Yahweh-yireh

[bob x]

No they're not. They're ideologically Zoroastrian with Semitic backstories.

The "stories" are what the religions are all about. They incorporate a few ideas from Iran, but not ones that were particularly important.

I'm talking Noe Ruz here, not the actual observance of the Vernal Equinox.

Noeruz WAS the observance of the vernal equinox.

Alexander didn't take Ethiopia, Libya, or the Sudan, Southern parts of Russia, or the Danube.

Except for Libya, none of these were taken by Achaemenids either.

Did you not read the link I posted.

I found assertions that there were places the Achaemenids held and Alexander didn't, but no indication of what places they are talking about.

Other than you and the select few, who knows about Koine Greek?

Nobody to speak of reads that literature in the original, but it was what Western thought derives from. Hardly anything in Western thought comes from Iranian sources.

the largest section of his empire went to a Greco-Persian dynasty.

To a Greek dynasty one of whose members once married a Persian woman.

It was in the Old Testament.

There is nothing in the Old Testament about Cyrus making a cylindrical monument.

As a matter of fact it's like one of the few part's of the Old Testament we do know actually happened.

As a matter of fact, archaeology has confirmed a huge amount of information from the books of Kings.

And Cyrus, himself, was not forgotten.

Yeah. He's still in the textbooks. You want his role to be larger, but it is what it is.

How do you know that again?

Because I can read.

Yeah, because Jones himself uses the form Arya when he's talking about the Indic people according to what I have shown so I have big doubts that what you're saying about him using the form Arian at all is true.

Well, you're the only person I've ever met or even heard of who thinks it makes the slightest bit of difference whether somebody does or doesn't use the adjectival ending -n. It's not something that's easy to search for. Your insistence that English speakers could not possibly have gotten the idea to use "n" on an adjective unless a Frenchman showed them something from Iran is bizarre. Why don't you ask Divos to find it for you?

None of them are PIE. They all show evidence of innovation in places where others don't.

Exactly. How many innovations tells us how far in time we are from the original.

all that means is that the Sanskrit language did a better job of preserving the Proto-Indo-Iranian, but that doesn't mean that the Rig Veda was composed before the Avesta. The Indic speakers could have preserved a more archaic language and still have composed their literature after the Irano-Afghan speakers did.

The only way that either Sanskrit or Avestan was preserved was by the recitations of the "literature". To say "the language of the Vedas is more archaic" is actually the same thing as "the Vedas are more archaic".

If the pace of linguistic change is pretty consistent then how is it that Rig Vedic Sanskrit's inflextions look more like Young Avestan's inflextions than they do Gathic Avestan's inflextions?

A few inflexions in Vedic Sanskrit have shifts that are like shifts only found in Avestan later. For the most part, it is Gathic Avestan which has shifts that only show up in Indic later or not at all.

And the Avestan's were the original Aryans.

Avestan speakers NEVER USED THE WORD "Aryan" AT ALL!

Woden represented Wisdom.

Among many other things. Principally he represented War.

So did Ahura Mazda. They were both the big dogs.

So was Ra. Therefore Ahura Mazda was borrowed from Egypt?

The point is that they were under the impression that their god's came from the East.

They wanted to believe that their people as a whole had a respectable origin, "respectable" in Greco-Roman terms that is; and Troy was often used for this kind of propagandistic purpose.

Puhvel also drew parallels to Indra's enemy smiting gurj.

This Puhvel sounds like he has no idea what a "parallel" means.

 

[mojobadshah]

The "stories" are what the religions are all about. They incorporate a few ideas from Iran, but not ones that were particularly important.

Just:

1. "God"
2. "Angels"
3. "The Devil"
4. "Demons"
5. "The Incarnate Word"
6. "The Christ"
7. "The Soul"
8. "Kingdom of God [Within]"
9. "Heaven"
10. "Hell"
11. "The Resurrection," and
12. "Judgment Day"

Do we not live in the same world? How could any of the above Zoroastrian derived ideas not be important to Christianity or Islam? And the stories aren't original either. So far we've established that there are some parallels to Zoroaster, and some to Cyrus, both monotheists.

Noeruz WAS the observance of the vernal equinox.

And Zoroastrian festive day associated with both Jamsheed and Zoroaster.

Except for Libya, none of these were taken by Achaemenids either.

On Darius' tomb at Naqš-i Rustam. This time, Cyrenaica and Kush (modern Sudan) are added. As Cyrene was, according to Herodotus, conquered at about the same time as Thrace, we are left with a minor puzzle: either Herodotus is wrong (and Cyrene was conquered later), or it was first ruled as part of Egypt (and became a satrapy later). The latter seems more plausible. The inscription at Naqš-i Rustam was finished after 492, because it mentions the conquest of Macedonia. - Darius I, we discu

For Lybia see Libya (Satrapy)

And we've already discussed how the Ethiopians were among those who payed homage to Darius in some sense.

Nobody to speak of reads that literature in the original, but it was what Western thought derives from.

But that's not why they emphasize Alexander.

Hardly anything in Western thought comes from Iranian sources.

Yeah, because most "Westerners" are mindwiped Christians and if more people were actually aware of Zoroastrian literature, for example, "Westerners" would lose out because Christianity is not a genuine tradition. Its core ideology is Zoroastrian derived and even significant elements of its story are Zoroastrian derived. And THAT is the real reason there is so much confusion as to who the original Aryans are in the world and why the United States government and Israel are not on good terms with Iran.

To a Greek dynasty one of whose members once married a Persian woman.

You said that they were Persian all the way down to the 30th or so generation.

There is nothing in the Old Testament about Cyrus making a cylindrical monument.

Not exactly, but there is language in The Book of Ezra (1–4:5) that resembles the language of the Cyrus Cylinder.

As a matter of fact, archaeology has confirmed a huge amount of information from the books of Kings.

Is that all? And when you say archeology are we talking material culture or verbal here?

Yeah. He's still in the textbooks. You want his role to be larger, but it is what it is.

The Cyropedia was one of the Framer's of the Constitutions two main handbooks on how to govern society. Thomas Jefferson's personal copy can be found on display in the Library of Congress.

Why don't you ask Divos to find it for you?

Divos can you show me where Jones uses the form Arian/Aryan in the Manusmirti?

Exactly. How many innovations tells us how far in time we are from the original.

The innovations tell us how far from the original language we are not when a text was composed. Language A could have innovated quicker than language B but language A could have recorded literature before language B.

The only way that either Sanskrit or Avestan was preserved was by the recitations of the "literature". To say "the language of the Vedas is more archaic" is actually the same thing as "the Vedas are more archaic".

No its not. According to convention neither Vedic or Avestan mythology is true to the Proto-Vedic-Avestan mythology. The Vedic people did away with the Asura, and maintained worship of the Daeva. The Avestan's did the reverse. So their mythologies would have to have been attested after this split of belief systems.

A few inflexions in Vedic Sanskrit have shifts that are like shifts only found in Avestan later. For the most part, it is Gathic Avestan which has shifts that only show up in Indic later or not at all.

Like what? Are you talking about the consonants again?

Avestan speakers NEVER USED THE WORD "Aryan" AT ALL!

"The imperial title in Sasanian inscriptions is Parth. MLKYN MLKʾ aryān ut anaryān kē šihr hač yazdān." - CAIS

The Parthain aryān is closer to arian/aryan than Vedic aryanti.

Among many other things. Principally he represented War.

Woden is a cognate of the word Wisdom.

So was Ra. Therefore Ahura Mazda was borrowed from Egypt?

Mazda is a cognate of the word Mind.

This Puhvel sounds like he has no idea what a "parallel" means.

What about Threatona (aka Feridoon) and Thor?

 

[bob x]

1. "God"
2. "Angels"
3. "The Devil"
4. "Demons"
5. "The Incarnate Word"
6. "The Christ"
7. "The Soul"
8. "Kingdom of God [Within]"
9. "Heaven"
10. "Hell"
11. "The Resurrection," and
12. "Judgment Day"

1,7,9: this is why I think you are nuts. Other people besides Iranians have been thinking about God, and the nature of the human soul, the heavens above, and what happens after we die, for as long as there have been humans. They did not need Iranians to teach them how. The Abrahamic conception of God was significantly different from the Zoroastrian polytheism-in-disguise, deriving from a long independent development.
2-4,10: these to be sure are Zoroastrian-inspired. The "angels" are a bastard child of the Zoroastrian "emanations" which were all fully divine, as the "angels" have not been conceived to be. Judaism has shed all of this stuff; modern Christians tend to believe in angels, devils, and hell only in metaphorical terms, as literal belief in them rather contradicts the core of the Christian message (that core, which you do not seem to understand at all, is something very alien to Zoroastrianism). In Islam, to be sure, all of this stuff still remains important.
6: the Jewish conception of the Messiah as a political figure, acting as God's agent on Earth, was independent of any Zoroastrian development; the Christian revision, to be sure, is strongly influenced by the "Saoshyant".
5,8,11-12: none of this is Zoroastrian, at all. Zoroaster had to be taught the truth; he wasn't born knowing the truth. Not even late Zoroastrianism has any conception of the "Kingdom of God" as being an internal state of mind, rather than something that will be found after death. And while you have cited late Zoroastrian texts contradicting the earlier notion that one goes to judgment immediately upon death, either with a three-day waiting period or, contradictorily, not until the end of the world, the direction of borrowing seems to be from the Abrahamic faiths to late Zoroastrianism.

So far we've established that there are some parallels to Zoroaster, and some to Cyrus, both monotheists.

No we haven't. Don't you understand how feeble it is to say "Cyrus liked to go hunting as a child even when Grampa wanted him to stay home" is the same as "Jesus as a child had more knowledge than the religious experts"? You are saying they are the "same" because "two people argued, of different ages"? Do you really think it even slightly plausible to derive one story from the other?

And Zoroastrian festive day associated with both Jamsheed and Zoroaster.

You were claiming some widespread influence of Nawruz on the world. Only the custom of celebrating in some manner around the time of the equinox is widespread, and hardly original to Iran; nobody outside the Iranian diaspora has any awareness of any association to "Jamsheed and Zoroaster".

On Darius' tomb at Naqš-i Rustam.

OK, I've been looking at the maps, like this one at the Achaemenid peak, just before Darius was booted out of Greece, Macedon, and Thrace, and this one of Alexander's holdings. You are right and I was wrong about the total area: there is a large hole in the north, a corner of Asia Minor plus Armenia, Georgia, and Azerbaijan in the Caucasus and the east shore of the Caspian, which Alexander did not take (presumably because the late Achaemenids no longer held that either), and in the southwest, the "Egypt" which Alexander took did not include Cyrenaica (the east of Libya) or reach as far up the Nile into the Cataracts or "Nubia" region (usually held by Ethiopia rather than by the Pharoahs in more ancient time; lost to the late Achaemenids after Egypt re-established independence for a while and was recaptured only with difficulty). However, the Achaemenid map includes things like Macedon and the parts of Greece which were only briefly "tributary" and never regular satrapies, while the Alexander map does not include any of Greece proper although all of Greece was "tributary" from Phillip II's time.

And your phrasings have never been accurate. At one point you claimed the Achaemenids held "northern Russia" (you were imagining them in Omsk?) which you corrected to "southern Russia" (still not correct): I am guessing now that the Caucasus is what you mean by that? The Armenians and Georgians would strongly resent being called "part of Russia": even the Soviets didn't call that area "Russia"! In the northwest corner, Achaemenid Thrace never included any of the Dobruja (Danube delta, now coastal Bulgaria and Rumania) let alone any of the Danube valley proper; it only touched the southern bank at one point.

And we've already discussed how the Ethiopians were among those who payed homage to Darius in some sense.

No, all they did was surrender some territory in the Cataracts. It doesn't look like it even reached south past the modern Egypt/Sudan border, but you are talking as if all of modern Sudan and Ethiopia were taken.

But that's not why they emphasize Alexander.

The continuing cultural importance most definitely is why he is an important historic figure, although the romance of the story (conquering huge territories in a short time, then dying young) certainly has its appeal. Similarly Julius Caesar is an important figure because of the Roman Empire that followed, more than for anything done during his lifetime.

You said that they were Persian all the way down to the 30th or so generation.

No, I said that their most powerful king had only one great-great-great-grandparent out of 32 who was Persian. I am 1/256 Delaware Indian from a single branch of my family tree eight generations ago, but would hardly say that this makes me a "Native American".

And when you say archeology are we talking material culture or verbal here?

Both. The Old Testament contains more accurate information about the period than any other single document, by a long shot. The Avesta contains very vaguely-described stories, most of them seriously garbled.

The Cyropedia was one of the Framer's of the Constitutions two main handbooks on how to govern society. Thomas Jefferson's personal copy can be found on display in the Library of Congress.

Do you have any notion of what a huge library Jefferson had? What in the world makes you think the Cyropedia was #1 or #2 in anyone's ranking of important books?

Divos can you show me where Jones uses the form Arian/Aryan in the Manusmirti?

LOL! I was being sarcastic: Divos has his own insane obsessions, and has no interest in yours.

Language A could have innovated quicker than language B but language A could have recorded literature before language B.

WHY do you suppose Language A would "innovate quicker"? The only known cause for ultra-rapid changes are imposition of a language on an alien populace, recognizable from the grammar simplifications which are always part of such a process.

According to convention neither Vedic or Avestan mythology is true to the Proto-Vedic-Avestan mythology. The Vedic people did away with the Asura, and maintained worship of the Daeva. The Avestan's did the reverse. So their mythologies would have to have been attested after this split of belief systems.

The split of Indo-Iranian was about 2000 BC. Vedic Sanskrit is about 500 years later, Avestan about 800 years later.

Like what? Are you talking about the consonants again?

Consonant shifts, vowel shifts, irregularities in the grammatical paradigms, and vocabulary substitutions.

"The imperial title in Sasanian inscriptions is Parth. MLKYN MLKʾ aryān ut anaryān kē šihr hač yazdān." - CAIS

The Parthain aryān is closer to arian/aryan than Vedic aryanti.

THE PARTHIAN SCRIPT DID NOT WRITE VOWELS AT ALL!
Is there any possibility of you hearing this? What the Parthian script says is MLKYN MLK' 'ry'n W 'n'ry'n k shr htz yzd'n where the capitalized letters are not even in the Persian language. CAIS makes its guesses about how to fill in the vowels, but the Sassanian script indicates the pronunciation was eran at that time. Even in Avestan times, the pronunciation was "IRE-yawn" not quite like the "EAR-on" as someone in Tehran would now say "Iran" but not far from the "EYE-ran" as George W. Bush would say "Iran".

Woden is a cognate of the word Wisdom.

No, it is cognate to German wu:ten "to fly into a rage". Once again you are just grabbing words that have a couple letters in common and declaring them the same; if you are going to claim that -is- shifts to -o- and -m shifts to -n, show me some more examples of words undergoing the same shifts, or acknowledge that you are just making up rubbish again.

What about Threatona (aka Feridoon) and Thor?

What about them? One is a human, never deified; one is a deity of the nature-personification type, not any human. Both fought enemies: gee, like there are no other cases in the history of the world of people telling stories that involves fights. Since they were both fighters, they naturally both had weapons, which did not resemble each other in any particular way.

 

[Divos]

Is not the Egyptian God of the Moon named "Yah"

This is the Glyph

[I + H]

or

Iota + Epsilon

From my Study of "Zeus", its the same as "Yhwh", as the Ancient Greek rendering of Zeus
is "Iota + Epsilon + Upsilon +[Sigma] (Sigma representing Masculine]
vowel shifts and the change of "s" to "h"

Even the Latin "Iove" - IO/IE/Yah and VE/Weh

There is also a "i" to "d" shift i have noticed, for Example "Ieus" > "Zeus"/Seus and "Deus".)

Yireh > Dareh / Darius (Like King Darius)( Dārayavauš)
Da-ri-(y)a

Yireh/Zireh/Zar/Sar /Yisra/Asar/Ahura/Assyria/Israel/Jezreel

Is it likely that Israel and Assyria are the Same Place ??

 

[mojobadshah]

1,7,9: this is why I think you are nuts. Other people besides Iranians have been thinking about God, and the nature of the human soul, the heavens above, and what happens after we die, for as long as there have been humans. They did not need Iranians to teach them how. The Abrahamic conception of God was significantly different from the Zoroastrian polytheism-in-disguise, deriving from a long independent development.
2-4,10: these to be sure are Zoroastrian-inspired. The "angels" are a bastard child of the Zoroastrian "emanations" which were all fully divine, as the "angels" have not been conceived to be. Judaism has shed all of this stuff; modern Christians tend to believe in angels, devils, and hell only in metaphorical terms, as literal belief in them rather contradicts the core of the Christian message (that core, which you do not seem to understand at all, is something very alien to Zoroastrianism). In Islam, to be sure, all of this stuff still remains important.
6: the Jewish conception of the Messiah as a political figure, acting as God's agent on Earth, was independent of any Zoroastrian development; the Christian revision, to be sure, is strongly influenced by the "Saoshyant".
5,8,11-12: none of this is Zoroastrian, at all. Zoroaster had to be taught the truth; he wasn't born knowing the truth. Not even late Zoroastrianism has any conception of the "Kingdom of God" as being an internal state of mind, rather than something that will be found after death. And while you have cited late Zoroastrian texts contradicting the earlier notion that one goes to judgment immediately upon death, either with a three-day waiting period or, contradictorily, not until the end of the world, the direction of borrowing seems to be from the Abrahamic faiths to late Zoroastrianism.

No. You don't really believe I'm nuts. You're being to picky and you're constant denials based on you're pickiness are not helping anyone. You're just feeding the beast. People don't need to be brainwashed. Bible freaks, ignorant neurotics, with no foundation of the facts, are going to read what you say and take what you say for face value because their religious heritages are ingrained in their psyches, not because what I'm saying is untrue. So please, watch what you say. There is a lot of truth to what I'm saying, and you and I both know it. When I talk about the aforesaid expressions I'm talking about them in a very specific, and established sense. Not some modernized, independent, interpretation of what these expressions mean. You say "Other people besides Iranians have been thinking about God, and the nature of the human soul, the heavens above, and what happens after we die, for as long as there have been humans. They did not need Iranians to teach them how." However you and I both know that there is none of the religions you're referring incorporate

"God"
"angels"
"the devil"
"demons"
"the logos"
"the Christ"
"Kingdom of God [within]"
"Heaven"
"Hell"
"The Resurrection"
"Judgement Day"

all at once, in a very distinctive sense such that we're not talking about Vallhalla or Hades "an existence where people walk in the afterlife" but more specifically Heaven or Hell "an existence where souls end up in the afterlife that is contingent upon the weight of our good and bad actions in this world." BIG difference. And it's like that for all those ideas. Name 1 precursor religion that more closely mirrors Christianity and Islam other than Zoroastrianism, when it comes to these key principles.

No we haven't. Don't you understand how feeble it is to say "Cyrus liked to go hunting as a child even when Grampa wanted him to stay home" is the same as "Jesus as a child had more knowledge than the religious experts"? You are saying they are the "same" because "two people argued, of different ages"? Do you really think it even slightly plausible to derive one story from the other?

You already pointed out two elements in Cyrus's story that are common to many folklores that run parallel to the story of Jesus including 1. the king dreams of the newborn who is prophesized to dethrone him 2. the assassination attempt on the newborn

The thing about the Cyrus story is that it was a rulebook for how to govern society through love which like the Cyrus Cylinder was a revolutionary for its time considering that Cyrus's methods were contrary to that of most rulers during those days like the Assyrians were responsible for the persecution of the Jews and the people of Babylon. Both Cyrus and Jesus were known as "the King of the Jews," Cyrus and his successors ruled the Known World as the representatives of Ahura Mazda on earth or Divine Graces, and Jesus was the son of God, and both Cyrus and Jesus' methods were similar. So maybe there is more to be drawn from this relationship than meets the eye.

You were claiming some widespread influence of Nawruz on the world. Only the custom of celebrating in some manner around the time of the equinox is widespread, and hardly original to Iran; nobody outside the Iranian diaspora has any awareness of any association to "Jamsheed and Zoroaster".

No I wasn't claiming widespread influence of Nawruz on the world. I was claiming that Nawruz is a Zoroastrian tradition, and it's still celebrated by the Aryans (Irano-Afghans) today.

OK, I've been looking at the maps, like this one at the Achaemenid peak, just before Darius was booted out of Greece, Macedon, and Thrace, and this one of Alexander's holdings. You are right and I was wrong about the total area: there is a large hole in the north, a corner of Asia Minor plus Armenia, Georgia, and Azerbaijan in the Caucasus and the east shore of the Caspian, which Alexander did not take (presumably because the late Achaemenids no longer held that either), and in the southwest, the "Egypt" which Alexander took did not include Cyrenaica (the east of Libya) or reach as far up the Nile into the Cataracts or "Nubia" region (usually held by Ethiopia rather than by the Pharoahs in more ancient time; lost to the late Achaemenids after Egypt re-established independence for a while and was recaptured only with difficulty). However, the Achaemenid map includes things like Macedon and the parts of Greece which were only briefly "tributary" and never regular satrapies, while the Alexander map does not include any of Greece proper although all of Greece was "tributary" from Phillip II's time.

See. I'm not lying to you. I have my notions and I have good reason for the notions that I have, just like you. The fact that most of the people I talk to are under the mistaken impressions that they are under when it comes to pivotal details like these in regards to the Aryan (Irano-Afghan) culture is very disturbing...

And your phrasings have never been accurate. At one point you claimed the Achaemenids held "northern Russia" (you were imagining them in Omsk?) which you corrected to "southern Russia" (still not correct): I am guessing now that the Caucasus is what you mean by that? The Armenians and Georgians would strongly resent being called "part of Russia": even the Soviets didn't call that area "Russia"! In the northwest corner, Achaemenid Thrace never included any of the Dobruja (Danube delta, now coastal Bulgaria and Rumania) let alone any of the Danube valley proper; it only touched the southern bank at one point.

I apologize for the typos. I recall Southern Russia on one of the sites that listed some of the territories that were incorporated into the Persian Empire and not Alexander's. I'm not exactly sure what region it was referring to. Maybe it was Georgia.

No, all they did was surrender some territory in the Cataracts. It doesn't look like it even reached south past the modern Egypt/Sudan border, but you are talking as if all of modern Sudan and Ethiopia were taken.

Well what would you call it then? There's an Ethiopian in a long line of gift bearers ready to present his gift to Darius on one of the carvings from the Acheamenid period.

LOL! I was being sarcastic: Divos has his own insane obsessions, and has no interest in yours.

Don't be a smrti pants.

The split of Indo-Iranian was about 2000 BC. Vedic Sanskrit is about 500 years later, Avestan about 800 years later.

Consonant shifts, vowel shifts, irregularities in the grammatical paradigms, and vocabulary substitutions.

WHY do you suppose Language A would "innovate quicker"? The only known cause for ultra-rapid changes are imposition of a language on an alien populace, recognizable from the grammar simplifications which are always part of such a process.

Because it happens.

THE PARTHIAN SCRIPT DID NOT WRITE VOWELS AT ALL!
Is there any possibility of you hearing this? What the Parthian script says is MLKYN MLK' 'ry'n W 'n'ry'n k shr htz yzd'n where the capitalized letters are not even in the Persian language. CAIS makes its guesses about how to fill in the vowels, but the Sassanian script indicates the pronunciation was eran at that time. Even in Avestan times, the pronunciation was "IRE-yawn" not quite like the "EAR-on" as someone in Tehran would now say "Iran" but not far from the "EYE-ran" as George W. Bush would say "Iran".

Listen, you gotta stop yelling at me. I understand what your saying, but there is no reason to think that CAIS is arbitrarily filling in the vowels for the Parthian other than in the Kaba-i-Zardusht inscription. Maybe I'll try writing to them to find out why the did that.

No, it is cognate to German wu:ten "to fly into a rage". Once again you are just grabbing words that have a couple letters in common and declaring them the same; if you are going to claim that -is- shifts to -o- and -m shifts to -n, show me some more examples of words undergoing the same shifts, or acknowledge that you are just making up rubbish again.

Woden cf. wood, vedanta, vedda, edda, avesta, vatican, wisdom

What about them? One is a human, never deified; one is a deity of the nature-personification type, not any human. Both fought enemies: gee, like there are no other cases in the history of the world of people telling stories that involves fights. Since they were both fighters, they naturally both had weapons, which did not resemble each other in any particular way.

Threatoana is later known as Feridoon who wield a gurz who's name sounds like Thor who wielded a hammer. Threatona was a human, Thor was originally a human who was raised to godhead status. Threatona was an easterner. Thor is said to have come from the east. From Troy ancient Turkey. You think that Troy and Turiya could be cognates?

 

[bob x]

the Ancient Greek rendering of Zeus
is "Iota + Epsilon + Upsilon +[Sigma]

No, it starts with a zeta; they never wrote iota with bars above and below.

There is also a "i" to "d" shift i have noticed, for Example "Ieus" > "Zeus"/Seus and "Deus".

No, what we have is palatalized "d" shifting to "z" in Greek (Sanskrit is Dyaus). It was never an "i" sound.

Is it likely that Israel and Assyria are the Same Place ??

"Assyria" was, and still is, a district in northern Iraq. Iraq =/= Israel, check out a map.

No. You don't really believe I'm nuts.

Yes I do. You are not as deranged as Divos (whom I seldom bother talking to), but both of you suffer from what the French call ide'e fixe, a syndrome in which you are incapable of viewing any evidence objectively, but twist everything you see (or make up things that you don't even see) to fit a pre-ordained conclusion.

There is a lot of truth to what I'm saying, and you and I both know it.

Once in a great while, you manage to say something that is true. Most of the things you say are just wrong, however, and often they are so bizarre that I have difficulty understanding how you can even believe them.

However you and I both know that there is none of the religions you're referring incorporate

"God"
"angels"
"the devil"
"demons"
"the logos"
"the Christ"
"Kingdom of God [within]"
"Heaven"
"Hell"
"The Resurrection"
"Judgement Day"

all at once, in a very distinctive sense

Most of these concepts, as I pointed out, have nothing to do with Zoroastrianism.

specifically Heaven or Hell "an existence where souls end up in the afterlife that is contingent upon the weight of our good and bad actions in this world."

Shall we talk about the Egyptian Book of the Dead and the judgment in the hall of Osiris, where the heart is weighed against the Feather of Justice? (Mayet "justice" was written with the feather hieroglyph, because ma'at "feather" had similar consonants.) In the case of this text, we do not have to rely on linguistic arguments for the early date, since numerous manuscripts were buried in air-tight desert-dry conditions and have been preserved from startlingly ancient times.

One more time: your whole notion that Iranians were the only people who ever thought about such things is not just wrong, it is INSANELY wrong. It reflects a self-centered arrogance that is astonishing.

You already pointed out two elements in Cyrus's story that are common to many folklores that run parallel to the story of Jesus including 1. the king dreams of the newborn who is prophesized to dethrone him 2. the assassination attempt on the newborn

1. this is such a universal folklore theme that picking out two examples and saying one came from the other is silly.
2. it is a minor and dubious story in the gospels, hardly central to the theme.

The thing about the Cyrus story is that it was a rulebook for how to govern society through love

It was a policy decision for how to economically exploit a large territory efficiently when armed force was insufficient to subjugate it thoroughly.

Cyrus's methods were contrary to that of most rulers during those days like the Assyrians were responsible for the persecution of the Jews and the people of Babylon.

Yes, he had learned from the mistakes of Assyria and Babylon; thorough subjugation of large territories required constant warfare to fight against rebels constantly popping up everywhere, so that eventually the imperial power was totally defeated. You are viewing his pragmatic policy decision that a lighter hand would maximize tax revenues as if it were motivated by altruism.

Both Cyrus and Jesus were known as "the King of the Jews,"

Show me any text referring to Cyrus as "king of the Jews".

I apologize for the typos. I recall Southern Russia on one of the sites that listed some of the territories that were incorporated into the Persian Empire and not Alexander's. I'm not exactly sure what region it was referring to. Maybe it was Georgia.

That would make sense. I warn you however that people in Georgia would be profoundly insulted to be called "Russians"!

Well what would you call it then? There's an Ethiopian in a long line of gift bearers ready to present his gift to Darius on one of the carvings from the Acheamenid period.

It was a cession of a certain strip of territory ("Nubia" in the Nile Cataracts) which had previously had an Ethiopian ruler but now was taken over by Persia. I have explained this to you many many times now.

Because it [one language rapidly innovating for no reason] happens.

No. It doesn't. I have explained to you repeatedly that rapid innovations result from "creolization" in which an alien population has a language imposed on it, and changes it significantly particularly in the direction of grammar simplification.

Listen, you gotta stop yelling at me.

If you would show any signs of understanding what I tell you the first time I tell you, or the second, or the third, or the fourth, or the fifth, then I wouldn't get so exasperated with you.

I understand what your saying, but there is no reason to think that CAIS is arbitrarily filling in the vowels for the Parthian other than in the Kaba-i-Zardusht inscription.

They are taking it for granted that you are smart enough to understand from the first example that the Parthian script is vowel-free, and that they have to fill it in.

Woden cf. wood, vedanta, vedda, edda, avesta, vatican, wisdom

Do I need to yell at you again? This is the same thing I have been telling you over and over and over and over since we first met, and you constantly refuse to hear it:
JUST BECAUSE WORDS START WITH THE SAME LETTER DOESN'T MEAN THEY ARE RELATED!
"Wood" has nothing nothing nothing to do with any of other words here, and I am baffled as to why you would even think it does. The root for "to see" in veda, vedanta may be related to avesta but has nothing to do with Vatican because in Latin that vowel becomes "i" as videre source of English vision; it is also "i" in Germanic as in wit and (yes) wise, wisdom so, words which have "o" or "u" vowels in Germanic have no relation to this root. Woden has an Old English cognate wode-wose "crazy person; raving madman" as in the family name of P. G. Wodehouse, but the sense of this word is more nearly opposite to, than similar to, "wisdom" (it refers to a mind-numbing rage).

Threatoana is later known as Feridoon who wield a gurz who's name sounds like Thor who wielded a hammer.

The names don't sound alike at all, and the two weapons are not similar at all. What in the world are you talking about?

Thor was originally a human who was raised to godhead status.

Absolutely not. He is a personification of Thunder and nothing else. I say "Woden" is based on an actual person because of the genealogies of the Saxon royal families (Turings, Walsings, Helsings) tracing back to him, like the Greek genealogies tracing the Spartan kings (of the Eurypontid line; uniquely, Sparta had a second king, the Hagiad "sacred" king tracing back to Pelops) to Herakles. There is no sign of Thor having any human relations at all.

Threatona was an easterner. Thor is said to have come from the east. From Troy ancient Turkey.

GERMANS were said to have come from Troy, which was a complete fabrication. Neither Thor nor anybody else was said to come from Iran.

You think that Troy and Turiya could be cognates?

Because they start with the same letter??? No; the Greek name was Troas by the way, and did not pick up that "y" ending until very late.

 

[mojobadshah]

Most of these concepts, as I pointed out, have nothing to do with Zoroastrianism.

That's a lie. I couldn't be that off, and I'd hope that other people aren't that stupid either, to not see something that is there. Do you work for a Judeo-Christian institution?

Shall we talk about the Egyptian Book of the Dead and the judgment in the hall of Osiris, where the heart is weighed against the Feather of Justice? (Mayet "justice" was written with the feather hieroglyph, because ma'at "feather" had similar consonants.) In the case of this text, we do not have to rely on linguistic arguments for the early date, since numerous manuscripts were buried in air-tight desert-dry conditions and have been preserved from startlingly ancient times.

This is true, but it's not as close a parallel as the Zoroastrian concept to the Christian concept of the Soul, and what about all that other stuff? Parallel expressions including God or Ahura Mazda, Angels or the Amesha Spentas, the devil or Angra Mainyu, demons or the Daeva, the Logos or tanu-mathro, the Christ or the Saoshyant, The Holy Ghost or Spenta Mainyu, Kingdom of God [within] or Khshathra Vairya, Heaven or Gurodemana, Hell or Drugodemana, the Resurrection or irista, and Judgment Day or Frasho-Kereti.

Do I need to yell at you again? This is the same thing I have been telling you over and over and over and over since we first met, and you constantly refuse to hear it:
JUST BECAUSE WORDS START WITH THE SAME LETTER DOESN'T MEAN THEY ARE RELATED!
"Wood" has nothing nothing nothing to do with any of other words here, and I am baffled as to why you would even think it does. The root for "to see" in veda, vedanta may be related to avesta but has nothing to do with Vatican because in Latin that vowel becomes "i" as videre source of English vision; it is also "i" in Germanic as in wit and (yes) wise, wisdom so, words which have "o" or "u" vowels in Germanic have no relation to this root. Woden has an Old English cognate wode-wose "crazy person; raving madman" as in the family name of P. G. Wodehouse, but the sense of this word is more nearly opposite to, than similar to, "wisdom" (it refers to a mind-numbing rage).

You're right. Got that shit mixed up. OK, so I'm back to square 1. We both agree that the Avestan people and the Nordic people worshipped Ahura [Mazda] and Aesir respectively. The Avestans rejected the Daeva. Did the Norse?

 

[bob x]

That's a lie.

No it isn't. Half of the things you listed aren't even *in* Zoroastrianism at all, and much of the rest is not attributable to Zoroastrianism alone. The Zoroastrian conception of "God" as this bundle of multiple emanations, enabling the rehabilitation of pagan deities, is alien to the Abrahamic conception; the "angels" are obviously influenced by the Zoroastrian concept, but are not really faithful to it (they do not share divine status), and are an extraneous piece of baggage, easily discarded. The "kingdom of God within" just does not exist at all in Zoroastrianism, neither was Zoroaster anything like "the incarnate word of God" (he had to be TAUGHT the truth; he wasn't "the truth itself" from birth). The resurrection of the dead at a judgment day to come at the end of the world is an alien concept to Zoroaster's original teaching that everyone is judged right after their death: you cite one late text that has incorporated this idea, but another which has judgment coming three days after death, so we see that even in late Zoroastrianism this concept has not become firm, and I think it obvious that the direction of borrowing is opposite from what you think.

I couldn't be that off

Yes you could. You keep making error after error, and don't understand what the problem is. The problem is that you have a fixed idea in your head, and can't look at what the evidence is really telling you. For example, you start off with the notion that "Greeks couldn't possibly have had an independent thought without Iranians teaching them" and cite every reference in Greco-Roman literature to Zoroastrianism, as if that "proves" that Zoroastrianism was the source of all Greco-Roman thought-- and somehow you just can't see that you have proven, over and over again, that the Greco-Romans hardly knew anything at all about Zoroastrianism!

Do you work for a Judeo-Christian institution?

I'm a BUDDHIST, for Christ's sake! Look at all my other postings, if you want to know my attitudes about the Abrahamic religions.

Yes, there is certainly a batch of concepts which show unmistakable Zoroastrian influence. I don't find those concepts particularly central to the message, but they are what they are. If you would be content to talk about what the Zoroastrian influences really were, that would be one thing. But you have to constantly exaggerate, and you end up by rejecting the real Zoroastrianism, in favor of a fake Zoroastrianism re-made to look more like Christianity than the reality was; this is actually a betrayal of your heritage.

We both agree that the Avestan people and the Nordic people worshipped Ahura [Mazda] and Aesir respectively. The Avestans rejected the Daeva. Did the Norse?

They had two races of deities, the Aesir and the Vanir. The word Vanir is of somewhat mysterious origin (not cognate to deva) but the notion that deities come in two "flavors" seems related to the Indo-Iranian notion of devas and asuras/ahuras. Unlike the Indo-Iranians, however, the Germanics felt no need to call one of the deity-types "good" and the other "evil"; both were worshipped alongside each other.

 

[mojobadshah]

They had two races of deities, the Aesir and the Vanir. The word Vanir is of somewhat mysterious origin (not cognate to deva) but the notion that deities come in two "flavors" seems related to the Indo-Iranian notion of devas and asuras/ahuras. Unlike the Indo-Iranians, however, the Germanics felt no need to call one of the deity-types "good" and the other "evil"; both were worshipped alongside each other.

Wouldn't the fact that the Avestans and the Nordic people kept the Ahura/Aesir, and rejected the Daeva, whereas the Vedic people rejected the Asura, mean that Avestan myth is older than Vedic myth?

Also can you cite Proto-Isaiah monotheism for me?

 

[mojobadshah]

No it isn't.

YES IT IS.

Yes, there is certainly a batch of concepts which show unmistakable Zoroastrian influence. I don't find those concepts particularly central to the message, but they are what they are. If you would be content to talk about what the Zoroastrian influences really were, that would be one thing. But you have to constantly exaggerate, and you end up by rejecting the real Zoroastrianism, in favor of a fake Zoroastrianism re-made to look more like Christianity than the reality was; this is actually a betrayal of your heritage.

I have in my possession a list, which was procured myself, and not by anyone else, of verses in Zoroastrian scripture or the Avesta, and only the Avesta, not later Zoroastrian tradition, that describe the following expressions and their parallels in the Old or New Testament:

God or Ahura Mazda
Angels or the Amesha Spentas
the devil or Angra Mainyu
demons or the daeva
the logos or tanu mathro
the Christ or the Saoshyant
the Holy Ghost or Spenta Mainyu
the Soul or Urvan
Kingdom of God [within] or Kshathra Vairya
Heaven or Gurodemana
Hell or Drugodemana
The Resurrection or irista
Judgment Day or Frasho-Kereti

So NO I could not be that off in regards to the the similarities of the Avestan expressions and their Christian parallels. You got some real nerve brother. This is what you guys do. Play dirty. Attempt to destabilize. Lie about who the real Aryans are in the world, give people the impression that the Greek Empire was larger than the Persian Empire, and attribute Zoroastrian expressions to the Jews and the Christians instead of the Zoroastrians. And I don't know what in the heck you're talking about when you say that those aforesaid expressions aren't central to Christianity. If they're not central to Christianity then Christian institutions and non-Aryans in general need to do one of two things: either 1. stop using them in publishing, bibles, any literature, copyright, live performance, in commerce period, or 2. justly compensate the Aryan American people or Heritage Foundation for the third party usage of the works original to the Aryan American heritage, which had no parallel in any other culture during the time of their attestation (when they were composed). And cut the bullshit.

 

[bob x]

Wouldn't the fact that the Avestans and the Nordic people kept the Ahura/Aesir, and rejected the Daeva, whereas the Vedic people rejected the Asura, mean that Avestan myth is older than Vedic myth?

The Avesta itself is crystal-clear that the Vedic myth is older: it takes it for granted that everyone worships the Daevas, and is telling them, precisely, to change to a newly formulated set of beliefs.

Also can you cite Proto-Isaiah monotheism for me?

Isa. 10:5-15 says all events in the world are subject to the will of YHWH, who is not like the meaningless "idols"; the king of Assyria does not realize he is a tool of YHWH, but he is.

I have in my possession a list, which was procured myself, and not by anyone else, of verses in Zoroastrian scripture or the Avesta, and only the Avesta, not later Zoroastrian tradition, that describe the following expressions and their parallels in the Old or New Testament:

God or Ahura Mazda

The difference between the absolute unity of the Abrahamic God, and the multiple aspects of Ahura Mazda, is profound; your inability to recognize that different cultures went through different evolutions of theological concepts is a willful blindness.

Angels or the Amesha Spentas

The "angels" are not faithful to the Iranian concept (the Amesha Spentas were fully divine), but are alien to the original Abrahamic concept (God should not need any such partners). This is certainly Zoroastrian influence, though in a bastardized manner; it is certainly not essential to Abrahamic religion: most modern Christians would describe angels in purely metaphoric terms, not as literal beings, while Jews have gotten rid of the whole concept.

the devil or Angra Mainyu
demons or the daeva

This, too, is certainly a Zoroastrian influence, alien to the original Abrahamic tradition. Here, there are many Christian sects which think it essential to deny that the devil or any "hell" exists literally; for it is a poor fit with the core teachings of Christianity.

the logos or tanu mathro

There is scarcely any similarity here at all. This is another thing that I keep telling you repeatedly, without any ability to get you to respond in any way to what I am saying; you go beyond stubbornness to willful blindness.

the Christ or the Saoshyant

The rightful king in Zoroastrianism is an important figure but totally different from the Saoshyant; the Hebrew Messiah was strictly the rightful king, only later acquiring the overtones of a "savior" which, obviously, is a Zoroastrian influence.

the Holy Ghost or Spenta Mainyu
the Soul or Urvan

Neither the notion that spirits are holy, nor the notion that there is a soul different from the body, is even remotely unique to the Iranian tradition. We can look at the ancient Egyptian conceptions, if you like; though I expect that you will just refuse.

Kingdom of God [within] or Kshathra Vairya

There is no similarity here. Khshathra Vairya is not an internal state of mind, but one of the "Amesha Spenta" divine emanations.

Heaven or Gurodemana
Hell or Drugodemana

See above: "hell" is one of the most unfortunate importations from Iran, seriously injuring Christianity; and modern Christians tend to reject it or re-interpret it.

The Resurrection or irista
Judgment Day or Frasho-Kereti

Not Zoroastrian at all.

Lie about who the real Aryans are in the world

The only people in the world who use the Arya word are the Indics. Iranians use an altered form of that root, which has been pronounced like EYE-ran or EE-ron ever since your people have existed at all. Your rejection of "Iran" as the chosen self-designation of your people for thousands of years is bizarre; I understand that you don't like the modern association of that name with a particular state, which has a nasty government at present; but insisting instead on using an inaccurate name, which has even less favorable associations, is incomprehensible.

give people the impression that the Greek Empire was larger than the Persian Empire

SO, OK, the Persian at its peak was a little bigger. Who gives a rat's ass? The Greek, of course, was bigger than what the Persians were able to hold on to until the end; that "peak" area includes countries the Persians just couldn't handle long-term; but the Greek did not last as a unitary state for any "long term" at all. The Persian Empire was an impressive world power for a couple centuries-- which ended thousands of years ago. Its continuing influence was practically nil, outside of the Iranian area where revivals of it formed later. The Greek Empire, on the other hand, generated a huge literature with profound influence. As a mathematician, for example, I can cite:
Euclid's geometry
Ptolemy's invention of the latitude-longitude system
Decomposition of periodic motions into superimposed circles ("Fourier analysis")
Tables of the trigonometric functions
Eratosthenes' calculation of the circumference of the earth and estimation of the distance to the moon

In the medical field, similarly, the works of Hippocrates, Galen, Aretaeus, etc. were widely influential for centuries. In the literary field, the propagation of the Homeric epics and Athenian playwrights, the translation of the Hebrew scriptures into Greek, and the composition of the New Testament formed the shared body of stories which all educated people had in common from then until now. In engineering, there was the invention of the first working clocks, water-wheel-driven engines, etc.

By contrast, in Achaemenid Persia hardly anyone learned the Persian language, or any of the stories in the Avesta, and hardly anything was published in that time that had any influence on anybody afterwards. Medieval Persia did give al-Khworizmi's contributions to mathematics, Ibn Sina's contributions to medicine, etc. all of which ought to be properly acknowledged in any honest history, but your obsession with teaching about the Achaemenids is really not very justifiable: yeah yeah, mention that they had a lot of territory, once, and then move on.

And I don't know what in the heck you're talking about when you say that those aforesaid expressions aren't central to Christianity.

That's because you don't understand what Christ is about, not even slightly.

either 1. stop using them in publishing, bibles, any literature, copyright, live performance, in commerce period, or 2. justly compensate the Aryan American people or Heritage Foundation for the third party usage of the works original to the Aryan American heritage

Anybody can put on a production of "Pride and Prejudice" without paying anything to Jane Austen's family; William Shakespeare actually has direct descendants left, who get no royalties whatsoever when Shakespearean plays are performed. You know why? Because Austen and Shakespeare were centuries ago, and IP rights expire after decades, so that is public domain. THERE IS NO LEGAL REGIME IN THE WORLD which supports the perpetual obstruction to free use of ideas which you are demanding; and there is no conceivable justification for creating such a legal regime. You yourself at one point acknowledged how destructive that would be, in general-- but you want an exception in the case where YOU imagine that there would be money for YOU. Don't you have even the slightest conception of how arrogant, greedy, and downright crazy you sound?

cut the bullshit.

Right back at you, bud.

 

[mojobadshah]

The Avesta itself is crystal-clear that the Vedic myth is older: it takes it for granted that everyone worships the Daevas, and is telling them, precisely, to change to a newly formulated set of beliefs.

No it doesn't. First of it actually mentions an "Aryan" homeland. Second of all according to convention the common ancestor's of the Avestans and the Vedic people worshipped both the Ahura/Asuras and Daevas to begin with, and both rejected one of them. The question is was the Rig Veda written in reaction to the Avestan rejection of the Davea or was the Avesta written in reaction to the Vedic worship of the Daeva. My contention is that the Indo-Iranians worshipped both the Ahura/Asura and the Daeva. The Iranians made their reforms rejecting the Daevas, and exalting the Ahura Mazda. And in reaction to that the Vedic people rejected the Asura or Ahura Mazda and the the Yazata.

Isa. 10:5-15 says all events in the world are subject to the will of YHWH, who is not like the meaningless "idols"; the king of Assyria does not realize he is a tool of YHWH, but he is.

Yeah, but how do you know that he's not just one of many gods? Pretty much every translation of the OT, even the non-literal translations, but yours confirms Wrights point. In the following translations LORD is a standin for Yahweh and God should really be written god (Elohim).

New International Version (©1984)
Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.

English Standard Version (©2001)
“Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
"Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one!

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:.

King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:

American King James Version
Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:

American Standard Version
Hear, O Israel: Jehovah our God is one Jehovah:

Bible in Basic English
Give ear, O Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord:

Douay-Rheims Bible
Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord.

Darby Bible Translation
Hear, Israel: Jehovah our God is one Jehovah;

English Revised Version
Hear, O Israel: the LORD our God is one LORD:

Webster's Bible Translation
Hear, O Israel: the LORD our God is one LORD:

World English Bible
Hear, Israel: Yahweh is our God; Yahweh is one:

Young's Literal Translation
Hear, O Israel, Jehovah our God is one Jehovah;

So granted Wright and all these other translations are correct, and given that the Jews had a history of henotheism, and monolatry, how can you be so sure that Isa. 10:5-15 is an example of monotheism, and that it's not until Deutero-Isaiah that we can be certain that the Jews believe that "there is only one god and no other?" Furthermore why would the authors of Deutro-Isaiah need to explain that there is only one god and no other?

The difference between the absolute unity of the Abrahamic God, and the multiple aspects of Ahura Mazda, is profound; your inability to recognize that different cultures went through different evolutions of theological concepts is a willful blindness.

You can't even prove there was an "absolute unity" of the Abrahamic God until Deutro-Isaiah. And I thought you said that the Jews threw the intertestimentary material out.

The "angels" are not faithful to the Iranian concept (the Amesha Spentas were fully divine), but are alien to the original Abrahamic concept (God should not need any such partners). This is certainly Zoroastrian influence, though in a bastardized manner; it is certainly not essential to Abrahamic religion: most modern Christians would describe angels in purely metaphoric terms, not as literal beings, while Jews have gotten rid of the whole concept.

That's just semantics and anti-Zoroastrian propaganda that you're ascribing to. The truth of the matter is that the Zoroastrians have always believed that they themselves were monotheists. It was really Judaism and Christianity which came to resemble Zoroastrianism more and more over the centuries, probably because they couldn't fully understand what they were saying literally. It wasn't until Christian missionaries came along in attempts to convert the Zoroastrians and other non-Christian peoples to Christianity by trying to defunctify their monotheism, by saying the same type thing you are, and the Zoroastrians tried to explain to them that they just didn't understand their belief system, and either they just didn't, or the refused to. Of course, there are way more Christians therefore more Christian literature out there so they have the upper hand in spreading their delusions.

Angels in the original sense of the word "messenger" is true to Aryan (Irano-Afghan) concept of the Amesha Spentas.

My understanding is that the Amesha Spentas weren't emanations. They were hypostasis or rather states of being.

Ahura Mazda the all mighty, all good God created the spirit and material existences and Spenta Mainyu or holy spirit [world] who is the only Amesha Spenta identified with God, but also distinguished from God.

Spenta Mainyu is God's intermediary form capable of being conceived by man. When god created Spenta Mainyu or the Holy Spirit [world] he was created with the will to choose and he [God] chose right and good proceeded from him. Spenta Mainyu is not an emanation of God he is God or Holy Mind, 1 of the 7 Amesha Spentas, hypostasis, or rather states of being key to immortality representative of a good God.

Its comparable to the various titles attributed to YHWH THE MANY NAMES OF GOD

The Amesha Spentas don't share Ahura Mazda's divine status. Ahura Mazda is acknowledged as omnipotent in the earliest portions of the Avesta. Later they become anthropomorphasized, but that doesn't make Ahura Mazda any less monotheistic. And like I was saying a God that controls everything sounds more like an emanation because, unlike the Zoroastrian concept of God's role in the universe, it means that there is no separation between God and his creations. No Free Will. No disconnect. Same mental force.

 

[mojobadshah]

This, too, is certainly a Zoroastrian influence, alien to the original Abrahamic tradition. Here, there are many Christian sects which think it essential to deny that the devil or any "hell" exists literally; for it is a poor fit with the core teachings of Christianity.

Wouldn't it be kind of hard to do that considering a dragon, called satan, and the Devil is mentioned in the NT? Not to mention the Jews. Just playin.

There is scarcely any similarity here at all. This is another thing that I keep telling you repeatedly, without any ability to get you to respond in any way to what I am saying; you go beyond stubbornness to willful blindness.

I'm talking about the Logos in the sense of a Word made Flesh and there is no doubt about that that there is a similarity between the Logos and the tano-mathro "embodiment of the Mantra" in this sense.

The rightful king in Zoroastrianism is an important figure but totally different from the Saoshyant; the Hebrew Messiah was strictly the rightful king, only later acquiring the overtones of a "savior" which, obviously, is a Zoroastrian influence.

Oh my word. Who knows that though? When most of you hear the word Messiah these days you think of it in the Zoroastrian sense, Cyrus, Jesus, superman, etc....

Neither the notion that spirits are holy, nor the notion that there is a soul different from the body, is even remotely unique to the Iranian tradition. We can look at the ancient Egyptian conceptions, if you like; though I expect that you will just refuse.

Yes there they are.

Spenta Mainyu translates to "Holy Spirit" and works contrary to Angra Mainyu the "Hostile Spirit." All the Yazata including Spenta Mainyu are worthy of praise whereas the Daeva like Angra Mainyu are not.

The Soul is called Urvan and it's mentioned in the Avesta. It's almost identical to the Egyptian concept, but it applies to everyone and not just the Pharaoh, just like in Christianity.

There is no similarity here. Khshathra Vairya is not an internal state of mind, but one of the "Amesha Spenta" divine emanations.

Yes it is. It's a hypostasis. A state of being, or mind. "Best Kingdom" and key to immortality. Just like Spenta Mainyu "Holy Mind," Vohu Manah "Best Mind," etc...

See above: "hell" is one of the most unfortunate importations from Iran, seriously injuring Christianity; and modern Christians tend to reject it or re-interpret it.

When you hear the word hell what does it make you think?

Not Zoroastrian at all.

Both the Resurrection and Judgment Day are Zoroastrian expressions. I already cited Zam Yasht, and what is described in those verses is "almost" identical to what is described in revelations 20:12.

The only people in the world who use the Arya word are the Indics. Iranians use an altered form of that root, which has been pronounced like EYE-ran or EE-ron ever since your people have existed at all. Your rejection of "Iran" as the chosen self-designation of your people for thousands of years is bizarre; I understand that you don't like the modern association of that name with a particular state, which has a nasty government at present; but insisting instead on using an inaccurate name, which has even less favorable associations, is incomprehensible.

Now you're starting to sound like the layman who you questioned was imaginary. The Irano-Afghans were/are the original "Aryans." They never left the Aryan homeland. For some lame ass reason the Neos who write the textbooks like attributing the Aryan national designation to either themselves, or to a group of people who only recall using it in the Spiritual sense.

SO, OK, the Persian at its peak was a little bigger. Who gives a rat's ass?

Everyone who's not Greek for one. And I'm sure the Greeks would like to know that unless they like bsing people.

The Greek, of course, was bigger than what the Persians were able to hold on to until the end; that "peak" area includes countries the Persians just couldn't handle long-term; but the Greek did not last as a unitary state for any "long term" at all.

I'm totally confused here. What are you trying to tell me?

By contrast, in Achaemenid Persia hardly anyone learned the Persian language, or any of the stories in the Avesta, and hardly anything was published in that time that had any influence on anybody afterwards. Medieval Persia did give al-Khworizmi's contributions to mathematics, Ibn Sina's contributions to medicine, etc. all of which ought to be properly acknowledged in any honest history, but your obsession with teaching about the Achaemenids is really not very justifiable: yeah yeah, mention that they had a lot of territory, once, and then move on.

Well I'm not well read on all Acheamenid contributions and I'm not sure what range of time you're speaking of when you talk about Greek contributions, but what about Zoroastrianism's influence on the Abrahamic religions, and Zoroastrianism as a psychology, Zoroastrian medicine attested as early as the Vendidad, physics, astronomy, geology, which Sudius and Pliny say the Greeks were aware of (see Zoroaster the Prophet of Ancient Iran), electoral monarchy (which I think is just another way of saying "prototypical democratic council system" despite the despotism which you speak of and more advanced than an oligarchical system of government like the Eupatrids), inclusion of the zero (the Greeks didn't do that), a proclamation of religious tolerance, the Hall of Nations, the First World-Empire, the decimal system, mathematical architecture, widespread use of iron smelting, the postal system, banks, batteries.

That's because you don't understand what Christ is about, not even slightly.

Anybody can put on a production of "Pride and Prejudice" without paying anything to Jane Austen's family; William Shakespeare actually has direct descendants left, who get no royalties whatsoever when Shakespearean plays are performed. You know why? Because Austen and Shakespeare were centuries ago, and IP rights expire after decades, so that is public domain. THERE IS NO LEGAL REGIME IN THE WORLD which supports the perpetual obstruction to free use of ideas which you are demanding; and there is no conceivable justification for creating such a legal regime. You yourself at one point acknowledged how destructive that would be, in general-- but you want an exception in the case where YOU imagine that there would be money for YOU. Don't you have even the slightest conception of how arrogant, greedy, and downright crazy you sound?

Sure I know what Christianity is all about. It's about using delusions to undermine the historical truth, undermining the culture that first attested to expressions like God, angels, the Devil, demons, the Logos, Christ, the Holy Ghost, the Soul, the Kingdom of God [within], Heaven, Hell, the Resurrection, and Judgment Day so that the delusionists can have all the fun. Sure anyone can do all that stuff you're talking about. But how many of them can honestly claim that they are the most just heirs to expressions like God, angels, the Devil, demons, the Logos, Christ, the Holy Ghost, the Soul, the Kingdom of God [within], Heaven, Hell, the Resurrection, and Judgment Day? 100X more honestly than anyone can claim that there is even a God which was responsible for the creation of the universe. And no wonder there is no legal regime like that in the US. anyhow, though its not far from it, England, closer, but intergovernmental agencies like UNESCO are so close to it it's not even funny, because the same people that are exploiting the ideas I'm talking about are the one's who are writing the laws. Laws aren't absolute. If they were three-fifths of the enumerated population of slaves would still be counted for representation purposes regarding both the distribution of taxes and the apportionment of the members of the United States House of Representatives. How many Aryan (Irano-Afghans) Americans do you know in Congress? Nobody asked me if I was ok with the third party usage of these kinds of expressions associated with my cultural identity in commerce? How is that not biased, and tyranical?

 

[bob x]

it [the Avesta] actually mentions an "Aryan" homeland.

Actually, no. As I have pointed out to you many many many times, the Avesta never has any form ending in "n" without extra letters (I wouldn't think the precise form of the adjectival ending important, but you seem to), and the vowel is already "ai" pronounced "EYE"; by the time the adjectival ending is "n", the pronunciation is "AIR-on" becoming "EER-on" well over a thousand years ago. The particular ugly word that you insist upon is not the name of your people, which is IRAN.

Second of all according to convention the common ancestor's of the Avestans and the Vedic people worshipped both the Ahura/Asuras and Daevas to begin with, and both rejected one of them.

By the time we get any information, both are worshipping the Daevas only. Zoroaster is quite clear about this situation, which he is asking them to reverse.

every translation of the OT, even the non-literal translations, but yours confirms Wrights point

??? They all say the opposite, and I cannot comprehend how you are failing to read.

how can you be so sure that Isa. 10:5-15 is an example of monotheism

Because I read what it says.

why would the authors of Deutro-Isaiah need to explain that there is only one god and no other?

They are surrounded by, and still ruled by, polytheists.

I thought you said that the Jews threw the intertestimentary material out.

They did.

the Zoroastrians have always believed that they themselves were monotheists.

But they conceived of monotheism differently than the Jews did.

Angels in the original sense of the word "messenger" is true to Aryan (Irano-Afghan) concept of the Amesha Spentas.

No, the Amesha Spentas are addressed as divine.

They were hypostasis or rather states of being.

"States of being" of God, not separate entities from God, like the "angels".

Spenta Mainyu or holy spirit [world] who is the only Amesha Spenta identified with God, but also distinguished from God.

He is never "distinguished" from God, nor are any of the others. You are rejecting the real Zoroastrianism, in favor of a fake version crafted to resemble the Abrahamic faith more closely than the reality.

a God that controls everything sounds more like an emanation because, unlike the Zoroastrian concept of God's role in the universe, it means that there is no separation between God and his creations. No Free Will. No disconnect. Same mental force.

In Isaiah, YHWH has the power to control anything whenever He chooses to do so; he is not controlling everything all the time, but leaves humans free to do right or do wrong. But when YHWH decides to intervene, rewarding or punishing (in this world, not any afterlife), none can resist, because there is no other power like YHWH (the "idols" are nothing, just images which do not represent any real powers).

Wouldn't it be kind of hard to do that considering a dragon, called satan, and the Devil is mentioned in the NT?

This is obviously metaphorical (no-one thinks Satan is literally a "dragon"); the question is how metaphorical, whether "Satan" is an actual entity or is entirely a metaphor for our internal urges to evil.

Not to mention the Jews.

Of course you shouldn't mention the Jews, in connection with "the devil", a concept they don't accept.

I'm talking about the Logos in the sense of a Word made Flesh and there is no doubt about that that there is a similarity between the Logos and the tano-mathro "embodiment of the Mantra" in this sense.

It's totally different. Zoroaster needs to seek the truth and be taught.

Who knows that though?

We are discussing the actual history, whether well-known or not.

When most of you hear the word Messiah these days you think of it in the Zoroastrian sense, Cyrus, Jesus, superman, etc....

"Most" people think of Cyrus???? Uh... no, I don't think so.

The Soul is called Urvan and it's mentioned in the Avesta. It's almost identical to the Egyptian concept, but it applies to everyone and not just the Pharaoh, just like in Christianity.

Everyone, not just the Pharoah, had a soul in Osirianism also.

Yes it is. It's a hypostasis. A state of being, or mind.

A state of God's being, not a state of ours.

Both the Resurrection and Judgment Day are Zoroastrian expressions. I already cited Zam Yasht

And you cited a contradictory text, in which each individual goes to judgment three days after death. Even in very late Zoroastrianism, these concepts were not well-established, and their borrowings into late Zorastrianism from the Abrahamic faiths therefore looks much more likely than the reverse.

The Irano-Afghans were/are the original "Aryans."

You can say that as many times as you like, but it doesn't get any truer. "Irano-Afghan" is a reasonable term, if "Iran" by itself sounds too confusingly like it only refers to the post-1936 state of Iran, but "Aryan" was never used by your people until the day before yesterday.

a group of people who only recall using it in the Spiritual sense.

The Indics have used the word in numerous senses. The Iranians used only the related but distinct name "Iran".

Everyone who's not Greek for one.

I'm not Greek. And I don't give a rat's ass either what the square-mileage count of the two empires were: the Persians only held their area loosely, and had lost a good chunk of it before Alexander, who took everything they had left very quickly because their state was a hollow shell; Alexander, on the other hand, could not create any lasting unified state either.

I'm totally confused here. What are you trying to tell me?

That both of those big areas were transitory anyway, so who cares?

Well I'm not well read on all Acheamenid contributions

There isn't much to read. It was not an intellectually productive period.

I'm not sure what range of time you're speaking of when you talk about Greek contributions

The "Hellenistic Period" from Alexander to the Roman takeover. It was enormously influential (the Achaemenid period was not).

what about Zoroastrianism's influence on the Abrahamic religions

They were what they were, and they weren't what they weren't. "Angels" and "devils" and "hell" are certainly Zoroastrian imports (not very healthy additions to the religions in my view) but there isn't much else, despite your constant exaggerations and distortions to force-fit things that really weren't much alike.

and Zoroastrianism as a psychology

What about it? I know of no authors who were influenced by "Zoroastrian psychology" at all.

Zoroastrian medicine attested as early as the Vendidad

Your source says that the Vendidad, like texts from practically every religious tradition in the world, mentions miraculous faith-healings, and describes magic rituals to chase away demons, and wolves, and make the rain fall. It says nothing whatsoever about any Zoroastrians knowing anything about the actual practice of medicine; until Ibn Sina, that field was developed almost entirely by Jews and Greeks, as Ibn Sina acknowledges.

electoral monarchy (which I think is just another way of saying "prototypical democratic council system" despite the despotism which you speak of and more advanced than an oligarchical system of government like the Eupatrids)

You think wrongly. Not only did the "electors" not really have any say (besides ratifying the preponderant military force), they were a smaller oligarchy than the eupatrids (a handful of people from the highest-ranking families across the whole country, not the ranking families in each city). The Greeks had moved well beyond that kind of oligarchy at a time when the Persians were just moving into that system.

inclusion of the zero (the Greeks didn't do that)

Neither did the Persians. India gave us the zero (although Babylonians had also had the concept).

a proclamation of religious tolerance

It was better than the Assyrian or Babylonian system; but it was nothing like individual freedom of conscience: rather, by birth you were assigned to a particular tyrannical religious authority which you could not escape, as in the Ottoman millet system. This does have continuing influence on the poisonous politics of the modern Middle East, but thankfully has nothing to do with modern Western systems.

the Hall of Nations

What are you talking about here?

the First World-Empire

Far from the "first", just the largest to date. Yeah, yeah, you were big once. It was a long time ago. Get over it.

the decimal system

What the hell are you talking about? People noticed that fingers were useful for counting, and that we have ten of them, long before the Indo-European language group existed.

mathematical architecture

They did build some nice things, but I don't know anything about them having any special talent for "mathematics"; or any lasting influence from their architectural styles.

widespread use of iron smelting

That started LONG before the Persians.

the postal system

The post-roads were only for the king's men. The Romans were the first to have a postal system that delivered private letters. This is a perfect example of the limitations of the Persian state: all it did was collect money, and maintain military forces; it did not even provide a court system (leaving things up to local religious authorities) and did no public works. The Sassanians were the first Persian state to understand the importance of building harbors, public roads, irrigation works, aqueducts etc. as the Romans had been doing.

banks

??? I have never heard of anything like a "bank" from such a period. If such an institution did exist back then, it had no lasting influence, since banks had to be re-invented much later.

batteries.

Yes, I've heard about the discovery of electroplating in Sassanian Mesopotamia. That was a very interesting development, but again: it had no lasting influence; nobody remembered it after the Muslim conquest, and it would not be re-discovered until the 19th century.

Sure I know what Christianity is all about.

You don't have a freaking clue. Leaving out the whole part about self-sacrifice is like re-writing "Moby Dick" to leave out any reference to whales.

no wonder there is no legal regime like that in the US.

Because there would be no possible justification for it. We wish to have as many ideas in widespread circulation and use as possible; therefore, ideas are freely exchangeable, except that inventors are rewarded for a limited time with exclusive usage, so as to create an incentive for more ideas to come into the public domain. Such systems in America and Europe have made us the technological leaders of the world. What you are proposing would, if it had been carried out from the beginning, have left the Irano-Afghans as Stone Age (since they would not have been allowed to use the idea of "metals") hunter-gatherers (since they would not have been allowed to use the idea of "domestic animals").

Laws aren't absolute.

Of course not. They need to have a positive, rather than negative, effect on the society or they shouldn't be there. The only justification I have seen from you is that you have some bizarre belief that you have money coming to you, even though you recognize that in every other respect except MONEY FOR YOU the results of what you are asking for would be disastrous.

 

[mojobadshah]

Actually, no. As I have pointed out to you many many many times, the Avesta never has any form ending in "n" without extra letters (I wouldn't think the precise form of the adjectival ending important, but you seem to), and the vowel is already "ai" pronounced "EYE"; by the time the adjectival ending is "n", the pronunciation is "AIR-on" becoming "EER-on" well over a thousand years ago. The particular ugly word that you insist upon is not the name of your people, which is IRAN.

See that's why the Irano-Afghans don't like you guys. You're lying about who they are. Are you an Aryan BX?

By the time we get any information, both are worshipping the Daevas only. Zoroaster is quite clear about this situation, which he is asking them to reverse.

Hmmm... No that wouldn't make any sense. They both must have been worshipping the Ahura too and Zoroaster chose Mazda "Wisdom," kept others but rendered them semi-divine, and rejected all else as Daeva. Then the Vedic people rejected the Ahura.

??? They all say the opposite, and I cannot comprehend how you are failing to read..

I'm failing to see it, Wright is failing to see it, and so many other of you guys are failing to see it.

No, the Amesha Spentas are addressed as divine.

They're addressed as sem-divine. Ahura Mazda is always the all-mighty creator. Even in Darius's inscriptions. Were the prophets or messengers after Deutero-Isaiah not considered semi-divine?

"States of being" of God, not separate entities from God, like the "angels".

States of being experienceable by man which are representative of a good God.

He is never "distinguished" from God, nor are any of the others.

See Yasna 45.6-7

You are rejecting the real Zoroastrianism, in favor of a fake version crafted to resemble the Abrahamic faith more closely than the reality.

That must be you're missionary zeal talking. I'm in favor of what I can see and believe. The source is right in front you.

In Isaiah, YHWH has the power to control anything whenever He chooses to do so; he is not controlling everything all the time, but leaves humans free to do right or do wrong. But when YHWH decides to intervene, rewarding or punishing (in this world, not any afterlife), none can resist, because there is no other power like YHWH (the "idols" are nothing, just images which do not represent any real powers).

Please cite an example of "Free Will" here.

It's totally different. Zoroaster needs to seek the truth and be taught.

I'm talking about "The Word Made Flesh" and the "Embodiment of the Word." How the heck is that different?

We are discussing the actual history, whether well-known or not.

"Most" people think of Cyrus???? Uh... no, I don't think so.

OMG if you were to define Messiah and not use Jesus as you're definition people would think superman and Cyrus-types, if they knew anything about Cyrus. The guy who saved the Jews.

Everyone, not just the Pharoah, had a soul in Osirianism also.

Please cite.

You can say that as many times as you like, but it doesn't get any truer. "Irano-Afghan" is a reasonable term, if "Iran" by itself sounds too confusingly like it only refers to the post-1936 state of Iran, but "Aryan" was never used by your people until the day before yesterday.

You cited an Avestan form Airyen which actually sounds like how most people pronounce Aryan these days anyhow whether they're referring to the Irano-Afghans , the Indics, or the "Master Race." Not that I haven't heard it pronounced Aaryan either.

The Indics have used the word in numerous senses. The Iranians used only the related but distinct name "Iran".

Most Hindus apart from Talgeri will tell you themselves that it is a spiritual term. And what about the Arya-Aspa who Alexander came across in Afghanistan or the Arim-Aspa or the one eyed Scythians who other Greek authors refer to.

I'm not Greek. And I don't give a rat's ass either what the square-mileage count of the two empires were: the Persians only held their area loosely, and had lost a good chunk of it before Alexander, who took everything they had left very quickly because their state was a hollow shell; Alexander, on the other hand, could not create any lasting unified state either.

I wish you were there every time that question came up in my life.

The post-roads were only for the king's men. The Romans were the first to have a postal system that delivered private letters. This is a perfect example of the limitations of the Persian state: all it did was collect money, and maintain military forces; it did not even provide a court system (leaving things up to local religious authorities) and did no public works.

Darius built the Royal Highways.

??? I have never heard of anything like a "bank" from such a period. If such an institution did exist back then, it had no lasting influence, since banks had to be re-invented much later.

The word Bank is a Iranian loan from Sassanian times. So I want the Aryan American Heritage Foundation to be compensated by all the banks that use the mark bank in their trademarks

You don't have a freaking clue. Leaving out the whole part about self-sacrifice is like re-writing "Moby Dick" to leave out any reference to whales.

Sure I do. I've given my life to defending the historical facts everyday of my life so that delusionary religious freaks, organizations, governments, don't get the best of the Aryan people by getting away with exploiting the expressions that originated with or were first attested (however you want to put it) by the Aryan people.

Because there would be no possible justification for it. We wish to have as many ideas in widespread circulation and use as possible; therefore, ideas are freely exchangeable, except that inventors are rewarded for a limited time with exclusive usage, so as to create an incentive for more ideas to come into the public domain. Such systems in America and Europe have made us the technological leaders of the world. What you are proposing would, if it had been carried out from the beginning, have left the Irano-Afghans as Stone Age (since they would not have been allowed to use the idea of "metals") hunter-gatherers (since they would not have been allowed to use the idea of "domestic animals").

No what I'm proposing would have made the Aryans (Irano-Afghans) as a unit multi-trillionairs or richer by now, if other cultures hadn't gone against them, other cultures like the Romans, the Jews, and the Arabs, and instead had payed the representatives of the Aryans their meed for the third party usage of their expressions like God - Judgment Day to subject the weak. And you don't even know what would happen if "businesses" had to compensate the foundation. The only people who would be devastated are the people who are exploiting the expressions.

Of course not. They need to have a positive, rather than negative, effect on the society or they shouldn't be there. The only justification I have seen from you is that you have some bizarre belief that you have money coming to you, even though you recognize that in every other respect except MONEY FOR YOU the results of what you are asking for would be disastrous.

Not me personally. The Aryan American Heritage Foundation. And theirs nothing bizzare about wanting to protect the historical truth from people who use delusions to seek their power.

 

[bob x]

See that's why the Irano-Afghans don't like you guys.

Because I use the word "Iran" which YOUR PEOPLE CHOSE FOR THEMSELVES THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO????

You're lying about who they are.

No I'm not. I call Iranians "Iranians" just like everybody else, including Iranians not of your peculiar faction. Your behavior here is completely insane, can't you see that?

Are you an Aryan BX?

My ancestry is from Indo-European speakers of various branches, but Indo-Iranians are not among them, so it is very unlikely that any of my ancestors used any form of that word as a self-designation.

Hmmm... No that wouldn't make any sense. They both must have been worshipping the Ahura too and Zoroaster chose Mazda "Wisdom," kept others but rendered them semi-divine

Zoroaster is quite explicit that Ahura Mazda was totally unknown to his people before; all the pre-existing priests worshipped the Daevas, which he asks that they stop doing. Zoroaster is retaining nothing from before.

I'm failing to see it, Wright is failing to see it, and so many other of you guys are failing to see it.

I can't imagine who you mean by "you guys". All Jews know the Shema verse very well, since it is recited liturgically on many occasions, and they have always understood it as a proclamation of the absolute unity of God. I have never heard of anybody, anybody at all, mis-reading it in the stupid way that Wright does.

They're addressed as sem-divine.

However you want to call it, it is unlike "angels".

Were the prophets or messengers after Deutero-Isaiah not considered semi-divine?

No.

OMG if you were to define Messiah and not use Jesus as you're definition people would think superman and Cyrus-types

I don't know anybody, anybody at all, who would think of somebody like Cyrus when asked to define "Messiah".

Please cite.

A cite for the existence of non-royal tombs in Egypt? They were much much more numerous, though less impressive, than the royal tombs. Does it not occur to you that other bodies needed to be buried too? Is it really news to you that religious texts are found in tombs other than the Pharoahs?

You cited an Avestan form Airyen

No, I cited you the forms that actually exist in the Avesta, not one of which ends in "n".

which actually sounds like how most people pronounce Aryan these days

No, the "ai" vowel was like English eye. The pronunciation was like George W. Bush saying "Iran" as EYE-ran. The pronunciation AHR-yah is attested in India, and only in India, and always has been. No Irano-Afghans ever tried to claim that form earlier than 2006, as far as I can find.

Most Hindus apart from Talgeri will tell you themselves that it is a spiritual term.

Among other things. In Kannada state there are two subdivisions of the Vaisya "merchant" caste, the native (southern, Dravidian-speaking in origin) Kalinga-visya and the later-migrating (from northern Indo-European speakers, though now adopting the local Dravidian speech) Arya-visya. Here the word is still used in its "ethnic" sense.

And what about the Arya-Aspa who Alexander came across in Afghanistan

Cite? I do not recognize that name. I have also pointed out that Greek borrowings from Iranians have a habit of simplifying the vowels, and hence cannot be taken as a good indication of the underlying pronunciation.

or the Arim-Aspa or the one eyed Scythians who other Greek authors refer to.

Here you are arbitarily cutting in half the name Arimaspi "one-eyed centaurs" which is seriously unlikely to have anything to do with our subject.

Darius built the Royal Highways.

He built post-roads which only the king's men could use. The Achaemenid regime vanished as easily as it did because nobody had any stake in it.

The word Bank is a Iranian loan from Sassanian times.

It is Renaissance Italian banca "bench" related to the Germanic root seen also in English bench and in bank "sloped earth on a riverside". I'm glad you at least spared me whatever Iranian word starting with "b" you arbitrarily decided to declare the "same".

I've given my life to defending the historical facts

You resolutely refuse to accept any facts. I tell you the same things over and over again, and you don't even try to make arguments why you are right, you just repeat the same delusions as before, as if much repetition will make them truer.

No what I'm proposing would have made the Aryans (Irano-Afghans) as a unit multi-trillionairs or richer by now

How exactly is the amount of money owed going to be determined? If the "owners" of an idea get to set the price, then what the North Africans demand for your right to domesticate animals, the Turks for the right to plant seeds, the Iraqis for the use of metals and wheels, the Israelis for the right to write in alphabetic script etc. is going to take away from you everything you own, if not more. On the other hand, if the recipients get to decide what is fair to say, well then it's all settled: everyone in the world except you thinks that ideas which have been around for decades or more are free.

expressions like God - Judgment Day

do not belong to you. "Judgment Day" in particular you borrowed from elsewhere, so you owe rather than are owed, under your own peculiar system.

And theirs nothing bizzare about wanting to protect the historical truth from people who use delusions to seek their power.

You yourself are just about the most deluded person here: Divos is the only one who could challenge you.

 

[donnann]

No it doesn't. First of it actually mentions an "Aryan" homeland. Second of all according to convention the common ancestor's of the Avestans and the Vedic people worshipped both the Ahura/Asuras and Daevas to begin with, and both rejected one of them. The question is was the Rig Veda written in reaction to the Avestan rejection of the Davea or was the Avesta written in reaction to the Vedic worship of the Daeva. My contention is that the Indo-Iranians worshipped both the Ahura/Asura and the Daeva. The Iranians made their reforms rejecting the Daevas, and exalting the Ahura Mazda. And in reaction to that the Vedic people rejected the Asura or Ahura Mazda and the the Yazata.



Yeah, but how do you know that he's not just one of many gods? Pretty much every translation of the OT, even the non-literal translations, but yours confirms Wrights point. In the following translations LORD is a standin for Yahweh and God should really be written god (Elohim).

New International Version (©1984)
Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.

English Standard Version (©2001)
“Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
"Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one!

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:.

King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:

American King James Version
Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:

American Standard Version
Hear, O Israel: Jehovah our God is one Jehovah:

Bible in Basic English
Give ear, O Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord:

Douay-Rheims Bible
Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord.

Darby Bible Translation
Hear, Israel: Jehovah our God is one Jehovah;

English Revised Version
Hear, O Israel: the LORD our God is one LORD:

Webster's Bible Translation
Hear, O Israel: the LORD our God is one LORD:

World English Bible
Hear, Israel: Yahweh is our God; Yahweh is one:

Young's Literal Translation
Hear, O Israel, Jehovah our God is one Jehovah;

So granted Wright and all these other translations are correct, and given that the Jews had a history of henotheism, and monolatry, how can you be so sure that Isa. 10:5-15 is an example of monotheism, and that it's not until Deutero-Isaiah that we can be certain that the Jews believe that "there is only one god and no other?" Furthermore why would the authors of Deutro-Isaiah need to explain that there is only one god and no other?



You can't even prove there was an "absolute unity" of the Abrahamic God until Deutro-Isaiah. And I thought you said that the Jews threw the intertestimentary material out.



That's just semantics and anti-Zoroastrian propaganda that you're ascribing to. The truth of the matter is that the Zoroastrians have always believed that they themselves were monotheists. It was really Judaism and Christianity which came to resemble Zoroastrianism more and more over the centuries, probably because they couldn't fully understand what they were saying literally. It wasn't until Christian missionaries came along in attempts to convert the Zoroastrians and other non-Christian peoples to Christianity by trying to defunctify their monotheism, by saying the same type thing you are, and the Zoroastrians tried to explain to them that they just didn't understand their belief system, and either they just didn't, or the refused to. Of course, there are way more Christians therefore more Christian literature out there so they have the upper hand in spreading their delusions.

Angels in the original sense of the word "messenger" is true to Aryan (Irano-Afghan) concept of the Amesha Spentas.

My understanding is that the Amesha Spentas weren't emanations. They were hypostasis or rather states of being.

Ahura Mazda the all mighty, all good God created the spirit and material existences and Spenta Mainyu or holy spirit [world] who is the only Amesha Spenta identified with God, but also distinguished from God.

Spenta Mainyu is God's intermediary form capable of being conceived by man. When god created Spenta Mainyu or the Holy Spirit [world] he was created with the will to choose and he [God] chose right and good proceeded from him. Spenta Mainyu is not an emanation of God he is God or Holy Mind, 1 of the 7 Amesha Spentas, hypostasis, or rather states of being key to immortality representative of a good God.

Its comparable to the various titles attributed to YHWH THE MANY NAMES OF GOD

The Amesha Spentas don't share Ahura Mazda's divine status. Ahura Mazda is acknowledged as omnipotent in the earliest portions of the Avesta. Later they become anthropomorphasized, but that doesn't make Ahura Mazda any less monotheistic. And like I was saying a God that controls everything sounds more like an emanation because, unlike the Zoroastrian concept of God's role in the universe, it means that there is no separation between God and his creations. No Free Will. No disconnect. Same mental force.

HE has one name its YHVH or in english JEHOVAH. YHWH simply means I AM its a phrase not a name. Elohim is a gender identity for a god Eloher is a goddess. JEHOVAH told moses he was representing him so when moses asked who shall I say sent me JEHOVAH responded I AM WHO I AM simplying telling moses he was representing JEHOVAH. There is confusion over that. There is ONLY ONE name he goes by that it really is JEHOVAH.. The center family say MICHAEL for example has his first name as a sir name so his name would be MICHAEL JEHOVAH ....understand?

 

[bob x]

Elohim is a gender identity for a god Eloher is a goddess.

You're joking, I hope???

 

[donnann]

You're joking, I hope???

No I am not. Every male has a female counterpart. Just like man has woman each say for example an archangel has an archeia and yes god has a female counterpart as well. The two are one whole living entity and its the only complex entity that has infinite life. Its the pattern of infinity.

 

[mojobadshah]

Because I use the word "Iran" which YOUR PEOPLE CHOSE FOR THEMSELVES THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO????

No I'm not. I call Iranians "Iranians" just like everybody else, including Iranians not of your peculiar faction. Your behavior here is completely insane, can't you see that?

Listen I know what's best for the Irano-Afghans. And the REASON they call Iran Iran is because the Irano-Afghan zone used to be called Airyanam Veajah like how Rome used to be called Roma.

My ancestry is from Indo-European speakers of various branches, but Indo-Iranians are not among them, so it is very unlikely that any of my ancestors used any form of that word as a self-designation..

The ancestors of the Irano-Afghans on the other hand did use forms of the word "Aryan" as a national and linguistic self designation.

Zoroaster is quite explicit that Ahura Mazda was totally unknown to his people before; all the pre-existing priests worshipped the Daevas, which he asks that they stop doing. Zoroaster is retaining nothing from before..

Then where did the Ahura/Asura come from?

I can't imagine who you mean by "you guys". All Jews know the Shema verse very well, since it is recited liturgically on many occasions, and they have always understood it as a proclamation of the absolute unity of God. I have never heard of anybody, anybody at all, mis-reading it in the stupid way that Wright does..

Show me they understood it that way before Deutero-Isaiah and that it's not a back-projection of Deutero-Isaiah where they make their first clearcut monotheist statement in Persia.

However you want to call it, it is unlike "angels"..

That depends on you're definition of angels. In the Gathas using the word angel to mean "message(r)" for Amesha Spenta is suiting.

No.

Were they diabolic then?

A cite for the existence of non-royal tombs in Egypt? They were much much more numerous, though less impressive, than the royal tombs. Does it not occur to you that other bodies needed to be buried too? Is it really news to you that religious texts are found in tombs other than the Pharoahs?.

I wouldn't be surprised. Please cite.

No, the "ai" vowel was like English eye. The pronunciation was like George W. Bush saying "Iran" as EYE-ran. The pronunciation AHR-yah is attested in India, and only in India, and always has been. No Irano-Afghans ever tried to claim that form earlier than 2006, as far as I can find..

And all this time I thought it sounded more like "air." I've only heard it pronounced Aryana by Irano-Afghans themselves.

No, I cited you the forms that actually exist in the Avesta, not one of which ends in "n"..

You did suggest using a weird obsolete form like Airyan (I guess with the addition of -n), but how is this pronounced?

Yasna 9:14 in the context "the realm of the _____" it is airyene

Cite? I do not recognize that name. I have also pointed out that Greek borrowings from Iranians have a habit of simplifying the vowels, and hence cannot be taken as a good indication of the underlying pronunciation..

A history of Greece - Connop Thirlwall - Google Books

It's a Greek rendering. Pretty much all the Greek renderings of Irano-Afghan ar- prefixes in national designations are like that. But the Acheamenids pronounced it Ariya... So are you sure that the Avestan Airyanam is the long [ai] diphathong and not the short [ai] diphathong?

It is Renaissance Italian banca "bench" related to the Germanic root seen also in English bench and in bank "sloped earth on a riverside". I'm glad you at least spared me whatever Iranian word starting with "b" you arbitrarily decided to declare the "same"..

I got that etymology from a site listing English words of Persian or Iranian Origin which I can't find now, but the form was benke and it claimed that it came from Sassanian and the Sassanians did establish banking systems and our word cheque is an Irano-Afghan loan.

How exactly is the amount of money owed going to be determined? If the "owners" of an idea get to set the price, then what the North Africans demand for your right to domesticate animals, the Turks for the right to plant seeds, the Iraqis for the use of metals and wheels, the Israelis for the right to write in alphabetic script etc. is going to take away from you everything you own, if not more. On the other hand, if the recipients get to decide what is fair to say, well then it's all settled: everyone in the world except you thinks that ideas which have been around for decades or more are free.

I think there's something wrong about you comparing cultural expressions to things like methods of animal domestication, seed plating, metal usage, the wheel, and alphabetic scripts. A culture's expressions and identity go hand in hand. The cultural expressions I'm talking about are the expressions that men have used to justify their positions of authority for centuries. That the Romans, the Arabs, the Crusaders, the British used against the Aryans with whom the earliest traces of these expressions rest with.