5.5 (pt 1 of 5): the Zoroastrian roots of Christianity's "Satan"

[thescorpionking2020]

and dude zoroastrianism is much older than 600 bc may be arnd 1500 bc

[ToddAllenGates]

@thescorpionking2020

> zoroastrianism is much older than 600 bc may be arnd 1500 bc

Yes, I've read that as well: that Iranian "tradition" places him at 570 BC, but the majority of scholars place him around 1000 BC, with some scholars dating him anywhere from 1200-1700 BC. The biggest problem with the dates, however, is that the ancient scriptures are lost, and the existing ones only date to the 10th century AD. So it's difficult to know what the early Zoroastrians really believed.

[thescorpionking2020]

@ToddAllenGates as far as i no they date zoroaster to arnd 1500 bc coz the langugae of avesta wich wer supposedly composed by zoroaster is similar to the rig veda wich is assumed to be composed arnd 1500 bc,though sum people say its much older thts y zoroaster is sumtime assumed to be arnd 1500 bc may be even arnd 1000 bc but it is sumthin tht is very difficult to find,although its safe to assume zoroaster to arnd 1000 bc

[thescorpionking2020]

zoroastrianism is an archaic offshoot of hinduism

[ToddAllenGates]

@thescorpionking2020

> zoroastrianism is an archaic offshoot of hinduism

I've heard that as well ... but its Hindu remnants don't seem to be part of what influenced (or what *may* have influenced) Christianity.

[thescorpionking2020]

@ToddAllenGates ya the hindu remnants have nt influenced christianity but after reading some of the zoroastrian scriptures u cn make out thth zoroastrianism arose as a religion whr sum early form of hinduism was practised coz of the similairty between the rig veda and the avesta,it involved the same set of people,as far as i no zoroaster belonged to the priestly class of tht religion and the rituals,many god and goddesses and many other things r common between zoroastrianism and hinduism

[thescorpionking2020]

@ToddAllenGates wat i do no dude tht zoroastrianism influenced judaism 4 sure,and d concept of a saviour if m nt wrong ws 1st decevoped in zoroastrianism wich may hav infulenced hinduism and buddhism and later the abarahamic faiths,as far as sum ideas of zoroastrianism hav been absorbed in both christianity and islam,mohammad the propeht of islam knew a zoroastrian called salman the persian and thr r many similarities between islam and zoroastrianism

[thescorpionking2020]

@ToddAllenGates and devas who are considered devils in zoroastrianism are considered righteous spirits in hinduism and ahuras who r considered good and righteous in zoroastrianism is considered evil in hinduism,wat zoroaster dii was thth he made devas who wer initially good the devil nd all the ahuras who we r initially considered bad into one 1 supreme diety called ahura mazda who was all good,so it ws more like anti hinduism

[thescorpionking2020]

@ToddAllenGates other than tht sum gods are considered righteous by both religions,and things like initiation ceremony,thread ceremeony,homa ceremony are similar between hinduism and zoroastrianism,zoroastrianism also rejects cremation wich hinduism emphasises upon,i think u shud read both the rig veda and the avesta,it may hav been composed by the same set of people before these religions split up and hinduism rose up in india and zoroastrianism in persia,anyways zoroastrianism is nearly dead

[thescorpionking2020]

@ToddAllenGates other than that as far as i no the abrahamic faiths owe a lot to zoroastrianism simply coz when these religions rose up persian civilisation nd empires wer at its peak so it definitely influenced them,thr is also influence of buddhism on christianity and hinduism form wich christianity may hav taken the concept of a trinitarian view of god,early christian writers made references to both buddhism and hinduism in thr writings wich means they wer aware abt both these religions

[thescorpionking2020]

@ToddAllenGates and i think whole 3 magi visiting jesus thing thth may hav been invented by early christian writers in order to gain converts from zoroastrianism to show tht jesus was the final savious or saoshyant prophecised in thr scriptures,morever mithraism and the ancient egyptian religion hav influenced christianity much more,jesus is more lik an amalgam and a mixture of all the religions and dieties tht wer worshipped in the roman empire during tht time

[thescorpionking2020]

@ToddAllenGates christianity is a package of all the religions practised in the roman empire put together,all the attributed of various dieties was given to this guy named jesus,they plagiarised watevr they cud and tried to come up with the best thing they can so the final product of 3 centuries of stealing from here and thr and u hav christianity,its all made up all religions hav been made up by man generation by generation nuthin else

[ToddAllenGates]

@thescorpionking2020

> its all made up all religions hav been made up by man generation by generation nuthin else

Agreed!

[pimps1nc]

One could easily look at any polytheistic religion as well and see 'good' and ' evil' spirits (of course good and evil are nothing more then subjective value opinions). When making leap to two ' upper gods' , of course there must be this dualism as well above as below. And to think christianity as monotheistic is questionable as well, since most christians adore jesus as if he was god, and of course poses many saints and angels. ToddAllenGates, I recommand the book Secret Teachings of all Ages.

[ToddAllenGates]

@pimps1nc

> And to think christianity as monotheistic is questionable as well, since most christians adore jesus as if he was god, and of course poses many saints and angels

Agreed - and there's the extra problem that the earliest books of the Old Testament are more polytheistic than monotheistic.

> I recommend the book Secret Teachings of all Ages.

I'll check it out -- thanks!

[Ramshobraja]

The roots of monotheism itself might lie with zoroastrianism.

[ToddAllenGates]

@Ramshobraja

> The roots of monotheism itself might lie with zoroastrianism.

True ... the early books of the bible are more polytheistic than polytheistic.

However, it's hard to know exactly what was in the early, pre-biblical, Zoroastrian scriptures. The Avesta was written over a long time period, and much of the most ancient material is lost: much of what we have now was written in the post-Christian era (this is the subject of my most recent video).

[Ramshobraja]

@ToddAllenGates It seems that there is quite a bit of cultural transmission back and forth. I guess the one way to examine if some of these beliefs are common to humanity, or are shared across trade routes is to compare these beliefs to those of say the Mayans, who had no contact with others.

This is a touchy subject and most of the evidence for the roots of Christianity and other religions are in nations that today are not 'free' nations, we may not know the whole story.

[pimps1nc]

@Ramshobraja

So why do they have a white guy with a beard that brought them knowledge and came from sea?

[ronoman88]

Do you have the altruistic genes?

If you do have the geneshow do you know?

Can it transferred to those who don't?

[ToddAllenGates]

> Do you have the altruistic genes?

Except for the likes of sociopaths, I think most of us do.

> If you do have the genes how do you know?

I do the average things that most citizens do - raise my family, get along with people at my job, hold the door for strangers, etc. I don't know, however, why you're asking such questions.

> Can it transferred to those who don't?

Not that I know of. I also don't know that this is a productive conversation.

[ronoman88]

"Altruistic genes have been naturally selected in our evolutionary past"

By what evidence?

[ToddAllenGates]

>> "Altruistic genes have been naturally selected in our evolutionary past"

> By what evidence?

The evidence for our evolutionary past is overwhelming. Look in ANY encyclopedia.

As for altruistic genes, we gather evidence from looking at our closest ancestors. A great in-depth book on the subject is "Our Inner Ape: A Leading Primatologist Explains Why We Are Who We Are" by Frans de Waal.

[ronoman88]

Where did you come up with the idea that would make the Athiest choose least harm choice?

[ToddAllenGates]

> Where did you come up with the idea that would make the Athiest choose least harm choice?

Atheists choose the "least harm" for the same reason theists do: altruistic genes have been naturally selected in our evolutionary past.

Survival depends on being able to nurture one's family and dealing fairly and reciprocally with peers.

What religion can do—when it's on its best behavior—is underline those pre-existing tendencies and bring them to the forefront.

[ronoman88]

How does an atheist asess which moral teachings are "better" than another"?

[ToddAllenGates]

> How does an atheist asess which moral teachings are "better" than another"?

Pretty much the same way a theist would—on the basis of "least harm" / compassion / kindness / sustainability, etc.

The only difference is that theists--depending on their degree of fundamentalism--can look at actions that *don't* hurt anyone (e.g. someone picking up sticks on the Sabbath) and still declare it immoral and worthy of punishment, because their book says so.

[ronoman88]

I heard recently that geneticists think there might be a religious gene! Which could acct for alot of indiv religiousity or lack of. The God of the Bible can be ruthless beyond belief rd. Numb. As an atheist it is in your best interest to support Jesus' Sermon on the mount teachings because they are a sensible way to live no doubt. Even if its false to you. Your prob doing it now anyhow.

You're trying to convince readers otherwise you wouldn't of done this prod. Be honest. What's the pt then?

[ToddAllenGates]

1 of 5:

> The God of the Bible can be ruthless beyond belief rd. Numb.

I don't know what you mean by "rd. Numb."

> As an atheist it is in your best interest to support Jesus' Sermon on the mount teachings because they are a sensible way to live no doubt.

I fully agree that many religions—Taoism, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, etc.—include useful philosophical teachings. Aesop's Fables, too, include wise insights.

[ToddAllenGates]

2 of 5:

But this video is part of a series that looks at how the bible was influenced by earlier religions. So I don't know why you're even bringing up the subject of the Sermon on the Mount.

> Even if its false to you.

What's false to me (or rather, "highly unlikely to be true") is the notion that the tales of Jesus have the authority of the Creator of the Universe. The most probable conclusion to me is that the text of the bible was written 100% by man.

[ToddAllenGates]

3 of 5:

But like any man-made text, it can contain excellent sections.

> You're trying to convince readers otherwise you wouldn't of done this prod.

I don't know where you get the idea that I'm speaking out against the Sermon on the Mount. Whether or not religions contain practical advantages is outside the scope of this series. My focus is "Did this come from God or man?"

[ToddAllenGates]

4 of 5:

> Be honest. What's the pt then?

If a particular religious claim—be it from Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, etc.—really happens to have the authority of the Creator of the Universe, there are HUGE consequences for not following its rules!

[ToddAllenGates]

5 of 5:

Given the severity of this situation—and given that not ALL religions can be right—I think it's important to treat our choice of which religion to follow (if any) seriously. So it therefore makes sense to scrutinize these claims. If it came from God, I want to follow it 100% (whether I like it or not). If it came from man, well, then I'm free to pay attention to the good sections (Golden Rule, etc.) and ignore the bad sections (slavery and genocide are OK with God).

[Jhaub420]

There are better moral teachings than the supposed (and contradictory) teachings of jesus in the bible.

For example, the Gathas of Zarathushtra,

which can be read at

Zarathushtra

.

ORG

[ronoman88]

What on Earth is the reason for you to produce so much for Youtube? To bring Christians away from Christ to Athiesm? What've you got to offer? Atheism should be PRODUCTIVE for the greater good and shut up. That is in little supply historically with your group. The main purpose of athiesm should be paradoxically to support faith at all cost. Esp Christianity. It would make athiesm more viable. To use half cocked exegesis makes you even less compelling. Peace Todd

[ToddAllenGates]

1 of 5:

> To bring Christians away from Christ to Athiesm?

If I thought Christianity's claims were true, I would certainly not want anyone to turn away from Christ!

If I thought Christ was the means to eternal salvation, I would be a Christian myself: and a fervent proselytizer at that.

Why would I want myself, and others, to suffer eternal torment?

[ToddAllenGates]

2 of 5:

I look at the Bible critically not because I think it's "from God" and I want people to turn away from it, but because I have reasons to strongly suspect it's NOT from God—that just like all the other thousands of religious options we have, it's something people made up in an attempt to explain Creation, Suffering, Ethics, and the Afterlife.

[ToddAllenGates]

3 of 5:

> What've you got to offer?

First of all, I don't expect true believing theists to give my videos much attention. My videos are more aimed at on-the-fence-theists suffering from cognitive dissonance: that uncomfortable feeling caused by holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously.

[ToddAllenGates]

4 of 5:

Just two examples:

(1) The belief that Genesis is God's True Account of a 6-day Creation VS. the overwhelming evidence for an ancient earth, dinosaurs, extinction, etc.

(2) The belief that an Omnipotent Omniscient Kindly God cares for all Creation VS the indiscriminate suffering on earth (earthquakes, tsunamis, the fact that predators are designed to survive by killing their prey in violent and terrifying ways, etc.)

[ToddAllenGates]

5 of 5:

---and there are lots more examples, but I don't see the point of continuing.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything. If religion makes you happy, well, then peace be with you!

[ronoman88]

Todd you and ProfMTH (let's say he being The Greeks of Paul's time) have looked at Scripture and looked at Jesus' Life and words in the most rational way your mind can contemplate and have come away becoming what?...... committed evolutionary secular humanistic athiests inspiring righteous rationalism to everyone? what. If Jesus is not the human template to a full life and complete existence who is? The Sermon on the Mount is not the greatest single philosophical testament ever uttered.

[ToddAllenGates]

1 of 2:

> . . . looked at Scripture and looked at Jesus' Life and words in the most rational way your mind can contemplate and have come away . . . ?

Reading scripture—the scientific inaccuracies, the barbaric cruelties, the borrowed mythology, the numerous incoherencies, the wishful thinking void of evidence—convinces me that it is 100% man-made.

[ToddAllenGates]

2 of 2:

> committed evolutionary secular humanistic athiests inspiring righteous rationalism to everyone?

You're making an unrelated leap. For example, Hindus don't accept the divinity of Jesus, but that doesn't mean they accept evolution or humanism.

> If Jesus is not the human template to a full life and complete existence who is?

None that I know of.

> The Sermon on the Mount is not the greatest single philosophical testament ever uttered.

Agreed.

[ronoman88]

Keep in mind these disciples were like you Todd!

But something happened to them radically after He came out of the tomb. They went from total quiet sect extremely skeptical of who He was to transformed Marines on mission. They literally all became extreme. I mean extreme meaning they laughed at DEATH!

[ToddAllenGates]

> Keep in mind these disciples were like you Todd! But something happened to them radically .

Should I undergo a similarly convincing spiritual experience, I'll change too!

I don't rule out ever becoming a theist. I'll go where the evidence leads me: be it atheism, Taoism, Christianity, etc.

[ronoman88]

Why would the people following a basic pious and quite human Jew individually and all willingly martyr themselves in his Name with belief without evidence?

Were they all insane?

[ToddGates]

> Why would the people following a basic pious and quite human Jew individually and all willingly martyr themselves in his Name with belief without evidence?

Check out ProfMTH's video on this subject--it's called "DID the disciples die for a lie?" (

watch?v=Qh38ygMiY5I)

It echoes my feelings--only ProfMTH expresses it much more eloquently (and with all his sources cited).

[ronoman88]

As CS Lewis specifically sd Jesus can only be 1 of 3 things. Liar, Lunatic, or Lord. Which one do you think?

[ToddGates]

> As CS Lewis specifically sd Jesus can only be 1 of 3 things. Liar, Lunatic, or Lord. Which one do you think?

CS Lewis's argument rests on the shaky premise that we "know" that Jesus said the things attributed to him. But what reason do we have to believe that? Only "faith": belief WITHOUT evidence.

It may well be that Jesus himself never claimed to be God / Son of God. My belief is that he was just your basic pious and quite-human Jew.

[ronoman88]

Todd to You......Who is Jesus?

[ToddAllenGates]

1 of 2:

> Todd to You......Who is Jesus?

There are unfortunately no contemporary documents about him (he never caught the attention of any Greek or Romans historians)—so what little we know about him is based on documents dating some 40 years after his death.

[ToddAllenGates]

2 of 2:

My best guess is that he was a pious and charismatic Jew who was annoyed with religious hypocrites who paid attention only to the tedious details of religious law but not the spirit of the law (compassion, etc.). And he apparently pissed off enough politicians / religious leaders to get himself crucified.

[ronoman88]

He caught attn of (Jewish Historian)Josephus.

[ToddGates]

1 of 2:

> He caught attn of (Jewish Historian) Josephus.

First of all, most scholars agree that the one isolated passages from Josephus that mentions Jesus is a forgery, inserted hundreds of years later (as it doesn't match the style of the rest of Josephus' writings, and no one cites that passage of Josephus' until 324).

Second, even if it were genuine, it was *still* written decades after his death (Josephus wasn't even born until the year 37): plenty of time for oral legends to grow.

[ToddGates]

2 of 2:

And there's also the question of why there's nothing truly contemporary about a man that supposedly drew crowds of thousands and performed miracles. Why so much contemporary writings about the emperor of the time period (Tiberius—reigned 14-37), but not about "god coming to earth"?

The logical answer is that the historical Jesus was mostly likely an obscure figure: that he only became worth writing about once the oral legends about him grew large enough.

[pookiehohn]

I cant remember where you said it, but how many of the old testament books actually speak of an afterlife?

[ToddAllenGates]

1 of 2:

> how many of the old testament books actually speak of an afterlife

LOTS of passages suggest—or even outright say—that there's *no* afterlife. I know of only two that take the reverse stance, claiming there *is* an afterlife:

Isaiah 26:19: Your dead shall live, their corpses shall rise. O dwellers in the dust, awake and sing for joy!

[ToddAllenGates]

2 of 2:

Daniel 12:2: And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth will awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

> I can't remember where you said it

I discuss this subject in my video series 5.4, "The Evolution of the Afterlife."

[sapiensape]

Agreed that Jews don't understand Eden's serpent is Satan in disguise. My research suggests Satan is not derived from Zoroasterism, he is derived from Post Platonic Hellenistic Greek metaphysics! cf. bibleorigins net and the article on the prebiblical origins of Demons for the details.

[ToddAllenGates]

> My research suggest Satan is not derived from Zoroastrianism, he is derived from Post Platonic Hellenistic Greek ...

I admit that "Satan's" influences are complex, and Ahriman is just one of many sources. In my research I didn't find any characters that were 100% hits ... I thought Zoroastrianism' Ahriman came the closest, but it's definitely debatable.

[NWOSupporter2012]

ToddAllenGates what do you know about Satan? I know Satan is not an original Christian concept. Thanks for your time.

[ToddAllenGates]

> What do you know about Satan?

The same as I "know" about all other characters in the world's mythologies -- as far as I can tell, they're all fictional characters that people throughout history and throughout the world have made up in an attempt to explain the unknown (to explain Creation, the existence of

suffering, rules for living in a community, the question of what happens after we die, etc.)

[parandehdarya]

@sapiensape

satan was derived from Ahriman !!!

[sapiensape]

@parandehdarya I disagree. Satan is derived from the Ptolemaic Agathodaimon of Alexandria, Egypt in combination with the Hellenistic Greek Daimons. Cf. my YouTube video on Satan Not Eden's Serpent and the video on the PreChristian origins of Demons.

[parandehdarya]

@sapiensape

even the Greek Demons derived from zaroasterian daeva!!!

demonology of Judaism originated in Zoroastrianism, and were transferred to Judaism during jewish post-exile !

[HConstantine]

you're not inspired by Reuchlin or anything?

[ToddAllenGates]

> you're not inspired by Reuchlin or anything?

My main sources, at least for this series, were comparative mythologists like Joseph Campbell & James Frazer. I never studied Reuchlin -- is there something about this series that reminds you of his work?

[RabidAp3]

comment

[thumbsdownman]

Very commenty!

[BlueEye222]

Thanks Todd, these are exactly the points I came to from my independent studies - note the elohim were the deceivers, not the serpent as believed by Christians (who could not have read the text properly). The serpent told nothing but the truth whereas the elohim did not want the humans to become like Gods so they did not tell them the real reason why they did not want them to eat the wisdom giving fruit.

[ToddGates]

> elohim did not want the humans to become like Gods so they did not tell them the real reason why they did not want them to eat the wisdom giving fruit.

Yes, Elohim in Genesis seems a bit wary of human knowledge & achievement (in the stories of the Garden of Eden & the Tower of Babel) ... such sections don't match up well with other parts of the Bible that try to portray God as All-Powerful.

[someguy6481]

yashil17, what supernatural properties do gold, frankincense and myrrh have?

[yashil17]

Zartushti (Zoroastrianism) did way more than just give the famous "heaven and hell" in Christianity, if Zartushti didn't exist then Jesus would have the great powers, the 3 Zoroastrian men from the Sasanid Empire went to the birth of Jesus apperently and gave the gift of powers to him

[thescorpionking2020]

@yashil17 there wa sno sassanid empire at the time of jesus,it was the parthian empire

[dariowortiz]

I own a copy of the original book and is excellent.

Considering on buying the new one. is there any upgrade discount?

:-P

[ToddAllenGates]

> I own a copy of the original book and is excellent.

Thanks!

> Considering on buying the new one. is there any upgrade discount?

Through me, yes! (I'll send you a private email.)

[kalsolarUK]

incidentally - I've started reading your book, I'm about 100 pages in at the time of writing this message and the work that's gone into it is very clear to see. Really enjoying it so far!

[ToddGates]

> I've started reading your book ... Really enjoying it so far!

Thanks for the public shout out!

[redshift40]

I think "IF" there is a creator of the known universe, he, she or it, would have left some definitive proof. No human can honestly say that there is a "Creator" with out a doubt, 100%. Funny how we spend so much effort on religion. What if you lived your whole life praying and worshiping a fantasy? I could not base my life on any god that humans have dreamed up. Besides, I don't want to live forever, it's to long! I like to believe life is short, makes it more precious and rare.

[ToddAllenGates]

> I think "IF" there is a creator of the known universe he ... would have left ... roof.

I agree, and I do consider myself an atheist (in that I see the likelihood of the existence of God as much more improbable than probable).

But when discussing religion with theists, I prefer to use the Socratic Method, and apply theists' own reasons for rejecting foreign faiths to the Bible itself. My video "7 of 7: Using the Socratic Method w/ Christian proselytizers" goes into more detail.

[lucifugue]

dude that was stupid comepletly idiotic.

you are never NEVER 100% sure of anything! ANTHING!!!! not everything can be explained, science is a joke, scientists live their life trying to dismantle the woven fabric of the universe. its just a way to rationalize life and existence away. you cannot do that, somethings are meant to be a mystery, i know one thing human's aren't meant to know everything, evolution is wrong too religion might be wrong but so is science!;)