What went wrong?

>It was an organized religion which had no problem in persecuting any dissent within or without. Esspecially under Sassanians.
It's fine when Indo-Europeans do it in the name of an Indo-European god

>Kartir where the Magi boast how they burned churhes
A based IE warrior who vanquished s*mitic scums and their good goys

Do people even romanticise it? It was a parasitic religion with the clergy just feeding off the populace (kind of like Buddhism desu) so plenty of people were quite happy to convert to Islam.

Not him, but you see a degree of romanticism in the sense that it's viewed as this pure ethnic Iranian religion that stood tall against all the primarily semitic religious influences surrounding it, remaining unchanged for millenia; and oh yeah, is the real inspiration behind a lot of theologic concepts in Abrahamic monotheism, despite the best "evidence" for it being a few Persian derived words in the Old Testament.

People who LARP as Zoroastrians, even though converting to the religion is impossible, have lowered my opinion of this religion very much.

And? The earliest full copy of the bible is from the 3rd century AD.

People romantice it as fuck. It pretty much have everything going for it from the mysterious ancient seemingly-vanished religion with fucking mages, to the orientalism to the memetic inspiration for the jewish religion.

That's precisely my point. Nobody takes Christian, or Jewish, or Islamic, or Slavic Paganist, or most religious claims about their age and authenticity at face value. Zoroastrianism gets a pass for some bizarre reason, and to make a claim that it influenced Judaism, you need to have some kind of evidence linking the beliefs that existed at around 1200 or so to the beliefs they held in circa 600 B.C. Nobody, to my knowledge, has ever provided any such evidence.

The old testament wasn't finalized until after Persia freed the jews from Babylon and funded Ezra to standardize it.

I'm far from being an expert on zoroastrism, but Zoroastrians are considered People of the Book by islam, after being conquered they could become dhimmis and avoid being killed or enslaved, which was the fate of pagans. Do you have a source on massive islamic repression of Zoroastrians ? That would interest me.

Can you read?

No. Anyways let me give the background so you can understand. Zorostrianism, similar to Hinduism, was for much of it's history oral tradition. Their scripture were their spoken and sung hymns. Going by the fact that the Gathas (earliest zorostrian hymns) are linguistically similar to Vedic sanskrit along with other linguistic comparisons to later Avestan, they are dated between the period of the formation of Vedic hymns to about 600 bc at the latest. Ezra lived from approximately 480-440bc period.

Most of the Vedas are dated by supposedly calculating the astronomical signs mentioned during certain hymns that indicated when it was created.

Let me get this straight. Oral traditions never change, and if you have a language in a text, therefore, everything in the text is as old as the language.

Ezra wrote in Hebrew and Aramaic, so his books contains unbroken lines of teachings from the dawn of the Hebrew language, circa 1100 B.C.

Same thing that went wrong with Greco-Roman paganism i'd imagine. It degenerated.

Let's me fuck my sister in ck2 and that's all that matters.

And the Gathas are dated based on their comparison to Sanskrit, that doesn't conflict.

Sanskrit and Avestan hymns remained archaic. Even when the language the people spoke in their community changed due to natural evolution of languages, the hymns remained the same. It was viewed as vital that the exact wording be carried generation to generation for centuries.

>Ezra wrote in Hebrew and Aramaic, so his books contain unbroken teac ings from 1100bc
The scripture we have that is accepted as pre-exile is their historical writings like Kings and writings of their prophets (8th-6th century). The rest is dated to after their exile. Linguistically, hebrew from 1100bc was drastically different from these periods and these writings do not reflect that language from 1100bc.

>Sanskrit and Avestan hymns remained archaic. Even when the language the people spoke in their community changed due to natural evolution of languages, the hymns remained the same. It was viewed as vital that the exact wording be carried generation to generation for centuries.
Absolutely NONE of that is relevant you goddamned idiot. Plenty of oral cultures viewed it as important to keep the sacred stories accurate, and plenty of them had changes creep in anyway. Explain why you view a linguistic connection as proof of continuity of belief in this one instance but you clearly don't for other instances like Abrahamic religions.

>The scripture we have that is accepted as pre-exile is their historical writings like Kings and writings of their prophets (8th-6th century). The rest is dated to after their exile. Linguistically, hebrew from 1100bc was drastically different from these periods and these writings do not reflect that language from 1100bc.
Wrong. If you are accepting individual hymns from the Avestas (i,.e. not the whole thing) as being proof that an entire belief structure remained unchanged for millenia, I can point to passages in Genesis and Job which DO use very archaic Hebraisms and then say the exact same thing: All of Abreahamic monotheism is an unchanged unbroken line of beliefs from even older. It's a stupid argument, but for some reason you seem to think it's okay to make it for Zoroastrianism.

>Islam doesn't encourage incest

You are confusing my statement that we can give approximate dates to the formation for Zorostrianism with that it has been unchanged. All I'm saying is that we can linguistically show Zoroastrianism predates the jewish exile, meaning it's possible for it to influence that religion.

>Proof of retained archaism isn't important in dating hymns
Ok. For Hebrew, we can date different parts to Monastic/archaic, pre-exilic, and post-exilic based portions on linguistic changes and additions. With the Gathas, we can date to Vedic hinduism.

>If you are accepting individual hymns from the Avests as being proof that an entire belief system never changed...
I never claimed that the system never changed. Zorostrianism has heavily changed in any period. I said we can date hymns based on their linguistic qualities.

>I can point to passages in Genesis and Job that are archaic
They contain portions from every period of hebrew, and we can prove heavy alteration after exile to genesis.

>Goddamned idiot
Rude

Gregory of Tours on Zoroastrianism:

5.

Noah had after the flood three sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth. From Japheth issued nations, and likewise from Ham and from Shem. And, as ancient history says, from these the human race was scattered under the whole heaven. The first-born of Ham was Cush. He was the first inventor of the whole art of magic and of idolatry, being instructed by the devil. He was the first to set up an idol to be worshipped, at the instigation of the devil, and by his false power he showed to men stars and fire falling from heaven. He passed over to the Persians. The Persians called him Zoroaster, that is, living star. They were trained by him to worship fire, and they reverence as a god the man who was himself consumed by the divine fire.

Accept Christ before it is too late, don't be led astray by false religions.

The Abrahamic faiths are largely influenced by Zoroastrianism. The ideas of paradise (derives from Avestan word pairidaēza), transcendental moral dualism, light = goodness & darkness = evil metaphors, angels (yazatas), personified evil figures (e.g., Asmodeus is based off daeva Aēšma), eschatological reward and punishment (Chinvat Bridge), Day of Judgment (Frashokereti), rigid duality between truth (asha) and lie (druj), savior of light (Saoshyant), and the resurrection of the dead (Yasna 19) descended from Zoroastrian influence. Read Chapter 7 of Michael Stausberg's Zarathustra and Zoroastrianism for the most up-to-date scholarly research regarding this topic.

Monotheism, however, did not originate from Zoroastrianism, and in fact, it was never monotheistic.

War with Islam, Islam happened to win

>That and the remnants not letting outsiders convert
This. I mean shit, even Jews let you convert if you're actually serious about joining the religion.

Why are modern Iranians so ashamed of their Zoroastrian heritage?

Because Modern """"Iranians""""" are Arab rape babies so they don't like to be associated with Nordic Ar1ans

>Nordic Aryans
get out

There's a Zoroastrian center within walking distance from my house. How receptive do you think they would be if I asked how to learn more about their religion?

>To avoid being led astray by false religions accept my false religion!

Try going there and ask them.

M8 if I could interact with strangers that easily I wouldn't be on Veeky Forums.

Ahura Mazda zoom zoom

Then why even ask if interacting with them is out of the question?

Walk up, say your going their an existential or religious crisis and ask if Ahura Mazda will give you any contentment.

>The Persians called him Zoroaster, that is, living star.
Wow, looks like religious nuts were already doing retarded folk etymology in the 6th century.

...

They are not. The Iranian clerical establishment has borrowed many elements from Zoroastrianism and mixed them with Shia Islam.

Truly pathetic religion. All they do is lie about how Jews stole everything from them

Ruined by CK2 kiddies going on about divine marriages

That's just a meme they throw around, bruh. Sure, there are weird people who think inbreeding is actually good just because we had a little bit too much fun genetically engineering dogs but they at least understand that it's incredibly fucked up in a hilarious way.

Don't tell them, then. Subscribe to the newsletter under a fake name.

Only Parsi (Indian) Zoroastrianism is closed

One group does, the other doesn't, if I recall correctly.

They became poo in loos.

Hindus were also ((""people of the book"")) it was just the Delhi sultanate appeasing the caliphs in the middle east.

>Go read the inscription of Kartir where the Magi boast how they burned churhes and pagan temples as the sassanid army pushed its way into asia minor in one of the countless byzantine sassanian wars.

As if that's a bad thing?