Talk:Christianity and other religions/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Islam's relationship to Christianity

I have removed the following lines because the statement is simply untrue. There is no citation of the places or name of the countries where "Christians typically practice their faith under severe restrictions". This is a gross statement.

In countries dominated by Islam, Christians typically practice their faith under severe restrictions. Proselytizing Muslims is often a criminal act, and any Muslim who converts to Christianity would likely face severe censure from family and friends, if not also legal reprecussions. Hiwamy 04:39, 26 May 2004

Rick, you have again broken one of your own laws. I have explained my reason for deletion of the statement in the talk page of Christianity and World Religions. You have not done so but reverted my edits. I understand that it is from your dissatisfaction with Islam. This is not helping NPOV and it proves that you are maintaining double standards. I have again removed those lines. Hiwamy 20:00, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

Three countries in which Christians practice their faith under severe restrictions: Turkey, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. The province of Kosovo in Serbia is another one, where Muslims burned churches and monasteries and descrated the graves of saints in March earlier this year, all committed by armed and organized Muslims. According to my archbishop, the current Patriarch of Constantinople is coming under growing pressure and may soon be forced out of Istanbul completely. Stories about Egypt throwing Christians in jail, especially converts or those proseltyizing, have been in the news for years. I'm honestly surprised the statement is at all debatable. Wesley 16:39, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

Here's a sample link regarding how Christian converts from Islam are treated by the legal system in Egypt: http://www.christianpersecution.info/features/egyptian-christians-likely-beaten.html. According to this, the legal system says that non-Christians may not marry Christians, that Christian children are often educated as Muslims, and that there is no official legal mechanism to change one's status from Muslim to Christian, although it is easy legally to change one's status from Christian to Muslim. I'm inclined to believe that similar arrangements would exist in other countries whose law is strongly influenced by Islam. Now, I'm very aware that not everything on the internet is true, that I may be the victim of a disinformation campaign. It's also possible that Egypt is an isolated example. However, I have seen stories like this online, and in print magazines long before the internet was around. If you have better information to the contrary I would be glad see it; I apologize for assuming stories such as this were common knowledge.

On a separate note, I honestly wonder how much similarity there is between Muslim and Christian conceptions of heaven, hell and judgment? I suspect there are more differences than the article implies.

Wesley 16:55, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

Of course it is debatable. And don't be surprised by that. There are more than 50 Muslim countries in this world and you have mentioned only three of them - Turkey, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. Turkey however is not "dominated by Islam" as you have suggested - though it is predominantly Muslim. And for your kind information, in Kosovo Christians also burned Mosques and killed Muslims in the same incident you are referring to. So the statement "In many countries dominated by Islam ..." is not at all a fare one - given your examples. The link you provided is merely a propaganda site and should not be cited as an example. I don't believe this source. However, if I take it for granted, then "Christians" are also persecuted in other parts of the world which is not a Muslim territory, i.e. Burma, Sri Lanka, Cuba, China, Vietnam, Mexico, Bolivia, India, Belarus, and many others. No one can guarantee the legitimacy of their accusations. I have not seen any of the news stories there, citing credible sources. So, you are definitely right - "not everything on the internet is true".

In this world, more Muslims are persecuted than Christians on a daily basis. This happens by the hands of Christian Russia, Jewish Israel and Hindu India. And should we not mention Iraqi civilians killed by "Christian" America? Should we forget the systematic killing of thousands and thousands of Muslims by Christians in the Balkan region? Unlike yours, these are not isolated events.

In Germany Muslims don't have rights to establish Mosques. In French schools Muslim girls are not allowed to wear hijab or head scarf. In the United States and some European countries Muslims are often victims of hate crimes. If you want propaganda links then I can provide. Blaming on each other can go on. I think it is not helpful for the wikipedia to cite examples of isolated events. If the claim has any significance at all then world media, which is of course predominantly Christian, will obviously focus on the issue. Then you will have no problem citing credible sources. Until then we should not mention such isolated examples. Hiwamy 20:20, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

Regarding Kosovo, I know that two or three mosques in Belgrade were set on fire in revenge attacks, but these were outside the province of Kosovo; more importantly, these attacks were condemned by Patriarch Pavle of the Serbian Orthodox Church. Muslim leaders in Kosovo have noticably not condemned the destruction of over 30 churches and monasteries there this past March, at least to my knowledge. I would welcome information to the contrary. Regarding France, it's policies seem to be more atheist than Christian, as wearing Christian head scarves is also banned, and the government has been dissolving a number of Christian churches and organizations arbitrarily under some "anti-sect" laws. I don't know about Germany.

On a more general note though, I agree that relationships between the religions should not be defined by "hate crimes" or individual events. However, in cases where a country's law is based on the Koran, and Muslims act against Christians for avowedly religious reasons, it seems to me that that is worth reporting. Islam typically makes legal distinctions between Muslims and infidels, when it has the available influence on the law. This is certainly the case in Egypt and Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere I'm sure. Would you like to help with that research? Wesley 14:56, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

"In predominantly Muslim countries whose law is based on or strongly influenced by the Koran, there is often a legal distinction between Muslims and infidels (non-Muslims)." When you make this claim you have to make it clear which country's constitution "legally" distinct Muslims and non-Muslims and if there is any distinction how it "serves to effectively discriminate against Christians, Jews, and other non-Muslims". Furthermore, if, unfortunately there is any such law, how it is "based on or strongly influenced by the Koran"; how often it is prevalent (as you said "there is often a legal distinction"); and how "effectively" it "discriminates" the non-Muslims. Your wordings are simply amazing.

I live in Muslim country (Bangladesh) where legally there is no distinction between Muslims and non-Muslims. My constitution tells me that "all are equal in the eyes of law". Almost all Muslim countries were British colonies in the past. Their laws are based on British laws not Koran in particular. Your claims are completely baseless, biased and completely alien to me. Unless and until you provide credible evidence of "legal distinction of Muslims and non-Muslim" you should refrain yourself from making such claims. Claims by propaganda sites are not acceptable. Hiwamy 21:25, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

Hiwamy, please try to work with me here. I'm trying to be fair and moderate, and move towards what I hope will be more agreeable language. Regarding the relationship between the Koran and civil law, please see the existing article Sharia, which I have incidentally never edited. Note especially the last section of that article. Is what it says also completely baseless? I am also curious whether in Bangladesh, one's religious affiliation is in any way recorded with the government? Perhaps in the processing of marriage licensing? Wesley 06:11, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Your claim was not regarding the Koran and civil law. Actually you said that the legal system of Muslim countries "severely discriminates" the minorities, which in fact, is not true. To make this accusation you have to study the legal system of all the Muslim countries which varies immensely from country to country. Thus you have to bring a pattern out of it. So it is not easy to make such accusations, at least intellectually.

Yes, in my country family laws are different for different religious groups. This distinction is done for good. For example we can't force Hindus (10% of the total population) to obey Muslim family laws. So they have their own Hindu Family Law formulated by Hindus themselves. And I don't see any problem with this and neither do the Hindus. And I don't see any possibility of this distinction to "effectively discriminate" the non-Muslims. Other ethnic groups also have their own family laws. In other matters, the law is equal for everyone. You will be surprised that there are many Hindu judges, lawyers, legislators and civil administrators in this country. And in some places they exceed their share of representation. We have no problem with that. I do not believe there are any "legal discrimination" in our country and elsewhere in Muslim world. Though there may be one or two countries that are doing injustice in the name of following Sharia laws. I am saying "may be" because I am not in a position to question their judgment (you are not either) and whether their laws reduce minority rights - I'm not sure. You have to cite examples with references to their constitutions to make such claims. Generalising a Nigerian, Egyptian, or Saudi example to the rest of the Muslim world is not fair.

PS: Probably this is my last statement. I don't have enough time for this as I have many more important things to do in my life rather than wasting it in wikipedia. The world turned its back on Muslims and Islam and I have no problem if wikipedia adopts the same policy. Hiwamy 15:38, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

So we agree that the Koran does influence civil law in many Muslim countries. I am glad to hear that it seems to be working well for Muslims and Hindus in Bangladesh. It appears to me that you have clearly not studied the legal systems or laws of many Muslim countries either, and so are in no position to refute my statements if such study is required. In my later revisions, I tried to word it so as to avoid generalising from a couple examples to the rest of the Muslim world, but instead to say that this discrimination is a problem in "some" Muslim countries, not "all", "most" or even "many". Now, the claims made on the so-called "propaganda site" I cited earlier do not sound at all inconsistent with what you are describing. Egypt reportedly has separate legal requirements for Muslims and Christians, as you say does Bangladesh. They further report that it is nearly impossible for a Muslim who converts to Christianity, to have their legal status updated. Because of this, a Christian woman who used to be Muslim is forbidden from marrying a Christian man, and the children of any former Muslims are legally considered Muslims as well, which has ramifications for their education and later for their own marriages. Based on the Sharia article, this seems like a relatively common application of Sharia, at least in the more conservative Muslim countries. How does Bangladesh law treat the conversion of someone from Islam to Christianity, Hinduism or another religion? I'll probably either put the statement back or try to revise it again and put it back. Wesley 16:01, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

In Germany Muslims don't have rights to establish Mosques. - That's a misleading statement, there are many mosques in Germany. regards, High on a tree 00:47, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I am really sorry for the misinformation. Probably I have misread a BBC news story. Now I'm sure it wasn't about Germany. I failed to recall the mentioned country. My apologies again. Hiwamy 21:41, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Zoroastrianism's influence on Christianity

I don't understand what you mean Moren when you say it's very POV. I have provided links to bible passages that show a direct link between the old testament and the Iranian imperial administration. If this isn't objective evidence then I don't know what is.

You are making novel POV arguments without citing sources for those arguments; this is what Wikipedia calls "original research" Jayjg ^(talk) 16:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I will provide links to sources for these arguments then. The prior posting with these sources was in fact deleted by someone.

Thanks. Please make sure this view is not an extreme minority view, and please make sure all material is written in a neutral tone. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:34, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I know it may at first glance appear like a non-neutral (biased) tone, but the entire eschatalogy of judaism IS in fact inhereted from Zoroastrianism. There is vast amounts of evidence of this. Almost every aspect of it, in particular, the resurrection of the saviour and the apocalypse are directly derived from Zoroastrian/Mithraic culture.

Here we go again! Judaism is listed first because it is the direct ancestor of Christianity...that is not seriously disputed. Zoroastrianism as a chief influence is disputed. I didn't just erase the section, Amin123, but I did place it after Judaism because Judaism is the crucial ancestor to Christianity. Zoroastrianism may not even be a significant ancestor...that is disputed; Judaism is not. That's certainly fair and NPOV. Again, Jayjg asked you to make sure this was not an extreme minority view...it is. Be NPOV here, please. KHM03 3 July 2005 10:46 (UTC)

Zoroastrianism should be listed first because all the religions have been listed in a chronological order. I have to ask you to not be biased against Zoroastrianism and discrminate. I will revert it back to being first because it is incongruent with the order of the religions placed on the page otherwise.

In other words, Judaism -> Zoroastrianism -> Islam -> Bahai is out of order.

This makes more sense Zoroastrianism -> Judaism -> Islam -> Bahai.

I ask you to not discriminate against Zoroastrianism out of personal bias and treat it fairly.

Christianity came directly out of Judaism. That is hardly the same as speculation that some parts of Christian theology came from Zoroastrianism. More relevant and important influences should be mentioned first. Jayjg ^(talk) 6 July 2005 23:02 (UTC)

Jayjg is correct. Judaism is crucial for Christianity. I have no bias against Zoroastrianism; I do have a bias for the truth.

I happened to have a book my my bedside...I've had it since seminary, and just looked up Zoroastrianism. Here's what it says...

"Beginning with Darius I, Zoroastrianism was the national religion of the Achaemenids, the official name for the Persian royal family. This religious tradition included purity laws and the belief in a cosmic struggle between Justice, upheld by the great god Ahuramazda, and the "Lie". The struggle would climax in a final, apocalyptic battle. Zoroastrian priests, called magi, officiated at all sacrifices, usually on mountaintops. There is no evidence for any imperial proselytizing, nor was the adption of Zoroastrianism a necessary condition for advancement for a nonnative official in Persian service. There is little if any effect of Zoroastrian elements on Judaism in the Persian period. (The Oxford History of the Biblical World, M. Coogan, ed., 1998) This is a reputable, mainstream source, accepted by the vast majority of scholars and historians (some of the best known of whom actually contribute to the book).

Your view is a minority view and needs to be treated as such. Your commitment to it is fine, but I think you've been "barking up all the wrong trees". The reason Judaism is first is because of its clear, undisputed historic importance to Christianity. Zoroastrianism is not as crucial to Christian development. THAT is NPOV. KHM03 6 July 2005 23:49 (UTC)

I absolutely disagree that it is a minority view and that its influence is disputed. That is ONE book. There are well known and well respected books like Peake's Commentary on the Bible, 1982, which state that the Zoroastrian Persian dynasty had a profound effect on Judaism-Christianity.

Judaism -> Zoroastrianism -> Islam -> Bahai is out of order.

This makes more sense Zoroastrianism -> Judaism -> Islam -> Bahai.

Judaism is the only religion mentioned in this section [[1]]. The section where Zoroastrianism is in is for the other religions that weren't included in the main article. It should be put as first since it isn't in the frontpage article and it comes chronologically first among the religions listed.Amin123 July 7, 2005 11:34PM

Yeah? I own the book The Dawn and Twilight of Zoroastrianism by R.C. Zaehner, who states that "we cannot say with any certainty whether the Jews borrowed from Zoroastrianism or the Zoroastrians from the Jews or whether either in fact borrowed from each other.". That's two books from reputable sources. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Judaism precedes Zoroastrianism historically. Judaism far exceeds Zoroastrianism in terms of its relation to Christianity. That Judaism affected Christianity is undisputable; that Zoroastrianism influenced Christianity is very disputed. Again, if you feel that Zoroastrianism affected Christianity because of its influence on Judaism, then make the argument on the Judaism page. That would be the appropriate place to start. Your reluctance to do the proper thing is intriguing, and strongly suggests that your only intention is to bring discord. Please do the right and proper thing and establish your point in the article for Judaism first, which has no mention at all of Zoroastrianism. If this is as important as you claim, then just do it. KHM03 8 July 2005 13:14 (UTC)

Zoroastrianism had a direct influence on Christianity as Zoroastrianism influenced the old testament (i.e. Cyrus the Great is a messiah in the old testament). Furthermore, many Zoroastrain themes appeared more strongly in Christianity than in Judaism, and hence it is appropriate to write in here. Your accusations against me are immature and not condusive to civil discussion. It does not show a desire to have a productive and honest discussion on the matter.

Amin123 July 9 2005 7:52 PM (PST)

Zoroastrianism may have had some influence, but from my Bible none of it was positive. It did not have a formative influence, IMO. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Zoroastianism's influence on both Judaism and Christianity is disputed, as the article currently reflects in an entirely NPOV way. Even if it existed, the influence is not nearly as central as that of Judaism's. Jayjg ^(talk) 08:36, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Zoroastrianism's influence on Judaism (hence Christianity) is clear. Cyrus is a Messiah in the old testament. Jews are never mentioned by the Persian Achaemenians once, while Persian Achaemenian kings are among the messiahs of Judaism. Amin123 July 10 2005 4:38 PM (PST)

You still haven't proven anything or listed any academic giants who agree with you; it's (at best) conjecture. I was wondering if you have made any edits on the Judaism page yet regarding your position. KHM03 12:56, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Mary Boyce says: "Zoroastrianism is the oldest of the revealed credal religions, and it has probably had more influence on mankind, directly or indirectly, than any other single faith. In its own right, it was the state religion of three great Iranian empires, which flourished almost continually from the sixth century B.C. to the seventh century A.C., and dominated much of the Near and Middle East. Iran's power and wealth lent it immense prestige, and some of its leading doctrines were adopted by Judaism, Christianity and Islam"

p.1 "Zoroastrians: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices"

"I was wondering if you have made any edits on the Judaism page yet regarding your position."

I have told you many many times, that I want to deal with one subject (and discussion) at a time.

Amin123 July 11, 2005 1:30 PM (PST)

Right, so different scholars believe different things about the influence of Zoroastrianism. The article reflects this in a NPOV way. Why do you insist on inserting the POV that one side is correct? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:36, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I've fixed up your latest edit, ordered it logically and removed the introduced POV yet again. Please adhere to the WP:NPOV policy in the future. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:49, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

It is not an accurate description of the academic view to present it as an equally split division between scholars who believe Judaism influenced Zoroastrianism and scholars who believe Zoroastrianism influenced Judaism. Far more scholars and sources state that Zoroastrianism influenced Judaism. I'm trying to be accurate and NPOV. Amin123 July 11, 2005 1:51 PM (PST)

"Far more"? How do you know that? The article currently quotes experts on the subject who say the exact opposite. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:55, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

What are you talking about they say the "exact opposite"? Where do they say it is an equal split? They say there is no definite answer. They do NOT say both views have equal support. FAR MORE scholars adhere to the view that Zoroastrianism influenced Judaism than vice versa. Amin123 July 11, 2005 1:57 PM (PST)

Please stop asserting this POV without any evidence. Instead, provide a citeable source that says it. And please don't revert again or you will have violated the 3 revert rule and will likely be banned. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:58, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on you to prove that there is an equal amount of support between the views that Zoroastrianism adopted from Judaism and Judaism adopted from Zoroastrianism, if you want to make that impression in the article.

And what is the rule of reverting? If I change it back to how it was three times that is not permitted? Amin123 July 11, 2005 1:57 PM (PST)

Amin123, the burden of proof is yours. To date, you have not been able to prove that your view is a majority view...you have failed to mention any "giants" of OT scholarship or Jewish history (Anderson...Bright...Albright...Bruegemann...Witherington...why have you not cited these or any other "giants" in the field?). Yours is a marginal view and now you seem intent on violating wiki policy. As I have on other pages, I propose a vote. We ought to allow community consensus to solve this, and not the insufficient arguing of one ditor intent upon creating discord. I PROPOSE WE VOTE! KHM03 21:40, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

No, all the claims in the section are fully sourced, with footnotes. The burden of proof is on you to show that your unsourced claim is true. And you've reverted that unsourced claim in 3 times now, if you do it again you will have violated the rule. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:41, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Sigh. Why do you insist on inserting unsourced information into the article? If you want to make a claim, quote a work and a section; you can't just says "almost no etc." Jayjg ^(talk) 21:46, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I have included the fact that no major encyclopedias hold the view that Zoroastrianism borrowed from Judaism, as it is not a view that has much support. If you want to state otherwise, the burder of proof is on you. You can take out the 'almost no' as it is unsourced. But the encyclopedia bit is sourced. I can cite all the major encyclopedias if you insist. Tell me.

Amin123 July 11, 2005 2:49 PM (PST)

Your claim that "no major encyclopedia holds the view etc." is completely unsourced, as is your claim about what the Encyclopedia Americana says. More importantly, Encyclopedia articles are all themselves secondary or tertiary sources; if you look at the bottom of their articles, they quote books, the very kinds of books that are quoted here. Wikipedia quotes scholarly works, not other encyclopedias. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:06, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

KHM03, you are obviously right about the burden of proof. The paragraph should remain as it was when it reflected the fact that there is a variety of perspectives on the issue. We should not declare that the issue is settled in academia, when it is not settled according to cited sources. Mkmcconn (Talk) 21:52, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

We should not give the impression that the support for both views is equal when it clearly isn't. I am not claiming here that there is equal support for Zoroastrianism influencing Judaism as there is for it not influencing Judaism (which I could do but I'd have to dig up some cited sources), but I am claiming that it is plainly evident that there are far more proponents of the view that Zoroastrianism influenced Judaism than vice versa. I want to include the encyclopedia bit as that can be sourced. Tell me what you think. I am trying to be courteous and not edit without consulting first, so give me your view.

Amin123 July 11, 2005 2:55 PM (PST)

It was still badly written, and evenso, it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the subject matter of the article. Tomer ^TALK 21:58, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

If it has nothing to do with the subject matter, then the second paragraph that tries to argue that there is no definitive view either way has absolutely nothing whatsover to do with the subject matter of the article as well. Amin123 July 11, 2005 2:59 PM (PST)

The second paragraph doesn't "try to argue" anything; rather it quotes scholarly sources which make that argument. If you could learn the difference, you'd have much less difficulty editing the article. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:06, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I propose taking out the second paragraph. It is unnecessary and gives an supported impression. The first paragraph says that "some" scholars hold X view. We do not need a second paragraph.

Amin123 July 11, 2005 3:07 PM (PST)

LOL! Let's take out the first paragraph instead, it quotes both sides. The first paragraph is unbalanced, it only quotes one POV. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:09, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

So only a scholar can put forth an argument regarding the views of other scholars? If I find a scholar who has published an argument that most scholars hold a view, I can publish that? This is going to clog up the article. Let's take out unnecessary paragraph. The title of the section is changed to "Christianity's possible relationship with Zoroastrianism". The second paragraph is unnecessary. Amin123 July 11, 2005 3:11 PM (PST)

Go ahead and publish it, and then after it's been passed by peer-review elsewhere, it can be included here. Until then, it's original research, which is expressly forbidden in WP. Tomer ^TALK 22:20, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

^^ The section is about Zoroastrianisms' influence on Christianity, of course it's going to quote sources that support that view! Stop with your slanted view of this. Your discrimination is sickening. Amin123 July 11, 2005 3:14 PM (PST)

No, the section is about Christianity's possible relationship with Zorastrianism. It's not a matter of discrimination wrt Zoroastrianism, which would, of course, be out of order. It is, however, a matter of discrimination against a poorly-written unsourced irrelevant edit, and in that case, discrimination is demanded. What you're doing is attempting to make this WP article appear to take a position in an ongoing academic discussion, which is not only a violation of WP:NPOV, but a violation of the very spirit and purpose of the entire WP project. Tomer ^TALK 22:27, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. Amir 123 seems to misunderstand; the section is about Zoroastranism's alleged influence on Christianity; as such, it needs to quote both sides. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:30, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone support my call to take out the second paragraph? The title is already ""Christianity's possible relationship with Zoroastrianism" and in the first sentence is says "some scholars", thereby implying that there is not a scholarly consensus on the matter and making the second paragraph unnecessary.

Do you seriously imagine anyone else would support your suggestion that a well-sourced paragraph espousing one side of a debate should be removed? This suggestion is such an egregious violation of WP:NPOV that it astonishes me anyone would make it. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:25, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Good Lord. And "ditto". Tomer ^TALK 22:28, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

I did not think you would distrust me to that the degree that you ignore my reasoning for doing so (which I stated) and assume the worst intentions on my part. My reasoning again: There is no need for the citing of scholars that have opposing views on the matter in order to show that there is no consensus, as it is already established in the title of the section and in the first paragraph that there is no unanimous consensus.

If you insist on keeping it, in fairness I would find a scholarly view that states that there is MORE support for the view that Zoroastrianism influenced Judaism, and make the article unnecessarily long. The point of the article is that some scholars have a certain view, and the view is not definitive, and these points are clearly laid out in the first paragraph. Amin123 July 11, 2005 3:33 PM (PST)

It's not a matter of distrust, it's a matter of viewing your proposal as a very bad idea. By all means, find something scholarly that supports the view you're trying to impart, source it and add it, and then we'll evaluate it and comment accordingly. Meanwhile, the idea of taking out very well-written and well-sourced paragraphs just to make a point is not going to sit well with me, and apparently not with several others as well. Tomer ^TALK 22:42, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

It is a matter of distrust when Jayjg discounts my reasoning which I stated. I explicitly stated the reason for not including the paragraph as being that it is redundant. But since most participants do not adhere to the view that keeping this article compact makes it better, I'm doing what others in this discussion are doing, and adding scholarly views that make the article longer than is necessary. Amin123 July 11, 2005 3:47 PM (PST)

I discount your reasoning because it was both illogical and went against Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy, not because I "distrust" you. You keep only providing information supporting one side; how can removing all information supporting another side in debate be "redundant"? If you want to keep the article compact, you'd stop adding sources for only one side, and simply represent both side fairly. In any event, please source your latest contribution, make sure it is relevant and current, and avoid piling-on. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:54, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

why does KHM03 "pile on" (as you have accused me of) at 22:50, 11 July 2005? He just added a quote for the opposing view. Amin123 July 11, 2005 4:09 PM (PST)

His quote is short and to the point; yours is incredibly lengthy, and adds no new information. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:15, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

How is the quote added at 22:50, 11 July 2005 'to the point'. How is the quote I posted not? And of course the quote I posted adds new information. What are you talking about? Amin123 July 11, 2005 4:17 PM (PST)

As with the History of Christianity article, we have a user in Amin123 who is so committed to a singular POV that "fairness" is obscured. I certainly am not anti-Zoroastrianism, and my guess is that no other editor is, but most of the contributors here are arguing the same thing...that Zoroastrian's influence on Christianity (through Judaism) is not definitive. Once again, I remind the community that no major scholar (at least that I've been able to find) agrees with Amin123's assertion. It is pure conjecture. A guess. That's it. Christianity has no definitive relationship to Zoroastrianism. That's not a slam against Zoroastrianism...it's an interesting religion. But Amin123 has not been able to prove a thing, and has either violated or come close to violating wiki policy. Let's not get too bent out of shape, here. I have proposed a vote, and anyone with that expertise is free to set that up if the community supports it. My guess is that Amin123 does not support the idea. My next proposal is that we allow Amin123 to continue to argue on this talk page that his view is correct. No one else even needs to respond unless they become convinced. When Amin123 is able to gain a consensus (however unlikely that is), then we can respond and make the appropriate edits. Let's not beat this to death; let's allow Amin123 to convince us...he claims that the evidence and scholarship is overwhelming (despite the fact that he's produced little that isn't marginal). Let's let him prove his assertion, without interruption. To date, he's clearly been entirely unconvincing. KHM03 22:49, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Jewish encyclopedia

Aside from being an encyclopedia (and thus being a secondary/tertiary source, as discussed above), the Jewish Encyclopedia was written 100 years ago. Information this old about an evolving subject is irrelevant except in a historical sense ("this is what they believed 100 years ago"). The article currently has much more recent sources from both sides in the debate; continually and desperately searching for additional sources to back up one side of the debate is not helpful to the article. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:02, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Amin123, I begin to grow impatient with this. You continue to add encyclopedias as references, and continue to simply pile-on evidence supporting your position. If you wanted the article to be compact, as you claim, you would not be doing this. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:07, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I want the article to be compact, but not at the expense of being slanted. If some people opposing my view insist on putting views that are in disfavour of Zoroastrianisms' influence, when they're not necessary, I will insist on putting views that are in favour of Zoroastrianisms' influence.

There is more support for Zoroastrianism influencing Judaism than vice versa. If the article is kept the way it is, it gives the incorrect impression that the support is equal on both sides. In the quest for fairness, I will try to find sources that will correct this impression.

As far secondary/tertiary source, if a 'scholar' has a view that 'most scholars' have a particular view, that is valid as someone claimed above in the discussion. Does the view have to peer-reviewed before it is acceptable? Is an article published in an encyclopedia acceptable? If not, then what specifically is and do the other sources cited in the article qualify?

Amin123 July 11 2005, 4:12PM (PST).

You keep claiming there is more support for your view that "most scholars" agree with you, but you can't seem to come up with any evidence for it, except from sources that are 100 years old, so obviously not relevant today. Attempting to sway the article to your personal POV is a violation of WP:NPOV. The pro and con arguments are now listed at equal length, and a reasonable length. Please do not attempt to introduce bias. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:19, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Be that as it may, what evidence is there that any of those possible influences translated to Christianity (the subject of this article)? Tomer ^TALK 23:16, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

That's a different discussion. I'm trying to dispel the charge Jayjg made against me and asking him a pointed question about what qualifies as a valid source.

Amin123 July 11 2005, 4:19PM (PST).

For you to claim that support for the views is equal when in reality it is not is bias. It is POV. It is like saying there is equal evidence for the earth being flat as there is for the earth not being flat. There IS more support for Zoroastrianism influencing Judaism than it not. I will demonstrate this with sources if necessary. Amin123 July 11 2005, 4:21PM (PST).

Try to demonstrate that on the Talk: page, here, first, before editing; the patience of the other editors on this page with you grows very short. I would hate for them to revert you out of hand, simply because you refuse to work with other editors on the Talk: page in your quest to promote your personal POV. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:26, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

That is absolutely untrue. I have repeatedly made posts and gotten no responses, especially when asking if others agree whether something should be edited. On the other, a few editors here have edited my posts without consulting and getting an agreement first in the discussion section.

You asked questions, and didn't get a response in a few minutes? That's hardly surpising, this isn't a chat line. And if you post something without other's prior agreement, expect it to be edited without your prior agreement. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I wrote here at 2005 2:55 PM (PST) "Tell me what you think. I am trying to be courteous and not edit without consulting first, so give me your view." Since then a few editors have repeatedly made edits without consulting. In response I made a couple edits without consulting, and the same editors reverted the article to delete my edits, and I have not reciprocated. This is one sided as far as who's adhering to the rules of conduct.

Amin123 July 11 2005, 4:43PM (PST).

Jayjg, I am still waiting for a response to these questions I asked above: As far secondary/tertiary source, if a 'scholar' has a view that 'most scholars' have a particular view, that is valid as someone claimed above in the discussion. Does the view have to peer-reviewed before it is acceptable? Is an article published in an encyclopedia acceptable? If not, then what specifically is and do the other sources cited in the article qualify?

Amin123 July 11 2005, 4:28PM (PST).

These questions have been answered already; please re-read my comments if necessary. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I asked you whether a scholarly view on other scholar's views which is published in an encyclopedia is valid. If not, then what is required for a published article or view to be valid? You stated that encyclopedias are secondary/tertiary sources. You pointed out that they cite books.

Books also cite other books.

What constitutes a 'secondary/tertiary' source? Amin123 July 11 2005, 5:01PM (PST).

Information this old about an evolving subject is irrelevant except in a historical sense ("this is what they believed 100 years ago").

Do you have evidence that it is an 'evolving subject'? That is an unsourced and unsupported statement. Unless you prove it, a 100 year old view on a 2300-2500 year old event is just as valid as 5 year old view. Amin123 July 11 2005, 4:33PM (PST).

All areas of archeology and history have evolved over the past 100 years. Please use common sense. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

All areas? It is also common sense that there is more support for the idea that Zoroastrianism influenced Judaism than vice versa based on the fact that many encyclopedias hold the view that Zoroastrianism influenced Judaism/Christianity whreas almost none hold the reverse view, but since it is unsourced, it is unacceptable. Meanwhile you're asking me to accept an un supported assertion that this is an evolving subject and a 100 year old academic source on a 2300-2500 subject is not valid. Amin123 July 11 2005, 4:38PM (PST).

The problem, of course, is that noone really knows who influenced whom! I think that is a more realistic assessment of the situation. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:53, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

You don't know whether anyone really knows who influenced whom. Some scholars maintain that they know. We don't know if they are right. Mary Boyce certainly thinks Zoroastrianism influenced Judaism and Christianity. She has written several books on the matter. Amin123 July 11 2005, 5:02PM (PST).

Fine. Tabushidayu may not really know whether or not anyone really knows who influenced whom, but I do. I can categorically and unequivocably tell you this: I KNOW THAT NOBODY KNOWS. If anyone knew, the subject would be moot. Tomer ^TALK 01:34, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

No you don't. I know that you don't know that nobody knows. In fact the only thing any of us can know is that we exist.

If anyone knew, the subject would be moot.

That is not true. The subject being moot requires a large percentage of the people to know something. Some people many know that Zoroastrianism did have an influence on Judaism and Christianity, and yet not everyone know this. Amin123 July 11 2005, 8:28 PM (PST)

You miss the point here. We have no really clear and undisputed evidence that definitely shows that Zoroastrianism influenced Judaism, or vice versa, or that both influenced each other. Therefore, we should note that it is an opinion based on observations, and not necessarily something we will ever know with any certainty. People do not know about this issue, they can only speculate based on the evidence they see - others will come to different conclusions. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:54, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

We don't have undisputed evidence of anything. The old testament may have been written by Zoroastrian priests and not by Jews. We speculate it was written by Jews but it is only an opinion. Similarly, there is an opinion, with alot of evidence, that points to Zoroastrianism influencing Judaism and Christianity to a great degree. It is up to me to prove that the evidence is overwhelming and the view has a lot of scholarly backing. This is the view I have gotten from objective observation and analysis.

Amin123 July 11 2005, 9:19 PM (PST)

Which is fine, but do remember that you must cite your sources, and if there is an opposing viewpoint (which I know there is) then this must be presented (as per WP:NPOV). - Ta bu shi da yu 04:31, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

A reminder: Amin123's view is primarily conjecture by Amin123 and a minority of fringe scholars. Mary Boyce, for instance, is a scholar on Zoroastrianism, not Judaism or Old Testament or Hebrew history. She may be an expert on Ahuramazda or Zarathustra, and citing her on those pages would be fine (I don't know for sure that she is an expert, since I've never heard of her, and Amin123 created her wiki article, and his contributions here and on the History of Christianity page have been less than accurate).

But regarding the subject at hand...Christianity and how it relates to other world religions...Boyce is no expert (nor did she ever claim to be, as far as I know...Amin123 has made that claim on her behalf). I say again...Amin123 should produce some real scholarly evidence by accepted, mainstream scholars if he wants to prove his point. I've even listed some for him...Bernhard Anderson...Walter Brueggemann...William Albright...John Bright...Donald Gowan...G.E. Wright...Moshe Greenberg...Martin Noth...G. Von Rad...John Oswalt. There are many others, of course, but these names are giants in the field. Surely, if Amin123 is correct that his view is not only the majority view but that the academic evidence is overwhelming, he could cite just a few of these folks to support him. These are not marginal names...they are mainstream, accepted experts in the field of Old Testament studies and Hebrew history. There are others, certainly, but can't he even get close to citing one of these "giants"?

Until he can, then clearly he's just tossing around his own hopes (academically), hoping that one will stick. His passion is commendable; his opinion is valued; his backing from academia and scholarship is...slim at best. Let him prove otherwise.

Also, clearly, without question, the consensus of the other editors is that his view is marginal and minority. That means something in Wikipedia. He needs to respect that and take this consensus seriously.

I've also argued that if he claims that Zoroastrianism influenced Judaism, then he ought to argue that on the Judaism page. He has said he only wants to fight one issue at a time, so he'll stick to this.

Now, follow his logic. Buddy Holly influenced the Beatles, who in turn influenced Guns N' Roses. Therefore, we should go to the Guns N' Roses article and claim that Buddy Holly was a chief influence, a major influence, on Guns N' Roses.

That would be nonsensical. To make that claim on the Beatles' page would be fine (and accurate!). To do it on the Guns N' Roses page would be silly, since Buddy Holly only influenced Guns N' Roses indirectly, via another source.

Yet, that is precisely what Amin123 is attempting. Why? Because he wants to only have one argument at a time? He's really done a great job at reaching consensus on this page and on History of Christianity. I am convinced (and the evidence of two talk pages supports me) that his only purpose is to bring discord and cause problems...forget about truth, accuracy, and making these articles the best they can be. His behavior, lack of respect for wiki policy, and lack of respect for the idea of "consensus" proves my assertion.

Again, if he truly believes that Zoroastrianism influenced Judaism, why not argue that in the appropriate place? I hope he tries that, rather than keep bringing discord with his biased and inaccurate assertions here.

If I seem a bit grumpy, it's only because I cannot believe we have wasted so much time on this nonsense. KHM03 12:22, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

KHM03 is being completely unfair, and I want everyone to see that. He has accused me of wanting to cause discord, when I have clearly said my objective is to present an accepted academic fact. He has accused me of posting inaccurate information, without any evidence of this being so. This is the kind of combative discussion style that has no place in civilized discourse. I have provided numerous sources, including experts in Zoroastrianisms (which KHM03 claims for some reason is not fitting, claims they should be experts in the Old testament only) to showcase my view.

I am not alone in this view. The encyclopedia Americana, which admittently in a secondary source, evidently thinks it is a strong enough view that it has included Zoroastrianism's influence on Judaism in its entry.

I have been respectful enough to ask for consensus before including changes, and for the most part, it has been other editors who have changed/deleted posts without first getting agreement in the discussion section.

I will look for views from "giants" in the field, in the meantime, keep in mind that any influence on the old testament is a direct influence on Christianity. Amin123 July 12 2005, 8:29 AM (PST)

Amin123, I'll accept your claims to be editing in good faith, and that you believe you're presenting an "accepted academic fact." That notwithstanding, the extent to which this is accepted appears to be highly debatable, as evidenced by the debate on this page if nothing else. I don't think you should insist on giving your view greater prominence; giving the two "equal time" is probably quite generous in fact. Wesley \

I disagree that any influence on the Old Testament is a direct influence on Christianity. It's true that Christianity directly incorporate the Old Testament into its Bible; however, it's also true that Christianity interprets parts of the Old Testament quite differently than does Judaism, especially with regard to the Messiah but in other areas as well. So since the Old Testament / Hebrew Bible does not impact both religions in the same way, any influence on portions of it will not necessarily impact them both the same. It very well could, but it's not a given by any means, and suggested influences would have to be taken on a case by case basis. You said that the Encyclopedia Americana includes Zoroastrianism's influence on Judaism. Does the same source say anything about Zoroastrianism's influence on Christianity? If not, could it be because its editors saw a distinction that you do not? Wesley 17:20, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

The effect may certainly be different Wesley, but it is an effect nonetheless (in reference to whether influencing the old testament means it has affected christianity).

As far as the encyclopedia americana article, it noted that the themes in judaism (the same old testament themes of Christianity like heaven, hell, the resurrection) were adopted from Zoroastrianism. This consitutes as evidence (I'm not claiming it is definitive proof) that there is greater support for Zoroastrianism influencing Judaism than the reverse, and Judaism and Christianity adopting from Zoroastrianism than them not. Amin123 July 12 2005, 9:31 PM (PST)

Since noöne else has told you yet, I guess I'll have to do so. The Christian concepts of heaven, hell, and the resurrection, are not similar to concepts in Judaism, nor do they even have accurate analogues. As for which influenced which, between Zoroastrianism and Judaism, such a discussion is irrelevant in this article, especially in light of the fact that no clear lines can be drawn between the aforementioned concepts in Judaism leading to equivalents in Christianity. If Zoroastrianism contains concepts similar to Christianity's in any of these three areas, it would be informative to include references to scholars who have taken note thereof, but unsourced claims that Zoroastrianism influenced views on the subject in Judaism and by extension in Christianity are not going to sit well with either me nor anyone else who is interested in the accuracy of WP articles. Tomer ^TALK 06:09, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

I know they're not exactly the same, but Christianity derives these from Judaism, the old testament. Satan in Judaism is more of a servant of God, while in Christianity actually resembles more the Zoroastrian Ahriman who is an enemy of God. Amin123 July 13 2005, 12:58 PM (PST)

Satan in Judaism is an idea, not a being. The only time Satan is ever a "being" in the Tanakh, from which Christianity extrapolates the being-ness, is one mention in the book of Job. Even there, however, Satan is not an enemy of God, but an adversary (which is what the word means) of those in the world who want to follow their yetzer hatov. Satan for someone on a diet is a dish of chocolate mousse. Satan for a NYC cabbie is an ambulance on a busy street. Satan categorically is not an enemy of God as in Christianity, where he plays an analogue to Ahriman. This is where the idea comes from that Zoroastrianism affected Christianity, in fact. There is little evidence, however, that that's actually what happened. Demiurges are prevalent in most religions, and there's no demonstrable link between Ahriman in Zoroastrianism and Satan in Christianity other than the fact that they're enemies of God (or of the good God). Such a view of demonology, however, could never gain currency in Judaism, since it is completely incompatible with the Jewish view of the Almighty. Therefore, if you wish to show an influence-bearing relationship between Zoroastrianism and Christianity, you have to do it through some other means. I recommend starting with the potential influence of Zoroastrianism on other Mediterranean religions from which Christianity might have drawn its ideas about demons, angels, heaven, hell and the resurrection. Tomer ^TALK 21:23, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Mithraism - opponent viewpoint

I'm reluctant to add this, because this person is not a scholar, but George Konig opposes the view that Mithraism influenced Christianity to any large degree.

I'm putting it out here for comment. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:43, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I've added something that I think is reasonably neutral. I would say scholars think that Mithraism influenced Christianity, but Christian apologetics authors have argued it was the opposite. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:54, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

What I find really pathetic about this whole article is that there is no discussion of the rôle of gnosticism in the formulation of nearly universal ideas in Christianity. Immaculate conception, Original sin, and Supercessionism just to name a few, all come from various Gnostic sects, notably Manichæism. Tomer ^TALK 06:24, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Allow me to clarify a bit--although, especially in "The West", the doctrine of Immaculate Conception is regarded as a specifically Catholic doctrine, its source in Gnosticism is identical with that of The Original Sin. Both doctrines come from Gnostic sects incorporated into Christianity early on (primarily through forced conversions following the "conversion" of Constantine). That said, there is overwhelming scholarly work extant that demonstrates the incorporation of these ideas into Gnosticism from its various amalgamations of Jewish ideas in combination with Stoicism, Orpheism and Dionyseanism, all of which were demonstrably heavily influenced by Buddhism...yet there is no mention of Buddhism's almost direct influence on the formation of early Christian theology. Tomer ^TALK 06:42, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

The Immaculate Conception is regarded as a specifically Roman Catholic doctrine in the East as well as in the West, because it is. It originated with Augustine, who was arguably influenced by Manicheism if I recall correctly. Supercessionism and Original Sin can be found in Romans and Hebrews, among other books in both Old and New Testaments well before the fourth century "forced conversions." While you may find some similarities between Gnosticism and Christianity, there were also marked differences, and as you know many if not all gnostic philosophies were refuted and kept out of orthodox Christianity. Wesley 16:55, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

The point of all of this is, to establish as a fact that the Scriptures do not give a truthful account of their own origin. That's what this is all about. So, Christians and Jews who believe their Scriptures account of themselves have nothing to say in a conversation which begins with a premise that discounts their perspective as tainted and irrelevant. "How do we know? because the Encyclopedias tell us so." The religious character of that assertion is not visible to the people who make the assertion; and so they come off as being a bit fanatical in the propagation of their religion. Mkmcconn (Talk) 21:43, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Just a few clarifications.

Neither of the doctrines in question is in any way gnostic. Gnosticism doesn't have "Original sin" in the Christian sense of the term. The Gnostic fall was not some sinful act, but rather material creation in general. The Christian viewpoint is: Man (as everything) was created good but was corrupted by disobeying God's commandment (Adam and the apple, you know). The Gnostic viewpoint is that man was once all spirit and good, but somehow got locked up in material bodies and that matter is all evil. The former is a moral stance, while the second is a ... well ... substantial view.

Since this is so, the Immaculate also does not stem from Gnosticism.

I don't think Augustine was directly influenced by Manichaeism. He was a Manichaeist before he became a Christian so that might have shaped some of his emphases, but rather (as a renegade) in opposition to his former faith.

"Supercessionism" is another question. First of all, the term is a bit ambigous. It normally refers only to the more extreme forms of this thought (e.g. Israel is no longer God's people) as opposed to the more moderate, more thoughtful and more biblical "olive tree theology" (as given in Paul's letter to the Romans). The extreme version, though held by some or many Christians throughout history, is not an essential part of the Christian faith. In any case, supercessionism seems to me to flow out of a Jewish source. Otherwise, who would care whether the Church is the New Israel other than Jews or those involved with Israel. The Gnostics don't need not supercessionism - why should they want to supercede something that is material and evil in their minds.

The influence of Mithraism on Christianity that some suppose and others deny is quite small. The debate is mainly about the Christmas date.

"How do we know? because the Encyclopedias tell us so." That certainly is a problem but it can be present on either side. Some findings of comparative religion research are quite old and based on rather shaky ground (e.g. what is referred to above by TShilo12), but constantly repeated - as much as the creed is in churches. The only difference is that the former is a philosophical belief cloaked as scholarship while the latter is openly faith (though with a historical base as at least as solid as the other side's).

Str1977 16:20, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the continued removal of the opposing view in the Mithraism section, I note that it is the only part of that section that actually has a source. Perhaps, instead, the first view should be removed as unsourced. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:42, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Not everything needs to be sourced Jayjg. If something is undisputed it doesn't need a source. Are you disputing that SOME scholars believe Mithraism was an influence on Christianity? Your use of a Christian religious website as a source is invalid. I don't see why a religious website would be acceptable to you and not an encyclopedia. You seem to only care about advancing your view.

Amin123 July 18, 2005 11:24 PM (PST)

Now we're discussing Judaism?

While there is ample evidence that it was during the Exile that eschatology first became an important topic in Jewish writing, there is only circumstantial evidence that Jewish eschatology was borrowed from Zoroastrianism. There is, likewise, little evidence that Christianity borrowed any of its eschatology from Judaism. Christians may find that assertion shocking, but the Christian view of the world read into the Old Testament is very different from the way Jews read (in many ways) the same texts. But, I digress. If the influence of Zoroastrianism on Christianity is through Judaism, then what convolution of eschatological scholarship accounts for Satan as an analogue of Ahriman? The image this "connection" brings to mind is of someone claiming they've crossed the Rhône on the Pont d'Avignon with dry feet.

Dear Thilo, it was me who renamed the section to "Judaism and ...", because all it talks about is about Judaism and Zoroastrianism. I'm not aware of any important contact between Christianity and Zoroastrianism at all (let's exclude the Three Magi at Betlehem for now).

Yes, Christianity did not borrow its eschatology from Judaism, because it didn't borrow anything from Judaism. It inherited all. And I don't think that the eschatology of orthodox Judaism and Christianity are that different (replace Messianic kingdom with Heavenly Jerusalem, and Jews with Church).

Str1977 21:16, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

You may address me as Tomer, but that's not particularly relevant. My point in my (oops!) unsigned comment above, is that the speculative idea that Christianity was influenced by Zoroastrianism, requires the speculative "fact" that it inherited relevant ideology from Judaism. There is nothing other than idle Christian-oriented "doubter" scholars to establish this idea. Christianity certainly has a lot of common ground with Zoroastrianism, but none of that common ground can demonstrably be shown to have been "inherited" from Judaism. Tomer ^TALK 07:22, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Christianity incorporates the old testament and thus any influence on the old testament in an influence on Christianity. Christianity is really a continuation of Judaism so it is really innaccurate to say an influence on Judaism doesn't necessarily mean an influence on Christianity. Furthermore many Zoroastrian themes that lay dormant in Judaism express themselves more dominantly in Christianity, in particular the saviour mythology.

Amin123 July 15 2005, 12:29 AM (PST)

This is a speculative arrangement of the facts, which is certainly subject to dispute; and, you are defining "scholarship" in a narrow way that conveniently clears the field of any challenge. Don't you trust the readers to make up their own mind about which position has the stronger or weaker support? Are you so afraid of contradiction ruining the minds of Wikipedians, no matter how weakly supported the other point of view, that you dare not let the other side speak? Mkmcconn (Talk) 07:41, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

"This is a speculative arrangement of the facts, which is certainly subject to dispute"

WELCOME TO HISTORICAL ANALYSIS. Jesus christ stop with the selective application of scholarly and 'objective' perspectives.

On the one hand, Encyclopedia Americana is a secondary/tertiary source, and on the other hand a RELIGIOUS website like carm.org is used as a reference in an article. Jesus have some honesty in you.

Amin123 July 16 2005 3:36 AM

It's a clear-cut, reasonable argument challenging findings of research. What can be wrong about that. You shouldn't disqualify because of its source. Anyway disqualifying religious websites is intellectual apartheid. Are we only to refer to atheist webstites or what? (And I'm no friend of CARM).

Str1977 11:52, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm disqualifying it because some people took it upon themselves to disqualify my Encyclodia Americana source because it wasn't a primary scholarly pov. A religious website is not scholarly in the least, and has no credibility.

Amin123 July 18 2005, 11:19 PM (PST)

Question...

... first monotheist declaration is in Isaiah? "They also believe Monotheism to have been a Zoroastrian influence, as Isaiah supposedly makes a first monotheistic declaration (Isaiah 45:5-7) during the reign of the Persian Kings, that corresponding to his declaration that Jews were to obey Cyrus, Kouroush in Persian (Isaiah 44 and Isaiah 45)." But hold on... what about:

• Exodus 20:3: "'You shall have no other gods before [ Or besides ] me.'
• Deuteronomy 5:7: "You shall have no other gods before [ Or besides ] me."

Doesn't this talk about idolatory and how God is sovereign? - Ta bu shi da yu 14:24, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Ta bu, you're right. Should we delete this sentence? Str1977 18:33, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm... I think that NPOVing might be better than removing. Perhaps a note that it's not really the first monotheistic declaration. I would imagine those passage would be disputed because someone might say that having no other gods beside me implicitly acknowledges other gods. However, I (and many others) would say that it is not acknowledging other gods, but is merely saying that there is only one true God and worshipping other gods (who don't exist) is wrong and insulting to the true God.

My POV is that God is unchanging, so therefore I find the monotheistic declaration of Isaiah to be a confirmation of the other passages. Therefore, to be neutral we should NPOV that bit, not remove it. I'm sure that this topic has been covered by theologians, so I'm not afraid of having this information in the article. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:18, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

'You should have no God before me' is not monotheistic. It doesn't claim there is only one God, only that this God is to be worshipped before all else.

Amin123 July 18 2005, 11:28 PM (PST)

Well, it is monotheistic - otherwise Z. is even less monotheistic. Str1977 23:27, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Early Zoroastrianism doesn't mention any other Gods besides Ahura Mazda, and if one considers it a God, its antithesis Ahriman. Amin123 July 19 2005, 8:54 PM (PST)

I didn't want to dispute that, but the Israelite religion (> Judaism & Christianity) is monotheistic as well. Str1977 16:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

The pre-Babylon Israelite religion was not monotheistic. Simply declaring it so doesn't make it so. Amin123 July 20 2005, 7:35 PM (PST)

What is it in the Old Testament that makes you think it was not monotheistic; perhaps the accounts of other tribes or nations believing in other gods? If so, the New Testament also records that other people believed in other gods; does this undermine Christianity's claim to monotheism? If it does, then it would appear that Zoroastrianism was unsuccessful at sufficiently influencing it. But really, it all depends on just how far in which direction you want to push the definition of "monotheism" in order for it to encompass or exclude one group or another. Wesley 03:04, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, in my view, early Judaism was henotheistic, as Zoroastrianism has always been. BUT...the Hebrew religion made the transition to monotheism at some point in its history. Mainstream scholars do not attribute that transformation to the Exilic period, however; nor do they attribute it to the restoration under Persian rule. More importantly, I think, they would not have learned about monotheism from another henotheistic faith such as Zoroastrianism.

Amin123 continues to push a radical minority view, and has yet to substantiate it with any reliable evidence from any mainstream scholar or academic giant. I even attempted a compromise which would point the discussion to other , more appropriate places (see here) but it was rejected.

And...AGAIN...why are we discussing Zoroastrianism's alleged influence on Judaism on this page when there isn't a mention of it on the pages for Judaism or Jewish history? No attempts to alter those pages with any mention of Zoroastrianism. Again, isn't that where the discussion ought to be? His intent is simply to bring his own POV to the forefront (even on inappropriate pages) and cause discord. In his most recent edit, Amin123 even threatened an administrator who had tried to maintain the NPOV rule. Just be aware of all this. KHM03 12:17, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Henotheism/Monotheism, words cannot be strictly defined and different words can be applied according to one's desires. Henotheism can be considered a form of monotheism, but that would be disputed by some. Anyways, KHM03 is waging a propaganda campaign against my pov and has been the first to use personal accusations and attacks, instead of criticisms of my argument. He makes out of context references to a threat I made, which was in fact a response to another threat that was made by another person earlier, but he mentions my threat and not the other. It is obvious KHM03 is not being honest in this. He repeatedly brings up points that I have addressed, without responding to my responses to them (i.e. the 10th time he has commented on this being in the 'Christianity' section and not the 'Judaism' section, without responding to the 9 times I have responded to his comments).

Regarding this; BUT...the Hebrew religion made the transition to monotheism at some point in its history. Mainstream scholars do not attribute that transformation to the Exilic period, however; nor do they attribute it to the restoration under Persian rule.

THAT IS NOT TRUE. The transition to monotheism IS attributed to the exile. Anyone who's read about it knows this. KHM03 needs to stop making false claims and start discussing issues at hand.

Amin123 July 21, 2005 2:07 PM (PST)

Doesn't the presence of Ahriman in Zoroastrianism make it henotheistic rather than the radical monotheism you suggest? You seem to allow that Ahriman could be considered a god, though I presume that worship of Ahriman is discouraged, just as the Israelites were warned not to worship the Egyptian or Canaanite gods and the Christians were told not to eat meat sacrificed to idols. At the very least, I think I recall reading that the Jews learned and incorporated beliefs about angels and demons during the exile. If that's true, then I would wonder whether they suddenly became monotheistic, or simply started calling all the bad gods 'demons' instead of 'gods.' Wesley 21:45, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Zoroastrianism is a henotheistic faith, no question, as was early Judaism. That's not a judgment, just simple fact. I could not care less whether that is true or false, truth be told, but it happens to be true. No need no argue that on this page...the subject here is Christianity.

I'm also not smart enough to lead a "propaganda campaign"...but, thanks, Amin123, for the compliment.

I have no desire to wage any kind of campiagn like that, other than a campaign to put what is true, accurate, and supportable on this page; your argument is none of those.

An administrator, who has been granted authority in wikipedia, told you to stop an illegal activity, and you responded with a threat. He was doing his job as an administrator; you were just threatening someone. Big difference.

You may claim that you don't want to add to the appropriate pages for whatever reason, and it is still inappropriate to wage your POV war here. Simply saying, "I don't wanna" isn't valid. Your opinion is POV and you have been unable or unwilling to read the consensus...even when an administrator (or 2 or 3) got involved.

Many of us have read about Jewish history & the Exile, and it seems that we have come to different conclusions than you...largely because most experts in the field (many whom I have cited previously) don't agree with you. That's not the opinion of KHM03 or Wesley or Mkmcconn or whomever, but the opinions of respected scholars and academics who are considered the tops in their fields. Don't assume that since we agree with these experts and not with you that we have not read on the subject.

The issues at hand are your complete lack of authoritative sources, your inability to abide by consensus, your unwillingness to abide by the directives of administrators, and your failure to deal with this subject on the appropriate pages. You cannot simply dismiss these issues; they run through your edits on more than one article.

I simply ask that you act appropriately in these matters, whether or not you agree with expert scholars and/or your fellow Wikipedians. Not a lot to ask. KHM03 22:33, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

An administrator, who has been granted authority in wikipedia, told you to stop an illegal activity, and you responded with a threat. He was doing his job as an administrator; you were just threatening someone. Big difference.

A person, it doesn't matter to me if they have administrator status or not, made a threat. He said, if you change this again, I will take out the whole article. Who the hell does he think he is? He was given the role of administrator to facilitate civil discussion and constructive collaboration, not make threats and act as if he owns wikipedia.

As far as scholarly support for the view I'm holding, many experts that have spent their lives researching Zoroastrianism support the view I'm holding. You are wrong to claim that there are no authoritative sources which support my view. That is a biased and prejudiced view. I have provided established scholars and established sources of secondary tertiary opinions (i.e. an established Encyclopedia) to show that this is a well supported view.

your inability to abide by consensus

what inability. I have been asking for consensus on the matter, and have simply asked others to do the same when they want to make an addition of change. I have started a vote in the other page and will obviously respect the outcome. Don't make false accusations.

Wesley, as far as the post-exilic change in Judaism, it is well known that the first declaration of MONOTHEISM in the Old testament occurs after the exile, corresponding to the inclusion of Cyrus the Great in it.

Amin123 July 21, 2005 3:50 PM (PST)

See here

Does this need addressed for NPOV reasons? KHM03 20:47, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but I'm not going to waste my time. However, I will continue to watch for Zoro-pollution of Christianity articles. This talk page doesn't have to be NPOV does it? :-) Jim Ellis 02:49, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

The sad thing is that I don't know of anyone who is anti-Zoroastrianism; there are just one or two editors who are intent on adding pro-Zoroastrianism POV information, whether or not it's properly sourced, and that is a problem. Hopefully, they will cease & desist and start focusing on what is proper. KHM03 20:31, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

More on Zoroastrianism

Looked over the most recent edits by Amin123, and still question the relevance. He is still arguing that Zoroastrianism influenced Judaism. I may try and find a simple way of saying that that is NPOV and links to a more appropriate article (or two). KHM03 12:00, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

KHM03 has a personal bias against Zoroastrianism. His posts are driven by a POV motive in here. Amin123 July 19 2005 9:05 PM (PST)

I have no bias against Zoroastrianism; the intent of my edit was to solve a problem in an NPOV way that was also faithful to scholarly (and wikipedia editor) consensus. I did not eliminate Zoroastrianism from the article; I simply tried to trim the section to its essentials and point the reader to articles (three) where this issue could be discussed in greater detail. Heck, I was doing you a favor, Amin123! That's no reason to imagine an anti-Zoroastrian bias (which reads as silly as it sounds!). KHM03 10:07, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Influence through Old testament vs Influence through Judaism

Putting 'influence through Old testament' is more NPOV, as influencing the Old testament CAN be considered a direct influence on Christianity. Writing 'influence through Judaism' is a POV that an influence on the Old testament only constitutes an influences on Judaism.

Amin123 July 21, 2005 2:12 PM (PST)

I'm not sure there's really a difference. Jesus and the first Christians were Jews, which is a large factor in the Jewish scripture being adopted by Christianity. Not just the Old Testament but also other forms, practices and traditions of Judaism were incorporated into Christianity, sometimes with some modification, in some cases with very little modification. I think you're making a false distinction, or at best a distinction that makes very little difference. Wesley 21:37, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

The distinction is that elements of Judaism OVERLAP with Christianity, rather than only influence christianity. Therefore it would equally be valid to say Z influenced Judaism as it influenced Christianity.

Amin123 July 21, 2005 2:50 PM (PST)

There is a severe problem here, which is becoming increasingly evident: a single editor is attempting to force "Zoroastrianism" as an influence on Christianity into this article. Apparently, this is not the first article where this attempt has been made. The "problem" is manifold: (1) the entire section discusses Zoroastrianism's supposed influence on Judaism, not on Christianity (2) none of the supposed influence on Judaism is extant, it's merely hypothesized in order to support the theory that similarities between Christian and Zoroastrian demonology, angelology, eschatology, and its dualistic tendencies are a result of influence of the latter on the former. The problem with (2) is that there is no extant evidence to support a direct relationship. Therefore, a "link via Judaism" is made up out of thin air, and then interpretations are read into various texts in order to support this theory. This is reminiscent of the archer whose arrows all land neatly in the center of the circles drawn on the trees he's shooting...except that he shoots the trees and then draws the circles...in other words, a theory is created, and then read-by interpretations of various verses is used to support the theory, rather than reading the verses without prejudice and saying "I wonder if..." ... All of this is potentially interesting, but the two big points that scholars of Christianity make for the hypothesized influence of Zoroastrianism on Christianity are (a) Christianity's nearly dualistic beliefs concerning the demiurge, i.e., Satan is the Christian equivalent of Zoroastrianism's Ahriman and that (b) Zoroastrianism influenced Judaism into becoming monotheistic instead of henotheistic. There is no noteworthy modern scholarship that supports this view, not only because there's no reliable evidence that Judaism was henotheistic prior to the Exile, but also because Zoroastrianism's dualism is grossly incompatible with Judaism's uncompromising monotheism. Not only that, but Christianity has only a claim of monotheism based in Judaism—its idea of "monotheism" is nothing like the concept in Judaism. All of that said, I'm going to go ahead and just delete the entire section. It's been the subject of a great deal of conjecture, but there really isn't any noteworthy modern scholarship that supports it. Any inclusion of it would have to be filled with disclaimers to the extent that any reader would say to themselves "if it's so dubious, WHY IS IT IN THE ARTICLE?!" *Zappo!* It's gone. Tomer ^TALK 03:51, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you, TShilo, except for two things:

"(a) Christianity's nearly dualistic beliefs concerning the demiurge, i.e., Satan"

You must be confusing Christianity with Gnosticism. In Christianity (just as in Judaism) the "demiurge" is God and Satan just a fallen angelic creature. That doesn't fit well with the Zoroastrian view, as far as I know it, of Ahriman as an evil god.

"(b) ... Christianity has only a claim of monotheism based in Judaism—its idea of "monotheism" is nothing like the concept in Judaism."

Granted, monotheism is not exactly the same in Rabbinical Judaism and Christianity, but whether one is "truer" than the other is necessarily a question of POV and both views flow from the same source.

As for influences during the exile:

There might have been a greater emphasis of Satan in post-exilic Judaism and Christianity due to contact with Zor. but it is hardly honest to say there was no Satan in pre-exilic Judaism or that post-exilic Judaism adopted the Zoroastrian idea. Anyway, it doesn't seem credible that a group ousted from their homeland which interprets this event as God's punishment for their lack of adherence to His law now suddenly adopts teachings from foreign peoples, let alone at the moment of their return (note it's the Babylonian exile, not the Persian exile). This is particularly incredible if these "new teachings" run counter ("grossly incompatible") to their earlier doctrines. However, if they didn't (i.e. if they adopted some bits that were in line with earlier Judaism), the whole point Amin was making falls apart.

"Zoroastrianism influenced Judaism into becoming monotheistic instead of henotheistic. There is no noteworthy modern scholarship that supports this view, not only because there's no reliable evidence that Judaism was henotheistic prior to the Exile"

I agree. All proof texts that have been provided for such an earlier henotheism can just as easily be understood as monotheistic - albeit starting without a clear take on what these other gods were all about, but the tendency goes towards dismissing them alltogether. Another problem in using Isaiah 45 as proof for post-exilic times of course is that this text is not necessarily post-exilic. I know, many scholars put the supposed "Deutero-Isaiah" in exilic or post-exilic times but IMHO this too much a mere theory to deduce any further things from it. Str1977 09:39, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

From my perspective, the main problem was that not one of those sources posited any relationship between Zoroastrianism and Christianity; instead, they were all about Zoroastrianism's alleged influence on Judaism. It was only Amin123's original research that made the connection. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:02, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

There is no noteworthy modern scholarship that supports this view This is false. I have provided noteworthy modern scholarship that shows support for Zoroastrianiasm influencing all subsequent monotheistic religions. Jayjg, you make a false comment when you say "not one of those sources posited any relationship between Zoroastrianism and Christianity". The Mary Boyce position clearly states there is a connection between Zoroastrianism and Christianity. Try reading what's presented before you comment.

Amin123 July 28 2005, 10:42PM (PST)

Too late Amin; they all dealt with Judaism, and you wouldn't compromise on a title that indicated that. The section was about Judaism, quite simply. Also, you deleted quite valid references again. Your edits here seem like little more than vandalism at this point. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:45, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

^^ A religious website is not a valid reference. Your bias is naked and vulgar. If I linked a Zoroastrian religious website as a reference, you would be the first to edit it. To unto others as you would done onto you.

Str1977, regarding this treasure piece:

I agree. All proof texts that have been provided for such an earlier henotheism can just as easily be understood as monotheistic - albeit starting without a clear take on what these other gods were all about, but the tendency goes towards dismissing them alltogether. Another problem in using Isaiah 45 as proof for post-exilic times of course is that this text is not necessarily post-exilic. I know, many scholars put the supposed "Deutero-Isaiah" in exilic or post-exilic times but IMHO this too much a mere theory to deduce any further things from it

This is, quite bluntly, RIDICULOUS. Isaiah 45 mentions Cyrus the Great, King of Persia. How could it NOT be post-exilic? Your position is ridiculous.

Amin123 July 28 2005, 11:05 PM (PST)

Your understanding of what is valid in what contexts, or what I would or wouldn't do, is severely flawed. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:12, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Explain to me in simple terms, how a religious website you can consider an authentic source, and an encyclopedia (Encyclopedia Americana) you can consider not.

Amin123 July 28 2005, 11:15 PM (PST)

I see instead of responding, you decided to delete the Zoroastrian article as a form of warfare. Grow the hell up.

Amin123 July 28 2005, 11:35 PM (PST)

Dear Amin,

yes the passage mentions Cyrus, but the passage is also a prophecy by Isaiah.

1) I know it is very common to assume a second, a Deutero-Isaiah (and a Trito-Isaiah too) to have written these, but it the argument that every prophecy must be "ex eventu" is not tenable. There might be such prophecies ex eventu, but you cannot just assume that every prophecy is. (It's a circular argument.)

2) Cyrus is mentioned but once. It can very well be an interpolation of the name after the "deliverer of Israel" was identified by the event.

3) But even if the passage is post-exilic (note that I didn't say it wasn't, only that it wasn't necessarily), it's still no basis for your claim that monotheism was a Zoroastrian influence, given earlier monotheistic passages, given the difference between Jewish (and Christian) monotheism from Zorostrian monotheism (see Thilo's arguments) and given that AFAIK there is no proof that Cyrus was Zoroastrian. If you have proof, please provide it. Commonly Darius is seen as the first Zoroastrian king, though even that can be questioned.

As for your reference question: an encycopledia is certainly a valid reference (not an authentic source, but that's splitting hairs), but so can any website. It's the quality of the content that matters, not whether it's "religious". Anyway, the reference has been supplement by something not "religious."

And anyway, as other have said before. It is not direct influence on Christianity. If (and that's a big IF) all your points were valid, they still belonged on a Judaism or a Zoroastrian page.

Str1977 09:14, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Dear Str1977 The mention of Cyrus being due to a prophecy doesn't cut it in serious scientific analysis. If the passage mentions Cyrus, then it was dated to Cyrus' time.

:2) Cyrus is mentioned but once. It can very well be an interpolation of the name after the "deliverer of Israel" was identified by the event.

Cyrus was mentioned once in Isaiah 45, once in Isaiah 44, and numerous other times throughout the bible. Furthermore a number of other Persian kings are featured prominently in the old testament, even having the dates of their reigns be used as a reference point.

3) But even if the passage is post-exilic (note that I didn't say it wasn't, only that it wasn't necessarily), it's still no basis for your claim that monotheism was a Zoroastrian influence, given earlier monotheistic passages, given the difference between Jewish (and Christian) monotheism from Zorostrian monotheism (see Thilo's arguments) and given that AFAIK there is no proof that Cyrus was Zoroastrian. If you have proof, please provide it. Commonly Darius is seen as the first Zoroastrian king, though even that can be questioned.

This is arguable and not for us to decide. We're not doing original research here but trying to determine what the scholarly opinion on the matter. So far it is determined there are serious scholars who find a link between Zoroastrian and Christian monotheism.

As for your reference question: an encycopledia is certainly a valid reference (not an authentic source, but that's splitting hairs), but so can any website. It's the quality of the content that matters, not whether it's "religious". Anyway, the reference has been supplement by something not "religious."

It is not for us to decide what the quality of the content is. That is purely subjective and open to bias. We must determine what TYPES of sources are valid references, so that we have an objective standard that we can use.

And anyway, as other have said before. It is not direct influence on Christianity. If (and that's a big IF) all your points were valid, they still belonged on a Judaism or a Zoroastrian page.

It is not a big IF, it is a small IF.

Amin123 July 29 2005, 11:01 PM (PST)

Dear Amin,

Your "mention of Cyrus being due to a prophecy doesn't cut it in serious scientific analysis" is exactly the king of rationalistic prejudice that accepts only "prophecies ex eventu". It might be the case, but you cannot just assume that it is without dispute. Especially given the few appearances of Cyrus in Isaiah. (Note that 2Chronicles, Ezra and Daniel do not fit in here, as they describe the history of Cyrus as it happened.)

"This is arguable and not for us to decide. We're not doing original research here but trying to determine what the scholarly opinion on the matter."

So if you want to provide scholarly evidence for Cyrus being a Zoroastrian than please do so.

"So far it is determined there are serious scholars who find a link between Zoroastrian and Christian monotheism."

If they do, then it's via Judaism and not directly.

"It is not for us to decide what the quality of the content is. That is purely subjective and open to bias. We must determine what TYPES of sources are valid references, so that we have an objective standard that we can use."

So it not for us to decide on the quality of the content, but then you are doing it anyway. There is no basis for out right excluding religious websites.

"It is not a big IF, it is a small IF."

Even if it is a "small IF", it's still no direct influence on Christianity. Hence your points belong on a Judaism or a Zoroastrian page.

Str1977 17:52, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Your "mention of Cyrus being due to a prophecy doesn't cut it in serious scientific analysis" is exactly the king of rationalistic prejudice that accepts only "prophecies ex eventu". It might be the case, but you cannot just assume that it is without dispute. Especially given the few appearances of Cyrus in Isaiah

I have a rational bias, not a rationalistic bias. Prophecy does not cut it in serious scientific analysis because there is very little evidence prophecies occur. The evidence supports the notion that there is no such thing as prophecy. There have been no large scale widely accepted studies that can replicate prophecies. For this reason, we tend to believe that prophecies don't happen.

In conclusion, if Cyrus is included in both Isaiah 44 and 45, and numerous other times throughout the bible, it can be concluded that the parts that include Cyrus the Great were written during or after the exile.

Amin123 11:31 August 2 2005 (UTC)

Why all the Zoroastrian hate?

Hi! I just stopped by. Why all the Zoroastrian hate here? I thought Judeo-Christian theology had its roots in Zoroastrianism. Am I missing something?--Agiantman 23:41, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you're apparently missing that nobody hates Zoroastrianism...oh wait...you made that up to begin with, so you can't be missing it. There is no such thing as Judeo-Christian theology, please see Judeo-Christian. (Judeo-Christian ethics is arguably a plausibility, but definitely not theology.) Christianity does have a lot in common with Zoroastrianism in its eschatology, however Christianity and Zoroastrianism are closer than Judaism is to either one. The problem is that there's no tangible evidence of contact between early Christians and Zorastrians, so in the 18th and 19th centuries, people who studied comparative religion invented a link between the two via Judaism. This link is no longer widely accepted as anything more than a fanciful way to explain an apparent discontinuity in serious study of comparative religion, except apparently by Mary Boyce, the relevance of whose views to a serious encyclopedia has yet to be established. Tomer ^TALK 23:58, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

That is not true, the link is taken seriously and there is a good reason why: a religion that was the official state religion of a middle eastern empire that existed almost contineously for over 1000 years (from 553 BC to the 7th century AD) is bound to affect the people and religions that came out of that time and place. Some scholars even hold the position that Judaism started off as a Zoroastrian sect.

Amin123 July 29 2005, 11:05 PM (PST)

I agree with Tomer that nobody here hates Zoroastrism. I for my part have great respect for its founder (regardless of when he lived) and also for the religion, though I don't adhere to it and hence disagree with it theologically.

However I disagree with Tomer when he says that Christianity is closer to Zor. than to Judaism.

In response to Amin: I don't dispute that Zor. had not influence whatsoever on Judaism (and subseuqently Christianity), but in my mind the influence is not very great, certainly not influencing monotheism.

Again you say: 553 BC - please give us some reference that Cyrus or Cambyses were Zoroastrians.

If "Some scholars even hold the position that Judaism started off as a Zoroastrian sect", than I am truly sorry for these scholars.

Str1977 17:58, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

^ Why would you feel sorry for them? The temple construction was funded by the Persian Kings and their 'advisors' (like Ezra) were sent to teach the people the laws of god.

It was most likely a tax income source like all religions are. 154.20.105.198 23:29, 31 July 2005

Dear 154 ...,

I feel sorry for them because they are wrong. (Admittedly, that's my POV)

Credit to the Persian kings for what they did.

Your last sentence however does not belong into this category ("Why all the Zoroastrian hate") but rather into "Why all the religion hate" - no further comment, I think, is needed!

Str1977 08:48, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Vote

There is a vote going on at Talk:History of Christianity over the issue of Zoroastrianism, and how to mention it. I propose the same here, and that we leave the vote open for a week...until Mon., Aug. 8.

Sock puppets and anonymous users won't count, of course. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 02:17, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Indeed; I wonder why he even bothers using them. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:48, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

NO MENTION OF ZOROASTRIANISM...sources are marginal at best and are part of a tiny minority POV (sign below):

1. Ta bu shi da yu 23:42, 1 August 2005 (UTC) - the only way it could have influenced Christianity is through Judaism, and I don't see anything on that article.
2. JHCC (talk) 16:12, 1 August 2005 (UTC) Changed my vote from VBMOZ to NMOZ, for reason stated by Ta bu shi da yu. JHCC (talk) 16:23, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
3. For the many reasons I've listed in previous discussion here. Tomer ^TALK 21:40, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
4. Str1977 00:48, 3 August 2005 (UTC), changed my vote from VBMOZ to NMOZ, reasons given by Ta bu shi - and because some object to the wording of VBMOZ as POV
5. Wesley 16:45, 3 August 2005 (UTC) - There seems to be widespread agreement that there was no contact between Christianity and Zoroastrianism; the logical conclusion is that there was no direct avenue of influence. Indirect influences should be documented/discussed in the articles on those religions, whether Judaism or Mithraism or whatever.

VERY BRIEF MENTION OF ZOROASTRIANISM...sources may merit a concise mention but noted that it is a marginal view (sign below):

1. KHM03 15:29, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
2. Mkmcconn 15:46, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
3. Jim Ellis 16:04, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
4. Briangotts (talk) 16:19, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
5. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:11, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
6. --Doc (?) 19:03, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

SIGNIFICANT MENTION OF ZOROASTRIANISM...sources merit significant explanation re: Zoroastrianism (sign below):

1. Amin123 01:18 August 1, 2005 (UTC)
2. Aventura 17:50 August 1, 2005 (UTC)
3. Amshaspandan 19:10 August 1, 2005 (UTC)
4. Klonimus 12:07, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
5. CDThieme 00:05, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
6. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) Not only is information clearly missing from the Judaism article that deserves mention, but an offshoot of Zoroastrianism - Mithraism - had a significant influence as well - most Mithraeum were turned into churches, and Christmas day was chosen by a roman emporer because it was the day of Mithras. 07:08, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Note that Mithraism as a separate religion is already in the article and the influence is even more marginal than any influence of Zor. via Judaism. (STR 1977)

BRIEF MENTION OF ZOROASTRIANISM without the anti-Zorastrianism POV:

1. --Agiantman 19:19, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
2. --Irishpunktom\^talk 16:51, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
3. --Robert McClenon 00:04, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

MODERATE MENTION OF ZOROASTRIANISM

---

Hopefully, we will all abide by the consensus we reach. I am going on a wikiholiday for several days and will be unavailable to dialogue until 8/5 at the earliest. Best wishes and good luck. KHM03 15:29, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, KHM03, for alerting me to this vote. But how fair is it to a only offer choices between SIGNIFICANT MENTION, a VERY BRIEF MENTION or NO MENTION? What about BRIEF MENTION or MODERATE MENTION? There is a chasm between "significant" and "very brief." The poll reflects a bias against Zoroastrianism's well established connection to the roots of Judeo-Christianity. The unnecessary and factually incorrect statement that it is "a marginal view" only buttresses my argument that the poll is biased.--Agiantman 18:34, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I added in the extra categories. Hopefully those that voted with limited options will now revote to legitimize the poll.--Agiantman 19:19, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Mkmcconn, you changed the "brief" category in which I voted, but left yours alone. Why are you trying to change my vote without my consent?--Agiantman 20:09, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not trying to change your vote. I changed two things: the order in which it appeared, and the phrasing of the explanation of the vote. I kept the header the same( Brief mention) but I did change the description. It seemed to me that the open bias of your vote description made selection of that option less likely. If the more neutral description did not reflect your choice, I apologize. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:46, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

What is the "anti-Zoroastrianism POV" that is allegedly currently in the article? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:44, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Answer: reread what you voted for. Not only do you want a "very brief mention" but you also insist on an editorial comment "that it is a marginal view." That-- along with the attempt to rig the poll with skewed categories--should pretty much answer your question. P.S. Was it a surprise to anyone that the dude who rigged the poll also voted to designate the Zoroastrianism-Christian connection as "a marginal view"?--Agiantman 23:29, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I think he means "anti-ZoroastrianismHadAnInfluence POV" ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 22:35, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

POINT OF CLARIFICATION: I had no intention of "rigging" the vote...by "very brief", I meant "concise" and not too lengthy. My "very brief mention" was simply referring to length, not content. I sincerely viewed that option as a "middle way" or compromise to the extremes of "no mention" or "significant mention". Just to clarify. KHM03 22:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I also have real reservations about User:Aventura and User:Amshaspandan, both of whom appear to be sockpuppets. KHM03 22:10, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. They are not my sock puppets. You can't paint a person as a sock puppet just because they voted in opposition to you. Look at their descriptions. They're both one liners, like mine. I wouldn't do that if I was going to make a sock puppet, which I wouldn't do, and haven't done. Amin123 06:30, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I didn't say they were your sockpuppets. But both were created, apparently, just to vote on this issue and have really no other history. They simply can't be considered real, valid user votes. KHM03 12:18, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I did think that they were your sockpuppets; and I'm sorry to have thought this of you. But, as KHM03 says a vote can't include anonymous users and users with brief and narrow edit histories, because of the sock puppet problem. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 14:50, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Right; as with all other votes, votes of editors with brief and narrow edit histories are not counted. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:30, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

There is no such rule. How do I check someone's edit history? Amin123 August 9 2005, 10:30 (UTC)

Check the "User contributions" in the toolbox on the left of your page. KHM03 11:59, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Voting results

• NO MENTION OF ZOROASTRIANISM - 5
• VERY BRIEF MENTION OF ZOROASTRIANISM - 6
• SIGNIFICANT MENTION OF ZOROASTRIANISM - 4 (plus two apparent sockpuppets) I think they're not sock puppets. That's 6 votes for significant mention.
• BRIEF MENTION OF ZOROASTRIANISM - 3
• MODERATE MENTION OF ZOROASTRIANISM - 0

The results show a plurality of votes for "Very Brief Mention", with the notes afterward saying, "...sources may merit a concise mention but noted that it is a marginal view...". That seems to me to be the winner. Therefore, I have made the appropriate changes as per the results...a concise mention which mentions both sides, including the fact that mainstream scholars are not sold on the Zoroastrian connection, and pointing the reader to more appropriate pages for further information. Hope it matches the voting results. KHM03 12:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Combined with "brief mention"'s 3 votes and the fact that most of the "no mention" votes are based on the technicality that there is no evidence of any direct contact between Christianity and Zoroastrianism (yes, I realize how dumb that wording sounds, but you know what I mean), I would say the vote is "very brief mention 6, reluctant support of very brief mention 8, make the whole article about zoroastrianism instead of christianity 4 (valid)." In my book, that's 14 to 4, which which makes your interpretation and implementation correct. Tomer ^TALK 13:28, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Dear KHM03, is that a "very brief mention"? The "monotheism" passage as it stands is still very "fishy"? Str1977 16:52, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

KHM03 appears to have accidentally reverted himself while trying to fix the notes. I've notified him of this. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:47, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't involve myself in policy issues, much (I'm afraid of getting addicted); but may I say here, off-topic, that I am bothered by the way that votes might be interpreted? Consensus cannot be simple majority rule. If there is a significant minority opinion represented, I believe that the opinion counts as part of the consensus. The task then should be to represent that minority opinion with justice, and proportion. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:23, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

WHOOPS! Fixed the passage now...thanks for the heads up...sorry about the mistake! KHM03 19:38, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Mark...I agree that minority views should not be ignored...to that end, they are mentioned in the challenged section, and links are given to more appropriate pages on which readers can further explore the issue. If User:Amin123 ever decides to create an entire article re:Zoroastrianism's influence on Judaism (and, thus, indirectly, on Christianity), that would certainly be appropriate here as well. KHM03 19:42, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

The "monotheism" passage as it stands is still very "fishy"? Str1977, what aspect of that passage was fishy? You should come to terms with the fact that the first truly monotheistic passage in the bible coincides with the declaration of Cyrus the Great as the messiah. Amin123 3:36, 10 August 2005 (PST)

Persian vs. Iranian

Could you, if you will, please have a look into the following dispute on the Zoroastrian talk page.

Talk:Zoroastrianism#Persian_vs._Iranian

Thanks in advance. Str1977 10:00, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Abiding by vote

It was my understanding that the participants in the recent vote re:Zoroastrianism would abide by the decision of the community. Anonymous User:154.20.105.198 (whom I believe to be Amin123 not signed in) went against that in a recent edit. Did we have the vote for a reason? KHM03 12:37, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

It's obviously Amin123, he's even signed for himself using that IP. Yes, we had a vote for a reason, though I am unsurprised Amin123 does not want to abide by it. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:43, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

We had 6 people voting for significant mention. Even if we were going to have a 'very brief mention', there's no reason to have two anti-zor quotations and not a single zor quotation. That is biased. Amin123 10 August 2005, 3:26 PM (PST)

None of the quotations are "anti-Zoroastrian", and the consensus was strongly against you. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:33, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't even understand the complaint. The article mentions the theory, explains why it isn't credible, and points to other articles where the theory is explained more significantly. It is not buried or abused; but neither are the grounds for the speculation entertained in this context. It's given its due treatment, as we determined. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:58, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

The article has 2 anti-zoroastrian quotations. I added ONE zoro quotation to balance it.

None of the quotations are "anti-Zoroastrian", and the consensus was strongly against you.

The conenssu is strongly against you Jayjg. We have 6 people voting for significant mention. The article has to reflect that. Amin123 4:36 PM August 10, 2005 (PST)

There aren't any anti-Zoroastrian quotations in there, nor does there appear to be anyone who supports you. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:39, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

6 people voted for significant mention. The consensus is against you. Two quotes were anti-zoroastrian in that article. Now there is 1 zoro quote to balance them.Amin123 4:42 PM August 10, 2005 (PST)

14 people voted for brief or no mention, 4 people and 2 sockpuppets said significant mention. Accept it and move on. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:45, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

14 people voted for brief or significant mention. The 2 you allege are sockpuppets were real voters. Accept it and move on. Amin123 4:46 PM August 10, 2005 (PST)

Amin123, do you deny that your position lost the vote? KHM03 00:33, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

There is no real reason to believe that the other two were not sock puppets. No matter which position they voted for, they would have been removed. This case certainly shows how neither talk nor voting are an effective means of curbing POV pushing. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:52, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Vigilance and attempts at being NPOV are, I suppose, still the best strategy. Incidentally, neither of the alleged sockpuppets has seen much action since voting. Very interesting. KHM03 00:54, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

There is no real reason to believe that the other two were not sock puppets. No matter which position they voted for, they would have been removed.

According to who? You can't make rules as you go along. The fact is, there is no 'litmus test' for a participant being a real user, and no rule that new users can't participate in a vote.

So the results are 6 votes for significant mention, and 6 votes for very brief mention.

The article should be somewhere in the middle. Furthermore, there even if we were to have a brief mention, there is no reason to have TWO quotes from scholars who believe there is no Zoroastrian influence and have no quotes from others who do. A 'very brief' mention does not mean a very 'anti-zoroastrian' mention. It can be brief AND balanced, and it is this distinction that you're missing. 1:26 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Assertions of "Anti-Zoroastrianism"

Why on earth is opposition to including marginally relevant material on Zoroastrianism being characterized as "Anti-Zoroastrianism"? Since when is a central tenet of Zoroastrianism "You guys all stole Monotheism from us!"? Given that Zoroastrianism has always flirted with Dualism, that claim and this characterization are spurious at best. Tomer ^TALK 20:15, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Dualism as in believing there is an evil entity (i.e. Satan) fighting God? Anti-Zoroastrianism is the expression of latent orientalism that still lurks in western society. Amin123 3:28 PM, August 10 2005 (PST)

There's no question that there is a strong dualistic element inherent in Zoroastrianism. That also exists in some sects of Christianity (probably not so much in mainline or liberal denominations)...it's far more likely that Judeo-Christian dualism was derived from Zoroastrianism rather than monotheistic faith, which most scholars seem to think predates Zoroastrianism.

At any rate, simply saying that certain elements of Judaic faith are not derived from Zoroastrianism is not anti-Zoroastrianism. If a British citizen says, "I am British", that doesn't make them anti-French, it just means they are speaking reality.

Now, someone is free to disagree..."No, I don't care if you were born and raised in London...I know a man who says he saw someone very much like you 30 years ago in Paris. You are French."

A person is free tto take that position, but if most other people disagree, then that minority position is not validated. I think the current write-up is very respectful, mentioning the theory as well as its minority status (affirmed for us by the recent vote), and pointing the reader to appropriate pages for further information. Very fair, very respectful. KHM03 00:50, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

The anti-Zoroastrian bias is apparant. There is considerable scholarly support for a Zoroastrian influence. Even after a vote where the most voted for option was a significant mention, there is still a few people who want to limit its mention.

2:39 11 August 2005 (UTC)

You are completely misreading the result, not only of the hard numbers of the vote, but also of the background consensus that led to those numbers, in order to suit your purposes. There is no bias against Zoroastrianism evident anywhere, neither in comments nor in votes. What there is, on the other hand, is strong opposition against including your "prominent mention" ideas. That is not "anti-Zoroastrianism", that is "anti-Amin's POV-pushing edit", and nothing more. You claim there is "considerable scholarly support for a Zoroastrian influence", but you neglect to mention that (1) such support, with the exception of Mary Boyce, is at least 70 years out of date (2) such support is for Zoroastrianism influencing Judaism, not Christianity and (3) considerable scholarly support is heavily outweighed by overwhelming scholarly opposition. The "vote" in which the "most voted for option" (counting only legitimate votes) was actually "very brief mention". Either you're completely misreading the vote, or you're just lying now and hoping nobody will call you on it. Which is it? Tomer ^TALK 05:49, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Page locked

I've locked the page to the current version as there is an edit war ongoing here. What is the situation and why are anonymous editors so involved? - Ta bu shi da yu 04:23, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Short story, Amin123 is unhappy that this page on Christianity isn't Zoroastrian enough. There might be others, besides him, but they all use the same arguments and fight for the same changes as anonymous editors, so who can know ?— Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 04:41, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Short story the vote results were not abided by (6 votes for significant mention, 6 votes for 'very brief mention'). Furthermore, even if we were to have a brief mention of zoroastrianism's influence, there is no reason to have two brief quotes from scholars who don't believe christianity has a Zoroastrian influence, and no quotes from scholars who do believe christianity was influenced by Zoroastrianism. Certain editors are insisting a vote for 'brief' mention means a vote for a one sided article. 04:53, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Tabu, I blocked Amin123 (talk · contribs) earlier today for a 3RR violation editing as 154.20.105.198 (talk · contribs). He then turned up again making similar edits as 216.39.75.14 (talk · contribs), so I blocked that number for block evasion. I'm in touch with Amin by e-mail and he didn't deny it was him. I assume that the latest ones 193.136.157.2 (talk · contribs) and 80.58.9.44 (talk · contribs) are him too. I offered to unblock Amin early if he would assure me he wouldn't return here and make the same edits within the block period, but he wouldn't give me that assurance. The page is currently locked on Amin's preferred version, I believe. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:15, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

SlimVirgin I can give an assurance that I won't revert it 3 times again, but I will modify it if I see that the vote results are being violated and the article is being blatanly biased. User:210.21.227.199 05:23, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Amin, I assume that's you. You're evading your block. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:38, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Slim is correct that it is currently locked on Amin's preferred version. The army of anons has shown up here to attempt to force this text into this article after an even more resounding defeat over at History of Christianity. The edit war is outrageous. I said several weeks ago that the best solution to this is to entirely remove the inserted section on Zoroastrianism, since even the proponents of this text admit that there is no evidence of contact between Zoroastrianism and embryonic Christianity. Tomer ^TALK 05:35, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally, it was locked "one edit too late". The "consensus" version is the last by Codex Sinaiticus, where I would recommend it be locked until this is hashed out here, even if doing so takes another 3 weeks. This is preposterous. Tomer ^TALK 05:37, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

The edit war is outrageous. I said several weeks ago that the best solution to this is to entirely remove the inserted section on Zoroastrianism, since even the proponents of this text admit that there is no evidence of contact between Zoroastrianism and embryonic Christianity.

There was a VOTE Tomer. Now you want to remove it because you don't like the results of the vote? There is an edit war because certain editors aren't abiding by the result of the vote, which was 6 votes for significant mentiona and 6 votes for 'very brief mention' 05:41, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

The army of anons has shown up here to attempt to force this text into this article after an even more resounding defeat over at History of Christianity.

Are you a child? A "more resounding defeat"? What are you, 5 years old? There was no 'defeat'. There was a vote in 'history of christianity' where the consensus was for there to be 'no mention'.

In 'Christianity and World Relgions' the consensus was a mention. Grow up with your immature comments. User:210.21.227.199 05:45, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

I've blocked the above. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:52, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Dear 210.whatever anon: so you don't have to go up a section to read my comments, I'll reproduce them here:

You are completely misreading the result, not only of the hard numbers of the vote, but also of the background consensus that led to those numbers, in order to suit your purposes. There is no bias against Zoroastrianism evident anywhere, neither in comments nor in votes. What there is, on the other hand, is strong opposition against including your "prominent mention" ideas. That is not "anti-Zoroastrianism", that is "anti-Amin's POV-pushing edit", and nothing more. You claim there is "considerable scholarly support for a Zoroastrian influence", but you neglect to mention that (1) such support, with the exception of Mary Boyce, is at least 70 years out of date (2) such support is for Zoroastrianism influencing Judaism, not Christianity and (3) considerable scholarly support is heavily outweighed by overwhelming scholarly opposition. The "vote" in which the "most voted for option" (counting only legitimate votes) was actually "very brief mention". Either you're completely misreading the vote, or you're just lying now and hoping nobody will call you on it. Which is it? Tomer ^TALK 05:49, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Beyond that, you apparently don't understand the concepts of WP:CON, WP:3RR, WP:CIV, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:CITE and WP:NPA. The consensus can best be described as "murky", and "brief mention" is the best compromise among the votes. You and those who agree with you, are not only pushing text that is poorly written POV-pushing non-notable tripe in violation of the consensus behind the vote, but you have yet to convince anyone on the TALK page that your views are either scholarly or noteworthy. All of which leads me to ask of you, WHAT DO YOU THINK YOU'RE DOING??! Tomer ^TALK 06:01, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

That's another thing. Several of these anonymous editors seem to use the same kind of math as Amin, and several are upset (as he is) that an IP masquerading as an editor was not given a lot of weight in the "poll". The majority result favored no mention or mention with a mild disclaimer- which we implemented. Now we're told by anonos that we all voted in favor of Amin's edits (that's why we've been stuck in a revert war). We were told at the time that voting for this 'anti-zor' notion of a disclaimer was "bias", but now it turns out that those votes are 'pro-zor' after all. It is all a bit silly and hard to follow. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 06:03, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Dear 210.whatever anon: so you don't have to go up a section to read my comments, I'll reproduce them here

You are completely misreading the result, not only of the hard numbers of the vote, but also of the background consensus that led to those numbers, in order to suit your purposes. There is no bias against Zoroastrianism evident anywhere, neither in comments nor in votes. What there is, on the other hand, is strong opposition against including your "prominent mention" ideas. That is not "anti-Zoroastrianism", that is "anti-Amin's POV-pushing edit", and nothing more. TALK 05:49, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

(violating block to respond to TShilo). TShilo, the hard numbers show 6 votes for 'significant mention'. How am I misreading that? You can't pretend the numbers aren't whbat they are to suit your personal view. There is bias against Zoroastrianism being the founding influence of all abrahamic religions as evidenced by the resistance to the results of the vote. There is strong support for supporting a significant mention of Zoroastrianism influencing Christianity.

You claim there is "considerable scholarly support for a Zoroastrian influence", but you neglect to mention that (1) such support, with the exception of Mary Boyce, is at least 70 years out of date (2) such support is for Zoroastrianism influencing Judaism, not Christianity and (3) considerable scholarly support is heavily outweighed by overwhelming scholarly opposition.

How do you know the recent support is limited to Mary Boyce? What about J. Duchesne-Guillemin writing in the Encyclopedia Americana in 1988? Oh you forgot that one, I see.

See you're justing making baseless claims, because the vote didn't go the way you wanted it to.

The "vote" in which the "most voted for option" (counting only legitimate votes)

Who are you to say who's vote is 'legitimate'. There were 6 legitimate votes for significant mention.

Either you're completely misreading the vote, or you're just lying now and hoping nobody will call you on it. Which is it?

There were 6 votes for significant mention! Did you not see the votes? 06:19, August 11, 2005.

Show of hands?

Should I bother responding? Only legitimate votes will be counted. Tomer ^TALK 06:47, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

No

1. Tomer ^TALK 06:47, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
2. KHM03 13:18, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
3. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:30, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Abstain

1. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 17:18, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
   • responding to what?
   • responding in what manner?
2. Codex Sinaiticus 18:34, 11 August 2005 (UTC). I might change my vote if someone explains what "Yes" and "No" mean...

Matthew 5:9

I put this on Amin123's talk page, and just reproduced it here so the community can see that attempts at reconciliation have been made, and made sincerely. KHM03 13:38, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Please, please, please...stop the edit war you're engaged in at this article. You may disagree with the community consensus, and that's OK. And, by all means, make a new article detailing your position, which we can link to from this article. But, the bottom line is that you are getting yourself into trouble for repeated violations of wikipedia policy. You'll end up losing your voice in the encyclopedia entirely, and that's not worth it.

The two alleged sockpuppets may or may not have been you. But neither one has seen much action since the vote; one doesn't even have enough contributions for the wiki program to bother listing them. That's problematic, and the community - for good or for ill - is not counting those votes as legitimate.

Given that, the vote was won by "very brief mention". Now, it was almost won by "no mention", so you may want to count yourself lucky. I hope, and I say this sincerely, that you abide by the results and leave well enough alone. The Zoroastrian issue is and will continue to be mentioned, with links to other sites for further information.

I really suggest that you make a new article detailing your position, which we can then link to this article. If you've never started a new article before and need help getting it underway, I'll be happy to help...just let me know.

But my hope overall is that you stop getting yourself into trouble, because, frankly, a Zoroastrian voice could be very useful and helpful in wikipedia, and I'd hate to see you give that up over one lost vote. KHM03 13:38, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Vote revisited

The vote was

• 5 votes - No mention
• 6 votes - Very brief mention ( + note about marginal view)
• 3 votes - Brief mention ( - note about marginal view)
• 0 votes - Moderate mention
• 4(+2) votes - Significant mention

This works out as

No mention vs. some mention

• 5 votes - No mention
• 13(+2) votes - at least a very brief mention
• Result:At least a very brief mention (roughly 1:3)

Brief mention vs. less than brief mention

• 11 votes - Less than brief mention
• 7(+2) votes - At least a brief mention
• Result:No consensus (roughly 50:50)

Significant mention vs. less than significant mention

• 14 votes - Less than significant mention
• 4(+2) votes - Significant mention
• Result:Less than significant mention (roughly 1:3)

Total result having consensus

• At least a very brief mention, but less than a significant one.

There is no consensus that it should be a very brief mention rather than a brief one "without the anti-zoroastrian POV". ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 17:31, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

-Ril- breaks it down pretty well. "Brief" is what it is now. The edit war was because the Zoroastrianism section was being tripled in size. As for the "anti-Zoroastrian POV", that's just a straw man. Tomer ^TALK 21:46, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't get that myself...where is the anti-Zoroastrian POV? Is it only because the argument isn't given more space? That has nothing to do with POV and everything to do with the minority status of the position. I wish someone could cite specifically what is anti-Zoroastrian about it. KHM03 21:59, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

You're playing the semantics game. You know when we say 'anti-Zoroastrian' we mean it in the context of Zoroastrianism-not-having-an-influence versus Zoroastrianism-having-an-influence. The article right now has two quotes from 'anti-Zoroastrian' sources. This is biased. There should be two quotes from 'pro-Zoroastrian' sources to balance it out. 22:02, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

This kind of ridiculous argumentation is the cause of the lack of credibility we attribute to these edits. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:13, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I would also take issue with the anonymous user (Amin123 ?) in that bias or NPOV is not the same as "anti-" something. The edits are certainly favoring the majority academic view (as well as the wiki community vote) that Zoroastrianism was not as major an influence as folks like Amin123 might believe. But that is not "anti-Zoroastrianism". Anti-Zoroastrianism would, I imagine, be "kill them all" kind of stuff. To use that kind of language is not only inaccurate, it is offensive, for it implies so much about the editors of wikipedia, that I am sure violates a lot of rules, as well as common decency. If Amin123 et al use "anti-Zoroastrianism" to refer to the lost vote or some perceived bias of the academic community, it is an unfortunate term and I, for one, would ask that another be used.

That said, it seems that the issue has been decided until Amin123 or someone else tries a different approach (creating a new article or editing a more appropriate page, such as Jewish history, etc.). KHM03 00:22, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

— Mark (Mkmcconn) ** this kind of disrespectful dismissal is the reason why we have edit wars.

I would also take issue with the anonymous user (Amin123 ?) in that bias or NPOV is not the same as "anti-" something.

That's why I said we're using the prefix anti-zoroastrian in the context of meaning that the source does not believe Zoroastrian was an influence.

It does not imply anything else and if you can't see that you're being overly sensitive and not bothering to read what we're writing. Having two quotes from sources that believe Zoroastrianism wasn't an influence when the vote results call for least a brief mention without a "anti-Zoroastrian POV" is wrong. There needs to be a quote from sources that believe Zoroastrianism WAS an influence on Judaism and Christianity for the article to be balanced and reflect the vote results. 00:56, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Who on earth are we??? Tomer ^TALK 01:25, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

The people who voted 6 times for SIGNIFICANT MENTION. 02:00, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

I count 4 people who voted for significant mention, and 2 "people". Additionally, based on past comments and voting patterns, I sincerely doubt that one of the legitimate 4 votes was well-considered, and therefore cast in rather dubious light. From the outset, however, it was made clear that only legitimate votes would be counted, so I'm not sure where you're getting this 6 from. At the same time, I have to point out the dubiousness of you, or at least this personality of you, either referring to yourself in the plural, or purporting to represent the views and intentions of everyone else who voted in your obviously-preferred section. Tomer ^TALK 10:54, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

There were 6 people who voted for significant mention, and you can consider it them dubious, it doesn't matter, the fact is 6 people voted for it. Just because they're not disingenous and try to change the article and not abide by the vote results doesn't mean their opinions have less weight than yours.

Having TWO quotes from sources that think Zoroastrianism was not an influence and NO quotes from sources who do makes the article decidedly one sided and in a state of violation of the vote results. 04:16, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

By every Wikipedia standard, your counting of the votes is just plain wrong. Thank you for playing, your ticket is not a winner. Tomer ^TALK 03:35, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

What wikipedia standards? Don't make things up. There are 6 votes for significant mention. EVEN if we were to have a brief mention, there needs to be two quotes from sources that believe Zoroastrianism is an influence on Judaism and Christianity to balance the two quotes presently in the article from sources that believe it isn't. Deal with this simple fact and stop being discriminatory. Amin123 0:35, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Well, "very brief mention" did win the vote...we can't change that.

The problem seems to be, however, what "very brief mention" entails. The "tag line" in the vote read, "...sources may merit a concise mention but noted that it is a marginal view." It didn't really say anything about the number of sources, on either side.

So, here is the question: does the current version contain a "concise mention" of the issue? Certainly. Does it note that it is a "marginal view"? Yes.

As important is what happens next...links to other more appropriate pages where the possible influence of Zoroastrianism on Judaism can be discussed further. That's important, balanced, fair, and also in keeping with NPOV policies.

As I've suggested previously, if an article were created covering the issue in greater detail, that could (and should) also be linked here. That's the way to go, in my view.

But the current version meets all qualifications for wikipedia, NPOV, and the voting results. KHM03 00:05, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

There were 4+2 people who voted for "significant mention". The +2 have less than 20 edits between them, votes in wikipedia are usually discounted if the voter has less than 200 edits or less than 1 months edit history.

Significant mention vs. some other degree of mention

• 4(+2) votes - Significant mention
• 14 votes - something else

This works out at 14 vs. 6 or 14 vs. 4, this is still a large consensus on the side of the 14, that it should be something that is not significant mention.

Nethertheless,

No mention vs. some mention

• 5 votes - No mention
• 13(+2) votes - at least a very brief mention

Has the opposing consensus - the large majority are on the side of the 13 (or 15) votes that it should be mentioned

The debate as to whether it should be brief (and not "anti-zoroastrian") as opposed to very brief did not end with consensus, and therefore that matter has not been resolved. However, there is consensus that the mention should exist but also that it shouldn't be excessively huge. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 16:00, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

^ Good break down.

The problem seems to be, however, what "very brief mention" entails. The "tag line" in the vote read, "...sources may merit a concise mention but noted that it is a marginal view." It didn't really say anything about the number of sources, on either side.

So, here is the question: does the current version contain a "concise mention" of the issue? Certainly. Does it note that it is a "marginal view"? Yes.

Now I pose some questions to you. Would it make the article more balanced if there were the same number of quotes from sources that believe Zoroastrianism was an influence as quotes from sources that believe it wasn't? Yes.

Could we include two quotes from pro-Zoro-influence sources and still keep the article concise, and still note that it is a "marginal view"? Yes.

So let's include some sources for the sake of balance. And what Ril says is another factor. There is NO consensus that it should be a "very brief" mention versus a "brief mention". This ambiguity further gives justification for providing more quotes from sources that support the theory that Zoroastrian influenced Judaism and Christianity.

Amin123 0:56, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Your interest is clearly simply to include your POV to the article. Any further additions to the Zoroastrianism section will make it longer than any of the rest of the sections—if your interest is truly to improve the article by adding additional text to the Zoroastrianism section, first add relevant and defensible text to the other sections and then concentrate on the Zoroastrianism section. Tomer ^TALK 04:52, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Amin123 - The extra quotes would be, in my view, not needed. It's already NPOV, and to add quotations would make the "concise" decision questionable.

When Clint Eastwood makes a film, first he goes through the script and cuts all of his lines which he feels are unnecessary. He wants to say as little as possible while still getting his point across.

That's kind of the case here; at least that's how I define "concise". We've said as little as possible while still making the theory known and establishing it's questioned place in modern academia. That's NPOV and fair.

Now, again, I urge you (and others) to make an article on this subject, which could, obviously, contain more quotes and which we could link to here. That's still the most effective path for you, in my view. KHM03 11:09, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Your interest is clearly simply to include your POV to the article. My interest is to present the POV that the vote called for, which is a brief mention of Zoroastrianism's influence, not a one-sided one. Your interest is clearly to include your anti-Zoroastrianism influence POV against the results of the vote to the article.

The vote never called for TWO quotes from sources that believe Zoroastrianism wasn't an influence. That is simply one sided POV and there is no justification for it. A pro-Zoroastrian quote is needed to balance the article.

FURTHERMORE, why TWO quotes from sources that believe Zoroastrianism was not an influence?? Why not one quote from each side of the debate? That is what we need.

Amin123 10:25, August 20 2005 (UTC)

if your interest is truly to improve the article by adding additional text to the Zoroastrianism section, first add relevant and defensible text to the other sections and then concentrate on the Zoroastrianism section.

Tomer, why do you try to end the discussion? Why do you try to avoid the discussion and the specific points and arguments brought forth for adding balancing quotes to the article?

Amin123 10:31, August 20 2005 (UTC)

Amin, please read the many pages of discussion above. Nothing has changed about my position. Also, stop characterizing opposition to lopsided Zoroastrian inclusion in the article as "Anti-Zoroastrianism"—doing so is not only rude, it's a blatant lie, and you know it. At this point, I can only conclude that the only reason you read anything I say is to try to come up with a new trolling tactic, something to which I will not respond any longer. Thank you, and good day. Tomer ^TALK 21:46, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Tomer you say alot of things but refuse to respond to the specific points I raise. Why have two quotes from sources that believe Zoroastrianism wasn't an infuence and no quotes from sources that do? This was not a requirement spitulated in the options voted for. Amin123 23:24, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

This is shameful.

Amin123 00:21, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Unprotected

It's been weeks. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 09:11, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Inconsistency

In the Zoroastrianism section, it says

R.C. Zaehner states "we cannot say with any certainty whether the Jews borrowed from Zoroastrianism or the Zoroastrians from the Jews or whether either in fact borrowed from each other"[2]

But R.C. Zaehner, in The Dawn & Twilight of Zoroastrianism states:

"That Judaism was deeply influenced by Zoroastrianism during and after the Babylonian captivity can scarcely be questioned, and the extraordinary likeness between the Dead Sea text and the Gathic conception of the nature and origin of evil, as we understand it, would seem to point to direct borrowing on the Jewish side." P.52

So in one quote he appears to claim that the evidence is not clear which group borrowed from who, and in the other, he says it is almost certain that Judaism borrowed from Zoroastrianism.

--Amin123 06:18, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Hey, here's an idea; get consensus before making changes. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:23, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Practice what you preach. --Amin123 10:00, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Amin123 (& likely sockpuppet Aventura): This is obviously a very contentious article; please abide by the consensus version. If you want to make any changes, then in the interest of cooperation and harmony, please gain a consensus for changes here. I'm not necessarily opposed to your change, but you really ought to get an understanding here. Let's try and avoid a "revert war". Thanks...KHM03 12:19, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Re: Aventura: Please review Wikipedia policy here; let's all try to get along and avoid problems...thanks...KHM03 12:41, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

The consensus was "a brief mention without an anti-Zoroastrian POV", as per the vote. I want to mention that "anti-Zoroastrian POV" is used in the context of "anti-Zoroastrian influence POV". Or else, why would it be mentioned in the vote option.

So, I'm abiding by the vote result, and taking out, first, an inconsistent quote by R.C. Zaehner (since he writes the exact opposite elsewhere), and adding a pro-Zoroastrian-influence quote from Mary Boyce to balance the article.

I'll wait for responses to this comment for 2 days. After that, if there are no objections, I will make the changes I outlined.

Regards.

--Amin123 02:33, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh and I'm taking out the second paragraph about Noah's sons. It was not discussed in here and was not part of the options voted for. It is quite revealing that all the people who argued against me inserting one tiny quote from a pro-Zoroastrian scholar because it would supposedly go against consensus of the article being "concise", seemed to have no problem with a giant paragraph added without any discussion or any mention in the vote options.

I ask you KHM03, and you TShilo12, why did you not edit out the added paragraph about Noah's sons?

--Amin123 02:43, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I support the removal of the silly paragraph about the sons of Noah. However, I object to the description of Mary Boyce as "leading Zoroastrian scholar". I also object to the change to make the article say that the theory is questioned by some mainstream historians and scholars. In fact it is questioned by most. These changes give a distorted view of the status of the hypothesis among scholars. I also object to removal of the Zaehner quote. As for the vote, I don't want to spend the rest of my life arguing about it, but the outcome was not what you say it was. Josh Cherry 04:34, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Can you give a little more explanation for your stances? I.E. why leave the Zaehner quote in there when he said the exact opposite in another instance..? Why would Mary Boyce not be referred to as a "leading Zoroastrian scholar", seeing as she has spent her life studying the subject and has written more books on the matter than almost anyone else.

Furthermore, the vote results are clear, in that there is no consensus on it being a "very brief" mention versus "brief" mention. There is quite a bit of support for a "significant mention". The happy medium if we were going to compromise would be a "brief" mention. This includes the statement: "without an anti-Zoroastrian POV" (see "brief" vote option).

Here is my position:

The anti-Zoroastrian-influence quotes should not be there at all, as the "brief" vote result quite clearly stipulated "no anti-Zoroastrian POV". At the very least, even if were going to include one anti-Zoroastrian-influence quote, we could include the Mary Boyce as well to add balance.

I also believe that due to the inconsistency of Zaehner's position, his quote should not be in there, lest we include his contradicting quote as well (see above).

If KHM03 states that we shouldn't add a Mary Boyce quote due to wanting to keep the article concise, I would challenge him as to why he didn't raise any objections to a whole un-discussed paragraph about Noah's sons being added for two months while it was part of the article.

--Amin123 04:54, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Please review this. In this case, the consensus is that you should stop trying to cram your POV into the article. Thanks. Tomer ^TALK 10:12, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Amin123: Tomer is correct. The vote was clear; no need to revisit it over and over. If Mary Boyce is a great Zoroastrian scholar, that's great. I hope the Zoroastrian page refers to her. What scholars of Christianity can be cited to support your view? I have listed previously many well respected names. Please give us some citations. I support your edit/deletion of the Noah stuff. KHM03 12:13, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

The consensus was somewhere around a brief mention as per the vote. Tomer, visit the vote results again and see what was voted for. Notice the 'brief' option mentions "without an anti-Zoroastrian POV". Any quote alleging Zoroastrianism may have had no influence would be considered "anti-Zoroastrian POV" (in the context that the term was used in in the vote, let's not get into another long drawn out argument about what is "anti-Zoroastrian"). KHM03, as far Mary Boyce, the section is about Zoroastrianism's influence on Christianity, and since she is a scholar who has spent decades studying Zoroastrianism and believes Zoroastrianism had a profound effect on Judaism and Christianity, her viewpoint is all the more relevant.

So far, the objections I've had are:

John Cherry didn't want the term "leading Zoroastrian scholar" preceding Mary Boyce's name. I brought up the fact that she IS indeed a leading Zoroastrian scholar as judged by her long and distinguished academic career researching and writing about that very subject.

Tomer doesn't want the version I'm calling for in there at all, because he claims I'm trying to cram through my POV. This is despite the fact that I'm simply repeating what the vote results called for. He did not respond or acknowledge the more than ten points I raised. He simply thinks I'm trying to cram through my view and will not accept anything that I say, apparently regardless of the rationale I put forth for it.

KHM03 thinks that Mary Boyce shouldn't be mentioned because?? because she's a scholar of Zoroastrianism rather than a scholar of Christianity. According to his rationale, scholars need to keep to their own sections in wikipedia and not cross into each other's territory, rather than collaborate on expanding knowledge together.

These are the objections raised so far. None of them make much sense to me and I'm sure to no one who's objective.

In the meantime, I'm removing the "Noah's sons" paragraph until there is some discussion on the matter. A whole new paragraph should not be added (and might I add none of the people who objected to a tiny quote from a pro-Zoroastrian scholar being added because they supposedly wanted to keep the article concise, objected to this huge paragraph being added without any discussion, and so far no one has responded to this point I put forth) without any prior discussion when we're having so much controversy over adding or removing one or two small quotes.

--Amin123 14:24, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I wish you wouldn't keep removing that paragraph that I wrote. What is wrong with it?

Aside from direct contact between Judaism and Zoroastrianism, another possibility is that both traditions derived from a common source. Judaic sources state that Noah taught his children the ways of the Lord, and presumably some of these ways could plausibly have been preserved by more than one group of his offspring. If Zoroaster codified beliefs practised by the Medes, who were known as Madai, this is seen by some as an indication that Madai, the grandson of Noah, preserved some of these traditions as taught by the patriarch.

You are talking about the similarities between A and B, most anyone will concede that, rather than A coming from B, or B coming from A, it is also a distinct possibility that both A and B came from C; and this avenue of exploration should not be suppressed or covered up, because there are indeed those who have proposed it. Codex Sinaiticus 14:42, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Though I had no part in regard to your paragraph, I may point out a few difficulties:

Theoretically, your A-B-C model is perfectly fine. However, the question is whether there is such a "C" in regard to the "A" (Judaism turns Christianity) and "B" (Zoroastrianism) and if there is such a "C" to identify it. These two questions have to be answered (apart from the question whether there are substantial similiarities) in your passage.

You include Noah as this common source. Now, I accept the reality of Noah but then you'd need to show that these similar features were not only present in Noah's day but more importantly that they were handed down through the generations to Abraham as the progenitor of the Judeo-Christian tradition and to Zoroaster. Note however that both Abraham (see the extrabiblical story of him smashing his father's idols) and Zoroaster (see his life's conflict) started something new. I don't think it likely that substantial similarities were handed down from Noah and survived either the handing down process (which in the Seminitic line clearly was corruption down to Abraham) or the "revolutions" of Abraham and Zoroaster. Also the "ways of Lord" mentioned in connection to Noah would have to fit the imilarities some propose between J-Chr. and Z.

Your model might work in regard to "monotheism" (and is indeed way better than the false claim that J. became monotheistic only after Z.'s influence), especially when considering a proper definition of monotheism. Though this issue seems quite clear, I repost something I posted on "Christianity" (no in archive):

I recently found (in Klaus Berger and Ratzinger) a better definition to distinguish polytheism and monotheism:

Both camps agree that there is a absolute which is only one and a plurality of phenomena (e.g. the ideas of a oneness behind this plurality in Hinduism, or Platonism).

Now polytheism considers this "one absolute" to be unaddressable and only addresses it through the lower phenomena which it calls gods (and these are created or something like this)

The monotheistic religions (J,C,I) dare to address the "one absolute" as a person. Hence monotheism has only one uncreated God who is the "one absolute", while polytheism has a plurality of created gods under the unadressable "one absolute".

Even if you don't accept this re-definition, you can see that being uncreated is part of the monotheistic definition of God (and the uncreatedness and hence divinity of "the Son" was also a major point of contention the Arian dispute in the 4th century Church).

This move of turning to addressing and worshipping the "one absolute" can be done by two group independently of one another, but it could at the same time be "digging up" some "long lost treasure" stemming from "common ancestors". Str1977 15:41, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Having now read the posts above, I might tell you, Sinaiticus, that the main objection is that it hasn't been discussed on the talk page before, though some think it "silly". I think, as I said above, that it can hardly be substantiated and might be "original research".

As to Amin's complaint that no one removed it: I can't remember that it is binding Wiki policy that any addition had to be discussed on the talk page first (though it is a good thing to do that). This talk page is for discussing edits, sure, but some might not warrant a discussion. I don't say this is the case here - merely that this is no reason forcing us into deletion. This issue differs from your case: Siniaticus' post hadn't been discussed at all, while we all have been dealing with your edit for quite a while and even had a vote on it. Str1977 15:55, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

And, again, I have no problem with removing the Noah paragraph. Amin 123, as far as Mary Boyce...I'm just suggesting that if her Zoroastrian theory is accepted as universally as you claim, surely you could find one reputable scholar of Christianity or Judaism to support Mary Boyce. I have mentioned several names; strengthen your argument with one of these well known, highly respected figures who work within the field of Judaism/Christianity/Bible. KHM03 16:20, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Amin, as I said above I don't want to rehash the long discussion of the vote. Suffice it to say that you are the only one interpreting it that way, and that this idiosyncratic and self-serving interpretation is untenable for reasons explained above ad nauseam.

My only desire is to have the section convey an accurate picture of the status of this hypothesis among scholars. All of the things to which I object are attempts to distort this picture, specifically to make it seem as though this hypothesis has more currency with mainstream scholars than it actually does. It should be easy to understand where I'm coming from if you keep this in mind.

Codex Sinaiticus, the "sons of Noah" paragraph compounds speculation with biblical literalism. Furthermore, as far as I can tell it is your speculation. I can come up with competing speculations, but I'm not about to add them to the article. Josh Cherry 23:02, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok let me try to guide this discussion to a resolution. Josh Cherry, you say you don't want to rehash an old discussion about the vote results, and you say I'm the only one interpreting the results that way. The fact is, the vote results are clear in that there is no consensus of it being a "brief" mention versus a "very brief" mention. There was also quite a bit of support for a "significant" mention (4+2). If we were to compromise, I'm sure everyone here would agree the general consensus would be "brief" mention. Note that the "brief" mention vote result specifically has the line "without an anti-Zoroastrian POV" (please try to understand the context that this term was included in, it means an anti-Zoroastrian-influence quote).

Now I understand your concern that you don't want the article to reflect what you perceive to be an inaccurate picture of the academic view on the matter. I disagree that including Mary Boyce's quote with a description of her as a "leading Zoroastrian scholar" would give an inaccurate picture of the academic consensus at the moment. We can agree to disagree, but we should respect the vote results. I'm not the only person who has intrepreted the vote results this way. Riil also agree with me (see above in earlier discussions), but he is not as vocal as I or KHM03, or you. If it is wikipedia policy to go with which group is the most vocal, then so be it, but I was under the impression that if a vote is taken with the understanding that the vote results would be respected, then that would take precedence over all else.

Now, I am very sure that the "brief" vote result along with the requirement of "without an anti-Zoroastrian POV" is quite clear, but I can see that there is still a lot of resistance from wikipedians to such a mention, and so I am proposing this: Leave the bit about "some mainstream scholars dispute this theory", but include the Mary Boyce quote. Furthermore remove the Zaehner quote as it is inconsistent. Again if anyone missed it, R.C. Zaehner holds the exact opposite as that in the quote in the article here:

"That Judaism was deeply influenced by Zoroastrianism during and after the Babylonian captivity can scarcely be questioned, and the extraordinary likeness between the Dead Sea text and the Gathic conception of the nature and origin of evil, as we understand it, would seem to point to direct borrowing on the Jewish side." The Dawn & Twilight of Zoroastrianism P.52

Str1977, in response to my accusation of you selectively editing my addition but not editing out the paragraph about Noahs son's, you wrote:

As to Amin's complaint that no one removed it: I can't remember that it is binding Wiki policy that any addition had to be discussed on the talk page first (though it is a good thing to do that). This talk page is for discussing edits, sure, but some might not warrant a discussion. I don't say this is the case here - merely that this is no reason forcing us into deletion. This issue differs from your case: Siniaticus' post hadn't been discussed at all, while we all have been dealing with your edit for quite a while and even had a vote on it.

If it was simply a matter of not wanting a certian position that had been discussed for months included in the article, then your position that you would focus more on my addition would be fair, but, this is not the case. Repeatedly it was claimed that the desire to keep the article "concise" was a reason for not wanting to have my tiny quote from a pro-Zoroastrian scholar added. Now if this INDEED was an overriding concern that made certain individuals resist the addition of the one tiny quote, it is very strange that a huge additional paragraph that was not discussed at all would not be edited out for months. This is what I'm pointing out.

To those who claimed that they thought the addition of the tiny (relative to the Noah's sons paragraph) Mary Boyce quote would go against the requirement of the article being "concise", why didn't you edit out the Noah's sons paragraph for months while it was added without any discussion or supporting evidence of it being a credible theory?

--Amin123 23:43, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Note: -Ril- has been blocked indefinitely for vandalism and bad faith edits; this isn't entirely pertinent, but I thought it ought to be mentioned. KHM03 23:50, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Amin123 -- I can only speak for myself in answering your question...I wasn't paying attention. I'm sorry if I offended or upset you (or anyone). I still suggest you find a quote from a scholar of Judaism/Christianity/Bible to "beef up" your argument; find a strong name & quote from these fields, and my guess is that your sentence would be permitted. KHM03 23:55, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

[2]. Tomer ^TALK 10:23, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

KHM03, I don't see why a quote from a christianity scholar is required so I'll just provide one from a scholar of Zoroastrianism whose views are respected enough for him to already be quoted once in the article, R.C. Zaehner:

The Dawn and Twilight of Zoroastrianism P. 51-52

"An almost exact parallel to this solution of evil is to be found in the Manual of Discipline, perhaps the most interesting document of the Dead Sea sect of Qumran. That Judaism was deeply influenced by Zoroastrianism during and after the Babylonian captivity can scarcely be questioned, and the extraordinary likeness between the Dead Sea text and the Gathic conception of the nature and origin of evil, as we understand it, would seem to point to direct borrowing on the Jewish side."

Regarding your response TShilo12 which you linked but did not post, found here:

Amin, please read the many pages of discussion above. Nothing has changed about my position. Also, stop characterizing opposition to lopsided Zoroastrian inclusion in the article as "Anti-Zoroastrianism"—doing so is not only rude, it's a blatant lie, and you know it.

I don't know how many times I need to type this until you read it and stop argueing an issue that doesn't exist. I'll REpaste what I wrote a month ago (and have since repeated a few times in here) and request that you read it this time instead of being purposely obtuse (which seems to me like you're acting like a 3 year spoiled child who's inconsiderate of others):

You're playing the semantics game. You know when we say 'anti-Zoroastrian' we mean it in the context of Zoroastrianism-not-having-an-influence versus Zoroastrianism-having-an-influence.

As you can see the term 'anti-Zoroastrian' was OBVIOUSLY used in the context of anti-Zoroastrian-influence, not anti-Zoroastrianism-the-religion. Please understand this and don't force me to keep repeating this point.

I hope I have responded well to all the points raised and we can have an understanding now as to where we all stand in order to be able to have the best possible consensus on the matter.

--Amin123 13:22, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Then, Amin, please only use it as in "anti-Zoroastrian-influence" and not without "influence". This will avoid misunderstandings. Str1977 20:49, 28 September 2005 (UTC)