Where did the 3 Kings go?

[marco]

We learn that the baby Jesus was visited by three kings, wise men or magi. They came to see him and then disappeared into the shadows of history or fiction. So we ask:

What was the point of their visit?
In what way did it affect history?
If they are just symbolic, unreal figures - what is their purpose?

More importantly, does this mythology - if it is mythology - destroy belief in Christ?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judæa in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,

Jesus of Nazareth, and Nazareth is not in Bethlehem.

Yeshua was born in Bet-lechem, just outside of Yerushalem, while Miriam and Yoseph were observing the pilgrimage feast of Succot. They then returned home to Nazareth after His Brit Milah.

So Joseph took his heavily pregnant wife on an arduous journey to celebrate a festival they could just as easily have celebrated at home in Nazareth? Neither Gospel Matthew or Gospel Luke mentioned that at all. Gospel Luke is pretty certain that the reason they journeyed to Bethlehem was to fulfill the taxation law of Cyrenius (Publius Sulpicius Quirinius, c. 51 BC – AD 21) which occurred at a historically known date, in 6 AD. Which means that Jesus was born when he was already 10 years old, because Gospel Matthew specifically indicates that Jesus was born at the end of the rule of Herod the Great, who also died at a known historical date, 4 BC.

The important thing of course is to establish the fact that Jesus of Nazareth was actually born in the home town of David, Bethlehem, in fulfillment of the prophesy of Micah 5:2, praise the Lord.

[bluethread]

Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judæa in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,

Jesus of Nazareth, and Nazareth is not in Bethlehem.

Yeshua was born in Bet-lechem, just outside of Yerushalem, while Miriam and Yoseph were observing the pilgrimage feast of Succot. They then returned home to Nazareth after His Brit Milah.

So Joseph took his heavily pregnant wife on an arduous journey to celebrate a festival they could just as easily have celebrated at home in Nazareth? Neither Gospel Matthew or Gospel Luke mentioned that at all. Gospel Luke is pretty certain that the reason they journeyed to Bethlehem was to fulfill the taxation law of Cyrenius (Publius Sulpicius Quirinius, c. 51 BC – AD 21) which occurred at a historically known date, in 6 AD. Which means that Jesus was born when he was already 10 years old, because Gospel Matthew specifically indicates that Jesus was born at the end of the rule of Herod the Great, who also died at a known historical date, 4 BC.

The important thing of course is to establish the fact that Jesus of Nazareth was actually born in the home town of David, Bethlehem, in fulfillment of the prophesy of Micah 5:2, praise the Lord.

No, Sukkot is to be observed in Jerusalem. If one looks at the times of the service if Elizabeth's husband and Miraim's visit with her, one can determine that Yeshua was born in that time of year. If one were to tax people, such a feast would be the perfect opportunity, since they were already going to gather. I am not going to get mired down in your argument, based on a daisy chain of assumptions. However, that is how it looks to me. The point I was making was that His being called a Nazarene is not in conflict with Him being born in Bet-Lechem.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judæa in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,

Jesus of Nazareth, and Nazareth is not in Bethlehem.

Yeshua was born in Bet-lechem, just outside of Yerushalem, while Miriam and Yoseph were observing the pilgrimage feast of Succot. They then returned home to Nazareth after His Brit Milah.

So Joseph took his heavily pregnant wife on an arduous journey to celebrate a festival they could just as easily have celebrated at home in Nazareth? Neither Gospel Matthew or Gospel Luke mentioned that at all. Gospel Luke is pretty certain that the reason they journeyed to Bethlehem was to fulfill the taxation law of Cyrenius (Publius Sulpicius Quirinius, c. 51 BC – AD 21) which occurred at a historically known date, in 6 AD. Which means that Jesus was born when he was already 10 years old, because Gospel Matthew specifically indicates that Jesus was born at the end of the rule of Herod the Great, who also died at a known historical date, 4 BC.

The important thing of course is to establish the fact that Jesus of Nazareth was actually born in the home town of David, Bethlehem, in fulfillment of the prophesy of Micah 5:2, praise the Lord.

No, Sukkot is to be observed in Jerusalem. If one looks at the times of the service if Elizabeth's husband and Miraim's visit with her, one can determine that Yeshua was born in that time of year. If one were to tax people, such a feast would be the perfect opportunity, since they were already going to gather. I am not going to get mired down in your argument, based on a daisy chain of assumptions. However, that is how it looks to me. The point I was making was that His being called a Nazarene is not in conflict with Him being born in Bet-Lechem.

Judaism 101
Sukkot

The word "Sukkot" means "booths," and refers to the temporary dwellings that we are commanded to live in during this holiday in memory of the period of wandering. The Hebrew pronunciation of Sukkot is "Sue COAT," but is often pronounced as in Yiddish, to rhyme with "BOOK us." The name of the holiday is frequently translated "Feast of Tabernacles," which, like many translations of Jewish terms, isn't very useful. This translation is particularly misleading, because the word "tabernacle" in the Bible refers to the portable Sanctuary in the desert, a precursor to the Temple, called in Hebrew "mishkan." The Hebrew word "sukkah" (plural: "sukkot") refers to the temporary booths that people lived in, not to the Tabernacle.

Building a Sukkah

You will dwell in booths for seven days; all natives of Israel shall dwell in booths. -Leviticus 23:42
In honor of the holiday's historical significance, we are commanded to dwell in temporary shelters, as our ancestors did in the wilderness. The temporary shelter is referred to as a sukkah (which is the singular form of the plural word "sukkot"). Like the word sukkot, it can be pronounced like Sue-KAH, or to rhyme with Book-a.

The sukkah is great fun for the children. Building the sukkah each year satisfies the common childhood fantasy of building a fort, and dwelling in the sukkah satisfies a child's desire to camp out in the backyard. The commandment to "dwell" in a sukkah can be fulfilled by simply eating all of one's meals there; however, if the weather, climate, and one's health permit, one should spend as much time in the sukkah as possible, including sleeping in it.

SukkahA sukkah must have at least two and a half walls covered with a material that will not blow away in the wind. Why two and a half walls? Look at the letters in the word "sukkah" (see the graphic in the heading): one letter has four sides, one has three sides and one has two and a half sides. The "walls" of the sukkah do not have to be solid; canvas covering tied or nailed down is acceptable and quite common in the United States. A sukkah may be any size, so long as it is large enough for you to fulfill the commandment of dwelling in it. The roof of the sukkah must be made of material referred to as sekhakh (literally, covering). To fulfill the commandment, sekhakh must be something that grew from the ground and was cut off, such as tree branches, corn stalks, bamboo reeds, sticks, or two-by-fours. Sekhakh must be left loose, not tied together or tied down. Sekhakh must be placed sparsely enough that rain can get in, and preferably sparsely enough that the stars can be seen, but not so sparsely that more than ten inches is open at any point or that there is more light than shade. The sekhakh must be put on last. Note: You may put a water-proof cover over the top of the sukkah when it is raining to protect the contents of the sukkah, but you cannot use it as a sukkah while it is covered and you must remove the cover to fulfill the mitzvah of dwelling in a sukkah.

You can buy do-it-yourself sukkah from various sources online, or you can build your own. I built my own with four 4x4 poles and four 2x4 boards, bolted together and secured by smaller pieces of 2x4 board. My walls are made from canvas painter's drop cloth, attached to the frame by D-rings and curtain hooks. It can be assembled or disassembled in less than two hours by two people.

It is common practice, and highly commendable, to decorate the sukkah. In the northeastern United States, Jews commonly hang dried squash and corn in the sukkah to decorate it, because these vegetables are readily available at that time for the American holidays of Halloween and Thanksgiving. Many families hang artwork drawn by the children on the walls. Building and decorating a sukkah is a fun family project, much like decorating the Christmas tree is for Christians. It is a sad commentary on modern American Judaism that most of the assimilated Jews who complain about being deprived of the fun of having and decorating a Christmas tree have never even heard of Sukkot.

Many Americans, upon seeing a decorated sukkah for the first time, remark on how much the sukkah (and the holiday generally) reminds them of Thanksgiving. This may not be entirely coincidental: I was taught that our American pilgrims, who originated the Thanksgiving holiday, borrowed the idea from Sukkot. The pilgrims were deeply religious people, living their lives in accordance with the Bible. When they were trying to find a way to express their thanks for their survival and for the harvest, they looked to the Bible for an appropriate way of celebrating and found the fall harvest festival of Sukkot. This is not the standard story taught in public schools today (that a Thanksgiving holiday is an ancient English pagan custom that the Pilgrims brought over), but that story doesn't fit with the Pilgrims' strict biblical views.
http://www.jewfaq.org/holiday5.htm

[Willum]

[Replying to bluethread]

You can't have it both ways, and you have no proof for either.
He doesn't fulfill the other prophesies, why be particular?

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to post 37 by Claire Evans]

Matthew 2:
16 ¶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 inquired of the wise men.

In the original Greek manuscripts these individuals were not called "wise men" at all. They were called "Magi." The Magi are known to history as Zoroasteran priests from Persia who were renowned for their great learning and spiritual abilities. Because they were believed to have supernatural powers their name "Magi" has given rise to the English words "magic" and "magician." In Zoroasteran belief the Saoshyant or savior of mankind who was a direct descendant of the prophet Zoroaster was due to be born. This savior would sit at the right hand ot God (Ahura Mazda in Persian belief) and act as a judge of mankind at the time of final judgement and the final reconstruction of the world when Ahura Mazda would eliminate evil and reward the righteous. Gospel Matthew's reference of the journey of the Magi from the east to worship the newly born Jesus was intended as a signal to the Jewish Pharisees (Farsi-Parsi, the Persian believers in Jewish society) that Jesus represented the fulfillment of ancient Persian prophesy as well as Jewish prophesy.

Greek Interlinear Bible
Matthew 2:
[1] OF-THE YET JESUS being generated (born) in BETHLEHEM of-the JUDEA IN DAYS OF-HEROD THE KING BE-PERCEIVING MAGIans (magi) FROM risings (east) BESIDE-BECAME INTO JERUSALEM. http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInte ... f/mat2.pdf

Wikipedia
Magi
Magi (/ˈmeɪdʒaɪ/; Latin plural of magus) is a term, used since at least the 6th century BCE, to denote followers of Zoroastrianism or Zoroaster. The earliest known usage of the word Magi is in the trilingual inscription written by Darius the Great, known as the Behistun Inscription. Old Persian texts, pre-dating the Hellenistic period, refer to a Magus as a Zurvanic, and presumably Zoroastrian, priest.

Pervasive throughout the Eastern Mediterranean and Western Asia until late antiquity and beyond, mágos, "Magian" or "magician", was influenced by (and eventually displaced) Greek goēs (γόης), the older word for a practitioner of magic, to include astrology, alchemy and other forms of esoteric knowledge. This association was in turn the product of the Hellenistic fascination for (Pseudo‑)Zoroaster, who was perceived by the Greeks to be the "Chaldean", "founder" of the Magi and "inventor" of both astrology and magic, a meaning that still survives in the modern-day words "magic" and "magician".

In English, the term "magi" is most commonly used in reference to the "μάγοι" from the east who visit Jesus in Chapter 2 of the Gospel of Matthew Matthew 2:1, and are now often translated as "wise men" in English versions.[1] The plural "magi" entered the English language from Latin around 1200, in reference to these. The singular appears considerably later, in the late 14th century, when it was borrowed from Old French in the meaning magician together with magic.

In Christian tradition

The word mágos (Greek) and its variants appears in both the Old and New Testaments.[9] Ordinarily this word is translated "magician" or "sorcerer" in the sense of illusionist or fortune-teller, and this is how it is translated in all of its occurrences (e.g. Acts 13:6) except for the Gospel of Matthew, where, depending on translation, it is rendered "wise man" (KJV, RSV) or left untranslated as Magi, typically with an explanatory note (NIV). However, early church fathers, such as St. Justin, Origen, St. Augustine and St. Jerome, did not make an exception for the Gospel, and translated the word in its ordinary sense, i.e. as "magician".

The Gospel of Matthew states that magi visited the infant Jesus shortly after his birth (2:1–2:12). The gospel describes how magi from the east were notified of the birth of a king in Judaea by the appearance of his star. Upon their arrival in Jerusalem, they visited King Herod to determine the location of the king of the Jews's birthplace. Herod, disturbed, told them that he had not heard of the child, but informed them of a prophecy that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem. He then asked the magi to inform him when they find the infant so that Herod may also worship him. Guided by the Star of Bethlehem, the wise men found the baby Jesus in a house; Matthew does not say if the house was in Bethlehem. They worshipped him, and presented him with "gifts of gold and of frankincense and of myrrh." (2.11) In a dream they are warned not to return to Herod, and therefore return to their homes by taking another route. Since its composition in the late 1st century, numerous apocryphal stories have embellished the gospel's account. Matthew 2:16 implies that Herod learned from the wise men that up to two years had passed since the birth, which is why all male children two years or younger were slaughtered.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magi

Wikipedia
Saoshyant
Saoshyant (Avestan: Saoš�iiaṇt̰, IPA: [sɒ�ʃjʌnt][citation needed]) is a figure in Zoroastrianism who brings about the Frashokereti or final renovation of the world. The name literally means "one who brings benefit" in Avestan and is also used as a common noun

In scripture
In the Gathas, the most sacred hymns of Zoroastrianism, believed to have been composed by Zoroaster himself, the term is used to refer to the prophet's own mission and to his community of followers, who "bring benefit" to humanity. Saoshyant may have been a term originally applied to Zoroaster himself (e.g. Yasna 46.3)[1]
The common noun, which also appears in the Younger Avesta (e.g. Yasna 61.5), is also used as a generic to denote religious leaders and another common noun airyaman "member of community" is an epithet of these saoshyants. In contrast, the standing epithet of the saviour figure(s) is astvat-Ó™rÓ™ta "embodying righteousness,"[2] which has arta/asha "Truth" as an element of the name.[3] These saviours are those who follow Ahura Mazda's teaching "with acts inspired by asha" (Yasna 48.12).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saoshyant

I've addressed this before:

"Although a definite borrowing is still impossible to prove, the resemblances between Zoroasterianism and Judaism are numerous and probably took shape during the exile. First of all the figure of Satan, originally a servant of God appointed by Him as His prosecutor, came more and more to resemble Ahriman, the enemy of God. Secondly,the figure of the Messiah, originally a future king of Israel who would save his people from oppression evolved,in Deutro-Isaiah for instance, into a universal Savior very similar to the Iranian Saoshant (Savior). Thirdly, the entities that came to surround Yahweh, such as His wisdom and His spirit are comparable to the arch angels escorting Ahura Mazda; other points of comparison include the doctrine of the millenia; the Last Judgement; the heavenly book in which human actions are inscribed; the resurrection, the final transformation of the Earth; paradise of Heaven on Earth or in Heaven. Christianity seems to owe many features to Iran over and above those inherited from Judaism. Among others are probably the belief in guardian angels,
resurrection and the heavenly journey of the soul."(Encyclopedia Americana, "Zoroasterianism"pp.813-815).

The thing is, the Avesta, from where we get most of the stories of Zoroaster, was compiled hundreds of years after Christ:

The surviving texts of the Avesta, as they exist today, derive from a single master copy produced by Sassanian-era (224-651 CE) collation and recension. That master copy, now lost, is known as the 'Sassanian archetype'. The oldest surviving manuscript (K1)[n 1] of an Avestan language text is dated 1323 CE.[1] Summaries of the various Avesta texts found in the 9th/10th century texts of Zoroastrian tradition suggest that about three-quarters of the corpus has since been lost.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avesta


And another thing, were the Zoroastrians expecting a Messiah from a virgin birth?

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to Claire Evans]

According to the Bible, Herod the Elder, murdered all the infants in his domain to prevent the savior from being.

Of course, despite this genocide, it is not recorded in Rome, or in any part of the East for that Matter. Herod is, legends of his barbarity are, but no genocide of the children.

"Macrobius (ca. AD 400), one of the last pagan writers in Rome, in his book Saturnalia, wrote: “When it was heard that, as part of the slaughter of boys up to two years old, Herod, king of the Jews, had ordered his own son to be killed, he [the Emperor Augustus] remarked, ‘It is better to be Herod’s pig [Gr. hys] than his son’ [Gr. huios]�

There is a good reason why Jews would not record this event. They had Jewish bias:
"It is highly unlikely, therefore, that he [example here was Josephus] would have been inclined to record an episode that demonstrated the protective care of God on behalf of his Son, Jesus of Nazareth."

https://www.christiancourier.com/articl ... em-infants

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

This is Caesar Augustus.

Where are earth did you get that from?

Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judæa in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,

Jesus of Nazareth, and Nazareth is not in Bethlehem.

Jews were identified by their place of residence, not their place of birth.

Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.

The only ones who says Jesus is king of the Jews, are Christians.
Augustus was king of the Jews.

No, Augustus was Roman. It was Herod that was deemed "King of the Jews" by Augustus. That is why Herod was threatened. Obviously Jesus wasn't literally the King of the Jews at birth as the title is political.

And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel.

Not to beat a dead horse, but Jesus never has nor ever will rule Israel.

Exactly. The prophecy about a messiah ruling Israel did not apply to Jesus.

When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy.

Because they knew Winter was ending.

Lol. I believe the star part is figurative. Heavenly bodies were always associated with royalty.

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.

They gave aphrodisiacs to a child. How disturbing

Obviously not for Jesus to consume.

And being warned of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country another way.

Well thank goodness, except Herod kills nobles who defy him, especially in dreams.

Kills babies as well.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 46 by Claire Evans]

"Macrobius (ca. AD 400), one of the last pagan writers in Rome, in his book Saturnalia, wrote: “When it was heard that, as part of the slaughter of boys up to two years old, Herod, king of the Jews, had ordered his own son to be killed, he [the Emperor Augustus] remarked, ‘It is better to be Herod’s pig [Gr. hys] than his son’ [Gr. huios]�

Whatever Macrobius the fool recorded is in complete disagreement with history. Herod killed his sons, but nobody else's - at least not on a scale large enough that people would have revolted and dragged him and all Herods through the streets.

Caesar Augustus fit the prophesies of Isaiah-
[Caesars Rule!]

Jews were identified by their place of residence, not their place of birth.

This argument has already been shot to pieces, see above.

No, Augustus was Roman. It was Herod that was deemed "King of the Jews" by Augustus. That is why Herod was threatened. Obviously Jesus wasn't literally the King of the Jews at birth as the title is political.

This reflects simple denial of the royal/divine system of government. Rather like saying Herod did commit the biggest massacre of children ever, and nobody noticed!

They gave aphrodisiacs to a child. How disturbing

Obviously not for Jesus to consume.

Well, you may choose not to be disturbed, but that's like giving Hustler Magazines and furry handcuffs at a baby shower.
However, I do not hesitate to reiterate, those were a few of Tiberius Caesar's fa-vor-rite things.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 37 by Claire Evans]

Matthew 2:
16 ¶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 inquired of the wise men.

In the original Greek manuscripts these individuals were not called "wise men" at all. They were called "Magi." The Magi are known to history as Zoroasteran priests from Persia who were renowned for their great learning and spiritual abilities. Because they were believed to have supernatural powers their name "Magi" has given rise to the English words "magic" and "magician." In Zoroasteran belief the Saoshyant or savior of mankind who was a direct descendant of the prophet Zoroaster was due to be born. This savior would sit at the right hand ot God (Ahura Mazda in Persian belief) and act as a judge of mankind at the time of final judgement and the final reconstruction of the world when Ahura Mazda would eliminate evil and reward the righteous. Gospel Matthew's reference of the journey of the Magi from the east to worship the newly born Jesus was intended as a signal to the Jewish Pharisees (Farsi-Parsi, the Persian believers in Jewish society) that Jesus represented the fulfillment of ancient Persian prophesy as well as Jewish prophesy.

Greek Interlinear Bible
Matthew 2:
[1] OF-THE YET JESUS being generated (born) in BETHLEHEM of-the JUDEA IN DAYS OF-HEROD THE KING BE-PERCEIVING MAGIans (magi) FROM risings (east) BESIDE-BECAME INTO JERUSALEM. http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInte ... f/mat2.pdf

Wikipedia
Magi
Magi (/ˈmeɪdʒaɪ/; Latin plural of magus) is a term, used since at least the 6th century BCE, to denote followers of Zoroastrianism or Zoroaster. The earliest known usage of the word Magi is in the trilingual inscription written by Darius the Great, known as the Behistun Inscription. Old Persian texts, pre-dating the Hellenistic period, refer to a Magus as a Zurvanic, and presumably Zoroastrian, priest.

Pervasive throughout the Eastern Mediterranean and Western Asia until late antiquity and beyond, mágos, "Magian" or "magician", was influenced by (and eventually displaced) Greek goēs (γόης), the older word for a practitioner of magic, to include astrology, alchemy and other forms of esoteric knowledge. This association was in turn the product of the Hellenistic fascination for (Pseudo‑)Zoroaster, who was perceived by the Greeks to be the "Chaldean", "founder" of the Magi and "inventor" of both astrology and magic, a meaning that still survives in the modern-day words "magic" and "magician".

In English, the term "magi" is most commonly used in reference to the "μάγοι" from the east who visit Jesus in Chapter 2 of the Gospel of Matthew Matthew 2:1, and are now often translated as "wise men" in English versions.[1] The plural "magi" entered the English language from Latin around 1200, in reference to these. The singular appears considerably later, in the late 14th century, when it was borrowed from Old French in the meaning magician together with magic.

In Christian tradition

The word mágos (Greek) and its variants appears in both the Old and New Testaments.[9] Ordinarily this word is translated "magician" or "sorcerer" in the sense of illusionist or fortune-teller, and this is how it is translated in all of its occurrences (e.g. Acts 13:6) except for the Gospel of Matthew, where, depending on translation, it is rendered "wise man" (KJV, RSV) or left untranslated as Magi, typically with an explanatory note (NIV). However, early church fathers, such as St. Justin, Origen, St. Augustine and St. Jerome, did not make an exception for the Gospel, and translated the word in its ordinary sense, i.e. as "magician".

The Gospel of Matthew states that magi visited the infant Jesus shortly after his birth (2:1–2:12). The gospel describes how magi from the east were notified of the birth of a king in Judaea by the appearance of his star. Upon their arrival in Jerusalem, they visited King Herod to determine the location of the king of the Jews's birthplace. Herod, disturbed, told them that he had not heard of the child, but informed them of a prophecy that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem. He then asked the magi to inform him when they find the infant so that Herod may also worship him. Guided by the Star of Bethlehem, the wise men found the baby Jesus in a house; Matthew does not say if the house was in Bethlehem. They worshipped him, and presented him with "gifts of gold and of frankincense and of myrrh." (2.11) In a dream they are warned not to return to Herod, and therefore return to their homes by taking another route. Since its composition in the late 1st century, numerous apocryphal stories have embellished the gospel's account. Matthew 2:16 implies that Herod learned from the wise men that up to two years had passed since the birth, which is why all male children two years or younger were slaughtered.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magi

Wikipedia
Saoshyant
Saoshyant (Avestan: Saoš�iiaṇt̰, IPA: [sɒ�ʃjʌnt][citation needed]) is a figure in Zoroastrianism who brings about the Frashokereti or final renovation of the world. The name literally means "one who brings benefit" in Avestan and is also used as a common noun

In scripture
In the Gathas, the most sacred hymns of Zoroastrianism, believed to have been composed by Zoroaster himself, the term is used to refer to the prophet's own mission and to his community of followers, who "bring benefit" to humanity. Saoshyant may have been a term originally applied to Zoroaster himself (e.g. Yasna 46.3)[1]
The common noun, which also appears in the Younger Avesta (e.g. Yasna 61.5), is also used as a generic to denote religious leaders and another common noun airyaman "member of community" is an epithet of these saoshyants. In contrast, the standing epithet of the saviour figure(s) is astvat-Ó™rÓ™ta "embodying righteousness,"[2] which has arta/asha "Truth" as an element of the name.[3] These saviours are those who follow Ahura Mazda's teaching "with acts inspired by asha" (Yasna 48.12).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saoshyant

I've addressed this before:

"Although a definite borrowing is still impossible to prove, the resemblances between Zoroasterianism and Judaism are numerous and probably took shape during the exile. First of all the figure of Satan, originally a servant of God appointed by Him as His prosecutor, came more and more to resemble Ahriman, the enemy of God. Secondly,the figure of the Messiah, originally a future king of Israel who would save his people from oppression evolved,in Deutro-Isaiah for instance, into a universal Savior very similar to the Iranian Saoshant (Savior). Thirdly, the entities that came to surround Yahweh, such as His wisdom and His spirit are comparable to the arch angels escorting Ahura Mazda; other points of comparison include the doctrine of the millenia; the Last Judgement; the heavenly book in which human actions are inscribed; the resurrection, the final transformation of the Earth; paradise of Heaven on Earth or in Heaven. Christianity seems to owe many features to Iran over and above those inherited from Judaism. Among others are probably the belief in guardian angels,
resurrection and the heavenly journey of the soul."(Encyclopedia Americana, "Zoroasterianism"pp.813-815).

The thing is, the Avesta, from where we get most of the stories of Zoroaster, was compiled hundreds of years after Christ:

The surviving texts of the Avesta, as they exist today, derive from a single master copy produced by Sassanian-era (224-651 CE) collation and recension. That master copy, now lost, is known as the 'Sassanian archetype'. The oldest surviving manuscript (K1)[n 1] of an Avestan language text is dated 1323 CE.[1] Summaries of the various Avesta texts found in the 9th/10th century texts of Zoroastrian tradition suggest that about three-quarters of the corpus has since been lost.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avesta


And another thing, were the Zoroastrians expecting a Messiah from a virgin birth?

V. ZARATHURSTRA

"Persian legend tells how, many hundreds of years before the birth of Christ, a great prophet appeared in Airyana-vaejo, the ancient “home of the Aryans.� His people called him Zarathustra; but the Greeks, who could never bear the orthography of the “barbarians� patiently, called him Zoroastres. His conception was divine: his guardian angel entered into an haoma plant, and passed with its juice into the body of a priest as the latter offered divine sacrifice; at the same time a ray of heaven’s glory entered the bosom of a maid (virgin) of noble lineage. The priest espoused the maid, the imprisoned angel mingled with the imprisoned ray, and Zarathustra began to be.53 He laughed aloud on the very day of his birth, and the evil spirits that gather around every life fled from him in tumult and terror.54 Out of his great love for wisdom and righteousness he withdrew from the society of men, and chose to live in a mountain wilderness on cheese and the fruits of the soil. The Devil tempted him, but to no avail. His breast was pierced with a sword, and his entrails were filled with molten lead; he did not complain, but clung to his faith in Ahura-Mazda—the Lord of Light—as supreme god. Ahura-Mazda appeared to him and gave into his hands the Avesta, or Book of Knowledge and Wisdom, and bade him preach it to mankind. For a long time all the world ridiculed and persecuted him; but at last a high prince of Iran—Vishtaspa or Hystaspes—heard him gladly, and promised to spread the new faith among his people. Thus was the Zoroastrian religion born. Zarathustra himself lived to a very old age, was consumed in a flash of lightning, and ascended into heaven."

"We cannot tell how much of his story is true; perhaps some Josiah discovered him. The Greeks accepted him as historical, and honored him with an antiquity of 5500 years before their time; 56 Berosus the Babylonian brought him down to 2000 B.C.;57 modern historians, when they believe in his existence, assign him to any century between the tenth and the sixth before Christ.*58 When he appeared, among the ancestors of the Medes and the Persians, he found his people worshiping animals,59 ancestors,60 the earth and the sun, in a religion having many elements and deities in common with the Hindus of the Vedic age. The chief divinities of this pre-Zoroastrian faith were Mithra, god of the sun, Anaita, goddess of fertility and the earth, and Haoma the bull-god who, dying, rose again, and gave mankind his blood as a drink that would confer immortality; him the early Iranians worshiped by drinking the intoxicating juice of the haoma herb found on their mountain slopes." (The Story of Civilization, vol. 1, Our Oriental Heritage, Persia; By Will Durant, (pg 364).

https://books.google.com/books?id=ru4LP ... ed&f=false

***

Will Durant wrote these passages in 1934. As noted "modern historians" (circa 1934) assigned Zoroaster a time frame of somewhere between six hundred and a thousands years prior to Jesus. During the fifth century the Persian king Xerxes invaded and briefly conquered portions of Greece, before being driven out. At this point the Greek scholars became exceedingly interested in investigating Persian culture and history. Among the things they wrote about were the stories of the Persian prophet Zoroaster. Whom they, as noted above in Durant, they considered to have been a genuine historical figure out of antiquity. For years western historians questioned the historical existence of Zoroaster, or assigned him a time frame contemporary with Cyrus the Great, who worshiped the Zoroastrian God Ahura Mazda.

But investigation has continued over the years. Evidence for the existence of Zoroaster now can be dated from the early to mid second millennium BC.

BBC
Zoroaster
The Prophet Zoroaster The Prophet Zoroaster ©
Zoroastrianism was founded by the Prophet Zoroaster (or Zarathustra) in ancient Iran approximately 3500 years ago.

The precise date of the founding of Zoroastrianism is uncertain. An approximate date of 1200-1500 BCE has been established through archaeological evidence and linguistic comparisons with the Hindu text, the Rig Veda.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions ... er_1.shtml

According to Zoroastrian tradition, Zoroaster's mother was a maiden, a virgin, at the time of his conception. Krishna was also traditionally reputed to be of virgin birth, as was Buddha. It was quite chic for an important religious figure to have been born free from "sin." Sex being so disgusting and all.
http://www.nairaland.com/193520/there-m ... gin-births

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to post 46 by Claire Evans]

"Macrobius (ca. AD 400), one of the last pagan writers in Rome, in his book Saturnalia, wrote: “When it was heard that, as part of the slaughter of boys up to two years old, Herod, king of the Jews, had ordered his own son to be killed, he [the Emperor Augustus] remarked, ‘It is better to be Herod’s pig [Gr. hys] than his son’ [Gr. huios]�

Whatever Macrobius the fool recorded is in complete disagreement with history. Herod killed his sons, but nobody else's - at least not on a scale large enough that people would have revolted and dragged him and all Herods through the streets.

Caesar Augustus fit the prophesies of Isaiah-
[Caesars Rule!]

Jews were identified by their place of residence, not their place of birth.

This argument has already been shot to pieces, see above.

No, Augustus was Roman. It was Herod that was deemed "King of the Jews" by Augustus. That is why Herod was threatened. Obviously Jesus wasn't literally the King of the Jews at birth as the title is political.

This reflects simple denial of the royal/divine system of government. Rather like saying Herod did commit the biggest massacre of children ever, and nobody noticed!

They gave aphrodisiacs to a child. How disturbing

Obviously not for Jesus to consume.

Well, you may choose not to be disturbed, but that's like giving Hustler Magazines and furry handcuffs at a baby shower.
However, I do not hesitate to reiterate, those were a few of Tiberius Caesar's fa-vor-rite things.

Myrrh is a natural gum, resin used for perfume, incense and medicine. It is used for anointing as well.

Uses for frankinscence:

"The product was in such high demand in ancient cultures that it became very expensive, vaulting southern Arabia into an area known as “Arabia the Blessed.� In addition to being used in incense, perfumes, and for religious ceremonies and burials, frankincense was also known for its medicinal properties, including the ability to tame inflammation and ease digestion."

http://www.annmariegianni.com/10-things ... ntial-oil/

And of course gold...definitely not an aphrodisiac. I don't know where this claim comes from.

I will get to the other parts later. Just say the last paragraph.

[Willum]

[Replying to Claire Evans]

Really, you are going to take the low road on aphrodisiacs? A casual google shows that they are aphrodisiacs, a little investigation shows they are Tiberias' favorite.
As for gold being an aphro', well, I never said it was, I said it was one of Tiberius favorite things, which is why, as a cruel joke, he made them gifts of the magi...

But if you want to go down the low path... of gold being an aphrodisiac...
Trump... Melania, Hugh Heffner...et&al., etc...