Christ is a Zoroastrian..... and a plagiarist!?

[klaucke]

A while back, while reading and studying and (trying to) intepret Herman Melville's Moby Dick, I ran into some Zoroastrian allusions, perhaps refering to Christ. My goal here isn't to analyze Moby Dick though, its about what I found when I just pricked the surface of Zoroastrianism.

Zoroaster lived somewhere between 6000-600 years before Christ. Apparently, many Jewish prophets and Christ himself reiterated many truths first attributed to Zoroaster. Today Zoroastrians are known as Parsis, meaning "Persian," originating from the fact that their ancestors flead from the area to escape Muslim persecution.

Now, some scholars will argue that there are many similarities between Christianity and Zoroastrianism, such as their single deity who can be broken up into multiple Godheads (such as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost for Christianity), among other things.

Most startling, though, is what (little) I found about Zoroastrian quotes. From the book I looked at:

"Long centuries before the Galilean [Christ] began his ministry, Zoroaster was already proclaiming a golden rule that said that a man is good only when he is willing not to do to another whatever is not good for himself.

"Before Jesus' teachings concerning the goodness of the Father, Zoroaster described God as "the Giver of all good and perfect things.

"Zoroaster spoke about the "resurrection from the dead," the "immortality of the soul" and even went so far as to say that people who believed in him [Zoroaster] "would not perish, but be given everlasting life.""

All the quotes above have been somehow attributed to Christ, if not directly said.

Even the wise men from the East who brought gifts to Bethlehem are supposedly Zoroastrians.



Now, what I find truly enlightening about this information is that it immediately detracts from the divinity of Christ. He basically stole some of his words from Zoroaster. Christ could then appear to be simply another prophet or philosopher. Maybe he wasn't the son of God, after all, why would the son of God need to plagiarize quotes from some earlier religion?

What about other quotes Christ may have stolen, such as "He who has ears, let him hear" which has been attributed to Buddha? Maybe Christ is really a Buddhist as well as a Zoroastrian. Or at the very least, a philosopher and not a divine being. Enlightened, yes, but divine? Apparently not.

EDIT: Quotes from "Major Religions of the World" by Marcus Bach.

[dd74]

So are you saying Jesus is a re-run?

The great rule in literature is nothing is completely original. From J.K. Rowland to Conrad to the Holy Bible, it's all been done before in some way, shape or form.

[Stukarrera]

Sure he might have borrowed on some previous words of wisdom - it's the way he upset the hierachy and subsequently left the planet that sets Christ apart from the rest.

If you believe the fable.

[nostatic]

the bible wasn't written by god or jesus...it was written by a bunch of different people. No doubt oral traditions and stories mixed with the "facts" of the day. And since much of it is allegory, why not slip in a little of the past?

[Stukarrera]

3 replies and still no Angst from the God Squad?

Could this be declared a <>< free post?

[dtw]

YAWN.

<-------God Squad Member

[stuartj]

"Call me Ishmael."

The greatest literary opening line of all, IMHO. What a fascinating man Melville was, what a life.

And to your point, are these not common humanist wisdoms? All cultures and religions have basic iterations of the rules. Dont killeach other, dont steal, honour your parents, be good to each other, do unto others...its odd that some Xtians think they own these ideas.

[dd74]

Originally posted by dtw
YAWN.

<-------God Squad Member

Hilarious!

[IROC]

The book, "A History of God" by Karen Armstrong does a good job of covering how many of our current religions borrowed from the more ancient ones. Nothing new in Christianity...move along..nothing to see here...

Mike

[Jeff Higgins]

Wow, Klauke, what a startling discovery! This changes everything. The Pope himself is likely to thank you personally; he will wonder how this escaped his notice for so long. Zorro-toaster was clearly a man well ahead of his time, espousing ideas on human interaction and spirituality that no one before or since was bright enough to come up with. Thank you; you have changed my life.

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by Jeff Higgins
Wow, Klauke, what a startling discovery! This changes everything. The Pope himself is likely to thank you personally; he will wonder how this escaped his notice for so long. Zorro-toaster was clearly a man well ahead of his time, espousing ideas on human interaction and spirituality that no one before or since was bright enough to come up with. Thank you; you have changed my life.

lol, I was thinking the same thing, I'm just a much nicer person than you Jeff.

[kang]

Originally posted by IROC
The book, "A History of God" by Karen Armstrong does a good job of covering how many of our current religions borrowed from the more ancient ones. Nothing new in Christianity...move along..nothing to see here...

Mike

There is a lot of truth to this. The history of religions, from cave men to modern men, is a fascinating subject. It’s quite interesting to see religions have changed over time. This is not only interesting to scholars of history, but it should also be interesting to modern day Christians. I would think they would want to know more of their history.

Here is a good start: http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_theory1.htm

In particular, this quote is found here:

Most religions teach that they were directly revealed by their deity/deities to humanity, and are unrelated to other world religions. However there is considerable historical evidence from ancient times that religions in the area from India to the Middle East shared many religious beliefs. One example of this are:

The many passages in the Hebrew Scriptures which contain concepts or passages taken from Egyptian, Babylonian and other nearby Pagan religions.

Many of the events in the life of Jesus as recorded in the Christian Scriptures (New Testament) appear to have been derived from earlier Hinduism and other Pagan religious sources.

[RoninLB]

faith fills the hole that reason can't.

[lendaddy]

Wait! I just realized that all religions are vague and unprovable!

Holy crap, gotta call my publisher....

[Mule]

Faith, hell I've been using caulk!

[Groesbeck Hurricane]

Just to quote a friend:

OK, first, a note on the comment at the end about Buddhism: "He who has ears, let him hear." is not a hingepin of doctrine...that would be like saying that Christ plagiarised anyone who said, "I'm thirsty" before the date when he was hanging on the cross and they gave him a sponge soaked in vinegar...



And speaking of dates, he gives his dates for Zoroaster as "6000-600BC" That's a range of 5400 years...Most scholars date the person of Zoroaster at around 1000BC. This will come into play in a moment.



OK, now on to the doctrinal statements:



Monotheism did not originate with Christ. Many have come to that realisation. Believing in one God does not mean you were copying anyone else, but that you had concurrent beliefs. Plato, who lived 4 centuries before Christ, also believed that there was one God, whom he identified as "The Nameless Good Giver." Judaism, out of which culture and tradition the human Jesus came, is monotheistic, and Christ did not embody anything that was not already in their teachings, with the exception of his leaving them a new commandment, "To love one another as I have loved you."



The wise men from the East are not identified. Western European tradition gives them names, but their identities are unknown. It is commonly believed that at least some of them came from Ethiopia, while some were indeed likely to be Persians (Zoroastrians). It is important to note, however, that their actions recognized Jesus' divinity and royalty, so introducing this fast as evidence in reality supports the Christian claim that Jesus is who he said he is.



The notion of plagiarism is a very modern one. As I said before, Christ only said one new thing. Everything else he said had been said before, but was either misunderstood or forgotten. Nobody "owns" the truth. The fact that Zoroaster might have had spiritual insight is perfectly plausible. Most ancient religions do have grains of truth in them. The dates for Zoroaster (approx. 1000BC) put him as a contemporary with King David, within 100-150 years. By this time, the Law has been around for almost 700 years. The Psalms of King David very definitely point to the love of God, and the resurrection of the dead, and the other doctrinal points common to Zoroaster and Christ. There is every likelihood that Zoroaster was exposed to Jewish teachings, since this period in history marks the ramp-up to the height of power for the Jewish nation. It would be irresponsible to assume that because the man Zoroaster predated the man Christ that the teachings originated with Zoroaster and not the culture in which he lived. He may have been a gifted man, and may have received enlightenment given to few Gentiles. But it does not logically follow that Jesus "stole" his teachings.



Keep this in mind: Jesus Christ teaches that He is the incarnation of the second person of the Trinity. As I said above, plagiarism is a modern notion, and the teachings of Zoroastrianism may not have been original to Zoroaster. Christ is the source of all truth, so the claim of plagiarism *cannot* be laid at His door. Does that mean that Zoroaster "stole" the truth from elsewhere? No, he lived by the grace and the light he was given by Almighty God, and spoke the truth as he saw it. The final point, however, is that without the atonement and resurrection that were brought about *only* by Jesus Christ, the claim that those who believe in [me] will never perish is impossible to uphold. Zoroaster could not have brought about the salvation of souls. Only Christ can do that.



As a historical side note, there is an enclave of and ancient form of Christianity that sprang out of the Zoroastrian/Parsi tradition. They did, as the article says, have to flee from Muslim religious persecution, and now they live in the mountainous regions of Iran and India.

[IROC]

Originally posted by RoninLB
faith fills the hole that reason can't.

Otherwise known as the "God of the Gaps" theory. "Reason" has filled in *alot* of holes... Not to say their aren't any holes left...

Mike

[BlueSkyJaunte]

Wait a second: you mean to tell me that Christianity doesn't have a monopoly on ethics?

PS: I don't know what the heck a godhead is, but I think I've found the godfoot!

[kang]

Originally posted by IROC
Otherwise known as the "God of the Gaps" theory. "Reason" has filled in *alot* of holes... Not to say their aren't any holes left...

Mike

Like there's no holes in religion, either....

Yeah right....

[Superman]

Originally posted by Stukarrera
If you believe the fable.

This is the remark of someone who has not looked into the historical backdrop with any degree of seriousness whatsoever. Or at least, I'd ask what part can be considered "fable." There is no historian on the planet, that I am aware of or that scholars would take seriously, who would deny the factual, historical existence of Jesus Christ. That's a given. He lived. No question about that.

And we know he shook things up greatly. Another fact. And that he was crucified, and some other objective facts.

What is POSSIBLE to doubt, is the historical accuracy of a particular statement attributed to Christ. Okay. Any given remark can be questioned. Many of them are backed up in multiple documents, and so historians do not often question the accuracies of the various accounts, but hey, occasionally a person who wants to be considered the genius that other scholars are not smart enough to attain will argue that a number of remarks are inaccurate. Okay.

but no matter how you slice it, this guy lived. And he shook things up. And if even so little as ten percent of the remarks attributed to him were actually made by him.....then you have a truly remarkable story. You have one of two things. Either this is the story of God's Son reaching out to His inheritance (that'd be us), or it is the story of a madman. This guy lived, and he said some things that could only be said by a madman, or a divine person. One of those things, is that he did not come here to judge, but to separate. To separate according to each person's choice. So....there's the choice. Plain and simple. Madman? Christ? "Who do you say I am?" is the question that reverberates across the universe and the millenia.

Okay, preaching over. Just don't call this story a fable. That's not a live option, unless you have no idea what you're talking about.