Christmas stories fulfilling prophecies in their own ways

JohnClay · Nov 10, 2018

Last year I published a book/ebook - you can read it online here:
An Uncensored Guide to the Christmas Stories

Overview of the Stories

Matthew's Christmas story is about kings, wise men and dreams. It involves a journey from Bethlehem to Egypt and then to Nazareth.

Luke's Christmas story is about priests, angels and shepherds. The journey begins in Nazareth, includes a trip to Bethlehem for a census and after visiting Jerusalem, they return to Nazareth.

What's the Same...
There are only a few basic ideas in the Christmas stories that Matthew and Luke agree on.
Prophecies fulfilled

A virgin will give birth to the Messiah (Isaiah 7:14)

The Messiah would come from Bethlehem in Judea (Micah 5:2, John 7:41-42)

The Messiah would come from Nazareth in Galilee (Matthew 2:23)

The Messiah would be a descendent of Abraham (Genesis 12:13)

The Messiah would be a descendent of King David (2 Samuel 7:12-16, Psalm 89:3-4, Isaiah 9:7)

The Messiah would be a descendent of the governor Zerubbabel and his father Shealtiel (Haggai 2:23)

Other similarities

Herod the Great was ruling

Mary was betrothed to marry to Joseph

An angel (or a dream about an angel) told someone about the pregnancy and instructed them to call their son Jesus

They had visitors at night in Bethlehem

And that's about it!

The "Prophecies fulfilled" can be divided in a few categories - the virgin birth, the journeys and the genealogies.

The only thing the journeys and genealogies agree on are what is mentioned in the prophecies - and the genealogies agree on the names before King David. It seems to me that both writers started with those prophecies then they fleshed out the details in their own ways.

There are a lot of other problems I mention in my short book (about 30 pages).

I also have a web page that shows the two stories in parallel:

The Bible's two Christmas stories told in parallel

So far I haven't come across a successful attempt to combine the two stories in a non-problematic way - particularly the part where they go from Jerusalem to Nazareth at the end of Luke.

I suspect that I would be able to address just about any response to this by referring back to the book.

Theo102 · Nov 12, 2018

JohnClay said:
The "Prophecies fulfilled" can be divided in a few categories - the virgin birth, the journeys and the genealogies.

"A virgin will give birth to the Messiah (Isaiah 7:14)"

Except that Isaiah doesn't mention a virgin (Hebrew bethuwlah vs almah). The prophecy includes some interesting bits though:

Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.
For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.
Isaiah 7:15-16

JohnClay · Nov 12, 2018

Theo102 said:
"A virgin will give birth to the Messiah (Isaiah 7:14)"

Except that Isaiah doesn't mention a virgin (Hebrew bethuwlah vs almah).....

Then that is yet another problem though it remains true that both stories share the idea of a virgin birth. They appear to be the only books in the New Testament that say that:
My book - about the Virgin Mary
Apparently the Quran also says she was a virgin.

According to Matthew 1:22-23 it is fulfilling a prophecy:
"All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son..."

http://www.tektonics.org/guest/antianti.html#four

....As far as the virgin birth issue is concerned, it may not be possible on linguistic grounds to prove or disprove, although the context itself may well argue for something more than a mere ordinary birth...

JohnClay · Nov 12, 2018

BTW originally I was going to use realistic pictures for illustrations. I paid many hundreds of dollars for these:

Here are the shepherds at the manger - note that it is lit by a lamp rather than a star

Here are the wise men going to the house with the star stopping above it:

Here are the wise men worshipping Jesus:

2PhiloVoid · Nov 12, 2018

JohnClay said:
Last year I published a book/ebook - you can read it online here:
An Uncensored Guide to the Christmas Stories

The "Prophecies fulfilled" can be divided in a few categories - the virgin birth, the journeys and the genealogies.

The only thing the journeys and genealogies agree on are what is mentioned in the prophecies - and the genealogies agree on the names before King David. It seems to me that both writers started with those prophecies then they fleshed out the details in their own ways.

There are a lot of other problems I mention in my short book (about 30 pages).

I also have a web page that shows the two stories in parallel:

The Bible's two Christmas stories told in parallel

So far I haven't come across a successful attempt to combine the two stories in a non-problematic way - particularly the part where they go from Jerusalem to Nazareth at the end of Luke.

I suspect that I would be able to address just about any response to this by referring back to the book.

Why would anyone try to combine them, especially in a non-problematic way? Of course they're problematic! It's problematic that we have more than just one 'official' gospel account in the first place. Why would we ever really 'need' 4 anyway when one good one would have done the job? So, why wouldn't they be problematic, unless we assumed some kind of magical, perfect status for each of these books? :ahah:

[Note: I'm not laughing at you, John. I'm laughing at the supposed problem.]

JohnClay · Nov 12, 2018

2PhiloVoid said:
Why would anyone try to combine them, especially in a non-problematic way?...

To show that both of the stories are literal history. If they are there should be no contradictions.

2PhiloVoid · Nov 12, 2018

JohnClay said:
To show that both of the stories are literal history. If they are there should be no contradictions.

Why would we assume there'd be no contradiction or inconsistencies between these separate accounts?

JohnClay · Nov 12, 2018

2PhiloVoid said:
Why would we assume there'd be no contradiction or inconsistencies between these separate accounts?

Some Christians believe there are no contradictions in the Bible.

Oncedeceived · Nov 12, 2018

JohnClay said:
Some Christians believe there are no contradictions in the Bible.

Most non-Christian's don't understand why some things they consider to be contradictions are just misunderstandings on their part. This is true for prophecies too.

2PhiloVoid · Nov 12, 2018

JohnClay said:
Some Christians believe there are no contradictions in the Bible.

Yes, John, I know they think that, but in my estimation all that the Bible has to be is a set of useful human accounts that represent as best as possible the experiences that various (mainly Jewish) people have had with God.

For me, I have little problem with seeing the Gospel of Luke as a separate, later attempt to revise the stories he had about Jesus as best he could by reconstructing them from basic, early Christian common sources and adding in his own additional inquiries. When he was done, he had something that was similar to, and which also partially incorporated, the contents that Mark and Matthew had previously handled. So, Luke's account is similar (i.e. Synoptic), but yet a "revised edition" of sorts.

And that's ok, especially when we take into consider some of the praxis that's involved in just about any writing of any kind, even that which is in some way presents the reporting of Divine experiences concerning Christ.

JohnClay · Nov 12, 2018

Oncedeceived said:
Most non-Christian's don't understand why some things they consider to be contradictions are just misunderstandings on their part. This is true for prophecies too.

What have I misunderstood?

JohnClay · Nov 16, 2018

Does anyone believe that the two stories can be combined in a non-problematic way? (if so, what about the part where they go to Nazareth at the end of Luke)

Does anyone believe that the genealogies and the journeys are all factual even though they seem to conflict?

So far someone said that the virgin birth wasn't even prophesied in the OT, then there was a Christian who doesn't seem to believe the stories are infallible, and a Christian who said most non-Christians (what about me?) are misunderstanding things (without being specific).

2PhiloVoid · Nov 16, 2018

JohnClay said:
Does anyone believe that the two stories can be combined in a non-problematic way? (if so, what about the part where they go to Nazareth at the end of Luke)

Does anyone believe that the genealogies and the journeys are all factual even though they seem to conflict?

... how would we test whether or not either or both are factual?

See, this is where we get into some of the problematic philosophical structures that are involved with the essence of historically intentioned writings. This is where, on a human level, studying some Philosophy of History as well as Historiography comes into play and makes itself necessary...even though I know some people will yawn at the prospect of having to do so.

So far someone said that the virgin birth wasn't even prophesied in the OT, then there was a Christian who doesn't seem to believe the stories are infallible, and a Christian who said most non-Christians (what about me?) are misunderstanding things (without being specific).

Sure. You're going to find Christians who have differing interpretations as they each individually read or hear the Bible, situated as they each are within a continuum of understanding

In my epistemological outlook, these variations in understanding should be expected, with unity of understanding only coming about with human cognitive struggle and some occasional enlightenment from God Himself.

JohnClay · Nov 16, 2018

2PhiloVoid said:
... how would we test whether or not either or both are factual?...

For a start, for both to be factual they would be able to be combined without contradictions.

Here is one attempt to combine the Christmas stories:
Christmas Timeline of the Biblical Account

It has the problem I mentioned though -

At Least 41 Days After the Birth of Jesus
......
3. Anna, a prophetess, saw the Christ at the Temple (Luke 2:36–38).

Soon After the 41st Day
1. The family returned to Bethlehem—not Nazareth, as some have suggested.

So they were in Jerusalem in Luke 2:38. In the next verse (Luke 2:39) it says they returned to Nazareth. Yet that article says that they did not go to Nazareth but went back to Bethlehem in order to do what is in Matthew.

Quid est Veritas? · Nov 17, 2018

There isn't really a problem here. This is just people anachronistically assuming history writing in Hellenistic times is similar to modern history writing. It really isn't. History was written with purpose, as instruction or cautionary, or in this case, as Evangelium - Good News. It has a literary structure, with tropes and cross-referencing, not merely one thing after another. So often, what was written had a measure of license - it was not uncommon to invent speeches for protagonists or move events or places around for literary purposes.

As an example, the historians of Alexander the Great recorded a specific council where he quarreled with Parmenion before Issus, Granicus, or Gaugamela; depending on need. Likely this happened, but exactly when or where we don't know today, and this matter was less important to the ancients than the implications thereof and Alexander's descent to eastern luxury. Or even Alexander's birth narrative: Plutarch mentions several different variants himself.

The Gospels are merely working within the tradition of the times they were written. So the Magi is about Christ as King of Kings and reflecting enmity with secular powers of the world; the shepherds reflect the Good Shepherd and David the Shepherd who was anointed as king (Messiah being the anointed one). Nazareth reflects the idiomatic use that 'nothing good comes from there' and is thus a rebirth and renewal motief; Bethlehem reflects David and Messiahship again, as the fleeing into Egypt before going back to Nazareth is a reflection of the Exodus and Mosaic narrative and coupled later to Jesus' 40 days in the wilderness.
This is essentially similar to trying to reconcile distances as stated in Tolkien's works or the state of repair of the Pequot in Moby Dick. It frankly misses the point. You could write it all off as fiction, but then you'd have to do the same for all hellenistic history writing, that all share this same structural ambiguity. Don't expect the ancients to play by modern rules.

The point being made is the miraculous birth of a Saviour figure. Exactly when is difficult to determine, nor can we state all the ancillary events to be 'historic fact' exactly as written in sequence, as we today understand the term to be. That they happened is certainly within the realm of the possible, but when writing a biography of any ancient figure, some such discrepancies always appear. For instance Octavian had sent Brutus' head to be placed at the feet of a statue of Julius Caesar; other sources say Marc Anthony had him cremated and given to his sister Junia - both are plausible, and we can argue one occured before the other, or only his body was cremated, etc. Any such involves some convoluted reasoning and some surmises, to construct a modern biography from any ancient ones.

The difference being that Jesus as God has His biographies placed under minute scrutiny; and any attempt to live with the inherent ambiguity ancient biography entails, or attempts to construct a modern biographical narrative from them, is derided in turn by those of atheistic bent as invalidating them or by certain literalists as sacrilegious. This is all a bit much, sort-of missing the point.

As a final aside: You made an assumption that Luke and Matthew both have Jesus born under Herod the Great. Luke mentions the census of Quirinius, so his King Herod might be Herod Antipas, not his father. Alternately there might be some confusion with censuses, or such. So establishing when Jesus was born is itself fraught with difficulty - again not uncommon in Hellenistic times. I made a long thread debating various things around it a few years ago, mostly so that I had an excuse to dust off some Roman reading:

The Census at the birth of Christ

JohnClay · Nov 17, 2018

Quid est Veritas? said:
There isn't really a problem here. This is just people anachronistically assuming history writing in Hellenistic times is similar to modern history writing. It really isn't.

So you're another Christian who doesn't believe that the Christmas stories are purely factual.

....it was not uncommon to invent speeches for protagonists or move events or places around for literary purposes.

Maybe like these:

The Lengthy Songs of Elizabeth, Mary & Zacharias

Bethlehem reflects David and Messiahship again

John and Bethlehem
Though there's this:
"In John 7:41-42, people in a crowd say that Jesus isn't the Messiah because he comes from Galilee rather than Bethlehem. Those people also said that Jesus wasn't a descendent of King David. No one is said to correct them, nor does the author of John...."

As a final aside: You made an assumption that Luke and Matthew both have Jesus born under Herod the Great. Luke mentions the census of Quirinius, so his King Herod might be Herod Antipas, not his father.

Yes I assumed the Herod would be the same in both stories but perhaps that is yet another problem....

Quid est Veritas? · Nov 17, 2018

JohnClay said:
So you're another Christian who doesn't believe that the Christmas stories are purely factual.

How on earth did you get that from my post? They may be about as factual as our accounts of Julius Caesar's assassination or the doings of the Julio-Claudian Emperors. None of these are written in our modern history-writing style, nor would we expect them to be. It is highly anachronistic to expect it.

Maybe like these:

The Lengthy Songs of Elizabeth, Mary & Zacharias

Exactly. Luke is working within the tradition of Hellenistic historiography. After all, no one was on hand to record such off the cuff things verbatim. It is more the gist of things, therefore.

John and Bethlehem
Though there's this:
"In John 7:41-42, people in a crowd say that Jesus isn't the Messiah because he comes from Galilee rather than Bethlehem. Those people also said that Jesus wasn't a descendent of King David. No one is said to correct them, nor does the author of John...."

Yes? I don't understand the problem here. That passage mentions consternation from both sides regarding Galilee or Bethlehem. Galilee had a number of Messiah claimants like Judah the Galilean though. It is part of John's ambiguity and the lack of understanding reflected by the populace in its character as the Spiritual Gospel.

Yes I assumed the Herod would be the same in both stories but perhaps that is yet another problem....

Both give clear time references, such as Matthew's Archelaus ruling in Judaea and hence going to Nazareth or the Census in Luke. If you go to the trouble of writing on a subject, one should read the subject matter at hand. You have clearly never bothered to place the Gospels in their proper cultural and historical framework. I can decry anything if I refuse to address it on its own terms, hence all our modern obsession with 'fake news'.

JohnClay · Nov 18, 2018

Quid est Veritas? said:
JohnClay said:

So you're another Christian who doesn't believe that the Christmas stories are purely factual.

Click to expand...

How on earth did you get that from my post?

Well you seem to be a Christian and you're saying that the stories aren't purely factual. You said:

...it was not uncommon to invent speeches for protagonists or move events or places around for literary purposes...

That is not compatible with being purely factual.

None of these are written in our modern history-writing style, nor would we expect them to be. It is highly anachronistic to expect it.

Well the Bible is different from accounts of Julius Caesar's assassination. Many Christians believe it was inspired and God-breathed.

Yes? I don't understand the problem here.

The crowd's knowledge of the Christmas stories
"At a festival in Jerusalem, which Jesus' brothers also attended (John 7:10), some of the crowd said that Jesus was the Messiah (John 7:41-42).....Some of the crowd were aware of the prophecy that the Messiah would come from Bethlehem and they were sure that that didn't apply to Jesus." [i.e. no one was saying that Jesus came from Bethlehem]

That passage mentions consternation from both sides regarding Galilee or Bethlehem.

There were no "both sides". No-one, including the author of John, said that Jesus was from Bethlehem or was a descendent of David. Luke and Matthew were also aware of the prophecy of Bethlehem and David and so made sure he was born there (in different ways - in Matthew they begin there in a house) and clearly descended from David (with their own contradictory genealogies as proof).

Both give clear time references, such as Matthew's Archelaus ruling in Judaea and hence going to Nazareth or the Census in Luke. If you go to the trouble of writing on a subject, one should read the subject matter at hand.

I did talk about time references!

When Was Jesus Born?
"Jesus was alive when King Herod the Great was alive, but most scholars believe that Herod died in 4 BC, so Jesus must have been born in 4 BC or earlier."

"...which means that the census, when Jesus was born in Luke, would have happened in 6 or 7 AD."

So if I had read my own book more carefully I would have realised that Herod the Great wasn't alive when Jesus was born in the book of Luke. (though I know some Christians place the census back when Herod the Great was alive)

You have clearly never bothered to place the Gospels in their proper cultural and historical framework.

I'm more concerned whether things are purely factual or not. The Christians I know believe that the Bible is purely factual (unless there are some metaphors, etc) My focus in on the words in the Bible themselves though in the "When Was Jesus Born?" and
"Why are the genealogies different?" sections I looked outside of the Bible.

I can decry anything if I refuse to address it on its own terms, hence all our modern obsession with 'fake news'.

Well it seems you agree with me that it seems the Christmas stories aren't purely factual and are at least partly invented.

2PhiloVoid · Nov 18, 2018

JohnClay said:
Well you seem to be a Christian and you're saying that the stories aren't purely factual. You said:

That is not compatible with being purely factual.

........when dealing with writing(s) about the past of any kind, the conceptual structures by which any of us constructs accounts of various aspects of the past, typically doesn't really mean we're dealing with objective facts. No, we're always dealing with "interpre-facts," and because this is so, no written historical account ever really amounts to being some kind of supreme statement of fact or set of statements of fact. And this is where I think you're conceptions are getting in the way of your perceptions about how we should be 'viewing' these varying accounts presented in the Gospels. Hermeneutical considerations, along with various aspects from the discipline of the Philosophy of History, are inherent and inescapable ingredients in how how we each read, grasp, interpret and/or ultimately believe what we're reading, John.

Well the Bible is different from accounts of Julius Caesar's assassination. Many Christians believe it was inspired and God-breathed.

True, but the whole conceptual frameworks that denotatively constitute the notions of "inspiration by God" and/or "revelation from God" are not concrete in nature. In fact, there isn't exact agreement among either Jews, or among Christians, as to what either "inspiration" or "revelation" actually are in and of themselves. So, this skeptical complaint that the Bible somehow differing from non-religious historical accounts becomes decimated and fragmented by various philosophical considerations.

The crowd's knowledge of the Christmas stories

Click to expand...

"At a festival in Jerusalem, which Jesus' brothers also attended (John 7:10), some of the crowd said that Jesus was the Messiah (John 7:41-42).....Some of the crowd were aware of the prophecy that the Messiah would come from Bethlehem and they were sure that that didn't apply to Jesus." [i.e. no one was saying that Jesus came from Bethlehem]

There were no "both sides". No-one, including the author of John, said that Jesus was from Bethlehem or was a descendent of David. Luke and Matthew were also aware of the prophecy of Bethlehem and David and so made sure he was born there (in different ways - in Matthew they begin there in a house) and clearly descended from David (with their own contradictory genealogies as proof).

......no, each of the Gospel writers constructed his own understanding of what he thought was a 'truthful' account about Jesus. This isn't to say that any of the Gospels gives us, or is supposed to give us, a comprehensive understanding about Jesus. No, what they each attempt to do is to offer a 'doorway' of perception for the reader to step through and by which to ponder the deeper utility for which the gospel writing has been given: to conceptualize some truths about Jesus by which a person may existentially, and spiritually, reach out to God.

I did talk about time references!

When Was Jesus Born?
"Jesus was alive when King Herod the Great was alive, but most scholars believe that Herod died in 4 BC, so Jesus must have been born in 4 BC or earlier."

"...which means that the census, when Jesus was born in Luke, would have happened in 6 or 7 AD."

So if I had read my own book more carefully I would have realised that Herod the Great wasn't alive when Jesus was born in the book of Luke. (though I know some Christians place the census back when Herod the Great was alive)

I'm more concerned whether things are purely factual or not. The Christians I know believe that the Bible is purely factual (unless there are some metaphors, etc) My focus in on the words in the Bible themselves though in the "When Was Jesus Born?" and
"Why are the genealogies different?" sections I looked outside of the Bible.

Well it seems you agree with me that it seems the Christmas stories aren't purely factual and are at least partly invented.

I'd say that they are representational accounts, as is most written history, as is much art. And this is the case even if the Gospels are "inspired."

JohnClay · Nov 19, 2018

2PhiloVoid said:
JohnClay said:

Well the Bible is different from accounts of Julius Caesar's assassination. Many Christians believe it was inspired and God-breathed.

Click to expand...

True, but the whole conceptual frameworks that denotatively constitute the notions of "inspiration by God" and/or "revelation from God" are not concrete in nature. In fact, there isn't exact agreement among either Jews, or among Christians, as to what either "inspiration" or "revelation" actually are in and of themselves. So, this skeptical complaint that the Bible somehow differing from non-religious historical accounts becomes decimated and fragmented by various philosophical considerations.

I see your point of view as being somewhat liberal and I was hoping to discuss the issues in my book with Christians that are more fundamentalist who would not want to say that anything was invented. Maybe they feel their counter-arguments aren't very strong.

Christmas stories fulfilling prophecies in their own ways

Married Mouth-Breather

Active Member

Married Mouth-Breather

Married Mouth-Breather

Get my point, Web-Maker ???

Married Mouth-Breather

Get my point, Web-Maker ???

Married Mouth-Breather

Senior Veteran

Get my point, Web-Maker ???

Married Mouth-Breather

Married Mouth-Breather

Get my point, Web-Maker ???

Married Mouth-Breather

In Memoriam to CS Lewis

Married Mouth-Breather

In Memoriam to CS Lewis

Married Mouth-Breather

Get my point, Web-Maker ???

Married Mouth-Breather

Similar threads