The wise men meeting a child in a house vs Jesus in a manger

[DrZoidberg]

In Matthew it says the star stopped over their house. If that isn't compatible with a comet then it couldn't have been a comet.

Ok, fine. It still can't alone point to a specific location on Earth. That would require it being filtered through the interpretations of an astrologer = you can make up absolutely anything

What was the Star of Bethlehem?

The Star of Bethlehem probably wasn't a star.

www.space.com

Says "Maybe it was simply a miracle". There are lots of miracles in the Bible especially if you take it literally... like lots of angels, etc.

If we aren't using a historicistic approach, we can just make up anything.

The moment we start accepting that miracles can happen we can stop discussing the Bible. Any theory becomes equally plausible.

The Bible also says that the disciples performed miracles. Faith healings and such. Is that plausible?

In Star Wars whenever George Lucas couldn't make the script work he inserted "the force".

In Star Trek whenever the writers got stuck they inserted a "tricorder" that would provide whatever information was needed at that time to make the story progress.

Miracles have always been handy for script writers. People love a plot twist.

So we're better off assuming natural explanations for everything in the Bible. Which makes sense since miracles stopped happening when technology progressed to the point where we could record them.

Are you saying that there literally was a comet and that was historical? What comet was it then? If the part about a star being on top of the house isn't historical then why not just assume that everything about the star was made up?

I'm saying that shooting stars was a literary convention to signify an auspicious birth. So they inserted it into the myth of Jesus. In their minds they wouldn't be lying.

Abdel Malik, the fourth Muslim caliph, invented the idea that Muhammed was a prophet. In effect, he invented Islam. Him. Not Mohammed. He set his Zoroastrian advisors on the task of writing an Islamic holy text, the Quran. Why Zoroastrian? Because that's what he had available. They then placed words into Mohammed's mouth that he allegedly had said. He'd been dead 70 years and his court was 100% illiterate. So nobody could tell Abdel Malik that Mohammed hadn't said these things. Ergo, he did.

Did he think he was lying and just making shit up? No. Mohammed conquered a vast empire in a short time. So logically he must have been a prophet of God.

It's of course the same logic that puts a shooting star above the home of Jesus.

 

[excreationist]

Are you saying that there literally was a comet and that was historical? What comet was it then? If the part about a star being on top of the house isn't historical then why not just assume that everything about the star was made up?

I'm saying that shooting stars was a literary convention to signify an auspicious birth. So they inserted it into the myth of Jesus. In their minds they wouldn't be lying.
.....
It's of course the same logic that puts a shooting star above the home of Jesus.

Angels are also a literary convention to signify an auspicious birth. In a similar way the story could involve an unrealistic "star" (that can't completely be explained scientifically when it guides them to a house)

 

[DrZoidberg]

Are you saying that there literally was a comet and that was historical? What comet was it then? If the part about a star being on top of the house isn't historical then why not just assume that everything about the star was made up?

I'm saying that shooting stars was a literary convention to signify an auspicious birth. So they inserted it into the myth of Jesus. In their minds they wouldn't be lying.
.....
It's of course the same logic that puts a shooting star above the home of Jesus.

Angels are also a literary convention to signify an auspicious birth. In a similar way the story could involve an unrealistic "star" (that can't completely be explained scientifically when it guides them to a house)

Yes, absolutely

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

As far as Zoroastrianism influence in the Bible goes I thought it involves hell and I thought hell is only later in the Bible....

Hell is a complicated matter. The idea of a Christian style hell was an up and coming trend around 500 AD. Specifically associated with Mazdak and Mani, as well as Gnosticsm generally. So a much later idea than any of the religions it came to influence.

Hell in the Bible is "sheol". The equivalent of Hades. For the pagans (and ancient Jews) life on Earth was the main event. Everyone would sooner or later end up in Sheol, regardless of how good you had been.

The Heavenly afterlife was an evolving concept while the Bible was being written, and is never nailed down (in the Bible).

Yes, the Zoroastrian influence on the Bible is great

Zoroastrianism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This talks about "judgement after death". I'm talking about a hell that bad people go to, not sheol that everyone would go to... perhaps the Old Testament didn't involve that but the NT did.

The version of hell you are describing is an idea that came long after Christian and Zoroastrian religious texts had been nailed down. So isn't in those texts. The Quran does have the kind of hell you are describing. Because it was written around the time these ideas was trending. Christian theology didn't stop evolving just because the Biblical canon had been agreed upon. That was Martin Luthers main gripe with Catholicism in 1452. Catholicism was and is a living and continually evolving religion. Which has always been true for every religion.

When studying ancient religion it's very important to keep in mind that Christianity is (relatively) an incredibly simple and unsophisticated religion. Which is why they argue so much. In other religions multiple interpretations of the same text is welcomed, and probably, by design.

All the other religions just have more depth to them. Except Islam. That one is the same shit. But even Judaism is many times more sophisticated than it's dumbed down sequel.

Heaven in Zoroastrianism is an ideal state. It's something to strive for. You'll never get there. But it's worth your while to try. That's the point of it.

In Zoroastrian theology life is locked into an eternal struggle between Ahura Mazda and Angra Mainyu. Ahura Mazda is the god of order and Angra Mainyu is the god of chaos. Constantly strive to better yourself and your community or things will become less efficient and might fall apart. It's metaphors, for life.

Zoroastrian religion works perfectly well if you're an atheist. It's practices will make your life better even if you see it all as just a metaphor.

Almost half of all today active magi identify as atheist. At least according to a survey done ten years ago.

Hell was an Egyptian concept. Duat in ancient Egyptian. Found in various copies of " The Book of the Netherworld".

Book of Caverns - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[DrZoidberg]

As far as Zoroastrianism influence in the Bible goes I thought it involves hell and I thought hell is only later in the Bible....

Hell is a complicated matter. The idea of a Christian style hell was an up and coming trend around 500 AD. Specifically associated with Mazdak and Mani, as well as Gnosticsm generally. So a much later idea than any of the religions it came to influence.

Hell in the Bible is "sheol". The equivalent of Hades. For the pagans (and ancient Jews) life on Earth was the main event. Everyone would sooner or later end up in Sheol, regardless of how good you had been.

The Heavenly afterlife was an evolving concept while the Bible was being written, and is never nailed down (in the Bible).

Yes, the Zoroastrian influence on the Bible is great

Zoroastrianism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This talks about "judgement after death". I'm talking about a hell that bad people go to, not sheol that everyone would go to... perhaps the Old Testament didn't involve that but the NT did.

The version of hell you are describing is an idea that came long after Christian and Zoroastrian religious texts had been nailed down. So isn't in those texts. The Quran does have the kind of hell you are describing. Because it was written around the time these ideas was trending. Christian theology didn't stop evolving just because the Biblical canon had been agreed upon. That was Martin Luthers main gripe with Catholicism in 1452. Catholicism was and is a living and continually evolving religion. Which has always been true for every religion.

When studying ancient religion it's very important to keep in mind that Christianity is (relatively) an incredibly simple and unsophisticated religion. Which is why they argue so much. In other religions multiple interpretations of the same text is welcomed, and probably, by design.

All the other religions just have more depth to them. Except Islam. That one is the same shit. But even Judaism is many times more sophisticated than it's dumbed down sequel.

Heaven in Zoroastrianism is an ideal state. It's something to strive for. You'll never get there. But it's worth your while to try. That's the point of it.

In Zoroastrian theology life is locked into an eternal struggle between Ahura Mazda and Angra Mainyu. Ahura Mazda is the god of order and Angra Mainyu is the god of chaos. Constantly strive to better yourself and your community or things will become less efficient and might fall apart. It's metaphors, for life.

Zoroastrian religion works perfectly well if you're an atheist. It's practices will make your life better even if you see it all as just a metaphor.

Almost half of all today active magi identify as atheist. At least according to a survey done ten years ago.

Hell was an Egyptian concept. Duat in ancient Egyptian. Found in various copies of " The Book of the Netherworld".

Book of Caverns - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

A common problem we tend to have when discussing Egyptian religion is that we assume Egyptian religion was unchanging. Egyptian religion evolved, like all other religions. The Duat is the equivalent of Hades/Sheol.

It's not that bad people go to the Duat. It's the deafault. Initially only the king could go to the Field of Reeds. Which is the equivalent of Mount Olympus. Over time this got expanded to nobles, priests, anyone with the right burial and by the time of Jesus any Egyptian who had lived a good life and had a half decent mummification (not that hard to do in Egypt) went to the sea of reeds after death.

So basically, I think you have things mixed up

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

"It describes the journey of the sun god Ra through the six caverns of the underworld, focusing on the interaction between the sun god and the inhabitants of the netherworld, including rewards for the righteous and punishments for the enemies of the worldly order, those who fail their judgment in the afterlife".

Punishment in the afterlife you see. The Torah does not mention ab after life. Nor do the prophets. Not until the time of Jesus do we see the notions of hell and eternal torture.

 

[DrZoidberg]

"It describes the journey of the sun god Ra through the six caverns of the underworld, focusing on the interaction between the sun god and the inhabitants of the netherworld, including rewards for the righteous and punishments for the enemies of the worldly order, those who fail their judgment in the afterlife".

Punishment in the afterlife you see. The Torah does not mention ab after life. Nor do the prophets. Not until the time of Jesus do we see the notions of hell and eternal torture.

And as I said, yours is a very late definition of the Duat. Their concept of the duat evolved together with other religions in the Mediterranean.

Worth noting here is that the Nile delta had Egyptians who worshipped Canaanite gods. Entire communities who were ethnically Canaanite but under Egyptian rule.

There was a lot of traffic in the area and an exchange of ideas and beliefs.

It was also common practice at the time to map commonalities between gods in the different pantheons as a 1:1. So Horus is Zeus/Jupiter/Marduk/Thor. Thot is Hermes/Mercury/Ningishzida/Odin. As well as every other concept.

The ancient Greeks were well aware of Egyptian theology and they never thought to mention the differences as anything but cultural flavour. They equated Hades and the Duat.

The Duat is upgraded to a gnostic/vertical dualism system about the same time as everyone else in the region.

Most likely these ideas originated in Persia and from Zoroastrianism. And then spread West.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

This all dates back to The New kingdom era. Rameses II et all. There are numerous known texts, and diferent versions of details of the afterlife, and nature of Duat.