User talk:EliasAlucard/Assyrian identity

D.H. Hegewisch, Die Aramäer oder Syrer
How on earth can you state that Hegewisch is not talking about the Syriac Christians, when you can't read German? It's obvious that the subject of his work is the Syriacs, a.k.a. Suryoye. What do you base that on? Learn German and read it, or ask someone else to read it for you.

This is just another work like all the Syriac and Greek authors I've pointed out to you, that clearly state that the people whom the Greeks call Syrians, call themselves Aramaeans. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 20:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Syrer does not mean Syriac. Believe it or not, I do know Swedish quite well, and it happens to be a Germanic language too. Syrer is an old version of Syrier. Syrier, means Syrian, not Syriac. Also, you can tell by just looking at the context of what he's talking about, that it is about the ancient Aramaeans. Nowhere does he mention anything about Christianity. Don't take that stuff out of context. It only reveals your bias and that you see what you want to see rather than trying to be objective. This is just another work like all the Syriac and Greek authors I've pointed out to you, that clearly state that the people whom the Greeks call Syrians, call themselves Aramaeans. &mdash; There's only one author who wrote that, and it was Posidonius who wrote that. Notice also that he says were called, not are called. Perhaps he was referring to ancient times when those who inhabited Syria actually called themselves Aramaeans. But that was back then. You have to consider the possibility that he was talking in Imperfect tense. Also, I'm not going to take Flavius' quote seriously. I have a question for you though: why do you ignore/disregard all the Roman and Greek authors who stated very precisely that they called the Assyrians, Syrians? By the way, you are welcome to add quotes supporting your erroneous beliefs if you can source them properly. They will be added to the equation if they have any historical relevance. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 20:17 20 Oct, 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, that's not how Strabo cites him: "Indeed, Poseidonius conjectures that the names of these nations also are akin; for, says he, the people whom we call Syrians are by the Syrians themselves called Arimaeans and Arammaeans." In the present tense. . The same Strabo is also cited by Hegewisch: . --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 20:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's obvious that the subject of his work is the Syriacs, a.k.a. Suryoye. What do you base that on? &mdash; Question is, what do you base that on, that his subject is Suryoyo people? As far as I can tell, he's talking about Aramaeans in ancient history, not Suryoyo. The fact that he's referring to the ancient Aramaeans and mentions that they have been called Syrians, is simply due to the fact that their territory, which was once called Aram, came to be called Syria. And you know, why that happens to be the case. Frye explains it perfectly here. Look man, this entire Suryoyo = Oromoyo is highly original research. No one supports this theory except a few Syriac Orthodox priests. Oh and lest we forget, John Joseph. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 22:24 20 Oct, 2007 (UTC)
 * Moreover, on this page he refers to the "Syrische Sprache" which was still extensively used in the 13th century, also for translations. We all know that many Greek books were translated into Syriac, and from Syriac into Arabic. (Read the Introduction to Syriac Studies, by Sebastian Brock.) --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 20:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, he writes about the 13th century "Kirchenskribent Ebed Jesu", who is 'Abdisho' bar Brika, Metropolitan of Nisibis and Armenia,.
 * How many more citations do you need? Syrisch in German is Syriac in English, and "Syrer" are the people who call themselves Suryāye. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 21:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you please explain to me exactly where in this piece of paper he is talking about Syriac Christians? I don't see anything about Jacobites, or Syrian Orthodox Church. I only see Syrer. Believe it or not, Syrians is nothing Suryoyo Christians have a monopoly on. He is, as anyone with a brain can understand, talking about ancient Aramaeans. Why else would he compare them with Phoenicians, Assyrians and Babylonians? You're taking this entirely out of context and manipulating the sources. This is clearly showing how POV you actually are. Please, until next time, do not accuse me of not being NPOV. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 19:04 21 Oct, 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't try to fool me, or actually: don't try to fool yourself. Have you read the passage about "ein Syrer, ein Kirchenskribent im 13. Jahrhundert, Ebed Jesu" (a Syrian, a church author in the 13th century"), who --he adds-- also wrote in Arabic, next to "Syrisch"? What else than Syriac could "Syrisch" mean, in a 13th-century context? You can find it right here: . Ask someone who can read German, because it is so obvious that he is talking about the people who have been called Syrians for centuries, i.e. the Suryāye.


 * And this is just one source. Again, I refer you to urhoy.info, where all the sources are spelt out for you. No need to copy them here. If you really want to be NPOV, you should check out those sources as well. --Benne 18:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess you have no answer, eh? Because it's evident you're wrong on this point. There are so many texts where Syrians (i.e., ܣܘܪ̈ܝܝܐ Suryāye) is equated with Aramaeans, but I guess you just don't want to see it. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 20:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No Benne, don't flatter yourself. It's not that I lack answers. You are just playing stupid. Your answer is very incoherent. What does this source, have to do with this source? I mean, what's wrong with you? Don't you understand that when he mentions Aramaeans, Phoenicians, Assyrians and Babylonians in the same context, he simply isn't talking about Syriac Christians, due to the 600 years or so time gap? And you are dodging my question: why do you disregard all the historic references to Assyrians as Syrians? You didn't even respond last time I asked you this. Why do you disregard all of this because of your bias? You are extremely one-sided. You are not objective. Yes, Syriac is a dialect of Aramaic. That is the only thing it has in common with Aramaeans. But it doesn't mean, that Assyrians, are Aramaeans. I also think that you are totally obsessed, possibly a fanatic, as far as this topic goes. You cannot see clearly, because you see what you want to see. Give me a real academic scholar who supports these crazy theories of yours, then I will take it more seriously. And Urhoy is not a WP:RS, even though it has some references which might be worth looking into, I would like to have them cited from other, more neutral sources. If anyone is trying to fool anyone here, then it's you who's trying to fool yourself, me, and all Assyrians into believing we're some kind of dead race which we haven't identified with in centuries. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 15:06 23 Oct, 2007 (UTC)
 * There are so many texts where Syrians (i.e., ܣܘܪ̈ܝܝܐ Suryāye) is equated with Aramaeans &mdash; Give me just one single example. There is not one single text where Syriac Christians, are equated with Aramaeans. There are a few ancient, pre-Christian texts where Syrians (not Suryaya) and Aramaeans are equated due to geographical locations. But that is about it. I haven't so far seen one single example of Jacobites/Syrian Orthodox Church being equated with Aramaeans. This must be terrible for you to read though:


 * "&ldquo;Those in particular who are called Assyrians or Jacobites and inhabit Isfahan will be compelled to sell their very children in order to pay the heavy tax you have imposed on them, unless You take pity on their misfortune.&rdquo; &mdash; Carmelites in Persia"


 * Ain't that a bitch? It's not I that don't want to see it, Benne. It's just that there are a lot more historical references to Syriacs as Assyrians, rather than Aramaeans. This quote, which is from the 17th century, totally ends the myth created by John Joseph, that 'Assyrian' was somehow magically imposed on Syriac Christians by Anglican missionaries in the 19th century; a lie, which you have repeated several times here on Wikipedia and keep on perpetuating, even though you know it's a lie. Shame on you for your dishonesty. That is why I don't trust you. You are disingenuous and want to make Assyrians believe they are a people they're not. &mdash;  EliasAlucard|Talk 15:24 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

What does this source, have to do with this source?
 * Well, since you are apparently not able to see the obvious connection, I'm going to spell it out for you, and even translate it for you. These two pages belong to the same text. As you can see, you can scroll from the first page to this page, both being pages of the same text, both dealing with the Syrian nation, as Hegewisch put it. On the first page, he states about the Syrians (a.k.a. the Aramaeans): "mir scheinen sie werth zu sein wenigstens mit den Phöniziern, Assyriern, und Babyloniern in gleiches Licht gesetzt zu werden." (To me they appear worthy to be put in at least the same light as the Phoenicians, Assyrians, and Babylonians.) Hence, in his eyes, the Syrian "nation" is equal to the Aramaeans, and do not constitute the same people as the Assyrians. They are at least as important, he says. On the other page, he writes about the "Syrer" Ebed Jesu that he is "von eben dem Eifer für die Ehre seiner Nation getrieben" ("driven by the same zeal for the honour of his nation"). In both cases, he describes the Syrians as a nation, isn't that interesting? Look up who Ebed Jesu is, and you'll find that he is a Suryāyā, and hence --in the view of Hegewisch--, an Ārāmāyā. Don't come up with the same Parpola over and over again, let's talk about this source. And by the way, I'm not saying Urhoy is a reliable source, I've stated many times that Urhoy is citing verifiable sources. And so far you have not been able to prove the site wrong. But let's stick with Hegewisch for now, shall we? --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 18:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to understand, Benne. Hegewisch was just one man. He wrote, they have been called Syrians, which they have on a few occasions. But Hegewisch, was not a universal source. He was not God. He doesn't decisively decide that Suryoyo are Aramaeans. There are a lot of other sources, Parpola excluded, which contradict Hegewisch's opinions on the matter. You, are excluding these quotes in favour of your POV. You have to consider the possibility that Hegewisch got it all wrong. Also, you didn't once again answer my question: why do you disregard all the ancient Greek and Roman historians, which have all identified Assyrians as Syrians? I mean, do you at all understand logic? &mdash;  EliasAlucard|Talk 12:12 24 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

You are either unwilling to admit that you're wrong here, or just playing the fool. Read back to the first sentences, we're talking about Hegewisch here. You're selling nonsense, saying that Syrer does not mean Syriac in Hegewisch' text, and I've proven you wrong. Is it that hard to admit that? --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 21:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Syriacs is synonymous with Syrian Orthodox Church, Church of the East, Jacobites, Nestorians, etcetera. If you can prove to me that he is talking about these groups, I will give you one point. So far, that is not the impression I've gotten from him reading his text. In any case, he does not decide anything, there are other authors and historians you are excluding (purposely, of course) who hold a different view, and in my opinion, a more logical view. Don't play stupid Benne, you know, Assyrians--->Syrians is more rational than your theory. Can you, for instance, give me something similar to the Carmelites in Persia quote? Syrer does not mean Syriacs, it means Syrians. Don't mix those two together just to get a cheap point. &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 03:08 25 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

Unity
Sure I'd welcome unity among the Syriac people, but not on the basis of an Assyrianist ideology, simply because I strongly believe it is wrong. Please, go on collecting sources, I find them very useful, because it strengthens me in my conviction that Suryoyo means nothing else than Aramaean. The only more or less concrete thing you can come up with, and that is supported by a number of reliable sources, is the etymology of Syria. Well, quite some authors who even acknowledge that Syria comes from Assyria, do stress that both names are used to refer to different concepts. See Th. Nöldeke ("ΑΣΣΥΡΙΟΣ ΣΥΡΙΟΣ ΣΥΡΟΣ"), or John Joseph, for example, or Payne Smith's Syriac dictionary. Both Joseph and Nöldeke give an explanation for the shift in meaning among Greek authors. You seem to be convinced that I have some hidden agenda, well, you may, of course, but I truly believe in the things I write, and I think I have good reasons to do so. Shlome, Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 19:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is, Benne, if you are not one of us, i.e. a Suryoyo, it's none of your goddamn business to interfere in our ethnic identity. Now, I can see that you try to write in Syriac, which makes you all more mysterious. Needless to say, you do have a hidden agenda behind your Aramaeanist crusade. This link explains quite a lot about the false Aramaean identity, which you support. Much like Megalommatis supports it out of obvious anti-Assyrian reasons, you do as well. The big question is, who are you to decide on what our ethnic identity should be? What does it have to do with you? Are you an authority? It's none of your business. Understand this, none of your business. As for Nöldeke, he supports that Syria comes from Assyria. John Joseph, has no credibility on this. He has been refuted many times by Frye and others. Why do you refuse to understand this? Why do you try to be so ignorant as possible? Why are you so obsessed about our unity being of a false Aramaean identity which none of have ever accepted, except a few from the Syriac Orthodox Church in the 1970's? No one in the Church of the East or Chaldean Catholic Church calls themselves Aramaeans. Not even everyone in the Syriac Orthodox Church calls themselves Aramaeans. Why do you want to impose this alien identity upon us which we don't accept anyway? As for collecting sources, don't worry, your conviction is false anyway, and based on a mistranslation in the bible. Suryoyo means Assurayu. End of story. &mdash;  21:24 04 Nov, 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way, you say you welcome unity amongst our people, try to understand, as thick-headed as you can be about this Aramaean identity: THERE WILL NEVER BE ANY KIND OF UNITY WITH AN ARAMEAN IDENTITY. NEVER. The closest thing we are to a unity, is our Assyrian identity because it exists in all of our churches. You can desperately cling on to this newly constructed Aramaean identity but it will never become anything more than that. Our people will keep on dying in Iraq and persecuted while we continue to have this lack of unity, thanks to the horseshit identity of Aramaeanism, and we will never achieve or amount to anything, because of this ridiculous pseudo-identity. Great job Benne, I hope you're proud of yourself for misleading the Assyrian people like that. Your contributions to humanity is appreciated. &mdash;  21:35 04 Nov, 2007 (UTC)