Did the historical Zoroaster vilify the 'daevas' (pre-Zoroastrian local deities in the region of wider Persia)? If so, why? It's easier to comprehend that the disdain for the 'daevas' was a development that came later once Zoroastianism had coalesced into a formal religion, but if Zoroaster himself was the one to begin this, it's very strange.
For example, early Judaism was polytheistic, and in the process of became henotheist and eventually monotheistic. But the process was a long one, and a result of various factors that took centuries in the making.
>>2379083
Well, first of all he didn't demonize all the local deities of Persia, just one class of them, the Daevas. It's not really unparalleled or connected to monotheism. The Indians took the exact opposite route and vilified the Asuras while considering the Devas good.
>>2379083
You're never going to understand anything, die ignorant, and burn forever.
Have a nice day!
>>2379260
>just one class of them, the Daevas
I'm not well-versed in this subject, so bear with me: what made this class of deities - the daevas - so reprehensible for Zoroaster? And what other class of deities did the daevas represent? Were there other classes of deities, and why were these not demonized?
>>2379083
No, just one class of them got "demonized" more or less. Same reason why another sect of pre-Zoroastrian Indo-Iranian gods got merged into the Zoroastrian pantheon as angels and messengers as well.
>>2379083
>early Judaism was polytheistic
Source ?
>>2379565
Are you REALLY going to try to derail the thread like that, Christfag?
>>2379309
Gods of war and elements vs Gods of emotions and virtue.
>>2379260
>tfw you just realised all this time that Hindu-Buddhist devil Asura was another name for Persian Ahura Madza
>>2379083
multiple gods embody multiple virtues that the population can selectively worship
monotheism via merger or promotion of the chief god ensures moral homogeneity among the population which makes it popular with kings who want to enforce public morality