Awoken by Zoroastrianism

a reply to: CapstonePendulum

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.

I didn't mean to hit a nerve but I believe you still do not understand my perspective. To put this matter in perspective let me rehash some of my intent.

Zoroastrianism is said to be somewhere in the neighborhood of 6,000 B.C.E.. The flood of Noah is said to have been in the neighborhood of 2105 B.C.E. Now if the flood story is as true as the Hebrew's claim then it wiped out Zoroastrianism simply because only the family of Noah survived. So if the family of Noah were the only survivors then how did antediluvian Zoroastrianism appear in the post flood world?

Simple logic will tell you that either the Hebrews are all wrong or Zoroastrianism is all wrong and cannot be as old as claimed. There cannot be two parallel concepts if one did not exist. How could Zoroastrianism have any memory of the 4,000 years of pre flood existence without survivors? Are you then saying that Zoroastrianism came off the boat with Noah or perhaps the flood of Noah is simply a myth? By this is what I meant when I said that one or the other has to be wrong and cannot exist as parallel religions as claimed.

a reply to: Seede

Everybody is wrong. Nobody has ever met God. But religions borrow ideas.

And you didn't hit a nerve I was trying to help you understand that not everything in Judaism is originally Jewish just like everything in Christianity isn't originally Christian.

You are just not getting it. You are of the only one religion is right frame of mind and can't fathom that at one point in time certain Israelites fond of the Persians adopted some of their ideas.

The age of either religion is entirely irrelevant. They came into contact after the Babylonian captivity so I don't see what going so far back in time is going to add to the conversation.

a reply to: Seede

Also the flood myth was borrowed from Utanapishtim of the Epic of Gilgamesh. This was written roughly 3000bc according to scholars.

So not only did Hebrews borrow heavily from the myths of previous cultures but your dating of the flood couldn't possibly be correct.

Also it is a myth with a POSSIBLE basis in reality. So dating it at all is pointless. Dating anything in the bible is pointless because most of it is pure myth and the rest was written long after the events described.

a reply to: Seede

Also if the events in the epic of Gilgamesh happened around 3000BC(I said written before, I meant happened) and Gilgamesh is listed on one of the Sumerian king lists, then it is very reasonable to think that the ancient custom of mythologizing history was common in ancient times. And that Hebrews simply rewrote old myths to reflect their culture. Gilgamesh is believed by many to be Nimrod. It is a fact that Nimrod and Osiris are one and the same. Horus is Tammuz and Isis is Semiramis. Esau kills Nimrod in the Bible but it is Set in Egyptian mythology. Esau is an adversary of Israel and his descendants were mostly despised by the Israelites. But Egyptian and Sumerian culture predate Israel by a long time so you can't accuse them of borrowing from the Old Testament.

Why do you focus on irrelevant topics anyway the point of this discussion is that there is no devil. Satan is made up and the concept of the Christian Satan is based off of the Zoroastrian Ahriman. The Old Testament Ha Satan is a subservient being bound by the decrees of Yahweh. The New Testament mentions Satan about twice as much as the old which is about 3 times larger if not 4. No explanation is offered how this change occurred and Satan became an enemy of God.

They tried with Lucifer but that was proven incorrect. So only from the Zoroastrian faith of old can we see that some Israelites had started to believe in a sort of devil like Ahriman. Whatever sect produced the authors of the New Testament was one of them.

The Persians liberated the Israelites from captivity in Babylon. They interacted and were given aid in building a new temple.

originally posted by: SargonThrall
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.

I always thought Masonry was part Kabbalah and part Egyptian. Then I heard Kabbalah was derived from Egyptian wisdom. Now I know Kabbalah was most heavily influenced by Zoroastrianism, so what you say fits with that and makes perfect sense.

a reply to: CapstonePendulum

Text Why do you focus on irrelevant topics anyway the point of this discussion is that there is no devil. Satan is made up and the concept of the Christian Satan is based off of the Zoroastrian Ahriman. The Old Testament Ha Satan is a subservient being bound by the decrees of Yahweh. The New Testament mentions Satan about twice as much as the old which is about 3 times larger if not 4. No explanation is offered how this change occurred and Satan became an enemy of God.

You are dead wrong and too blind in defending your thread. I am on topic and the entity Satan is not taken or borrowed from the Persians as you want to believe.

All any one has to do is look at the dead sea scrolls and the Enochian literature to understand that the Jews (Hebrews) believed that Enoch authored this work. If Enoch did author this work then there was an understanding of a spiritual Satan. There are many Satan's but all are of the celestial substance. A Satan is an spirit entity against the Creator just as a Antichrist pertains to the terrestrial substance of flesh.

In your OP you stated --
"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."

1 Enoch tells a different story than your Persian fable and is much older than your Persian account. If Enoch is indeed antediluvian then how could it borrow anything from a non existent Persian Empire? In that respect dates have all to do with your account.

You also wrote --
"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."

Read 1 Enoch 40:7 --
I Enoch 40:7 And I heard the fourth voice fending off the satans and forbidding them to come before the Lord of Spirits to accuse them who dwell on the earth.

The "Old Testament Pseudepigrapha" by Charlesworth uses the word "Demons"
The Eth Cepher uses "Impious Angels"
Independent internet copy uses "Satan's" --

As you can see it depends upon the translators but all agree that they are celestial entities who are contrary to the same Creator.

My understanding is that Charlesworth is about as good as it gets and is accepted by all certified scholars that a Satan is a spiritual entity that is contrary to God. There are many spiritual Satan’s just as there are many human Antichrists.

Point being that if Enoch did author this work then Satan's existed from before this creation and were taught in the linage of the Hebrew people long before the people were even divided into nations.



Your recourse now is to deny the dead sea scrolls and 1 Enoch as also being bogus.

a reply to: Seede

I think you might want to consider the fact that you are dead wrong. You are arguing your opinion while I am stating history.

a reply to: Seede

Enoch wasn't written until 200 BC and makes no mention of Satan. Azazel, Semjaza, but no Satan.

So not that it's bogus, it's one of my favorites. But if any book shows Zoroastrian influence it is Enoch.

The Dead Sea Scrolls date from 200bc to 68ad and also show clear Zoroastrian influence. They are also favorites of mine. I own the collection.

And neither books pre-date the Persian empire mingling with the Jews. They are after and during the Greek era.

Enoch did not write the book of Enoch, sorry.

And all that old testament pseudepigrapha was written during the Greek empire. That is after Persia.


Get over your issue. It's a historical fact that Zoroastrianism influenced Judaism. So did other things not Jewish. Learn to live with it or don't but I am obviously wasting time trying to enlighten someone who doesn't want to be enlightened.

If you actually read the link I gave you, you could save yourself a lot of confusion and me the trouble of having to educate you on the history of Judaism.

a reply to: Seede

So one last time I will tell you. The Persians, who liberated the Jews from Babylonian captivity around 500 BC or so, had a Zoroastrian theocracy at the time and it was this religion that inspired certain Israelites to flirt with the idea of an Ahriman like devil and some to adopt the idea that Yahweh was the ONLY God. You might not like it but they did believe in the reality of the gods of other nations prior to this. Yahweh was THEIR God then, now he was THE God.

The Dead Sea Scrolls sect was one sect and the main sect to adopt the dualistic philosophy of the Persians. Belial had a force of evil angels who would battle the forces of the Most High in a cataclysmic showdown between the sons of light and the sons of darkness. This is pure Zoroastrianism influence that produced the apocalyptic, supernatural messianic and vast angelic beliefs of the Zaddikim.

The Pharisees belief in resurrection and the the Kabbalah of today come from and are influenced by Zoroastrianism. Pharisee is derived from the word Parsee which was then a certain sect of Zoroastrian and is now the source of the modern term Parsi.

a reply to: CapstonePendulum

Enoch wasn't written until 200 BC and makes no mention of Satan. Azazel, Semjaza, but no Satan.

You are quite beside yourself my friend and you finally answered my question. I had not referenced when the dead sea scrolls of Enoch were penned. Those fragments are dated from about 300 B.C.E. as we all know but they are not the autographs. My question was when were the autographs penned? You nor anyone knows that answer and it was most certainly dated prior to the manuscript fragments of the dead sea scrolls. Propaganda becomes you in that you should make a statement that the Books of Enoch were not his autographs. How could you even think of making such a silly statement such as that? That exposes your ignorance to say the least.

As I have shown you in my above post, you can download the book of 1 Enoch and read chapter 40 and verse 7 where it is plainly written "Satan". I have also posted Charlesworth"s Enoch where he translates this as "Demon." Also unknown to most people there were two complete books of Enoch recovered from cave 11 which are in the hands of private collectors. Now you can deny this evidence but that will not change the overwhelming opinions of the scholars that Enoch was indeed authored by Enoch from the antediluvian period and that Satan was indeed taught as a celestial adversary of El.
End of my discussion ---------------------

a reply to: Seede

Either way it wasn't written by Enoch and I am all set arguing with someone who doesn't have a clue about influences on Judaism and just wants to argue about nonsense.

All I will say is everything I said is true about the idea of the devil originating in Zoroastrianism. Belial, Satan (the Christian Satan) or Azazel.


And that modern day Zoroastrians called Parsis have abandoned the literal belief in this Ahriman. And we should follow their evolution again.


When you become a Hebrew and Zoroastrian scholar I will listen to your opinions but I am not going to get into an argument about something that I have no doubt of with someone who isn't trying to learn and is just trying to put forth an argument that Judaism is wholly original and true.

Especially since you have argued that Enoch was written by Enoch, or from the perspective that it was, but when I say 200 BC is when it was written you say 300, showing that you now know it wasn't written by Enoch. So you were wrong about one thing but still go on arguing the same tired crap when a 300 BC date fully supports Persian influence being after the Israelites and Persians came into social contact.

But to put it simple I don't argue with people who don't know what they are talking about and just want to argue because they heard something that bothers them.

originally posted by: CapstonePendulum

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.

In my research I've found that the esoteric teachings of mysticism are found throughout nearly all of our religions, mythologies, and belief systems. These inner commonalities are often known as Ageless/Timeless/Ancient Wisdom.

a reply to: Sahabi

Born again and resurrection themes I assume are the central themes of the ancient wisdom. I think the old testament has this teaching but the new makes it available to a wider audience.

But it isn't a corpse raising night of the living dead resurrection. It's a resurrection of enlightenment and the knowledge of our divine heritage. The death is death to material desires and the resurrection is awakening of the eye that is the lamp of the spirit.

That's my interpretation at least.

a reply to: Seede

And there is no overwhelming belief by scholars that Enoch was written by Enoch. That is why it is called pseudepigrapha.

If scholars thought Enoch wrote it they would get laughed at. You have a lot to learn about religion. And history. And the opinions of scholars. And about debating. Staying on topic. Letting your personal beliefs influence the truth is not good.

a reply to: Seede

And Satan was never an adversary of El.

Satan is subservient to YHVH. The Old Testament proves this beyond doubt in the book of Job.

El is the God Most High of the ancient Canaanites. He is Father of the gods. Nowhere in Canaanite mythology is Satan ever mentioned, or YHVH.

So not only has literally everything you said been incorrect, but presented so arrogantly as to pre-suppose your own intellectual superiority.

Quite a fascinating combination of miseducation and ego you have.