Author Topic: The Magi? (Read 6634 times)

JSB23 · « **on:** June 26, 2010, 11:32:23 PM »

Can I activate magic charms on the Magi?
I mean they were astrologers and magic charms is an artifact....

Definition of Magi:
Magi (Latin plural of magus; Ancient Greek μάγος (magos); Old Persian (maguš) (Modern Persian مغ (magh)); Arabic مجوس; English singular magian, mage, magus, magusian, magusaean) is a term, used since at least the 4th century BCE, to denote a follower of Zoroaster, or rather, a follower of what the Hellenistic world associated Zoroaster with, which was – in the main – the ability to read the stars, and manipulate the fate that the stars foretold. The meaning prior to Hellenistic period is uncertain.

I have bolded relevant info

TheHobbit13 · « **Reply #1 on:** June 26, 2010, 11:34:20 PM »

I think the consensus is that good characters cannot be magicians.

JSB23 · « **Reply #2 on:** June 26, 2010, 11:39:56 PM »

Quote from: TheHobbit13 on June 26, 2010, 11:34:20 PM

I think the consensus is that good characters cannot be magicians. Let me go find the thread.

So we're ignoring historical fact because it's convenient?
That doesn't seem right

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #3 on:** June 26, 2010, 11:44:22 PM »

Quote from: JSB23 on June 26, 2010, 11:39:56 PM

Quote from: TheHobbit13 on June 26, 2010, 11:34:20 PM
I think the consensus is that good characters cannot be magicians. Let me go find the thread.
So we're ignoring historical fact because it's convenient?
That doesn't seem right

No, because in Redemption, a Magician is an evil identifier (similar to demon).

TheHobbit13 · « **Reply #4 on:** June 26, 2010, 11:47:24 PM »

Quote from: JSB23 on June 26, 2010, 11:39:56 PM

Quote from: TheHobbit13 on June 26, 2010, 11:34:20 PM
I think the consensus is that good characters cannot be magicians. Let me go find the thread.
So we're ignoring historical fact because it's convenient?
That doesn't seem right

It doesn't seem right to abuse the game either.

TheKarazyvicePresidentRR · « **Reply #5 on:** June 27, 2010, 12:12:25 AM »

Quote from: JSB23 on June 26, 2010, 11:39:56 PM

Quote from: TheHobbit13 on June 26, 2010, 11:34:20 PM
I think the consensus is that good characters cannot be magicians. Let me go find the thread.
So we're ignoring historical fact because it's convenient?
That doesn't seem right

Yeah cuz we've never done that before, *cough Moses = Priest*

JSB23 · « **Reply #6 on:** June 27, 2010, 12:16:09 AM »

But they were magicians...

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #7 on:** June 27, 2010, 12:17:55 AM »

Ok, so let's outline this:

Historical fact by JSB
Game Rule by Alex
Repeating Point by JSB

So what did that add again? It's a game rule that a Magician is an evil identifier that has to do with conjuring, spell casting, etc. Something that Heroes do not take part in.

Professoralstad · « **Reply #8 on:** June 27, 2010, 12:19:36 AM »

Quote from: JSB23 on June 27, 2010, 12:16:09 AM

But they were magicians...

But Rob said that they were not for Redemption purposes. I think they can be magicians in Redemption if they are converted, but otherwise they cannot. There's really no point in arguing about it. This was decided soon after TexP came out.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #9 on:** June 27, 2010, 12:20:25 AM »

Quote from: Professoralstad on June 27, 2010, 12:19:36 AM

Quote from: JSB23 on June 27, 2010, 12:16:09 AM
But they were magicians...

But Rob said that they were not for Redemption purposes. I think they can be magicians in Redemption if they are converted, but otherwise they cannot. There's really no point in arguing about it. This was decided soon after TexP came out.

Not true. Converted Magicians lose the identifier.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #10 on:** June 27, 2010, 08:29:36 AM »

Quote from: Alex_Olijar on June 27, 2010, 12:20:25 AM

Quote from: Professoralstad on June 27, 2010, 12:19:36 AM
Quote from: JSB23 on June 27, 2010, 12:16:09 AM
But they were magicians...

But Rob said that they were not for Redemption purposes. I think they can be magicians in Redemption if they are converted, but otherwise they cannot. There's really no point in arguing about it. This was decided soon after TexP came out.

Not true. Converted Magicians lose the identifier.

I think the Professor was suggesting that if The Magi were converted to an evil character that they would be considered magicians, not that an evil magician converted to a hero would still be a magician.

However, I would disagree with that conclusion because of the actual identifier written on The Magi card, which says "Eastern Wise Men." Since Egyptian Wise Men are not magicians, I do not think a converted The Magi should be either.

JSB23 · « **Reply #11 on:** June 27, 2010, 11:13:01 AM »

Did you read my first post?

Wings of Music · « **Reply #12 on:** June 27, 2010, 11:57:52 AM »

Quote from: JSB23 on June 27, 2010, 12:16:09 AM

But they were magicians...

And just FYI, I have heard that the magi actaully could have been students under the great prophet Daniel during the Babylonian Captivity Period for Judah. Therefore, they would be "Wise Men" like Prof. Underwood said...

See Daniel 2:48

(But again, I have not thoroughly researched this, so don't quote me on it, lol, It is just a thought...)

BubbleBoy · « **Reply #13 on:** June 27, 2010, 12:24:33 PM »

I think what some people might be trying to do here is manipulate words from the Bible that have been translated from languages which function differently than our own. Instead of getting a definition of the English word "magi", you should get a definition of the original word from the original language in which this section of the Bible was written in order to figure out what the people we call "magi" really were. I don't really care or know how to do such research myself, but if nothing else, keep in mind that you are reading a translated Bible, so manipulating words does not make a good argument.

Wings of Music · « **Reply #14 on:** June 27, 2010, 04:21:48 PM »

Quote from: BubbleBoy on June 27, 2010, 12:24:33 PM

I think what some people might be trying to do here is manipulate words from the Bible that have been translated from languages which function differently than our own. Instead of getting a definition of the English word "magi", you should get a definition of the original word from the original language in which this section of the Bible was written in order to figure out what the people we call "magi" really were. I don't really care or know how to do such research myself, but if nothing else, keep in mind that you are reading a translated Bible, so manipulating words does not make a good argument.

That's a good point...I know how to look it up and research it, so I will get back when I find out...

Wings of Music · « **Reply #15 on:** June 27, 2010, 04:37:29 PM »

OK, I have it now:

IN Matthew 2 where we see the wise men come to find Jesus, the greek word used for them is Strongs 3097#, which is "magos." It is defined as = "a Magian, i. e. Oriental scientist; by impl. a magicioan: - socerer, wise man."

IN Daniel 2:48 where it mentions the wise men under Daniel, the Hebrew word used for them is Strongs 2445#, which is chakkiym. It is defined as, "from a root correp. to 2449; wise, i. e. a Magian: - wise."

Therefore, the theory I pointed out still has a possibility of being true...

(FYI, I tried my best to make these direct quotes, and I am sorry for taking this tangent, but it was to answer Bubbleboy's Q. I hope this clarifies things!

)

~Wings

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #16 on:** June 27, 2010, 05:15:11 PM »

I could care less about definitions found on the web. I think it is important to have consistent definitions within Redemption. We can not have one set of "Wise Men" be magicians, while another set of "Wise Men" are not. That is setting up hosts to fail. With all of the time and money requirements already placed on hosts, keeping ruling questions easy would be greatly appreciated.

Master KChief · « **Reply #17 on:** June 27, 2010, 05:28:12 PM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on June 27, 2010, 05:15:11 PM

I could care less about definitions found on the web.

you care less about the true meanings of biblical words?

Quote

We can not have one set of "Wise Men" be magicians, while another set of "Wise Men" are not.

because we already dont have a precedent where all beasts are demons but not all demons are beasts?

Quote

That is setting up hosts to fail. With all of the time and money requirements already placed on hosts, keeping ruling questions easy would be greatly appreciated.

redemption is full of exceptions. this would be one of them. this costs you no money and very little time to memorize.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #18 on:** June 27, 2010, 05:33:02 PM »

Quote from: Master KChief on June 27, 2010, 05:28:12 PM

you care less about the true meanings of biblical words?

Less than zero percent of words on the internet are Biblical.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #19 on:** June 27, 2010, 05:36:22 PM »

Quote from: Master KChief on June 27, 2010, 05:28:12 PM

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on June 27, 2010, 05:15:11 PM
We can not have one set of "Wise Men" be magicians, while another set of "Wise Men" are not.

because we already dont have a precedent where all beasts are demons but not all demons are beasts

I don't see how this example is relevant. There are no demons that are not demons, and there are no beasts that are not beasts.

Master KChief · « **Reply #20 on:** June 27, 2010, 05:40:04 PM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on June 27, 2010, 05:33:02 PM

Quote from: Master KChief on June 27, 2010, 05:28:12 PM
you care less about the true meanings of biblical words?

Less than zero percent of words on the internet are Biblical.

he just said he used strongs concordance. i wouldnt take that so lightly.

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on June 27, 2010, 05:36:22 PM

Quote from: Master KChief on June 27, 2010, 05:28:12 PM
Quote from: YourMathTeacher on June 27, 2010, 05:15:11 PM
We can not have one set of "Wise Men" be magicians, while another set of "Wise Men" are not.

because we already dont have a precedent where all beasts are demons but not all demons are beasts

I don't see how this example is relevant. There are no demons that are not demons, and there are no beasts that are not beasts.

because all demons are not beasts. similarily, all wise men could not be magicians.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #21 on:** June 27, 2010, 05:46:09 PM »

Quote from: Master KChief on June 27, 2010, 05:40:04 PM

because all beasts are not demons. similarily, all wise men could not be magicians.

All beasts are demons.

In Redemption, there are more demons than beasts, so beasts are a subset of demons. Likewise, there are more Magicians than Wise Men, so wise men would be a subset of magicians. Subsets should be completely inclusive or completely exclusive to avoid confusion.

Master KChief · « **Reply #22 on:** June 27, 2010, 05:47:53 PM »

fixed.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #23 on:** June 27, 2010, 05:49:30 PM »

Quote from: Master KChief on June 27, 2010, 05:47:53 PM

fixed.

I knew what you meant.

That's why I included the second paragraph....

BubbleBoy · « **Reply #24 on:** June 27, 2010, 05:53:57 PM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on June 27, 2010, 05:15:11 PM

I could care less about definitions found on the web. I think it is important to have consistent definitions within Redemption. We can not have one set of "Wise Men" be magicians, while another set of "Wise Men" are not. That is setting up hosts to fail. With all of the time and money requirements already placed on hosts, keeping ruling questions easy would be greatly appreciated.

Agreed (although personally I am quite interested in definitions of words found in the original Bible). Here is my reasoning: Before Magic Charms came out, The Magi were ruled as magicians. Since I see no reason this would be concluded other than for the fact that they were wisemen (AKA magi), seeing as we know next to nothing more about these men, I take that to mean that Redemption ruled all wisemen as magicians. The reason the magician identifier was taken away from The Magi was not because Cactus decided that wisemen were not magicians, but rather because Rob and company did not like the idea of having magicians as heroes. I assume this would mean that all other wisemen would still be considered magicians, as long as they are not heroes, which Egyptian Wisemen are not.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #25 on:** June 27, 2010, 06:01:01 PM »

Quote from: BubbleBoy on June 27, 2010, 05:53:57 PM

Here is my reasoning: Before Magic Charms came out, The Magi were ruled as magicians. Since I see no reason this would be concluded other than for the fact that they were wisemen (AKA magi), seeing as we know next to nothing more about these men, I take that to mean that Redemption ruled all wisemen as magicians. The reason the magician identifier was taken away from The Magi was not because Cactus decided that wisemen were not magicians, but rather because Rob and company did not like the idea of having magicians as heroes. I assume this would mean that all other wisemen would still be considered magicians, as long as they are not heroes, which Egyptian Wisemen are not.

My conspiracy theory is that Mike Berkenpas had a personal vendetta against The Magi and snuck the Magician identifier in the REG without letting anyone else know. Then, when Magic Charms came out, Rob noticed and said, "Hey, how did that get in there? M...iiii.....ccccc.....hhhhh...eeee.....aaaa....lllllll !!!!!!!"

That also explains why the old REG was not updated regularly. Mike is still in Time Out.

Wings of Music · « **Reply #26 on:** June 27, 2010, 06:20:33 PM »

Quote from: Master KChief on June 27, 2010, 05:40:04 PM

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on June 27, 2010, 05:33:02 PM
Quote from: Master KChief on June 27, 2010, 05:28:12 PM
you care less about the true meanings of biblical words?

Less than zero percent of words on the internet are Biblical.

he just said he used strongs concordance. i wouldnt take that so lightly.

Just to clarify, I did not use the internet. I have a Stongs Concordance in book form. I referenced it from The Word Study Bible. It has direct Stongs numbers over each of the words in the Scripture with a Strong's Dictionary in the back to look them up, and that is what I used...so thanks Master KChief for the support. =)

TheHobbit13 · « **Reply #27 on:** June 27, 2010, 08:00:53 PM »

Regardless of whether or not the magi are in fact considered magicians I think we can all agree that Magic Charms has bad wording and I think the best thing to do would just be to accept the intent of the card. Heroes don't capture heroes or harbor the capturing of heroes. They put CBC on there for more than a boost to Magicians I am guessing because they didn't want those magicians to be converted and have magic charms used on a hero. On the flip side there are so many cards that do not carry out the intent of their maker. But for Redemption sake I don't think letting a hero use magic charms is beneficial. Anyways, I would argue that after the Magi visited Baby Jesus they had a change in heart and wouldn't practice magic anymore (one reason why they are a hero in redemption).

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #28 on:** June 28, 2010, 11:17:26 AM »

Quote from: Wings of Music on June 27, 2010, 11:57:52 AM

And just FYI, I have heard that the magi actually could have been students under the great prophet Daniel during the Babylonian Captivity Period for Judah. Therefore, they would be "Wise Men" like Prof. Underwood said...

Actually that post you were referring to came from the "other Prof"

I do find your theory to be quite interesting that they were wise men from Babylon who had been taught in a "school of Daniel" sort of thing.

As for magicians, I think this is a broad name back then for anyone who did anything that didn't make sense to people. That would include scientists who were studying nature and trying to understand it as well as sorcerers who were trying to use powers of darkness in order to control things. I have always seen the Magi of the Christmas story more along the lines of scientists. I don't have any problem with Redemption defining magicians more specifically as people who use magic in an evil way.

Wings of Music · « **Reply #29 on:** June 28, 2010, 05:07:38 PM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on June 28, 2010, 11:17:26 AM

Quote from: Wings of Music on June 27, 2010, 11:57:52 AM
And just FYI, I have heard that the magi actually could have been students under the great prophet Daniel during the Babylonian Captivity Period for Judah. Therefore, they would be "Wise Men" like Prof. Underwood said...
Actually that post you were referring to came from the "other Prof" I do find your theory to be quite interesting that they were wise men from Babylon who had been taught in a "school of Daniel" sort of thing.

Oops! My bad, I meant to refer to YourMathTeacher...

TheJaylor · « **Reply #30 on:** June 28, 2010, 06:57:16 PM »

it should really matter whether they were magicians or not for redemption's sake because magic charms on a hero would be somewhat OP'd

The Warrior · « **Reply #31 on:** June 28, 2010, 07:08:47 PM »

Bible > Gameplay

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #32 on:** June 28, 2010, 07:18:25 PM »

Quote from: The Warrior on June 28, 2010, 07:08:47 PM

Bible > Gameplay

The Warrior is right. From now on, the following Redemption changes must occur:

1. Son of God can rescue the */4 LS and the NT-only LS.
2. OT characters cannot possibly band to NT characters. In fact, many OT characters cannot band to other OT characters that lived hundreds of years earlier.
3. Demons cannot be redeemed.
4. No ECs can be protected from the Authority of Christ.
5. Moses gains every identifier that has ever been created.

TheKarazyvicePresidentRR · « **Reply #33 on:** June 28, 2010, 07:37:44 PM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on June 28, 2010, 07:18:25 PM

Quote from: The Warrior on June 28, 2010, 07:08:47 PM
Bible > Gameplay

The Warrior is right. From now on, the following Redemption changes must occur:
5. Moses gains every identifier that has ever been created.

And is the first NT/OT hero, along with Elijah.

SirNobody · « **Reply #34 on:** June 29, 2010, 01:07:06 PM »

Hey,

There's more than one way to define "magician." The Magi do not qualify under the definition Redemption uses.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

JSB23 · « **Reply #35 on:** June 29, 2010, 01:34:29 PM »

Quote from: SirNobody on June 29, 2010, 01:07:06 PM

There's more than one way to define "magician." The Magi do not qualify under the definition Redemption uses.

Magician definition: One who practices magic or sorcery
and
Magi definition: A term, used since at least the 4th century BCE, to denote a follower of Zoroaster, or rather, a follower of what the Hellenistic world associated Zoroaster with, which was – in the main – the ability to read the stars, and manipulate the fate that the stars foretold. The meaning prior to Hellenistic period is uncertain.

So you're saying Astrologers aren't magicians?

SirNobody · « **Reply #36 on:** June 29, 2010, 01:47:41 PM »

Hey,

Quote from: JSB23 on June 29, 2010, 01:34:29 PM

So you're saying Astrologers aren't magicians?

If their ability to read the stars comes from God then no they are not magicians. If their ability to read the stars comes from other sources (i.e. witchcraft or sorcery) then yes they are magicians. In Redemption a magician is not identified by the act he performs but by the power he calls upon when performing that act.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

TheHobbit13 · « **Reply #37 on:** June 29, 2010, 02:54:19 PM »

How would the magi know who the hebrew God was if they were from the east?

TheJaylor · « **Reply #38 on:** June 29, 2010, 03:10:36 PM »

God's works travel long distances

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #39 on:** June 29, 2010, 04:57:06 PM »

Quote from: TheHobbit13 on June 29, 2010, 02:54:19 PM

How would the magi know who the hebrew God was if they were from the east?

Romans 1:20

Wings of Music · « **Reply #40 on:** June 29, 2010, 06:52:27 PM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on June 29, 2010, 04:57:06 PM

Quote from: TheHobbit13 on June 29, 2010, 02:54:19 PM
How would the magi know who the hebrew God was if they were from the east?
Romans 1:20

Not only that, but if my theory is correct (look at previous posts), they would have learned about Him by the prophet Daniel...

JSB23 · « **Reply #41 on:** June 30, 2010, 11:25:40 AM »

Quote from: SirNobody on June 29, 2010, 01:47:41 PM

Quote from: JSB23 on June 29, 2010, 01:34:29 PM
So you're saying Astrologers aren't magicians?

If their ability to read the stars comes from God then no they are not magicians. If their ability to read the stars comes from other sources (i.e. witchcraft or sorcery) then yes they are magicians. In Redemption a magician is not identified by the act he performs but by the power he calls upon when performing that act.

I'd be very surprised if they called on God because

Quote from: TheHobbit13 on June 29, 2010, 02:54:19 PM

How would the magi know who the Hebrew God was if they were from the east?

Even if they did learn about it from Daniel he died at least a thousand years before Jesus's birth

TheJaylor · « **Reply #42 on:** June 30, 2010, 11:35:33 AM »

That just proves how much more amazing God is

TheHobbit13 · « **Reply #43 on:** June 30, 2010, 12:50:20 PM »

Quote from: KoalaKingofFortressAlstad on June 30, 2010, 11:35:33 AM

That just proves how much more amazing God is

No because we have no proof that they knew who God was. It leans toward the fact that they were evil astrologers who saw this big star and went ' DUDE". The awsome power of God comes in when they saw this baby in a manger and there lives were completely transformed.

SirNobody · « **Reply #44 on:** June 30, 2010, 01:11:13 PM »

Hey,

Quote from: JSB23 on June 30, 2010, 11:25:40 AM

I'd be very surprised if they called on God because

So are you saying that they called on some demonic power and that demonic power revealed to them where they should go so that they could worship Jesus?

Quote from: TheHobbit13 on June 29, 2010, 02:54:19 PM

How would the magi know who the hebrew God was if they were from the east?

The Diaspora When the nations of Isreal and Judah were conquered by Assyria and Babylon the Jewish people were "scattered." Displaced from their native homeland they settled in other parts of the world (including places "from the east"). After the exile when the Jewish people were reestablishing their homeland, many Jews chose to stay where they had settled, were accepted, and had spent the last few centuries rather than returning to the land of their ancestors. So it would not be at all strange that people from distant lands would have been exposed to the Jewish beliefs and deity.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

TheHobbit13 · « **Reply #45 on:** June 30, 2010, 01:13:21 PM »

Okay, good answer.

TheKarazyvicePresidentRR · « **Reply #46 on:** June 30, 2010, 01:54:53 PM »

to the maly

News:

Author Topic: The Magi? (Read 6634 times)

TheHobbit13

TheHobbit13

TheHobbit13

TheHobbit13

TheHobbit13

TheHobbit13