What is this Christmas about anyways?

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. (Mat 1:23 KJV)

Christmas is a time of year in which most people in America try and suggest that there is a “war on Christmas”. However, we know through plenty of sources, even Christian ones (note the video below from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary), that the celebration around Christmas has pagan origins.

Pagan, of course, meaning sinful, satanic, demon possessed people. No, of course not. Pagan simply meant the opposite of all this religious mumbo jumbo. Christians want to paint anything during Christmas time not relating to Jesus as horrible, and inconsiderate of poor little Jesus’ birth. When in reality most seem to not be aware of the unfortunate (for them) origins of this “sacred” holiday. There are plenty of videos, and blogs that tell you about the pagan origins, even the preacher dude up in the video does a pretty good job of explaining this. That being said, I don’t want to spend a lot of time dwelling on that issue, for it seems, for lack of a better word, buried (I hope for our sake this problem doesn’t “rise” again). Instead, I would like to share with you the complicated, complex problems within the story of Jesus’ birth. So, where do we begin…

I suppose at the beginning,

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. (Gen 1:26 KJV)

Some of you may not know this, but many churches teach that when Moses writes in Genesis the words “our image”, he is referring to the Holy Trinity (Father, Son, Holy Spirit). I start there, because to me this is the initial confusion. The way the story of Jesus is expounded is that once Adam and Eve committed the mortal sin of eating a fruit that God had declared them not to eat, this is the moment that Jesus became necessary.

14 The LORD God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this, cursed are you above all livestock and above all beasts of the field; on your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life. 15 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.” (Gen 3:14 ESV)

The story goes that once Adam and Eve committed this sin, every “man” from that point through to the end of mankind was forever born a sinner through the sperm of the man. However, the grace that is apparently in the middle of all of this ridiculousness, is that there in verse 15 God gives a window for Jesus to come onto the scene when he states, “…he shall bruise your head…”. Not to mention that commentators love to point out that scripture is clear about it being the “seed” (KJV) of the woman that would bring about this Savior, which commentators declare clearly points to Jesus’ virgin birth (Source: Preachers Outline & Sermon Bible: Genesis; Gen 3:14, 15).

Here is a thought to consider, what the hell was Jesus doing between before this moment and this moment? I know that is probably confusing, let me see if I can clear it up a little. John 1:1-2 states, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning.” (Joh 1:1 CSB). This, among other verses (John 8:58; 17:5) clearly shows that Jesus was existing right along with god before the earth was even here. So, if Jesus was and is the Savior, then before he became the Savior what was he doing. Genesis 3 seems to be so “off the cuff”, instead of this grand designed plan. I mean hell, God couldn’t even find Adam and Eve in the garden (apparently). Nevertheless, besides the confusion that exist about Jesus in general, there is great confusion surrounding the whole story.

Only two of the Gospels even bother mentioning the details of the birth of the Savior of the world, which I find a little odd in and of itself. Even so, the two Gospels that mention the miraculous conception fail to line up together. Let’s start with Matthew. In Matthews account of Jesus’ birth (In his defense he wasn’t there) he talks about Joseph (Mary’s earthly husband) being visited by an angel (not named, although later named in Luke’s Gospel), and being informed that he will call the baby’s name Jesus. Sounds all good in the neighborhood, until one verse later the angel apparently adds that in order to fulfill prophecy you will name him “Immanuel”, which translated means “God with us”. Now certainly with a unquestionable faith-filled heart one could overlook this minor discrepancy. However, I have a few things I want to set straight here for the skeptic. Immanuel is only mentioned three times in scripture. The first, is apparently where the angel in Matthew’s story quotes from, is in Isaiah 7:14 which says, “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” (Isa 7:14 ESV). The second time is in Isaiah 8:8, ” And he shall pass through Judah; he shall overflow and go over, he shall reach even to the neck; and the stretching out of his wings shall fill the breadth of thy land, O Immanuel.” (Isa 8:8 KJV). Then the last time it is mentioned in scripture is there in the lonely New Testament verse of Matthew 1:23. Look, I am sorry, but it just doesn’t pass the B.S. smell test. It doesn’t take a genius to understand that in an attempt to fulfill the prophecies, Matthew may have gotten a little excited and added a few things. I will give you another way to consider this. The name Jesus is only used in the New Testament. The name Christ is only used in the New Testament. Nowhere, except in this one Matthew 1:23 verse does the name Immanuel come up, and it states the reason very clearly.

“All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet:” (Mat 1:22 ESV)

I get it, you need the prophecies to be fulfilled. However, no different then any other mystical, supernatural tale, you really have to use your imagination to get beyond the obvious discrepancies about the virgin birth. For sake of brevity, and I am an animal lover (no sense in beating dead horse), I will leave you with that information. Everything else about the story of Jesus’ birth seems to have been written about over and over. When it comes to the prophecies, you could honestly write a book about the discrepancies. Look at that text in Isaiah in context, and tell me honestly, without any outside commentary, if that seems to be referencing a future Savior? Personally, I do not see how you could say “clearly that is what it meant” about anything in the Bible, much less the Old Testament references to Jesus, unless you are desperately trying to draw conclusions. Throughout theological thought you often arrive at the conclusion that without unquestionable faith, Christianity is no different then any other religion.

All in all, as I mentioned at the beginning, and this Pastor in the video so eloquently explains, Christmas is NOT about Jesus anyways.From one skeptic to another, Merry Christmas.

The godless Pastor,

Billy J. Crocker


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s