Christian Persia! Look! Behold!
- Thread starter Xocotl
- Start date
Philip
Donor
Still uncreated. Still don't see how you going to work around that.
Indeed. But he is still uncreated and responsible for part of creation. How are you going to get the Jews to to accept that?
More precisely, you are 'not trying to paint a picture of the religion as being anything but what' you perceive it to be. As I pointed out, yours is not the only interpretation of the Zoroastrian scriptures and history. I assume you are familiar with Dhalla's and Henning's work.
I suppose, then, that you can accurately describe my definition. Why not do so and illustrate its short-comings rather than just dismissing it. Other than my saying that I don't include the Mandaeans, I don't believe I have stated it. Are you making assumptions about my claims again?
Indeed. What is you point?
Do you not see the circular nature of your argument? We should include the Mandaeans in the set of gnostic traditions because they are the only surviving gnostic tradition. Come on, you can do better than that.
Yes, the only one that uses the term gnostic in their name. However, I am sure you realize that just because the word 'Knowledge' in their name does not necessitate their inclusion or exclusion from any particular class other than the class of groups who use 'Knowledge' in their title. Again, I assume you logic skills are better than that.
Me.
Still waiting for your citation for that, but your statement does seem to contradict the Yansa:
Now the two primal Spirits, who reveal themselves in vision as Twins, are the Better and the Bad, in thought and word and action. And between these two the wise ones chose aright, the foolish not so.And when these twain Spirits came together in the beginning, they created Life and Not-Life, and that at the last Worst Existence shall be to the followers of the Lie, but the Best Existence to him that follows Right.
Through this entire post you have yet to explain how the Jews will be convinced to accept a second uncreated being.Yansa 30:2-3
In terms of their views on creation and the nature of YHWH, we can develop a fairly good idea of 1st Century Jewish thought from the Torah. (Separating Genesis from the rest of the Torah is quite an error in Jewish thought.)
I assume from your statement, and correct me if I am wrong, that you are suggesting the passage I quoted from one of the earliest Zoroastrian texts is not representative of 1st Century Zoroastrian thought. If that is your suggestion, it is incumbent upon you to demonstrate that the thought changed.
That's two posts where you have failed to offer any suggestion as to why the 1st Century Jews would accept a second uncreated being.
That's twice in this thread where you have misrepresented my claims. I did not question whether or not such a religion could arise. I questioned whether identifying YHWH with Ahura Mazda is possible. If you wish to discuss this with, please address my argument, not your strawman.
Bring on your strawmen.
First, as I pointed out above, I claimed that identifying YHWH with Ahura Mazda is problematic. How this identification is possible needs to be described. How are they relevant to explaining that? Do they in some way identify YHWH with Ahura Mazda?
Second, I have never claimed that it was out of the realm of plausibility. I stated that there was a problem with the identification that needs to be worked out.
You are build quite an army of strawmen here. I hope you don't get tired beating them down. Please demonstrate where I stated that is 'dealbreaker ... for most prospective converts.'
The OP describe a council where YHWH and Ahura Mazda were identified as the same. I stated that there is a problem with this identification.
How is that relevant? It has nothing to do with the identification of YHWH and Ahura Mazda. Somehow you've made it through three posts without addressing how such an identification will be made.
Philip
Donor
Nice
Thank you for actually addressing my concerns. I still have some questions, but would prefer to allow your timeline to move on.
What is the status of *Christianity in Rome? OTL, the Sassanids often suppressed Christianity (at least in its Ephesian-Chalcedonian form) because it was seen as the religion of Rome. Among other things, the Sassanids worried that the Christians would support the Romans in the event of an invasion.
Leo Caesius
Banned
Well, for starters, I know that you're really not all that familiar with the Mandaeans. A few months back, you made the following post:
I pointed out that this was absolutely not true, but you made the point (which you now reject) that the Mandaeans were a typically Gnostic sect:
I indicated that this was debatable. Certainly anyone who was familiar with the primary sources, or for that matter Yamauchi's book on the subject, would never make such a general claim.
Finally, after my response, you come out with the following:
So, in essense, you're still not sure I'm right, but if I were right, you might have to reformulate your position.
Amazingly, a few months later, you come up with this whopper:
Philip, have you no shame? You're basing this view on what I myself have told you only a few months ago. You act as if you have some great depth of knowledge on the subject, when only four months ago you were lecturing me on this very website about how the Mandaeans were actually quite Gnostic, giving me a list of features you consider to be essential for Gnosticism, and when I countered that these features weren't all that characteristic of the Mandaeans, you questioned whether I was telling the truth.
I can, and I have. Gnosticism is a rather artificial category to begin with. No single attested sect from among the sects that have been identified by scholars as Gnostic actually identified themselves as such, except for the Mandaeans. Furthermore, no single one of these sects presents all of the features adduced by scholars (including the ones you have mentioned) to be typically Gnostic. Finally, all scholars of Gnosticism include the Mandaeans in this group.
It sounds to me as if you're not really very familiar with the whole debate revolving around what constitutes Gnosticism. I highly recommend Karen King's book What is Gnosticism? (Cambridge, MA: Belknap, 2003).
Do you really want to talk logic?
After first arguing that the Mandaeans must possess certain traits because they're Gnostic, and learning that they don't, you've now arguing just as determinedly that they aren't Gnostic at all, as if this has been your informed position all along.
This, Philip, in addition to being completely shameless, is a logical fallacy - the No True Scotsman fallacy.
It wasn't a strawman at all, it was an attempt to bring this debate back to the subject of the thread and away from this pointless hairsplitting. I maintain that the objections you have to identifying Ohrmazd with YHWH aren't as critical as you seem to maintain they are. The Kushans identified Ohrmazd with Jupiter and Serapis, after all. I'm sure some Zoroastrians would have serious problems with this, but you can't deny that it happened. I would think that there are even more problems with identifying Ohrmazd with the latter two than identifying YHWH with Ohrmazd.
Since you seem so interested in pursuing this point, however, I'll grant you your wish. For starters, as I mentioned, there is only one eternal, uncreated, omnipotent, and omniscient God in Judaism and Zoroastrianism. Furthermore, Zoroastrians explicitly identify Ohrmazd as being the sole Creator (why else, then, would they begin every document with the words pad nām ī dādār Ohrmazd?!?)
The specific reference in the Bundahišn is the following:
Bālist<īg> ān ī a-sar-rōšnīh gōwēnd ud zofāy<īg> ān a-sar-tārīg<īh> {!} kū-šān mayān tuhīg ud ēk abāg did nē paywast ēstēd; ud did har dō mēnōg pad xwēš-tan kanāragōmand hēnd ud did harwisp-āgāhīh-<ī> ohrmazd rāy, har [dō] čiš andar dānišn ī Ohrmazd.
For the upper part is that which they call endless light, and the lower part is that which is endlessly dark, so that between them is a void, and one is not connected with the other; and, further, both spirits are limited to their own, and, further, on account of the omniscience of Ohrmazd, both are within the creation of Ohrmazd.
This is Book 1, Chapter 1 of the Indian Bundahišn. In Behzadi's edition you can find it on lines 12-14.For the upper part is that which they call endless light, and the lower part is that which is endlessly dark, so that between them is a void, and one is not connected with the other; and, further, both spirits are limited to their own, and, further, on account of the omniscience of Ohrmazd, both are within the creation of Ohrmazd.
Skipping ahead a bit, right to the end of Chapter 1, we find:
Ohrmazd az dām ī gētīg[īh] {!}, fradom asmān, dudīgar āb ud sidīgar zamīg, čahārom urwar, panjom gōspand, šašom mardōm.
Of Ohrmazd's worldly creations, the first was the sky, the second, water and the third, earth, the fourth, plants, the fifth, animals, the sixth, mankind.
That seems rather comprehensive. It pointedly doesn't say anything about Ahriman's worldly creations (dām ī gētīgīh in the original Pahlavi).Of Ohrmazd's worldly creations, the first was the sky, the second, water and the third, earth, the fourth, plants, the fifth, animals, the sixth, mankind.
Now, you were also wrong about the Zadspram. I did concede that Ahriman can create demons and fiends, but he does so in his own realm (the darkness), and definitely not in the gētīy. If you can find me a passage in any Zoroastrian text - Avestan, Middle Persian, Farsi, Gujarati - in which Ahriman creates any part of the gētīy, I will graciously admit that I am wrong and agree that some Zoroastrians at some point must have considered Ahriman to be a creator figure. But I'm not going to hold my breath.
Last edited:
Keenir
Banned
ask the Jews of Ancient Egypt and Israel -- who did exactly that.
it sounds like you're arguing that a group cannot be included in something which all evidence points to their inclusion....for your next trick, will you argue that horses can't be counted as odd-toed animals, even though horses are odd-toed animals?
we've done so repeatedly.
don't take this the wrong way, but I'm rather hoping you're not simply trolling.
Keenir
Banned
I don't know -- only part of the text was translated at the time, and I can't read Demotic Hebrew.
really? and over a billion Christians are...what?, figments of the global imagination?
you're joking, right? One of the top five rules in Islam is to never ever ever give God a partner or co-equal -- and look how many top gods are in the Hindu pantheon.
David Quammen. 'The beast in the mirror'
You're not kidding. Can't we just behold a Christian Persia? How cool would that be? How bout a Christian Delhi Sultanate? That's up there with the best of em. And if Persia is Christian, then maybe the Ilkhanate and the Mughal Empire could be Christian.
HEHE
Don't have much time, here is a brief summarry of the Persian-Roman War of 477:
Persia invades Rome because the government thinks Rome has been planning an invasion to retake some of it's eastern provinces.Also, there is a large barbarian invasion at the same time, helping persia win the war. The results were that an independent israel was created, the papacy recieved some land, and independent dioceses led by a governor and bishop were set up in areas too distant for persia to rule. Several independent germanic and roman kingdoms were set up. The papacy adopted a plain white flag with a fylfot (not a swastika) in the centre. The dioceses used this flag, but with symbols to make them recognizeable from each other.
Don't have much time, here is a brief summarry of the Persian-Roman War of 477:
Persia invades Rome because the government thinks Rome has been planning an invasion to retake some of it's eastern provinces.Also, there is a large barbarian invasion at the same time, helping persia win the war. The results were that an independent israel was created, the papacy recieved some land, and independent dioceses led by a governor and bishop were set up in areas too distant for persia to rule. Several independent germanic and roman kingdoms were set up. The papacy adopted a plain white flag with a fylfot (not a swastika) in the centre. The dioceses used this flag, but with symbols to make them recognizeable from each other.