by jimwalton » Thu Mar 21, 2019 9:11 am
> Zoroaster should be an old testament prophet and is part of Christianity
I disagree. The OT prophets were men and women who became spokespersons for YHWH, who revealed Himself directly to them. Zoroaster does not qualify for being a receptor of direct, special revelation from YHWH.
> So traditionally, the Jewish Cannon more or less has served as the old testament for Christianity.
fyi, it's "canon," not cannon. But you're right that the Hebrew Tanakh has definitely (not more or less) served as the OT for Christianity.
> Jesus fulfills various prophecy from this Cannon, making the connection relevant and why it was paired with the later books.
The NT goes further than that, specifying that Jesus fulfilled it ALL (Mt. 5.17). But you're right that Jesus is the glue that unites the OT & NT.
> Now what about the wise men? The Zoroastrian priests who followed the star were the first to witness the baby Jesus. A holy message obviously bestowed them as they knew to bring gifts for this new king.
They were not. The Bethlehem shepherds were the first (Lk. 2.16). The Persian magi didn't arrive to see Jesus until possibly a year or two later. Joseph and Mary were situated in a house by then (Mt. 2.11). Herod's act to kill children 2 and younger (Mt. 2.16) implies that Jesus could have possibly been as old as 2 by then.
> A holy message obviously bestowed them as they knew to bring gifts for this new king.
As far as we know, the only message they perceived was astrological (Mt. 2.2). We are not aware of any holy message as far as prophetic revelation and cannot speak from silence, speculating what the text doesn't say.
> Zoroaster himself was the first to reveal one true God. Does this not strike you as perhaps the first big step?
I'm not sure what you mean by this. If you mean historically, Zoroastrianism isn't written until about 600-500 BC, though there are speculations about its existence before then. Judaistic monotheism appears as early as 2000 BC (Gn. 12.1), and starts to appear in writing as early as 1300 BC. If you mean the birth story of Jesus, Jesus is first revealed by the angel to Mary (Lk. 1.26-38), and then to the shepherds (Lk. 2.16). The magi are brought into the story in Matthew 2 as a demonstration that Jesus came for the whole world (Jews and Gentiles alike), a common theme throughout Matthew's Gospel.
> There are even messianic references in a few Zoroastrian works.
I would be interested to know these, to add to my notes. Do you have references for them?
> Now obviously the Avesta or Gathas aren't going to be in a Jewish Cannon. But in the overall arch of Christianity? Honestly, the works of Zoroaster seem to have a place to me. If not in the old testament, maybe a prequel, the initial testament.
Every religion has truth in it. Whether you examine the holy books of Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, or Jainism, you will find things that are true. Zoroastrianism, likewise, has true teaching in it and can make for beneficial reading. There is no indication, however, that either the OT or the NT consider Zoroastrianism to be a legitimate source for revelation from YHWH. There is no hint that Z has a place in YHWH's revelation to humanity.