It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Judaism is an invention by Zoroastrian secret agents

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 20 2004 @ 03:13 AM
link   
I found this hugely interesting article on the web. It proves that Ezra and Daniel were persian secret agents, and how Judaism results from Zoroastrian infiltration.


www.iranchamber.com...




[edit on 21-11-2004 by Mokuhadzushi]




posted on Nov, 20 2004 @ 07:32 AM
link   
Don't you mean Islam was created by Zoroastrian secret agents?

Or was it Jewish secret agents.

No wait, was it Christian agents?

Or Sabians...

I get so confused.

[edit on 20-11-2004 by Ibn Iblis]



posted on Nov, 20 2004 @ 08:03 AM
link   
NOW WE ARE TALKING!!!! This is a "Conspiracy" that I want to Focus on!!! Iblis you are Correct on all three Counts!!! Zoroastrianism is an Ancient Pagan Religion that Gave Birth to Judaism (For example the Genesis Story was swiped from the Sumerians). Judaism later gave Birth to Christianity First - Then Islam. Zoroastrianism was a HIGHLY Dualistic Religion! The main focus was about the Battle between a "Good God" & an "Evil God". Light vs. Dark - Good vs. Evil - Classic stuff like that - this is were the
"God vs. Satan" theme came from! I addition "Magic" was used by the Practitioners. The three Wise Men "MAGI" from the Nativity story were Zoroastrians from Persia. They studied Astrology - hence they saw the Sign (Star) of the "Christ/Messiah" Birth in the Sky & traveled down there to Worship him!

It is SOOOOOO Fascinating! I usually find that there are TWO versions of Judaism, Christianity & Islam being practiced @ any one time! One is Orthodox & the other Mystical. One is Strictly Monotheistic & the others Rely on the "Holy Spirit" & "Angels"!!!


[edit on 20-11-2004 by Seraphim_Serpente]



posted on Nov, 20 2004 @ 08:15 AM
link   
Any logical, open-minded analysis of any of the major religions, ESPECIALLY Islam, would instantly turn any believer into an agnost at the very least.

But that's what faith is all about: belief in the unbelievable, the unseen, the unknowable, the unattainable.



posted on Nov, 20 2004 @ 04:59 PM
link   
What an interesting read


It shows two interesting things.
All religions are connected. Now, depending on your belief, they are either connected because of historical development of religion that has very little to do with supernatural being, or they are connected because of continuous attempts of God to deliver a same message to mankind in different time periods.
The only "new" religion ever was the very first one. The rest simply continued on the existent belief, added some changes, adapted to already existent practices and then called itself the only true way.
All middle eastern religions talk about the same prophets, have similar creation stories, flood myths, and it all goes back to the very first written religious documents of Sumerians. It would be impossible for a religion to develop there and to be completely free from influence of an already existent one.

Another thing that this article shows is that religions have been constantly corrupted by priesthood, be it foreign one, or the one that developed within a certain religion itself.
Prophets that came from time to time always tried to break this circle, to remove the influence of priests, but after their death, others came to create a new line of priesthood based on the "new" message.

The biggest danger for these "corruptors" of religion are individuals, people who think for themselves and try to find connection with God without the institution of religion (church, sinagogue etc, etc).



posted on Nov, 20 2004 @ 05:08 PM
link   

It proves that Ezra and Daniel were persian secret agents


It proves nothing but the fact that someone has a theory about that.



and how Judaism is in fact bogus by resulting from Zoroastrian conspiracies.


Funny, I thought this was a fact seeking place where people didn't resort to calling other people's beliefs "bogus". You can say that you disagree with it or question it's background etc, but I don't think you have any right to call a set of beliefs followed by many people "bogus". Take a dose of humility followed by one of decency and try it again.



posted on Nov, 20 2004 @ 09:36 PM
link   
Quote: "All religions are connected. Now, depending on your belief, they are either connected because of historical development of religion that has very little to do with supernatural being, or they are connected because of continuous attempts of God to deliver a same message to mankind in different time periods.
The only "new" religion ever was the very first one. The rest simply continued on the existent belief, added some changes, adapted to already existent practices and then called itself the only true way."

I Agree!!!



posted on Nov, 20 2004 @ 09:50 PM
link   
There are a number of theories of the origin of religion, and of the origin of Christianity that are far removed from biblical orthodoxy (The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross, for example). But I really enjoyed this article, as it really sheds some new light on the Judeo-Christian development.

May I extend my appreciation for posting a very thought provoking article.



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 03:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Djarums
Funny, I thought this was a fact seeking place where people didn't resort to calling other people's beliefs "bogus". You can say that you disagree with it or question it's background etc, but I don't think you have any right to call a set of beliefs followed by many people "bogus". Take a dose of humility followed by one of decency and try it again.


Excuse me for calling your faith (?) bogus. The fact of the matter is that prior to Persian infiltration, judaism was a polytheistic religion worshipping a tribal man-like god etc.

[edit on 21-11-2004 by Mokuhadzushi]



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 11:18 PM
link   
What's even more interesting is Hinduism pre-dates Zoroastrian and thus makes it the most important religion to study. There were similarities between Zoroastrianism and the ancient vedic hindu religion of the early Aryans. However subsequently the two groups fell apart and the God of Zoroastrians, Ahura became a demon (Asura) in the terminology of the Aryans, while the devas of the Aryans became "powers of evil " (daeva) to the Zoroastrians

If you observe historical facts closely, the ancient hindus were one clever lot.

I mean, if you look at what the ancient hindus wrote - almost everything was divided and classified as science, there was vedic maths which is quite profound once you realize they knew everything from calculation of pie/phi, concept of zero, to newton-gauss interpolation theory and the cose /sine principles.

They had sutras (formulae), everything was subclassified into sutras. even sex was a sutra (kamasutra kama = lust, passion; meaning "The formulae for lust/passion"),

They had ayurveda, (ayur = long life/eternity; meaning "The knowledge of Life") the medical knowledge of the hindus, its approach to the human body a whole when addressing ailments is something which I think the western medical fraternity need to learn from. our natural state is one of health, happiness and an inner sense of well-being. Ayurvedic health is defined as the body being clear of toxins, the mind is at peace, emotions are calm and happy, wastes are efficiently eliminated and organs are functioning normally.

They also invented Yoga, which only recently got popular in the west with its benefits.

Funny, how all these were well documented in their sacred texts but seems to be well and truely forgotten today. The average hindu of today is unaware of what his forefathers knew. I think its just become practicing of idols with no real meaning of what they stand for (for example, nobody knows why the need for a "shiva lingam" (shiva's penis) to be poured over with milk).


[edit on 21-11-2004 by aryaputhra]



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 01:00 PM
link   

polytheistic religion worshipping a tribal man-like god


Please elaborate on how worshipping A manlike god is polytheistic. If I recall the definition correctly, worshipping A god indicates monotheism, not polytheism.

Zoroastrians are mentioned in Jewish writings and are generally refered to as "Star Worshippers" which was a broad term reflecting the beliefs of those groups.

Neither of us was around 5,000 years ago when religions like Judaism and Hinduism began. Neither was the author of the article you're claiming to be fact. We need to understand that the article is his theory and can hardly be considered a factual account of events of 5 millenia ago. Entertaining theories is good, while accepting them as facts, no questions asked, is not. In any event, I did take exception to you, or anyone, calling a set of religious beliefs bogus. You have your opinions, other people have theirs. It is not within yours or my authority to call it names.



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 10:50 AM
link   
Djarums, since you are passionate about the subject you should take your time and read the article. It's well written and enlightening.



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seraphim_Serpente
NOW WE ARE TALKING!!!! This is a "Conspiracy" that I want to Focus on!!! Iblis you are Correct on all three Counts!!! Zoroastrianism is an Ancient Pagan Religion that Gave Birth to Judaism (For example the Genesis Story was swiped from the Sumerians).

The sumerians however were not zoroasterians


Moks link seems to mistake broad similarities between world religions for actual 'genetic' links between them, and also seems to be rather casual in its takes on some of those similiarities. It alludes to a christian-zoroastrian link because " many pre-Zoroastrian gods into the religion. Ahura-Mazda, the sun god Mithras, and the most important archangel, Spenta Mainyu (holy spirit), formed a holy trinity", and also makes the statement that because the jews lived in babylonian captivity that therefore they adopted babylonian religions, which, agian, aren't zoroasterian nor mithraic.



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mokuhadzushi
The fact of the matter is that prior to Persian infiltration, judaism was a polytheistic religion worshipping a tribal man-like god etc.

Since when? Where is this established as fact or even stronlgy suggested? And what is this business about persians, the babylonians weren't persians nor zoroasterians. By the time actual persians invade, its well into the historical period.



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Djarums, since you are passionate about the subject you should take your time and read the article. It's well written and enlightening.


Forgive me for having difficulty seeing an article questioning the very existence and validity of Judaism as written by a source on an Iranian website as being objective.



posted on Nov, 28 2004 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by Mokuhadzushi
The fact of the matter is that prior to Persian infiltration, judaism was a polytheistic religion worshipping a tribal man-like god etc.

Since when? Where is this established as fact or even stronlgy suggested? And what is this business about persians, the babylonians weren't persians nor zoroasterians. By the time actual persians invade, its well into the historical period.


Just read the article. You will see.



posted on Nov, 28 2004 @ 07:12 PM
link   
"Influence" does not necessarily constitute "infiltration."
I found this bit of information that may shed some light on this:


The simplest answer to the first question is, yes, there is a great deal of Zoroastrian influence on Judaism and Christianity, but the problem is that it is hard to document this exactly, at least in the early stages of Judaism. The evidence is there, but it is all "circumstantial" evidence and often does not stand up to the rigorous judgment of scholarship.

ZOROASTRIANISM, JUDAISM, AND CHRISTIANITY



seekerof



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mokuhadzushi

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by Mokuhadzushi
The fact of the matter is that prior to Persian infiltration, judaism was a polytheistic religion worshipping a tribal man-like god etc.

Since when? Where is this established as fact or even stronlgy suggested? And what is this business about persians, the babylonians weren't persians nor zoroasterians. By the time actual persians invade, its well into the historical period.


Just read the article. You will see.

I read it. And see what? See that the babylonians were actually persian zoroasterians? Uhm, they simply weren't, they had nothing to do with that movement. If you think that some part of the article demonstrates this, quote it so it can be discussed. I haven't seen anything there that shows this, so I can't really discuss it in detail.



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mokuhadzushi
I found this hugely interesting article on the web. It proves that Ezra and Daniel were persian secret agents, and how Judaism results from Zoroastrian infiltration.


www.iranchamber.com...


Comment: How interesting but Wahhabism was an invention of the British! Their objective was to undermine the Ottoman Empire, by contemporary standards a far cry more humanitarian Islamic culture.

See Confessions of a British Spy

Submitted by Jack Davies, April 23, 2002

There is a little known article on the web that can be accessed by typing the words "confessions of a british spy" into a search engine.

It concerns a british spy plot to destabilize the Ottoman Empire in the early 1700's. The article, if genuine (and it appears to be) was translated into english from a Turkish document.

It relates the story of how a young Muslim, Wahhabi, by name was "recruited" by a British spy (Hempher). The purpose of the plot was to cause Muslims to begin fighting amongst themselves and therebye distract the Ottoman authorities from what was really going on. This was to be achieved by corrupting the mainstream Muslim religions.

Wahhabism and "Confessions of a British spy"

[edit on 29-11-2004 by SkipShipman]



posted on Nov, 30 2004 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
I read it. And see what? See that the babylonians were actually persian zoroasterians? Uhm, they simply weren't, they had nothing to do with that movement. If you think that some part of the article demonstrates this, quote it so it can be discussed. I haven't seen anything there that shows this, so I can't really discuss it in detail.


In 539 BCE the Persians, under the leadership of the Achaemenid King Cyrus, conquered Babylon.

en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 30-11-2004 by Mokuhadzushi]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join