It's just a fact that this is not an Abrahamic faith. The two deities are not alike. As a former Zoroastrian I can tell you that Zoroastrianism has never been considered an Abrahamic faith. The two are very different.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Zoroastrians
- Thread starter Ellen Brown
- Start date
It is not a fact. the Jewish Deity is not 'described the same as the Christian Deity, and they are both Abrahamic religions. The two are different.
The Genesis God(s) are described very differently then the later Monotheistic Hebrew God. Are they the same religion?
Over the Millennia from the human perspective God(s) is described differently, and different names. This does not mean the God(s) are different God, unless you are proposing the ancient Torah view of polytheism of 'our God is greater than your God.'
Last edited:
from: ZOROASTRIANISM - JewishEncyclopedia.com
ZOROASTRIANISM:
By: Kaufmann Kohler, A. V. W. Jackson
The religion of ancient Persia as founded by Zoroaster; one of the world's great faiths that bears the closest resemblance to Judaism and Christianity. According to the tradition in the Parsee books, Zoroaster was born in 660 B.C. and died in 583; but many scholars claim that he must have flourished at a much earlier time. All investigators, however, are agreed that his teachings were generally in force throughout Iran before the time of the Jewish Captivity. His name in its ancient form in the Avesta is "Zarathustra," and in later Persian, "Zardusht"; the form "Zoroaster," which is now common, has been adopted from the Greek and Latin "Zoroastres." The native country of the prophet is now believed to have been Media, in western Iran, and there are reasons for claiming that his birthplace was in the province of Atropatene, the modern Azerbaijan; but much of his ministry, or rather most of his prophetic career, was passed in eastern Iran, especially in the region of Bactria, where he won a powerful patron for his religion. This defender of the faith was a king named Vishtaspa, or Gushtasp, a name identical with that of Hystaspes, the father of Darius, although the two personages are not to be confounded, as has sometimes been done.
Avesta. The character of the Persian religion before Zoroaster's time is not known, but a comparison with that of India shows that it must have had much in common with the early religion of the Hindus. It may be presumed that it was a modified nature-worship, with polytheistic features and some traces of demonistic beliefs. Herodotus ("Hist." i. 131 et seq.) states that the Persians from the earliest times worshiped the sun, moon, stars, and earth, and the waters and wind, and he intimates in precise words that they had borrowed certain religious elements from the Assyrians. One or two superstitious practises which he describes, such as the propitiation of the powers of evil (ib. iii. 35, vii. 114), show survivals of demoniacal rites, against which Zoroaster so strongly inveighed; and the account which he gives of the Magian ceremonies is quite in accordance with Zoroastrianism.
see Asmodeus). In addition to the six archfiends there is a legion of minor fiends and demons ("dæva," "druj").
see Avesta). The two religions agree in certain respects with regard to their cosmological ideas. The six days of Creation in Genesis find a parallel in the six periods of Creation described in the Zoroastrian scriptures. Mankind, according to each religion, is descended from a single couple, and Mashya (man) and Mashyana are the Iranian Adam (man) and Eve. In the Bible a deluge destroys all people except a single righteous individual and his family; in the Avesta a winter depopulates the earth except in the Vara ("enclosure") of the blessed Yima. In each case the earth is peopled anew with the best two of every kind, and is afterward divided into three realms. The three sons of Yima's successor Thraetaona, named Erij (Avesta, "Airya"), Selm (Avesta, "Sairima"), and Tur (Avesta, "Tura"), are the inheritors in the Persian account; Shem, Ham, and Japheth, in the Semiticstory. Likenesses in minor matters, in certain details of ceremony and ritual, ideas of uncleanness, and the like, are to be noted, as well as parallels between Zoroaster and Moses as sacred lawgivers; and many of these resemblances are treated in the works referred to at the end of this article.
see Avesta; Media; Persia). Most scholars, Jewish as well as non-Jewish, are of the opinion that Judaism was strongly influenced by Zoroastrianism in views relating to angelology and demonology, and probably also in the doctrine of the resurrection, as well as in eschatological ideas in general, and also that the monotheistic conception of Yhwh may have been quickened and strengthened by being opposed to the dualism or quasi-monotheism of the Persians. But, on the other hand, the late James Darmesteter advocated exactly the opposite view, maintaining that early Persian thought was strongly influenced by Jewish ideas. He insisted that the Avesta, as we have it, is of late origin and is much tinctured by foreign elements, especially those derived from Judaism, and also those taken from Neoplatonism through the writings of Philo Judæus. These views, put forward shortly before the French scholar's death in 1894, have been violently combated by specialists since that time, and can not be said to have met with decided favor on any side. At the present time it is impossible to settle the question; the truth lies probably somewhere between the radical extremes, and it is possible that when knowledge of the Assyrian and Babylonian religion is more precise in certain details, additional light may be thrown on the problem of the source of these analogies, and may show the likelihood of a common influence at work upon both the Persian and Jewish cults.
Ellen Brown
Well-Known Member
Epic Beard Man
Bearded Philosopher
Ok I see the manifestation of God's power via revelation through the prophets...I see
Yes, I know this. None of this makes it an Abrahamic faith. They just are two monotheistic faiths. That's it.
The evidence and the relationship makes your assertion that Zoroastrian religion not an Abrahamic religions an 'opinion' and not a fact. We may disagree, but the difference is not based on fact. That is to high a bar for an assertion of belief.
The Emperor of Mankind
Currently the galaxy's spookiest paraplegic
Okay, first off, I'm sorry for coming into the Abrahamic DIR. My reason for doing this is solely to interject in this thread as I feel there are some points which need addressing about a subject rather dear to me. It can be fairly said that I don't belong here, but then neither does Zoroastrianism which is rather the point.
If Zoroastrianism can be considered a Abrahamic religion by dint of its influence on Second Temple Judaism then it can by the same logic also be deemed a Pagan faith due to its relationships with Babylonian, Sumerian and the pre-Vedic polytheist tradition it arose out of - as can Judaism & Christianity from the history these respective faiths have shared with older polytheist traditions. I'm sure we can both agree that such classifications of Christianity & Judaism would be ridiculous though.
Christianity relies upon Jewish tradition as the basis for its claim to Jesus' messiah status so a proven lineage is established. Not so with Zoroastrianism. Additionally, Christians & Muslims hold Abraham as a prophetic figure which is why they're Abrahamic faiths.
Just because two cultures are monotheistic about their respective gods does not mean they're worshipping the same one. But I appreciate that your theological position requires you ignore the differences and pretend that they are.
Instead of dismissing what @Rival has to say as 'opinion' (which in this case is a synonym for 'holding no weight whatsoever') in a way which is both rude and akin to mansplaining, don't you think you should take what she says a bit more seriously considering she was a practising Zoroastrian until a year & a half ago and as such has more than likely studied a greater amount of the religion's sacred texts than yourself? Rival had very consistent and sound reasons for identifying as a reformist Zoroastrian which is linked to study of the Gathas and the rest of the Avesta.
I can give you a few facts on why Zoroastrianism is not an Abrahamic faith:
- Abraham is not a sacred figure in the faith;
- the doctrinal differences between the faiths are to stark to ignore;
- the characters and natures of the respective deities are worlds apart;
- Ahura Mazda is a non-omnipotent deity who respects & champions choice above all among his creation whereas the Abrahamic god is the complete opposite - an all-powerful god enforcing that mandatory nature of belief among his creation on threat of eternal torment; and finally (and perhaps most importantly);
- Zoroastrians do not identify as Abrahamics
Kind of gives the impression that maybe they're not all worshipping the same god after all, hmm?
No lineage is proven here. Claiming religious beliefs and relationships between religions as 'fact' does not work.
Your glossing over a major difference between Judaism and Christianity despite appealing to a basis for the claim of Jesus Christ as the Messiah, and that is Christianity is Trinitarian and Judaism is not.
I do not ignore the differences, but you most definitely appear to be ignoring and glossing over the differences between Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
I consider it 'OPINION' based on a religious bias, and ignoring the significant differences between Judaism and Christianity despite. Being a member or past member does not make one an expert, and in reality it reinforces bias.
Actually as a Baha'i. many Baha'is are directly from a Zoroastrian background, and yes they disagree with @Rival. In fact some of the families I know here in the USA are mixed Zoroastrian and Baha'i
Not necessarily so, the radical difference between the God of Judaism and the Trinitarian God of Christianity would indicate that they worship different Gods. Many if not most Jews often do not consider Christians worshiping the God of the monotheist God of the Torah. The fallible human view of God(s), where is more likely they Create Gods in their own image can very easily explain the differences.
There is problem with concurrent Revelations in a world wide theme believed in the Baha'i Faith. In fact Revelation occurs through the minds of humans world with throughout the history of humanity if the constantly evolving spiritual nature of humanity.
I believe Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Zoroastrian, and the Baha'i Faith are linked by prophecy.
Last edited:
The Emperor of Mankind
Currently the galaxy's spookiest paraplegic
To start with, I want to thank you for turning my arguments back on me because doing this:
Argument inversion. None of this refutes the fact that Christianity arose from Judaism; its earliest members were Jews; its theology has firm roots in Judaism even if it has since branched away from those roots; Christians view Abraham as a prophet of God; Christians claim Jesus fulfils the Messiah prophecies spoken of in Jewish scripture - that he was sent by the same God who inspired those prophecies in the first place.
Argument inversion. You most certainly ignore them. You write off any theological differences as 'human interpretation' and thus to be discarded in the pursuit of the Truth. My ignoring any differences is irrelevant because
I see. So on that basis we can disregard your following anecdotal evidence regarding former Zoroastrians you know as opinion based on a religious bias. Guess you'll need to come up with another example.
If they're Bahais then of course they're going to agree with you because they'll be using the same strange reasoning you are. And as you've already established the opinions of former Zoroastrians do not count because they are biased by their new beliefs. Come to think of it this could potentially discount your own as well.
There isn't nearly as big a difference between the Christian and Jewish interpretrations of the Abrahamic god as there is between the Abrahamic and Zoroastrian god:
Abrahamic god as viewed in Judaism:
That's an issue for Christians and Jews to resolve. Not a problem for me because none of this changes the fact Christianity claims Abraham is a prophet of God whereas Zoroastrianism does not. Unless you can point me to the place in the Avesta (including chapter and verse, if you'd be so kind) where Abraham is mentioned by name in which case I'll gladly admit I'm wrong.
See? You're doing exactly what you said you didn't do up above. You're writing off the differences (i.e. ignoring them) as human fallibility.
And the problem now lies in the fact you're trying to convince non-Bahais that Zoroastrianism should be considered an Abrahamic religion. Quoting Bahai doctrine at non-Bahais is about as effective as a screen door on a submarine.
- Does not refute them;
- Does not even address them;
- Admits they hold sufficient weight for you to want to use them against me.
Argument inversion. None of this refutes the fact that Christianity arose from Judaism; its earliest members were Jews; its theology has firm roots in Judaism even if it has since branched away from those roots; Christians view Abraham as a prophet of God; Christians claim Jesus fulfils the Messiah prophecies spoken of in Jewish scripture - that he was sent by the same God who inspired those prophecies in the first place.
Argument inversion. You most certainly ignore them. You write off any theological differences as 'human interpretation' and thus to be discarded in the pursuit of the Truth. My ignoring any differences is irrelevant because
- we're not disputing whether Christianity or Islam are Abrahamic religions or not;
- I'm not the one engaged in desperate and far-fetched explanations to justify a replacement theology that portrays the god I worship as misleading, inconsistent, and a poor communicator;
I see. So on that basis we can disregard your following anecdotal evidence regarding former Zoroastrians you know as opinion based on a religious bias. Guess you'll need to come up with another example.
If they're Bahais then of course they're going to agree with you because they'll be using the same strange reasoning you are. And as you've already established the opinions of former Zoroastrians do not count because they are biased by their new beliefs. Come to think of it this could potentially discount your own as well.
There isn't nearly as big a difference between the Christian and Jewish interpretrations of the Abrahamic god as there is between the Abrahamic and Zoroastrian god:
Abrahamic god as viewed in Judaism:
- Generally bad tempered;
- Prone to inflicting plagues when he doesn't get what he wants (The Flood, Egypt)
- Has a penchant for sadism and sociopathy (his manipulation of Pharaoh in Exodus);
- Is omnipotent;
- Has a single, non-anthropomorphic form;
- Jewish people are important to him but has room for non-Jews to worship too
- Created humanity to worship him;
- Has a non-universal message;
- Doesn't intend to torture us forever for not believing in him, AFAIK
- Worshipping him is important but so is doing Good;
- Generally bad tempered;
- Prone to inflicting suffering when he doesn't get what he wants (The Flood, Egypt, Hell)
- Has a penchant for sadism and sociopathy (Original Sin, Eternal torture for the finite crime of not worshipping him, manipulation of Pharaoh in Exodus);
- Is omnipotent;
- Decides to take a break from having a single, non-anthropomorphic form and invests part of himself in a human body for a while;
- Jewish people are important and has room for non-Jews to worship too;
- Created humanity to worship him;
- Has a universal message;
- Intends to inflict eternal suffering on us;
- Accepting Jesus is more important than anything else we could possibly do;
- A lot more mild-mannered than Yahweh;
- Does not inflict suffering on his creation;
- Does not seek to punish us for things beyond our control;
- Is not omnipotent;
- Has a single, non-anthropomorphic form;
- All humans and creatures are equally important to him to the point he doesn't need to single any group out to form specific covenants with;
- Created humanity as allies to help him destroy evil forever;
- Has a universal message
- Does not intend to inflict eternal suffering on us. Instead he intends to cleanse our souls on the Day of Judgement because why would a being as powerful as a god do anything less if he values us so much?;
- Worshipping him is a step in the right direction but he'd much rather people went out and did Good as that's a lot more important;
That's an issue for Christians and Jews to resolve. Not a problem for me because none of this changes the fact Christianity claims Abraham is a prophet of God whereas Zoroastrianism does not. Unless you can point me to the place in the Avesta (including chapter and verse, if you'd be so kind) where Abraham is mentioned by name in which case I'll gladly admit I'm wrong.
See? You're doing exactly what you said you didn't do up above. You're writing off the differences (i.e. ignoring them) as human fallibility.
And the problem now lies in the fact you're trying to convince non-Bahais that Zoroastrianism should be considered an Abrahamic religion. Quoting Bahai doctrine at non-Bahais is about as effective as a screen door on a submarine.
There is nothing refuted, nor proven, nor factual here in arguing differing religious beliefs. Your argument from the beginning was a effective as a screen door on a submarine, because we are dealing with religious beliefs, and not demonstratable 'facts.' There is a relationship between the religions in scripture and cultures, differences in the Middle East that can be demonstrated, yes, there are both similarities and difference. We disagree on the implications of the similarities and differences, because we BELIEVE differently.
The problem is to whether these differences can be sufficient 'factual' evidence there is no relationship between the religions, no.
It is easy to turn your argument back on yourself, because of the extreme position you choose based on the bias of the beliefs you choose.
The evidence and the relationship makes your assertion that Zoroastrian religion not an Abrahamic religions an 'opinion' and not a fact. We may disagree, but the difference in religious belief is not factual. That is to high a bar for an assertion of belief.
Religious beliefs are not fact!
Last edited:
The Emperor of Mankind
Currently the galaxy's spookiest paraplegic
There is if we're talking about what religions teach which is what I've been doing. I'm not arguing to the truth value of any religion's claims here. I'm simply dealing with what they state and what the definitions of certain terms are.
Okay for real, are you able to articulate a response that goes beyond intellectually shovelling what I say to you back at me like snow from a driveway? Because reading it is just embarrassing.
I do appreciate that your stance is fact-allergic because you need to wilfully ignore the way things actually are in order to push your replacement theology.
We are definitely dealing with facts, though, because you're trying to tell us that Zoroastrianism is an Abrahamic faith - you're trying to change the definition of the term 'Abrahamic' to be so inclusive that it loses all meaning. By your own logic, as I've stated, classifying Zoroastrianism as Abrahamic because of the influence it's had on Judaism, Christianity & Islam would necessarily mean expanding the 'Abrahamic umbrella' to incorporate a multitude of polytheist religious traditions. I could class Greek polytheism as an Abrahamic religion; I could class the Dionysian mysteries, the worship of Mother Isis, Neo-Platonism, Mithraism and a host of other non-Abrahamic, Pagan traditions as Abrahamic because so many beliefs entwine and influence one another.
That's true to a certain extent but the fact remains Abrahamic religions arose in Semitic cultures whereas Zoroastrianism arose in an Indo-Aryan culture. Those doctrinal similarities are not enough to eclipse the differences you arrogantly dismiss out of hand as 'human fallibility' because they jar against your pre-conceived notions.
You're using your beliefs to justify imposing a label on an entirely separate religion in a space which makes it difficult for anybody of that religion to challenge you; you do not get to hide behind your beliefs and say others can't question what you're doing 'because they're my beliefs'.
Not to mention doing it here of all places is pretty cowardly.
One more thing: your claim that I can't argue back because we believe differently implies you do actually think human interpretation matters because your own position is just as much the result of human fallibility as that of anyone who disagrees with you.
It's easy to turn my arguments back on me because it's the lazy thing to do.
There aren't any extreme positions on this. This is a question with a binary 'yes - no' answer. Extremes imply a sliding scale. Can Zoroastrianism be considered an Abrahamic religion; yes or no? There's no in-between.
You can emphasise this as much as you want but you don't get to authoritatively change the definition of what constitutes an Abrahamic religion. Nor do you get to cite 'evidence' in one breath while simultaneously stating we're not dealing with facts. If we're dealing with 'no facts' then you have no evidence; if it's 'facts' we're dealing with then I'm afraid you're on to a loser here as the evidence (including the existing definition of what Abrahamic religions are) is firmly in my favour and you have to deliberately dismiss entire chunks of the Good Religion to the point it's neutered down to something Zoroastrians would not recognise as their faith.
If mine is 'just an opinion' then it holds considerably more weight considering I actually understand what the faith teaches.
This is going to be my last word on the subject in this DIR because if you're reduced to 'but it's my beliefs!' then this discussion has reached its conclusion. We'd just going to end up going in circles with you spouting this truism over and over to continuously evading the fact that
- Zoroastrianism doesn't recognise Abraham as a prophet;
- Because it arose in a non-Semitic culture, Zoroastrianism doesn't fit the definition of what an Abrahamic religion is;
- Ahura Mazda (as he's portrayed in Gathas and Avesta) is nothing like Yahweh (as he's portrayed in the Abrahamic canon) and .
Many, but I don't think that this question can technically be answered in a DIR
You may want to ask again in one of the discussion or debate areas.
Don't hide, you are arguing the truth value of other religions to sincerely argue against the Baha'i view. If you were not there would no effective argument. If you are not, the Baha'i view would just one more you would consider false in a chain or religious claims over time.
Your radical bias is clearly showing by calling the Baha'i belief replacement theology a total lack of objectivity. The concept of progressive Revelation cannot be equated with a mechanistic replacement theology. If you take the Torah and in particular the Pentateuch it represents a progressive Revelation. Are you going to accuse Judaism of replacement theology also?
Judaism defines the 'Abrahamic umbrella' as to NOT include Christianity. Christianity does not include Islam as a legitimate religion in the 'Abrahamic umbrella.' Different religions in the Abrahamic religion define
Actually based on the Pentateuch scripture you can incorporate a polytheistic religious tradition. Very literally this is described in the Pentateuch.
Actually as defined by scripture the 'Abrahamic umbrella' includes all humanity going back to Adam and Eve. This, of course, breaks down when the Ancient scripture is put under scrutiny of modern knowledge of the history of humanity. Either the 'Abrahamic umbrella' is totally meaningless and nor relevant, or there is a more universal explanation of the relationship between Creation, humanity and God.
That is your problem. You can define the 'Abrahamic umbrella' any way you choose, just as Judaism, Christianity, Islam and the Baha'i Faith defines the 'Abrahamic umbrella DIFFERENTLY.'
The beliefs of the different religions ALL jar against the preconceived notions of the others including your arrogant rejection of those that disagree with you.
ALL involved including YOU justify imposing an entirely separate religion that defines your space. YOU cannot hide behind your beliefs and say others can't question what YOU'RE doing because the're YOU'RE beliefs.
Not to mention YOU are doing it here of all places is pretty cowardly.
You, of course, can argue back all you wish, and I clearly acknowledge human interpretation plays a significant role in what people believe, Does it matter?!?!! Well that depends on how exclusive and egocentric the belief is. Hebrew (including Noahide), Christianity, Islam, and Zoroastrianism make exclusive claims based on ancient scripture, and including mythology, and in and of themselves represent the weakest claim for the existence of God in various conflicting cultural images. One option is, of course, that none of these God(s) exist, and the atheists are right. I believe if God exists, God is more universal in Revelation with humanity, and yes humanity corrupts religion and creates God(s) in their own cultural image. I believe the universal apophatic God exists regardless of the diverse corrupted exclusive believing religions through our history that make God(s) in their own impage.
Not lazy at all. Extreme insulting dialogue is easy to turn back to your insults. Like your spitting in the wind.
This is an extreme view in and of itself demanding a factual artificial yes or no in the differences of subjective religious beliefs. Of course, this is the position of the atheist taking the position all these world views are false and no God(s) exist.
Last edited:
Ellen Brown
Well-Known Member
Please forgive my intrusion, though I think perhaps I was involved at one time. In my own reading, I saw one source that suggested that Zoroastrianism was a sort of Pre-Judaism. Though I have seen another source that said Zoroastrianism formed about 700 BC, well after Judaism began. My own criteria for calling a religion "Abrahamic" is that they came from Abraham. For the Jews, the ancestry is obvious. For the Muslims, it comes through Hagar and Ishmael. Having BEEN Christian, and seen the level of intellect of some of them, it is not surprising to me that some would say that Muslims are not Abrahamic. I see no reason for heated discussion of this matter.
If we take the Bible literally ALL humanity is descendants from Adam and Eve. This was a limited world view of a greater reality. The actual lineage of Abraham and even the question 'Who was Abraham is not clear in history.' The actual geneology of the Bible is seriously open to question
Another point is Jews reject the claim of Christianity and that Jesus Christ has any legitimacy as a descendant of Abraham, and the majority of Christians do not accept the the claim of Mohammad as a descendant of Abraham and a prophet.
The Baha'i Faith is part grounded in the belief that the Bab and Baha'u'llah are descendant from Abraham, and by the way the family of Zoroaster.
None of the claims of Christianity, Islam nor the Baha'i Faith involving descendancy from Abraham actually carry any weight in and of themselves.
I consider the inclusion of Zoroaster in the group of the Abrahamic religions as having a common heritage with the other Abrahamic.
Part of the problem that I see is the terribly weak provenance of the Bible and the geneology claims of the Abrahamic blood line. Those that rely on this claim of geneology are on a weak standing in defining what is and is not an Abrahamic religon.
I recollect you believe in a literal Bible and the Quran. I should take this into consideration when I am amusing you on alternate views of the scripture.
Ellen Brown
Well-Known Member
Why not?!?!?!