In the 2nd century Church Father Irenaeus writes:

“In becoming man and becoming man, He began anew the long line of man, and provided us with salvation in a short, full manner, that what we had lost in Adam might be in the image and likeness of God—that we might be in Christ Jesus recovered.”[45][46]

Irenaeus was also one of the early theologians to use the “second Adam and second Eve” analogy. Proposing the Virgin Mary as the “second Eve,” he wrote that the Virgin Mary “untied the knot of sin tied by the virgin Eve,” and that Mary had prepared a path of obedience as Eve did to Adam disobedience to God for the second Adam (i.e., Jesus) from the Annunciation to Calvary so that Jesus could bring about redemption and undo Adam’s damage.[56]

By the fourth century this uniqueness of circumstances surrounding the birth of Jesus and its interplay with the mystery of the Incarnation became a central element in both the theology and the hymnody of Saint Ephrem the Syrian. For him, the uniqueness of the birth of Jesus was complemented by the sign of the majesty of the Creator through the ability of a mighty God to come into the world as a small newborn.[57]

In the Middle Ages, the birth of Jesus as the second Adam was seen in the context of St Augustine’s Felix culpa (i.e., happy fall) and was intertwined with popular teachings on the fall of Adam and Eve.[58] Augustine loved a statement about the Nativity of Saint Gregory of Nyssa and quoted it five times: “Honor the Nativity, by which you are set free from the bondage of an earthly birth.”[59] And he liked to quote: “As do we all died in Adam, we also shall all be raised to life in Christ.”[59][60]

The theology persisted into the Protestant Reformation, and second, Adam was one of the six kinds of atonement discussed by John Calvin.[61] In the 20th century, the leading theologian Karl Barth continued the same argument, viewing the birth of Jesus as the birth of a new human being to succeed Adam. In Barth’s theology, Jesus, in contrast to Adam, acted as an obedient son in fulfillment of the divine will and was therefore free from sin and thus could reveal the righteousness of God the Father and bring about salvation.[44]

Christology[ edit ]

Summa Theologiæ In, (1471 copy shown here) Thomas Aquinas addressed many of the outstanding Christological questions regarding the birth of Jesus.

The birth of Jesus influenced christological questions about the person of Christ from the earliest days of Christianity. Luke’s Christology focuses on the dialectic of the dual nature of the earthly and heavenly manifestations of Christ’s existence, while Matthew’s Christology focuses on Jesus’ mission and role as Savior.[62][63]

Belief in the divinity of Jesus leads to the question, “Was Jesus a man born of woman, or was he God born of woman?” During the first four centuries of Christianity, a wide range of hypotheses and beliefs about the nature of Jesus’ birth were presented. Some of the debates concerned the title Theotokos (Godbearer) for the Virgin Mary and began to illustrate the influence of Mariology on Christology. Some of these views were eventually declared heresies, others led to schisms and the formation of new branches of the church.[64][65][66][67]

The redeeming emphasis of Matthew 1:21 later influenced theological questions and devotion to the holy name of Jesus.[68][69][70] Matthew 1:23 provides the only key to Emmanuel Christology in the New Testament. Beginning in 1:23, Matthew shows a clear interest in identifying Jesus as “God with us” and later developing the Emmanuel characterization of Jesus at key points in the rest of his gospel.[71] The name Emmanuel does not appear anywhere else in the New Testament, but Matthew builds on it in Matthew 28:20 (“I am with you always, to the end of the age”) to indicate that Jesus will be with believers at the end of the age.[71][72] According to Ulrich Luz, the Emmanuel motif brackets the entire Gospel of Matthew between 1:23 and 28:20 and appears explicitly and implicitly in several other places.[73]

Several ecumenical councils were convened in the fourth and fifth centuries to deal with these questions. The Council of Ephesus debated Hypostasis (natures coexisting) versus Monophysitism (one nature only) versus Miaphysitism (two natures united as one) versus Nestorianism (division of two natures). The Council of Chalcedon in 451 was highly influential and marked a crucial turning point in the Christological debates that divided the Church of the Eastern Roman Empire in the 5th century. At Chalcedon the hypostatic union was decided, namely that Jesus is both fully divine and fully human, making this part of the creed of orthodox Christianity.[76][77][78][79]

In the 5th century, the leading father of the Church, Pope Leo I, used the nativity scene as a key element of his theology. Leo preached 10 sermons on the birth of Christ and 7 have survived. The one on December 25, 451 shows his desire to increase the importance of the Nativity while emphasizing the two natures of Christ in order to defend the Christological doctrine of hypostatic union.[80] Leo often used his crib sermons as an opportunity to attack opposing points of view without naming the opposition. Thus Leo used the occasion of the Nativity to set boundaries for what might be considered heresy regarding the birth and nature of Christ.[64]

In the 13th century, St. Thomas Aquinas dealt with the Christological attribution of birth: should it be ascribed to the person (the Word) or only to that person’s supposed human nature. Aquinas discussed the Nativity in 8 separate articles in Summa Theologica, each posing a separate question. “Does the manger contemplate nature rather than person?” “Should a temporal birth be ascribed to Christ?” “Should the Virgin Mary be called the Mother of Christ?” “Should the Holy Virgin be called the Mother of God?” “Are there two filiations in Christ?” etc.[81] To solve this problem, Aquinas distinguishes between the person who is born and the nature in which birth takes place.[82] Aquinas resolved the issue by arguing that in the hypostatic union Christ has two natures, one from the Father in eternity, the other from his Mother in time. This approach also solved the Mariological problem of giving Mary the title Theotokos, since she is the “Mother of God” in this scenario.[82]

During the Reformation, John Calvin argued that Jesus was sanctified as “God incarnate” (Deus manifestatus in carne) not only because of his virgin birth, but also by the action of the Holy Spirit at the moment of his birth. Thus Calvin argued that Jesus was freed from original sin because he was sanctified at the moment of his birth so that his generation was without blemish; as the generation before the fall of Adam was spotless.[83]

Impact on Christianity[edit]

Christmas, the Feast of the Nativity of Our Lord[ edit ]

Christian churches celebrate the birth of Jesus on Christmas, which is celebrated by Western Christian churches on December 25, while many Eastern Christian churches celebrate the feast of the Nativity of Our Lord on January 7.[84] This is not a disagreement over the date of Christmas as such, but rather a preference as to which calendar should be used to determine the day, which is December 25th. At the Council of Tours of 567, the Church, in its desire to be universal, “declared the twelve days between Christmas and Epiphany to be a unified festival cycle,” giving importance to both the Western and Eastern dates of Christmas. The liturgical season of Advent precedes and serves to prepare for Christmas.[90] The customs of the Christmas season include attending a daily Advent service and wreath, [91] singing Christmas carols, [92] giving gifts, [93] watching nativity plays, [94] attending church services, [95] and eating special foods, such as Christmas cake.[96] In many countries, such as Sweden, people start putting up their Advent and Christmas decorations on the first day of Advent.[97][98] In liturgical terms, this is done in some parishes with a ceremonial hanging of the Greens.[99]

History of feasts and liturgical elements[ edit ]

In the 1st and 2nd centuries, the Lord’s Day (Sunday) was the earliest Christian festival and encompassed a range of theological themes. In the second century the resurrection of Jesus became a separate feast from Easter, and in the same century the Epiphany was celebrated on January 6 in the churches of the East.[100] The celebration of the feast of the Magi on January 6 could refer to a pre-Christian celebration of the blessing of the Nile in Egypt on January 5, but is historically uncertain.[101] The birth festival, which later became Christmas, was a fourth-century festival in the western church, particularly in Rome and North Africa, although it is not known exactly where and when it was first celebrated.[102]

The earliest source giving December 25 as the date of Jesus’ birth was Hippolytus of Rome (170–236), written very early in the 3rd century, based on the assumption that Jesus’ conception took place at the vernal equinox, to which he put March 25, and then added nine months.[103] There is historical evidence that the Christian churches of the East (mid-4th century) celebrated the birth and baptism of Jesus on the same day, on 6 the winter solstice); and that in the last quarter of the fourth century the calendars of both churches contained both feasts.[104] The earliest suggestions for a 2nd-century feast of Jesus’ baptism on January 6 come from Clement of Alexandria, but there is no further mention of such a feast until 361, when the Emperor Julian attended a feast on January 6 of the year 361. [104]

Christmas crib at the Resurrection Lutheran Church, Fredericksburg, Virginia

The illuminated manuscript “Chronography of 354” compiled in Rome contains an early reference to the celebration of a nativity scene. In a sermon delivered in Antioch on December 25, c. In 386, St. John Chrysostom provides specific information about the festival there, stating that the festival had existed for about 10 years.[104] By 385 the feast of Jesus’ birth differed from that of baptism and was observed on December 25 in Constantinople, Nyssa and Amaseia. In a sermon in 386, Gregory of Nyssa explicitly linked the feast of the Nativity with the martyrdom of St. Stephen, which was celebrated a day later. Around 390 the festival was also held in Iconium that day.[104]

Pope Leo I instituted a celebration of the “Mystery of the Incarnation” in the 5th century, which was effectively the first formal celebration of Jesus’ birth. Pope Sixtus III then instituted the practice of midnight mass just before this feast.[105] In the 6th century Emperor Justinian declared Christmas a public holiday.[106]

In the 14th and 15th centuries, the theological significance of Jesus’ birth was coupled with an emphasis on the loving nature of the infant Jesus in sermons by figures such as Jean Gerson. In his sermons, Gerson emphasized the loving nature of Jesus at birth and his cosmic plan for mankind’s salvation.[107]

By the early 20th century, even in officially non-religious countries like the United States, Christmas had become a “cultural signature” of Christianity and even Western culture. At the beginning of the 21st century, these countries began to pay more attention to the sensitivities of non-Christians during the celebrations at the end of the calendar year.[108]

Changing the image of Jesus[ edit ]

Paper on wood Nativity scene from 1750, Milan, with a delicate image of Jesus

Early Christians saw Jesus as “Lord,” and the word Kyrios appears and refers to Him over 700 times in the New Testament.[109] The use of the word Kyrios in the Septuagint also assigns Jesus the Old Testament attributes of an almighty God.[109] The use of the term kyrios, and therefore of Jesus’ rule, goes back to the Pauline epistles, but St. Paul expanded and elaborated on this theme.[109]

Pauline writings established among early Christians the Kyrios image and attributes of Jesus relating not only to his eschatological victory but to him as the “divine image” (Greek εἰκών eikōn) in whose face the glory of God shines. This image remained the dominant image of Jesus among Christians for several centuries.[110] More than any other title, Kyrios defined the relationship between Jesus and those who believed in him as Christ: Jesus was their Lord and Master, to be wholeheartedly served and who would one day judge their deeds throughout their lives.[111 ]

The dominion attributes associated with the Kyrios image of Jesus also implied his power over all creation.[112][113] Paul then looked back and argued that Jesus’ final rule was prepared from the beginning, beginning with the pre-existence and birth of Christ, based on his obedience in the image of God.[114] Over time, the Kyrios image of Jesus, based on the influence of Anselm of Canterbury, Bernard of Clairvaux and others, was supplemented by a “more tender image of Jesus”, and the Franciscan approach to popular piety was instrumental in establishing this image involved.[113]

The 13th century witnessed a major turning point in the development of a new “tender image of Jesus” within Christianity, when the Franciscans began to emphasize Jesus’ humility at both birth and death. The construction of the nativity scene by Saint Francis of Assisi was instrumental in presenting a softer image of Jesus in contrast to the powerful and radiant image at the Transfiguration, and emphasizing how God took a humble path to His own birth .[115] As the Black Death raged in medieval Europe, the two mendicant orders of the Franciscans and Dominicans helped the faithful cope with tragedy. One element of the Franciscan approach was the emphasis on Jesus’ humility and the poverty of his birth: the image of God was the image of Jesus, not a severe and punitive God, but himself humbled at birth and sacrificed at death.[116 ] The notion that that the Almighty Creator would set aside all power to conquer the hearts of men through love, and that He would have been laid helpless in a manger, was as wondrous and as touching to the faithful as the sacrifice of dying on the cross at Calvary. [117]

Thus, in the thirteenth century, the tender joys of Jesus’ birth were added to the agony of his crucifixion, and a whole new set of accepted religious sentiments were introduced, with far-reaching cultural implications for centuries to come.[117] The Franciscans approached both ends of this spectrum of emotions. On the one hand, the introduction of the nativity scene promoted the tender image of Jesus, on the other hand, Francis of Assisi himself had a deep connection with the suffering of Jesus on the cross and is said to have received the stigmata as an expression of his love. The dual nature of Franciscan piety, based on both the joy of birth and the sacrifice at Calvary, had a deep appeal to the townspeople, and as the Franciscan friars traveled these emotions spread throughout the world, transforming the Kyrios image of Jesus into a more tender, loving, and compassionate image.[117] These traditions were not limited to Europe and soon spread to other parts of the world such as Latin America, the Philippines and the United States.[118][119]

According to Archbishop Rowan Williams, this transformation, accompanied by the dissemination of the delicate image of Jesus in Madonna and Child paintings, had an important impact on Christian ministry by allowing Christians to feel the living presence of Jesus as a loving figure, “who is always there to shelter and nourish those who turn to him for help.[120][121]

Hymns, art and music[ edit ]

Chants in Luke[edit]

Luke’s Nativity text has given rise to four well-known hymns: the Benedictus and the Magnificat in the first chapter, and the Gloria in Excelsis and the Nunc dimittis in the second chapter.[122] Today, these “gospel hymns” are an integral part of the liturgical tradition.[123] The parallel structure in Luke regarding the births of John the Baptist and Jesus extends to the three cantos Benedictus (song of Zechariah), the Nunc dimittis and the Magnificat.[124]

The Magnificat in Luke 1:46-55 is spoken by Mary and is one of the eight oldest Christian hymns, perhaps the earliest Marian song.[125] The Benedictus in Luke 1:68-79 is spoken by Zechariah, while the Nunc dimittis in Luke 2:29-32 is spoken by Simeon.[126] The traditional Gloria in Excelsis is longer than the opening line at Luke 2:14 and is often referred to as the “song of the angels” because it was spoken by the angels in the Annunciation to the shepherds.[127]

The three canticles Benedictus, Nunc Dimittis and the Magnificat may have their roots in the earliest Christian liturgical services in Jerusalem, although not by Luke himself, but their precise origins remain unknown[128].

Fine arts[edit]

Annunciation by Nesterov, 19th century, Russia

One of the most visible traditions during the Christmas season is the display of nativity scene scenes depicting the Nativity, usually in the form of statues or figurines, in private homes, shops and churches, either inside or outside the building. This tradition is usually attributed to Saint Francis of Assisi, who created such an exhibition in Greccio, Italy, in 1223[130][131] as recounted by Saint Bonaventure in his circumscribed Life of Saint Francis of Assisi in 1260.[132]

Before the tradition of the nativity scene developed, there were paintings depicting the subject. The earliest artistic depictions of the Nativity were in the catacombs and on sarcophagi in Rome. As non-Jewish visitors, the Magi were popular in these scenes and represented the importance of the coming of the Messiah to all peoples. Ox and donkey were also taken as symbols for Jews and Gentiles alike and have remained a constant since the earliest depictions. Mary was soon enthroned when kings visited her.[133]

Depictions of the Nativity soon became a normal part of cycles in art, illustrating both the life of Christ and the life of the Virgin. Nativity scenes also carry the message of redemption: the union of God with matter forms the mystery of the Incarnation, a turning point in the Christian perspective of salvation.[134]

In the Eastern Church, painted icons of the Nativity often correspond to certain hymns to Mary, e.g. to Kontakion: “The virgin today brings forth the transsubstantial, and the earth offers a den to the unapproachable.”[135] In many Eastern icons of birth (often accompanied by appropriate hymns) two basic elements are emphasized. First, the event presents the mystery of the incarnation as the basis for Christian belief and the combined nature of Christ as divine and human. Second, it relates the event to the natural life of the world and its implications for humanity.[135]

Hymns, music and performances[ edit ]

The Nativity in an English liturgical manuscript, c. 1310-1320

Like the 1st-century Jews, the early Christians discouraged the use of musical instruments in religious ceremonies, relying instead on chants and chants, leading to the use of the term a cappella (in the chapel) for these chants.

One of the earliest nativity scenes was Veni redemptor gentium, composed by Saint Ambrose in Milan in the 4th century. By the early 5th century, the Spanish poet Prudentius had written From the Heart of the Father, in which the ninth stanza focused on the birth of Christ and presented Jesus as the creator of the universe. In the 5th century, the Gaulish poet Sedulius composed From the Lands That See the Sun Rise, which depicted the humility of Jesus’ birth.[133] The Magnificat, one of the eight oldest Christian hymns and perhaps the earliest Marian hymn, is based on the Annunciation.[125][126]

Saint Romanus the Melodic had a dream of the Virgin Mary the night before the Feast of the Nativity, and waking up the next morning he composed his first hymn, On the Nativity, and composed more hymns (perhaps several hundred) until to the end of his life.[136] Reenactments of the nativity scene, now called nativity plays, were part of the troparion hymns in the liturgy of Byzantine rite churches, of St. Sophronius in the 7th century.[137] By the 13th century the Franciscans had fostered a strong tradition of popular Christmas carols in the native languages.[138] Christmas carols in English first appear in 1426 in a work by John Awdlay, a Shropshire chaplain, listing twenty-five “Carols of Cristemas”.

The greatest number of musical works about Christ in which he does not speak deal with the birth of Christ. A large body of liturgical music exists about the birth of Jesus, as well as a large body of paraliturgical texts, Christmas carols, and folk music. The Christmas carols are now regarded as a cultural signature of the birth of Jesus.[140]

Most of the musical nativity scenes are not biblical and only arose when opera was assimilated into sacred music in the 17th century. But after that there was a flood of new music, e.g. B. Heinrich Schütz’ 1660, Marc-Antoine Charpentier (Midnight Mass, Pastoral, Oratorio, Instrumental music, 11 settings), The Christmas Carol and Bach’s Christmas Oratorio in the 18th Century. And Lisz’ Christ, Berlioz’ L’Enfance du Christ (1850), Camille Saint-Saëns’ Christmas Oratorio (1858), etc.[140] John Milton’s classic 1629 poem Ode on the Morning of Christ’s Nativity was used by John McEwan in 1901.[140]

Historical analysis[ edit ]

Traditional Views[ edit ]

According to some scholars, the two accounts are historically accurate and not contradictory,[141] with similarities such as the Bethlehem birthplace and the virgin birth. George Kilpatrick and Michael Patella state that a comparison of the nativity scenes of Luke and Matthew shows common elements regarding the virgin birth, the Bethlehem birth, and the Nazareth upbringing, although there are differences in the accounts of the birth in Luke and In Matthew a general narrative can be constructed by combining the two.[142][143] A number of biblical scholars have attempted to show how the text of both narratives can be woven together in gospel harmony to produce an account beginning with a journey from Nazareth to Bethlehem where Jesus is born, followed by the flight into Egypt and ends with a return to Nazareth.[144][145][146][147][148]

Neither Luke nor Matthew claim that their birth accounts are based on direct testimony.[149] Raymond E. Brown suggested in 1973 that Joseph was the source of Matthew’s account and Mary of Luke’s, but modern scholars consider this “highly improbable” given the tale’s late emergence.

Roman Catholic scholars such as John L. McKenzie, Raymond E. Brown, and Daniel J. Harrington have argued that due to the scarcity of ancient records, a number of questions about the historicity of some Nativity scene episodes can never be fully resolved. and that the more important task is to decide what the nativity scenes meant to the early Christian communities.[151][152][153]

Critical Analysis[ edit ]

Many scholars do not view the nativity stories of Luke and Matthew as historically factual,[154][155][156] considering them to be laced with theology and presenting two different accounts and genealogies.[157][158][159][160] They point, for example, to Matthew’s account of an angel appearing to Joseph in a dream; the wise men from the east; the massacre of innocents; and the Flight into Egypt, which do not appear in Luke, who instead describes the appearance of an angel to Mary; the Roman census; the birth in a manger; and the chorus of angels appearing to the shepherds in the fields.[161] [note 2] Sanders does not consider Luke’s census, for which all returned to their ancestral homeland, historically credible as it contradicted Roman practice; They would not have driven everyone from their homes and farms across the Empire by forcing them to return to their ancestral cities. Furthermore, humans were unable to trace their own lineages back 42 generations.[155] In general, according to Karl Rahner, the evangelists show little interest in synchronizing the episodes of the birth or later life of Jesus with contemporary secular history.[162] As a result, modern scholars do not use much of the birth narrative for historical information.[157][159] Nonetheless, they are believed to contain some useful biographical information: the birth of Jesus near the end of Herod’s reign during the reign of Emperor Augustus and his father named Joseph are considered historically plausible.[157][163]

Most modern scholars accept the Markan priority hypothesis that the accounts of Luke and Matthew are based on the gospel of Mark, but that the birth accounts come from the evangelists’ independent sources known as the M-source for Matthew and the L-source for Luke later added .[164]

While Géza Vermes and E.P. Sanders dismiss the accounts as pious fiction, Raymond E. Brown sees them as constructed from historical traditions that predate the Gospels.[165][166][167] According to Brown, there is no unanimous consensus among scholars as to the historicity of the accounts, e.g. For example, most scholars who reject the historicity of the Bethlehem birth argue for a birth in Nazareth, some suggest Capernaum, and others have hypothetical locations as far away as Chorazin.[168] Bruce Chilton and archaeologist Aviram Oshri have suggested a birth in Bethlehem of Galilee, a site seven miles from Nazareth where remains from the time of Herod the Great have been unearthed. Armand P. Tarrech states that Chilton’s hypothesis finds no support in either Jewish or Christian sources, although Chilton seems to take seriously the statement in Luke 2:4 that Joseph also ascended from Galilee to Judea from the city of Nazareth. to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem.[171]

Many consider the discussion of historicity to be secondary since the gospels were primarily written as theological documents rather than chronological timelines.[172][173][174][175] For example, Matthew pays much more attention to the child’s name and its theological implications than to the actual birth event itself.[176]

See also[edit]

Notes [edit]

^ For a more complete account of the similarities and differences between the two, see Raymond E. Brown, Birth of the Messiah, pp. 34-35, and Barbara Shellard, New Light on Luke: Its Purpose, Sources, and Literary Context “, pp.79-81. ^ [157][158][154][155][159][160][156]

References[edit]

quotes[edit]

An instructive relic of the long struggle survives in our feast of Christmas, which the church seems to have borrowed directly from its pagan rival. In the Julian calendar, the twenty-fifth of December was counted as the winter solstice and considered the birth of the sun because the day begins to lengthen and the sun’s power begins to increase from this turning point of the year. The birth ritual, as apparently celebrated in Syria and Egypt, was remarkable. The revelers retired to certain inner shrines, from which they emerged at midnight with a loud cry: “The maiden is born! The light is increasing!” The Egyptians even represented the newborn sun through the image of an infant whom they brought forth on his birthday, the winter solstice, and presented to his worshipers. Undoubtedly the maiden who thus conceived and bore a son on December 25th was the great Oriental goddess, whom the Semites called the Heavenly Maiden, or simply the Heavenly Goddess; in Semitic countries it was a form of Astarte. Now Mithra was regularly identified by his worshipers with the sun, the unconquered sun, as they called him; hence his birth fell on the twenty-fifth of December. The Gospels say nothing about the day of Christ’s birth, and accordingly the early church did not celebrate it. In time, however, the Christians of Egypt came to regard January 6 as the date of birth, and the custom of commemorating the Savior’s birth on this day gradually spread until it was generally introduced in the East in the fourth century. But by the end of the third or beginning of the fourth century, the Western Church, which had never accepted the sixth of January as the day of Christ’s birth, accepted the twenty-fifth of December as the true date, and thus his decision was also accepted by the Eastern Church. In Antioch the change was not introduced until about AD 375.

What considerations prompted the ecclesiastical authorities to introduce Christmas? The motives for the change are stated with great frankness by a Syrian writer who is himself a Christian. “The reason,” he tells us, “why the fathers moved the celebration from January 6 to December 25 was this. It was a custom of the pagans to celebrate the birthday of the sun on the same December 25, on which they would light candles in token of celebration. In these celebrations and celebrations, the Christians also took part. When the Doctors of the Church realized that Christians were inclined towards this feast, they took counsel and decided that the true birth should be celebrated on this day and the Feast of the Epiphany on January 6th. Accordingly, alongside this custom, the practice of kindling bonfires until the sixth has prevailed.” The pagan origin of Christmas is clearly hinted at, though not implicitly admitted, by Augustine when he exhorts his Christian brethren not to celebrate this solemn day as the pagans do, because of the to celebrate the sun, but because of him who made the sun. Similarly, Leo the Great rejected the pernicious belief that Christmas was celebrated because of what it was called the birth of the new sun, and not because of the birth of Christ.

So it seems that the Christian Church decided to celebrate the birthday of its Founder on the twenty-fifth of December, in order to transfer the worship of the pagans from the sun to him, who was called the sun of righteousness….

in work and play

The real meaning of Christmas

Adoration of the Shepherds by Dutch painter Gerard van Honthorst, 1622

It’s that time of year again. December has arrived and with it all the joys of Christmas. But what is the true meaning of Christmas? Is it the presents under the tree, the lights in the windows, the cards in the mail, turkey dinners with family and friends, snow in the yard, stockings hanging in the living room, and shouts of “Merry Christmas” to those who pass by? we on the street? Is this really Christmas?

We think that’s just part of it, embodied in a definition of the “true meaning of Christmas” found in The American Magazine, Volume 28 of 1889:

“Giving up on yourself – thinking only of others – how to bring the greatest happiness to others – that is the true meaning of Christmas.”

The poem A Visit From St. Nicholas (1822) helped popularize the tradition of exchanging gifts, and seasonal Christmas shopping began to gain economic importance. Sure, we enjoy giving, but that’s just a small part of the meaning we find in Christmas.

The true meaning of Christmas is love. John 3:16-17 says, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life in the world, but to save the world through him.” .” The true meaning of Christmas is the celebration of this incredible act of love.

The actual Christmas story is the story of God’s incarnation in the person of Jesus Christ. Why did God do such a thing? Because he loves us! Why was Christmas necessary? Because we needed a savior! Why does God love us so much? Because he is love itself (1 John 4:8). Why do we celebrate Christmas every year? Out of gratitude for what God has done for us, we remember His birth by giving gifts to one another, worshiping Him, and being especially aware of the poor and less fortunate.

God loved His own and made a way—the only way—for us to spend eternity with Him. He gave his only son to take our punishment for our sins. He paid full price and we are free from judgment when we accept this free gift of love. “But God showed us His own love in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8).

In that sense, Christmas can be a time of great joy. It is a time when God shows us his great love. It can be a time of healing and renewed strength. Sure, enjoy the season, but also remember to be happy! After all, the true meaning of Christmas is the celebration of God’s ultimate gift: the birth of Jesus, the Christ Child.

Hypothetical date of birth of Jesus

The date of Jesus’ birth is not given in the Gospels or in any historical reference, but most biblical scholars place it between 6 and 4 B.C. The historical evidence is too incomplete to permit a definitive dating, but the year is estimated by three different approaches: (A) by analyzing references to known historical events mentioned in the cribs in the Gospels of Luke and Matthew, (B) by working backwards from estimating the beginning of Jesus’ ministry, and (C) astrological or astronomical alignments. The usual Christian traditional dating of Jesus’ birth date was December 25, a date first officially claimed by Pope Julius I in AD 350, although this claim is dubious or otherwise unfounded. The day or season has been estimated by various methods, including depicting shepherds watching over their sheep.

year of birth [edit]

Crèche accounts [ edit ]

The manger accounts in the New Testament gospels of Matthew and Luke mention no date or season for the birth of Jesus.[a] Karl Rahner explains that the authors of the gospels generally focused on theological elements rather than historical chronologies.

Both Luke and Matthew associate the birth of Jesus with the time of Herod the Great. Matthew 2:1 says, “Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of King Herod.” He also implies that Jesus could have been as young as two years old at the time of the kings’ visit, because Herod ordered the murder of all boys up to the age of two, “according to the time he had learned from the Magi”. Matthew 2:16 If the phrase “about 30” in Luke 3:23 is interpreted to mean 32 years old, this could match a birth date right within the reign of Herod, which is 4 B.C. died.

Luke 1:5 mentions the reign of Herod just before the birth of Jesus and places the birth at the time of the census of Quirinius, which the Jewish historian Josephus in his book Antiquities of the Jews (written c. AD) places around the year 6 n 93) by noting that the governorship of Cyrenius/Quirinius in Syria began in AD 6 and during his tenure sometime between AD 6 and 7. A census took place and the census generally accept a Date of birth between 6 and 4 BC BC, the year Herod died. Tertullian believed, some two centuries later, that under Sentius Saturninus a series of censuses were being conducted simultaneously throughout the Roman world. Some biblical scholars and commentators believe that the two accounts can be harmonized, arguing that the text in Luke can be read as “a registration before Quirinius was governor of Syria”, i.e. that Luke was actually referring to an entirely different census.

Other Evidence for the Gospel[edit]

Dispute between Jesus and the Pharisees, from , by James Tissot, c. 1890

Another approach to estimating the year of birth is based on trying to work backwards from the point Jesus began preaching, using the statement in Luke 3:23 that he was “about 30 years old” at that point. was. Jesus began preaching after he was baptized by John the Baptist, and based on the Gospel of Luke, John did not begin until the “fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar” (Luke 3:1–2), which scholars have estimated to be the year would be to baptize people around AD 28-29. Working backwards from this, it appears that Jesus was probably no later than 1 BC. was born. Another theory is that Herod did not arrive until after the 1 December BC solar eclipse. [25] or even AD 1 [26] after the solar eclipse of December 1 BC.

This date is independently confirmed by John’s indication at John 2:20 that the temple was in its 46th year of construction when Jesus began his ministry during the Passover, which scholarly estimates is about AD 27-29.

Theories based on the Star of Bethlehem[ edit ]

Most scholars consider the Star of Bethlehem account to be pious fiction of literary and theological value rather than historical. Nonetheless, attempts have been made to interpret it as an astronomical event that could then help date Jesus’ birth through the use of ancient astronomical records or modern astronomical calculations. The first such attempt was made by Johannes Kepler, who interpreted the account to describe a grand conjunction of the planets Jupiter and Saturn.

Professor Colin Humphreys of the University of Cambridge has argued in the Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society that a comet in the early 5th BC

Other astronomical events were considered, including a close planetary conjunction between Venus and Jupiter in 2 BC. [30]

Day and Season[ edit ]

Despite the modern celebration of Christmas in December, neither the Gospel of Luke nor the Gospel of Matthew mention a season for Jesus’ birth. Scholarly arguments have been advanced as to whether shepherds grazed their flock in winter, with some scholars questioning a winter birth for Jesus[31] and others defending the idea, citing the mild winters in Judea and rabbinic rules regarding sheep in near Bethlehem led before February.

Alexander Murray of History Today argues that the celebration of Christmas as Jesus’ birthday is based on the date of a pagan festival rather than historical analysis.[34] Saturnalia, the Roman festival of Saturn, was associated with the winter solstice. But Saturnalia was held on December 17 of the Julian calendar and was later extended with celebrations only to December 23. The holiday was celebrated with sacrifice at the Temple of Saturn and the Roman Forum, and a public banquet, followed by private gifts, continuous parties, and a carnival atmosphere that overturned Roman social norms. The Roman festival of Natalis Solis Invicti has also been suggested as it was celebrated on December 25 and was associated with some prominent emperors. It is likely that such a Christian festival was chosen because of Christ’s stark contrast and triumph over paganism; Indeed, new converts who attempted to introduce pagan elements into Christian celebrations were severely rebuked.

Alternatively, December 25 might have been chosen for its symbolic theological importance due to its proximity to the winter solstice. After the solstice, the days with longer hours of sunshine begin to lengthen, which Christians see as a representation of the light of Christ entering the world. This symbolism applies equally to the celebration of the birth of Saint John the Baptist on June 24, just before the summer solstice, based on John’s remark about Jesus “He must increase, I must decrease”. John 3:30 NRSV.[37]

In the 1st and 2nd centuries, the Lord’s Day (Sunday) was the earliest Christian festival and encompassed a range of theological themes. In the 2nd century the resurrection of Jesus became a separate feast (now called Easter) and in the same century the Epiphany was celebrated on January 6 in the Eastern Churches. The birth festival, which later became Christmas, was a festival in the western church, particularly in Rome and North Africa, by the 4th century, although exactly where and when it was first celebrated is not known.

The earliest source giving December 25 as the date of Jesus’ birth is probably a book by Hippolytus of Rome written in the early 3rd century.[40] He based his view on the assumption that Jesus’ conception occurred on the vernal equinox, which Hippolytus put on March 25, and then added nine months to calculate the date of birth. This date was then used for the Christmas party. March 25th would also be roughly the date of his crucifixion, which ancient Christians would have taken to confirm his birth date, as many people of the time believed that the great prophets were begotten into the afterlife on the same day they were begotten into the world. [Citation needed] Ignacio L. Götz suggests that Jesus “may have been born in the late spring of the year because pregnancies began in the fall after the harvest and there was enough money for a wedding feast”. [42] John Chrysostom argued for a December 25th in the late 4th century, basing his argument on the assumption that the incense offering mentioned in Luke 1:8-11 refers to the incense offering of a high priest on Yom Kippur (early October), and calculated fifteen months in the future as above. However, this was very likely an afterthought of a choice already made and not a genuine attempt to derive the correct date of birth. John Chrysostom also writes in his Sermon on the Birth of Our Lord Jesus Christ (Εἰς τὸ γενέθλιον τοῦ Σωτῆρος ἡµῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ) that the date of the 25th

Other sources that give December 25 as Jesus’ date are:

Finally, December 25 could be a reference to the date of the Feast of Initiation, which occurs on Kislev 25 of the Jewish calendar. This would require the early Christians to simply translate Kislev directly to December.

Research by members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints generally places the birth of Jesus in early to mid-April,[46] while theologians, Bible scholars, and authors have suggested September or late March by Ian Paul.[47]

Shia view[edit]

In the Shia hadith compilation, Tuhaf al-Uqul, the sixth Imam, Jafar As Sadiq, when asked about the birth of Christ at Christmas, says the following:

“You lied. In fact, it was mid-June. In mid-March day and night become the same.”

This statement of his does not literally mean that it was June 15, but it does refer to a day near the vernal equinox.[48]

See also[edit]

References[edit]

Notes [edit]

quotes[edit]

Sources[edit]

Authorship of Luke and Acts

The Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles form a two-volume work that scholars call the Acts of Luke. The author is not named in either volume. According to church tradition, first attested by Irenaeus (c. AD 130-c. 202), he was the Luke mentioned in three of the Pauline epistles as Paul’s companion, but “a critical consensus emphasizes the innumerable contradictions between the accounts in Acts and the authentic Pauline epistles.” The obscuration of the traditional attribution to Luke, Paul’s companion, has meant that an early date for the gospel is rarely suggested. Most scholars date the composition of the combined work to about AD 80-90, although some others suggest AD 90-110, and there is textual evidence (the conflicts between Western and Alexandrian manuscript families) that the Acts of Luke was revised well into the 2nd th century.

Joint Authorship of Luke and Acts

The Gospel of Luke and Acts form a two-part work, Luke–Acts, by the same anonymous author. It is usually dated to around AD 80–90, although some scholars suggest 90–110. The first part, the Gospel of Luke, tells how God fulfilled His plan of salvation for the world through the life, death and resurrection of the promised Messiah Jesus of Nazareth. The book of Acts continues the history of Christianity in the 1st century, beginning with the ascension of Jesus. The opening chapters, set in Jerusalem, describe the day of Pentecost (the coming of the Holy Spirit) and the growth of the church in Jerusalem. Initially, the Jews were receptive to the Christian message, but later turned against the followers of Jesus. Rejected by the Jews, the message is taken to the Gentiles under the leadership of the apostle Paul. The later chapters tell of Paul’s conversion, his mission in Asia Minor and the Aegean, and finally his imprisonment in Rome, where he awaits trial at the end of the book.

Both books are addressed to Theophilus, the author’s patron – and perhaps a label for a Christian community as a whole, since the name means “beloved of God” and the preface to Acts specifically refers to “my earlier book” on the life of Jesus – almost certainly the work we know as the Gospel of Luke.

In addition, there are linguistic and theological similarities between the Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts. As one scholar writes, “the extensive linguistic and theological correspondences and cross-references between the Gospel of Luke and Acts indicate that both works are by the same author.”[6] Because of their shared authorship, the gospel of Luke and the book of Acts are often collectively referred to simply as the book of Acts. Similarly, the author of Luke acts is often known as “Luke” – even among scholars who doubt that the author’s real name was Luke.

Authorship views[edit]

Traditional view – Doctor Luke as the author

The traditional view is that the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts were written by the physician Luke, a companion of Paul. Many scholars believe he was a Gentile Christian, although some scholars believe Luke was a Hellenic Jew.[7][8] This Luke is mentioned in Paul’s letter to Philemon (verse 24) and in two other letters traditionally attributed to Paul (Colossians 4:14 and 2 Timothy 4:11).

The view that the Acts of Luke were written by the physician Luke was almost unanimous in the early Christian church. The Papyrus Bodmer XIV, the oldest known manuscript containing the conclusion of the Gospel (circa AD 200), uses the “The Gospel of Luke” subscription. Almost all ancient sources shared this theory of authorship—Irenaeus,[9] Tertullian,[10] Clement of Alexandria,[11] Origen, and the Muratorian canon all considered Luke the author of the Acts of Luke. Neither Eusebius of Caesarea nor any other ancient writer mentions any other tradition of authorship.[Note 1]

In addition to the evidence of authorship provided by the ancient sources, some believe that the text of the Acts of Luke supports the conclusion that its author was a companion of Paul. First among such internal evidence are portions of the book referred to as the “we” passages (Acts -16). Although most of Acts is written in the third person, several brief sections of the book are written from the first person perspective.[12] These we-parts are written from the point of view of one of Paul’s traveling companions: e.g. “After Paul saw the vision, we immediately prepared to set sail for Macedonia”, “We put to sea and sailed directly to Samothrace”[13] Such passages appear to have been written by someone who had traveled with Paul for some time, as part of his ministry. Accordingly, some have used this evidence to support the conclusion that these passages, and thus the entire text of Luke’s Acts, were written by a traveling companion of Paul. Doctor Luke would be such a person.

It has also been argued that the level of detail used in the narrative describing Paul’s travels points to an eyewitness source. In 1882, Hobart claimed that the vocabulary used in Luke acts suggested that its author might have had medical training, but this claim was challenged by an influential 1926 study by Cadbury, which argued that Luke’s medical terminology is no different from the terminology used by other non-medical authors such as Plutarch.[14][15][16]

The traditional view recognizes that Luke was not an eyewitness to either the events in the gospel or the events prior to Paul’s arrival at Troas in Acts 16:8, and the first “we” passage is Acts 16:10.[17] In the preface to Luke, the author indicates that he has “delivered” and “carefully researched” testimonies of gospel events, but the author neither gives his own name nor specifically claims to be an eyewitness to all events except that We passages.

Critical View – Authentic Pauline epistles do not refer to Luke as a physician

The letter to Philemon, which is almost universally accepted as the authentic letter of Paul, includes the name “Luke” alongside other “collaborators” of Paul sending greetings to the recipients of the letter (Philemon, verse 24). The identification of Luke as a physician comes from Colossians 4:14, but most New Testament scholars believe that Colossians are pseudonymous.[18] 2 Timothy 4:11 also mentions a “Luke” and refers to him being “with me,” but most modern scholars do not accept 2 Timothy as an authentic epistle from Paul.[19]

Critical view – the “we” passages as fragments of earlier sources

In the “we” passages, the narrative is written in the first person plural, but the author never refers to himself as “I” or “I”. Some [who?] consider the “we” passages to be fragments of a second document, part of an earlier account later incorporated into Acts by the later author of Luke’s Acts. [Citation needed] Many modern scholars have questioned this. The author of Luke Acts was the physician Luke, and critical opinion on the subject was estimated to be roughly evenly distributed towards the end of the 20th century.[20] Instead, they believe Luke-Acts was written by an anonymous Christian author who may not have been an eyewitness to any of the events chronicled in the text. The author of Acts “wanted his readers to understand that he was a traveling companion of Paul for a time, although he was not.”[21] Alternatively, Vernon Robbins (1978) considers the “we” passages to be a Greek rhetorical used Funds for sea voyages.[22] However, recent scholars have since written about the incoherence of Robbins’ literary theory of sea voyages, arguing that contemporary first-person narratives are the exception rather than the rule, that Robbins’ cited literature in both language domains (Egyptian, Greek and Latin) and throughout its chronological extent (1800 BC to 3rd century AD) many of the literary voyages cited represented the actual presence of the author and were not literary devices at all, many of his examples using the third person throughout and not precisely in voyages etc[23]

Interpretation of the “we” passages in authorship discussions

The “we” passages – a number of verses in Acts are written in the first person plural (“we”), apparently indicating that the writer took part in the events he is describing – were first used by Irenaeus as evidence of this interpreted that the scribe was a personal eyewitness to these events and companion of Paul on his travels; the traditional Luke.[24] This interpretation had been heavily criticized in the middle of the 20th century.[25]

Although there is currently no scholarly consensus on the “we” passages,[26] three interpretations in particular have prevailed: a) the author was a genuine historical eyewitness, b) the author edited existing written material or oral sources, be it from real eyewitness or not, c) the use of the first person plural is a deliberate stylistic device that was common to the genre of the work, but should not indicate a historical eyewitness.[27][28] New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman goes beyond the theory of stylistic insertions by suggesting that the “we” passages are deliberate deceptions to convince the reader that the author was a traveling companion of Paul’s, when he was not.[ 29]

Historical eyewitness[ edit ]

The interpretation of the “we” passages as indicating that the writer was an historical eyewitness (whether Luke the Evangelist or not) remains the most influential in current Bible studies.[30] Objections to this view mainly take the form of the following two interpretations, but also include the assertion that the Acts of Luke contains differences in theology and historical narrative that are inconsistent with the authentic epistles of the apostle Paul.[31]

Editor[ edit ]

The interpretation of the “we” passages as an earlier written source incorporated into Acts by a later editor (whether Luke the Evangelist or not) acknowledges the apparent historicity of these texts while considering them separate from the main work. 33][34][35][36] This view has been criticized for not providing sufficient evidence to distinguish between the source text and the document in which it is incorporated.[37]

style convention[ edit ]

Considering the use of the “we” passages in the context of voyages, some scholars have viewed the “we” passages as a literary convention typical of voyages in romantic travel literature of the period.] This view has been criticized for not providing appropriate has found parallels [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] and has not demonstrated the existence of such a stylistic convention.[47] Distinct differences between acts and the works of a fictional genre have also been noted, indicating that acts does not belong to that genre.

fake [edit]

According to Bart D. Ehrman, the “we” passages were written by someone who falsely claimed to have been a traveling companion of Paul, to present the false idea that the author had first-hand knowledge of Paul’s views and activities. Ehrman believes that this proves Acts to be a forgery.[51]

Edit language]

Scholars have characterized the language used by the author of Luke’s Acts as “more elaborate Greek than Mark” and have said that it “sometimes lacks the Hebraisms of Mark (cf. Mk 11:9; 14:36) or uses Greek equivalents (Lk 3:12; 6:15; 23:33).”[52] However, some typically Hebrew phrases such as “and it came to pass” are still frequently found in Luke’s Acts of the Apostles, and the verses of the L source in particular seem to be to be based on Semitic sources; E. Earle Ellis (1999) cites Luke 1:5–2:40 as examples; 5:1-11; 7:11-17, 36-50; 8:1-3; 9:51-56; 11:27f.; 13:10-17; 14:1-6; 17:11-19; 19:1-10; 23:50-24:53.[52]

Some early scholars thought that the prevalence of Semitic idioms in the Gospel and in the first half of Acts was much higher than in the second half of Acts. They found that the narratives of the first half of Acts took place primarily in the Levant, while the narratives of the second half of Acts primarily took place in non-Jewish settings outside the Levant. They also suggested that there was a connection between the geography of the narratives and the rate of Semitic idioms. This led Charles Cutler Torrey (1906) to hypothesize that Acts chapters 1–15 were translated from an Aramaic document. However, most of Torrey’s arguments have been dismissed by other scholars who have pointed out that many Semitisms also existed in Acts 16–28.[53]

See also[edit]

Notes [edit]

^ The same Church Fathers unanimously insisted that the Gospel of Matthew was the source for the Gospel of Mark. Today, there is scientific consensus that the exact opposite is the case.

References[edit]

quotes[edit]

Bibliography[edit]

Sources[edit]

Although most Christians celebrate December 25 as Jesus Christ’s birthday, few in the first two Christian centuries claimed to know the exact day or year of His birth. The oldest existing record of a Christmas celebration is found in a Roman almanac that tells of a Nativity Festival administered by the Church of Rome in AD 336. The exact reason why Christmas was celebrated on December 25 remains a mystery, but most researchers believe Christmas originated as a Christian replacement for pagan celebrations of the winter solstice.

READ MORE: The Bible says Jesus was real. What other evidence is there?

For early Christians (and for many Christians today), Easter was the most important holiday on the Christian calendar, commemorating the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. However, as Christianity began to take hold in the Roman world in the early fourth century, church leaders had to contend with a popular Roman pagan holiday commemorating the “Birthday of the Unconquered Sun” (natalis solis invicti)—the Roman name for the winter solstice .

Every winter, the Romans honored the pagan god Saturn, god of agriculture, with Saturnalia, a festival that began on December 17 and usually ended on or about December 25 with a winter solstice celebration honoring the beginning of the new solar cycle. This festival was a time of merriment, and families and friends exchanged gifts. At the same time, Mithraism – the worship of the ancient Persian god of light – was popular in the Roman army, and the cult held some of its most important rituals at the winter solstice.

After the Roman Emperor Constantine I converted and sanctioned Christianity in 312, church leaders strove to claim the winter solstice holidays as their own and thereby achieve a more seamless conversion to Christianity for the emperor’s subjects. In justifying the celebration of Jesus’ birthday in late December, church leaders may have argued that since the world was supposedly created on the vernal equinox (late March), Jesus would have been begotten of God on that day. The Virgin Mary, pregnant with the Son of God, would have given birth to Jesus nine months later at the winter solstice.

From Rome, the celebration of the Nativity spread to other Christian churches in the West and East, and soon most Christians celebrated the Nativity on December 25th. Roman celebrations were later joined by other winter solstice rituals observed by various pagan groups, such as the lighting of the Christmas log and decorations with evergreens by Germanic tribes. The word Christmas originally entered the English language as Christes maesse, which means “Christ’s Mass” or “Christ’s Feast” in Old English. A popular medieval festival was that of St. Nicholas of Myra, a saint who was said to visit children with gifts and admonitions just before Christmas. This story evolved into the modern practice of leaving gifts for children said to have been brought by “Santa Claus”, a derivative of the Dutch name for St. Nicholas – Sinterklaas.

WATCH: Jesus: His Life on HISTORY Vault

reason for the season | Luke 2:11

Today we wanted to share a Bible verse from Luke 2:11 to remind everyone of the reason for the season. This verse says, “For today in the city of David a Savior has been born to you, who is Christ the Lord.” As Christmas draws near, we hope you will take the time to ponder the true meaning of Christmas. Christmas is a time to celebrate the birth of Jesus, our Lord and Savior. He came to this earth to willingly die on the cross for our sins. That’s right! He loved us so much! So amidst the gifts, cookie making and Christmas celebrations, remember that Jesus is the reason for the holiday season!

Saint Mary International Adoptions is a Christian Adoption Agency and wishes you a Merry Christmas!!!

Christmas is the annual religious and cultural celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ, celebrated by billions of people around the world. For Christians, the purpose of Christmas is the belief that God came into the world in human form to atone for the sins of mankind.

The Gospel of Matthew tells that the Wise Men (the three wise men) follow a star to Bethlehem to bring gifts (gold (turmeric), frankincense and myrrh) to Jesus, the born King of the Jews. Over the centuries, Christmas has had festivals and celebrations and has been banned and fallen out of favor due to drunkenness. Charles Dickens helped revitalize the “spirit” of Christmas and its merriment with the introduction of his novel, A Christmas Carol, which presents Christmas as a holiday centered on family, goodwill, and compassion.

advertisement

Jesus is the reason for the season. But then saying Merry Christmas to those who aren’t Christians became a no-go. So this year I wanted to research what other people are celebrating this time of year.

Hanukkah comes from the books of First and Second Maccabees about the story of olive oil, which would last only one day, miraculously lasted eight days is described in the Talmud, written 600 years after the event. The forces of the Seleucid Empire, which had attempted to prevent the people of Israel from practicing Judaism, were defeated. The eight-day festival of Hanukkah is marked each day by lighting a candle on the menorah.

advertisement

Hanakka is a minor holiday and there is no work restriction. Some practices practiced are: cooking potato pancakes in oil, playing dreidels, and giving children money (coins) called Hanukkah gelt. Over the years, as people marry into different religions, the traditions begin to merge. A rabbi recently urged Jews to keep Hanukkah traditions pure and not mix them with Christmas traditions.

Mawlid el-Nbi is an Islamic holiday honoring the birth of Prophet Muhammad, who founded Islam. Shia and Sunni believers celebrate on different days by reading the teachings of Muhammad.

Rohatsu (Bodhi Day) is the holiday celebrating the historical Buddha’s decision and vow to sit under the Bodhi tree until he attained spiritual enlightenment. It is celebrated through meditation.

Carroll County Daily Headlines Daily Get the top news and sports headlines of the day. >

Pagans and Wicca believers celebrate the solstice, honoring “the winter-born king,” symbolized by the rebirth of the sun.

The Kwanzaa holiday was created in 1966 by Maulana Ndabezitha Karenga, formerly known as Ron Karenga, and was named Ronald McKinley Everett at his birth in 1941. Karenga is an African-American professor of Africana studies, activist, and author. Karenga’s goal was to provide black people with an alternative to Christmas and a chance to celebrate themselves and their history.

Kwanzaa rituals promote African traditions and “Seven Principles of African Heritage”: unity, self-determination, collective work and responsibility, cooperative economics, creativity, and purpose: to collectively restore black people to their traditional greatness.

Therefore, with the gifts, decorated trees and lights, Christmas is far more elaborate and inclusive, calling for the goodwill of all mankind with compassion for all others than any of the above celebrations. Christmas is celebrated by 71% of the United States, while only 6% are non-Christian and 15% have no religion. It seems to me that not wanting someone to wish you a positive greeting and being treated like a friend is more of a psychological problem for some people, but not for the majority.

An anonymous statement was recently posted on Facebook detailing their journey into this tricky PC world, and I agree: “While the world tries to make sense of all the trials and tribulations, I’ll let people put me first in traffic, saying good morning, stopping to speak to someone who looks lonely, tipping generously, waving at the police, sharing food, being patient with waitstaff, and buying a complete stranger a cup of coffee. There? I will not stand idly by and live in a world where unconditional love is invisible. Join me in showing love, judging less. Find your own way to swing the pendulum toward love. Be the change! Be the light! Start today!”

advertisement

And smile with your heart because you know that the love you send is much stronger than any greeting from your mouth.

Rev. Ellin M. Dize is CEO of the non-profit NRS Inc. and chairs the A Course in Miracles spiritual discussion group at St. Paul’s UCC. She can be contacted at [email protected].

Some Christians are furiously protesting the practice of celebrating Christmas. They scold those connected to the pagan roots associated with the holiday, insisting that Christ never intended his followers to commemorate his birth. Perhaps they haven’t discovered yet that Christmas is a time of joy. As followers of Jesus Christ, the resounding message of our Christmas celebrations resonates with tones of joy—joy to the world, joy to you and me!

The biblical basis for this celebration is Luke 2:10-11, where the angel Gabriel proclaimed:

“I bring you good news that will bring great joy to all people. The Savior—yes, the Messiah, the Lord—is born today in Bethlehem, the City of David!” (NLT)

The Gospel of Jesus Christ

The gospel message is about the greatest gift of all time—God gave us Jesus Christ, his Son, who will bring great joy to all who accept him. The purpose of Christmas is to share this gift. And what a perfect opportunity!

Christmas is a holiday focused on the savior of the world. There couldn’t be a better reason to celebrate Christmas. We can share Jesus’ most wonderful gift so that others may experience the great joy of salvation. If you don’t know Jesus Christ as your Savior and want to experience great joy, you can receive His gift of salvation and participate in the Christmas celebration now. It’s very easy. Here’s how:

Admit you are a sinner. (Romans 3:23; 10:9-10)

you are a sinner (Romans 3:23; 10:9-10) Believe that Jesus Christ died on the cross to save you from sin and death and to give you eternal life. (Romans 5:8; John 3:16)

Jesus Christ died on the cross to save you from sin and death and to give you eternal life. (Romans 5:8; John 3:16) Recognize your sin before God and let Him help you transform your old life into a new life in Christ. (Acts 3:19; 2 Corinthians 5:17)

Your sin before God and let Him help you turn from your old life to a new life in Christ. (Acts 3:19; 2 Corinthians 5:17) Receive His free gift of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. (Ephesians 2:8)

If you just received Jesus, Merry Christmas! A good way to start celebrating is to tell someone about your experience.

The Gift of Redemption

Why become a Christian? The Bible presents several compelling reasons to consider becoming a Christian. It won’t make your life easier. God will not magically solve all of your problems, but knowing Christ can enable you to experience freedom, joy, peace, purpose, relationship, the greatest love of all, and eternity with God.

Learn more about how you can take one of the most important steps in your life by becoming a Christian. These resources will give you the biblical basis for your decision to accept Jesus as your Savior.

There is no special prayer formula for praying a prayer of salvation. All you have to do is speak to God from your heart and He will save you. If you don’t know what to say, try this prayer of salvation.

What’s next?

You may be wondering how to begin this new life in Christ. These four essential steps will help you build a relationship with Jesus Christ:

You may have heard excerpts of Bible stories in sermons, Bible study groups, or popular media, but how many have you read yourself? The Bible is filled with absorbing, insightful, and immensely satisfying books that can deepen your faith and strengthen your spirituality. Most Christians find that reading the books not only brings them closer to God, but is also an enjoyable and enjoyable activity. If you’re looking to rejuvenate your faith journey, make your Bible reading journey easier, or just want to learn the best verses in the Bible, try these books this year.

Psalms

Psalms is a collection of 150 poems and songs. Psalms is a great place to start reading the books if you are going out of order. You can easily split them into multiple sessions. The Psalms impart priceless wisdom, giving us such tenets of Christianity as “The Lord is my shepherd” (Psalm 23), “Be still, and know that I am God” (Psalm 46), and “Blessed is he who goes into heaven name of the Lord” (Psalm 118). Reading the Psalms gives peace and comfort to Christians, with many poems and songs resonating with the people. If you are looking for encouragement, light in times of darkness, promises of God’s protection, or assurances of God’s presence, the Psalms is the book for you.

genesis

Genesis, the first book of the Bible, is one of the most famous. It describes how God created heaven, earth and human beings. Almost every Christian can quote at least one line from Genesis, but very many have never actually read the book. Genesis describes the creation and history of Adam and Eve (chapters 1–3). It contains the well-known description of the Fall, or Eve eating an apple from the forbidden tree of wisdom, and the story of Noah and the Ark (chapters 6–8). Genesis also contains God’s promises to Abraham (chapters 12, 15, and 17) and to Joseph, his cloak, and his dreams (37–50).

Genesis is full of fascinating and informative stories that give Christians the beginning of everything and some of the most important events in the early years of the earth’s creation. Genesis is often one of the first—and only—books Christians read. However, it is not just for new believers or for people reading the Bible for the first time. Reading Genesis from cover to cover can give you a new perspective on familiar teachings. You’ll likely discover something you’ve never heard of before, or see some part of history in a new light.

The Gospels

The Gospels consist of four books: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. They are not biographies per se, but stories that serve to evoke images of Jesus. The gospels strive to convey a message to the audience about the importance of Jesus. The Gospel of Mark describes Jesus beginning in Galilee and ending in Jerusalem. The gospels of Matthew and Luke are based on the gospel of Mark, all three together being easy to understand. However, the Gospel of John is a departure. The Gospel of John places Jesus primarily in Jerusalem ministry, not in Galilee.

The gospels are great books to read from beginning to end and give a sense that Jesus is alive in everything we do and not just a historical figure. The gospels help readers discover Jesus, learn about his miracles, and see how he lived his life. Read the gospels as a newcomer to the Christian faith for a basic understanding of what Jesus teaches, or as a seasoned veteran to continue building your faith.

actions

Acts is an important book in understanding the New Testament and Christianity as a whole. It continues the historical account of Luke after Jesus rose from the dead. It describes the Holy Spirit spreading the church throughout Rome. In Acts we see how the church works, how the apostles preach the gospel to the people, and we meet the apostle Paul. The book of Acts begins in Jerusalem and moves back and forth between there and Antioch and from Europe to Asia. The book ends with Paul in Rome. Luke’s goal is to show audiences how Christianity spread from its founding in Jerusalem around the world. The book of Acts is a work of history, not of Christian law.

Romans

Many Christians consider Romans to be the best book in the Bible. Romans gives a clear account of all the views that the Bible offers. Scholars say that all books of the Bible lead in some way to Romans. Romans is a book of truth about God taught by God. Paul wrote to the Roman Church to explain how the gospel works. In Romans, Paul explains Jewish law, grace, salvation, and more. Every Christian should read Romans at least once in their life to get an idea of ​​the main themes of the Bible: God, sin, judgment, faith, grace, the Christian hope, and the nature of the church. Romans is a comprehensive teaching, a book of life and a book of the church.

Start your journey

Don’t worry if you find it difficult or overwhelming to sit down and read the Bible. There are alternatives that work very well for many Christians. Instead, download an audio Bible or Bible app and listen to the books while you drive, walk, do chores, or relax. If you’d love to read the books but worry you won’t have time to absorb them all in one go, take heart. Here are a few books with short approximate reading times:

Obadiah: 4 minutes

Malachi: 11 minutes

Philippians: 14 minutes

Ruth: 15 minutes

Song of Solomon: 20 minutes

Galatians: 20 minutes

Esther: 30 minutes

There are many more books on the reading list with reading times under half an hour for people on a tight schedule. Ignore chapter or verse references to save additional time. This can also help you absorb the text and get rid of annoying and sometimes inaccurate references.

When you are ready to read the Bible or want to renew your faith by re-reading old favorite books, start with one of these great books. You may be surprised at how much you are growing as a person, as a Christian, and as a believer.

Which book of the Bible should a new believer read first?

Great question. There are so many to choose from! I will propose two options. Before I state my case, I would like to give you a general encouragement. Then I’ll explain why I think you should start your Bible reading adventure in either Genesis or John.

Before you read the Bible for the first time

I’m glad you’re on your way to reading the Bible. There is nothing in the world worth your time more than listening to God in His Word. Let me try to dissuade you from two dangerous thoughts as you embark on this lifelong journey.

No matter where you turn in your Bible, you end up in God’s Word (2 Timothy 3:16). Every book of the Bible is God’s Word to us, given out of His love. God gave us the Scriptures to equip us for life and train us to be godly like Him. In His wisdom, God has given us a book full of other books to equip us for every experience we will encounter in this life (2 Peter 1:3). Every part of the Bible was written for your good.

So friend, don’t succumb to the inner pressure to read the “right” thing. If you read the Bible at all, you are reading the right thing.

I want to save you from another dangerous thought. You may have heard that the Bible is a life-changing book. You may be reading it for the first time because you long for change in your life. That’s a good reason to turn to the Bible. But you must understand that the Bible is not an end in itself – that is, the power of the Bible is not in the book but in the person who wrote it.

But there is a way to pick up the Bible and miss the point. Jesus corrected some people in the book of John who were doing just that:

“You study the scriptures diligently because you think therein you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify of me, but you refuse to come to me to have life” (John 5:39-40 NIV).

It is easy to come to the Bible in hopes of spiritual guidance, a better perspective, new ideals, an encouraging thought, or practical wisdom. Like these people whom Jesus is addressing, we too are in search of life. The Bible guides us (Psalm 119:105), makes us wise (Proverbs 1:5), enlightens us (Psalm 19:8), and trains us in righteous living (2 Timothy 3:16), but all these blessings are only really come to us by faith in Christ, not apart from Him. When you open your Bible, the words you read are the voice of the Lord who loved you and gave himself for you (Galatians 2:20). Reading your Bible is a means of knowing Him.

Before you open the Bible, ask God to reveal himself to you, to help you hear his voice through his word, and to help you know Jesus.

We’ve come all the way and you still need an answer to your question. So which book of the Bible should you read first? Let me give you two choices.

Consider reading John first

Here’s a brief case of why you should read the gospel of John first. The apostle John, who wrote this book, specifically tells us the agenda of this book:

Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples that are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by faith you may have life in His name. (John 20:30-31 ESV)

John wrote his gospel to convince us that Jesus is exactly who he says he is—the Son of God, the promised Savior pointed to throughout the Bible. The Holy Spirit inspired John to write this book in a way that would lead us to believe in Jesus. John’s ultimate goal is that we get to know Jesus personally and be reconciled to God through Jesus, that we experience life that really is life.

Hopefully you can see why this book would be a fantastic place to start reading the Bible.

Consider reading Genesis first

I give you an equally great second reading option when you first open the Bible – Genesis, the first book of the Bible.

Of course, reading the beginning of a book would help you understand the rest. However, Genesis proves to be a more important beginning to a story than any other beginning you’ve ever read. You absolutely must read it. It’s the beginning of God’s story, but it’s also the beginning of your story. The Bible is not fiction; It’s the story of reality. It is the story we actually live in, the story given to us by our Creator, as if Shakespeare gave Hamlet the transcript of his own play.

Genesis is not only the beginning of God and your history, but also the foundation. Themes woven throughout the Bible find their source in Genesis, the patterns of action throughout the Bible appear first in Genesis. The promises that are fulfilled in the rest of the Bible are first given in Genesis. In fact, the first 11 chapters of Genesis alone are quoted over 100 times in the New Testament! Reading Genesis will give you the basis for a biblical worldview and help you orient yourself to life in general.

Make your choice!

Friend, there are two books I recommend you read first – you can choose between them. Open John and you will meet Jesus, who himself is the best gift you could ever ask for in this life. Open Genesis and enter the story of the Bible. When you first open the Bible, I pray that you will find that instead of inviting God into your story, He invited you into His story.

Split

tweet

Pen

Delicious

E-mail

Spending time in the Word of God is so important to building your faith! If you are a new Christian or just new to a Bible study, you may be asking yourself, “Which book of the Bible should I read first?”

While there may be no RIGHT answers, there are definitely WRONG answers (as I look at you, Song of Solomon and Revelation)!

The Bible tells a BIG story, but it is also made up of smaller stories in a total of 66 Bible books by over 40 human authors.

Think of the Bible as a river, all flowing in one direction. You don’t want to dive in mid-stream where the water is moving fast and you have no idea what’s going on, but there are also plenty of easy spots where the water slows down and it’s a great time to jump in!

New Testament books to start reading

The New Testament is a great place to start reading as the story of Jesus’ entry into the world begins! All of the rest of the Bible points to Jesus—so for those new to the faith, or even just curious about the faith, the Gospels (the first four books of the New Testament) are a great place to start!

1. Gospel of John

John is my favorite gospel and maybe my favorite book in the whole Bible. The first chapter is so beautifully written! The book of John emphasizes the deity of Jesus as the Son of God.

It also has really nice themes and imagery of light and dark woven throughout.

The Book of John also includes the most popular Bible verse John 3:16 which is such a beautiful summary of the Gospel!

For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. John 3:16

The life of Jesus is chronicled in this book, his many interactions with people, his miracles, parables of Jesus, the lessons he shared with his disciples, his death, resurrection, and the aftermath leading up to his ascension.

2. Gospel of Mark

Mark is the shortest gospel and is a great place to start reading the Bible for the first time because it is short, powerful, and to the point.

The Gospel of Mark focuses on Jesus as Son of Man and Servant. It has a slightly different perspective than the other gospels and emphasizes the humanity of Jesus more than any other book in the Bible.

The other two gospels, Luke and Matthew are also great places to start reading the Bible! It was so hard to choose between all of them. Matthew was written by Jesus’ former publican and disciple, Matthew, and emphasizes Jesus as the King and Messiah for the Jewish people.

The gospel of Luke was written from first-hand accounts of the life and ministry of Jesus by eyewitnesses. Luke was a doctor and his account also contains a lot of nice details about Jesus.

3. Acts of the Apostles

The history of the early church continues in the book of Acts. We see the Holy Spirit coming into the new believers and God spreading the message of Jesus around the world.

This helps to build the continuation of the story from the gospels and to see how deeply Jesus influenced his followers and the impact they had on the entire known world.

As I read this book, I am continually challenged and encouraged by the actions of the early church!

4. Book of Ephesians 3:0-51

Written by the apostle Paul, the book of Ephesians is a great introduction to Paul’s epistles (he wrote almost half of the entire New Testament!).

Ephesians begins with a beautiful declaration of God’s grace and love and then moves into Paul’s prayer for the church of Ephesus. He ends with practical teachings about so many different types of relationships and encouragement to stay strong in spiritual warfare.

One of my favorite verses in Ephesians is…

For we are His work, created in Christ Jesus to do good works which God prepared in advance for us. Ephesians 2:10

It’s a short book (only 6 chapters) but is incredibly dynamic and uplifting to read.

6. Book of James

James is a great book—it’s practical and powerful—and a great place to start reading the Bible!

James was written by Jesus’ half brother, who also became one of the leaders of the church in Jerusalem. James did not believe in Jesus until Jesus appeared to him after the resurrection. James is another relatively easy and short read, but you can also slow down and spend a lot of time on it.

A Bible study on James that I recommend if you want to dig deeper is James: Mercy Triumphs Bible study by Beth Moore!

Books of the Old Testament

1. Book of Psalms

This is definitely one of my favorite books in the Bible! The Book of Psalms is the songbook of the Hebrew people—commemorating their joy, sorrow, and hope for hundreds of years. It is such an honor to hold and read such a valuable book.

There is so much honesty and emotion in the Psalms.

The Psalms are chock-full of God’s promises, which is why I love this book so much!

I created my Bible study 30 Days to Claim God’s Promises after spending the summer reading through the Psalms. I have found the most powerful promises for Christian women today, and in this Bible study we will spend 30 days deepening and meditating on them.

Psalms is a great place to start reading because the Psalms are simple and heartfelt. Reading them makes me feel seen, known, and exceedingly loved by the God of the universe.

2. Book of Genesis,

The first book of the Bible is a great place to start reading the Bible! They see the origin of the universe and mankind’s need for a Savior, Jesus. In Genesis you meet the patriarchs – the founders of the nation of Israel – and see how God raises up a faithful man, Abraham, to bring about the salvation of the whole world.

Perhaps the most famous verse in Genesis is the first…

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1:1

3. Book of Exodus

In Exodus we follow the ongoing story of the nation of Israel as they struggle with slavery in Egypt, how God freed them and then led them into the promised land. Of course it’s a great sequel to Genesis!

Parts of Exodus are really hard to read – it’s frustrating to read how stubborn and ridiculous the people of Israel are – but their story is a rich lesson to learn.

In the desert, God guides her and loves her relentlessly. He is enthusiastic about her pure devotion to her and what is best for her.

4. Book of Ruth

The Book of Ruth is a breathtaking love story that illustrates God’s love and faithfulness. It’s a nice easy read and you can pretty easily finish the whole book in one sitting.

Ruth is held up as an ideal woman and Boaz as her protector and provider. It really is one of the most beautiful love stories in the Bible!

5. Book of Proverbs

The book of Proverbs is full of practical advice for the Christian life. It has 31 chapters and reading one chapter a day for a month is a great place to start Bible reading.

Proverbs focus on the opposition of wisdom and folly. Wisdom is found in the fear of the Lord, and foolishness is found in sloth, in sexual sin, in pride, and in a life separated from God.

A well-known verse in Proverbs is…

Trust in the Lord with all your heart and do not lean on your own understanding. Acknowledge him in all your ways, and he will direct your ways. -Proverbs 3:5-6

How to Approach Reading the Whole Bible

After you have read a few books of the Bible, I strongly encourage you to read the entire Bible in its entirety! It may seem intimidating, but you can do it!

Last time I read through the Bible in chronological order using a Bible app, Youversion, with the Bible reading plan called The Bible Recap. There’s also a daily podcast to listen to that helps explain more difficult passages and gives you extra context for what you’re reading.

(Which is especially helpful in prophetic books or discouraging books like Judges.)

Which version of the Bible are you reading for the first time?

The New International Version is what I read most often. It’s a great translation and I also like the New Living Translation – it’s very chatty which makes it great for longer passages!

You can see a review of one of my current favorite Bibles: The She Reads Truth Bible

Reading the Bible for the first time is really intimidating, but knowing where to start helps tremendously. I always encourage people to read with a journal in hand so they can jot down thoughts, questions, outstanding verses, and prayers as they read the Word of God.

To learn more about Bible study, read these articles and be sure to get your FREE BIBLE STUDY WORKSHEETS to help you read the Bible.

More Bible Study Help

What are devotions? 5 examples to strengthen your faith

The 25 Best Devotional Apps for Christian Moms

How to Pray: A Beginner’s Guide with Examples

Click here to see more of the best Bible study tools!