The Inside Assyria Discussion Forum

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

Re: since, on any given day...
Posted by Don (Guest) - Friday, December 30 2005, 7:52:26 (CET)
from 68.116.91.185 - 68-116-91-185.dhcp.trlk.ca.charter.com Commercial - Windows XP - Internet Explorer
Website:
Website title:

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.

I do not have the Assyrian Akkadian (to Arabic or Aramaic) dictionary on me right now, but I can guarantee you that many of the instances where they translate it to our kings being "gods" is actually incorrect. I'm not going to get into the linguistics (which is what I am specializing myself in) like how Paul Younan does with the dialect of Assyrian called Aramaic, but in many of the instances the words imply representatives of God. 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. 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.

I will get into what you called the "roman religion" of Christianity later. However, I want to address your comments in order. Now, with this reply please understand I'm not trying to get smart with you. My ego gains nothing from this. I disagree with you saying that the early Eastern Church, the Church of the East used force. Your argument (an inductive one I may add) used several forms of fallacy: False Cause, you set up a Petitio Principi (begged the question), Accidental/Converse Accidental, Ad Verecundiam (inappropriate authority for this case), and even Ignoratio Elenchi (premises do not support respective conclusion, but another conclusion). Your quote also does not prove necessary or sufficient cause.

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.

"This patronage of Christianity naturally antagonized the Magians (Socrates 7.8). Yazdegerd sent the Catholicos of Seleucia-Ctesiphon (i.e. Church of the East) to mediate between the king and his brother who governed Pars (Nöldeke, loc. cit.). Another Catholicos was Yazdegerd's envoy to Theodosius (Labourt, pp. 100-101)."

This is because "Bishop Marutha, the Eastern Roman Emperor's special representative at Ctesiphon (which was the Church of the East's seat) (Asmussen, 1983, p. 940 with references), gained Yazdegerd's confidence, and on his advice the king issued a decree which has been termed "the Edict of Milan for the Assyrian Church" (Wigram - An Introduction to the Assyrian Church or the Church of the Sasanid Persian Empire, p. 89). It permitted Christians to worship openly, and to rebuild ruined churches, and allowed bishops to travel freely in their dioceses. Marutha further convinced the king to convene a religious council in Seleucia in 410 to organize church affairs (Nöldeke, p. 75 n.; Labourt, pp. 78-99; Christensen, Iran Sasan, pp. 270-71; Macomber, pp. 179-200; Asmussen, loc. cit)."

Evidence shows that when this happened, believers of Christianity in the East (at this point, the Persian Empire) increased even more. It made the Zoroastrians pissed. They figured out a way to destroy the Assyrian Christian and non-Assyrian Christian presence in Persia. They devised the few firebombs and used the conversion of high-ranking Persians as an excuse, and guess what? In the last year of his reign, Yazdegerd changed his mind about supporting the Christians and ordered them to be persecuted. But even before the edict, Persians were willingly accepting Messianity without force (see the writings of Aphrahat)

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.

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?

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.

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.

And another thing Tiglath, let's not forget that Ashur-ism saw the same exact thing happen to it. It, too, saw off-shoots, corruption, etc. It was hi-jacked by various peoples for their own purposes. Beit Chaldu, a house of Assyrians living in the southern marshes eventually grew and used its power to try to influence and change the Ashurian religion. However, because some pieces of trash hi-jacked our belief and twisted them, that does not mean that I will hate Ashur-ism. And just as Messianity was used by certain people for their own benefits, I will not forsake the belief of my ancestors. 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?


Regards.



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


The full topic:



Content-length: 10047
Content-type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded
Accept: image/gif, image/x-xbitmap, image/jpeg, image/pjpeg, application/x-shockwave-flash, application/vnd.ms-excel, applicatio...
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-PZad.ADLR.REPLY
User-agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322)



Powered by RedKernel V.S. Forum 1.2.b9