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?

[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.

History does not say King Herod did not have babies under 2 murdered.

However, even though the Bible states otherwise, I don't believe it was on a large scale. Bethlehem was a tiny and obscure village. Therefore the number of babies killed would have been at the most 300.

Why would a pagan such as Macrobius make this up?



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.

How does Caesar debunk origin of the titles of 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.

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!

Explain further?

Regarding Augustus Caesar:

You do make some valid points , however, I want to comment further. Augustus was considered son of god, not everlasting god. Julius was considered god.

https://books.google.co.za/books?id=_6m ... ar&f=false

This is what the early Christians believed the purpose was:

Jesus Christ was born in the reign of Augustus, who, so to speak, fused together into one monarchy the many populations of the earth. Theological connections have been drawn by some Church fathers between the Pax Romana, and the Divine Providence of God which is thought to have effected it, in order to facilitate the spread of the Gospel of Christ, and through it, the true peace (pax) of God on earth, or Pax Christi.

In addition, the Pax Romana was also a phenomenon that occured especially in preparation for the first coming of the Lord on earth, alluded to in the Holy Scriptures where He is called the "Prince of Peace" (Isaiah 9:6-7, NKJV).


According to the deeper understanding of the Church fathers, Pax Romana becomes almost a metaphor[17] and a vehicle for Pax Christi. Metropolitan Makarios (Tillyrides) of Kenya has written that "it was the pax romana which accounted in no small degree to the amazing rapidity with which the Christian faith was disseminated in every territory under Roman rule."[18]


For Luke, although the Pax Romana is only a dialectical[19] phenomenon that soon has to be replaced by the Pax Christi

https://orthodoxwiki.org/Pax_Romana

I find no reference to support that Augustus said Palestine was his footstool.

My opinion is that Isaiah 9:6 is not referring to Jesus. He did not have the government on His shoulders.
However, Augustus never had these titles:

Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

As I said, he was called Son of God, not Mighty God. Everlasting refers to immortality. Isaiah 9:6 appears to support reference to Augustus more than Jesus although there are some discrepancies.

[Claire Evans]

[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...

Oysters are also meant for eating and they are supposedly aphrodisiacs. Not everyone eats them to get sexually stimulated. You know these oils are meant for anointing. Do you really believe Mary and Joseph would they were meant to be used as an aphrodisiac? There are various purposes for those oils.

[Willum]

History does not say King Herod did not have babies under 2 murdered.

As a matter of fact, it does. No mass genocides of the little babies.

However, even though the Bible states otherwise, I don't believe it was on a large scale. Bethlehem was a tiny and obscure village. Therefore the number of babies killed would have been at the most 300.

Well, as long as you believe it...

Why would a pagan such as Macrobius make this up?

The hint is it is in the Title, "Saturnalia," how could you reference the book, and not know it was a book of tall tales? Saturnalia is "All Fools Day."

How does Caesar debunk origin of the titles of Jews?

Gosh, I don't know - what are you talking about?

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.

Well, Augustus' maternal grandmother was a Jewess. Good enough for religionists, most of the time.
Herod was not threatened by an imaginary demi-god. Nor did he kill anyone over and imaginary demi-god. As far as King of the Jews, there was no word for Emperor when the prophesy was written, and King was the highest thing to rule... and Emperor is so much more magestic than mere king...

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!

Explain further?

Sure, read up on your royal etiquette.

Regarding Augustus Caesar:

You do make some valid points , however, I want to comment further. Augustus was considered son of god, not everlasting god. Julius was considered god.

No, Augustus was a GOD, Tiberius was the son. Augusutus was made God September 43AD, https://www.csun.edu/~hcfll004/augdates.html.

https://books.google.co.za/books?id=_6m ... ar&f=false

You are quoting a fool again.

In addition, the Pax Romana was also a phenomenon that occurred especially in preparation for the first coming of the Lord on earth, alluded to in the Holy Scriptures where He is called the "Prince of Peace" (Isaiah 9:6-7, NKJV).

NO, NO, NO, NO!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Romana
Prince of peace is an allegorical title... it is for Jesus as well.

According to the deeper understanding of the Church fathers, Pax Romana becomes almost a metaphor[17] and a vehicle for Pax Christi. Metropolitan Makarios (Tillyrides) of Kenya has written that "it was the pax romana which accounted in no small degree to the amazing rapidity with which the Christian faith was disseminated in every territory under Roman rule."[18]

No "deeper understanding is required," talk is cheap, and you absolutely can't prove it! But the religion spread at the behest of Rome, the Holy Roman Empire, this time, Jesus said, "pay taxes and obey government, this isn't a coincidence.

For Luke, although the Pax Romana is only a dialectical[19] phenomenon that soon has to be replaced by the Pax Christi

https://orthodoxwiki.org/Pax_Romana

Here you are willfully misleading:

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

I find no reference to support that Augustus said Palestine was his footstool.

Rather convenient, as your other references haven't exactly turned up. But, it wasn't only Augustus who said they rested their feet on it, it IS a desultory remark.

My opinion is that Isaiah 9:6 is not referring to Jesus. He did not have the government on His shoulders.

Opinion dismissed. That was one of Augustus chief complaints.

However, Augustus never had these titles:

Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Again, wrong. He was Counsel most of his political career. Deified qv above, and his peace laws lasted 1000 years, He would have had to live the 1000 years to have the title, he couldn't hold it while alive see, that's why it's a prophesy. His laws rule the entire world even today, every time you step into a court room. If you break Augustus' laws, you go to jail. Jesus laws don't even rule his churches.

As I said, he was called Son of God, not Mighty God. Everlasting refers to immortality. Isaiah 9:6 appears to support reference to Augustus more than Jesus although there are some discrepancies.[/quote]
And you were incorrect. Everlasting law... and immortality of Augustus' kind is demonstrable, the immortality you are referring to is reserved for fundamental particles, and the imagination.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 52 by Claire Evans]

My point was two-fold, that it was gross to give aphrodisiacs to a child...AND that Caesar Tiberius was playing a disgusting joke on Christians by having Baby Jesus given (Tiberius') favorite things in the world, aphrodisiacs and gold.

[Freethinker23]

I'm a bit late to the party, so forgive me if I'm rehashing what has already been discussed. Matthew never specifies that there were three magi. It is inferred because they bring three gifts (gold, frankincense, and myrrh). However, there could have been many of them and they just brought the three gifts.

[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?

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."

This comes from the Book of Avesta, which I mentioned comes from the 13th century.

"Aspects of Zaraθuštra’s legendary life according to the Younger Avesta. As in many religions with only limited interest in the historical facts about their founders, Zoroastrian tradition as reflected in the Younger Avesta does not concentrate on the life of the historical Zaraθuštra. The Younger Avesta describes or refers to an ideal Zaraθuštra: He is the person who lived fully according to the will of Ahura Mazd� and practiced the religion he was fostering in a perfect way. Thus the scanty historical facts known from the Old Avesta gave way to a theological biography of Zaraθuštra, leaving behind history. The most important such text is Yt. 13.87-94. In this long passage Zaraθuštra’s Frauuaši (see FRAVAŠI) is worshipped (cf. also Y. 3.2, 4.23, 13.7; Vr. 13.0, 16.2; Yt. 8.2). By the use of the word yaz-, which regularly has either Ahura Mazd� or the Yazatas as object, Zaraθuštra is rendered as no longer a human being; his Frauuaši is elevated to the same level as other spiritual beings. The whole passage can be seen as the first (theological) description of Zaraθuštra’s life; to quote just the beginning:



Other verses from the Younger Avesta give a comparable interpretation of Zaraθuštra: Y. 70.1 (cf. Vr. 2.3) mentions Zaraθuštra and Ahura Mazd� together as ratus who are worshipped together; in Y 42.2 (cf. Vr.21.2) the community—referring to themselves as “we�—worships Ahura Mazd� and Zaraθuštra side by side. From such lines we can deduce for the Younger Avesta that Zaraθuštra was conceived as no longer on the level of common humans, but close to the yazatas, worthy of praise and worship (cf. Y. 3.21).

The abovementioned lines from Yt. 13 do not illuminate Zaraθuštra’s life from a historical point of view but give us a glimpse of a legendary and theologically reformulated life of the founder of the Zoroastrian religion. Thus these lines already faintly reflect the theological Pahlavi texts about Zaraθuštra’s life, and from Dēnkard 8.14 it can be seen that the original Avesta seems to have already incorporated such a theological description (lost in the extant Avesta). The so-called Spand Nask most probably had the following themes: Zaraθuštra’s conception and birth, his youth, his encounter with Ahura Mazd� at the age of 30, his wisdom and miracles, and an outline of his doctrines."

http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/z ... the-avesta

"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

***

I believe Zaraθuštra’ was an historical figure but the only source of his teachings is from the Avesta. The oldest copies are from the 13th century.

We know that Mithra was a pagan Iranian deity but Mithra was adopted into Zoroastrianism as an angelic deity of covenant and oath. So there is much borrowing from other cultures in Zoroastrianism.

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

It is nonsense that Krishna was born of a virgin. He was his mother's eighth child.

https://www.royalcollection.org.uk/coll ... -of-vishnu

Nor was Buddha of a virgin birth.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 54 by Willum]


"'Cuz they say two thousand zero zero party over,
Oops out of time
So tonight I'm gonna party like it's 1999"
- Prince

My point was two-fold, that it was gross to give aphrodisiacs to a child...AND that Caesar Tiberius was playing a disgusting joke on Christians by having Baby Jesus given (Tiberius') favorite things in the world, aphrodisiacs and gold.

It's HUGELY exaggerated to say that oysters could ever serve to stimulate the sexual desires of a child. There are TRACES of substances that can help the sexual desires of humans, and most of the aphrodisiac qualities affect our THOUGHTS. Humans get "excited" when eating things that remind us of the sexual organs, and the raw oyster has that quality. Children probably would not make that connection as much as sexually experienced adults. Oysters are probably also considered EXOTIC food, and as such, special and "romantic" to eat. Again, not really going to have an impact on children who don't care about such matters as "exoticism".

As to a prudish idea that it's "gross" to offer oysters to a child... because an adult can imagine it to be a sexual stimulant... I consider that to be superstitious and completely unnecessary. I bet a lot of kids wouldn't even like the slimy fishy raw oyster, anyway.

It's an "adult" kind of food that I personally highly recommend... with candle light.. and a loving partner.

Enough with superstitions that are thousands of years old, already!!
This is 2016, after all.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 56 by Claire Evans]

I believe Zaraθuštra’ was an historical figure but the only source of his teachings is from the Avesta. The oldest copies are from the 13th century.

Wikipedia
Avesta
The Avesta texts fall into several different categories, arranged either by dialect, or by usage. The principal text in the liturgical group is the Yasna, which takes its name from the Yasna ceremony, Zoroastrianism's primary act of worship, and at which the Yasna text is recited. The most important portion of the Yasna texts are the five Gathas, consisting of seventeen hymns attributed to Zoroaster himself.

Wikipedia
Torah
Authorship
The Talmud holds that the Torah was written by Moses, with the exception of the last eight verses of Deuteronomy, describing his death and burial, being written by Joshua.[18] Alternatively, Rashi quotes from the Talmud that "God spoke them, and Moses wrote them with tears." The Mishnah includes the divine origin of the Torah as an essential tenet of Judaism.

The modern scholarly consensus, known as the Documentary hypothesis, is that the Torah has multiple authors and that its composition took place over centuries.[22] This contemporary common hypothesis among biblical scholars states that the first major comprehensive draft of the Pentateuch was composed in the late 7th or the 6th century BC (the Jahwist source), and that this was later expanded by the addition of various narratives and laws (the Priestly source) into a work very like the one existing today.

"The consensus of scholarship is that the stories are taken from four different written sources and that these were brought together over the course of time to form the first five books of the Bible as a composite work. The sources are known as J, the Jahwist source (from the German transliteration of the Hebrew YHWH), E, the Elohist source, P, the priestly source, and D, the Deuteronomist source. ... Thus the Pentateuch (or Torah, as it is known by Jews) comprises material taken from six centuries of human history, which has been put together to give a comprehensive picture of the creation of the world and of God's dealings with his peoples, specifically with the people of Israel." (Professor John Riches of the University of Glasgow)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torah#Pentateuch

The Torah is attributed to Moses himself. And yet it was not assembled into something approximating it's current form until a thousand years or so after the time of Moses.

Wikipedia
Torah
Torah and Judaism
Rabbinic writings indicate that the Oral Torah was given to Moses at Mount Sinai, which, according to the tradition of the Orthodox rabbis, occurred in 1312 BCE. The Orthodox rabbinic tradition holds that the Written Torah was recorded during the following forty years, though many Jewish scholars affirm the modern scholarly consensus that the Written Torah has multiple authors and was written over centuries
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torah#Pentateuch

We know that Mithra was a pagan Iranian deity but Mithra was adopted into Zoroastrianism as an angelic deity of covenant and oath. So there is much borrowing from other cultures in Zoroastrianism.

"Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it. The Greek mind, dying, came to a transmigrated life in the theology and liturgy of the church; the Greek language having reigned for centuries over philosophy, became the vehicle of Christian literature and ritual;the Greek mysteries passed down into the impressive mystery of the mass. Other pagan cultures contributed to the syncretist result. From Egypt came the ideas of a devine trinity, the last judgement and a personal immortality of reward and punishment; from Egypt the adoration of the mother and child, and the mystic philosophy that made Neoplatonism and Gnosticism, and obscured the Christian creed; there too, Christian monasticism would find it's exemplars and it's source. From Phrygia came the worship of the Great Mother; from Syria the Resurrection drama of Adonis; from Thrace, perhaps, the cult of Dionysus, the dying and saving god. From Persia came millenarianism, the Darkness and the Light; already in the Fourth Gospel Christ is the `Light shinning in the darkness and the darkness has never put it out.' The Mithraic ritual so closely resembled the eucharistic sacrifice of the Mass that Christian fathers charged the Devil with inventing these similarities to mislead frail minds. Christianity was the last great creation of the pagan world." (The Story of Civilization vol.3, "Caesar and Christ" by Will Durant, p.595).

It is nonsense that Krishna was born of a virgin. He was his mother's eighth child.

It's nonsense that Mary the mother of Jesus was a perpetual virgin. Gospels Matthew and Mark mention the brothers of Jesus by name, and mention that he had sisters. It's nonsense that Mary physically ascended to heaven. There is absolutely no support for such a claim in scripture. But Christians have contrived to assert that both are true anyway, according to their dogma.

[Claire Evans]

History does not say King Herod did not have babies under 2 murdered.

As a matter of fact, it does. No mass genocides of the little babies.

Is there any historical sources that say that it was just a legend that Herod ordered the killing of babies?

Why would a pagan such as Macrobius make this up?

The hint is it is in the Title, "Saturnalia," how could you reference the book, and not know it was a book of tall tales? Saturnalia is "All Fools Day."

It is true that Saturnalia is about lore but it does not mean the reference to Herod was lore:

"However, since Macrobius is frequently referred to as vir clarissimus et inlustris, a title which was achieved by holding public office, we can reasonably expect his name to appear in the Codex Theodosianus. Further, Cameron points out that during his lifetime Macrobius was referred to as "Theodosius", and looking for that name Cameron found a Theodosius who was praetorian prefect of Italy in 430. "It is significant that the only surviving law addressed to this Theodosius sanctions a privilege for Africa Proconsularis on the basis of information received concerning Byzacena," Cameron notes.[7]"

Therefore as someone who held public office, he would have had records of events. He was a prefect like Tacitus, the historian, was.

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

How does Caesar debunk origin of the titles of Jews?

Gosh, I don't know - what are you talking about?

This is the relevant comment:

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

Jews were identified by their place of residence, not their place of birth.
Willum wrote:
This argument has already been shot to pieces, see above.

Therefore you were talking about Caesar in relation to the titles 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.

Well, Augustus' maternal grandmother was a Jewess. Good enough for religionists, most of the time.
Herod was not threatened by an imaginary demi-god. Nor did he kill anyone over and imaginary demi-god. As far as King of the Jews, there was no word for Emperor when the prophesy was written, and King was the highest thing to rule... and Emperor is so much more magestic than mere king...

Remind me again of the reference to Emperor?

This reflects simple denial of the royal/divine system of government. Rather like saying Herod did commit the biggest massacre of children ever, and nobod

Sure, read up on your royal etiquette.

That's actually not an answer.

Regarding Augustus Caesar:

You do make some valid points , however, I want to comment further. Augustus was considered son of god, not everlasting god. Julius was considered god.

No, Augustus was a GOD, Tiberius was the son. Augusutus was made God September 43AD, https://www.csun.edu/~hcfll004/augdates.html.

In 42 B.C.E., Julius Caesar was formally deified as "the divine Julius" (divus Iulius),[6] His adopted son, Octavian (better known by the title "Augustus" given to him 15 years later, in 27 B.C.E.) thus became known as "divi Iuli filius" (son of the divine Julius)[7] or simply "divi filius" (son of the god)

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Son_of_God

It was only after Roman flourished under Augustus that he was promoted to god. So both apply. We need to ask, "Was Augustus ever deemed an everlasting God?" Was that a title of His?

In addition, the Pax Romana was also a phenomenon that occurred especially in preparation for the first coming of the Lord on earth, alluded to in the Holy Scriptures where He is called the "Prince of Peace" (Isaiah 9:6-7, NKJV).

NO, NO, NO, NO!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Romana
Prince of peace is an allegorical title... it is for Jesus as well.

Can you give me a reference where it says that Augustus was called that even in an allegorical sense?

According to the deeper understanding of the Church fathers, Pax Romana becomes almost a metaphor[17] and a vehicle for Pax Christi. Metropolitan Makarios (Tillyrides) of Kenya has written that "it was the pax romana which accounted in no small degree to the amazing rapidity with which the Christian faith was disseminated in every territory under Roman rule."[18]

No "deeper understanding is required," talk is cheap, and you absolutely can't prove it! But the religion spread at the behest of Rome, the Holy Roman Empire, this time, Jesus said, "pay taxes and obey government, this isn't a coincidence.

You aren't providing proof either. Where are the sources to back yourself? Jesus was saying don't evade taxes regardless of whether it was the Roman Empire or not.

For Luke, although the Pax Romana is only a dialectical[19] phenomenon that soon has to be replaced by the Pax Christi

https://orthodoxwiki.org/Pax_Romana

Here you are willfully misleading:

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

Pax Christi means Peace of Christ in Latin as you know. So what if an International organization is called that? I don't think any early Christian actually called it Pax Christi.

I find no reference to support that Augustus said Palestine was his footstool.

Rather convenient, as your other references haven't exactly turned up. But, it wasn't only Augustus who said they rested their feet on it, it IS a desultory remark.

Like who?

My opinion is that Isaiah 9:6 is not referring to Jesus. He did not have the government on His shoulders.

Opinion dismissed. That was one of Augustus chief complaints.

I wasn't talking about Augustus. I said Jesus didn't have the government on His shoulders.

However, Augustus never had these titles:

Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Again, wrong. He was Counsel most of his political career. Deified qv above, and his peace laws lasted 1000 years, He would have had to live the 1000 years to have the title, he couldn't hold it while alive see, that's why it's a prophesy. His laws rule the entire world even today, every time you step into a court room. If you break Augustus' laws, you go to jail. Jesus laws don't even rule his churches.

Did Augustus officially have that title of wonderful counselor a 1000 years on? I do not know of any deified Romans who were called "Father". And as I said, I don't believe that Isaiah prophecy refers to Jesus.

As I said, he was called Son of God, not Mighty God. Everlasting refers to immortality. Isaiah 9:6 appears to support reference to Augustus more than Jesus although there are some discrepancies.

And you were incorrect. Everlasting law... and immortality of Augustus' kind is demonstrable, the immortality you are referring to is reserved for fundamental particles, and the imagination.

A legacy being immortal and actually being immortal are completely different things. Everlasting law does not actually explain why he is called, "Everlasting Father". The title of Father does not denote divinity to the Romans as far as I know.

[Willum]

[Replying to Claire Evans]

Is there any historical sources that say that it was just a legend that Herod ordered the killing of babies?

How many times? - yes.

It is true that Saturnalia is about lore...

No, Saturnalia is April Fools day for the Romans.
...

He was a prefect like Tacitus, the historian, was.

and he was also a noted comedian.

Therefore you were talking about Caesar in relation to the titles of the Jews.

Therefore I still have no idea what you are talking about, you seem to be drawing a non-sequitur.

Remind me again of the reference to Emperor?

Interesting ploy, but there was no such thing as an Emperor, no WORD for it. So, what's a prophesy going to do, invent a word the prophet doesn't know? no. Emperor is the same as a king, but politically nicer.

That's actually not an answer.

How is it not an answer?

It was only after Roman flourished under Augustus that he was promoted to god. So both apply. We need to ask, "Was Augustus ever deemed an everlasting God?" Was that a title of His?

The question would be, was the title of 'god' ever taken away from him. I know of no authority capable of doing that. So, Caesar Augustus, indeed many other men are gods. I do not know of a single god who is not everlasting.

Can you give me a reference where it says that Augustus was called that [Price of Peace] even in an allegorical sense?

Yes, in Isaiah. But also that was a 'hail.' http://www.fsmitha.com/h1/rome17.htm, in the literal sense.

RE "Pax Romana," for Pete's sake Claire, the Pax Romana is a real thing started by Augustus! It is not a metaphor and not started by Jesus.

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

RE: The rest: So to win my argument, you need Augustus to live 1000 years? Living and breathing?

I think he fits the bill well enough within the parameters of allegory and history.