Awoken by Zoroastrianism

About a week ago I started reading the Zend Avesta, the holy book of Zoroastrianism. In the commentary that is a great deal of the book and tells the history of Zoroastrianism in between scripture it said that the Zoroastrians of today called Parsis do not believe that Ahriman, the inspiration for the Christian Satan taken from the Zoroastrian influenced tradition adopted by the Pharisees into Baalzebul or Belial and other names is a real being. Judaism had no devil before exposure to Zoroastrianism.

So the religion that invented the inspiration for Satan doesn't believe in an actual devi,l just in principal, metaphorically, and assigns evil to where it belongs...humans.

So last night I was awoke by the pleasant voice of Morgan Freeman in a Zoroastrian temple having this conversation with a priest. I could not help but consider this a revelation of sorts, a special coincidence.

The message is that we need to stop blaming evil on a non existent entity and evolve like the Parsis. They are the purest monotheist religion today.

The creed of Zoroaster and the Parsis is good thoughts, good words, good deeds.

Imagine if that was the whole worlds philosophy.

I'm starting with the man in the mirror...oh, yeah!

All kidding aside, it takes a personal decision to be positive at every turn. Religion can be a good nap so it's best to think critically while choosing one.

My simple mantra is " do no harm" if it has to be more complicated than that then I deal with the situations on a case by case basis. Religion is a work of fiction rooted in historical facts.

Great to see you diving into the religions deeper. Bringing info to others on what you've discovered benefits us all. Thanks

a reply to: CapstonePendulum

So the religion that invented the inspiration for Satan doesn't believe in an actual devi,l just in principal, metaphorically, and assigns evil to where it belongs...humans.

Not a devil per se, but still an existing adversary that promotes evil.

The Zoroastrian concept of God incorporates both monotheism and dualism. In his visions, Zarathustra was taken up to heaven, where Ahura Mazda revealed that he had an opponent, Aura Mainyu, the spirit and promoter of evil. Ahura Mazda charged Zarathustra with the task of inviting all human beings to choose between him (good) and Aura Mainyu (evil).

Non-existent entity wouldn't be a completely accurate term, unless both entities are symbolic instead of literal.

The creed of Zoroaster and the Parsis is good thoughts, good words, good deeds.

"Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace..."

Good for you for educating yourself on other traditions....something EVERY student of spirituality or believer should do, in my opinion, before making a decision which one(s) (if any) make sense to the individual.

There wouldn't be so many different "sects" if everyone could agree on at least SOME common denominator.

a reply to: CapstonePendulum

Some of the esoteric interpretations of Judaism and Christianity teach that "Satan" is an archetype of the psyche and of nature. I agree with this inner view, rather than the dogmatized outer scapegoat.

We are responsible for the quality of our own thoughts, emotions, words, and actions. Any blame other than this is a failure in introspection, responsibility, and accountability.

Mrgone

Thanks for the compliment. I feel like there are a great deal of people digging in to religion and discovering deception because of the amount of information available. A great deal of people who are religious are the salt of the earth. Then there are the ones who feel that only their religion is true and the rest of the world is heathen.

As long as we have enough enlightened people the world has potential.

Keep up the positivity

a reply to: Klassified

Imagine, that's so sweet, except John was shot dead by someone who didn't imagine johns imaginings, he had his own
Silly to think people are nice

First we assign the concept of evil to a personified entity (the devil).
Then to a nonspecific conceptual entity (the forces of evil).
Then to the nature of mankind, (some people are just evil).
Finally, we understand that it's just a construct of our own minds.

I see it as a psychological process whereby people recover from trauma; acts of what we call evil (either malice or ill fortune) hurt so deeply that we can't help but assign it a name as a malignant force.
But slowly, we come to realize that the world is not governed by such abstracts.
It doesn't help that so many groups of people become fixated on one stage or the other when any new trauma can bring a person there without a problem.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Klassified

Imagine, that's so sweet, except John was shot dead by someone who didn't imagine johns imaginings, he had his own
Silly to think people are nice

What's your point, RM?

a reply to: Unresponsible

I don't really believe in "evil" per se, but ill-fortune is not "evil." It just is ill fortune. Unfortunate events and circumstances and timing. People do awful things. All of us are capable of awful things.

What could be called "Evil" acts are those that harm others, but it has nothing to do with "the devil" or "forces of evil" or "demons." It is just selfish, psychotic, immature, stupid and cruel behavior. It is pscyhological, and ALL OF IT is the FAULT of the person doing the thing. Some people just don't give a rip about anyone else but themselves. They get pleasure (or at least feel nothing at all) from hurting others.

"God did it" and "the Devil made me do it" are ridiculous constructs, yes.
But unpleasant, untimely things do happen; and unpleasant people do horrible things which are always "untimely."
It's life.

a reply to: CapstonePendulum

About a week ago I started reading the Zend Avesta, the holy book of Zoroastrianism. In the commentary that is a great deal of the book and tells the history of Zoroastrianism in between scripture it said that the Zoroastrians of today called Parsis do not believe that Ahriman, the inspiration for the Christian Satan taken from the Zoroastrian influenced tradition adopted by the Pharisees into Baalzebul or Belial and other names is a real being. Judaism had no devil before exposure to Zoroastrianism. So the religion that invented the inspiration for Satan doesn't believe in an actual devi,l just in principal, metaphorically, and assigns evil to where it belongs...humans.

Are you quite sure that you have a understanding of the Hebrew theology? I wonder why you chose only Pharisees and not also the Essene's or Nazarenes? The Pharisees originated primarily as a political separatist movement in about the mid 2nd century B.C.E. and not as adopting the Babylonian concept of evil.

The Hebrew bible teaches that the flood pf Noah was in the year of 2105 B.C.E.. If that is true, in Hebrew understanding, then Zoroastrianism could not not have survived to influence the Hebrew concept of evil. What you are assuming is that there are parallel concepts of both religions but they do not exist as you imagine. Either one could be correct but both cannot even be considered to have existed at the same time as is taught. To understand Zoroastrianism to be true one would have to deny the other and to understand the Hebrew concept is to deny that Zoroastrianism could ever be true.

The concept of evil was the cause of the flood of Noah both indirectly and directly. That is if one will read the Genesis account and the Enochian account as complementary literature and has nothing to do with rabbinic theology. Prior to the above is the account of evil existing prior to this terrestrial creation. The Celestial account also shows evil as a creation of spirit and not that of any physicality but this spirit prevails throughout matter as spirit.

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: CapstonePendulum

About a week ago I started reading the Zend Avesta, the holy book of Zoroastrianism. In the commentary that is a great deal of the book and tells the history of Zoroastrianism in between scripture it said that the Zoroastrians of today called Parsis do not believe that Ahriman, the inspiration for the Christian Satan taken from the Zoroastrian influenced tradition adopted by the Pharisees into Baalzebul or Belial and other names is a real being. Judaism had no devil before exposure to Zoroastrianism. So the religion that invented the inspiration for Satan doesn't believe in an actual devi,l just in principal, metaphorically, and assigns evil to where it belongs...humans.

Are you quite sure that you have a understanding of the Hebrew theology? I wonder why you chose only Pharisees and not also the Essene's or Nazarenes? The Pharisees originated primarily as a political separatist movement in about the mid 2nd century B.C.E. and not as adopting the Babylonian concept of evil.

The Hebrew bible teaches that the flood pf Noah was in the year of 2105 B.C.E.. If that is true, in Hebrew understanding, then Zoroastrianism could not not have survived to influence the Hebrew concept of evil. What you are assuming is that there are parallel concepts of both religions but they do not exist as you imagine. Either one could be correct but both cannot even be considered to have existed at the same time as is taught. To understand Zoroastrianism to be true one would have to deny the other and to understand the Hebrew concept is to deny that Zoroastrianism could ever be true.

The concept of evil was the cause of the flood of Noah both indirectly and directly. That is if one will read the Genesis account and the Enochian account as complementary literature and has nothing to do with rabbinic theology. Prior to the above is the account of evil existing prior to this terrestrial creation. The Celestial account also shows evil as a creation of spirit and not that of any physicality but this spirit prevails throughout matter as spirit.

Yes I am quite sure that I understand the development of Hebrew theology.

As far as the flood, that was caused by the Sons of God and the Nephilim and the point was to destroy them and save humanity.

See the book of Enoch.

a reply to: Seede

And Zoroastrianism influenced Judaism long after the mythological flood. This is recognized by Jewish and Zoroastrian scholars today. It is a historical fact so you might want to learn that.

For one thing the word Pharisee is derived from Parsi. They are the ancestors of Rabbinical Judaism.

a reply to: Seede

It sounds like you believe the Jewish religion incapable of adopting certain aspects from the Persian and Chaldean peoples. Well they didn't invent the flood myth or the creation story but adopted them from previous Babylonian myths and rewrote them from a Hebrew perspective.

El was a Canaanite God long before Israel.

The Hebrew religion is not non syncretic so they don't have to convert to Zoroastrianism to be influenced by its beliefs.

And the Hebrew bible doesn't date the flood, sorry, but that is irrelevant as the Persians liberated the Israelites from Babylon LONG after the flood.

a reply to: Seede

So you have a better idea I will give you an excellent article and then you can go to google and type in Zoroastrian influence...and by that time both Christianity and Judaism will be predicted by Google for you which should tell you something too. But you should read the article to help you understand.

Zoroastrian influence on Judaism

And the Israelites that really adopted the doctrine of a devil character were the Zaddikim who were the people of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Kabbalah has some Zoroastrian influence but other influences exist. The angelology and demonology are influenced by Zoroastrianim. The ressurection of souls.

But Judaism does not have a devil today. Satan only appears in the old testament as subservient to YHWH. But monotheism was taught by the Persians too. No more believing in Chemosh and Baal, even if they weren't worshipping them Now there was one God with angels to serve him. Many angels of different classes.

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: CapstonePendulum

About a week ago I started reading the Zend Avesta, the holy book of Zoroastrianism. In the commentary that is a great deal of the book and tells the history of Zoroastrianism in between scripture it said that the Zoroastrians of today called Parsis do not believe that Ahriman, the inspiration for the Christian Satan taken from the Zoroastrian influenced tradition adopted by the Pharisees into Baalzebul or Belial and other names is a real being. Judaism had no devil before exposure to Zoroastrianism. So the religion that invented the inspiration for Satan doesn't believe in an actual devi,l just in principal, metaphorically, and assigns evil to where it belongs...humans.

Are you quite sure that you have a understanding of the Hebrew theology? I wonder why you chose only Pharisees and not also the Essene's or Nazarenes? The Pharisees originated primarily as a political separatist movement in about the mid 2nd century B.C.E. and not as adopting the Babylonian concept of evil.

The Hebrew bible teaches that the flood pf Noah was in the year of 2105 B.C.E.. If that is true, in Hebrew understanding, then Zoroastrianism could not not have survived to influence the Hebrew concept of evil. What you are assuming is that there are parallel concepts of both religions but they do not exist as you imagine. Either one could be correct but both cannot even be considered to have existed at the same time as is taught. To understand Zoroastrianism to be true one would have to deny the other and to understand the Hebrew concept is to deny that Zoroastrianism could ever be true.

The concept of evil was the cause of the flood of Noah both indirectly and directly. That is if one will read the Genesis account and the Enochian account as complementary literature and has nothing to do with rabbinic theology. Prior to the above is the account of evil existing prior to this terrestrial creation. The Celestial account also shows evil as a creation of spirit and not that of any physicality but this spirit prevails throughout matter as spirit.

And I never said that the concept of evil came from Zoroastrianism, just the idea of a devil which was picked up by Christianity more so than Rabbinical Judaism. The Jewish sect that really took to the idea of the devil who they called Belial and sometimes they talk about a Mastema who could be the same entity or a powerful demonic entity was the Zaddikim of the Dead Sea Scrolls of who James was the Zaddik. Zaddik became Just in English but that is the title of the sect and it means righteous one. This is one reason he was so respected.

A whole lot of Jews died during the Roman expulsion from Jerusalem but the Zaddikim left behind some messianic prophecies that speak of a supenarural Messiah of heaven and earth and some apocalyptic prophecies similar to the cataclysmic defeat of evil by the forces of God and his angels in Zoroastrianism.

The Chasidim are the heirs to the Zaddikim. The Nazarenes were the Jewish Christians that really didn't survive. Essenes did not survive history or became Christians. The Essenes had nothing to do with the Dead Sea Scrolls because they were not the violent apocalyptic type they were pacifist. I believe that the Nazarenes were the Essenes and so do many.

An interesting feature in Zoroastrianism is the belief that hell is impermanent and for correction instead of eternal torment it is rehabilitation. The soul may be given another chance.

The masons were heavily influenced by Zoroastrianism, though they falsely attribute some of the teachings to Egypt.

The Persians were originally less monotheistic with their notions and had a distinct separation of deities. Over time they developed more abstract archetypal concepts where the world was seen as dualistic and human beings an expression therein. The nature of god transformed into the nature of man.

Whether Ahura Mazda vs Ahriman/Angra Mainyu is to be taken as a literal deity war or a psychological dichotomy is still debatable. Religion is highly interpretable.

a reply to: SargonThrall

According to the Parsis today, the modern day Zoroastrians, only Ahura Mazda or God is real. Ahriman is only a principal as in atheistic Satanism. They live by the principal that Good thoughts lead to good words and then good deeds.


I would say the opposite would be figuratively attributed to Ahriman but literally to bad thoughts in origin.

They have a supreme deity who is not capable of evil unlike the god of the Old Testament. While fringe Judaism influenced the Christian Satan neither religion believes in a malevolent enemy of God. Satan in Judaism has a specific job that is to test man in order to determine his or her commitment to righteousness.

Satan in Christianity resembles Belial of the DSS and Ahriman of ancient Zoroastrianism.

Christianity needs to adopt the Jewish or Zoroastrian concept of Satan.

originally posted by: Sahabi
a reply to: CapstonePendulum

Some of the esoteric interpretations of Judaism and Christianity teach that "Satan" is an archetype of the psyche and of nature. I agree with this inner view, rather than the dogmatized outer scapegoat.

We are responsible for the quality of our own thoughts, emotions, words, and actions. Any blame other than this is a failure in introspection, responsibility, and accountability.

Agreed. The esoteric side of Christianity is the more spiritual and philosophical. The literal is for the majority just as Jesus said. That is a hint to search for deeper meanings previously only discernable by initiates.

Today if one is so determined this can be done with research of ancient tradition. The teachings preserved in Greek classics can even provide access to the inner meaning.