Zeitgeist?

[_Who Knows]

... fartagnan's ...

Uncool. He's one of the best poster's around.

[_GoodK]

... fartagnan's ...

Uncool. He's one of the best poster's around.

Oh gosh. Honest mistake, although I think I'll leave it!

He is definitely not one of the best poster's around.

I haven't been here long, and I could easily put together a top ten list and he would be far from being on it.

Just for fun:

1. Scottie
2. Moniker
3. Bond
4. Skippy
5. Kimberly
6. Scratch
7. Nehor
8. Don Bradley
9. Stu
10. Liz

[_dartagnan]

That was a pretty hilarious mistake to make.

[_Bond...James Bond]

1. Scottie
2. Moniker
3. Bond

Well if I have to be under anybody, might as well be Moniker.

[_dartagnan]

With scottie on top of her?

yikes

[_Bryan Inks]

The narrator speaks of three kings as the three stars aligned, unaware it seems that the Bible never refers to only three kings. Three kings often appear in manger scenes, so the author apparently took this image and applied it to her own creative reconstruction of the stars. She said these stars were referred to as "three kings" but in her book, which is the source for this claim, she provided no source document to base her claim. I mean it is one thing to just cite an obscure and unreliable book without page numbers, but to cite nothing, and simply expect people to take it on your say-so, is just an insult to the masses. Again, only the gullible are victims here.

So, you didn't even bother looking, did you?

I clicked a single link on zeitgeistmovie.com and got this entire set of information on the "Three Kings"

Referring to the Gospel of Matthew, the number of "Wise Men" or "Magi" is not named. However, it is traditionally assumed to be three because of the three gifts (frankincense, myrrh & gold) that were given at that time. Church Father Origen (185-224 ad) was the first to denote the "three" Magi in his writings.
Likewise, the notion of "Kings"(*) is a traditional development, but also seems to have some basis, as derived from Psalms 71:10, where the prophecy of the coming Christ is said to have been denoted:

[The kings of Tharsis and the islands shall offer presents: the kings of the Arabians and of Saba shall bring gifts: ] -Psalms 71:10

(*) It was Tertullian (c.160-230) ]who first spoke of the three Magi as kings ("Adv. Marcion.", III, xiii), referring to Psalms (67:30, 71:10) and to Isaiah (60:3): "kings [shall come] to the brightness of thy rising". "Ille magi reges sunt [ these Magi are indeed kings ]," St Caesarius of Arles stressed in the sixth century.

Regardless, in view of a literal interpretation of the New Testament, neither "Three" or "Kings" appear in the Gospel story. However, it is important to point out that even though these points are missing in the literal interpretation, the custom of such inclusion is widely denoted across the world.
In fact, a shrine even exists at the Cologne Cathedral which claims to have the remains of the "Three" Wise Men.

Why is this so? If the Bible does not denote these things exactly, then why is it traditionalized as such? Why the "Three Kings"?

In part, it would seem that these notions were set in motion by church fathers such as Origen and Tertullian. However, if one steps back to examine the pagan mythological tradition that preceded Christianity ( which Origen and Tertullian were very aware of ), the 'traditional' notion of there being "Three Kings", rather than an unknown number of "Magi / Wisemen" comes more clear, as these literary characteristics existed in other saviors of paganism.

Going back the scripture in question, Matthew reads:
"Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him."
-Matthew 2:1-2
" . . and lo, the star, which they had seen in the East went before them, till it came to rest over the place where the child was"
-Matthew 2:9

The underlying summery paraphrased here is:
'Jesus had a birth star in the east, and the Wise Men used the star to locate the King of the Jews (Jesus)'

Now- are their any pre-Christian religious traditions that denote the same idea? If there are, then the characteristics of the prior tradition(s) was, in all odds, an influence and thus the ramifications of those characteristics would carry over as well.

The answer is yes, as B. Walker points out in regards to the Osirus/Horus myth of Ancient Egypt:

"Osiris's coming was announced by Three Wise Men: the three stars Mintaka, Anilam, and Alnitak in the belt of Orion, which point directly to Osiris's star in the east, Sirius (Sothis), significator of his birth..."

[ Walker, Barbara: The Womans Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets, Harper, p748-754 ]

And as Massey elaborates:

[ Massey, Gerald: The Historical Jesus and the Mythical Christ, Book Tree, 1883, p12-13 ]

In conclusion, the notion of the 'Three Kings' visiting Jesus after following his birth star is, in fact, an astronomical allegory that was a part of the Egyptian mythology prior to the advent of Christianity. Even though the Bible does not denote 'Three' or 'Kings' exactly, the traditional, pagan nature of it is obvious... which also explains why the tradition of 'Jesus visited by the Three Kings' is so widespread today.

A single link. Guess what's present? Books, page numbers, links to more information. . . It's like. . . I don't know, someone knew what they were doing.

Edited: For language.

Edited to add: I'm not saying that the information is correct or incorrect, either way. I'm just saying that your primary beef seems to be a lack of sources and it looks to me like the creator/s have their ducks in a row. . . meeting every single one of your objections.

[_GoodK]

1. Scottie
2. Moniker
3. Bond

Well if I have to be under anybody, might as well be Moniker.

1. Scottie
2. Moniker
3. Bond

Well if I have to be under anybody, might as well be Moniker.

I didn't mean for this to be a ranking or anything. You all are number one in my book Ü

[_Jersey Girl]

blah blah blah you are a moron! blah blah blah you are an idiot! blah blah blah, trix are for kids! blah blah blah library science !

You've mastered the art of avoiding arguments my pious friend, and in being so abrassive and bellicose you've made me start to loose interest.

If there was anything substantive that you said in your post that needs to be responded to, I didn't see it.

Quote of the day:

"IF it weren't for Christians you guys wouldn't have modern science today."

Thanks for the laugh, champ.

Where has dart avoided arguments, GoodK? I see at least two detailed posts above for which you have failed to offer any sort of refutation. You are shifting focus from topic to poster. I've noticed it repeatedly in the threads that you've attempted to post on. That is the sure sign of one who has no argument.

You post as if you were taking part in an argument/discussion/debate yet you avoid doing just that. You are posting words while saying virtually nothing at all.

I'm all for posturing but there really does need to be an argument behind it or under it.

[_GoodK]

blah blah blah you are a moron! blah blah blah you are an idiot! blah blah blah, trix are for kids! blah blah blah library science !

You've mastered the art of avoiding arguments my pious friend, and in being so abrassive and bellicose you've made me start to loose interest.

If there was anything substantive that you said in your post that needs to be responded to, I didn't see it.

Quote of the day:

"IF it weren't for Christians you guys wouldn't have modern science today."

Thanks for the laugh, champ.

Where has dart avoided arguments, GoodK? I see at least two detailed posts above for which you have failed to offer any sort of refutation. You are shifting focus from topic to poster. I've noticed it repeatedly in the threads that you've attempted to post on. That is the sure sign of one who has no argument.

You post as if you were taking part in an argument/discussion/debate yet you avoid doing just that. You are posting words while saying virtually nothing at all.

I'm sorry, but you don't really have much credibility with me.

I highly doubt you've read the entire thread, and even if you did this is nothing more than a personal attack to get back at me for the beating you have been taking over at my other thread.

You couldn't possibly have read this entire thread. It's not your style.

[_Jersey Girl]

blah blah blah you are a moron! blah blah blah you are an idiot! blah blah blah, trix are for kids! blah blah blah library science !

You've mastered the art of avoiding arguments my pious friend, and in being so abrassive and bellicose you've made me start to loose interest.

If there was anything substantive that you said in your post that needs to be responded to, I didn't see it.

Quote of the day:

"IF it weren't for Christians you guys wouldn't have modern science today."

Thanks for the laugh, champ.

Where has dart avoided arguments, GoodK? I see at least two detailed posts above for which you have failed to offer any sort of refutation. You are shifting focus from topic to poster. I've noticed it repeatedly in the threads that you've attempted to post on. That is the sure sign of one who has no argument.

You post as if you were taking part in an argument/discussion/debate yet you avoid doing just that. You are posting words while saying virtually nothing at all.

I'm sorry, but you don't really have much credibility with me.

I highly doubt you've read the entire thread, and even if you did this is nothing more than a personal attack to get back at me for the beating you have been taking over at my other thread.

You couldn't possibly have read this entire thread. It's not your style.

Actually, it is my style to read an entire thread as I did this one. As for the other thread it has been taken over and forwarded by posters who understand how to argue a point and stay on topic.

See ya.