Split from Please help me identify with the Old Testament view of God [Archive]

View Full Version : Split from Please help me identify with the Old Testament view of God

Narnian

April 15th 2007, 04:37 AM

Hello All,

My church started a read the Bible in a year program this year and I have been following along with the schedule. I have read much of the Old Testament before, many times, but reading it through as a whole has had an unusual effect. The more I read, the harder it is to believe that the things recorded in the Old Testament speak truly of God.

The problems I have are:

1) Harsh/ seemingly arbitrary punishments

2) The theology that good things happen to good people, bad things happen to bad people

3) God's apparent approval of incredibly violent acts

4) Widespread personification of God

As a result of these difficulties, I am beginning to view the Old Testament as man's perception of God and not God's direct revelation to man. I do not see God in the Old Testament as I once did. This presents quite a problem since Jesus seems inextricably linked to the Old Testament.

Does anyone have any help for me?

Thank you,

Matt

Hi talkingsworth!

I went through exactly the same thing as you about 18 months ago! :teeth:

It was an AMAZING experience. Here is a brief synopsis;

I started reading the entire bible from Genesis to Rev and went to bible studies classes which studied one book per week. I was reading for about 4-6 hours each day, not just the bible, but Judean history as well. I have been a fan and supporter of Marcion for quite some time. You can find a lot of Marcion information here; http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Ithaca/3827/Library.html
Marcion does not agree that YHWH - at least the pre-exilic version - is the same as the Father-God of Jesus. I agree with him. The Jews were, in fact, Henotheists; http://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/henotheism.htm

But it doesn't stop there.

All the way through the OT I was agreeing with Marcion more than ever. Most of the OT is simply devoid of ethical standards.

..... Then I got to Isaiah .....

and suddenly there was a radical change in theology, which Marcion doesn't mention (as far as I know). After reading Isaiah 40, I put the bible down, and started on a huge journey on Judean history, the Documentary Hypothesis and I also read books like The Bible Unearthed and Who Wrote the Bible. I learnt all about the exile and the political conditions of the era. I then started researching the Persians. I was on a page about Persian history when I read a quote from the Zoroastrian religious text of 1200BC (The Gathas).

Yasna 44; Who is by generation the Father of Righteousness, at the first? Who determined the path of sun and stars? Who is it, by whom, the moon waxes and wanes again? Who upholds the earth beneath and the firmament from falling? Who the waters and the plants? Who yoked swiftness to winds and clouds? Who is, O God, creator of Good Thought? What artist made light and darkness? What artist made sleep and waking? Who made morning, noon, and night, that call the understanding man to his duty?

The verse rang a bell, and I kept thinking; "where have I read that verse?!" - it took me a few hours before I realised that this verse is pretty much identical to Isaiah 40;

Isaiah 40:12 Who has scooped up the ocean in his two hands, or measured the sky between his thumb and little finger, Who has put all the earth's dirt in one of his baskets, weighed each mountain and hill? 13 Who could ever have told God what to do or taught him his business? 14 What expert would he have gone to for advice, what school would he attend to learn justice? What god do you suppose might have taught him what he knows, showed him how things work? .... 26 Look at the night skies: Who do you think made all this? Who marches this army of stars out each night, counts them off, calls each by name - so magnificent! so powerful! - and never overlooks a single one?

The question was "why and how!?"

So, then I put the bible down (I took it up later and finished it) and I started researching Zoroastrianism. This took me on an incredible journey. I bought books such as "The Magi: From Zoroaster to the Three Wise Men" by Ken Vincent, "Zoroastrianism" by Peter Clark, "Textual sources For the Study of Zoroastrianism" by Mary Boyce. Plus I did an indepth study of the Gathas and even learnt some Avestan language. I created a fresh translation of the Gathas using 3 english versions and the Avestan plus a dictionary. Where all 3 versions didn't agree I consulted the original Avestan to try and create a commentary-free and literal version. It is posted online here;

http://asha.page.tl/

This was my assignment to my church tutor;

http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=469828#469828

To cut a long story short, after I wrote this assignment, the journey was just beginning. I have since created a long list - 12 pages - of similarities between the Gathas and the NT in theology and quotes.

Marcion got it half right, but he failed to connect Christ to Zarathustra.

I realise TWeb's JP Holding has debated this subject with people and I have read his debates, and I have compared his arguments with those of scholars and I remain convinced that we are more Zoroastrian-Christians, than we are Judeo-Christians.

I hope this is making sense as I have lots of interrruptions right now ....

Here is another book you might like to get hold of.

The Enigma About Divine Love and the Creation of Evil: The Lost Belief Among Early Christians About a God of Total Compassion (Paperback)
by Ray Embry (Author)

http://www.amazon.com/Enigma-About-Divine-Love-Creation/dp/0595136923/ref=sr_1_1/002-7330625-1596053?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1176615291&sr=8-1

Here is my review on that amazon page;

A Good Tree Only Bears Good Fruit, February 8, 2007
Reviewer: Cyber Gypsy - See all my reviews
Ray Embry 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)

Shocking words, yet so vital that we hear this message in the world we know today! The book contains a beautiful message about a God of pure love - no punishments, no snakes, no storms, tsunamis or earthquakes; just pure compassion! Rather, it is humankind which projects its revengefulness and sinfulness onto God and onto the NT, which is not the true picture of God himself.

My only complaint is that the text could have been worded and worked in a tighter way, but it still gets 5 stars for its message and uniqueness.

Ask me anything .... check it out for yourself .... confront me ... whatever!

addit; I didnt' get thrown out of my church for my rather radical view! I even held the end of year party at my house It could be that I'm older and people accept each other's differing views a lot more these days. :teeth:

Narnian

April 15th 2007, 09:35 AM

Lost

April 15th 2007, 10:51 PM

Narnian

April 16th 2007, 01:44 AM

Follow all that thru to the end and you will reach a complete dead end that has no real god at all.

You mean, you can't imagine a God who is not violent and punishing? Why not?

WHAT IF .....

.... God only loved us, what if there was only total compassion flowing from Him, what if he forgave and saved everyone? Would the world fall apart?

..... or would we in fact reach the 'real God"?

-

Lost

April 16th 2007, 02:03 AM

You mean, you can't imagine a God who is not violent and punishing? Why not? WHAT IF ..... God only loved us, what if there was only total compassion flowing from Him, what if he forgave and saved everyone? Would the world fall apart?

..... or would we in fact reach the 'real God"?

-

No, what I am saying is - chuck out the God of Israel and you should chuck out Christ - no mucking around now.

Adam

April 16th 2007, 02:35 AM

Something I didn't clarify earlier - The God of Zarathustra (dated 1200-1700BC) in Persia, was called Ahura Mazda, (meaning "Divine Wise-one") and this God was purely ethical and good. He never causes storms or kills people to 'teach lessons" or whatever. Killing or harming any of Mazda's creatures is the worst thing one could do, whether you're a god or a human.
Jehovah, on the other hand, created good and bad. The pre exilic Jews, and to a large extent the post exilic, did not have a Satan figure. Jehovah encompassed both these roles.
But Zoroastrianism, like Christianity, attributes evil to Satan (Ahriman) and goodness to Mazda.
Mazda/God is also referred to as "Father" by Zarathustra in 1200BC. He says, in yasna 28; "God is to us a brother, a friend, nay! He is Father!" He also calls God the Father of Asha (Logos -Righteousness)
I believe that the God of the NT is the same purely good God of Zarathustra; The True Father.
The NT was written by many different authors with varying degrees of Jewishness and Zoroastrian influence, and the NT also had redactions and insertions. But this "purely good" God still shines through.
1Jo 1:5 This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light and in him there is no darkness at all.
1Jo 4:8 -
Whoever does not love does not know God, for God is love
1Jo 4:16 -
God is love, and those who abide in love abide in God, and God abides in them.
luke 6 43 "No good tree bears bad fruit, nor again does a bad tree bear good fruit; 44 for each tree is known by its own fruit. Figs are not gathered from thorns, nor are grapes picked from a bramble bush. 45 The good person out of the good treasure of the heart produces good, and the evil person out of evil treasure produces evil; for it is out of the abundance of the heart that the mouth speaks
It is a huge subject and I don't want to overwhelm you, but one more thing - the 3 Magi were in fact Zoroastrian priests (Magi means Z priest) looking for the Saoshynt (teacher) prophesised by Zarathustra.
-
I'm not "Lost", Narnian,
I think you're really on to something good.
Other than the snake in Eden, there's no Satan in the first half of the Bible (and Job should not count as early, so push that even farther), so the Devil Jesus encountered in the Wilderness really traces back to Zoroastrianism, not the Hebrew religion.
Fundamentalists get all atwiter with such concepts, but what do they want us to think God was doing all those years before Christ? Lolling around the Temple in Jerusalem after He got tired of being trundled around in the Ark of the Covenant. Get real. God is God. He made everything we know and everybody that is. Did He have no plan for gentiles, no ability to communicate with them? Of course He did. And one non-Hebraic way He worked with His people was the Zoroastrian religion. God did some stuff with Moses, some stuff with Zoroaster. What's so wrong with that? In the course of time these two traditions got merged together when God actually came down as a person to teach us. Jesus points us back to Moses (explicitly) and to Zoroaster (implicitly, both with Visit of the Magi and the Temptation in the Wilderness).
Adam

Lost

April 16th 2007, 04:03 AM

I'm not "Lost", Narnian,
I think you're really on to something good.
Other than the snake in Eden, there's no Satan in the first half of the Bible (and Job should not count as early, so push that even farther), so the Devil Jesus encountered in the Wilderness really traces back to Zoroastrianism, not the Hebrew religion.
Fundamentalists get all atwiter with such concepts, but what do they want us to think God was doing all those years before Christ? Lolling around the Temple in Jerusalem after He got tired of being trundled around in the Ark of the Covenant. Get real. God is God. He made everything we know and everybody that is. Did He have no plan for gentiles, no ability to communicate with them? Of course He did. And one non-Hebraic way He worked with His people was the Zoroastrian religion. God did some stuff with Moses, some stuff with Zoroaster. What's so wrong with that? In the course of time these two traditions got merged together when God actually came down as a person to teach us. Jesus points us back to Moses (explicitly) and to Zoroaster (implicitly, both with Visit of the Magi and the Temptation in the Wilderness).
Adam

The RCC would have burnt you at the stake.

Narnian

April 16th 2007, 10:23 AM

Narnian

April 16th 2007, 10:46 AM

Here is the assignment I wrote last year after reading and studying the OT. We were asked to write the assignment on Disobedience, Results and Redemption.

Warning - don't read if sensitive! as it contains some pretty confronting stuff

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’**, which literally means Omniscient God of Light and Wisdom. 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 “morality, the equitable law of the universe” (Wikipedia)

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”, which means “Omniscient” and also “Light”. Interestingly, Ahura Mazda also means Omniscient, Light/Goodness and All-wise. 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

Jaltus

April 16th 2007, 01:27 PM

THeos does not mean omniscience or light. The Greeks had different words for that entirely. In fact, "theos" meant divine figure before NT times.

M.Talkingsworth

April 20th 2007, 07:45 PM

Narnian,

Interesting. I am intrigued.

I will send more responses later, but I will be out of the net for 10 days.

Matt

Lost

April 20th 2007, 09:55 PM

Narnian,

Interesting. I am intrigued.

I will send more responses later, but I will be out of the net for 10 days.

Matt

Intriguing it is - deadly it is.
Path leads to a dead end - enjoy the ride - see you back at the fork in the road.

M.Talkingsworth

April 25th 2007, 10:58 PM

Intriguing it is - deadly it is.
Path leads to a dead end - enjoy the ride - see you back at the fork in the road.

Hello Lost,

Do not think that I take your cautions lightly, nor do I easily change my mind. Thank you for your concern.

Matt

Narnian

April 25th 2007, 11:42 PM

Intriguing it is - deadly it is.
Path leads to a dead end - enjoy the ride - see you back at the fork in the road.

Dear Lost, how can rejecting the idea of a cruel and inhumane god be "deadly". If anything, especially in this world with WMD, if we go on making excuses for judgements and genocide of groups of people, this is more deadly.

The path actually leads to more clarity, peace and love.

In fact, there is a small yahoo group run by an elderly Christian minister who ministers to Christians who are interested in this view. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NTChristians/
It is a Christian only group for those who take the view of the OT god not being the same as the Father God of Jesus.

-

Lady Gooner

April 26th 2007, 12:45 PM

Dear Lost, how can rejecting the idea of a cruel and inhumane god be "deadly". If anything, especially in this world with WMD, if we go on making excuses for judgements and genocide of groups of people, this is more deadly.

The path actually leads to more clarity, peace and love.

In fact, there is a small yahoo group run by an elderly Christian minister who ministers to Christians who are interested in this view. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NTChristians/
It is a Christian only group for those who take the view of the OT god not being the same as the Father God of Jesus.

-

Narnian,

you seem caught up in vain imaginings (philosophies).

These philosophies as Lost has stated do not actually lead to more clarity, peace or love. In fact Quite the contrary. To suggest that the "OT god and the Father God of Jesus" are different shows complete lack of insight or understanding.

You fail to recognise that the wilful acts of godless kings and those who follow them, and the fact that even though these sinners are rebelling against God and seeking their own interests God's plan and purposes are still achieved. Not only does the OT reveal God to us it also gives us something to hope in.

"wickedness," in biblical terms, is generally related to treachery, atrocity, and oppression, so I would HOPE God would be disturbed by this, and take action as He obviously does. You cite genocide and WMD looking for a "right" response (outrage) from the reader, playing on emotions. And I for one am glad and would HOPE God would be disturbed by this, thus taking the actions He does. But more disturbing to me is the fact that you fail to see that whilst He commits "genocide" as you put it, at the same time, the bible says that God is "patient" with them (hoping they will 'come around' and re-join the community in love and contribution) and even "nurturing" (i.e., leading them/influencing them in that direction). His moral anger at personal evil, is His response to the treachery involved--NOT the circumstances of it.

I think you should go back and look at the Biblical understanding and usage of words such as "Vengeance and Wrath." They are infact words the bible uses for God's intervention of liberation, recompensing the victims, and restructuring reality to insure that "atrocity will be no more"...

They are acts born from a Heart that passionately loves people, that seeks our good, that weeps over oppression, By breaking this oppression and delivering His "dependents", by forceful removal of the habitually and aggressively treacherous from their lives, He does indeed give hope to the abused, the exploited, the victimized, the violated everywhere...

And as Daniel shows us those who have insight will understand and see the hand of God divinely guiding the course of human history in such a way as to fulfil His purposes and promises ~ ultimately the establishment of His kingdom and glorification of His Son the lord Jesus Christ.

Narnian

April 26th 2007, 07:57 PM

Hi Lady Gooner,
Thank you for your reply. Please take me from what I say in my other posts where I have addressed all the issues you bring up.

Justice means balance. If someone is "wicked" then to annihlate this person's entire flock is not justice at all, like death for adulterers is not justice but plainly human sacrifice ... and against God.

I think you should go back and look at the Biblical understanding and usage of words such as "Vengeance and Wrath." They are infact words the bible uses for God's intervention of liberation, recompensing the victims, and restructuring reality to insure that "atrocity will be no more"...

Makes no sense at all - slaughter masses of people to teach them not to slaughter?

You cite genocide and WMD looking for a "right" response (outrage) from the reader, playing on emotions. And I for one am glad and would HOPE God would be disturbed by this, thus taking the actions He does. But more disturbing to me is the fact that you fail to see that whilst He commits "genocide" as you put it, at the same time, the bible says that God is "patient" with them

Allah of Islam comes out with the same sort of rhetoric and double speak. The pattern goes; "hurt them ... do the repent-forgiveness act .... then praise the wonderful allah for such good deeds". It's totally schizophrenic and reminds me of the typical pattern of the abusive husband, where he beats his wife and then tells her he loves her and they kiss and make up and she ends up telling her friends how wonderful he is.

And as Daniel shows us those who have insight will understand and see the hand of God divinely guiding the course of human history in such a way as to fulfil His purposes and promises ~ ultimately the establishment of His kingdom and glorification of His Son the lord Jesus Christ.

The above statement is another issue entirely. To think that we couldn't have achieved salvation without these crimes against humanity - which is plainly what they were - is illogical.

Paul says in the NT; hate what is evil and love what is good. Making excuses for YHWH's atrocities is the same as making excuses for Hitler, Ivan the Impaler, Muhammad, Ghengiz Khan or Stalin's atrocities. They all had exactly the same rhetoric and mythology as the pre-exilic YHWH, ie purging, slaughtering and conquering to achieve "good". The mixing of good and evil produces a deadly outcome.

Jesus, the saints or the apostles, Ghandi and MLK never did any evil in order to achieve good, and they were the most successful.

If you investigate the issue of the Persian Zoroastrian connection, you will find that pre-exilic YHWH was nothing more than a pagan warrior god.

-

ruthrush

April 26th 2007, 08:26 PM

Lost

April 26th 2007, 08:51 PM

Hi Lady Gooner,
Thank you for your reply. Please take me from what I say in my other posts where I have addressed all the issues you bring up.

Justice means balance. If someone is "wicked" then to annihlate this person's entire flock is not justice at all, like death for adulterers is not justice but plainly human sacrifice ... and against God.

Makes no sense at all - slaughter masses of people to teach them not to slaughter?

Allah of Islam comes out with the same sort of rhetoric and double speak. The pattern goes; "hurt them ... do the repent-forgiveness act .... then praise the wonderful allah for such good deeds". It's totally schizophrenic and reminds me of the typical pattern of the abusive husband, where he beats his wife and then tells her he loves her and they kiss and make up and she ends up telling her friends how wonderful he is.

The above statement is another issue entirely. To think that we couldn't have achieved salvation without these crimes against humanity - which is plainly what they were - is illogical.

Paul says in the NT; hate what is evil and love what is good. Making excuses for YHWH's atrocities is the same as making excuses for Hitler, Ivan the Impaler, Muhammad, Ghengiz Khan or Stalin's atrocities. They all had exactly the same rhetoric and mythology as the pre-exilic YHWH, ie purging, slaughtering and conquering to achieve "good". The mixing of good and evil produces a deadly outcome.

Jesus, the saints or the apostles, Ghandi and MLK never did any evil in order to achieve good, and they were the most successful.

If you investigate the issue of the Persian Zoroastrian connection, you will find that pre-exilic YHWH was nothing more than a pagan warrior god.

-

I know what you are saying and where you are coming from - I have been there - its just that your path leads to a dead end - complete dead end - no real god and no real hope - nothing - zilch.

Narnian

April 27th 2007, 01:21 AM

Yeshua said:
Mat 4:4 But He answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every Word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
Luk 4:4 And Yeshua answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every Word of God.
Ruth

Yes, and it's amazing that Jesus was implicity using "the word" to ward off the devil in exactly the same way as Zarathustra explicitly did in this BC scripture:

In the Vendidad (Chap 19.19), Zarathustra is tempted in the wilderness by the Evil One, who offers him wealth and fame if he would renounce the ‘good religion’, but Zarathustra drives him away by reciting the "Ahuna Vairya": "The sacred mortar, the sacred cups, the Haoma, the Word taught by Mazda, these are my weapons, my best weapons! By this Word will I strike, by this Word will I repel, by this weapon will the good creatures (strike and repel thee), Evil One!" http://www.avesta.org/vendidad/vd19sbe.htm

Furthermore, the silver cup he refers to is the eucharist ceremony only slightly different to the Christian one.

-

-

Narnian

April 27th 2007, 01:28 AM

I know what you are saying and where you are coming from - I have been there - its just that your path leads to a dead end - complete dead end - no real god and no real hope - nothing - zilch.

I respect your informed decision, Lost. It seems that you have at least explored it, rather than rejected it outright without a thorough open-minded exploration first, as a lot of people do.

If I come to a dead end, I'll look you up! But so far, I only feel closer to God. Now I don't have to make up excuses for him or pretend those atrocities don't exist. :ahem:

But, if you are happy where you are, (and I note that you are not a youngster just discovering the world :wink: ) then I am happy for you ..... as a fellow aussie :teeth:

addit; oops, your age isn't noted and I thought it was.

-

gooner

April 27th 2007, 07:31 AM

Yes, and it's amazing that Jesus was implicity using "the word" to ward off the devil in exactly the same way as Zarathustra explicitly did in this BC scripture:

In the Vendidad (Chap 19.19), Zarathustra is tempted in the wilderness by the Evil One, who offers him wealth and fame if he would renounce the ‘good religion’, but Zarathustra drives him away by reciting the "Ahuna Vairya": "The sacred mortar, the sacred cups, the Haoma, the Word taught by Mazda, these are my weapons, my best weapons! By this Word will I strike, by this Word will I repel, by this weapon will the good creatures (strike and repel thee), Evil One!" http://www.avesta.org/vendidad/vd19sbe.htm

Furthermore, the silver cup he refers to is the eucharist ceremony only slightly different to the Christian one.
-

Jesus is quoting Deuteronomy.....actually Jesus quotes Deut and Genesis more than any other OT books. So Jesus' authority is the Torah. For the origins of religion ref Gen 11. So when Jesus says You shall serve the Lord and Him only........which God does Jesus refer to?

Lost

April 27th 2007, 08:01 AM

Jesus is quoting Deuteronomy.....actually Jesus quotes Deut and Genesis more than any other OT books. So Jesus' authority is the Torah. For the origins of religion ref Gen 11. So when Jesus says You shall serve the Lord and Him only........which God does Jesus refer to?

Exactly - they can't have Jesus as just a great guy - either he was the God of Israel or he was a liar and a fraud.

Narnian

April 27th 2007, 08:12 AM

Jesus is quoting Deuteronomy.....actually Jesus quotes Deut and Genesis more than any other OT books. So Jesus' authority is the Torah. For the origins of religion ref Gen 11.

Yes, I know he is quoting Deut - I wasn't disputing that. Deuteronomy is highly likely to have been written after the exile, ie after the Zoroastrian influence. The P source also. :teeth: My point, though, was that both Jesus and Zarathustra use "holy words" to ward off the devil.

So when Jesus says You shall serve the Lord and Him only........which God does Jesus refer to

There are many gods in the OT. :eek:

-

Adam

April 27th 2007, 11:33 PM

Yes, I know he is quoting Deut - I wasn't disputing that. Deuteronomy is highly likely to have been written after the exile, ie after the Zoroastrian influence. The P source also. :teeth: My point, though, was that both Jesus and Zarathustra use "holy words" to ward off the devil.
There are many gods in the OT. :eek:
-
I hope this unpleasantness can be settled down.
I'll start with my own nit-picking here. Narnian, I think nobody thinks Deuteronomy is post-Exilic. Fundamentalism of course says it (almost all) derives from Moses, and even Higher Criticism points to a pre-Exilic origin for it as the Law discovered in the temple that brought a reform under the good king Josiah. I don't see that the Pentateuch has much if any Zoroastrian influence, even in the presumably late Deuteronomist and Priestly portions.
As for this Hebraic Yahweh (Jehovah) vs. Zoroastrian Ahura Mazda, shouldn't we all recognize that God existed before Christ (even before Moses and Zoroaster) and throughout the whole world. Why would we presuppose that God would speak to only one small population group and ignore the rest of the whole world? Let's grant that Zoroaster was given some insist into the cosmic struggle of good vs. evil, of God (whatever we name Him) vs. Satan. Let's grant that Moses had a mission from God to bring a people out of Egypt to their Promised Land. That God continued His guidance of the Hebrews by sending them prophets.
Adam

Narnian

April 28th 2007, 04:17 AM

Hi Adam,
Unpleasantness?? Perhaps it's my aussie "bluntness"? I am certainly not feeling unpleasant! In fact, I love this subject so much.

I have some very interesting information in one of my files on the Z influences in the Torah. I will dig it up and come back soon .... I'm on parenting duty right now :-)

Narnian

April 28th 2007, 06:26 AM

As for Deuteronomy being post-exilic, google will list masses of reliable sources to support this claim.

The "contamination of the dead" in Num 19 (which is identified as "P"):

Num 19:11 He that toucheth the dead body of any man shall be unclean seven days.12 He shall purify himself with it on the third day, and on the seventh day he shall be clean: but if he purify not himself the third day, then the seventh day he shall not be clean.13 Whosoever toucheth the dead body of any man that is dead, and purifieth not himself, defileth the tabernacle of the LORD; and that soul shall be cut off from Israel: because the water of separation was not sprinkled upon him, he shall be unclean; his uncleanness is yet upon him.14 This is the law, when a man dieth in a tent: all that come into the tent, and all that is in the tent, shall be unclean seven days.

Numbers doesn't explain what this 'contamination' is, but Zoroastrianism explicitly identifies it as being not "germs" but "evil", since the "evil one" brings death, not Ahura Mazda. Peter Clark (in Zoroastrianism) writes that "Death was never part of Ahura Mazda's plan for humanity. It is only due to the incursions of the hostile spirit world... " that have caused the "contamination" of death into life. So great care is taken so as to prevent this "pollution" from spilling into the physical realm. The Z term for death is "ajyati" - "not life" and since Z celebrates "life", death is seen as its anti-dote. It is explained in full detail in that chapter.

But Jehovah incorporated both good and evil; (ie Isaiah 45:7) He causes both life and death. Mazda only causes life, not death or illness ever. So this purification against death ritual in Numbers is incongruent with Jehovah's character.

I have looked at both the hebrew and avestan of these 2 verses, and I think they are the same.

Deuteronomy 6:5
You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might.

Gathas (1200BC) 33.14: To You, O Mazda, Zarathustra dedicates his whole being together, his loving thought, his whole strength, his best words and deeds.

.

gooner

April 28th 2007, 08:57 AM

There are many gods in the OT. :eek:

-

well thanks for not answering that question...but I can see that I'm now in the wrong part of the campus so I'll just get over to where I belong:uneasy:

Narnian

April 28th 2007, 09:17 AM

well thanks for not answering that question...but I can see that I'm now in the wrong part of the campus so I'll just get over to where I belong:uneasy:

Gooner, don't go! :blush:

I did mean it seriously; ie that there were many gods in the OT. You have Jehovah, Mazda-ized Jehovah, Baal, Elohim, Molech, Asherah and so on. The Jews were henotheists. They had a god that was no different to that of the next door tribe's god, only their god belonged to them and the Jew's god to those. It was a case of "my god is better than your god". And history is written by the winners.

So when Jesus says You shall serve the Lord and Him only........which God does Jesus refer to

God the Father.

Let me know if that does or doesn't answer your question. :smile:

.

mastralvarado

April 28th 2007, 01:16 PM

Makes no sense at all - slaughter masses of people to teach them not to slaughter?

Allah of Islam comes out with the same sort of rhetoric and double speak. The pattern goes; "hurt them ... do the repent-forgiveness act .... then praise the wonderful allah for such good deeds". It's totally schizophrenic and reminds me of the typical pattern of the abusive husband, where he beats his wife and then tells her he loves her and they kiss and make up and she ends up telling her friends how wonderful he is.

Narnian,

I really doubt you view your ideass with an unbiased view. You should study Shariah Law before making accusation as regard to Allah (SAW).

double talk
n.
1. Meaningless speech that consists of nonsense syllables mixed with intelligible words; gibberish.
2. Deliberately ambiguous or evasive language. Also called doublespeak. (http://www.answers.com/topic/double-talk)

Narnian

April 28th 2007, 08:57 PM

In reply to La Fr Gharyal (redirected from other thread),

And then you went on to take out the heavenly Father that Jesus knew and replace Him with the Zoroastrian god, Ahura Mazda ? Did I misunderstand the thrust of your thread's (two) OPs ?

Ah, but the heavenly Father IS Ahura Mazda, and it's the other way around - the 2nd and 3rd century jewish-christians sought to replace the Father with Jehovah, which helped many Jews reform their vison of God. Zarathustra first called God "Father" in 1200BC or earlier. You will only find one instance where God is called "Father" in the OT and that is in 2nd Isaiah, a book which is so highly Zoroastrian, it stands out like a sore thumb from the rest of the OT.

If you studied the Gathas indepth, you would realise that this 'Father' of Zarathustra is in fact the same one as the Father of Jesus in character and name. Here are some verses from the Gathas of Zarathustra:

45.11 Mazda Ahura becomes to them a friend, a brother, nay, a Father!.

31. 8 When I realized you in my mind as the First and the Last of Creation, my inner sight discovered that you are the Father of The Holy Spirit, the creator of Universal Truth (Logos).

47.2 Mazda is the Father of Universal Truth (Logos).

45.4 ....Through Universal Truth (Logos), I have come to understand that Mazda, its Creator, is the Father of active Good Thought: but his daughter is good works.

44.3 I ask you humbly, O Ahura, tell me truly. Who is the Creator and First Father of the Truth?

Some Gathas translations where you can verify these verses and more can be found here:
http://zarathushtra.com/z/gatha/az/gathtml.htm
http://asha.page.tl/
http://www.avesta.org/

Note also that Jehovah or YHWH is not mentioned once in the NT, not even in its Greek version of Ihovah. To state that orthodox is correct because it says so, it simply circularity.

If not, why then should Muslims take your Christian affirmations seriously ? They would be well advised to consider you one who is truly undecided when it comes to a religion.

Exactly, they should find out for themselves. I can only share what I have found to be closer to the truth, and it remains there until someone comes and proves me wrong. I've had long debates with my church pastor, and others who are knowledgable, and the 'evidence' they gave was easily countered by further evidence. So, until someone proves me wrong, my theory remains.

I don't think anyone has the WHOLE truth, but the older we get and the more we read and openly reflect, we do advance. Real Truth cannot be paved over dead bodies in the guise of "justice". Logically, Truth has to be closer to the highest ideals like Agape Love and Grace.

Maybe revealing to the Muslim participants here that you aren't an orthodox Christian--no, not by a long shot, is all I care to do with you. Hopefully, they already have picked up on this. I had no idea. But because that thread just landed, and I don't ever participate in this forum, maybe your unique vision of Judeo-Christianity is now brand new to the folks here who are it's "regulars."

I don't think it's that unique. In fact, there is a lot of evidence that the earliest Christians were, at the bare minimum, Zoroastrianized Jews. If you want me to show you the evidence, just ask. I have a 12 page WORD document showing all the similarities between the Gathas and the NT.

Here is a prayer that you if you are familiar with the NT, you will recognise:

Khordad Nayish prayer: (?1000BC)
"Glory be to Ahura Mazda (in your Kingdom). In the name of the Creator I praise and invoke Ahura Mazda: the Keeper of Treasures, Glorious, Almighty, the Perfector of all deeds, the Lord of Lords, King of Kings, Protector, Creator, Giver of daily bread, Natural and Powerful, without beginning or end, Bestower of good things, the Forgiver of sins, Loving, Almighty, the Wise and the Nourisher. May the Glory of the Lord Ahura Mazda, who is the Creator of the whole world, be on the increase.

BTW, I'm not criticizing Philip Yancey. I've read a couple of his early books and thought them both on track, not departing from orthodox Christian doctrines.

Philip Yancey is my all time favorite. His last chapter in What's So Amazing About Grace is based on the writings of Neo-Marcionite Simone Weil.

.

JosiTovah

May 21st 2007, 04:26 PM

Forgive me for sort of "butting in", but I want to address the original question of this post. If this doesn't belong here, please let me know and I'll delete it. I have understood that this board is interested in outreach, so I am trying to learn from those who are willing to share. I have joined Theologyweb to do precisely the opposite of the original poster. I want to learn how to identify Jesus with YHWH.

The original post started with

Originally posted by M.Talkingsworth
Hello All,

My church started a read the Bible in a year program this year and I have been following along with the schedule. I have read much of the Old Testament before, many times, but reading it through as a whole has had an unusual effect. The more I read, the harder it is to believe that the things recorded in the Old Testament speak truly of God.

The problems I have are:

[COLOR="Blue"]1) Harsh/ seemingly arbitrary punishments

The idea of "drinking blood and eating flesh" is horrifically violent to me. I don't understand why such terminology was needed, and how Jewish people would not be terrified of such an assertion.

2) The theology that good things happen to good people, bad things happen to bad people

The idea that Adonai would want the brutal torture and murder of his son is...please do not be offended...it's frightening to me. Isn't that something very bad happening to someone very good? God would not allow Abraham to sacrifice his beloved Isaac...the son could not be sacrificed to God. I believe that Paul was in jail while he wrote most of his letters? Wasn't he murdered as well?

Jephthah's daughter, who allows herself to be sacrificed so that Jephthah may keep his vow after his vindication, seems to be a sort of foreshadowing of the necessity for sacrificing one's child, however, during the book of Judges there was no "king", so there was no one to send life-saving angels.

The story of Jephthah's daughter is parallel to the Jesus story in another way. The sacrifice is believed traditionally to have taken place on the night of winter solstice. Some have said that Jephthah's daughter represents the sacrifice of the earth at this time of year--the death of plants and the long sleep of animals. (Of course, the earth comes back to life in the Spring, as is the archetype).

3) God's apparent approval of incredibly violent acts

God seems to watch the violent acts, because they are the histroy from which the lessons of humanity take place. If the history is not learned, it will be repeated.

4) Widespread personification of God

Please give me an example of what you mean here....From my perspective, Jesus is a "personification" of God...so do you think that this "personification" is good or bad?

As a result of these difficulties, I am beginning to view the Old Testament as man's perception of God and not God's direct revelation to man. I do not see God in the Old Testament as I once did. This presents quite a problem since Jesus seems inextricably linked to the Old Testament.

Does anyone have any help for me?

Thank you,

Matt

shunyadragon

May 21st 2007, 06:22 PM

Hi talkingsworth!

I went through exactly the same thing as you about 18 months ago! :teeth:

It was an AMAZING experience. Here is a brief synopsis;

I started reading the entire bible from Genesis to Rev and went to bible studies classes which studied one book per week. I was reading for about 4-6 hours each day, not just the bible, but Judean history as well. I have been a fan and supporter of Marcion for quite some time. You can find a lot of Marcion information here; http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Ithaca/3827/Library.html
Marcion does not agree that YHWH - at least the pre-exilic version - is the same as the Father-God of Jesus. I agree with him. The Jews were, in fact, Henotheists; http://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/henotheism.htm

But it doesn't stop there.

All the way through the OT I was agreeing with Marcion more than ever. Most of the OT is simply devoid of ethical standards.

..... Then I got to Isaiah .....

and suddenly there was a radical change in theology, which Marcion doesn't mention (as far as I know). After reading Isaiah 40, I put the bible down, and started on a huge journey on Judean history, the Documentary Hypothesis and I also read books like The Bible Unearthed and Who Wrote the Bible. I learnt all about the exile and the political conditions of the era. I then started researching the Persians. I was on a page about Persian history when I read a quote from the Zoroastrian religious text of 1200BC (The Gathas).

Yasna 44; Who is by generation the Father of Righteousness, at the first? Who determined the path of sun and stars? Who is it, by whom, the moon waxes and wanes again? Who upholds the earth beneath and the firmament from falling? Who the waters and the plants? Who yoked swiftness to winds and clouds? Who is, O God, creator of Good Thought? What artist made light and darkness? What artist made sleep and waking? Who made morning, noon, and night, that call the understanding man to his duty?

The verse rang a bell, and I kept thinking; "where have I read that verse?!" - it took me a few hours before I realised that this verse is pretty much identical to Isaiah 40;

Isaiah 40:12 Who has scooped up the ocean in his two hands, or measured the sky between his thumb and little finger, Who has put all the earth's dirt in one of his baskets, weighed each mountain and hill? 13 Who could ever have told God what to do or taught him his business? 14 What expert would he have gone to for advice, what school would he attend to learn justice? What god do you suppose might have taught him what he knows, showed him how things work? .... 26 Look at the night skies: Who do you think made all this? Who marches this army of stars out each night, counts them off, calls each by name - so magnificent! so powerful! - and never overlooks a single one?

The question was "why and how!?"

So, then I put the bible down (I took it up later and finished it) and I started researching Zoroastrianism. This took me on an incredible journey. I bought books such as "The Magi: From Zoroaster to the Three Wise Men" by Ken Vincent, "Zoroastrianism" by Peter Clark, "Textual sources For the Study of Zoroastrianism" by Mary Boyce. Plus I did an indepth study of the Gathas and even learnt some Avestan language. I created a fresh translation of the Gathas using 3 english versions and the Avestan plus a dictionary. Where all 3 versions didn't agree I consulted the original Avestan to try and create a commentary-free and literal version. It is posted online here;

http://asha.page.tl/

This was my assignment to my church tutor;

http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=469828#469828

To cut a long story short, after I wrote this assignment, the journey was just beginning. I have since created a long list - 12 pages - of similarities between the Gathas and the NT in theology and quotes.

Marcion got it half right, but he failed to connect Christ to Zarathustra.

I realise TWeb's JP Holding has debated this subject with people and I have read his debates, and I have compared his arguments with those of scholars and I remain convinced that we are more Zoroastrian-Christians, than we are Judeo-Christians.

I hope this is making sense as I have lots of interrruptions right now ....

Here is another book you might like to get hold of.

The Enigma About Divine Love and the Creation of Evil: The Lost Belief Among Early Christians About a God of Total Compassion (Paperback)
by Ray Embry (Author)

http://www.amazon.com/Enigma-About-Divine-Love-Creation/dp/0595136923/ref=sr_1_1/002-7330625-1596053?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1176615291&sr=8-1

Here is my review on that amazon page;

A Good Tree Only Bears Good Fruit, February 8, 2007
Reviewer: Cyber Gypsy - See all my reviews
Ray Embry 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)

Shocking words, yet so vital that we hear this message in the world we know today! The book contains a beautiful message about a God of pure love - no punishments, no snakes, no storms, tsunamis or earthquakes; just pure compassion! Rather, it is humankind which projects its revengefulness and sinfulness onto God and onto the NT, which is not the true picture of God himself.

My only complaint is that the text could have been worded and worked in a tighter way, but it still gets 5 stars for its message and uniqueness.

Ask me anything .... check it out for yourself .... confront me ... whatever!

addit; I didnt' get thrown out of my church for my rather radical view! I even held the end of year party at my house It could be that I'm older and people accept each other's differing views a lot more these days. :teeth:

All these are interesting questions concerning the reality of what the Bible really says and the ancient worldview it represents. That is important in understanding the capability of our worldview to understand the nature and purpose of ancient religions. They all represent ancient cultural worldviews of God from an ancient cultural worldview and not competitors for a universal message for all humanity as individual religions. These ancient religions do not define God, they define an ancient worldview of God. All religions represent our universal spiritual heritage.

gharfish

May 21st 2007, 09:31 PM

Narnian

May 21st 2007, 10:21 PM

[JosiTovah;1964055]Forgive me for sort of "butting in", but I want to address the original question of this post. If this doesn't belong here, please let me know and I'll delete it. I have understood that this board is interested in outreach, so I am trying to learn from those who are willing to share. I have joined Theologyweb to do precisely the opposite of the original poster. I want to learn how to identify Jesus with YHWH.

Hi Josi,
Welcome to TWeb. This thread was split from this one; http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=95274
This is the "Orthodox" version of this question. You might find more answers there, but I will address what you have proposed here anyway.

The problems I have are
Harsh/ seemingly arbitrary punishments:

I agree with you. You can either explore my version of the answers to this, or you can go to the other thread and see if that rings more true to you.

The idea of "drinking blood and eating flesh" is horrifically violent to me. I don't understand why such terminology was needed, and how Jewish people would not be terrified of such an assertion.

You are not drinking blood and eating flesh. The Eucharist originates from the Zoroastrian Haoma ritual. I will demonstrate this and show you that "blood" is a metaphor for "spirit":

Haoma (Soma) Ritual
It is believed that the spirit of God is in Haoma or “Soma” (Vedic) juice and a ritual is carried out with cups and sacred words. By taking part in the ritual and drinking the juice the devotee attains eternal life through the spirit of Zarathustra.

"Euchrist, the Christian Greek for the holy sacrament is derived from Eu-kharistos, or Vedic Su-haritas (Avesta Kh = vedic Sa). Thus when Christ says at the last communion that "this is my body", the actual Greek term for body is "Soma", the vedic God of Immortal wine & nectar. Frawley therefore considers the last communion to be the Christian soma sacrifice, & the medieval search for the holy grail, reflecting the search for the ancient soma challis, the vessel in which the immortal soma was held & from which it could be drunk to achieve immortality." Gods, Sages & Kings, Vedic Secrets of ancient Civilization David Frawley

*10.17 From the silver cup I pour (Haoma drink) to the golden chalice over. Let me not the (sacred) liquor spill to earth, of precious cost.

*(Ref?) The sacred mortar, the sacred cups, the Haoma, the Word taught by Mazda, these are my weapons, my best weapons!

*9.16 most nutritious for the soul

*7.3. And I offer the Haoma with a complete and sacred offering for propitiation for the good waters Mazda-made. And I offer this Haoma-water with scrupulous exactness and with sanctity, and this fresh milk, and the plant Hadhanaepata uplifted with a complete and sacred offering for the propitiation of the waters which are Mazda-made.

Eucharist
Although “blood” represented by red wine is used in the Christian Eucharist, the NT suggests that “blood” is a metaphor for Spirit; ie the Spirit of Christ, since ‘spirit’ and ‘blood’ can be interchangeable, and it was often thought that blood contained one’s spirit

Mat 26:26 While they were eating, Jesus took a loaf of bread, and after blessing it he broke it, gave it to the disciples, and said, "Take, eat; this is my body."(my Soma) Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

John 6:53 Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.

John 6:54 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day; for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them.

Blood as Spirit:

John 19:34 Instead, one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once blood and water came out.

1John 5:8 This is the one who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ, not with the water only but with the water and the blood. And the Spirit is the one that testifies, for the Spirit is the truth. the Spirit and the water and the blood, and these three agree.

The theology that good things happen to good people, bad things happen to bad people

That is OT. Jesus says: Mat 5:45 … for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good and send rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.

In the OT you were good for a reward.
In the NT you are good because God loves us first. 1Jo 4:19 We love because he first loved us.

The NT is superior in this way because it transforms you through love. The reward-punishment system only changes you on the outside.

The idea that Adonai would want the brutal torture and murder of his son is...please do not be offended...it's frightening to me. Isn't that something very bad happening to someone very good?

You have the old fashioned inferior version of this story. Time to update! You can consider the martyr theory - Jesus was a martyr for what he believed. He is our hero archetype.

Or, you could consider the highly intellectual version of Rene Girard (Gil Bailie does a good job of rewriting Girard's theories into plainer language), where Jesus goes willingly into this martyrdom as a "change of archetype" to challenge the whole system of the blood sacrifice system, to transform it and throw back the problem onto the people. Let me know if you want me to elaborate on that one.

God would not allow Abraham to sacrifice his beloved Isaac...the son could not be sacrificed to God.

This story was created to change the ancient "child sacrifice" system. Up until the Babylonian exile the Judeans and other tribes around that area were still engaging in human sacrifice. The story of abraham and the sheep diverts the blood sacrifice onto the animal. The crucifixion ended ALL blood sacrifice, and made people take responsibility for sin instead of projecting it onto a living thing and killing it.

Also, there is some pretty convincing evidence that Abraham is the Hindu god Brahma and Sarah is the Sarahsvati river. http://www.viewzone.com/abraham2.html

I believe that Paul was in jail while he wrote most of his letters? Wasn't he murdered as well?

He was apparently executed.

Jephthah's daughter, who allows herself to be sacrificed so that Jephthah may keep his vow after his vindication, seems to be a sort of foreshadowing of the necessity for sacrificing one's child, however, during the book of Judges there was no "king", so there was no one to send life-saving angels.

It is one of the examples of human sacrifice in the OT. King David sacrifices 7 brothers on a hill in order to end a famine. None of this was from God, but from Satan, in my opinion.

The story of Jephthah's daughter is parallel to the Jesus story in another way. The sacrifice is believed traditionally to have taken place on the night of winter solstice. Some have said that Jephthah's daughter represents the sacrifice of the earth at this time of year--the death of plants and the long sleep of animals. (Of course, the earth comes back to life in the Spring, as is the archetype).

All human sacrifice to me is abhorrent, even if there are beautiful myths attached. Her father was nothing short of a brainless idiot. :rant: ... I'm a mother of a young child, so expect outrage to the max at this sort of thing!

God's apparent approval of incredibly violent acts

That was the pagan god of the ancient Judeans. This tribe did not know god. They were henotheists and YHWH was nothing more than a warrior god they used to carry around in a box. http://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/henotheism.htm

[As a result of these difficulties, I am beginning to view the Old Testament as man's perception of God and not God's direct revelation to man. I do not see God in the Old Testament as I once did. This presents quite a problem since Jesus seems inextricably linked to the Old Testament.

I hope you will read through how I have got over this problem. You are right - there is no way that the pre-exilic version of YHWH could be the same Father God as Jesus. When the Jews were exiled to Babylon in 600BC, and returned 70 years later, they were totally transformed and had come to begin to know the real God, as evidenced in Isaiah.

Does anyone have any help for me?

Did I help?

JosiTovah

May 21st 2007, 11:01 PM

THANK YOU Narnian, for this excellent and thorough reply. You have no idea how much I appreciate it. I actually have tears in my eyes. I'm so frustrated, because I have so many questions, and these questions have gotten some shockingly hostile reactions from many sources to which I looked for knowledge. Why do people get so mad about questions? Aren't they an obvious expression of a desire for answers? Is this a bad thing? I'm not on this board to argue - I honestly want to learn. It means a lot to me that you want to share and to learn as well!

I know nothing about Zoroastrianism, and it never even occured to me to look into it for ties to the development of Christian doctrines. I know that it has influenced Judaism but I was unaware that its influence continued through Christianity. I'm excited to learn more.

Thank you also for the book recommendations! My versions aren't just "old fashioned", they're virtually non-existent. I've learned Judaism, so, as you can imagine, I have no clue where to begin.:help: Sometimes I wish I could be an agnostic or an atheist. It would be relaxing not to feel consciousness and responsibility toward the Divine.

The responses at the end part of your post should be sent to the previous poster, to whom I was replying regarding the "Old Testament." My problem is exactly the opposite of that previous poster - I'm trying to reconcile what I've learned about Jesus/God with YHWH God!:blush: I want to know how it all fits together, because I can't come up with answers just from reading scripture...I just get more confused. The Talmud makes sense to me, but I want to expand my thinking.

You helped very, very much! Thank you, again.:joy:

Narnian

May 22nd 2007, 02:27 AM

Hi JosiTovah,
I'm so glad I was of some help :hug:

It's rewarding to hear that all my ranting and ravings across cyberspace have not been in vain after all :blush:

It would be relaxing not to feel consciousness and responsibility toward the Divine.

I agree with this insight.

Enjoy this amazing journey .... and feel free to challenge anything I have said in this thread :teeth:

barnasha

May 22nd 2007, 06:24 PM

Since "Jesus" really means "YHVH saves", and Jesus worshipped YHVH like all the other Jews, i think the fallacious dichotomy that there are two different gods is anything but helpful in trying to ascertain a proper understanding of what is in the texts being discussed above, or in the teachings of the people in them.

There is no such thing as a "new god" to the writers of the books which were compiled into the volume now known as the "New Testament"

Paul and Jesus were religious jews

Narnian

May 22nd 2007, 09:56 PM

There is no such thing as a "new god" to the writers of the books which were compiled into the volume now known as the "New Testament"

Ahura Mazda is not a new God. He was perceived by Zarathustra way before the Judeans in the 2nd millenium BC, or at least this is the oldest recording of Him.

Until the exile in the 6th century BC the Judeans were henotheists. Each tribe had their own totem warrior god which they took into battle in a box on a sort of wooden stretcher. Other tribes had Baal, Elyon, Molech, Asherah and others. It was a case of "my god can beat your god", and history is written by the winners. If they lost a battle or something bad happened to the tribe, they use animal and human sacrifice (David sacrifices 7 brothers on the hill to YHWH to end a famine and YHWH ended the famine because of this) to appease this tribal god. Ethics do not come into the picture until after the exile. Why? Because the Judeans in exile were educated by their Persian Zoroastrian rescuers.

Barny, please read my links on the first page which includes a fuller explanation of what happened before, during and after the exile. I have also demonstrated why Ahura Mazda is the Father God of Jesus. As far as I'm aware, I"m not a boring writer, and I don't waffle on and on, so it shouldn't be too much trouble to thoroughly go over what I have said already. Then, after reading, you are warmly invited to challenge me.

I will post some similarities between Isaiah, the NT and the Gathas ....

Narnian

May 22nd 2007, 10:11 PM

Isaiah is a book in the OT which is highly influenced by Zoroastrianis, with direct quotes from the Gathas. The NT is highly influenced by the book of Isaiah. (Isaiah and Yeshua (Jesus) are the same name) Note that the Gathas pre-date Isaiah by many centuries.

Comparisons with Isaiah

51. 9: Both parties, O Mazda, will be put to the Fiery Test. This alchemical process will reveal the truth in the souls of these people

Isaiah 10: See, I have refined (hebrew "alchemy") you, but not like silver; I have tested you in the furnace of adversity.

29.8 He is the holy Zarathustra, the Teacher. … Therefore, sweetness of speech will be granted to him.

Isaiah 50.4 The Lord God has given me the tongue of a teacher, that I may know how to sustain the weary with a word

31:8 When I realized you in my mind as the First and the Last of Creation

Isaiah 41.4 I, the Lord, am first, and will be with the last.

Gathas Y 44: Who is the Creator and First Father of the Truth? Who laid down the path of sun and stars? Who causes the moon to wax and wane. All these and many other others I wish to know O, Mazda. 4: I ask you humbly, O Ahura, tell me truly. Who holds the earth and the heavens apart and prevents the latter from falling? Who is the sustainer of water and plants? Who makes the wind blow and clouds blow swiftly? Who is the Creator inspiring Good Thought, O Mazda? 5: I ask you humbly, O Ahura, tell me truly. Who is the Creator of light and darkness? What artist designed sleep and wakefulness, rest and activity? What artist created the dawn, the day and the night, guiding the wise man to fulfil his daily duties properly.

Isaiah 40:12 Who has scooped up the ocean in his two hands, or measured the sky between his thumb and little finger, Who has put all the earth's dirt in one of his baskets, weighed each mountain and hill? 13 Who could ever have told God what to do or taught him his business? 14 What expert would he have gone to for advice, what school would he attend to learn justice? What god do you suppose might have taught him what he knows, showed him how things work? 26 Look at the night skies: Who do you think made all this? Who marches this army of stars out each night, counts them off, calls each by name - so magnificent! so powerful! - and never overlooks a single one?

NT comparisons

Bearing Fruit

43.4: Then I will know you as strong and holy, O Mazda, when the Liar and the Righteous reap their fruit.

43 5: ….O Mazda. In the beginning you ordained that deeds and words shall bear fruit, evil comes to evil and good blessings to good. Thus it will continue till the end of creation.

Mat 3:8 Bear fruit worthy of repentance.

Lu 8:15 But as for that in the good soil, these are the ones who, when they hear the word, hold it fast in an honest and good heart, and bear fruit with patient endurance.

Mat 7:17 every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit.

Fighting evil with spiritual weapons

31.18 Don’t listen to the words of the false and the wicked ones, because they will lead the family, community and nation to ruin and destruction. It is our duty to resist such persons and repel them with spiritual weapons of purity and righteousness.

33.2: Those who fight evil (The Liar) by thought, word, deeds and uses his hands to convert the misled to the good, do the will of Ahura Mazda.

2Cor 6 by purity, knowledge, patience, kindness, holiness of spirit, genuine love, truthful speech, and the power of God; with the weapons of righteousness for the right hand and for the left
2Cor3-4 For though we live in the world, we do not wage war the way the world does. The weapons we fight with are not weapons of the world.
1Cor 10. 3 Indeed, we live as human beings, but we do not wage war according to human standards; for the weapons of our warfare are not merely human, but they have divine power to destroy strongholds. We destroy arguments and every proud obstacle raised up against the knowledge of God, and we take every thought captive to obey Christ.

Slaves to sin;

53. 9: The evil-believers look down on the righteous ones, yet are slaves of desire/sin and struggle with their inner-selves.

John 8:34 Jesus answered them, "Very truly, I tell you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin.
Rom 6:14 For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law but under Grace.
Rom 8:9 You are not controlled by sinful nature but by the Spirit

The Liar
In Zoroastrianism Dualism, ‘The Liar’ is the personification of Falsehood and Evil, the same meaning as Devil/Satan/Antichrist.

31.15 I ask you, Lord, what is the painful pang of the consequences felt by … those who advance the cause of The Liar?
43.4 Then I will know you as strong and holy, O Mazda, when the Liar and the Righteous reap their fruit
32. 2 Those who fight The Liar by thought, word, deeds and uses his hands to convert the misled to the good, do the will of Ahura Mazda
46.6 He who supports the Liar, will fall into the Lie, and he who supports the righteous is himself righteous.
44.8 Firstly, I replied; I am Zarathushtra; a true foe of the Liar, shunning all evil.
44.13 I ask you humbly, O Ahura, tell me truly. How should we completely drive the Liar away from us?

The Liar

1John 2:22 Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the Antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son.

Here Jesus refers to the Jewish God “Yahweh” as the Liar:

John 8:44You are from your father the devil, and you choose to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

The Kingdom of God
Zoroastrians believe that the Kingdom of God will merge with Humanity/Earth, when enough people seek Universal Truth. Jesus's teachings suggest the same idea;

31.6 The wise man who propagates the true religion ... will enjoy God’s Kingdom, which increases through pure mind.

51.6 He who is ‘better than good’ is virtuous and progresses the advancement of the Kingdom of God.

43.8 I (Zarathustra) will support all that is Righteous to the utmost of my power, that I may attain the future of your Kingdom, as I praise you, O Mazda.

33.13 Lord, reveal your precious gifts to me which flow from your Kingdom, O Ahura, and through The Holy Spirit

31.6 The wise man who propagates the true religion and makes the people aware of my holy word, which leads them to perfection and immortality, will enjoy the highest bliss. He will enjoy God’s Kingdom, which increases through pure mind

44.9 The man of Truth wishes for your Kingdom, where Universal Truth and Good Thought dwell.

48 8 We yearn for virtue, Mazda, and more so your Kingdom, Ahura.

Matt 6:10 Your kingdom come. Your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.

Luke 17:21 the kingdom of God is among you
Matt 6:33 But strive first for the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.

Luke 10:9 The kingdom of God has come near.

Matt 12:28 But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come to you.

Mat 13:31 The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed that someone took and sowed in his field; it is the smallest of all the seeds, but when it has grown it is the greatest of shrubs and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and make nests in its branches.

Matt 13:43 Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father.

John 3:5 "Very truly, I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit.

Acts 14:22 "It is through many persecutions that we must enter the kingdom of God."

Blessed are the Meek

53.9 O, Mazda, it is through your Kingdom that you shall strengthen the righteous meek and help them and bestow upon them the best reward.

34.5: … I wish to be one with You through truth and pure mind, helping the needy and those poor in spirit, and protecting the meek and lowly of heart (or “meek devotees”).

Mat 5.5 Blessed are the meek, For they shall inherit the earth.

Mt 5:3 Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Spiritual strength over physical strength

29.9-10 Then, the Soul of the Earth lamented. Should I accept the support of a feeble man and listen to his words? I desired the help of a strong and mighty king. When will such a person arise and bring strong-handed succour to me? O, Ahura Mazda and Universal Truth, bestow upon them (Zarathustra and his followers) spiritual strength and power. The Holy Spirit, grant mental power, cleverness and full wisdom to Zarathustra, so that the may lead the world to peace and rest.

Mat 19:26 With man (salvation) is impossible, but with God all things are possible
1Cor 1:25 God's weakness is stronger than human strength.
1Cor 1:27 God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong
Ep 6:10 Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his power.
1Cor 4:10 We are weak, but you are strong.
2Cor 13:4 For we are weak in (Christ), but in dealing with you we will live with him by the power of God.

False Teachers

51.14 False teachers never show regard to Divine Laws and are destroyers of world harmony. Their false teachings lead to the destruction of the world, but their evil deeds will ultimately catch up with them and they will end up in the House of the Lie.
32 11 False teachers regard the false ones as great persons, because of their dignity and worldly grandeur. They hold back respectable men and women from attaining their wishes and enjoying God's gifts. They distract the minds of righteous and truthful people and destroy their lives
32.12 Owing to their evil thoughts, they prefer ferocious wolves to righteous and pure persons and wish lordship for the followers of false.

Mat 24:11 And many false prophets will arise and lead many astray.

Mat 7:15 Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.

The Good Shepherd and "wolves"

31.9 …You, God, have granted us the power to choose between the path of good or evil: the path followed by the Good Shepherd, the deliverer, or with him who never was one.

31.15 I ask you, Lord, what is the painful pang of the consequences felt by the astray soul as a result of its own actions, and those who advance the cause of The Liar? Also, what is the penalty for those who have no other fulfilment in life, except separating the faithful people from their True Shepherd.

29.6 Was it not for this that you were put in charge as Shepherd and preserve of the Creation of this World?

27:13 Mazda Ahura whom (people) assign as a Shepherd to the poor."

The NT uses the Shepherd metaphor 17 times to mean Jesus, and ‘wolves’ 4 times. In the Avesta, God is the Good Shepherd, but also Zarathustra.

John 10:11-14 I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. The hired hand is not the shepherd who owns the sheep. So when he sees the wolf coming, he abandons the sheep and runs away. Then the wolf attacks the flock and scatters it. The man runs away because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep. I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me.

Mat 10:16 See, I am sending you out like sheep into the midst of wolves; so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves

More to come .....

Narnian

May 22nd 2007, 10:29 PM

Good Waters
Zaothrâbyô is the Avetan word for “Living Waters” or divine water that heals and spiritually nourishes.

68: This I invoke for the victorious soul who follows the glorious path of our Creator; that greatest mountain sized treasure chest of knowledge. (metaphor for God) That most inspired snow capped Mountain of Knowledge Whose divine melting waters drench our lands with Light & lustre. Onto us, your Light of Wisdom & the radiance of Purity Mental & Physical, well being physical Endurance to face life's storms, desired guidance to intellect stimulation, Victory over physical imperfections, progeny endowed with insight, victory against deceivers & evil forces Unshakeable Aligment with TRUTH, through knowledge & intellect.

Living Waters
The NT Greek word for “Living” is “Zao” - the same as the Avestan “Zaothrabyo”

Spiritually nourishing:

Joh 4:10 Jesus answered her, "If you knew the gift of God, and who it is that is saying to you, "Give me a drink,' you would have asked him, and he would have given you living water." The woman said to him, "Sir, you have no bucket, and the well is deep. Where do you get that living water? …. "Everyone who drinks of this water will be thirsty again,

Joh 7:38 and let the one who believes in me drink. As the scripture has said, "Out of the believer's heart shall flow rivers of living water. (“heart” in Greek Koilia, also means “innermost being”)

Healing:

John 9:7 (to the blind man) "Go, wash in the pool of Siloam" (which means Sent). Then he went and washed and came back able to see.

Baptism and Ministry at 30yrs

Zarathustra goes into the holy River Daitya then when he comes out, the heavens open and first an angel then Mazda speaks and asks Zarathustra to be Teacher to the people. While it is impossible to say if this legend is pre or post Christian, it is likely to be 600BC or earlier. Zarathustra, Ezekiel and Jesus are all 30 years of age, all go into a river, God appears in the heavens and all 3 begin their ministry.
http://eawc.evansville.edu/anthology/zadspram.htm
Zadspram chapter 21

About his coming to thirty years of …, on the day Anagran of the month Spandarmad, he had proceeded in that direction in which there occurred the so-called festival of spring (jashno-i vahar), forty-five days beyond new-year's day.... (he) went forth to the bank of the water of the Daitya River, because it is the river of the conference for the supremacy of Zarathustra, and is the water of Aban (Mithra) which has consisted of four channels ....When he came up from the water, and put on his clothes, he then saw the archangel ...He also inquired of Zarathustra thus: "Who are you? And where are you from? What do you most wish for and what is the meaning of life?" 10. And he replied thus: 'I am Zarathustra, among the existences righteousness is more my desire, and my wish to become aware of the will of the sacred beings…..' (Mazda appears in the sky as a light and proceeds to teach him the basics for his ministry)

Ezekiel 1 In the thirtieth year, in the fourth month, on the fifth day of the month, as I was among the exiles by the river Chebar, the heavens were opened, and I saw visions of God. ….2.1 He said to me: O mortal, stand up on your feet, and I will speak with you.

Luke 3:21 when Jesus also had been baptised and was praying, the heaven was opened, and the Holy Spirit descended upon him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven, "You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased." Jesus was about thirty years old when he began his work.

Temptation in the Wilderness
Another legend that is impossible to verify date. It is believed that the "word" has power and can ward off evil.

In the Vendidad (Chap 19), Zarathustra is tempted in the wilderness by the Evil One, who offers him wealth and fame if he would renounce the ‘good religion’, but Zarathustra drives him away by reciting the "Ahuna Vairya" (holy words) "The sacred mortar, the sacred cups, the Haoma, the Word taught by Mazda, these are my weapons, my best weapons! By this Word will I strike, by this Word will I repel, by this weapon will the good creatures (strike and repel thee), Evil One!"

Lk 4:1-11 Jesus is tempted in the wilderness by the Evil One who offers him wealth and fame if he would worship him and renounce God, but Jesus wards him off using verses from the OT (‘holy words’). "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."

End Times
Frashokereti “Frash” = “Fresh” and “Kereti” means renovation. “Fresh renovation” of the world at the end of time. It is the same concept as the Rapture in the NT.

31.14 I ask you Lord, about the past and the future? What reward and punishment will be registered in the Book of Life for the good and evil, and what happens on the Day of Resurrection. I ask you God, who is aware of past and future events, what has been ordained for the righteous ones and how the false ones would be treated on doomsday?

48.1 When truth ultimately conquers untruth, and the deceit and fraud of the Daevas revealed to all, then praise and devotion to Ahura will increase bringing blessings. 2: Reassure me and tell me what you know, Ahura; Will the righteous overcome the Liar before your plan unfolds? That indeed is a message to bless the world.

51.6 He who is ‘better than good’ is virtuous and progresses the advancement of the Kingdom of God. However, he who does not strive for this, worse than bad for him on the Day of Resurrection.

51.13 The follower of untruth distort the Truth Path to their inner self. But at the Judgment-Bridge, on the day of resurrection, his soul will rebuke them openly for his bad deeds, words and deviation from the path of truth.

48.10 When will I reach self realisation? When will the Lie and greed in the world end? When will the wicked Karapans (priests) plunder and the intoxicating (or intoxicated) tyrant’s rule over countries with evil intentions all end? (read further)

Holy Spirit
There are many teachings about the Holy Spirit or Spenta Mainyu in the Avesta. Chapter 47 is just one example;

47.1: He who is led by the Holy Spirit and whose thoughts, words and deeds are good with truth, shall be granted self realisation and eternity by Mazda Ahura. 2: He who led by the Holy Spirit lives the best life. His words shall be full of love and wisdom, and his works shall be guided by his Courage through faith. Inspired by the thought that Mazda is the Father of Universal Truth. 3:
You are the Protector of the Holy Spirit. You have created this joy-bringing earth. When people go towards Insightful Conscience and consult with it, you will grant them peace, O Mazda; and Perseverance will be the protector. 4: Liars, who turn away from your Holy Spirit, feel ever-frustrated. But not so with the truthful. Whether one is rich or poor he is to show love for the righteous but ill to the Liar. 5: You have promised the best to the righteous through the Holy Spirit. However, the false ones will remain far from your love, since their evil actions proceed from their evil minds, which darken their soul.

Amesha Spentas and Gifts of the Holy Spirit
Zarathustra consistently prays for guidance and to receive ‘attributes’ from Mazda; the Amesha Spentas, also called Gifts of the Holy Spirit, which are: Recognition of Universal Truth, Perseverance, Courage, Insightful Conscience, Inspiration and Wholeness.

--.4: Aid us, O Mazda, and your Divine Gifts, so that we may attain pure mind and spiritual strength through purity and truth; sincere love and humility so that by developing these attributes we may overcome untruth.

43.2 Through Universal Truth, the Eternal Law of Truth and Purity, O my Lord, grant us wisdom and knowledge; Divine Gifts, so that we may enjoy happiness throughout our lives.

51.7: You who created the earth, water and the plants, O Mazda, grant me the Divine Gifts, as well as courage and perseverance through Insightful Conscience as revealed in your teachings.

Gifts of the Holy Spirit

1Co12.4-14 Word of Wisdom, Word of Knowledge, Healings, Working of miracles, Prophecy, Discernment of spirits, Speaking in tongues(1), Interpretation of tongues

(1) In Zoroastrianism, the “word” is believed to have great power, and speaking holy words is considered a holy gift.

Mat 19: 26 With man (salvation) is impossible, but with God all things are possible.

Both Christians and Zoroastrians believe that humans cannot evolve by themselves; they need Gifts of the Holy Spirit.

Ep 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God

barnasha

May 23rd 2007, 03:31 PM

What does an "Old Testament" "view" of God entail, per se? It seems the problem in answering this question lies in its phrasing.

For example, if we are to take this question most literally, this is actually asking what the *Christian* view is, since "Old Testament" is a modernist Christian view (in which the scriptures of "old" represent an old "covenant" or "testament", whereas the "new covenant" is expressed in the scriptures chosen by the religious establishment of the age)

shunyadragon

May 23rd 2007, 06:59 PM

Spoken like a true Bahai faithful. Are one, or both: the forerunner, businessman Mirza Ali Muhammad ("Bab") 1819-1850--his student, and as of 1863 self-proclaimed Madhi, the man you follow:: Mizra Husayn Ali ("Bubaullah"), manifestations or prophets of the unknowable God...as was too the 6th-century Persian prophet Zoroaster ?

Your ultimate truth foundation is a small personality movement (brought to the US by "Bubuallah's" eldest son, Abdul Baha and then passed on to grandson, Shoghi Effendi...until his death in '53) that is a schism from Shiite Islam. Why don't you tell people this ?

You are always on the case of Christian apologists...arguing against orthodox Christian doctrines, and yet Bahaism is no more recognized as credible than many other such marginal groups that have (ever) practised. And despite all this you so nicely occupy the catbird seat !

I do not think Narnian is a Baha'i (unless there is sarcastic intent here), but your rant contributes nothing of substance to the debate, or an argument for or against the Baha'i Faith.

First, the Baha'i Faith does not believe it is the ultimate truth, it believes in the progressive evolving relative truth of throughout the history of humanity. The revelation of Zarathustra is one of the revelations revealing a progressive truth and part of a universal message of salvation for ALL of humanity. Narnian does present a good argument for Zarathustra as a prophet and messiah figure for the Persians. Actually he does a better job of presenting Zorastrianism than I could, and I will save this thread for my archives on different religions. Thank you Narnian! You have earned five pearls!

Second, it is obvious that apologists of all faiths will argue and debate their bbelifs against other other apologists. Is there something wrong with this? I and other Baha'is will always argue for a universal relationship between God and humanity through revelation. Most other ancient relgions will argue for their exclusive belief in salvation only for those that follow what they believe.

Whether the Baha'i worldview is what it claims, would take an offereing of more substance and meaning than a meaningless rant.

Narnian

May 23rd 2007, 09:43 PM

What does an "Old Testament" "view" of God entail, per se? It seems the problem in answering this question lies in its phrasing.

I don't understand what you mean - what exactly is your question?

For example, if we are to take this question most literally, this is actually asking what the *Christian* view is, since "Old Testament" is a modernist Christian view (in which the scriptures of "old" represent an old "covenant" or "testament", whereas the "new covenant" is expressed in the scriptures chosen by the religious establishment of the age)

YOu are not making sense; try again.

Narnian

May 23rd 2007, 10:02 PM

I do not think Narnian is a Baha'i

Yes, I'm a Christian :smile:

Thank you Narnian! You have earned five pearls!

Thank you! :teeth:

barnasha

May 25th 2007, 07:22 PM

I don't understand what you mean - what exactly is your question?

my question is as to the meaning of your language, I was asking you to clarify your earlier remarks.

YOu are not making sense; try again.

which part should I clarify?

gharfish

May 25th 2007, 08:32 PM

I do not think Narnian is a Baha'i (unless there is sarcastic intent here), but your rant contributes nothing of substance to the debate, or an argument for or against the Baha'i Faith.

First, the Baha'i Faith does not believe it is the ultimate truth, it believes in the progressive evolving relative truth of throughout the history of humanity. The revelation of Zarathustra is one of the revelations revealing a progressive truth and part of a universal message of salvation for ALL of humanity. Narnian does present a good argument for Zarathustra as a prophet and messiah figure for the Persians. Actually he does a better job of presenting Zorastrianism than I could, and I will save this thread for my archives on different religions. Thank you Narnian! You have earned five pearls!

Second, it is obvious that apologists of all faiths will argue and debate their bbelifs against other other apologists. Is there something wrong with this? I and other Baha'is will always argue for a universal relationship between God and humanity through revelation. Most other ancient relgions will argue for their exclusive belief in salvation only for those that follow what they believe.

Whether the Baha'i worldview is what it claims, would take an offereing of more substance and meaning than a meaningless rant.But, see, you aren't an apologist for your faith !

No, you cruise along rather undercover with the garden variety decidedly anti-Christian skeptical crowd that goes after Jesus' and his apostles' exclusive in nature truth claims. And then you will also play the scientist role, as so many of them do too to try and discredit "Christian origins" interpretation/s.

I'm not saying one word about the truthfulness of Bahaism. I am saying this: show some appropriate humility, for you are part of a small obscure personality cult that is a split-off of the Shiite schism of Islam. So, how can you ever claim the intellectual high ground in matters of religon ?!

I know it's awfully cozy in the catbird seat, but it doesn't fit you. If honestly to stay up there you have to hide your specific inflexible beliefs. Your faith is everybit as unreasonable as the one you are constantly on the move against: Christianity. You hide the nuttiness of your's so that the other chronic naysayers on TWeb don't think you just as unsophisticated as the hopelessly superstitious Christians.

Why did 'my rant' involve your Bahaism ? *Review what I said about the supposed spiritual connection between the Persian prophet Zoroaster and your cult leader, Mizra Husayn Ali...a Shiite-style Madhi, your "the glory of God." That was what lay behind posting in this particular thread. You see, I had already stated that Narnian's beliefs have ceased to be Christian--not just for throwing away the Old Testament (total discontinuity)--but thinking she can seat Zoroaster's god, Ahura Mazda, on the throne of Jehovah ! If she says that Jesus is the Christ, for her, then what he said must go ! Period.

It's not complicated. Who did Jesus say was the heavenly Father ? Jesus said he was the Son of what God, as revealed in which scriptures ? Case closed then, from what couldn't be any more obvious and easily understood as truly the Christian (Christ's) point of view. So her's is, simply, not. She should look for another religion...or make up her own. Oh, wait; she has.

barnasha

May 25th 2007, 10:34 PM

faiths dont believe, people have faith

Narnian

May 25th 2007, 10:46 PM

You see, I had already stated that Narnian's beliefs have ceased to be Christian--not just for throwing away the Old Testament (total discontinuity)--but thinking she can seat Zoroaster's god, Ahura Mazda, on the throne of Jehovah ! If she says that Jesus is the Christ, for her, then what he said must go! Period.

You have not disproved anything I have said. Here are my main points for you to disprove:

1. The pre exilic Judeans were totemist henotheists.
2. The Judeans found the real God in exile via the Zoroastrians - see esp Isaiah
3. The NT was originally written for Zoroastians and/or Zoroastrianized-Jews
4. Jesus was a Zoroastrianized Jew
5. We are all Zoroa-Christians more than we are Judeo-Christians (read all of what I have written and refute from there)

It's not complicated. Who did Jesus say was the heavenly Father ? Jesus said he was the Son of what God, as revealed in which scriptures ? Case closed then, from what couldn't be any more obvious and easily understood as truly the Christian (Christ's) point of view. So her's is, simply, not. She should look for another religion...or make up her own. Oh, wait; she has.

The heavenly Father IS Ahura Mazda. The ancient Judeans did NOT call God "Father". Pre exilic YHWH was a totem god of war and famines who was kept in a little box on an ark. It is so obvious this "god" was nothing more than a pagan god not unlike Baal or Molech or Ashareh, only that the Judean tribe's god happened to be called Yehwah, and they were the ones whose books survived.

Also, Jesus says this to his contemporaries about the nature of YHWH:

John 8:44You are from your father the devil, and you choose to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

1John 2:22 Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the Antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son.

Zarathustra (1200BC) 43:8: Firstly, I replied; I am Zarathushtra; a true foe of the Liar, shunning all evil.

I'm sure that if anyone looks carefully into the history and religious texts of the region they will come to understand what I have already proposed. Have you read the Story of The Other Wise Man by Henry Van Dyke? It's a beautiful short story written by a Presbyterian minister who also wrote the Presbyterian prayer books. He shows intimate knowledge of the Zoroastrian religion, the prayers and of Ahura Mazda, as can be seen in the introduction. http://www.readbookonline.net/readOnLine/1873/

The Magi who sought out Jesus in Matthrew's gospel were Zoroastrian priests (evidence on request). As the protagonist in the story seeks Jesus, Christian minister Henry Van Dyke has this line in his story;

She had seen (the Other Wise Man's) white cap and the winged circle on his breast.
"Have pity on me," she cried, "and save me, for the sake of the God of Purity! I also am a daughter of the true religion which is taught by the Magi.

barnasha

May 25th 2007, 11:03 PM

since the NT is not a work, but a compilation, how can you say 'it was written' for a particular reason?

gharfish

May 25th 2007, 11:11 PM

faiths dont believe, people have faithDid I say something in the course of my post to Shunyadragon like this, your, "faiths do believe" brainteaser ? What does that mean ? Contrasting that with the obvious, that people have faith (religious beliefs), tells me nothing.

Does anybody else out there get it ?

barnasha

May 25th 2007, 11:16 PM

Did I say something in the course of my post to Shunyadragon like this, your, "faiths do believe" brainteaser ? What does that mean ? Contrasting that with the obvious, that people have faith (religious beliefs), tells me nothing.

Does anybody else out there get it ?

soimeone said 'such and such faith believes'

group faith is not true faith, true faith is when you have it even when everyone else doubts you, the kind of faith that Jesus taught us to have, by example

gharfish

May 25th 2007, 11:17 PM

Narnian,

I'll consider "disproving your four points" about the same time you can deal with this quandary:
".....You see, I had already stated that Narnian's beliefs have ceased to be Christian--not just for throwing away the Old Testament (total discontinuity)--but thinking she can seat Zoroaster's god, Ahura Mazda, on the throne of Jehovah ! If she says that Jesus is the Christ, for her, then what he said must go ! Period.

It's not complicated. Who did Jesus say was the heavenly Father ? Jesus said he was the Son of what God, as revealed in which scriptures ? Case closed then, from what couldn't be any more obvious and easily understood as truly the Christian (Christ's) point of view. So her's is, simply, not. She should look for another religion...or make up her own. Oh, wait; she has.

gharfish

May 25th 2007, 11:49 PM

soimeone said 'such and such faith believes'I don't know who said that, but, formal world religions do have basic tenets of belief that define them. And so does shunyadragon's Bahaism, even though it is a cult derived from a major world religion. Say, information gathered from a founder's words as contained in a source document/s tell us what those particulars are. If you are a Muslim, then certainly the revelation to Muhammad contained in the Koran is just such a defining thing. It would be the defining thing, period. Only the hadith could further satisfactorily define that religion.group faith is not true faith, true faith is when you have it even when everyone else doubts you, the kind of faith that Jesus taught us to have, by exampleThat kind of faith is faith alright, but that is not the kind of faith that Jesus taught his hearers to have. (And 'by example' too, you say ? Come on now !)

Jesus taught specific things to be believed, and then some things that we are not to believe--truths and untruths. He did teach what is an inflexible exclusive truth system of beliefs about who the true God (his Father) was--who he was, exactly, in relation to Him--and what was his life's mission, and precisely what problem of mankind's necessitated it's completion.

People are free to custom-build using existing religions--mix and match--as Narnian is doing right now, to get to a faith system more to their liking.

Narnian

May 25th 2007, 11:53 PM

same time you can deal with this quandary:

Ghariyal, would you please back up your bolded statements with relevant quotes from the NT, then I know where to start from.

gharfish

May 26th 2007, 12:45 AM

Aren't you familiar enough with the teachings of Jesus that I needn't do that for you ?

You could simply start with what scriptures were they; these that Jesus held to be the one and only true account of God's revelation to man, about Himself: His identity...his ways...what he both had to give to man and what he required of man.

Jesus said that he was God in the flesh, and that would be as defined by no one else but the eternal God of those particular scriptures. (I am referring to the Hebrew canon.) I can't swallow an assertion that the Jews were, in effect (total), Zoroastrians all along and didn't know it (?) Jesus was similarly snookered-in and unsophisticated about the nature of God--precisely who he was the incarnation of (?)

Zoroastrianism is a distinct faith and belief system apart from Judaism. Go ask a Jew ! You want to marry the two. No, actually the three. You've far and away left even Marcion choking in the dust. Can you tell us better than the many historians and archaeologists who can't anywhere nearly agree themselves when the parts of the Avesta were written and which part by who ? All that aside, the life and times of the actual man Zarathustra is clouded in mystery.

Even if it were true that Judaism is a retelling of parts of someone else's developing pagan religion, then Jesus Christ essentially did nothing more than buy into a lie, didn't he ? Was he confused about who was the heavenly Father (yes, by character as well as by name) who had sent him...His Messiah ? (Why did he then say it was necessary that he die on a cross that the salvation of mankind should be accomplished ? The very reason he came has nothing at all to do with anything Zoroastrian.)

Are you as a Christian prepared to entertain the notion ?

Maybe Jesus really was divinely hip to the whole switcheroo thing the Jews had done--hitched himself as Messiah to that cart anyway for it didn't matter what little they knew, (and) that disclosure of ultimate truth/s is unfortunately forever lost in parallel teachings that Jesus' followers either dishonestly suppressed or weren't smart enough to catch and get down in print in the gospels we do have. This is tiring. You guys blend well together and are enjoying the give-and-take; I am the sore thumb among you.

Narnian

May 26th 2007, 02:09 AM

Aren't you familiar enough with the teachings of Jesus that I needn't do that for you ?

Yes, I have read the entire bible from G to R, plus done a year bible study course on each book, plus other studies and reading and 2 university Theology units.

You could simply start with what scriptures were they; these that Jesus held to be the one and only true account of God's revelation to man, about Himself: His identity...his ways...what he both had to give to man and what he required of man.

Do you have a verse reference?

Jesus said that he was God in the flesh .....incarnation of (?)

Do you have a verse reference?

Zoroastrianism is a distinct faith and belief system apart from Judaism. Go ask a Jew ! You want to marry the two. No, actually the three. You've far and away left even Marcion choking in the dust. Can you tell us better than the many historians and archaeologists who can't anywhere nearly agree themselves when the parts of the Avesta were written and which part by who ? All that aside, the life and times of the actual man Zarathustra is clouded in mystery.

The Gathas are the oldest section of the Avesta and the chapters that I refer to are the oldest part of the Gathas. They date to 2nd millenium BC, with a roundabout date to 1200BC, according to the latest textual and liguistic evidences, as per scholars like Mary Boyce. The Gathas are in a language that became extinct in 800BC. It is unlikely that the Gathas were written in an archaic language at a later date, because they contain rhymes, puns and consistency of a native mother-tongue speaker. You can read more on the dating using many different techniques at the Wiki entry on the Gathas and also the book Zoroastrianism by Peter Clark, which is available from most library systems. He devotes half a chapter to explaining the dating. The Gathas are also similar in structure to the Rigveda, which dates to 1500BC, and Avestan and Sanskrit are similar. Let me know if you have any problems with any of that.

Even if it were true that Judaism is a retelling of parts of someone else's developing pagan religion,

Zoroastrianism isn't pagan. Ahura Mazda was the first universal and ethical God. He did not require appeasement, as YHWH did. He did not fight wars or require any blood sacrifices or killings. In fact, killing and death in any form is Satanic to the Zs.

then Jesus Christ essentially did nothing more than buy into a lie, didn't he ?

Not at all, he presented the same God as Ahura Mazda, ie universal and ethical Father. But Jesus went even further. He highlighted God as Agape and went against the later-Avestan practices of avoiding sinners, dead people and the sick to the point of superstition (also found in Numbers).

Was he confused about who was the heavenly Father (yes, by character as well as by name) who had sent him...His Messiah ? (Why did he then say it was necessary that he die on a cross that the salvation of mankind should be accomplished ? The very reason he came has nothing at all to do with anything Zoroastrian.)

You don't find YHWH referred to as Father anywhere except in Second Isaiah. God as "The Father" was first discovered by Zarathustra in 1200BC:

God as "Father"

45.11 Those who oppose the Devas and their followers, and those who respect the name of our Lord and pay reverence to his wise Teachers, the true helpers of the religion, Mazda Ahura becomes to them a friend, a brother or, rather, a Father.

31. 8 When I realized you in my mind as the First and the Last of Creation, my inner sight discovered that you are the Father of The Holy Spirit, the creator of Universal Truth (Logos) and therefore judge of actions in life.

47.2 Mazda is the Father of Universal Truth. (Logos)

45.4 ....Through Universal Truth, I have come to understand that Mazda, its Creator, is the Father of active Good Thought: but his daughter is good works.

44.3 I ask you humbly, O Ahura, tell me truly. Who is the Creator and First Father of the Truth?

Note that in verse 45.11 Zarathustra is referring to the "the devas" which are Vedic gods. In 1900BC the Sarasvati River dried up in eastern Afghanistan and the Vedics came westwards with traces of groups reaching Egypt. This particular verse is typical of the clashes that Zarathustra's tribe(s) were experiencing and is a theological retaliation against them. It also demonstrates how old these verses are. The Vedic god was very far removed from humanity and could only be accessed by priests. Thru these debates, Zarathustra "blasphemously" calls God "Father", and serendipitously discovers the intimate 'True God'.

Interestingly, the story of Abraham and Sarah has striking parallels with the Vedic god Brahma and the god of the Sarasvati river; "Sarasvati". That Sarah was 'barren' reflects the river drying up. "Brahma" and Sarah produce a son in their later years who was to produce their grandson: "Israel" (Jacob). So, in other words, the Sarasvati dries up, "Brahma" and his "wife" Sarah move to settle a new region and "Israel" is born. There is more, but that will be enough for now!

Are you as a Christian prepared to entertain the notion ?

I have.

Maybe Jesus really was divinely hip to the whole switcheroo thing the Jews had done--hitched himself as Messiah to that cart anyway for it didn't matter what little they knew, (and) that disclosure of ultimate truth/s is unfortunately forever lost in parallel teachings that Jesus' followers either dishonestly suppressed or weren't smart enough to catch and get down in print in the gospels we do have. This is tiring. You guys blend well together and are enjoying the give-and-take; I am the sore thumb among you.

You are looking at the NT in a narrow way. It was written across many decades by a multitude of authors. Some were more Jewish and some were decidedly Zoroastrian. There were also redactors and those who sought to form the NT to help defeated Jews find a new representation of God.

gharfish

May 26th 2007, 02:49 AM

OK. Go with this Christianity. You've definitely earned it through hard work.

Narnian

May 26th 2007, 02:56 AM

OK. Go with this Christianity. You've definitely earned it through hard work.

So you're not going to refute me?

:bawl:

gharfish

May 26th 2007, 03:03 AM

No.

shunyadragon

May 27th 2007, 04:49 PM

But, see, you aren't an apologist for your faith !

No, you cruise along rather undercover with the garden variety decidedly anti-Christian skeptical crowd that goes after Jesus' and his apostles' exclusive in nature truth claims. And then you will also play the scientist role, as so many of them do too to try and discredit "Christian origins" interpretation/s.

I'm not saying one word about the truthfulness of Bahaism. I am saying this: show some appropriate humility, for you are part of a small obscure personality cult that is a split-off of the Shiite schism of Islam. So, how can you ever claim the intellectual high ground in matters of religon ?!

I know it's awfully cozy in the catbird seat, but it doesn't fit you. If honestly to stay up there you have to hide your specific inflexible beliefs. Your faith is everybit as unreasonable as the one you are constantly on the move against: Christianity. You hide the nuttiness of your's so that the other chronic naysayers on TWeb don't think you just as unsophisticated as the hopelessly superstitious Christians.

Why did 'my rant' involve your Bahaism ? *Review what I said about the supposed spiritual connection between the Persian prophet Zoroaster and your cult leader, Mizra Husayn Ali...a Shiite-style Madhi, your "the glory of God." That was what lay behind posting in this particular thread. You see, I had already stated that Narnian's beliefs have ceased to be Christian--not just for throwing away the Old Testament (total discontinuity)--but thinking she can seat Zoroaster's god, Ahura Mazda, on the throne of Jehovah ! If she says that Jesus is the Christ, for her, then what he said must go ! Period.

It's not complicated. Who did Jesus say was the heavenly Father ? Jesus said he was the Son of what God, as revealed in which scriptures ? Case closed then, from what couldn't be any more obvious and easily understood as truly the Christian (Christ's) point of view. So her's is, simply, not. She should look for another religion...or make up her own. Oh, wait; she has.

Oooookay! Your sarcasm meter got lodged in the far right position and you accused Narnian of being a Baha'i, because of the relationship of the Baha'i Faith in Iran to Zorastrianism.

It is true I predominantly take the position of the scientist in debates and the Baha'i position of the universality of revelation, but I feel your bitter and rancorous charges are without foundation. Take a close look at back at your posts that are directed to the Baha'i Faith and my debate methods. You admitted to it being a 'rant', and even though you reject any relationship or validity of Zorastrianism, Islam and Baha'i is there a valid reason for a 'rant'? Your posts are not only meaningless, but they actually reflect a dangerous angry intolerance toward the beliefs of others.

Your challenge of showing humility, because I am supposed coming from the worldview of minority cult is highly questionable. Is your rancorous abusive rant justified, because you are speaking from a superior 'moral majority' position?

gharfish

May 28th 2007, 03:59 AM

Oooookay! Your sarcasm meter got lodged in the far right position and you accused Narnian of being a Baha'i, because of the relationship of the Baha'i Faith in Iran to Zorastrianism.I did no such thing. How in the world did you find me in any of my posts to her, or you or barnasha, accusing Narnian of being Baha'i ? I'd sure like for you to get back with me on that, if you can manage an explanation.

Now, the connection I had drawn between your Bahaism and her Zoroastrianism was no more involved as than to remind you that your religious faith is in an individual who is called "Bahaullah" and thought to be a maifestation of (along with the forerunning person "Bab" too), or prophet, of a God who is unknowable. The Persian "prophet" Zarathustra is accepted as being on an equal footing as these two men in that regard...as is Jesus and Muhammad for that matter.

I wonder how you missed that. Aren't "Bab" and "Bahaullah" that prophet's spiritual equal ?

And I surely have no idea where you got the idea--& not once, but twice, that I was here laboring to link Narnian with your religion. All you could be thinking about as a relationship between the two is one of their place of origin; that's it. Is it that both are Persian ? "Her's" is 600-700 BC, but your's is from the 1860's. Oh and it's only Bahaism that's of Islamic origin. So what gives there ?...what are you thinking ?
It is true I predominantly take the position of the scientist in debates and the Baha'i position of the universality of revelation, but I feel your bitter and rancorous charges are without foundation. Take a close look at back at your posts that are directed to the Baha'i Faith and my debate methods.You pose as a scientist when it comes to discrediting "Christian origin" interpretation. You are opposed to Christianity as a whole; that's why. You will take that approach too in the habitual attempts to undermine and refute Christianity.

*You haven't any desire to harmonize Christianity with other world religions, as Baha'i would call on you to do.* You go after it, snapping at it's heels, every day.

What you are calling "debate methods" I say aren't how you debate, but why. I'm talking about motives for... So, I invite anyone to take a look at your posting history just since I first posted (to you) on this thread. Let them see what you are arguing.

I described your faith as what it is, objectively. It stinks and stings when you have to take a swig of your own medicine. OR, tell me where I factually erred ?You admitted to it being a 'rant', and even though you reject any relationship or validity of Zorastrianism, Islam and Baha'i is there a valid reason for a 'rant'? Your posts are not only meaningless, but they actually reflect a dangerous angry intolerance toward the beliefs of others.No, I didn't admit to it being a rant; I used the term that you used to describe it.

Again, it really bites doesn't it when someone shows intolerance toward your particualar beliefs ? You are an antagonist much more often than not. And it's Christianity that is in your crosshairs, you slippery hypocrite.

Where's your religious tolerance ? ...that is supposed to be an integral part of Baha'i practice, right ?!Your challenge of showing humility, because I am supposed coming from the worldview of minority cult is highly questionable. Is your rancorous abusive rant justified, because you are speaking from a superior 'moral majority' position?Once more: where did I factually err in describing Baha'i ? I'm sorry that I used "Bab" 's and "Bahaullah" 's real names, nor did I translate those into: "the Gate" and "the glory of God."

I said that you can't take the intellectual high ground when it comes to matters of religion--you ought to climb down out of the catbird seat. That is what I said and what is the whole point of the matter. I'm not talking about the Christian or Baha'i position rivaling each other when it comes to which holds "moral majority" superiority. It isn't about morals this time.

What it is, is that you ought to get off your intellectual high horse for as long as you hold to (but hide) these mystical, personality cultic, beliefs that --> are no less KOOKY than the Christian ones you go after...and that, day after day after day here on TWeb. When you practice to be an enemy to a faith, as you have for a few years straight here, you can also suck it up when it's your's that needs defending. Didn't you call yourself a fellow "apologist" ? What a laugh.

No, you keep a very low profile about your own intellectually questionable religion, all the time comfortably staying on the offensive alongside the simple secularists--who, with dedication, keep to the task of taking their shots in this direction.

PS: and consider reworking your Buddhist meditation garden avatar, oriental username, and CCT'ish signature. Your religious beliefs have nothing to do with the far east, but rather Shiite Islam. I know that stuff is way cooler than Islam, but it would be good to not risk confusing folks about your theological ID.

shunyadragon

May 28th 2007, 11:14 PM

I did no such thing. How in the world did you find me in any of my posts to her, or you or barnasha, accusing Narnian of being Baha'i ? I'd sure like for you to get back with me on that, if you can manage an explanation.

I will respond to one point at a time.

In post #33 you responded to Narnain with the following.

Spoken like a true Bahai faithful. Are one, or both: the forerunner, businessman Mirza Ali Muhammad ("Bab") 1819-1850--his student, and as of 1863 self-proclaimed Madhi, the man you follow:: Mizra Husayn Ali ("Bubaullah"), manifestations or prophets of the unknowable God...as was too the 6th-century Persian prophet Zoroaster ?

gharfish

May 29th 2007, 09:56 AM

All these are interesting questions concerning the reality of what the Bible really says and the ancient worldview it represents. That is important in understanding the capability of our worldview to understand the nature and purpose of ancient religions. They all represent ancient cultural worldviews of God from an ancient cultural worldview and not competitors for a universal message for all humanity as individual religions. These ancient religions do not define God, they define an ancient worldview of God. All religions represent our universal spiritual heritage.First off, I apologize; I was too harsh in the last post to you. I am overreacting more and more these days. I should take a break from TWeb. I began heating up especially after seeing her grossly misleading JosiTovah, a person who is sincerely looking into Christianity and honestly still too easily taken in by such heresy--no, something much, much, worse.

Anyway...

* My first post on this split-off thead came in response to this, a statement of your's addressing Narnian's 'OP', headed "Hi talkingsworth ! ....." (That, from her, resulted in this admin. decision to split-off into the Unorthodox Theology forum.)

You posted this above: post 32, last of all posts on page 2. My post then was the very next one: post 33, the very first post of all on page 3. It had immediately followed yours and was to you. Narnian's involvement, total, was to eventually get to picking-up on a couple, three, remarks within in it, and that wouldn't occur until fifteen posts later...on down the line.

So: your post above:: and then mine, the very next one.

And, how can you see in that post (33) a sudden accusation of her (secretly posing as ?) a follower of Bahaism all this time ? ...and I did it again, you say, later on ? Why would I have popped-off and blown her cover, saying to Narnian that 'you "follow a man named Mizra Husayn Ali," a "Madhi" ?

Which post number had me doing this sort of thing a second time ?

shunyadragon

May 30th 2007, 12:34 PM

First off, I apologize; I was too harsh in the last post to you. I am overreacting more and more these days. I should take a break from TWeb. I began heating up especially after seeing her grossly misleading JosiTovah, a person who is sincerely looking into Christianity and honestly still too easily taken in by such heresy--no, something much, much, worse.

Anyway...

* My first post on this split-off thead came in response to this, a statement of your's addressing Narnian's 'OP', headed "Hi talkingsworth ! ....." (That, from her, resulted in this admin. decision to split-off into the Unorthodox Theology forum.)

You posted this above: post 32, last of all posts on page 2. My post then was the very next one: post 33, the very first post of all on page 3. It had immediately followed yours and was to you. Narnian's involvement, total, was to eventually get to picking-up on a couple, three, remarks within in it, and that wouldn't occur until fifteen posts later...on down the line.

So: your post above:: and then mine, the very next one.

And, how can you see in that post (33) a sudden accusation of her (secretly posing as ?) a follower of Bahaism all this time ? ...and I did it again, you say, later on ? Why would I have popped-off and blown her cover, saying to Narnian that 'you "follow a man named Mizra Husayn Ali," a "Madhi" ?

Which post number had me doing this sort of thing a second time ?

I do not know why, but it could have been a loaded sarcastic post, because Baha'is do believe Zarathustra was a messiah, and Narnian's argument sounded a lot like what a Baha'i would support. Look closely at post #33. Order of posts has nothing to do with who you are responding to. It may have followed mine, but you responded to Narnian's post. See the notation at the top of the post.

You apparently are not completely familiar with the proper way of posting on this site. In the future click on the post of the person, ie me shunyadragon, you are responding to and my name will appear at the top, and preferably leave the text quote you are addressing.

Your 'rant' did have some issues I will respond to after some thought.

As far as who JosiTovah is and what his motives are, be careful, he may be sincere or one of the many games played frequently on the web. I have met some Twebbers, and found them great genuine sincere persons, but not all are. Besides, one person's herasy is another persons orthodoxy. Trying to shield someone like this is like trying to stop the rain with your fingers.

Narnian

June 2nd 2007, 09:01 PM

gharfish

June 2nd 2007, 09:54 PM

Do you believe in a purgatorial hell(s) ?

Narnian

June 2nd 2007, 10:37 PM

Do you believe in a purgatorial hell(s) ?

Yes, I think some sort of purgatory makes sense, and this is found both in the OT, NT and Zarathustra's Gathas. "Fire" is an alchemical purifier and a metaphor for purgatory ;

Isaiah 10: See, I have refined (hebrew "alchemy") you, but not like silver; I have tested you in the furnace of adversity.

Zarathustra: 51. 9: Both parties, O Mazda, will be put to the Fiery Test. This alchemical process will reveal the truth in the souls of these people

1Cor 3:13 Fire will test the quality of each man’s work

Fire as a purifying archetype is seen in the post exilic OT prophet Daniel’s story of the 3 ‘good’ men thrown into the fire. They did not burn because they were ‘good’, and only ‘bad’ burns.

Daniel 3:25 He replied, "But I see four men unbound, walking in the middle of the fire, and they are not hurt; and the fourth has the appearance of a god.
Isa 63:2: When you walk through fire you will not be burned

Luke 12:49 "I came to bring fire to the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled!
Mt 3:10 Even now the axe is lying at the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
Matt 3.11; (John the Baptist) will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.
Matt 3.12 he will clear his threshing floor and will gather his wheat into the granary; but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire."
Mark 9.49 “For everyone will be salted with fire.” (Salt is “Characterised as good and useful” Torries Topical and/or “Purifier” Jesus Seminar Five Gospels suggesting fire as good purifier)

Zarathustra 47.6 Lord of Life and Wisdom, through the Holy Spirit and your blazing Fire, you will separate the righteous and wicked. Those who hear will heed.

46:7 Who have you appointed to protect me from the Liar’s violence, O Mazda? Your Fire and Insightful Conscience will protect me and Universal Law will be fulfilled.

Once again this confirms that post exilic Judaism and Christianity are based on Zoroastrianism :-)))

shunyadragon

June 3rd 2007, 07:12 AM

I don't agree with universality of religion. Islam is a good example - it is a very poor facsimile of a heretical form of Christianity with a murdering psychopath as its hero-prophet archetype. I don't see how such a fiend of a character can be anywhere near the character of Jesus and therefore making Islam "equal" to Christianity.

Although I believe we are all ultimately saved, our earthly existence and afterlife is greatly affected by who and what we follow.

Your selective criticism of a religion reminds me of the expression, 'Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.'

Considering the Biblical god could easily be described as a 'murdering psychopath', as well as a rather jealous and arbitrary God in judgement sicing bears on disobediant adolescents. Putting Jesus on a pedistal above others is problematic if the whole Bible is taken into context. In the NT story Christ tells of the disobediant are bond, killed and condemned on the spot. Many Chrsitians believe that Jesus Christ is the intermediatory of the OT carrying out God's orders.

Also take into consideration how Jews describe Jesus and Christianity from their point of view in history.

Your selective culturally egocentric view of religions and universal salvation for humanity, and your condesending allowance of some sort of purgatory (slow roast and toast instead of incineration?) destiny for those outside the fold to justify a universal view is a real problem.

Narnian

June 3rd 2007, 10:13 AM

Considering the Biblical god could easily be described as a 'murdering psychopath', as well as a rather jealous and arbitrary God in judgement sicing bears on disobediant adolescents.

I couldn't agree more with you! Jehovah is an ancient Aztec style 'god'. His behaviour is more like Satan than God. Have you read through this thread, ie my assignment to my church tutor that surprisingly didn't get me thrown out of my church?

Putting Jesus on a pedistal above others is problematic if the whole Bible is taken into context. In the NT story Christ tells of the disobediant are bond, killed and condemned on the spot.

What is your reference for this?

Many Chrsitians believe that Jesus Christ is the intermediatory of the OT carrying out God's orders.

That's why this thread was split from the original :smile:

Also take into consideration how Jews describe Jesus and Christianity from their point of view in history.

Not sure what you mean, but the Jews were greatly reformed after the exile in 500BC onwards, with the influence of Zoroastrianism. They were Henotheists (see the first few posts in this thread) before the exile, sacrificing humans on hills etc. After the exile they were ethical semi-dualists and 'Ahura Mazda was superimposed onto their old Jehovah. Please read my assignment carefully on page 1 (I think ... or page 2 perhaps)

Your selective culturally egocentric view of religions and universal salvation for humanity, and your condesending allowance of some sort of purgatory (slow roast and toast instead of incineration?) destiny for those outside the fold to justify a universal view is a real problem

If you re-read my purgatory post you will see that I said that "fire" was the metaphor, originating as a Zoroastrian metaphor for purification. No ethical Agape-God would roast his beloved Synergoi, whom he needs. Purification is painless, because - metaphorically again - only the 'bad'; that is not you, is extracted. Satan is the Father of Lies, and a Lie is untruth and not real.

barnasha

June 6th 2007, 01:28 PM

Narnian

June 6th 2007, 09:23 PM

already shot these assertions down in this forum many times

can you post the link to where you have successfully shot down these assertions, that doesn't include logical fallacies?

barnasha

June 6th 2007, 11:55 PM

can you post the link to where you have successfully shot down these assertions, that doesn't include logical fallacies?

why don't you debate me? start a thread and explain why you think any of the above is true

(or you could go find the other one where all those things were shot down and explain why the shooting down wasn't valid)

I'll be waiting, to clear things up for you.

BTW, it's a logical fallacy to say everything is a logical fallacy even when it's not.

Narnian

June 7th 2007, 03:48 AM

why don't you debate me? start a thread and explain why you think any of the above is true

I've debated you dozens of times down in the Islam department. You just use logical fallacies, so it's boring for me.

(or you could go find the other one where all those things were shot down and explain why the shooting down wasn't valid)

The Hirsi Ali thread? The Parakletos thread? The Sura 86 thread? There are dozens of them.

BTW, it's a logical fallacy to say everything is a logical fallacy even when it's not.

And saying that is another logical fallacy, called Red Herring.

If you want to reply to this, please do so in 'Islam', not in this thread, which I want to keep at least vaguely on topic.

shunyadragon

June 9th 2007, 04:56 PM

I couldn't agree more with you! Jehovah is an ancient Aztec style 'god'. His behaviour is more like Satan than God. Have you read through this thread, ie my assignment to my church tutor that surprisingly didn't get me thrown out of my church?

Not sure what you mean, but the Jews were greatly reformed after the exile in 500BC onwards, with the influence of Zoroastrianism. They were Henotheists (see the first few posts in this thread) before the exile, sacrificing humans on hills etc. After the exile they were ethical semi-dualists and 'Ahura Mazda was superimposed onto their old Jehovah. Please read my assignment carefully on page 1 (I think ... or page 2 perhaps)

If you re-read my purgatory post you will see that I said that "fire" was the metaphor, originating as a Zoroastrian metaphor for purification. No ethical Agape-God would roast his beloved Synergoi, whom he needs. Purification is painless, because - metaphorically again - only the 'bad'; that is not you, is extracted. Satan is the Father of Lies, and a Lie is untruth and not real.

what you missed in my post and the main reason for it is your demeaning of Islam was selective, because the Koran actually is a somewhat less primative and modern view of God, but eventhough it presents amore modern view it fails in todays world, because of antiquated laws, lack of guidance for todays world, and bloody divisions.

You acknowledged the problems in the Bible, but have not given a comparative justification for your demeaning of Islam.

I have followed the debates in Islam and barnasha has never refuted anyone, he has just presented a somewhat reformed school of Islam to justify Islam as the universal religion. In this context if fails for the same reasons as Judaism, Zorastrianism, and Christianity fail. They are ancient worldviews of the nature of reality and God.

Narnian

June 9th 2007, 09:03 PM

what you missed in my post and the main reason for it is your demeaning of Islam was selective, because the Koran actually is a somewhat less primative and modern view of God, but eventhough it presents amore modern view it fails in todays world, because of antiquated laws, lack of guidance for todays world, and bloody divisions.

I would prefer to discuss Islam in the Islam section and keep this thread on track with my points;

1. The pre-exilic Judeans were totemists or "pagan monotheists"
2. Ahura Mazda comes into the picture after the exile and he and ethical monotheism are super-imposed onto the ancient god YHWH
3. The God of Jesus is the same Father God (Ahura Mazda) as Zarathustra

I hope someone comes along to challenge me on these points. So far, my position stands.

But to briefly respond to your assertion about me being 'selective', the Koran is set up to be selective. Unlike the OT and NT it does NOT read as a story in chronological order with a beginning, middle and an end. There are no characters or plots, and especially there are no New Covenants (like the bible has). The Koran is just a hodge podge of verses that can easily be found plagiarized from the bible, and these verses are as though someone has thrown them all in a sack, shaken it and then stuck them all together. The Koran makes NO story-like sense and has no context, and yes I have read it. Therefore, unlike the bible, all the verses of the Koran are equal and one dimensional, and any can be used selectively across the board.

You acknowledged the problems in the Bible, but have not given a comparative justification for your demeaning of Islam.

What do you mean? Allah is a totem god - and Islam is pagan monotheism. If you want to discuss that I think it's better to start a thread down in Islam.

I have followed the debates in Islam and barnasha has never refuted anyone, he has just presented a somewhat reformed school of Islam to justify Islam as the universal religion. In this context if fails for the same reasons as Judaism, Zorastrianism, and Christianity fail. They are ancient worldviews of the nature of reality and God.

So you are really proposing; "Are Judaism, Z and Christianity still relevant?" This is a huge subject and not the subject of this thread.

shunyadragon

June 10th 2007, 10:40 AM

I would prefer to discuss Islam in the Islam section and keep this thread on track with my points;

1. The pre-exilic Judeans were totemists or "pagan monotheists"
2. Ahura Mazda comes into the picture after the exile and he and ethical monotheism are super-imposed onto the ancient god YHWH
3. The God of Jesus is the same Father God (Ahura Mazda) as Zarathustra

I hope someone comes along to challenge me on these points. So far, my position stands.

But to briefly respond to your assertion about me being 'selective', the Koran is set up to be selective. Unlike the OT and NT it does NOT read as a story in chronological order with a beginning, middle and an end. There are no characters or plots, and especially there are no New Covenants (like the bible has). The Koran is just a hodge podge of verses that can easily be found plagiarized from the bible, and these verses are as though someone has thrown them all in a sack, shaken it and then stuck them all together. The Koran makes NO story-like sense and has no context, and yes I have read it. Therefore, unlike the bible, all the verses of the Koran are equal and one dimensional, and any can be used selectively across the board.

What do you mean? Allah is a totem god - and Islam is pagan monotheism. If you want to discuss that I think it's better to start a thread down in Islam.

So you are really proposing; "Are Judaism, Z and Christianity still relevant?" This is a huge subject and not the subject of this thread.

Yes it is a big subject, but it relates to this thread in part because you brought it up concerning Islam. If you did not wish to discuss it here, why did you bring it into the thread here:

Originally posted by Narnian (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1978048#post1978048)

I don't agree with universality of religion. Islam is a good example - it is a very poor facsimile of a heretical form of Christianity with a murdering psychopath as its hero-prophet archetype. I don't see how such a fiend of a character can be anywhere near the character of Jesus and therefore making Islam "equal" to Christianity.

Although I believe we are all ultimately saved, our earthly existence and afterlife is greatly affected by who and what we followA totem religion would have statues, images, and beliefs such as animism. These are totally absent in Islam.

For a better understanding of totem religions see the following. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totem

Narnian

June 10th 2007, 08:22 PM

"are they still relevant" is different subject matter to "all religions are equal".

A totem religion would have statues, images, and beliefs such as animism. These are totally absent in Islam

Ahhh, but the pre-exilic Judeans DID have totems! They had the Ark - which is the same thing.

shunyadragon

June 12th 2007, 07:39 AM

"are they still relevant" is different subject matter to "all religions are equal".

If you wish to use a limiting definition of 'equal', no two churches or religions are 'equal', Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity and Islam are all decidedly unequal. Equivalence would be a better way to evaluate these religions. Do they have an equivalent purpose in the time, place and culture of their origins.

Relavence is a problem all these ancient religions face that relates to the demeaning statement you made against Islam. Placing these ancient religions in the context of their time and culture gives more meaning and relavence to their beliefs.

Ahhh, but the pre-exilic Judeans DID have totems! They had the Ark - which is the same thing.

True, archeological evidence supports this, but I think the Ark is not a good example. There is no evidence that Islam perpetuates the primal totem beliefs of the Neolithic tribes of the Middle East. If anything, Islam is closer to the post-exilic Judeans in their view of God and the Law of God.

Narnian

June 12th 2007, 10:36 AM

True, archeological evidence supports this, but I think the Ark is not a good example. There is no evidence that Islam perpetuates the primal totem beliefs of the Neolithic tribes of the Middle East. If anything, Islam is closer to the post-exilic Judeans in their view of God and the Law of God.

You don't need an actual object to be a totemist. You can worship an invisible totem as well. Islam is a pagan-monotheist religion. If you want to debate that one create a thread in Islam.

Otherwise my invitation remains open to anyone to challenge me about Zoroastrian being the biggest influence on Christianity. :teeth:

barnasha

June 12th 2007, 04:51 PM

I've debated you dozens of times down in the Islam department. You just use logical fallacies, so it's boring for me.

usually when you accuse me of a logical fallacy, it's not even a logical fallacy, and I point it out as such.

you're basically refusing to debate, I am not surprised, since I have the upper hand.

The Hirsi Ali thread? The Parakletos thread? The Sura 86 thread? There are dozens of them.

And saying that is another logical fallacy, called Red Herring.

Really?

This attempt to prove I am using a fallacious line of reasoning by naming a popular category of logical fallacy and attempting to construe something I have said as fitting within said category demonstrates my point extremely well.

What exactly is it a "red herring" from?

Instead of just saying "oh, that's a fallacy!", why don't you back up that claim and show how?

I am very interested to see what substance there is to your specious accusation

The irony is, YOU JUST USED A RED HERRING!

If you want to reply to this, please do so in 'Islam', not in this thread, which I want to keep at least vaguely on topic.

I wonder why you took the opportunity to badmouth Islam in the post on June 2nd 2007 at 08:01 PM, if that is the case?

shunyadragon

June 14th 2007, 02:59 PM

You don't need an actual object to be a totemist. You can worship an invisible totem as well. Islam is a pagan-monotheist religion. If you want to debate that one create a thread in Islam.

I began apost in Islam for this debate.

Otherwise my invitation remains open to anyone to challenge me about Zoroastrian being the biggest influence on Christianity. :teeth:

I agree. but I believe influence is through revelation, and Zarathustra is a messiah in a universal theme of cyclic evolving revelation throughout the history of the world.

whacky888

June 26th 2007, 07:34 PM

No, what I am saying is - chuck out the God of Israel and you should chuck out Christ - no mucking around now.

You might want to check out John chapter 8. Might be a clue there as to why Abraham was so tickled to "see His day".

Narnian

June 26th 2007, 09:22 PM

You might want to check out John chapter 8. Might be a clue there as to why Abraham was so tickled to "see His day".

Whacky, would you please elaborate.

whacky888

July 10th 2007, 08:12 PM

Whacky, would you please elaborate.

Jesus made it abundantly clear many times that the god the Jews were worshipping was not the "Heavenly Father/Mother" that Christ came to reveal to all the worlds.

God is not a single father full of wrath, hate, greed, jealousy, or fury. God is not hell-bent on destroying everything and everyone who stands in his way. God is not One who fails to demonstrate even one ounce of forgiveness.

Exodus 34:14 - For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:

Deuteronomy 4:24 - For the LORD thy God is a consuming fire, even a jealous God.

Isaiah 42:13 - The LORD shall go forth as a mighty man, he shall stir up jealousy like a man of war: he shall cry, yea, roar; he shall prevail against his enemies.

Genesis 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

Wisdom of Solomon 2:23
For God created man to be immortal, and made him to be an image of his own eternity.

Wisdom of Solomon 2:24
Nevertheless, through envy of the devil came death into the world: and they that do hold of his side do find it.

envy

c.1280, from O.Fr. envie, from L. invidia "envy, jealousy"
Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper

"Envy and jealousy are very close in meaning."
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

covet
—Synonyms 1. See envy.
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

"Thou shalt not covet".

Did I elaborate enough? If you need more, there's plenty.

Here's the funny part. Man is an evil tyrant; a murderous, lying, stealing, greedy, jealous, hateful sob, unforgiving, full of anger and lust. Man reigns terror on helpless people, killing innocent folks daily (see George Bush), including women and little children.

Man says that God created him "in his own image". So, if God does not "appear" to be the same evil sob that man is; then, the book would not be True, would it?

So, when we talk about the Old Testament "view" of God, remember, a view is an "image". Images can be very deceiving sometimes, can they not?

And, who created God's "image"? MAN.

Furthermore, man created God's image with some pretty "evil knowledge", with a touch of some "good knowledge" thrown in for good measure.

My advice....stop eating of the tree. Starting at the "root". There is way more information hanging on that tree than simply "the knowledge of being able to distinguish good FROM evil". Dogs and Pigs can do that.

Man writes the words. Don't think Providence does not have "fun" with them.

God
Devil

backwards

Dog
Lived

And, boy do dogs really worship man!

Might want to consider exactly who it is you are worshipping as the "Heavenly Parent(s)"

Did you know that the name "Lord" is actually an Old English word meaning "loaf keeper"?

A clue to be sure for those with understanding.

peace