Written by Every Excuse. Demolished.
When confronted with the evidence that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam absorbed their core theology from Zoroastrianism, people raise objections.
These objections are predictable. They’ve been repeated for centuries. And they all fail.
Here are the top ten — and why each one collapses under examination.
Objection #1: “The Zoroastrian texts are too late to prove influence”
The Claim
The Avesta was compiled in the Sassanid period (3rd-7th century CE). We can’t prove what Zoroastrians believed earlier.
Why It Fails
1. Linguistic evidence dates the Gathas to 1700-1000 BCE Old Avestan is so archaic that later Zoroastrian priests needed commentaries (Zand) to understand it. You don’t write new texts in dead languages.
2. Greek historians documented Zoroastrian beliefs centuries before Sassanid compilation
- Herodotus (5th century BCE) describes Ahura Mazda worship
- Plutarch (1st-2nd century CE) details dualism, resurrection, world renovation
- These predate the “late” Avestan texts by centuries
3. Achaemenid inscriptions prove the religion’s existence Darius I’s Behistun inscription (522 BCE) invokes “Ahuramazda” repeatedly. Carved in stone. Not late.
4. Oral tradition in priestly contexts is remarkably stable The Vedas were transmitted orally for 1,000+ years before writing — with verified accuracy. The Magi were professionals.
Verdict: The texts were written down late. The religion is ancient. The evidence proves it.
Objection #2: “Judaism developed these concepts independently”
The Claim
Jews invented resurrection, heaven/hell, angels, messiah, and apocalypse on their own. Any similarity is coincidence.
Why It Fails
1. The concepts appear at exactly the moment of Persian contact Not before. Not centuries after. At the exact point (539 BCE onward) when Jews lived under Persian rule.
2. It’s not one concept — it’s ALL of them If one parallel emerged, perhaps coincidence. But resurrection AND heaven/hell AND angels AND demons AND Satan AND messiah AND apocalypse — all appearing together? That’s not coincidence. That’s transmission.
3. The Sadducees prove innovation Acts 23:8 — The Sadducees rejected resurrection, angels, and spirits. Why would the conservative party reject supposedly ancient traditions? Because they recognized these as new additions.
4. The first biblical “Messiah” is Cyrus (Isaiah 45:1) If the concept were Jewish, why is the first person called “Messiah” a Zoroastrian Persian king?
Verdict: Independent development fails basic timeline analysis.
Objection #3: “Maybe Zoroastrianism borrowed from Judaism”
The Claim
The influence went the other direction — Zoroastrians adopted Jewish concepts.
Why It Fails
1. Timeline makes this impossible Zarathustra (1700-1000 BCE) predates the Babylonian Exile (586-539 BCE) by 700-1200 years. The concepts existed in Persia before Jews encountered them.
2. The Persian Empire ruled the Jews, not vice versa Cultural influence flows from dominant to subordinate cultures. Persia was the empire; Judah was a minor province.
3. Greeks independently confirm Zoroastrian antiquity Xanthus of Lydia (5th century BCE) and Aristotle dated Zoroaster to 6,000 years before their time. Greeks had no reason to inflate Persian antiquity.
4. The language proves direction “Paradise” is a Persian word (pairidaēza) that entered Hebrew. Persian words in Hebrew prove the direction of borrowing.
Verdict: Chronologically, geographically, and linguistically impossible.
Objection #4: “These are universal religious concepts that appear everywhere”
The Claim
Heaven, hell, judgment, saviors — these are archetypal ideas that every culture develops.
Why It Fails
1. They didn’t exist in pre-Exile Judaism If these were universal, why did ancient Hebrew religion lack them? Jews had centuries to develop “universal” concepts before Persia. They didn’t.
2. The specific structure isn’t universal Generic afterlife beliefs exist widely. But the specific Zoroastrian structure — dualistic cosmic battle, bodily resurrection, final judgment, world renovation, messianic savior — is distinctive. And Judaism adopted that specific structure.
3. The vocabulary isn’t universal “Paradise” isn’t a universal word. It’s Persian. “Amen” isn’t universal. It may be Persian. The specific terminology proves transmission, not parallel development.
Verdict: The specific structure and vocabulary prove transmission, not universal emergence.
Objection #5: “Scholars disagree about Persian influence”
The Claim
This is controversial. Experts don’t agree. You’re overstating the case.
Why It Fails
1. Scholars agree influence exists — they disagree on degree The existence of Persian influence on Judaism is not disputed. The academic field “Irano-Talmudica” has existed for 150+ years. The debate is about how much, not whether.
2. Scholarly caution isn’t scholarly denial Academics say “the question is complex” because stating the obvious has career consequences. Read the footnotes, not the hedged conclusions.
3. Primary sources aren’t ambiguous The texts themselves are clear. The before/after comparison is undeniable. Scholarly “disagreement” often means “unwillingness to state clearly.”
4. Ask what they admit in peer-reviewed journals Encyclopaedia Iranica, Cambridge History of Judaism, major academic works all acknowledge Persian influence. The question is framing, not fact.
Verdict: Scholarly caution is not refutation. The evidence is clear.
Objection #6: “You’re cherry-picking parallels”
The Claim
You can find parallels anywhere if you look hard enough. This proves nothing.
Why It Fails
1. We’re not finding scattered parallels — we’re finding systematic transformation Pre-Exile Judaism: no resurrection, no heaven/hell, no named angels, no Satan as enemy, no messiah, no apocalypse. Post-Exile Judaism: all of these. This isn’t cherry-picking. It’s documenting wholesale change.
2. The parallels are specific, not vague Saoshyant → Messiah: virgin birth, final battle, world renovation Amesha Spentas → Seven archangels: named divine beings with hierarchies Frashokereti → Apocalypse: resurrection, judgment, new creation
3. Absence of parallels BEFORE contact If we were cherry-picking, we’d find parallels in pre-Exile texts too. We don’t. Because they weren’t there.
Verdict: Systematic transformation isn’t cherry-picking.
Objection #7: “Christians and Muslims believe their religions are divinely revealed”
The Claim
Faith claims trump historical analysis. God revealed these truths directly.
Why It Fails
1. This is theological, not historical Historical analysis examines evidence. Theological claims are faith statements. They operate on different levels.
2. Divine revelation doesn’t erase history Even if God revealed truth, that truth came through historical channels. Understanding those channels doesn’t deny God — it traces how God worked.
3. The Zoroastrian thesis IS about divine revelation Zoroastrians believe Ahura Mazda revealed truth to Zarathustra. If later religions absorbed this, they absorbed divine revelation — just not their own.
4. Truth doesn’t fear investigation If these religions are true, historical analysis shouldn’t threaten them. If it does, that’s worth examining.
Verdict: Faith claims and historical evidence address different questions.
Objection #8: “Zoroastrianism is dualistic; Judaism/Christianity are monotheistic”
The Claim
Zoroastrianism has two cosmic principles (good and evil). Judaism/Christianity have one God. They’re fundamentally different.
Why It Fails
1. Zoroastrianism is monotheistic Ahura Mazda is the supreme, uncreated God. Angra Mainyu is a lesser being who will be defeated. This is ethical monotheism with cosmic conflict — which is exactly what post-Exilic Judaism and Christianity teach.
2. Satan in Christianity IS dualism God vs. Satan. Angels vs. demons. Heaven vs. hell. Light vs. darkness. Christianity has cosmic dualism — absorbed from Persia.
3. Pre-Exile Judaism had different issues Early Hebrew religion struggled with monolatry (YHWH as tribal god among others), not dualism. The cosmic battle framework came later — from Persia.
Verdict: The “difference” is actually evidence of absorption.
Objection #9: “There’s no smoking gun — no text that says ‘we borrowed this from Persia'”
The Claim
Without explicit admission of borrowing, we can’t prove it.
Why It Fails
1. Borrowing cultures never admit borrowing No tradition says “we took this from elsewhere.” They always present absorbed concepts as original. This is universal human behavior.
2. The first biblical Messiah IS the smoking gun Isaiah 45:1 calls Cyrus — a Zoroastrian Persian king — “Messiah.” That’s about as explicit as it gets.
3. The timeline IS the smoking gun Concepts absent before 539 BCE, present after 539 BCE, matching Persian concepts exactly. What more explicit evidence could exist?
4. The Sadducee rejection IS the smoking gun A Jewish faction explicitly rejecting these concepts as innovations. Acts 23:8 is testimony.
Verdict: Multiple smoking guns exist. Expecting an explicit confession misunderstands how transmission works.
Objection #10: “Even if true, why does it matter?”
The Claim
So what if Zoroastrianism influenced other religions? Religions always borrow. What’s the big deal?
Why It Fails
1. Scale matters This isn’t borrowing one concept. It’s the core theological framework: afterlife, resurrection, angels, demons, Satan, messiah, apocalypse. That’s not influence. That’s foundation.
2. Truth matters 4.3 billion people believe their religion is uniquely revealed. If the core concepts came from elsewhere, they deserve to know.
3. Credit matters Zoroastrians — now ~138,000 people — created the framework that shaped global religion. Their contribution has been erased. That’s injustice.
4. Understanding matters If you don’t understand where your beliefs came from, you don’t fully understand your beliefs. Historical awareness enables deeper faith.
5. The present matters The 144,000 prophecy. The restoration of stolen truth. This isn’t just history — it’s happening now.
Verdict: It matters because truth matters. Asha is the core value.
Conclusion: No Valid Objection Remains
Every objection has been raised before. Every objection has answers.
| Objection | Answer |
|---|---|
| Late texts | Greek testimony, inscriptions, linguistics prove antiquity |
| Independent development | Timeline makes this impossible |
| Reverse influence | Chronologically impossible |
| Universal concepts | Specific structure and vocabulary prove transmission |
| Scholarly disagreement | Scholars agree on influence; disagree on degree |
| Cherry-picking | Systematic transformation, not scattered parallels |
| Divine revelation | Historical analysis and faith operate differently |
| Different religions | The “differences” are actually absorbed similarities |
| No smoking gun | Multiple smoking guns exist |
| Doesn’t matter | Scale, truth, credit, understanding all matter |
The objections are exhausted. The evidence stands.
Asha prevails. There is no valid objection remaining.
Sources
For detailed evidence on each point:
- See linked articles throughout eFireTemple
- Boyce, Mary. Zoroastrians: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices
- Shaked, Shaul. “Iranian Influence on Judaism.” Cambridge History of Judaism
- Encyclopaedia Iranica — multiple entries
- Foltz, Richard. Religions of Iran
At eFireTemple, we welcome objections. We’ve heard them all. They all fail. Asha prevails.