Persian/Zoroastrian Influences on World Religions

[Juggernaut Nihilism]

ask "why" until the other persons brain pops.

. . and the final appeal in every case, without exception, will be "Because that's what I believe."

True, at the end, it's all subjective. But of two people arguing over the origin of the Roman Empire, the one saying that extra-terrestrial genetic manipulation of two wolf-man hybrid brothers is "just what I believe" must be given less credence than someone touting a more conventional explanation. Saying that there is an element of subjectivity and bias in everything is not the same as saying that all explanations are equally valid. In this case, critically, you are ignoring timing: the rise of teleological/apocalyptic ideas among the Jews after their mass exposure to Persian culture.

[Juggernaut Nihilism]

Unless, of course, Zorastrianism and Judaism both drew upon a deeper magic yet . . but there might be personal reasons for denying that as well . .

In either case the various major cultures/religions would have influenced the expression of whatever Natural Law or true religion one might believe in. E.g. there is a true religion we will call Ur Religion. Ur Religion is true and eternal, but throughout history forms of worship and customs change in response to different cultures. Thus, in the Roman era Latin becomes the language of the priests of the Ur Religion, and non-Ur Religion terms and concepts of Roman origin are incorporated into the rituals and practices of the Ur Religion.

In my view religion is simply the way people try to explain what they can't explain in a scientific manner. And therefore it tends to change as our knowledge of the universe increases. That doesn't mean that religious beliefs - such as the existence of God, of the soul or the prevalence of our conscience beyond physical death - are necessarily false. One day we may come to prove that all that is true by recourse to science. Religion is useful in as much as it allows us to have answers for things we can't prove. Our mind doesn't like blank spaces, so we fill them up as well as we can. What I dislike in religion is fanaticism, intolerance of other people's beliefs, and the attempt at manipulation of people's lives by the clergy. There can only be a religion where there is ignorance. It is thus not surprising that in the Old Testament Man was forbidden to eat from the tree of life and from the tree of knowledge...

Cosmology has always only been a fraction of religion, and not a particularly important fraction until that part of it was challenged and certain religious groups got defensive.

To say that "religion", something for which we have evidence as far back as we have evidence of man, and that has shaped and defined every people that ever stood upright, is just some sort of useless appendage of the ignorant, not particularly worth talking about except possibly as a pathology, strikes me as almost incredibly shallow and narrow-minded.

[Marcus]

1) True, at the end, it's all subjective. But of two people arguing over the origin of the Roman Empire, the one saying that extra-terrestrial genetic manipulation of two wolf-man hybrid brothers is "just what I believe" must be given less credence than someone touting a more conventional explanation. Saying that there is an element of subjectivity and bias in everything is not the same as saying that all explanations are equally valid. 2) In this case, critically, you are ignoring timing: the rise of teleological/apocalyptic ideas among the Jews after their mass exposure to Persian culture.

1) No argument here, JN.

2) No argument here either unless I'm missing your meaning. After all . .

"New occasions teach new duties,
Time makes ancient good uncouth, . . "

[Marcus]

Cosmology has always only been a fraction of religion, . .

For my purposes, cosmology is the fundamental essence of religion. One's "religion" is simply that set of beliefs that define and direct and make sense of the cosmos and all it contains.

[Farcus]

Cosmology has always only been a fraction of religion, . .

For my purposes, cosmology is the fundamental essence of religion. One's "religion" is simply that set of beliefs that define and direct and make sense of the cosmos and all it contains.

"I get to make up my universe."
What a cynical and narcissistic rationalization.

Your universe is determined. Period.

[Farcus]

ask "why" until the other persons brain pops.

. . and the final appeal in every case, without exception, will be "Because that's what I believe."

True, at the end, it's all subjective...

Tell that to the bank.

[Ibrahim]

Unless, of course, Zorastrianism and Judaism both drew upon a deeper magic yet . . but there might be personal reasons for denying that as well . .

In either case the various major cultures/religions would have influenced the expression of whatever Natural Law or true religion one might believe in. E.g. there is a true religion we will call Ur Religion. Ur Religion is true and eternal, but throughout history forms of worship and customs change in response to different cultures. Thus, in the Roman era Latin becomes the language of the priests of the Ur Religion, and non-Ur Religion terms and concepts of Roman origin are incorporated into the rituals and practices of the Ur Religion.

In my view religion is simply the way people try to explain what they can't explain in a scientific manner. And therefore it tends to change as our knowledge of the universe increases. That doesn't mean that religious beliefs - such as the existence of God, of the soul or the prevalence of our conscience beyond physical death - are necessarily false. One day we may come to prove that all that is true by recourse to science. Religion is useful in as much as it allows us to have answers for things we can't prove. Our mind doesn't like blank spaces, so we fill them up as well as we can. What I dislike in religion is fanaticism, intolerance of other people's beliefs, and the attempt at manipulation of people's lives by the clergy. There can only be a religion where there is ignorance. It is thus not surprising that in the Old Testament Man was forbidden to eat from the tree of life and from the tree of knowledge...

My only point was that religious practices are influenced by cultures, no matter whether you think religion is itself and invention of human culture, or something transcendent and eternal. Marcus' attempt to avoid acknowledging Persian influence by positing a transcendent and eternal religion doesn't work, since there is still room for cultural influence and interpretation.

The point of the thread, as I understood it, was the extent of influence Persian culture had on religions it came into contact with. While I would not take Persian influence to Azari's extremes, I think it is obvious that it had some influence, and this is historically substantiated to the extent that it is essentially factual.

[Marcus]

. . Marcus' attempt to avoid acknowledging Persian influence by positing a transcendent and eternal religion doesn't work, since there is still room for cultural influence and interpretation. . .

Well, here we go again. That's not what I said, and I have not the time, energy, or inclination to get into another pissing match by trying to correct you.

Back on "Ignore" you go . . .

[Farcus]

. . Marcus' attempt to avoid acknowledging Persian influence by positing a transcendent and eternal religion doesn't work, since there is still room for cultural influence and interpretation. . .

Well, here we go again. That's not what I said.

Back on "Ignore" you go . . .

Marcus, if you don't have anything worthwhile to say, just give it a rest.


=============================================================================================

My only point was that religious practices are influenced by cultures, no matter whether you think religion is itself and invention of human culture, or something transcendent and eternal.

Do you think that's one of the reasons why religious truths vary by location?

[Ibrahim]

My only point was that religious practices are influenced by cultures, no matter whether you think religion is itself and invention of human culture, or something transcendent and eternal.

Do you think that's one of the reasons why religious truths vary by location?

Its the only explanation available to theists, really. If you believe in a given religious truth, then you have to account for diversity of belief or opinion somehow. In fact, while I don't want to get bogged down in specifics, Islam explicitly endorses this view with regards to Christianity and Judaism. I.e. they are following the right overall religion but have made certain key mistakes in their practice/interpretation. This is also the view that sects within any given religion have of one another (Protestant/Catholic for example).

Those who view religion as a product of culture (atheists, professional historians) have nothing to explain.

In either case, the influence of Persian religions on Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are undeniable.

[Farcus]

Thanks Ib. Would you attribute the weight of these influences to a coherent monotheism, a coherent political empire, or to other things, like cultural regard for holy men?

[Heracleum Persicum]

.

In either case, the influence of Persian religions on Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are undeniable.

.

This an understatement

Judaism, Christianity, Islam are "compiled, built with Zoroastrian elements, MODULS"

Pretty much everything in Judaism is a Zoroastrian "Modul" .. Christianity and Islam just continued the Judaism
story with slight modification adapting to their own audience

But, the whole understanding of a RELIGION as we understand today, is Zoroastrian creation and school

In that sense, calling it "influence" quite a understatement, rather Zoroastrianism was the heart and backbone of Arbahamism


.

[Marcus]

. . Zoroastrianism was the heart and backbone of Arbahamism.

ALI, Zoroastrianism dates from about the 6th century BC, about the time of the closing of the Old Testament Canon.

Abraham lived about 2000 BC.

Maybe "Abrahamism" is the heart and backbone of Zoroastrianism?

[Ibrahim]

. . Zoroastrianism was the heart and backbone of Arbahamism.

ALI, Zoroastrianism dates from about the 6th century BC, about the time of the closing of the Old Testament Canon.

Abraham lived about 2000 BC.

Maybe "Abrahamism" is the heart and backbone of Zoroastrianism?

The Persian influences start to be felt in Judaism after (gasp) their contact with the Pomegranates around the 6th century BCE, but we know of no Jewish religious influence on the Mede or Zoroastrian religion prior to or during this period. Judaism at the time of contact with the Pomegranates was not the same religion we are presented with today, or even at the time of the destruction of the first temple, there is ample scope for Zoroastrian influence in Judaism subsequent to their contact.

I don't know what Marcus is referring to as the "Old Testament Canon," but the Old Testament recounts events which occurred after the life and death of Zoroaster at the latest estimates, and estimates vary widely, with Marcus selecting the latest possible date commonly given. Note also that these dates typically refer to the collection of the gathas, which may have occurred well after the death of Zoroaster, as is common with such texts (e.g. Dharmapala, Quran, Gospels).


Suffice to say that Zoroastrianism and Judaism encountered one another as entirely separate identities, but the two may have influenced one another, and more likely with the influences favoring Zoroastrianis, being as it was then the state religion of a powerful and expanding empire of which the Jews became clients.

[Ibrahim]

Thanks Ib. Would you attribute the weight of these influences to a coherent monotheism, a coherent political empire, or to other things, like cultural regard for holy men?

They are similar as monotheisms, but the influence of ancient Babylonian law on Torah law is also unmistakable and they were radically different religious systems, so I think it has more to do with copying what is successful.

[Juggernaut Nihilism]

. . Zoroastrianism was the heart and backbone of Arbahamism.

ALI, Zoroastrianism dates from about the 6th century BC, about the time of the closing of the Old Testament Canon.

Abraham lived about 2000 BC.

Maybe "Abrahamism" is the heart and backbone of Zoroastrianism?

Book of Daniel?

[Farcus]

. . Zoroastrianism was the heart and backbone of Arbahamism.

ALI, Zoroastrianism dates from about the 6th century BC, about the time of the closing of the Old Testament Canon.

Abraham lived about 2000 BC.

Maybe "Abrahamism" is the heart and backbone of Zoroastrianism?

Book of Daniel?

So your saying it was the book of Daniel that institutionialized "A Law of the Pomegranates and Medes", rather than the phrase being so ingrained by that time that it was idomatic?

[Heracleum Persicum]

.


, can't stop laughing


55fCRqAlQoc


Interesting comments :

.
TheTerminaleternal 2 months ago

another interesting thing, is that the Samaritans were of mixed race, babylonian and jewish people, and the jews always hated them, Jesus constantly spoke highly of the samaritans, and said that they were righteous, in the story of the good samaritan !
.

.

[Nonc Hilaire]

The Samaritans were the remnant of the Hebrews who remained in Israel when the majority were captured and sent to Babylon. They intermarried with the locals and continued religious Hebrew religious practice, but developed on their own with ties to the local Canaanite people.

When the Judahites returned under the protection of Babylon, they rejected the Samaritans because it was felt they had syncretized the religion. The Samaritans left with their foreign wives, selected a different holy mountain, and retained the original Tanach but rejected the Babylonian additions such as the histories and the books of Esther and Daniel.

This is why there was such enmity between the two groups but never any warfare. Each considered the other to be heretical, but still related.

[Heracleum Persicum]

The Samaritans were the remnant of the Hebrews who remained in Israel when the majority were captured and sent to Babylon. They intermarried with the locals and continued religious Hebrew religious practice, but developed on their own with ties to the local Canaanite people.

When the Judahites returned under the protection of Babylon, they rejected the Samaritans because it was felt they had syncretized the religion. The Samaritans left with their foreign wives, selected a different holy mountain, and retained the original Tanach but rejected the Babylonian additions such as the histories and the books of Esther and Daniel.

This is why there was such enmity between the two groups but never any warfare. Each considered the other to be heretical, but still related.

NH, pls watch the video .. a real eye-opener


.

[Nonc Hilaire]

The Samaritans were the remnant of the Hebrews who remained in Israel when the majority were captured and sent to Babylon. They intermarried with the locals and continued religious Hebrew religious practice, but developed on their own with ties to the local Canaanite people.

When the Judahites returned under the protection of Babylon, they rejected the Samaritans because it was felt they had syncretized the religion. The Samaritans left with their foreign wives, selected a different holy mountain, and retained the original Tanach but rejected the Babylonian additions such as the histories and the books of Esther and Daniel.

This is why there was such enmity between the two groups but never any warfare. Each considered the other to be heretical, but still related.

NH, pls watch the video .. a real eye-opener


.

I watched a little, but didn't have time for the whole thing. I almost never watch videos if they are over 10 min. and the poster does not provide a summary or time points to underline their post content. Nothing personal; I just can't spend too much time on the net.

I'm not unfamiliar with Zoroaster, but the fact that older religions influence newer religions isn't news.

[Apollonius]

I watched a little, but didn't have time for the whole thing. I almost never watch videos if they are over 10 min. and the poster does not provide a summary or time points to underline their post content. Nothing personal; I just can't spend too much time on the net.

You make a very good point about posters who do not provide some sort of summary or commentary to explain the nature or point of a video.

Truth is, though, you make an even larger point about what a phenomenal waste of time that political / religious videos are, almost no matter what their specific subject matter or orientation.



I could not stand to watch any politician, much less some talking head trying to explain a politician to us, for even a minute.



You want to learn something? Read a book or talk with someone on the bus.

[Heracleum Persicum]

I watched a little, but didn't have time for the whole thing. I almost never watch videos if they are over 10 min. and the poster does not provide a summary or time points to underline their post content. Nothing personal; I just can't spend too much time on the net.

You make a very good point about posters who do not provide some sort of summary or commentary to explain the nature or point of a video.

Truth is, though, you make an even larger point about what a phenomenal waste of time that political / religious videos are, almost no matter what their specific subject matter or orientation.



I could not stand to watch any politician, much less some talking head trying to explain a politician to us, for even a minute.



You want to learn something? Read a book or talk with someone on the bus.

.

Apollonius , truth & facts in history, is not mathematics that you can read in the books and nobody can challenge it

Truth in history, facts, are hidden in many layers of deception by stakeholders and crooks .. truth and facts in history must be researched .. truth seekers

People who rely on reading books and talk to people on the bus end up where you guys end up

Either you are interested where that belief and religion that western civilization is based on comes from, where all the things so holly to you guys comes from, or you are not interested

If you not interested .. continue talking to people on the bus

If you are interested, if so, than do a favor to yourself and seek the truth



.

[Marcus]

ALI,

I seem to remember you once saying that Roman Catholic costumery came from Zoroastrianism. If so, can you reference that fact?

[Ibrahim]

ALI,

I seem to remember you once saying that Roman Catholic costumery came from Zoroastrianism. If so, can you reference that fact?

Owes more to Roman state paganism, but all ancient religions kind of share the "big dress with embroidery" aesthetic.

Early Christians might have been more influenced by Mithraism, which was itself a kind of Roman copy of certain Persian religious practices but not authentically Zoroastrian.