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 Jesus Christ was also mentioned in non-Christian historical documents that have survived from that period.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

30. CONCERNING THE CREED OF ATHANASIUS

This is in complete harmony if only one God is acknowledged, so that there is no thought of three persons. If, in accordance therewith, the Creed of Athanasius is read, without allowing any other idea to enter, then full harmony is effected.

1. It is denied by no one that the Divine which took on the Human was His Divine, thus that the Lord suffered Himself to be born. Thence it follows that this is the Divine of Whom it is written in Matthew and in Luke. Nor was there another Father from whom He was conceived but the very Divine which He called His Father. Nor was there any other. This accords with the words in Matthew that Joseph "touched her not," [1:25] and again in Luke when Mary said that "she knew not a man" [1:34], and when Joseph "found that she was with child, and so was minded to put her away." [Matthew 1:19.]

2. The Divine of the Lord took on the Human. If the Divine is one, it follows that the Divine Itself, which is one, assumed the Human. Nor is any good done by the idea that the Divine which created the universe put on the Human. For in the Creed it is said that the Divine of the one Person, and the Divine of the other Person are entirely equal, as in these words - "Just as the Father is infinite, eternal, uncreate, omnipotent, God the Lord, so is the Son. For no one of them is first or last, greatest or least, but they are altogether equal." What, then, matters it whether I think that the Divine of the Lord or the Divine of the Father assumed the Human, so long as there exists the same idea in either case? Yet when it is said that the Divine of the Father put on the Human, the idea today in the Christian world is opposed. Nevertheless, it is exactly the same since the one Divine is altogether equal with the other.

3. It is said that the Lord was perfect God and perfect Man. Or, concerning the Human it is said that He was perfect Man consisting of a rational soul and a perfect body, and thence that he was Man from the nature of the mother. No one who thinks about this matter from the Divine order known to everyone, is able to accept it into his faith, for it would be to say that the Lord can exist as rational Man, or perfect Man from the mother alone. For was He not from the Father? And is it not the case that life and the initiament of life is from the father and its additions from the mother? To believe that the Lord was perfect Man from the mother alone, is quite contrary to all order and to what is said. Is there not the image of the father in children equally with that of the mother? The very love or ruling affection of the father stands out clearly in grandchildren and in families. In a word, there must be father and mother that man may be perfect man. How then is it to be believed that He was perfect Man from the mother?

4. Does it not then follow that the Divine was in the Lord from conception as is the soul in the case of every man.

5. This was considered by Athanasius when he said that God and Man are one Christ, not two but a united person like soul and body. From these statements it is clear that, according to our creedal faith, the Divine and the Human in the Lord are together in one Person, and not that the Divine is outside the Human as many crazily imagine.

6. Again, it is further stated that the two natures were not co-mingled, but that the Divine took to itself the Human. Neither are soul and body co-mingled with any man; but with every one, the soul clothes itself with a body and so takes to itself that which is called the human. In this also there is agreement.

7. And so when the Divine takes to itself the Human, uniting Itself with the Human as soul and body, so that there is one united person, then also the Human participates in the Divine, namely by becoming one [with it]. Thence also it can be confirmed that the Human, too, is Divine.

8. This also is confirmed in the Word, as in the Old Testament, that a Son was born whose name shall be God, The Everlasting Father, God with us, Jehovah our Righteousness. These names refer to the Human of the Lord, for it is said that thus shall the Son be called [Isaiah 9:6]; also elsewhere, as particularly in Revelation, where such things are said concerning "The Son of Man" by which name, also, the Divine Human of the Lord is meant.