Zoroastrianism

[gratefulgrace]

I am new at this so I messed up with the icon selection. I don't live in Cape Verde but Canada and I am not dizzy. Hee hee

 

[lmnop9876]

hey gratefulgrace, welcome to Christian Forums!

 

[gratefulgrace]

Wow thanks so much. It is all a bit new to me, ie how to get around the site and stuff. It is pretty amamzing the amount of things that are going on.

 

[masuwerte]

funner fact part deux

they no longer allow converts, you have to be born into it

The Parsis of India, who account for slightly over half of all Zoroastrians, do not accept converts. This is due largely to the history of the place where they settled. Zoroastrians in other parts of the world do accept converts.

 

[masuwerte]

In the book "One Hunded Years of Solitude", which has nothing to do with Zoroastrianism, a character in a remote village observes the sun and the stars, and comes to the conclusion that the world is round. His neighbors call him crazy, because everybody knows the world is flat, right?

IMHO, Zoroastrianism is kinda like that. Independently of Judaism, some say independently of divine revalation, Zoroaster came to believe that there is only one God, creator of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen, and whom he called the Wise Lord. Zoroaster taught that God wants us to freely choose to serve him through good thoughts, good words and good deeds.

Zoroaster taught, and I'm paraphrasing here, that God wants us to know him, because if we know him we'll want to serve him. He also taught that the Devil doesn't want us to know him, because if we do, very few would choose to serve the Devil. This sounds a little like CS Lewis, doesn't it? "It is the policy of the Devil to convince us of his non-existence."

BTW, the OT prophet Ezra spoke quite highly of the Persian King Cyrus, a Zoroastrian, who sent the Jews home to rebuild the temple at the end of the Babylonian Captivity.

 

[masuwerte]

Here are some links:

www.zoroastrianism.com
www.zoroastrianism.cc
www.zoroastrian.org
www.avesta.org

 

[Simon_Templar]

Placing a date for the life of Zoroaster is very difficult due to a simple lack of solid evidence. Because his teachings gained little acceptance in his own lifetime, there is no archeological evidence to fix a date for Zoroaster (this is the greek version of his name, Zarathustra).

That leaves only analysis of the writings he left, or the writings of other historical sources. There is almost nothing in His personal writings by which a date can be fixed (ie he mentions no significant events in the world around him etc, because he focuses only on his religious revelations). Thus looking at his works, scholars have tried to place the date for his life based on the style of language he used. The theory here is that language changes over time, thus certain forms and styles of language can be dated to specific times. The problem is that its an inexact science, and it doesn't take into account that a writer could have used earlier styles deliberately out of taste, or due to borrowing from earlier sources etc.
Scholars working on linguistic analysis usually place Zarathustra about 1200 BC to 1000 BC or so. Which is about 400-500 years before the Babylonian captivity of the Jews.

However, there is a historical document, from within the Zoroastrian religion itself which fixes a fairly exact date for Zarathustra. This date is often referred to as the "traditional date" because it was accepted by most historians until the arising of the newer linguistic datings. The Bundahisn, says that Zarathustra lived 258 years before the conquest of Alexander the great, which would place his life around the time of 588 BC, which is very shortly before the babylonian captivity of the jews.

In either case Zarathustra would have lived before Daniel, though in the latter case they could have over lapped, though it is fairly certain they never would have met as Daniel lived in Babylon while Zarathustra lived quite a ways east and north of babylon beyond a barrier of a large mountain chain.


Personally I tend to buy into the traditional date. It is pretty well demonstrable, however, that no matter which date you choose, Zoroastrianism didn't become a major religious force until the reign of Darius and had little influence in Persia, let alone babylon prior to that time.
Even under Darius it didn't technically become the state religion. The persian empire, even before Darius, practiced an active policy of religious tolerance and essentially went out of their way to recognize any religion as officially valid. This was not really due to any great enlightenment per say, simply a realization that people were much easier to rule if you didn't mess with their religion. The Acheamenid kings didn't really care who you worshiped as long as you payed your taxes and didn't revolt.
They did, 'for some reason' seem to show a sort of soft spot for the Jews (apart from Haman).

Zoroastrianism didn't become an official state religion until the Sassanian empire 226 AD - 651 AD (or there abouts).

 

[Cromwe11]

If you delve much into comparative religion you'll find there are a great many similarities and striking coincidences through out the world's religions. Including many similarities between pagan religions and christianity.

Zoroastrianism has been looked at here, but if you look at the pagan religions of babylon, egypt, greece and rome, even northern europe, you will find many similarities.

This surprised many christians today simply because they (as with most people today in general) are poorly educated in history. modern and "post modern" society have made history as boring and irrelevant as possible, consequently, very few peolpe ever bother learning anything about it.

For example, even those who know a little bit of mythology probably know that roman mythology borrowed very heavily from greek mythology and is basicly just greek mythology with different names (there is a bit of inaccuracy here already).
However, few people know that if you strip the various mythologies down to their core, all of the mediteranian mythologies are essentially the same. That is, it is near certain (in my opinion) that they all come from a common source. OR there is something about them that caused 3 cultures to develop a nearly identical mythos.

I'm not as familiar with Northern European mythology, but I wouldn't be surprised to find that even it has essentially the same roots, the same core.

Early christians were not surprised by the similarities of pagan religions to christianity, and very often they used the similarities to their advantage. The reason they were not surprised is they recognized two truths. God reveals himself to all men, and Most men being wicked and rebellious, pervert the revelation of God into falsehoods.

See Paul's words in Roman's chapter 1.


It is often suggested that christianity borrowed from the pagan religions, but the same things are found every where. For example... In norse Mythology Odin, the "all father" is hung on a tree as a sacrifice to himself and pierced with a spear.
Almost every culture in the ancient world had a god who died and was resurrected, defeating death.

The fact is God has revealed himself, and elements of his truth to all men. He has revealed it in the very creation itself so that ALL can see. Man, for the most part has refused to acknoledge the truth, and has taken it and twisted it. That is why the hebrews were chosen out as a special people to receive the full oracles of God, and the importance of the gospel revealed in Christ.. it is the unadulterated, untainted truth. It makes plain what every where else was clouded and unclear.

 

[karen freeinchristman]

I find it all truly amazing (that there are all of those similarities in different mythologies and faiths).

That is why Celtic evangelism worked so well in Britain, because the missionaries didn't come from the angle of saying to people that their pagan faith was rubbish, they helped the people to see that the truths they had found in their pagan faith were made clearer and are revealed more fully in the Christian faith. It was (and is) a gentle guiding to help people see how God has revealed himself and his plan for us.

 

[Andy Broadley]

Zeroastrianism?


Far too hot for stuff as heavy as that.

 

[Cromwe11]

Zoroastrianism also reveals an interesting fact if you look into the details of how it is treated by western thought.

The oldest extant copy of the Avesta (main scripture of Zoroastrianism containing its original writings) is from around 1288 AD.. the medieval era.. more than 2000 years removed from the original texts if the scholars are to be believed. Yet virtually no western scholars question the authenticity of the texts. Virtually no one suggests that the original portions weren't actually written by Zoroaster or that they have been significantly changed since.

In christianity, by comparison, the oldest extant copies of the new testament are from 4th-5th century AD ranging from 300 - 400 years after the originals. For the OT there are even older extant manuscripts.

Yet the new testament in particular is constantly questioned as to its authenticity. Wether it was really written by the person who claimed to have written it, wether it has been significantly changed through copyist error and modification etc etc.

 

[gratefulgrace]

I read a book by Don Richardson in the late seventies written by a missionary to Javan head hunter tribes/It is fascinating reading and clearly demonstrates that God places in each culture something or things "types"that can be used to demonstrate his divine revelation of Peace between God and man. I highly recommend it. initially it was very frustrating to Don as the culture he was with glorified treachery so in the relating of the gospel message they all thot Judas was the hero because of his act of betrayal of Jesus . With prayer and revelation he was fially able to find a perfect "type" in their culture to explain Gods love and forgiveness in a way they totally got

 

[karen freeinchristman]

I read a book by Don Richardson in the late seventies written by a missionary to Javan head hunter tribes/It is fascinating reading and clearly demonstrates that God places in each culture something or things "types"that can be used to demonstrate his divine revelation of Peace between God and man. I highly recommend it. initially it was very frustrating to Don as the culture he was with glorified treachery so in the relating of the gospel message they all thot Judas was the hero because of his act of betrayal of Jesus . With prayer and revelation he was fially able to find a perfect "type" in their culture to explain Gods love and forgiveness in a way they totally got

I find it astounding to hear that any culture could glorify treachery.

 

[Cromwe11]

I find it astounding to hear that any culture could glorify treachery.

In general most cultures have pretty much the same set of values, its just that things are defined somewhat differently. For example, there is no culture, never has been, in which murder was accepted or allowed... yet what we consider to be murder, some other culture may not. That is not to say they approved of murder, they just had different definitions as to what constituted murder and what did not.

Thus I would be very surprised if this culture really truly valued treachery in and of itself. Rather they probably valued what we might consider treachery but what they considered to be craftiness, cunning, etc. I doubt very much that they would honor people who betrayed their tribe for example.

I'm not advocating cultural relativism here.. but rather showing why cultural relativism is wrong. All cultures have pretty much the same absolutes, its just that there are variations of degree and definition on specifics.

 

[gratefulgrace]

In general most cultures have pretty much the same set of values, its just that things are defined somewhat differently. For example, there is no culture, never has been, in which murder was accepted or allowed... yet what we consider to be murder, some other culture may not. That is not to say they approved of murder, they just had different definitions as to what constituted murder and what did not.

Thus I would be very surprised if this culture really truly valued treachery in and of itself. Rather they probably valued what we might consider treachery but what they considered to be craftiness, cunning, etc. I doubt very much that they would honor people who betrayed their tribe for example.

I'm not advocating cultural relativism here.. but rather showing why cultural relativism is wrong. All cultures have pretty much the same absolutes, its just that there are variations of degree and definition on specifics.

You guys may both be right but it is kind of off the point I was trying to make I think. Heres the story: the love and grace and sacrifice in the Christian message but seen as weakness while the "cunning and craftiness" if you will of Judas actions were seen as much more in tune with a certain aspect of their tribal struggles with other head hunter tribes. You have to read the book ok>They would befreind other tribes and "Pretend peace" bring the cheif into their home wine and dine to then murder and eat him. Charming. This gave them strength and made them feared in the eyes of the surrounding tribes.
Naturally though there was no real or lasting peace and they were always up for having the same done to them. And constant warring was drastically depleting tribal numbers. Except there was the "peace child" that they would give each other at times to ensure the tribes stayed peaceful to one another. No treachery here it was a trading of first born sons of the tribal cheifs while they thrived and succeeded peace reigned. These children were loved and almost worshipped. You really should read the book. eh?

 

[gratefulgrace]

Wow thanks so much. It is all a bit new to me, ie how to get around the site and stuff. It is pretty amamzing the amount of things that are going on.

Thanks for the welcome

 

[kiwimac]

Zoroastrianism is, in fact, monotheistic. The Dualistic beliefs were additions to the religion during the Sassaenad period and were not there in the beginnings of the faith.

Kiwimac

 

[kiwimac]

Another thing,

You can convert to Zoroastrianism. The parsees of India will not accept converts but the Zoroastrians of Iraq will. There are also 'Gatha only" Zoroastrians which do not accept the later additional writings and they will accept converts.

Zoroastrianism is around the same age as Hinduism. The languages in which the Gathas were written and the earliest Hindu scripture, the Rig-veda, was written are very similar, having a number of similar concepts and words throughout.

Kiwimac