MY REAL CHRISTMAS STORY -- READING BETWEEN BIBLICAL LINES AND FACTS
MERRY CHRISTMAS to all my friends
Tis being the season, I like to write something about the special day that 31% of the world's population bow to a little Jewish baby. How great is it, that the day of the birth of the baby splits history into half? Pre-Christ is BC and post-Christ is AD (I refuse to use BCE and CE).
So supposedly, Christ birthday would be 25 Dec 0000. We all know he was not born on 25 Dec. It's just the day we chose to commemorate his birth. But we got both the day and year wrong. (More on this below)
The nativity of birth of Christ:
Joseph and Mary lived in Nazareth but had to make the trip to Bethlehem due to a Roman tax consensus. Everyone had to go to their place of ancestral home to register. Joseph's lineage came from Bethlehem, that's why they journeyed there. Bethlehem is a spiritual place. Its old name was Ephrathah. Rachel (mother of Joseph - the one who went to Egypt) was buried there. David was born there.
Joseph and Mary reached Bethlehem to find no rooms available at the inn. (Probably many people returning for the same Roman tax consensus.) They ended up at Migdal Eber ("Tower of the Flock"), a rural place just outside Bethlehem. It was a feeding station for animals such as sheep. There, Jesus was born. Luke 2:8-14 talks of how the angel brought "good tidings of great joy to all people" to a group of shepherds watching their flock by night. A symbolism that God often chooses the humble to receive revelation, consistent with all the Marian apparitions over the years. The shepherds went to witness the baby and their testimonies spreaded.
Old Testament prophecy of Jesus' birth in Bethlehem and his divinity
Micah 5:2 "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little (a small town) among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting".
"Goings forth" means "origin". The Hebrew word 'olam' is translated as "from everlasting". Christians interpret this as indicating pre-existence, eternal origin of the Messiah, thus his divinity. Jews read it as long-standing lineage or ancient destiny, not necessarily divine eternity.
Jesus lineage shows a Kingly connect
Jesus' legal descent through the Davidic line fulfilled the 3 biblical prophecies. Here's the lineage:
David-Solomon-Rehoboam-Abijah-Asa-Jehoshaphat-Joram-Uzziah-Jotham-Ahaz-Hezekiah-Manasseh-Amon-Josiah-Jehoiachin-Shealtiel-Zerubbabel-Abiud-Elikim-Azor-Zadok-Achim-Eliud-Eleaazor-Matthan-Jacob-Joseph-Jesus.
Matthew has a different genealogy that traced Mary's line to David through Nathan, another son of David.
Jesus' lineage fulfills three prophecies
2 Samuel 7:12-16 (God speaking to David): "When your days are over and you rest with your ancestors, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, your own flesh and blood, and I will establish his kingdom. He is the one who will build a house for my Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever."
Isaiah 11:1-2: "A shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse; from his roots a Branch will bear fruit" (Jesse was David's father)
Jeremiah 23:5-6: "The days are coming," declares the Lord, "when I will raise up for David a righteous Branch, a King who will reign wisely and do what is just right in the land."
The story of Ruth shows Jesus is of mixed-blood
Moabites are the descendants of Moab who was the son of Lot, a nephew of Abraham. Moabites lived to the east of the Dead Sea, today's Jordan. They are thus not Hebrews (the people of Abraham) or Israelites (the people of Jacob aka Israel, known as the 12 tribes of Israel).
Ruth was a Moabite widow who moved to Bethlehem with her mother-in-law Naomi. She later remarried Boaz, They begot Obed who begot Jesse, the father of David. So here is something most people missed. Jesus is mixed blood! Jesus' lineage from Ruth means that God's covenants after Abraham was not purely to Israelites but covers gentiles!
When was Jesus born
Many have speculated on the actual date of the birth of Jesus..
Bible provides several clues:
-Luke 2:8 talks about shepherds watching their flocks by night. This tells us it cannot be December. It is too cold for shepherds to be out in the open. Shepherds stay out with their flocks in the spring to early fall. Suggest a birth in spring or summer, rather than winter.
- Luke 2:1-3 talks about Caesar Augustus' census decree. Luke mentions the Governor of Syria Cyrenius (Latinised form for Quirinius) during the time of Herod. This introduces some tension. The census was in 6 AD and Herod ruled from 37 BC and died in 4 BC. Luke was writing 60-70 years after the death of Jesus, he may have misattributed the well known census for other provincial and minor census. Romans took a lot of census, provincials records were probably not archived in Rome and are lost. That's why we cannot trace other minor census conducted in Bethlehem.
-Matthew 2:1-3 talks about the Magi who came from the east during the time of King Herod. Herod ruled 37 BC to 4 BC. Thus Christ's birth must be before 4 BC.
-Matthew 2:2 (Magi talking) "Where is the one who has been born king? We saw his star and when it rose and have come to worship him" Some scholars link this to an astronomical event of conjunction of planets Jupiter and Saturn which could be the "star of Bethlehem' the Magi saw. This astronomical event was in 7 BC. This is a celestial event very noticeable in the sky which could have inspired the Magi.
-Herod's order to kill all children under 2 years old in Bethlehem provides the closest clue to the year of Jesus' birth. He had enquired of the Magi when the "Star of Bethlehem" first rose in the sky. Matthew did not mention the Magi's answer. Herod must have taken the time, plus some margin of safety, and decided 2 years would have covered all children born since then. This tells us two things. One, the Magi arrived long after the birth of Jesus. Two, the year of birth is between 7 BC to 5 BC.
-Computing from the birth of John the Baptist:
1 Chronicles 24 explains priestly divisions. The were 24 divisions, each serve one week at a time, twice in 2 years. Abijah serves in the 8th division. Assuming, and most likely correct, the services start in Nissan, the first month of Jewish calendar (Mar/Apr). That means Abijah served first term during Apr-May and his second term in Oct-Nov. Luke 1:23-24 talks about Abijah returning home immediately after his service ends and that was when his wife Elizabeth conceived John the Baptist. Bible did not say which term:
If first term, then Elizabeth conceives in June. If second term, she conceives in November.
Luke 1:26: "In the 6th month the angel Gabriel was sent ... to Nazareth" The 6th month here is in reference to the 6th month after Elizabeth's conception. Gabriel went to Nazareth to tell her God has selected her to be bearer of a divine child. Bible does not explain how or when the supernatural event took place. We assume it is immediately after Gabriel's visit.
Assuming Abijah's first term (Apr/May):
Elizabeth conceives in May, delivers John the Baptist in January.
Mary conceives in October, delivers Jesus in June.
Assuming Abijah's second term (Oct-Nov):
Elizabeth conceives in November, delivers John in July.
Mary conceives in April and delivers Jesus in December.
- That 6 April date:
This came from James Talmage, an apostle of Latter Day Saints. He took that date 6 April 1830 which is the founding date of the Latter Day Saints Church, and took that to mean Jesus was born on 6 Apr 1 BC. Outside of the LDS community, people don't really pay attention to this date.
- The Epiphany of early Eastern Churches:
Epiphany comes from the Greek term "Epiphaneia" which means :"manifestation" or "appearance". It is a celebration of Jesus' manifestation to the world, a celebration of multiple events including birth of Christ, Visit of the Magi, Baptism of Christ, the first miracle of Christ at Cana. The early Eastern Church celebrated this on 6 January. The date had no political significance. It was just a liturgical feast, not a historical date. The date was picked simply because it was a day in which there were not other events going on. This was celebrated in Alexandria (Egypt), Syria and Constantinople until later Western practices influenced them.
Bottom line is, no one knows the actual date of the birth of Jesus. The fact is, the birth date of the Buddha and prophet Mohammud are also contested. (Both my parents who migrated from China also do not know their birth dates, only estimated year appeared on the NRIC card.)
Why 25 December
There is an often quoted mischaracterisation of how Emperor Constantine, after converting to Christianity, adopted 25 December to celebrate the birth of Christ. Romans were pagans who believed in many gods. Sol Invictus was their Sun God who was celebrated on 25 December. Constantine's move was political to make it easier for Romans to accept Christianity through cultural normalisation. Christian polemists ridicule the Christian faith for this pagan association.
As is often the case, the ignorants make the most noise and are off by a mile. This is a simplistic narrative. History is a lot more messier and interesting than slogans.
Firstly, Sol Invictus means the "Unconquered Sun", revered by Roman soldiers and elites. 25 December marked the rebirth of the sun after the winter solstice. The date is cosmologically significant. Many cultures marked this date also. Emperor Aurelian promoted this festival in AD 274.
Constantine legalised Christianity in 313 AD (Edict of Milan). The earliest record of Christmas on 25 December appeared in the Roman Calender 354 AD. The truth is, Constantine never choose 25 December. He was already dead by 337 AD.
There are two main theories on how 25 December came about:
1. The "Replacement or Reinterpretation" theory (partly true):
As Christianity became dominant, the Church often reinterpreted existing festivals, giving them new meaning. John 8:12 "Light of the world"; Malachi 4.2 "Sun of righteousness". So 25 December became "Christ conquers the sun = Christ is true Light". This is theological, not political.
2. The "Calculation" theory:
Early Christians believed great prophets died on the same date as they were conceived. Thus:
Crucifixion Date = 25 March
Conception Date = 25 March
Birth date = 25 December.
The symbolism of Annunciation-Conception-Crufixion on 25 March is clear. This idea appears in early Christian writings, before Christianity was politically dominant. Thus 25 December came from internal Christian symbolism, not politics, or pagan copycat.
Early Christians before Constantine discuedd 25 December and there are documentary evidence:-
- Hippolytus of Rome (about 200-204 AD) in a commentary on Daniel (Book IV, Verse 23) he writes Jesus was born "on the eight day before the Kalends of January". In Roman dating, kalends of Jan = 1 Jan. Thus 8 days before 1 Jan = 25 December.
- Sextus Julius Africanus (AD221) (as quoted by later writers) He calculated Conception of Jesus = 25 March; Birth = 25 Dec.
- De Pascha Computas (243 AD) a North African Christian wrote " Our Lord was born on the eight day before the kalends of January."
- Clement of Alexandria (105 AD) notes that Christians were already debating Jesus' birth date, but he himself proposed other dates.
When was Christmas first celebrated on 25 December
The first recorded celebration of 25 December as the birth of Christ appears in the "Chronography of 354" (called the Philocalian Calender) in Rome in 354 AD. This is a Roman calender commissioned by a Roman Christian elite Furious Dionysius Philocalus. It lists Christian feasts alongside Roman civic dates. 25 December was labelled "Natus Christus in Betleem Judaea' (Christ was born in Bethlehem of Judea)
The three wise men fallacy
All leftist TV personalities of MSNBC, CNN, ABC, et all say Trump is a Nazi, Robert de Nero Say Trump is Nazi, Rob Reiner said Trump is Nazi, Madonna say Trump is Nazi, Democrat Congressmen and Senators one after another say Trump Nazi, (I can name a few hundred more) and so every say Trump must be Nazi.
In the same way, everyone has been led to believe there were three wise men at the Nativity. That is unless you have read your Bible well. Magi is plural (in Greek - magoi, plural magos). These were priestly astrologers or wise men. "From the East" likely means Babylon, Persia or Mesopotamia. A good candidate are the Persians whose Zoroastrians were attuned to stars and celestial signs.
There were no 3 wise men. Matthew mentions the Magi, but never specify how many.
Matthew mentions the Magi saw the Star in the East that tells them "A king has been born among the Jews". Matthew did not mention when the noticed the star. Obviously, they saw, the observed, and they analysed. That means they took some time learning the sign. And then they set off. I am guessing it took them months if not a year for the journey. Since they mention Jews, we can assume they know Judaea and would have headed for the capital Jerusalem. Here's another fallacy. The Star did not guide them as if moving ahead of them. The Star was in the East, it guided them in that direction.
At Jerusalem, the Magi's entourage must have brought attention to Herod who summoned them. At the audience with Herod the Magi asked :"Where is he that is born King of the Jews? For we have seen his star in the East, and are come to worhip him." Herod asked "When did the Star appear?", but Matthew did not mention what was the Magi's reply.
Matthew 2:9-11 "When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, they star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was. When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy. And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother......."
This is the actual time when the Star moved to guide the Magiie from Jerusalen to "a house".
There was no Magi at the Manger. The cultural Nativity scene is all wrong. The Magi were guided by the Star to a "house".
The Nativity scene of the Magi at the manger at Bethlehem is wrong place and wrong time. The Star guided the Magi to the "house" but Matthew did not mention the location. Mary and Joseph came to Bethlehem to register for the Roman census. One would expect them to leave after registration, give and take a few weeks for Mary to recuperate after childbirth. Matthew 2:9-11 the Magi saw at the house "the young child with Mary". In Septuagint the Greek word is "paodion" which means a young child. If a baby, infant or newborn, it would have used "brephos". In fact, Joseph and Mary could not have stayed that long. Luke 2:39 emphasises that Joseph and Mary returned to Nazareth after the birth and presentation in the temple. Thus we have to infer the Magi were guided by the Star to Nazareth probably when Jesus was between 1-2 years old, definitely not more than 2.
All leftist TV personalities of MSNBC, CNN, ABC, et all say Trump is a Nazi, Robert de Nero Say Trump is Nazi, Rob Reiner said Trump is Nazi, Madonna say Trump is Nazi, Democrat Congressmen and Senators one after another say Trump Nazi, (I can name a few hundred more) and so every say Trump must be Nazi.
In the same way, everyone has been led to believe there were three wise men at the Nativity. That is unless you have read your Bible well. Magi is plural (in Greek - magoi, plural magos). These were priestly astrologers or wise men. "From the East" likely means Babylon, Persia or Mesopotamia. A good candidate are the Persians whose Zoroastrians were attuned to stars and celestial signs.
There were no 3 wise men. Matthew mentions the Magi, but never specify how many.
Matthew mentions the Magi saw the Star in the East that tells them "A king has been born among the Jews". Matthew did not mention when the noticed the star. Obviously, they saw, the observed, and they analysed. That means they took some time learning the sign. And then they set off. I am guessing it took them months if not a year for the journey. Since they mention Jews, we can assume they know Judaea and would have headed for the capital Jerusalem. Here's another fallacy. The Star did not guide them as if moving ahead of them. The Star was in the East, it guided them in that direction.
At Jerusalem, the Magi's entourage must have brought attention to Herod who summoned them. At the audience with Herod the Magi asked :"Where is he that is born King of the Jews? For we have seen his star in the East, and are come to worhip him." Herod asked "When did the Star appear?", but Matthew did not mention what was the Magi's reply.
Matthew 2:9-11 "When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, they star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was. When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy. And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother......."
This is the actual time when the Star moved to guide the Magiie from Jerusalen to "a house".
There was no Magi at the Manger. The cultural Nativity scene is all wrong. The Magi were guided by the Star to a "house".
The Nativity scene of the Magi at the manger at Bethlehem is wrong place and wrong time. The Star guided the Magi to the "house" but Matthew did not mention the location. Mary and Joseph came to Bethlehem to register for the Roman census. One would expect them to leave after registration, give and take a few weeks for Mary to recuperate after childbirth. Matthew 2:9-11 the Magi saw at the house "the young child with Mary". In Septuagint the Greek word is "paodion" which means a young child. If a baby, infant or newborn, it would have used "brephos". In fact, Joseph and Mary could not have stayed that long. Luke 2:39 emphasises that Joseph and Mary returned to Nazareth after the birth and presentation in the temple. Thus we have to infer the Magi were guided by the Star to Nazareth probably when Jesus was between 1-2 years old, definitely not more than 2.
Now here's the thing. We don't know what the Magi told Herod when they first saw the Star. That would give them a fixed date on Jesus' birth. We know Herod's order was for all children under 2 years old be killed. We can assume the Mahi told Hero they saw the star less than 2 years ago. The Magi did not know the location of birth, so Herod sought the advice of the scribes. Scripture told him the prophecy of the messiah's birth out of Bethlehem. Herod's order to kill all the children under 2 years old in Bethlehem and surrounding areas was brutal but strategic. .
It's not the three wise men but the three gifts
The Bible does not mention the number of wise men but that they came bearing three gifts: Matthew 2.1-12. The 3 gifts were Gold, Frankincense, myrrh. Each of these have significance in Christian tradition.
-Gold: Symbolism - Kingshup, wealth and honour. Acknowledges Jesus as King of the Jews, the rightful ruler.
- Frankincense: Symbolism - Worship, priesthood, and divinity. Recognises Jesus; divine nature and his role as priestly mediator between God and humans.
3. Myrrh: Symbolism - Anointing, suffering and death. Foreshadows Jesus; sacrificial death and embalming. Myrrh was used for burial preparations.
The Magi never mention the name Jesus, nor anything about his divinity. They only know a new king has been born. In the ancient world, the gift items were appropriate for Kings, Royal Courts and Diplomatic homage. From the gifter's perspective, the gifts mean we recognise your royal status, we honour you as someone of great importance.
The significance of the gifts relating to divinity and priestly duties came from later Church interpretations. This in later years must have taken on importance that the story embedded 3 wise men, or 3 kings having different names depending on which tradition. This western tradition came about during medieval times. Catholic Church use 3 kings Melchior, Caspar and Bathasar in art, liturgy and tradition, but acknowledges they are traditional, not biblical. .
What is Truth
When I claim "Truth" in the context here, it means what the biblical text actually says. It does not mean what can be independently verified in every detail. This is called "text-internal standard of truth" and it is a valid claim. Luke explicitly states in Luke 1:1-14 the he investigates sources, he selected material, he wrote and "orderly account" and not an exhaustive one. Having said that, the Bible does stand up to scrutiny in may ways - in real places, real rulers, real customs, real geopolitical tensions, and archaeology and history frequently confirm the backdrop, even if not every event is independently recorded. One remarkable thing about the Bible is that it is a collection of books written across centuries by different authors, the Bible shows an unusual level of internal coherence, with differences that reflect perspective and purpose rather than contradiction. This is a historically defensible claim, not a theological slogan.
The points I proposed are not baseless opinions but studied cues in the Bible and logical discernment..
One common sense thing still bothers me
Matthew 2:2 "Where is he that is born King of the Jews? For we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him."
In English, "worship" is religious devotion to God alone.
In Greek the word used is "proskuneo" which has to be used in context. It means to fall down, to bow before someone, to show reverence or homage. The core idea is physical submission, not theology. It is used in the Bible for bowing to kings, showing respect to authority, acts of diplomatic homage, bowing before angelic beings, worship of YHWH, religious devotion. The word itself is neutral. It describes an action, not the object's nature.
The Magi never refers to Jesus, never refer to divinity. The talk of a baby King. They weren't worshipping a god - they were acknowledging a king whose birth they believed the heavens themselves had announced. So why would some foreigners take all the trouble to go to a foreign country to "worship" a new born King? This nags at me so I turned to ChatGPT
ChatGPT (not ad verbatim):
To the ancient Near East, cosmic event and kingship were linked. Honouring a foreign king was diplomatic, prophetic, and precautionary. The Magi were court scholars, advisors or omens and interpreters of signs affecting empires. If a sign appeared announcing a new ruler with global implications, ignoring it would have been reckless. A king's rise could disrupt the cosmic order. New rulers could bring peace, trigger wars or shift empires.
So when the Magi see a sign indicating "A King has been born among the Jews", the think:
- this could affect us
- we must acknowledge him
- we must place ourselves on the right sight of history.
This is political realism. not religious devotion.
The idea of a world-signaling Jewish King was not absurd to them. Jewish expectations of a ruler were usually cosmic. Jewish messianic ideas had circulated in the East since their Exile. The prophet Daniel had served in Babylonian courts.
The Magi believed they were acknowledging a king whose birth they believed the heavens themselves had announced.
This platform has withdrawn it's subscriber widget. If you like blogs like this and wish to know whenever there is a new post, click the button to my FB and follow me there. I usually intro my new blogs there. Thanks.