If zoroastrianism, judiasm, christianity and islam of have so many features in common

Then why do so many devoted Jews,Christian s& Muslims believers deny that Zoroastrianism had any influence on their religions. In their view, this would compromise the unique revelations from God which characterize these religions. But there are other believers who follow a more universalism path. To these believers, the "seeds of wisdom" are found in every religion, including paganism and Zoroastrianism. Every religion has its grains of Truth, seeds which can be sown and grown in the garden of a new revelation, whether that is Jewish, Christian or Muslim. In this view, it is not only not wrong to adapt what went before into the new faith, but it is essential. Thus nothing that is true will be lost.

It must have something to do with the fact that Islam pretty much wiped them out...

Their ignorant. You can't help them. But don't worry. Kids these days are getting more intelligent. I go to a Catholic school and around 15% of the kids there are Atheist, 30% other, 35% Christian, and 20% Agnostic.

Banana Chicken Head: Yes they do. Might wanna go look it up.

They don't have much in common. You know nothing about any of those religions.

If you think about it, all those common morals that are in every religion were originally not a part of religion. Everyone knew those morals. Plus, many people were isolated from each other. Therefore, This was the work of not any one religion, but the work of the common morals and opinions of mankind itself.

I'm a Christian and all, but I'm just laying out the general thing about religion.

Adapting 'grains of truth' from other religion is required when your religion is lacking that point. If you already have it inbuilt in your religion, the point of adapting becomes void.

For example Islam has everything inbuilt. All aspects of life are explained in detailed from smallest act like 'visiting a toilet' to great things like 'ruling a country'.

When I researched it (not extensively but pretty carefully)... I found the foremost scholar on ancient Zoroastrianism puts it's origins at around the same time period as Judaism. They were in completely different locations (distances were a lot bigger dividers then). So, it is not likely one effected the other that much.

There is also not that much that is similar between them (that is unique from all the other religions at the time). So A little, but not enough to get hung up on. Christianity I've heard does take ideas from it such as hell (which isn't in Judaism) but I didn't check for that.

The scholar (a woman who's name I don't remember) as well as the rest of the field originally thought Zoroastrianism was much older, but that has since changed. That's probably where the idea came from the Judaism took things from Zoroastrianism.

PS Judaism does not assume it's morality ideas are exclusive to or completely originated in Judaism... There just isn't a problem with knowing it's rooted in prior cultures. However, it does declare what it feels are some important changes from them as well.

Islam It is the only religion that:

1- Hold Allah as One, Unique, and Perfect.

2- A lonely worship of Allah, not Jesus, not an idol, and not an angel only Allah.

The religion of the Hebrews was around long before Zoroastrianism so there probably was not much influence there. However there was an overlap during the Babylonian Captivity where Israelites and Judites probably did interact with the Magi. For at least a generation. So it is entirely possible that elements of Zoroastrianism did enter into the Talmuds and are part of Rabbinic Judaism today. There is kind of a black hole in the history of the Magi in Medo-Persia from Alexander the Great until about 200 AD. Apparently there was some history between Christians and the Magi because the Zoroastrians persecuted Christians.. Can't think why they would do that if there was a positive exchange of information and ideas. Indications are that it was the Zoroastrians who converted to Islam and not so much the other way around.

I am not sure I would say there are a lot of similarities. There is a Creator of the Seen and Unseen, there is a type of Satan but men were responsible for their own choices and action, No real rituals like those found in Abrahamic religions or Islam, only a abstract concept of heaven and hell and judgment but unlike Christianity and Islam ultimately everybody ended up in heaven.

Well it's well known that Christianity is clearly based on Judaism, and that Islam is based on both Christianity and Judaism. Since Zoroastrianism is less well known, I'll explain its general origins and time-line.

Zoroastrianism is based on an Iranian prophet names Zoroaster, so in terms of geography, it is very near the other 3. Placing its origins in time is more difficult. The so called 'Traditional Date' is around the 6Th century BCE, however some say it should be closer to 6000 BCE or the 1st century BCE. Both extremes are generally considered somewhat absurd, and a variety of historical evidence points to the origin date around the 11Th or 10Th centuries.

Now clearly Islam and Christianity don't arrive for MilenaIAo come, so let's look at the origin of Judaism. While Jews generally place the Torah to around the 13th century BCE (2-3 centuries prior to Zoroaster), there is some conflict and doubt regarding the calendar. Primarily among secular sources originally, but generally somewhat accepted in religious circles, though unofficially. This calendrical shift would be roughly 165 years, placing the Torah at the 15th century BCE (4-5 centuries prior to Zoroaster).

(Note: Jewish history goes back roughly 2500 years prior to the Torah having arrived.)

Since Zoroastrianism traces its origins to ancient Iran, 2 centuries at least, and as many as 5 centuries, after Judaism and the Torah it would seem unlikely for Zoroastrianism to have influenced Judaism rather than the other way around.

Now Judaism certainly doesn't hold that everyone should be Jewish, but to be blunt, your "universalist path" religion concept seems a bit too superficial to be taken seriously. It's essentially taking the parts you like out of each religion, and discarding the parts that are less desirable. Seems less like a religion and more like an excuse to have assorted celebrations, or just some religion to fit your personal preferences.

Not to say you can't or shouldn't follow the ideas which you agree with, rather not to claim they're part of some universalized super-religion, while others are inferior because "it is not only not wrong to adapt what went before into the new faith, but it is essential".

Beyond that, since as shown above Judaism seems to have come first before the other 3 (Zoroastrianism, Christianity, and Islam) it has no prior religions from which to adapt what went into them, the others are adaptations from Judaism.

Also, as some others have mentioned, Judaism really is somewhat different from the others. For example, no concept for a basic core evil independent entity, the Devil in Christianity, the Shaitan in Islam, and Angra Mainyu in Zoroastrianism. Which is rather significant to not exist in a founding religion but to exist in the later religions based on it.