Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Magi were members of the Zoroastrian priestly class. The original Greek texts of Matthew make no mention of "wise men," nor the number of Magi that made the journey to Jerusalem.
Matthew 2:1-2 (Greek Interlinear Translation)
OF-the yet Jesus being born in BETHLEHEM OF-the Judea in DAYS OF-HEROD THE KING lo! magi(magoi) from the east came-along into Jerusalem saying ?-where IS BEING-BROUGHT-FORTH KING OF-THE JUDA-ans WE-PERCEIVED for OF-HIM the star in the east and WE-CAME TO-worship to-Him. http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineI...NTpdf/mat2.pdf
The oldest complete copies of Gospel Mark are the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus dating from the 4th century. Are you suggesting that this renders any first century connection to Christianity suspect?
Wikipedia
Codex Sinaiticus
The codex is an Alexandrian text-type manuscript written in uncial letters on parchment in the 4th century. Scholarship considers the Codex Sinaiticus to be one of the best Greek texts of the New Testament,[2] along with the Codex Vaticanus. Until Constantin von Tischendorf's discovery of the Sinaiticus text, the Codex Vaticanus was unrivaled. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Sinaiticus
No. And that is entirely unrelated to the issue at hand which is whether, if any borrowing of one religion from another was done, Christianity, as the skeptics claim, borrowed from Zoroastrianism, or whether Zoroastrianism could have borrowed from Christianity. Since we have no extant manuscripts of Zoroastrianism which pre-date Christianity it is impossible to prove that Zoroastrianism didn't borrow from Christianity. While Zoroastrianism pre-dates Christianity, changes in the religion after the birth of Christianity could have occurred which are reflected in the Zoroastrian texts which were created after Christianity began.
The oldest extant complete copies of Gospel Mark which are the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus dating from the 4th century in no way calls the Gospel into question. To my knowledge, no early church fathers prior to the four century, or afterwards questioned the Gospel of Mark.
And I have no idea why you would think the two things were in any way related or that I was calling the Gospel of Mark into question. Nor do I have any intention of wasting further time on this thread. Any claims that Christianity borrowed from Zoroastrianism are purely speculative and can in no way be proven since we have no Zoroastrian texts which pre-date Christianity. That won't stop the skeptics from continuing to make such claims however.
Last edited by Michael Way; 01-09-2019 at 05:38 PM..
No. And that is entirely unrelated to the issue at hand which is whether, if any borrowing of one religion from another was done, Christianity, as the skeptics claim, borrowed from Zoroastrianism, or whether Zoroastrianism could have borrowed from Christianity. Since we have no extant manuscripts of Zoroastrianism which pre-date Christianity it is impossible to prove that Zoroastrianism didn't borrow from Christianity. While Zoroastrianism pre-dates Christianity, changes in the religion after the birth of Christianity could have occurred which are reflected in the Zoroastrian texts which were created after Christianity began.
The oldest extant complete copies of Gospel Mark which are the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus dating from the 4th century in no way calls the Gospel into question. To my knowledge, no early church fathers prior to the four century, or afterwards questioned the Gospel of Mark.
And I have no idea why you would think the two things were in any way related or that I was calling the Gospel of Mark into question. Nor do I have any intention of wasting further time on this thread. Any claims that Christianity borrowed from Zoroastrianism are purely speculative and can in no way be proven since we have no Zoroastrian texts which pre-date Christianity. That won't stop the skeptics from continuing to make such claims however.
I think the entire of “borrowing” gets invalid if we think that Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Chrsitiniaty and Islam are all rays of light coming from the same source.
If there are texts from an older non-Zoroastrian source describing the religion and any similarities between it and Christianity you would have to produce it. And you would have to demonstrate that that non-Zoroastrian text itself actually pre-dated Christianity.
But Zoroastrianism was already watered down and Hellenized by the time Christianity came about to try to Hellenize Judaism, no?
There is a lot mentioned in the link above. Historians were describing the religion and its rituals through the Mediterranean world.
But a lot of religions, such as Hinduism and Nordic religions, are similar to Christianity in their own ways, and different in their own ways as well... same as they relate to Zoroastrianism.
Like language. Influences come and go and shrink and spread.
There is a lot mentioned in the link above. Historians were describing the religion and its rituals through the Mediterranean world.
But a lot of religions, such as Hinduism and Nordic religions, are similar to Christianity in their own ways, and different in their own ways as well... same as they relate to Zoroastrianism.
Like language. Influences come and go and shrink and spread.
There was already Helinistic influence in Judaism before Christianity came about, perhaps it is what brought Christianity about...
No. And that is entirely unrelated to the issue at hand which is whether, if any borrowing of one religion from another was done, Christianity, as the skeptics claim, borrowed from Zoroastrianism, or whether Zoroastrianism could have borrowed from Christianity. Since we have no extant manuscripts of Zoroastrianism which pre-date Christianity it is impossible to prove that Zoroastrianism didn't borrow from Christianity. While Zoroastrianism pre-dates Christianity, changes in the religion after the birth of Christianity could have occurred which are reflected in the Zoroastrian texts which were created after Christianity began.
The oldest extant complete copies of Gospel Mark which are the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus dating from the 4th century in no way calls the Gospel into question. To my knowledge, no early church fathers prior to the four century, or afterwards questioned the Gospel of Mark.
And I have no idea why you would think the two things were in any way related or that I was calling the Gospel of Mark into question. Nor do I have any intention of wasting further time on this thread. Any claims that Christianity borrowed from Zoroastrianism are purely speculative and can in no way be proven since we have no Zoroastrian texts which pre-date Christianity. That won't stop the skeptics from continuing to make such claims however.
If we have no complete manuscripts of the Gospels that predate the origin of the Catholic church in the 4th century, then we have no no way to verify that the Gospels, and ultimately modern Christianity, were not mainly the creation of the nascent Catholic church.
Zoroastrians originated the concept of eternal punishment in a fiery pit centuries before Christianity came along. Christianity stole the idea of eternal torment from the Zoroastrians and others because it was a very effective tool to bludgeon pagans into accepting Jesus. "Accept Jesus or burn in torment forever!" the churchmen screamed at the pagans. Very effective. And very deceptive.
Actually, while the religion of Zoroastrianism predates the birth of Christianity, the oldest extant Zoroastrian manuscripts date to the 10th century AD which is long after the birth of Christianity. What this means is that we have no way of knowing what Zoroastrianism originally taught and that any borrowing between Christianity and Zoroastrianism may very well be on the part of Zoroastrianism borrowing from Christianity due to Christianity's popularity, rather than Christianity borrowing or copying from Zoroastrianism.
Manuscripts
A manuscript is a handwritten book. Manuscripts were the way in which books were produced before the invention of printing. Remnants of earliest extant (existing) Avestan manuscript date back to the 10 century CE, while the bulk of the complete manuscripts in libraries today, were written in the 18th century CE. Avestan books were not produced for use in a liturgy. Rather, the Avestan manuscript served to transmit the sacred text. The portion of the Avesta used in a religious ceremony was and is recited by a priest from memory. [Bolding mine]
This is a copy of the Zoroastrian Videvdad, or Vendidad as it is also known, a lawbook
containing the rules for dealing with pollution and crime. It is one of the oldest existing
Zoroastrian manuscripts, copied in 1323 in Nawsari, Gujarat, by the scribe Mihraban
Kaykhusraw. In this manuscript, each sentence is given first in the original Avestan (Old
Iranian) language, and then in Pahlavi (Middle Persian), the language of Sasanian Iran (c.
224–651 AD). [Bolding mine]
Of course, the fact that the oldest surviving Zoroastrian manuscripts post-date the beginnings of Christianity which means that we can't know what Zoroastrianism actually taught prior to the emergence of Christianity doesn't deter the skeptics from accusing without any actual verifiable proof that Christianity borrowed from Zoroastrianism.
To further call into question the claim that Christianity stole the idea of eternal torment from the Zoroastrians, I decided to look further into the matter.
HELL
i. IN ZOROASTRIANISM
Besides, the daēnā, the peregrinating soul which accompanies the ruwān of the just in their post-mortem destiny, only appears in its wicked form in later Pahlavi literature, especially in personification of bad actions, being often synonymous with the Pahlavi word kunišn “action.” This seems to indicate that the representation of hell or hells is rather a late development in Zoroastrian faith. [Bolding mine]
Pahlavi literature traditionally defines the writings of the Zoroastrians in the Middle Persian language and Book Pahlavi script which were compiled in the 9th and the 10th centuries CE. These books safeguard, in the vast majority of cases, older material, going back to the Sasanian period and, in same cases, even earlier. [Bolding mine]
This makes a good case for the concept of 'hell' in Zoroastrianism literature appearing during the Sasanian period which is well after the beginnings of Christianity and preserved in Pahlavi literature of the 9th and 10th centuries AD.
The Parsee traveled far abroad from current day Iran.
There used to be a huge Zoroastrian Temple in Hong Kong. About 30 years ago the Parsee applied for zone change and converted it into a commercial building called Zoroastrian Building. There is still a downsized Zoroastrian Temple inside.
Zoroastrian made inroad into China about one thousand years ago. It was simply known as "The Fire Worship Sect".
The Parsee traveled far abroad from current day Iran.
There used to be a huge Zoroastrian Temple in Hong Kong. About 30 years ago the Parsee applied for zone change and converted it into a commercial building called Zoroastrian Building. There is still a downsized Zoroastrian Temple inside.
Zoroastrian made inroad into China about one thousand years ago.It was simply known as "The Fire Worship Sect".
There was already Helinistic influence in Judaism before Christianity came about, perhaps it is what brought Christianity about...
There was also Buddhist influence in Judaism, which brought about the rise (although later becoming extinct) of the Therapeutic Jewish monks, and likely greatly influencing the reshaping of Mishra and other oral interpretations/histories.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
