- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Zoroaster was a priest-philospher who inspired one of the world's first monotheistic religions, he was active debatably about 3500 years ago (much of the early sources on Zoroaster were destroyed by Arab and Macedonian invaders).
Basic beliefs:
There is one universal and transcendental God, Ahura Mazda, the one uncreated creator and to whom all worship is ultimately directed.
Ahura Mazda's creation — evident as asha, truth and order — is the antithesis of chaos, evident as druj, falsehood and disorder. The resulting conflict involves the entire universe, including humanity, which has an active role to play in the conflict.
Active participation in life through good thoughts, good words and good deeds is necessary to ensure happiness and to keep the chaos at bay. This active participation is a central element in Zoroaster's concept of free will, and Zoroastrianism rejects all forms of monasticism.
Ahura Mazda (God) will ultimately prevail, at which point the universe will undergo a cosmic renovation and time will end (cf: Zoroastrian eschatology). In the final renovation, all of creation — even the souls of the dead that were initially banished to “darkness” — will be reunited in Ahura Mazda.Question: how much of current Christianity, if any, owes their roots to concepts laid out by Zoroaster?
Hi cato,
No true doctrine.
Many humanistic religions are of this nature.
True doctrine is drawn directly from the teachings of God in the bible.Men teach that they can save themselves.
God teaches that it is impossible to do so.Cato,
Not much of Zarathushtra's original teachings influenced Christianity. Like any other religion, others came afterwards and continued to add to the religion. Before Zarathushtra came on the scene, the Persians worshiped a pantheon of gods, like many people of that time period. If you look closely enough, those who came before Moses were poly/henotheistic as well. This can be seen as early as Gen 1:26 where God said “Let US”. you can find other instances where they acknowledged other gods but finally made in the statement of Deu 6:4 that Yahweh was to be the tribal deity of the Jews.
It is accepted by many scholars that Zarathushtra was indeed the first recorded monotheist. He only acknowledged Ahura Mazda. But after his death, the Persian priest class returned to polytheism to some extent, as well as adding other elements to Zoroastrianism (Zoroaster is the Greek version of Zarathushtra).
Zarathushtra taught that man had a good and evil nature. He did not teach that the evil nature came from some satanic being but those after him started to believe this. This is where we start seeing the Jews also personificating an evil being Satan. However, the Jews never acknowledged Satan as a fallen being, but rather an agent of God. The Christian ideal of light vs. dark, good vs. evil gained much influence from what Zoroastrism had become. Satan very much resembles Ahriman, the enemy of Ahura Mazda.
In fact, the three magi that went to worship Jesus were Zoroastrian priests.
Zoroastrianism also had the concept of a messiah type of figure which influenced both Judaism and Christianity. Again, this was post Zarathushtra. They called this messiah-savior figure Saoshyant. If you read much of the books that preceded the exile, you see very littel or no clue of a coming deliverer. The Jews picked this idea up while in exile and under the influence of the Persians. King Cyrus acknowledged Ahura Mazda and not Yahweh as God, yet the Hebrew scriptures called Cyrus an anointed one. That is due to the fact that Cyrus conquered Babylon and delivered the Jews from Babylonian rule.
Other points of comparison between Iran and Israel include the doctrine of the millennia; the Last Judgment; the heavenly book in which human actions are inscribed; the Resurrection; the final transformation of the earth; paradise on earth or in heaven; and hell. (from http://www.zarathushtra.com/z/article/influenc.htm)
Not lastly, but the name “Pharisee” has its origins in “Parsi” , which is also Persian. If you will recall, the Pharisees believed in afterlife while the Saducees did not. The Saducees were actually closer in original Jewish thought that this life was all there was, while the Pharisees were influenced by the Persians. If you look at the texts of the Hebrew scriptures, you will see no clues to an afterlife until the exile.
I will give you a link to a site which gives more indepth examples later.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Feb. 25 2008,13:38) Hi cato,
No true doctrine.
Many humanistic religions are of this nature.
True doctrine is drawn directly from the teachings of God in the bible.Men teach that they can save themselves.
God teaches that it is impossible to do so.
Yes, if we are to believe the Hewbrew and Greek bible, then we must accept that God created a flawed creature, capable of “sinning”. Then, because the flawed creation goofed up ONE TIME, He then cursed humanity. To make up for creating the flawed being in the first place, He then waited several thousands to years to have relations with a human woman and kill the resulting offspring because He can't seem to forgive anyone without some living being dying. Yet the son didn't stay dead so the sacrifice was more like a “flesh wound”.Au contraire, Nick. My faith is in God, your faith is in a book written by men who viewed God after their own nature, deisres, and bias.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Feb. 25 2008,13:38) Hi cato,
No true doctrine.
Many humanistic religions are of this nature.
True doctrine is drawn directly from the teachings of God in the bible.
Well, you can either have a humanistic religion (like you think Zoroastrianism is) or you can have a religion that reduces God to human level (like Christianity is).Not much difference in the end.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Feb. 26 2008,08:27) Hi KJ,
No faith so you feel free to judge God and His plans?
I wouldn't say that Kejonn is a man of no faith. I wouldn't feel free to make that judgement of him, nor should you.However, his faith allows him to question. Perhaps your faith does not allow you to look beyond what you see in front of you?
I used to think that the church gave me all the answers, and they did. But they also gave me all the right questions to ask.
No real answers = Have faith.
No real answers = What we don't know is a mystery!
No real answers = Don't question or you will be lost.Hi mandy ,
If you come to Christ to know all the answers you had better be very very very patient.
Short fuses and impatient or presumptuous responses will always cause lack of wisdom.
Full knowledge was never the hope of weak humans, but Jesus was the Christ of God.That is all we need to know to respond.
I don't think Mandy (or I) is looking for “full knowledge”. However, we wouldn't mind knowledge that does not contradict of conflict. Let me ask you Nick, do you truly think the real God would tell someone that it was OK to rape a virgin as long as she was not engaged, pay the father a sum of money to make up for the crime, then force the woman to marry the rapist and stay with him the rest of her life?
So I can go out and rape a virgin just as long as I pay her dad 50 shekels of silever and then marry her?
I think I'll pass. You go ahead.
I'm sorry but the bible is greater than no man. It is a book. You seem to be an idol worshiper Nick. You worship a book men have written that gives their view of God. You do know that idol worship is a “sin” too?
But you fail to also see that they were looking for their “messiah”, not the Jewish one. Yet Jesus was plopped onto the Hebrew scriptures instead. Odd you don't see the irony in this.
Hi KJ,
So where did you learn who they were looking for?
They shamed the ones chosen by God.
They were even helped by them.
No irony.Quite simple really. Are any Jewish people called “magi”? No, but Persian “holy men” were called that. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magi
- Later they accepted the Zoroastrian religion, not without changing the original message of its founder, Zarathustra (Zoroaster), to what is today known as Zurvanism[citation needed], which would become the predominant form of Zoroastrianism during the Sassanid era (AD 226–650). No traces of Zurvanism exist beyond the 10th century. The best known Magi are the “Wise Men from the East” in the Bible, whose graves Marco Polo claimed to have seen in what is today the district of Saveh, near Tehran, Iran. In English, the term may refer to a shaman, sorcerer or wizard; it is the origin of the words magic and magician.
Cato, if you want a good site to find out much of the original teachings of Zarathushtra, check out ZOROASTRIANISM, the Religion of Mankind Restored.. If you would like to find out some ideas of the later developments of Zoroastrianism and how it may have influenced Judaism & Christianity, check out http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS….mic.htm
and http://www.pyracantha.com/zjc3.htmlHi Nick,
Quote If you come to Christ to know all the answers you had better be very very very patient.
I certainly never wanted to know all the answers. I just wanted to know some key answers – answers that I felt were necessary for my mind to initiate faith. Those simple questions were not only answered but they were squelched by well-intentioned believer's telling me not to question or look back; telling me that presumptuous responses will cause lack of wisdom.Quote Full knowledge was never the hope of weak humans, but Jesus was the Christ of God. That is all we need to know to respond.
You say Jesus is the “Christ of God” and yet you side-step questions that ask why Jesus does not match the Christ promised in the OT. Your answer is a pat, “Have faith and do not question.” You must realize that that is not good enough for those who really want to know him.I want to believe what you believe, Nick. But as I have said before, a quick critical look at the promised Messiah of the OT and the given child of the NT – do not match. Am I supposed to just ignore that and continue on believing it anyway? Why should I do this? Because of tradition? Please, tell me why….
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
