The Christmas Story

[LeSellers]

The Matthew version has too many parts that are inconsistant with known history. Example: If there really were a slaughter of all male infants under the age of two, you would think that somebody other than Matthew would have noticed. (ie, Josephus, etc, not to mention Mark, Luke and John).

Except people tend to forget that Nazareth was not a huge town in the late i or early I. So, the death of six or seven babies was not a huge news event. After all, kings and despots had killed many, many more children (and men and women) over the ages. It was simply not a big deal.

Lehi

[Mortal Man]

All is lost...wait we have the BoM.

How, exactly, does the BoM resolve these issues?

[Mortal Man]

If I had to pick one of the two accounts, I'd probably go with Luke.

Why not go with the earliest and most reliable texts; e.g., the Gospel of Mark, the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of the Hebrews? None of these mention the Virgin Birth. The Gospel of the Hebrews states that when Jesus was baptized a voice from heaven said, "Today I have begotten You." The earliest Christians believed that Jesus was adopted by God at his baptism. Had the First Council of Nicaea not rejected Adoptionism as heresy, Christmas would have become a celebration of Jesus' baptism (like Epiphany), rather than his birth.

[Kevin Christensen]

How, exactly, does the BoM resolve these issues?

Calendar issues, like this:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=7&num=1&id=170

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Mortal Man]

Calendar issues, like this:

http://maxwellinstit...=7&num=1&id=170

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

The plain and precious reading of BoM dates places Jesus' birth in 4 AD, which disagrees with both Matthew and Luke.

Spackman's assertion that Lehi was a lunatic is sheer lunacy.

[Robert F. Smith]

If I had to pick one of the two accounts, I'd probably go with Luke.

The Matthew version has too many parts that are inconsistant with known history. Example: If there really were a slaughter of all male infants under the age of two, you would think that somebody other than Matthew would have noticed. (ie, Josephus, etc, not to mention Mark, Luke and John). I think the author of Matthew was trying very hard to have the coming of Christ in the meridian of time fit every Messianic prophecy as they were understood in his day.

I have pointed out in previous years that EVERY ATTEMPT I have ever seen to date the Nativity always uses the death of Herod as the key limiting factor. But if the Matthew version is incorrect (sorry sola-scripturites), and we look at Luke only, I wonder whether we would still be looking at a 4 BC date for the Nativity.

The Gospels were produced by mortal men so that there is certainly room for this or that chronological error. However, the easy way out of this dilemma is blocked by a major obstacle:

The obstacle in our path to discounting Matthew (quite aside from our lack of adequate Roman records from the 1st century AD) is the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon contains a systematic set of annals with a very deliberate countdown to the birth of Christ. This is valuable only because we have an absolute date in the placement of Zedekiah on the throne of Judah by the Neo-Babylonian King Nebuchadrezzar, and the superscription to III Nephi states unequivocally that Lehi "came out of Jerusalem in the first year of the reign of Zedekiah the king of Judah."

Since scholars have the actual Babylonian Chronicles of Nebuchadrezzar II on cuneiform tablets, and since they are tied to a continuous set of such chronicles and eponym calendars (with astronomical observations), we know that Nebuchadrezzar took Jerusalem exactly on March 15, 597 BC (2 Adar), and that Zedekiah acceded to the throne of Judah no later than April 22, 597 BC (= 10 Nisan; cf. Ezekiel 40:1). See James Pritchard, ed., Ancient Near Eastern Texts, 3rd ed., 563-564, for a translation of British Museum tablet 21946, verso lines 11-13. I place the surrounding Old Testament dates in context in my "Book of Mormon Event Structure: The Ancient Near East," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, 5/2 (1996):98-147, which is available online at http://maxwellinstit...=5&num=2&id=126 .

From there we have both the generic accession year and official regnal year of Zedekiah to consider as his "first year." One year begins when he is appointed, the other is the official enthronement at the New Year. The resultant time "window" gives us termini post quem and ante quem 600 years later. Randall Spackman offers up a correlation with lunar years (and other assumptions), which can only successfully provide a useful 600-year period if he declares the superscription to III Nephi to be in error (which he does). In fact, the only type of year which can successfully account for all the data without declaring this or that to be in error is the 360-day year -- which was the basis of the controlling Long Count year system in Mesoamerica since the time of the Olmecs, and which was also the standard ancient Egyptian temple-year.

Counting from 10 Nisan 597 BC thus gives the earliest possible date for the birth of Jesus at around April of 6 BC, and the latest at around May of 4 BC. Since the earliest Christians celebrated Jesus' birth on 1 Tishri (Rosh haShana) each year, the most likely date would seem to be Sept-Oct of 5 or 6 BC, which is well within the time window. This is also required by the 360-day year count since the Book of Mormon places Jesus' death exactly 33 years and 3 days after his birth (III Nephi 8:5), and the 360-day count loses just about 6 months from a standard solar year during that 33-year period, thus bringing us to his well-known Crucifixion at a springtime Passover. The solar year set over against the Long Count year is a controlling factor here, and unlike the uncertainties in dating presented by the New Testament, the Book of Mormon is marvelously germane to our discussion. Do the math.

See Frederick Larson, "The Star of Bethlehem" (Mpowerpictures, 2007), online at http://www.bethlehemstar.net , especially his notes 23 & 24.

[David T]

Why not go with the earliest and most reliable texts; e.g., the Gospel of Mark, the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of the Hebrews? None of these mention the Virgin Birth. The Gospel of the Hebrews states that when Jesus was baptized a voice from heaven said, "Today I have begotten You." The earliest Christians believed that Jesus was adopted by God at his baptism. Had the First Council of Nicaea not rejected Adoptionism as heresy, Christmas would have become a celebration of Jesus' baptism (like Epiphany), rather than his birth.

I wish this concept would be more broadly understood and discussed in LDS thought.

Just as the Spirit came upon Elizabeth and John before his birth giving him a sacred foreordination, why could not the same have happened with Jesus, with the concept expanded and embellished upon in the narrative to set Him apart even more in the minds of His followers. To clarify that this was not just any son of God, this was THE Son of God, Jehovah, the Chief, the King, and the Lord of Israel. The language used at his Baptism was the same as used in the Israelite temple to consecrate a King, and to establish him asbearing the Name of YHWH, becoming the physical representative of YHWH with his people. god with them. Immanuel.

In the earliest Gospel, Mark, the Birth of the Son of God is portrayed in Chapter 1 - in his Baptism experience.

Here, with Jesus, is this Temple ritual literally fulfilled - the language used marks Jesus as the official King of Israel, as YHWH with his people.

I do not claim to know the actual circumstances of Jesus' birth. But it would not bother me, or do damage to my testimony or trust in Him to find that later narratives explaining his title as Son of God were embellished to emphasize and set apart his unique and glorious nature. He was born to a pure and innocent young woman, faithful and diligent to the will of the Lord. Either way, the story would be useful in emphasizing Jesus' sacred divine nature and role. Jesus Christ was, and is, the sinless Son of God, my Lord, and my Savior. And His goal is for us to be like him. through Covenant, we become his adopted children.

Adoption Theology is all throughout the scriptures (and I believe is the most inspiring and beautiful understanding of how we became God's Children in our eternal pre-mortal existence). It's one of the most prevalent and persistent themes throughout the scriptures. I think it's beautiful.

[bluebell]

I wish this concept would be more broadly understood and discussed in LDS thought.

Just as the Spirit came upon Elizabeth and John before his birth giving him a sacred foreordination, why could not the same have happened with Jesus, with the concept expanded and embellished upon in the narrative to set Him apart even more in the minds of His followers. To clarify that this was not just any son of God, this was THE Son of God, Jehovah, the Chief, the King, and the Lord of Israel. The language used at his Baptism was the same as used in the Israelite temple to consecrate a King, and to establish him asbearing the Name of YHWH, becoming the physical representative of YHWH with his people. god with them. Immanuel.

In the earliest Gospel, Mark, the Birth of the Son of God is portrayed in Chapter 1 - in his Baptism experience.

Here, with Jesus, is this Temple ritual literally fulfilled - the language used marks Jesus as the official King of Israel, as YHWH with his people.

I do not claim to know the actual circumstances of Jesus' birth. But it would not bother me, or do damage to my testimony or trust in Him to find that later narratives explaining his title as Son of God were embellished to emphasize and set apart his unique and glorious nature. He was born to a pure and innocent young woman, faithful and diligent to the will of the Lord. Either way, the story would be useful in emphasizing Jesus' sacred divine nature and role. Jesus Christ was, and is, the sinless Son of God, my Lord, and my Savior. And His goal is for us to be like him. through Covenant, we become his adopted children.

Adoption Theology is all throughout the scriptures (and I believe is the most inspiring and beautiful understanding of how we became God's Children in our eternal pre-mortal existence). It's one of the most prevalent and persistent themes throughout the scriptures. I think it's beautiful.

LDS theology is that Christ had to be part divine in order to have the ability to withstand the pain of the Atonement as well as to have complete control over his mortal life (that no man could kill Him and that He had the power to resurrect Himself).

I'm wondering how this would work in harmony with the idea that Jesus was not the 'only begotten son of God in the flesh'?

Do we have to ignore modern relvations such as the D&C to believe that Christ was adopted into the family of God or is there some way to reconcile the two (or am i completely misunderstanding you completely)?

[David T]

LDS theology is that Christ had to be part divine in order to have the ability to withstand the pain of the Atonement as well as to have complete control over his mortal life (that no man could kill Him and that He had the power to resurrect Himself).

I'm wondering how this would work in harmony with the idea that Jesus was not the 'only begotten son of God in the flesh'?

Do we have to ignore modern relvations such as the D&C to believe that Christ was adopted into the family of God or is there some way to reconcile the two (or am i completely misunderstanding you completely)?

The premise is that we are all (adopted) children of God spiritually to begin with. Jesus, YHWH, was always the pre-eminent - perhaps the First to enter into this relationship. In his mortal life, his identity as the God of Israel was manifest by His Anointing by the Spirit (designating him as the Christ - the Anointed) - at the time which he may have been granted a vision ('The heavens were opened' ), and was the moment when he began to realize who he was (Perhaps we get a glimpse of His vision in the Book of Revelation, which begins, "The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to Him" - a vision which was later told to and then shown and explained by John, which identified Jesus as the Lamb).

The term "Only begotten son of God in the flesh" is never used in scripture. It is not in the D&C. It is a later terminology coined in this dispensation as an attempt to rectify the term with the idea that we are all begotten spirit children of God.

The I believe that full submission to the Spirit of God empowering an individual, combined with their own inherent spiritual strength, can give an individual divine strength to endure more than is naturally capable. The Lord was not only unique as God, but he was in full sanctified submission to the Father's will, and was fully empowered by His Spirit.

Again, I'm not stating this is necessarily my belief, but I do think it is a useful and highly possible understanding.

[Bill Hamblin]

Why not go with the earliest and most reliable texts; e.g., the Gospel of Mark, the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of the Hebrews? None of these mention the Virgin Birth. The Gospel of the Hebrews states that when Jesus was baptized a voice from heaven said, "Today I have begotten You." The earliest Christians believed that Jesus was adopted by God at his baptism. Had the First Council of Nicaea not rejected Adoptionism as heresy, Christmas would have become a celebration of Jesus' baptism (like Epiphany), rather than his birth.

Claims that Thomas and Hebrews are earlier than the canonical gospels are minority positions, and highly disputed.

The Gospel of Hebrews is very fragmentary, so we don't know if it had nativity narratives or not.

I believe adoptionism was not an issue at Nicaea.

Adoptionism and miraculous nativity are not contradictory; they are complimentary.

[Mortal Man]

I wish this concept would be more broadly understood and discussed in LDS thought.

Just as the Spirit came upon Elizabeth and John before his birth giving him a sacred foreordination, why could not the same have happened with Jesus, with the concept expanded and embellished upon in the narrative to set Him apart even more in the minds of His followers. To clarify that this was not just any son of God, this was THE Son of God, Jehovah, the Chief, the King, and the Lord of Israel. The language used at his Baptism was the same as used in the Israelite temple to consecrate a King, and to establish him asbearing the Name of YHWH, becoming the physical representative of YHWH with his people. god with them. Immanuel.

In the earliest Gospel, Mark, the Birth of the Son of God is portrayed in Chapter 1 - in his Baptism experience.

Here, with Jesus, is this Temple ritual literally fulfilled - the language used marks Jesus as the official King of Israel, as YHWH with his people.

I do not claim to know the actual circumstances of Jesus' birth. But it would not bother me, or do damage to my testimony or trust in Him to find that later narratives explaining his title as Son of God were embellished to emphasize and set apart his unique and glorious nature. He was born to a pure and innocent young woman, faithful and diligent to the will of the Lord. Either way, the story would be useful in emphasizing Jesus' sacred divine nature and role. Jesus Christ was, and is, the sinless Son of God, my Lord, and my Savior. And His goal is for us to be like him. through Covenant, we become his adopted children.

Adoption Theology is all throughout the scriptures (and I believe is the most inspiring and beautiful understanding of how we became God's Children in our eternal pre-mortal existence). It's one of the most prevalent and persistent themes throughout the scriptures. I think it's beautiful.

Excellent post nack. This is why you need to stick around here.

[Mortal Man]

Claims that Thomas and Hebrews are earlier than the canonical gospels are minority positions, and highly disputed.

A good topic for another thread.

The Gospel of Hebrews is very fragmentary, so we don't know if it had nativity narratives or not.

There is no reason to suppose it did.

I believe adoptionism was not an issue at Nicaea.

The implications were certainly an issue; e.g., whether the Father and the Son were of the same substance. LDS-style Christology, aka Arianism, was effectively crushed when Santa Claus, aka Jolly Old St. Nicholas of Myra, slapped Arius across the face. (Well okay, maybe that's not exactly how it happened but it sounds better this way.)

Adoptionism and miraculous nativity are not contradictory; they are complimentary.

With Adoptionism, the miraculous nativity is nice but completely unnecessary. It was Jesus' exemplary behaviour that led God to choose him.

Paul never mentioned a virgin birth. He taught Adoptionism to the Galations, Romans and Hebrews and said that Jesus was "born of a worman, born under the law" and "as to his human nature was a descendant of David". He quoted directly from Psalms and the Gospel of the Hebrews, "You are my son. Today I have begotten you."

[volgadon]

There is no reason to suppose it did.

The fragments of the Gospel of the Hebrews we know about also lack mention of Christ's death.

Really neither here nor there when it comes to the issue of the nativity, as any argument pro or con would be arguing from silence.

Here is the fragment dealing with Christ's baptism, as translated by Bart Ehrman in Lost Scriptures.

"It came to pass that when the Lord came up from the water, the entire fountain of the Holy Spirit descended and rested upon him; and it said to him, 'My Son, in all the prophets I have been expecting you to come, that I might rest on you. For you are my rest, you are my firstborn Son, who rules forever.'"

[WalkerW]

The implications were certainly an issue; e.g., whether the Father and the Son were of the same substance. LDS-style Christology, aka Arianism, was effectively crushed when Santa Claus, aka Jolly Old St. Nicholas of Myra, slapped Arius across the face. (Well okay, maybe that's not exactly how it happened but it sounds better this way.)

I don't know if classifying Arianism as LDS Christology is quite accurate. True, we do believe in the subordinationism that accompanied that belief, but considering the Creator/creature dichotomy had been made at that time along with a Platonic view of God, I don't think it is fair at all to say the LDS view is Arianism. I actually think Athanasius was closer to being right than Arius.

[WalkerW]

I wish this concept would be more broadly understood and discussed in LDS thought.

Just as the Spirit came upon Elizabeth and John before his birth giving him a sacred foreordination, why could not the same have happened with Jesus, with the concept expanded and embellished upon in the narrative to set Him apart even more in the minds of His followers. To clarify that this was not just any son of God, this was THE Son of God, Jehovah, the Chief, the King, and the Lord of Israel. The language used at his Baptism was the same as used in the Israelite temple to consecrate a King, and to establish him asbearing the Name of YHWH, becoming the physical representative of YHWH with his people. god with them. Immanuel.

In the earliest Gospel, Mark, the Birth of the Son of God is portrayed in Chapter 1 - in his Baptism experience.

Here, with Jesus, is this Temple ritual literally fulfilled - the language used marks Jesus as the official King of Israel, as YHWH with his people.

I do not claim to know the actual circumstances of Jesus' birth. But it would not bother me, or do damage to my testimony or trust in Him to find that later narratives explaining his title as Son of God were embellished to emphasize and set apart his unique and glorious nature. He was born to a pure and innocent young woman, faithful and diligent to the will of the Lord. Either way, the story would be useful in emphasizing Jesus' sacred divine nature and role. Jesus Christ was, and is, the sinless Son of God, my Lord, and my Savior. And His goal is for us to be like him. through Covenant, we become his adopted children.

Adoption Theology is all throughout the scriptures (and I believe is the most inspiring and beautiful understanding of how we became God's Children in our eternal pre-mortal existence). It's one of the most prevalent and persistent themes throughout the scriptures. I think it's beautiful.

Great post. This is a subject I have a lot of interest in. I'd love some suggestions for reading material.

[Kevin Christensen]

Great post. This is a subject I have a lot of interest in. I'd love some suggestions for reading material.

If you haven't already, try Margaret Barker's The Risen Lord: The Jesus of History as the Christ of Faith, and her more recent, Christmas: The Original Story.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA