Were the three wisemen really that wise?

[Dominus]

What was the first thing they did when they reached the land where king of kings was just born? They went straight to the local monarch and informed him that the king of kings was just born here.

I mean, throughout history monarchs were known to do whatever it took to preserve their monarchy. So...

The act resulted in the death of every baby in that land.

Were the Wiseman really that wise?

 

[Peloso]

A similar question that has always puzzled me: since most homes have chimneys that lead to a furnace, why doesn't Santa Claus just use the front door?

 

[pigface]

What was the first thing they did when they reached the land where king of kings was just born? They went straight to the local monarch and informed him that the king of kings was just born here.

I mean, throughout history monarchs were known to do whatever it took to preserve their monarchy. So...

The act resulted in the death of every baby in that land.

Were the Wiseman really that wise?

It ain't necessarily so. The things that you're liable to read in the Bible ain't necessarily so.

 

[Peloso]

It ain't necessarily so. The things that you're liable to read in the Bible ain't necessarily so.

Like the part that says “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.”. That just means gays can't fuck missionary style.

 

[rareboy]

Like the part that says “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.”. That just means gays can't fuck missionary style.

My take totally.

 

[rareboy]

I'm going to cut the Magi some slack here.

They thought they sussed out a cosmic event.

Herod thought the baby would be coming for him.

But it is why the stained glass window we installed in a church for my parents has only the animals of the stable in it.

The purest immediate moment in mythology. Before all the influencers and sycophants showed up.

An ox, an ass and a cat.

 

[NotHardUp1]

As the scholars and traditions teach, the Magi never went to the stable, but arrived when Christ was a toddler, and the parents were living in a home. That was deduced from the age of the children slaughtered by Herod in the Massacre of the Innocents. The implication is that the star appeared at his birth, not at his inception, so the Holy Family wasn't still staying in the emergency accommodations of the stable.

To the question of wisdom, the Magi were not depicted as being the wisest of men or the most shrewd. Their wisdom was credited for understanding the Hebrew prophecies, which were not their own, and understanding that "the fullness of time" had arrived, and the sign in the heavens marked it. They were Chaldeans, not Hebrews.

The folly then, as now, was that they imagined a king would be born in a royal household, so started with Herod. When they learned there was no infant there, that meant he was elsewhere. As in all good stories, the pure cannot be faulted for not conceiving of the depravity of the wicked. They had no reason to imagine Herod would see the coming king as his rival, as he could have been rising after Herod's death. Herod is thought to have died about 4 BCE. Jesus is thought to have been born somewhere between 6 and 4 BCE. Yes, the calendar is off from tradition.

At any rate, the imputing of ancient events in hindsight ignores what people didn't know at the time. Perhaps free will meant that Herod's murderous jealosy didn't have to come to pass, but once it did, then the Magi were warned to go home another route, and avoid the king. That same free will notion follows the Jesus story as well, as there is a school of belief that his agony in Gethsemane was his hour of decision, and that he could have chosen not to be captured and die. But, once he did, the events that followed set in motion the changing of what men understood God to be.

Whether you consider it to be fairy tale, myth, history, lies, or all four, zooming in on the Magi misses the thrust of the tale. They were merely Gentile validation of the Hebrew prophecy, nothing more. There is no backstory or epilogue for them. They are squarely in the extras category.

 

[johaninsc]

 

[Kahaih]

Pricey gifts, too, weren't they? Like child support?

 

[Kahaih]

/\ Or, was it 'hush money'?

 

[pigface]

There is no record of how many magi or wiseguys visited. Three gifts are mentioned (which have symbolic meaning, rather than they being known from a written record) , and somehow that is assumed to mean three gift bearers.

 

[NotHardUp1]

Humor notwithstanding, there is no written record of the Christ ever referring to his mother as a virgin or his birth as miraculous.

The concept of the virgin birth was an evolution of attributions from St. Matthew, St. Luke, and the non-canonical Gospel of James. St. Luke's account has been questioned after a 2nd century copy of his gospel didn't include the first two chapters, the section containing the account. Both St. Matthew and St. Luke are believed to have held a copy of St. Mark's account when they wrote their own. St. Mark's is the oldest known gospel (that is canon), and it makes no mention. St. Matthew is credited to the apostle, so he knew Jesus in person. Perhaps as relevant, St. John omits any reference, and he was an apostle as well, so that goes to the point that it was likely not some core belief of the apostles.

However, attributions to the Christ are at the very core of belief and skepticism by believers, agnostics, atheists. Many of the latter two fully believe Jesus existed, but was not the Christ or was not understood correctly. Islam also holds a similar view of Jesus, that he was important, but not divinity.

The whole elevation of Mary and her virginity was the result of the attribution of original sin being transmitted via sex, an implicit belief in the Gospel of James.

Doctrinal wars staked out territory, eventually resulting in Catholicism's assertion of references to the Christ's virgin birth in the creeds, and finally, centuries later, the declaration of Mary's perpetual virginity. This is widely seen as accommodation by Catholicism to incorporate a goddess, the Hebrew traditions lacking one, but man cultures demanding one, more or less.

The persistence of original sin underlying Catholic dogma also is relevant in the insistence of vows and celibacy by the clergy.

 

[Harke the Boeotarch]

^

Because the Lord requires an untainted human sacrifice... and the Congregation drink His blood and eat His flesh.

 

[NotHardUp1]

Commemoration is a key element of almost all world religions.

Do this in remembrance of me is inscribed in many Christian altars.

Unlike litmus tests and extreme doctrine, Christ understood that people know what symbolic acts are. Those clamoring for literal transformation of the host injected a magic that is alien to the reason for the ritual, similar to Mary not being able to sit still in the hereafter.

 

[Harke the Boeotarch]

Commemoration is a key element of almost all world religions.

Do this in remembrance of me is inscribed in many Christian altars.

Unlike litmus tests and extreme doctrine, Christ understood that people know what symbolic acts are. Those clamoring for literal transformation of the host injected a magic that is alien to the reason for the ritual, similar to Mary not being able to sit still in the hereafter.

My ex is a native from the America's where some peoples where somewhat more literal with eating their human sacrifices.

The parallels are quite disturbing.

It's not the first time The Lord asked for a human sacrifice in the Bible, and supposedly the peoples of other religions around the ancient Hebrews practiced human sacrifice (of children) more commonly.

 

[NotHardUp1]

My ex is a native from the America's where some peoples where somewhat more literal with eating their human sacrifices.

The parallels are quite disturbing.

It's not the first time The Lord asked for a human sacrifice in the Bible, and supposedly the peoples of other religions around the ancient Hebrews practiced human sacrifice (of children) more commonly.

I think you are referring to Roman Catholic dogma, the doctrine of transubstantiation.

As for human sacrifice, the only attribution I know of is Abraham being asked to offer his son, which was apparently a test of his loyalty, and it was ultimately not asked. Like much of the Hebrew accounts of Yawhweh, he sounded more like an earthly emperor than a divine being, in nature and temperment.

As such, there are numerous passages where people were struck down for disobedience, which continued right into the New Testament and Christianity when Ananias and Sapphira lied about their charitable contributions. And, the New Testament concludes with the Apocalypse, a final purge of humanity.

Hebrew accounts are almost too many to remember. Children of Israel in the Wilderness of Zin after the Golden Calf. the Egyptian Army in the Reed Sea, the entire human race in the Great Flood, the prophets of Baal at Kidron Brook, and on and on.

Judeo-Christian deity either changed as he dealt with mankind (a heresy), or man's perception of the deity changed as humanity evolved. Unsurprisingly, people look at the same things and find different meaning, impacts, and conclusions. We are all products of our cultures, including indoctrination by religions and by secular institutions.

Ironically, Christianity's god is remarkable because of the attribution of mercy and forgiveness, which stands in contrast to most of the world religions.

Whether a member of a religion or against all religion, studying mankind's religions is an insightful aspect of sociology.

 

[Harke the Boeotarch]

I think you are referring to Roman Catholic dogma, the doctrine of transubstantiation.

As for human sacrifice, the only attribution I know of is Abraham being asked to offer his son, which was apparently a test of his loyalty, and it was ultimately not asked. Like much of the Hebrew accounts of Yawhweh, he sounded more like an earthly emperor than a divine being, in nature and temperment.

As such, there are numerous passages where people were struck down for disobedience, which continued right into the New Testament and Christianity when Ananias and Sapphira lied about their charitable contributions. And, the New Testament concludes with the Apocalypse, a final purge of humanity.

Hebrew accounts are almost too many to remember. Children of Israel in the Wilderness of Zin after the Golden Calf. the Egyptian Army in the Reed Sea, the entire human race in the Great Flood, the prophets of Baal at Kidron Brook, and on and on.

Judeo-Christian deity either changed as he dealt with mankind (a heresy), or man's perception of the deity changed as humanity evolved. Unsurprisingly, people look at the same things and find different meaning, impacts, and conclusions. We are all products of our cultures, including indoctrination by religions and by secular institutions.

Ironically, Christianity's god is remarkable because of the attribution of mercy and forgiveness, which stands in contrast to most of the world religions.

Whether a member of a religion or against all religion, studying mankind's religions is an insightful aspect of sociology.

The story was Jahweh was a god of warfare taken from the Canaanite pantheon, whereas the creator was El, more or less the God from the Sistine Chapel, whose sons had names that ended in -el. Supposedly the knowledge of this pantheon comes from Hittite texts.
One of the 'sons' of El was El-Hellel, or Venus (a lady, we know these are devilish creatures) the Morningstar.

So the psychotic nature of Jahweh derives from Canaanite Ares, which to a certain extent should account for the mood whiplash between the image of God, although I read the religion of the New Testament is informed by Neo-Platonism.

 

[NotHardUp1]

The story was Jahweh was a god of warfare taken from the Canaanite pantheon, whereas the creator was El, more or less the God from the Sistine Chapel, whose sons had names that ended in -el. Supposedly the knowledge of this pantheon comes from Hittite texts.
One of the 'sons' of El was El-Hellel, or Venus (a lady, we know these are devilish creatures) the Morningstar.

So the psychotic nature of Jahweh derives from Canaanite Ares, which to a certain extent should account for the mood whiplash between the image of God, although I read the religion of the New Testament is informed by Neo-Platonism.

The article on Genesis in The Interpreter's Bible offers interesting textual insight into the contributing myths and texts that form the Pentateuch. The long history of scholarship really shows.

 

[Harke the Boeotarch]

The article on Genesis in The Interpreter's Bible offers interesting textual insight into the contributing myths and texts that form the Pentateuch. The long history of scholarship really shows.

Thank you.

The exhaustive story of Biblical study is too boring. Too many people who didn't understand what they were reading wrote too many pointless commentaries. I'm not autistic enough to delve deeply into that.

But I knew the Hittites from an originally English book about history for teens.

It had an artist impression of the described civilizations on every page and the Hittite drawing with it's ancient arched doors (well before Hellenistic Greece) I find especially interesting.