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 Jesus Christ was also mentioned in non-Christian historical documents that have survived from that period.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.

(References: Teachings about the Lord 6)

4818. 'And there Judah saw the daughter of a man, a Canaanite' means the affection for evil begotten by falsity springing from evil. This is clear from the meaning of 'the daughter' as the affection for good, dealt with in 2362, and in the contrary sense as the affection for evil, 3024; from the meaning of 'a man' as one who has intelligence and, in the abstract sense, as truth, but in the contrary sense as one who has no intelligence and as falsity, dealt with just above in 4816; and from the meaning of 'a Canaanite' as evil, dealt with in 1573, 1574. From these meanings it is evident that 'the daughter of a man, a Canaanite' means evil begotten by falsity springing from evil. What evil begotten by falsity springing from evil is will be stated below.

[2] Here the origins of the tribe of Judah must be stated first, since these are the subject in this chapter. That tribe, or the Jewish nation, has three origins, the first being Shelah, Judah's son by his Canaanite wife, the second and third being Perez and Zerah, Judah's sons by his daughter-in-law. The descent of the whole Jewish nation from these three sons of Judah is evident from the list of Jacob's sons and grandsons who accompanied him into Egypt, Genesis 46:12, and also from the grouping of them into families, referred to in Moses,

The sons of Judah according to their families were: of Shelah, the family of the Shelanites; of Perez, the family of the Parzites; of Zerah, the family of the Zarhites. Numbers 26:20; 1 Chronicles 4:21.

From this the nature of that nation's origin is evident; that is to say, a third of them were descended from a Canaanite mother and two thirds from a daughter-in-law. They were all therefore the product of an illicit union, because marriages to daughters of the Canaanites were strictly forbidden - as may be seen in Genesis 24:3; Exodus 34:16; Deuteronomy 7:3; 1 Kings 11:2; and Chapters 9, 10 of Ezra - while lying with a daughter-in-law was a capital offence, as is evident in Moses,

As regards a man who has lain with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall be killed; they have committed perversion; ¹ their blood shall be upon them. Leviticus 20:12.

What Judah and his daughter-in-law had done together was linked by him to the law regarding leviratical marriages, which lays down the duty of a brother but never of a father, as is evident from verse 26 of the present chapter. Judah's linking of their deed together to this law implies that the sons of Tamar were to be recognized as the sons of Er the firstborn, who was born from the Canaanite mother, and who was evil in Jehovah's eyes and was therefore made to die, verse 7. For initially those born in a leviratical marriage did not belong to the one from whom they had been conceived but to him whose seed was being raised up, as is clear from Deuteronomy 25:5-6, and also from verses 8 and 9 of the present chapter. Furthermore, the sons whom Tamar bore were the result of whoredom, for when Judah went in to her he thought she was a prostitute, verses 15-16, 21. From all this one can see the origin of the Jewish nation and what kind of origin this was; and one can see that their words in John were founded on a lie,

The Jews said to Him, We were not born of whoredom. John 8:41.

[3] As regards what that origin implies and what it represents, this is evident from what follows. That is to say, those people's interiors were the same or had the same origin. Judah's marriage to a Canaanite implies and represents an origin that consisted in evil begotten by falsity springing from evil, for this is what is meant in the internal sense by 'the daughter of a man, a Canaanite'. And his lying through whoredom with his daughter-in-law implies and represents condemnation due to truth falsified by evil, for throughout the Word 'whoredom' means the falsification of truth, see 3703. ² Evil begotten by falsity springing from evil is an evil life resulting from a false teaching hatched by the evil of self-love - that is, by those governed by this evil - and backed up by a use of the sense of the letter of the Word. This is what the origin of the evil in the Jewish nation is like, and what the origin of the evil is like in the Christian world, especially among those meant in the Word by Babel. The nature of that evil is such that it closes every path leading into the internal man, closing every path so completely that no conscience at all can be formed there. For if any evil done by a person is due to a false teaching, he believes that this is good because he believes that it is true. He accordingly does it, because he has warrant to do so, with a sense of freedom and delight. All this being so, heaven is closed so completely against him that it cannot be opened.

[4] As an example to explain what this evil is like, take those who from the evil of self-love believe the following: One nation alone is Jehovah's chosen people, in comparison with whom all the rest of mankind are slaves. The rest, they believe, are so base that they may be killed at will and may be treated in a cruel fashion. Such ideas, likewise backed up by a use of the sense of the letter of the Word, were the beliefs of the Jewish nation, as they are also of the Babylonish ³ nation at the present day. Whatever kind of evil done by the latter that is the result of that false teaching, and of any other false teachings built on that one as their foundation, is evil begotten by falsity springing from evil. It destroys the internal man and shuts out even the possibility of any conscience being formed there. These people are referred to in the Word as those immersed in bloodshed; for they treat in savage ways the entire human race because it does not venerate what they believe and so themselves too, and because it does not present its gifts on their altars.

[5] Take another example - those who from the evil of self-love and love of the world believe in the necessity for someone to act as the Lord's vicar on earth. They believe that this person has power to open and close heaven, and so to control everyone's mind and conscience, and they back up this falsity by a use of the sense of the letter of the Word. In their case whatever kind of evil they perform as a result of these ideas is evil begotten by falsity springing from evil, which similarly destroys the internal man in those who are led by that evil to lay claim to that power and so control others. That evil destroys the internal man so completely that people cease to know any longer what the internal man is, or to know of the existence of conscience in anyone, with the result that they cease to believe any longer in a life after death, or in the existence of hell and of heaven, however much they talk about these.

[6] The nature of this evil is such that people in the world cannot tell it apart from other evils; but in the next life angels recognize it quite clearly. For in the next life the countless differences in the essential nature and the origin of evils and falsities are in full view; and it is also the genera and species to which these evils and falsities belong that mark off the hells from one another. Of these countless differences man knows scarcely anything. He believes in the existence of evil but has no knowledge of its essential nature, for the simple reason that he does not know what good is, and does not know what good is because he does not know what charity is. If he knew what the good of charity was he would also know its opposites, which are evils, and also their differences.

Footnotes: