mansio said:
Apa kabar Nahiz
The links are encyclopaedia of the orient or lexicorient. I don't like to give links as they are so many.
My messages are getting shorter and shorter. It's maybe a good thing because some people here cannot put up with detailed discussions. I sometimes wonder what's the use of a "discussion" forum.
Well, if you were going to respond to what I posted on the Jewish and Zoroastrian embodiments of evil, perhaps you could start on that while you think of something else to debate about. While this isn't a thread on the Bible, if the Quran is based on the Bible we could perhaps discuss it a bit.
Perhaps one thing I'd like to add to what I said about Satan, is that the passage in chapter 14 from Isaiah makes references to astrology in introducing its concept of Lucifer. These include "
the morning star" (Lucifer himself) and "
stars of God" (the angels). It also refers to places on earth that are sacred to the Jewish people such as "
mount of assembly" (could this be the Mount of Olives or something similar?) and "
sacred mountain."
Then there's the heaven/earth concept where he will ascend "above the tops of the clouds" and be made like "the Most High." Obviously He wants to exalt himself above God.
Astrology is about celestial bodies. It is used here for the purpose of prophecy. Since I don't know much about Zoroastrianism (hardly a help) other than the basics of its theory on the embodiment of good and evil, it would be hard to comment on how Zoroaster used astrology to portray good/evil forces.
Astrology is different to philosophy in the sense that you can use existing objects (celestial) in the natural world/universe to describe a spiritual concept. If the Jews had an alternative to expressing their views on Lucifer, then they may have been more original than we think.
If the references to the morning star (Lucifer), the angels (stars of God), the Mount of Olives (mount of assembly) are unique in this passage of Isaiah, then it may not have been influenced by Zoroaster.
Moreover, Isaiah's followers (who obviously may have filled in the remaining passages in Isaiah after his death) may not even have met Zoroaster!!! Isaiah was a prophet, not a diplomat or ambassador. His followers might not have been that keen to receive ideas from foreigners. Zoroaster might have met the Jewish High Priest and Rabbis, but Isaiah and his followers were probably a more reclusive group, though not necessarily a secret society. The prophets of Israel might have got involved in politics, but they didn't live by politics.
Prophets aren't confined to writing about philosophy and theology, they may use astrology in their prophecies as well.
