The first Creation account fits an Egyptian setting quite well, though I agree that there is likely later editing. I have no trouble at all seeing the core of that as having come from Moses.
The grammar there is interesting, BTW – it may be a case like that of the man healed after being lowered through a hole in the roof, i.e. Jesus not saying that the man was born blind for the purpose of being healed, but that why he was born blind is set aside and the point made that Jesus will use the situation as it is to show God’s works.
[I’m not sure how clear that is…]
Yes, on CMDA.
I don’t find the size argument particularly compelling…Malcolm Gladwell wrote a whole book (The Tipping Point) about how small groups have outsized impact. And if you believe - as I do - that the Israelites were truly the people of God, then I wouldn’t be surprised if they influenced the Persians. I’d be surprised if they didn’t.
Oh, I missed your other point. Their first exile was in Babylon, but it was followed by a documented exile in Persia.
1 Like
But have we? I think that’s an unhelpful way of looking at the issue. It functions the same way as the “God of the gaps” science argument (We invoke God to explain mystery in nature, so now that we have scientific explanations we don’t need God any more.) But God is the wonderful creator of a wonderful creation, and we are able to both understand and wonder at creation.
What I would say is that if there is a spiritual dimension to creation, we will only know it at the level of our senses. So the fact that we describe those sensory experiences better tells us nothing at all about the possibility of the spiritual world. I may have a headache because I walked into a low hanging tree branch. I may have a headache because a bad spirit has been messing with my thoughts. In both cases the medical description of my symptoms will be identical.
I’m not an expert, but for what it’s worth here’s my tuppence worth.
- The fact of bad exorcism stories doesn’t make the whole field false, any more than the fact of quack doctors makes the whole field of medicine false. The goal should be both good medicine and good spiritual healing ministries.
- The guide ultimately is the Holy Spirit. I’m not saying that flippantly. The point is that because we are talking about the life of the spirit, only the Spirit knows what is true/false.
- That point applies to the church through the gifts of the Spirit. In 1 Corinthians 12 there’s a representative list of gifts, and both wisdom and spiritual discernment are clearly mentioned. So I would say that this is an area of spiritual life that the church needs to develop in the normal way, by identifying people with the right gifts, by encouragement in ministry, by training, and so on. We do exactly the same in other vocations. A nurse works well because he/she is passionate, and through training and experience.
- As regards the NT stories of exorcism, I would encourage you to read them in the wider context of the whole gospel narratives. For example, it’s simply not true that first century people attributed all sickness to spiritual possession. We read many healing stories about Jesus, and in many cases there is no description of demon possession. At the least this shows that Jesus was discerning in his ministry. Sometimes he saw physical illness; sometimes he saw spiritual illness or bondage. A fair assessment of the gospels will at least show that the narrative is far more nuanced and sophisticated than “they were ignorant fishermen but now we know better.”
3 Likes
Never heard of that. Do you have a source?
This is certainly part of the Jewish/Christian spectrum just like Plato/Gnosticism. But it is easily excluded and thus impact on the central ideas of Christianity is nonexistent.
Anytime the battle between good and evil and the power of the devil is exaggerated and over-emphasized then the Zoroastrian influence rears its head. Anytime correct understanding of doctrine (as well as evils of physicality) is exaggerated and overemphasized then the Plato/Gnostic influence rears its head.
I very much oppose both of these influences far more than I buy into the more popular opposition to pagan influences… which I think is much deeper and foundational. I think any talk of Jesus as a blood sacrifice to appease God is showing up those pagan influences. And while I lean away from that understanding of Christianity, I cannot deny its centrality to Christianity.
2 Likes
And people with bipolar disorder, among other things.
I agree with this. Also, the Hebrew texts give no indication of concerns about dangerous Persian influences as far as I can see. The main dangers were viewed to be from more local ethnic deities such as Moloch for example.
It has been speculated that the monotheism of Judaism and later Christianity has shifted the teaching of Zoroastrianism towards monotheism throughout the centuries. I know very little of Zoroastrianism so I cannot say how reliable this speculation is.
1 Like
Compare the Old Testament to the Egyptian Book of the Dead.
Egyptian culture is full of happy references to the deceased living full
and interesting lives in the underworld, with the elite sometimes hopping
a celestial ride - - in the night - - through the sky (in the company of
Gods or deceased Pharaohs), to eventually return BACK to the underworld.
None of these Egyptian metaphysical elements survive EXPLICITLY in
the Old Testament. The Sadducees of the New Testament don’t believe
in a resurrection of the spirit (at least, not for non-Sadducee mortals).
Nor in angels. And if there is a divine realm, it is entirely in the sky,
while demons rule the underworld.
How did the theology take such a leap from Egyptian form to a
modified Zoroastrian one? Persian, aka Parsee, influence on
Hebrew metaphysics is the plainly visible answer.
G.Brooks
It is difficult to compare the OT (Hebrew Bible) to the Egyptian Book of the Dead because the Book of the Death is just a collection of funerary texts intended to help the dead person’s journey through the Duat (‘underworld’). It includes mainly prayers or ‘model answers’ to the guardians and gods the dead is likely to meet in Duat.
Duat was not a happy place for all, although the idea of afterlife in Duat was democratized during the long history of the ancient Egypt. In the earliest phase, the afterlife was an opportunity for the royals, later to all wealthy who could pay the expensive funeral rites. The other dead persons apparently remained in the grave and one part of the person (usually ‘ba’, depending on the line of tradition) made short visits to the surroundings until the body decomposed and the multiple parts of the person scattered.
In the New Kingdom and after that, there emerged a belief that all the dead would go to the place of judgement.
In the judgement, the heart of the dead was weighed against the symbolic measure of truth, balance, order and justice (feather of Maat). The heart was believed to include a record of the whole life of the person. If the life had not followed the principles of Maat, the monster Ammat eat the heart and there was no happy afterlife.
There were different beliefs about the afterlife in Duat.
One old version included life in a spiritual world that resembled life along Nile. It included also hard work, which was the reason why the graves included small figures (usepti) that were supposed to do the heavy work for the dead person.
The old version developed towards a more symbolic life where there were not anymore such hard work.
A third version, common during the later periods, was that the dead went to west and begged to be taken on the ship of Ra (sun god), to take part in the daily cycle of the sun ship. This version did not usually specify what else the afterlife included.
Very different kinds of literature and beliefs.
2 Likes
Hmmm…thanks for bringing up an interesting topic, Seamitchell.
Comparing one religion with another is oftentimes like comparing the Willis (formerly Sears) tower in Chicago with the Capitol building in Washington D.C. Sure…both had designers and both were built on land near water –with windows in them! Similariries? Indeed! And there is a McDonalds restaurant not far away from both buildings.
Beyond those similarities…..
Why do you presume that Jewish/Christian thought was influenced by Zoroastrianism? The oldest written text of Zoroastrian beliefs dates to about 1300 A.D./CE…..and there are at least bits of biblical text going back further than that….say, just about everything found at Qumran plus some amulets with scriptrual texts far older than that.
It is hard to say (just based on the dates of writings) who influenced whom.
How is Jesus’ “interaction with demons” equivalent to the Zoroastrian description of such beings. In Judaism–from which Christianity grew–there is no equivalent being to God in the way that Zoroastrianism seems to see “evil” as an equivalent being to God. Jesus’ “interactions” with evil spirits were never conversations between equals. They were always the remarks of a superior being (YHWH) to a rebellious personality whose days, ultimately, are numbered. When Jesus said, elsewhere in the Gospels, “I am the way, the truth and the life. No man comes to the Father but by Me”– He left no room for much else.
Jesus in the biblical text never gives a shout-out to Zoroastrianism. He does frequently point to His [Jesus’] actions in some way or other confirming biblical prophecy regarding Him.
Zoraoastrianism may be willing to discuss Satan and spiritual entities in a sense and maybe to a depth that differs from biblical teaching wherein they are merely rebels bound for the lake of fire, full stop, next question, please –but that does not mean Z adds to biblical thinking. .It’s just another religion.
3 Likes
loved your Star of Bethlehem article as well
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.