#Medo-Persian Empire

[underdoug]

God's Hand in History: Isaiah 45 and the Rise of Cyrus

God’s Hand in History. The Rise of Cyrus of Persia God’s Hand shaped the journey of Israel’s history. The rise of Cyrus of Persia puts a sharp focus on the remarkable impact on the world from God’s Hand in the history of humankind as well as the Nation of Israel. In the enigmatic landscape of biblical prophecy, few passages resonate with the clarity and precision found in Isaiah 45. Within its…

[eesirachs]

do babylon and rome serve as any sort of literary device in the bible?? ( im asking bc id seen somewhere that babylon was a spiritual synonym for evil and i didnt wanna just take that as truth without getting opinions if that makes sense 😭 )

babylon conquered jerusalem, destroyed the temple, placed israel in exile in three waves. they were violent and violating, less psychological than assyria and yet brutal, still. babylonian culture, godhood(s), and meaning-making are biblical, then; much of the bible was written under babylonian rule and exile. rome features only in later books, because of course it is a later empire. latter prophets and writings (and of course the second testament) have much to say of this empire, growing and torturing in ways that evoke the babylonian rule, the assyrian rule, the medo-persian rule, the egyptian rule. to answer your question with one prophetic vision: babylon and rome are two of the horrible beasts daniel sees, and dreads

[freebiblestudies]

The Three Angels Messages Lesson 02: No Sympathy for the Devil

Revelation 14:8 - And another angel followed, saying, “Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she has made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication.”

The second angel’s message seems very complicated at first.  It definitely deals with a lot of symbols.  In order to understand this Bible verse, let’s take a closer look at the following keywords:

Babylon

Fallen

Wine

Wrath

Fornication

Let’s read together Genesis 9:7-17; Genesis 10:10; Genesis 11:1-4; Isaiah 14:13-14; and Daniel 1:2.

If we are to talk about Babylon, we need to also discuss Babel. Both kingdoms were founded in the land of Shinar.  Babel can be considered the archetype for all the worldly kingdoms that followed it.

The story of the Tower of Babel is one of the most famous stories in the Bible.  Have you ever considered the builders’ motivations for building the tower in the first place?

 The builders did not trust God’s promise to never destroy the world again with a flood.  They wanted to survive another flood on their own power. 

The builders also did not want to follow God’s command to be fruitful and multiply across the earth.  Rather, they wanted to build a tower whose “top is in the heavens”  and make a name for themselves.  The builders seem to be motivated by pride and perhaps to even take the worship of God for themselves.

Let’s read together Exodus 20:2-6; 1 Chronicles 9:1; Jeremiah 16:18; Jeremiah 50:38; and Daniel 3:1-7.

The story of Daniel’s three friends and the fiery furnace is another well-known Bible story.  Have you considered what was Nebuchadnezzar’s motivation for setting up the golden image in the first place?  He wanted everyone in his empire to acknowledge Babylon as supreme, even over any god his subjects might be worshiping.  If anyone refused to bow before Nebuchadnezzar’s golden idol, they were to be killed by being tossed into a fiery furnace. 

Nebuchadnezzar had essentially set up a false religious system of worship enforced by civil authority.   This system forced people to choose between dying for their religious faith or to compromise that faith in order to live.

Let’s read together 2 Samuel 1:27; Isaiah 21:9; Jeremiah 51:8-9, 47; Daniel 5:25-30; and Revelation 18:2.

“Babylon is fallen, is fallen.”  God ultimately judged Babylon for its idolatry and persecution of God’s people.  Babylon was conquered by the Medo-Persians in 539 BC.

Let’s read together Proverbs 20:1; 23:29-35; 31:3-5; and Jeremiah 51:7.

Alcoholic wine in the Bible is always viewed in a negative light.  Alcoholic wine clouds and even perverts judgment.   Note that the Bible does talk about unfermented non-alcoholic wine more positively, but that is a Bible study for another time.

Let’s read Psalm 75:8; Jeremiah 23:15; and Hosea 4:11-12

Prophetically speaking, wine also represents God’s judgment against wickedness and  idolatry.  You definitely do not want to drink this wine!

Let’s read together Exodus 15:6-7; 32:9-12; Numbers 11:33; 16:46; Deuteronomy 9:7-8; 2 Kings 22:13-17; Ezra 5:12; Jeremiah 44:7-9; and Romans 1:18.

What is wrath?  The Merriam-Webster Dictionary offers two definitions that are relevant to our Bible study today.  Wrath can be defined as a “strong vengeful anger or indignation (anger aroused by something unjust, unworthy, or mean).”  Wrath can also be defined as “retributory punishment for an offense or a crime; divine punishment.”

God’s wrath is His response to sin.  In the Old Testament, God’s wrath consumed the Egyptian army chasing the children of Israel.  God’s wrath was also aroused when the children of Israel committed sins or fell into idolatry.  God’s wrath led to the destruction of the temple of Jerusalem and the Babylonian captivity.

Let’s read together Psalm 21:8-9; Zephaniah 1:1-18; Matthew 3:7; Luke 3:7; Romans 2:5; Ephesians 5:6; and Colossians 3:6.

God’s wrath is also associated with judgment.  God’s wrath will be poured in full on the unrighteous at Judgment Day.

Let’s read together Numbers 16:46; 2 Chronicles 12:6-9; 32:25-26; Psalms 78:32-39: 85:2-4; and 106:23.

Despite what many people believe, God does not want to pour His wrath on people.  In the Old Testament, Aaron and Moses both interceded on behalf of the children of Israel to avert God’s wrath.  God is willing to spare sinners from His wrath when they humble themselves before Him.  Whether it was the people of Israel or a king like Hezekiah, God was willing to grant mercy to all who came to Him earnestly and asked forgiveness of their sins.

Let’s read together Isaiah 53:4-6, 10; John 3:16, 36; Romans 5:9; 1 Thessalonians 5:9; and 1 John 4:10.

God has done everything He could to shield us from His wrath.  God loves us so much that He gave His only son Jesus to die for our sins.  Jesus is our ultimate intercessor.  We only have to confess and repent of our sins and call upon Jesus as our Lord and Savior.

Let’s read together Ezekiel 23:16-18; Hosea 4:11-12; Isaiah 23:17; and  John 8:41.

What is fornication?  The Merriam-Webster Dictionary gives the definition as “sexual intercourse between two persons who are not married to each other.” 

The Bible likened God’s people (the church) to a woman (Jeremiah 6:2).  Paul the Apostle described the church as the bride of Christ (Ephesians 5:22-33).  Therefore, spiritual fornication would be the church embracing someone or something other than Christ.  In the Old Testament times, the people of Israel strayed from God and worshiped various idols and other false gods.

Let’s read together Matthew 24:24; John 4:24; 2 Timothy 3:1-5; 1 John 2:15-23; Revelation 17:1-6; and Revelation 18:3, 9.

The book of the Bible describes a harlot woman who represents a false worship of Christ. This church outwardly seems Christian, but in actuality, it does not follow Jesus in spirit and truth.  Many people will be deceived and fall into Babylon.

Let’s read together Deuteronomy 31:19 and Revelation 18:1-8.

What does the second angel’s message mean?

All false systems of worship will be judged.  Salvation by works, the idea you can make it to heaven on your own merits, cannot save you.  Salvation in sin, the idea that once you are saved, you are always saved, will lead you to be lost.  All these forms of worship will lead you to Babylon.

Even if you are worshiping at the “right” church the “right” way, you can have Babylon in your heart.  If you harbor pride in your heart or you esteem anything in the world more than God, then you are in spiritual Babylon.

If you find yourself in Babylon, what are you to do?  God wants you to leave Babylon right now!  Jesus is calling you to worship Him in spirit and in truth.  He does not want you to face God’s wrath.  Repent and turn to Christ your Savior!

Friend, will you share the second angel’s message with others?

[pugzman3]

Babylon, The Seat of Satan, and Rome

Revelation 2:12-13 KJV

12 And to the angel of the church in Pergamos write; These things saith he which hath the sharp sword with two edges; 13 I know thy works, and where thou dwellest, even where Satan's seat is: and thou holdest fast my name, and hast not denied my faith, even in those days wherein Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan dwelleth.

Babel, or Babylon, was built by Nimrod. Gen. 10:8-10. It was the seat of the first great Apostasy. Here the "Babylonian Cult" was invented. A system claiming to possess the highest wisdom and to reveal the divinest secrets. Before a member could be initiated he had to "confess" to the Priest. The Priest then had him in his power. This is the secret of the power of the Priests of the Roman Catholic Church today.

Once admitted into this order men were no longer Babylonians, Assyrians, or Egyptians, but members of a Mystical Brotherhood, over whom was placed a Pontiff or "High Priest," whose word was law. The city of Babylon continued to be the seat of Satan until the fall of the Babylonian and Medo-Persian Empires, when he shifted his Capital to Pergamos in Asia Minor, where it was in John's day. Rev. 2:12,13.

When Attains, the Pontiff and King of Pergamos, died in B. C. 133, he bequeathed the Headship of the "Babylonian Priesthood" to Rome. When the Etruscans came to Italy from Lydia (the region of Pergamos), they brought with them the Babylonian religion and rites. They set up a Pontiff who was head of the Priesthood. Later the Romans accepted this Pontiff as their civil ruler. Julius Caesar was made Pontiff of the Etruscan Order in B. C. 74. In B. C. 63 he was made "Supreme Pontiff" of the "Babylonian Order," thus becoming heir to the rights and titles of Attalus, Pontiff of Pergamos, who had made Rome his heir by will. Thus the first Roman Emperor became the Head of the "Babylonian Priesthood," and Rome the successor of Babylon. The Emperors of Rome continued to exercise the office of "Supreme Pontiff" until A. D. 376, when the Emperor Gratian, for Christian reasons, refused it. The Bishop of the Church at Rome, Damasus, was elected to the position. He had been Bishop 12 years, having been made Bishop in A. D. 366, through the influence of the monks of Mt. Carmel, a college of Babylonian religion originally founded by the priests of Jezebel. So in A. D. 378 the Head of the "Babylonian Order" became the Ruler of the "Roman Church." Thus Satan united Rome and Babylon In One Religious System.

Soon after Damasus was made "supreme Pontiff" the "rites" of Babylon began to come to the front. The worship of the Virgin Mary was set up in A. D. 381.

The Book Of Revelation Commentary by Clarence Larkin (1919 pgs. 151-152)

Larkin goes on to say on page 152...

All the outstanding festivals of the Roman Catholic Church are of Babylonian origin. Easter is not a Christian name. It means "Ishtar," one of the titles of the Baby- Ionian Queen of Heaven, whose worship by the Children of Israel was such an abomination in the sight of God. The decree for the observance of Easter and Lent was given in A. D. 519. The "Rosary" is of Pagan origin. There is no warrant in the Word of God for the use of the "Sign of the Cross." It had its origin in the mystic "Tau" of the Chaldeans and Egyptians. It came from the letter "T," the initial name of "Tammuz," and was used in the "Babylonian Mysteries" for the sarnie magic purposes as the Romish church now employs it. Celibacy, the Tonsure, and the Order of Monks and Nuns, have no warrant or authority from Scripture. The Nuns are nothing more than an imitation of the "Vestal Virgins" of Pagan Rome.

...and there is a lot more said but I want to go back to Damasus real quick. Not only was he the Pope from 366-384, and did all the above mentioned. He is also was the first to declare that Rome was started by Peter, thereby claiming Peter as the “founder” of the church (which is a complete lie and twist of scripture), and was the one that commissioned Jerome to “revise” the Latin translation of the Bible which became known as the Vulgate. To this day, NO ONE has seen the text that one man (Jerome) used to create the Vulgate. 

Revelation 18:4-5

4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.

5 For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities.

[aboutanancientenquiry]

Reinhold Biechler and Robert Rollinger in the Encyclopedia Iranica on the image of Persia and Persians in ancient Greek Literature

I reproduce below the article of two eminent historians, Reinhold Bichler and Robert Rollinger, “Greece vi. The Image of Persia and Persians in Greek Literature,” in Encyclopædia Iranica, XI/3, pp. 326-329, The article is available with its bibliography on line on https://iranicaonline.org/articles/greece-vi This is an interesting article, especially about the ambivalence of the Greek attitudes toward Persia. I think however that one should bear always in mind that the Greek-Persian relation was largely antagonistic and that this antagonism started with the Persian conquest of the Greek cities of Asia Minor and the further efforts of the Persian kings to conquer mainland Greece. I think that remembering these facts should make us more sympathetic to the Greek perspective on the Persian Empire than what it is fashionable currently. Moreover, if the Greek perspective(s) on the Persians may seem “stylized”, it is far more ambivalent and often nuanced than the depiction of the enemy in the previous records of the Near East, in which enemies are usually stereotyped just as “vile” and ‘cowardly” or are even seen as almost non-human (see for instance the description of the Gutian invaders in the Mesopotamian sources). This is especially true about Herodotus, whose Persians are complex and multifaceted. And, despite their biases, the Greek sources often offer important information on the Persian Empire, information which is unavailable in the Persian sources (above all about the crises of the Empire) and, in their depiction of the Persians, their customs and way of life, what the Greek authors say contain often an important core of truth.

And now the article of Reinhold Bichler and Robert Rollinger in the Encyclopedia Iranica.

‘GREECE

vi. THE IMAGE OF PERSIA AND PERSIANS IN GREEK LITERATURE

The image of Persia in Greek literature is highly stylized and may not be considered as a reflection of actually experienced cultural contacts (for a comprehensive treatment see Miller). Greece’s perception of the Persians was initially influenced by her impression of the Median Empire, which was situated in “upper” Asia as a counterpart to the Lydian Empire (Bichler, 2000, pp. 213 ff.; Bichler and Rollinger, 2000, pp. 68-70). The expansion of the Persian Empire under Cyrus II the Great (q.v.), which affected the Greek cities in western Asia Minor (Walser, 1987), was experienced as the sovereignty “of the Mede” (Xenophanes, in Diels, ed. F. 18). The Persian wars, following the Ionian rebellion of 499 B.C.E., were considered as “Medika” and the political cooperation with the opponent as “Medism” (Graf; Tuplin, 1994 and 1997). In 472 B.C.E., Aeschylus still presented the Persian kings as descendants of an eponymous Medos (Persae, l.765). Diodorus Siculus (10.27) refers to the latter as an exiled Athenian. From Herodotus on (cf. Herodotus, 7.61.3, 7.150.2), however, the prevailing belief was that they were descendants of Perseus (Xenophon, Cyropaedia 1.2.1) or Perses (Hellanicus of Lesbos, in Jacoby, I, pp. 122 f., F 59 f., no, 4, III C 1, pp. 412 f., F 1, no. 687a; Abydenus, in ibid., III C 1, p. 407, F 6b, no. 685).

The part of Athens in the victories at Marathon and Salamis (in 490 and 480 B.C.E.) was stylized into mythical dimensions in Aeschylus’s tragedy Persae, written in 472 B.C.E. (regarding Persian-Greek contacts in general, cf. Vickers, 1990; Miller, pp. 3 ff.). Although the kings that followed Cyrus II were said in this tragedy to rule the whole of Asia, their despotism had to admit defeat before the freedom of the Greeks, who only obeyed their ancestral rules (see Miller, esp. pp. 176 ff., 230 ff.; cf. Georges, pp. 76 ff.; Schmal, pp. 74 ff.; for detailed treatment see Hutzfeld; Hall). Despotism and lack of defensive power appear in the pseudo-Hippocratic writings as the typical results of Asia’s lush nature and its climate (Peri Aeron, chaps. XXIII-XXIV). The Persian Empire’s association with despotism and luxury was established with the expansion of Athenian propaganda. Prostration was shown on stage as a mark of barbarian despotism, and the taste of Greek politicians for Persian luxury was the subject of mockery (see esp. Aristophanes, pp. 73 ff., cf. esp. line 100 about an old Persian quotation; see Brandenstein).

A systematic record of Persian customs and history can be found in Herodotus’ Histories, written around 427-424 B.C.E. Simple ways of life, strict education, regular habits, and an elementary religion are the source of the original strength of the people (Herodotus, esp. 1.131 ff.). Herodotus’ view that the ancient Persians did not erect temples, statues, and altars to their gods, but considered the latter as natural forces to whom they sacrificed in the open air (1.131), was taken at face value. He was followed by Strabo (15.3.13) and a number of other authors (e.g., Berossus, in Jacoby, Fragmente III C 1, p. 394, F 11, no. 680; cf. Jacobs). In contrast, Dinon states (Jacoby, Fragmente III C 1, p. 531, F 28, no. 690) that the Persians also erected statues to honor fire and water (Fragment 28), but to what extent can this be traced back to actual cult reforms under Artaxerxes II is a moot point (Briant, 1996, pp. 260-62, 696, 941; Stevenson). Though Herodotus described the life of the ancient Persians as simple, he added that luxury, pomp, alcoholism, polygamy, and pederasty made the great men of the empire appear full of conflicts. He provided vivid examples: intriguing court ladies and eunuchs, deceitful satraps as well as noblemen and brave officers. The dignified queen mother Atossa contrasts with the cruel, demonic queen Amestris, and Xerxes’s uncle Artabanus (qq.v.) faces the thoughtless general Mardonius as a wise counselor. The kings indeed incorporate all the potential qualities of a monarch: the patriarchal founder of the Achaemenid dynasty, Cyrus the Great; the mad, despotic Cambyses; the shrewd Darius I (qq.v.) seeking his own advantage and wavering between magnanimity and despotism; and the ambitious but overtaxed Xerxes, whose image as sinner against gods and temples is depicted by Aeschylus and Herodotus. They all fail in the end due to their immense policy of conquests (Descat; Georges, pp. 167 ff.; Rollinger, 1998; idem, 1999; Bichler, 2000, pp. 263 ff.; Bichler and Rollinger, pp. 87 ff.).

A new situation arose in the Peloponnesian war (431-404 B.C.E.); the great king was able to join in the Greek hegemonic wars on the side of Sparta. Thucydides very soberly describes the thus resulting relations between Greeks and Persians (Thucydides, 8.18, about Sparta’s first agreement with Tissaphernes or Darius II; cf. Miller, pp. 109 ff.; Walser, pp. 63 ff.). In individual cases, however, the adoption of Persian customs, and particularly despotic allures, were considered as questionable (cf. Herodotus, 1.130 on Pausanias).

Through the writings of Xenophon, who personally witnessed the unsuccessful campaign of Cyrus the Younger (see CYRUS vi), the pretender to the throne, against his elder brother Artaxerxes II (q.v.) in 401 B.C.E, and described it in his Anabasis, more light is thrown into the Persian army and administration (Walser, pp. 101 ff.; Georges, pp. 207 ff.). In his Oeconomicus (4.4 ff.) he also provided a brief description of the great king’s household. The Persiká of Ctesias (q.v.), who, as the personal physician of the great king Artaxerxes II Mnemon (405-359 B.C.E.), claimed to have carried out an autopsy (cf. Dorati), is of great importance, despite the fact that only fragments of this work have reached us (Momigliano 1979, pp. 156 ff.; Sancisi-Weerdenburg, 1987a; idem, 1987b; Wiesehöfer, tr., pp. 79 ff.). Ctesias painted a gaudy picture of a kingdom that was marked with decadence and decline, had become a toy between courtiers and the harem, and was drowned in oriental luxury (König; Auberger, pp. 340 ff.; see also Lenfant). Even Nicolaus of Damascus (Jacoby, Fragmente II/1, p. 361, F 66.3, no. 90) largely followed Ctesias. He considered Cyrus as a Median (Mardos genos) and presented him as the son of a shepherd, who was capable of winning the throne (Jacoby, Fragmente, F 66.3; Balcer, pp. 217-18). Xenophon, on the other hand, is very objective in his Anabasis, but his ethnographic notes are equally stereotyped. The character studies of the Persians are sharper: Cyrus the Younger incorporates the features of an ideal ruler (esp. in Anabasis 1.9), while the satrap Tissaphernes is a sly, deceitful figure. In his Hellenica, Xenophon depicts the honest satrap, Pharnabazus, struggling with his problems of loyalty (cf. 4.1.28 ff.) and pays tribute to a courageous woman named Mania, who, as a widow, performed the functions of a satrap (cf. 3.1.10 ff. on her). His Cyropaedia, which was probably written after 362 B.C.E., is an admiring homage to ancient Persia, though set in an idealized early period. This was the prototype of a state novel, in which the universal monarchy founded by Cyrus II the Great appears as the paradigm of a just reign, sharply contrasting with the sad image of contemporary decadence (see Cyropaedia 8; cf. Sancisi-Weerdenburg, 1980, pp. 184 ff.; Briant, 1989; Tatum; Briant, 1987b; Janni p. 129).

In the ensuing period, the image of Persia was a mixture of fascination and contempt. Plato viciously criticized the education of women at court, which wrecked even the works of great kings such as Cyrus II and Darius I from the outset (Nomoi 3.694a ff.). At the same time, he picked up the image of Persian alcoholism already described by Herodotus (Nomoi 3.637d-e), which was to enjoy great popularity in the ensuing ancient tradition (Maurtitsch-Bein). Theopomus stylized the great king as a receiver of lavish gifts (Jacoby, Fragmente II/2, p. 592, F 263a, no. 115), an image which also formed a tradition (cf. Aelianus, Varia Historia 1.31-33). The royal table and royal eating habits also awakened the interest of Greek authors within the context of a luxurious life at court (cf. Heraclides Cumaeus, in Jacoby, Fragmente, 689, F 2; Polyaenus, 4.3.32; Lewis). A wealth of negative clichés about the Persian Empire is contained in Plutarch’s Life of Artaxerxes, which is mainly based on Ctesias and Dinon: court intrigues, a brutal empress (Parysatis, the queen of Darius II), and horrible scenes of executions. At the same time, however, Artaxerxes II is shown as a magnanimous ruler and patron of his friends. A series of further Persica is preserved in meager remnants: Charon of Lampsacus (Jacoby, Fragmente, 262), Dionysius of Milet (Jacoby, Fragmente, 687), Hellanicus of Lebos (Jacoby, Fragmente, F 4), Pharnouchus of Nisibis (Jacoby, Fragmente, 694 T 1), Hermesianax of Colophon (Jacoby, Fragmente III, C 1, p. 531, no. 691; cf. Drews, pp. 20 ff.; Balcer, pp. 210 f., 213, 216 f.).

The so-called king’s peace in Greece of 387-386 B.C.E. had boosted Persia’s influence even more, but had led to much counter-propaganda. Ephorus created the impression that formerly, in 480-479 B.C.E, Greece had been threatened by a combined attack of Persians and Carthaginians (Jacoby, Fragmente II/1, pp. 95 f., F 186, no. 70; cf. Bichler, 1985), and that Pindar had already praised the western Greek victories against the Carthaginians and Etruscans in 480 and 474 B.C.E. as battles equaling those of Salamis and Plataea for the freedom of the Hellenes (Pythia 1.71 ff.). Ephorus’s conception remained effective (cf. Diodorus, 11.1.3-2.1, 11.20.1-22.6, 11.24, 126.2), even though his opinion concerning the intentional dual attack was criticized by Aristotle, who called it a mere coincidence (Poetics 32, p. 1459a). As early as 380 B.C.E., the Athenian orator Isocrates recommended waging war against Persia as a means of creating harmony among the Greeks. Against the natural enemy, even a breach of contract was legitimate (Panegyricus, 160 ff.). In 346 B.C.E., Isocrates directly approached Philip II of Macedonia with this idea, pointing out the military weakness of the opponent as well as the treasures held by the barbarians (Philippus, 83 ff., 130 ff.; cf. Walser, pp. 115 ff.). Alexander’s court historiographer, Callisthenes, finally stylized the war against Darius III as a campaign of revenge for Xerxes’s misdeeds. With Alexander’s campaign of 334-324 B.C.E., the Persian Empire became the contrasting image against which Alexander’s kingship measured itself. He had vanquished an empire, the original strength of which had been based on strict morals (cf. Arrian, Anabasis 5.4.5). Now the adoption of Persian court customs, above all obeisance (proskynesis), was considered to exercise pernicious effects on the victor (Diodorus, 17.77; Plutarch, Alexander 45 ff.). But Alexander’s alleged plans to mix the populations of Asia and Europe (Diodorus, 18.4) and to bring about friendship between East and West (Plutarch, De Alexandri magni fortuna aut virtute 1.329c) bear witness to the ambivalence of the Greek image of Persia. Peucestas, the only Macedonian satrap in Persia to have learnt Persian, appreciated it (Arrian, 6.30.3), and Alexander’s prayer in Opis on the Tigis expressed the hope of ruling Persians and Macedonians together according to the principles of concord (homonoia) and partnership (koinônia; Arrian, 7.11.9).”

[net2ubiz]

Subject: Who Were The 3 Wise Men

Reference (KJV): Matt 2:1-2, 9-12 , 1 Kings 10:18, Daniels 2:44-45; 7:7-28; 9:24-27; 12:1-4, Leviticus 2:2,

Colossians 2:9-10

Who were the wise men? Are you ready for that? Matthew Chapter 2 tells us everything we presently know about the Three Wise Men.

Now, I just want to remind you of something so you’ll get a little bit of a picture.  Basically in the history of the World, there have been Four (4) Major World Empires, All Right!

First One Was The Babylonian Empire.  And that, basically, was settled in the Fertile Crescent Area East of Israel in The Valley Of The Tigris and Euphrates River, North of the Arabian Gulf, East of what we know is Israel today. 

That was where the Babylonian Empire was.  It was followed by the Second Great World Empire that Daniel talks about, and that was the Empire known a m s the Medo-Persian Empire. 

It was a Conglomerate Empire made up of the Persians and the Medes.  The Medes Were a very Large and Powerful People. 

The Third Great World Empire Was Greece.  When the Medo-Persian Empire was Conquered by Alexander the Great, the World became Greek, as it were. 

Lastly, The Fourth Great Empire was the Roman Empire. Now as we go backwards, even while the Babylonian Empire was in Existence, there was still Medes and Persians. 

The Greek is Magus, Magog, Magi. It is really an Untranslatable Word.  It is not a Translatable Word; It Is Simply The Name of a Certain Tribe of People.  It should better translated, Magi. 

But the Magi Originally were basically a Pagan Priestly Tribe Of People from the Medes and the Persians and there are many historical sources to validate this. 

They became interested in Astronomy and Astrology and The Study of the Stars.  And in those days, they didn’t make much of a Separation between the Superstition and the Science. 

The Science is Astronomy, the Superstition is Astrology, and they were pretty well blended at the time. 

Now, what’s interesting about this is that during the time of the Babylonian Empire, these Magi were dwelling in the area of Babylon.  They were there during the Babylonian time and the Medo-Persian Empire as well. 

Now while they were there during the Babylonian Empire, they were very heavily influenced by the Jews. 

You remember that one of the things that Nebuchadnezzar the King of Babylon did was take Judah into Captivity.  Do you remember that? 

That’s what Jeremiah was saying.  “You are going to be taken into Captivity.”  Jeremiah pronounced this fact and of course even the book of Lamentations laments this reality.  And they were carried off into the Babylon captivity.

Out of Israel 12 Tribes, One Tribe was Set Apart as the Priestly Tribe.  And they were the ones who Ministered in the Rituals and the Religious Ceremonies in The Holy Temple, and they were the Levites. 

Well the Pagan Medes had a similar thing.  Of all of the tribes within the Medes they had selected one of them to function as Priests in their Pagan Rituals.

And that Tribe which they had selected was the “Magi”. Again, it’s an Untranslatable Word. This is the Name of that Priestly Group of People.  It Was a Hereditary Priesthood. 

Now as I said earlier, some Historians see them all the way back in Ur of the Chaldees as a part of a Nomadic People that were wandering about in that part of the World. 

The Point is this.  During the Babylonian World Empire, they were significant, during the Medo-Persia Empire. They were significant during the Greek Empire, They were Also Significant during the Roman Empire.

And in all of those Empires, they maintained a Place of Tremendous Prominence in the Orient, and in the East. 

So, the Magi were men who 1) Read and believed God’s Word, 2) Sought Jesus, 3) Recognized The Worth of Christ, 4) Humbled Themselves to Worship Jesus, and 5) Obeyed God rather than man. They Were Truly Wise Men!

WORD

Servant DCarlos Phipps

[remso]

The antichrist. How, then, do we fit the Roman Empire into this mix? Daniel 9:26 and a few other verses.

In the previous post, I referred to Daniel describing the statue, with the head of gold, to Nebuchadnezzar. He tells Nebuchadnezzar that he is the head of gold. Both the silver and the bronze are referred to as inferior kingdoms, and though history lends a hand and gives us an identification of the Persian empire (technically the Medo-Persian empire) and the Grecian/Macedonian empire initiated…

[osmerharris]

The antichrist. How, then, do we fit the Roman Empire into this mix? Daniel 9:26 and a few other verses.

In the previous post, I referred to Daniel describing the statue, with the head of gold, to Nebuchadnezzar. He tells Nebuchadnezzar that he is the head of gold. Both the silver and the bronze are referred to as inferior kingdoms, and though history lends a hand and gives us an identification of the Persian empire (technically the Medo-Persian empire) and the Grecian/Macedonian empire initiated…

[impeccablenest68]

The Meaning of the Name Robert in the Bible

The name Robert comes from a Germanic name meaning "fame" or "bright glory". In the Bible, there are a few references where the meaning of the name Robert is significant.

One reference is in the Book of Daniel, which tells the story of Daniel interpreting a dream for King Nebuchadnezzar. In the dream, Nebuchadnezzar sees a large statue made of different metals that gets progressively weaker. The statue represents future kingdoms that will come to power. The head of the statue was made of gold, representing the Babylonian empire. The chest and arms of silver stood for the Medo-Persian empire that would eventually conquer Babylon. The belly and thighs of bronze symbolized the Greek empire of Alexander the Great. The legs of iron were the Roman empire, which was strong but would split later into two. The feet of iron mixed with clay signified divided Western Europe after the fall of Rome.

As Nebuc

[rajesh3135-blog]

When the Medo-Persian Empire toppled the Babylonian Empire and King Darius reigned, Daniel — who had served under Babylon’s defeated King Nebuchadnezzar — rose in the government ranks, which made other officials jealous. Their devious plot to bolster the king’s self-image and entrap Daniel is well known — as is their fate when God intervened to save Daniel from the lions. This episode points to Jesus. Like Daniel, Jesus was unjustly condemned by his enemies. The pagan ruler, Pontius Pilate, though he knew Jesus was innocent, agreed to send him to his death. He was placed in a pit — a tomb — and had a sealed stone rolled over it. Both rose victoriously from the pit; however, Daniel didn’t experience death, and Jesus did. Daniel didn’t defeat death in his own power, but Jesus did. Daniel and Jesus were both faithful to God, but Jesus conquered death so that all believers can have victory over sin and death through him. Jesus, thank you for Daniel’s example. Help me to be faithful, strong and courageous for you, even to the point of death. I know that when I die, you will be on the other side. Amen. (at Calgary, Alberta) https://www.instagram.com/p/CpMgSMTucQ2/?igshid=NGJjMDIxMWI=

[underthewingsofthblackeagle]

@justarandomgirly

I think the answer is that these people are full of pride. What caused the Holocaust? Pride. One "race" thought it was better than another. And why do people deny the Holocaust? Because they are still so full of pride, so drunk on their "race", that they can't accept that their ancestors were nothing but murderers and butchers of humanity. If you think long enough about questions like these, you come to a point where you fully understand why the Bible, in texts older than our culture, says that pride was the reason why Luzifer fell and became the devil. It's not a made-up fairy tale. Look at history: Pride never leads to anything good, but always to the most inhuman actions. Look at the history of the Holocaust, colonialism, slavery. This is what happens when people take pride in the illusion of being better/greater etc.

We need a change of culture, a change of mindset. Whenever we think we have a reason to be proud, we should change our thinking and actions to be grateful. For gratitude opens up a whole new horizon. It can show us not only the good things/talents etc. that have been given to us but also the whole world around us. And that is the reality we need to see: No nation or group of people can stand alone. (Those who don't believe this will find out the hard way when the future brings us more ecological disasters, followed by more epidemics). Humans are made to work together, to live together, to complement each other. Not to dominate each other. Prideful domination - in the end - always leads to self-destruction. Whenever I hear someone say: "We are the greatest nation in the history of the world". I cringe because I hear the Assyrians, the Medo-Persians, the Greeks and the Romans laughing in their graves and saying: "Come on, brother, we thought the same of you a long time ago, just minutes before our empire crumbled to dust."

I am completely convinced, that, if I live long enough, my generation will see the fall of at least or more big empires. The only way to prevent it is to turn back to gratefulness. And that is also the only way to prevent another holocaust or similar evolvements.

How can someone deny holocaust???????

[christianpublishinghouse-blog]

PERSIAN EMPIRE: The Fourth Great World Power in Bible History

PERSIAN EMPIRE: The Fourth Great World Power in Bible History

PERSIA

pur’-sha, (parats; Persia; in Assyrian Parsu, Parsua; in Achemenian Persian Parsa, modern Fars): In the Bible (2Ch 36:20,22-23; Ezr 1:1,8; Es 1:3,14,18; 10:2; Eze 27:10; 38:5; Da 8:20; 10:1; 11:2) this name denotes properly the modern province of Fars, not the whole Persian empire. The latter was by its people called Airyaria, the present Iran (from the Sanskrit word arya, “noble”); and…

[aboutanancientenquiry]

The Persians as Sophists: an interesting, although not entirely convincing book on the Persians in Herodotus’ Histories (I)

“Sophist Kings 

Persians as Other in Herodotus

Vernon L. Provencal (Author)

Published Jul 30 2015 Format Hardback Edition1st Extent 344 ISBN9781780936130 Imprint Bloomsbury Academic Dimensions 9 x 6 inches Publisher Bloomsbury Publishing

Description

Sophist Kings: Persians as Other sets forth a reading of Herodotus' Histories that highlights the consistency with which the Persians are depicted as sophists and Persian culture is infused with a sophistic ideology. The Persians as the Greek 'other' have a crucial role throughout Herodotus' Histories, but their characterisation is far divorced from historical reality. Instead, from their first appearance at the beginning of the Histories, Herodotus presents the Persians as adept in the argumentation of Greek sophists active in mid-5th century Athens. Moreover, Herodotus' construct of the Sophist King, in whom political reason serves human ambition, is used to explain the Achaemenid model of kingship whose rule is grounded in a theological knowledge of cosmic order and of divine justice as the political good. This original and in-depth study explores how the ideology which Herodotus ascribes to the Persians comes directly from fifth-century sophists whose arguments served to justify Athenian imperialism. The volume connects the ideological conflict between panhellenism and imperialism in Herodotus' contemporary Greece to his representation of the past conflict between Greek freedom and Persian imperialism. Detecting a universal paradigm, Sophist Kings argues that Herodotus was suggesting the Athenians should regard their own empire as a betrayal of the common cause by which they led the Greeks to victory in the Persian wars.

Summary overview

Sophist Kings: Persians as Other in Herodotus makes a number of contributions to our understanding of Herodotus and the Histories: that Herodotus is in a dialogical relationship with the sophists, embodied and expressed in the ideological antagonism of Greece and Persia; that the addition of the cultural polarity of the Greeks and Persians to Herodotus’ cultural grid renders it a multidimensional grid based on the bipolarity of nomos and phusis; that he understands and represents the unfamiliar Achaemenid Ahuramazdan theology of kingship and empire as a sophistic ideology of power; that he understands and represents the court of Persia as royal intelligentsia equal to the aristocratic intelligentsia of Athens; that he consistently represents the Persians as sophists, and it is precisely as Persosophists that that they represent the cultural ‘Other’ to the Greeks, especially the Athenians; that his representation of the Medo-Persian monarchs as sophist kings serves the immediate rhetorical purpose of the Histories to hold up a mirror to the Athenians as the new ‘Persians’ of Greece.

Chapter 1, ‘Herodotus and the Histories’, looks at how the life of Herodotus and the narrative of the Histories are connected by the centrality to both of the rise and fall of Greek fraternity at the hands of the Athenians in the first half of the fifth century. The Histories is very much the story of the birth of Panhellenism in Athens’ declaration of allegiance to the Greek ideal of to Hellenikon as related from the standpoint of Athens’ subsequent betrayal of that ideal in the conversion of the Delian league into an empire. In part, Herodotus’ representation of the Persians as the ideological Other of the Greeks can be understood to result from the immediate rhetorical purpose of holding up a mirror to Athenian imperialism; in part, it is the result of Herodotus’ comprehension of history in terms of the tragic relationship of human hubris to divine tisis.

Chapter 2, ‘Herodotus and the Sophists’, examines passages that resemble the teachings and methods of the sophists, demonstrating that in most cases we should attribute these resemblances not to Herodotus himself but to his representation of the Persians, whom he introduces at the very beginning of his narrative as adept in the theories and argumentative methods of the sophists. It also becomes clear that rather than regarding Herodotus as sophist or proto-sophist, we should see him as engaged in a dialogical relationship with the sophists, which we find most clearly represented in the opposition of Otanes and Darius in the constitutional debate in book three, as well as the debate between Demaratus and Xerxes in book seven, and which generally takes the form of cultural antagonism between Greeks and the Persians as their sophistic Other.

Chapter 3, ‘Herodotus and the Persians’, brings before the reader essential aspects of the history and culture of Persia, and its relation to the history and culture of other nations, which are absent in Herodotus’ narrative, knowledge of which is prerequisite to an assessment of Herodotus’ representation of the Persians as the Greek Other. It especially sets forth the Mesopotamian origins of Persian kingship and the Ahuramazdan theology of salvific kingship and imperialism adopted by the Achaemenid kings, Darius and Xerxes, which scholars have read in their royal inscriptions and reliefs.

Chapter 4, ‘Persians as Other in Herodotus’, examines how Herodotus’ ethnographic map of the world refutes the Ionian theories of environmental determinism and proposes that the cultural polarity of Egypt and Scythia forms the lower axis of a multidimensional cultural grid based on the contrariety of nomos and phusis, the upper axis of which is composed of the cultural polarity of Greece and Persia based on antagonistic ideologies constituting the relationship of the human to the divine and the natural. Herodotus’ representation of Persia on the cultural grid as the Greek Other is seen to be infused with a sophistic ideology permeating every aspect of Persian culture: religion, society, morality, education and government. In lieu of the salvific Ahuramazdan theology of kingship and empire embraced by the Achaemenids, Herodotus attributes to Deioces, Darius and Xerxes a sophistic theory of law and government as originating in the erōs turannidos of the sophos anēr.

Chapter 5, ‘Sophist Kings’, uses the profile of the ‘Persosophist’ established by the Persian logioi (1.1–5) to identify a number of Persosophists attached to the royal court: ambassadors, judges and counsellors. Turning to the Iranian kings, the chief characteristics of Deioces, Median founder of the ancestral constitution of Persia, are identified as constituting the archetype of the Sophist King as sophos anēr and erastēs turannidos. To this archetype, Astyages, last of the Median kings, adds despotēs doulōn, exemplified by Cambyses, son of Cyrus, who founded the Persian monarchy on Astyages’ throne. Cyrus stands out as the greatest practitioner of the Persian nomos of imperialism, established by his Median predecessors, Phraortes and Cyaxares, a nomos that found its limit under his Achaemenid successors, Darius and Xerxes. Measured by these archetypal characteristics, Darius, a master Persosophist, proves the most able of sophist kings; by contrast, his son, Xerxes, exemplifies the tragic role of an heir who proves inadequate to the hubris of dynastic ambition (preceded in Astyages’ relation to Deioces and Cambyses’ relation to Cyrus) and suffers the nemesis of divine tisis, fitting the tragic paradigm set by the fall of Croesus as ‘payback’ for the transgression of his ancestor, Gyges, as founder of the Mermnad dynasty in Lydia. Finally, we look at the Greek tyrants and generals who medized after the Persian wars, betraying the Greek ideology of isonomia for the Persosophist ideology of power, finding among these Darius’ Greek counterpart, Themistocles.

The Conclusion sums up by the argument of Sophist Kings by way of considering the implications of allowing that Herodotus was familiar with the Achaemenid employment of the Ahuramazdan theology of kingship and empire, and that he deliberately rejected it as royal propaganda meant to conceal the sophistic ideology that he ascribes to the Persian constitution of despotism and imperialism as its true basis.

Sources:  https://www.bloomsbury.com/us/sophist-kings-9781780936130/   https://www.bloomsburycollections.com/book/sophist-kings-persians-as-other-in-herodotus/introduction

[paganimagevault]

Xenophon and the ten thousand hail the sea by John Steeple Davis 1900

"The Grecian aid given to the younger Cyrus in his rebellion against Artaxerxes Mnemon produced a rupture between Sparta and Persia, as Sparta would neither apologize nor recede. With the services of the Ten Thousand, Sparta undertook to protect the Greeks of Asia Minor against Persia and waged war for six years in Asia Minor against the satraps of Lydia and Phrygia (B.C. 399-B.C. 394). The disorganization of the Medo-Persian Empire was clearly manifested during this war. The two satraps just alluded to were so jealous of each other that neither hesitated to make a truce with the Spartans provided they attacked the other, and one satrap paid thirty talents of silver for the transfer of the war from his own government to that of his rival." -Ancient oriental nations and Greece by Israel Smith Clare, page 440

https://paganimagevault.blogspot.com/2019/12/xenophon-and-ten-thousand-hail-sea-by.html

[clockworkouroboros]

Some thoughts about Andy from The Old Guard, based solely on the movie, which I saw for the first time last night:

- probably born sometime mid-century 500s BCE. This is based on a lot of conjecture: the first recorded mention of the Scythians is around 700 BCE, by the Assyrians. However, Andromache is definitely a Greek name, and the Scythians were not Greek. By the time of the Medo-Persian empire in the 500s, though, the Greek cultural influence was spreading. (It was in the 490s that Darius began trying to invade Greece, a war he eventually lost. That’s where the 300 Spartans thing comes from.) It’s possible that a) Andromache had a Scythian name that she then Greek-ified sometime before she became immortal, or that her given name was Greek due to the cultural influence. Either way, my guess is that she was born sometime around 550 BCE, possibly a bit later. (This might be actually specified somewhere in the graphic novel or something, I don’t know.)

- the Scythians were terrifying. They were fierce warriors and really, really skilled, so Andy was definitely an amazing warrior pre-immortality.

- the Scythians were also nomadic. They’re considered the first nomadic empire-builders. (People know about the Mongols, of course, as the Big nomadic empire-builders, but the Scythians were just as scary.) Their nomadic lifestyle made them difficult to threaten. (paraphrasing an actual historical record: “we have no villages for you to destroy, and no fields for you to burn. Why should we fear you?”)

- Andy drank from the skulls of those she’d killed in battle. Yes, this was an actual Scythian thing that they did. On a much more disgusting note, she would have used the skin of someone’s forearm (fingernails and all, according to some historical sources) to make quivers for her arrows.

- She smoked weed, probably. The Scythians would throw big parties where they’d throw cannabis onto their fires and “shriek with delight at the fumes.” This is, to the best of my knowledge, the earliest record we have of using marijuana recreationally. Point is, Andy definitely smokes weed. She probably doesn’t understand why the legalization of marijuana is such a controversial topic.

Update: Netflix has a short companion video for The Old Guard with the backstories, and, uh, if Andromache is really from 5000 BCE, she’s a) not Scythian and b) Andromache isn’t her real name. She could potentially be a forerunner to the Scythians, but she is not herself Scythian.