Post by Immanuel on Aug 13, 2017 21:43:38 GMT
Hello,
Not being sure where to put this thread I chose to put it in 'The Random Rant' section and partially we may consider the thread a little bit of mere speculation. However, I am silently finding it probable that the argument put forth here to have a true basis.
While contemplating upon the Persian weekdays I realized there may be something which connects Persian etymology and historical legacy to my previous research where I put forth a hypothesis that the Persians are the same as the Pharisees in the Biblical Gospels and by that they were 'Jews' once upon a time, but religious zealotry and the medieval "Islamic winter" changed certain terminology. However, beneath that Islamic nonsense the Persians retained ancient words connected to their previous adherence. Reflect upon this:
Persian weekdays in modern time
Shanbe - Saturday
Yek-Shanbe - Sunday
Do-Shanbe - Monday
Tse-Shanbe - Tuesday
Chahar-Shanbe - Wednesday
Panj-Shanbe - Thursday
Jum'eh (may also be archaically be called A'dineh) - Friday
Yek, Do, Tse, Chahar, Panj are the numerals 1 to 5 in text form, i.e. like One-Shanbe, Two-Shanbe, Three-Shanbe etc.
Above is how the Persian week looks like in modern time, post-Islam. But this is how the week may have looked like in the past:
Yek-Shanbe
Do-Shanbe
Tse-Shanbe
Chahar-Shanbe
Panj-Shanbe
A'dineh
Shanbe
Obviously, one can see that it is being counted days past Shanbe, like five-shanbe. The sixth day is called A'dineh instead of Shish-Shanbe (shish = six). Shanbe (on Saturday) coincides with the Jews' holy day of the week which is called Shabat(eh) and as you can see both Shabeh and Shanbeh seem very alike linguistically except there is the letter Nun (N-sound) in Shanbe. Coincidentally, Shebae شبع or Shiin-Ba-Ayn is the root for a word to say "seven" but which word may also mean "several". The English word seven is also most likely derived from Sabat which may allegedly in Hebrew be pronounced Sevat. Interestingly, "seve'ral" (several) starts with the same style of letters and one could anticipate "ral" is part of a grammatical formula.
"Sabbat" allegedly means "to rest, cease from work", but this is not consistent in my opinion. By digging deeper into various etymological sources we can bring forth these alternatives:
Siin-Be-Te: to take rest, cease from work, repose, keep the Sabbath, be confused/perplexed/confounded, cut, stop, sleep, unfold, Sabbath-day, week, addicted to sleep, rest/lethargic/motionless
Siin-Be-Be: to find the means of, occasion a thing, seek a living, be the cuase of, use a thing as means for, rope, cause, occasion, way, means, road, account, love, relationship/connection/die
My logic says Sabbateh refers to contemplation, like a day in which you obviously cease all work in order to spend it contemplating on who you are instead of mindlessly laboring for worldly gains. Sectarian clergymen later made it into something else and invented something about it which is not true per definition, i.e. that the word means "to rest".
The week above in Persian tradition is just a count of days so that you recall which day is the Sabbath, or Shanbe. It is like reminding yourself that it has been one, two, three, four or five days after the last Sabbateh. Apparently, after the fifth Shanbe-day, the day is called A'dineh. Most likely this is Alif + Deen + Heh or ادينه for which the Alef is just a prefix loosely meaning "is". Let us look for the etymology concerning "A'dineh":
Dal-Ya-Nun = obedience/submissiveness, servility, religion, high/elevated/noble/glorious rank/condition/state, took/receive a loan or borrowed upon credit, become indebted, in debt, under the obligation of a debt, contract a debt, repay/reimburse a loan, rule/govern/manage it, possess/own it, become habituated/accustomed to something, confirmation, death (because it is a debt everyone must pay), a particular law/statute, system, custom/habit/business, a way/course/manner of conduct/acting, repayment/compensation. - Observe that none of the definitions make any sense
Dal-Nun-Waw (Dal-Nun-Alif) = To be near, come near or low, let down, be akin to.
So, the emergent logic would suddenly make A'denah make better sense. It would appear the word means "is near it", like saying "the day before". Are we playing with linguistics? We are possibly not. "Is + come near + it" could possibly be the meaning of the middle-day between the counts post-Shanbe towards the subsequent Shanbe.
Note that in Hebrew the sixth day is just called the sixth day (yom shishi), but we cannot be too certain about that origin of tradition. However, the language is likewise counting upwards from the day of the Sabbateh towards the next as if to recall how many days it has been since Sabbateh rather than how many days it is until the next one. Now it appears that the effect of that particular Sabbateh day is gradually fading and requires to be renewed again soon, so we could find it plausible that a Sabbateh could be held at any time from the previous Sabbateh day and that the count is only a reminder of how many days it has been since a person last observed it. It is worth paying attention to that the word for seven in Semitic tradition also means several, so every several days a Sabbateh should be held rather than strictly seven days as in the sects of clergymen.
If a person does not frequently contemplate upon their own existence it is also easy to lose their mind to the world, so letting it go too many days between the sessions of contemplation is unwise. Reminding oneself by counting days after Sabbateh is therefore useful and keeping a maximum of seven days between each session is making remembering easier. It is probably the typical clergymen who made Sabbateh to a very Paganistic ritual with exact rites and performances occurring at the exact timing.
It is just Persian-based languages which refer to the week like this. In Arabic and Hebrew/Jewish tradition the days are just called Yum + a number, e.g. Yum Al-Ahad in Arabic, like saying "Day 1, Day 2, Day 3 etc." It was due to the peculiar style of the Persian week I brought this up. The reason for this is because I suspect the ancient Persians were Jews and upheld Jewish traditions and the reference to Pharisees in the New Testament of the Bible is in fact the Persians. In Semitic scripts there is no 'peh' پ sound and the 'peh' is substituted for a 'fe' ف in those languages and that is just what is in the word for Pharisees. The final 'S' may be a Greek/Latin grammatical ending much like many other typical Biblical names such as Jesus and Moses, so Pharisees may be Pars/Fars which is an ancient "base of operations" for the old Persian empire. In the New Testament it also appears the Pharisees are referred to as a nationality more than simply a sect, even if they obviously believed a certain way. In the New Testament, the Pharisees exercise immense power over common people and they have a religious authority, much like the ancient Fars people with the temple at "Persepolis" (City of the Pars). The events of Jesus may have occurred in Jerusalem/Palestine, but Herod was probably travelling from far east and is likely a Persian king acting as a satrap ruler under Rome, possibly from Shush or similar Persian stronghold during that time period. In the Persian lineage of kings there were kings by the name or title "Orod" around the time Jesus is claimed to have lived. Conspicuously, Orod is very close to Herod linguistically. This occurs between the years of the Parthian or Arsacid dynasty (247 BC – AD 228), which is shortly after the conquest of Alexander the Great. Logically, Persia is under Greek/Roman occupation for some period after that date. It is clear from the Biblical narratives that Orodes/Herodes was far away and had to be sent for. People of Jerusalem did not know who to be most afraid of, Rome or Persia (the Pharisees), and Jesus did not make it any easier for them coming right in the middle of a conflict, stirring the pot.
Furthermore, Rome would have sent a Roman ruler to rule over a region which was totally secured. But for Persia this was likely not possible and instead they choose a Persian satrap, i.e. Herod/Orod (Orodes) who had to keep a balance between the wish of his people and the Roman interests during the years of occupation until Persia finally broke loose again, probably not happening until the Sasanian dynasty (224–651). So it is more likely that Pontius Pilates is the occupational governor of Jerusalem, but the Persian Orodes/Herodes is the king under the occupation of the ancient Persian empire and due to fragile control over the Middle-East, Rome let Herodes have limited control over Jerusalem still. Alexander the Great may have defeated Persia, but they did not manage to hold a stable grasp of the region for particularly long. We should also remember that the Persians were Jews who would not let themselves be controlled except by a Jew jurisdiction making it complicated for Rome. Eventually, the Persians grew fed up with the Roman occupation and rallied together and drew off Rome and then the Sassanian dynasty era began. Even if Rome may have conquered Persia and the Middle-East including the Levant (Syria, Palestine, Lebanon, Israel, Jordan), it remained unruly and complicated to govern and Rome really never gained total control over Persia's main domains (today's Iran).
Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_monarchs_of_Persia
And, in the Biblical narratives there allegedly came "Magi" from far east. In Zoroastrianism, clergymen of that religion are referred to as Magi, they are followers of Zoroastrianism. It also suggests that it was people "further east" who believed in Zoroastrianism and Herod/Orodes people the Pharisees/Persians likely had another faith or else it would not refer to the men coming as "magi". Zoroastrianism was therefore a sect of its own and not the "national religion" of the Persians.
Be well
Qarael Amenuel
Not being sure where to put this thread I chose to put it in 'The Random Rant' section and partially we may consider the thread a little bit of mere speculation. However, I am silently finding it probable that the argument put forth here to have a true basis.
While contemplating upon the Persian weekdays I realized there may be something which connects Persian etymology and historical legacy to my previous research where I put forth a hypothesis that the Persians are the same as the Pharisees in the Biblical Gospels and by that they were 'Jews' once upon a time, but religious zealotry and the medieval "Islamic winter" changed certain terminology. However, beneath that Islamic nonsense the Persians retained ancient words connected to their previous adherence. Reflect upon this:
Persian weekdays in modern time
Shanbe - Saturday
Yek-Shanbe - Sunday
Do-Shanbe - Monday
Tse-Shanbe - Tuesday
Chahar-Shanbe - Wednesday
Panj-Shanbe - Thursday
Jum'eh (may also be archaically be called A'dineh) - Friday
Yek, Do, Tse, Chahar, Panj are the numerals 1 to 5 in text form, i.e. like One-Shanbe, Two-Shanbe, Three-Shanbe etc.
Above is how the Persian week looks like in modern time, post-Islam. But this is how the week may have looked like in the past:
Yek-Shanbe
Do-Shanbe
Tse-Shanbe
Chahar-Shanbe
Panj-Shanbe
A'dineh
Shanbe
Obviously, one can see that it is being counted days past Shanbe, like five-shanbe. The sixth day is called A'dineh instead of Shish-Shanbe (shish = six). Shanbe (on Saturday) coincides with the Jews' holy day of the week which is called Shabat(eh) and as you can see both Shabeh and Shanbeh seem very alike linguistically except there is the letter Nun (N-sound) in Shanbe. Coincidentally, Shebae شبع or Shiin-Ba-Ayn is the root for a word to say "seven" but which word may also mean "several". The English word seven is also most likely derived from Sabat which may allegedly in Hebrew be pronounced Sevat. Interestingly, "seve'ral" (several) starts with the same style of letters and one could anticipate "ral" is part of a grammatical formula.
"Sabbat" allegedly means "to rest, cease from work", but this is not consistent in my opinion. By digging deeper into various etymological sources we can bring forth these alternatives:
Siin-Be-Te: to take rest, cease from work, repose, keep the Sabbath, be confused/perplexed/confounded, cut, stop, sleep, unfold, Sabbath-day, week, addicted to sleep, rest/lethargic/motionless
Siin-Be-Be: to find the means of, occasion a thing, seek a living, be the cuase of, use a thing as means for, rope, cause, occasion, way, means, road, account, love, relationship/connection/die
My logic says Sabbateh refers to contemplation, like a day in which you obviously cease all work in order to spend it contemplating on who you are instead of mindlessly laboring for worldly gains. Sectarian clergymen later made it into something else and invented something about it which is not true per definition, i.e. that the word means "to rest".
The week above in Persian tradition is just a count of days so that you recall which day is the Sabbath, or Shanbe. It is like reminding yourself that it has been one, two, three, four or five days after the last Sabbateh. Apparently, after the fifth Shanbe-day, the day is called A'dineh. Most likely this is Alif + Deen + Heh or ادينه for which the Alef is just a prefix loosely meaning "is". Let us look for the etymology concerning "A'dineh":
Dal-Ya-Nun = obedience/submissiveness, servility, religion, high/elevated/noble/glorious rank/condition/state, took/receive a loan or borrowed upon credit, become indebted, in debt, under the obligation of a debt, contract a debt, repay/reimburse a loan, rule/govern/manage it, possess/own it, become habituated/accustomed to something, confirmation, death (because it is a debt everyone must pay), a particular law/statute, system, custom/habit/business, a way/course/manner of conduct/acting, repayment/compensation. - Observe that none of the definitions make any sense
Dal-Nun-Waw (Dal-Nun-Alif) = To be near, come near or low, let down, be akin to.
So, the emergent logic would suddenly make A'denah make better sense. It would appear the word means "is near it", like saying "the day before". Are we playing with linguistics? We are possibly not. "Is + come near + it" could possibly be the meaning of the middle-day between the counts post-Shanbe towards the subsequent Shanbe.
Note that in Hebrew the sixth day is just called the sixth day (yom shishi), but we cannot be too certain about that origin of tradition. However, the language is likewise counting upwards from the day of the Sabbateh towards the next as if to recall how many days it has been since Sabbateh rather than how many days it is until the next one. Now it appears that the effect of that particular Sabbateh day is gradually fading and requires to be renewed again soon, so we could find it plausible that a Sabbateh could be held at any time from the previous Sabbateh day and that the count is only a reminder of how many days it has been since a person last observed it. It is worth paying attention to that the word for seven in Semitic tradition also means several, so every several days a Sabbateh should be held rather than strictly seven days as in the sects of clergymen.
If a person does not frequently contemplate upon their own existence it is also easy to lose their mind to the world, so letting it go too many days between the sessions of contemplation is unwise. Reminding oneself by counting days after Sabbateh is therefore useful and keeping a maximum of seven days between each session is making remembering easier. It is probably the typical clergymen who made Sabbateh to a very Paganistic ritual with exact rites and performances occurring at the exact timing.
It is just Persian-based languages which refer to the week like this. In Arabic and Hebrew/Jewish tradition the days are just called Yum + a number, e.g. Yum Al-Ahad in Arabic, like saying "Day 1, Day 2, Day 3 etc." It was due to the peculiar style of the Persian week I brought this up. The reason for this is because I suspect the ancient Persians were Jews and upheld Jewish traditions and the reference to Pharisees in the New Testament of the Bible is in fact the Persians. In Semitic scripts there is no 'peh' پ sound and the 'peh' is substituted for a 'fe' ف in those languages and that is just what is in the word for Pharisees. The final 'S' may be a Greek/Latin grammatical ending much like many other typical Biblical names such as Jesus and Moses, so Pharisees may be Pars/Fars which is an ancient "base of operations" for the old Persian empire. In the New Testament it also appears the Pharisees are referred to as a nationality more than simply a sect, even if they obviously believed a certain way. In the New Testament, the Pharisees exercise immense power over common people and they have a religious authority, much like the ancient Fars people with the temple at "Persepolis" (City of the Pars). The events of Jesus may have occurred in Jerusalem/Palestine, but Herod was probably travelling from far east and is likely a Persian king acting as a satrap ruler under Rome, possibly from Shush or similar Persian stronghold during that time period. In the Persian lineage of kings there were kings by the name or title "Orod" around the time Jesus is claimed to have lived. Conspicuously, Orod is very close to Herod linguistically. This occurs between the years of the Parthian or Arsacid dynasty (247 BC – AD 228), which is shortly after the conquest of Alexander the Great. Logically, Persia is under Greek/Roman occupation for some period after that date. It is clear from the Biblical narratives that Orodes/Herodes was far away and had to be sent for. People of Jerusalem did not know who to be most afraid of, Rome or Persia (the Pharisees), and Jesus did not make it any easier for them coming right in the middle of a conflict, stirring the pot.
Furthermore, Rome would have sent a Roman ruler to rule over a region which was totally secured. But for Persia this was likely not possible and instead they choose a Persian satrap, i.e. Herod/Orod (Orodes) who had to keep a balance between the wish of his people and the Roman interests during the years of occupation until Persia finally broke loose again, probably not happening until the Sasanian dynasty (224–651). So it is more likely that Pontius Pilates is the occupational governor of Jerusalem, but the Persian Orodes/Herodes is the king under the occupation of the ancient Persian empire and due to fragile control over the Middle-East, Rome let Herodes have limited control over Jerusalem still. Alexander the Great may have defeated Persia, but they did not manage to hold a stable grasp of the region for particularly long. We should also remember that the Persians were Jews who would not let themselves be controlled except by a Jew jurisdiction making it complicated for Rome. Eventually, the Persians grew fed up with the Roman occupation and rallied together and drew off Rome and then the Sassanian dynasty era began. Even if Rome may have conquered Persia and the Middle-East including the Levant (Syria, Palestine, Lebanon, Israel, Jordan), it remained unruly and complicated to govern and Rome really never gained total control over Persia's main domains (today's Iran).
Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_monarchs_of_Persia
And, in the Biblical narratives there allegedly came "Magi" from far east. In Zoroastrianism, clergymen of that religion are referred to as Magi, they are followers of Zoroastrianism. It also suggests that it was people "further east" who believed in Zoroastrianism and Herod/Orodes people the Pharisees/Persians likely had another faith or else it would not refer to the men coming as "magi". Zoroastrianism was therefore a sect of its own and not the "national religion" of the Persians.
Be well
Qarael Amenuel