Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 03-06-2009, 10:26 AM

This is fascinating, Clive, but did you mean to post it in this thread?

Clivedurdle · 03-06-2009, 11:18 AM

Yes.

I do not understand why gnosticism is linked back to Plato when Plato got it from the Persians!

The Albigensian version of gnosticism was also brought back by Crusaders from the East.

The real influence is and always has been from Persia and Zarathustra. Of course the Greeks caused iterations but I do not understand why this thread is so focussed on a secondary issue - how Greeks metamorphosed gnostic ideas that were not original to them.

gentleexit · 03-06-2009, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Yes.
I do not understand why gnosticism is linked back to Plato when Plato got it from the Persians!

The Albigensian version of gnosticism was also brought back by Crusaders from the East.

The real influence is and always has been from Persia and Zarathustra. Of course the Greeks caused iterations but I do not understand why this thread is so focussed on a secondary issue - how Greeks metamorphosed gnostic ideas that were not original to them.

well what do you mean by "gnostic ideas"? What is it that the Greeks metamorphosed?

Clivedurdle · 03-06-2009, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gentleexit

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Yes.
I do not understand why gnosticism is linked back to Plato when Plato got it from the Persians!

The Albigensian version of gnosticism was also brought back by Crusaders from the East.

The real influence is and always has been from Persia and Zarathustra. Of course the Greeks caused iterations but I do not understand why this thread is so focussed on a secondary issue - how Greeks metamorphosed gnostic ideas that were not original to them.

well what do you mean by "gnostic ideas"? What is it that the Greeks metamorphosed?

Plato's not original idea that we are in a cave and reality is out there, Paul's glass darkly, the idea of the Matrix, the gnostic idea of seeking the truth. The idea of the demiurge.

All traceable to Zarathustra and the Persians!

Clivedurdle · 03-06-2009, 01:30 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism

Quote:

Zoroastrianism (IPA: /ˌzɔroʊˈæstriəˌnɪzəm/) is the religion and philosophy based on the teachings ascribed to the prophet Zoroaster, after whom the religion is named. The term Zoroastrianism is in general usage, essentially synonymous with Mazdaism, i.e., the worship of Ahura Mazda, exalted by Zoroaster as the supreme divine authority.
Zoroastrianism is uniquely important in the history of religion because of its possible formative links to both Western and Eastern religious traditions.[1] As "the oldest of the revealed credal religions", Zoroastrianism "probably had more influence on mankind directly or indirectly than any other faith".[2][3]
....

[edit] Distinguishing characteristics

[edit] Basic beliefs

There is one universal and transcendental God, Ahura Mazda, the one Uncreated Creator to whom all worship is ultimately directed.
Ahura Mazda's creation — evident as asha, truth and order — is the antithesis of chaos, evident as druj, falsehood and disorder. The resulting conflict involves the entire universe, including humanity, which has an active role to play in the conflict.
Active participation in life through good thoughts, good words and good deeds is necessary to ensure happiness and to keep the chaos at bay. This active participation is a central element in Zoroaster's concept of free will, and Zoroastrianism rejects all forms of monasticism.
Ahura Mazda will ultimately prevail over the evil counterpart Ahriman, at which point the universe will undergo a cosmic renovation and time will end (cf: Zoroastrian eschatology). In the final renovation, all of creation — even the souls of the dead that were initially banished to "darkness" — will be reunited in Ahura Mazda. At the end of time a savior-figure [a Saoshyant] will bring about a final renovation of the world, and in which the dead will be revived.[5]
There will then be a final purgation of evil from the Earth (through a tidal wave of molten metal) and a purgation of evil from the heavens (through a cosmic battle of spiritual forces). In the end good will triumph, and each person will find himself or herself transformed into a spiritualized body and soul. Those who died as adults will be transformed into healthy adults of forty years of age, and those who died young will find themselves permanently youthful, about age fifteen. In these new spiritual bodies, humans will live without food, without hunger or thirst, and without weapons (or possibility of bodily injury). The material substance of the bodies will be so light as to cast no shadow. All humanity will speak a single language and belong to a single nation without borders. All will experience immortality (Ameretat) and will share a single purpose and goal, joining with the divine for a perpetual exaltation of God’s glory.[6]
In Zoroastrian tradition the malevolent is represented by Angra Mainyu (also referred to as "Ahriman"), the "Destructive Principle", while the benevolent is represented through Ahura Mazda's Spenta Mainyu, the instrument or "Bounteous Principle" of the act of creation. It is through Spenta Mainyu that transcendental Ahura Mazda is immanent in humankind, and through which the Creator interacts with the world. According to Zoroastrian cosmology, in articulating the Ahuna Vairya formula Ahura Mazda made His ultimate triumph evident to Angra Mainyu.
As expressions and aspects of Creation, Ahura Mazda emanated seven "sparks", the Amesha Spentas ("Bounteous Immortals"), that are each the hypostasis and representative of one aspect of that Creation. These Amesha Spenta are in turn assisted by a league of lesser principles, the Yazatas, each "Worthy of Worship" and each again a hypostasis of a moral or physical aspect of creation.

[edit] Other characteristics

Water and fire: In Zoroastrianism, water (apo, aban) and fire (atar, adar) are agents of ritual purity, and the associated purification ceremonies are considered the basis of ritual life. In Zoroastrian cosmogony, water and fire are respectively the second and last primordial elements to have been created, and scripture considers fire to have its origin in the waters. Both water and fire are considered life-sustaining, and both water and fire are represented within the precinct of a fire temple. Zoroastrians usually pray in the presence of some form of fire (which can be considered evident in any source of light), and the culminating rite of the principal act of worship constitutes a "strengthening of the waters" (see Ab-Zohr). Fire is considered a medium through which spiritual insight and wisdom is gained, and water is considered the source of that wisdom.
Proselytizing and conversion: Zoroastrians do not proselytize and living Zoroastrianism has no missionaries. There may be historical reasons for this (in Islamic Iran proselytizing was/is a capital crime), but in recent years, and with the exception of the Indian priesthood, Zoroastrian communities are generally supportive of conversion.
Inter-faith marriages: As in many other faiths, Zoroastrians are strongly encouraged to marry others of the same faith, but this is not a requirement of the religion itself. Some members of the Indian Zoroastrian community (the Parsis) contend that a child must have a Parsi father to be eligible for introduction into the faith, but this assertion is considered by most to be a violation of the Zoroastrian tenets of gender equality, and may be a remnant of an old legal definition (since overruled) of 'Parsi'. This issue is a matter of great debate within the Parsi community, but with the increasingly global nature of modern society and the dwindling number of Zoroastrians, such opinions are less vociferous than they were previously.
Life, death and reincarnation: In Zoroastrian tradition, life is a temporary state in which a mortal is expected to actively participate in the continuing battle between truth and falsehood. Prior to being born, the soul (urvan) of an individual is still united with its fravashi, of which there are as very many, and which have existed since Mazda created the universe. During life, the fravashi acts as a guardian and protector. On the fourth day after death, the soul is reunited with its fravashi, and in which the experiences of life in the material world are collected for the continuing battle in the spiritual world. In general, Zoroastrianism does not have a notion of reincarnation, at least not until the final renovation of the world.
Disposal of the dead: In Zoroastrian scripture and tradition, a corpse is a host for decay, i.e. of druj. Consequently, scripture enjoins the "safe" disposal of the dead in a manner such that a corpse does not pollute the "good" creation. These injunctions are the doctrinal basis of the fast-fading traditional practice of ritual exposure, most commonly identified with the so-called "Towers of Silence" for which there is no standard technical term in either scripture or tradition. The practice of ritual exposure is only practiced by Zoroastrian communities of the Indian subcontinent, where it is not illegal, but where alternative disposal methods are desperately sought after diclofenac poisoning has led to the virtual extinction of scavenger birds. Other Zoroastrian communities either cremate their dead, or bury them in graves that are cased with lime mortar.

[edit]

Clivedurdle · 03-06-2009, 01:45 PM

Quote:

dualism

Nature and significance religion Main

in religion, the doctrine that the world (or reality) consists of two basic, opposed, and irreducible principles that account for all that exists. It has played an important role in the history of thought and of religion.

Nature and significance

In religion, dualism means the belief in two supreme opposed powers or gods, or sets of divine or demonic beings, that caused the world to exist. It may conveniently be contrasted with monism, which sees the world as consisting of one principle such as mind (spirit) or matter; with monotheism; or with various pluralisms and polytheisms, which see a multiplicity of principles or powers at work. As is indicated below, however, the situation is not always clear and simple, a matter of one or two or many, for there are monotheistic, monistic, or polytheistic religions with dualistic aspects.

Various distinctions may be discerned in the types of dualism in general. In the first place, dualism may be either absolute or relative. In a radical or absolute dualism, the two principles are held to exist from eternity; for example, in the Iranian dualisms, Zoroastrianism and Manichaeism, both the bright and beneficent and the sinister and destructive principles are from eternity.

In a mitigated or relative dualism, one of the two principles may be derived from, or presuppose, the other as a basis; for example, the Bogomils, a medieval heretical Christian group, held that the devil is a fallen angel who came from God and was the creator of the human body, into which he managed by trickery to have God infuse a soul. Here the devil is a subordinate being and not coeternal with God, the absolute eternal being. This, then, is clearly a qualified, not a radical, dualism. Both radical and mitigated types of dualism are found among different groups of the late medieval Cathars, a Christian heretical movement closely related to the Bogomils.

Another and perhaps more important distinction is that between dialectical and eschatological dualism. Dialectical dualism involves an eternal dialectic, or tension, of two opposed principles, such as, in Western culture, the One and the many, or Idea and matter (or space, called by Plato “the receptacle”), and, in Indian culture, māyā (the illusory world of sense experience and multiplicity) and ātman-brahman (the essential identity of mind and ultimate reality). Dialectical dualism ordinarily implies a cyclical, or eternally repetitive, view of history. Eschatological dualism—i.e., a dualism concerned with the ultimate destiny of man and the world, how things will be in the “last” times—on the other hand, conceives of a final resolution of the present dualistic state of things, in which evil will be eliminated at the end of a “linear” history constituted of a series of unrepeatable events, instead of a “cyclical,” repetitive one.

The ancient Iranian religions, Zoroastrianism and Manichaeism, and Gnosticism—a religiophilosophical movement influential in the Hellenistic world—provide examples of eschatological dualism. A type of thought, such as Platonism, that insists on a profound harmony in the cosmos, is thus more radically dualistic, because of its irreducibly dialectical character (see below) than Zoroastrianism and Manichaeism, with their emphasis on the cosmic struggle between two antithetical principles (good and evil).

Midway between these extremes is Gnostic dualism, which has an ontology (or theory of being) of an Orphic-Platonic type (for Orphism, see below Among ancient civilizations and peoples) but which also affirms the final disappearance and annihilation of evil with the eventual destruction of the material world—and thus comprises both dialectical and eschatological dualism.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...#ref=ref420713

Clivedurdle · 03-06-2009, 02:04 PM

I was brought up on Daniel, Hebrews and Revelation. In my church upbringing these were the critical texts, supported by the juicy bits of Matthew.

Are we best understanding xianity as a wondrous amalgam of the Zoroastrian ideas of the battle between good and evil, of the triumph of the Most High, using Jewish mythology also got from the Persians?

The fascinating way that gnosticism becomes a heresy then leads to other questions. Why? Were the orthodox trying to deny their Zarathustran and Greek roots?

What exactly was the argument with Marcion about?

mountainman · 03-06-2009, 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Are we best understanding xianity as a wondrous amalgam of the Zoroastrian ideas of the battle between good and evil, of the triumph of the Most High, using Jewish mythology also got from the Persians?

Dear Clive,

If we were to seriously examine christianity as a collage of Zoroastrian ideas then we would be forced to contemplate that the key epoch when these ideas moved out of the Persian empire and into the Roman empire was very late, in the third century, and particularly at its end. The Zoroastrian religion was made a monotheistic state religion c.222 by Ardashir, and under his son Shapur I and the "prophet" Mani, the Zoroastrian religion flourished in Sassanid Persia and had representative "temples" in Alexandria and even Rome.

If you can conceive of "christian origins" after the late third century then not only do you have the entire Manichaean corpus of literature available to be used in the Roman collage, but you have the very real concept of a "political and religous heretic". The Manichaean persecution in Persian and in the ROman empire gave rise to "the existence of" and "the burining of Heretics" in a very real sense (eg: Diocletian's edicts against the Manichaeans).

But who is seriously considering "christian origins" this late?

Quote:

The fascinating way that gnosticism becomes a heresy then leads to other questions. Why?

When the state religion was "christianity" then "the religions of the Hellenes" (incorporating all elements of "gnosticism") were deemed heretical by the (christian) emperors. Down with the Hellenistic civilisation! Up with Christendom!

Quote:

Were the orthodox trying to deny their Zarathustran and Greek roots?

YES. It was time for the Romans to actually invest in a religion of their own. They had used the Hellenistic religions as a surrogate for centuries, but the Greeks were just more "barbarians" and there was no earthly reason that Roman imperialism had to host all different forms of collegiate academic and cooperative cult worships, eben though some of them were represented by very large and extensive networks of temples all across the empire (such as Ascelpius). Constantine was concerned for the safety of the nation. He wanted them united (just like the Sassanid Persians) by a centralised state monotheism. This was good for military morale - the army marches better to the One True Song.

Quote:

What exactly was the argument with Marcion about?

His historicity is questionable.

Best wishes,

Pete

mountainman · 03-06-2009, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Quote:

Originally Posted by gentleexit

well what do you mean by "gnostic ideas"? What is it that the Greeks metamorphosed?

Plato's not original idea that we are in a cave and reality is out there, Paul's glass darkly, the idea of the Matrix, the gnostic idea of seeking the truth. The idea of the demiurge.

All traceable to Zarathustra and the Persians!

Zarathustra has two faces. One old Parthian face (aged between Alexander and the year 222 CE (not too much is left of this) ; and one new entirely canonised revamp; a boundary event in Persian history, when state of Iran was formed (and publicised by Mani). And before the Persians, the Buddhists and Hindus entertained many ideas of knowedge and philosophy.

The Eastern Roman empire might be considered a "Little India" with "Hellenistic temples" during the period from Alexander to the beginning of the fourth century. The Hellenistic Gnosticism's Know Thyself involved yoga and ascetic practices developed in India, but which had settled in and around Alexandria as described by Philo's discussion of the "therapeutae" and in Philostratus' account of Apollonius. An example of literature related to this level of activity as described above might be "The Hymn of the Pearl".

Clivedurdle · 03-07-2009, 02:16 AM

Quote:

Were the orthodox trying to deny their Zarathustran and Greek roots? YES. It was time for the Romans to actually invest in a religion of their own. They had used the Hellenistic religions as a surrogate for centuries, but the Greeks were just more "barbarians" and there was no earthly reason that Roman imperialism had to host all different forms of collegiate academic and cooperative cult worships, eben though some of them were represented by very large and extensive networks of temples all across the empire (such as Ascelpius). Constantine was concerned for the safety of the nation. He wanted them united (just like the Sassanid Persians) by a centralised state monotheism. This was good for military morale - the army marches better to the One True Song.

Is this too simple analysis? The Romans grieved the loss of the gods - like the statue of Victory. The Greeks were not seen as Barbarians, but a people to learn from.

Constantine may not have been as ambitious as you are saying - yes he wanted a state religion but was eclectic about things - xianity as first amongst equals - the alleged death bed saying of him saying to his Bishops you better be right is telling.

The problem was probably more once you give fundamentalists room at the table they do not stop.

And the gnostics, with emphasis on knowing thyself, ecstatic lives, struggling to find truth are a very different mindset to Ambrose.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-06-2009, 10:26 AM	#81
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	This is fascinating, Clive, but did you mean to post it in this thread?

03-06-2009, 11:18 AM	#82
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	Yes. I do not understand why gnosticism is linked back to Plato when Plato got it from the Persians! The Albigensian version of gnosticism was also brought back by Crusaders from the East. The real influence is and always has been from Persia and Zarathustra. Of course the Greeks caused iterations but I do not understand why this thread is so focussed on a secondary issue - how Greeks metamorphosed gnostic ideas that were not original to them.

03-06-2009, 02:04 PM	#87
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	I was brought up on Daniel, Hebrews and Revelation. In my church upbringing these were the critical texts, supported by the juicy bits of Matthew. Are we best understanding xianity as a wondrous amalgam of the Zoroastrian ideas of the battle between good and evil, of the triumph of the Most High, using Jewish mythology also got from the Persians? The fascinating way that gnosticism becomes a heresy then leads to other questions. Why? Were the orthodox trying to deny their Zarathustran and Greek roots? What exactly was the argument with Marcion about?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.