[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.