danrael

Christians seem to accept the details of the prophecies of the birth of Christ without question. However, there is something peculiar about it that, at least for me, sticks out like a sore thumb, a glaring error, which renders the entire story unconvincing. There are many who cite the prophecies as evidence of biblical truth. Here are just a few:

Isaiah 7:13-14
Then he said, “Listen now, O house of David! Is it too slight a thing for you to try the patience of men, that you will try the patience of my God as well? “Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel.

Micah 5:2-3
“But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Too little to be among the clans of Judah, From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel. His goings forth are from long ago, From the days of eternity.� Therefore, He will give them up until the time When she who is in labor has borne a child. Then the remainder of His brethren Will return to the sons of Israel.

Matthew 2:1-2
Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, magi from the east arrived in Jerusalem, saying, “Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we saw His star in the east, and have come to worship Him.�

So, we have biblical prophecies fortetelling the coming of the Messiah some 700+ years beforehand, the time of his coming (see: Bible.org : road sign number 14*), and even the indications of his coming ("for we saw His star in the east...").

"Such a significant display in the heavens would cause no little stir among those who were looking for the coming of a king. That there was at this time a universal expectation of a world deliverer is both asserted and denied." (Stanley D. Toussaint, Behold the King, Multnomah Press, p. 49.)

The prophecy of the birth of Christ had been around for more than 700 years, plenty of time for the news to have spread into the surrounding community of the time; and that there would be signs in the heavens, a guiding star, no less, to lead those interested parties to the exact spot of the Messiah's birth. After all, the prophecies were intended for all the people to hear, not just for the priests in the temples.

Consider the same situation in modern times, were there such a prophecy as to time, place with added signposts, of the second coming of the Messiah. Let's say, for example, that the prophecy pointed to a small town on the outskirts of the San Francisco Bay Area, say, Pescadero, CA, for example, with a population of a little over 2,000 people. There is no question in my mind that at least a handful of unbelievers, curiosity seekers, and hard-boiled sceptics would make the journey, let alone the many more believers who would show up. More likely, there would be throngs of people and television cameras from all over the world camped out for 24 hours a day in anticipation of the event, along with police, military, firemen, etc, etc. A real spectacle! Remember, this is the birth of God himself in the form of man!!

And yet, and yet: only three men, the Magi, show up at the original birth of the Messiah? The population of Bethlehem at this time is estimated to be only 300-1,000. But the citizens of Bethelehem especially would have been on the alert, since the prophecy was about their town. Even a conservative estimate of interested Bethlehemites, let's say 1% of the lower population estimate of 300 would still have been 3 people! A still conservative 10% would have been a whopping 30 people. Not to count the many interested curiosity seekers, unbelievers, sceptics, and the many faithful in the surrounding countryside who would surely have made the pilgrimage just to catch a glimpse of the Son of Man.

Surely something is wrong with this story. What can that something be? Please help me out here.

(By the way, the original Old Testament story is that three "magi from the east", who, at the time, were considered learned men well-versed in the scriptures and the then respected discipline of astrology, as well as other formal teachings visited the Christ-child. But the church changed the story to say that these three men were no mere "astrologers", which, nowadays, suggest ties with the occult, but were, in fact, three Kings of foreign nations. Isn't it much more dramatic, credible, and official to have real heads of state bowing down before an infant than mere astrologers of questionable repute? As they say: "The truth is bent to fit your teeth.")

*Sorry I was unable to include a direct mouse-button link to this site. I tried, but www.bible.org has it rigged so it takes you to a default page of their own liking, rather than to the one selected. You will have to manually enter the www. which precedes the address I have given. I suspect that they are doing this deliberately; could it be that they are doing it to prevent interaction from this website to theirs?

mod note: the link works now. I suspect that your problem was the punctuation after the link.

Chris Weimer

'almah more literally renders "young woman" rather than "virgin". And if this is "evidence" that the prophecy is fulfilled, what about the rest of the prophecy? If I may, I highlighted two verses in the "prophecy" that aren't yet fulfilled thus proving that Jesus didn't fulfill this prophecy!

"21 And it shall come to pass in that day, that a man shall nourish a young cow, and two sheep;

22 And it shall come to pass, for the abundance of milk that they shall give he shall eat butter: for butter and honey shall every one eat that is left in the land."

Um, yeah. Israel was supposed to be a paradise after Immanuel returned, but no. Instead, it was destroyed. Even those claiming that Christians are the new Israelites are ignoring the Christian persecution and warring that has taken place since. So, mark that one up for a false prophecy.

Actually read the entire thing, will you? I don't recall Jesus as the King of all Israel now? Nor do I remember all the sons of Israel returning there after his death? In fact, aren't the ten tribes of Israel the lost tribes?

Oh wow, where do I begin with Matthew? Matthew, if you recall, has a very different beginning than Luke. For Matthew, it's all about symbolism. There's the star for the Star prophecy in Gen. 49.10, and the rest is mostly centered around Mosaic imagery. Curses! I wish I had finished my paper on this already, I could just show you. I'm hurrying, I really am!

As I've showed you, a bunch of BS.

Too bad Matthew's star caused very little stir. He's the only one to record the phenomenon.

Too bad the prophecies weren't fulfilled.

Actually, the Messiah wasn't supposed to be God, the prophecies never predicted the time, and almost all the Jews rejected Christianity. Now, if almost everyone in SF Bay Area called bullshit to this coming Messiah, yet twelve people believed, and took the word to Mexico, and all the Mexicans believed, then we're starting to parallel what happened.

Angels told the shepherds, remember?

What Old Testament story?

danrael

Correction: New Testament story: Matthew 2:1-2 " Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, magi from the east arrived in Jerusalem, saying, “Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we saw His star in the east, and have come to worship Him.�

danrael

For compelling astronomical evidence that our little "star" was, in fact, a series of rare planetary conjunctions, please see:

http://sciastro.net/portia/articles/thestar.htm

danrael

Yes, but the townspeople as well should have known of the Messiah's birth from the information given in Micah's prophecy. Why would an angel also have to deliver the message as well? Seems redundant to me. Even so, only three shepherds, then, and no one else from that same town? The evidence points to this story (and others, like the trial and crucifixion) being one of the many passion plays which were held at the time.