The Inside Assyria Discussion Forum

=> Re: since, on any given day...

Re: since, on any given day...
Posted by Tiglath (Guest) - Friday, December 30 2005, 17:23:19 (CET)
from 203.214.60.152 - 203-214-60-152.dyn.iinet.net.au Australia - Windows 2000 - Internet Explorer
Website:
Website title:

Don wrote:
>Hi Diglath,
>
>Thank you for the reply. I am aware of the ancient beliefs, rituals, and ceremonies conducted by our ancestors. I enjoy reading about them. However, much of what we read is not translated by our own people. As a matter of fact, many Assyriologists are not Assyrians (I'm sure you know). As a result, some of our history is twisted. What were simply intended to be stories, novels, myths, etc. were turned into actual history, and what was actual history was turned into myth.

....Actually the Ishtar Tammuz story of the seasons may have started off as a myth and legend that came to be emulated by our ancestors. It's well known for example that the Sumerians originally celebrated the Sacred marriage of Ishtar and Tammuz during the Autumn Equinox, September 21st, but changed it to March 21st during the Babylonian period in order for the sacred marriage to take place 9 months before the birth of our God Tammuz. The King that was born would therefore be divinly born of a virgin and a God on earth.

>Ashurism was the first monotheistic "religion" and way of life. Translating it to "gods" was one of the clever ways the westerners and other enemies made us to look like greeks and romans. You are correct about the meditating and about them being Holy Priests.

....Our 5,000 year old religious practices began with polytheism where we worshipped city gods, to monotheism, where we believed that all Gods were Ashur represented by different personas, such as Ishtar, Adad, Shamash etc. to mysticism when we used meditation to acquire the qualities symbolised in the Tree of Life and discovered by Gilgamesh.

>You are also correct about the Akitu tradition concerning giving birth - to who would later become the next king in most cases. However, it is important to note that was not the method used in all cases. Recall the story of Shamshi Adad (1700s B.C.) and generations later...Ashur Aballit (1300s B.C.). Both were elected in what people today call "democratic" ways.

.....Thank you for raising the point about democracy. i am currently reading a book titled, Democracy's Ancient Ancestors, Mari and Early Collective Governance
Daniel E. Fleming; New York University. It also points to democracy actually begining in Mesopotamia. I will definately post more information once i get through this fascinating book.

>Let me take it apart. Yazgard, was complained to because he was a Zoroastrian King of great power. He was still respected by the Zoroastrian priests/Magians even though he supported the Messians. The complaints came to him because many were willingly accepting Messianity. Evidence now more supports the idea that some Zoroastrians were becoming Christian only to firebomb their own temples to encourage antagonism against Christians.

......Allow me to post another source about the same incident to clarify the matter and validate my first point.

Later in the reign of Yazdegerd, the Persian bishop, Abdas of Susa destroyed a Zoroastrian temple in the city; the king ordered the bishop to restore the building at his own expense. Abdas refused and the result was the order by the king to destroy all churches.

A Brief History of Christianity in Iran, By Massoume Price, December 2002

>Anyway, I brought up the support of Christians by Yazdegerd because the Moffett quote states that the Shah could scarcely ignore open desecration of the state temples and the destruction of religious peace in his realm. Moffett is not a good source to go to. In that quote, he doesn't state the Shah was supporting the Christians. All his says is that the priests came and complained to him. And that whole thing about the national religion being Zoroastrianism is poppycock. The fact that Yazdegerd issues the "Edict of Milan for the Assyrian Church" is proof. Zoroastrianism was the ethnic religion of the Persians (while it is true that non-Persians followed it as well). The Sasanid Empire under Yazdegerd tolerated the Christians until his last year.
>
>Well, sorry...I kind of steered away from my point there. What I was going to say was that regardless of all of that. Whether or not it was a set up, you can't say just because of a few firebombs the whole Church was using force. You can't blame the whole for the actions of the few. Most of history shows that the Church of the East advanced itself without force...and that's really the only reason why the Far East accepted it. Look at their writings concerning the Church of the East and then look at their writings concerning the Roman Church. It's like they're talking about two different beliefs or somethings.

...My second source proves that it was a Bishop of the Church of the East and not some disgruntled newly joined persian convert out to prove himself. In terms of power a Bishop sitss just below the CofE Patriarch. Are you seriously saying that a Bishop condoning the fire bombing of Zoroastrian temples is not using force to convert over new followers?

>
>Next point. You made a mistake comparing Pax Romana and the parallel you rendered, Max Mongolica. The Far East accepted Messianity far before the Mogolian Invasion and far before the conversion of the Mongolians to Islam. The unforced teachings done by the Assyrians of the Church of the East occurred in the 400s and 500s (research "Jinjiao" or "Nishike faith". Attacks from the "Begs" and "Khans" didn't start until the 1000s, Kurds came in 1261 A.D. (see Bar Awraya, Summary of the History of the Lands, Arabic edition pp. 492-497) and Timurlane came 1369-1400 A.D.
>
>Tiglath Says:
>"In the East their co-religionsists also courted the Mongols hoping to become the state religion of the entire East. They were in essence attempting to marry into the Mongolian dynasty and form a Pax Mongolica. Moffett admits it right there in his book."
>
>OK. Let's say you're right. Where were the Mongolians in the 400s and 500s. They were nothing. They had no power. They hadn't conquered a damn thing. Our people were courting them then? That's a real bold statement. And one again, it proves that Moffet is not a good source for this. Also, as you mentioned yourself, Mar YawAllaha came around 1281 A.D. and ruled till his death in 1318 A.D. What does that have to do with the Messianity that the Chinese accepted from the Assyrians in the 400s and 500s?
>

.....The Mongolians reached their peak during the same time the CofE peaked, around 1200-1300 AD, adding weight to Moffett's point that the CofE actually used the Empire's transportation links established by the Mongolians to spread Christianity to China and beyond. We may have reached the Chinese in the 400s and 500s but our religion only became established uring the 1200-1400s.


>Next, concerning all your speculations and predictions about how things would have been if "Pax Mongolica" would have occurred, none of us can say. We can all speculate like you have. But my whole point was to say that the true Church never used force. In fact, it was Shimon and Paul who decided that they would not impress the Jewish law upon Jews and non-Jews who wanted to accept Messianity. That's why the seat of Mar Shimon (i.e. Church of the East) never accepted force as the way to deal with things. That's why history shows Arab and Assyrian Messians and Muslims worshipping in the same buildings, that's why many of the Far East peoples wrote positively about us, and that's why you have Chinese-designed buildings still up that are used as Churches.

....Hey I just showed you two quotes that prove that one of our Bishops was sadly using force against Zoroastrians and their places of worship. Please don't use the cop-out line, But they aren't real Christians to white-wash the actions of the CofE.

>
>If you would have said corrupt people from within and outside the Assyrian people used the Church as a way to gain power or manipulated it in various ways to destroy it, I would have agreed. I am not denying that its power was used by corrupt people to do evil things.

....Ahhhh finally. Jesus would've laughed at all of us for having institutionalised his beliefs. His teachings, which were actually Ashur's teachings were never supposed to be institutionalised simply because it could be used as a force in politics and manipulated by greedy men. This is what has befallen most religions, and yes including Ashur-ism.

>And just as Messianity was used by certain people for their own benefits, I will not forsake the belief of my ancestors.

.....What about Psalm 137:8-9? Will you forsake the commandment of a Jewish god calling upon our childrens' heads to be dashed against rocks?

That is not to say that changes are not needed and that trash doesn't need to be cleaned up. But that's why we Assyrian "nationalists" are here, huh?
>
>In any case, whether or not we agree here Diglath. You are my brother. And if our Ashur really cares about us and his people...things will soon be very clear to both you and I concerning His will. At least that much we can agree on, no?
>
Thank you for your patience Don, it's been very interesting.



---------------------


The full topic:



Content-length: 9923
Content-type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded
Accept: image/gif, image/x-xbitmap, image/jpeg, image/pjpeg, application/x-shockwave-flash, application/vnd.ms-powerpoint, appli...
Accept-encoding: gzip, deflate
Accept-language: en-us
Cache-control: no-cache
Connection: Keep-Alive
Cookie: *hidded*
Host: www.insideassyria.com
Referer: http://www.insideassyria.com/rkvsf4/rkvsf_core.php?Re_since_on_any_given_day-5RWl.KQTg.QUOTE
User-agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0; DigExt; .NET CLR 1.1.4322)



Powered by RedKernel V.S. Forum 1.2.b9