A Non-Believer's Perspective on Celebrating Christmas in the Philippines
I can still vividly picture my very first Christmas as an atheist (which was last year, 2019), and like the previous holidays that we celebrated, it was enjoyable. But unlike the usual Noche Buena with my mother and two brothers, last year was pretty different. We did nothing but to wander around Metro Manila. We went to the Power Plant Mall in Makati where Mommy works, and waited inside for hours until her working hours were finished. Then we went to Venice Grand Canal Mall in Taguig, stayed at a hotel for a night, went to Rizal Park the next day, and then went to our relatives in Marikina City. But before we stayed at a hotel, Mommy insisted that we should attend a Christmas Eve mass first. We can't help but to agree, even though in my mind, I didn't feel that going to a church is necessary.
An atheist attends a Christmas Catholic mass
We had just arrived at St. Peter and Paul Parish in Makati. That was my first time entering a church since I personally ditched my Catholic label. Of course, I didn't get burned, what are you talking about? The feeling was just as usual, the same when I used to go to churches as a Christian. But that apathetic emotion didn't last long at that time. The moment we were finding blank seats inside of the church full of devout Catholics chanting "Papuri sa Diyos," I suddenly felt weirded out. It's like I'm an outsider, an alien, a foreigner. Just like a Christian when they enter a mosque or a synagogue. My inner self shouted, "You don't belong here!" It's like in the movie The Matrix where I was the only one there that was successfully unplugged from the simulation. Well, there's actually two of us there, since my youngest brother is also an atheist. We even looked and smirked at each other during the priest's sermon. We also didn't want to participate in the "Ama Namin" part of the mass, where everyone was holding each other's hands. But we had no choice but to do so. What are we supposed to do anyway? Sit there and do nothing? And besides, Mommy is going to be pissed off. After the mass, we went to a convenience store for some snacks, and she asked me and my brother what's wrong with us for not participating in the mass. Predictably, I said nothing. I still can't come out to my mother that I no longer consider myself a Christian, and that was definitely a terrible time to tell her that.
But that was not the last time I entered a church and attended a mass as an atheist, and it was a church wedding of our cousin. I even jokingly acted to my younger brother like as if I'm burning while inside the church. And the priest's sermon during the wedding mass was what made me internally petrified and irritated. I was utterly appalled on how bigoted his views are on the subject of same-sex marriage and divorce. The usually conservative garbage that was coming on his mouth is the reason why this country is not moving forward as a progressive tolerant nation. But hey, what can you really expect from a Catholic clergyman? Okay, I'll stop ranting at this point. But my main idea is that, the feeling when I'm attending a mass as a Christian versus the feeling when attending a mass as an atheist has definitely changed. I start detecting nonsensical and bigoted bullshit from the mouths of clergymen that I just let slide when I was still religious. I stopped believing in the efficacy of prayer, the power of colored candles, and the miracle of Holy Water (which, let's face it, is just regular tap water chanted by a celibate virgin with words blathered out of the ether). In other words, I had to give up my belief in the supernatural as a consequence of my desire to know what is true in the objective reality. But if there is one thing from my previous religion that I still don't have the guts to let go, it's definitely Christmas.
Why would an atheist like me would still celebrate Christmas?
Some Christians think that atheists, agnostics, and other non-religious folks must not celebrate Christmas, and don't deserve the holiday benefits from it like gifts and Christmas bonuses. After all, how could you commemorate Christmas if you don't even believe in the divinity of Christ? That would be hypocritical, right? Well, have you ever celebrated anything at all on a Friday, because it's the last day before weekend and you finally have a time to relax after a tiring day in school or work? Or perhaps there is something special that you always celebrate on Fridays? And the word Friday came from an Anglo-Saxon word Frīgedæg which means "Day of Frigg," and Frigg is the Norse goddess of wisdom, marriage, fertility, and foresight. Does that mean in any way, you worship Frigg because you celebrate Fridays? Of course not, that would be silly. Same with us, atheists who still loves Christmas. I may not believe in the existence of God or the divinity of Jesus, but that doesn't mean I can't see or appreciate anything that is valuable and special about this holiday. I had beautiful memories in Christmas that I can't just throw away just because I changed my mind about religion. Maybe I can say that easily because it's not our family's tradition to attend "Simbang Gabi" annually, or to display a Belen in our house. From the start, we usually celebrate the holidays in a more secular fashion rather than a religious one. Garlands, Christmas trees, balls, Santa Claus, you name it. Sometimes we attend holiday masses, sometimes we don't. A lot of my Christmas memories didn't involved Jesus whatsoever.
Whenever I reminisce about the word "Christmas," the family picture that I tend to associate with is not this one:
But this one:
You say "Jesus is the reason for the season"? I say "Axial tilt is the reason for the season." Jokes aside, I'm just saying that for most of us, we had a lot of Christmas experiences that don't involve religion at all (except maybe for Simbang Gabi and Belen). The gift-giving, the magnificent Christmas trees, the parols (either big or small, simple or grand), the Noche Buena, the money from the ang paos of your ninong and ninang, the coins that you get from caroling, the Christmas songs that can't get out of your head, the family sing-along, and the smile and laughter from your family and friends while having a good time. It really is the season to be jolly. So why the need to deprive nonbelievers the happiness of the yuletide season even if it can be celebrated secularly? And besides, I can't really escape Christmas anyway. It's everywhere. But how about you still say that atheists have no right to celebrate Christmas because it's the birth of their Lord and Savior, Jesus? Is December 25 even the actual birthday of Jesus? Historians don't think so.
Let's talk about the supposed celebrant: Jesus of Nazareth
In actuality, we don't really know when exactly Jesus was born. Most scholars think that it might be late summer or early autumn since Luke 2:8 states that the shepherds that an angel is about to tell them the infant Jesus on a manger, are keeping watch on a flock of sheep in the middle of the night, and it would not be possible during December, where the Kingdom of Judea (modern day Israel) is under a very cold winter. Nevertheless, the Bible never told anything about the exact date of Jesus' birthday. Because most early Christians before fourth century simply didn't care about the birth date of their Savior. Early church fathers like Irenaeus and Tertullian didn't include Christmas in their lists of the official holidays. Some church fathers like Origen and Arnobius of Sicca even mocked the pagan Romans for worshipping gods that have birthdays, which implies that the aforementioned holiday was not celebrated at their time.
"Therefore if this is a fact, how can Jupiter be god if it is agreed that god is everlasting, while the other is represented by you to have a birthday, and frightened by the new experience, to have squalled like an infant." - Arnobius of Sicca, The Case Against the Pagans (Volume 2, Page 83)
And when early Christians began celebrating the birth of Jesus, they all had varying dates on when they were supposed to observe it. Early church father Clement of Alexandria once wrote around 200 CE:
"There are those who have determined not only the year of our Lord's birth, but also the day; and they say that it took place in the 28th year of Augustus, and in the 25th day of [the Egyptian month] Pachon [May 20] ... Further, others say that He was born on the 24th or 25th of Pharmuthi [April 20 or 21]." - Clement of Alexandria (1)
The first recorded celebration of Christmas in Rome was occurred on December 25, 336 CE (2). And it is not until the reign of Pope Julius I during the fourth century CE when Christmas' date was unofficially declared by the Roman Catholic Church as December 25. And not even the whole medieval Europe shared that same date at that time either, since the Eastern Roman Empire that was dominated by the Orthodox Church celebrated January 6 as Jesus' birthday (which is the Day of Epiphany for the Catholics). In fact, the Christian Orthodox Church of Armenia still celebrates Christmas on that date. But why do the Christian majority celebrate it every December 25, I mean, really? The most plausible explanation is that because the date is exactly 9 months after the Annunciation of Mary (the day when angel Gabriel told Mary that the Holy Spirit conceived her in her womb and will bear a son named Jesus). Catholics usually celebrate the Annunciation every March 25 (a date that is also not in the Bible). But how did they came up with that date? There is a belief from early Jews and Christians that legendary great men (like Moses, David, and Jesus) died or resurrected on the same day that they were conceived. Even medieval Christian philosopher and apologist Augustine of Hippo seem to support this position.
"For he [Jesus] is believed to have been conceived on the 25th of March, upon which day also he suffered..." - Augustine of Hippo, On the Trinity
According to the Gospel of John, when Jesus is enjoying his last supper with his 12 apostles:
"Now before the feast of the passover, when Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end." - John 13:1 (KJV)
That means, the verse implies that Jesus already knew that he will going to die before the Jewish holiday of Passover (a holiday celebrated by the Jews to commemorate their liberation as slaves from the Egyptians, according to the Book of Exodus). And Passover is celebrated by Jews during the 15th day of Nisan, the first month of the Hebrew Calendar. Since the Gospel of John said that Jesus knew that he will going to die "before the feast of Passover," it implies that he was crucified on the 14th day of Nisan, which is April 4 in the Gregorian Calendar, but because the writers of the Gospels used the Julian Calendar back then, every date from Gregorian Calendar (which was only introduced during the 16th century) must be off set by 13 days. So, April 4 minus 13 days, you will get March 22. Remember that Jesus was resurrected from the dead after 3 days, according to the Gospels, so, March 22 plus 3 days, you will get March 25. Let's go back with the old Jewish belief that great men die or resurrect on the same day that they were conceived. If we follow the logic here, if Jesus was resurrected on March 25, that means he was conceived also on that same date. And 9 months after conception, he was born on, you guess it, December 25. This is likely the reasoning of early Christians for declaring Christmas on the December 25 date. But again, this is just mere tradition from early Jews and Christians, and not derived from what the historical evidence actually says (because there is no historical evidence that Jesus was born on December 25 in the first place). So when exactly was Jesus' birthday? We don't know for certain, and we may never know.
If we can't get the exact month and day of his birthday, how about the year of Jesus' birth? Well, that is shoddy too. Christians use the BC/AD system to label the years of both Julian and Gregorian Calendar. AD stands for anno Domini which means "in the year of the Lord" where 1 AD is supposed to be the year of Jesus' birth. While everything that happened before 1 AD are labeled as BC (Before Christ). Modern historians and scholars, however, are encouraged to use BCE (Before Common Era) and CE (Common Era) for secular and religiously neutral reasons, but the numbering is still the same. Therefore it is not a surprise if most Christians think that Jesus was born on 1 AD (or CE, if you want to be neutral). But if you ask the Gospels that tell about the story of Jesus' birth, that probably is not the case.
The contradictory and unhistorical story of the Nativity
Picture in your mind the story of Nativity. You will probably think about the time when Joseph and pregnant Mary are wandering around and have no place to go, and they keep finding houses where they can stay for a while to give birth to a baby (hence, the Filipino tradition of "Panunuluyan"). Until Mary give birth to Jesus and place him in a manger. Then the three kings (or wise men) Melchor, Gaspar, and Baltazar followed the star that points to baby Jesus' location, and give him gifts. While the shepherds are told by an angel that the Messiah was born. They all meet the infant Savior and give him adoration and worship. This version is what we are familiar with from plays, songs, poems, and displays every Christmas. And surprisingly for most people who don't bother reading their holy book, that's not how the story actually goes in the Bible. This narrative is just a Frankenstein version stitched together from various pieces of the multiple parts of the Bible, with a sprinkle of pop culture on top, and a lot of sugarcoating to be kid-friendly.
Most Christian children, including myself, was once told that Jesus was born of a virgin in Bethlehem and regarded by many as one of the most important births in history. However, out of 27 books in New Testament, only 2 of them tell about the Nativity story, the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, and even the two of them apparently contradict each other's accounts. The two gospels tell stories that are very different from each other, in their writer's desperate efforts to make sure that Jesus will "fulfill" the supposed "prophecies" from the Old Testament, no matter how awkward or absurd the story becomes. But before that, let's see first the main details that both Matthew and Luke share:
An angel told Mary that she is pregnant with Jesus by the Holy Spirit.
Joseph and Mary somehow go to Bethlehem for Jesus to be born.
The infant Jesus has visitors.
The family leaves Bethlehem until they end up in Nazareth.
But the more you dig deeper into the story, it quickly becomes more complicated and confusing.
For example, Matthew 2:1 says that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great, King of Judea. Herod died on 4 BCE, which means if what the Gospel of Matthew says is true, Jesus should have been born for at least, before 4 BCE. But the Luke 2:1-4 says that he was born during an empire-wide census of Emperor Augustus, when Cyrenius (or Quirinius) was the governor of Syria. The problem is that, it's not an empire-wide census but just a local one, in Judea, and Cyrenius only carried it out on 6 CE, almost a decade after Herod's death. So which is it, 4 BCE or 6 CE? Reconciling these two glaring contradictions must be taken a ridiculous amount of mental gymnastics on the side of Christian apologists and Biblical literalists.
However, the contradictions and confusions between the two gospels about the nativity story doesn't end there. The Gospel of Luke says:
"And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary. And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be. And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS." - Luke 1:26-31 (KJV)
Meanwhile, the Gospel of Matthew says:
"But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost..." "...Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS." - Matthew 1:20, 24-25 (KJV)
To recap, Luke says the angel told Mary about Jesus, but Matthew says it's Joseph. So, which one of them who is told? Maybe you can say it's both, and the two accounts are just telling the story in other point of view. Fair enough, but let's see if that kind of rationalization can still hold up. Let's go back to the Herod-Quirinius problem of Jesus' birth year.
"Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king,..." - Matthew 2:1 (KJV)
Matthew's Nativity account begins simple and straightforward. Jesus is born in Bethlehem and later, we'll see in the following verses that he and his parents are in a house. The writers of Luke's gospel, however, must have heard that Joseph is not from Bethlehem but from Nazareth, and according to Old Testament "prophecies," the Messiah must be born in Bethlehem. So how can they square this circle? This is the part where the Gospel of Luke became over the top on its storytelling.
"And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed. (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.) And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:) To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child." - Luke 2:1-5 (KJV)
So Luke came up with an empire-wide census rather than just to say that Joseph and Mary lives in Bethlehem, just to make them go there in the city. Since Luke's gospel was written around as early as 80 CE, many decades after the event supposedly happened, it is not a surprise that its authors got something wrong about history. For starters, Augustus was the first Roman emperor which ruled as part of the Second Triumvirate from 44 BCE after his uncle Julius Caesar was assassinated, and ruled as an emperor from 27 BCE until his death on 14 CE. As I've said earlier, throughout his reign, there is absolutely no evidence of an empire-wide census, but there is a record for just a local census during Cyrenius'/Quirinius' rule as the governor of Syria, when Judea became part of the Roman province, that was carried out on 6 CE, as was described by Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (3). Aside from that, the idea that semi-literate citizens needed to go back to their ancestral hometown as a requirement for census is preposterous and insane. Not only that it is intrinsically impossible but also there is no evidence that the Romans would do such a crazy and impractical thing. And even if it's possible, it would turn the whole Roman Empire into an utter mass chaos.
Moving on, Luke says:
"And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn." - Luke 2:7 (KJV)
The newborn Jesus is put into a manger. Whenever we hear that word, we quickly associate it with baby Jesus, but what is it anyway? Manger is a kind of a long, open container which serves as a feeder where horses, cattle, pigs and donkeys eat. Ewww, that is extremely unhygienic. It could have contain some horse spit and pig slop.
"Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,..." "...And he [Herod] sent them to Bethlehem, and said, Go and search diligently for the young child; and when ye have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also. When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was. When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy. And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense and myrrh." - Matthew 2:1, 8-11 (KJV)
The Bible never mentioned how many wise men (or magi) are there, perhaps early Christians just assumed it's three based on the number of the gifts that baby Jesus receive. But it could have been 2, or 4, or 5, or maybe 10, who knows? And no, they are not three kings, and the Bible also doesn't say that their names are Melchor, Gaspar, and Baltazar. That thing is just a later Christian tradition that, as usual, is also not based on actual historical evidence. And besides, if you are knowledgeable enough about basic astronomy, you would easily object the detail about the wise men guided by a star pointing into a particular house. Cute story but scientifically impossible. Since everyone that lived in the antiquity believed that stars are just a tiny glowing points in the night sky (instead of humongous raging balls of blazing gases, in actuality), it would not be a problem if a star appears to be hovering above a particular place for a little while. But of course the authors of Matthew's gospel didn't know about any of that so they seem to just assume that the star "went before" the wise men. And notice that Matthew says that Jesus, Mary, and Joseph are in a house, as oppose to Luke's manger. On the other hand, Luke's gospel states that the visitors are not the wise men, but shepherds.
"And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid. And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger." - Luke 2:8-12 (KJV)
So which is it? Wise men or shepherds? How do Christians reconcile them? Easy! Just mish-mash the two accounts together. But the problem is, even if they do that (which by the way, they are already doing that for a long time), they still cannot escape the other more problematic contradictions of the Nativity stories.
But wait, there's more. Luke adds:
"And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb. And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord; (As it is written in the law of the LORD, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord;) And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons..." "...And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth." - Luke 2: 21-24, 39
Jesus is circumcised, Mary waits for her period to be over, then afterwards, they go to a temple in Jerusalem to perform an animal sacrifice, as stated by the laws of Torah, then they go straight back home to Nazareth. End of story, pretty straightforward. However, Matthew tells a different story after the family leaves Bethlehem, which is more bizarre and gruesome.
"And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him. When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt: And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son. Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and 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 enquired of the wise men..." "...But when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of the Lord appeareth in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, Saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and go into the land of Israel: for they are dead which sought the young child's life..." "...And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene." - Matthew 2:13-16, 19-20, 23 (KJV)
Mass infanticide during the birth of an important person? Does it sound familiar to you? Because that is also what happened in the book of Exodus when Moses is born. And just like the story of Moses, and Luke's empire-wide census during Augustus' reign, there is also no historical evidence and recordings from contemporary historians about the mass murder of babies during Herod's reign. This event is definitely not something that can just ignored by historians at that time, but even Flavius Josephus, who chronicled Herod's reign very well until his death, didn't have any records of the aforementioned mass infanticide.
Let's summarize the two contrasting Nativity stories of Matthew and Luke. Luke says:
An angel told Mary about the future birth of Jesus.
Quirinius had a census.
Joseph and Mary go to Bethlehem from Nazareth.
Mary gave birth to Jesus and put him in a manger.
An angel told a group of shepherds about Jesus and they went to him.
The family leaves, and go to a temple in Jerusalem.
And they go back to their hometown in Nazareth.
While Matthew says:
An angel told Joseph about the future birth of Jesus.
Herod sends an unnumbered wise men to find Jesus.
They found Joseph, Mary, and the baby Jesus in a house in Bethlehem.
They gave him gold, frankincense, and myrrh.
An angel told Joseph to escape from Judea to Egypt to escape Herod's wrath.
While Herod kills a bunch of babies in the area.
Then they returned to Judea after Herod's death and finally settled in Nazareth.
Somehow it's okay to mash up these two accounts together willy-nilly, while taking out the horrible parts and leave the cute ones? Heck, I didn't even mentioned yet about the more conflicting and inconsistent genealogies of Jesus between Matthew 1 and Luke 3, and right off the bat, the story of the birth of Jesus already gave us headaches. And if that wasn't bad enough, how about we tackle the so-called "prophecies" from the Old Testament that was "fulfilled" by Jesus on the Nativity story?
The bogus "prophecies" of the Gospel of Matthew
I already said that the trying-hard authors of the gospels apparently made desperate efforts to match the story of Jesus to the so-called "prophecies" of the Hebrew Bible (aka the Old Testament) that supposedly talks about the incoming Messiah. Matthew is not the only gospel that taken the Old Testament "prophecies" out of context and made it appear as if Jesus "fulfilled" them. But we will just focus on the "fulfilled prophecies" in Matthew's Nativity story, since Luke didn't provide any.
Remember when an angel told Joseph that Mary will bear a son named Jesus? Matthew 1:22-23 says that it's a "fulfillment" of an Old Testament "prophecy."
"Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us." - Matthew 1:22-23 (KJV)
This is a clear reference to Isaiah 7:14, which states:
"Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." - Isaiah 7:14 (KJV)
But the problem is that the aforementioned Isaiah verse talks about a young woman, not a virgin. The verse talks about how Ahaz, the King of Judah, is told by God a sign to be given in demonstration that the prophet's promise of His protection from his enemies is a true one, and the sign is that an almah (young woman) is pregnant and will give birth to a son who will still be very young when these enemies will be destroyed. The Hebrew word ‘almāh (עַלְמָה) means "an unmarried young woman of childbearing age" (aka, a teenage girl) in the older Hebrew translations of the Old Testament, but the Septuagint (the Koine Greek translation of the Old Testament) mistranslated the word almah (young woman) in Isaiah 7:14 into the Greek word parthenos (παρθένος), which means "virgin," that was usually used by Greeks for Athena, the "virgin goddess of wisdom" but still occasionally used to pertain to an unmarried woman that is not a virgin. And by virgin, I mean someone who is still not having sexual intercourse yet. A virgin and a young woman is not the same thing. A young woman can be married and still be a virgin, and vice versa. Most scholars agree that the word almah has nothing to do with virginity, as decribed by the Gospel of Matthew (4) and they also agree that the author of Isaiah did not intended to mean about any miraculous conception (aka virgin birth), which means the Greek translators of Septuagint used the word parthenos generically for an unmarried young woman whose probable virginity is incidental, since unmarried young woman were expected to be virgins at that time (5). And aside from that, nowhere in the verses of the New Testament, aside from Matthew 1:23, where Jesus was called by the named "Emmanuel" or "Immanuel." He was called as, you know, JESUS! Nice try though.
On the other hand, when the wise men told King Herod about baby Jesus, the king asked them where the infant was born, and they replied:
"And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet, And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel." - Matthew 2:5-6 (KJV)
The authors of the Gospel of Matthew claims that it is another "fulfillment" of an Old Testament "prophecy," which this time, is referenced to Micah 5:2.
"But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting." - Micah 5:2 (KJV)
Obviously, this is also taken out of context by the authors of Matthew. The Bethlehem Ephratah in this verse doesn't pertain to a town, but to a clan, which is the clan of Bethlehem, who was the son of Caleb's second wife, Ephrathah (see 1 Chronicles 2:18, 2:50-52, 4:4). Moreover, the "prophecy" (if that is what it is) doesn't talk about the coming of a Messiah, but the coming of a military leader (as described by Micah 5:6) that is supposed to defeat the Assyrians. And of course, Jesus never did that because Assyrians didn't exist anymore during his lifetime. Regardless of whether there is a correct interpretation of Micah 5:2, the authors of Matthew probably thought that the verse required the Messiah to be born in Bethlehem, which made them find a way to make that happen, as the authors of Luke also probably did for the same reason. But the two gospels achieved it in different ways, as we've discussed earlier. Matthew says that Joseph and Mary already lives in Bethlehem when Mary becomes pregnant, while Luke says the couple lives in Nazareth but they travel to Bethlehem because of a census. Desperation at its finest.
Meanwhile, when an angel told Joseph that they should escape Judea from Herod's wrath and refuge into Egypt, Matthew told that they stayed there until Herod's death. And then, comes this verse:
"And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son." - Matthew 2:15 (KJV)
This time, Matthew claims that it is a "fulfillment" of Hosea 11:1, which says:
"When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt." - Hosea 11:1 (KJV)
And the problem is, this verse is not a prophecy at all. This is just God recalling the time when "Israel" (pertaining to the Israelites themselves as a people-group) was called out by Him to get out of Egypt. It's a reference to the Hebrew Exodus, and has nothing to do with Jesus at all, the moment you read the whole verse. Seems like Matthew tried to hide this by just quoting the last part of the verse. Why do most apologists call out atheists for "taking Bible verses out of context" when it is clearer that the authors of the Bible themselves seem to do it more often?
You want some more bogus "prophecies"? I got something more for you. Matthew, on the other hand, also claims that Herod's mass murder of babies is another "prophecy fulfilled" where it states that:
"Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not." - Matthew 2: 17-18 (KJV)
This verse is now a reference for Jeremiah 31:15, which says:
"Thus saith the LORD; A voice was heard in Ramah, lamentation, and bitter weeping; Rachel weeping for her children refused to be comforted for her children, because they were not." - Jeremiah 31:15 (KJV)
Another verse taken out of context. Jeremiah 31:15 pertains to the Babylonian Captivity of the Jews under King Nebuchadnezzar, not about Herod's mass infanticide, as made it clear by the very next verses.
"Thus saith the LORD; Refrain thy voice from weeping, and thine eyes from tears: for thy work shall be rewarded, saith the LORD; and they shall come again from the land of the enemy. And there is hope in thine end, saith the LORD, that thy children shall come again to their own border." - Jeremiah 31:16-17 (KJV)
Remember Matthew 2:23 that I quoted earlier? Matthew made another prophecy claim about Jesus being called as "Nazarene" on that verse.
"And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene." - Matthew 2:23 (KJV)
But there's actually no verse in the Old Testament that talks about a prophecy of Messiah being called as Nazarene. The closest word in the Old Testament for the term Nazarene can be found on Judges 13:5, which says:
"For, lo, thou shalt conceive, and bear a son; and no razor shall come on his head: for the child shall be a Nazarite unto God from the womb: and he shall begin to deliver Israel out of the hand of the Philistines." - Judges 13:5 (KJV)
Of course, there are major issues here. The verse pertains to a woman that would conceive a child, which is the future Samson, the man with Superman-like strength because of his powers coming form his long hair. And besides, a Nazarite is not the same thing as a Nazarene. A Nazarite (or Nazirite) is someone that makes a voluntary vow to God, as described by Numbers 6:1-21, which involves abstaining from alcohol, refraining to cut their hair and beard, and avoiding to become ritually impure by touching corpses or graves of anyone. Sort of like a dirty-ass hippie. Jesus may be a hippie, but he is definitely not a Nazarite. He clearly didn't abstain from any alcohol, as he even turned jars of water into wine during a wedding in Cana, and he and his disciples also drank alcohol during his last supper. Alcohol is also what the Romans gave to him in a sponge when he said that he's thirsty while crucified on a cross. Jesus clearly didn't avoid touching the dead either, since resurrecting people from the dead as miracles is kind of his thing in the gospels. If ever this really is the verse that was referenced by the authors of Matthew, they clearly made a glaring mistake. But if ever not, then I guess we shall let this one pass.
With all of these internal contradictions, conflicts from science and history, and so-called "fulfilled prophecies" that were really just out-of-context Old Testament verses, it is not surprising that most historians and Biblical scholars dismiss the Nativity story of both Matthew and Luke as a complete fabrication. Which is ironic coming from a book that is deified by Biblical literalists as "the inerrant and infallible divinely-inspired Word of God." You could say that those details that Matthew and Luke both agree upon should be considered historical, but the problem is there are no traces of either Nativity stories show up in the epistles of Paul or in the Gospel of Mark. It is because Paul's epistles (like Galatians, 1 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Philippians, Philemon, and Romans) are among of the first written books of which later would make up the New Testament, written ranging from about 48 to 58 CE. While Mark is the oldest gospel that was probably written around as early as 65 to 73 CE. It's not only around 80 to 90 CE when both Matthew and Luke was written, and finally contained the story of Jesus' birth (and the Gospel of John was the latest canonical gospel to be written, around 90-100 CE). You could harmonize the birth stories of Matthew and Luke for all I care, but don't expect to just get away from the Biblical blunders that I'd just pointed out.
Conclusion
If you want to celebrate Christmas religiously and commemorate the birth of Jesus, even if it's not really his birthday, that's fine and dandy. But if you want to celebrate Christmas secularly, in order to be inclusive to people with other religion or no religion at all, that's perfectly okay too. That right is protected by the Article 3 Section 5 of 1987 Philippine Constitution. But at least we all agree with the same thing: CHRISTMAS IS ABOUT LOVE, GENEROSITY, AND KINDNESS TO EVERYONE AND WITH EACH OTHER. Those virtues are not exclusively a Christian thing, they're a human thing. It doesn't matter if Jesus' birthday is not actually December 25, nor does it matter if the Nativity stories in the Bible are inconsistent, confusing, preposterous, and unhistorical. What matters is that we are all happy that this holiday is part of our culture, and that it can be celebrated regardless of your beliefs, or lack thereof.
Belated Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to everyone.
Sources:
(2) Furius Dionysius Filocalus (354). The Chronograph of 354.
(3) Flavius Josephus (c. 93). The Antiquities of the Jews. Book XVIII Section 1.
(4) Sweeney, Marvin A. (1996). Isaiah 1-39: With an Introduction to Prophetic Literature.
Date Published: December 28, 2020
Bình luận