An honest question for Christians.............

[danrael]

I have asked the following question of many, many Christians, and, to this date, not a single one has been able to provide any answer whatsoever:

The scripture of Micah prophesied the birth of the Messiah. It told when it was to occur, and provided astronomical information in terms of heavenly signs which would point to the actual birthplace. The prophecy was written many, many years before the actual event, so it must have been fairly common knowledge amongst a vast number of the populace in the immediate area of the time. Not only would true believers have been following this event very closely, but atheists, and other sceptics would have entertained an avid interest as well. Amongst the general populace, we would expect at least a nominal 1% (to be extremely conservative) to have sought out and attended the event. More likely, the rate of attendance might have been closer to 100%. After all, this was God himself who was coming! Imagine if this prophecy were about your city or town in our time. There would be throngs from all over the world camped out weeks in advance, not to mention international news agencies, cameras, police, military, not to mention all the many curiosity seekers and sceptics who might attend "just for the sheer hell of it." Of course, there would be the entertainment as well: the jugglers, clowns, acrobats, etc., etc., and the food concessionaires. Port-potties vendors would make themselves rich overnight. And yet, no one from the immediate area of Bethlehem came. It took three astrologers from far off lands to make it an event, along with a few barn animals, and a shepherd from a nearby hill. The three Magi apparently had no problem locating and following the guiding star. The existence of the "heavenly signs" would have been common knowledge by now.

NO ONE CAME!

What is wrong with this story?

[seebs]

I don't know. Maybe everyone got sick of trying to interpret the astrological sign, and there were just these three people who were sorta trainspotters to begin with that happened to get it all right and bother showing up.

[moonwatcher]

It would be helpful to quote the passage in Micah where this is prophecied. I don't recall the time being prophecied with any specificity.

[Laura D.]

It would be helpful to quote the passage in Micah where this is prophecied. I don't recall the time being prophecied with any specificity.

I found this (http://www.bethsar.com/Messiah's_Birth.htm) Internet source that cites Micah along with other scripture to support its claim that the Messiah would be born before 7 C.E. to 30 C.E (depending on when the Sanhedrin lost its power over life and death) and that he would die before 70 C.E. But I'm not unsure if their analysis is a traditional interpretation or some sort of spin.

God bless,



Laura

[WishboneDawn]

I have asked the following question of many, many Christians, and, to this date, not a single one has been able to provide any answer whatsoever:

The scripture of Micah prophesied the birth of the Messiah...

I found a quote (Micah 5.1-6) but it didn't seem to have much to do with astrology so please correct me if I'm wrong. Anyhow, from what I read about it, it was more likely concerned with the Assyrians then messiah predictions. That's the problem with christian readings of the Herbrew scriptures, phantom prophecies are picked out while the original intent is lost.

So this christian (who doesn't think much of pretending the bible tells the future anyway) thinks the passage had nothing to do with Jesus and a lot to do with current events (as most prophet writing really did) at the time Micah was around.

[angela2]

I found a quote (Micah 5.1-6) but it didn't seem to have much to do with astrology so please correct me if I'm wrong. Anyhow, from what I read about it, it was more likely concerned with the Assyrians then messiah predictions. That's the problem with christian readings of the Herbrew scriptures, phantom prophecies are picked out while the original intent is lost.

So this christian (who doesn't think much of pretending the bible tells the future anyway) thinks the passage had nothing to do with Jesus and a lot to do with current events (as most prophet writing really did) at the time Micah was around.
I agree with dawn. I think it is a dubious practice to read Christianity back into OT. Also the Messiah whom the Jews anticipated was not God, but someone who would restore the Jewish kingdom as it had been during the reign of David and would rule from David's throne.

[Ubercat]

I agree with dawn. I think it is a dubious practice to read Christianity back into OT. Also the Messiah whom the Jews anticipated was not God, but someone who would restore the Jewish kingdom as it had been during the reign of David and would rule from David's throne.

Why was their expectation so far off? Did biblegod intentionally decieve them? "Faithful to all generations" my ass. :rolleyes:

-Ubercat

[angela2]

Your ass? This could get interesting. :D

[sharon45]

Danrael, that idea is from Micah 5:2-5 and it is talking about the Messiah which is still yet to come. Although it isn't talking about jesus because he has nothing to do with these prophecies.

[danrael]

Danrael, that idea is from Micah 5:2-5 and it is talking about the Messiah which is still yet to come. Although it isn't talking about jesus because he has nothing to do with these prophecies.

Excuse my general ignorance of scripture, but, then, what message were the Magi responding to that the general populace missed? As I understand it, the Magi were astrologers, which, in that time, was a revered teaching. It was the "star* rising in the East which they apparently responded to. Certainly at least a handful of the common folk would either have been aware of this foretelling, or of the actual occurrence, and have responded to it. No one else did.


*There is astronomical evidence that this star may have either been a comet or a planetary conjunction.

[Biff the unclean]

Excuse my general ignorance of scripture, but, then, what message were the Magi responding to that the general populace missed? As I understand it, the Magi were astrologers, which, in that time, was a revered teaching. It was the "star* rising in the East which they apparently responded to. Certainly at least a handful of the common folk would either have been aware of this foretelling, or of the actual occurrence, and have responded to it. No one else did.

Magi were (are) Zoroastrian astrologer/priests. If they gained knowledge from God then that God was Ahura Mazda and not Yahweh. The only birth they would have been interested in seeing in the stars would have been the second coming of the savior, Mithra. The gifts they brought were all symbolic of Mithra.

Whoever added this silly story to the Jesus fiction either didn’t have a clue about what Jews believed and added it by mistake or he wanted to tie in Zoroastrians for some unstated reason.

[angela2]

Magi were (are) Zoroastrian astrologer/priests.
You know that to be a fact how? By special revelation?

[WishboneDawn]

You know that to be a fact how? By special revelation?

I found this, THE THREE MAGI, ZOROASTRIAN PILGRIMS (http://www.sullivan-county.com/z/3magi.htm), which is an interesting read. I'm about to head out to church so I'll google some more when I get back.

Thanks for that Biff, it looks like interesting stuff that I hadn't really given thought to before.

[Johnny Skeptic]

You know that to be a fact how? By special revelation?

Please apply those questions to what the Bible writers claimed.

[danrael]

It would be helpful to quote the passage in Micah where this is prophecied. I don't recall the time being prophecied with any specificity.

Looks like you are correct in suggesting that Micah only prophesied the coming of the Messiah, but did not tell when.

Please check out this site which seems to be pinpointing the birth date, and the fact that thousands of Jews knew of the prophecy:

http://www.olivetreeoflife.com/articles/article-conception.htm

Help me out here, I am not a Bible scholar, OR an atheist.

[Biff the unclean]

You know that to be a fact how? By special revelation?
I know that because the story says they were MAGI. Honestly Angela such displays of willful ignorance are unbecoming. Pick up a dictionary or do a simple google search, try the Catholic Encyclopedia for Pete’s sake.:banghead:

[angela2]

I know that because the story says they were MAGI. Honestly Angela such displays of willful ignorance are unbecoming. Pick up a dictionary or do a simple google search, try the Catholic Encyclopedia for Pete’s sake.:banghead:
One again, your post is not substantive.

[Biff the unclean]

One again, your post is not substantive.
Magi is a job title, Angela. A Magi is a Zoroastrian astrologer/priest.
How is it that you are ignorant of something that should be common knowledge concerning your religion?
How can you complain that I am not “Substantive” when I not only tell you what the word means but I direct you to three different, easily accessible, places to confirm what I’ve said?
What did you imagine Magi were?

[Ubercat]

Your ass? This could get interesting. :D

You gave me a chuckle, but could you please answer the question? Why did biblegod decieve the jews into thinking that jesus would be different than he was?

-Ubercat

[JEST2ASK]

One again, your post is not substantive.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism

Hope this helps

[post tenebras lux]

Or even - to get bleeding obvious about it: Magi! :huh:

[WishboneDawn]

One again, your post is not substantive.

Um. it just took half a minute with google to find the information that substantiated Biff's claim. Sometimes a little curiousity trumps sitting back and waiting for links.

[LaMancha Man]

The problem being that the early xtians gave us nothing original. All of the stories, all of the beliefs are garnished from previous religions....whether your speaking of the Magi, the resurection, the trinity or even virginal birth... pretty lame concept of originality, So, they get a "F" for content, and a "D" for quantity....IMO.

[Dean Anderson]

Although the KJV and other English translations simply talk about "wise men" from the East, the Greek makes it clear that these men are indeed "magi".

However, although the word "magi" (the plural of "magus") specifically refers to Zororastarian priests, the Greeks used the word much more generally - calling pretty much any heretical sorcerer a "magus".

An example of this is "Simon Magus", a gnostic Christian who was branded as heretical by the proto-orthodox church and labelled as a "magus" by the early Church Fathers.

A Biblical example can be found in Acts 13, 6-8:

Act 13:6 And when they had gone through the isle unto Paphos, they found a certain sorcerer [literally: a certain magus], a false prophet, a Jew, whose name [was] Barjesus:
Act 13:7 Which was with the deputy of the country, Sergius Paulus, a prudent man; who called for Barnabas and Saul, and desired to hear the word of God.
Act 13:8 But Elymas the sorcerer [Literally: Elymas Magus] (for so is his name by interpretation) withstood them, seeking to turn away the deputy from the faith.

This is obviously not talking about Zororastarian priests, since this man (Elymas bar-Jesus) is specifically described as being Jewish.

So on the one hand, someone being referred to as a "magus" by the Greek authors of the Bible doesn't necessarily mean that they are a "Magus" - i.e. a Zororastarian priest.

However, the description of the Magi in the Gospel of Matthew as being respected astrologers from the East indicates that this is most probably what the author of that book meant - since the Magi were reknowned for their astrology and ability to read the seasons and predict eclipses and so on. The alternative would be that the visitors were "heretics and sorcerers from the East" - which would run counter to the author's aims of using them to establish auspicious credentials for Jesus.

[Biff the unclean]

So the question really is why would the author of Matthew associate the nativity with Zoroastrianism? Because it goes past the wise men to their gifts which all had symbolic meaning that roughly reads as ‘King of the living and the dead.’ And the angels and shepherds together are a strong Zoroastrian image.

Also the church of the Nativity in Bethlehem is build over the “stable” IRL.
But this stable is an underground chamber that you would have had to carry the donkeys and cows up and down a ladder to get to. This chamber however is identical to those used as Mithric/Zoroasterian worship sites.

Why include any of this stuff in the story of Jesus’ birth at all?

[sharon45]

Excuse my general ignorance of scripture, but, then, what message were the Magi responding to that the general populace missed? As I understand it, the Magi were astrologers, which, in that time, was a revered teaching. It was the "star* rising in the East which they apparently responded to. Certainly at least a handful of the common folk would either have been aware of this foretelling, or of the actual occurrence, and have responded to it. No one else did.


*There is astronomical evidence that this star may have either been a comet or a planetary conjunction.That Micah passage gives no reference to the stars, only to the expected Messiah.
1 Hear what the LORD says to you, O house of Israel.
2 This is what the LORD says:
"Do not learn the ways of the nations
or be terrified by signs in the sky,
though the nations are terrified by them.
3 For the customs of the peoples are worthless;
they cut a tree out of the forest,
and a craftsman shapes it with his chisel.

[Dean Anderson]

Why include any of this stuff in the story of Jesus’ birth at all?

Because the Devil (who was stolen from inspired by Zororastarian beliefs himself) made them do it...?

[chasborne]

I would ask the OP to explain his question in light of the news that Micah mentions nothing of astrological signs.

[Tigers!]

I agree with dawn. I think it is a dubious practice to read Christianity back into OT. Also the Messiah whom the Jews anticipated was not God, but someone who would restore the Jewish kingdom as it had been during the reign of David and would rule from David's throne.
Very good to point out that what the Jews anticapated or desired was probably not what God intended. The problem is not God necessarily deceiving them but rather what they (the Jews) wanted God to do.

[Tigers!]

Magi were (are) Zoroastrian astrologer/priests. If they gained knowledge from God then that God was Ahura Mazda and not Yahweh. The only birth they would have been interested in seeing in the stars would have been the second coming of the savior, Mithra. The gifts they brought were all symbolic of Mithra.

Whoever added this silly story to the Jesus fiction either didn’t have a clue about what Jews believed and added it by mistake or he wanted to tie in Zoroastrians for some unstated reason.
The Jews were exiled to the area of the Zoroastrians (Babylon/Persia) by the Babylonians c. 600 BC and 586BC and returned (well some anyway) during the reign of Cyrus (king of Persia) 537BC.
They would have taken their scriptures with them and practiced their faith whilst there. We have no idea how much information they left behind them. Were the Magi remembering what had been passed onto them? Unfortunately we cannot know that.
The gifts the Magi brought were symbolic of all kings in that area not just Mithraic.

[Tigers!]

So the question really is why would the author of Matthew associate the nativity with Zoroastrianism? Because it goes past the wise men to their gifts which all had symbolic meaning that roughly reads as ‘King of the living and the dead.’ And the angels and shepherds together are a strong Zoroastrian image.
Angels and shepeherds also have strong resonance Jewish tradition and imagery.
The Passover used a lamb each year. King David was a shepherd.
Abraham, Issac & Jacob were shepherds. Ps 23 uses imagery of sheep and shepherds.
Angels appear in Jacob's life (the ladder from heaven to earth Gen 28:10-22). Daniel and Job and the Psalms mention angels.
It is not necessarily to introduce a supposed Zoroastrian thread.

Why include any of this stuff in the story of Jesus’ birth at all?
Maybe it was relevant?

[sharon45]

Very good to point out that what the Jews anticapated or desired was probably not what God intended. The problem is not God necessarily deceiving them but rather what they (the Jews) wanted God to do.Well this would be of course mere conjecture.

OTOH, if anyone was to build their religion off of another's already well established belief system, it would help to not obviously reveal what is more desirable instead of what is consistent.

[Biff the unclean]

The Jews were exiled to the area of the Zoroastrians (Babylon/Persia) by the Babylonians c. 600 BC and 586BC and returned (well some anyway) during the reign of Cyrus (king of Persia) 537BC.
They would have taken their scriptures with them and practiced their faith whilst there. We have no idea how much information they left behind them.
The Babylonians were not introduced to Zoroasterism until they were conquered by Cyrus the Great. The same Cyrus who released the Jews from bondage

Were the Magi remembering what had been passed onto them? Unfortunately we cannot know that.
That’s a pretty pathetic apologetic. The Magi had their own well formed sophisticated religion. There is no indication that it was influenced by the barbaric Hebrews.
The gifts the Magi brought were symbolic of all kings in that area not just Mithraic.
The gifts of the Magi were symbolic of the religious beliefs of the Magi
Angels and shepeherds also have strong resonance Jewish tradition and imagery.
The Passover used a lamb each year. King David was a shepherd.
Abraham, Issac & Jacob were shepherds. Ps 23 uses imagery of sheep and shepherds.
Angels appear in Jacob's life (the ladder from heaven to earth Gen 28:10-22). Daniel and Job and the Psalms mention angels.
It is not necessarily to introduce a supposed Zoroastrian thread.
Angels and shepherds attending a newborn son of God has nothing to do with the Jewish faith. In fact it is blasphemy.
It is however central to the religion of the Magi.
The author of Matthew is the one who introduced the painfully obvious Zoroastrianism. Squirm all you like there is no Jewish imagery in the whole story.

[Tigers!]

The Babylonians were not introduced to Zoroasterism until they were conquered by Cyrus the Great. The same Cyrus who released the Jews from bondage


That’s a pretty pathetic apologetic. The Magi had their own well formed sophisticated religion. There is no indication that it was influenced by the barbaric Hebrews.

The gifts of the Magi were symbolic of the religious beliefs of the Magi

Angels and shepherds attending a newborn son of God has nothing to do with the Jewish faith. In fact it is blasphemy.

Unless you Jewish it might to hard to say whether any visit by angels and shepherds would be in fact blasphemous.
There were no precedent for a new born son of God. Angels and shepherds visting such a child has no mention in the Jewish faith.

It is however central to the religion of the Magi.
I am not very familiar with the Zoroastarian faith. Did they believe that Mithra would be born in the land of foreigners (i.e. the Jews) and would have the title or have ascribed the title 'King of the Jews'? The Jews would have been considered at that time by the Zoroasterists to be a very insignificant tribe of no importance. Having your God born elsewhere would be have been thought highly unusual.


The author of Matthew is the one who introduced the painfully obvious Zoroastrianism. Squirm all you like there is no Jewish imagery in the whole story.
Since Matthew was Jewish (or at the very least written for a Jewish audience) I'll stick with the principle of parismony or Occam's Razor and not introduce any unnecessary or useless elements, in this case alleged Zoroasterist imagery.

[Biff the unclean]

Unless you Jewish it might to hard to say whether any visit by angels and shepherds would be in fact blasphemous.
There were no precedent for a new born son of God. Angels and shepherds visting such a child has no mention in the Jewish faith.
God having a son by a human woman is blasphemous for Jews. Not for Magi though. The angels and the shepherds celebrate Mithra, sometimes known as “the Good Shepherd,” from his first incarnation.

I am not very familiar with the Zoroastarian faith.
Odd that such ignorance does not prevent you from making continual assertions about it.
Might I suggest that you read Joseph Campbell’s Occidental Mythology That should give you a working acquaintance with it.

Did they believe that Mithra would be born in the land of foreigners (i.e. the Jews) and would have the title or have ascribed the title 'King of the Jews'?
He could be born anywhere since all the world was his. That’s why the Magi had to watch the stars for a sign. And his title would be The King of Kings (which was the reason Cyrus the Great adopted that title for himself)

The Jews would have been considered at that time by the Zoroasterists to be a very insignificant tribe of no importance. Having your God born elsewhere would be have been thought highly unusual.
I didn’t say this actually happened. There never was an historic Jesus after all. But you may have hit on why the author of Matthew wrote the Magi into the story. They were civilized, learned men and Jesus was being born as king of the hill billys of the time.


Since Matthew was Jewish (or at the very least written for a Jewish audience) I'll stick with the principle of parismony or Occam's Razor and not introduce any unnecessary or useless elements, in this case alleged Zoroasterist imagery.
No body knows what religion the author of Matthew was, or even who he was.
And you apparently haven’t a clue about how Occam’s Razor or parsimony works because you are taking a story about Zoroastrian priests bearing Zoroastrian symbolic gifts after using Zoroastrian astrology and you are throwing out everything Zoroastrian in the story and trying to torture Jewish customs and beliefs that aren’t in the story to somehow resemble the Zoroastrian that is, while admitting your ignorance of Zoroasterianism. That’s not parsimony, that’s hand waving. They are Magi….get it? There were no Jewish Magi.

The Jews in this story are the bad guys. They won’t let a woman in labor lie down on a bed. The Jewish authorities murder all the baby boys they can lay their swarthy hands on. And the Zoroasterians max out their credit cards on expensive presents for the baby shower. The Jewish audience must have loved that:banghead:

[sharon45]

The Jewish audience must have loved that
Yes, especially all the contantly laughable so-called ties to OT text and prophecies.

[FatherMithras]

Big surprise, angela2 gets totally obliterated on a point she should have known about and runs off instead of apologizing for willful ignorance.

[Biff the unclean]

Big surprise, angela2 gets totally obliterated on a point she should have known about and runs off instead of apologizing for willful ignorance.
It’s kind of funny that apologists never ever apologize.

[RPS]

It’s kind of funny that apologists never ever apologize.Pot, meet kettle.