The Devil: Zoroastrian myth or real fallen angel?

  • Thread starter Thread starter cmac2525
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

cmac2525

Guest
For a quick reference, I didn’t grow up with the bible, especially not a Catholic one. I had a minimal understanding of who the devil was until I started RCIA in high school. As an adult, still little better than a new convert, I can’t quite wrap my head around the idea of him. I understand that he was a fallen angel who rebelled against God before the beginning, was cast down for his pride, took a third of the angels with him, and tempted Eve in the garden. I believe in demons and personal devils who plague us to give into temptations just as there are good angels who inspire us to be holy.
What I’ve been thinking about lately is the relation between certain names of the devil, Satan in particular, and the other religion found in the region, Zoroastrianism. Satan means ‘adversary’ or accuser. But I’ve read that the image of the devil as a specifically malevolent creature and a direct adversary of God was written down in scripture (Job) during or after the Babylonian exile. In which case, Judaism might have borrowed the theme of dualistic gods, one good and one evil, and placed the devil as a creature made by God who seeks to destroy the rest of creation.
If Zoroastrian had so much influence over, or at least heavily inspired parts of, Judaism, how do we know that there really is a devil who is a malevolent creature and fell from heaven? I’m not trying to deny anything, but I’d like to be able to understand better what I’m studying about in the Catholic faith.
 
However Jesus attests to the “angelic” nature of the Devil when HE said in
Luke
10:18 And he said to them: “I was watching as Satan fell like lightning from heaven.
10:19 Behold, I have given you authority to tread upon serpents and scorpions, and upon all the powers of the enemy, and nothing shall hurt you.
10:20 Yet truly, do not choose to rejoice in this, that the spirits are subject to you; but rejoice that your names are written in heaven.”

So there you have it Jesus Himself clarifies that the Devil, Satan and the other names by which he is known is indeed a fallen Angel.
 
Humans grow in their understanding of their world and religion. Why is it a problem that Zoroastrianism influenced Judaism?

I very much believe that the old testament is sacred inspired scripture, but parts of Genesis are not necessarily meant to be taken literally. I see part of the role of the old testament as a way to show the background culturally and spiritually that Jesus came from. My point is that is doesn’t matter to me that Zoroastrianism isn’t explicitly mentioned as an influencer in the old testament when it very likely was. This really isn’t the point of the point of the old testament. In other words, it is not the point of old testament to be a historic document that acknowledges all of its sources.
 
Last edited:
The devil was an angel in Heaven who rebelled and was cast out. The devil is quite real. Evil is quite real. Please see some Catholic references to Zoroastrianism.
 
We know because Jesus told us so.

If you believe that Jesus is the Son of God, then you should beleive what Jesus said.

Only people who beleive Jesus was just a man can call for such ideas.

God Bless
 
Actually the Catechism of the Cathoiic Church teaches this. I presume since you are a Catholic you would give what it says some importance. The Catechism explains that:

391 Behind the disobedient choice of our first parents lurks a seductive voice, opposed to God, which makes them fall into death out of envy. Scripture and the Church’s Tradition see in this being a fallen angel, called “Satan” or the “devil”.The Church teaches that Satan was at first a good angel, made by God: "The devil and the other demons were indeed created naturally good by God, but they became evil by their own doing.

The Catechism makes a point of saying that not only it teaches this, but Scripture and tradition.

Actually, in the 19th Century some non-Catholic Biblical scholars held to the comparative religions approach to the Bible. They said that because of parallels between Old Testament convictions and the beliefs of the neighboring pagan religions, that the Old Testament borrowed much from them. This approach to the Bible is no longer popular. Just because there were parallels, how can you say which borrowed from another, or how can you be sure the the Old Testament borrowed from similar pagan beliefs? The logic of this approach always seemed thin to me. And actually these scholars had no proof that the Old Testament borrowed from pagan beliefs; they just assumed it occurred.
 
Last edited:
Actually Judaism rejects the Zoroastrian notion of the devil and what you refer to as “dualistic gods.” No being created by Gd can be His equal adversary. In fact, Judaism does not even believe HaSatan is an adversary: he is, as you state, the accuser, also the tempter, who appears to try to destroy our faith in Gd but, in reality, is created by Gd with the mission to strengthen our faith by testing it in times of adversity.
 
The devil of Zoroastrianism, Angra Mainyu, or Ahriman, is considered to be equal to and in constant battle with the good god of that religion, Ahura Mazda, Persian for Great Lord, I believe. Catholics and Jews do not believe that there is any entity equal to or capable of doing battle against God in its equal status.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top