Talk:Zoroastrianism

Template:FAOL Template:WP1.0

Gnosticism

there is a proposal for the creation of Wikiproject:Gnosticism. It is mentioned here as Gnosticism is a cultural impulse that in some of its forms has combined many religions such as Zoroastrianism. Its scope will include all gnostic faiths and will serve as a nexus for the improvement of Gnosticism related articles on Wikipedia, If any one would like to join or comment it is located here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals/Gnosticism --Zaharous (talk) 01:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Relation to other religions and cultures

"It is believed that key concepts of Zoroastrian eschatology and demonology have had influence on the Abrahamic religions."

How so? What follows this is just evidence of Zoroastrian's influence on modern philosophy and Iranian culture.--70.142.44.41 (talk) 23:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Reading the archive it looks like something was deleted here.--70.142.44.41 (talk) 23:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

BC/AD warrior

This article is currently under attack by a BC/AD bully who had displayed absolutely no previous interest or competence in the subject, Zoroastrianism. I have reverted the version twice. Any adults who don't respond well to bullying may want to repair future monkeying with the long-established convention here. I leave it to them.--Wetman (talk) 06:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The mix of BC and BCE in the article currently looks terrible. I tried to make it more consistent when copyediting, but there is clearly more work that needs to be done on this issue. Personally, I prefer BC and AD to any sort of politically correct rubbish. In this case, however, I can see that a strong case can be made for not using BC and AD in an article about a non-Christian religion. I would probably go with the BCE/CE system. I should note, however, that the "warrior" is pushing for consistency, while you are blindly reverting to a mixture of systems. I don't care which way it goes, but it needs to be one or the other. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:33, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Wetman, you are a pathetic loser and a disgrace to the encyclopaedia. Calling me a "bully" in your wimpy 3rd person style just shows that you're not prepared to man-up to a confrontation that was started by you yourself (for no good reason). I changed three or four CE/BCE terms in order to make it consistent with the rest of the article, which was using BC/AD. You had no justification to change the whole article to CE/BCE and the rules make this very clear. The article has obviously been using AD/BC for a very long time (with the exception of those 3 or 4 inconsistencies that crept in somewhere along the line) and was using BC/AD in 2002, when it was a new article. It's ironic that you try to use my previous lack of interest in the Zoroastrianism article to discredit me (which is a fallacious ad hominem argument anyway) when you went on a petty disruption spree, changing things around in articles about the Epic Cycle; a topic that you probably never heard of until now. The fact is that BC/AD is just the standard way to write dates and has been for centuries; any religious implications are only picked up by obsessive left-wing whingers. By your logic, the days of the week should be renamed to avoid reference to the Norse gods. Normal people don't even think of the religious implications of BC/AD; most of them probably don't even know what those letters stand for. (Huey45 (talk) 06:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC))

Huey45, you need to stop the personal attacks. Please cross them out. warrior4321 13:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

User Wetman's change to the article was the replacement of all the occurrences of BC/AD with CE/BCE. This action is completely unjustified and is specifically prohibited by the WP:ERA section of the Manual of Style, something that a long-time editor like him no doubt already knows. He tried to fool everyone by accusing me of breaking the rules, referring to a helpful contribution made by me last week, in which I changed 3 or 4 instances of CE/BCE to BC/AD in order to match the rest of the article.

User:Warrior4321, you are almost as bad as this disgraceful liar, shooting your mouth off before you even know what's going on. The fact is that I did nothing wrong and now this vandal is trying to frame me for his own hijacking of the article. You only had to read the first sentence of this section to see that it was in fact User:Wetman who started the personal attack; calling me a "bully" and a "BC/AD warrior" (presumably implied as a pejorative term), trying to fool morons like you into believing that I somehow started trouble. (Huey45 (talk) 09:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC))

I've restored the article to a consistent (I hope) usage of the BCE/CE date era convention, which as far as I've been able to determine has been the norm for most of the history of this article, for the last few years (that's also, by the way, how the article started out). Let's please not make any further changes to this until we can establish a consensus here on the talk page, thanks. Paul August ☎ 14:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Huey45, WP:ERA says "No preference is given to either style," so it's either ignorant or dishonest to say that Wetman's edits are disruptively going against WP:ERA (as you have ben saying in edit summaries). Multiple long established editors in this article favor BCE/CE, it has been using that for years after being mixed (and it looks messy mixed). WP:ERA also says "Do not change from one style to another unless there is substantial reason for the change, and consensus for the change with other editors." YOU, Huey45, are the one who has been disruptively going against WP:ERA. Wetman is completely justified in calling you an edit warrior, the consensus is to use BCE/CE for this article. You cannot reasonably continue this tendentious editing without knowing that it is wrong. I will revert any future disruptive editing of your's I see as vandalism. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Ian.thomson, you are lying and deliberately misrepresenting the rules. User:Wetman changed the whole article's date format; that is prohibited by the rules. I merely corrected the inconsistencies a few days beforehand. You said yourself that no preference is given by the rules to CE/BCE or BC/AD, therefore I did nothing against the rules by choosing BC/AD. All of you are talking as if I started some kind of dispute; I did nothing of the sort. User:Wetman is the one who changed things around and he did so with neither consensus or a legitimate reason. He did exactly the same thing to the article Epic Cycle.User:Paul_August, you say not to "make any further changes to this until we can establish a consensus here", yet you imposed the same controversial change that started this whole issue. (Huey45 (talk) 07:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC))

You changed all but 1 entry, Wetman reverted it, and made it more consistant to how it was before. "All but one" is much closer to changing the whole article than restoring things to how they were and changing the one inconsistancy. That the article used BCE/CE except in one case (because of an article title) the consensus for the article was clearly BCE/CE. You need to deal with either an agenda or issues with competence. You have four editors favoring BCE/CE, you are the only person here actively supporting BC/AD, CONSENSUS IS AGAINST YOU, YOU ARE BEING DISRUPTIVE, and I will consider any further actions to be vandalism. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Ian.thomson, it appears that you don't actually know the meaning of the word "consensus"; you use it interchangeably with "majority". Anyway, the issue is unresolved both here and on the administrators' noticeboard, so it's totally inappropriate for you to be ramming changes through in the meantime.

As I said before, I innocently and helpfully fixed a consistency issue; it was User:Wetman who completely changed the article a few days later and had the nerve to accuse me of causing trouble; dragging me into a much unwanted conflict over an obscure article that I'm not interested in anyway.(Huey45 (talk) 12:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC))

Consensus is not voided just because you disagree with it. You are the one who completely changed the article, look at the history, there was only 1 use of BC, beyond that the entire article was BCE/CE. What is wrong with you that you can't get that through your skull? If you don't want this "conflict," you should back down. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Relation to Abrahamic religions

From the article: "It is believed that key concepts of Zoroastrian eschatology and demonology have had influence on the Abrahamic religions". This statement is supported with two sources, both from 1987-8. Now, while Zoroastrian eschatology concepts were formed no earlier than the first millennium BCE, the book of Genesis were present before Zoroastrianism even exist and so did Jewish concepts of creation that was initially perfectly good, but was subsequently corrupted by evil (i.e. when Adam and Eve eat from the knowledge tree). I'm not sure the statement I cited from the article itself represent main stream view, I think both sources are given undue weight. --Gilisa (talk) 09:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

There are books besides Genesis in the Jewish Bible. Much of the later writings were influenced by the Persians. Satan goes from being the prosecuting attourney in the heavenly court in the Book of Job to the cosmic-evil dude in much of the New Testament and the inter Testamental apocrypha. Ashmedai in the Book of Tobit is named for Aeshma Daeva, the Zoroastrian devil. The concepts of a Messiah don't appear in the Jewish Bible until you get to texts that were written after contact with the Zoroastrians. Also, the idea that Genesis is older than the 1st millenium BCE is a traditional date (which assumes Moses not only wrote it, but lived around that time as well), for which there is little to no evidence. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, you represent one view only. The idea Judaism was influenced by Zoroastrian eschatology is very shaky when considering that the date where Zoroastrian eschatology started is not in agreement between scholars and there are notable scholars who offer that it post dated Judaism in many centuries. Your views about the absorption of Persian ideas into the Jewish faith and Hebrew bible are certainly more POV, not necessarily in the wikipedian essence, than an objective view. In the wikipedian essence your ideas are undue as they are represented here in the article. My ideas Judaism wasn't influenced by Zoroastrianism are not fringe views or such that are not supported by significant part of scholars. As for your argument about Messiah in Judaism, I do not accept the concepts of the Hebrew Bible criticism-and there are many good reasons to assume the counter arguments suffering under representation. However, the apocalyptic views being attributed to Zoroastrian origin are considered as ones who lack prove by many scholars and first were raised by Martin Rist in 1962, there is still not one solid evidence that show Judaism indeed was influenced by Z, especially not to the far reaching extent you suggest. To sum, your ideas about Zoroastrian eschatology pre dates most Hebrew concepts are undue and speculative even in research itself.--Gilisa (talk) 10:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Ian.thomson is correct. I'm not using myself as a source, but my ancestry is Zoroastrian, and I have read books (as a practicing Catholic) by Christian scholars that discuss the influence of Zoroastrianism on Judaism, especially the monotheistic aspect, the concept of the Messiah, and the hierarchy of angels. My priest was the one who educated me on the fact that Zoroaster is considered the first prophet, at least in our faith (Catholicism). I'm sure I can find more sources to back up Ian.thomson's claims. These claims do not somehow negate Judaism's own contributions. Nor does it mean that the religion itself false. Actually, it only supports (since faith can't be proven 100%) the fact that Judaism, and later Christianity, have a common foundation. Of course, in my opinion, God revealed himself (or herself, doesn't matter) through nature (earth-based religions), before over time, teaching his children through Zoroastrianism, Judaism, and Christianity. That statement, though many agree with it, is opinion. However, there is a lot of scholarly evidence for Ian.thomson's claims, and the counterarguments are held by a minority. And Zoroastrianism is indeed older than Judaism. Have you forgotten that the Jewish people lived under the Persian Empire? Where do you think Purim comes from? It coincides with the Persian New Year (Spring equinox celebrations - Persians, like their Celtic cousins, celebrate the different equinoxes), which has been celebrated for thousands of years. Zoroastrianism is actually the first Monotheistic religion. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 15:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not the one that put the statement in there (I didn't write the article), it's not "my" view, it's what the sources (more modern than 1962) state. To date, the only sources I've seen that deny influence from Zoroastrianism are either outdated or had a religious bias, mostly fundamentalist evangelical protestants trying to present the Israelite religion as identical their practices. The books of the Jewish Bible do not mention any developed idea of a Messiah or the end of the world until texts which were written after contact with Persia (supposed elements in texts before then easily could have been reinterpreted, as the ideas are not as fully developed and work within other historical contexts at least as well). The Saoshyant (Zoroastrian Messiah-figure) and the final judgement are mentioned in the Gathas, which were written before Persia's contact with the Israelites. That is what is meant by "eschatology," bringing up Genesis was an error, since eschatology concerns the end of the world, not the beginning. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Religion bias is what standing behind some sources which deny the "obvious" influence of Zoroastriam on Jewish religion? Oh, and there are also more modern than 1962 sources that "prove" that influence on the apocalyptic thought as expressed in Judaism. OK, this idea, lack of substantial or serious evidence btw, came in 1962-what changed from then in terms of religious studies? does 1987 is so much more educated then 1962 about this subject? does archeological findings proved this claim (however many of these, like the altar in mount Ebal and many others, were ignored or contradicted (like the finding of Teffilin from the 1CE) many anti Bible views)? What, the rapid development of computers allowed scholars to build simulator that demonstrated mathematically how Zoroastriam affected Judaism...right! Look, there is not even agreement what so ever that Zoroastriam was even monotheistic religion, actually it is by far more reasonable it wasn't. Second, even if (big if) the concept about apocalypse appeared in Judaism only around 5oo BCE, during the Jewish exile in Persia and at around that time that Zoroastriam became the state religion. Well, there are certainly no exact dates or documentations about ancient times, certainly not about 2500 years ago and more, but some serious scholars assume that Zoroastrian didn't form much before 500 BCE. Jews were in exile for their first time, the first temple (what, did the Jews were affected by Zoroastrian believes when they built this one? Oh, or wasn't it exist as some "unbias" non religious scholars tell...) was ruined and apocalyptic book was far more suitable for Judaism than for Z. The concept of after life does appear in the books of Samuel for instance, although not directly. As for your arguments for bias by religious people, keep in mind that this is not exact science you are dealing with here, not even close and the all field of research is a mix between known facts and mountains of speculations-most are being done by non religious people actually, but I wouldn't be so decisive about it. In any case, where it comes to Bible commentary for instance you can watch many times how one "revolutionary" article is being praised (usually one which deny the bible totally) and how it's debunked then with the research or thought of other scholars (well, they are mostly religious while those who totally deny the bible authenticity are many times fervent atheists -there are schools here..) but for now, always the anti bible view will be kept in high status in academy. It's nothing different than other biases western academy have in many other political issues (US policy, economic and social policy, women rights, Islam and so forth). Your arguments about "your" sources being more objective are not objective for themselves. Frankly, I don't believe it had any effect on Judaism-though the other way around is very likely. --85.64.157.194 (talk) 06:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Simple error "monolithic"

In this sentence: "It has no major theological divisions (the only significant schism is based on calendar differences), but it is not monolithic."

I think the it's supposed to be "monotheistic" unless I'm reading it wrong.

It's very confusing to report an error here for an old guy like me, so sorry if I posted this incorrectly.

Joe Kinaydjin (talk) 19:45, 12 September 2010 (UTC) Joe Kinaydjin

You posted it correctly, but it's not an error. Monotheism - belief in one deity. Zoroaster said and Zoroastrianism there was only one deity, Ahura Mazda. Monolithic is an actual word, it means "of a single rock (or substance), uniform." It is not an error, it is an actual word. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to change it anyway to "uniform," because I've had to put in a hidden comment in the article to other editors explaining that they are not the same word, after months of reverting IP editors switching the words out. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC)