[anasawad]

I have been doing some comparison and i am wondering about this.
If anyone read the Avesta and the Judaic scripture in the Torah you'll see lots of resemblance between them in the concepts and general theology. And even alot with Christianity and shares the same basic pillar of faith with Islam.
Now we know that Judaism, Christianity and Islam are considered one message.
But most people never thoughts about Zoroastrianism being part of that message.

There are some opinions saying Zoroaster was a student of Prophet Irmiya (Jeremiah). And the concept of
a savior also exist in the Avesta, which actually tells the same story that Christianity and Islam state about a savior coming at the end of times to save humanity. (i.e Jesus)

And if we looked at the religious references in Islam in the Quran. Although the new scholars refer to Zoroastrians as the Majus mentioned in the Quran, but the first caliphates in the age of the prophet refered to Zoroastrians as people of the book, meaning like Jews and Christians. And in the Quran prophecies, talking about the Anti-Christ, it mentioned 70 thousand Jews from Isfahan supporting hem. But here is the thing, Isfahan is not a Jewish city, infact its a holy city for
Zoroastrians, which incline that the Quran refers to Zoroastrians as Jews. And looking at the simillarities, the time line which is around 600-700 BC, and the concepts, it is plausable that Zoroastrians might be actually one of the very first Jewish cults.

So what do you think ?

[Noelnada]

I should probably read zoroastrist sacred scriptures to forge an opinion on the subject.

But religious creeds tend to reject each other on the other hand

[anasawad]

Well, thats the thing, they don't reject each other here , the prophecy of a savior was first mentioned in the Avesta which is the Zoroastrian scripture.
The apocolyptic prophecies in the Judaic scripture old and new is very simillar to the Zoroastrian but newer than it.
It's dating is actually between 600BC and 6000 BC to how old Zoroastrian religion is, but it is considered one of the first religions to follow the concept of one god and satan.

[noemon]

The Magoi who went to baby Jesus to give their presents, that story looks like the christian seeking of confirmation from the zoroastrians.

[Nets]

There are some opinions saying Zoroaster was a student of Prophet Irmiya (Jeremiah).

Yes, some rabbinic sources state that Zoroaster was Baruch, Jeremiah's scribe. Nonsense of course.

Judaism (and by extension Christianity/Islam) was influenced a great deal by Zoroastrianism. Yahweh took on a lot of characteristics of Ahura Mazda, and Satan (particularly in Christianity/Islam, less so in Judaism) is very similar to Ahriman. Basically, Zoroastrianism gave Judaism an answer to theodicy. (It isn't a satisfying answer, none of them are.) Pre-exile Yahweh isn't really a moral or immoral being -- he is kind of outside morality. "He's not always right but he's always the boss." This is the view you get most stunningly in Job, but it also crops up in books like Ezekiel, etc. Zoroastrianism, by positing this cosmic battle of good versus evil, was much more spiritually attractive than just pre-exile Judaism's "God-is-God, the end" theology. So you see a lot of the dualism of Zoroastrianism creep into Judaism. As time went on, I think Judaism just merged Ahriman and Ahura Mazda (Isaiah 45:7 "I form the light, and create darkness, I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord that do all these things.") while Christianity kept them more distinct (God vs. Satan). (It is actually fascinating, Satan in both the Old and New Testaments is nothing like the modern Devil. Anyways...)

Some hypothesize that the etymology of Pharisee is Parsi, that is, Persian. But many disagree and it is difficult to say one way or another.

Anyways, it is a fascinating topic historically.

it is plausible that Zoroastrians might be actually one of the very first Jewish cults.

I wouldn't phrase it quite like that. I don't think Jewish views had any influence on Zoroastrianism. Jews were a bunch of hillbillies from some far off podunk province called Judah. Zoroastrianism was the state religion of the then-current world superpower, Persia.

We know that the early Jews were polytheists worshiping the Canaanite pantheon (El Elyon, Yahweh, etc). We know that post-exile (and post contact with Zoroastrians), Jews were pretty strict monotheists. There is evidence Jews were already moving in that direction pre-exile (polytheism -> henotheism -> monotheism), but also that they weren't fully there. Artifacts mentioning Asherah (Yahweh's wife) are still found pretty late in the archaeological record. Most of the polytheism got scrubbed out of the bible, but there are still lots of things that made it through. (For example, Leviathan.)

Now we know that Judaism, Christianity and Islam are considered one message.

No they aren't. All three are pretty different. I think only Muslims, as the new kids on the block, would claim this.

--

I would recommend looking up some work on Zoroastrianism/Judaism connections from secular historians, not through the lens of Islamic scholarship which is obviously biased. Also, as a word of caution, beware of parallelomania when comparing Judaism and Zoroastrianism. People tend to fall into that trap when doing ancient comparative religion.

[anasawad]

I would say probably the weak parts of my arguments are in the Jewish scripture, how ever i do still see that there are a number of concepts in concern of moralities, good and evil, Armageddon, Heaven and Hell that are exactly the same, and Zoroastrians are way older.
And 'm basing this on the Islamic scripture, its said that Judaism is the oldest of all religions, and most prophets were to Jews, so in an Islamic lens i think i can say that Zoroastrianism might be the first origin of Judaism.

-Isn't the Pharisee the people that lived around the Jordan river and were exterminated by the Romans ?
BTW, the word it self means Persian, that is Pharisee.
-What exactly is parallelomania ?

Anyways i think i will dig more into the Jewish scripture, it already seem too branched out .

EDIT: BTW, i wont even start to tell you the similarities between Zoroastrianism and Islam.
And i insist the Latin translation to the names is annoying.

[Nets]

-What exactly is parallelomania ?

In historical analysis, biblical criticism and comparative mythology, parallelomania refers to a phenomenon where authors perceive apparent similarities and construct parallels and analogies allegedly without historical basis.

I am just cautioning against this when you compare Zoroastrianism and Judaism.

-Isn't the Pharisee the people that lived around the Jordan river and were exterminated by the Romans ?
BTW, the word it self means Persian, that is Pharisee.

No Pharisees were a certain sect of Jews in Roman times who came to dominate Judaism following the Roman-Jewish wars. They are the forerunners of todays Rabbis. As for the etymology, some hypothesis it is related to Persia (as I mentioned) but this is by no means a sure thing. I think most accept the following etymology:

"Pharisee" is derived from Ancient Greek Pharisaios (Φαρισαῖος),[7] from Aramaic Pərīšā (פְּרִישָׁא), plural Pərīšayyā (פְּרִישַׁיָּא), meaning "set apart, separated", related to Hebrew pārûš (פָּרוּשׁ), plural pĕrûšîm (פְּרוּשִׁים), the Qal passive participle of the verb pāraš (פָּרַשׁ)

I would say probably the weak parts of my arguments are in the Jewish scripture, how ever i do still see that there are a number of concepts in concern of moralities, good and evil, Armageddon, Heaven and Hell that are exactly the same, and Zoroastrians are way older.

The thing is, heaven, hell, messianism -- these concepts are barely touched on in Hebrew scripture. So I am curious how you are making these broad conclusions about concepts being "exactly the same". Reading the Hebrew bible, you come away with basically no concept of heaven or hell, particularly in the older books. That said, Jewish notions of the afterlife definitely are strongly influenced by both Zoroastrianism and particularly Hellenism (immortal soul, etc). For a long time Judaism had no conception of a "soul". Life was life, and that was it, dead is dead. The Sadducees believed this well into Roman times.

And 'm basing this on the Islamic scripture, its said that Judaism is the oldest of all religions, and most prophets were to Jews, so in an Islamic lens i think i can say that Zoroastrianism might be the first origin of Judaism.

I think this is too linear. Judaism in an embryonic form certainly existed in Israel before any contact with Persians. Judaism developing syncretic beliefs with Zoroastrianism is a way more accurate description than saying Zoroastrianism is the "origin" of Judaism. Remember, in the ancient world, religions borrowed and lent concepts between each other pretty fluidly. Zoroastrianism had influences from Hinduism and Mesopotamian theology, Judaism is some syncretism of Hebrew/Canaanite mythology mixed with some Zoroastrian theology, Christianity is syncretism of Jewish theology and Greek Stoic philosophy, etc etc. Some hypothesize that Islam grew out of a sect of Arabic speaking, Torah-observant Christians!

Also, I thought Islam taught that Islam was the oldest religion. Does Islamic theology not claim Adam as a Muslim?

Anyways i think i will dig more into the Jewish scripture, it already seem too branched out .

It is a total mess of different authors, time periods, contexts, viewpoints, philosophies, agendas, etc, all redacted into one volume. Stitched together but imperfectly harmonized. This is what makes it both more frustrating and more rewarding when compared to the unity of the Quran.

[Zamuel]

its said that Judaism is the oldest of all religions, and most prophets were to Jews, so in an Islamic lens i think i can say that Zoroastrianism might be the first origin of Judaism.

No, Judaism isn't the oldest of all religions ... Yes, Zoroastrirnism predates it as do many of the Judaic traditions. Everything is relative. The unified explanation is readily apparent. Humanity just chooses to ignore it. You cannot PROVE that Red is Red to a blind man who demands visual proof he can't percieve, so don't bother trying. That you see the relationship, is very encouraging.

Here's some food for thought ... The Old Testament, derived from the Jewish Torah ... Begins with the words ... "in the beginning, the Earth Was." Then it describes the Earth as barren and desolate ... but then a little LATER, the priests tell you that NO, it didn't exist at all in the beginning. it wasn't yet CREATED. It tells you that GOD was in motion ... But the priests insist that NOTHING had yet been created ? How do you Move thru Nothing ... ? If you want to UNDERSTAND, you must discern the true record and ignore the rationalization of ages that Man has attempted to impose upon that record. This is easier than it seems as the WORD itself will guide you.

Now I've scared the shit out of a bunch of people, it really wasn't my intent to disturb your comfy slumber, please ignore and just scroll on past. I'm just a figment of your imagination anyway.

Zam

[anasawad]

The thing is, heaven, hell, messianism -- these concepts are barely touched on in Hebrew scripture. So I am curious how you are making these broad conclusions about concepts being "exactly the same". Reading the Hebrew bible, you come away with basically no concept of heaven or hell, particularly in the older books. That said, Jewish notions of the afterlife definitely are strongly influenced by both Zoroastrianism and particularly Hellenism (immortal soul, etc). For a long time Judaism had no conception of a "soul". Life was life, and that was it, dead is dead. The Sadducees believed this well into Roman times.

Well,vin Judaism it describes a place where you are forgotten, you're away from god, away from the light,etc, which is pretty much the same thing describes in the Avesta (worst existence), yet you see the description of after life for those who are good to be pretty much a better place, with veved description but merely just describing it as better place in the after life which is pretty much exactly the same in the Avesta, better existence with no accurate description of anything.
If you read some of the Avesta and then looked at the Torah or the Bible, you might think in some places its the same book just translation.

Also, I thought Islam taught that Islam was the oldest religion. Does Islamic theology not claim Adam as a Muslim?

Islam refers to the worshipping of one and only god, basically the unification message, which is the oldest, true.

Here's some food for thought ... The Old Testament, derived from the Jewish Torah ... Begins with the words ... "in the beginning, the Earth Was." Then it describes the Earth as barren and desolate ... but then a little LATER, the priests tell you that NO, it didn't exist at all in the beginning. it wasn't yet CREATED. It tells you that GOD was in motion ... But the priests insist that NOTHING had yet been created ? How do you Move thru Nothing ... ? If you want to UNDERSTAND, you must discern the true record and ignore the rationalization of ages that Man has attempted to impose upon that record. This is easier than it seems as the WORD itself will guide you.

Interesting, though most i perceived that at the beginning only god existed, some take it further more to say the thrown of god was on pure water just as in the Quran, then god started creating everything.
Yet if we were to talk about Christianity, i did notice some huge difference between opinions of scholars, as for example while some as you say think god created earth and the universe as it is, others believe god created the universe and guided it evolution to create the earth, based on the parts that says god created the world in 3 or 7 days depending on the scripture you look at.


On a most interesting topic to think of. String theory actually tries to explain this as where did the energy in the big bang came from.

[Dagoth Ur]

Life was life, and that was it, dead is dead. The Sadducees believed this well into Roman times.

This is so badass. Tell me more.

[Nets]

I mean, it's hard to say, history is written by winners. We know about Sadducees mostly through Pharisees, we know about Cathars and Manicheans through Catholics, etc. (A lot of what we "know" comes from Josephus, but he isn't an objective source.) From what I understand, the Sadducees didn't believe in an immortal soul, they didn't believe in punishment or reward after death, they didn't believe in angels or spirits or demons or whatever, and didn't believe in resurrection of the dead. They completely rejected oral law. Honestly they kind of come across as the deists of turn-of-the-millennium Judea, relative to the more superstitious Pharisees. The Sadducees were the upper class, controlling the Temple, etc. Everything revolved around the Temple service. Once the Romans destroyed the Temple, they just couldn't compete with the Pharisees (they had nothing to really offer) and died out. Some suggest, though, that the Karaites (with their rejection of oral law) grew out of the Sadducees. The Karaites were equinumerous with Rabbinic Jews into the 9th century (I think??), but mostly died out. Anyways the Sadducee-Karaite connection is just a conjecture.

I actually find their doctrines pretty appealing, e.g. the soul dying with the body and the denial of supernatural beings. Other doctrines, less so, e.g. the centrality of the priestly cult.

If you read some of the Avesta and then looked at the Torah or the Bible, you might think in some places its the same book just translation.

Can you give some concrete examples?

[anasawad]

Well, sure.
The concept of heaven and hell are agreed on both sides, the exact same description.
Hell in one hand is a place to purify the souls, its a place of worst existence but its eternal, it only last for a period of time, in Zoroastrainism that time is until the world end, for Judaism unspecific time, then all souls go to heaven,
the description stops there in Judaism and in Zoroastrianism the description goes to saying Ahura Mazda would recycle
the world where there would be no evil.

Both describe the final battle between good and evil (Armageddon) the same, in Judaism, if we considered christianity as it really is the last part of Judaism, the saviour would be resurrected to the world to lead the forces of good verses the anti christ leading the forces of evil, while in Zoroastrianism Zarathstura(zoroaster) would be birthed again in the world to lead the forces of good against the lord of evil described as Jina which is basically satan.
(in Judaism its describes as the Messiah, and in Zoroastrianism its described as the Soushyant)

Both religions have the concept of garden of Eden which creation started in and all souls return to it.

The commands and pillars of good deeds in both are almost exactly the same, though Judaism under describe them.

Both gave the same rights of equality to women with men.
Angels ofcourse are described the same way in both, creatures of light only to serve god.

As we know Jesus was Jewish, and both Jesus and Zoroaster are believed to be virgin born.

Both describes other religions as inferior to them and describes them basically pagans and wrong doers.

And both religions adhere the coming of more than one prophet, in Judaism there is no specific time, while in Zoroastrianism every 1000 years.

Basically all the concepts and traditions are either simillar or exactly the same, even as far as the head wear for men.

[Ganeshas Rat]

The problem is: not only Zoroastrianism.

When my faith was finally broken I set my mind on finding the roots of Christianity in its ancestors, I started to read special literature, visit lectures and find any sources of information in internet, falling deep into the swamp of profanity. I fell ill with this "parallelomania" and every week was a discovery. Christ is Messiah. No, Christ is truly Zoroaster. Christ is Dionysus. Actually, Christ is Apollo. Though Christ is Heracles. Christ is Mithra. Christ is Osiris. It become senseless quickly. No roots - because everything is a root. I think, a man if he tries, will easily find a link between Ishtar and Christ, Quetzalcoatl and Christ, Pan and Сhrist and Dazhbog and Horus and Wotan. It seems, there is no need to root, because humanity principally cannot invent something new; again and again those who sow search for a holy king to kill and cut into pieces, to dig in their fields for a better harvest and then tell stories about his return.

[Potemkin]

It seems, there is no need to root, because humanity principally cannot invent something new; again and again those who sow search for a holy king to kill and cut into pieces, to dig in their fields for a better harvest and then tell stories about his return.

Precisely. In fact, the invention of agriculture seems to have been the turning point; it led to a revolution in humanity's spirituality as well as a revolution in food production. The concept of the immortality of the soul seems to have arisen in its modern form by analogy with the dying back of crops, the planting of seeds, and the germination of new life from those seeds. The resurrection of the dead, as a spiritual and theological idea, probably originated then.

[Nets]

Anasawad: I was hoping for something more textual, since you asserted that "If you read some of the Avesta and then looked at the Torah or the Bible, you might think in some places its the same book just translation." Anyways.

As we know Jesus was Jewish

I don't think we have any way of knowing that.

Both describes other religions as inferior to them

Outside of some sort of hippy-dippy Universal Unitarianism, all religions are supremacist. This isn't a meaningful comparison.

Both gave the same rights of equality to women with men.

Maybe I am misunderstanding, but neither Judaism nor Zoroastrianism grant women equality with men.

Ganeshas Rat: Yes, this is precisely the parallelomania I was cautioning Anasawad against. It is frustrating because when people go crazy pointing out weak- to non-existent "parralels", it actually strengthens theistic apologists who can dismiss all alleged parallelisms and borrowing as debunked, agenda-driven, crankery. (Two good examples are people making a big deal out of Christmas being on December 25th [this came way later and has no bearing on the early church] or falsely asserting that Mithras was a dying-and-rising god.) What is interesting is that Church Fathers recognized that all these troublesome parallels existed. People in the ancient world weren't stupid, and pointed out how the Jesus myth was very similar to some earlier pagan cults about dying-and-rising gods, faith in those gods giving eternal life, etc. One hilarious apologetic was that Satan forward-inducted Jesus' biography using Old Testament prophecy, and then planted seeds of similar stories in pagan cults before Jesus, in order to discredit Jesus. It is truly jaw dropping.

Potemkin: That's a good point. The near eastern god Tammuz (as mentioned in Ezekiel) being an excellent example.

[ThirdTerm]

But here is the thing, Isfahan is not a Jewish city, infact its a holy city for
Zoroastrians, which incline that the Quran refers to Zoroastrians as Jews. And looking at the simillarities, the time line which is around 600-700 BC, and the concepts, it is plausable that Zoroastrians might be actually one of the very first Jewish cults.

Zoroastrianism was founded by the Prophet Zoroaster in ancient Iran approximately 3,500 years ago and those who are descended from the Indo-Aryans such as "Yazidis" retained or re-borrowed some practices and concepts from Zoroastrianism from ancient times. The Yezidis are racially similar to Kurds whose R1a frequency is around 11-12% and the name "Yezidi" comes from the ancient city of Yazd in Iran. Judaism is also one of the oldest monotheistic religions, which was founded over 3,500 years ago and was heavily influenced by Zoroastrianism and other ancient religions that preceded Judaism.

Off topic material has been removed.

-TIG

[fuser]

What the fuck? How does any of those things matter at all? This is a theological discussion not haplogroup. You may think that every discussion revolves around haplogroup but seriously they dont. You basically ruined another perfectly fine thread.