I was also thinking about putting in the story about Balaam and Pharoah.....so glad you did T.P.P.     There's so many stories in the bible when God used the ungodly to accomplish his purposes.  I think about Joseph and how God used unbelievers to put him in a position to save not only Egypt directly but also the Jewish nation indirectly.   Even the Assyrians and Babylonians were tools in God's woodshed that he used to accomplish his purpose in the exile of the Jews.   Even later Judas was used to make sure that Jesus made it to that cross which is why he came in the first place. 

No, but that's not the point here.

Also irrelevant.

Back to the subject: the Hebrew Bible says that Cyrus was G-d's annointed and righteous. We know that Cyrus was a Zoroastrian who believed in one god, the creator of the world. That proves that Cyrus was a believer.

The fact that G-d also "stirred him up" or "used him" has nothing to do with this.

it is relevant.  It shows God's MO. 

Leauki you always do this.  You zoom in on a word and don't take into consideration the context.  Context is very important.  It also says that God says that Cyrus didn't know him.  What about that?  God says in spite of this he's going to use him.  Cyrus wasn't righteous on his own.  He was righteous because God held his right arm.  He was anointed to do the work of God. 

The Lord anointed Cyrus, King of Persia to accomplish his righteous will by conquering Babylon and allowing the Jewish exiles to return to Jerusalem.  This was all predicted in Isaiah before Cyrus was even born.....a century and a half before he was born. 

Cyrus, as the King was set apart by God's providence for divine purposes.  Not one commentary that I have in my home (and I have lots all thru the centuries) says that Cyrus was a believer.  In fact they all say something like this:   "Though not a worshiper of the Lord, the Persian monarch played an unusual role as Israel's shepherd and God's anointed judge on nations." 

It sounds like Leauki you are worshipping the man instead of the God who moved the man. 

What if I declared him god, like the Christians did with Rabbi Jesus?

It's non sequitur anyway.I just insist that if the Bible calls him righteous he must have been a believer.

I have yet to see a single piece of evidence that even suggests that Zoroastrianism is a oagan religion or that Cyrus was not a believer.

It means that at one point Cyrus didn't know him. What about it?

I still don't know G-d, but I have believed all my life.

So who exactly is righteous on his own, without G-d's help?

Well, they are all wrong.

That's what happens when a scholar focuses on a man-made principle ("Zoroastrianism is paganism.") established by the church rather than the Hebrew Bible.

Christianity has been prejudiced against Zoroastrianism ever since the early church. I think church leaders didn't like the competition for their monopoly on truth.

Christianity has taken so much from Zoroastrianism (angels, presents, good and evil), it's obvious that the church would try to forget about that religion or relegate it to unimportance.

For me, as a seeker of truth, this is unacceptable. A decision taken by early church fathers which essentially blocks one way to G-d shouldn't stop one from doing research into that direction. And given your usual opposition to believing church dogma, I am surprised that you haven't questioned this one yet.

I don't know where you're getting this.  Angels were present way before Zoroastrianism as was good and evil....which started right from the beginning in the garden of Eden.  Makes no sense Leauki. 

well there must be a reason.  I've never even heard about Zoroastrianism really until you mentioned all this.  Is it even a belief still today?   I still am very unsure what your fascination is with a Persion belief system.  You're not even Persian are you? 

It has nothing to do with competition at all.  As Christians we're not competing against man-made religions.  Jesus said to follow me so we're following Jesus who proved he was not only from God but that He was God in the flesh. 

So every single commentary and dictionary I've come up with thru the centuries including today are all wrong and you're right? 

When I looked up in my dictionary I found this under Zoroaster:

"An east Iranian prophet whose followers worshipped the deity Ahura-Mazda.  Belief in divine beings.  Ahuras was probably part of the older Aryan religion.

Zoroaster appears in a new personal relationship to Ahura-Mazda whom Zoroaster may have seen as the personification of all the other divine qualities.  A large number of inscriptions from the time of Darius show that Ahura-Mazda was considered to be the god of the Iranians, though Zoroastrianism does not appear to have had the formal organization at that time that it would acquire later."

So it seems as tho you are following Zoroaster, an Iranian prophet instead of the prophets God gave us.  In the OT there were many outside prophets that were considered false and not of God.  What is telling you that Zoroaster is a true prophet of God?

There is no concept of "evil" in Judaism.

Judaism is between instinct and good, not between evil and good. The good-evil dualism derives from Zoroastrianism.

Angels as imagined in Christianity come from Zoroastrianism and appeared in that form in Judaism only after the exile.

The Hebrew Bible does when it calls Cyrus, a follower of Zoroaster, righteous and annointed by G-d.

What gives you the idea that Ahura Mazda is not the Jewish god or that Zoroaster was not a real prophet?

Zoroastrianism still exists. Freddy Mercury was one. The remaining Zoroastrians live in India now, but some can be found in Iraq and Iran.

My fascination with the Iranian religion is simply due to the fact that its existence saved Israel and that it, as a religion, does not contradict what I believe in. I consider it good evidence for the truth of Jewish belief that the Iranians, by a different source, were taught the same truths and that when the two societies met, they both recognised this coincidence (if you want to call it that).

You are against religions that also claim a divine source. You think they are all wrong. That's competition.

Because there's nothing in scripture about him.  There's all sorts of belief systems outside of scripture.  If Zoraster was a prophet we would have known about him thru the word of God. 

There are many names of God and this Ahura Mazda is not mentioned anywhere in scripture. 

I don't know who Freddy Mecury is. 

you may call it competition but I say that God has no competition.  Any religions that "claim" a divine source outside of the Hebrew scriptures is false......not competition.  God has no competitor. 

Egypt saved Israel.  Do you worship the Pharoah? 

Cyrus didn't save Israel.  He released them to go back to their own land as he did other nationalities.  The Jews were not the only ones. 

God uses people, circumstances, events and time to do his will.  He used Cyrus as he did many others, even evil corrupt kings to do his bidding. 

Heck, even Judas was used.  Judas helped Christ get to the cross which is the whole reason Christ came.  He came to die and Judas was the hands and feet that led Christ to meet his objective. 

We did. It's all over Zoroastrian scripture.

I wouldn't be surprised. It's a Persian term and the Bible is written in Hebrew and Aramaic.

The Bible doesn't mention the English words "god" or "lord" either.

Religion is not G-d.

I didn't say that Ahura Mazda was a competing god, I said Zoroastrianism is a competing religion to Christianity.

And there is NOTHING in the Hebrew Bible that says that there have been no other prophets not mentioned in the Bible who were inspired by G-d and told the truth.

Cyrus was a rightous king and annointed by G-d.

So either pagans can be righteous, which means that there can be "competing religions" which can be true.

Or Cyrus was no pagan, which makes Zoroastrianism a true religion.

Your choice.

(Islam accepts Zoroastrianism as a true religion and Zoroaster as a true prophet. And very early Christianity did too as evidenced by the story of Zoroastrian priests, the Magi, visiting and believing in Jesus.)

You are confusing gods and kings again.

Does the Bible call that pharaoh a righteous king annointed by G-d?

I don't need more saving than that.

And I am glad the Jews were not the only ones.

Prophecy says that the Messiah will save not only the Israelites but everyone. Cyrus was on a good path there.

But He hardly calls them righteous or His annointed, does He?

And did your New Testament refer to Judas as "righteous" when he was thus used?

You're putting too much stock in one word.....been here before with you.  Context is very important...remember?  I can give you every single instance in scripture where Cyrus is mentioned.....

Ezra 1,2,3,4

2 Chron 36

Isaiah 44:28, 45:1

Daniel 1:21, 6:28, 10:1

Nowhere does it say that Cryus was a believer.  In fact in context, it's clear he was not although I do believe he did respect the Jew's God.   Calling him righteous doesn't mean he was righteous on his own merit.  He was righteous because God declared him righteous in the delivery of his people.  That's it.  God chose him, anointed him as the vessel that would do his work. 

Judas didn't deliver the Jews like Cyrus did.  Judas delivered the Messiah up to be crucified.  They both were used of God, one for a positive outcome and the other for a seemingly negative or very unpopular outcome. 

So you remain convinced that there can be such a person as a "righteous pagan annointed by G-d"?

Personally, I believe that Zoroastrianism is a true religion, that Zoroaster was a real prophet, and that G-d by any name in any language is still G-d.

I don't believe that Muhammed was a prophet because even bu his own words he never heard the word of G-d Himself, only the words of angels, which disqualifies him as a prophet by the Jewish definition even if I believed every single word he said otherwise.

Let me state the part doesn't represent the whole.  Cyrus does not represent the whole of Zoroastrian. (On a very very side note: A group of Archaeologist (my friend was part of this group and lived there) have found what appears to be the oldest fire pits for Zoroastriasm in Turkmenistan. I'm not sure when or if this was published due to the fact that Turkmenbashi, Saparmurat Niyazov, died about 2 years ago. I haven't kept in touch with him either since I've been all over the place.)

It is stated that in Deut 4:29 ' And if you shall seek HASHEM your G-D from there, then you shall find Him, if you seek Him with your whole heart, and with all your soul' That's promise G-D gave.

Abraham was seeking G-D and G-D lead him out of his nation.  Abraham was a pagan, so should we follow Abrahams previous past?

mä·shē'·akh/mä·shakh' could refer to everyday usage to such acts as rubbing (mashah) a shield with oil (Isa 21:5) or painting (mashah) a house (Jer 22:14). There is a multifold significance of mashah.  First, to appoint an individual or an object indicated an authorized separation for G-D's service.  Moses anointed Aaron (Exo 29:36). While mashab represents a position of honor there is also an increase of responsibility.  Both Saul and David are called to account for their sin with the reminder: 'I anointed (mashah) you king' (1Sam 15:17;2Sam 12:7). 

Secondly, though the agent might be a priest or prophet, the writers speak of anointed ones as those whom the L-RD anointed (1 Sam 10:1; 2Sam 12:7).  Such language underscored that it IS G-D who is the authorizing agent.  We can see with Saul even though he was 'mashab' G-D'S Spirit left him YET David still showed respect to him.

Mashiah is almost exclusively reserved as a synonym for "king" (melek) as in poetry where it is in parallel position with king (1Sam 2:10; 2Sam 22:51; Ps 2:2)  Now on to the point being discussed of Cyrus, a non-Israelite, as the L-RD's anointed (limshiho, Isa 45:1).  If mashiah is envisioned as an ideal king, godly and upright, then the designation of 'anointed' causes difficulty, for Cyrus was a worshiper of Marduk and other pagan deities.  Yet Cyrus was the L-RD's appointee for a definite task.  This Isaiah passage suggests that Mashiah be understood as one singled or 'chosen' (bahar) for a task, characteristically one of deliverance, a deliverance of Israel from their Babylonian captors returning them to their homeland.  Joseph being Mashiah type/Moses being a Mashiah type.  It goes back to my opening paragraph discussing Mashiah.

As for the king part, that task centered on a righteous rule in the context of grace in which there was deliverance from oppression. Saul in his first major encounter exemplified the qualities of a mashiah (1 Sam 11).  Due to Saul's sin and distancing himself from G-D, David becomes the archetype of Mashiah.