Some Xmas Stories

[Beetow]

Jesus' Mom

• Luke 1:31-33 . . Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you
shall name him Jesus. He will be great and will be called Son of the Most High, and
the Lord God will give him the throne of David his father, and he will rule over the
house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.

Jesus' genealogy is relatively unimportant to the average Gentile, whereas very
important to Jews because only David's biological posterity qualifies to ascend his
throne and govern the land of Israel.

• Ps 89:4-5 . . I have made a covenant with my chosen one; I have sworn to David
my servant: I will make your dynasty stand forever and establish your throne
through all ages.

• Ps 89:36-38 . . By my holiness I swore once for all: I will never be false to David.
His dynasty will continue forever, his throne, like the sun before me. Like the moon
it will stand eternal, forever firm like the sky!

• Ps132:11 . .The Lord swore an oath to David in truth, He will never turn back
from it: “Your own offspring I will set upon your throne."

It's actually a fairly simple task to prove Jesus' biological connection to David.

• Rom 1:3 . . . His son; descended from David according to the flesh

The Greek word translated "descendant" in that passage is a bit ambiguous because
it can refer to spiritual posterity as well as to biological; for example:

• Gal 3:29 . . If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendant,

That descendant is obviously spiritual; whereas David's is biological because it's
"according to the flesh" i.e. his physical human body.

* Seeing as Jesus' dad Joseph played no role in his son's conception, and his wife
Mary was a virgin at the time, then Jesus' biological connection to David defaults
thru his mother.

Now, the thing is: if true that Mary's baby is David's biological posterity, and if true
that David is Adam's biological posterity; then it must be that Jesus too is Adam's
biological posterity, viz: Jesus' human origin was the very dust with which the
human race was constructed in the very beginning per Genesis 2:7

FAQ: From whence did baby Jesus obtain a Y chromosome for his male gender?

REPLY: In the beginning, Eve's entire body-- inside and out, front to back, top to
bottom, and side to side --was constructed with material taken from Adam's body.
(Gen 2:21-22) So if God could construct an entire woman from material taken from
a man's body, then it shouldn't be too difficult for Him to construct a teensy little
chromosome from a woman's body.

Seeing as how Eve is the mother of all women (Gen 3:20 & Acts 17:26) then any
material taken from Mary's body to construct a Y chromosome for baby Jesus would
be owed to Eve's body; and by construction: Adam's body.

The beauty of it is that a Y chromosome constructed with material taken from
Mary's body wouldn't be an alien substance created ex nihilo; but would be 100%
natural, and easily traceable all the way back to Eve, and from thence to the very
dust that was used to construct Adam's body.

I sincerely believe that what I suggest herein actually took place when the power of
the Most High overshadowed Jesus' mom per Luke 1:35; and if my suggestion is
true, then little Jesus was thoroughly a Jew-- biologically descended not only from
David and Abraham as all other Jews, but also from the Man that God created in
the book of Genesis.

• Heb 2:17 . . He had to be made like his brethren in every way
_

 

[Beetow]

Jesus' Dad

Joseph played no role in Jesus' conception. (Matt 1:18-19 & Luke 1:31-35)

Even so; Mary's boy is positioned in Joseph's genealogy. (Matt 1:1-17)

It's sometimes assumed Jesus was Joseph's foster child. But foster kids have no
place in a man's family tree. Seeing as how Jesus wasn't Joseph's biological
progeny, then the only way he could be legally placed in Joseph's genealogy was by
adoption.

Joseph and Mary were both instructed give her baby the name Jesus. (Matt 1:21 &
Luke 1:31) In ancient Israel, when a man stood with a woman to name her child, it
was assumed his.

• Luke 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.

From then on: the Bible, the neighbors, and Jesus' mom knew him as Joseph's son.
(Luke 2:27-28, Luke 2:41, Luke 2:48, & Luke 4:22)

FAQ: Why make an issue out of Jesus' association with Joseph?

REPLY: Because Jesus was ordained of God to inherit David's throne. (Luke 1:32
33)

Now the thing is: David's throne never passes down to his posterity via women; it's
always passes down via the men in his line, viz: Mary was able to give her son a
biological connection to David, but she couldn't give him the throne.

For another thing; the throne has to come down via David's son Solomon. (1Kings
1:13 & 1Chron 22:9-10) Joseph is related to Solomon. (Matt 1:6 and Matt 1:16)

Long story short: it was necessary for Joseph to adopt Mary's boy in order to place
the lad in Solomon's genealogy and thus validate him as a rightful heir to the
throne.

FAQ: Since when did the Jews begin placing men in positions of power by adoption?

REPLY: Jacob was the first. (Gen 48:5-6)

He divided the tribe of Joseph in two, and set Manasseh and Ephraim over them as
tribal heads equal in position to Jacob's eldest sons Reuben and Simeon.
_

 

[Beetow]

Jesus' Shepherds

• Luke 2:8-12 . . Now there were shepherds in that region living in the fields and
keeping the night watch over their flock. The angel of The Lord appeared to them,
and the glory of The Lord shone around them, and they were struck with great fear.

. . .The angel said to them: Do not be afraid; for behold, I proclaim to you good
news of great joy that will be for all the people. For today in the city of David a
savior has been born for you who is Messiah and Lord.

The angel announced the birth of a savior; defined by Webster's as one who
rescues.

Rescuing is what the Coast Guard does when boats capsize. Rescuing is what
Firemen do when people are trapped inside burning buildings or need to be cut out
of a crumpled car wreck. 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 example of rescuer after rescuer; but I think we get the
idea. The New Testament's Jesus is like that: he rescues people from the wrath of
God-- people who not only fully deserve it, but definitely in line to get it; and with
no humanly possible way to avoid it.

Now; of what real benefit would the savior of Luke 2:8-12 really be to anybody if he
couldn't guarantee a fail-safe rescue from the wrath of God? He'd be of no benefit
to anybody. No; he'd be an incompetent ninny that nobody could rely on.

But, if a savior were to be announced who guaranteed anybody who wants it, a
completely free of charge, no strings attached, guaranteed fail-safe, sin proof,
human nature-proof, Ten Commandments-proof, bad behavior-proof, apostasy
proof, reprobate-proof, back-sliding proof, God-proof, Devil-proof rescue from the
wrath of God, and full-time protection from future retribution; wouldn't that qualify
as good news of great joy?

I think just about everybody concerned about ending up in the lake of brimstone
depicted at Rev 20:10-15 would have to agree with me that news like that would
not only most certainly be good; but also cause for celebration, and ecstatic
happiness.
_

 

[Beetow]

Jesus' Star

The verse below is deliberately misquoted. Watch for the revision.

• Matt 2:2 . . Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have followed his
star from the east

No, they didn't follow Jesus' star from the east; rather, they saw it in the east.

Jerusalem was a logical destination seeing as how it was Israel's capital city.
Personally I think the wise men fully expected to find the new king quartered right
there in Jerusalem rather than elsewhere; so their inquiry "where is he" was
probably not meant for asking directions to another town.

• Matt 2:9 . . After they had heard the king, they went on their way, and the star
they had seen in the east went ahead of them.

They likely thought they had seen the last of that star back home, so it was very
reassuring to see it again; and this time as a guiding light rather than a sign.

• Matt 2:10 . . When they saw the star, they were overjoyed.

NOTE: As the earth turns, stars appear to move across the sky from the east
towards the west. Here is a star that moved south, and also came to a stop; which
should alert planetariums that it wasn't an astronomical object.

• Matt 2:9 . . It stopped over the place where the child was.

Nobody had precision astronomical instruments back then; so it would've been a
challenge finding the exact house over which the object hovered. Try it sometime.
Find a dark-sky location and, using only your eyes, see if you can pick out the star
that is precisely over your head.

Normal stars are so far out in space that it is nigh unto impossible to tell the exact
spot on earth where one of them is at any given moment without special
instruments; so I think we can be reasonably confident that this star was low
enough that there was no mistaking the exact house where young Jesus was
lodged. In other words; this star wasn't a star, rather, it was a God-given
apparition.

Now this is curious. The shepherds were given no guide. They had to conduct a
house to house search for baby Jesus; and their target was different too. The
shepherds went looking for a savior whereas the wise men were seeking a
sovereign. Plus the wise men were educated, whereas the shepherds likely weren't;
and the wise men were wealthy and privileged whereas shepherds were just cow
pokes; so to speak.

FAQ: How the wise men knew their star was associated with the Jews?

REPLY: Well; Matt 2:12 strongly suggests to me that their entire odyssey was
micro-managed by God from start to finish so that when the men spotted the star
back home in the east, they were at the same time informed by God as to its
purpose and urged to pack up and head for the land of Israel; specifically the city of
Jerusalem because that's always been a sort of Washington DC for David's dynasty.

I think the wise men fully expected to find the young king there because they didn't
inquire as to where he'd be born, rather: where is he that "is born" because they
were sure in their own minds that he was already out and about even before they
left home.
_

 

[Beetow]

Jesus' Taxation

• 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.

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)
Seeing as how Mary and Joseph were of the house and lineage of David, then their
kinfolk would've been too.

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 relatives pooled their resources and
made sure she was comfortable.

* Luke 2:1-2 states: "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."

Mr. Quirinius (a.k.a. Cyrenius) is an historical figure. His name is mentioned in Res
Gestae-- The Deeds of Augustus, by Augustus --placing Quirinius as consul as early
as 12 BC.

The Roman historian Tacitus mentions that Quirinius was appointed by Augustus to
be an advisor to his young son Caius Caesar in Armenia.

Quiinius didn't become a Governor till around 6 CE which appears to make the
dating of the taxation several years after Jesus was already born. However,
Quirinius, though not the Governor, was governing in Syria in a capacity that we
today might call a bureaucrat.

The first century historian Josephus wrote: "Quirinius, a Roman senator who had
gone through other magistracies, and had passed through them all until he had
become consul, was appointed governor of Syria by Caesar and was given the task
of assessing property there and in Judea."

Webster's defines a consul as: an official appointed by a government to reside in a
foreign country to represent the commercial interests of citizens of the appointing
country.

NOTE: We can get by with naming this discussion "Jesus' Taxation" because
according to Heb 7:9-10, unborn children pay taxes too.
_

 

[Beetow]

Herod

• Matt 2:7-8 . .Then Herod called the Magi secretly and found out from them the
exact time the star had appeared. He sent them to Bethlehem and said, "Go and
make a careful search for the child. As soon as you find him, report to me, so that I
too may go and worship him.

Well; the visitors might've returned had not God intervened.

• Matt 2:11-12 . . And having been warned in a dream not to go back to Herod,
they returned to their country by another route.

That was a safety measure to prevent Herod from knowing where to find the lad
because rulers in that day were typically Machiavellian, tyrannical, and despotic--
they didn't just crush potential threats to their power; they utterly annihilated it;
and as subsequent events demonstrate, ol' Herod had neither conscience nor
concern for child welfare.

* Saddam Hussein's first order of business upon taking control of Iraq was to order
the executions of some of his closest supporters because they weren't totally
onboard with his ideals. Kim Jong-Un is suspected of ordering the murder of his
uncle for similar reasons.

• Matt 2:16a . .Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men,
was exceeding wroth

There's really nothing in the story to even remotely suggest that the wise men
made a fool out of Herod and/or jeered him. They simply failed to comply with his
wishes; which in his mind wasn't merely refusal of his request, but a failure to take
him seriously.

* The book of Genesis tells of "mighty men: men of old, men of renown". Their
Hebrew word describes bullies, i.e. men whose ambition is not only to rule people,
but to quite dominate them and own their souls. For bullies like that, people aren't
fellow human beings; instead they're assets and commodities.

• Matt 2:16b . . He sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem,
and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time
which he had diligently inquired of the wise men.

The Greek word for "coasts" is a mite ambiguous. It technically indicates borders,
but can also indicate regions and/or environs and surrounding areas.

That verse is commonly appropriated to calculate Jesus' age relative to when the
wise men visited him and his mother. But the verse merely indicates the passage of
time since Herod interviewed the men; which is quite useless for calculating Jesus'
age seeing as how he was already born before the men even left their country--
how long before they left their country, nobody knows for sure.

• Matt 2:17-18 . .Then what was said through the prophet Jeremiah was fulfilled:
"A voice is heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her
children and refusing to be comforted, because they are no more." (Jer 31:15)

Ramah was roughly six miles north of Jerusalem, while Bethlehem is roughly the
same distance south in the opposite direction.

Ramah was settled by the people of Rachel's biological son Benjamin, so that any
weeping done by the mothers in that area would be reckoned, by heritage, to be
Rachel's weeping.

What this suggests to me is that the slaughter of the innocents extended beyond
the community of Bethlehem. Were we to set a draftsman's compass to a radius
equal to the distance from Jerusalem to Bethlehem, and scribe a circle, it would
yield a pretty good idea of the area covered by Herod's death squads.

But Herod's efforts were futile. Jesus wasn't even in the country; Joseph had moved
the child and his mother down into Egypt before all the killing began (Matt 2:13)
and in time, Herod died and his danger to Jesus' survival died with him. (Matt 2:19
23)
_

 

[Beetow]

Mary's Atonements

• 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."

The days of purification for a boy baby are a total of 40 days.

• Lev 12:1-4 . .Then The Lord 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 offerings.)

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 The Lord 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 The Lord 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 The Lord the first offspring of every womb. All the firstborn males of your
livestock belong to The Lord. 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.
_

 

[Beetow]

Jesus' Fathers

Christ is unusual because he's the progeny of two fathers: the one natural and the
other supernatural.

• Luke 1:30 . .Then the angel said to her: Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have
found favor with God. Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and
you shall name him Jesus. He will be great and will be called Son of the Most High,
and the Lord God will give him the throne of David his father.

Jesus is sometimes described as a demigod, i.e. a singular amalgam of human and
divine, i.e. 50% god and 50% human.

But Jesus isn't a 50/50 singularity. He's actually a 100/100 plurality, i.e. according
to John 1:1-3, John 1:14, 1Cor 15:45-47, and 1John 1:1-2, Jesus exists as an
eternal spirit being whose origin is currently unknown, and as a temporal material
being whose origin can be easily traced from David all the way back to the dust
from which Adam was created, viz: Jesus exists as the creator and as a creation
simultaneously.

This is possible due to the fact that when The Word of John 1:1-3 came into the
world in human form per John 1:14, he didn't lose his life in the process; no, The
Word cannot die because his life is life itself. (John 1:4 & 1John 1:1-2)

This particular construct is not only nigh unto impossible to comprehend, but also
unpopular among quite a few Christians. They're usually okay with Jesus as fully
God and fully Man, but not as two distinct individuals. They'd rather Jesus be God
and Man as one person rather than the Son of God and the Son of Man retaining
their own identity-- the one a natural being, and the other a supernatural being.

* Caution: this is a hot button topic, so it's my advice that folks avoid getting into
debates over it because the discussion will likely turn into a perpetual food fight
that never gets to the bottom of anything.
_

 

[Beetow]

Jesus vs Santa

You better watch out, you better not cry,
Better not pout, I'm telling you why:
Santa Claus is coming to town

He's making a list, and checking it twice;
Gonna find out who's naughty and nice:
Santa Claus is coming to town.

He sees you when you're sleeping,
He knows when you're awake,
He knows if you've been bad or good,
So be good for goodness sake!

There's no grace in that song— none at all —no generosity, no altruism, no
kindness, no charity, no love, no peace, no understanding, no sympathy, no
patience, no tolerance, no courtesy, no compassion, no forgiveness, i.e. there are
no gifts in Santa's bag; only merit awards for those who prove themselves worthy
enough to deserve them, viz: were it left up to Santa, relatively few children would
escape the wrath of God.
_