The Wise Men from the East - Part 1

A book, I'll put that down here, but I'll show it to you. Just give me cover. It's called The History of Iran. She's having to be in there and look at that stuff. That would be interesting, especially what's going on in the Middle East right now. A history of Iran by Michael Axworthy. She purchased the book and she read it and then she gave it to me to read. Tell me a little bit about it. Wow, that's not what I was expecting. That kind of a book. But actually, it's not at all what you might expect from the title, even though it does give the two history of Iran beginning back around 1000 BC to the present. But here's what the author says in the preface. It says, one thing is best explained at the start is another apparent paradox. The first paradox is that Iran is not at all barren desert. We think of Iran, you think of Iran, you think of just nothing but barren desert. Well, that's not exactly the way Iran is. He also has mountains and rivers and forests and agriculture and wide climate variations as well. Which most people don't think about when you envision it. What then did the author explain as being another apparent paradox? The other paradox is this. He says Iran and Persia are one in the same country. So when you think of Iran, the local people call it Persia. And then he goes into the history of Persia in the Bible. He says, when these people who lived there created an empire that dominated the whole region, the Greeks called it the Persian Empire. But all through that time, the people of these empires themselves called themselves Iranians. And they called their land Iran. The word derives from the very earliest times, apparently meaning noble. So they called Iran, but everybody else called it the Persian Empire. That's the way it's referred to as the Persian Empire. The book then relates the history of the Persian Empire and how its history is woven in the pages of the prophecies of the Bible. Chapter 2, in fact, is called the Iranian Revival. But again, the local people call it Persia. And I read that chapter and it's got some fascinating history in there, which I want to relate to in part of the sermon today. But it actually, unsurprisingly, touches on the history of the four great world-ruling empires as prophesied in Daniel 7, Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greco-Macedonia, and the Roman Empire. It touches on all those, but it especially touches on the early Roman Empire, leading up to the time of Christ, and on Rome's greatest rival. Rome had a great rival that they were never able to subdue, which has been mostly a sponge from history. To the history of Rome's greatest rival relates directly to the time of the year we are now entering into. That was mentioned in the announcements. And into one particular passage in the Gospel of Matthew. Let's look at this passage. It's only in Matthew's Gospel. Let's go to Matthew 2. There's a lot in these few verses, a lot of history here. And it's related to in this book, another book I have as well. I have a book here called, Rollins Ancient History. It was published in 1850 originally. This version I have is published in 1866, so it's over 150 years old. But he's got some amazing history in here that you don't find in modern books today. Although Michael Axworthy touches on some of this as well in his more modern book, which was published in 2008. Matthew 2. And it's only in Matthew's count that we read this. But this has to do with time just after Jesus' birth, and just after it, as was mentioned by Mr. Kubik in his letter.

After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the east came to Jerusalem, saying, Where is he who has been born king of the Jews? For we have seen his star in the east, and we have come to worship him. And when Herod the king heard this, notice verse 3. Very important verse. And when Herod the king heard this, he was troubled and all Jerusalem with him. Again, Matthew is the only gospel that records this. I wanted to give you a little bit of history here. At that particular time, right around before Christ was born, at the time of Christ's birth, right around that time, at that time Jerusalem had a population, if you do some research, of about 30,000 people. At these times it would swell to about 60,000, but the normal population of Jerusalem at that time was around 30,000 people, which then begs this question. Our modern Christian portrayal of this, these wise men from the east, who came to worship he was the born king of the Jews, Christian edition states there are three wise men. Three wise men came in there. Now, if only three wise men who came in there, why would King Herod and all of Jerusalem, consisting of 30,000 people, why would they be troubled? How would they even notice them coming into the city? How would you notice three men coming into the city of 30,000? See, there must be more to the story. Indeed, there is. There's much more to the story. In fact, there's so much more to the story you can't even cover in one sermon. It's got to take two sermons.

But how many wise men were there? Where did they come from? Because they came from the east. Can we can tell where they came from? It says they came from the east. We can. We can know exactly where they came from. Who were they? See, what nation did they represent? What was this star? Notice it says HIS star. Not a star, but his star. What was his star that they had seen? And why were they coming to worship? He had been born king of the Jews. Is there any way of knowing the answers to those questions? Well, today I want to begin a journey to discover the real truth and the real history behind the wise men from the east. And the title for this sermon is The Wise Men from the East, Part 1. The Wise Men from the East, Part 1.

First, I'm going to ask this question. What do these first two verses, the first two verses here of Matthew 2, what those first two verses, Chapter 2 of Matthew's Gospel, what do they tell us? Well, they tell us more than we might think. Number one, they tell us they came to Jerusalem in the days of Herod the king. That would be Herod the Great, who reigned as king over Judea from 37 BC until around 4 BC or 3 BC, depending on your source.

This then gives us a time period as to when this occurred. What else can we learn from these two verses? Well, number two, we can learn that they inquired saying, where is he who has been born, who has been born? Now, do... well, it just was born, but who has been born? Matthew, in other words, it just has the past tense, has been. Matthew doesn't tell us how old Christ was at this time, but verse 13 in Matthew 2 says, he was a young child.

Now, I think it's important because, you know, in all your traditional Christian, they come and they got a little babe in a manger. These wise men show up and they're worshiping a babe. He wasn't a baby, he was a young child. So they got that wrong. He was no longer an infant, as most Christmas scenes would depict. Number three, what would these two verses indicate as to who these wise men were, generally speaking? Would they more likely be non-Israelites, or would they more likely be Israelites, Jews or Israelites?

Would they more likely be descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who at least to some extent were familiar with the Old Testament scrolls and the prophecies concerning the birth of a Messiah? For example, like the 70 weeks prophecy of Daniel 9 verses 24 to 27, which gives a time when the Messiah was going to come. Would they've been familiar with those prophecies and would they've been looking for that time period and for that prophecy to be fulfilled?

The answer is obvious. Non-Israelites would not have known that or been interested in that, but Israelites would have been familiar with the Old Testament scrolls. What about His star? Why does it say His star rather than a star? Why does it say they followed a star? It says they followed His star. Well, there's been a lot of conjecture as to what this star was, but if we really think about it, I think the answer becomes somewhat obvious at least.

What did His star do? Matthew 2 verse 9. When they heard the king, they departed and behold the star which they had seen, which was His star, says back in verse 2, they followed the star which they had seen in the east, went before them till it came and stood over where the young child was. Now, if you've got some star way up there in the heavens, you can't pinpoint where any specific place that star might be over.

So this indicates that His star was an angel. That's what it indicates to me anyway, because angels in the Bible are often referred to as stars, and His star indicates this is an angel that was specifically assigned by God to carry out this particular task, to lead these wise men to the young child, and to maybe oversee them, protect them, and to protect the young child and to guide these wise men.

But notice how angels play a significant role in the events recorded here in Matthew chapters 1 and 2. Just to show you that angels do play a role here, and all the events that are taking place here described in the first two chapters of Matthew. Matthew 1, verse 20. While He thought about these things, Joseph thought about these things, behold an angel of the Lord appeared to Him in a dream. So there's an angel. Verse 24, Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded Him and took to Him as Mary, his wife.

Matthew 2, verse 13. Now when they departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream again. Chapter 2, verse 19. Now when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt. So you see, angels play a major role in all this. That's why I think this star here, in all probability, is picking an angel.

But now let's ask this. Why don't these two verses, what don't, I should say, what don't these two verses tell us regarding these wise men from the east? Well, they don't tell us how many there were. It doesn't say anything where there were three of them. It doesn't tell us how many. The idea that there were just three of them comes from Matthew 2, verse 11. Since three gifts are specifically mentioned, Matthew 2, 11 states, and when they had come into the house, so he's not in a manger. He was in a house. He was back in houses with his mother and father. He was living in a house. And he was a young child. He was no longer an infant. So he's not there in a manger somewhere. He's back in their house. He's a young child. When they come into the house, they saw the young child would marry his mother, and they fell down and worshipped him. And when they had opened their treasures, they presented gifts to him. And then it says, gold, frankincense, and myrrh.

Now, in this one verse, there's a wealth of knowledge right here. But these gifts are called treasures. The Greek word translated, treasures, literally means wealth. Why would these wise men from the east want to bestow wealth on this young child and to his parents?

But that's what it was. It was a great deal of wealth. Gold, frankincense, and myrrh were all extremely valuable gifts at that time. They were undoubtedly worth a great deal of money or treasure. They were a treasure trove of wealth.

That doesn't necessarily mean that there were three of them. This is showing what they bestow on. A great deal of wealth is what they're saying.

Now, what else can be derived from this? Here are these three wise men, not three, but these wise men from the east. They came to Jerusalem. They carried with them a great deal of wealth, treasure, to bestow on this child after he was born back in his house with his parents. And they're traveling from the east. What would have been like in those days traveling? What was it like? Well, traveling in those days is not like today. Come get an airplane. You can't have cars. You can't have police escorts. It was very dangerous.

Robbers and thieves were everywhere, ready to kill and steal whatever they could. So there's no way three men could make it to Jerusalem carrying a treasure trove of wealth without somebody finding out about it, without being killed or robbed, unless they had an army with them. In fact, we're going to go over more research. We find out they did have kind of a small army with them. It was much more than three of them, and they didn't travel just by themselves. They did have a lot of protection.

And when that small army rode into Jerusalem, Herod and all Jerusalem with him was troubled. He said, wait a minute. Hey, there's an army coming into town. And he heard about it, and he was troubled. Why would he be troubled? He must have known something about this small army that was coming in Jerusalem and had these wise men as part of that contingency, carrying a great deal of wealth.

So something caused him to be very troubled. Why? Well, because he knew where this army had come from, when you understand the facts. And he knew his reputation. And when you know the reputation of this small army, you would have a lot of fear.

Because an army that came from the one nation Rome had never been able to conquer or subdue effort in their entire history. Not the very end of the Roman Empire, did they ever subdue it.

It was an army that came from an empire that was, in many respects, even greater than the Roman Empire.

It was about the same size as the Roman Empire, and it lasted about the same length of time that the Roman Empire lasted. It lasted nearly 500 years. What empire was that? It was the Parthian Empire.

Again, like I said, I have a two-volume set of Rollins' Ancient History, where I just showed you the one copy of it, which was published over 150 years ago. It's not out of print, but I found that you can still kind of get it from Amazon, I believe, or put variations of it. But here's what Rollins' Ancient History says. In Volume 2, page 276 under Parthia, The Parthian Empire was one of the most powerful and considerable than it ever was in the East. Very weak in its beginnings, as is common, it extended itself little by little over all upper Asia, and it made even the Romans tremble. Its duration is generally allowed to be 474 years, of which 254 were before Jesus Christ, and 220 were after Him.

Now, the Parthian Empire was located due east of the Roman Empire. I'm going to give you illustrations behind me here in a minute, but I just print out what it was like here. This red over here, this is the Roman Empire. This is the Parthian Empire, due east of the Roman Empire here, if you can kind of see this. In here, this is Arabian Desert. This is also part of the Roman Empire, but it's all desert out here. You have to cross this desert. Here's Babylon. Babylon was the headquarters of the Roman, I mean, it was a Calo City, the Parthian Empire at the time. Here's Jerusalem over here. So due east of Jerusalem, where these wise men came in to Jerusalem, you have Babylon, and you have the Parthian. Here is the Euphrates River right along here. Euphrates River was a border between the Roman Empire and the Parthian Empire. So this side of the Euphrates River was a Roman Empire. This side was a Parthian Empire. You go east of Jerusalem, there's only one thing you run into. You run into the Parthian Empire, which extended 1,000 miles north to south, and 2,000 miles east to west. So where did they come from? They had to come from Parthia. There's no doubt about it. In other words, if you could look behind me here, you could say we've got these two doors here. This could be the Roman Empire over here. Parthian Empire here, same size. Here's Euphrates River, the dividing line. Jerusalem would be right over here. Babylon right over here. So you know where they came from.

Like I said, the Parthian Empire sent over 1,000 miles north to south, nearly 2,000 miles from east to west. And they shared a common border of the Euphrates River, at least for a large portion of that border, was the Euphrates River.

So the center of the Parthian Empire was due east of Jerusalem. Thus, the only nation the wise man from the east could have come from would have been Parthia. It's the only nation they could have come from. You have to go over 2,000 miles to run into China or the other Asian countries near the side of Parthia.

So Parthia was a huge empire. It's about two-thirds size of the continental United States. Want to compare it? Something we can be familiar with.

Took in the city of Babylon, which was located on the Euphrates River, which today is Iraq. It also took in what today are portions of the territories of Eastern Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and even a portion of India, in addition to some southern portion to the former Soviet Union. All that area was once a part of the Parthian Empire. And it was a power that rivaled Rome, and before home Rome trembled. So these first two verses of Matthew 2 tell us a great deal. But there's one thing they don't tell us. They don't tell us why. Why did these wise men come to Jerusalem to bestow this wealth on this young child? We'll look at that next time in Part 2. But now let's look at why Rome trembled at the thought of a Parthian invasion. What happened about 50 years before Christ was born? They're around 50 BC. What happened specifically in 53 BC? In 53 BC, a Roman general by the name of Crassus, C-R-A-S-S-U-S, set out to conquer Parthia. Roman general, he said, we're going to conquer... that they were imperialistic. Rome was imperialistic. They conquered a lot of nations. That's how they expanded their territory. So he says, hey, let's conquer Parthia. We'll double our territory.

Again, the Euphrates River was a border. So to invade Parthia, the first thing he had to do was to build a bridge over the Euphrates River for his armies to pass. What happened as his troops began passing over the bridge to enter into Parthia? Again, this is recorded in Rollins' Ancient History, Volume 2, page 278. Crassus had seven legions of foot soldiers and nearly 4,000 horse soldiers and as many light armored soldiers and archers, which amounted all to more than 40,000 men. That's Crassus, the Roman general. He's got this army of 40,000 men. He's going to march into Parthia to conquer Parthia. And he builds a bridge so he can cross the Euphrates River. That is to say, one of the finest armies the Romans ever set on foot. When his troops were passing the bridge that he had laid over the Euphrates River, this is interesting, said, a dreadful storm of thunder and lightning drove in the face of the soldiers as to prevent them from going on. At the same time, a black cloud, which burst into an impetuous wind, attended with thunderings and lightnings, fell upon the bridge and broke down part of it. And the Roman troops were seized with fear. Now, it's interesting because of fear at that particular time, God was on the side of the Parthians. If that was the case, why would he be on the side of the Parthians? Who were they?

However, Crassus and his Roman army, he regrouped. Eventually, they repaired the bridge and they went on anyway.

What was this? A petuous storm was out of warning, maybe to the Romans. Maybe this is not a good idea. When Crassus and the Roman army finally engaged the Parthians, here is what happened as recorded in Rawlins ancient history and in the history of Iran as well. Rawlins ancient history on Parthia, volume 2, pages 278 to 284 in that area, said the Roman soldiers had imagined the Parthians would never dare come to blows with them. They now saw, contrary to their expectations, that they were to undergo great battles and great dangers after some days in the enemy's country, after they crossed the Euphrates River into Parthia, where it was difficult to have any intelligence. The scouts came in full speed to inform Crassus, the Roman general, that a very numerous army of the Parthians was advancing with great order and boldness to attack him immediately. The news threw the whole camp of the Romans into trouble and consternation. The Romans were much astonished to suddenly see their whole army surrounded on all sides. Crassus immediately gave orders for his archers and light-armed foot soldiers to charge them, but they could not execute those orders for long, for they were compelled by a shower of arrows from the Parthians to retreat and cover themselves. Their disorder and dismay now began when they experienced the rapidity and force of those arrows against which no armor was proof and which penetrated alike wherever they hit. The Roman army had no defense for these arrows.

The Parthians did dreadful executions and made deep wounds because they do their bows to the utmost. The strings discharged their arrows, which were of an extraordinary weight, with an impetuosity and force that nothing could resist. The Romans were marked for every arrow shot at them, and he died by a slow death. Not being able to support the pain they suffered, they rolled themselves upon the sands with the arrows in their bodies and expired in that manner in exquisite torments, or endeavoring to tear out by force the bearded points of the arrows. The arrows had bearded points, so once it had been, if you pulled them out, you had to pull against those barbs, which only made their wounds the larger and increased their pain. Most of them died in this manner, and those who were still alive were no longer in any condition to act. When young crasslers exhorted them to charge, they showed him their hands nailed to their bucklers, and their feet riveted to the ground. So it was impossible for them to either defend themselves or to flee.

See, the Parthians were extremely skilled marksmen.

They were thus greatly feared by any who might go against them in battle. Here's what how he ends this section on this particular battle. Rollins, Ancient History of Parthia, Volume 2, again, page 284. This was a terrible night for the Romans. They had no thoughts of either in turning their dead or addressing their wounds, of whom the greatest part died in most horrible torments. Every man was solely intent upon his own particular distress, for they all saw plainly that they could not escape. Crassus, the Roman general, was at this time killed by a Parthian. Note this here. The loss of this battle was the most of the 53 BC, was the most terrible war the Romans had received. They had 20,000 men killed, 20,000 Roman soldiers killed, and 10,000 taken prisoner. The rest made their escape by different means. Remember his army? He had 40,000 men. His army, when he started to invade Parthia, 10,000, if he left with 10,000, three-quarters of them were either killed or taken prisoner.

So he lost 75% of that particular portion of the Roman army.

Now, the book, A History of Iran, confirms what Rollins wrote and adds a few more details. It's A History of Iran by Michael Axworthy, pages 36 and 37. In 53 BC, Marcus Crassus, a fabulously rich Roman politician who destroyed the slave result of Spartacus, became the new governor of Roman Syria. Holding the main conquest of the east, Crassus marched an army of some 40,000 men east to Carre, C-A-R-R-H-A-E. At Carre, Crassus' army was met in the open plain by smaller but much faster moving forces, about 10,000 horsemen, including large numbers of horse archers or the Parthians. So it was about 10,000 Parthians versus 40,000 Romans. Michael Foxworthy then adds this, The Parthians confronted Crassus with a kind of fighting the Romans had not previously encountered, and against which they had no answer. Hour after hour the arrows rained down on the Romans despite the Romans heavy armor. The powerful Parthian warbows frequently zinged a narrow past the edge of a shield, found a gap at the neck body between the body armor and the helmet, or wounded soldiers on protected hands or feet. The full strength of the Parthian horse archers turned on the Roman detachment. More and more of them were hit by arrows. Crassus' son pulled his men back to a small hill, where they were surrounded and eventually killed. Finally, Crassus attempted to negotiate with the Parthian general Seren, only to be killed in a scuffle. The survivors of the Roman army withdrew and disordered back into Roman Syria. Meanwhile, as many as 10,000 Roman prisoners were marched off by the Parthians to the remote area northeast of the Empire.

So, thus in a separately written history by Michael Axworthy a few years ago, confirms what Rollins wrote well over 150 years ago. Rollins then makes this comment. This is Rollins, Volume 2, page 284 on Parthia. At this time, Rome was becoming respected and dreaded by all nations. She was becoming mistress of the most important kingdoms of Europe, Asia, and Africa. Yet, in the most exalted height of her glory, she saw her glory suddenly fall to the ground in her attack upon a people formed out of the assemblage of an Eastern Empire, whose valor she despised. So complete a victory was shown to those haughty conquerors of the world by a rival Empire and a remote people who were capable of setting bound to their ambitious projects and of making them tremble for their own safety. Setting bounds on Roma's expansion and setting bounds on Rome. It showed the Romans might be overthrown and pitched battle and restrained. The check received by Crassus from the Parthians was a block on the Roman Empire. They don't really want to talk about that in their history.

So you don't read much about it. You read how great Rome was, but you don't read much about the one Empire they could never subdue or conquer and that they feared greatly.

But that's probably why the history of Parthia has all but been expunged from most history books, which have all taught the greatness of Rome, but how many have been taught the history of the Parthian Empire?

About the history of the one Empire they could not conquer. Now maybe another reason we have not been taught the history of the Parthian Empire is because, to a large degree, the Parthians were descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. They were Israelites.

You want to play down any history of Israel, a build-up Rome.

See, these people would have been Parthia. A lot of them were descendants of the House of Israel and the House of Judah. But after the Battle of Carhae, there was one additional Roman general who set out to conquer Parthia, one we're all very familiar with. That general was Mark Anthony. You all know about Mark Anthony Cleopatra. Here's what Michael Axworthy records in his book, A History of Iran. History of Iran, pages 38 and 39 by Michael Axworthy. The next Roman to test the Parthians in a major way was Mark Anthony. In 36 BC, he took an army more than double the size of that of Crassus into the same area of Upper Mesopotamia. That would be an army of more than 80,000 soldiers. Now, Mark Anthony, he says, I'm going to do what Crassus couldn't do. I'm going to become an early great general. Maybe I can be the head of the Roman Empire, which was his course of ambition. He said, I'll take an army of 80,000 and I'll go and I'll conquer Parthia.

Continuing, Anthony soon encountered many of the same difficulties that had been frustrated that had frustrated the Roman general Crassus before him. He was forced to retreat through Armenia in the winter cold, losing as many as 24,000 men. Forced to retreat, losing 24,000. And then Rollins concludes the entire episodes with the Romans encounter with the Parthians by saying this. In a word, the Romans could never subject the Parthians to their yoke. That nation was like a wall of brass, which with impregnable force resisted the most violent attacks against their power. And then Michael Axworthy adds this on page 39 of A History of Iran. After Augustus, Augustus Caesar, after Augustus eventually achieved supremacy in the Roman Empire, he followed a policy of diplomacy with the Parthians, creating a period of peace. I find that very interesting. You're getting down now to about the time the young child was going to, you know, the young infant Jesus was born, and he becoming a young child, and all of a sudden you have a period of peace.

Octavian became Augustus Caesar. He decides to make peace with the Parthians, and that peace lasted about a hundred years. That period of peace lasted about 100 years, or throughout a large portion of the first century AD, which assured there would be no wars with Parthia at the time Christ was born, or during the beginning stages of the early New Testament church. Why is that important? Because after Christ died, what happened? The apostles had to carry the gospel of the kingdom of God, and if Christ was the Savior for the world, they had to carry that gospel into all portions of the world, including Parthia and all the other nations, and they could have done that if there was war going on. Very interesting, just Augustus Caesar negotiated peace with the Parthians, so the time that early in the Old Testament church was growing, there would be peace, so that gospel message could go to the world in that area at that particular time. He'd go all through all parts of the Roman Empire, and probably into Parthia as well, and just undoubtedly he did, going into Parthia as well.

Now, about six years after Mark Athony's defeat by the Parthians, he was defeated by Octavian, and again, he became Augustus Caesar. Athony died on August 1st, 30 BC in Alexandria, Egypt, along with his, I don't know if you're going to call her his wife or not, and maybe I don't know if he got married before he died or not, but his lover, Cleopatra, died at the same time on August 1st, 30 BC, probably by suicide, by taking poison, committing suicide together. Very interesting, though, about Cleopatra, who was Cleopatra. She was the line of the Ptolemies. When Cleopatra died, that ended the history of the kings of the south, Daniel 11. She was the last of the Ptolemies, Cleopatra was. So this then gives us some background to understanding the history behind Matthew 2 verses 1 to 3, to understanding who the wise men from the east were, generally speaking, and why King Herod and all Jerusalem was troubled at their arrival in Jerusalem to see and bring their treasure to who has been born king of the Jews. But there's much more to the story yet. Why did this contingent from Parthia want to bestow a great deal of wealth on who has been born king of the Jews? Why were they interested in doing that? And how did these Jews and Israelites end up in Parthia? How did they become a part of the Parthian Empire? Not just a part of it, but a leading part of it, and even a ruling part of it?

See, what kind of a structure of government did Parthia have?

How did they select their king?

Who was their king? And what title did their king, what title the king of Parth did go by? He went by a title, a very familiar title. What title did he go by? What was their ultimate goal, these wise men from the east? Well, I'll try to cover most of that next time in Part 2, which I'll give here in Ann Arbor on January 13th. Before I close, I would like to mention one more thing that was brought out by Mr. Kubik in his letter, a little to Lisa to a degree. We just mentioned here in the announcements as well.

But we'll see next time most of the Parthians... this is an interesting thing. And by the time of Christ's death, just after that, by the time of Pentecost, 31 BC, we'll see that many of the Parthians were becoming Christians, they were becoming followers of Christ, as we'll see next time as well. They became part of that early New Testament church. But there is a dark side to all of this this time of history I want to bring out. About the same time, a new mystery religion began spreading in the Roman Empire.

And here is what... see, do I have that here? Oh yeah, I've got it written down here. Here is what the book, The History of Iran, by Michael Foxworthy says on page 41 regarding this particular new religion, which is called Mithriism. So it was a kind of secret society, a little like the Freemasons.

Its tenants included mystery ceremonies, initiation rites, and a hierarchy of grades of membership. The period of the cult's early population and spread was the first century AD. It is thought to have had an important influence on the early New Testament church as the Christian bishops made converts and tried to make the new religion as acceptable as possible to former pagans of misleism.

And they're trying to synchronize the two religions together, as we know.

Were they successful in doing that? Michael Foxworthy on page 41 of The History of Iran then says this, Mithra's followers believed he was born on December 25th of a virgin with shepherds as his first worshipers.

That's interesting, isn't it? Well, let's end there. We'll pick it up next time in part two of The Wise Men from the East.