Cesc

Sort of, but this is out of context. You're forgetting the "but" part which is what gives meaning to the sentence that follows:

Where exactly does that sentence contain a "claim" of mine?

That sentence is out of context, it cannot stand alone and can only be understood in the context of the previous sentence.

Clearly, I'm personally inclined (admittedly, on no seriously informed basis) to think that some of the ancient mystery cults had an element of resurrection or rebirth as part of the personal experience of the initiate and I would be more than happy to talk about that some day. But thats still not what I 'claimed' anywhere in this thread, only when you quote me out of context.
And I used the term "philosophical mystery religions" largely to emphazise that some of these cults were more than sex raves or superstitious religious institutions. Is it not a correct scholarly term? I know that.


The above translation of the Inanna myth states that, when in the underworld for three days, she "was turned into a corpse" that was hung on a hook. And later when the life-giving water was sprinkled upon her "corpse" she "arose". And could then ascend from the underworld. If not "resurrected" after being "dead", then at least she "arose" from the state of being "a corpse".

Jeffrey Gibson

[QUOTE=Clivedurdle;5545982]Can you point out where I denied that the myth of the phoenix was ancient?

I do?:huh: Why?

Do you have to show why any number of other "basic" Greek myths that you know were were not mentioned by Eastern Church fathers were not used by them as "signs"? Or are you saying that apart from the "basic"(?) Greek myth of the Phoenix, all other "basic" Greek myths were used by Eastern Church fathers as "signs"?

Besides that, the issue isn't whether Christians did or did not "use" the Phoenix as a "sign" (or better, "illustration") of something. It's what they said it was a "sign"/"illustration" of. It's also whether your claim that when Clement did so, he used it as "sign" of Jesus' resurrection.

So I ask again: Besides Clement, which Christian writer makes mention of the Phoenix. And when he does, what is he doing when he does so?

Do you know or don't you?

But wasn't your OP that the myth of the Phoenix might have given rise to the story of Jesus' resurrection?

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

On what basis then are you inclined to thin this?

Glad to hear it. But why not today?


I did?

So you did make a claim about "mystery religions" -- specifically that historically there were "philosophical" ones as opposed to other kinds of "mystery religions".

Then I ask again, which ones specifically were "more than sex raves or superstitious religious institutions"? And which ones were only "sex raves or superstitious religious institutions" (however you define superstitious")?


But what does "turned into a corpse" mean? Is it anything more than what a tree turns into during winter? Does it mean "incapable of being naturally revivified (especially with water -- as Inanna is)"? Does it mean truly dead? And is not "arising from being a corpse" (a dried up husk of oneself) what perennial plants and trees and seeds do in the spring? After all the story is one that helps to explain the seasons, isn't it? Hardly "resurrection" in the Jewish understanding of what this meant/entailed.

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

Schismatics, not heretics.

But to answer your question, I don't know. You tell me. Do you have any evidence of its use in the East in the Patristic period?

It was simply a notation of the the fact that one doesn't find references to the Phoenix, especially as a symbol/illustration of something that Christians believed, in writings produced by Eastern Church fathers, not only at the time of Clement or at the time that we find them occurring in the writings of Western Fathers like Lactantius, but for sometime afterward.

Do you dispute this fact? Do you have evidence to the contrary?

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

Are you sure it wasn't the symbol of the Palaiologoi? Was it double headed?

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

Just checked the book I mentioned and the TLG and discovered that the Phoenix is mentioned by the Eastern Greek speaking fathers. For example, by Gregorius Nyssenus Theol.

In Canticum canticorum 6.273.12
In Canticum canticorum 6.274.14
In Canticum canticorum 6.423.1
In Canticum canticorum 6.423.4
De paradiso 83.12
De paradiso 83a.13
De vita Gregorii Thaumaturgi 46.900.39

and by Joannes Chrysostomus Scr.

In ramos palmarum 61.717.3
In ramos palmarum 61.717.4
In illud: Ascendit dominus in templo 61.739.2
In illud: Ascendit dominus in templo 61.739.30
In illud: Ascendit dominus in templo 61.739.33
In sanctum Stephanum 63.931.66
In natale domini et in sanctam Mariam genitricem 8.3

as well as by Cyrillus Scr. Eccl.

Catecheses ad illuminandos 1-18 10.19.23
Catecheses ad illuminandos 1-18 18.8.19
Catecheses ad illuminandos 1-18 18.8.20
Catecheses ad illuminandos 1-18 18.8.23

And it is used to illustrate or to certify Christian beliefs. But what it illustrates/certifies varies considerably.

Jeffrey

Toto

I couldn't actually see the details, but the audio guide described them as phoenixes, symbols of resurrection.

Cesc

Bingo! That was exactly my point:
Do you know the answers to all these good questions?
I was pointing out that Paul's ideas of resurrection was one thing and the Inanna myth portrayed another. Thus the "whole concept of resurrection" (that is, 'resurrection' in its broadest understanding) is many-faceted. But dont you think the Inanna myth has anything at all to do with "the whole concept of resurrection"? (not a retorical question).

I think it qualifies, even if the Sumerians did mean "a dried up husk of oneself" when they wrote "a corpse".

Agree, and that was part of the point I was making in my above quoted paragraph. 'Resurrection' can be understood in a variaty of ways (some would say that nature resurrects when it springs back to life in the spring).


Articles, books etc. I've read. The notion (erroneous, perhaps) is apparantly well-known, seeing how Burkett feels that "some caution and qualification are called for" in regard to this particular notion.

Tbh my friend, you dont seem even remotely interested in sharing any of your knowledge on this subject with me, which is a shame, so there's nothing in it for me. But first of all, its relatively time consuming and I'm a very busy man atm

Oh dear... Dont you have even the slightest idea of what I mean? Are you even making an effort to understand what I mean, in order that you may correct me and enlighten abit the readers of this thread, or are you just looking to put me down?

It seems to me the latter and I feel I would be wasting my time. You probably know more on this subject than me, so I wish you would just tell me what you think about the concept of resurrection in the mystery cults, or the lack thereof. That would be valuable to everyone. The rest is just a waste of time and webspace, imo

Clivedurdle

This seems to contradict Britannica (why the different spellings?) that is arguing for a development of the vegetative principles to a more biologic one - that isn't discrediting! An idea is not discredited by pointing out it isn't as widespread as first thought, or there are wider related interpretations.

And as resurrections are "signed" for example by the alleged death of trees in winter and the phoenix and many more stories and examples - remember that rates of deciduousness vary with ecology and climate so significance of any myths will also vary with location - the death and resurection of a jesus god seems like a further variation.


And I thought we have a very clear understanding of the rituals of at least one mystery cult - has Vidal's construction in Julian for example of the Mithraic ritual been shown to be wrong?

andrewcriddle

Given our very limited sources for Mithraic ritual durely the question should be "has Vidal's reconstruction in Julian of the Mithraic ritual been shown to be (probably) correct ?"

Andrew Criddle