Setanta wrote:RexRed wrote:talk72000 wrote:Zarathustra was the originator of Zoroastrianism and he is ancient. So far it doesn't appear to have been borrowed from somewhere else.
Here is a link:
Zarathustra
The Bible teaches that Noah's sons started various religions and carried old teachings with them long before Zoroastrianism.
This is absolutely false. Zoarastrianism is far, far older than Judaism, and became monotheistic before Judaism. There is no evidence that the Jews were monotheists until after the Babylonian captivity, at which time they were exposed to Zoarastrianism, and the
Gilgamesh Epic, from which they got the flood story and so much more.
After the retreat of the last major Eurasian glaciation, the water levels of the Black and Caspain seas rose until they became one body of water. This event would have appeared to be a world-wide flood to any people (such as the Aryan tribesmen of the region) who live either in the mountainous region of the Crimean, or the Caucasus Mountains between the two seas. That event is undoubtedly the origin of the flood story, for which there is no evidence in Jewish sources until they had returned from the Babylonian captitivty.
You shouldn't just make sh!t up like that.
Set, you don't consider Adam and Eve monotheistic?
They are a prime example of monotheism, just read the Gilgamesh story and you will read a pagan version of the same story... Zoroaster brought monotheism to his own pagan people... Where did he borrow it from? Adam and Eve started out monotheistic.. Why did Zoroastrian kings come to visit the young child Jesus?
After the garden story in the Bible Adam and Eve realize there is only one "true" God...
Yet in the Gilgamesh story the end result is that after the flood the world is left with many Gods... Stark contrast.. This paganism was indigenous to Zoroaster's people too. The Bible even tells us where modern paganism came from. Cush, Noah's son and Nimrod, Cush's son, gave paganism to the people of Babylon out of spite toward Noah's monotheism...
If the simplest form of all creatures could be a serpent and be believed above God than logically all animals and even the human form could be used to usurp the veneration of the creator. This is the message of Genesis and Noah only takes the animal theme further to contrast the venation of animals and the forces of nature over the peace of God... It was paganism that brought the destruction of the world not God...
The genealogies place Adam and Eve back as far as six thousand years. That is the very earliest date set for Zoroaster. So how does that prove that Zoroaster is far, far older? Most scholars believe Zoroaster was much later.
This is a prime example of you, Set, just believing theologians blindly who are simply speculating over what is written...
I am of the school that the Gilgamesh story is derived from the Genesis story and not the other way around. The Genesis story was an oral saga of the Hebrews long before it was written down by Moses...
I have asked many scholars over time what they base their assumption on as to why the Gilgamesh story outdates that of Genesis and they have no logical reasoning to stand on that I have ever been able to ascertain...Given that the Biblical narrative also comes with a a parallel story that is written in the stars in the form of the zodiac I believe the Hebrews had this story nailed and the Gilgamesh story is an after thought and an outright forgery... The Gilgamesh is a story meant to compete against the monotheistic idea...
The Hebrew story foretells of the Gilgamesh story... Zoroaster was born into a society that had already been paganized... Adam and Eve were the first humans to ever perceive that God was not in nature but created nature... They were created with this ability to see God where all other creatures could not interact with God on such a level... Yet they went back to nature and began to worship it over God... They finally saw the error of their ways...
This is the knowledge of good and evil. The knowledge of one true God over many untrue Gods...
This is not to say that some form of nature worship was not part of the "prehistoric" pagan world before. (prehistoric pagan versus modern pagan) Adam and Eve were the first to perceive God. It just means that early prehistoric paganism was crude and rather innocent. Yet the paganism that crept up after Adam and Eve (directly influenced by Noah's fallen sons) and was flourishing at the time of Zoroaster was an organized system of paganism that was replicated in Egypt, Greece Scandinavia and ultimately Rome..
So Zoroaster must have been after Noah's sons if this particular brand of paganism was introduced by Cush and Nimrod and flourishing by the time of Zoroaster in Mesopotamia.
I define this brand of paganism as entire cities over run with it and priestesses and priests temples and statues and likenesses of the sun and other elements and worship of all types of animals and the king of the city considered a "God"... trinitarian father, son and mother images/cults and fertility egg worship.. Fire initiation... All of this cultish influence comes from an obviously twisted view of Genesis and beyond... Modern paganism is not a bunch of cave drawings and a superstitious calendar or spears and solar clocks, followers in black burlap robes. Paganism is an entire culture engulfed in a particular system that is replicated nearly exactly from pagan culture to pagan culture. It was born and began to crop up like a disease in every ancient city.
It is almost that the cities were walled in and new languages created for the people to distance themselves from a nomadic monotheistic beginning... A bureaucratic approach to citizenship.
Cities were the beginning of kings power. How could the king maintain power with God in the way? So if the kings could change the monotheistic beginning of the tribal peoples, they could create a polytheistic system to usurp the rule of the invisible God... So there is your motive too... The Gilgamesh story is clearly a response to monotheism. It was to knock down the omnipotence of God and bring God down from the heavens and to make God likened unto men... ultimately for their own deification and power...
The logic is just not there to put Zoroaster before Eden... Also considering the Hebrew nomadic people had traditions that extended into prehistory Set, you have no compelling case to assert that Zoroaster was far far earlier than Adam and Eve or even Job which also dates back to a story that was tribal and also "monotheistic"...
You have Adam and Eve, Cain and Able, Noah and Job all monotheistic stories dating into prehistory that Zoroaster could have at any time have derived his own ideas from.
The Bible teaches where, when and how paganism came into our modern world. The Bible is privy to credible information that occurred before paganism. Yet, the world of Zoroaster had paganism already within it... the Bible is credibly insightful thus before Zoroaster and leading up to the rise of paganism.
I consider paganism to be a total rip off of the Bible and many biblical scholars see this borrowing from the Bible by paganism even much more clearly than I do...
Even in the patriarchal tribal times of the Hebrews, God was venerated above the patriarch.... Cain and Able gave offerings to a single monotheistic God too...
Zoroaster's "Good Thought" was the same good from evil that earlier Adam and Eve had found. "Good thought, bad thought" or "knowledge of good and evil"? Yet Genesis is a more complete version of Zoroaster's "vision"... simply again reinforcing the idea his "vision" was derived from an earlier Genesis saga...
Genesis Myth
