egyption coffin texts.

[jadams_4242]

Ok i was just watching byu tv, a discussion of pearl of great price and the facimiles in the book of abraham. The professors were discussing about some "egyption coffin texts" around 1500-1000 b.c. {religeous egyption} some sort of sacred funearl text, where makes refferance to eternal families and progression in heaven. I dont know anything about these texts, and i appears maybe they are or have a lot of facsimilies as the ones in abraham.

I find this extremly interesting, {of course}, in regards to the sealing of families. Does anybody know anything at all about these texts?

[Zakuska]

I was just reading about this on the net somwhere the other day. Let me see what I can find.

Thats where it was...it was at Barnes and Noble. They had an Egyption book on sale that I almost bought.

What caught my eye was the "Book of the Two Ways".

Though many are unique to individual coffins, de Buck divided the coffin text into 1,185 spells, with some being assigned to larger compositions such as the Book of the Two Ways. These spells, which always refer to the deceased in the first person singular, attempt to imitate the language of the Old Kingdom, though they are actually produced in the classical language of Middle Egypt. They are inscribed using hieroglyphs, or occasionally early hieratic. Unlike the Pyramid text, they are almost always titled, though at times the title may come at the end of the text.

http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/coffintext.htm

Which is basically: Spirit Prison and Paradise.

[JangoStango]

If I am not mistaken, the Egyptians used to kill a bunch of servants and entomb them in a chamber near the mummy to serve the Pharaoh in the world beyond. Is that part of the eternal families and progression in heaven the apologists told you about? Or do we disregard this part?

[Zakuska]

If I am not mistaken, the Egyptians used to kill a bunch of servants and entomb them in a chamber near the mummy to serve the Pharaoh in the world beyond. Is that part of the eternal families and progression in heaven the apologists told you about? Or do we disregard this part?

I was always told the reason they killed them was so there was no one around to divulged the secret location of the tomb so no one could come steal the loot.

[JangoStango]

I was always told the reason they killed them was so there was no one around to divulged the secret location of the tomb so no one could come steal the loot.

There is probably some truth to that as well, but loot including perishable foods? Of course things were buried because they believed it would be used in heaven. Slaves and wives included.

[katherine the great]

I was always told the reason they killed them was so there was no one around to divulged the secret location of the tomb so no one could come steal the loot.

I think those were the grave diggers. Sometimes servants, concubines, etc were sent to the afterlife with their master.

[jadams_4242]

If I am not mistaken, the Egyptians used to kill a bunch of servants and entomb them in a chamber near the mummy to serve the Pharaoh in the world beyond. Is that part of the eternal families and progression in heaven the apologists told you about? Or do we disregard this part?

They didnt say excatly what the refferance was; but they were all 5 of them intensly amazed at what the one professor {michael rhodes} was telling us all. He was speaking as if it were not an elusive but a sure thing. I am definately going to research this subject and much more they discussed during the one hour program, for me it was very much

revealation on many issues of the b.o.a. They also pointed out a number of absolute facts that J.S could not have "made up" the b.o/a. and i agree, it is impossible for him to have known much of this stuff at that time. I am absolutely shocked at the points these profs made! WOW!

[maklelan]

If I am not mistaken, the Egyptians used to kill a bunch of servants and entomb them in a chamber near the mummy to serve the Pharaoh in the world beyond. Is that part of the eternal families and progression in heaven the apologists told you about? Or do we disregard this part?

These are called subsidiary burials, and they were only done during the reigns of the very earliest Egyptian kings. After a short period of time the living kings realized this greatly handicapped their own work force, so a new ideology was born that allowed for small votive statues to represent these servants. Tiny models of entire communities were built to accommodate this ideology. This is one example from one tomb:

This tomb also had farmers, soldiers, butchers, tanners, and other tiny models buried inside.

Originally inscribed on the walls of the insides of the pyramids (think time period of the pyramids at Giza), the Pyramid Texts had enchantments and other utterances (or spells) meant to resurrect the king and establish him in the afterlife. When religion was democratized (made available to the common man--this was actually a long process with many stages) poorer people could look forward to afterlifes, but couldn't afford the inscriptions, so they had them painted on the insides of their coffins, thus Coffin Texts. Even later, when anyone could have an afterlife, they wrote the texts (now referred to as the Book of the Dead) on papyrus and stuffed them in the coffins with the deceased. This is the time period of Joseph Smith's papyri. All three stages of enchantments appeal to many of the same ideologies and spells, and in the Coffin Texts there are a couple spells that seal the deceased to his family so he can live with them forever. It's an interesting little connection, but I would be wary of any attempts to assert anything conclusive about it. There's more going on there than a simple temple sealing, and most of it is pretty crazy. The references are here, though:

"I have come forth that my family be given to me: my sons and daughters, my brothers and sisters, my father and mother, and all who are bound to me," Coffin Texts 2.154

Chapter "To Unite Families in the Next World," Coffin Texts 2.160

"Uniting a persons family for him in the hereafter and giving his family to him in the hereafter," Coffin Texts 2.177

[jadams_4242]

These are called subsidiary burials, and they were only done during the reigns of the very earliest Egyptian kings. After a short period of time the living kings realized this greatly handicapped their own work force, so a new ideology was born that allowed for small votive statues to represent these servants. Tiny models of entire communities were built to accommodate this ideology. This is one example from one tomb:

This tomb also had farmers, soldiers, butchers, tanners, and other tiny models buried inside.

Originally inscribed on the walls of the insides of the pyramids (think time period of the pyramids at Giza), the Pyramid Texts had enchantments and other utterances (or spells) meant to resurrect the king and establish him in the afterlife. When religion was democratized (made available to the common man--this was actually a long process with many stages) poorer people could look forward to afterlifes, but couldn't afford the inscriptions, so they had them painted on the insides of their coffins, thus Coffin Texts. Even later, when anyone could have an afterlife, they wrote the texts (now referred to as the Book of the Dead) on papyrus and stuffed them in the coffins with the deceased. This is the time period of Joseph Smith's papyri. All three stages of enchantments appeal to many of the same ideologies and spells, and in the Coffin Texts there are a couple spells that seal the deceased to his family so he can live with them forever. It's an interesting little connection, but I would be wary of any attempts to assert anything conclusive about it. There's more going on there than a simple temple sealing, and most of it is pretty crazy. The references are here, though:

"I have come forth that my family be given to me: my sons and daughters, my brothers and sisters, my father and mother, and all who are bound to me," Coffin Texts 2.154

Chapter "To Unite Families in the Next World," Coffin Texts 2.160

"Uniting a persons family for him in the hereafter and giving his family to him in the hereafter," Coffin Texts 2.177

No its not expected to be excat l.d.s doctrine; but i find this amazingly supportive evidence; Didnt the book of the dead origanate from what is referd to as the apocrapha?

[maklelan]

Didnt the book of the dead origanate from what is referd to as the apocrapha?

Nope. It is the poor man's Coffin Texts. The Apocrypha was composed after the Book of the Dead was established.

[John Larsen]

No its not expected to be excat l.d.s doctrine; but i find this amazingly supportive evidence; Didnt the book of the dead origanate from what is referd to as the apocrapha?

Is there any religion, ancient or modern, that doesn't provide some sort of "supportive evidence" for Mormonism? I mean, these are pretty common themes: life after death, reuniting with loved ones, reward-riches-progressing in the afterlife. It is not like Mormonism invented these ideas. Besides that, we know that the Greeks borrowed ideas from the Egyptians, as did the Hebrews, and Christianity was basically a merging of Greek and Jewish philosophy.

[maklelan]

Is there any religion, ancient or modern, that doesn't provide some sort of "supportive evidence" for Mormonism? I mean, these are pretty common themes: life after death, reuniting with loved ones, reward-riches-progressing in the afterlife. It is not like Mormonism invented these ideas. Besides that, we know that the Greeks borrowed ideas from the Egyptians, as did the Hebrews,

It's fun to see these ideas disseminated all over the world for a lot of Mormons, but you've kinda hit on it with your last statement there. The parallels you attribute to contact are not attributed to that by those who don't want to see that kind of influence. If you want to see it, you will. Take the following, for example:

and Christianity was basically a merging of Greek and Jewish philosophy.

Actually it was only an extension of Jewish messianism. Greek ideologies weren't assimilated until the middle of the second century, and by that time the Jewishness had been all but abandoned. You, however, want to see it the other way, so you do.

[mfbukowski]

Is there any religion, ancient or modern, that doesn't provide some sort of "supportive evidence" for Mormonism? I mean, these are pretty common themes: life after death, reuniting with loved ones, reward-riches-progressing in the afterlife. It is not like Mormonism invented these ideas. Besides that, we know that the Greeks borrowed ideas from the Egyptians, as did the Hebrews, and Christianity was basically a merging of Greek and Jewish philosophy.

And why are they common themes? A common ancestor, or some universal human belief? and where did the universal belief come from?

[maklelan]

And why are they common themes? A common ancestor, or some universal human belief? and where did the universal belief come from?

Jungian archetypes!

[John Larsen]

It's fun to see these ideas disseminated all over the world for a lot of Mormons, but you've kinda hit on it with your last statement there. The parallels you attribute to contact are not attributed to that by those who don't want to see that kind of influence. If you want to see it, you will. Take the following, for example:

Actually it was only an extension of Jewish messianism. Greek ideologies weren't assimilated until the middle of the second century, and by that time the Jewishness had been all but abandoned. You, however, want to see it the other way, so you do.

Of course the Greek influence didn't happen until the large encounter with Roman world. But that does not undermine the influence of Greek philosophy in Christianity after that date. And, your idea that Christianity abandoned all "Jewishness" by the 2nd century is patently absurd and easily disprovable.

[maklelan]

Of course the Greek influence didn't happen until the large encounter with Roman world. But that does not undermine the influence of Greek philosophy in Christianity after that date.

That wasn't what you said, though. You said Christianity was a merging of Jewish and Greek philosophy, which is not at all true.

And, your idea that Christianity abandoned all "Jewishness" by the 2nd century is patently absurd and easily disprovable.

I said all but abandoned, but if you think you know this subject matter better than me, disprove it.

[John Larsen]

That wasn't what you said, though. You said Christianity was a merging of Jewish and Greek philosophy, which is not at all true.

I still say that. My two statements are in harmony.

I said all but abandoned, but if you think you know this subject matter better than me, disprove it.

Jesus was a Jewish philosopher, not Greek. Any teaching made by Jesus that is still in Christianity is proof that Jewish philosophy has not been "all but abandoned" in favor of the Greek.

[volgadon]

Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeell the Greek influence was happening in Jewish philosophy of the time and had been going on since the days of Alexander's successors. Called helenisation. It affected thought, speech, dress, leisure and technology.

[maklelan]

I still say that. My two statements are in harmony.

They clearly are not. The merging of Greek and Jewish philosophies created Hellenized Judaism, which gave us Philo. Christianity was not at developed under that influence, which was your contention. By the time Greek influence hit Christianity there was not enough Jewishness in it to functionally merge with anything Greek. You've simply made an assumption that is inaccurate. I promise you you're not going to win this argument.

Jesus was a Jewish philosopher, not Greek. Any teaching made by Jesus that is still in Christianity is proof that Jewish philosophy has not been "all but abandoned" in favor of the Greek.

Wrong. Jesus was a Jew who expounded upon theology, theurgy, and soteriology, but his teachings are actually far removed from normative Judaism. Christianity developed its own perspective, that, while having its roots in Judaism, became quite antagonistic towards it in the early second century and pretty much avoided things that would identify them with the Jews. Even their scriptures were entirely different by this point (Christians used on the Septuagint, Jews rejected Septuagint).

[John Larsen]

They clearly are not. The merging of Greek and Jewish philosophies created Hellenized Judaism, which gave us Philo. Christianity was not at developed under that influence, which was your contention. By the time Greek influence hit Christianity there was not enough Jewishness in it to functionally merge with anything Greek. You've simply made an assumption that is inaccurate. I promise you you're not going to win this argument.

Wrong. Jesus was a Jew who expounded upon theology, theurgy, and soteriology, but his teachings are actually far removed from normative Judaism. Christianity developed its own perspective, that, while having its roots in Judaism, became quite antagonistic towards it in the early second century and pretty much avoided things that would identify them with the Jews. Even their scriptures were entirely different by this point (Christians used on the Septuagint, Jews rejected Septuagint).

You seem to be making the assumption that there is a one true track of Judaic thought. All philosophical eddies that arose from Judaism can claim their heritage. The fact that Jesus was removed from what you term "normative Judaism" is completely irrelevant. His ideas were a production of Jewish thought and he is thus a Jewish philosopher. The Greek influence on Christianity is undeniable (and generally un-denied!?!) I am not contending the Christianity came from Philo, that is purely your line of thinking. I am considering More of Tertullian, Justin Martyr and (of course) Augustine. Indeed, there can be more than one attempt to synthesis different philosophical systems and the fact the Philo's work existed in no way contradicts my ideas.

Let me reaffirm my position.

• Christianity grew out of Jewish thought.
  
• Christianity encountered Greek philosophy.
  
• Christianity adapted and grew, merging Jewish thought with Greek thought.
  

Of course, Christianity didn't encompass the whole of either Jewish or Greek thought, which would be impossible. I am really not saying anything that out there and your response, seems a little over the top for such a benign assertion on my part.

[maklelan]

You seem to be making the assumption that there is a one true track of Judaic thought.

I most certainly am not. My entire career is focused on the heterodoxy of early Judaism. Limit yourself to what you know enough about to comment on.

All philosophical eddies that arose from Judaism can claim their heritage.

Which makes them no more Jewish than the pope's upbringing makes him a Nazi, despite the weak attempt to marginalize Christianity.

The fact that Jesus was removed from what you term "normative Judaism" is completely irrelevant. His ideas were a production of Jewish thought and he is thus a Jewish philosopher.

I don't find this inference at all self-evident, and I entirely disagree with it. If you insist on your conclusion then please support the inference.

The Greek influence on Christianity is undeniable (and generally un-denied!?!)

Of course I don't deny it. What I deny is that it had anything to do with Christianity's genesis, or that there was merging with anything Jewish at any point in the exchange between Greek ideologies and Christianity.

I am not contending the Christianity came from Philo, that is purely your line of thinking.

I don't recall ever saying that. Please stick to what I say.

I am considering More of Tertullian, Justin Martyr and (of course) Augustine.

None of these men were Jewish, and neither Judaism nor Jewish ideologies were ever active in their theological musings. Do you disagree?

Indeed, there can be more than one attempt to synthesis different philosophical systems and the fact the Philo's work existed in no way contradicts my ideas.

I was merely pointing to a clear example of this merging of ideologies so you can get a better sense of what that product should look like. Yes, there were more than one of those products, but the results aren't that much different, but they're all far removed from Christianity.

Let me reaffirm my position.

• Christianity grew out of Jewish thought.
  
• Christianity encountered Greek philosophy.
  
• Christianity adapted and grew, merging Jewish thought with Greek thought.

Blatant equivocation, and it's also wrong. First, your original claim was not that Christianity adopted some Greek/Jewish hybrid as it was developing. You claimed Christianity was the result of the merging of Greek and Jewish philosophies. That is demonstrably false, and you know it, so now you're pretending your statement did not address the beginnings of Christianity, but it's later evolution. The problem with this is that Greek thought influenced Christianity directly from Greek thought. There was no Jewish influence whatsoever merging with anything Greek when Christianity began to appropriate Greek ideologies, and claiming that Christianity, as an outgrowth of Judaism, therefore merges Jewishness with Greek thought in any appropriation of their ideologies is just absurd.

Of course, Christianity didn't encompass the whole of either Jewish or Greek thought, which would be impossible. I am really not saying anything that out there and your response, seems a little over the top for such a benign assertion on my part.

You don't make benign assertions. You only respond to stuff when you feel you can poke at Mormonism. You're trying to marginalize Christianity by turning it into the ******* child of Judaism and Greek philosophy, but you don't enough history to support your little jab. Don't pretend you do.

[JangoStango]

My entire career is focused on the heterodoxy of early Judaism.

(I sense a brittle ego)

[John Larsen]

(I sense a brittle ego)

For some reason maklelan keeps trying to make the discussion all about maklelan.

[maklelan]

(I sense a brittle ego)

Like peanut brittle.

[maklelan]

For some reason maklelan keeps trying to make the discussion all about maklelan.

I do recall responding to all your points in that post, but if you would prefer to limit your response only to that one statement I will go ahead and consider this discussion over. My arrogance, however well attested through the years on this board, does not invalidate the remaining statements made in my post, and they remain unanswered.