>three old Zoroastrian magi>show up to confirm the next king of the Jews and to bestow gifts onto him>which they figured out using AstrologyWhat was Matthew smoking? Why would this give credibility to Jesus?Did he just think Magi were cool?
>Matthew: So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets, that he would be called a Nazarene.Wait, which prophet said that?>Matthew: I made it up
Bible never said it was only three.
>>18623324>your "virgin" wife is having a baby>3 middle eastern dudes in bling show up
>>18623324>ZoroastrianNothing says they believed in Zoroastrianism, that's a bit like saying that because Jesus came from the Roman Empire, he must have been a polytheist>which they figured out using AstrologyThat's not so, the star was an actual object in the sky, it says that it stood over the town, and the place where Jesus was born.>What was Matthew smoking?There's strong corroborating evidence for it outside of the Bible. This same thing happened again later, with God sending such a miraculous star to stand over a city to lead believers to salvation.The historian Flavius Josephus reports that such a star also stood over Jerusalem prior to the Jewish-Roman War of 70 AD and Jerusalem's destruction, this one in the shape of a sword. "Supra civitatem sidus stetit simile gladio" in the Latin: https://www.latinjosephus.org/bellum-judaicum/, see Book 6).And it had a similar effect. Just as the star guided the Wise Men to their savior, historically this star (with other such signs) guided those in Jerusalem who believed to their salvation.We know that the Christians in Jerusalem heeded these signs, and were saved because of that. Eusebius for example reports in his Ecclesiastical History, Book 3, chapter 5, section 3 which you can read at http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250103.htm) that "the people of the church in Jerusalem had been commanded by a revelation…before the war, to leave the city…And when those that believed in Christ had come there from Jerusalem…”. Hence why, despite early Christianity's heavy emphasis on martyrs and martyrdom, there are no Christian martyrs recorded from the entire Jewish-Roman War, which would be quite odd considering that it was one of the bloodiest wars in Roman history!(Days until Christmas: 139! You will remember this when you see the stars everywhere that celebrate this great star)
>>18623324>ZoroastrianTraditionally it is seen as one Greek pagan, a Zoroastrian and a Hindu or at least is depicted that way in the lore. It is symbolism for the Pagans acknowledging Christ as superior to themselves.
>>18623324>three old Zoroastrian magiVerse?
>>18623419Magi are the priests of Zoroastrianism. The text explicitly states they are Magi, so thus they would have been Zoroastrian
>>18623419They are literally "magi" and they come from the "east" as it is stated in Matthew. That means they are Zorastrians from Persia. Magi were known for astrology, astronomy and mathematics. The star lead them to Jesus because they followed their astrology. It's pretty amazing how uneducated Christians are about their more essential scripture. Did you never question who these three guys were?
>>18623437https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%202&version=NIV
>>18623324God loved Cyrus. He gave Babylon in his hands. Cyrus was a Messiah to Jews. He gave them back the holy land.
>>18623465Also the name of the priestly class. Thus no need to be zoroastrian. And even if they were they believed in prophecies about the messiah. Why else would they have made the trip?
>>18623494>HIV versionNo thanks.
>>18623494And it says there are only three magi where exactly? Only three is the number of gifts.
>>18623498It's literally magi in the original Greek. If your preferred translation says something else, then it's wrong.>>18623499Yeah, it might have been more than 3. I don't really care about the number of magi that showed up though. That's besides the point.
>>18623507You don't speak Greek.
>>18623497Around the time of Jesus that priestly class would be Zoroastrian. > Why else would they have made the trip?Because the magi were known for astrology. They interpreted the signs in the night sky, which told them that a new king was going to be born. They followed a star to Bethlehem, bearing gifts for the new king. It makes sense from the context of what magi are known for. It makes sense from what magi are known for and fits the text.
>>18623465>>18623493>Magi are the priests of Zoroastrianism>They are literally "magi"This is like saying "a pontifex was a priest of the Roman polytheistic religion, therefore the Pope is a Roman polytheist". Looks at the word's other uses at https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g3097/kjv/tr/0-1/. In Acts 13:6 it's used to refer to a Jew in Cyprus. That page gives the real definition: "the name given by the Babylonians (Chaldeans), Medes, Persians, and others, to the wise men, teachers, priests, physicians, astrologers, seers, interpreters of dreams, augers, soothsayers, sorcerers etc."
>>18623324>MagiMore like Sages, and you know dick about their story.
>>18623533Yes colloquially the term magus was also used for "sorcerer" or magic user in the roman empire around the time Acts was written. Acts uses that not very flattering meaning of the word.Them being Zoroastrian magi rather than them being evil wizards is the more benevolent interpretation of Matthew. Also makes more sense since they are described as coming from the east and they follow stars.
>>18623543cope
>>18623544>Yes colloquially the term magus was also used for "sorcerer" or magic userAnd much much more. Again, looking at that dictionary: "wise men, teachers, priests, physicians, astrologers, seers, interpreters of dreams, augers, soothsayers".It means what most English translations render it "wise man", specifically wise in Eastern learning of basically any sort.>and they follow starsDid you read my extensive response to this being some sort of astrological exercise instead of following an actual physical star in >>18623419? Stars in the sky don't stand over specific buildings and towns. This is like the star Josephus says stood over Jerusalem, which by the way is one of the great signs in heaven of Jerusalem's coming destruction that Jesus had promised would come in Luke 21:11.
I think it's clear the OP doesn't care a bit what the Bible actually teaches.
>>18623554>some sort of astrological exercise instead of following an actual physical starWhat do you think "astrology" is? What do you think stars are?
>>18623559Are you going to answer my argument about this, or are you not?
>>18623324>What was Matthew smoking?>Why would this give credibility to Jesus?It clearly worked considering the retards that converted to christianity and killed everyone else because they could just call them "heathens" and be "morally absolved" clearly liked the humiliation of their own as well of other culture before the jewish one. Christcucks no matter where still do not let this gloating down.
>>18623554You made the point that the word has multiple meanings over time.But the point I made in response was that from context it only makes sense for them to be magi from Persia (at the time Parthian Empire). Magi were the priestly class and Zoroastrianism was the main state religion at the time, which makes them most likely Zoroastrian. >most English translations render it "wise man"Yes, because them being magi was theologically inconvenient. They were also reinterpreted as "kings" in the third century, which is even more wrong.
>>18623579Anon the word means "wise men, teachers, priests, physicians, astrologers, seers, interpreters of dreams, augers, soothsayers". The mere use of the word doesn't mean Zoroastrians. The word boils down to "one learned in Eastern learning". The word simply does not denote "Zoroastrian". It's used for a Jew elsewhere. We simply don't know much about who specifically they were or what specifically they believed. They could have been Persian Jews, they could have been Indian thinkers, heck they could have been Babylonian physicians so far as the language allows. The word isn't enough to tell us more than "men learned in Eastern learning" and it is deeply dishonest to pretend that it does.
>>18623601Not sure how to dumb this down more for you. You have to look at the meaning of the word at the time the text in question was written. Not all the meanings over thousands of years.>used for a jew in ActsCalling him a dark wizard. I already told you that yes that was another meaning of the word at the time Acts was written. And if Matthew meant that meaning it would be much much worse for Christianity....Do you comprehend the concept of linear time and words having different meanings in different time periods?If I call someone a magus today they won't think of Zoroastrianism, they will think of Dungeons and Dragons.
>>18623324>>18623350The "Angel" that delivered Jesus to Mary the virgin niece of Zechariah was his stepmother, Glaphyra. She was the widow of Alexander Herod which had married Jesus' father, Juba II, in order to escape Herod Archelaus.Glaphyra was a lunar princess of Comana and a descedant of Mithridates, which made Glaphyra and Cleopatra Selene II (of the Ptolemaics) more or less historical "twins" due to being lunar princesses descended from major generals that served in Anatolia.The "3 magi" gifted mummification/burial-gifts to Jesus, because they knew that he would most likely be buried alongside his Ptolemaic mother. It was probably also a thanking gift to Juba II/Cleopatra Selene II for helping out Glaphyra and giving her the sole "official" supremacy as Lunar Princess within the Roman southeastern realms (due to CS2 abdicating all "official" mythical titles that kept making her look like a reboot of her mother rather than a Roman ally)3 magi recognized Jesus as Glaphyras adoptive political heir (of her abdicated Hasmonean claim), in commemoration of Juba II appointing Zechariah/John the Baptist as the rightful high priests of Israel.tldr;The 3 Magi were burial-rite priests,- whom appointed Jesus as John the Baptists/his lineage's personal burial rite priest/Essene physician.
>>18623559By the way, your notion here that they were especially associated with astrology is backwards. Take a look at the scholarly examination of the matter at https://www.academia.edu/download/91956600/978900430847320221004-1-wxkmk6.pdf#page=293: "almost all of the connections between Persian magi and astrology one finds in classical literature are based upon the Matthew narrative, ratherthan the other way around".As it says: "the notion of the magi as royal experts, as king-makers, that explains their presence in the gospel narrative better than the notion of them as observers of the heavens, a reputation they did not really have". Specifically, it discusses "they collected all of the fragmentsfrom Greek and Latin literature, with a bit of Syriac, that were passed on underthe names of Zoroaster, Ostanes, and a wide assortment of less well-knownmagi. This is a bulky work dealing with a huge array of different crafts fromantiquity: alchemy is well represented, of course, alongside geomancy, knowledge of the special properties of stones and gems and the powerful workingof various plants, and a bit of astrology as well, although the astrological fragments are all very late... the astrological works circulating in this particular catalogue are numerically not the strongest and mostly postdate the gospelnarrative considerably. The reputation of the magi as astrologers is thereforeoften believed to have been produced by Matthew, who attributed to them theability to find meaning by following a powerful star."In other words they just dabbled in it like anyone else in the ancient world, it wasn't something they were known for or emphasized; by all appearances from our documents associations between magi and stars come from Matthew, not the other way around.
>>18623642That author also thinks John was the first gospel and written before 70AD... Oh look here is a 42 page paper that supports my position>The Star of the Magi: Lore and Science in Ancient Zoroastrianism, the Greek Magical Papyri, and St. Matthew's Gospel>Roy D . Kotansky
>>18623632Not sure if shizo babble, but this is actually a pretty intriguing story
>>18623616>You have to look at the meaning of the word at the time the text in question was writtenThat is what we were looking at. But here, let's do a deep dive.There's a scholarly study specifically on the matter at https://www.academia.edu/5386995/Apion_%CE%A0%CE%B5%CF%81%E1%BD%B6_%CE%9C%CE%AC%CE%B3%CE%BF%CF%85_and_the_Meaning_of_the_Word_%CE%9C%CE%AC%CE%B3%CE%BF%CF%82.It's about "the semantic development of the word [magos]", specifically by examining Apion, from the first century AD. It's quite detailed and goes through various sources. In general, one walks away from it seeing that the word meant either a magician/sorcerer or a "Persian wise man". But an association with Zoroaster is not automatic, he's described as "a certain *magos* who discovered wisdom", with the study next noting that "Diogenes Laertius adds that it included the Persian magi in a list of other barbarian philosophers, such as the Chaldaeans and the Druids".Talking specifically about Hellenistic Judaism's use of the word around this period, it states "many of these exceptions occur in Hellenistic Jewish literature, where the word-group is applied quite freely to the priests and wise men of other cultures".In other words, the word isn't about what you believe, it's about what you do. It is not a religious term that means you agree with Zoroastrianism. Many magi did believe in the Persian polytheism you would label Zoroastrianism, but the word does not mean you believe something, it means you do something. And the things it means someone does don't require you to believe in polytheism. >>18623707>Oh look here is a 42 page paper that supports my positionYou'll note I didn't just say "look, here's a paper". I brought forward the specific data supporting the conclusion: if you actually look at the texts associated with magi, astrology is a minor element, and no one ever especially emphasizes them having a connection to stars, especially from before Matthew.
>>18623715>I brought forward the specific data supporting the conclusion"It has become customary, nonetheless, to refer to the ‘respectful’ interpretation of mavgo" (Lat. «magus»)in its Zoroastrian religious sense as one of the ‘Magi’ (or «magi»). It is clear from our historical perspective that Matthew’s mavgoi represent Zoroastrian priests of the once Median order. Nothing in the text identifies them with unpopular incantations or prayers, only warnings through a dream (2,12), eschatological prophecy, and of course themysterious star itself. In the Gospel, they are figures of great respect."..."The description of a ‘star’ in Matthew 2 seen by eastern mavgoi can best be understood as a recollection of a real astronomical event in 12 BCE, when after the late Summer-early Fall appearance of Halley’s comet, a retinue of Zoroastrian magian priests came to Jerusalem to locate and identify a prophesied king"...(continued in next post)
>>18623770 (continuation)"This social tension, as noted, is best witnessed within the Matthean narrative by the contrastive public ‘terror’ (ejtaravcqh) of Herod and Jerusalem, in the hearing of the comet (ajkouvsa", 2,3), vis-à-vis the private ‘joy’ (ejcavrhsan) of the Magi in its seeing (ijdovnte", 2,10).Furthermore, a Zoroastrian emphasis on divination and the interpretation of dreams and other prophetic «omina», with a special interest in non-zodiacal stellar bodies (like Sirius and Ursa Major), would lend to the Magi special reasons to make inquiry of unique celestial phenomena, such as that of a comet. We also have seen that the Magi’s arrival is no theological polemic aimed at establishing the superiority of Christianity over pagan religion; rather, the Zoroastrians envisioned in the begotten king their own prophesied world savior, or Saosˇyant, who would raise the dead and make the world wonderful. About this savior, we have already made passing reference; to another prophecy relative to his star, though, we now direct our attention.The Zoroastrian figure of the Saosˇyant, as already noted by Messina (cf. Brown, in note 19, above), offers striking parallels to the Mat-thean Virgin Birth, in that an ancient legend arose to the effect that Zarathustra’s own seed, the «light and power» of which was preserved in a sacred body of water, Lake Kayansih (=Avestan Kansaoya), would miraculously impregnate a virgin whose offpring would become the world-savior (of which, in different epochs, three would eventually be born): «And for each, when his own time comes, it will be thus: a vir-gin will go to Lake Kayansih (or Kasaoya) to bathe; and the Glory (ofZardusˇt [= Zarathustra]) will enter her body, and she will become withchild. [...]
>>18623708The only thing keeping this a "secret" is laziness, insecurity and complacency.Western popculture have been based on it, with increasing intensity, since the world wars.The actual schizobabble is what is poured out of our entertainment industry, faith structures and politics due to refusing integrate with the rapid pace of technology.This entire topic reeks of a failed "no child left behind" sentiment, where we've been building up the hype around the elephant in the room until the perfect scapegoat or revelator tries to intersect with a lie or misconception that everyone sees is a lie, which breaks the ice on the topic.Nobody dares be correct.
>>18623770>It is clear from our historical perspective that Matthew’s mavgoi represent Zoroastrian priests That's the question under contention. You're not providing an argument, saying "it's clear" isn't an argument. You don't need to be specifically a religious priest to the Iranian pantheon to be magi, as we've been over.>can best be understood as a recollection of a real astronomical event in 12 BCE, when after the late Summer-early Fall appearance of Halley’s cometHow many posts will you make where you simply don't address my substantial argument in >>18623419? Consider that the reply to every claim that this was some routine astronomical object.>>18623771>a Zoroastrian emphasis on divination and the interpretation of dreams and other prophetic «omina»... wouldn't fit here, since they do none of this in the text. They just follow a glowing beacon.>the Zoroastrians envisioned in the begotten king their own prophesied world saviorIsn't this a late development in Zoroastrianism that's probably due to Abrahamic influence? I *wish* they had such an idea since it would be strong evidence for a universal Messiah, but I don't see the evidence for that.>would miraculously impregnate a virgin whose offpring would become the world-saviorWhat text are you getting this from?
>>18624085>what text are you getting this from Just read the paper I provided >>18623707I'm not gonna quote the entire thing to you. It explains everything in exhaustive detail. You wanted me to quote the relevant sections and I did.
>>18623324It gives credibility to the Manichaean belief that Jesus was a prophet in a line of prophets that included Zarathustra.
>>18624492Papers are for learning. Now it's time to defend the ideas you've taken from it. I can't talk to a paper. I can talk to you.Now, defend the idea, if it is defensible. What Zoroastrian text are you getting this virgin birth claim from?
>>18624580Then read the paper and learn from it. I also read the entire thing. It's actually interesting.Afterwards we can talk about the parts you disagree with. Otherwise I'm not really interested in this conversation. It would boil down to me quoting the text to you and summarizing it. I have better things to do on a weekend.
>>18623493Mouth-breathing midwit comes out of nowhere with literalism and modern semantic contexts … do you know what magi meant in 1st century BCE? It meant many things to many cultures in the near east but mostly a catch all term for magicians, shamans, soothsayers, sages, philosophers and other such mystics. To say they were Zoroastrian as definitively as you are saying it would be just as valid as you saying they definitively were homosexuals
>>18624634>>18623707
>>18624085>Isn't this a late development in Zoroastrianism that's probably due to Abrahamic influenceNo, the Saoshyant is in the Avesta, so dates back to the Bronze Age.
>>18623708>>18623945Salome killed John the Baptist because he was an ally of Glaphyra and Juba II, wanting to restore/maintain Roman-Egyptian law over Judaea which has been in agreement/understanding with jewish law since forever.Plus, Glaphyras children technically was Salome's superiors due to being the children of Herod the Greats firstborn son Alexander.Glaphyras child Tigranes V became the king of Armenia major/the Kingdom of Armenia, and he rejected Judaism of the Pharisees and Herods.Salome on the other hand, married into Armenia Minor to become its Queen, plausibly because she wanted to continue to undermine and spy on Tigranes V - with the fear that he might take revenge on her and the Herods for killing his mother Glaphyra. Additionally his rejection of his own claims was based on; how they let Herod Archelaus hold him and his siblings hostage to "Claim" his place in the Hasmonean lineage, plus for killing John the Baptist that shared his mothers sentiments of restoring Roman-Egyptian law in Judaea.tldr;Herod Archelaus larped as Herod Alexander by capturing his nephews of his deceased brother, thus forcing Glaphyra to divorce Juba II to marry himself,- stopping the legitimization of the Glaphyra/Zechariah/John/Jesus faction.
>>18624619Copying and pasting from a paper without understanding what it's saying isn't a way to actually learn. You should treat the words as if they're your own, and just as open to examination, scrutiny, and potential refutation as if they were.That is how I expect it to be treated when I quote them. Because, in my case, I genuinely want to be correct, and not only that but to have a working knowledge of that correct position, instead of just being able to transpose blocks of text like the hypothetical Chinese room.>>18624835Isn't it used more as a generic word there? Much like how in much of the Old Testament, the word "messiah" just means "anointed" and even applies to objects that you put oil on as part of maintenance, it isn't until Daniel that "the Messiah" is used for the predicted great future savior.
Orion belt is 3 stars
>>18623324>Zorostartianhttps://youtu.be/LQXspc25RmY?si=KiRn3n3NdjPUIvrK
>>18623531>Zoroastrian priests>Go on massive expensive months long trip for savior of another religionYour claim is magi made trips all the time because of signs they saw. Care to back that up? >>18623556Such are anti-christian threads on /his/
>>18625405>Your claim is magi made trips all the time because of signs they saw. Care to back that up? Already did over here >>18623771For the full version read the paper I linked >>18623707I do recommend it. It's an interesting read. Made Matthew make more sense.
>>18625418NTA but you're referring him to a reply that has already been answered
>>18625448You mean refuted?
>>18624085>>18625448I guess have some time now.>> dreams and other prophetic «omina»>... wouldn't fit here, since they do none of this in the text. They just follow a glowing beacon.In Mathew 2:12 a dream warns them not to return to Herod. >Isn't this a late development in ZoroastrianismAnother anon already answered this one. >What text are you getting this The author of the paper left a massive footnote there. So I am just going to paste it verbatim (page 399):Greater Bundahisˇn 35,56-60; 33,36-38; transl. from M. Boyce, Textual sources for the study of Zoroastrianism, Manchester, Manchester Univ. Press, 1984, 7, 2 (pp. 90f.). These Pahlavi texts, though of late compositional date are widely recognized as containing very old, traditional material in that much of the Zoroastrian corpora derive originally from oral traditions (their eventual recording becoming a later, necessary development); cf. de Jong, Traditions..., 41, et passim; cf. Brown, The Birth..., 169 (who is dismissive of the material). The three saviors, Ushedar (Avestan Ukhsˇyat-ereta), Ushedarmah (Av. Ukhsˇyat-nemah), and the true (or final) Savior, Astvat-ereta, are sons of Zarathustra who in the Zoroastrian ‘world year’ will each, in turn, be born 1000 years after the birth of Zarathustra, and will each inaugurate a millennial period of goodness (with steady decline), in succession, following their thirtieth year, just as Zoroaster began his teaching at 30 (cf., again, Luke 3,23!); see Boyce, Textual Sources..., 20f. Coincidentally, if some ancients reckoned Zarathustra’s birth roughly with what modern scholars do, viz., ca. 1000 BCE (we do not know what first century BCE Zoroastrians really believed, for there are competing traditions), then the approximate birth of Jesus (or Mithridates, for that matter) near the turn of the Common Era would raise expectations particularly high, in respect of the appearance of the first Zoroastrian world savior.
>>18623419>These Magians can have been none other than members of the priestly caste already referred to. The religion of the Magi was fundamentally that of Zoroaster and forbade sorcery; their astrology and skill in interpreting dreams were occasions of their finding Christ - https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09527a.htm
>>18625547>In Mathew 2:12 a dream warns them not to return to HerodThis isn't something the Wise Men offer or interpret for somebody, it's an external communication that's presented plainly to them. The same thing happens to Joseph>Another anon already answered this one.And didn't respond to my reply: "Isn't it used more as a generic word there? Much like how in much of the Old Testament, the word "messiah" just means "anointed" and even applies to objects that you put oil on as part of maintenance, it isn't until Daniel that 'the Messiah' is used for the predicted great future savior."To my knowledge the word is present, but there's no indication it specifically refers to a Zoroastrian Messiah-figure. So far as I'm aware, you don't see that in Zoroastrianism until very late.>Greater BundahisAnon this is a Medieval work; it's so incredibly late that it post-dates even Islam, in fact Persia was under Muslim control when it was written. There isn't a whisper about a virgin-birthed Messiah in Zoroastrianism before heavy Abrahamic influence, as I've said.You might as well say "first-century Arabs believed in a Messiah-figure who would be born of a virgin. We can see this in the Koran, though of late compositional date is widely recognized as containing very old, traditional material originally from oral traditions".>>18625602>The religion of the Magi was fundamentally that of Zoroaster and forbade sorceryThis is over 100 years old and appears to be deeply ignorant of the subject. There's a reason their name was both then and now was the very term for magic. We've even looked at that in this thread. Where in the world does such a notion come from? The guy who wrote this in 1910 was deeply, deeply misinformed.>their astrologyQuoting the assertions of an encyclopedia written at about the same time as the Model T car began production carries little weight when we've looked at a detailed analysis of original documents from the time that dispelled this.
>>18623324You don't know the role of those 3 Sages. You're scraping the surface.
>>18625925>This is over 100 years old>an encyclopedia written at about the same time as the Model T car began productionThis is not a rebuttal of the points being raised by the encyclopedia. The 2002 version still identifies them with Zoroastrians>There's a reason their name was both then and now was the very term for magicYes that reason being Greeks not understanding their religious rituals and confusing them for the sorcery Zoroastrians themselves despised>The eleventh of the good lands and countries which I, Ahura Mazda, created, was the bright, glorious Haetumant 31. Thereupon came Angra Mainyu, who is all death, and he counter-created the evil work of witchcraft. 31. The basin of the EtumandroV or Erymanthus, now Hermend, Helmend, that is to say, the region of Saistân. And this is the sign by which it is known, this is that by which it is seen at once: wheresoever they may go and raise a cry of sorcery, there 32 the worst works of witchcraft go forth. From there they come to kill and strike at heart, and they bring locusts as many as they want 33. >31. The basin of the EtumandroV or Erymanthus, now Hermend, Helmend, that is to say, the region of Saistân>32. In Haetumant. -- 'The plague created against Saistan is abundance of witchcraft: and that character appears from this, that all people from that place practise astrology: those wizards produce ... snow, hail, spiders, and locusts ' (Gr Bd.) Saistan, like Kabul, was half Indian (Maçoudi, II, 79-82), and Brahmans and Buddhists have the credit of being proficient in the darker sciences>33. This clause seems to be a quotation in the Pahlavi Commentary. - http://www.zoroastrian.org.uk/lib/avesta-org/vendidad/vd1sbe.htm
>>18625925Joseph gets visited by an angel in a dream. Not the same thing. The point of the author is it fits the profile for Zoroastrian magi, just like everything else they do.The text doesn't go into detail about the nature of the dream. >late workThis is literally answered in the footnote I quoted. Hence I posted the entire footnote.Check this out too I guess:https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/astvat-ereta-savior/>The basic Zoroastrian belief in a virgin-born Savior of the world must have become widely known throughout the Near East in the Achaemenid period, i.e., from the 6th century B.C. onward, when almost all the eastern Mediterranean lands were under Persian rule; and it appears to have exerted some influence on Judeo-Christian thought. It is also considered possible that it contributed, in the eastern border-lands of the Achaemenid empire, to the evolution of the doctrine of Maitreya (q.v.), the coming Buddha, held by the northern Buddhists.
>>18625418>made trips all the time because of signs they saw. Care to back that up?Refer to a post that actually backs your claim not they believed xyz according to person A
>>18627072You want me to time travel? The paper shows it would be reasonable for them to travel around looking for their messiah. Since the prophesied appearance falls in that time period plus halley's comet was in the sky and they saw it as a good omen. If that's not good enough for you then suck a dick I guess.
>>18626378>The 2002 version still identifies them with ZoroastriansAnd what specifically does it use to argue that these men believed in Zoroastrianism? >confusing them for the sorcery Zoroastrians themselves despisedNo they didn't. Like basically all ancient polytheists, they had plenty of what we today would label magical practices. Primary sources state this explicitly, Herodotus for example records them trying to control the weather in https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Herodotus/7d%2A.html:"For the storm lasted for three days; and at last the Magians, by using victims and wizards' spells on the wind, and by sacrificing also to Thetis and the Nereids, did make it to cease on the fourth day, or mayhap it was not of their doing"According to https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/magic/magic-i-magical-elements-in-the-avesta-and-nerang-literature/ they were into magical protective amulets: "In Yt. 14.35, Ahura Mazdā explains how the possession of the feather of a falcon...allows the pious Mazdean to counter-curse his opponents, while according to Yt. 14.36, whoever carries a bone or a feather of this bird cannot be harmed or driven away...Such a feather in fact brings him respect and strength, and can be considered a sort of amulet."Tons more examples. They believed in magic anon.Your quotes aren't relevant, they simply thought their sorcery was good and witches' sorcery was bad.>>18626383>Joseph gets visited by an angel in a dream. Not the same thingAnd what, pray tell, is the colossal difference that lets you tell that unlike the monotheist Joseph these guys worshipped Mithra and the Persian pantheon?>The text doesn't go into detailHence trying to use it to argue they were polytheists when the same thing happens to Joseph is absurd>must have become widely known throughout the Near East in the Achaemenid periodIf this is so ancient why exactly do we not see a whisper of it until a Medieval text in Islamic Iran?
