For Christians, Christmas time is one of the most sacred, most joyous celebrations of the year. What about for people who are thinking about it, but who aren't sure about the whole "reason for the season"? What do we really know about what happened in Judea, 2000 years ago?

We're going to try to approach this topic from a neutral standpoint, and see where that leads us.

It's well-established that Jesus existed. He was physically, historically real. There is voluminous evidence from Christian sources, of course. Jesus Christ was also mentioned in non-Christian historical documents that have survived from that period. He's referred to twice by Josephus, the Jewish historian, in his work "Antiquities of the Jews" published in 93-94 AD. Tacitus, the Roman historian, writing in around 116 AD, also refers to "Christus" being put to death by the Romans under Pontius Pilate.

Was Jesus special? Even skeptics would need to wonder why and how this man from a small village in Galilee could launch a religion which would become the biggest, most influential one for at least the next two millennia of human history.

One of the intriguing things about Jesus is that his birth and life seem to have fulfilled prophecies from the Old Testament, which date back to the time of Moses - at least 1500 years BC, and to far older stories in an oral tradition. Those prophecies existed in texts written long before the Christian Era started.

What were some of those prophecies? There are many of them! Swedenborg lists some in Doctrine of the Lord 6. In this article, we're just going to focus on a few of them.

In this very early prophecy, it's indicated that the Messiah would be born as the son of a woman:

"And Jehovah God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, cursed art thou above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life, and I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed: he shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. Genesis 3:14-15. This is confirmed in the story in Matthew 1:20.

In Micah, much later in the Bible, we read that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem, in Judea:

"But thou, Beth-lehem Ephrathah, which art little to be among the thousands of Judah, out of thee shall one come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth are from of old, from everlasting." Micah 5:2.

This is confirmed in the story in Matthew 2:1, and Luke 2:4-6.

In Isaiah, we read that the Messiah would be born to a virgin:

"Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." Isaiah 7:14. This is confirmed in the story in Matthew 1:22-23, and in Luke 1:26-31.

Lineage was an important factor, too. At least 5 forefathers of the promised Savior are named. First, he was prophesied to come from the line of Abraham, the progenitor of many of the peoples of the modern Middle East, including the Jews, the Arabs, the Lebanese, the Druze, and others. See Genesis 12:3, and Genesis 22:18. This prophecy is confirmed in Matthew 1:1, and Romans 9:5.

In the next generation, prophecy stated that the Savior would be descended from the line of Isaac, one of Abraham's two sons. See Genesis 17:19, and Genesis 21:12. This is confirmed in Luke 3:34.

For the third generation, the Word states that the Messiah would be a descendant of Jacob. It's prophesied in Numbers 24:17, and confirmed in Matthew 1:2.

For the fourth generation, attention focuses on the tribe of Judah, who was one of the twelve sons of Jacob (whose name was changed to Israel). See Genesis 49:10, and then Luke 3:33, and Hebrews 7:14.

Many generations later, in the second book of Samuel, and again in Isaiah, there are prophecies that the Messiah would be heir to King David's throne. Read 2 Samuel 7:12-13, and Isaiah 9:7. Then see Luke 1:32-33, and Romans 1:3.

There are many more prophecies, and we will look at more of them in a future article. But, to summarize these ones that we've just listed, what would Old Testament readers in the time of Caesar Augustus be expecting?

In Bethlehem, a virgin would bear a son. He would be descended from Abraham, through the line of Isaac, Jacob, Judah, and David. That's the way the story runs, in the Gospels.

It's clear that the Old Testament wasn't altered to suit the "facts on the ground". The prophecies are already there in pre-Christian scrolls. That leaves two possibilities:

1) Scenario A: The New Testament could have been written to twist the facts to match the old prophecies. Faithful Jews were awaiting the Messiah; they would have wanted to find matching stories. In this scenario, Jesus could have been just a regular man, but a standout leader and teacher and healer. He was so inspiring that his apostles endured hardship and death to spread what became a global religion. The stories about him were exaggerated or modified to help match the prophecies.

2) Scenario B: The Old Testament text contains deep inner meaning, and its prophecies were actually prophetic and true. The facts of Jesus' birth and life and ministry actually did match and fulfull the prophecies. In this scenario, Jesus was truly a miracle baby.

Which scenario is right? In both, there's a recognition that the teachings of Jesus contained wisdom, and that there is great value in them. In New Christian thought, the choice is for Scenario B -- that Jesus really was the Christ, the long-awaited Messiah, or Savior.

This of course requires some level of belief in miracles - prophecy, fulfillment, the virgin birth, angels bearing tidings, healings, feeding the multitudes. Can miracles really happen? Is it scientifically possible? Maybe they can... maybe as science advances, we will begin to understand those boundaries better.

At some level, don't most of us believe in miracles -- in the miracle of the very existence of the universe, and of living organisms that can reproduce, and of human life, and of love?

How to end this article? The whole subject of miracles needs more thought. And, here it is, December 22, and... instead of getting more analytical, I find that right now I just want to "be" in the holy days of Christmas.

If you're feeling skeptical, have a look at Arcana Coelestia 2568, and Arcana Coelestia 2588. They offer an interesting perspective!

---

One source for this article was "100 Prophecies Fulfilled by Jesus: Messianic Prophecies Made Before the Birth of Christ", by Rose Publishing.

(Notae: Teachings about the Lord 6)

2649. 'On the day when he was to wean Isaac' means a state of separation. This is clear from the meaning of 'day' as state, dealt with in 23, 487, 488, 493, 893, and from the meaning of 'being weaned' as being separated, dealt with in 2647. Verse 1 onwards of this chapter has dealt in the following order with the Lord's Divine Essence united to His Human Essence:

The presence of the Divine within the Human, for the sake of the two being united, verse 1.

The presence of the Human within the Divine, and thus a reciprocal union, dealt with in 2004, verse 2,

From that union the Human was made Divine, verse 3.

This was effected gradually and constantly while the Lord lived in the world, verse 4.

It started to be effected when the rational was in a state to receive, verse 5.

The nature of the state of union is described, together with the arcana of that state, verses 6-7.

Now reference follows, and is continued through to verse 12, to the separation of the human received from the mother. That separation is meant in this present verse by 'the weaning of Isaac', and in those that follow it is represented by Hagar's son being cast out of the house. And because the union of the Lord's Divine with His Human, and of the Human with the Divine, is the marriage itself of Good and Truth, and from this marriage is derived the heavenly marriage, which is the same as the Lord's kingdom, mention is therefore made of 'a great feast which Abraham made when Isaac was weaned', by which is meant the first stage of that marriage or the first union. Unless this 'feast', and also the weaning, had had some hidden meaning, it would never have been mentioned.

[2] Since the subject which follows now is the separation of the first human which the Lord had from the mother and the total casting off of it ultimately, it should be recognized that right to the end of His life when He was glorified the Lord gradually and constantly separated from Himself and cast off that which was merely human. That is to say, He cast off that which He had derived from the mother, until ultimately He was no longer her son but the Son of God not only in conception but also in birth, and so was one with the Father and was Jehovah himself. The truth that He separated from Himself and cast off the whole of the human received from the mother, insomuch that He was her son no longer, is plainly evident from the Lord's own words in John,

When the wine failed, the mother of Jesus said to Him, They have no wine. Jesus said to her, O woman, What have you to do with Me? John 2:3-4.

In Matthew,

Someone said, Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside asking to speak to You. But Jesus answering said to the one who had told Him, Who is My mother, and who are My brothers? And stretching out His hand over His disciples He said, Behold My mother and My brothers; for whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven is My brother, and sister, and mother. Matthew 12:47-50; Mark 3:32-35; Luke 11:27-28.

In Luke,

A certain woman lifting up her voice out of the crowd ¹ said to Him, Blessed is the womb that bore You, and the breasts that You sucked. But Jesus said, Blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it. Luke 11:27-28.

[3] Here, when the woman referred to His mother, the Lord spoke of those mentioned in the preceding quotation. That is to say, He spoke of 'whoever does the will of My Father is My brother, sister, and mother', which amounts to the same as saying, 'Blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it'. In John,

Jesus seeing his mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, said to His mother, O woman, behold your son! Then He said to the disciple, Behold your mother! From that hour therefore the disciple took her to his own home. John 19:26-27.

From these words it is evident that the Lord spoke to her according to what she was thinking when she saw Him on the Cross - though He does not call her mother but woman - and that He gave the name mother instead to those meant by the disciple; hence His words to the disciple, Behold your mother! The matter is plainer still from the Lord's own words in Matthew,

Jesus questioned the Pharisees saying, What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is He? They said to Him, David's. He said to them, How is it then that David in the spirit calls Him Lord, saying, The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at My right hand until I make Your enemies Your footstool. If therefore David calls Him Lord, how is He his son? And no one was able to answer Him a word. Matthew 22:41-end; Mark 12:35-37; Luke 20:42-44.

Accordingly He was no longer David's son as to the flesh.

[4] As regards the separation and casting off of the human from the mother, it must be added that they have no conception of this who entertain merely bodily ideas about the Lord's Human and think of it as they do of the human of any other. To such people these matters are as a consequence stumbling-blocks. They do not know that as is the life so is the person, and that the Divine Being (Esse) of life, or Jehovah, was the Lord's from conception and that a similar Being (Esse) of life manifested itself within His Human through union.

V: