Apocalyptic Revelations...

a reply to: Kantzveldt

There are a few recurring events in the sky, relating to things like sunrise at spring Equinox, solar eclipses and conjunctions between Saturn and Jupiter in particular, that speaks volumes about the early roots of religion and prophecy and apocalyptic lore altogether.

«Greatest Elemental Conjunction»
Every 973 years there is a Saturn/Jupiter conjunction that progresses through the Zodiac with about 27° each turn.
==> www.abovetopsecret.com...

Astrological Ages & Precession of the Equinoxes
Over a period of 25 920 (72x30x12 or 360x72) years, the Sun at sunrise at spring equinox moves backwards through the Zodiac because of how the earth axis wobbles like a dreidel just before it falls.
==> www.abovetopsecret.com...
==> www.abovetopsecret.com...

Now, if you think of our solar system like a clockwork, 972:27=36 shows a slow progression of 1° every 36 years, while 25,920:72=360 shows a precession of 1° every 72 (36x2) years, so these gears move at a ratio of 1:2 and 2:1 in segments of 36. Add all the numbers between 1 and 36 and you get 666. Neat.

a reply to: Kantzveldt

so it was a case of choosing your Gods wisely, as such influence directly impacted upon your own spiritual development.

The Israel deity allows no such choice. His reaction to meeting up with Cyrus and Persian Empire is to once again transform himself into the monotheistic deity people consider him to be today. See Isaiah 44 & 45.

Book_of_Isaiah
The scholarly consensus which held sway through most of the 20th century saw it as three separate collections of oracles:[3] Proto-Isaiah (chapters 1–39), containing the words of Isaiah; Deutero-Isaiah (chapters 40–55), the work of an anonymous 6th-century author writing during the Exile; and Trito-Isaiah (chapters 56–66), composed after the return from exile.
. . .
The book tells how God will make Jerusalem the centre of his worldwide rule through a royal saviour (a messiah) who will destroy her oppressor (Babylon); this messiah is the Persian king Cyrus the Great, but he will be no more than the agent who brings about Yahweh's kingship.
. . .
Isaiah 44:6 contains the first clear statement of monotheism: "I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god". This model of monotheism became the defining characteristic of post-Exilic Judaism, and the basis for Christianity and Islam.

I'm beginning to have some doubts about the Denkard itself since it was written so late, and after major reforms were made to the religion.

The surviving texts of the Avesta, as they exist today, derive from a single master copy produced by Sassanian-era (224-651 CE) collation and recension. That master copy, now lost, is known as the 'Sassanian archetype'. The oldest surviving manuscript (K1)[n 1] of an Avestan language text is dated 1323 CE.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

You claimed the Zoroastrian texts were created in 1200 BCE. There is no evidence of this. Not only do most scholars actually lean toward a 6th century BCE life of Zoroaster, the "master copy" that the texts in our possession are based upon are no less than 200 years younger than the most recent Dead Sea Scrolls (64 CE), many of which are hundreds of years older.

The Zoroastrian texts in our possession date to 1323 CE. I can see the rise of Islam as a likely culprit to the removal of earlier copies compiled between the 3rd and 7th century. Regardless, there is no evidence that the Zoroastrian religion, its traditions and doctrines, remained unchanged for thousands of years.

Our modern texts of Christianity and Judaism's Old Testament, however, have been shown nearly identical--more so than any other text of antiquity--over 2000 years to the oldest surviving copies. Furthermore, Jewish and Christian Old and New Testament texts boast an inproportionately large amount of copies and fragments with super consistency to any texts of antiquity. Christianity also has the shortest time frame between its major events/original teachings and its oldest surviving writing. Don't believe me? Research "textual criticism." From an informed, evidence based standpoint, it'd be more reasonable to suggest that Homer did not write the Iliad than it would be to doubt the authors and content of the Gospels.

Zoroastrianism, however, does not have any claim to be the King of Textual Criticism. Based on evidence, it is more likely that Zoroastrianism was influenced by Judaism and Christianity.

Furthermore, consider Jeremiah. Jeremiah was a prophet right before the Babylonian exile, during which your claimed influence of Zoroastrianism would have occurred. Seeing as the Israelites attributed the exile as retribution for their unfaithfulness to Yahweh and their shared covenant by breaking the Torah Law (the large portion of which is intended to establish a unique identity for the Israelites and forbids many practices and traditions practiced by other cults... Such as walking through Fire, which relates to Zoroastianism), it seems INCREDIBLY unlikely that they would begin to adopt another religion's beliefs. We're talking about the time when the Israelites were acknowledging their breaking of the covenant and attributed their downfall to it, yet you would suggest that they would just forget the Exile and adopt/practice things from another belief system AGAIN?

It seems plausible that Jewish Apocalyptic literature spawned from Zoroastrian influence, especially if Zoroaster was born in the 6th century BCE (similar time frame to the Exile) but based on the above, it simply has no evidential basis. More likely, it was the other way around, and not necessarily during that period. The Apocalyptic literature was still a result of the Exile, but instead came from their suffering and misfortune and hope for retribution upon their enemies and a messiah. there's really no evidence that either influenced one another, but as I stated, based on evidence, if one did influence the other, it would be Zoroastrianism being influenced by Juidaism and later Christianity.

a reply to: Kantzveldt

So do you think old testament and new testament are continuation of a much older history and/or story that has been passed down for thousands of years prior?

a reply to: Achilles92x

The dating back to 1,200 to 1,000 Bc is with regards to the Gathas and determined by comparative linguistic and cultural aspects of them and as those are said to be directly writtwn by Zarathustra that's considered a likely time period for his life, the 6th century BC was formerly considered more likely derived from classical period considerations.

As you say surviving texts are considerably later and i agree the religion did not remain unchanged, i'm not questioning the reliability of Christian and Judaic texts either.

Jeremiah is very much in the Prophetic tradition of Israel and can't be considered an Apocalyptic work, therefore nobody would suggest it was influenced by Zoroastrianism, i do think there was considerable incentive as you suggest to think in terms of an Apocalyptic master plan given the Jewish exile, to try and see things in the greatest possible perspective given the constant misfortunes, and that the Persians could provide a framework for that way of looking at things.

Interestingly many of the archetypes involved in the Book of Daniel trace almost exclusively back to the cult of Ninurta, through Marduk, as outlined here in Ninurta and the Son of Man, but such archetypes also relate to the end time Saoshyant of Zoroastrianism.



a reply to: pthena

It was the cult of Marduk that was heading toward Monotheism as the Babylonian state religion, all Deities simply aspects of him, he even chopped Anu's head off...

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Yes the basis for the great ages, according to the Sumerians mankind didn't have much going for it before the age of Virgo, or arrival of Nisaba and grain cultivation.


a reply to: ImaFungi

I think they made it appear so from the tradition of their neighbours, in particular the Persians, one of the few peoples they seemed to appreciate.

a reply to: Kantzveldt

It was the cult of Marduk that was heading toward Monotheism as the Babylonian state religion, all Deities simply aspects of him, he even chopped Anu's head off...

This reminds me of something I felt like bringing up in one of your other threads. The old way of introducing new gods versus the new way.

Back in the old days (pre-1000 bce thru 600 bce) a new god had to be cast back into the primordial battle as the hero god sorting out the chaotic mess in order to separate sky, land, ocean, in order for man to have a place to live.

The new way is for some god to pop up out of nowhere and say, "Oh yeah, I created everything just as you see it. But there's this bad guy messing things up, you are living in the primordial age. Join me against the bad guy and we will bring order by defeating evil, and then creation will be finished and you can live forever."

So the new way drags primordial chaos into the present age in which we live then promises a hero savior to sort out chaos and bring creation about, The New World.

Perhaps a different approach would be to leave primordial chaos in the past and just muddle on in the World we have, rather than looking forward to its demise.

a reply to: pthena

The looking forward to demise, is a falseness. Only ever truly applicable metaphorically; as one of the past could have looked forward to the demise of the world in which slavery was legal.

The concept of actual destruction, is only ever due to a psychological compulsion, or the reasonable need to demolish actual physicality which represents safety hazard (demolishing an old building);

The concept of biblical plagues and floods, could be mythologized stories of nature or believed facts, that there is an association with expanses of time of wicked human behavior and punishments from nature.

For many peoples over time, the utter dependance on the greater forces of nature, for the providence of their means of life, submitted these people to pay respect and humble themselves in respect to the substances and intricate cycling thereof of nature; if anything to attempt to find a correlate of luck; maybe the birth of superstition and faith.

No reasonable, psychologically sound person would desire perfectly good infrastructure to be demised. No reasonable, psychologically sound person would desire the end of human life, history, the expression of human life and humanity. History is the process of human evolution (from the perspective of the human), good and reasonable humans who have experienced any of the goodness and value of what it means to be a human, would in no way wish for demise or destruction of any kind; besides of that which hinders the flourishment of the individual and the great collections of individuals.

a reply to: Kantzveldt

I understand that you are referring to the Gathas, but unless I'm mistaken, they fall under the Avesta. I didn't intend to suggest that you're doubting the legitimacy of the Judaic/Christian scriptures' authorship and consistency, I was simply trying to state that information before anyone uninformed about what I stated replied with the typical uninformed anti-Christian rhetoric assuming otherwise.

I did not intend to state that Jeremiah was an apocalyptic book. I stated that his book deals with prophetic cries leading up to the Exile, and that since the Jews retroactively attributed their downfall to their fault in breaking the Covenant with Yahweh, that it seems extremely unlikely that they would repeat their mistake by adopting yet another deity/religion's beliefs and practices when that was part of what their covevant breaking to begin with.

Typical atheist rhetoric--and I'm not saying this is what you might do--doubts the historicity of Christ despite the fact that we have copies of the letters of the Church Doctors (who often referenced the Gospels) and the Gospels themselves that make records of any other figure or work of antiquity seem pathetic. These copies are vastly more numerou and consistent and have significantly less time between the lifetime of the person mentioned (in this case, Christ) and the writings.
Furthermore, as far as recency goes, we have just as much, if not more, reason to believe that Moses wrote the Torah than we do that Zoroaster wrote the original texts that we only have a 14th century CE copy of. Nor do we have any reason to assume that if he HAD written anything, that the Gathas were part of it and not a later addition. I don't even think Moses actually wrote the Torah, rather I would argue both that and Zoroaster's attributed authorship are invalidated, currently unprovable claims made by the religion to legitimize the writings by attributing them to prominent, historical figures of those religions.

a reply to: Kantzveldt

the establishment of close relationship with the Ahuras,

It probably would have helped if you'd mentioned what this relief was.

Taq-e Bostan high-relief of the investiture of Khosrow II (r. 590 to 628). The king (center) receives the ring of kingship from Ahura Mazda (right). On the left, apparently sanctifying the investiture, stands a female figure generally assumed to be Anahita

Anahita[pronunciation?] is the Old Persian form of the name of an Iranian goddess and appears in complete and earlier form as Aredvi Sura Anahita (Arədvī Sūrā Anāhitā); the Avestan language name of an Indo-Iranian cosmological figure venerated as the divinity of 'the Waters' (Aban) and hence associated with fertility, healing and wisdom.
Anahita

edit on 4-6-2015 by pthena because: (no reason given)

a reply to: ImaFungi

The looking forward to demise, is a falseness.

That was a statement of my personal preference, to not look forward to demise.

Early Old Testament prophecy taught the need of personal and national righteousness, and foretold the ultimate blessedness of the righteous nation on the present earth. Later prophecy incorporated an idea of future vindication of present evils, often including the idea of an afterlife. Apocalyptic prophets sketched in outline the history of the world and mankind, the origin of evil and its course, and the final consummation of all things. The righteous as a nation should yet possess the earth, either via an eternal Messianic kingdom on earth, or else in temporary blessedness here and eternal blessedness hereafter. Though the individual might perish amid the disorders of this world, apocalyptic prophets taught that the righteous person would not fail to attain through resurrection the recompense that was due in the Messianic kingdom or in heaven itself.
Apocalyptic_literature

History is the process of human evolution (from the perspective of the human), good and reasonable humans who have experienced any of the goodness and value of what it means to be a human, would in no way wish for demise or destruction of any kind

But apocalyptic is not written from a human evolution perspective, but rather from the perspective of those who feel unjustly singled out to receive horrible bad things happening to them. A chip on the shoulder as if their tribal/religious history has more grief than the tribal/religious history of "the wicked". It's PTSD mixed with paranoia(all against me and mine). Then it gets vindictive toward "the other".

I'm not particularly paranoid, in that I view the difficulties experienced by me and mine to be those common to all, along with the goodness and value. Therefore I am not inclined to choose apocalyptic as my worldview. That's what I meant by it.

a reply to: pthena

Yes, I started commenting on something particular small contained in your post and then my thoughts wandered I suppose, so I wasnt exactly intenting to speak at you or critique your beliefs. Do you think there are any large ways of the world that deserved to be changed and could it be for the better? Is the state of the world, day in and day out, considering now, and the coming years, as good as it can be, in terms of what is possible, and considering that effort to change in any way the way things are may result in, attempting to make better, not worth it.

To be more clear; lets say the world is 85% good, out of 99%-100% of its potential (it is difficult to even say such things, considering absolute total perfection is impossible, and likely dedicating all lives to constantly attempt to approach it is undesirable.

So perhaps there are some things about the world, generally and specifically, you could imagine may be better if changed. In attempt to increase the level of goodness.

Do you think there are things that can be changed, where the effort and side effects involved would be worth it, and would it actually create a better world? And if not, does that mean the world is always perfect the way it is?

a reply to: ImaFungi

This is probably off topic. We might get in trouble

Do you think there are things that can be changed, where the effort and side effects involved would be worth it, and would it actually create a better world? And if not, does that mean the world is always perfect the way it is?

The World itself, and nature seems to be okay except people change it.

When I was a child, it was no big thing for me to go out alone into the fields, throw rocks, climb trees, catch pollywogs and guppies as pets. I used to keep pollywogs in a wheelbarrow full of water until they changed into little toads, then I let the water level down and put rocks in for them to climb on, and even caught ants and flies for them to eat.

I saw two of my favorite ponds die as a result of construction waste run off. More people, more building, less trees. Before ever I climbed an oak tree, I was climbing feral olive trees, never pruned 25 or 30ft high. Strong branches. The trees got pruned way down, then dug up and transplanted to landscape a new church that was built about a mile away. They looked so small and sad.

When I was older I lived in a country where people often died from flooding during monsoon season. I was riding in a bus, the road went close to a large river bed. People were building shacks in the river bed. Why? Politics and Economics. "Land Reform" meant the poor could build where they could, no inspectors, no codes, no safety warnings.

Politics and Economics can use some serious overhaul. I don't know how to do it. I wish someone could and would.

To stay on topic, I was reading a paper on Machiavellian use of esoteric religion combined with apocalyptic in order to start revolutions for change. After explaining several examples, the author petered out before getting to his own proposal for doing such a thing. Just as well I think. Cynical use of religion to start violent revolution? Don't we already have that? The results don't look promising.

a reply to: Achilles92x

Yes i don't think we disagree on much, it has also interested me how much the Gathas might have influenced the literary style of the classical Hebrew Prophetic texts even before the exile, i'm not sure how much study has been done on this though.

Unto Thee, O Lord, the Soul of Creation cried:
"For whom didst Thou create me, and who so fashioned me?
Feuds and fury, violence and the insolence of might have oppressed me;
None have I to protect me save Thee;
Command for me then the blessings of a settled, peaceful life."

The Gathas


a reply to: pthena

Yes probably, sorry about that, interestingly some suggest the origins of Zoroastrianism was in the region of Bactria-Margiana and the cult of Nanaya was very strong there, there was syncretism with Anahita to some extent.

Nana in Bactria

a reply to: Kantzveldt

Look at this picture: thumbnail link

Could almost be Artemis, with 8 other attributes besides the bow and arrow. And in the clouds, the cheering crowds.

Devi
The Indus Valley Civilization, with its neighboring cultures of Zhob and Kulli regions in Balochistan, have yielded data on prehistoric religious practices on the Indian subcontinent dating back to 3000 BC. Some scholars suggest that the Indus Valley culture has a cult of the Great Mother or the Divine Mother, similar to such cults in Persia (Anahita), Asia Minor and the Mediterranean; and some have even speculated that this may be the earliest form of Shaktism.

I agree you did not specifically say “the book of Revelation” however you were clearly alluding to it and specifically mentioned it here:

originally posted by: Kantzveldt

“Plans within plans and the inter-relationship of numbers i guess, the Hebrews in the Book of Daniel and also seen in Revelations concerned themselves with periodics of 3.5 x 360 =1,260 days or years, that doubling up to 2,520, these numerics trace back to the cult of the Sumerian Moon God Nanna;”

When you say apocalyptic and then mention Jesus the religious connotations of the two go hand in hand no matter how much you have avoided saying the book called Revelation or you denying you said nothing of it.That is intellectual dishonesty.

You are doing exactly what I said you were doing.Trying to interpret what you don’t know.It is clear apocalypse is NOT what you believe it is at all.The math of the truth is way deeper than you have even begun to calculate or fathom because you are chasing it down and calculating from you religious/spiritual/mystic agenda.

On your statement I am an atheist you are absolutely wrong.If you had read even one of my posts you would know I am not an atheist at all.

My main point of your ignorance is your ineptitude to perceive even the most basics truths and speculating about apocalypse while having zero idea what it even means and that fact renders your post meaningless because it is just more of the SOS about “your religion”.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Kantzveldt

... And then around the time of year 2000 you consider the next one will be...coinciding with around the time of Mayan prediction too, quite cool...but maybe they too had discussions from ancient civilizations to come to that date and theory.

This is predicted in the bible too:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

About every 2000 years there is to be a new "passover" (IMO the same as Frashokereti) into a realm of total Goodness

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: Rex282

My good friend and despicable atheist Pthena will gladly avail themselves to you in a sensible long drawn out friendly debate because that is his character.

I should have mentioned a little sooner that the flattering epithets that you use about me are really not necessary. I don't claim to have reached the lofty heights of atheism. In fact my daughter questioned me about my quest for atheism recently.

"This stuff you do on the forum," she asked, "how will that further your quest?"

My reply was, "I really don't care."

An example of my MO: I read that Zarathustra was known by reputation to Plato, therefore, I am currently reading Ethics of Aristotle.

You are correct the claws of religion are still dug into your back however you have clearly recognized them as claws and not a comfy backscratcher.The core of atheism denys ignorance.The God that man believes in is not a God and is false.A true atheist will not seek to find a God they will live there life and I can only presume if the creator God chooses to reveal themselves to the despicable atheist then the atheist will “know” the creator God.

That is the crux of everything I write here.Religion is futile.It is the vanity of ALL vanity’s.All that seek to find a God will find a God and it will ALWAYS be themselves because it will be created in their own image IN their mind.That is mans nature.To be completely self deceived or as Einstein said ..reality is persistent illusion.

a reply to: Rex282

All that seek to find a God will find a God and it will ALWAYS be themselves because it will be created in their own image IN their mind.That is mans nature.To be completely self deceived or as Einstein said ..reality is persistent illusion.

One of the foremost Western(born in India) scholars of Zoroastrianism, Kaikhosrov D. Iraniwas, was a student of Einstein. I haven't seen yet where he says reality is persistent illusion.

I'm also reading Durga Saptashati which seems to posit the perceived reality as great delusion.

Do you not see this? Even so men are hurled into the whirlpool of attachment, the pit of delusion, through the power of Mahamaya (the Great deusion), who makes the existence of the world possible. Marvel not at this. This Mahamaya is the Yoganidra, of Vishnu, the Lord of the world. It is by her the world is deluded. Verily she, the Bhagavati, the Mahamaya forcibly drawing the minds of even the wise, entangles them into delusion. She creates this entire universe, both moving and unmoving. It is she who, when propitious, becomes a boon-giver to human beings for their final liberation. She is the supreme knowledge, the cause of final liberation, and eternal; she is the cause of the bondage of transmigration and the sovereign over all lords.’

I'm not quite certain, but at first glance, it's looking like these two religions are diametrically opposed.

More on K.D. Irani: His personal contribution to Philosophy is The Thesis of Domains.

The major assumption of this thesis is that there are 4 intrinsic demands which are made by the human psyche:
1.Demand to explain – why do trees grow this way? Or why do they bear fruits in one season and not another etc. This demand produces an enormous array of beliefs which we call Scientific Knowledge
2.Demand for influence and control in our environment (both physical and social) – techniques by which we can transform things to suit our needs – This is the demand that leads to Technology.
3.Demand to justify – our own actions and ask for the justification of others’ actions – This is the demand that leads to Ethics
4.Demand to seek significance in our existence – what is it that gives a point to my existence? What is the purpose of my life? – This is the demand that produces Religion.

Each domain has its own clear and distinct methodology, with its own set of rules, as well as its own distinct area of application.
. . .
To apply the rules and methodologies of one domain to the applications of another is what is creating tremendous confusion and intellectual transgression. Conversely, the clear application of the methodologies of each domain to applications within the same domain will present clarity and the disappearance of much of the intellectual confusion in discussion and debate, as well as in daily life.

If we apply this Thesis to Zarathustra, we see that all his eggs were pretty much in one basket: Religion; to which all three other categories contribute ( Scientific Knowledge, Technology, Ethics) working together to bring meaning and significance.

I don't know yet whether or not Irani made his own brand of neo-Zoroastrianism in order to sort out his thesis of Domains. I intend to look into it.

If I apply these to myself,
1) Scientific Knowledge: I can read science books and observe the things of the world myself.
2) Demand for influence and control: I can sort out things for myself mostly, cooking, cleaning, fixing some broken things. But, as far as social interaction and changing politics, I think I split those between ethics and religion.
3) Ethics: My Heathen practice of rethinking, reviewing, repeating, over and over what seems good and right fits here.
4) Religion as meaning of life: see 1) 2) & 3)

What am I missing that other people seem to have? 1) a first creator of reality 2) immortality. I don't think I should even worry about those things.

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: Rex282

All that seek to find a God will find a God and it will ALWAYS be themselves because it will be created in their own image IN their mind.That is mans nature.To be completely self deceived or as Einstein said ..reality is persistent illusion.

One of the foremost Western(born in India) scholars of Zoroastrianism, Kaikhosrov D. Iraniwas, was a student of Einstein. I haven't seen yet where he says reality is persistent illusion.

I

Are you saying Kaikhosrov D. Iraniwas says that or Einstein because it is a VERY well known quote of Einsteins( I paraphrased it) and he never made a retraction Ive seen and the majority of quantum physicist say essentially the same thing.

Einstein addressed this in what is known as the EPR papers.The crux comes down to nonlocality...two particles that are part of one atom that can physically be in the opposite ends of the universe and still effect each other( I am greatly simplifying this)Einstein called this spooky action at a distance.The EPR paper concluded it is a dichotomy and is incomplete.

The bottom line is reality as man perceives it is not true reality.Some physicist like Amit Goswami believe they have solved the dichotomy to a point.However the very nature of the physical realm and the way man perceives is ample evidence it cannot be solved.

And that is the basis of all my arguments.It is COMPLETELY futile to attempt to "find" something that cannot be found by perception through observation.(a God,enlightenment ,ascension,etc etc etc).Yet millions of people who by the advent of the interent and can "read" a # load of speculation and study ancient religions(but actually don't know anything anyways)then postulate these ridiculous theories of the reality as if they are true.The fact is how many angels can dance on the head of pin is a moot point because there are no angels to dance anywhere!!!

You are one of the few people that agree with me the purpose of life is to live BUT.....and I have no buts about it.There is a creator God..period.To me there is zero speculation or searching nothing to be found because it isn't lost.I know for a fact that anything I need to know willbe given to me when and how I need it and not a nano second before or after....and I know for a fact what I know will do NOTHING for you unless you know it too then you certainly don't need me.

This ain't rocket surgery.Seek and ye will find what you are looking for..NOTHING!!!Everyone who thinks they are looking for "something" are completely deceived.Some smart arse will tell me ..."well I looked for my sock and I found it... see Jesus was right!

Is it any wonder Yahoshua did not hang out with the religious Jews.I could think of no worse way to spend my time.Always "learning" and never understanding.You'd think this is obvious but... nope.SOS over and over century after century.I am positive someone will write a post after this one speculating the "mysteries of the universe through religion while quoting Professor Knownothings..I think ATS would be much better off if some 5 year olds posted their great wisdom on here.It would put the mystic theologians to shame.There would surely be less ignorance to deny.

a reply to: Rex282

This is a good thread. It answers questions that I asked and points to areas for inquiry.

Stop deriding the OP!