How Zarathustra Influenced the World

[rainbow]

I'm posting my completed research assignment for JoeJew, Piggy and anyone else who wants a peek.
____________________________________________________________

Assignment; Disobedience, Results and Redemption

Introduction;

In this essay I will discuss the Old Testament under the headings of Disobedience, Results and Redemption, and weigh up if, and how, the ‘ethical dilemmas’ of the Old Testament have a context in God’s overall plan for universal salvation. I will conclude with how to apply it practically within the Christian context.

Disobedience: The Pre-Exilic Israelites;

In pre-exilic times Jehovah was perceived as powerful, ruthless, awesome, vengeful, and dreaded in the supremacy. Religious life was based on superstition and appeasement, ie blood sacrifices and other rituals. They believed that Jehovah could be ‘tempered’ if plied with gifts. Illness or misfortune was a punishment for not following legalities. The Israelites at this time did not believe in any afterlife. It could be said that heaven and hell only existed on earth, or for their offspring, and that Jehovah incorporated both good AND evil (Is 45:7 Am 3 6). Hence, there is minimal need, or evidence of, a “Satan” figure in their theology at this point.

Because natural life was so difficult to control, with children dying in infancy, crops fluctuating, unpredictable famines and droughts, plagues and diseases, the ancient Israelites believed a supernatural force must be involved it. So they spent a lot of time trying to stay on the right side of it, and the priests and prophets were the indispensable intermediators. Because the whole religious system was based on fear and extensively ritualised, it maintained a cowering obedience. They lived half afraid – all the time.

It might be prudent to ‘obey’ Jehovah, out of fear of divine punishment but this is a very different matter from ethics, because ‘might’ doesn’t necessarily make ‘right’. If Jehovah violates certain ethical principles, is Jehovah still God? This question does not enter the Israelite mind at this stage.

Jehovah and his people massacred entire towns and tribes and he ordered his people to “not show mercy”. He explicitly demanded that women, children, babies and animals were also massacred. He killed all the baby boys of Egypt. He commanded severe punishments for misbehaviour, which went way beyond ‘justice’. He was ruthless, vindictive and capricious, despite glib references to ‘loving his people’. But was this bloodbath the right basis to pave the way for universal love and salvation to enter the world?

There is no exact word for conscience* in Hebrew since the Israelites knew little other than blind obedience; Jehovah was their ‘conscience’ , as revealed through the priests and prophets.
At this point, pre-exilic Judaism had little to do with morality, nor its partner; wisdom. The issue of ethical conduct was never an item of discussion; never part of the package. Out of the ‘sins’ the prophets accused the Israelites of, only ‘sacrificing one’s children’ had anything to do with ethics, but in the OT this crime was more likely to do with “wrong religious rituals”, since this theme is highly prevalent, and since massacring children otherwise, if ordered by Jehovah and his prophets, was not seen as ‘immoral’. “Neglecting the poor and orphans” more likely alluded to frustrations with the monarchy’s greedy taxation, rather than the sophisticated and personally challenging ethic of The Sermon on the Mount. Besides, if greed had been the issue, then why did Jehovah cause poorer Israel to fall first?

This type of god creates unthinking slaves where evil has an easy foothold, ie to atrocities that scan history from the Canaanite massacres to 9/11. The actions of Jehovah (and Islamic Allah) have no place in humanity, no matter where, when or by whom. They were disobedient and disloyal to universal ethics or, in other words, to the true God’s law; the one which Apostle Paul said is “written in our hearts” in Romans 2:15.

Ray Embry in “The Enigma about Divine Love and the Creation of Evil: The Lost Belief Among Early Christians about a God of Total Compassion” says that in our society, if a man went through a village and systematically killed people, it would be very difficult for him to prove himself to be good and loving yet Jehovah committed this exact atrocity in Egypt and Canaan, and yet there are many who claim he is both "good" and "loving". Embry continues, confrontingly;

“With such an inconsistent application of words, the distinctions between good and evil become unclear. We can say: The devil is evil because he might hurt people. What are we saying if we claim: Jehovah is good, even though he hurt people? Until we insist on more consistency in our use of language, we remain susceptible to a system of governance that subtly blurs semantic distinctions until in the end evil is being called good. …and it is possible that we might wind up holding up as our highest ideal a murderer if we fall victim to the subtle trick of switching definitions.” (p 49)

I believe they did not know God yet, and despite their initial success from pillaging and barbaric group bonding practices, which they attributed to divine intervention, their beliefs made them insular, stagnant and solipsistic, and their downfall was a logical consequence, rather than a divine punishment.

Results: Exile;

Israel, weakened by Judah, was first captured by the Assyrians first in 721BC, and Judah was defeated by the Babylonians in 597BC. Jerusalem and the Temple was razed to the ground. For the next 70 years they lived in Babylon as exiles. It was a time of great cognitive dissonance that brought up many questions. At the bottom of it, the exile was unexplainable; Hebrew history was built on the promise of Jehovah to protect the Israelites and make them successful. Their defeat and the loss of the land promised to them by Jehovah seemed to imply that their faith in this promise was misplaced. A crisis can precipitate the most profound despair or the most profound reworking of a world view. For the Israelites in Babylon, it did both.

A lot of writing went on at this stage. Prophets suggested many “sins” that could have attributed to their downfall; maybe someone had an idol in their house? Perhaps they neglected the temple? Didn’t pray enough? Had too much fun? In some of the books Jehovah is presented as begging and pleading. In others he is threatening and cursing. In others still he likens himself to a jilted husband. Since Jehovah is all powerful, there is no explanation for suffering—an all-powerful god could end it immediately but he doesn’t.

These first 50 years are long enough for a new generation to emerge. It clears the path for something new. But what will fill the vacuum?

Redemption: Post Exile;

Enter the Persians.

Babylon is invaded by the Persians in 539 BC. For the next 20 years, the Israelites are well treated by the Persians who have a sophisticated sense of social ethics. Historical writings from that era cite the Persians as being honest, polite, non violent and gracious and respectful for others’ cultures and ethnicity. Here redemption begins … but in a surprising way.

While the Israelites are allowed to return and rebuild Jerusalem with King Cyrus’s blessings, and there is a revival of Judaism, post-exilic writing mysteriously takes on a different theology. It moves from Judgement to Salvation and to virtues such as wisdom, morality and good deeds. Superstition and appeasement orientation start to dissolve. It doesn’t end at new Jerusalem, but starts a whole new ball rolling that will continue for the next four centuries, and thereafter until today.

Does Jehovah change? Forgive? Begin a new covenant? Or do the Israelites spontaneously and simultaneously perceive a new form of God who is bigger and more powerful than their tribal God?

None of the above.

The treatment and good morals of their captors was therefore all the more bound to lead the Israelites to study the institutions, laws and faith of their conquerors. This exposed the Israelites to the Zoroastrian pantheon. The core of these teachings include a God of total compassion – no cruelty, no threats, no externally-imposed punishments. The monotheistic Persians called this God ‘Ahura Mazda’**. Because this God is all goodness, then evil must be explained as having a separate source. Enter Satan, or 'the Liar', as he was called, since ‘evil’ was ‘Untruth’. The Zoroastrians also believed in the rapture. The prophet of Zoroastrianism, Zarathustra (1200BC), also taught the idea of the coming of the Kingdom of God (explained as when heaven and earth merge as one), social ethics, the conscience*, joy, salvation, the Holy Spirit, symbolised by a flame, being “born again” as the only requirement to faith called “navjot”, humanitarianism, the resurrection, animal welfare (they were against sacrifices) and most importantly, the universality of this God. The evidence is overwhelming that this is where the Israelites got their first universal message of true monotheism and salvation of mankind, not from Jehovah, and this is where their redemption begins.

Zarathustra’s view of the soul is that it is a creation, not a part of God, as pagan offshoots like Mithraism maintained. It had a beginning in time, but could gain everlasting life by fighting against Evil, or ‘The Lie” in the earthly scene of its activity with goodness. It is free to choose between good and evil and, along with the power of choice, the Holy Spirit has endowed it with Conscience and Rationality. God is both immanent and other. Universal ethics, manifested on earth by ‘virtues’, being immanent divine ‘gifts’ in all humans, is a teaching that pre-dates Plato. A key concept of Zoroastrianism is; ‘Asha’ which means “the equitable law of the universe” (Wikipedia). It is identical to the concept of The Logos.

The Zoroastrians also believed in Evangelism to spread the word of the Good Lord throughout the world, and were even ‘Protestant’ in their rejection of the priestly class.

"The seeds of later Zoroastrian eschatology are contained within Zarathushtra's introduction of the Savoir. Moreover, this concept of savior (which was later to have such a dramatic effect on the development of the post-exilic Israelite theological thought) is one of the chief means by which Zarathushtra attempts to break from . The 'official' (priestly) class, (and create) a preaching vocation of all believers who would work with (God) towards the final event."
- Peter Clark, Zoroastrianism, An Introduction to an Ancient Faith, p. 15

The book of Isaiah contains more Zoroastrian teachings than any other OT book, including an unmistakable resemblance of the first half of Yasna 44 (<800BC) to Isaiah 40:12-26 and 45:7 (450BC);

Yasna 44; Who was the first Father of Asha (ethics/truth) at birth? Who appointed their path to the sun and stars? Who but Thou is it through whom the moon wanes and wanes? Who set the earth in its place below, and the sky and the clouds, that it shall not fall? Who made the waters and the plants? Who yoked the two steeds to the wind and clouds? What artist made light and darkness? What artist sleep and waking? Who made the morning, noon and night? To remind the wise man of his tasks?

The ‘light and darkness’ alluded to in this passage is a literal rendering and, unlike Isaiah 45:7, where it is used as a metaphor: “I make peace and evil” (Lexicon ‘Ra’ = ‘evil/bad’), Zarathustra’s God never creates evil, or fights evil with evil. On the other hand, Jehovah caused people to do evil (Ex 10:27 2Sam 24:1 1Ki 22:22) and even created ‘evil people’ (Prov 16:4).

The prophecy of the coming of the Saviour, describing him as “wonderful, counsellor, mighty God, everlasting Father” are also 4 of the 7 aspects of Ahura Mazda. Ezekiel 1 describes the almost exact vision of Zarathustra, both aged 30. Psalm 17: 3-5 contains the Zoroastrian Creed; Good thought, Good Word and Good Deed”. Isaiah means ‘salvation’ in Aramaic, and the word occurs 18 times in the book; a significant theme in Zoroastrianism. Theologian Lawrence Mills claims Isaiah has “a throng of purely Persian words in it.” (Our Own Religion in Ancient Persia). Ken Vincent (The Magi: From Zoroaster to the Three Wise Men) says that Zoroastrianism not only had “a proactive effect but also a retroactive effect on the Hebrew Bible”. (p.21)

There are, of course, a lot of symbols, added deities and 'trimmings' that stem from apocryphal Zoroastrian legends and heresies (ie Zurvanism; where God gives birth to twin deities) that were later added, and Mithraism (which pre-dates Zoroastrianism), but I am only comparing core teachings of the oldest Scripture; the Avesta.

From the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia about the Universal Ethic of Zoroastrianism;
The Persians stood for virtue against vice …. They even touched the doctrine of Christ's saying, "What doth it profit a man if he gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" when to the question, what is the worth of the whole creation displayed before us, the Zend-Avesta has the reply: "the man therein who is delivered from evil in thought, word, and deed: he is the most valuable object on earth." Here conscience was clearly enlightened. Of the moral virtues among the Persians truthfulness was conspicuous. Herodotus says that the youth were taught "to ride and shoot with the bow", and "to speak the truth".

When rational thinking invades Judaism, the old premise that makes God the source of wickedness, tragedy and deceit would eventually become absurd. When the Israelites return to Jerusalem, they return with a reformed, humbled and more humanitarian Jehovah-Mazda hybrid who is open to prayerful negotiation and a more universal sense of ethics, where wisdom is valued over blind obedience.

But the debates between the Israelites who tended towards Zoroastrian beliefs (ie Essenes and Pharisees), and the Israelites who leant towards a more pre-exilic Judaism (ie the Sadduccees) continued with great energy for the next few centuries as the Israelites settled lands surrounding Jerusalem alongside their conquerors, the Persians, whom they no doubt interacted and exchanged ideas with.

The Oxford Concise Companion to the Israelite Religion says these ‘tensions’ were recorded in some Israelite writings; “It was not only in Amoraic (ideological debates) times in Babylon that Judaism came into contact with Zoroastrianism, but it was in this period that the tensions between the adherents of the two religions were particularly acute”.

“(Allowing the Israelites to return) was only one of the many liberal acts recorded of Cyrus, but it was a particular moment for the religious history of mankind; for the Israelites entertained warm feelings thereafter for the Persians, and this made them more receptive to Zarathushtrian influence”. From Zarathushtrians-Their Religious Beliefs and practices by Dr. Mary Boyce.

Conclusion

I started this reading and research with no preconceived ideas, yet chanced upon the surprising, yet unmistakable, discovery that Zarathustra was the first to teach the universality of God and unconditional love and salvation for all creation, not the Hebrew Bible. Whether the God of Zarathustra is the same God as Jesus, and whether we are Zoroa-Christians, rather than Judeo-Christians, this I cannot answer, but that three Zoroastrian priests (Magi) sought Jesus at his birth and that the NT is infused with teachings and quotes from the Avesta, cannot be purely coincidental. Furthermore, Jehovah being known as different to, and sometimes the antithesis of, the Father God of Jesus is not something new. It was a belief shared by the majority of Christians at the time of Marcion. Jacques Ellul, quoted by Philip Yancey in What’s So Amazing About Grace, believes the NT teaches no such thing as a Judeo-Christian ethic.

So what does all this mean in terms of being Christian in practical terms today?

I think it means that if God is pure goodness, then we have a profound freedom, but this freedom entails responsibility to our God-given gifts; to wisdom, conscience and rationality, to be used for God’s purposes in truth and goodness. Today, more than ever, (in a world with WMDs!) we also have an increasing obligation to use these gifts for consistent and clear distinctions between “good” and“ evil” which, paradoxically, necessitates a fresh reading of the OT. I think we need to courageously stand up and pronounce all unethical behaviour as wrong, no matter where, when or by whom. If we are to be on the side of Truth and Goodness, ie of God, then we are obliged to conclude that Jehovah was a pagan god of a primitive tribalist mind, who used evil means to achieve his aims … and therefore cannot be God.

I believe the first inklings of the real God are found in exile, whose message of love, truth and goodness would not be heard of again so strongly until Jesus, who is the crucial next step in this amazing story.

_____________________________________________________________

*Scholars have said that word “Conscience” does not appear in literature until Euripides’ Greek play in 408BC. The Zoroastrians claim the Conscience first came from their teachings from the word “Asha”, which means universal Truth, and was developed further by the ancient Greeks, and this is a strong possibility, since wisdom is valued above obedience (a prerequisite for conscience). King David demonstrated conscience in 1000BC, after he had Uriah killed so he could marry Bathsheba, and this was in pre-exilic times. There are 3 possibilities; the pre-exilic Israelites really did experience ethics and conscience and all the scholars are wrong, King David was an exception, though he still needed the story about a sheep before he “got it”, or, the most likely, this story was a later insertion to make David look “moral” in the eyes of the reformed Israelites.

** The New Testament doesn’t call God Jehovah or even Ihovah (in Greek) but “Theos”. Etymologically, the word Theos has been found to derive from Persian languages: Dyaus > Zeus > Theos (Christian God) - and - Dyaus >Asura > Ahura (Zoroastrian God). Furthermore, Jehovah’s most likely etymology is “destroyer, disaster, ruin, to fall down” from the Hebrew and Arabic nouns; hOwiTh and Jawwah. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh which some scholars believe was the name given to refer to the destruction of the Egyptians and Canaanites. Like Jesus, Zarathustra refers to God as “Father” and says; “he is a friend, a brother, nay he is Father”. Finally, “God” in English originates from the modern Persian “Khoda”, rather than Hebrew.

Bibliography.
NIV
The Message
NRSV
Strongs NAS Lexicon crosswalk.com
R.E. Freidman Who Wrote The Bible
The Avesta Mobed Firouz Azargoshasb’s translation
The Magi: From Zoroaster to the "Three Wise Men"
Ray Embry The Enigma About Divine Love and the Creation of Evil: The Lost Belief Among Early Christians About a God of Total Compassion
Marcion The Antithesis
Wikipedia
Ray Embry on Baptists; http://www.sullivan-county.com/id2/marcion.htm
_________________
Pope Ben XVI: "Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul."

Koran: 9.111 fight in the way of Allah and shall slay and be slain
2.216 Fighting is prescribed for you.
9:14 Fight them!

[The Cat]

Hi again, Rainbow... Thanks. Giving the same reference as given in a nearby thread: ''How Darius (the Zoroastrian) founded Judaism'', with 6MB of informations...
http://www.askwhy.co.uk/judaism/index.html

ps. Our angelogy comes from the Zoroastrian beliefs, including that of the Holy Spirit, which they named Spenta Mainyu. And their devil, Ahriman, being rather the Angra Mainyu, chief of the 'bad' spirits.
_________________
Authority has the same etymological root as authenticity.

[rainbow]

Thanks for the reference. Since this whole discovery, I feel like my whole world has opened up! Plus I understand so much more about Christianity.

The link with Islam is interesting. I think that the Jewish-Christians who were more pre-exilic, and Jehovist rather than father-God believers, were the ones who became the Ebionites who landed in Arabia, of which Muhammad was one.

Jehovah became Allah (of Islam)- both good and evil

Ahura Mazda became Father God (of Christianity) - good only

Perhaps the muslims need exile and a razing of their 'temple' so they be transformed!
_________________
Pope Ben XVI: "Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul."

Koran: 9.111 fight in the way of Allah and shall slay and be slain
2.216 Fighting is prescribed for you.
9:14 Fight them!

[JoeJew]

[rainbow]

[JoeJew]

[rainbow]

[rainbow]

[JoeJew]

[rainbow]

Joe, these are fragments, not the full canonised Torah. There is also fragment on an egg that dates to about this time. All these fragments were collected and copy pasted with insertions around 450BC. Prove me otherwise!
_________________
Pope Ben XVI: "Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul."

Koran: 9.111 fight in the way of Allah and shall slay and be slain
2.216 Fighting is prescribed for you.
9:14 Fight them!

[JoeJew]

Here let me ask you a question. You attribute the Torah to have been written down for the most part, around 700BC.

The exile never happened until around 422 BC when the Persians invaded and destroyed the temple.

How did the Jewish law get influenced by the Persians when you state the Torah law was in existence for at least 300 years prior to that?

And thats verified by that scroll which contains these same verses from the book of Numbers.

[rainbow]

[JoeJew]

[rainbow]

[JoeJew]