The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Are Satan and Ahriman the same being?

Angra Mainyu/Ahriman-the destructive spirit-is the primary evil, destructive force of Zoroastrianism. In some texts, Ahriman actually has the capacity to create things. For example, in Yasna 9; 8, Ahriman created the Azi Dahaka. In Yasna 57; 17, both the Spenta Mainyu (Bounteous Spirit) and Angra Mainyu were said to have created the world (I think), which seems to contradict the Gathas, which state that only Ahura Mazda was the creator of the world. In the Bundahishn, it is said that Angra Mainyu created 16 scourges such as sickness. He also slew the primal bull. I had a hard time piecing it together, but it seems that in some traditions, perhaps Ahriman doesn’t create good because he can’t, but because he chooses not to (perhaps this is more evident in the Zurvanite tradition)?

How would Satan compare to such a being? Perhaps Satan ‘created’ things by distorting many of God’s own creations?

Likewise, how does ‘Ahura Mazda’ compare to ‘Adonai Elohim’? To me, they seem to be the same god.

Did Zoroastrianism teach universalism before Christianity allegedly did? If so, is it possible that Zoroastrianism could have influenced the development of Christianity? I hear that the influence went both ways, but I don’t know.

To me, Ahura Mazda (‘Wise Lord’) seems to be more merciful than the god of the Hebrew scriptures (and Christianity by extension).

Even though King Cyrus was probably Zoroastrian, I am not completely sure. Someone once mentioned that Cyrus was a pagan king. Well, if he were Zoroastrian, I doubt he would have considered himself to be a pagan.

Some strands of Zoroastrianism are certainly universalistic or at least purgative; the later versions of the theology are more dualistic, so consequently Ahrihman cannot be slated to be saved from his rebellion back to loyalty with Ahura Mazda. (Not to be confused with the Japanese Mazda name. :wink: )

It is entirely possible that Cyrus (who is referenced in a famous Isaiah prophecy, quoted by St. Paul at least twice, regarding all creatures bowing in loyalty to YHWH eventually, as a foreign messiah chosen by God to save the Jews and to learn about God thereby) decided that the Jews worshiped Ahura Mazda by another name and so eventually supported and protected them. Since I wasn’t around when the Torah was composed, nor during the Babylonian dispersion under the rule of the Persians, I can’t simply eliminate the idea that the Jewish scriptures were adjusted across the board at that time to point toward a more purgative notion of divine punishment and restoration.

What I can be fairly sure of, though, is that this wasn’t a direct influence on the composition of the canonical NT texts nor on the teachings of Jesus as represented in those texts. The church spread out not long afterward into solidly Zoroastrian territories (which by then had become largely dualistic, if I understand correctly), but there was not much backward influence of that expansion to the development of the church along Mediterranean areas, a disconnect which is reflected (among other things) by the lack of importance of traditions of eastern apostolic evangelists in the history of central orthodoxy. That being said, we also know that the early Alexandrian school had contact with the missions to the east in the days of Origen and before, including a treasured copy of GosMatt in Hebrew which was brought back from somewhere near India by one of Origen’s predecessors. That being said, obviously that text had been sent to the East as a source for making translations, and so would have been a source for doctrine itself, not influenced by local Persian doctrines.

At any rate, if a hypothetical Persian doctrinal influence on the canonical OT is suspected, and so the apparent testimonies to Jewish universalism are rejected thereby, that isn’t a problem for the canonical NT (except insofar as the canonical NT is drawn from the canonical OT!) And as an exegetical student, I put more weight on interpreting the meaning of the NT than on following the authority of post-apostolic interpreters of the canonical texts.

So what exactly is your question or charge or suspicion, Alexamenos? If the ancient Jews were forced to learn that God was working among the nations in respectable ways after all, that’s no skin off my nose; and it would be unfair of me to deny that other people elsewhere somehow arrived at what I regard to be religious truth: I’m a big fan of protoevangelical inspiration.

But I’m appealing to scriptural testimony (however it got there) along one line of approach, and to metaphysical logic (which is independent of religious details and so which is accessible to all people in principle) along a parallel line of approach. That’s the typical special revelation / general revelation cooperation. Whatever the Zoroastrians did at different stages of their developments is their business, and not an authoritative concern of mine: I’m clearly not a Zoroastrian (early or late), as any of them would have recognized, even if they might perhaps be as charitable toward my beliefs as I’m willing to be toward theirs (in various forms and degrees). :slight_smile:

Well, my point of contention is that if one religion is to be viewed to be “inspired” (Judaism and Christianity in this case), a similar religion (Zoroastrianism/Mazdaism) should also be viewed as “inspired,” especially in light of how the religion of Zoroaster had similarities to Judaism and Christianity (in contrast to other religions). I am not saying that Judaism (or Christianity) borrowed heavily from Zoroastrianism. Perhaps there was an exchange of ideas.

For example, there is the legend of the universal savior (Saoshyant-“the one who brings benefit”) in Zoroastrian prophecy. Ideas about this figures seem to point out to a Persian king of kings that is also the savior of the world.

This concept is similar to some Abrahamic ideas of the Messiah.

Does this mean that Judaism or Christianity borrowed from the Saoshyant concept? I don’t know. Perhaps the idea of the Saoshyant developed over the years, just as the concept of the Messiah did.

As far as Ahriman/Angra Maiynu is concerned, I don’t think or know if he was ever loyal to Ahura Mazda. He wasn’t necessarily a fallen angel. He was more of a spirit opposed to Spenta Mainyu, and thus Ahura Mazda by extension. In most forms of Zoroastrianism, Spenta Mainyu and Angra Mainyu are regarded as creations of Ahura Mazda, as stated in the Gathas.

“Ahriman” could be still be viewed as synonymous to a primordial concept of “chaos” or “evil” in Christianity (ie. the cause of what made Satan evil, and thus this cause would indirectly be an evil agent of creation (I’m not sure)). Such “evil” would be indirectly created by God since the chaos in the beginning of Genesis existed-likely created by God-to be used for creation (I’m not saying this makes God evil). Ultimately, however, even if Lucifer could be “saved,” this evil would not be “saved” in the end because evil is inherently in opposition to God’s character.

I’m not saying that I’m a Christian, Jew or Zoroastrian. Nor am I claiming to be an expert in anything either. I just find it interesting that there are several similarities-at least on a somewhat superficial level-between the Abrahamic faiths and Zoroastrianism.

Alex

i’m quite interested in any crossover. i have a feeling that part of the Zoroastrian view of the afterlife had an influence on subsequent Jewish thought, as prior to exposure to Persian thought, they seemed to believe in Sheol as merely the grave.
my little hypothesis on this matter is based more on the timing though than anything else…and it’s interesting to me if Zoroastrianism had a Messianic figure to come that is possibly Universal in scope and ability to save.
also interesting if ideas of Satan come from (or influenced) thought on Ahriman.

i don’t believe in a personal devil, myself, but see him/it as a personification for the evil in human nature that takes on a systematic form. is there any room for that view in Zoroastrianism? i do believe that if there is a personal being called Satan (IMO Lucifer is not the name of the devil. That comes from a misinterpretation (IMO) of a text on the king of Tyre, which has rather sensational language) that he will be saved in the end, but the substance of his evil would be destroyed (as it is for all of us).

Related to Zoroastrianism, but not the original post, but hope you don’t mind: The Magi that visited the young Christ…i assume they were Zoroastrian. do we have any writings about their journey and what they found? i hope they didn’t just vanish into history…

Like C. S. Lewis, I don’t have anything against the idea that other religions can be somewhat inspired – the Jewish scriptures themselves kind of indicate it!

The criteria for whether we ought to pay more attention to some scriptures than others as being qualitatively more accurate and authoritative, is another matter, and can be subtle and confusing. It would take me a long time to explain why I believe I ought to pay more attention to the Judeo-Christian canon than other religious scriptures. But professional evangelists have long recognized that there are interesting and helpful religious parallels. (Christian evangelists practically invented the formal study of folk anthropology as a side effect of studying religious details of populations.)

According to Josephus, the Pharisees of his day believed re-incarnation to be the “afterlife” for good people.

[The Pharisees] say that all souls are incorruptible; but that the souls of good men are only removed into other bodies, — but that the souls of bad men are subject to eternal punishment. (Flavius Josephus — Wars of the Jews, II, viii.14)

Even the Jews in Jesus day seemed to hold a belief in re-incarnation:

*Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?”

And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” (Matt 16:13,14)*

How they thought He could have been a re-incarnation of John the Baptist, I’ll never know. Jesus and John were contemporaries. But I’ve read that those who held the re-incarnation view were not always totally logical in their application of it.

really? i thought that this was a minority position (i can’t remember where Sobornost posted that, but i think there was a discussion about this that established that). my understanding was that for most of Jewish history up to the time of their captivity, when they followed YHWH they rejected their Pagan neighbours views of the afterlife in favour of Sheol…but by the time Christ appeared, they were at least allowing the possibility of an afterlife. My hypothesis was that due to the similarities between Zoroastrianism and the Hebrew views, some beliefs cross-pollinated…if the Persians had had a totally alien religion, the Hebrews may have flirted with it, but ultimately it would be condemned and they would have rejected all aspects when returning to Judaism…but something about Zoroastrianism (goes my idea) stuck with them, and they started to allow for an afterlife beyond Sheol in their thought. I am sure i’m missing some nuances here in the development of Hebrew theology, but i did wonder…at some point they abandoned what they’d learned from the Law and the Prophets (as Jesus warns them at the end of the Lazarus and the Rich Man parable), and embraced or at least started entertaining views that included hell (at least for a time) and paradise (Abraham’s bosom, i think).

Any idea about the Magi and Christ? surely SOMETHING must be out there about this encounter!!

The only historical echo of the Magi that I know about, are a tribe of Bedouins in the Arabian Peninsula who claim to be descended from the royal family of the Sabaeans (the people of ancient Saba) and also from Solomon through a romance with a princess of Saba (i.e. the Queen of Sheba) who, as was the custom with those people at the time (attested in other contemporary records) was sent to foreign lands as a diplomat. (The Sabaean royal family used to send out its daughters as diplomats.)

Consequently, so claim this tribe, it was their own astrologers who recognized the rising of the Star of David, announcing the birth of the heir of David and Solomon (reclaiming the throne from the Idumeans, descendants of Edom/Esau), and so who brought gifts typical of royal birth, including an item (myrrh) exported from the Arabian Peninsula (also across the Red Sea on the coast of Ethiopia and Eritrea).

thanks Jason, that’s really interesting!
it’d be fascinating to find out more about that, and see if there is any validity.
what i would like is if somewhere someone made a record of the journey…
“Bob, Sam and Archibald departed today to pay homage to the King of the Jews. We think this is an important journey because the star was extra bright. hope they don’t get into any bother with the current king…”
etc.