Oldest Religion? before christ ?

exile said:
Shamanistic religions were probably the oldest religions ever, but what Shamanistic religion still in practice ever document their religion? For the Hindus and Zarathushtrians and Jews there is documentation. And I don't see what difference it makes that our oldest written copies of these scriptures are recent. Apart from the Dead Sea scrolls the oldest complete Torah dates to the 10th century CE (Codex Liningrad). All historical documents are dated according to extralinguistic and paleolinguistic methods. Linguists proved that the language of the Zarathushtrians and Sanskrit are authentic languages a long time ago and there is enough extralinguistic evidence e.g. names of Zarathushtrian divinities, the word "Zarathushtrian" found in Achemenian inscriptions, theophoric names, Greco-Roman accounts to show that Zoroastrianism has been around for a long time. Scholars generally agree Zarathushtra lived 1000 BCE or earlier. To say that Abraham lived 1800 BCE and Moses lived 1400 BCE is like saying Zarathushtra lived 6000 BCE. As far as we know the accounts of these quite possibly legendary figures were fixed when the Torah was which was not 1800 BCE or 1400 BCE. The song of Moses are our oldest extrabiblical accounts and date to around 1000 BCE. When the Torah was actually fixed is another question. Ezra is said to have finalized the Pentateuch, one of the books of the Torah, during post-exilic times. And the first of account of Genesis comes from a later date as well and can even be shown to have been influenced by Zarathushtrian cosmology in regards to the Spirit as the active force in the creation. Moreover polytheism is rampent throughout the Hebrew Bible (OT) up until post-exilic times. Moses, himself, was not a monotheist. You did point out that a chemical process was used to date the Dead Sea scrolls, and I do agree that the earliest scrolls probably date to around 300 BCE but could be as late as the 1st century CE. Even this kind of dating system is not perfect.[/QUOTE}

Perhaps Zoroastrianism predates even the Vedas or perhaps not. Either way Shamanistic religion predates either. The issue is not about "documentation" (the Bushmen, Aborigines, Native Americans, and Siberians had no written language, so how could they document).

The question "what is the oldest religion" and you admit they are the oldest. Ergo, both Hinduism and Zoroastrianism both loose out.

It just depends on what one means by "oldest". Oh, and it really does matter when the oldest written evidence is and the Gathas are far outdated by the Septuagint (in terms of the oldest physcal evidence of the texts themselves). Dates of composition? I do not know, but tend to believe the Sanatana Dharma to Zoroastrian to Judaism route of transmission (kinda parallel to the OT to NT to Quran transmission of Abrahamic monotheism).

Does it matter? Not really. How does a prior existence of Zoroastrianism cheapen Bahaism or Sikhism or the Religious Society of Friends or Reconstructionist Judaism? I do not believe it does.
Click to expand...
 
radarmark said:
exile said:
Shamanistic religions were probably the oldest religions ever, but what Shamanistic religion still in practice ever document their religion? For the Hindus and Zarathushtrians and Jews there is documentation. And I don't see what difference it makes that our oldest written copies of these scriptures are recent. Apart from the Dead Sea scrolls the oldest complete Torah dates to the 10th century CE (Codex Liningrad). All historical documents are dated according to extralinguistic and paleolinguistic methods. Linguists proved that the language of the Zarathushtrians and Sanskrit are authentic languages a long time ago and there is enough extralinguistic evidence e.g. names of Zarathushtrian divinities, the word "Zarathushtrian" found in Achemenian inscriptions, theophoric names, Greco-Roman accounts to show that Zoroastrianism has been around for a long time. Scholars generally agree Zarathushtra lived 1000 BCE or earlier. To say that Abraham lived 1800 BCE and Moses lived 1400 BCE is like saying Zarathushtra lived 6000 BCE. As far as we know the accounts of these quite possibly legendary figures were fixed when the Torah was which was not 1800 BCE or 1400 BCE. The song of Moses are our oldest extrabiblical accounts and date to around 1000 BCE. When the Torah was actually fixed is another question. Ezra is said to have finalized the Pentateuch, one of the books of the Torah, during post-exilic times. And the first of account of Genesis comes from a later date as well and can even be shown to have been influenced by Zarathushtrian cosmology in regards to the Spirit as the active force in the creation. Moreover polytheism is rampent throughout the Hebrew Bible (OT) up until post-exilic times. Moses, himself, was not a monotheist. You did point out that a chemical process was used to date the Dead Sea scrolls, and I do agree that the earliest scrolls probably date to around 300 BCE but could be as late as the 1st century CE. Even this kind of dating system is not perfect.[/QUOTE}

Perhaps Zoroastrianism predates even the Vedas or perhaps not. Either way Shamanistic religion predates either. The issue is not about "documentation" (the Bushmen, Aborigines, Native Americans, and Siberians had no written language, so how could they document).

The question "what is the oldest religion" and you admit they are the oldest. Ergo, both Hinduism and Zoroastrianism both loose out.

It just depends on what one means by "oldest". Oh, and it really does matter when the oldest written evidence is and the Gathas are far outdated by the Septuagint (in terms of the oldest physcal evidence of the texts themselves). Dates of composition? I do not know, but tend to believe the Sanatana Dharma to Zoroastrian to Judaism route of transmission (kinda parallel to the OT to NT to Quran transmission of Abrahamic monotheism).

Does it matter? Not really. How does a prior existence of Zoroastrianism cheapen Bahaism or Sikhism or the Religious Society of Friends or Reconstructionist Judaism? I do not believe it does.
Click to expand...

Your right, your right. Zoroastrianism, nor Hinduism, nor Judaism are the oldest religions. These religions are very old religions that were documented at an early phase. Zoroastrianism is, however, the oldest of the revealed religions. I'm sure that Shamanism pre-dated all these religions and is still in practice. If I'm not mistaken shamans indulged in totemism. I find it interesting, however, how Zoroastrianism and Hinduism retained shamanistic like rituals such as the Haoma/Soma ritual. Shamans and Zoroastrians, and Hindus alike would ingest hallucinagens and enter the spirit world and would return from their ordeals to recount their experiences.
Click to expand...
 
radarmark said:
Does it matter? Not really. How does a prior existence of Zoroastrianism cheapen Bahaism or Sikhism or the Religious Society of Friends or Reconstructionist Judaism? I do not believe it does.
Click to expand...

That's a very good question. And a complicated question. One that I would like to explore more myself.

I myself am an atheist, but I"m also a fan of synchronistic religions like Sufism, but my question would be how are these daughter religions which have borrowed heavily from this prototypical religion any different from modern day "bio-pirates" and "fakelorists" that exploit cultural expressions that are clearly characteristic of the cultural expressions of communities that have been around for centuries?
 
Probably we are on the same vibe here. I believe nearly all religions to be synchronistic... evolving memes of a sort. Because we (human beings) and G-d are also changing and evolving, Religion itself is evolving.
 
@ exile, in reply to your post # 43.

You missed that topic. It is in the 'Ancient History and Mythology' forum, I was thinking that you would participate in that (though there is still time :)), It is at http://www.interfaith.org/forum/the-sixteen-homelands-of-aryans-16124.html#post274651.

There was a lot of coming (into India) and some going (back) too. Some Aryans, including Zoroaster's people, came to Punjab but returned to northern areas because they did not like the heat in Punjab and suffered fevers. Otherwise, it would not have been mentioned in Vendidad.

RigVeda was composed in different periods. Some before the coming of Aryans in India and some later. That is why they say that books 1 and 10 were composed later than the other books. But the many of the ideas (not the words) are common to both in older books of the Iranian Aryans and the Indian Aryans. That is why RigVeda mentions seven suns and an unformed one. That is why RigVeda mentions a long night (Ati-Ratra). That is why dawns (Ushas) lingered for one month before the sun appeared and that is why there were priests who completed their annual ritual cycle in nine or ten months (Navagwahas and Dashagwahas). And the Vendidad mentions a deluge with snow. These are remembrances of their homeland which was far in North, somewhere near the polar region.

In RV 2.30.4, the priest says that as Brihaspati did with a bolt, Indra, as you did earlier also, O Asura, now too you pierce the Vrkadvaras.

"The Demons often mentioned in the hymns are of two kinds. The higher and more powerful class are the aerial foes of the gods. These, are seldom called asura in the RV., where in the older parts that word means a divine being, like ahura in the Avesta. The term dasa, or dasyu, properly the name of the dark aborigines (Aup differs. These were not aborigines but supposed demons in the 'Ariyanem Veijo', the original Aryan homeland, who hid the sun for two months and Indra had to kill them to bring back sun and the spring and let the waters of River Saraswati flow), is frequently used in the sense of fiend to designate the aerial demons." - http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/vedaread.htm
(Note: If these are aerial demons, how could these be aborigines. Are aborigines aerial? The writer is clearly confused)

"Bhargava believes that, in most of the ancient hymns, the word, Asura, is always used as an adjective meaning 'powerful' or 'mighty'. In the Rig Veda, two generous kings, as well as some priests, have been described as Asura. One hymn requests a son who is an Asura. In nine hymns, Indra is described as Asura. Five times, he is said to possess asurya, and once he is said to possess asuratva. Agni has total of 12 Asura descriptions, Varuna has 10, Mitra has eight, and Rudra has six." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asura

In RV 7.99.5, Asura is used in the sense of 'powerful' and 'mighty', and I do not see any dichotomy in this. Rendering it into modern English, it is:

"You have destroyed, you Indra, and you Vishnu, Sambara's nine-and-ninety fenced castles;
You both smote down a hundred times a thousand resistless heroes of the mighty Varchin."

"The dichotomy is evident in the earliest texts of either culture, though neither the Rigveda's Asuras nor the Gathas' Daevas are 'demons'. However, sometimes the deities cooperate. Nevertheless, the demonisation of the Asuras in post-Rigvedic India and the demonisation of the Daevas in Zoroastrian Iran took place "so late that the associated terms cannot be considered a feature of Indo-Iranian religious dialectology." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asura
 
radarmark said:
The question "what is the oldest religion" and you admit they are the oldest. Ergo, both Hinduism and Zoroastrianism both loose out.
Click to expand...
Hinduism is still has shamanistic elements. Bhairavas, the various devis and ammas, and tantra. Regrettable as it may be but such practices have not ceased.

@ Yes, exile, homa/haoma is an important part of hindu rituals, at all times. Marriage, new house (Bhoomi Pujan), new business, death, sacred thread, or the daily 'agnihotra' rituals.

100424031458_Witch-Story-4.jpg
images
images
ind2.jpg


Last pic: Mrs Sonia Maino Gandhi, Chairperson of the ruling United Progressive Alliance, at bhoomi pujan (consecration of land) of Himachal Congress Bhavan in Shimla on Wednesday. Also in the picture are Mr Virbhadra Singh, Chief Minister, and Mrs Vidya Stokes, Himachal Pradesh Congress Chief.
 
I then stand corrected. If the Sanatana Dharma is truly nonjudgmental as to the nature of religion and G-d (as I understand it to be), then these shamanistic elements would logically imply a continual past to the dawn of human religion.

Are all religions then, within the Sanatana Dharma, equivalent?
 
No. Shamans (Ojhas (turkish - Hodjas), witch doctors, tantrics, aghoras) are considered LHP, not suitable for civil people and house-holders. Though tantra and aghora have refined their philosophies to respectability. So few people in cities and as education grows would go on that path. The RHPs are Vaishnava, Shaiva, Shakta, and Smarthas (Vedics).
 
Christ and His Elect are working for the emancipation of the Human Spirit ... period. Such was the case before Xianity, before Judaism, before Hinduism or Zoroastrianism and even before the Egyptian heyday tens of thousand of years ago. Prior to a flood catastrophe 200,000 years ago (one of several) ~ so too there was a CHRIST and a Spiritual Government active & functioning on our planet. Ignore these teachings in the Vedas, but do not then call yourself a Hindu.

Ignore THIS Eastern Wisdom altogether ... and a Celestial Torah falls flat on its face, for the Buddha and the Christ are Two Great Brothers [the ELDEST in our Human Pedigree] Who are the Love and Light of the World, respectively. One either knows this, or prefers the flat earth. And to be certain, people believe all kinds of crazy things ~ with mirth!

But that doesn't make every zealot correct.

Vyasa did not come yesterday. Vyasa did not prop up Hinduism overnight. And a Celestial Zodiac, you must surely recognize, also existed 18 million years ago when our Earth's Spiritual Hierarchy was Founded ~ Sanat Kumara and the other Kumaras being the key Figures involved ...

I don't know, anyone else here got 18 million years for your figure?

If not, don't whittle away at MY numbers. They aren't, after all, exclusive. I've always heard that the answers were there, if you were willing to do the knock-knock-knocking.

Frankly, I don't think people really care. Most folks would rather do everything they can to defend what they *already believe*.

Case in point (keep reading) ... ;)


.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

See? (I will hold my breath, but it won't take long)
 
'Tis obviously you problem, also, ecumenist. Forgive me, but I would want this kind of indefensible certainty based on some exclusive faith pointed out to me also (if I suffer from it).

As for me, I think I have learned that the Sanatana Dharma is a cool really big tent group that could cover all (thanks Aupmanyev)!
 
radarmark, it is only because you are carrying a spear, forgetting it better serves as a pruning hook, that some of us ~ as myself ~ must defend ourselves from what you would otherwise PARE us, and as much as the Wisdom as YOU feel fit or prepared to accept, DOWN TO ...

stop the offensive, and you'll find that we all have something to share.

otherwise, you give the Friends a really, really bad name

Learn to deal with what is within, then the without won't be so hard.

And you will stop taking pock shots.

Go find that Light, friend. I KNOW you can! :)

Oh wait? Something you need to straighten out, clarify for me, or on my behalf first?

No there isn't. GET WITH IT
 
I do not know what a pock shot is. Please, what do you mean "the offensive"? A comment that you appear to be a little too confident?

Strange notion you have of offensive. You have your values, and I mine. I value frankness and honesty and terseness. Not talking around the matter and preaching.
 
Aupmanyav said:
@ exile, in reply to your post # 43.

You missed that topic. It is in the 'Ancient History and Mythology' forum, I was thinking that you would participate in that (though there is still time :)), It is at http://www.interfaith.org/forum/the-sixteen-homelands-of-aryans-16124.html#post274651.

There was a lot of coming (into India) and some going (back) too. Some Aryans, including Zoroaster's people, came to Punjab but returned to northern areas because they did not like the heat in Punjab and suffered fevers. Otherwise, it would not have been mentioned in Vendidad.

RigVeda was composed in different periods. Some before the coming of Aryans in India and some later. That is why they say that books 1 and 10 were composed later than the other books. But the many of the ideas (not the words) are common to both in older books of the Iranian Aryans and the Indian Aryans. That is why RigVeda mentions seven suns and an unformed one. That is why RigVeda mentions a long night (Ati-Ratra). That is why dawns (Ushas) lingered for one month before the sun appeared and that is why there were priests who completed their annual ritual cycle in nine or ten months (Navagwahas and Dashagwahas). And the Vendidad mentions a deluge with snow. These are remembrances of their homeland which was far in North, somewhere near the polar region.

In RV 2.30.4, the priest says that as Brihaspati did with a bolt, Indra, as you did earlier also, O Asura, now too you pierce the Vrkadvaras.

"The Demons often mentioned in the hymns are of two kinds. The higher and more powerful class are the aerial foes of the gods. These, are seldom called asura in the RV., where in the older parts that word means a divine being, like ahura in the Avesta. The term dasa, or dasyu, properly the name of the dark aborigines (Aup differs. These were not aborigines but supposed demons in the 'Ariyanem Veijo', the original Aryan homeland, who hid the sun for two months and Indra had to kill them to bring back sun and the spring and let the waters of River Saraswati flow), is frequently used in the sense of fiend to designate the aerial demons." - A Vedic Reader (Excerpts)
(Note: If these are aerial demons, how could these be aborigines. Are aborigines aerial? The writer is clearly confused)

"Bhargava believes that, in most of the ancient hymns, the word, Asura, is always used as an adjective meaning 'powerful' or 'mighty'. In the Rig Veda, two generous kings, as well as some priests, have been described as Asura. One hymn requests a son who is an Asura. In nine hymns, Indra is described as Asura. Five times, he is said to possess asurya, and once he is said to possess asuratva. Agni has total of 12 Asura descriptions, Varuna has 10, Mitra has eight, and Rudra has six." - Asura - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In RV 7.99.5, Asura is used in the sense of 'powerful' and 'mighty', and I do not see any dichotomy in this. Rendering it into modern English, it is:

"You have destroyed, you Indra, and you Vishnu, Sambara's nine-and-ninety fenced castles;
You both smote down a hundred times a thousand resistless heroes of the mighty Varchin."

"The dichotomy is evident in the earliest texts of either culture, though neither the Rigveda's Asuras nor the Gathas' Daevas are 'demons'. However, sometimes the deities cooperate. Nevertheless, the demonisation of the Asuras in post-Rigvedic India and the demonisation of the Daevas in Zoroastrian Iran took place "so late that the associated terms cannot be considered a feature of Indo-Iranian religious dialectology." - Asura - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Your translation of 2.30.4 is different than Wash Edward Hales. He seems to imply that in both these these cases (2.30.4 and 7.99.5) the derivative of Asura is used of men who are "foes." The Ahurians "lords or masters of the land" are also described as men in the Avesta, but not in the pejorative senes.

His translation for 2.30.4 is "O Brhaspati, slay as if with a burning sling-stone the heros of the asura Vrkadvaras. Just as you killed courageously previously, even so kill our enemy, O Indra."
 
exile said:
.. but the Zarathushtrians, an Aryan people, have been subjected to Abrahamic faiths for centuries now, and are still a very persecuted people today.
Click to expand...
There is only one place in the world where zoroastrians were never persecuted, and that is India. Have you heard the name Jaguar, Corus, Tata; one of the richest people in India, and zoroastrians. And there are many like that.

The story goes than when the zoroastrians came to India, to Navasari, the king offered the leader a glass, full to the brim with milk. The wise zoroastrian leader asked for a spoonful of sugar and put it into the glass, signifying that the zoroastrians would live like sugar in milk. The king gave them all rights and they lived happily everafter. Indira Gandhi married one (Feroze Gandhi) and the family rules India.
 
Aupmanyav said:
There is only one place in the world where zoroastrians were never persecuted, and that is India. Have you heard the name Jaguar, Corus, Tata; one of the richest people in India, and zoroastrians. And there are many like that.

The story goes than when the zoroastrians came to India, to Navasari, the king offered the leader a glass, full to the brim with milk. The wise zoroastrian leader asked for a spoonful of sugar and put it into the glass, signifying that the zoroastrians would live like sugar in milk. The king gave them all rights and they lived happily everafter. Indira Gandhi married one (Feroze Gandhi) and the family rules India.
Click to expand...

Yes, I've heard the story, but you left out one major detail. His condition was that the Parsis adopt his native language, and I don't think the Parsis speak Persian there anymore. I could be wrong. But at least they have the freedom to practice their religion openly. But as far as in the homeland I think Islam is destroying what is left of the Aryan heritage. I do have notions of a more embracive revivalist movement in Tajikistan, however.
 
exile said:
Yes, I've heard the story, but you left out one major detail. His condition was that the Parsis adopt his native language, and I don't think the Parsis speak Persian there anymore. I could be wrong.
Click to expand...
Aryan heritage survives nowhere but in India and is strong. We have thousands of schools and many universities all over India where Sanskrit and Vedas are studied. Nothing is lost in India. There can be no revival in muslims countries. The mullahs will kill the people. Yes, in the succeeding 1200 years, Parsis have forgotten Persian except for some words that they may still be using and have been using the local language, i.e., Gujarati. I am from the Kashmiri stock settled in Rajasthan/Delhi for the last 150 years, we do not know the language but still use many words from it. I think that use of local language must have helped in smooth intermingling of the people, though there were no marriages between Gujaratis and Parsis - Caste system.
 
Sun has been worshiped everywhere, by the Aryans (he is one of the Adityas, son of Sage Kashyapa and his wife Aditi, who was the daughter of the hindu Adam, Daksha) and others too. It is not that sun was not worshiped by the indigenous people in India. We have a great festival in one of our states, Bihar, which is known as 'Chhath', during which women fast for two days for the welfare of the menfolk near a river or a water body. It is a women's festival. They stay there for a night and prepare their food there itself. So, the traditions of two people must have mingled.

chhat_pooja_india.jpg
20_11_2012-20pat4.jpg
images


The last pic shows the one-time Chief Minister of Bihar, Rabri Devi, performing the 'chhath puja' for the welfare of her husband, Laloo Prasad Yadav, once a cabinet minister in Indian government as also a Chief Minister of Bihar, and their eleven children. :D
 
StarshipEnterprise said:
The oldest religion would be shamanism. It was an unorganised religion practiced by prehistoric people. It said there was a physical world, and a more powerful spirit world. I think dealt with magic and the worship of nature spirits. This may not be what your looking for because it is not a religion practiced today, but I hope it helps.
Click to expand...
Shamanism is not a religion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top