Monday, August 3, 2020

Now there are TWELVE laws and FIVE proclamations recognizing the Noahide Laws in the USA

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SIGN THE PETITION 

PLEASE NOTE: - after consulting with lawyers it needs to be noted that these laws are not unconstitutional as they do not make the Noahide Laws the laws of America, however, laws written in ways such as this can be repealed for being "offensive" or inaccurate, which these are both. It is the principle of the matter, our congress and president should not be condoning these ideas in any official capacity.

VIDEO TO THIS ARTICLE


This campaign started to repeal Public Law 102-14 (here), then I found Public Law 103-14 which stated that the Noahide Laws are the cornerstone of society (here). After finding the 2nd law I wondered if it were a sleeper law, to protect against the repeal of Public Law 102-14 which was the most well known and famous... I started to wonder if there were other laws as well. Soon, I found another four laws and two proclamations (here) which included much new important information to the legal status of Noahide Law in the United States. When I thought I would find nothing more I stumbled upon three more laws and one more proclamation bringing the total number to nine laws and three proclamations (here). Now I have found three more laws and two additional proclamations bringing the total number (as of yet) to twelve laws and five proclamations which recognize the Noahide Laws in the United States. Most of these laws are repetitive but public law 101-15 carries a very important clause. 

First let's get out of the way the repetitive parts of the law which have been repeated in almost all laws signed in on the Noahide Laws so far. They are listed below but I would like to add one additional clause to the list and that is these laws state that we are "preoccupied" with the crisis created by the weakening of the Noahide Laws. 

  • The Noahide Laws are the basis upon which the American nation was founded
  • Without Noahide Law the nation stands in peril of chaos
  • Society is concerned with the weakening of the Noahide Laws
  • The weakening of Noahide Law threatens society
  • The nation is "preoccupied" with the crisis created by the weakening of the Noahide Laws
  • It is the nation's responsibility to educate the public on these Noahide Laws
  • The Lubavitch Movement promotes the Noahide Laws

First is Public Law 98-264, signed by President Ronald Reagan in 1984. The Law does not carry any new information other than Rabbi Schneerson's 82nd Birthday is designated is "Education Day, USA"


Whereas Congress recognizes the historical tradition of ethical values and principles which are the basis of civilized society and upon which our great Nation was founded;

Whereas these ethical values and principles have been the bedrock of society from the dawn of civilization, when they were known as the Seven Noahide Laws;

Whereas without these ethical values and principles the edifice of civilization stands in serious peril of returning to chaos;

Whereas society is profoundly concerned with the recent weakening of these principles that has resulted in crises that beleaguer and threaten the fabric of civilized society;

Whereas the justified preoccupation with these crises must not let the citizens of this Nation lose sight of their responsibility to transmit these historical ethical values from our distinguished past to the generations of the future;

Whereas the Lubavitch movement has fostered and promoted these ethical values and principles throughout the world;

Whereas Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson is the universally respected and revered leader of the Lubavitch movement, and his eighty-second birthday falls on April 13, 1984: Now, therefore, be
it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled. That April 13, 1984, the birthday of Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, leader and head of the worldwide Lubavitch movement, is designated as "Education Day, U.S.A.". The President is requested to issue a proclamation calling upon the people of the United States to observe such day with appropriate ceremonies and activities.

Approved April 13,1984.
Proclamation 5181 was signed in 1984 by President Ronal Reagan and makes the following statement "In fostering and promoting a tradition of ethical values that can trace its roots to the Seven Noahide Laws, which have often been cited as universal norms of ethical conduct and a guarantee of fundamental human rights, the Lubavitch movement and its greatly respected leader have shown Americans of every faith that true education involves not simply what one knows, but how one lives."


Education Day, U.S.A., 1984
By the President of the United States of America
A Proclamation

Throughout our history, Americans have recognized that education is vital to our Nation's future. Our educational system has always done far more than simply train people for a given job or profession; it has equipped generation upon generation of young men and women for lives of responsible citizenship, by helping to teach them the basic ethical values and principles that are both our heritage as a free people and the foundation of civilized life.

As the beneficiaries of that heritage, we bear a corresponding responsibility to ensure that the moral values on which freedom rests continue to be transmitted to each successive generation of Americans. 

If our educational efforts are rooted in first principles—that human life is sacred; that men and women should be treated as individuals, with certain fundamental rights and responsibilities; that respect for law is crucial to the survival of freedom—then our children and our children's children will share, as we have, in the blessings of liberty.

The Lubavitch movement, headed by Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, has provided people of all faiths a shining example of the true value of education. The Lubavitcher Rebbe's work is a living reminder that knowledge is worthy only when accompanied by moral and spiritual wisdom and understanding.

In fostering and promoting a tradition of ethical values that can trace its roots to the Seven Noahide Laws, which have often been cited as universal norms of ethical conduct and a guarantee of fundamental human rights, the Lubavitch movement and its greatly respected leader have shown Americans of every faith that true education involves not simply what one knows, but how one lives.

In recognition of Rabbi Schneerson's contributions and in honor of his 82nd birthday on the 11th day of the Jewish month Nisan, which falls this year on April 13, the Congress, by House Joint Resolution 520, has designated April 13, 1984, as "Education Day, U.S.A.," and has authorized and requested the President to issue an appropriate proclamation.
Public Law 99-276 was signed by President Ronald Reagan in 1984. The Law does not carry any new information other than Rabbi Schneerson's 84th Birthday is designated is "Education Day, USA"


Whereas Congress recognizes the historical tradition of ethical values and principles which are the basis of civilized society and upon which our great Nation was founded;

Whereas these ethical values and principles have been the bedrock of society from the dawn of civilization, when they were known as the Seven Noahide Laws;

Whereas without these ethical values and principles the edifice of civilization stands in serious peril of returning to chaos;

Whereas society is profoundly concerned with the recent weakening of these principles that has resulted in crises that beleaguer and threaten the fabric of civilized society;

Whereas the justified preoccupation with these crises must not let the citizens of this Nation lose sight of their responsibility to transmit these historical ethical values from our distinguished past to the generations of the future;

Whereas the Lubavitch movement has fostered and promoted these ethical values and principles throughout the World; and

Whereas Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, leader of the Lubavitch movement, is universally respected and revered and his eighty-fourth birthday falls on April 20,1986: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled. That April 20, 1986, the birthday of Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, leader and head
of the worldwide Lubavitch movement, is designated as "Education Day, U.S.A.". The President is requested to issue a proclamation calling upon the people of the United States to observe such day
with appropriate ceremonies and activities.

Approved April 22, 1986.
Proclamation 5463 was signed in 1986 by Ronal Reagan and states that Rabbi Schneerson "exemplifies the rich tradition of the Seven Noahide Laws" and that the Noahide Laws "have been the lodestar of the Lubavitch movement from its inception"


Education Day, U.S.A., 1986 .1
By the President of the United States of America
A Proclamation

From earliest colonial days, Americans have always known that education is the golden key that opens the door to achievement and progress. This Administration has placed renewed emphasis on excellence in education, and already the results are encouraging. By setting high standards we challenge the young to stretch their mental muscles and strive to achieve the best that is in them. Such an education succeeds because it makes learning an adventure.

Education is like a diamond with many facets: it includes the basic mastery of numbers and letters that give us access to the treasury of human knowledge, accumulated and refined through the ages; it includes technical and vocational training as well as instruction in science, higher mathematics, and humane letters. But no true education can leave out the moral and spiritual dimensions of human life and human striving. Only education that addresses this dimension can lead to that blend of compassion, humility, and understanding that is summed up in one word: wisdom.

"Happy the man," Scripture tells us, "who finds wisdom. . . . Her ways are ways of pleasantness, and all her paths are peace. She is a tree of life to those who come to possess her."

The Congress has sought to call attention to these durable values by adopting resolutions that pay tribute to the example of Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, a man who has dedicated his life to the search for wisdom and to guiding others along its pathways. He exemplifies the rich tradition of
the Seven Noahide Laws, which have been the lodestar of the Lubavitch movement from its inception.

In recognition of Rabbi Schneerson's noble achievements and in celebration of his 84th birthday, the Congress, by House Joint Resolution 582, has designated April 20 as "Education Day, U.S.A." and authorized and requested the President to issue an appropriate proclamation in observance of this event.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, RONALD REAGAN, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim Sunday, April 20, 1986, as Education Day, U.S.A., and I call upon the people of the United States, and in particular our teachers and other educational leaders, to observe that day with appropriate ceremonies and activities.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this nineteenth day of April, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and eighty-six, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and tenth.

RONALD REAGAN
Public Law 101-15 was signed in 1989 by President George H. W. Bush and carries the most important statements of the laws presented in this new post. Though this was stated again in Public Law 101-267
in 1990 by George H. W. Bush (here), here is what seems to be the first instance where we see that congress has recognized that Rabbi Schneerson has ascended to the leadership of the spiritual guidance of world Jewry and that this has been reflected in an international scroll. However, this law is very important because our opponents will try to tell us that the only part of these laws that are signed in is the ending clause where Rabbi Schneerson's birthday is designated as Education Day USA. These laws say that "congress recognizes" these statements first of all, so we are making a statement which the government is proclaiming is fact. Second these laws first promise that international scrolls will be signed recognizing the Noahide Laws, and then later we see in other laws that this promise has been fulfilled, so the idea that these clauses have no power or merit is baseless. However, in this law, we do see that in the ending clause, along with assigning Rabbi Schneerson's birthday as Education Day USA, but also that the President calls upon other heads of state to sign a similar scroll to the international scroll which recognized Rabbi Schneerson as the leader of the spiritual guidance of world Jewry and that the State Department is asked to aid the Lubavitch movement in this regard, a man who said non-Jews have satanic souls (here) and who in these laws and proclamations is said to exemplify the Noahide Laws and is the leader of the Lubavitch movement which has had the Noahide Laws as its guiding start since its inception. Has this new international scroll been signed? What does it say? 

PUBLIC LAW 101-15—APR. 18, 1989

Whereas Congress recognizes the historical tradition of ethical values and principles which are the basis of civilized society and upon which our great Nation was founded;

Whereas these ethical values and principles have been the bedrock of society from the dawn of civilization, when they were known as the Seven Noahide Laws;

Whereas without these ethical values and principles the edifice of civilization stands in serious peril of returning to chaos;

Whereas society is profoundly concerned with the recent weakening of these principles that has resulted in crises that beleaguer and threaten the fabric of civilized society;

Whereas the justified preoccupation with these crises must not let the citizens of this Nation lose sight of their responsibility to transmit these historical ethical values from our distinguished
past to the generations of the future;

Whereas the Lubavitch movement through its over one hundred and fifty centers in the United States and many more the world over has fostered and promoted these ethical values and principles throughout the world;

Whereas Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, leader of the Lubavitch movement, is universally respected and revered and his eighty-seventh year will be seen as the year of continued "turn and return", the year in which we continue to turn to an education which will return the world to the moral and ethical values contained in the Seven Noahide Laws;

Whereas, this year of 1989 (5749 on the Hebrew calendar) is the "40th Anniversary" in which the Rebbe completes the fourth decade since his ascension to the world leadership of the Lubavitch movement and spiritual guidance of world Jewry; and

Whereas this has been reflected in the "international scroll of honor" which has been signed by the President of the United States and other heads of state: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That April 16, 1989, the eighty-seventh birthday of Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, leader and head of the worldwide Lubavitch movement, and April 6, 1990, are each designated as "Education Day, U.SA.". The President is requested to issue a proclamation calling upon the people of the United States to observe each such day with appropriate ceremonies and activities. We also call on heads of state of the world to join our President in this tribute by signing similar scrolls of honor which will be presented in their respective countries this year of the "40th Anniversary". On this occasion we would also welcome the cooperation of the Department of State in extending the good office of the United States missions to the Lubavitcher emissaries.

Approved April 18,1989. 
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Sunday, August 2, 2020

Author alludes the Zoroastrians inherited and preserved the Noahide Laws in Persia as recorded in Christian apocrypha

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SIGN THE PETITION 

I am pretty sure that Jean Doresse is at least a somewhat reputable scholar as his photo in front of Jabal al-Ṭārif (above) was printed with credit by the Claremont Graduate University Institute for Antiquity and Christianity, School of Religion (see here); also his book "The Secret Book of the Egyptian Gnostics" was donated to archive.org by Trent University (here). In his book Doresse speaks of the Book of "The Cave of Treasures" which is considered to be Christian Apocrypha. According to Doresse, this Apocrypha states "wisdom" of "justice" was transmitted to the Zoroastrians where they keep the knowledge until the announcement of the savior. Please note that in the text below it speaks more of Adam and Seth in regards to these teachings and how they were only passed down to Noah... there are different versions of the Noahide Law legend... some legends say they were given to Adam before they were handed down to Noah. Notice the passage from Doresse only states that Adam told Seth that he must not "fail in justice" and that this wisdom was eventually passed on to Noah in a book.  The quote does not mention the Noahide Laws but according to the scholarly research below, this "Book of Noah" was the source of the Noahide Laws. This information could be used to further Noahidize the Zoroastrians as the Freemasons have already declared them Noahides (here), the Jews changed the Noahide incest laws to accommodate their first-degree incest tradition [father-daughter, mother-son, sister-brother marriages] (here) and Zoroastrians are working to help bring the Noahide agenda to Harvard University (here). 

Wisdom of Adam/Seth/Noah given to the Magi (Zoroastrians)
"The principle work in which ...all these traditions became synchrotized was The Book of the Cave of Treasures...It puts all these revelations into the mouth of Adam as the first of a long series of prophets, who predicts how the Magi will await the announcement of the Saviour, near this cave in which Adam himself will have been interred, and where the Treasures are concealed which the Magi will carry to Bethlehem...
"In The Book of the Cave of Treasures ...let us quote from it these lines, supposedly spoken by the Magi: Adam imparted revelations to his son Seth...he recommended his son Seth never to fail in justice as he Adam had done. Seth welcomed the teaching of his father with a pure heart and it was given to him to inscribe this wisdom in a book and to teach it...And thanks to him, for the first time in this world, there was seen a book written in the name of the Most High. Seth bequeathed to his descendents the book thus written, and that book was handed down even to Noah...(who) took with him into the Ark the books of these teachings... He ordained in his turn that the generation that came after him were to repeat...the mysteries in the books of Seth...These mysteries and this narrative were handed down even to our fathers...who passed them on to us." 
- Jean Doresse, The Secret Book Of The Egyptian Gnostics, 1986, pp. 198, 184.
Noahide Laws come from the Book of Noah
"Therefore, if a Book of Noah existed in the first century, then it follows that the Noahide laws were an established ITF in Jewish communities at the time Acts would have been written, which means that it becomes more likely that Luke is intentionally engaging this ITF in some way."

- Zachary K. Dawson. "THE BOOKS OF ACTS AND JUBILEES IN DIALOGUE: A LITERARY-INTERTEXTUAL ANALYSIS OF THE NOAHIDE LAWS IN ACTS 15 AND 21". McMaster Divinity College, Hamilton, ON, Canada. Retrieved 08/03/2020 from: http://www.jgrchj.net/volume13/JGRChJ13-1_Dawson.pdf

Posted by at No comments:

Noahide Law made Newton repudiated the Trinity and immortality of the soul

SEE TABLE OF CONTENTS
This is the fourth post on this blog about Newton's Noahidism, it is sad to keep finding more and more on how this genius fell for this spiritual deception. You can find the links to the other three articles on Newton and the Noahide Law by following the links (here). Here we learn that because of the Noahide Laws, Newton rejected the trinity and the immortality of the soul. The Trinity under Noahidism is considered idolatrous (here). 

QUOTE

"These same calculations also afford insight into the corrupting, sensual influence of idolatry, which leads us away from the simple and pure tenets of the Noachide Code. As already noted, in his mature writings Newton repudiates the doctrines of the Trinity and the Immortality of the Soul as idolatrous Roman Catholic innovations, designed to obscure the original Noachian creed and to vilify holy men, like Arius, Moses, and Jesus, who upheld its simple monotheistic truths.61 As such, the method of fluxions contains the “spiritual seed” of Newton’s later writings on Christian heresies. By showing the fit but few how to recognize their calculations of fluxions as signs and metaphors of God’s perfection, the method of fluxions also provides instruction in the poetics of redemption."

SOURCE:

Rachel Trubowitz. "Reading Milton and Newton in the Radical Reformation: Poetry, Mathematics, and Religion". The University of New Hampshire. 2017. Retrieved 08/02/2020 from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/314857881_Reading_Milton_and_Newton_in_the_Radical_Reformation_Poetry_Mathematics_and_Religion
Posted by at No comments:

There is a whole book on Newton's obsession with Judaism and Noahide Law

Join Facebook Group | Like Facebook Page
Subscribe To Youtube | Support Me On Patreon

SIGN THE PETITION 
http://chng.it/yXcvjMZk


Hopefully this will be the last post on this blog about Isaac Newton and the Noahide Laws as it is depressing to think that Newton had respect for this system. Newton believed the Noahide Laws, though less perfect than Christianity, could still lead to salvation (here). As was discussed he also believed that corrupted Noahide Law had been the basis for the Egyptian religion (here). Well there is an entire book dedicated to Newton's fascination with Judaism and the Noahide Laws, "Judaism in the Theology of Sir Isaac Newton" by Matt Goldish. In this book we learn that Newton likely learned about the Noahide Laws from British jurist and scholar of Jewish Law John Selden. Just as Newton believed that the Egyptian religion was a corrupt form of Noahidism, he also believed many of the Pagan gods were deified children of Noah. He also believed the Kabbalah was corrupt Noahidism brought up from Babylon and Egypt (the Noahide Laws come from the Talmud, not the Kabbalah). He was also most interested in the command to set up courts of Justice, he gave this one aspect of the law special attention. In the text below some words are misspelled or there are gaps, this is just how it was written in the electronic archive, but the text is still legible.

Judaism in the Theology of Sir Isaac Newton [electronic resource]
by Goldish, Matt, 1998

https://archive.org/stream/springer_10.1007-978-94-017-2014-4/10.1007-978-94-017-2014-4_djvu.txt


Newtons likely learned the Noahide Laws from John Selden 

There can be no mistaking these commandments, for they correspond with the  list known to the Jews as " sheva mizvoth b'ne Noah” the seven Noachide commandments. A reader unfamiliar with rabbinic literature would not be likely to group this particular set of imperatives together under the title of laws which Noah observed. Newton had access to this Jewish view in several places, 9 but the most extensive discussion, and that which most probably attracted his notice, was that in John Selden’s De jure naturali et gentium, juxta disciplinam Ebraeorum (Harrison, #1482) and De Synedriis (Harrison, #1483.) A large portion of these works, particularly the former, is dedicated to the Noachide commandments. It seems particularly likely that Selden was Newton’s source for two other reasons as well: Selden's emphasis on the commandment of righteous law courts, which is the subject of Newton's continued discussion in the Irenicum and in many other places, and his Hebraized spelling of Noah as “Noach” in another discussion of the Noachide laws. 

Newton believed Pagan gods were deified Noahides (Children of Noah)

It can be demonstrated that Newton saw Noachide worship and Prytanaea as part of the same religion. As he says in the quotation from MS. Yahuda 41 above, "In Janus its probable they worshipped their common father as the supreme God (Iccco- Noah, or Ia-No) in Vesta the frame of Nature. For Janus has all the characters of Noah...." Furthermore, as he expresses over the following pages, Newton understood Prytanaea to be hieroglyphs of the heliocentric universe. Thus there exists a concrete connection between these two conceptions in Newton's thought: the deity worshipped in corrupted Prytanaea, at least in Italy, was Noah, "The worshipping therefore of these fals Gods & Goddesses [[i.e., heavenly bodies]] in y e Prytanea was jf first & most generall corruption of y e primitive religion: buf y grossest corruption was by introducing y e worship of dead men & statues, & V original of this seems to be as follows." (Yahuda, MS. 41, p. 9r) Newton goes on to explain how Noah and his descendants came to be worshipped in corrupt Prytanaea and how their characteristics came to be identified with particular heavenly bodies. Noah, however, was not simply Noah — he represented the supreme God. One may reasonably assume, then, that when Noah himself and other men with uncorrupted religion worshipped in Prytanaea, their worship was of the true God. 

A third conception of ancient religion expressed by Newton is that of the worship of Noah and his progeny, both as such and in other forms. This is the theme of MS. Yahuda 16, the Theologiae Gentilis Origines Philosophicae , which is thoroughly explained in Westfall's article. The major aims of this treatise appear to be the proof that gentile theology was in fact designed to carry a body of philosophical (what we would call scientific) knowledge, and the taxonomical tracing of the spread of this philosophical religion in the worship of deified Noachides. The first chapter of the full proposed work set out to show: 

Newton, following Bochart, believes that each of the major gods derived from the Noachides went under a variety of names. He has thus, using imaginative if not very likely Hebrew derivations, explained an entire group of major Greek and Roman deities based on Noah's grandson Phut. 

Another major god, Osiris, is also the subject of a Hebrew etymology which seems to be original with Newton. "Osiridis igitur nomen Aegyptium erat tarn Sir vel Sior, pro quo Graeci (in hujus Dei sacris solemnibus, funebres Aegyptiorum planctus et frequentes Exclamationes *1^ O Sar! audiendo,) dixerunt Osiris." (MS. Yahuda 16, p. 3 Or) Similarly Nimrod, one of the principle figures in Newton's Noachide pantheon, has an interesting derivation: 

The role of Judaism in Newton's competing conceptions of early religion is very widespread. The Jewish conception of Noah and the Flood and the passage of true religion through the patriarchs and Moses, is taken over entirely by Newton, despite his biblical criticism. In each of his four separate depictions of the rise and corruption of early religion, Noah and his sons play a prominent role. Newton generally also accepts the passage of true religion through the patriarchs and Moses. In one conception, that of the Seven Noachide Laws, Newton is heavily indebted to the Hebraist John Selden. Newton's conception of the corruption of this early religion shares certain elements with that of Maimonides, but for the most part he is more interested in the ideas of the Hebraists Bochart and Vossius on the subject. Newton dabbles in Hebraism himself when dealing with the derivations of pagan gods from the Noachites, producing Hebrew etymologies which, if not convincing, show a willingness to attempt original interpretations. Having seen somewhat how Newton understands the role of Judaism in ancient pagan religion, the following step in his history of religious development is to examine his ideas of scriptural prophecy, which was granted to the Jews to restore the corrupted original religion and tell of the apocalyptic future. 

Newton was most interested in the Noahide command to set up Noahide courts!
It is interesting that while Newton has little more to say on the matter for the most part, as most of the seven Noachide laws are obvious and commonsensical, he spends a great deal of time in discussing the last of them, the imperative to create courts of judicature. While this matter is discussed in some detail in Chapter 6 below, it is worthwhile to point out the importance of this Noachide law for Newton. A court system is not a matter which the individual conscience would set as a goal for its own morality, but one which only a society or an entire church would be expected to fulfill. The matter of courts is also the most difficult to extract from the events following the Flood in the book of Genesis. Newton was apparently in agreement with the rabbis, who created the idea of the seven Noachide commandments, that the religion of nature calls not only for discipline of the individual but also for institutions which guard the body politic. This may be connected with his avoidance of deeply personal, mystical religion, in preference of membership in the church, even if it is a church which countenances heresy.
Newton believed Kabbalah came from the corrupted Naohide religions of Egypt and Babylon
The latter role of the Jews, as metaphysicist corrupters of right religion, is taken up in more detail in Chapter 7. Newton conceived of these Jewish corrupters as students of the Kabbalah, a spurious form of Judaism which developed out of contacts with Egyptians or Babylonians who practiced bastardized Noachism. The chief error of the kabbalists, like the kindred Gnostic heretics, was a belief that God emanated powers (Sephiroth or Aeons) from himself. Newton learned about Kabbalah from Christian Knorr von Rosenroth's Kabbala denudata , and he probably learned the contemporary criticisms of Kabbalah from Jacques Basnage's History of the Jews , in which considerable space is dedicated to this issue. It is suggested that since much of  Leibniz’s philosophical system was based on an emanational cosmogony, Newton undertook these studies at least partially to refute him. Recent claims that kabbalistic ideas were absorbed by Newton and used in his own thought, particularly on the issues of absolute time and space, are discussed. It is concluded that the similarities in ideas are more likely to be the result of reading in Neoplatonist authors, who are sometimes in agreement with kabbalism, than of absorption of ideas from the Kabbalah itself, even through the medium of Henry More.




Posted by at No comments:

Saturday, August 1, 2020

Newton believed Egyptian religion was based on Noahide Law?

See Table Of Contents
Join Facebook Group | Like Facebook Page
Subscribe To Youtube | Support Me On Patreon

SIGN THE PETITION 
http://chng.it/yXcvjMZk

I have already, unfortunately, wrote on this blog about how Newton believed in and supported the Noahide Law (here). Here is another tidbit, Newton believed that the Egyptians were the inheritors of a corrupt form of Noahidism... for some odd reason. However, this may not be so odd as Newton is believed by Freemasons to have been a Freemason and a founder of the Lodge of England in 1717... and Freemasons are Noahides (here). Equating Noahidism with Egyptology sounds like a Freemason's mind working...

Freemasons believe Isaac Newton was a Freemason

"Sir Isaac Newton was a true scientist of the enlightenment. His contributions to the study of mathematics, psychics, and optics were and are world renowned. He is believed to be a Freemason who helped found the Lodge of England in 1717, but as the society was cloaked in secrecy in his day, definitive proof is lacking. This remarkable man’s life changed the course of human endeavors, beginning with his humble birth in 1643."

- MASONIC BIOGRAPHIES, Isaac Newton. Universal Co-Masonry. Retrieved 08/01/2020 from: https://www.universalfreemasonry.org/en/famous-freemasons/isaac-newton

Isaac Newton believed Egypt was a corrupted form of Noahidism

"By emphasizing the connection with Egypt, which he believed was the inheritor of a corrupted form of the true Noachide religion, Newton also pushed the sense of the Sabians as an independent people to the margins of scholarly interests."

- Prof. Jonathan Elukin. "Maimonides and the Rise and Fall of the Sabians: Explaining Mosaic Laws and the Limits of Scholarship". Trinity College. Pg. 627. Retrieved 08/01/2020 from: https://digitalrepository.trincoll.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1022&context=facpub

Posted by at No comments:

Noahide infiltrates www.zoroastrian.org.uk and Harvard University Near East studies

SEE TABLE OF CONTENTS

SIGN THE PETITION 

I have written about the Noahide infiltration of the Zoroastrians on this blog before, about how the Noahide Freemasons granted Zoroastrians (Parsis) the official title of Noahide (here). I have also shown how the Rabbis totally rewrote the prohibition against first-degree incest for non-Jews (but not for Jews) so as to specifically accommodate the Zoroastrian tradition of father-daughter, mother-son, and brother-sister marriages (here), why were the Zoroastrians so special as to change the entire law? However it seems there are more modern and deeper connections being made. Please visit the site www.zoroastrian.org.uk and you will find the article I have posted below written by one of their members whom I am not sure what his or her name is. According to this Zoroastrian, he or she invited Profesor James Russell to be the guest speaker at the 1992 conference "Noahide legacy (the universalist side of the Jewish tradition)". According to his Wikipedia page "James Robert Russell (born October 1953) is a scholar and professor in Ancient Near Eastern, Iranian and Armenian Studies. He has published extensively in journals, and has written several books. He is the Mashtots Professor of Armenian Studies at Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations at Harvard University, and sits on the executive committee of Davis Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies." What does his specialty have anything to do with Noahide Law? What does www.zoroastrian.org.uk have to do with Noahide Law?

DIRECT QUOTE

In 1990 I got in touch with two outstanding western scholars: Mary Boyce, who kindly presented me with a copy of her Textual Sources for the Study of Zoroastrianism, and James Russell, who - invited by me in 1992 to be the guest speaker at a conference on the Noachide legacy (the universalist side of the Jewish tradition) - brought me his Zoroastrianism in Armenia and a number of intriguing papers on many topics connected with the Good Religion (from the symbolism of sun, cock and horse in ancient Iran, to the contemporary Parsi garbas and monajats)

FULL ARTICLE


On becoming a Zoroastrian in Italy[i]: a shining naojote on a rainy day

On the day Bahman, month Avan, 1373 A.Y.[ii], I received the naojote by a fully ordained Zoroastrian priest. This personal event took place in my hometown, Reggio Emilia, northern Italy. The venue for the holy ceremony was the “Patanjali Center”, a sort of Indian cultural outpost that looks out on a road where, in times gone by, an affluent of the great Po river used to flow.

Also appropriate for a month dedicated to the Waters was the weather, cloudy and moisty, but one could certainly feel the powerful touch of swift-horsed Khorshed yazad as the mobed poured rice and rose petals on me while reciting the Doa Tan Dorosti at the close of the exalted ritual.

I had been waiting a long time for that moment, though I had stated my decision of petitioning for naojote only one year before, in a letter to an Iranian-American acquaintance.

I never thought the investiture would suddenly or once for all transform my inward life. I didn’t have any miracolous expectations (after all, European Enlightenment, the philosophy of Reason, had played a major role in my spiritual growth). But I did think that it would “seal” the changes which had taken place in me during the previous thirty years. Plus, that it would add a strong push upwards. And all this has happened.

 I asked to be initiated because, after professing the tenets of the Good Religion for some seven years, I was sure that the ritual reception of mazdayasna would strengthen my will to carry on along this sublime path. Giving a clear form to my innermost yearnings seemed to me a bit like linking menog and getig, the two states of being which at the time of Frashkart, according to zoroastrian eschatology, will be perfectly balanced and fused.

I was living - or at least endeavouring to live - as an “unseen” Zoroastrian. I decided that I wanted to keep on living and eventually to die as a “visible” one. I’ll be forever grateful to the learned and sensitive mobed who gave me this chance.

When we got out of the “Patanjali Center”, the mobed rejoiced in the rain that had started falling softly but insistently. I asked him why: after all there were four of us with only one umbrella within reach, and we had to walk a long way. “Ask the trees”, he replied quietly. Summer had been exceedingly hot and dry, and the simple wise words whispered by the mobed unveiled to my eyes the twin jubilation of Khordad and Amardad.

A long path leading to Daena
My name is Michele Moramarco. I was born in 1953 and raised as a Catholic. From the age of seven, I started having some sort of spiritual experience, like being moved to tears of joy, in a dark church aisle, by the light of a white candle which spoke of God to my tender mind.

At the age of twelve I began to question many of the christian/catholic dogmas: among others, I couldn’t accept the idea of an exclusive “incarnation” of God in history and, even less, that of an “eternal damnation”. A close schoolmate of mine, a nice and amusing kid named Dennis, had died of leukemia and I was upset - even outraged - by the commonly held, yet blasphemous idea that God had willed and created death. I could conceive Deity only as the perpetual Source of Life and Light. 

In 1968, a year of social turmoil in the western world, I was a fifteen-year-old long-haired lad seeking for new meanings in life, so it was only natural for me to discard all religion and join the libertarian movements.

I was a high school student with a conspicuous interest in English, History, Philosophy and Music (in good music of all kinds I’ve always perceived the echoes of Garodman), but spent a lot of time as a political activist, and often went to Carrara, among marble-quarrymen, where the headquarters of the anarchist movement were located. Italian anarchism was mainly a humanistic movement; followers of Tolstoj and Gandhi also belonged to it, pursuing the utopian vision of a perfected mankind, able at last to govern itself peacefully without the need of any outward power. For a while I found an ideal haven in it; in the light of events, I can say it was a pre-religious experience.

At seventeen, I distinctly felt the call of the Spirit, and after the years of denial I turned to the religious dimension with a new awareness. As an “angry” young freethinker, I was interested, above all, in Eastern religions - the Beatles had just opened the doors of India to western teenagers - and in so called heretical groups, such as the Christian Cathars and the Manichaeans. It was at this point that I first ran across Zoroastrianism, which many scholars described as the remote background for all those who refused to bow to a tyrannical “God”. From the very start I felt at ease with the friendly, just, pure and healthy image of Ohrmazd. I could only worship a rayomand and khoremand God, who would have nothing to do with evil. The puzzling and discouraging problem of all the absurd ills which afflict nature and man, became the trembling focus of my reflections; the solutions offered by catholic theology and language seemed unsuitable. But I was obviously rooted in the christian tradition, and, being of a loyal disposition, I didn’t want to leave the fold. So I decided to explore those fringes of Christianity which could offer nobler, higher and more rational ideas of God and faith. I found something of this kind among Quakers, Unitarians, Universalists and Liberal Protestants. Ideas like the universality of revelation, the relevance of reason and conscience in religion, the presence of an “inner light” in all creatures, the prophethood of Jesus (instead of his being part of a baffling Trinity, devised and imposed by riotous church councils), the final salvation of all people, were current among them and appealed to me. At different times I was in communion with each of these minorities. In the late eighties and early nineties I was listed as the italian contact in the directory of the Unitarian Universalist Association of Boston, and on the “Inquirer”, a London unitarian periodical, a couple of articles appeared dealing with my religious activities. Now the UUA, I discovered quite soon, had become much too liberal: even atheism could be preached by their pulpits, and as far as lifestyles were concerned, absolute freedom was admitted. This really put me off and I quit belonging, though I kept holding the original anglo-american free religious tradition in high esteem, for its intellectual soundness, theological richness (the English review Faith and Freedom, for instance, makes fascinating reading) and ethical commitment to peace, right sharing of world resources, etc.: enough to make me decide that I still wanted to commune with them, albeit from a critical standpoint.

Meanwhile, I had continued to study Zoroastrianism with a sympathetic attitude, on the sources available in Italy at the time.

In 1975 I had been made a Mason. Italian Freemasonry used to have strong philosophical connections; its symbolism of building and its enlightened universalism appealed to me. In 1977 - the year I graduated in Philosophy with a final dissertation on the great hindu thinker Shri Aurobindo - I wrote my first book on the subject (in 1990 it was also translated in Russian and published by “Progress” publishers in Moscow). My best accomplishment in the field of masonic studies has been the authorship of the Nuova Enciclopedia Massonica (in three volumes, 1989-1995) favourably reviewed by the field magazines and the press at large. A few inadequate pages of that work deal with the symbolical and historical relationships between Zoroastrianism and Freemasonry (the historical ones having to do mainly with the masonic membership of many Parsi philanthropists and scholars of the past two centuries). I think the masonic ethos - which, for instance, emphasizes solar symbolism: Mozart wrote a wonderful lodge hymn devoted to the Sun as the “soul of the universe” - contributed to increase my interest for Zoroastrianism.

In 1984 I was invited by the noted orientalist, professor Alessandro Bausani (author of the unsurpassed synopsis Persia religiosa), to give some talks on comparative mysticism in one of his courses at “La Sapienza” State University in Rome: working with him for some months gave me the chance of getting better acquainted with ancient Persian culture and of learning more about the influence of Zoroastrianism on later Iranian mystical Islam (especially on Sohrawardi). At this stage of my search, I delved into the doctrines, practices and history of many religious groups: Ramana Maharshi’s Advaita, Baha’is, Sikhs, Radhasoami (an offspring of Sikhism), Ismailis, Mevleviyya Sufis, Lotus Sutra Buddhism, Japanese New Religions etc.: in order to make a thoughtful choice, one has to be well up in the matter concerned. In 1985, while teaching Italian and History in State schools, I engaged in the regular study of humanistic psychology and at the end of a four-year specialization course I qualified as a therapist. 

Between 1987 and 1992 I gathered valuable materials on the Good Religion. In September 1987, being in London, I bought Darmesteter’s translation of Avesta, Mary Boyce’s Zoroastrians. Their Religious Beliefs and Practices and Khojeste Mistree’s Zoroastrianism. An Ethnic Perspective”. Mistree’s book - which is actually much more than a Parsi-centered portrait of the Faith, because it expounds theological concepts which are mightily universal - was a great source of inspiration and knowledge for me, a truly faithful companion in my first wanderings across the spiritual landscapes of Zoroastrianism. For months it lay permanently on my bedside table for me to read it over and over again, and it is still a recurrently indispensable tool.

In 1990 I got in touch with two outstanding western scholars: Mary Boyce, who kindly presented me with a copy of her Textual Sources for the Study of Zoroastrianism, and James Russell, who - invited by me in 1992 to be the guest speaker at a conference on the Noachide legacy (the universalist side of the Jewish tradition) - brought me his Zoroastrianism in Armenia and a number of intriguing papers on many topics connected with the Good Religion (from the symbolism of sun, cock and horse in ancient Iran, to the contemporary Parsi garbas and monajats). Before a meal at my home, James lit a candle with my then six-year old son, Graziano, staring respectfully at him while he, at my request, recited the Jamvani Baj.

Three years after, quite unexpectedly, my wife decided to divorce (a fashionable trend among Italian women in the last decade): this caused my soul a piercing sorrow. The day I left home in sadness, the gathic verse “ushta ahmai ushta kahmai cit” came to my mind by grace of Ohrmazd, and I made a twofold vow: to keep making my son laugh each day, even more than before, and to devote part of my time and skills - as a psychology teacher and therapist - to the kids of divorced parents who would ask me for help.

I guess I can say I fulfilled the vow: my beloved son, who chose to live with me, has been growing happily and is now a smart seventeen, with manifold keen interests and a genuine sympathy for Zoroastrianism; more than fifty students suffering from parental strife have shown me their trust and affection by looking for me whenever they needed advice.

When Ahriman’s forces seemed to be tearing my life to pieces, my urvan stood firm, drawing strenght from the sound morals, lofty visions and powerful prayers of our noble Faith. I tried to follow the straight path and eventually won the battle against destruction. I found relief and guidance in Zoroastrianism; I owe it my spiritual enrichment even amidst those stormy months. More than ever, the idea of a falsely “omnipotent”, in fact a “mixed” God, author of both good and evil, didn’t speak to my condition, whereas I could wholeheartedly praise Ohrmazd, the true God who needs us and wants us as His hamkars.

As my research continued at an increased speed after 1994, the inward assurance that I could only worship a completely pure and righteous God led me to consider also other “religions of the Light”, such as Gnostic Christianity, Mandaeism, some schools of Mahayana Buddhism etc., but I realized that besides lacking the richness and integrity of Zoroastrianism, they all tend to overstate the negative aspects of the material creation and to undervalue the good ones. This attitude eventually leads to a gloomy unbalance. Now, as a father I had my share in giving birth to a human being in the material world and I don’t think anyone should ever disclaim the value of parenthood, which gives man the highest joys on earth and a sense of glory. So, even if at times a sort of “cosmic pessimism” rose within me - as happens to many sensitive people, I believe - I knew that only creative optimism, based on the law of Asha (which is the real source of ushta) could sustain and nourish the meaningfulness of parental duty, in fact of all duties. Once again, the long path led me to Zoroastrianism, which started meaning “religious wholeness” to me. When I used to worship according to other religious traditions, I always felt there was something missing. Being a believer in some sort of universal revelation, I could easily draw inspiration from them, but I gradually came to realize that the roots of that “religious wholeness”, devoid of ambiguities and twistings, I was looking for, were best preserved in the Good Religion. Since I had always thought it’s a moral duty for everyone to tread the spiritual path which best suits one’s conscience, entering the gates of Zoroastrianism became a viable necessity for me. And I knew too well that acting otherwise would make me drown in the marsh of hypocrisy, double standards, unworthy compromises.

Because of the long search which led me through many different spiritual landscapes, I know I will always uphold a universalist approach to religious matters, yet being convinced that the fundamentals of a reasonable, lofty, ethically grounded and amiable system of faith are to be found in Zoroastrianism. Other religions enclose seeds of truth, but also corrupt them with illogical and sometimes awful dogmas (the worst being that of an evil-doing “god”, however disguised); they can add supplementary ideas, “atmospheres”, i.e. aesthetical richness, to the spiritual life of man, but can never match with the primary revelation - and with the consequent theological patterns and behavioural codes - provided by the Good Religion.

This is why I became a Zoroastrian. And this is why - at least, I think so - I feel at home in this tradition, despite the fact that I’m a scattered behdin. 

Conversion: turning towards the Light
We have now come to the hot point of “conversion”. I have a heartfelt admiration for the Parsis, who valiantly protected the Faith from destruction and assimilation and passed it on across the centuries. I’m sincerely eager to learn from them. I also think that talking of a zoroastrian survival without - or, even worse, despite - the Parsis, like somebody seems to be doing, is plain nonsense. At the same time, I can hardly understand why some Parsis - even among the most brilliant and authoritative in the knowledge of religion - can get so bitter on this issue. Most likely it’s because they fear that conversion from other faiths would dilute the principles and practices of the Good Religion, or that, once approved, it could affect their own community, some sections of which may be more easily allured by widespread or “fashionable” religions. I’m sure they also thwart conversion because they know how debasing it can be, for some people, to leave the inherited religion behind.

But, reasonable as these motivations can be, they all seem partial to me, and founded more on a defensive attitude than on a constructive thought-process. A defensive attitude among Zoroastrians is historically justified, but probably not consistent with the effusive attributes (spenta, rayomand, khoremand) which we ascribe to God and to our resplendent Daena. In the long run, it always brings about the worst kind of defeat: implosion. All closed communities are bound to implode.

The anti-conversion Parsis are right when they say that conversion is somehow “useless” because the Good Religion contemplates salvation for all righteous people, no matter what confession they follow; but they seem to be inconsistent with their own theological assumptions (centered in that precious “dualism” which asserts that God is only latently omnipotent or, if you prefer, that He is all-powerful only on the plan of Good) when they claim that changing one’s religious affiliation goes against God’s will, since He Himself decided that one should be born in a certain religion. On a parallel line of thought, one could end up arguing it’s God’s will that one should be born with a genetic disease or the like. Now, can anybody seriously and earnestly declare this, or that God wills anybody to live his life, say, in a stupid or bloody “religious” environment?

In this case, farewell Zoroastrianism! one would be tempted to say, because such an outlook, with its simplistic “providentialism”, sounds more jewish, christian or muslim than zoroastrian. And after all, no human being is entitled to compel anybody else’s conscience to stick to doctrines or practices that it finds no longer adequate or acceptable. And if it’s legitimate to maintain that one can be a Parsi only by “birthright”, it’s likewise sensible to declare that becoming a disciple of Zarathushtra is a God-given right.

I see my personal zoroastrian choice not as a denial, but rather as a refinement and an enlargement of my previous religious experiences, along moral and intellectual lines which I felt were traced by a higher hand. After all, the very word “conversion”, which comes from Latin, doesn’t mean relinquishing one’s path completely, but rather making it turn towards a certain direction, for the sake of one’s own spiritual safety. The seeking soul, like a sunflower, naturally turns to that point whence the Light comes to it.

I’ve never felt like a renegade, but like a fragile yet determined person in search of Light and evolving under God’s promptings. I still prize and love many teachings of Jesus (who, I believe, was a seeker of Asha within the jewish frame and, like the Essenes, by some hidden influence made many jewish concepts shift towards zoroastrian ones). I dare say that studying and practicing Zoroastrianism have provided me with a better understanding of his message.

Ideas of a Universalist Zoroastrian
Although I’m only a recently initiated behdin, a newcomer with so much to learn and not even welcomed by some in the fold, I have personal views on Zoroastrianism, which I would style as neither orthodox nor liberal, but rather as “composite”. Like the veritable traditionalists, I subscribe to a “dualistic” interpretation of Zarathushtra’s teachings and would steadily join in the doctrinal battle that Khojeste Mistree is bravely fighting to guard this invaluable treasure of the Faith against all shallow or “academical” attacks; like the reformists, I support sincere conversion (and deem Kersey Antia’s The Argument for Acceptance a milestone in this direction). Like the traditionalists, I reckon the wondrous power of sacred mathras and rituals as vehicles of divine energies which nourish the “subtle body” of the sincere faithful; like the true reformists (not those who want to get rid of all post-gathic traditions), I am suspicious of excessive ritualism, which ceases to be a resource and becomes a burden to the soul. Like the traditionalists, I consider the dakhmenashini system as the one which best befits our Daena (incidentally: some years ago, the chairman of the italian branch of WWF said it was a pity there were no Zoroastrians in our country, for the use of dakhmas would repopulate our mountains with vultures and other rapacious birds which are on the verge of extinction); like the reformists, I don’t think this or other traditional practices represent the core of the Faith and can’t at any rate be dispensed with.

Well, mine must seem a strange position to many. I grew up in the so called swinging Sixties as a young radical, yet I have long turned “backwards” in terms of values; I’m a staunch supporter of conjugal loyalty and decency in customs; I don’t think any kind of promiscuity is spiritually sound in a zoroastrian perspective; I believe in a rightfully hierarchical social order and dislike all sorts of fatuous rebelliousness. I would expect Zoroastrians to be in the forefront of the impending battle against vicious customs which entail the supremacy of bodily seductiveness, “exclusive” status (as opposed to the general prosperity of the righteous championed by the Good Religion), motor-worship and so on, but this doesn’t seem to be the case: though these devilish delusions are rottening the very fabric of humanity and environment, it seems to me there’s too much of an adjustment to them even among Zoroastrians.

On the other hand, I’m definitely “progressive” in terms of economic patterns: I made researches on many past experiences of industrial self-government, on the Cooperative Movement in Europe, on Vinoba Bhave’s gramdan in India, etc., and I’m an admirer of the ancient Mazdaki Zarthoshti reform movement, on which I’m trying to collect all the existing materials. Furthermore, I wouldn’t certainly depict myself as an austere formalist: I believe that laughter is one of Ohrmazd’s greatest endowments to mankind, and I’ve even written a book, which was reviewed thrice on the National TV channels, about a cabaret group (“I Gufi”, in English: “The Owls”) who used to make fun of all kind of bigoted habits. One of the keys to the zoroastrian spirit, I think, is the interweaving of seriousness and mirth.

In other words, as a Zoroastrian I believe that our religion wheels around cosmic justice as the source of all happiness. I’m talking of that justice always longed for by earnest men, that justice which is true, good and beautiful (descending from Asha, which personifies the pattern designed by Ohrmazd for Creation, partially and temporarily subverted by Ahriman: Asha does not coincide with the destructive “natural law”); that justice which is the essential goal of the Good Religion. The Soul of the Cow and Asho Zarathushtra pleading for it and knitting it with Truth and immortal Bliss; the will to safeguard and increase the Good Creation: these, we all know, are the divine roots of the Message.

To be frank, I think traditionalists should be more worried about the mundane, “easygoing” wave that is sweeping their own ranks than about intermarriage or conversion, which can be highly spiritual choices; and as regards extreme reformists, I’m afraid they’re just heading somewhere else, outside the zoroastrian lineage, by pursuing a rather unnerved version of the Faith which can’t be easily identified as a sequence to Asho Zarathushtra’s preaching. I sense that this attitude is an outcome of a mistake made by quite a few Zoroastrians in the last two centuries, namely that of falling into the “monotheistic obsession”. In european religious circles, the “abrahamic religions” are often branded as superior to the others because of their absolute “monotheism” postulating a jealous God who will never share his glory with other entities or beings. I’m convinced – and I think history shows - that this type of theology is likely to generate arrogance and conflict. Zoroastrians should vindicate, I think, that the majestic and pluralistic metaphysical scenery offered by Amesha Spentas, Yazads and Fravahrs is an inspired syntesis of what is best in both monotheism and so called polytheism.

I positively stand for a form of integral and universalist Zoroastrianism. Universalism applied to Zoroastrianism doesn’t mean diluting its message, but rather affirming that it constitutes the root of any good concepts or practices developed in other religious contexts. Universalism is but an implementation of Farvardin Yasht : the righteous of every place and time are entitled to our veneration, and this also consists in studying their best thoughts, words, deeds, and in incorporating them in our heritage, or at least in counting them among our sources of inspiration. This, I think, is a bounden duty for every thoughtful Zoroastrian. In the past I’ve had contacts with a branch of the Brahmo Samaj, the hindu universalist movement founded in 1828 by Raja Rammohun Roy. I envision the day when an “Ohrmazd Samaj” will work the rallying around noble Daena of its dispersed particles which can be retraced in every reliable spiritual effort of man. This will mark the completion of the mazdayasni edifice. Universalism will not destroy the Faith, but rather exalt it and prove that it is excellent for “all the worlds”. Its revival will be made possible by the joint workings of a strict adherence to arcane fundamentals and of a universalist vision.

Practices and action
As regards my religious practices, apart from the kushti prayers I read portions of the Gathas daily and listen to them and to various nyayeshes and yashts through audiocassettes. Also some of the Pahlavi texts are bounteous purveyors of high vision to me.

Often, at dawn, I merge spontaneously with the spirit of praise and recite some verses from Hoshbam. During the day, which is devoted to my son, my work, my studies, music and some fun, I often pray from the Khordeh Avesta, especially Doa Nam Stayishn, Doa Tan Dorosti, Din-no Kalmo, Mazdayasno Ahmi (I often read the Naismi Daevo, the longer profession of Faith from Yasna 12) and Kerfeh Mozd, praises and invocations which I find most strengthening. Every meal of mine is heralded by the Jamvani Baj  The Ashem vohu comes up intermittingly to my lips nearly all the time. By grace of Ohrmazd, I’m constantly drawn to the lofty words of the Good Religion; in a sort of perpetual prayer, my mind is catched up by the celestial sounds and images of Daena even while I’m performing life’s ordinary tasks. I just hope I will never set my home afire through absent-mindedness!

Let’s now turn to action. Since there are other people interested in Zoroastrianism, I know that sooner or later a small italian Dar-e-Meher will be established, but this isn’t obviously my main task at the moment. What I’m doing these days is trying to widen my “experiential” knowledge of the Faith and to bridge the geographical gap between myself and the zoroastrian world. I answered WZO’s Bam Appeal as my means allowed, and I’m willing to establish links with the Zoroastrians of Iran. I’d be glad to give assistance to all Zoroastrians coming to Italy for whatever purpose. In my school a girl asked me to help her plan a paper on “Poverty in India” for her final exams. I told her about a giant industrial group which has done and is still doing a lot against poverty in India, and directed her to the Tata website: she decided to devote some paragraphs of her paper to the scientific and humanitarian activities sponsored by the group (I’m glad to see that the expansion of Tata has reached this country; how exciting it would be to set up a small branch of TISS in Italy!)

One more field of perspective action for me is the editing of zoroastrian texts in italian. Two great occasions of making the Avestan scriptures correctly known in Italy have been sadly missed in the last decade. In 1996 a major publisher released an italian translations of the Gathas, but apparently the translator - who drew freely and abundantly from the existing english translations - enjoyed twisting the language. Since Avestan is still partly cryptic, he must have thought, let’smake it even more so. A brilliant idea indeed! As a result, his rendering of the Prophet’s chants makes troubled reading and the whole book - which comprises a disputable introductory essay on Zoroastrianism - gives the reader a scanty if not distorted idea of the Faith. Even sadder one could label the recent issuing, by another prestigious publishing house, of the whole Avesta in Italian. In this case also, the editor brought out a partially avowed second-hand version, translating from translations. This is quite acceptable, considering the lack of Avestan scholarship in Italy; what is not acceptable is the multitude of conceptual and linguistic inaccuracies - plus quite a few misprints - that spoil the finely hardbound volume. I’ll write about this for Parsiana in a specific review. I’m not an Avesta scholar, but I plan on working at a readable italian edition of the Gathas and the Khordeh Avesta (original text with translation opposite), based on the most authoritative english versions and, hopefully, with the assistance of ZS. To this end, I intend to set up a “Centro di Studi Zoroastriani”, which should work under the aegis of ZS and interact with the departments of Iranian Studies attached to italian universities.

Religiously speaking, the italian situation doesn’t look particularly favourable to the spread of zoroastrian ideas. Owing to the present government’s cultural policy, Catholicism is regaining more and more ground in the media. “Miracles” by “saints”, often conjured by disturbed people in culturally deprived areas, are presented as factual truth on TV. Superstition overflows. The other side of the coin is a devastating secularization, which makes up actual reality beyond lip-service to God. Islamic membership is growing fast by reason of the constant immigration waves. Some Italians are converting to Islam, some to Buddhism (which is trendy among managers, artists, etc.); many more prefer to join groups like Jehova’s Witnesses or Pentecostals, both biblical literalists.

There have been Zoroastrians from abroad (Iran, for example) who temporarily settled in Italy to study or work, and a famous Parsi, the great orchestra director whom co-religionists proudly call apro Zubin, is often around here, but - as far as I know - there has never been a steady organized presence nor did any Italians ever joined the ranks of the Good Religion. During the final centuries of the Roman Empire, Mithraism spread in many parts of the country, but - despite the reference to Mithra and some shared values - it differed a lot from Zoroastrianism, and soon vanished in the haze of history. This means that Italian mazdayasnis will lack the support of an indigenous tradition, yet I’m sure that the freshly ignited white light of our Daena, though placed in a tiny vessel and covered by many clouds, will shine on.

[i] This paper is based on 3 part articles that appeared in the Parsiana journal, Mumbai, India in year 2004, and was posted on vohuman.org on February 22, 2005 courtesy of the author with concurrence of the editor of Parsiana.

[ii] November 19, 2003 C.E.

Posted by at No comments:

Noahide Law allows non-Jews (but not Jews) to commit first-degree incest

SEE TABLE OF CONTENTS

Dr. Benny Porat is the Director of the Israel Matz Institute for Jewish Law, you can read is resume (here). It is true that the Zoroastrian religion sanctions and even lauds first-degree incestuous relationships, meaning father-daughter, mother-son, brother-sister. The Noahide Law against "sexual immorality" would normally come with a prohibition against incest, but according to Dr. Porat, due to their desire to accommodate the Zoroastrians, the Talmud allows first-degree incest for non-Jews. Why is it good for non-Jews but not for Jews? Dr. Porat has written an entire dissertation on the subject but below is the relevant section of the introduction where he explains his findings. I could not get the rest of the dissertation as it is only available on Google Books and the entire manuscript is not available, the link to the Google Book is below. 


https://books.google.com/books?id=9pc0CwAAQBAJ&pg=PA61#v=onepage&q&f=false

Kiel, Yishai (2015). "Noahide Law and the Inclusiveness of Sexual Ethics: Between Roman Palestine and Sasanian Babylonia". In Porat, Benjamin (ed.). Jewish Law Annual. 21. Abingdon, Oxfordshire: Routledge. pp. 61–63. ISBN 978-0-415-74269-6.

Alongside this legal-theoretical interpretation of the differences between the two Rabbinic centers in terms of natural and positive law, the study puts forward a contextual-cultural reading of the data. This reading situates the Palestinian Rabbinic approach in the context of Greco-Roman and Christian rhetoric, and the Babylonian Rabbinic approach in the context of the ambient Iranian culture. In particular, it focuses on the significance of Pahlavi (Middle Persian) literature for a more nuanced and contextual understanding of Babylonian Rabbinic discourse, by examining the Babylonian Talmud's treatment of the sexual prohibitions in light of the well-attested Zoroastrian doctrine of Xwedoda.3 Although the original Avestan meaning of this term is somewhat unclear,4 in the Pahlavi sources xwedodah is said to refer to endogamous marital unions, especially between father and daughter, mother and son, and brother and sister, and is considered one of the most pious and laudable deeds in the Zoroastrian tradition.5 

Adducing the Greco-Roman and Christian writings on incest, which generally promote universal standards of sexual conduct and explicitly condemn Iranian deviation from these norms, as we will see below, sheds light on the Palestinian Rabbinic advocacy of inclusive standards of sexual ethics. On the other hand, we can shed light on the Babylonian Talmud's espousal of exclusive, particularistic sexual norms, and relatively tolerant approach to non-Jewish incest, by adducing the Zoroastrian practice of xwedodah and the related doctrine of moral relativism expressed in the Pahlavi literature. I will argue that the Babylonian Rabbinic discussion of Noahide sexual prohibitions invokes certain legal and theological considerations found in the Pahlavi discourse. 

While it is likely that the Babylonian Rabbis witnessed the practice of next-of-kin marriages, and that this in turn influenced their approach to doctrinal issues pertaining to incestuous unions, the Babylonian Talmud does not simply respond to the practice of next-of-kin marriages during the Sasanian period.' I contend, rather, that the Babylonian Talmud actually engages with important strands of contemporary Zoroastrian discourse on xwedodah, discourse preserved in the Pahlavi corpus. 

To be sure, the Babylonian Rabbis had no wish, nor were they in a position, to challenge the sexual restrictions listed in Leviticus 18 and 20 (which strictly forbid intercourse between first-degree relatives) insofar as Jewish norms were concerned.8 The prohibitions against incest and certain other sexual unions were widely accepted by the post-biblical traditions, Rabbinic and non-Rabbinic alike, and could hardly have been challenged by the Babylonian Rabbis. Nevertheless, I will demonstrate that alongside the prohibitions that are applied to Jews, the Babylonian Talmud voices novel, often subversive stances on incestuous relations among non-Jews, tolerating such relations to varying degrees. Unlike other non-Zoroastrian discussions of incest, which, for the most part, are polemical and critical, the Babylonian Talmud's approach to next-of-kin partnerships is nuanced and complex. Although occasionally polemical,' the discussion in the Babylonian Talmud is far less critical of the practice of Incestuous unions among non-Jews, and even seems to engage with certain key rhetorical and doctrinal arguments made in the Pahlavi writings. 





Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)