Zoroaster Created Judeo Christian Religions

[SonOfTheGods]

 

http://www.hiddenmeanings.com/

[SonOfTheGods]

http://www.youtube.com/user/bdona4556/videos?flow=grid&sort=p&view=0

 

This guy has some decent material on his youtube page and personal web site.

 

It's just intro/surface scratching for beginners.

Edited December 21, 2013 by SonOfTheGods

[Marblehead]

I listened up to 11 minutes.

 

Much of what he said is valid.

 

Points of criticism:

 

The man's name was Zarathustra, not Zoroaster. Zoroaster (Zoroastrianism) is the name of the religion.

 

Zarathustra did not create the Judeo-Christian-Moslem religions. However, yes, they did grow out of Zoroasttianism.

 

Using myths in his discussion was distracting. Staying with the truth as it is currently understood would have been awesome enough.

 

But based on what I listened to he is pretty close to the truth.

[SonOfTheGods]

I listened up to 11 minutes.

 

Much of what he said is valid.

 

Points of criticism:

 

The man's name was Zarathustra, not Zoroaster. Zoroaster (Zoroastrianism) is the name of the religion.

 

Zarathustra did not create the Judeo-Christian-Moslem religions. However, yes, they did grow out of Zoroasttianism.

 

Using myths in his discussion was distracting. Staying with the truth as it is currently understood would have been awesome enough.

 

But based on what I listened to he is pretty close to the truth.

I agree-

It's just surface scratching for beginners.

[thelerner]

Its not widely recognized, but you can indeed see its influences in them.

[Nungali]

My favourite current topic !!!! I was half way through a 4 part educational session on it (when it was disrupted by the court case - one of the charges was, I WASNT teaching things of a religious nature

 

But right now ... I need breakfast 'I shall return' .

[soaring crane]

Also sprach Zarathustra

Edited December 22, 2013 by soaring crane

[Nungali]

First, for those that may not realise ; here is a good reference

 

http://video.pbs.org/video/1354541084/ Kingdom of David

 

It is about how the early history of Judaism and the Bible are a made up story projected back on to a culture that had only a few monotheistic Jews and a vast number of 'pagans' that worshipped a God and Goddess and many gods , but definatly had a goddess thing going on.

 

There is a funny rabbi in there saying ;Of course its a made up story! We know that now ... but its a good story, a greta story and it has helped the Jewish people survive and come closer to God so .... <shrugs>

 

So, no big deal ... lets not fundamentalist on that point .

 

But in that part of the Bible some very significant things have been established which passed on to Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Bahai. Things like creation stories and (later ) very important theological ideas, early 'history; etc.

 

They are not from pagan Palestine nor Phoenician, so where did they come from? Abraham the story says. It is admitted he wasn't a real person ... but it is also acknowledged that there was a process of people doing what Abraham did throughout a large part of ancient history (and many of them may have been called Abraham) , that is; left 'Mesopotamia' and travelled to the Levant ... and during later times when drought other trouble threatened (like Moses another fictional character) went to Egypt ... and then back again.

 

It doesn't take much of a leap to realise the original ideas came from Mesopotamia.

 

http://www.preceptaustin.org/map%20of%20abrahams%20journey.gif

 

But if Abraham is fiction, how did the teachings get to Israel? Probably after the return from the Persian capture. This seems to fit the avilible evidence.

 

So, what was going on in Persia back then and where did they get the teachings ?

 

Most say Zoroaster (or Zarathustra ... or even f one wanted to picky -Zhahardusht).

 

What date? Now we get to the big discrepancy ...

 

Controversy over Zaraθuštra's date

has been an embarrassment of long

standing to Zoroastrian studies. If

anything approaching a consensus

exists, it is that he lived ca. 1000 BCE

give or take a century or so, though

reputable scholars have proposed

dates as widely apart as ca.1750 BCE

and '258 years before Alexander' -

Encyclopædia Iranica. It is noted that

Zoroaster seemed to be a reformer and

introducer of a much older religion

related to the PIE peoples so that explains the discrepancy.

 

 

{ Abraham : 2000 - 1850 BCE. The traditionally

accepted period in which the

Judeochristian/Islamic patriarchal

figure Abraham lived. Likely born in

Ur Kaśdim or Haran and died in

Machpelah, Canaan.

 

 

But what was this religion that Zoroaster was a reformer of and why did it need reforming?

 

Do the roots of our Abrahamic modern religions go back further than Zoroaster and the establishment of a Pre-Persian Culture?

Edited December 22, 2013 by Nungali

[Nungali]

There is a vast number of things that Abrahamic religions (descendant religions) hold in common with the Zoroastrian teachings, and if we go further back we can see a source of these teachings in a shared culture that Avestas and Vedas sprang from.

 

Just for the Moment, dealing with Avesta and Abraham a few of the things that Abrahamic religion inherited from Avestan culture and language ( a mountain of religious and ethical languageterms come from Avestan) are;

 

Garden of Eden and a concept of banishment and fall. A return to a type of 'New Jerusalem'. Dualism. Angels and angelic hierarchy, social law codes ... just off the top of my head.

 

If anyone is interested I can go on ... or ask me a question (I need the practice, these religious/hermetic sessions at home will start up again soon ... and I need more question practice outside of my power point presentation - people just tend to sit there and watch and not ask questions or interrupt ... during discussion it flows better)

[Nungali]

Also this story is intimately linked to the development of very early Hermetics and how it is threaded through western history, as an influence in Alexandrian Snythesism, Islam, The European Enlightenment and through to today (it also shows an interesting interplay between 'hermetic realisation' and the 'capture and disguise ' role of religion in Hermetic transmission.

[Captain Mar-Vell]

...

I'm interested.

 

Keep it up guys.

 

You know I'm interested in Angels.

...

[soaring crane]

Ditto. Really good stuff, mainly because you explain it so well.

 

I'd like to see a map and timeline making the geographical development clear

[Marblehead]

Also sprach Zarathustra

But that was the other one.

[soaring crane]

That Nietzsche guy?

[Marblehead]

But what was this religion that Zoroaster was a reformer of and why did it need reforming?

 

 

That's the big question, isn't it?

 

Zarathustra started someting novel. A religion with only one God. Yes, Zoroastianism is the first know mono-theistic religion. Zarathustra taught that God created all things, including man, and that he (God) gave man free will (freedom of choice) but also required man to take full responsibility for his (her) actions.

 

This didn't last long though because shortly after Zarathustra died his followers (but not all) created a devil (at this point Zoroastrianism is no longer a mono-theistic religion) to blame their evil-doings on.

 

Any religion that includes the concept of devil is really not a mono-theistic religion.

 

But I will add that there is a branch of Zoroastrians who still hold to the one God concept without a devil.

 

This is as best as I can remember from when I studied the religion. Please correct me if I have errored.

[SonOfTheGods]

Don't forget pharaoh Akhenaten = monotheist

[Marblehead]

Don't forget pharaoh Akhenaten = monotheist

Good point. However, I think it can be argued that Zarathustra lived before Akhenaten did and therefore it could be suggested that he (Akhenaten) was influenced by Zoroastrianism.

[goatguy-too]

The Wellhausen hypothesis has been very successful in popularizing the idea that the Bible is not reliable history, however, those who do accept it should at least know that there are alternatives. The Tablet theory proposed by P. J. Wiseman uses evidence from pre-Abrahamic Mesopotamian tablets to demonstrate that Genesis was written by eye witnesses. (and it implies that God himself wrote Gen 1 the same way he wrote the tablets of the law for Moses.)

 

If the Bible is used as a reliable source, then the myth that Abraham invented mono-theism disappears in the face of God, who is one. From the time of Adam, there would be monotheists, even before Abraham. One such 'outsider' was Melchisadek, who was not Jewish. It is very likely there were other monotheists also. There is no Biblical warrant to assume that Abraham was the only one.

 

Nor is there any warrant to assume the Jews were largely monotheists until after the rebuilding of the temple. Jacobs wife brought Laban's family idols with her. Many who went with Moses were not even genetic Hebrews but were from all the people who had sold themselves as slaves during the famine of Joseph. And it is recorded that they continued to worship their foreign gods in teh desert.

 

When the Hebrews went into the 'Promised land' they adopted the religions of the peoples there. God continually is calling Israel a prostitute for her idolatry. Meanwhile, outside of Israel, men like Melchizadek worshipped a single God. How would they have gotten the idea? Everyone alive at the time of Noah knew there was only one God. They knew the creation story and the of the flood. Everyone at Babel would have known about Babel, so there should be no surprise that these 'myths' are perpetuated in many cultures.

 

I think the comment that a religion which has a Satan isn't monotheistic should be considered. If the idea of Satan is that he is equal in power to God, then I agree, it is a dualistic religion. However popular that belief is, it is not what the Bible teaches. Satan is a created being who is not even close to being equal with God. There will be no eternal struggle of good and evil.

 

I am not arguing the observations made above, simply suggesting that the observations are explainable by using the Bible as a source. Of course it is much more fun to use a rabbi who doesn't believe his own religion.

 

It has been suggested that the consonants of ancient languages contain meaning which is shared across the languages. One such theory is called Edenics. If the Hebrew hieroglyphics are applied to the consonants of other languages, there are some interesting results.

 

For instance, 'asa' or 'truth' which is the basis for Zoroastrian philosophy becomes the same as 'eesha' in Hebrew, which is 'man'. The first question of Zoroastrianism is "Who is true" and the answer is that man is. It is not much different from the Philosophical base of Descartes, who made man the center with "I think, therefore I am." This is the same philosophy of Adam, who decided that he could declare good and evil for himself. It should be no surprise to discover that Zoroastrianism teaches that it is man who can decide for himself what is good and evil. The same teaching that was defined as original sin for Adam.

 

Now don't misunderstand me. I like original sin or I wouldn't do it so often ;-) Whenever, I act instinctively, I have declared good and evil. I have, without even thinking about it, acted in such a way as I thought good for my own self-existence. Zoroastrianism, apparently formalizes this into an acceptable religion. Perhaps I would like it. ;-)

[Captain Mar-Vell]

...

Did somebody say Akhenaten?

“Owl’s Wisdom.”

Kneeling before sweet Athena,
I summon her owl of golden sheen,
And humbly beg for utmost wisdom,
Of crystalline reflecting prism.

Reveal the weave beneath my gaze,
Show me all its subtle ways,
Its warp and weft, its thead and hue,
Pick from its pattern every clue.

Light wither wend my winsome way,
Show how to live each livelong day.
Grant me gift of Akhenaten,
Piercing Hawkeye, of Clint Barton!

...

Edited December 23, 2013 by Captain Mar-Vell

[SonOfTheGods]

Bible is not credible at all, especially for history. Sorry

If the Bible is used as a reliable source

[Marblehead]

For instance, 'asa' or 'truth' which is the basis for Zoroastrian philosophy becomes the same as 'eesha' in Hebrew, which is 'man'. The first question of Zoroastrianism is "Who is true" and the answer is that man is. It is not much different from the Philosophical base of Descartes, who made man the center with "I think, therefore I am." This is the same philosophy of Adam, who decided that he could declare good and evil for himself. It should be no surprise to discover that Zoroastrianism teaches that it is man who can decide for himself what is good and evil. The same teaching that was defined as original sin for Adam.

 

Now don't misunderstand me. I like original sin or I wouldn't do it so often ;-) Whenever, I act instinctively, I have declared good and evil. I have, without even thinking about it, acted in such a way as I thought good for my own self-existence. Zoroastrianism, apparently formalizes this into an acceptable religion. Perhaps I would like it. ;-)

Good points. It's not that God has been deminished in any way, it's just that the burden of how man wishes to act is placed solely on the shoulders of man, not on God (or any devil form).

[Marblehead]

Bible is not credible at all, especially for history. Sorry

I sadly have to agree with this.

[goatguy-too]

Bible is not credible at all, especially for history. Sorry

 

"Contradiction is not arguement" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdoGVgj1MtY ;-)

[Nungali]

Ditto. Really good stuff, mainly because you explain it so well.

 

I'd like to see a map and timeline making the geographical development clear

So would I ! On one map. Let me know if you find it.

 

In the meantime some of these may help

http://www.heritageinstitute.com/zoroastrianism/maps/index.htm

[Nungali]

That's the big question, isn't it?

 

Zarathustra started someting novel. A religion with only one God.

 

I am hoping to eventually outline that Zoroasater did not start something novel, he reformed something ... and that not have been 'novel'.

Yes, Zoroastianism is the first know mono-theistic religion. Zarathustra taught that God created all things, including man, and that he (God) gave man free will (freedom of choice) but also required man to take full responsibility for his (her) actions.

 

This didn't last long though because shortly after Zarathustra died his followers (but not all) created a devil (at this point Zoroastrianism is no longer a mono-theistic religion) to blame their evil-doings on.

 

Yeah ... 'followers' , it seems a basic dynamic with religion and followers doesn't it? Another thing that happened is certain 'good qualities' that man needs for a good and just society, ie. 'concepts' or maybe even 'rays' or 'graces; of God (Mazda) became like 'angelic beings' ... not Gods as such, but originally such ideas were not part of the original teaching (earlier this became a disruptive point between two factions ; one moving closer to monotheism and the other to 'idolatry'.

 

Any religion that includes the concept of devil is really not a mono-theistic religion.

 

No, not if the 'devil' is considered 'deity' . But 'they' all have a problem with that ;

 

"I shall have no other Gods before me." ??? What other Gods? I thought there was only one ?

 

 

 

 

But I will add that there is a branch of Zoroastrians who still hold to the one God concept without a devil.

 

This is as best as I can remember from when I studied the religion. Please correct me if I have errored.

 

I don't know if either of us can be right or wrong here. I am presenting one view ... but nothing in your post urrked me