posted
I don't. But I must admit, I haven't seen all of the evidence for it. The question popped in my head when I got into an argument with someone else on another messageboard about '300.' He was complaining about how there were too many Black people....and that the Persians were white (no different from Greeks) as a result of the Aryan Invasion. NOW, I'm looking into it...but I just wanted everyone's opinion.
EDIT: They did speak an Indo-Iranian language didn't they?
Posts: 1219 | From: North Carolina, USA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Much of this Aryan stuff is an extension of German (Nazi)fixation with US quasi-official adoption of anthropological research in an attempt to sway ideas. He who has the money makes the rules! Even S. Africa's policy was influenced by US apartheied policy of segregation. WHo have the purse strings of anthropoligical research? Anthropology in the interest and pursuit of civilization and its beginnings are wonderful but much of this research began in the late 1890's, where people of colour was marginalized and it was also during the colonial period of history, though in its waning years.
Whether the Persians were 'white' (aka Caucasian???) is not a question I would ponder but certainly they have more in common with the original Caucasian homeland of the Azeris, Armenians, Georgians, etc. To my mind, white and Caucasian are utterly dissimilar (opposite ends of a spectrum) even though for the ahistorical amongst us, they are obviously the same!
Say something long enough and it will be believed by the masses!
Posts: 1290 | From: usa | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:He was complaining about how there were too many Black people....and that the Persians were white (no different from Greeks) as a result of the Aryan Invasion.
He's partially right, ancient persians were not much different from greeks in appereance, both were swarthy types. But he's wrong when he calls them "white", persians/iranians are definetly not white. If they are "white" then so is also the whole of middle-east from Afghanistan to Yemen which ofcourse is absurd.
btw the original concept of Aryan has nothing to do with the modern corrupt view of Aryans, unless you consider northern indians as German types.
Posts: 1420 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have no scientific source but I am aware of a group of people called Scythians who were nomadic horsemen of steppes, who spoke an Indo_Iranian langauge. Scythians, from my modern framework appear to be a hybrid group, depending on where they were located. In Asia, they were Asian, In the Eurasian landmass, their culture reflected that and in some cases, they were/are said to be the progenitors of the Sikhs, Pushtun and a region of Georgia )Ossetia?(former USSR) have appropriated the Scythian language since they claim it is their ancestor! The Silk Road is said to have preserved the remains of a non-Asian people inhabiting the route or who served as horsemen since many of the bodies were preserved in the sand for millenia and they were said to be Scythian descendants!
This link shows that many groups came to Europe proper from the Middle East (they explicitely state that) and the area is contiguous enough for certain groups/tribes to carve out their homeland and co-exist with others.
The old Persians were not Scythians, they were Black. They mainly spoke Elamite and Old Persian.
The Persians during this period were predominately Black.
Achemenid King on Gold Doric 475-330 BC
Check Out the Persian King Observing the Whites he has captured in Battle
Look carefully at the kinky hair of the King and other officials on the left side of the stele and the European hair of the captives on the right.
Cyrus the Great
. Darius I(Darayavaus) reign 522-486. Darius conquered India and Thrace. He received tribute from the Ionians, Aeolians, Carians, Lycians and other Europeans
Ancient Greek Subject of the Persians. Note the hair and Nose
In an inscription in Naghsh-Rsotam (near Shiraz) proclaim: " I am Darius the great king, a Persian, son of a Persian, an Aryan, and having Aryan lineage"
In Old Persian Airya means "staight going and noble".
This makes it clear that Aryan was used to describe the language and ancestry of the original Persians who were Black.
.
Herodotus wrote: Persians are taught three things: to ride, to shoot with the bow, and always tell the truth".
You can find out more about these Blacks in my book: Afrocentrism: Myth or Science.
People often talk about the Indo-European languages and attempt to include Persian. This is a false Iranian languages are related to Vedic, but they are not related to European languages.
Old Persian and Elamite were spoken by the Blacks of Iran who conquered Europe. Elamite is closely related to the Mande language. In fact one of the major Kings of Elam belonged to the Kunte clan > Kutir Nahhunte (Kunte) c.1749-1712. Another Elamite King of the Kunte clan was Shutruk-Nahhunte.
Much of the contemporary history of the Persians, and also information on their religion is found in Avestan. There were two forms of Avestan: Old Avestan or Gathic Avestan and Young Avestan. Avestan is usually associated with the Northeastern Iran, and Old Persian was spoken in the southwest. Researchers have used Avestan and Old Persian to reconstruct proto-Iranian, which is related to Vedic.
The earliest Avestan documents come from manuscripts written around 1288 AD. Some people believe that the oldest documents may have been written in the 4th Century AD. Much of the language has been corrupted by the people who wrote Young Avestan. As a result, what we call Avestan is usually dated to the Sasanian period. These people were not the original Persians.
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
We don't really know what the initial Indo-Europeans exactly looked like. They could have indeed looked Nordic, or they may have looked like these Kazakhs instead:
Whatever their appearance, it's usually believed that their influence was more linguistic than genetic (i.e. they didn't mix much with the populations they mingled with).
We don't really know what the initial Indo-Europeans exactly looked like. They could have indeed looked Nordic, or they may have looked like these Kazakhs instead:
That would have to depend on the point of origin of the proto-language of the family [e.g. some propose the ‘Russian’ Steppes or Anatolia], and the driver for its spread. What do you know about these two things in relation to the models that you just used, i.e. "Nordic" looking or "Kazakhs" looking?
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
In an inscription in Naghsh-Rsotam (near Shiraz) proclaim: " I am Darius the great king, a Persian, son of a Persian, an Aryan, and having Aryan lineage"
In Old Persian Airya means "staight going and noble".
This makes it clear that Aryan was used to describe the language and ancestry of the original Persians who were Black.
.
Herodotus wrote: Persians are taught three things: to ride, to shoot with the bow, and always tell the truth".
You can find out more about these Blacks in my book: Afrocentrism: Myth or Science.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Nubian/KushiteFrom Behistun Monument
Could this actually be an Egyptian? I've seen a few Persian depictions of kinky-haired peoples identified as "Nubians", but never any portrayals of Egyptians, even though the Persian Empire included Egypt and not northern Sudan (thus you would think they would have Egyptians as opposed to Kushites paying them tribute). How can historians tell which characters on these wall carvings represent which nations, anyway?
Posts: 7206 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Nubian/KushiteFrom Behistun Monument
Could this actually be an Egyptian? I've seen a few Persian depictions of kinky-haired peoples identified as "Nubians", but never any portrayals of Egyptians, even though the Persian Empire included Egypt and not northern Sudan (thus you would think they would have Egyptians as opposed to Kushites paying them tribute). How can historians tell which characters on these wall carvings represent which nations, anyway?
This picture is from the Behistun monument and the name associated with the picture was Kushite.
These pictures make it clear that there were many Blacks in Central Asia during this period. Already by this time many of the Libyans were looking the same as the Thracian and Greeks. It is interesting that these people have the European hair common to contemporary Europeans.
It is interesting that the Greek and Carian types depicted on the Persian monuments appear to represent people who may illustrate their African ancestry given the curls depicted at the end of their hair which is stringy for the most part.
The Blacks like the Elamites, Nubians, Medes and etc., had the kinky curled hair. More pictures are found at the following site:
posted
^ LOL There is no connection between the Egyptian deity Au-sar and Cyrus which is actually a Greek pronunciation of the actual name Kourosh..
Also, there was no "Aryan Invasion of the Persian Empire" simply because the Persians themselves ARE Aryan! Clyde is only partially right. The Persians were (and still are) Indo-Iranian (Indo-European) speakers, but they were *not* the indigenous people of Iran. The earliest civilization in Iran was created by the indigenous Elamite people who were succeeded by various Iranian groups starting with the Medes and ending with the Persians. The same can be said with the Greeks, whose civilization was actually created by Aegean (pre-Greek) predecessors but was eventually taken over by various Indo-European speaking Greeks proper from the Achaeans to the Dorians.
Posts: 26465 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, I believe in it, but I don't know too much about what exactly is Persia or Persians. I believe in it because you can read about it in the Bible. there has been an invasion and conquering of provinces by Indo-Europeans throughout most of India thru Ethiopia (Sudan including Egypt). Also this conquering involves territories or certain land areas in which is now known as Iran today. You can read about that in the Bible.
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ LOL There is no connection between the Egyptian deity Au-sar and Cyrus which is actually a Greek pronunciation of the actual name Kourosh..
Also, there was no "Aryan Invasion of the Persian Empire" simply because the Persians themselves ARE Aryan! Clyde is only partially right. The Persians were (and still are) Indo-Iranian (Indo-European) speakers, but they were *not* the indigenous people of Iran. The earliest civilization in Iran was created by the indigenous Elamite people who were succeeded by various Iranian groups starting with the Medes and ending with the Persians. The same can be said with the Greeks, whose civilization was actually created by Aegean (pre-Greek) predecessors but was eventually taken over by various Indo-European speaking Greeks proper from the Achaeans to the Dorians.
It was Elamites and then Persians. There is very little difference between the Persian and Elamite language. The Avestan language is associated with the Indian language. Today the main language in Iran is Farsi. The Iranian languages show little if any relationship to European languages.
The fact that the Persians influenced the Greeks,makes it clear that any relationship between Persian and Greek is probably explained by this early relationship between the two peoples.
These pictures make it clear that there were many Blacks in Central Asia during this period. Already by this time many of the Libyans were looking the same as the Thracian and Greeks. It is interesting that these people have the European hair common to contemporary Europeans.
The Blacks like the Elamites, Nubians, Medes and etc., had the kinky curled hair. More pictures are found at the following site:
Can these numerous Blacks in this area in ancient times explain the presense of Rl in this region?
Concomitant Replacement of Language and mtDNA in South Caspian Populations of Iran - all 6 versions » I Nasidze, D Quinque, M Rahmani, SA Alemohamad, M … - Current Biology, 2006 - Elsevier ... Haplogroup J2 (M172) was found at high frequency in both groups, as was haplogroup R1 (M173); together, these two haplogroups account for more than 50% of ...
William Leo Hansberry, African History Notebook, (1981) Volume 2 noted that:
In Persia the old Negroid element seems indeed to have been sufficiently powerful to maintain the overlord of the land. For the Negritic strain is clearly evident in statuary depicting members of the royal family ruling in the second millenium B.C.
Hundreds of years later, when Xerxes invaded Greece, the type was well represented in the Persian army. In the remote mountain regions bordering on Persia and Baluchistan, there is to be found at the present time a Negroid element which bears a remarkable resemblance to the type represented on the ancient mounments. Hence the Negritic or Ethiopian type has proved persistent in this area, and in ancient times it seems to have constituted numerically and socially an important factor in the population" (p.52) . Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yonis: Iv'e never seen this before, this looks like a imitation of the Egyptian diety, no?
The diety itself need not be of Egyptian extraction, but yes, the crown strongly resembles the an Egyptian variant, possibly suggesting Egyptian influence. Not the first time Egyptian style regalia are found in the "Near East".
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ LOL There is no connection between the Egyptian deity Au-sar and Cyrus which is actually a Greek pronunciation of the actual name Kourosh..
Also, there was no "Aryan Invasion of the Persian Empire" simply because the Persians themselves ARE Aryan! Clyde is only partially right. The Persians were (and still are) Indo-Iranian (Indo-European) speakers, but they were *not* the indigenous people of Iran. The earliest civilization in Iran was created by the indigenous Elamite people who were succeeded by various Iranian groups starting with the Medes and ending with the Persians. The same can be said with the Greeks, whose civilization was actually created by Aegean (pre-Greek) predecessors but was eventually taken over by various Indo-European speaking Greeks proper from the Achaeans to the Dorians.
So it's alright to call the Persians white?
Posts: 1219 | From: North Carolina, USA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ LOL There is no connection between the Egyptian deity Au-sar and Cyrus which is actually a Greek pronunciation of the actual name Kourosh..
Also, there was no "Aryan Invasion of the Persian Empire" simply because the Persians themselves ARE Aryan! Clyde is only partially right. The Persians were (and still are) Indo-Iranian (Indo-European) speakers, but they were *not* the indigenous people of Iran. The earliest civilization in Iran was created by the indigenous Elamite people who were succeeded by various Iranian groups starting with the Medes and ending with the Persians. The same can be said with the Greeks, whose civilization was actually created by Aegean (pre-Greek) predecessors but was eventually taken over by various Indo-European speaking Greeks proper from the Achaeans to the Dorians.
So it's alright to call the Persians white?
Check Out the Persian King Observing the Whites he has captured in Battle
Only if you are talking about the contemporary Farsi people who live in Iran. The original Persians, known as Old Persians in many text were clearly not whites.
The Persians as seen in their monuments can not be classified as white. Granted they did call themselves Aryan, 'but this term meant noble, noble descent. It was the Europeans who took the word and applied it to white nationalities.
Darius I(Darayavaus) reign 522-486. Darius conquered India and Thrace. He received tribute from the Ionians, Aeolians, Carians, Lycians and other Europeans
Ancient Greek Subject of the Persians. Note the hair and Nose is nothing like that of the Persian.
The pictures don't lie the Persians were not white. Use of the term Persian to refer to comtemporary Iranians is a lie manufactured by Eurocentric scholars and Farsi people either 1) connect themselves to the ancient history of the Persians; and or 2) to deny the ancient history of Black and African people.
I challenge anyone in this forum to present evidence that Old Persian is related to any European language , except for maybe Greek. If you can find evidence of a Greek-Old Persian connection it can be explained , as resulting either from the Persian rule of Greeks and other Europeans, or the inclusion of Persian and Greek elements in the Vedic/Sanskrit language. It is important to remember that when Panini wrote the grammar of Sanskrit both Greeks and Persians were living in India, and contributed to the creation of Sanskrit which was a lingua franca .
Any student of Indo-European linguistics knows that Indo-Iranian relates to the relationship between Vedic and Avestan as I discussed above. The Indo-European languages on the otherhand include Vedic/Sanskrit and Greek and the other languages spoken in European.
quote:Originally posted by Bettyboo: Yes, I believe in it, but I don't know too much about what exactly is Persia or Persians. I believe in it because you can read about it in the Bible. there has been an invasion and conquering of provinces by Indo-Europeans throughout most of India thru Ethiopia (Sudan including Egypt). Also this conquering involves territories or certain land areas in which is now known as Iran today. You can read about that in the Bible.
Since when did Indo-European speakers conquer Egypt, Sudan, Ethiopia, or any part of Africa in ancient times??!
quote:Originally posted by King_Scorpion: So it's alright to call the Persians white?
Since when did I say the Persians were "white"?? Do not make the same mistake as Clyde in associating Indo-European languages with "whites"!
Although I may add that accounts from ancient Greeks did describe captured Persian soldiers as being fair-skinned in comparison to themselves who were tanned, though this may have alot to do with the fact that Persian dress tended to cover the body alot more than the Greeks who exposed more skin.
Posts: 26465 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
This picture is from the Behistun monument and the name associated with the picture was Kushite.
.
Sorry Clyde if I don't take YOUR word for it.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Elamite
Medes
Libyan
Saka
Thracian
Greek
Carian
These pictures make it clear that there were many Blacks in Central Asia during this period. Already by this time many of the Libyans were looking the same as the Thracian and Greeks. It is interesting that these people have the European hair common to contemporary Europeans.
Ridiculous! Non of this illustrates that blacks were native to Central Asia. Perhaps the only black person depicted was the Elamite, the Medes and Sakas are the only ones from Central Asia and they were definitely not black and neither were the Thracians north of Greece or the Carians of Anatolia.
I find it hilarious that you call these depictions "black" when their color was not even depicted and definitely since their features are commonly cited by whites to be "caucasoid", and not "negroid" by the Eurocentric standards YOU use!
quote:It is interesting that the Greek and Carian types depicted on the Persian monuments appear to represent people who may illustrate their African ancestry given the curls depicted at the end of their hair which is stringy for the most part.
So curly hair means African ancestry all of a sudden?! LOL
quote:The Blacks like the Elamites, Nubians, Medes and etc., had the kinky curled hair. More pictures are found at the following site:
LMFO The Medes were the earliest Iranian speaking peoples recorded to enter Iran. They were NOT black!
Posts: 26465 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Can these numerous Blacks in this area in ancient times explain the presense of Rl in this region?
Concomitant Replacement of Language and mtDNA in South Caspian Populations of Iran - all 6 versions » I Nasidze, D Quinque, M Rahmani, SA Alemohamad, M … - Current Biology, 2006 - Elsevier ... Haplogroup J2 (M172) was found at high frequency in both groups, as was haplogroup R1 (M173); together, these two haplogroups account for more than 50% of ...
LMAO Your ignorance of scientific facts and your distortion of findings continues to humor me!
quote: Xerxes
William Leo Hansberry, African History Notebook, (1981) Volume 2 noted that:
In Persia the old Negroid element seems indeed to have been sufficiently powerful to maintain the overlord of the land. For the Negritic strain is clearly evident in statuary depicting members of the royal family ruling in the second millenium B.C.
Hundreds of years later, when Xerxes invaded Greece, the type was well represented in the Persian army. In the remote mountain regions bordering on Persia and Baluchistan, there is to be found at the present time a Negroid element which bears a remarkable resemblance to the type represented on the ancient mounments. Hence the Negritic or Ethiopian type has proved persistent in this area, and in ancient times it seems to have constituted numerically and socially an important factor in the population" (p.52) .
And now a citation from a psuedo-historian like yourself.
quote: Check Out the Persian King Observing the Whites he has captured in Battle
LOL At your description echoing that of racist whites who claim Egyptian reliefs showing the Pharoah observing "blacks" he has captured in battle!! Most of the enemies of the Persians are Iranian speaking tribes from central Asia closely related to the Persians themselves! But in another post you claimed that all these Central Asians were black, so where do these "whites" come from?!!
quote:Only if you are talking about the contemporary Farsi people who live in Iran. The original Persians, known as Old Persians in many text were clearly not whites.
LOL Call them what you want, but it has been proven that modern day Farsi (Parsi) are genetically, phenotypically (through artwork), and archaeologically the direct descendants of ancient Persians and that Persians and other Iranian speaking peoples were NOT black!! The indigenous Elamites were!
quote:The Persians as seen in their monuments can not be classified as white. Granted they did call themselves Aryan, 'but this term meant noble, noble descent. It was the Europeans who took the word and applied it to white nationalities.
Again, all of the Persian monuments are stone and unpainted so I don't know how you can use such depictiions to make any claims on color black or white in the first place!! The Persians are for the most part not much different from their modern day descendants-- the Farsi! Most Persians although would not be exactly called 'white' like Europeans are relatively fairskinned. Perhaps the ONLY accurate statement you made was the fact that 'Aryan' meant pure or noble and had nothing to do with color-- that was something Europeans in the early 1900s associated with the definition. Note, that the term 'Aryan' is a title that Indo-Aryan speakers of India also use for themselves no matter what complexion they have!
quote: Darius I(Darayavaus) reign 522-486. Darius conquered India and Thrace. He received tribute from the Ionians, Aeolians, Carians, Lycians and other Europeans
Another contradiction since in other posts you claimed all those people paying tribute were blacks! Now you say they are whites!
quote: Ancient Greek Subject of the Persians. Note the hair and Nose is nothing like that of the Persian.
LOL Another contradiction. In other posts you claimed Greek curly hair is proof they were blacks, now you say the Greeks are not black but the Persians were! Make up your silly mind, man!
quote:
The pictures don't lie the Persians were not white. Use of the term Persian to refer to comtemporary Iranians is a lie manufactured by Eurocentric scholars and Farsi people either 1) connect themselves to the ancient history of the Persians; and or 2) to deny the ancient history of Black and African people.
The only one lying here is YOU. Again non of the pictures show what color the people were, and NO discipline-- archaeology, anthropology, linguistics, and genetics, show that the Persians (or even the Elamites who were black) were African!! On the contrary, all disciplines show there was continuity from ancient Persians to modern day Farsi! The Farsi did not displace the Persians because they are the Persians or rather their modern-day descendants as even historical records show!!
Posts: 26465 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: I challenge anyone in this forum to present evidence that Old Persian is related to any European language , except for maybe Greek. If you can find evidence of a Greek-Old Persian connection it can be explained , as resulting either from the Persian rule of Greeks and other Europeans, or the inclusion of Persian and Greek elements in the Vedic/Sanskrit language. It is important to remember that when Panini wrote the grammar of Sanskrit both Greeks and Persians were living in India, and contributed to the creation of Sanskrit which was a lingua franca .
ROTFLH Old Persian is a language that's part of the Iranian division of the Indo-Iranian subfamily of Indo-European! It's related to Greek because they both descend from the same proto-Indo-European language, NOT because of any Persian rule!! LMAO The Persians did not even conquer Greece or any part of Europe!!
quote:Any student of Indo-European linguistics knows that Indo-Iranian relates to the relationship between Vedic and Avestan as I discussed above. The Indo-European languages on the otherhand include Vedic/Sanskrit and Greek and the other languages spoken in European.
Incorrect. Vedic is part of the Indic branch of Indo-Iranian while Avestan is part of the Iranian branch of Indo-Iranian. Indo-Iranian altogether is a subfamily of Indo-European.
Just look it up Clyde. Practically *ALL* real linguists agree about the Indo-European language phylum as they do with the Afrasian phylum. Of course YOU are a pseudo so you don't count. Posts: 26465 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bettyboo: Yes, I believe in it, but I don't know too much about what exactly is Persia or Persians. I believe in it because you can read about it in the Bible. there has been an invasion and conquering of provinces by Indo-Europeans throughout most of India thru Ethiopia (Sudan including Egypt). Also this conquering involves territories or certain land areas in which is now known as Iran today. You can read about that in the Bible.
Since when did Indo-European speakers conquer Egypt, Sudan, Ethiopia, or any part of Africa in ancient times??!
Okay, you misinterpret me. Did you read where I said Certain land areas. Ethiopia in the scriptures involve land area of modern day "Sudan & Egypt". When I said "Ethiopia" I put Sudan and Egypt in parentheses indicating it pertains to these land areas. I didn't say anything about ancient times. All you have to do is read the old testament especially books like the story of Esther, Kings, Chronicles, Jeremiah. And these events didn't take place in ancient times. Only a few hundred years before Christ. So you are right! This conquering didn't take place no where near "ancient" time.
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
And still waiting on Clyde to address the evidence from real linguists about Persian Avestan and Indian Sanskrit being Indo-European languages as much as Greek and Latin. But then again, I am talking about the same man who denies the existence of Afrasian, let alone Berber being an African language yet designates Dravidian as African! Posts: 26465 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: LOL the only one who makes unsupported claims around here is YOU with your Kushite Persians and Mandingo Dravidians!
I have already cited a table. There are plenty other sources out there like these:
Just look it up Clyde. Practically *ALL* real linguists agree about the Indo-European language phylum as they do with the Afrasian phylum. Of course YOU are a pseudo so you don't count.
As I said before, Iranian is related to Vedic--not any European language. Where are the Iranian examples?
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ LOL There is no connection between the Egyptian deity Au-sar and Cyrus which is actually a Greek pronunciation of the actual name Kourosh..
Also, there was no "Aryan Invasion of the Persian Empire" simply because the Persians themselves ARE Aryan! Clyde is only partially right. The Persians were (and still are) Indo-Iranian (Indo-European) speakers, but they were *not* the indigenous people of Iran. The earliest civilization in Iran was created by the indigenous Elamite people who were succeeded by various Iranian groups starting with the Medes and ending with the Persians. The same can be said with the Greeks, whose civilization was actually created by Aegean (pre-Greek) predecessors but was eventually taken over by various Indo-European speaking Greeks proper from the Achaeans to the Dorians.
Yes there is Osirus and Cyrus are BOTH greek words and have Lord and Christ implications hence the phonetics!!
Posts: 336 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: As I said before, Iranian is related to Vedic--not any European language. Where are the Iranian examples?
Of course Iranian is closer related to Vedic, as they are both part of the Indo-Iranian subfamily of the Indo-European phylum which makes them both related to other Indo-European languages.
Clyde, there are plenty of sources in the net as again no real linguist denies the reality of Indo-European.
quote:Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida: Yes there is Osirus and Cyrus are BOTH greek words and have Lord and Christ implications hence the phonetics!!
Uh, NO! They are Greek corruptions of the real words. "Osirus" is the Greek pronunciation or version of the Egyptian word Ausar just as Cyrus is the Greek pronunciation of the Persian word Kouroush. Neither word is truly a Greek word as much as it is a Greek way of pronouncing the word. And I have no idea where you are getting any Lord or Christ implications from! Again your silly Africanbibleexpert nonsense is returning, and I would rather give a chance to hear andymonk speak of the spiritual significance of geometric shapes than your claims of wild imagination! LOL
quote:Originally posted by Yonis: yes they did.
^ The Persians invaded Greece several times, but they were never able to successfully gain control of Greece. All Persian invasions were eventually repelled.
Posts: 26465 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: As I said before, Iranian is related to Vedic--not any European language. Where are the Iranian examples?
Of course Iranian is closer related to Vedic, as they are both part of the Indo-Iranian subfamily of the Indo-European phylum which makes them both related to other Indo-European languages.
Clyde, there are plenty of sources in the net as again no real linguist denies the reality of Indo-European.
quote:Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida: Yes there is Osirus and Cyrus are BOTH greek words and have Lord and Christ implications hence the phonetics!!
Uh, NO! They are Greek corruptions of the real words. "Osirus" is the Greek pronunciation or version of the Egyptian word Ausar just as Cyrus is the Greek pronunciation of the Persian word Kouroush. Neither word is truly a Greek word as much as it is a Greek way of pronouncing the word. And I have no idea where you are getting any Lord or Christ implications from! Again your silly Africanbibleexpert nonsense is returning, and I would rather give a chance to hear andymonk speak of the spiritual significance of geometric shapes than your claims of wild imagination! LOL
quote:Originally posted by Yonis: yes they did.
^ The Persians invaded Greece several times, but they were never able to successfully gain control of Greece. All Persian invasions were eventually repelled.
But yet the Jews considered Cyrus as a lord and christ and Egyptians considered Osirus as a lord and christ they both share greek phonetics in their respective labels and BOTH have "triple atef" crowns hmmmmmm no relation huh? Oh by the way didn't the Persians rule in Egypt around this time? LMAO!!!!! Nice try Chung Lee, but you fail again trying to berate African accomplishments as I have seen you start to do in many threads hmmmm.
Posts: 336 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*: But yet the Jews considered Cyrus as a lord and christ...
Where did you dig this idea from?!
quote:..and Egyptians considered Osirus as a lord and christ...
That's because he was a deity (one which preceded Christ by millennia) and not a real person, although some may argue the figure may have been based on a real person.
quote:..they both share greek phonetics in their respective labels...
That's because as I've already explained in my previous post, the labels are Greek corruptions of the actual names!! Just like "Jesus" is a Greek corruption of the true Hebrew name Yeshua whom the Greeks had a hard time pronouncing.
quote:and BOTH have "triple atef" crowns hmmmmmm no relation huh?
Since when did Cyrus wear a triple atef crown?? Unless this is a depiction of him as conqueror of Egypt. Either way, Cyrus was not recognized as a true Pharaoh by the Egyptians let alone a an Osiris or "Christ" figure!
quote:Oh by the way didn't the Persians rule in Egypt around this time?
Yes, but how does suggest Cyrus was a "Christ" figure let alone identified with Osirus??
quote:LMAO!!!!! Nice try Chung Lee, but you fail again trying to berate African accomplishments as I have seen you start to do in many threads hmmmm.
ROTLH Bad try with the "Chung Li" name, just because I'm of Asian ancestry since I'm Filippino and hardly even look Chinese. Also, I never "berate" African accomplishments as long as they are true and not some made up fantasy like that of Clyde or YOU for that matter. By the way, racial name-callings are immature and well racist. I may not look Chinese, but I'm sure it would sound rather bad if I were to cally you Kunta Kente just cuz you're black.
Getting back to the topic at hand, you've got nothing (valid) as usual, but silly assumptions backed up by even more ridiculous ad-hominem attacks. Posts: 26465 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*: But yet the Jews considered Cyrus as a lord and christ
Incorrect, but the Hebrews did respect him as a savior, because he gave them permission to return home to Israel from their exile in Babylonia.
Posts: 7206 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ A savior is someone who saves, or a hero. 'Christ' is derived from the Greek word christos which means annointed.
Cyrus was a savior to the Hebrews in that he preserved them and allowed them to return to their homes, but he was NOT considered to be their messiah of prophecy! And he definitely was not considered a "christ" figure for the reasons stated above!
Thus, sorry to say but your religious explanations are a load of crock to say the least.
Posts: 26465 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sorry to say, but your understanding is wrong. Christos is Greek for annointed and comes from no Sanskrit or Indian language. By the way, I thought Krishna meant 'dark' as in dark-skinned in Sanskrit.
Posts: 26465 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
there are many derivations given to the word "krishna", the most common of which is "dark", referring to the hue of krishna's complexion. (he is often shown as dark blue to connote divinity. blue is also the color of the christ consciousness when epitomized in the spiritual eye as a circle of dark blue light surrounding the silvery white star of cosmic consciousness.) according to sri datta sarma"on the advent of sri krishna", of the various meanings given to the word "krishna", several are found in the brahmavaivarta purana. he states one of these derivations, "krsna means the universal spirit. krsi denotes a generic term, while na conveys the idea of the self, thus bringing forth the meaning 'omniscent spirit'". in that we find a parallel to the christ consciousness as the intelligence of god omnipresent in creation. the colloquail bengali rendering of krishna is krista (greek:christos and spanish:cristo
-------------------- when you see a sacred cow..milk it for all it's worth Posts: 72 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Whatever other meaning 'Krishna' has, it is still not a derivation of the Greek word 'christos'.
Posts: 26465 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
For the Hebrews anyone annointed with a certain oil by the right personel was called messiah. The Hebrew word מְשִׁיח only means "annointed."
Who among the Hebrews were annointed to their positions? Those holding the title of king and those titled high priest. By calling Cyrus the annointed of the Eternal One, the idea is he holds his office with Israel's deity's explicit approval.
Nothing associated with the concept of a savior attaches to the Hebrew word mashiyahh. Hebrew has an entirely different word for "to save."
quote:Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*:
quote:Originally posted by Tyrannosaurus:
quote:Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*: But yet the Jews considered Cyrus as a lord and christ
Incorrect, but the Hebrews did respect him as a savior, because he gave them permission to return home to Israel from their exile in Babylonia.
What is the difference between a savior and a christ?
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ A savior is someone who saves, or a hero. 'Christ' is derived from the Greek word christos which means annointed.
Cyrus was a savior to the Hebrews in that he preserved them and allowed them to return to their homes, but he was NOT considered to be their messiah of prophecy! And he definitely was not considered a "christ" figure for the reasons stated above!
Thus, sorry to say but your religious explanations are a load of crock to say the least.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: For the Hebrews anyone annointed with a certain oil by the right personel was called messiah. The Hebrew word מְשִׁיח only means "annointed."
Who among the Hebrews were annointed to their positions? Those holding the title of king and those titled high priest. By calling Cyrus the annointed of the Eternal One, the idea is he holds his office with Israel's deity's explicit approval.
Nothing associated with the concept of a savior attaches to the Hebrew word mashiyahh. Hebrew has an entirely different word for "to save."
quote:Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*:
quote:Originally posted by Tyrannosaurus:
quote:Originally posted by Nice Vidadavida *sigh*: But yet the Jews considered Cyrus as a lord and christ
Incorrect, but the Hebrews did respect him as a savior, because he gave them permission to return home to Israel from their exile in Babylonia.
What is the difference between a savior and a christ?
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ A savior is someone who saves, or a hero. 'Christ' is derived from the Greek word christos which means annointed.
Cyrus was a savior to the Hebrews in that he preserved them and allowed them to return to their homes, but he was NOT considered to be their messiah of prophecy! And he definitely was not considered a "christ" figure for the reasons stated above!
Thus, sorry to say but your religious explanations are a load of crock to say the least.
Maybe not but Cyrus was seen as a savior to the Jews.
Posts: 336 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ And again, as Takruri has just explained this was different from Messiah. Or were you able to understand anything he just said??
Why are you trying to turn Cyrus into some religious figure related to Ausar or Jesus, anyway??
Posts: 26465 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I'm not mistaken, a careful review of Cyrus' proclamations shows several peoples whom he "emancipated" and directed to rebuild, or erect new, places of worship/service for each their individual deity/deities.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Your ignorance of scientific facts and your distortion of findings continues to humor me!![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
ROTFLH 
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
Thus, sorry to say but your religious explanations are a load of crock to say the least.
Printer-friendly view of this topic