Xmas

§. Matt 2:1-2 . .Jesus was born in the town of Bethlehem in Judea, during the reign of King Herod. About that time some wise men from eastern lands arrived in Jerusalem, asking; Where is the newborn king of the Jews?

This particular Herod was Herod The Great. His family was nominally Jewish but actually Idumaean. Rome had appointed his grandfather Antipas governor of Idumaea, and Julius Caesar had made Antipar, his father, procurator of Judea. The Roman triumvir Mark Antony appointed Herod The Great tetrarch of Galilee in 37 BC.

The New Testament Greek word translated "wise men" in Matt 2:1 is from magos (mag'-os); which means: a magian.

Webster's defines a magian as: a magician; viz: a charmer, conjurer, enchanter, mage, magus, necromancer, sorcerer, warlock, and wizard. Men of science— e.g. astrologers and astronomers —no doubt fell into the category of magians.

In some versions of the Bible, magos is translated sorcerer (e.g. Acts 13:6-8) and in others it's translated magician.

Far more important than the number of the magians, is the question as to how they knew that the apparition they saw while in the East was related to the birth of a Jewish monarch.

There are purists who feel very strongly that if something isn't recorded in the Bible, then it never happened; which is essentially an argument from silence. Well, arguments from silence are impractical as many things that happened in the past aren't recorded in the Bible so in order to make sense of its narratives, it's sometimes necessary to fill in the blanks; so to speak.

In the case of the magians; it's reasonable to assume that the men were not only guided by the unusual star, but also instructed as to its purpose, in all probability, by the same angel that spoke with Joseph and his espoused wife.

Another point worth considering is that the ethnic identity of the magians isn't stated. It's very plausible they were from among Jews who chose to remain behind when numbers of them returned to Palestine under Ezra and Nehemiah to rebuild the Temple and the walls of Jerusalem. Persian Jews had access to the book of Daniel; in which the precise date of Messiah's first arrival is predicted. Daniel (a.k.a. Belteshazzar) served as an official magian for several decades, and by that time, the fame of the accuracy of his predictions would have been well known; hence it's reasonable to assume that his credibility was held in high regard among succeeding generations of Persian scientists.

If the Persian magians were Jewish men of science who studied the heavens, then they would have been the very ones with the mathematical skills to compute the date of Messiah's birth; and would have been anticipating that day even before the shiny apparition showed up to guide them.

I've always been fascinated by the ability of astronomers to calculate the precise date of the return of Haley's comet; but you know, calculating the singular most important event in human history with precision easily tops that. Just in case somebody's curious as to how the magians might have computed the date of Messiah's first arrival, follow the link below to a simple explanation.

§. Matt 2:2-11 . .We saw his star in the east and have come to worship him . . And having heard the king, they went their way; and lo, the star, which they had seen in the east, went on before them, until it came and stood over where the Child was. And when they saw the star, they rejoiced exceedingly with great joy. And they came into the house and saw the child with Mary his mother

Years ago I went to a planetarium up here in the Portland Oregon area to watch a presentation of the night sky and also a scientific explanation of the "star" that guided the magians to little Jesus.

The planetarium's explanation centered upon a special planetary alignment. However, as anyone who's dabbled in astronomy knows, it is impossible to pick out the very house in a neighborhood over which things in space are the precise zenith without some pretty sophisticated scientific devices; which of course nobody had 2,000 years ago.

The "star" in question was unnatural. It didn't move according to the laws of celestial mechanics. No, first it led the magians to Jerusalem. Then it "reappeared" and led them a north/south direction before coming to rest and hovering right over the exact house where little Jesus was quartered. True stars never move in a north/south direction unless they're of the "shooting" variety. And also, stars never hover.

Like we stated previously, it would have been impossible to pick out the precise house in the neighborhood without some sophisticated scientific devices; which means the "star" had to be low enough in the sky to be of practical use to ancient naked-eye observers.

The New Testament Greek word for "star" is aster (as-tare') which is an ambiguous word that can indicate a typical star, an angel, a meteor, a planet, a political figure, an item of jewelry, and even Christ himself.

In the case of the magians, I would have to say that the "star" they saw was definitely not of the celestial variety but rather, was a special low-altitude apparition devised by God to lead the men to a precise spot on the geographic globe. It was more like a beacon, or a military flare, or a porch light; something low enough in the sky that even a child could easily tell which house it was over so there would be no mistake.

The Greek word for "worship" in that verse is proskuneo (pros-koo-neh'-o) which means: to fawn or crouch to; e.g. as a dog might lick its master's hand; also to prostrate oneself in homage. Webster's defines homage as: the relationship between a feudal lord and his vassal.

The kind of worship that the men of science displayed wasn't the kind you might offer a god, but rather the homage you would pay to a human being because the magians weren't searching for a god, but rather, for a monarch.

§. Matt 2:4-6 . .When Herod had assembled all the people's chief priests and teachers of the law, he asked them where the anointed one was to be born. In Bethlehem in Judea; they replied; for this is what the prophet has written: "But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for out of you will come a ruler who will be the shepherd of my people Israel." (Mic 5:2)

§. Matt 2:7 . .Then Herod met with the men of science in private, and ascertained from them the time the star appeared.

The apparition's appearance no doubt coincided with the very same hour as the heavenly announcement below.

§. Luke 2:8-14 . .And in the same region there were some shepherds staying out in the fields, and keeping watch over their flock by night. And an angel of The Lord suddenly stood before them, and the glory of The Lord shone around them; and they were terribly frightened.

. . And the angel said to them: Don't be afraid; for behold, I bring you good news of a great joy which shall be for all the people; for today in the city of David there has been born for you a savior, who is Messiah, the Lord. And this will be a sign for you: you will find a swathed infant lying in a fodder crib.

Webster's defines a savior as: one that rescues from danger or destruction. Rescuing is what the Coast Guard does when boats capsize. Rescuing is what Firemen do when people are trapped inside burning buildings. Rescuing is what mountaineer teams do when climbers are in trouble. Rescuing is what EMT paramedics do when someone needs to get to a hospital in a hurry; and kept alive till they arrive. Rescuing is what surgeons do when someone needs an organ transplant. I could go on and on giving you example of rescuer after rescuer; but I think you get the idea. The New Testament's Jesus rescues people from the wrath of God— people who fully deserve Hell, and definitely in line to go there.

§. Mark 10:45 . .For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.

Webster's defines a "ransom" as: a consideration paid or demanded for the release of someone or some thing from captivity.

The average Catholic has lost sight of Jesus' crucifixion as a ransom, and down-graded his death to the level of a martyr rather than of a rescuer. Jesus' death was actually an assisted suicide. His life was not taken from him; no, it was donated.

§. Isa 53:12 . .I will give him the honors of one who is mighty and great, because he poured out his life unto death

§. John 10:18 . .No one can take my life from me. I lay down my life voluntarily.

§. John 3:16-17 . .For God so cared for the world that He donated His only son, so that everyone who relies upon him will not perish but have eternal life. God did not send His son into the world to judge it; but to rescue it.

People who see Jesus as a victim of circumstances beyond his control have not yet seen the New Testament's Jesus nor do they have a clue as to the true purpose of his first visit.

§. Matt 2:9-12 . .On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary, and they bowed down and worshiped him. Then they opened their treasures and presented him with gifts of gold and of incense and of myrrh.

Since this scene takes place in a house rather than a stable or an inn, it's pretty safe to assume that the men of science arrived separately from the shepherds of Luke 2:8-16.

The koiné Greek word for "child" in Matt 2:9-12 is paidion (pahee-dee'-on) which is a different noun than the word brephos (bref'-os) for the babe of Luke 2:8-16. Jesus was an infant when the shepherds saw him; but was somewhat older when the men of science arrived; and I half suspect he was no longer in Bethlehem but back home in Nazareth; which would mean the "star" led the men north from Jerusalem rather than south.

This presents an interesting possibility. Herod assumed the men went south because of the prediction of Mic 5:2. But if the apparition actually lead the men north, rather than south, as I half suspect, then Herod spun his wheels murdering the little boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity. I think the prediction served as a diversion to send Mr. Herod off on a wild goose chase. He should have asked where the boy was right then, not where he was to be born because Jesus was already born by the time the men of science arrived. Herod got the correct answer to his question, but it was not the answer he needed.

Herod also erroneously assumed that Bethlehem was the boy's home town; when his family was only there for taxing purposes. They weren't residents. Their home town was Nazareth.

Note that the men of science paid their respects to the child rather than his mother. In point of fact, they gave Jesus' mom no veneration whatsoever. They were there to pay homage to Israel's king; not to Catholicism's queen.

Some people try to read symbolism into the three gifts, but that really isn't necessary. Gold, spices, and fragrances were common items of wealth and commerce in those days. The "gifts" were actually tribute; and I've no doubt whatsoever that Joseph appropriated them to support his family while they were resident aliens in Egypt.

§. Lke 2:21 . .On the eighth day, when it was time to circumcise him, he was named Jesus, the name the angel had given him before he had been conceived.

§. Matt 1:21 . .She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus

§. Luke 1:31 . .You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus.

In ancient Israel, when a man took part in naming a child, it was assumed he was— if not the biological father —then the legal father; viz: the adoptive father. It was at this point that Jesus became an official member of Joseph's family tree and a legal descendant of David's son Solomon; giving him the status of Josephs' firstborn son and heir to David's throne.

Jesus had to meet an immutable requirement in order to inherit David's throne. He had to be related to both David and Solomon. He was related to David by blood through Mary's grandfather Nathan, and related to Solomon via adoption by Joseph.

Most Gentiles wouldn't give you a Xeroxed one dollar bill for that information, but it is very important to Jesus' Jewish countrymen because they are anticipating an anointed one who descends from David and Solomon; and will accept no substitutes. Gentiles have so focused upon Jesus' divine aspect that they have totally overlooked his human aspect in the line of Davidic royalty.

Adoption for the purpose of elevating a child's rank in its own family is not without precedent.

What Jacob did in the book of Genesis may seem weird; but apparently not an unusual practice in his own day. What he did was to legally adopt his own grandsons— Joseph's two boys —thus positioning Manasseh and Ephraim as his own sons rather than Joseph's, which elevated the boys from their natural status as grandsons to that of children biologically produced in his own bedroom by he and Rachel.

At the same time, the adoption also served to demote them from the status of the sons of an aristocrat (Joseph) to the sons of a shepherd (Jacob) and shepherds were an abomination to Egyptians (Gen 46:34).

Exactly how Ephraim and Manasseh felt about that isn't stated; nor would they have had a say in it anyway as Jacob was the reigning paterfamilias at the time; and within his own clan, Jacob was only one step in rank below Yhvh.

§. Gen 48:5 . .Now, your two sons, who were born to you in the land of Egypt before I came to you in Egypt, shall be mine; Ephraim and Manasseh shall be mine no less than Reuben and Simeon.

Reuben and Simeon are Jacob's eldest; viz: Jacob gave Manasseh and Ephraim a status equal to his own eldest sons: that of tribal heads rather than just rank and file pew warmers.

§. Gen 48:6 . . Any children born to you after them will be yours; in the territory they inherit they will be reckoned under the names of their brothers.

Joseph retained headship over the tribe of Joseph, and any children born to him after Manasseh and Ephraim were recorded in his tribe; but any born to Manasseh and Ephraim would be recorded in their tribes. The tribes of Manasseh and Ephraim are sometimes referred to as half-tribes; e.g. Deut 3:13. Oddly, Jacob's adoption of Manasseh and Ephraim had the effect of making their own biological father a legal sibling.

So then, when the New Testament's Joseph stepped up to name Jesus at the lad's ritual circumcision, he as much as adopted the boy as his own biological offspring; thus elevating Jesus from the rank of a commoner in Judah's tribe, to the rank of legal heir to Solomon's throne. That was something Joseph had a patriarchal right to do since he—though a lowly carpenter at the time —would have been a Davidic monarch himself had not Israel been under Rome's heel at the time.

This obscure bit of patriarchal prerogative has managed to evade the notice of modern Judaism as evidenced by their vehement rejection of the New Testament's Jesus as a valid candidate for David's throne on the basis that the boy did not descend from Solomon biologically. By demanding a biological connection to Solomon, they have effectively locked themselves into perpetual error; and have impudently, and shamefully, taken it upon themselves to invalidage Jacob's precedent.

Jesus' right to occupy David's throne is still his. Since Christ produced no offspring prior to his death, then his right to the throne didn't pass on to an heir.

§. Isa 53:8 . .And who can speak of his descendants? For he was cut off from the land of the living

§. Luke 2:22-25 . .And when the days for their purification according to the law of Moses were completed, they brought him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord (as it is written in the law of the Lord: "Every first-born male that opens the womb shall be consecrated to the Lord" and to offer a sacrifice according to what was said in the law of the Lord: "A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons."

§. Lev 12:1-4 . .Then Yhvh spoke to Moses, saying: Speak to the sons of Israel, saying; When a woman gives birth and bears a male child, then she shall be unclean for seven days, as in the days of her menstruation she shall be unclean. And on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. Then she shall remain in the blood of her purification for thirty-three days; she shall not touch any consecrated thing, nor enter the sanctuary, until the days of her purification are completed.

(It looks like 41 days but what would be the 41st day is actually the day the mommy goes to the Temple with her sacrifices)

The low dollar-value of Mary's offerings attest to her and Joseph's status as low-income Israelis.

§. Lev 12:6-8 . .And when the days of her purification are completed, for a son or for a daughter, she shall bring to the priest at the doorway of the tent of meeting, a one year old lamb for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon or a turtledove for a sin offering. Then he shall offer it before Yhvh and make atonement for her; and she shall be cleansed from the flow of her blood.

. . This is the law for her who bears a child, whether a male or a female. But if she cannot afford a lamb, then she shall take two turtledoves or two young pigeons, the one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement for her, and she shall be clean.

Too many Gentiles are quick to assume Mary's offerings prove she was a sinner; but one of those birds was for Jesus in lieu of the lamb that the law mandates for redeeming boy babies; so then, if Mary's offering proves she's a sinner; then by association, the offering for Jesus proves the very same thing.

§. Ex 13:11-13 . .After Yhvh brings you into the land of the Canaanites and gives it to you, as He promised on oath to you and your forefathers, you are to give over to Yhvh the first offspring of every womb. All the firstborn males of your livestock belong to Yhvh. Redeem with a lamb every firstborn donkey, but if you do not redeem it, break its neck. Redeem every firstborn among your sons.

Josephs' wife brought those offerings for herself and Jesus because that is what the law of The Lord mandates; and it doesn't matter whether a woman is a sinner or a non-sinner nor whether the baby is a sinner or a non-sinner. It would have been sin for Jesus' mother to disobey that law, and would have put her baby in jeopardy of its life. She had to bring the birds for her and Jesus simply because it was the right thing to do.

Another case in point of "the right thing to do" is John the Baptist. His mission was a baptism unto repentance (Matt 3:11). Did the Lord need repentance? No; but he submitted himself to John's baptism because it was the right thing to do since John's mission was God-given.

§. Matt 3:13-15 . .Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John. But John tried to deter him, saying; I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me? Jesus replied; Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness. Then John consented.

§. Luke 2:41-42 . .Every year Jesus' parents went to Jerusalem for the Passover festival. When Jesus was twelve years old, they attended the festival as usual.

If I can arbitrarily assign Mary's age at the time of Jesus' birth as say, nineteen years old, (it's more likely she was fourteen)then she would have been in the neighborhood of thirty-one when Jesus was twelve.

§. Luke 3:23 . .And when He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age

§. John 19:25 . .But there were standing by the cross of Jesus His mother, and His mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.

Bible scholars have calculated that Jesus was thirty-three years old on the cross; which would have made his mom somewhere in the neighborhood of fifty-two or fifty-three at the time of his death.

Michelangelo's Pietà depicts a much, much younger Mary cradling a deceased Jesus in her lap. Another error in the Pietà is that the scene itself wasn't taken from the Bible. It's an artist's concept based upon an emotional fantasy called impressionism. There is nothing in the sacred record indicating that Jesus' mom even so much as touched her son's dead body after it was removed from the cross by Nicodemus the Pharisee, and Joseph of Arimathaea.

Incidentally, Moses' covenanted law disqualified Jesus' friends from eating the impending Passover meal till a month later.

§. Num 9:9-13 . .And Yhvh spoke to Moses, saying: Speak to the Israelite people, saying: When any of you or of your posterity who are defiled by a corpse or are on a long journey would offer a passover sacrifice to Yhvh, they shall offer it in the second month, on the fourteenth day of the month, at twilight. They shall eat it with unleavened bread and bitter herbs, and they shall not leave any of it over until morning. They shall not break a bone of it. They shall offer it in strict accord with the law of the passover sacrifice.

Spurious Affirmation: One of the perks given to God's Holy Mother was she didn't age.

I wonder if any reading this are old enough to remember a television police show called "Dragnet" starring Jack Webb. One of Sergeant Joe Friday's signature lines was: Just the facts ma'am, just the facts.

Unless somebody can show me from the sacred narratives, as recorded in the Holy Bible, that God disabled Mary's aging process, then I would politely request that they don't bore me with fantasy. It's not dignified.

That affirmer's statement is not only unsupported by the inspired narratives in the Holy Bible; but also one of the very dangers Paul warned about.

§. 2Tim 4:2-4 . .Preach the word of God. Be persistent, whether the time is favorable or not. Patiently correct, rebuke, and encourage your people with good teaching. For a time is coming when they will no longer listen to right teaching. They will follow their own desires and will look for teachers who will tell them whatever they want to hear. They will reject the truth and follow strange myths.

Another of Rome's strange myths is its proprietary fantasy that Jesus' mom was a perpetual virgin; no doubt the opinion of a celibate clergy who believes it would be unthinkable to insert a man's filthy pudendum into the very birth canal through which "God" passed. Apparently it was okay for Mary's pee to enter the canal, and okay for vaginal discharges to enter it; but a man's filthy pudendum? Horrors!

You know how one lie leads to another? Well, the myth goes on to "reveal" that God disabled Mary's libido so she wouldn't suffer with yearning for intimacy with a man's naked body. But that created a problem for Joseph, so the myth resolves that probelm by "revealing" that God disabled Joseph's libido too. So, in the end; Rome's Jesus grew up in a home staffed with frigid parents. Great influence on the mind of a growing boy; right? NOT!

And I can just imagine how Rome's Mary would enjoy explaining her loveless marriage in tea and coffee chats with her girlfriends. And how was Rome's Joseph supposed to explain to his buddies why he and Mary never had any children of their own? It wouldn't take them very long to figure out that he wasn't "gettin any" at home.

And what about paternal feelings? How do you suppose Rome's Mary felt when attending her girlfriends' baby showers? No problem there. Rome can quite easily pull a "revelation" right out of thin air to disable Mary's paternal feelings so she wouldn't long for any more children other than the one God's spirit gave her.

And what about regret? Ah yes . . regrets are what all of us have to look forward to as we age. How do you suppose a frigid Mary and Joseph would feel as they each in turn underwent their own midlife crisis and the realization set in that the couple had missed out on one of life's normal, and natural, fulfillments?

And then the biological clock would finally reach 12 midnight and Rome's Mary underwent menopause; totally destroying any possibility of Joseph ever having any children of his own. How do you suppose they handled that one? No problem. Just simply "reveal" that Rome's Mary didn't age. She was forever 21.

And what about resentment? As midlife regret set in, the couple would no doubt look upon Jesus as the cause and source of their sexual misfortune and their childless family situation, and react to those facts with bitterness about his intrusion into their lives. No doubt Rome can invent another "revelation" to address that problem too. God forbid that Rome's holy family bear any resemblance to normal Jewish folks!

You see, when your religion is open-ended, it can re-invent itself any time it finds itself painted into a corner, and introduce new revelations to correct old errors. Thus; Rome's version of Christianity is its own proprietary version rather than the Holy Bible's version. And no surprise there. The Holy Bible's version of Christianity isn't nearly as entertaining as Rome's. As the late-night comedian David Letterman once quipped: "The Catholics put on a good show."

§. 1Tim 4:1 . .Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils

§. John 1:1-3 . .There was a wedding in Cana of Galilee and the mother of Jesus was there. Jesus and his disciples were also invited to the wedding. When the wine ran short, the mother of Jesus said to him; They have no wine.

I think Mary was justified to associate her son with one of Moses' predictions; which is as follows.

§. Deut 18:15-20 . .Yhvh your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your countrymen, you shall listen to him.

Moses was not only a prophet, but also a provider; of sorts. When the people needed water, Moses prayed and the people got water out of a rock. When the only water available was toxic, Moses prayed and the water was purified. When they needed food, Moses prayed and the people got manna and quails. When the people were bitten by a swarm of deadly snakes, Moses prayed and the people obtained relief. So then, it only stands to reason that Jesus' mom would expect her prophet son to provide sustenance for the marriage just as Moses had provided sustenance for the ancient Israelis.

§. John 2:4 . . Jesus said to her; Woman, how does your concern affect me? My hour has not yet come.

At the time, Jesus was not yet responsible for Israel's welfare like Moses had been at one time. He had a destiny with the cross to accomplish first. Also, Jesus never took matters into his own hands, nor never stood up to his Father, nor ever once asserted his independence. The success of Jesus' mission depended upon 100% deference to his Father's will.

§. Matt 4:3-5 . . And the tempter came and said to him: If you are the son of God, command that these stones become bread. But Jesus answered and said; It is written, Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.

§. John 5:19 . .Jesus replied; I assure you, the Son can do nothing by himself. He does only what he sees the Father doing. Whatever the Father does, the Son also does.

§. John 8:28-29 . . Jesus said; When you have lifted up the Son of man on the cross, then you will realize that I am he and that I do nothing on my own, but I speak what the Father instructed me. And the One who sent me is with me— He has not deserted me. For I always do those things that are pleasing to Him.

That's more like it. After having been gently rebuked, Jesus' mom defers to her son's will rather than assert matriarchal rank. Mary's son was, after all, anointed by God to ascend David's throne as Israel's ultimate theocratic monarch.

§. Luke 1:32-33 . .The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end.

§. Dan 7:13-14 . .In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was ushered into His presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power— all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is the one that will never be destroyed.

§. Ps 110:1 . .Yhvh said to my master: Sit at My right hand, till I make your enemies your footstool.

§. Ps 89:20-27 . .I have found My servant David; with My holy oil I have anointed him . . I will make him My firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth.

§. Matt 1:18 . .Now this is how Jesus the Messiah was born. His mother, Mary, was engaged to be married to Joseph.

It needs to be pointed out that Joseph and his best girl were engaged to be married before either one of them were informed about a somebody named Jesus.

Since Mary was already engaged prior to Gabriel's announcement; the logical conclusion is that she was marrying a Jewish guy for the usual reasons that Jewish girls want a Jewish husband— to settle down, cohabit with a Jewish man, and raise a Jewish family.

And since Joseph was already engaged to Mary prior to the dream sequence, the logical conclusion is that he was marrying a Jewish girl for the usual reasons that Jewish guys want a Jewish wife— to settle down, cohabit with a Jewish woman, and raise a Jewish family.

Since the inspired Gospel narratives do not clearly, and without ambiguity, indicate otherwise, it has to be assumed, from the normal round of Jewish human experience, that those two Jewish adults fully intended to sleep together after their wedding just like every other normal Jewish couple does.

Another point worth well worth the trouble to refute is that in Catholicism, it is a sin to marry with no intent of producing children. That sin is based upon a very early blessing in the book of Genesis before there ever were religions like Judaism, Christianity, or Catholicism.

§. Gen 1:28 . .God blessed them and said to them; Be fruitful and increase in number

Catholicism regards that blessing as a commandment. Therefore, if Rome's Mary and Joseph made no attempt whatsoever to produce children of their own, then they would have been guilty of disobeying a very early divine fiat. It gets worse.

The Bible's God tempts no man to sin (Jas 1:13). However, if the Bible's God had forced Rome's Mary and Joseph into a frigid, platonic marriage— thus forcing them to disobey the early fiat to reproduce —then He would have been guilty of leading Jesus' parents into sin.

A very serious ethnical point worth emphasizing is that Joseph and his wife were both Abraham's posterity. God early-on blessed their paterfamilias with this blessing:

§. Gen 22:17 . .In blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore

Had Joseph not attempted to produce children of his own, he would have failed to participate in Abraham's blessing and do his part in perpetuating his sacred ancestor's seed.

That is the very reason why Jewish women should always mate with a Jewish man. In the Bible, it's the males who determine ethnic identity and tribal heritage rather than the females. A Jewish woman who produces children with a Gentile, perpetuates a Gentile's seed rather than Abraham's.

See how Rome paints itself into a corner time after time with its proprietary fantasy that Jesus' mom was a perpetual virgin?

§. Matt 2:1 . .Jesus was born in the town of Bethlehem in Judea, during the reign of King Herod.

The Herod of Matt 2:1 is generally accepted as Herod the Great; which is problematic because that particular Herod died in the spring of 4 BCE.

Jesus was baptized by his cousin John in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar— when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, Herod was tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene (Luke 3:1-2)

Tiberius' reign spanned 14 CE to 37 CE. So according to Luke, the Baptist's ministry began sometime in 29 CE. Precisely on what day Jesus was baptized by John isn't stated, but it is stated that he was about thirty years old at the time.

§. Luke 3:21-23…When all the people were being baptized, Jesus was baptized too. And as he was praying, heaven was opened and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: "You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased." Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry.

So if you subtract 30 years from 29 CE you get 1 BCE for the date of Jesus' birth, which was three years after Herod the Great died. But that's not all.

§. Luke 2:1-2 . .And it came to pass in those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. (This census first took place while Quirinius was governing Syria.)

Quirinius presents anther thorny problem. According to secular history, he wasn't appointed Governor of Syria until 6 CE, which would have been about seven years after the Bible's Jesus was born.

Historians and theologians have both wrestled with those two apparent discrepancies in the Gospel narratives without really arriving at an explanation that makes everybody happy. Theologians claim historians have made some errors, and of course historians claim Matthew and Luke are the ones who made the errors; but this apparent discrepancy is easily resolved. Click on the link below and we'll show you how to do it.

§. Luke 2:1-6 . .In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. (This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governing in Syria.) And everyone went to his own town to register.

. . So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child.

The distance from Nazareth in the north, to Bethlehem in the south just outside Jerusalem, is about 68 line-of-sight miles, and roughly 93 road miles. So the journey on a donkey's back would be no picnic; especially for a woman in her final trimester and ready to pop any minute. As any woman who's ever been pregnant knows, every little bump in the road is very uncomfortable for a pregnant female's urinary bladder.

I don't know why artists always depict Mary traveling those 93 miles on donkey-back when the mode of transportation isn't mentioned. Personally, I don't think Joseph and his fiancée traveled to Bethlehem alone anyway, but rather, in the company of their kin just as they did when Jesus was 12 years old.

§. Luke 2:41-45 . .Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover. And when he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast. And when they had fulfilled the days, as they returned, the child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and Joseph and his mother knew not of it. But they, supposing him to have been in the company, went a day's journey; and they sought him among their kinsfolk and acquaintance. And when they found him not, they turned back again to Jerusalem, seeking him.

In Mary' condition, the padded bed of a wagon makes far more sense than the back of an animal; and no doubt Joseph's and Mary's kin pooled their resources and made sure she was comfortable.

Objection: How can you say Jesus was fully a Jewish man? He didn't even have a biological father.

Couldn't that very same logic be applied to Eve? According to the objector's reasoning, Eve wasn't fully a human woman because she didn't have a biological mother, but was formed exclusively from a male's organic tissue. Jesus is simply the opposite. He didn't have an immediate biological father; but was formed exclusively from a female's organic tissue. In reality, Jesus' formation makes more sense because God at least had a gene pool in Mary's tissues to draw upon, whereas in Eve's case, there had never even been a female of the species before she came along.

A serious point worth emphasizing is that it is not quite accurate to say that there were no males involved in Jesus' conception, because Mary herself was the genetic product of many, many normal breeding relationships between men and women— all the way back to David and Bathsheba, Boaz and Ruth, Salmon and Rahab, Judah and Tamar, Jacob and Leah, Isaac and Rebecca, Abraham and Sarah, Shem and Mrs Shem, Noah and Mrs Noah, Seth and Mrs Seth, and Adam and Eve.

So then, there were lots of males in Jesus' genetic pedigree; and his own DNA was doubtless laced with their genes— especially David's and Abraham's. In point of fact, Jesus is specifically stated to be David's "seed" —not spiritually, but naturally, of the flesh.

§. Rom 1:3 . .Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh

Just because Jesus didn't have an end-point biological father doesn't mean he was any less a Jewish man than any other Jewish man because God had lots of Jewish male genes at his disposal in Mary's DNA from which to choose when forming Jesus; so there was no need for The Holy Spirit to "plant a seed" in Mary's uterus since her own natural seed was all that God really needed to do the job. Planting a seed in her uterus would have relegated Mary to the status of a surrogate mother rather than a biological mother; and her firstborn son wouldn't have been her son at all, but rather, an alien implant.

Pedigree is very important to royalty like the house of David because his throne passes down genetically, and no other way. In point of fact, God clearly, and without ambiguity, said that David was Jesus' father even before Jesus was conceived in the womb of an unmarried, unlaid Jewish girl (Luke 1:32). Jesus was, in fact, born out of wedlock because Joseph and his fiancée were still in the engagement stage of their relationship as they traveled to Bethlehem for the taxing (Luke 2:4-7).

Since Joseph wasn't Jesus' biological father, then the only other possible genetic link to David was via his mother and her male kin. Joseph descended from David via Solomon (Matt 1:6) and Mary descended from David via Solomon's brother Nathan (Luke 3:31) so that Mary and Joseph are actually distant cousins.

Normally, the biological fathers in Old Testament Judaism decide their children's tribal heritage; as in the case of Ruth's and Boaz's son Obed. But in Mary and Joseph's case, the husband played no role in the conception; so the males on Mary's side of the family became Jesus' default genetic progenitors, and put him solidly in the tribe of Judah (Heb 7:14).

The English word "Christ" is translated from the New Testament koiné Greek word christos (khris-tos') which means: anointed.

§. John 1:41 . .He found first his own brother Simon, and said to him; We have found the Messiah (which translated means Christ).

The English word "Messiah" is translated from the koiné Greek word Messias (mes-see'-as) which is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew mashiyach (maw-shee'-akh) which means: anointed; viz: a consecrated person; e.g. kings and priests.

Somebody is probably thinking that nobody can be God's anointed unless somebody slops some special olive oil over their head. That's a nice gesture, but no, the rite isn't mandatory. Even a Gentile can be God's anointed; e.g. Cyrus (Isa 45:1) Jesus himself was anointed not with oil, but with God's spirit— which is actually what the oil signifies anyway.

§. Isa 11:1-2 . .Then a shoot will spring from the stem of Jesse, and a branch from his roots will bear fruit. And Yhvh's spirit will rest on him— the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and strength, the spirit of knowledge and the fear of Yhvh.

§. John 3:34 . .For he is sent by God. He speaks God's words, for God's spirit is upon him without measure or limit.

The problem with anointing Messiah with natural olive oil is that there is no Jew of high enough rank to do it; not even David; who is clearly stated in the Psalms to be inferior in rank to Messiah.

§. Ps 110:1 . .Yhvh said unto my master; Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.

Stop and consider just how high in rank Messiah really is that he should be David's master because David is clearly stated to be God's firstborn in rank.

§. Ps 89:20-27 . .I have found my servant David. I have anointed him with my holy oil . . I will make him my firstborn son: the mightiest of earth's kings.

The only person of higher rank than a firstborn son in the family is the paterfamilias of the family. In David's case, Yhvh himself is the paterfamilias; ergo: the only king in existence of a higher rank than David's is God. So then, unless there is an intermediate rank in between the firstborn and the paterfamilias, then David's master has to be either Yhvh himself, or someone in David's line who holds the honorary rank of God; otherwise his own son could never be David's master since by the law of Moses, parents are to be honored by their posterity; not the other way around.

§. Dan 7:13-14 . .As my vision continued that night, I saw someone who looked like a human being coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient One and was escorted into His presence. He was given authority, honor, and royal power over all the nations of the world, so that people of every race and nation and language would obey him. His rule is eternal; it will never end. His kingdom is the one that will never be destroyed.

§. Luke 1:31-33 . .He will be great, and will be called the son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give him the throne of his father David; and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; and his kingdom will have no end.

§. John 4:25-26 . .The woman said; I know that Messiah (called Christ) is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us. Then Jesus declared; I who speak to you am he.

§. Matt 2:13-15 . .After the wise men were gone, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream; saying: Get up and flee to Egypt with the child and his mother. Stay there until I tell you to return, because Herod is going to try to kill the child. That night Joseph left for Egypt with the child and Mary, his mother, and they stayed there until Herod's death. This fulfilled what the Lord had spoken through the prophet: I called my son out of Egypt.

Although Matt 2:15 fulfilled prophecy, it did not fulfill a specific prediction regarding Jesus. In other words: not all prophecy is predictive; no, quite a bit of it is historic; and this particular prophecy is historic; but lends itself to an application in Joseph's temporary residency in Egypt.

§. Hos 11:1 . .When Israel was a child, I loved him as a son, and I called my son out of Egypt.

When Yhvh called His people out of Egypt under Moses' leadership, it was with the understanding that they never go back as permanent residents ever again.

§. Deut 17:16 . .But the king shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as Yhvh hath said unto you; Ye shall henceforth return no more that way.

Hosea's prophecy echoes Yhvh's commandment, and gives the reason for Joseph's temporary residency in Egypt; for he, and Jesus and his mom, were Jews; and by virtue of their genetic heritage were obligated to comply with Moses' covenanted law; specifically Yhvh's prohibition against their establishing a permanent residency in Egypt.

So then, Matt 2:13 could be paraphrased: "Arise and take the child and his mother, and flee to Egypt, and remain there only as long as I tell you."

I replaced the word "until" with the words "only as long as" because with regard to Deut 17:6, that is exactly what God instructed Joseph.

Jesus' Crucifixion

Yhvh's people are the ones responsible for murdering God's anointed. The Romans were their weapon of choice just as the citizens of Rabbah were David's weapon of choice to murder Bathsheba's husband Uriah (2Sam 11:1-12:9).

§. Matt 27:20-26 . .Meanwhile, the leading priests and other leaders coached the crowds to ask for Barabbas to be released and for Jesus to be put to death. So when the governor asked again; Which of these two do you want me to release to you? —the crowd shouted back their reply: Barabbas!

. . But if I release Barabbas; Pilate asked them; what should I do with Jesus who is called the Messiah?

. . And they all shouted; Crucify him!

. . Why? Pilate demanded. What crime has he committed?

. . But the crowd only roared the louder; Crucify him!

. . Pilate saw that he wasn't getting anywhere and that a riot was developing. So he sent for a bowl of water and washed his hands before the crowd, saying; I am innocent of the blood of this man. The responsibility is yours! And all the people yelled back; We will take responsibility for his death— we and our children!

§. Acts 7:51-53 . .You men who are stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears are always resisting the Holy Spirit; you are doing just as your fathers did. Which one of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? And they killed those who had previously announced the coming of the righteous one; whose betrayers and murderers you have now become; you who received the law as ordained by angels, and yet did not keep it.

The only way the Jews can clear themselves of Jesus' murder now is to offer his life for their sins; including the sin of murdering Yhvh's anointed; because the Aaronic qorbonot system has no sacrifices and offerings for premeditated murder.

§. Num 35:31 . .You may not accept a ransom for the life of a murderer who is guilty of a capital crime; he must be put to death.

§. Ex 21:12-14 . .He who fatally strikes a man shall be put to death. If he did not do it by design, but it came about by an act of God, I will assign you a place to which he can flee. When a man schemes against another and kills him treacherously, you shall take him from My very altar to be put to death.

§. Acts 13:38-41 . . Brothers, listen! In this man Jesus there is forgiveness for your sins. And by him, all that believe are rendered innocent of all the things from which you could not be pardoned by the law of Moses.

. . . Be careful then! Don't let the prophets' words apply to you. For they said: Look on, you mockers, scoff and perish! For I am doing something in your own day, something you wouldn't believe even if a man were to tell you.

That's an interesting observation. In so many words, the speaker of Acts 13:41 is saying something that everybody already instinctively knows without being told— that it is easier for men to trust each other than it is for men to trust organized religion. However, the efficacy of Christ's crucifixion is so unbelievable that men can't believe it even when they hear about it from each other; let alone when they hear about it from organized religion.

FYI: The entire geographic land of Israel itself was made unclean by reason of Jesus' murder.

§. Num 35:31-34 . .You may not accept a ransom for the life of a murderer who is guilty of a capital crime; he must be put to death. . . You shall not pollute the land in which you live; for blood pollutes the land, and the land can have no expiation for blood that is shed on it, except by the blood of him who shed it.

The real meaning of Xmas is that a second death in Rev 20:11-15's reservoir of burning sulfur is every responsible person's default destiny. How do I know that? Because Christ gave his life for the sins of the whole world, not just for some of the world.

§. 1John 2:2 . .He is the propitiation for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

§. John 3:17-19 . .God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world should be rescued through Him. He who relies upon him is not judged; he who does not has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

§. Rom 3:19 . .Obviously, divine law applies to those to whom it was given, for its purpose is to keep people from having excuses and to bring the entire world into judgment before God.

So then, although the reservoir is everyone's default destiny; it doesn't have to be your inevitable destiny when there's a bail-out available.

§. John 3:14-15 . .As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; that whoever looks to him may have eternal life.

Jesus compared the efficacy of his crucifixion to an incident recorded in Num 21:4-9

God had sent a swarm of deadly poisonous snakes among Yhvh's people. Everyone who was bitten was doomed to die; no exceptions. The only remedy was an effigy of the vipers that Moses hoisted up on a pole. Everyone who looked to the effigy for relief, was spared: no exceptions. However, that effigy was the only God-given remedy for their predicament— not prayers, not sacraments, not charity, not piety, not candles, not rosaries, not holy water, not church attendance, not commandments, nor even one's choice of religion made any difference whatsoever. Their one and only hope of rescue was that silly effigy.

§. Rom 5:6-11 . .You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since we have now been rendered innocent by his blood, how much more shall we be spared from God's wrath through him!

. . For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of His own son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! Not only is this so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.

Get the picture? Christ's crucifixion is the final option. Refuse that, and the default is your worst nightmare; no exceptions.

§. John 3:36 . .He who relies upon the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.

FAQ: Why was a serpent hoisted up on the pole? Doesn't that represent the Devil rather than Christ?

The serpentary effigy was constructed as a replica of the deadly snakes that were poisoning Yhvh's people; in other words, the replica represented their deserved punishment; ergo: looking to the replica was a symbolic way of owning their guilt and requesting clemency for their conduct. Incidentally, my very first real prayer was along that line; it went something like this:

Objection: Only a sick, perverted monster would mix Hell with a day of joy like Christmas. Where's your sensitivity? Are you a Scrooge: a bitter old man who lacks the milk of human kindness?

Christmas owes its very existence to Hell. If there were no Hell, there would not be a Jesus.

§. John 15:22 . .If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloak for their sin.

The sweet little baby Jesus was born for one purpose, and one purpose only: and the reason for it was not to warm peoples hearts, toes, and tummies around the fireplace. No, it was to rescue condemned sinners from the wrath of God.

§. John 12:27-28 . .Now my soul is deeply troubled. Should I pray; Father, save me from what lies ahead? No; this hour is the very reason why I came!

§. Isa 53:4-6 . . Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and Yhvh has laid on him the iniquity of us all.

Just as there was but one alternative to the serpentary replica, so there is but one alternative to the cross. Everybody bitten by those fiery serpents was doomed to die, no exceptions. The alternative to the cross is the second death depicted at Rev 20:11-14 and since there is but one resurrection allotted per person; then nobody is coming back from the reservoir.

§. Dan 12:2 . . Multitudes sleeping in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt.

§. John 5:28-29 . . The hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice; and come forth— those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.