Pharisees - Persians - A Research Study
-
salaam bro
can i have more details on this ?
what are the alternatives ? i suppose they are Mithra and Zarathustra ?
It seems that zoroasters had they trinity too (ahura mazda, mithra and Anahita).
i am interested in the "two factions" chiism.peace
The ?sons? of God
Ataropad-i Marspendan ? called immortal according to historical recordsThis is an entry in my document of a strange name I found while browsing documents, apart from that is a very suspicious name in Qur'an which I think I have pinpointed while browsing all data, but I did not copy it into my research file. The thing is because of linguistic differences the name are slightly different between the script languages and pronunciation might have been lost or altered and we may mispronounce some ancient words.
I have recently discovered a truckload of new interesting things, but it would take me a long time to write it here as it is in no way organized at the moment.
"Ataropad-i Marspendan" was a new alleged Messenger in Zoroastrianism who came a while after Alexander had spread havoc in old Persia.
- They say that, once upon a time, the pious Zartosht (Zarathustra) made the religion, which he had received, current in the world; (2) and till the completion of 300 years, the religion was in purity, and men were without doubts.
Zarathustra is often taken into a trinity with the Zoroastrian word for "Holy Spirit". He was so pure they often simply worship him as an idol.
Here is a quote with the possible "son of God" no 2
; (16) until the time when the blessed and immortal Ataropad-i Marspendan was born; on whose breast, in the tale which is in the Denkard, melted brass was poured.
Note that the passages say that he was immortal which may indicate a typical "son of God". "Ataropad-i Marspendan" is certainly a nickname or title so I need a more accurate passage. Ataropad-i is probably a title of sorts considered the -i in the Persian name. I am sure that Zoroastrianism is a monotheism gone idolatrous and was maybe even on Darius time a more "proper" monotheism. Some of the Messengers were so righteous that people begun to treat them as gods because of their righteousness. A dangerous trap which unfortunately happens with Muhammad in today's Islam and he seems to continue be more and more treated as a lord.
The levels Jesus is taken to is just silly and ridiculous.
AND Mithra is probably I mentioned in the beginning of this post and I suppose you knew it already. And the is Zarathustra.
Anyway, I will continue research, these are simply speculations and early theoretical philosophies. But I think there was "one of the sons" living before Alexander had burnt Persepolis to the ground and run havoc in Persia and approximately 200-300 years earlier than traditional Jesus age. A reason I suspect this is because this person suggests that the temple and all surrounding buildings will be destroyed a final time after his appearance there, and he was right too. This theory requires that I am right that Persepolis IS Jerusalem though or Estakhr http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estakhr. Also in the case of Persia the main temple was moved at least once. The problem is who of them? Was it Zarathustra or Mithra?
The religious importance of Ear was marked in the 4th century B.C.E. by the setting up at Persepolis by Artaxerxes II (q.v.) of one of his statues to Anaitis (Berossus 3.65; see ANHD).
Considered this quote I think the later kings reverted to idolatry which angered God and led to the fall of the Persian Empire. I guess this is why Persia had no chance against Alexander, and it is also why the nation in the Old Testament fails to withstand invasion because they are weakened by idolatry. There is much unknown history around here and the truth is not as it seems. I take all "dumb-proof" historical sources with a grain of salt.
It is the irony of that the Persian states always went the same path as the state in Old Testament which tickles my mind so much. I am soon going to study the chronological order of events in Bible and see if I can draw even more profound parallels there.
And do you not find it strange that there is no mention of Zoroastrianism even if it was one of the biggest religions when the Qur'an was being written? Well, it is strange until you understand that they actually are mentioned but under other terms. And Zoroastrianism is not really the name of a religion but just a definition for those who followed Zarathustra, just like they say Christianity for those who follow Christ. I am sure it was Islam and the same kind of stuff Abraham/Ibrahim was doing, following a pretty simple and straight Message yet hard for some people to do without shirk and following their egos. Notice that God says "those who call themselves Nazarenes", it does imply that it is only a group of people and not that God's religion is called that.
God bless you
-
No doubt the town flourished from 265 B.C.E. to 200 C.E., under the Persis kings, whose capital is believed to have been here; and, from A.D. 208, under the Sasanians, when it was the principal city and religious center of the province, but not normally a royal residence.
-
Salaam,
One thing I wonder about is that people always think their Messenger is always the last and think the era of Messengers is over.
God bless you
-
Salaam,
http//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ae/Amarna_Akkadian_letter.png/220px-Amarna_Akkadian_letter.png
This is something like I think the Ark of the Covenant looks like. This "letter" is not about that, but I was thinking how the tablets which Moses made or got inscribed looked like and this is how I think they look(ed) like. This is how inscriptions looked like in the anticipated time of Moses and the time in Egypt, and I cannot think that the tablets on the mountain looked much different to this. This was the paper anno 1300 BC like we regard as paper today anyway. Not very editable, yes?
Another off-topic post, but indirectly related still as I ran into the http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amarna_letters which were written in Akkadian cuneiform, the writing system of ancient Mesopotamia strangely enough.
Look at this map
http//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/78/Amarnamap.png/772px-Amarnamap.png
We have to mind the existence of the Persians in the far East of Middle-East and their common writings, although for certain we cannot forget all the others states around there such as Ashur. And I do not believe Canaan is where it is commonly believed (within parenthesis on the map).
You see that my posts move more and more importance towards the east? Mesopotamia was quite important throughout time and in my opinion our illusive friends near the Mediterranean Sea will, God willing, soon lose some of their importance. The kings of the "Eastern region" sent mails to our friends in Egypt, in a language from Babylon.
God bless you
-
Salaam,
One thing I wonder about is that people always think their Messenger is always the last and think the era of Messengers is over.
God bless you
salaam
from the quranic point of view, there is no reason to consider Muhammad as last Messenger.
Expression "khatim anbiya" means "the sealer of informed people", that is the one who brought a sealed version of words of God for people.Peace
-
AND Mithra is probably I mentioned in the beginning of this post and I suppose you knew it already. And the is Zarathustra.
Salaam
Uzair is linked to Yahood (people of torah). As i said before, i think it is Mister Israel (Uzair is a pejorative form of God whorshipper).
Concerning Mithra, it seems that is was an old aryan divinity (before Zarathustra). Gathas of Zarathustra never mention it. That is very curious.
Mithra seems to have made a comeback.
The problem i have is this
-gathas and zoroastianism seems to indicate that Issa is Zoroaster.
-similarities between reported life events of Mithra (specially the roman one) and Issa, (and Jesus) seems to indicate that Mithra is Issa.It is possible for me that mytha mythology was mixed with Zarathustra events of life.
Interesting to note that in Avesta, Mithra seems like a great soldier.i will give you some thoughts
wikipedia
Citing the authority of the 8th-century al-Kalbi, the 9th- and 10th-century historian al-Tabari (i.64 reports that Zaradusht bin Isfiman (an Arabic adaptation of "Zarathustra Spitama" was an inhabitant of Palestine, and a servant of one of the disciples of the prophet Jeremiah. According to this tale, Zaradusht defrauded his master, who cursed him, causing him to become leprous (cf. Elisha's servant Gehazi in Jewish Scripture). The apostate Zaradusht then eventually made his way to Balkh (present day Afghanistan) where he converted Bishtasb (i.e. Vishtaspa), who in turn compelled his subjects to adopt the religion of the Magians. Recalling other tradition, al-Tabari (i.681?683) recounts that Zaradusht accompanied a Jewish prophet to Bishtasb/Vishtaspa. Upon their arrival, Zaradusht translated the sage's Hebrew teachings for the king and so convinced him to convert (Tabari also notes that they had previously been Sabis) to the Magian religion.this quote is interesting (Tabari was persian).
Zarathustra would have preached with a "Jewish prophet" confusedGathas mention these name (only few names are mentionned)
-Zarathusthra
-Frashaoshtra a great sage who helped/accompagned Zarathusthra
-Jamaspa a supporter of Zarathustra
-Vishtaspa the king who supported Zarathusthra.interesting to note that usthra points to camel and aspa point to horse (fors/pharis).
So ending of a name can be a good indication.
Frahaosthra can be the "jewish" prophet who came from the country of camels to the country of Horses.Sourate el kahf (1 mention a trip of Moses with his "young apprentice".
We have no information of what Moses did after delivering torah.
We know also that Aaron and his childs became the priests of "Jews".
I think that there is a possibility that Aaron remained with Bani Israel while Moses and Isaa went to persia (so Frashaoshtra is Moses).I still have a problem with yahia. What did he did ? Where did he preached ?
Cheikh Dukhani made the hypothesis that Yahia is known in torah as Caleb ben Yephunneh. His a kind of "binomial" of Issa.
Persian name of Yahia can also be Frashaoshtra if that person is not Moses.
Remamber that mandeans seems to have been "isolated" in mesopotamia. They don't recognize Abraham, Moses, jesus and so on. Quran says that Yahia will become a great leader (sayyidan).i no more think that "son of God" or "trinity" are good tracks.
it seems that they are "very old pagan belief" reintroduced in monotheism.Peace
-
Salaam,
i no more think that "son of God" or "trinity" are good tracks.
it seems that they are "very old pagan belief" reintroduced in monotheism.They do not relate to "authentic" history and only into hearsay, but they might anyway be a tool in searching further, although then only superficially. However, to reach further one needs to get beyond the trinity delusion. Like you see here in our research, discovering what the people actually go on about in Qur'an about "son of God" might have gotten us a hint on where to look. I suppose you mean that we cannot rely on this information to reach the Truth and that you are right about. We need to identify the true story and then prove to the world what the hell went wrong historically and which has repeated itself over and over again (take Christianity for example and the Muhammadans are risking reaching the same fate). Some people will take heed, but most will suffer the same fate as those of old the idolatry trap.
Gathas mention these name (only few names are mentionned)
-Zarathusthra
-Frashaoshtra a great sage who helped/accompagned Zarathusthra
-Jamaspa a supporter of Zarathustra
-Vishtaspa the king who supported Zarathusthra.I had that on my mind actually, regarding the titles, and had already noticed the ending of the names such as Zarath-ushtra.
I am not sure if it can give any hope about the Judaism research, but I have noticed that the Persian language seems to favor giving the sound instead of such as in Dariush and that the same phenomenon happens in Hebrew, i.e. shaloom instead of salaam. The sound is often used for consonant sounds as you see where the Arabs would favor . Another is Cyrus which is where I think the is because they simply pronounce it like that. Strangely enough such usage exists in the language of the Jews. It was an observation that I made and the actual truth can be something different. This is a linguistic question.
But if we return to the topic; in Zarathushtra, only Zarath is his "actual name" and -ushtra is more of a title (Iranians refer to him as Zartosht). The name itself with removed affixes is astonishingly like the Nazara of Qur'an and I think the N in Qur'an reflects some kind of prefix actually. To take a qualified guess, is Zarathushtra and not Christianity's Messiah, or in fact the Messiah in today's Christianity is Zarathushtra OR more likely the Uzair but a confusion has occurred. I suppose Zarathushtra gained "son of God' rank against his will after he delivered the Message.
My current issue is which of Uzair of Yahood or the Messiah of Nazarens is Jesus which the Christians (of today) believe in.
this quote is interesting (Tabari was persian).
Zarathustra would have preached with a "Jewish prophet" confusedI read what you mean, it is none but strengthening the signs that Zarathustra was a "Biblical" Prophet and likely the one the Christians today revere so much and treat as a god.
Jamaspa
Hint James of the New Testament? Apprentice of the Messenger, the Messiah.
-Frashaoshtra a great sage who helped/accompagned Zarathusthra
This can have been Yahya or westernized John the Baptist. He was contemporary with traditional Jesus and was imprisoned for his preachings and later executed.
interesting to note that usthra points to camel and aspa point to horse (fors/pharis).
So ending of a name can be a good indication.That indeed is a good sign. I should have thought about it before as I know you say asp in Persian for horse.
We have no information of what Moses did after delivering torah.
According to the Old Testament, Moses died before reaching "the promised land". I supposed Moses' people lived like a nomad tribe for those years when they were cursed to wander the deserts aimlessly. They likely did not find any place to settle down because God stopped leading them straight.
We know also that Aaron and his childs became the priests of "Jews".
Their priestly work portray Zoroastrianism very accurately in the Old Testament with incense burning and fireplaces. It would be strange if they did not lead the "new" religion during their lifetime. It could be that Moses and company might be the one who brought a new religion according to Zoroastrian sources and that the person I say came before the destruction of Persepolis is a later Messenger. The Persian people indulged a lot in idolatry on and off. Remember according to the Gospels in the New Testament, Jesus throws out all immoral and bad stuff from the temple which is probably the idols and gamblers and their things. I am relatively sure that the Gospel portrays a story almost right before the final ever destruction of the temple. Jesus said that the temple and all surrounding buildings will lay in ruins soon.
All pieces are starting to fall into the right places. Unfortunately there is no more time for me to write at the moment but I am happy for your contribution to my sea of information
God bless you
-
salaam man of Faith
Uzair is not a prophet. Quran never said so.Uzair is a pejorative form of a root that can mean many things
- a dictionnay meaning of beat someone in order to make him obey. Meanings also of blaming and empeachement.
- a quranic meaning of "support/making someone high". Probably using stre,ght if take into account the dictionnary meaning.
Uzair is probably a nickname, like Messiah for Issa, Muhammad probably for Ahmed, Dhul nun probably for yunes/jonas...
All what we know about Uzair is that bani israel said he is son of God
Exodus 422 "Then you shall say to Pharaoh, 'Thus says the LORD, "Israel is My son, My firstborn.Israel is the only candidate we have.
I dont think that we can find, one day, a proof, that another candidate is better.
I dont think that we fill find a guy worshipped more by jews than IsraelIsrael is as prophet as jesus of nazareth and probably as mithra.
Israel is not Jacob
Substituating a false messenger to a true one is an usuel "pratice" of shaytan.Mithra can be an old divinity who parasitized the story of a true prophet.
Please note that there is a false Muhammad also. False Muhammd lived in mekka, married with khadija and aisha ...
Peace
-
Salaam noshirk,
Perhaps you are right. I am only investigating and open to suggestions and trying to keep my mind open. It is true that it seems strange that Jacob was renamed Israel but my thought has been Ezra - el is the derivative for Israel.
Uzair is probably a nickname, like Messiah for Issa, Muhammad probably for Ahmed, Dhul nun probably for yunes/jonas...
You are absolutely right. It is a "nickname" just like the Messiah. But for reasons I draw it (ر towards the mystery figure Ezra although I might be wrong. I am sure it has to do with Israel, think about the phonetic pronunciation of these words when divided into roots and syllables or morphemes, Ezra - el and = el with help-letters such as in the word to make an '' sound in the ending of Israel. Yahood, as far as I have understood, means something like Followers of Yahweh, the name they give God which they think their salvation belongs to only themselves, much like Jehova's Witnesses today who also use the ancient derivative of God from the old scriptures. I know Israel is spelled with an 'alif', but I can still not exclude that it is a grammatical variation considered their far distanced historical past. I was delving into the connection between these seemingly Jewish origin words altogether. And the 'alif' on such words usually signifies a "help-vowel" as far as I know although I am not knowledgeable in Aramaic grammar.
Ezra is the mystery here and who he really was and Biblical tradition says he is Jacob who was told that he was no longer Jacob but to be called Israel. You also need to consider that Jacob's name begun with a "ya" sound which may be why Yahood could be derived from that original name.
Despite all these philosophical approaches, it does not solve the mystery of who "Ezra" was and I know you are stuck on the same point.
If we look on Messiah I also have a perhaps far-fetched, but still a logical approach and that is if we divide the syllables in Messiah, you can derive Issa's name from it, the same as I attempted to do with Uzair. It might not be as simple as that, but it could also be worth checking out. You need to remember that known official explanations of why may be distorted in conjecture and guesses by people who philosophized in the past and even within the Bible which is a collection of various books.
God bless you
-
salaam man of faith
i don't think that ezra is Uzair because- no pejorative form in ezra
- quran mention uzair once at a very important place (son of go for yahood). I don't think that quran would mention such an important person only one time. I am quite sure that he exist somewhere else in quran.
- no way to proove that ezra was considered as son of god. It seems that he is not considered even as a prophet but only a priest.
concerning yahood and allathina hadoo,i think there is trap in these word. Something is wrong in my actual understanding.
544 We have sent down the Torah, in it is a guidance and a light; the prophets who have submitted (aslamou confused) judged with it for those who are Jewish (hadou confused), and the Devotees, and the Priests, for what they were entrusted of the Book of God, and they were witness over. So do not be concerned with the people but be concerned with Me; and do not purchase with My revelations a cheap price. And whoever does not judge with what God has sent down, then these are the rejecters.
Peace
-
Salaam,
You are probably right. It was just a wild guess and might not portray the Truth. Need more leads before making any concrete assumptions. It is a BIG question who Uzair is according to historical records and in the conjecture of the various idolators and it is, even if tragic, an important lead for reaching further in the understanding of the true story.
And you are right that there is a linguistic riddle with the yahood and allathina hadoo. I think there is much ignorance due to the fact that people abandoned the Qur'an on and off and invented their own definitions for things and simply not understood what was written and caused conjecture to unintentionally change the meaning. So-called experts rather conjectured than admitted they did not understand what was really written I suppose. One example would be that suddenly people forgot who were Zoroastrians according to Qur'an after not long at all. It is obvious that Zoroastrianism must be mentioned in a scripture written while that religion was still one of the biggest but soon challenged by the new (fraudulent) Islam with adherents annihilating people just to convert them to "Islam". The Caliphate was just a huge oppression of people and forcefully converting them to THEIR Islam which was not really Islam as far as I can understand by reading Islamic history.
But I still stand firm in my understanding that Christianity is just a misunderstood form of Zoroastrianism, or at least one of the "quarreling" factions as we talked about in previous posts, originally developed by a desperate Roman Empire using biased translations of original scriptures and later the conjecture simply escalated and reached pathetic heights and they (Nicene) finally used the classical trinity faith to explain it all. Jesus is not the only "son of God", there is at least one more (as per Qur'an) and I guess there are further sons, and EVEN daughters as you know rotfl
We can learn a big lesson from all this and that is "history repeats itself". The Muhammadans and Christians are evidence of that. Why are the Messengers always idolized as lords? And when asked they always denounce idolatry and say they only bring them closer to God?
God bless you
-
Salaam,
You are probably right. It was just a wild guess and might not portray the Truth. Need more leads before making any concrete assumptions. It is a BIG question who Uzair is according to historical records and in the conjecture of the various idolators and it is, even if tragic, an important lead for reaching further in the understanding of the true story.
And you are right that there is a linguistic riddle with the yahood and allathina hadoo. I think there is much ignorance due to the fact that people abandoned the Qur'an on and off and invented their own definitions for things and simply not understood what was written and caused conjecture to unintentionally change the meaning. So-called experts rather conjectured than admitted they did not understand what was really written I suppose. One example would be that suddenly people forgot who were Zoroastrians according to Qur'an after not long at all. It is obvious that Zoroastrianism must be mentioned in a scripture written while that religion was still one of the biggest but soon challenged by the new (fraudulent) Islam with adherents annihilating people just to convert them to "Islam". The Caliphate was just a huge oppression of people and forcefully converting them to THEIR Islam which was not really Islam as far as I can understand by reading Islamic history.
But I still stand firm in my understanding that Christianity is just a misunderstood form of Zoroastrianism, or at least one of the "quarreling" factions as we talked about in previous posts, originally developed by a desperate Roman Empire using biased translations of original scriptures and later the conjecture simply escalated and reached pathetic heights and they (Nicene) finally used the classical trinity faith to explain it all. Jesus is not the only "son of God", there is at least one more (as per Qur'an) and I guess there are further sons, and EVEN daughters as you know rotfl
We can learn a big lesson from all this and that is "history repeats itself". The Muhammadans and Christians are evidence of that. Why are the Messengers always idolized as lords? And when asked they always denounce idolatry and say they only bring them closer to God?
God bless you
Very interesting thoughts!
Thank you
-
Salaam,
Something which people not seem to realize when they read the Bible is how many of the stories actually take place in today's Iraq (Mesopotamia). A great deal of the narrations are presented with a center-point in Ur, Nineveh, Kish/Cush and together with the Elamites (a region consisting of today's southwestern Iran). Certainly many fled from the evil that took place in Babylon, but it was not something forever but a series of bad kings, Nimrod for example was one of the first evil ones and which in the tales built a tall tower to reach into Heaven to fight God there. During this time Abra(h)am was told to depart from Ur and travel to the Land of Canaan which traditionally means he traveled to the region where Israel is located today, but that he was just in the locale where Israel is seems a bit unlikely as he would travel via Damascus or through the deserts of Arabia and then up to Har(r)an in today's south Turkey.
Another observation is the various floods that took place which suit the marshlands and river system of Mesopotamia (Tigris and Euphrates). No such possibility exists for Israel which does not have that amount of water coming in a river to flood large expanses.
A summary is that very little if any of the events of the Bible take place in today's Israel and even close to it. The only myth I am trying to get at now is to work hard to crush the delusions of Solomon and David ruling in a kingdom of Judah where it is thought to be today. Solomon had great armies and chariots and resources and large areas of conquested territory, his Empire was reaching far distant lands according to traditional belief and his was renowned and envied by neighboring kings, example Queen of Sheba. There is little evidence of such a large kingdom and they have not been able to provide archeological signs of this enormous empire. David's and Solomon's temples were enormous and at the same time constructed with more or less exactly the same layout as the temples in Persepolis and Shush/Susa with their surrounding residential buildings. The time difference is that Solomon is believed to have lived in 10th century BC while Persepolis was constructed in the 6th century BC. But while the Persian king Cyrus (c. 600 BC or 576 BC?530 BC) constructed grand Persepolis he also helped rebuilding the temple in Jerusalem in the other side of his empire out of goodwill(?) because of this
In the first year of King Cyrus, Cyrus the king issued a decree "Concerning the house of God at Jerusalem, let the temple, the place where sacrifices are offered, be rebuilt and let its foundations be retained, its height being 60 cubits and its width 60 cubits; with three layers of huge stones and one layer of timbers. And let the cost be paid from the royal treasury. Also let the gold and silver utensils of the house of God, which Nebuchadnezzar took from the temple in Jerusalem and brought to Babylon, be returned and brought to their places in the temple in Jerusalem; and you shall put them in the house of God." (Ezra 63?5)
I know king Cyrus seems to have been a righteous man, but the story does still not satisfy my reason and logic. Was this the first thing the king thought about in the first year of his reign. Take the following quotation into consideration
He is the only Gentile to be designated as Messiah, a divinely appointed leader, in the Tanakh (Isaiah 451?6). Isaiah 4513 "I will raise up Cyrus in my righteousness I will make all his ways straight. He will rebuild my city and set my exiles free, but not for a price or reward, says Yahweh Almighty."
Can Cyrus (Kurush in Farsi) , how odd it even may sound, be Uzair of Yahood or Messiah of Nazarenes/Zarathushtra? In some ways I have the weird intuition that the Jerusalem Temple was by no means on the opposite side of the Persian Empire, and also subsequent kings conquered the rest of the western Middle-East including today's Israel which seems to rhyme badly with Israel's previous status as a powerful nation. These first kings in the succession after Cyrus all regarded God highly and had a respect for the Holy Temple.
Cyrus the Great respected the customs and religions of the lands he conquered. It is said that in universal history, the role of the Achaemenid empire founded by Cyrus lies in its very successful model for centralized administration and establishing a government working to the advantage and profit of its subjects. In fact, the administration of the empire through satraps and the vital principle of forming a government at Pasargadae were the works of Cyrus. What is sometimes referred to as the Edict of Restoration (actually two edicts) described in the Bible as being made by Cyrus the Great left a lasting legacy on the Jewish religion where because of his policies in Babylonia, he is referred to by the Jewish Bible, as Mashiah (hebr. anointed one).
So said the Lord to His anointed one, to Cyrus
?Yeshayahu, Isa 451-7Cyrus the Great is also well recognized for his achievements in human rights, politics, and military strategy, as well as his influence on both Eastern and Western civilizations. Having originated from Persis, roughly corresponding to the modern Iranian province of Fars, Cyrus has played a crucial role in defining the national identity of modern Iran. Cyrus and, indeed, the Achaemenid influence in the ancient world also extended as far as Athens, where many Athenians adopted aspects of the Achaemenid Persian culture as their own, in a reciprocal cultural exchange.
Overall, Cyrus seems to have been a Muslim leader because he ruled with Knowledge and Wisdom of Islam, at least according to historical records. This does seem pretty awkward with the differing views on Persia as a polytheistic and idolatrous region as it is traditionally portrayed. Cyrus was, according to pretty reliable sources, relatively righteous in the eyes of God. There is a confusion with the mythical king Jamshid too and it may be one of the "sons of God" we are looking for. The kings Darius/Dariush and Xerxes/Khashayar were also seemingly righteous but after a succession of kings they turned idolatrous and into the Zoroastrianism as the public knows it. But Zoroastrianism is originally a monotheism calling God 'Ahura Mazda' which is another "nickname" associated with God just as Jews call God 'Yahweh' and all mean something righteous.
God bless you
-
Peace,
While checking some history of Persian names I discovered the meaning of some of them
ParhAm--Abraham
ParizAd--Of divine origin
PArsA--Pure, chaste,devout, holy; PersianIt does not say anything, but it raises the curiosity, does it not?
In certain situations the P in Pars is often changed into Fars, worth noticing when pinpointing the Pharisees in my research. I have not yet understood this difference in pronunciation, although I know that Persians say Fars in contemporary Persian.
Well, apart from that I suppose I have nothing else to add at this time.
Peace
-
Peace,
While checking some history of Persian names I discovered the meaning of some of them
ParhAm--Abraham
ParizAd--Of divine origin
PArsA--Pure, chaste,devout, holy; PersianIt does not say anything, but it raises the curiosity, does it not?
Peace
yes, it does..
-
Well, as the title of the thread suggests, I suspect that the Pharisees of the Bible are the Persians and that history as we know it is filled with falsehood. Many of the events of the Bible took place much further east than believed and certainly not in the state of Israel as we think today. I have no specific location to center events at and my studies seem to point at the region around the Persian Gulf (Khaliye Fars), and perhaps today's Iraq and Iran. It is important to know that the ancient city of Nineveh is located in today's Iraq near Mosul and which is frequently mention in the Bible. Apart from that, lots of locations from the Bible are beginning to be pinpointed from Iraq towards Iran, formerly Persia. Ecbatana, Iran, near today's Hamedan, I have found traces of importance from the past and that one place is also relatively close to the border to Iraq.
You should look at the connection between "Assyria/Babylonia - Tanakh/Torah" connection as well.
The story of Noah Flood, Adam and Eve and Garden of Eden, Tower of Babel, it all exist in Assyrian/Babylonian legend.
The jews was taken as slave by the Assyrian/Babylonian and the Tanakh was written after their release from slavery by Persian (Cyrus) invasion to Babylonian empire.Obviously the Roman Empire spat out propaganda and also Christianity ate up the Roman Empire, so it is no wonder why history was hijacked and falsehood became widespread and the Greek sources might not be entirely truthful either. There is an interesting map allegedly drawn by a Greek historian named Herodotus, c. 484?425 BC, and Israel, the modern state of today, is not even on any of these maps I can link to while other obvious locations are and I doubt Jerusalem would be missing from a map like this if there was a big temple there and it carried a big importance and also considered Dariush and other Persian kings sponsored the rebuilding of the temple. Take a look at these two maps which the source suggests are written by Herodotus
Not Darius but CYRUS, you've mistaken a person by 25 years.
In similar manner as if you've mistaken Barrack Obama with Ronald Reagan.Obviously a person like this would know and mark locations such as Jerusalem and Israel even if he primarily reported on the Greco-Persian wars, link http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Persian_Wars. See how little they knew about the surrounding world at this time even if they were historians. Note that Nineveh is marked on one of the maps. I have not missed that the region "Phaenicia" is marked on the map, but I doubt that will be of much value to the criticizers once I have got rolling. You need to observe that Persepolis is clearly marked on the map while it is officially said that Alexander the Great barely knew where Persepolis was located.
Conjecture..
He pinpoint the location of Phoenicia, Syria in the map but also did not pinpoint the location of Rome.
Yet you can't really say Rome didn't exist or not exist in Italian peninsula can't you?Jerusalem and Rome was not a 'politically significant' city during his time. Persepolis and other Persian cities (and fortresses) is 'very important' to the Greek and Herodotus because that's the ultimate destination of their invasion.
The king Herod the Great I think was Orodes I (c. 90 to 80 BC), Orodes II (57 to 38 BC) or Orodes III (2 BC ? AD 4) of Parthia (also called Hyrodes) and much of the information is likely biased by historical sources and not what it seems to be, but this part of the research has no stable foundation yet.
Too many sources and archeological evidence indicate that there was "King Herod" in today's Jerusalem/Canaan which you must refute one by one.
This coin is an example, found in today's Israel.http//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/58/HerodObverseChiDiadem.jpg
The writing in Greek = HIRODU VASILEOS / King Herod in Greek script and language.
The Greek inscription indicate the common / official language at the time (Greek) which also shows no and minimum influence of Persian.
Even Parthia is a "Greek Kingdom", the result of Alexander of Macedon invasion to Persia.Persian history decayed greatly during the years 1xxx to 2000 due to poor management of the state and I am sure if much of Iran's archeological discoveries were not just sold off cheaply and more research from this time was conducted in Iran then they would easily discover the flaws in the Roman or Greek history sources which our knowledge is much based upon.
It decayed greatly after Alexander of Macedon invasion circa 450 BC.
-
So where does that leave the Kamal Salibi conjecture, that the Bible came from Arabia?
laugh