AD POSTS #210

AD POSTS: 201

AD,

Even though your comments were directed to KFC, I'd like to address them. 

Romans 9 through 11 is the section on St.Paul's teaching of God's plan for the chosen people. He explains that Isreal, as a people, in general has failed to accept the Gospel despite the fact that God's promises of salvation were made to the Isrealites in the first place.

Romans 9:21-33 focuses on St.Paul's concern for the Jews and the Gentiles.

He starts this section with the metaphor of the potter which shows that we need to be obedient to God. 24 "Even us, whom also He has called, not only of the Jews, but also of the Gentiles. 25 As in Osee (Hosea) he said: "I will call those which was not my people, I will call 'my people'; and her that was not beloved, I will call 'my beloved'; and her that had not obtained mercy, one that hath obtained mercy. 26 "And it shall be, in the place where it was said to them, 'You are not my people'; there they shall be called the sons of the living God." 27 And Isaias cries out concerning Isreal: "If the number of the children of Isreal be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved. 28 For He shall finish his word and cut it off in justice; becasue a short word shall the Lord make upon the the earth. 29 And as Isaias foretold, "Unless the Lord of the Sabbath had left us a seed, we had been made as Sodom and we had been like Gomorrha." 30 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, who followed not after justice, is not come unto the law of justice. 31 But Isreal, by following after the law of justice, is not come unto the law of justice. 32 Why so? Becasue they sought it not by faith, but as it were of works. For they stumbled at the stumbling stone. 33 As it is written: "Behold I lay in Sion a stumbling stone and a rock of scandal; and whoever believes in him shall not be confounded."

Romans 9:6-8 tells who are true Isreal.  6 "It is not as though the word of God has failed. For all are not Isrealites that are of Isreal: 7 Neither are all they that are the seed of Abraham, children; but in Isaac, shall they seed be called. " 8 That is to say, not they that are the children of the flesh, are the children of God; but they that are the children of the promise are accounted for the seed."

So, from these two sets of passages, we understand the true Isreal is not those descended from Abraham "according to the flesh" who seek to justify themselves through works rather than through faith. The true Isreal is the "remnant" of which the prophet spoke, that portion of Isreal which following Abraham's example, lives by faith, and those Gentiles (non-Jews) who, like the "remnant" of Isreal, accept the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

So, therefore the Chruch made up of one portion of Isreal and another of Gentiles is the true Isreal, which from the time of Christ onwards is constituted by spiritual ties, all one in Christ. As I read it, St.Paul is teaching there is no longer an Isrealite nation constituting a distnnct covenantal people of God, but only a new Isreal of the Catholic Chruch to which every one embraced by the New Covenant belong, without distinction between Jew or Gentile.

What's important to understand is that the New Testament doesn't speak of one covenant with different stages of development one for the Jews and one for every one else. Galations 3 teaches the blessings promised to Abraham come not by the law, but by faith. V. 23-27, "But before the faith came we were under the law shut up, unto that faith which was to be revealed. 24 Wherefore the law was our pedagogue in Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 but after the faith had come, we are no  longer under the pedagogue. 26 for you are all the children of God by faith in Jesus Christ." Now, faith has come and the baptized who have faith in Christ are the children of God and heirs to the Abrahamic convenant perfected in Christ.

Galations 3:16-27, St.Paul teaches it is Christ who is the "seed" of Abraham, and so whoever is incorporated into Him, that is into His Mystical Body, the CC, by means of baptism, inherits the promise God made to Abraham and becomes a member of God's covenant people. That's why we call the Chruch the new Isreal.

The fulfillment of the promise God made to Abraham is seen in Christ, who is Abraham's seed, not in the Mosaic Law.

Getting to Romans 11....we realize that God hasn't cast off all Isreal. While the Jewish people remain most dear to God for the sake of the patriarchs, especially Moses and Abraham, they are nonetheless, v. 20, "becasue of their unbelief, they were broken off" from the "olive tree" which is Christ. St.Paul goes on, v. 20-23, 28, But, "if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again." Hows that? by conversion and baptism the Jews can be reincorporated into the sole and exclusive covenant people of God, which is the Catholic Church.

So, of the Jewish race, v. 5 "there is a remnant saved according to the election of grace" and that remnant consists of those Jews who repent, are baptized and become members of the CC, following the example of St. Paul.  

You may address them but please do not be offended if I am not inclined to respond.

You and your Catholic Church have accepted the interpretations of the early Greek philosophers later to be known as "Church Fathers."

Lula, the very fact that you see no difference between a Hebraic mindset and a Greek mindset tells me that it is frivolous to really engage in any serious discussion on the matter.  I have little reason to believe we would come to any kind of consensus other than agreeing to disagree.  I only see us arguing rather than engaging in an actual discussion where we both might learn.

I would much rather respectfully agree to disagree with you at this time.

Wow. I think we have found something that you and I, and LW, and KFC agree with!

Well, there is a difference between a Hebraic mindset and a Greek mindset, of course.

Want to know an easy test?

In the wars between Greece and Iran around 500 BCE, which side do you consider "your side" and which side do you consider the good guys?

The Hebraic mindset, I am sure, is with the monotheistic anti-slavery Israel-allied Iranian Empire.

The Greek mindset is with the country that is the foundation of European civilisation.

AD,

Absolutely no offense taken if you don't want to respond to my comments now or in the future.

I'm in automatic mode....when serious questions are asked, I give serious answers to the best of my ability.  You aren't the first and won't be the last to close the discussion before it begins by saying let's agree to disagree. my liberal sister who says that to me all the time.

It seems everyone on this thread has their own particular form of animosity towards the CC and that's something I take in stride every time I respond. 

And for what it's worth, with Leauki's 257 response, I can see where I should have better explained the Hebraic vs Greek mindset. But that's fine....all water over the dam.   

Yes, the Church has accepted the interpretations of the Church Fathers (also called Doctors of the Church), but of the 32, only 2 were Greek, St.John Chrysostom and St. Peter Chrysologus. I'm guessing it's the writings of St.John Chrysostom that bother you. I know there have been charges that he and the Gospel of St. John are anti-Semitic.  

St.Albert the Great,  born in Germany was a renown scientist who died in 1280. He was convinced that all creation spoke of God and that the tiniest piece of scientific knowledge told us something about Him. Besides the Bible, God has given us the book of creation revealing something of His wisdom and power. In creation, Albert saw the hand of God. http://www.ewtn.com/library/MARY/ALBERT.HTM

St.Alphonsus Liguori was born in Marianella, Italy in 1696 and died at age 90 in 1787. He was a bishop, spiritual writer, and theologian, and founded the religious order known as the Congregation of the most Holy Redeemer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alphonsus_Liguori

St.Ambrose, a bishop and one of the four original Doctors of the Church...born in Germany between 337 and 340 and died in Italy in 397. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambrose

St. Anselm of Canterbury was born in 1033 (died 1109) near Aosta, a Burgundian town on the frontier with Lombardy. He was the outstanding Christian philosopher and theologian of the eleventh century. He is best known for the celebrated “ontological argument” for the existence of God in chapter two of the Proslogion, but his contributions to philosophical theology (and indeed to philosophy more generally) go well beyond the ontological argument. In what follows I examine Anselm's theistic proofs, his conception of the divine nature, and his account of human freedom, sin, and redemption. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/anselm/

St.Anthony of Padua born in Lisbon, Portugal in 1195 and died in Padua 1231. Said to be a half-thrid cousin once removed to Muhammad. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_of_Padua

St.Athanasius of Alexandria, Egypt in 293 d. 373 He was a theologian and Bishop of the fourth century. He is best remembered for his role in the conflict with Arius and Arianism. At the first Council of Nicaea (325), Athanasius argued against Arius and his doctrine that Christ is of a distinct substance from the Father. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athanasius_of_Alexandria

St.Augustine of Hippo, was Algerian born in  354 -430) He was a bishop, a philosopher and theologian, a Latin Chruch Father, considered one of the most important figures in the development of Western Christianity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo

St.Basil the Great of Caesarea in Cappadocia, Asia Minor (Turkey). He was a 4th century theologian and supported the Nicene faction of the Chruch in opposition to the Arians.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basil_of_Caesarea

St.Bede the Venerable born in Jarrow, Northumbria, part of Sunderland, England, in 672–735 was a Benedictine monk.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bede 

St.Bernard of Clairvaux was French, born in 1090 and died in 1153. He was a French abbot and the primary builder of the reforming Cistercian monastic order.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_of_Clairvaux

St.Bonaventure is French I believe born 1217-1274  " is called the "Seraphic Doctor" because he revealed a certain warmth toward others as a divine fire. His leadership with the Franciscans, following St Francis of Assisi, expressed itself by showing charity, goodwill and ardent affection toward others beside having great discernment in decision-making and judgement.

St Bonaventure tells us to look carefully at the crucified Christ. Gradually this practice will enable us to become more compassionate and undertanding toward others. People will begin to see God in you, even if you don't. Then, you will shine like a seraph, the highest rank of angels, as Bonaventure.

When we humble ourself, reflect upon the crucified Lord often, and share unselfishly, acting with goodness toward others, Jesus mysteriously becomes alive in us, and is plainly seen by others. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonaventure

St.Catherine of Siena was Italian born 1347 and died in 1380. She was of the nun of the Dominican Order, a Scholastic philosopher and a theologian. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_of_Siena

St.Cyril of ALexandria was born about 378 in Theodosios, Egypt and died in 444. He was the Pope of Alexandria, when the city was at its height of influence and power within the Roman Empire. Cyril wrote extensively and was a leading protagonist in the Christolical controversies of the later 4th, and 5th centuries. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyril_of_Alexandria

St.Cyril of Jerusalem was born in 313 possibly near Caesarea Maritima, Palestine and died in Jerusalem in 386. He was a distinguished theologian of the early Church. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyril_of_Jerusalem

Sr.Ephraem was born around the year 306-373 in the city of Nisibis (Turkey) on the border with Syria. He was a was a Syrean Deacon, a prolific Syriac-language hymnographer and theologian of the 4th century. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephrem_the_Syrian

St.Francis de Sales was born in France, in 1567-1622, was bishop of Geneva Switzerland, who worked to convert Protestants back to Catholicism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_de_Sales

St.Gregory the Great born at Rome about 540; died 12 March 604. He is one of the most notable figures in Ecclesiastical History. He has exercised in many respects a momentous influence on the doctrine, the organization, and the discipline of the Catholic Church.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_the_Great

St.Gregory of Nazianzus was born at Arianzus, in Asia Minor, c. 325; died at the same place, 389. The saint's father was originally a member of the heretical sectof the Hypsistarii or Hypsistiani, and was converted to Catholicity by the influence of his pious wife. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_of_Nazianzus

St.Hilary of Poitiers was born in France in 300 and died in 366. He championed the Nicene Creed, along with  Athanasius, Basil, and the two Gregories. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilary_of_Poitiers

St.Isadore of Seville was a Spaniard born in 560 – 636 was Archbishop of Seville for more than three decades and has the reputation of being one of the great scholars of the early Middle Ages. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isidore_of_Seville

St.Jerome was born c. 347 and died in 420) He was a priest best known for translating the Vulgate.  He is recognized by the Catholic Church as a canonized saint and Chruch Doctor and his version of the Bible is still an important text in Catholicism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome 

St.John Chrysostom was Greek born in Syrian Antioch in 347–407, He was the Archbishop of Constantinople. He is known for his eloquence in preaching. After his death (or, according to some sources, during his life) he was given the Greek surname chrysostomos, meaning "golden mouthed", rendered in English as Chrysostom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Chrysostom

St.John of Damascus born in Damascus in 676 and died in Jerusalem in 749. He was a monk. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_of_Damascus

St. John of the Cross was a Spaniard born in 1542 near Avila and died in 1591. He was a major figure of the Catholic Reformation, a mystic, Carmelite friar. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_John_of_the_Cross

St.Lawrence of Brindisi was born in Brindisi, kingdom of Naples, in 1559 and died in 1619. He was a priest and a member of the Order of Friars Minor Capuchin. An accomplished linguist, Lawrence spoke most European and Semitic languages fluently.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_of_Brindisi

St.Leo the Great was of Italian nobility. Born in Tuscany in 400 and died in Rome, Italy in 461. He was Pope from 440 to 461 during the time of the invasion of Attila the Hun. When Attila marched on Rome,  Leo went out to meet him and pleaded for leave. As Leo spoke, Attila saw the vision of a man in priestly robes, carrying a bare sword, and threatening to kill the invader if he did not obey Pope Leo. As Leo had a great devotion to Saint Peter it is generally believed the first pope was the visionary opponent to the Huns. When Genseric invaded Rome, Leo's sanctity and eloquence saved the city again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Leo_I

St.Peter Canisius was born in the Netherlands in 1521 and died in 1597.  He was a Jesuit who fought against the spread of Protestantism in Germany, Austria, Bohemia (Czech Republic) , and Switzerland. The restoration of Catholicism in Germany after the Reformation is attributed to his work. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrus_Canisius

St.Peter Chrysologus was Greek background born in Italy in 380 and died in 450. He was Bishop of Ravenna from about 433 AD until his death.  Pope Sixtus III appointed Peter to the See of Ravenna in about the year 433, apparently rejecting the candidate elected by the people of the city. He was a counsellor of Pope Leo I. Eutychesappealed to Peter to intervene with the pope on his behalf after he was denounced at a synod held in Constantinople in 448. The text of Peter's letter in response to Eutyches has been preserved in the "Acts of the Council of Chalcedon" in it, Peter admonishes Eutyches to accecpt the ruling of the synod and to give obedience to the Bishop of Rome as the successor of Saint Peter. Known as "The Doctor of Homilies," Peter was known for his short but inspired talks; he is said to have been afraid of boring his audience. After hearing his first homily as bishop, Empress Galla Placidiais said to have given him the surname "Chrysologus," by which he is known. Galla Placidia was to become the patroness of many of Peter's projects. Peter spoke against the Arianand Monophysiteteachings, condemning them as heresies, and explained topics such as the Apostles' Creed John the Baptist the Blessed Virgin Mary and the mystery of the Incarnation, in simple and clear language. Peter advocated daily reception of Holy Communion He urged his listeners to have confidence to the forgiveness offered through Christ. In the eighth century Felix of Ravenna preserved 176 of his homilies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Chrysologus

St.Peter Damian was Italian born in  1007 ^-1072 He was a reforming monk and a cardinal. Dante placed him in one of the highest circles of Paradiso as a great predecessor of Saint Francis of Assisi. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Damian

St.Robert Bellarmine was born in Italy in 1542- 1621, was an Italian Jesuit and a Cardinal. He participated in the Catholic Church's proceedings against Giordano Bruno and Galileo Galilei. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bellarmine

St.Theresa of Avila was born in Spain in 1515 and died in 1582. She was a Spanish mystic, Carmelite nun, and writer of the Counter Reformation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teresa_of_%C3%81vila

St.Therese of the Infant Jesus born in France in 1873 and died in 1897. She was a Carmelite nun. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Th%C3%A9r%C3%A8se_de_Lisieux

St.Thomas Aquinas was Italian born in 1225- 1274, He was a priest in the Dominican Order, and an immensely influential philosopher and theologian in the scholastic tradition. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Aquinas

Lula who cares?  It doesn't matter where you're born to have accepted Greek culture.  The whole world under Alexander the Great was under the influence of this culture.  The WHOLE WORLD including ROME!   

Exactly!

And Greek culture (with its paedophilia and unlimited slavery and all those customs) was totally different from Hebrew and Iranian culture. Alexander brought a lot of change to Israel, and while many Israelites welcomed Greek culture initially, it was ultimately rejected.

KFC POSTS:

I do. Truth matters.

KFC POSTS:

Sodaiho posts: 235

But we know from the patriotic heroism of the Machabees that every one didn't have to accept the Greek culture at least the odious Persian-Greek domination. Their revolt retained their own nationality as well as their own God-given religion of Hebraic Judaism at least for a while longer. But eventually, in turn, it fell before the onslaught of the Roman armies iron.   

KFC POSTS:

Sodaiho posts: 235

The Hebraic Jews in diaspora still kept their religious way of life, but became Hellenized, that is, by speaking Greek.  And that's what I meant when I said:

lula posts: 234

Alexander the Great's time was 300 years before Christ. And this was the same time that ancient Hebrew language passed on by Abraham and his descendents was supplanted by Aramaic, a branch of the Semitic languages spoken by the Jews in Palestine. Hellenism continued to spread and as a result the Greek dialect was the world language.

The OT was in Hebrew, and not many Jews could speak or read it, and thus the dire need for the translation. For the sake of the Jewish diaspora, the OT was translated into Greek even though the actual work was done by 70 Jerusalem Jews in Egypt. It enabled the knowledge of the OLd Law, its Divine prophecies, and their culmination in the coming of the Messias.

During the first century, the time of the Roman Empire and Jesus, Greek was the common language. That's why the New Testament, though written mostly by Jews, was composed in Greek. 

Lula, It is interesting to me, that you seem to make a distinction between what you call "Hebraic Jews" and,  I think,  "Rabbinic Jews".  As if to say Hebraic Jews were the true people of God and Rabbinic Jews are not.  I think you are trying to make the case, overall in your thought, that Christianity is the logical next step of Hebraic Judaism while Rabbinic Judaism was a offshoot.

If this is your thinking, its backwards. Christianity is a daughter faith sprouting off from Judaism, no longer Jewish, it took its own path.  While Judaism evolved after the fall of the Second Temple into Rabbinic Judaism.  Judaism is organic, always unfolding, always evolving, always responsive to contemporary situations. It is still one line going back to Abraham. It still maintains its original covenant with God.  Whereas Christianity abandoned the "old" covenent and believes that it has established a New Covenant with its god, Jesus. The moment it did so, it severed its relationship with Judaism period and became something altogether different.  So, while Christians use the Hebrew Scriptures, they use them only in support of their New Scriptures; they use the language differently, changed the meanings of the original texts, added their own spin to ancient stories, and so on. They believe they are correct; Jews do not. We Jews are at peace with this and support your right to believe and practice your new faith. So, why not co-exist as partners rather than trying so often to convince us to adopt your new faith?

Be well.

Now where did you pick that up?

It always surprises me when people (or even researchers) come to conclusions that so clearly contradict my own experience.

I know little Hebrew, barely enough to read a few sentences in the Bible without needing a dictionary. But even I can read and understand the Aramaic parts of the Bible.

It appears odd to me that an Aramaic-speaker of 2000 years ago would not have been able to understand the Hebrew text of the Bible and required a translation to Greek.

The contention that Hebrew wasn't spoken then is also wrong. Hebrew only died out less than 2000 years ago. Inscriptions found between 300 BCE and 1 CE show that Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew all existed as spoken languages.

You are trying and trying to make Israel into something Greek, aren't you?

LW

maybe your joke was funny at the first even the second, but now you're just getting annoying.

Why bother stopping by if this is bringing about the death of you? 

Leauki, I think Lula believes that since the first exile to the destruction of the Second Temple and on, Hebrew was left to wane. That the Jews were becoming Hellenized, that is, assimilated, suggests there was  indeed a waning of Hebrew, but as you point out, even those in the Diaspora still got by and did get by even then. The translation of the Tanach into Greek was no more special in meaning than translating the scripture into English.  That we can read both English and Hebrew is somehow lost on Lula.  I think she is trying to make the case that Hellenization was a good thing as it prepared people for what the early Church did with Greek philosophy as evidenced in the language used in John.

Be well.

Yes, but she doesn't see the Greek element as wrong, or foreign to the religion. I think she sees the entire thing from a Greek/Roman/European perspective and instead of Europeans adopting a middle-eastern religion (one out of many practiced by Jews, Arabs, Iranians etc.) what happened was that Jesus was born as a Jew by accident. He should have been Greek. Or so it seems.

That's why she systematically shuts out all connections between Christianity and today's Israel and Christianity and Iran. As I suggested in my Greece vs Iran test: I am sure Lula sees the Greeks fighting the Iranians as proto-Christians fighting eastern pagans, whereas I (and you probably too) see it as the noble monotheistic Iranians fighting western pagans.

The early Christians definitely saw the Iranian connection, hence the appearance of the three wise men. And far from Jews adopting the tradition of gift-giving from noble Christianity, it was Christianity that adopted the tradition from Zoroastrianism.

I am not very familiar with the gospel, so perhaps KFC can help me out here: how many of the important characters of the Christian Bible are really Greeks?

I think she is trying to find a compromise between Greek and European culture and a religion that is completely middle-eastern.

I personally find many parts of Christianity very Greek and western, including Christian views on heaven and hell ad demons.

Yes, I would like to see KFC weigh in here.  Although I think it is more a question of "influence" than of actual Greek characters. The whole notion of a "Logos" is a Greek formulation. John begins with this notion.  The book gets quite philosophical as I recall.

Be well.

posted incorrectly!

I'm not sure but think TeacherCreature may have deleted his blog.

Since I am very interested in further discussion with Leauki and others regarding  St. Matthew 2 concerning the wise men and whether or not they were Zoroastrian, I hope MM won't mind if I post it here.

Here it is......................

LEAUKI POSTS: #79

LULA POSTS:

LEAUKI POSTS: #102

Thank you Leauki for answering my inquiry. Honestly, it never occurred to me the wise men were Zoroastrian....and although this is helpful, and interesting, you still haven't quite convinced me.  I am positively open to learning more.  

Let's discuss.

Leauki posts: 102

To begin, St. Matthew was the only New Testament writer who didn't write in Greek. He wrote the Gospel in the original language of the Hebrews but we don’t know for sure whether it was in Aramaic or Hebrew.

From the Douay Rheims version, here are all the passages that pertain to the wise men from the East: St.Matthew 2: 1-2, 7-13; 16.

"When Jesus therefore was born in Bethlehem of Juda, in the days of King Herod, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem. 2 Saying, Where is He that is born king of the Jews? For we have seen His star in the east, and are come to adore Him.

7 Then Herod, privately calling the wise men, learned diligently of them the time of the star which appeared to them; 8 And sending them into Bethlehem, said: Go and diligently inquire after the Child, and when you have found Him, bring me word again, that I also may come and adore Him. 9 Who having heard the king, went their way; and behold the star which they had seen in the east, went before them, until it came and stood over where the Child was. 10 And seeing the star they rejoiced with exceeding great joy. 11 And entering in the house, they found the Child with Mary His Mother, and falling down they adored Him; and opening their treasures, they offered Him gifts; gold, frankincense and myrrh. 12 And having received an answer in sleep that they should not return to Herod, they went back another way into their country. 13 And after they departed, behold an angel of the Lord appeared in sleep to Joseph, saying: Arise, and take the Child and His Mother, and fly into Egypt: and be there until I shall tell thee. For it will come to pass that Herod will seek the Child to destroy Him.

16 Then Herod perceiving that he was deluded by the wise men, was exceeding angry; and sending to have killed all the male children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the borders thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the wise men."

Here it's plain that the inspired words of St. Matthew say nothing of the actual number of wise men nor is their homeland indicated..it just says from the East. That there were 3 and that they were Magi kings, sorcerers, astrologers, magicians, priests or Zoroastrians, Chaldean, Babylonian only comes from various traditions and various legends without uniformity or certainty.

Taken from the Catholic Encyclopedia, I note that the Magi and Zoroastrianism and the Magi of the Holy Bible seem to me to be two different things which if true indicates a world of theological difference.  

The plural form of Magi is Magus from old Persian magu which designates a member of an ancient Near Eastern priestly caste. In the NT, there are two terms for Magi, (if my poor eyesight serves me, it looks like payos and payoi). The Payos sometimes has a bad sense of magician or sorcerer as in the case of Simon Magus in Acts. 8 and a Jewish false prophet named Bar-Jesus in Acts 13.

But the Magi "payoi" in St. Matthew are presented as wise or learned men of noble disposition since they were bearing gifts. If we look at Daniel 5:11, written around 600BC, it mentions “wise men, sorcerers (astrologers), Chaldeans, and soothsayers.” Some say since Babylon was noted for its astronomy, the magi, who were star gazers, probably came from there.

Now to the Magi and Zoroastrianism…

 According to Herodotus, the Magi were a Median tribe who had peculiar customs such as not burying or burning their dead, the arts of astrology and magic of which the last took its name. They forbade the killing of certain animals but made obligatory the killing of others.

During the first years of Darius the Great’s reign (521-486 BC), when he was away conquering Egypt, the Magus Gaumata seized power. Darius returned and killed him and several other Magi…and this event was commemorated as an annual feast, “The Killing of the Magi”. Even so, the Magi influence grew and they obtained a religious monopoly to the point that it wasn’t permitted to offer sacrifice without the assistance of a Magi.

According to the Greeks the Magi were specialists in magic and astrology. The Magi called themselves disciples of Zoroaster and appropriated Zoroastrianism. This is why many Greek 5th-2^nd century sources called Zoroaster a Magus.

The Magusaioi is a Semitic and Greek adaptation of the Iranian term magus, and it designates the “Hellenized Magi” “to whom a vast lore of pseudo science, written in Greek, was attributed. Ancient philosophers distinguished two kinds of magic….popular magic which is sorcery and Persian magic, which was a form of religion.

Upon reading this, I cannot see how the wise men of St. Matthew could have been the Magi of the Zoroastrian Herodotus was describing. They seem so out of harmony with the wise men who traveled East to bring gifts and adore the Christ-Child in Bethlehem….but I could be wrong.