Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Clivedurdle · 09-07-2008, 02:49 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_(mythology)

Quote:

Although descriptions (and life-span) vary, the phoenix (Bennu bird) became popular in early Christian art, literature and Christian symbolism, as a symbol of Christ representing His resurrection, immortality, and life-after-death. One of the Early Church Fathers, Clement, related the following regarding the Phoenix in chapter 25 of The First Epistle of Clement:

Let us consider that wonderful sign [of the resurrection] which takes place in Eastern lands, that is, in Arabia and the countries round about. There is a certain bird which is called a phoenix. This is the only one of its kind, and lives five hundred years. And when the time of its dissolution draws near that it must die, it builds itself a nest of frankincense, and myrrh, and other spices, into which, when the time is fulfilled, it enters and dies. But as the flesh decays a certain kind of worm is produced, which, being nourished by the juices of the dead bird, brings forth feathers. Then, when it has acquired strength, it takes up that nest in which are the bones of its parent, and bearing these it passes from the land of Arabia into Egypt, to the city called Heliopolis. And, in open day, flying in the sight of all men, it places them on the altar of the sun, and having done this, hastens back to its former abode. The priests then inspect the registers of the dates, and find that it has returned exactly as the five hundredth year was completed.

Has anyone asked if the phoenix myth inspired the jesus myth?

Cesc · 09-07-2008, 04:00 PM

I've heard it suggested I believe, but not as in directly inspired, I think. More like the whole ancient resurrection theme in itself and the profound meaning that particular theme had with the philosophical mystery religions. And consequently Christianity, arguably.

mountainman · 09-07-2008, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Has anyone asked if the phoenix myth inspired the jesus myth?

Many stories of yore were lavishly published in the third century, and earlier, out of the period in antiquity termed the second sophistic. There is the following statement in the literature of Philostratus, which he attributes to the historical figure (ie: for whom we have monumental evidence in addition to the textual fragments) of Apollonius of Tyana ....

Quote:

And the phoenix," he said, "is the bird which visits Egypt every five hundred yenrs, but the rest of that time it flies about in India; and it is unique in that it gives out rays of sunlight and shines with gold, in size and appearance like an eagle; and it sits upon the nest; which is made by it at the springs of the Nile out of spices. The story of the Egyptians about it, that it comes to Egypt, is testified to by the Indians also, but the latter add this touch to the story, that the phoenix which is being consumed in its nest sings funeral strains for itself. And this is also done by the swans according to the account of those who have the wit to hear them."

Now we can be certain that Philostratus wrote of Apollonius perhaps a century (or more) after his death; and we can be certain that Eusebius was compelled to refute the divinity placed in this historical figure of (Hellenic/Aegypto) Apollonius - who is also associated with the priesthood of the temples of the (pythagorean? is this attribute justified?) healing god Asclepius in the first century (by tradition cited in Philostratus and Eusebius).

Perhaps we are dealing with the phoenix of a revised chronology, inserted into the ancient historical record, after the second sophistic?

One author, Bernard , of Apollonius of Tyana the Nazarene even cites the replacement of an old religion by a new religion on that fateful year 325 CE when Constantine became supreme ....

Quote:

Tredwell pointed out that Christianity forced its way forward by mass executions and at the point of the sword. It was in this way that the "Church Militant" was born and was enabled to develop as a world power. Born in bloodshed (the brutal murder of Hypatia by Christian "monks" soon after the Council of Nicea, by order of Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria, who was subsequently "sainted," and the ensuing massacres of the Manicheans), it grew by bloodshed (the deaths of tens of millions of true followers of Christ, who refused to accept the false hypocritical teachings of the church, over three million women having been put to death in Europe only a few centuries ago as witches), it shall die in bloodshed (the aftermath of the recent world carnage which is fruit of sixteen centuries of false Christian teachings of peace, carried on with an olive branch in one hand and a sword in the other).

All this resulted from the fraudulent replacement of the original religion of Apollonius by the "new" religion of the Church of Rome which took place at the Council of Nicea in the year 325 B.C.*

(*The word "new" here is significant. It clearly indicates that at the beginning of the fourth century, Christianity, as created by the Council of Nicea, was indeed a new religion, and was preceded by the religion established by Apollonius three centuries previously, which may be more properly called Essenism, a form of Neo-Pythagoreanism in character, the new doctrines which Apollonius brought from India and introduced among the Essenes, which gave rise to the new sect known as the NAZARENES or THERAPEUTS, whose doctrines were essentially Buddhist in nature.)

We have papyrii of greek plays set in India found in the Roman empire. Myth abounded on all sides. The question alone in the instance of historical truth and the appearance of the jesus myth in the Roman empire is the question of chronology. Evidence in this question is highly regarded. What evidence do the HJ proponents tender? What evidence do the MJ proponents tender? What evidence is out there and as yet unexplained?

Best wishes,

Pete

Clivedurdle · 09-08-2008, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cesc

I've heard it suggested I believe, but not as in directly inspired, I think. More like the whole ancient resurrection theme in itself and the profound meaning that particular theme had with the philosophical mystery religions. And consequently Christianity, arguably.

I would define pre nicean xianity - if it can be defined separately - as a series of Graeo-judaic mystery cults fomenting and bubbling away nicely in a good bacterial medium.

Eventually one species takes over and suffers gigantism.

I had not realised Phoenix and Phoenician were the same root.

Jeffrey Gibson · 09-08-2008, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cesc

I've heard it suggested I believe, but not as in directly inspired, I think. More like the whole ancient resurrection theme in itself and the profound meaning that particular theme had with the philosophical mystery religions. And consequently Christianity, arguably.

Would you be kind enough please to tell us (a) what specific "philosophic mystery religions" you have in mind are and (b) what the evidence is that demonstrates that the theme of "resurrection" (especially as it was understood in 1st century Judaism) was something that is indeed not only to be found within these "religions" (a term which, BTW, W. Burkett (or via: amazon.co.uk) disputes as applicable to Greco-Roman "mysteries"), but was something that had "profound meaning" within them?

I'd also like to know what scholarly works on the mysteries, if any, and what direct acquaintance on your part with the extant primary literature on/from any of the "mysteries" ("philosophical" or otherwise) it is that informs and underlies your claims about what themes were regarded by their members not only as constituent elements of their "religion" but as having "profound meaning".

Jeffrey

Clivedurdle · 09-08-2008, 11:19 AM

Quote:

1st century Judaism

Which bit of first century Judaism are you referring to, pre or post destruction? Egyptian? Roman? Greek? Babylonian? Ethiopian?

Not forgetting the various groups in Palestine. When did xians separate themselves from Jews? When can xianity no longer be called a judaic sect?

Syncretism?

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/vi...er=G&artid=280

Quote:

Jewish gnosticism unquestionably antedates Christianity, for Biblical exegesis had already reached an age of five hundred years by the first century C.E. Judaism had been in close contact with Babylonian-Persian ideas for at least that length of time, and for nearly as long a period with Hellenistic ideas. Magic, also, which, as will be shown further on, was a not unimportant part of the doctrines and manifestations of gnosticism, largely occupied Jewish thinkers. There is, in general, no circle of ideas to which elements of gnosticism have been traced, and with which the Jews were not acquainted. It is a noteworthy fact that heads of gnostic schools and founders of gnostic systems are designated as Jews by the Church Fathers. Some derive all heresies, including those of gnosticism, from Judaism (Hegesippus in Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl." iv. 22; comp. Harnack, "Dogmengesch." 3d ed. i. 232, note 1). It must furthermore be noted that Hebrew words and names of God provide the skeleton for several gnostic systems. Christians or Jews converted from paganism would have used as the foundation of their systems terms borrowed from the Greek or Syrian translations of the Bible. This fact proves at least that the principal elements of gnosticism were derived from Jewish speculation, while it does not preclude the possibility of new wine having been poured into old bottles.
Pre-Christian.
Cosmogonic-theological speculations, philosophemes on God and the world, constitute the substance of gnosis. They are based on the first sections of Genesis and Ezekiel, for which there are in Jewish speculation two well-established and therefore old terms: "Ma'aseh Bereshit" and "Ma'aseh Merkabah." Doubtless Ben Sira was thinking of these speculations when he uttered the warning: "Seek not things that are too hard for thee, and search not out things that are above thy strength. The things that have been commanded thee, think thereupon; for thou hast no need of the things that are secret" (Ecclus. [Sirach] iii. 21-22, R. V.). The terms here emphasized recur in the Talmud in the accounts of gnosis. "There is no doubt that a Jewish gnosticism existed before a Christian or a Judæo-Christian gnosticism. As may be seen even in the apocalypses, since the second century B.C. gnostic thought was bound up with Judaism, which had accepted Babylonian and Syrian doctrines; but the relation of this Jewish gnosticism to Christian gnosticism may, perhaps, no longer be explained "(Harnack," "Geschichte der Altchristlichen Litteratur," p. 144). The great age of Jewish gnosticism is further indicated by the authentic statement that Johanan b. Zakkai, who was born probably in the century before the common era, and was, according to Sukkah 28a, versed in that science, refers to an interdiction against "discussing the Creation before two pupils and the throne-chariot before one."

Jeffrey Gibson · 09-08-2008, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Quote:

1st century Judaism

Which bit of first century Judaism are you referring to, pre or post destruction? Egyptian? Roman? Greek? Babylonian? Ethiopian?

Palestinian Judaism, specifically of the Pharisaic variety. But for a broader perspective on the concept of "resurrection" in Judaism, do what you rarely do and read two works of modern scholarship not found on the internet -- Tom Wright's Resurrection of the Son of God (esp. Chapter 4 "Hope Beyond Death in Post Biblical Judaism") and George W. E. Nickelsburg's Resurrection, Immortality, and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism and Early Christianity: Expanded Edition (or via: amazon.co.uk).

Quote:

Not forgetting the various groups in Palestine. When did xians separate themselves from Jews? When can xianity no longer be called a judaic sect?

Syncretism?

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/vi...er=G&artid=280

Quote:

Jewish gnosticism unquestionably antedates Christianity, for Biblical exegesis had already reached an age of five hundred years by the first century C.E. Judaism had been in close contact with Babylonian-Persian ideas for at least that length of time, and for nearly as long a period with Hellenistic ideas.

FWIW, what's above is 100 years old and severely out of date since it was published before the discovery of the DSS and the NH library. In the light of the work of R.M. Grant (Gnosticism and Early Christianity), Edwin M. Yamauchi (or via: amazon.co.uk) and others, as well as of the DSS and the NH documents, among other things, no contemporary expert in Gnosticism agrees with this claim.

For a review of the shift in perspective, see B. A. Pearson's Ancient Gnosticism (or via: amazon.co.uk) and especially C.B. Smith's No Longer Jews: The Search for Gnostic Origins (or via: amazon.co.uk).

But knowing that since these things are not on the internet, and that you do all most all of your "research" by trolling the net, look at "Pre-Christian Gnosticism, the New Testament and Nag Hammadi in recent debate".

Jeffrey

Clivedurdle · 09-08-2008, 12:39 PM

How exactly do Nag Hamadi and the Dead Sea Scrolls effect a comment that Judaic gnosticism has Babylonian - ie Zarathustran roots?

And I thought I started the thread on the Phoenix - why the diversion? Because there is a relationship?

Might discussions of Baal and Phoenicia not be wanted?

Jeffrey Gibson · 09-08-2008, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

How exactly do Nag Hamadi and the Dead Sea Scrolls effect a comment that Judaic gnosticism has Babylonian - ie Zarathustran roots?

Gee, I guess you'll actually have to read something you can't find on a web page to find out. But maybe it has to do with the fact that saying "Judaic" gnosticism has Babylonian roots is a fine example of petitio principii.

Jeffrey

mountainman · 09-08-2008, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

FWIW, what's above is 100 years old and severely out of date since it was published before the discovery of the DSS and the NH library. In the light of the work of R.M. Grant (Gnosticism and Early Christianity), Edwin M. Yamauchi (or via: amazon.co.uk) and others, as well as of the DSS and the NH documents, among other things, no contemporary expert in Gnosticism agrees with this claim.

For a review of the shift in perspective, see B. A. Pearson's Ancient Gnosticism (or via: amazon.co.uk) and especially C.B. Smith's No Longer Jews: The Search for Gnostic Origins (or via: amazon.co.uk).

But knowing that since these things are not on the internet, and that you do all most all of your "research" by trolling the net, look at "Pre-Christian Gnosticism, the New Testament and Nag Hammadi in recent debate".

Jeffrey

Thanks for the reference Jeffrey ....

Quote:

Conclusions

At the 1966 Messina conference on Gnostic origins Simone Petrément was almost the sole representative of the classical position which held that Gnosticism was none other than a Christian heresy.120 In the last two decades the existence of a non-Christian Gnosticism has been amply demonstrated, but the existence of a pre-Christian Gnosticism in the first century or before, that is, a fully developed Gnostic system early enough to have influenced the New Testament writers, remains in doubt.

Gnosticism with a fully articulated theology, cosmology, anthropology, and soteriology cannot be discerned clearly until into the Christian era. According to Wilson, were we to adopt the programmatic definition of H. Jonas121 'then we must probably wait for the second century'.122 Hengel would concur, 'Gnosticism is first visible as a spiritual movement at the end of the first century AD at the earliest and only develops fully in the second century.123

At the Yale conference Barbara Aland emphasized the importance of Christianity for the understanding of Valentinianism. She would date the rise of Gnosticism in the first quarter of the second century.124 Tröger would also underscore the role of Christianity for the development of at least certain branches of Gnosticism.125

Significantly, U. Bianchi, the editor of the conference volume from the Messina conference on the origins of Gnosticism,126 has also come to the conclusion that Christianity is indispensable for understanding the full development of Gnosticism

This is an interesting conclusion reached by these minds:

Christianity is indispensable for understanding the full development of Gnosticism.

I wonder if the opposite conclusion has been contemplated. Namely the conclusion that Gnosticism is indispensable for understanding the full development of Christianity.

The C14 evidence available is non canonic and is fourth century. The article cited describes multiple insurgences by theorists of chronology in placing more import on far later centuries, particularly with reference to another non canonical text, one quite gnostic (ideed having other texts such as The Hymn of the Pearl buried within it).

Who was Lithargoel in TAOPATTA? Is this gnostic?
Why were the ancients "enduring habitation" in the
midst of the sea hedged in by high walls and waves?
Why is Lithargoel depicted as a healer in the tradition
of Asclepius? Why do we have the tractates of Hermes
and Asclepius in the same codex as Lithargoel and the
Peter and the Twelve (Hello can they count to 12?)
apostles who are consistently presented by the author
of NHC 6.1 as inept, non-ascetic, untrained, unskilled,
undisciplined, memory-impaired, etc, etc. The prostrating
apostles. A satire.

The authority of the canon was being satired by clever gnostics
at the same time the canon was lavishly published.
What is simpler?

The chronology of the new testament corpus
(that is both, and the canon and the apochrypha)
and indeed the corpus of Jesus HJ Christ is by C14
from the ground of the 4th century. IMO, unless
shown otherwise, the chronology presented by
Eusebius and his following christians, such as
the minds above, eusebian christian minds, is conjectural.

In the words of Lightfoot, Eusebius is their sole
guiding (ahem) "light". Chronologically.

Best wishes,

Pete

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-07-2008, 04:00 PM	#2
Cesc Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Copenhagen, Denmark Posts: 322	I've heard it suggested I believe, but not as in directly inspired, I think. More like the whole ancient resurrection theme in itself and the profound meaning that particular theme had with the philosophical mystery religions. And consequently Christianity, arguably.

09-08-2008, 12:39 PM	#8
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	How exactly do Nag Hamadi and the Dead Sea Scrolls effect a comment that Judaic gnosticism has Babylonian - ie Zarathustran roots? And I thought I started the thread on the Phoenix - why the diversion? Because there is a relationship? Might discussions of Baal and Phoenicia not be wanted?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.