The Christian Devil - the result of Zoroastrian influence?

[Halcyon]

As far as I am aware Jews don't have a concept of a supreme deity of evil, and never have. The Satan in the OT does nothing without God's express permission, the Book of Job is testament to that.

So where did the idea of a source of evil, a god of evil if you like who opposes the God of good at every step appear from. Where did the concept of a holy war between good and evil come from?

Well, the dualistic religion of Zoroastrianism has these elements, so isn't it logical to hypothesise that at some point during the development of Christianity, Zoroastrian elements somehow creeped in?

 

[Surya Deva]

Satan of the OT is not really a deity of evil. Just an angel that has fallen or rebelled against god. He is not god's antithesis, just some average disgruntled angel joe

 

[jewscout]

well all things are from G-d, including Evil.
we just say He is omnipotent

sorry just thought i'd throw that in there...back to the topic

 

[Halcyon]

Satan of the OT is not really a deity of evil. Just an angel that has fallen or rebelled against god. He is not god's antithesis, just some average disgruntled angel joe

It doesn;t say that in the OT, if anything Satan just does what God asks of him.

 

[jewscout]

i think zoroastrianism is probably one of the contributing factors to the image of the devil that many sects of christianity have.

 

[jewscout]

It doesn;t say that in the OT, if anything Satan just does what God asks of him.

well he is said to accompany the angels to meet w/ G-d in the opening verses...

 

[Surya Deva]

Yeah, but The Christian devil is based on the New Testament. And there is a conspiritatol theory doing the rounds that the Christian religion and the story of Jesus was a fabrication of many pagan faiths or religions at the time, and hence why the figure of Jesus is very similar to many other pagan religious icons and was created by these apostles as a form of government.

My friend told me(she's black) but I don't know if this true, that at the time Christianity was created, it was forbidden for anybody but the priesthood to actually read the bible.

Hmm, but then where does the story of Adam and Eve come from? Was that not in the OT? (confused)

 

[Halcyon]

Yeah, but The Christian devil is based on the New Testament. And there is a conspiritatol theory doing the rounds that the Christian religion and the story of Jesus was a fabrication of many pagan faiths or religions at the time, and hence why the figure of Jesus is very similar to many other pagan religious icons and was created by these apostles as a form of government.

A big conspiracy. Isn't that supposed to cover things up, not suggest alternative theories?

My friend told me(she's black) but I don't know if this true, that at the time Christianity was created, it was forbidden for anybody but the priesthood to actually read the bible.

What's her colour got to do with anything?
Its possible i guess, i don't know what the literacy rate was back then. I imagine they would have been taught the Torah by their Rabbi's even if they couldn't read it themselves.

 

[Surya Deva]

A big conspiracy. Isn't that supposed to cover things up, not suggest alternative theories?

Well, it is a conspiracy theory, because it suggests the bible(NT) was fabricated by men and there was no Jesus. There is suppose to be a film coming out on this, this year I think.

Btw, can you tell me where the Adam and Eve story originated?

 

[Halcyon]

Btw, can you tell me where the Adam and Eve story originated?

No, i've heard that it is Sumerian in origin - the same guys who wrote the Epic of Gilgamesh. I'm not sure anyone knows for a fact where it came from though.

 

[gnostic]

It doesn't say anywhere in the OT that Satan was a fallen angel or even a disgruntle one, Suraj.

I agreed that with Halcyon that Zoroastrianism had influenced this period of Judaism, when the people were exiled to Babylon. Even before the Babylonian empire collapsed and taken over by the Persians, the Babylonians had already come into Zoroastrian influence. And when the Persians took over the Babylonian empire, Israel and Judah was annex with other kingdoms into its empire for centuries, until Alexander's conquest.

The Book of Daniel definitely such influences. Before the Book of Daniel, no angels, including fallen ones were ever given names. It was Zorostrianism that gave names to such angels and demons, and hierarchy in their religion.

There was no Gabriel or Michael until Daniel. Satan didn't appear until the Book of Job and Chronicles, which were written after the Exiles. The Chronicles is actually a late retelling of events found in the books from Samuel and Kings. Although in the 1 Chronicles 21 speaks of Satan deceiving David to take census of his kingdom, no such mention of Satan in the 2nd book of Samuel. The book of Zechariah (3:12) was written during Persian rule over Israel.

Satan as a fallen angel didn't appear originated in the OT, they were mostly originating from the apocrypha and pseudepigrapha texts, such as the Book of Jubilee and the 2 books of Enoch, and these were written before Jesus' time. These books were obviously influence by the angelology and demonology of Zorostrianism, because you can find a complex angeleology in the books of Enoch. There were no such thing as archangels or groups of angels in heaven until then.

 

[Surya Deva]

This is really fascinating. I didn't know this.

 

[Popeyesays]

Zoroastrianism is not the source of Christian concepts of the "devil." Rather it is part of the teachings of Mani who was a century or so later than Jesus. His faith had the name of Manichaeanism before the Christian heresy of Manichaeanism was postulated.

http://i-cias.com/cgi-bin/eo-direct.pl?mani.htm

Regards,
Scott

 

[Halcyon]

Zoroastrianism is not the source of Christian concepts of the "devil." Rather it is part of the teachings of Mani who was a century or so later than Jesus. His faith had the name of Manichaeanism before the Christian heresy of Manichaeanism was postulated.

http://i-cias.com/cgi-bin/eo-direct.pl?mani.htm

Regards,
Scott

Are you sure of this? Manichaenism came after Zoroastrianism and Christianity after all.

 

[joeboonda]

3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said,

(King James Bible, Genesis)

14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! 14:13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: 14:14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

14:15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.

14:16 They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms; 14:17 That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners? 14:18 All the kings of the nations, even all of them, lie in glory, every one in his own house.

14:19 But thou art cast out of thy grave like an abominable branch, and as the raiment of those that are slain, thrust through with a sword, that go down to the stones of the pit; as a carcase trodden under feet.

14:20 Thou shalt not be joined with them in burial, because thou hast destroyed thy land, and slain thy people: the seed of evildoers shall never be renowned.

(King James Bible, Isaiah)

1:1 And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.

(King James Bible, 1 Chronicles)

The name Satan is mentioned at least 18 times in my OT, Lucifer at least once.

 

[Popeyesays]

Are you sure of this? Manichaenism came after Zoroastrianism and Christianity after all.

The Christian heresy of equating the power of the devil and God is "Manichaeanism"
Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
Main Entry: Man·i·chae·an javascript:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?manich01.wav=Manichaean')
Variant(s): or Man·i·che·an javascript:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?manich01.wav=Manichean') /"ma-n&-'kE-&n/; or Man·i·chee /'man-&-"kE/
Function: noun
Etymology: Late Latin manichaeus, from Late Greek manichaios, from Manichaios Manes died ab 276 [size=-1]A.D. [/size]Persian founder of the sect
1 : a believer in a syncretistic religious dualism originating in Persia in the 3d century [size=-1]A.D. [/size]and teaching the release of the spirit from matter through asceticism
2 : a believer in religious or philosophical dualism

Regards,
Scott

 

[gnostic]

In Isaiah that you've quoted, joeboonda, I thought that this was only about a real king of Babylon, because Isaiah was living in the time of the Fall of Jerusalem, and because it speaks of at the very start of the chapter (Isaiah 14:1-4) of the House of Israel falling into oppression to the king of Babylon, but God will give respite to his people. At that time, Babylon was at the height of its empire, as if they reached "the heaven", but the empire will never last, so therefore it would eventually fall "from heaven".

Of course, I understand, Lucifer, Son of Dawn, is equated as Satan, but you have to remember one important thing - symbol is often used, instead of speaking plainly. Often the true nature is swapped with symbols, metaphors and motif.

See Isaiah 14:1-5, and if you compared what you have quoted, you will see what you have quoted Lucifer is really a metaphor or symbol the king of Babylon.

If you recalled that in Revelation, it often speak of Babylon, but it is actually Rome, since John, or whoever wrote the Book of Revelation, was living in the time of Roman persecution of Christians. For some silly reason, it would use symbol instead of saying thing clearly and straight out - Rome, instead of Babylon.

Although, what you quote make sense, joeboonda, in the light of this talk about Satan/Lucifer when you read those selected verse, it paints a different picture when you read the chapter in their entirety.

Am I making sense here? Sorry, but I've never been good at interpreting symbols, dreams and prophecies. I see that we have different interpretations.

And I don't mean to argue with you, joeboonda, but I am not comfortable with people who snip a few selected verses, here and there, without considering whole chapter. When you pick and-choose, you sometimes lose sight of what's sitting obviously there, and perhaps miss a point.

 

[Halcyon]

The Christian heresy of equating the power of the devil and God is "Manichaeanism"
Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
Main Entry: Man·i·chae·an
Variant(s): or Man·i·che·an /"ma-n&-'kE-&n/; or Man·i·chee /'man-&-"kE/
Function: noun
Etymology: Late Latin manichaeus, from Late Greek manichaios, from Manichaios Manes died ab 276 [size=-1]A.D. [/size]Persian founder of the sect
1 : a believer in a syncretistic religious dualism originating in Persia in the 3d century [size=-1]A.D. [/size]and teaching the release of the spirit from matter through asceticism
2 : a believer in religious or philosophical dualism

Regards,
Scott

I know what Manichaenism is popeye, and i know it was no more a Christian heresy than Islam is today.
Yes Mani's religion was dualistic, in a way, as were most Gnostic sects, but Zoroastrianism is truly dualistic (one God of good, another God of evil). It is also far older than Christianity or Manichaenism, thus it seems more likely that Zoroastrianism is the influence of the Devil idea.

The name Satan is mentioned at least 18 times in my OT, Lucifer at least once.

You should ask a Jewish member who the Satan actually is, you might be surprised.
Lucifer, the light bringer, was an ancient name for the planet Venus - the morning star. I'm not sure why Lucifer was equated with Satan. But have you ever wondered why Jesus was also called the morning star?

 

[Ulver]

Bumping this up so those who should reply back may do so, before this thread gets too far behind the others.

Overall an interesting argument and (since my hands aren't tied up in Faith based Red Tape that one thing wrong in a holy text=equal to it being wrong, therefore the denouncing of any criticism) I think the Zoroastrian influence is likely seeing how the Jews for quite a while where in exile in Babylon and then the Persiansconquered and allowed the Jews to return.

Literary Criticism shows you cannot take everything in most historical texts, let alone the Bible, as absolute fact that's void of the bias of the writer.

 

[Popeyesays]

I know what Manichaenism is popeye, and i know it was no more a Christian heresy than Islam is today.
Yes Mani's religion was dualistic, in a way, as were most Gnostic sects, but Zoroastrianism is truly dualistic (one God of good, another God of evil). It is also far older than Christianity or Manichaenism, thus it seems more likely that Zoroastrianism is the influence of the Devil idea.

You should ask a Jewish member who the Satan actually is, you might be surprised.
Lucifer, the light bringer, was an ancient name for the planet Venus - the morning star. I'm not sure why Lucifer was equated with Satan. But have you ever wondered why Jesus was also called the morning star?

Zoroaster re-iterates that there is ONE God, He describes the attributes of God as "Better" (Ahura Mazda) and "Bad" (Ahriman). "
The name does not occur in the Old Persian inscriptions. In the Avesta he is called the twin-brother of the Holy Spirit, and contrasted with Spenta Mainyu. He is the all-destroying Satan, the source of all evil in the world and like Ahura Mazda, existed since the beginning of the world. Ahriman chose evil consciously, and by this act he created death. On Judgment Day he will be defeated by Spenta Mainya and will disappear from the present world forever. The later sect of the Zurvanites held that both were visible manifestations of the primeval principle zruvan akarana (infinite time)."

After giving some voice the "dualism" argument, Wikpedia proceeds to counter itself in the article and concludes thusly; "
Angra Mainyu is not equivalent to the Christian Satan. By contrasting Angra Mainyu with Spenta Mainyu, Zoroaster distinguished the two poles of a particular dynamic, that of creation and destruction, which was whole within Ahura Mazda. One can see similar sentiments in the Dravidian and later Hindu conception of Shiva."

The "Satan" of the Gospels is not much different than the "Satan" that taunted Job. It is in the Epistles and the Apocalypse that this "Arch-Enemy of God" is showcased, and I would suggest that Christ would be deeply offended by the concept.

Regards,
Scott

"