well here is a fact for you Sherlock The Second Isaiah is a "striking parallel" of Yasna 44 of the Gathas written by Zoroaster and the 2nd Isaiah was a revolutionary new religious development for the Hebrews - it was the first imprint of ZoroastrianismStill talking religion not fact. Look at how uncertain information is right now then add thousands of years of stories being passed down that in many cases probably were oral in origin. We live in a world where probably several billion people believe in the existence of a "man" that has virtually zero historical basis. Go ahead and speculate, but that is all it really is... sherlock... As far as facts go, comparing two pieces of scripture is about the only thing Boris has done that relates to what he is trying to say. He has religion and culture horribly entangled, but I'm not refuting his cultural facts, just that they don't support his conclusions about religion. Now he's talking about a few chapters out of hundreds and making a claim about which one influenced the other and to what extent.
There was no concept of history thousands of years ago in the same way there is now, what we are left with is mostly myth some of which can be connected to actual events. But most can’t.
If a “man” that supposedly lived just 2,000 years ago and is the basis of much of modern culture in the west anyway almost certainly didn’t exist then how likely is it that information that came from earlier is any more reliable.
Christ is based on Horus, Osiris, Mithras, Vishnu, Dionysus and many other figures, I found it quite revealing that the Pope had to stop people in the 4th. century from worshipping the Sun on the Vatican steps.
This is also a highly political issue right now as some are trying to justify the new Jewish state in the Middle East by treating what most used to recognize as myth as firm fact.
Or look at what’s going right now with almost 100% of peer-reviewed science indicating that human forced climate change is here and very serious while a highly successful campaign to distort this presents the opposite view that many millions accept. People believe all sorts of shit and they also create it on a regular basis.
The same with things like evolution, because so many choose religion over science in the manner does it now become “fact” that god created everything. And that’s going on right now and is highly distorted.
Thinking this wasn’t widespread in the past where the permanent records are often chiselled in stone as political or religious statement is silly from an informational standpoint.
well here is a fact for you Sherlock The Second Isaiah is a "striking parallel" of Yasna 44 of the Gathas written by Zoroaster and the 2nd Isaiah was a revolutionary new religious development for the Hebrews - it was the first imprint of ZoroastrianismStill talking religion not fact. Look at how uncertain information is right now then add thousands of years of stories being passed down that in many cases probably were oral in origin. We live in a world where probably several billion people believe in the existence of a "man" that has virtually zero historical basis. Go ahead and speculate, but that is all it really is... sherlock... No it is a fact that it is a word for word parallel with Yasna 44
well here is a fact for you Sherlock The Second Isaiah is a "striking parallel" of Yasna 44 of the Gathas written by Zoroaster and the 2nd Isaiah was a revolutionary new religious development for the Hebrews - it was the first imprint of ZoroastrianismStill talking religion not fact. Look at how uncertain information is right now then add thousands of years of stories being passed down that in many cases probably were oral in origin. We live in a world where probably several billion people believe in the existence of a "man" that has virtually zero historical basis. Go ahead and speculate, but that is all it really is... sherlock... As far as facts go, comparing two pieces of scripture is about the only thing Boris has done that relates to what he is trying to say. He has religion and culture horribly entangled, but I'm not refuting his cultural facts, just that they don't support his conclusions about religion. Now he's talking about a few chapters out of hundreds and making a claim about which one influenced the other and to what extent. Err I havent got anything horrible wrong Cyrus changed the Hebrew religion completely by imprinting Zoroastrianism on it for the Persian Period and beyon where the Zoroastrians influenced the Jewish religion for over 500 years this is the fact the Persians changed the language, alphabet, culture and religion of the Jews for 500 years and turned Judaism into Zoroastrianism in all but name - this started with Cyrus but the main imprint came with Ezra and Nehemiah these are the facts Read Mary Boyce The Zoroastrians and LH Mills - Our own religion in Ancient Persia We were talking about the Greeks and Buddhism which s a Greek religion
well here is a fact for you Sherlock The Second Isaiah is a "striking parallel" of Yasna 44 of the Gathas written by Zoroaster and the 2nd Isaiah was a revolutionary new religious development for the Hebrews - it was the first imprint of ZoroastrianismStill talking religion not fact. Look at how uncertain information is right now then add thousands of years of stories being passed down that in many cases probably were oral in origin. We live in a world where probably several billion people believe in the existence of a "man" that has virtually zero historical basis. Go ahead and speculate, but that is all it really is... sherlock... As far as facts go, comparing two pieces of scripture is about the only thing Boris has done that relates to what he is trying to say. He has religion and culture horribly entangled, but I'm not refuting his cultural facts, just that they don't support his conclusions about religion. Now he's talking about a few chapters out of hundreds and making a claim about which one influenced the other and to what extent. Err I havent got anything horrible wrong Cyrus changed the Hebrew religion completely by imprinting Zoroastrianism on it for the Persian Period and beyon where the Zoroastrians influenced the Jewish religion for over 500 years this is the fact the Persians changed the language, alphabet, culture and religion of the Jews for 500 years and turned Judaism into Zoroastrianism in all but name - this started with Cyrus but the main imprint came with Ezra and Nehemiah these are the facts Read Mary Boyce The Zoroastrians and LH Mills - Our own religion in Ancient Persia We were talking about the Greeks and Buddhism which s a Greek religion You're basing your "history" on religious myth, pretty sure you're getting most of it wrong. As for Buddhism being a Greek religion, I don't have a clue what you're talking about. As with Christ it's doubtful there was an actual Buddha as his story begins several hundred years after his supposed life and is based in religious movements in southern India, not Greece. I'm sure there are Greek influences as they spanned much of the known world for a time, but Buddhism is not a Greek religion. It's likely based on the Sramana movements in India.
So what happened to the Maidhyoi -zaremaya and the
Maidhyoi-shema? Why didn’t judaism adopt those?
The Hebrew material shows that El and YHWH were both worshiped by at least some of the Israelites, except for the “Yahwist” elite that dominated in Jerusalem. Originally the main god of Israel was the chief Canaanite deity El, best known from the Ugaritic material. “Israel” itself translates as “May El persevere." El is the iudentified with the earliest shrines, e.g. Jacob’s altar in Shechem, EL ELOHE ISRAEL(“El, god of Israel") Genesis 33:20. In Judges 9:46 is the shrine of “El of the covenant." And YHWH is identified as one of his sons. The authentic version of Deuteronomy 32:8-9 preserved the understanding that El and Yahweh are separate deities, YHWH being just one of the gods of El’s family. “When ELYON (“the Most High”) gave to the nations their inheritance, when he separated humanity, he fixed the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of sons of El. YHWH’s portion is his people, Jacob’s allotted heritage.” (This was changed n the official Jewish Masoretic text to “children of Israel”).
YHWH also appears as a divine being in the “assembly of El" (Psalm 82:1; Psalm 89:6-7) ; and Psalm 29:1 orders the other divine beings , “the sons of El", to worship YHWH. Etc.
YHWH became the official sole deity only under the Persian rule.
You’re pretty sure?
Well I’m pretty sure you haven’t the first clue
I am not basing history on myths but actual history
what is wrong with my history?
So what happened to the Maidhyoi -zaremaya and the Maidhyoi-shema? Why didn't judaism adopt those?Many Zoroastrian festivals were taught and adopted by the Zoroastrians to the Jews The feast of Booths is just one
The Hebrew material shows that El and YHWH were both worshiped by at least some of the Israelites, except for the "Yahwist" elite that dominated in Jerusalem. Originally the main god of Israel was the chief Canaanite deity El, best known from the Ugaritic material. "Israel" itself translates as “May El persevere." El is the iudentified with the earliest shrines, e.g. Jacob's altar in Shechem, EL ELOHE ISRAEL(“El, god of Israel") Genesis 33:20. In Judges 9:46 is the shrine of “El of the covenant." And YHWH is identified as one of his sons. The authentic version of Deuteronomy 32:8-9 preserved the understanding that El and Yahweh are separate deities, YHWH being just one of the gods of El’s family. "When ELYON ("the Most High") gave to the nations their inheritance, when he separated humanity, he fixed the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of sons of El. YHWH’s portion is his people, Jacob's allotted heritage." (This was changed n the official Jewish Masoretic text to "children of Israel"). YHWH also appears as a divine being in the “assembly of El" (Psalm 82:1; Psalm 89:6-7) ; and Psalm 29:1 orders the other divine beings , “the sons of El", to worship YHWH. Etc. YHWH became the official sole deity only under the Persian rule.Because Babylon was taken so easily it was decided YHWH and Ahura-Mazda were one and the same or at least that YHWH was one of the good creation and so the Zoroastrians taught Zoroastrianism to the Jews - some Hebrews rejected the Persian teaching - the Sadducees But what you say here is accurate
Doug VC
Please don’t tell me Mary Boyce had no clue - I have read all her books and I am saying what she said - so to say I am wrong is to say she is wrong.
Write a book refuting her life work - see how many you sell
Doug VC Please don't tell me Mary Boyce had no clue - I have read all her books and I am saying what she said - so to say I am wrong is to say she is wrong. Write a book refuting her life work - see how many you sellPray tell what Mary Boyce was saying which has any bearing on the discussion of the origins of the religion/philosophy of Buddhism?
Doug VC Please don't tell me Mary Boyce had no clue - I have read all her books and I am saying what she said - so to say I am wrong is to say she is wrong. Write a book refuting her life work - see how many you sellPray tell what Mary Boyce was saying which has any bearing on the discussion of the origins of Buddhism? She said Buddhism was very influenced by Zoroastrianism read her books please before you insult her
Doug VC Please don't tell me Mary Boyce had no clue - I have read all her books and I am saying what she said - so to say I am wrong is to say she is wrong. Write a book refuting her life work - see how many you sellPray tell what Mary Boyce was saying which has any bearing on the discussion of the origins of Buddhism? She said Buddhism was very influenced by Zoroastrianism read her books please before you insult her In her field of expertise how would she know anything abut religious origins?
The Fu Foundation School of Engineering and Applied Science, as it was named in 1997, continues to provide leadership for scientific and educational advances. Even Joseph Engelberger, Class of 1946, the father of modern robotics, could not have anticipated the revolutionary speed with which cumbersome and expensive “big science" computers would shrink to the size of a wallet.http://engineering.columbia.edu/history Are you talking about architecture and engineering or religious origins?
Mary Boyce was the world expert on Zoroastrianism and Religion
I couldn’t find a book by Bryce with the title you gave.
I couldn't find a book by Bryce with the title you gave.Its Mary Boyce and she wrote several Books Selected works[edit] 1954, The Manichaean hymn-cycles in Parthian (London Oriental Series, Vol. 3). London: Oxford University Press. 1975, A History of Zoroastrianism, Vol. 1 (Handbuch der Orientalistik Series). Leiden: Brill; Repr. 1996 as A History of Zoroastrianism: Vol 1, The Early Period. 1977, Zoroastrianism: The rediscovery of missing chapters in man's religious history (Teaching aids for the study of Inner Asia). Asian Studies Research Institute: Indiana University Press. 1977, A Persian Stronghold of Zoroastrianism. London: Oxford University Press; Repr. 2001 1978, A Reader in Manichaean Middle Persian and Parthian (Acta Iranica Monograph Series). Leiden: Brill. 1979, Zoroastrians: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices (Library of religious beliefs and practices). London:Routledge/Kegan Paul; Corrected repr. 1984; repr. with new foreword 2001. 1982, A History of Zoroastrianism, Vol. 2 (Handbuch der Orientalistik Series). Leiden: Brill. Repr. 1996 as "A History of Zoroastrianism: Vol 2, Under the Achaemenians". 1984, Textual Sources for the Study of Zoroastrianism (Textual Sources for the Study of Religion). London:Rowman & Littlefield. Repr. 1990 1987, Zoroastrianism: A Shadowy but Powerful Presence in the Judaeo-Christian World. Friends of Dr. Williams: London. 1988, "The religion of Cyrus the Great", in A. Kuhrt and H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg Achaemenid History III: Method and Theory, Leiden: Brill. 1991, A History of Zoroastrianism: Vol. 3, Zoroastrianism Under Macedonian and Roman Rule (Handbuch der Orientalistik Series). With Frantz Grenet, Leiden: Brill. 1992, Zoroastrianism: Its Antiquity and Constant Vigour (Columbia Lectures on Iranian Studies, No 7). Costa Mesa: Mazda. Forthcoming: A History of Zoroastrianism: Vols 4–7, under the editorship of Albert de Jong.
I recommend this
Zoroastrians: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices
Mary Boyce was the world expert on Zoroastrianism and ReligionIs that why she was made "Dean" of the FU school of engineering?
Mary C. Boyce is Dean of Engineering at The Fu Foundation School of Engineering and Applied Science at Columbia University in the City of New York and also the Morris A. and Alma Schapiro Professor of Engineering. Prior to joining Columbia, Dean Boyce served on the faculty of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) for over 25 years, leading the Mechanical Engineering Department from 2008 to 2013.http://engineering.columbia.edu/dean-mary-c-boyce or are you talking about;
Nora Elisabeth Mary Boyce (2 August 1920 – 4 April 2006) was a British scholar of Iranian languages, and an authority on Zoroastrianism. The Royal Asiatic Society's annual Boyce Prize for outstanding contributions to the study of religion is named after her.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Boyce
Mary Boyce was the world expert on Zoroastrianism and ReligionIs that why she was made "Dean" of the FU school of engineering?
Mary C. Boyce is Dean of Engineering at The Fu Foundation School of Engineering and Applied Science at Columbia University in the City of New York and also the Morris A. and Alma Schapiro Professor of Engineering. Prior to joining Columbia, Dean Boyce served on the faculty of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) for over 25 years, leading the Mechanical Engineering Department from 2008 to 2013.http://engineering.columbia.edu/dean-mary-c-boyce wrong Mary Boyce For the Dean of SEAS at Columbia University, see Mary Cunningham Boyce. Nora Elisabeth Mary Boyce (2 August 1920 – 4 April 2006) was a British scholar of Iranian languages, and an authority on Zoroastrianism. The Royal Asiatic Society's annual Boyce Prize for outstanding contributions to the study of religion is named after her. In 1963–64, Boyce spent a research year among orthodox Zoroastrians of the 24 villages of Yazd, Iran. The results of her research there were formative to her understanding of Zoroastrianism and she discovered that much of the previously established scholarship on the ancient faith was terribly misguided. In 1975, Boyce presented the results of her research at her Ratanbai Katrak lecture series at Oxford University. In the same year she published the first volume of her magnum opus, The History of Zoroastrianism, which appeared in the monograph series Handbuch der Orientalistik (Leiden:Brill). Her Ratanbai Katrak lecture series were published in 1977 as A Persian Stronghold of Zoroastrianism. In 1979, Boyce published Zoroastrians: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices, which not only summarised her previous publications (in particular volume 1 of History), but anthologised the role of Zoroastrianism during subsequent eras as well. This was followed by volume 2 of History of Zoroastrianism in 1982 (also as a part of the Orientalistik monograph series), and volume 3 in 1991 which she co-authored with Frantz Grenet. In 1992, she published Zoroastrianism: Its Antiquity and Constant Vigour as part of the Columbia Lectures on Iranian Studies which she had delivered there in 1985.