The story of Jesus's infancy was created differently by Matthew and Luke as parabolic overtures to their quite different gospels. But there is one aspect of Jesus's infancy upon which they both agree, namely, the frequent arrival of angels, heavenly messengers who give to mundane events a transcendental purpose. Think of angels as ultimate meanings radiantly personified.
In Matthew, an angel explains Mary's pregnancy to Joseph (1:18-24), warns him to flee Herod's murderous designs (2:13-18), and tells him when it is safe to return home (2:19-23). Matthew's angels work through dreams to insure the fulfillment of prophecy.
In Luke, angels have a somewhat divergent function in establishing the parallel lives of John the Baptist and Jesus of Nazareth. First, an angel -- identified as Gabriel -- tells Zachary that, although he and Elizabeth are aged and infertile, their soon-to-be-born son John "will be great in the sight of the Lord ... even before his birth he will be filled with the Holy Spirit ... to make ready a people prepared for the Lord" (1:5-25).
Next, that same Gabriel tells Mary, that although she is an unwed virgin, her soon-to-be-born son Jesus will "will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his ancestor David" (1:26-38).
Finally, when Jesus is born in Bethlehem -- ancestral city of David, the once and future king of Israel -- an angel tells shepherds that, "I am bringing you good news of great joy for all the people: to you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is the Messiah, the Lord" (2:11-12).
Angels direct, as it were the narrative traffic of both those infancy stories but there is one very special case of angelic intervention found only in Luke. This involves not just a single angel but the entire heavenly choir who descend to earth and chant in the reversed parallelism of typical biblical poetry: "Glory to God / in the highest heaven / and on earth peace /among those of [God's] favor" (2:14). But, since this is poetic parallelism, divine glory in heaven is human peace on earth. Not either, but both, or neither.
A lovely couplet of hymnic hope, to be sure, but where is the challenge of that first Christmas vision? To find it watch the titles already given to Jesus and to Caesar. Jesus was proclaimed as "Son of God," "Savior of the World," and "Messiah/Christ" (1:32; 2:11). In between those titles appears the name of "Caesar Augustus" (2:1). But, before Jesus the Christ was ever conceived, Caesar the Augustus had been already proclaimed by Roman imperial theology as "Son of God," "Savior of the World" and "Imperator/Autocrator." Also, the vaunted Pax Romana was already incarnated and embodied in Caesar himself by the consecration of a magnificent Ara Pacis Augustae, the Altar -- not just of Roman -- but of Augustan Peace at Rome.
Granted Luke's Roman matrix for this Jewish child, what precisely was the difference between those identical titles and identical proclamations of "Peace on Earth"? If the Roman Augustus had already established peace on earth, what was left for the Jewish Jesus to accomplish? How was the presence of Roman imperial peace different from that promise of Jewish messianic peace -- on this one and only earth?
The difference was not in the that of peace but in its how, not in the purpose and intention of peace but in the mode and method of its accomplishment. For Rome, as you can see clearly on the beautiful bas-reliefs of that above-mentioned Altar of Augustan Peace, the mode and method was: religion, war, victory, peace. Rome believed, as did every empire from the Assyrian to the American, that the future of civilization demanded peace through victory. But the messianic vision of the Jewish Jesus proclaimed a different program: religion, non-violence, justice, peace. Its mantra was peace through justice. Or, as Jesus told Pilate in John's powerful parable: God's Kingdom, as distinct from Rome's Kingdom, precludes violence -- not even to liberate himself from imperial power (18:36).
Victory's violence establishes not peace but lull -- until the next and always more violent round of war. The Christian challenge of Christmas is this: justice is what happens when all receive a fair share of God's world and only such distributive justice can establish peace on earth. But how can we ever agree on what is fair for all? Hint: ask what is fair -- in first or 21st century--of the 99 percent of earth's people and not of the 1 percent.
***********************************************************
Obviously it's the seemingly imposssible task of having "Christian" monks live in peace with one another, as exemplified by the battles between them in Bethlehem that had to have the police intervene.
God’s calling for man has never changed, “love God the Father with all our might, and secondly, love thy neighbor like thy self.” Two callings that we have failed miserably -- and we all know it!
Without man’s heartfelt appreciations of love of God and neighbor – man will always return to the underpinning of this system that is, “man’s inhumanity towards man!” And with the advent of the Internet and social networking, etc. – the world is acutely award of how dysfunctional this world is -- and that it is spinning out of control before our eyes; with no mechanism to correct and/or to redirect without more shrift, and death.
Scripture is very clear:
“To earthling man his way does not belong. It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his step.” (Jeremiah 10:23).
In the absence of the Christ birth and the Holy Spirit Men and man will always try to attain Self-Actualization. Such men given a position of power under their own fallen nature will pose as a god or his spokesmen. Strong delusion is reserved for those whom willfully continue to deny the love God is given sinful Human kind through the gift of that little infant born in the flesh, that is come to as a testimony truth. That truth is that "all stand as condemend Sinners before a God of Holiness." and the free gift of salvation Christ purchased is available for all who freely choose to repent of that Sin and place God back in the hollow spot of their heart; as LORD and Savior. Peace indeed is available if we receive the Creator of peace; Jesus Christ the Holy One.
There will be peace when you are allowed to have your faith, me my own, and they theirs, without judgment or value on either party.
This is the way to peace, not through one person or a group of people, but through all people. Because we are all that: people.
This is the REALITY of organized religion and thus the failure of all ecumenical efforts. Sorry.
-Plato
There will never, ever, ever, ever, ever be peace
Psalm 22:28 "The Kingdom is the Lord's; He is Governor among the nations". Psalm 24:1 "The earth is the Lord's; the world and they that dwell within".
Would God demand the mass genocide of foreign peoples? He did all throughout the Hebrew Scriptures.
Would God, as you said, put a man in prison to pay for the debt of the one who committed the crime? Wait, who was Jesus then? An innocent man sent by God to be tortured and killed for the crimes of humanity? A blood sacrifice, a scapegoat for the sins of humanity? A human sacrifice?
You show little understanding of your own God. You ask whether God would do these things, and, according to the books, he does. God is violent, God is unjust. You have some really distorted views about your God...
.
"The African tribe of Juda was among the twelve tribes enslaved in and freed from Egypt during the Exodus. The tribe of Juda, whose symbol was the lion helped found ancient Israel and was the most prominent and influential tribe until the Greeks and Romans invaded the area and eventually scattered them to the four winds."
"It is important to understand that the Old Testament begins as the history of African people, as are the inseparable histories of Egypt, Ethiopia, Nubia, and Kush. This history occurred long before the influx of Greeks and Romans into Northern Africa when everyone was still dark skinned and undeniably of African and/or Asian descent. The leaders of Christianity and Judaism are active participants in this wide ranging and evil effort to deceive and delude people into looking for a white skinned messiah, even though all ancient texts clearly specified the tribe of Juda, the Root of David."
The same effort has also focused on "whitewashing" the history of ancient Egypt.
"It is vital to understand that thiere is no truth without discernment and no wisdom without the truth, What then is faith but an effort to confound truth and wisdom?" Seven Star Hand.
Anyway, his theory is rather annoying after a while because he insists on seeing Jesus through a social reformer or subversive lens. Crossan argues that the parables were subversive lessons to rile the people up against Rome and the Resurrection itself was a parable to showcases Jesus's message's victory over Rome. Well if Jesus wasn't divine and did not rise from the dead, how in the world did he beat Rome? He lost, Rome's way of violence and oppression (peace through victory as Crossan says above) won.
What the Gospels are interested in talking about is Jesus's divinity and claim to be the Son of God, not his philosophy and the way he challenged the norms of society,
Christianity became a new religion and a tool of the Roman empire. This was needed as Mitraism (the main religion of the Roman soldiers at the time that Constantin Romanized Christianity) did not allow its adherents to marry and procreate (very, very bad for the empire).
However, they could not get rid of the vestiges of Mitraism and they made the birth of Jesus at December 25, the supposed birthday of Mitras (the Sun god).
Jesus himself attested to his own divinity, as did many of his closest apostles. It's not a Roman invention, its one of the core tenants of Christianity since the very beginning. To ignore this and put Jesus on the level of say Martin Luther King Jr. is not an accurate depiction of the man himself.
Christianity did not replace the Mithraic mysteries, in fact, when looked closely Mithras and Christ barely have much in common at all. While both had varying degrees of popularity in their existence, Mithraism had a very limited market so to speak while Christianity was really there for everyone. You suggest that somehow Christianity was used to make Rome stronger and control everyone. This is also not true. The 4th century Western portion of the Roman Empire was on its way out, in the stages of it's decline. One can give it the title of the 19th-20th century Ottoman Empire, the "sick old man of Europe". Christianity only revitalized the populace themselves, but it was already too late for the emperor and that sort to use it as a "tool" to save the Empire.
Mithras is NOT the sun god and his supposed birthday on Dec. 25 is also a very misleading twist on the facts. In reality there is no record of an official celebration of the birth of Mithras on Dec. 25, that is the birthday of the "real" sun god, Sol Invictus.
The words of the character named Jesus is propaganda to cover up the fact that christianity was just business as usual. If you believe this propaganda, do you also believe the words of the pope this christmas who promoted simplicity over consumerism as he sat on a throne dressed in gold?
At least the Romans were honest about their intentions.
Today, the Democrats and Republicans define Christianity.
Unfortunately, the Democrats and Republicans are not
honest about their intentions and use any rhetoric to
distract us from the fact that neither is working for
We The People nor Represent us.