Steven Carr

It is interesting to compare first century Christians and later Christians to see what spin developed over time.

The first century Christian , Clement of Rome, and the 4th century St. Ambrose both wrote about the Phoenix. (Christians sometimes believed mythological stories)

Both Christians saw parallels between pagan myths and Christian stories and used the Phoenix as one example.

Clement of Rome writes about the Phoenix like this

Notice how Clement has no problems with the idea that the old bones were still to found in the place where the resurrection had occured. Indeed he says that inspecting the bones helps priests know when a resurrection had taken place.

Now see how Saint Ambrose handles the same story. He writes very similarly, except that he knows there is supposed to be an empty tomb.

So he drops all mention of any bones being visible or present, and concentrates on the empty tomb being available for inspection.

Clearly Ambrose has deliberately retold the story to have an empty tomb rather than old bones as the proof of resurrection. The first-century Christian had no such restraints about old bones still being present after a resurrection had occurred.

So sometime from 70 AD onward, Christians began to believe that they were supposed to believe in an empty tomb, and wrote accordingly.

rhutchin

I have not read Clement or Ambrose, but it may be that they are drawing an analogy between the phoenix and Christ. Their argument could be: You believe that a bird could die and be resurrected and you worship that bird because of this; let me tell you about a man who once lived, who died and who was resurrected and who gives life to all who worship him.

djrafikie

Because the nature of faith is completely irrational. furthermore, this is all the proof any sane person needs that the textual basis for the faith is made up/altered to suit the purposes (or overactive imagination) of the writer.

Now please excuse me, I am waiting for Jimi Hendrix to rise from the dead, and I would'nt want to blink and miss it.

andrewcriddle

The word used by Clement is SHKOS which has various translations.
It could here mean either nest or sepulchre


The ante-nicene fathers translator took it to mean nest whereas Bart Ehrman translates it as tomb.

Ambrose seems to be dependent on Clement. He takes the word to mean sepulchre

Andrew Criddle

Steven Carr

And Ambrose drops any reference to bones being present, while Clement thought that the prescence of bones was natural.

Solo

Interesting: when I first read the NT cover-to-cover at the age of 38, (not having had any religious instructions after the age of 7) I had a strong impression of two things:

1) Paul had an intense dislike of the "living" Jesus and never ceased to consider him a false idol who led people astray. He continued to subvert the Jesus movement after his conversion, on commission from God himself.

2) What Jesus taught (or apprehended) as "resurrection" was diametrically opposed to the traditions that Paul drew upon and the New Testament - wonder of wonders - preserved the nature of the dispute.

Jesus believed that the kingdom of heaven would happen during his lifetime and that he had the know-how of how to make it happen. Paul believed this to be folly (after his conversion, he amended his view, to make it a folly ordained by God) and taught all flesh must die and that the spirit will morph us bodily at the resurrection.

In my reading, the empty tomb story was created as a compromise: If my hunch is right, it started as double-think. The mysterious "Jesus' body" was originally a cypher for the OBE experiences in baptismal tombs, during the cultic Jesus baptism practice (that Paul most likely knew about and disapproved of). The body one acquired during the unio mystica disappeared, meaning the subject was calmed and brought to his or her former self. The story of the crucified Jesus bodily rising from his grave was grafted on the baptism-of-fire experiences of the earliest converts. More likely than not, during Jesus' lifetime the "glory" the "resurrecting" adept felt, was identified with the Danielic Son of Man coming on clouds. After his death, novices like Mary Magdalene, underwent the apulotrosis procedure to meet with "Jesus", and it is quite believable that in some of them the combined shock of the sensory deprivation and sleeplessness drove their "seven devils" off.

Jiri

GakuseiDon

But why are you supposing that there was the possibility of a problem in the first place? Justin Martyr compared Jesus ascending to heaven with a man riding on a flying horse, without pointing out that Jesus wasn't riding on a flying animal -- he worked with the myth as it was. You seem to be assuming that there is a problem, but AFAICS you are reading it into the text.

Steven Carr

There wasn't a problem at all for Clement saying that the prescence of bones proved a resurrection, just as Justin had no problem with the idea that Jesus once rode upon an animal.

But Ambrose dropped all mention of bones being still available for inspection.

You can see what spin he put on the passage.

GakuseiDon

Out of interest: I know that often these threads of yours are directed at some particular apologist's comment (to which you like to add your own little twist) -- if this is the case here, would you mind sharing which apologist, and what was their argument?

rhutchin

I am not sure that the "bones" had any significance to either man. Clement seems to have been repeating the story commonly believed about the phoenix and that story referred to the bones. I don't think that Clement is arguing that the bones proved the resurrection. Within the story related by Clement, the bones seem to be evidence of the death of the bird. Ambrose seems to have dropped mention of the bones possibly for lack of significance. Given that Ambrose is seeking to turn people's attention to the Christ, the bones were of no consequence. Important to Ambrose was the next (that he calls a casket). Perhaps the bones had no real religious meaning to those who practiced a religion based on the phoenix, so Ambrose ignored them.

Each man put spin on the passage by taking that which people believed about the phoenix and directing them to the account of the Christ who also rose from the dead. Given that the people believed in the resurrection of the dead, a resurrection in another religion would not be an issue. It might be like talking to a person who is a Buddhist. You might start by noting that Buddha was a good man and then turn the person's attention to another good man.

You have provided a limited reading from Clement and Ambrose. Perhaps you have left out some context from the surrounding passages that would support your contention.