Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
These were Jews that had been immersed in Persian (Parsi) religious beliefs. These individuals became known as Pharisees, because they held beliefs that were not derived from the Torah, but were Persian Zoroastrian in origin
Actually, the word Pharisee comes from the Hebrew "p'rushi" meaning "separate one" (p-r-sh means a divided section) PHARISEES - JewishEncyclopedia.com
the Hebrew word for Persia is Paras (P-R-S) as seen in the scroll of Esther. Different spelling.
Actually, the word Pharisee comes from the Hebrew "p'rushi" meaning "separate one" (p-r-sh means a divided section) PHARISEES - JewishEncyclopedia.com
the Hebrew word for Persia is Paras (P-R-S) as seen in the scroll of Esther. Different spelling.
Notice that in the OT, Nehemiah 12:22 for example:
Neh:
[22] The Levites in the days of Eliashib, Joiada, and Johanan, and Jaddua, were recorded chief of the fathers: also the priests, to the reign of Darius the Persian.
Or Daniel 6:28;
Dan 6:
28] So this Daniel prospered in the reign of Darius, and in the reign of Cyrus the Persian.
Notice that in the OT, Nehemiah 12:22 for example:
Neh:
[22] The Levites in the days of Eliashib, Joiada, and Johanan, and Jaddua, were recorded chief of the fathers: also the priests, to the reign of Darius the Persian.
Or Daniel 6:28;
Dan 6:
28] So this Daniel prospered in the reign of Darius, and in the reign of Cyrus the Persian.
Buddhism did all that before. Buddha's suffering to death's door before he realised that taught us nothing, but respect (rather than this cloying 'Love' that comes across as lecturing, bullying, abuse and attempts to control, thanks very much) for life - all life - and not damning your enemies to hell - is better than Christianity. I have heard of Buddhists sacrificing themselves, but never of burning witches. And the idea of working it out for yourself rather than just accepting what you are told to believe out of fear of burning in hell is much better. And you know that's true old mate, because, while you call yourself a Christian, you cherry picked it to make it palatable, tossing the bits you couldn't stomach into the bin.
You had to cherry pick the religion to get it anywhere near Buddhism, and even then it doesn't match up.
And we all in the West were spoonfed Christianity. I was, You were, Rafius was. We all were. We all gave it up, You, Me, Raffs. You had an experience (which i accept) and you Interpreted it in Christian terms. If you's been in a different culture, you'd have interpreted it differently. And even then you had to adapt it to enable yourself to swallow it.
I think it's a step forward that Mystic has discarded a belief in a creator god.
You know I wasn't spoonfed anything, Arq! The ACTUAL Christ narrative is an advancement on the Buddhist one and Jesus is the Maitreya that Buddha predicted 500 years earlier would supersede his achievement of Maitri. Jesus maintained Matiri (love for all including His torturers and murderers) and truly remained indifferent to the enormous scourging and crucifixion that took His life. Try to tell me that Buddha displayed that level of perfection.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
Follow the Old Testament, abandon your family, eternal torture in hell?
That is an advance?
I said the ACTUAL Christ message NOT the corrupted one from trying to merge the primitive and barbaric OT beliefs about God with Christ's message of love and reconciliation. None of that evil dogma has anything to do with Jesus and His unambiguous example of God's True Nature.
The NT was written in neither Hebrew or Aramaic. It was written in Greek.
The Greek word used in the NT for Pharisees is pharisaiOn.
Matt.3
[7] But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?(KJV)
Greek Interlinear Translation:
PERCEIVING YET MANY OF-THE PHARISEES AND SADDUCEES
idOn de pollous tOn pharisaiOn kai saddoukaiOn
What does pharisaiOn mean it Greek? It means Pharisees. But the pharisees are not mentioned in the OT. They are only mentioned in the NT.
What are the Hebrew words for Persian as written in Daniel? phrsi or phrsa·e
The NT was written in neither Hebrew or Aramaic. It was written in Greek.
The Greek word used in the NT for Pharisees is pharisaiOn.
Matt.3
[7] But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?(KJV)
Greek Interlinear Translation:
PERCEIVING YET MANY OF-THE PHARISEES AND SADDUCEES
idOn de pollous tOn pharisaiOn kai saddoukaiOn
What does pharisaiOn mean it Greek? It means Pharisees. But the pharisees are not mentioned in the OT. They are only mentioned in the NT.
What are the Hebrew words for Persian as written in Daniel? phrsi or phrsa·e
The Greek makes no difference. The words for Persia and for Pharisee are different in Hebrew. You think they sound the same because of the English. If you don't want to read the texts in the original Hebrew but want to comment on what they say, they you have the right to choose willful ignorance.
In the "OT" you have the root p-r-sh meaning separated in a number of places (including Ez. 34:12). It means "cut up into pieces" in Micha 3:3 and "scatter" or "separate" in Psalms 68:15.
Here is something more suited to your particular way of researching (relying on a website...) https://biblehub.com/str/hebrew/6567.htm
scatter, declare, distinctly, show, sting
A primitive root; to separate, literally (to disperse)
The Pharisees are mentioned in Talmudic Hebrew when the codes speak of the arguments between the Tzedukkim and the Perushim (the Sadduccees and the Pharisees) -- try the mishna of Tractate Yadayim, chapter 4, mishna 6
אומרין צדוקיין, קובלין אנו עליכם פרושים
You can note the use of the p-r-sh root there, NOT p-r-s.
the root (p-r-sh) is found also in talmudic texts when giving instruction about separating things, such as
separating dough for the priests (Hafrashat challah) [some light reading on it https://www.joyofkosher.com/blogs/wh...g-the-challah/ ]
Your thesis is built on two words' being identical when they simply aren't. If you don't know the source language, why keep insisting something so easily disproven?
The Greek makes no difference. The words for Persia and for Pharisee are different in Hebrew. You think they sound the same because of the English. If you don't want to read the texts in the original Hebrew but want to comment on what they say, they you have the right to choose willful ignorance.
In the "OT" you have the root p-r-sh meaning separated in a number of places (including Ez. 34:12). It means "cut up into pieces" in Micha 3:3 and "scatter" or "separate" in Psalms 68:15.
Here is something more suited to your particular way of researching (relying on a website...) https://biblehub.com/str/hebrew/6567.htm
scatter, declare, distinctly, show, sting
A primitive root; to separate, literally (to disperse)
The Pharisees are mentioned in Talmudic Hebrew when the codes speak of the arguments between the Tzedukkim and the Perushim (the Sadduccees and the Pharisees) -- try the mishna of Tractate Yadayim, chapter 4, mishna 6
אומרין צדוקיין, קובלין אנו עליכם פרושים
You can note the use of the p-r-sh root there, NOT p-r-s.
the root (p-r-sh) is found also in talmudic texts when giving instruction about separating things, such as
separating dough for the priests (Hafrashat challah) [some light reading on it https://www.joyofkosher.com/blogs/wh...g-the-challah/ ]
Your thesis is built on two words' being identical when they simply aren't. If you don't know the source language, why keep insisting something so easily disproven?
The original words for Persian used in the The Book of Daniel are phrsi·a and phrsa·e. The Book of Daniel was written in Biblical Aramaic. The similarity of the word pharisees and phrsi·a or phrsa·ea is obvious and it is striking. So why does there appear to have been an attempt by Jewish and Christian scholars to change the original meaning meaning of the word pharisees from Persian to something entirely different? By implication, there has been a desire among Christian and Jewish scholars to disguise the influence of Persian belief on Judaism. This becomes apparent in Gospel Matthew.
Matt.2:1
[1] Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, (KJV)
Matthew 2:1 in the original Greek:
OF-THE YET JESUS BEING-generatED IN BETHLEHEM OF-THE JUDEA IN DAYS OF-HEROD THE KING BE-PERCEIVING MAGians (magi) FROM risings (east)
tou de Esou gennEthentos en bEthleem tEs ioudaias en hEmerais hErOdou tou basileOs idou magoi apo anatolOn
The "MAGicans" (magi) from the east were Zoroastrian priests.
Wikipedia
Magi
Magi (/'me?d?a?/; singular magus /'me?g?s/; from Latin magus) denotes followers of Zoroastrianism or Zoroaster. The earliest known use of the word Magi is in the trilingual inscription written by Darius the Great, known as the Behistun Inscription. Old Persian texts, pre-dating the Hellenistic period, refer to a Magus as a Zurvanic, and presumably Zoroastrian, priest. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magi
This meaning has been deliberately obscured by translating the original word magoi, to "wise men."
WHY?
Because references to Persian Zoroastrianism which might reveal the extent that ancient Persian beliefs influenced Judaism, and therefore Christianity, were (and remain) contrary to the interests of Christian and Jewish scholars. In other words, religious politics at work.
I think it's a step forward that Mystic has discarded a belief in a creator god.
I think it's a step forward that he has discarded at least some of the Bible and Christianity that does not agree with what he prefers. And that he has no truck with creationism. There's a lot more that we agree on than we disagree on. He still thinks of course that God created everything (or I am pretty sure he does) and he accepts the Jesus story as broadly true and sees the crucifixion as a demonstration of Love, in some way, rather than the Roman execution of a troublemaker, which it was. That would be ok, were it not that the opinions are presented as fact that we ought accept because he says so, and we are all stupid, arrogant or malicious if we don't.
I think it's a step forward that Mystic has discarded a belief in a creator god.
Where did you get that idea? I still believe in God just not the Willful Creation part. You are essentially a "God" to the cells and biota that comprise you but it has nothing to do with your Will creating them. We are part of God but it has nothing to do with God's Will creating us. Everything is some part of God so we exist because God exists, NOT because He willed us to exist. Guatama just didn't trust God or any permanent entity because he wanted karma samsara to end.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
