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 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.

Then quote it! Tell me what source says, "King Herod killing the babies is a complete myth."

It is true that Saturnalia is about lore...

No, Saturnalia is April Fools day for the Romans.

Well, then we must assume that Herod didn't kill his own son because Macrobius quoted it in the April Fool's Saturnalia:

"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]�




...

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

and he was also a noted comedian.

He reported on historical facts as a historian. Was Tacitus a "comedian" all the time?

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.

You are the won who said consult source above about Caesar in relation to the title of the Jews. Clearly you made a mistake.

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.

How is it not an answer?

Did I contest that Emperor meant King?

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.

I meant, "Was Augustus ever deemed an Everlasting Father?" Where deified god's referred to as Father?

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.

No, I meant to the Romans, not in reference to Isaiah. For example, Jesus was called, "King of the Jews", which obviously wasn't literal. Is there any record that people actually called Augustus "Prince of Peace?"

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

Where did I mention Pax Romana in my previous comment? Where did I say it didn't really happen?

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

Why just a 1000 years? You said his laws applied today. Augustus lived more than a thousand years ago

I think he fits the bill well enough within the parameters of allegory and history.[/quote]

Few things you didn't address:


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

Willum wrote:
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?

" 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."

Please comment.

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to Claire Evans]

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

Wikipedia
Herod the Great
Regarding the Massacre of the Innocents, although Herod was guilty of many brutal acts including the killing of his wife and two of his sons, no other contemporary source refers to the massacre.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod_the_Great

First of all, it was one of many brutal acts that Herod did. It was nothing special and it probably wasn't as known as people think. About three hundred children targeted.

The Jewish Encyclopedia
HEROD I
The connection of Herod with the alleged massacre of the Innocents as related in the New Testament is now generally admitted by independent Christian thinkers to be legendary.
http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/7598-herod-i

They must be right because they say so. Name one of these Christian thinkers so I can read their argument?

Associates for Biblical Research
The Slaughter of the Innocents: Historical fact or Legendary Fiction?
The slaughter of the innocents is unattested in secular records, but the historical plausibility of this event happening is consistent with the character and actions of Herod the Great.
http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/20 ... px#Article

The account in Gospel Matthew of Herod ordering the slaughter of baby boys in the vicinity of Bethlehem under the age of two is found ONLY in Gospel Matthew and nowhere else. This is a simply a true fact.

You quoted in that source that the happening is consistent with with the character and actions of Herod. Are we also to dismiss Microbius?

"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]�

[Willum]

[Replying to Claire Evans]

300 children would not be an effective measure. It would still cause waves, and his people would have risen up and dragged his carcass through the streets. Actually, Augustus himself would have removed him in a heart beat. Too much opportunity there to become a political hero.

I am not sure what you think the argument is, Marcrobius, couldn't be a scholar and write a work of satire? Of course he could. Saturnalia should by it very name, not be taken seriously.

OK:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_ ... istoricity

Sigh, Tacitus may have written some comedy. However, Microbius and Tacitus are not the same person.

You are the one who said consult source above about Caesar in relation to the title of the Jews. Clearly you made a mistake.

Perhaps it was, but I still have no clue what you are referring to. Elucidate, please.

Was Augustus deemed "Prince of Peace," you asked, yes, I proved. Was he ever deemed everlasting father? Well, he was deemed father of Rome. He was deified. One and one makes two.

ONE thing is for sure however, Jesus was the SON, not the father, but thanks for playing.

Why just a 1000 years? You said his laws applied today. Augustus lived more than a thousand years ago

And we still follow Roman law he instituted.

Augustus, "Prince of Peace." Posting for the second time.

http://www.fsmitha.com/h1/rome17.htm

As to the rest, I am afraid I can't follow the rest, you'll have to elaborate. As to links, if I get them, are you going to read them this time?

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to Claire Evans]

300 children would not be an effective measure. It would still cause waves, and his people would have risen up and dragged his carcass through the streets. Actually, Augustus himself would have removed him in a heart beat. Too much opportunity there to become a political hero.

Bethlehem was a very insignificant town, certainly not noticeable to Augustus.

Anyway, I came across this:

"How many babies did Herod murder? Some scholars have suggested as many as 200! But most reject such a figure. Bethlehem was a small community--almost a suburb of Jerusalem. The village itself--and the surrounding countryside--would hardly have more than 30 male infants under two. Most scholars today place the number between 20 and 30."

https://bible.org/article/birth-jesus-christ

That would make it more insignificant than what I originally thought. What makes you think that those in Bethlehem could drag Herod's carcass down the street? Did anyone do that to Herod when he committed other atrocities greater than this?

I am not sure what you think the argument is, Marcrobius, couldn't be a scholar and write a work of satire? Of course he could. Saturnalia should by it very name, not be taken seriously.

OK:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_ ... istoricity

Sigh, Tacitus may have written some comedy. However, Microbius and Tacitus are not the same person.

As I said, Macrobius mentioned that Herod killed his son. Do we automatically assume that didn't happen because it featured in the Saturnalia? And it appears as if Microbius was quoting Augustus:

"Shortly before his death, Herod decided against his sons Aristobulus and Antipater, who were executed in 7 and 4 BCE, causing the emperor Augustus to joke that it was preferable to be Herod's pig (hus) than his son (huios) - a very insulting remark to any Jew"

http://www.livius.org/articles/person/herod-the-great/

Microbius' quote:

"When he [emperor Augustus] heard that among the boys in Syria under two years old whom Herod, king of the Jews, had ordered killed, his own son was also killed, he said: it is better to be Herod's pig, than his son.

Now it not make much sense to make up the part of ordering the children under two to die but then state something factual that Herod did kill his son and then quote Augustus.

You are the one who said consult source above about Caesar in relation to the title of the Jews. Clearly you made a mistake.

Perhaps it was, but I still have no clue what you are referring to. Elucidate, please.

Never mind. I already told you.

Was Augustus deemed "Prince of Peace," you asked, yes, I proved. Was he ever deemed everlasting father? Well, he was deemed father of Rome. He was deified. One and one makes two.

Your link:

His fellow Romans believed they had seen the end of war and strife, and they hailed him as the Prince of Peace and benefactor of mankind.

So I'll accept that. However, many emperors were deified and they weren't all deemed fathers of Rome.

ONE thing is for sure however, Jesus was the SON, not the father, but thanks for playing.

I mentioned that I don't believe this Isaiah passage is about Jesus.

Why just a 1000 years? You said his laws applied today. Augustus lived more than a thousand years ago

And we still follow Roman law he instituted.

Yes, but it has been more than a 1000 years since Augustus died. As I said, why just a 1000?

Augustus, "Prince of Peace." Posting for the second time.

http://www.fsmitha.com/h1/rome17.htm

As to the rest, I am afraid I can't follow the rest, you'll have to elaborate. As to links, if I get them, are you going to read them this time?

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

Willum wrote:
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? Who else said they rested their feet on it? Where is the source that said that August considered Palestine to be his footstool.

I believe Isaiah 9 may actually be about the Anti-Christ.


"Second, we are told that he shall be able to “understand dark sentences.� The Heb. noun for “dark sentences� is used of Samson’s riddle (Judges 14:12, of the Queen of Sheba’s hard questions (1 Kings 10:1), and of the dark sayings of the wise (Prov. 1:6), which are too profound to be understood by the simple. This characteristic of the King of fierce countance, that he shall be able to “understand dark sentences,� suggests an attempted rivalry of Christ as the Revealer of secret things. This is one of the fascinations by which the Antichrist will dazzle humanity. He will present himself as one in whom are hidden treasures of wisdom and knowledge. He will bewitch the world by his solutions of the enigmas of life, and most probably by his revelation of occult powers implanted in men hitherto unsuspected by most, and of forces and secrets of nature previously undiscovered."

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/pink/antichrist.chap09.iv.html

Thus wise councilor.


"During the first 3½ years of the tribulation period the Antichrist will reign as prince of peace and pursue world unity."

http://www.bibleguidance.co.za/Engbooks ... sday11.htm

The Anti-Christ is expected to return Palestine to Israel.

There are those who believe the New World Order, which is Satanic, will last a 1000 years:

"The European Union will soon expand into the United Nations of Africa (something Bill Clinton worked hard on), Asia, and South America. The end phenomenon will be that all those countries will be merged into one big fascist state, which will last in a thousand years, regarding to their occult belief. This is the Golden Age - the Age of the Antichrist."

http://www.thewatcherfiles.com/secret-order.html

Interestingly enough, most Christians believed the reigning of the 1000 years is about Jesus. However, people must realize that the Anti-Christ will pose as Christ. I do not believe Jesus will reign for a 1000 years.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 74 by Claire Evans]

Well, Palestine is owned by Israel. Where's Waldo?

As to the rest, prophesy are vague by nature, you seem to otherwise agree Augustus was it.

[liamconnor]

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?

First, we know there were three gifts. Nativity scenes tell us there were three kings.

From an historical perspective, we simply do not have enough data to make a reasonable assessment here.

But from my studies of Matthew, I am guessing it is a literary device (i.e. didn't happen). Matthew is concerned with linking Jesus with the Old Testament. Isaiah foresaw a day when the nations would bring gifts to Israel's temple. This scene is a way for Matthew to state his conviction that Jesus is the fulfillment of the Isaianic prophecies.

To a fundamentalist, my reading would obviously be anathema.

A skeptic would have a field day with this.

To me, who is not interested in protecting or attacking a specific scriptural doctrine (inerrancy) but approaches the Bible from a literary/historical angle, this is does nothing to my central convictions.

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to post 74 by Claire Evans]

Well, Palestine is owned by Israel. Where's Waldo?

As to the rest, prophesy are vague by nature, you seem to otherwise agree Augustus was it.

Was it owned by Israel back then? As I wrote, I believe it is more about the Anti-Christ. However, if I have to say if it is more likely the prophecy is about Jesus or Augustus, I'd say the latter.