Red pill me on the relationship between Judaism and Zoroastrianism?

Red pill me on the relationship between Judaism and Zoroastrianism?

Do they have the same teachings?

Are there any good books on their relationship?

Other urls found in this thread:

m.wikihow.com/Do-a-Daniel-Fast
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh#Iron_Age_I_.28c.1200.E2.80.931000_BCE.29:_Yahweh.2C_El.2C_and_Israel
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textual_variants_in_the_New_Testament
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

I see a lot of people on here, particularly Christians claiming Zoroastrianism was invented after Persians encountered Judaism in 500 BCE.

I don't know much about either religions, but Avestan, the language of Zoroastrian scripture is extremely archaic, even more so than Vedic Sanskrit in many respects. The Indo-Europeanist Émile Benveniste wrote that "the testimony of Vedic is valuable for its richness, the testimony of Avestan for its fidelity." Vedic Sanskrit is usually dated to around ~1500-1000 BCE, so Avestan must be from a similar date or even older.

Now, that alone doesn't mean much, people can still write in languages long after they're dead, like Latin for example. But Avestan is known solely from its use as the language of Zoroastrian scripture, and must have been codified as a sacred language by the first Zoroastrians.

>Inb4 Liberal schoolars

The conventional theory is that the origenal form of Judaism had multiple Gods, Yawheh was the war God. When the Jews were facing military defeat after defeat a group of radical priests claimed that only exclusive devotion to the war God could save them. Eventually the priests got political power and started centralizing the religion, the other Gods still existed but they were subjects to Yawheh and Yawheh was the only God worthy of worship.

The Jews were eventually defeated by Babylonians who enslaved them and were dick-heads. Eventually the Persian empire defeated the Babylonians, they free'd many slaves and gave people more rights. The Jews thought they were based and even thought their God had sent them. Eventually they started assimilating their culture.

Zoastrianism is a monothestic religion based around a battle between a good God who represents light and goodness and an evil demon that represents darkness. Both of them have lesser spirits under their command, basically angels and demons. They also have an end-times prophecy where a great messiah will emerge as the good God's champion leading the world into the final battle of good vs evil. He will start heaven on earth and all those that lived a good life will be part of the kingdom. Those that lived an evil life will be sent to a magical dimension of fire, the fire cleanses all evil from them, more wicked people need more time in the cleansing fire. Once they are pure they can go to heaven except for the evil demon who has no good in him and will be burned away.

Christians have no problem with this. It's Jews who chimpout when confronted with this.

Go tell this to a Zionist hyper ethnonationalist Jew who is convinced that he is a direct patrilineal descendant of Abraham. See how he reacts.

Then go tell this to a Catholic of Indo-European extraction, and mention Mazda's 7 Archangels, and see how he reacts.

Yeah, Christians shouldn't have much of a problem with this, unless they're fundamentalists.

The magi who brought gifts to Jesus were most likely Zoroastrians themselves.

He doesn't mean Christians at large. He's referring to the ones around here. Constantine is a good example with a name, but I'm pretty sure there's at least one Protestant and one Catholic that have claimed the same around here, and all of them are prolific enough posters to dictate the tone of the board's religious discussion.

They were Zoroastrian priests, educated men of high social status and wealth. Judging by their spiritual and astronomic knowledge and by the very luxurious character of the gifts they brought. Also the fact that they were summoned to Herod's court further underlines their elite status.

Zoroastrianism is based on the teachings of Zoroaster, a 6th-century BC Iranian prophet and philosopher. Zoroastrianism is almost identical with Mazdaism (the worship of Ahura Mazda, the supreme deity exalted by Zoroaster). Zoroastrianism survives today in isolated areas of the Middle East, primarily Iran, but more prosperously in India, where the descendants of Zoroastrian Persian immigrants are known as Parsis, or Parsees. In India the religion is called Parsiism.

Nope. Parthians, and followers of Daniel. Daniel prophesied when the King of the Jews would be cut off, and made reasonable calculations for when He would be born. He also noted there would be a new star in the sky for the new King of the Jews.

Daniel, a rich man, would have had no problem funding such a 500 year long wait, and as the head of the college of the magi through Babylon and into Persian captivity, he had the influence to do so as well.

There's nothing truthful in Zoroaster; he's just another man who heard something from an angel.

Really? High social status? I heard that they were looked down upon because of their occupation as diviners.

Nah man, Zoroaster was from around 1800 BC.

>he's just another man who heard something from an Angel

>hearing something from an Angel
>not a big deal
He was a big deal. He was good, he called out Satan.

Prove it.

There are none good but God.

I'm familiar with the "Judaism became truly monotheistic due to Zoroastrian influence" theory, but I have to admit I'm skeptical.

It starts off with an extreme skepticism of the Hebrew Bible; which is all very well and good. But then I don't seem to see equal skepticism of the Zoroastrian stuff. Only the Avestas and the Gathas are written in Old Avestan, most of the rest of the Zoroastrian texts are written in younger languages. And the oldest manuscript of a Zoroastrian holy text is something like 1400 years older than its usually assumed date of original composition.

In something like 500 years, the Hebrews apparently went from full Caananite polytheism to Monotheism. But apparently the Zoroastrians kept exactly the se beliefs and texts despite constant contact with outsiders and a primarily oral transmission? I don't really buy it, and am not entirely convinced that the beliefs of 1,000ish B.C. Zoroaster, the Zoroastrians of the Babylonian times, and the ones in the Sassanid era when the oldest texts we have stem from are the same.

idk, I was never a fundamentalist but when I first learned about Zoroastrianism it struck me pretty hard. not even the details, just learning that there was a monotheistic religion other than Judaism in a position to influence it began the long decline in my faith

Gathas date from 1800 BC based on linguistics. Angels probably talked to Zoroaster to save the Aryans from the clusterfuck of Hinduism and to give them a religion that would make them socially strong enough to create the worlds first true empire. Anyway, it's a hazy subject.

But as I was looking up more info I found this on wikihow and am now going to start this today. I am going to make this particular subject a focus of my thoughts and prayers throughout. m.wikihow.com/Do-a-Daniel-Fast

Oh wow, it's totally strengthened by faith to know that Angels of God we're working among other nations of the ancient world as well.

Also Zoroaster predicted Christ.

then why didn't he tell them to worship him by the name Yahweh?

Source? This sounds awesome.

Idk. Maybe because they didn't speak Hebrew?

1/3 of the angels are demons.

Isaiah predicted Christ. Zoroaster believed Isaiah.

knowing God by his true name Yahweh doesn't require you to know hebrew

How does it not reek of Zeitgeist to you?

I think what the other user meant was that Zoroaster's prophecies and statements align accurately with the coming of Christ, not that Jesus was a rip-off of Zoroastrianism. So what we need is a line in Zoroastrian scripture that can be interpreted as prophesizing Christ.

what the main script of the zoros and can i get it on amazon?

Butthurt Joo detected.

This is what I meant. Modern Zoroastrians are heretics because they don't worship Christ. Although some have wisely acknowledged His goodness.

Old ones weren't?

It's in Isaiah 53.

Zoroaster read Isaiah 53, and believed it. These things were not done in a corner. They're readily available to any who seek them out.

I believe it's the Avesta

I would be surprised if it's not somewhere on Netflix.

That guy is so clearly an enemy of the jews, it's unbelievable how obtuse you are.

>waah, you're being so mean to much special faith, every religion is actually as shiftless and crappy as my Rabbinism
>enemy of the Jews

You're not fooling anyone, schlomo

I'm so clearly a Christian I can't believe anyone lets you cross the street on your own.

>defend an obvious butthurt Jew who started his own reply chain
>but oh yeah, I'm clearly Christian because there are Christians in this thread.

And you think I'm the stupid one? Literally wut?

>Zoroaster was fluent in hebrew

>Trust me, Zoroaster could not learn Hebrew, and the Hebrews could not learn Parsii/Farsi.

what evidence you have that not only did he come into contact with jews but he also dedicated several years to learning their language?

Lol Christian fundamentalist ITT are quite entertaining.

Inb4 somebody scarequotes a passage from the "holy" bible".

Hebrews keep their scrolls in Hebrew. Zoroaster read the Hebrew scrolls and believed them. Therefore Zoroaster learned Hebrew.

If you insist that Zoroaster was so insipid he could not learn a foreign language, then comfort yourself in knowing that the Hebrews would have read it and translated it for him. Because they were slaves.

You won't find us so entertaining forever. You really won't. No bible verse. Just my promise to you.

I already discussed this issue with a christard in another thread. I guess you missed it

Do you even know what fundamental means?

Adhering to the fundamental aspects of an ideology/philosophy/religion. Not compromising with the secular or liberal world just to fit in.

That's a good thing.

So everytime you call a Christian "fundamentalist", you're giving him a compliment.

The scholarly consesus is that origenally the Persians also had many Gods but some political movement gained power (much like the Yawehists) and started a strict monotheism. Other Gods got demoted to being angelic beings.

In general monotheism is a political move to centralize power under a single priesthood.

Part of the lack of research is that the Old Testament and the historical periods around it has been studied for literally thousands of years, including by non-Jews. While the Zoroastrian religion was only touched by a handful of scholars throught the centuries.

>Hebrews keep their scrolls in Hebrew. Zoroaster read the Hebrew scrolls and believed them.
that's a claim without evidence again. you haven't shown that Zoroaster read them. if he had read them and believed them why didn't he refer to the god of his religion as Yahweh?

>I already discussed this issue with a christian in another thread

Yeah and you got BTFO.

what an embarassment

This is just sounding like a fucking fanfiction. Do you have any actually sources to back this up? Many scholars even question if Zarathustra was a real person.

Lol!

The revenge of the christard. In his imagination.

You won't be laughing when you're burning in hell for eternity

You'll look back at this moment and realize what an idiot you were

Truth gets the last laugh

what? not him but the last I looked at the thread Constantine never came back to respond

>Completetly refuting with sources all the opposing opinions is getting BTFO

Nah I might still laugh anyway.

...

"Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the Lord spoken by the mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished, the Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and put it also in writing, saying,

Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia, All the kingdoms of the earth hath the Lord God of heaven given me; and he hath charged me to build him an house in Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Who is there among you of all his people? The Lord his God be with him, and let him go up."

Words of Cyrus himself.

God died so that you could be saved.

If you reject His gift of eternal life, yeah you should be scared.

Thanks for the response.

It's just, and I'm not entirely sure how to articulate it, you get theories that Zoroastrianism spread monotheism to Judaism. You have theories that says the reverse. I don't pretend to even know much about what there is to know about either religion, and I know there are large gaps in the secular corpus of knowledge about both.

There seems to be too little hard data for any theory about the two religions interacting to be much more than guesswork. I for one don't see why the two of them couldn't have "monotheized" independently and at hugely different times, based on conditions that were local, not about spreading one to the other. But I don't think I've ever heard anyone seriously advance that.

...

I think the safer bet is on Zoastrianism. Consider how they met.

The Jews are oppressed by the Babylonians. The Zoroastrians come and BTFO them. Now the Zoroastrians are the ruling class and let the Jews practice their religion as they please. Both of them now see each other's religion for the first time.

Between the Jews (subjects) and the Zoastrians (rulers)?

Who is more likey to dominate culture and influence everyone?
Which group is more likely to look up to the other group and thus want to emulate them?

While it is most likely they both influenced each other I would say the Zoastrians, being the political leaders, were also spiritual leaders.

I'll take the word from a person who lived during the time of Cyrus over some random living 2500 years after.

Do you even historicism?

Probably because the tetragrammaton is unpronounceable and untranslatable.

>Many scholars

Learn to think for yourself.

don't bother, atheists suffer from confirmation bias

if something goes against them, they discard it
if something agrees with them, they accept it.

the more i visit Veeky Forums the more i am sure atheism is a mental illness

I don't think you understood the point about Cyrus.

He was prophesied in the bible before he was born.

They showed him that, and he believed in the one true God, who named him and shepherded him through his life to the point where he was the head of the empire just inferior to Babylon only.

All of the Babylonian kings recognized Daniel and the others as worshipers of the one true God.

And linked to autism, and linked to a complete lack of empathy a la psychopaths.

In the absense of having access to the origenal documents and artificats, and being unable to read the ancient scripts the best way to learn is to look at qualified scholars. These people would be the best source of information.

>Learn to think for yourself.
Says the guy that beleives everything ever written in a a magic book and tells people they will "go to hell" if they don't also stop thinking for themself.

Except how do you know what the Zoroastrians believed in the 6th century B.C.? I just checked on wiki (I know, I know) and according to it

>The surviving texts of the Avesta, as they exist today, derive from a single master copy produced by Sassanian-era (224–651 CE) collation and recension. That master copy, now lost, is known as the 'Sassanian archetype'. The oldest surviving manuscript (K1)[n 1] of an Avestan language text is dated 1323 CE.[1] Summaries of the various Avesta texts found in the 9th/10th century texts of Zoroastrian tradition suggest that about three-quarters of the corpus has since been lost

>A pre-Sassanian history of the Avesta, if it had one, is in the realm of legend and myth. The oldest surviving versions of these tales are found in the 9th–11th century texts of Zoroastrian tradition (i.e. in the so-called Pahlavi books). The legends run as follows: The twenty-one nasks "books" of the Avesta were created by Ahura Mazda and brought by Zoroaster to his patron Vishtaspa (Denkard 4A, 3A).[4] Supposedly, Vishtaspa (Dk 3A) or another Kayanian, Daray (Dk 4B), then had two copies made, one of which was stored in the treasury, and the other in the royal archives (Dk 4B, 5).[5] Following Alexander's conquest, the Avesta was then supposedly destroyed or dispersed by the Greeks after they translated the scientific passages that they could make use of (AVN 7–9, Dk 3B, 8).[6] Several centuries later, one of the Arsacid kings named Valaksh (one of the Vologases) supposedly then had the fragments collected, not only of those that had previously been written down, but also of those that had only been orally transmitted (Dk 4C).[6]


1/2

Judaism changed ENORMOUSLY in a far lesser span of time than the supposed chain of transmission from Zoroaster (sometime around 1,000 B.C.) and our earliest texts, or even the Sassanid "Master copy".

Besides taking the Zoroastrian holy texts at their word, what basis whatsoever do you have to believe that what the Zoroastrians believed when the Jews were in Babylon have anything to do with what the Zoroastrians believed when they entered a clearer historical record. And if you can't trust the contents and beliefs of the religion, how can you point to any facet of Judaism and then say "See, it's there because of Zoroastrianism"?

Except it was pronounced regularly as late as the second temple era and the translation is readily available.

According to the bible yes. But there is no record of this crap anywhere else.

The old testament is a book that has been revised several times. If you wanted to make a prophecy come true all you would need to do is "discover" a new book or writing from Moses which was conveniently "lost" (such as the entire book of Deuteronomy). In addition to being outright altered it has several historical events which simply did not happen such as the exodus.

As a result if something is only written in the bible and no other sources back it up there is very little reason to give it any serious consideration.

What are you trying to argue anyway? That because the bible says Cyrus published some sort of imperial edict (not uncommon, see: Cyrus Cylinder) mentioning the god of the Hebrews this somehow implyies that Cyrus was converted to the "one true God" of the Hebrews.

First of all, how do you know that Cyrus wasn't talking about Ahura Mazda and the Yahwist priest changed it to suit his agenda? This would not be without precedent. A textual variance of Deuteronomy, for instance, mentions El the chief god of the Canaanites, and not Yahweh, and it is changed to Yahweh later.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh#Iron_Age_I_.28c.1200.E2.80.931000_BCE.29:_Yahweh.2C_El.2C_and_Israel

We can't know since the bible seems to be the only source for the text of the edict. Can you provide another source?

Moreover the same Cyrus published the famous Cyrus Cylinder when he conquered Babylon, where he respectfuly mentions Marduk and other Babylonian gods. Was he converted to the "true religion" of the Babylonians too? No, what probably happened is that Cyrus was a wise and tolerant politician that had just become the emperor of a great multi-ethnic and multi-religious empire and wanted to be in good terms with everyone. Also it was not uncommon for emperors to also accumulate the title of chief high priest (see: sovereign pontiff) in many ancient religions.

Because Christians are totally not like this.

They're not. You're making a logical fallacy; an appeal to authority.

For every expert you find, I will find a contrary expert with the same or better degrees.

>Many scholars
Name one, with source.

What bullshit you spew. Judaism changed from trying to follow the Law of Moses to trying to design rules to keep from violating the Law of Moses.

>Except it was pronounced regularly as late as the second temple era and the translation is readily available.

Confirmed for moronic tool. There is no pronunciation of YHWH on purpose.

According to the inerrant, infallible, authoritative and inspired Word of God......suffices.

Then why does Josephus mention that the priests pronounced it when blessing the people?

>people who spend their whole life researching ancient history are not a valid authority

>I can find an authority to back up my point?
Well why don't you?
here
I challenged you to find any sort of source what so ever to fucking back your absurd statements. And you've been pussy-footing around and avoiding the issue. You've made outrageous claims and than say you don't have any reason to give a historical proof!

Lol which manuscript is the

>inerrant, infallible, authoritative and inspired Word of God?

Fun fact: there are over 400,000 textual variances in the NT alone.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textual_variants_in_the_New_Testament

If it's so damn accurate why is that the entire rest of human history seems to have a different account? There are zero other source outside the bible saying the Babylonians thought the Jews were special or prophetic.

Be careful brah or you're gonna spend an eternity in hell and look at this moment and cry so much but nobody is gonna help you :-DDD

Allah, I mean Yahweh is so merciful PBUH :DD

Jesus is coming back anytime now. Nevermind he said it was going to be during the lifetime of the apostles (those are satanic verses, don't pay attention to them). ;D

Over 270 ancient global flood stories from all over the world.

Thousands of legends of a battle between good and evil, God and an Adversary.

Hundreds of pagan mythology about a fallen being that brought knowledge to mankind.

Everything points to the Bible being true, not to mention all the archeological findings and historical research.

>Ice age ends
>Water flows in to cover large parts of Lands
>People notice how all this lands disappear beneath water
>Flood stories are born
How does that sound?

So are you abounding your point that the Babylons held the Jews to have special gifts of prophecy? Are you saying you can't produce any evidense outside the bible that says this?

You set up that whole point to explain why they Jews influence the Zoroastrians and not the other way around? You do realize abounding the position and going on an unrelated tangent is basically conceding the point?

Holy shit Christcucks cannot even fucking carry their own arguement. You just have these few scripted lines that you repeat over and over.

>Everything points to the Bible incorporating and resignifying well-known Babylonian acounts about the flood, the battle of the forces of evil/chaos against good/order, the stilling of the primeval waters, etc. during the Babylonian captivity

>Ice age

No such thing.

>inb4 someone who is not nationalistic/jingoistic/wewuzkangz

Fuck the Holy Spirit.

Hey guys look at how forgiving He is :^)
>hey guys I'm gonna send down a part of me to save you
>oh yeah about that blasphemy against the holy spirit being unforgivable rule yeah idk what to do lol so I'm gonna grandfather it in

atheistcuck

Babylonian version is from Satan's perspective.

I'll take the version given to Moses by the Creator, thanks.

Why did he tell Moses he was El? I think that while Yahweh is the name of God, he has many titles and many names. I know of at least one culture that calls God by the name of their old head god when they converted.

While Christianity is the true faith, bits and pieces of it can be found scattered among other religions. I'm not saying that there are many paths to God or anything, I just think humans instinctively reach for God, but those without the right knowledge miss the mark.

I warning you. Satan is heating the fire for you if you don't concede that my book with 400,000 textual variants is inerrant. Stop believing in your demonic science. Saint Paul warned us that wisdom and "philosophy" is satanic because it contradicts the faith.

That's right brother. Archeology, linguistics comparative mythology are demonic sciences! Anynow indulging in these occult sciences in incurring in grave sin and errrrror!

What about all the evidence for an ice age occurring in certain places of the world, like in Sweden?
>Entire nations rising further away from the sea after pressure of ice disappearing
>Signs of ice tearing sings on in rocks
>Rocks being placed in a way they only could end up if something moved them there (In this case a gigantic, sliding layer of ice)

While agree with that assessment, you should know that Jewishlibrary is run by Rabbinite heretics.

Tl;dr Zoroaster was right and Christianity is true.

Since the part of my brain that processes comedy will have shut down, no I will not be laughing.

Probably won't feel the burning either since my nervous system will be dead as well.

You have to know and experience the Holy Spirit before you can blaspheme against.

So you didn't actually blaspheme against it just now.