Reincarnation originates in Western Mysticism actually.

Today we think of it as inherently Eastern, but it's association with the East is really all via schools of thought that originated in India and then spread further east mainly via Buddhism.

Janism and Buddhism are the oldest still existing belief systems in India that included Reincarnation from the start.  Modern Scholars do believe the idea existed among Vedic people already before them but the direct smoking gun proof is lacking.  As far as the different theories on when exactly Mahavira aka Vardhamma and Gautama Buddha lived goes, I'm inclined to favor the more recent models which agrees with many other modern historians, so that would be 540-468 BC for Mahavira and 480-400 BC for The Buddha.

Reincarnation existed in Greek thought even at the dawn of Classical Antiquity, the Greek term for it was Metempsychosis.  Pythagoras (570-495 BC) was the chief popularizer but at least one Philosopher definitely taught it before him, Pherecydes of Syros who lived 580-520 BC.  But the idea could be even older with some speculating both of them got it from the Orphic Mysteries, thing is it's difficult to be certain what any of the old Mystery Cults taught, but the Orphics seem to be the origin of the whole Dionysus being basically a reincarnation of Zagreus thing.

Now this view was never the most popular opinion on the Afterlife in Hellenistic thought, in my opinion Socrates probably did not actually teach it since it doesn't come up in Xenophon's Socratic dialogues, I consider Xenophon far more trustworthy then Plato as a quoter of Socrates.  Metempsychosis in Plato's Socrates is I feel the result of Pythagorean influence on Plato during the later decades of his life.  It was never Greece's mainstream afterlife view which was the Soul being stuck in Hades forever, nor was it a factor in Stoic or Epicurean thinking.  And of course once Christianization happened it was mostly wiped out of Greco-Roman thought, many Pythagorean/Platonist ideas that I consider contrary to Scripture were adopted by the Greek and Latin Fathers, but Metempsychosis was the one idea even the most enthusiastic Platonists knew they couldn't make compatible with The Bible, only a few of the full blown Gnostics even tried.

There is a good deal of evidence that the Ancient Celts/Gauls believed in Reincarnation, Alexander Cornelius Polyhistor, Julius Caesar, and Diodorus Siculus all attest to it, Valerius Maximus and Pomponius Mela also seemingly allude to it.  Hippolytus of Rome and Clement of Alexandria speculated on whether or not this implied a connection between them and Pythagoras.

Evidence of it in Ancient Germanic Paganism also exists.  Appian in the Second Century said the Teutons believed in Reincarnation, the Poetic Edda also has some allusion to a belief in Reincarnation.  This Germanic form of Reincarnation was revived by some Nazis like Heinrich Himmler who believed himself to be a reincarnation of Henry The Fowler, and there's even a quote about Reincarnation attributed to Hitler himself.

The Thracians are also speculated to have had a belief in Reincarnation.  If the theory of an Armenian origin for Plato's Myth of Er is correct, then that's another Indo-European people who may have had the concept in their now mostly lost Ancient Pagan beliefs.

There was more contact between Classical Greece and India then people realize thanks to the Silk Road.  But even if Reincarnation beliefs in India did develop before or independent of Metempsychosis in Greece, it still originated among the Indo-Iranian speaking peoples, proper ancient Dravidian Folk religion doesn't have it.

When it comes to the Far East I know more about Japan then anywhere else thanks to my Weeb tendencies.  Japan has a more fluid approach to Religion then most countries, so today belief in Reincarnation may exist there among people in Japan who wouldn't properly be classified as Buddhists.  And for our oldest sources even the Kojiki and the Nihon Shoki weren't written down till after Buddhist presence in Japan was established.  But I still feel it's apparent from studying them that Reincarnation was not a part of Japanese thought prior to Buddhist influence.

Taoist texts alluding to belief in something like Reincarnation don't show up till the Han period (200 BC to 200 AD), and even then it's more like Avatars of Vishnu in Hinduism not Reincarnation for Normal non Divine people.  Taosim in general even today doesn't generally teach reincarnation, rather their view on The After Life is the basis for the After Life presented in Star Wars (as well as a lot about The Force itself, see Rick Worley's video on the Whils.).  Indeed if I were to compare Taoism to a school of Classical Greek Philosophy it would be the Stoics rather then Pythagoras or Plato.

Now I know attributing to "The West" something popularly thought of as Eastern is often something White Supremacists do.  But I do not believe in Reincarnation or consider it's influence on the world a good thing.  I have enjoyed some fiction that involves Reincarnation in it's premise, like some of that Anime I'm into and The Legend of Zelda.  But I think seriously believing in it in real life can prove to be quite dangerous.

Pagan ideas compared to The Trinity

Inspiring Philosophy did a video addressing people accusing The Trinity of being Pagan called Is The Trinity Pagan?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAcDV270D_0


It’s a pretty good video, but I would say he slipped a bit in addressing the Hindu Trimurti comparison.  Hinduism does have distinct personalities for Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva so saying it’s more like Modalism doesn’t really work. 

The main failure of that analogy is that when you break it down, comparing Brahma to The Father and Vishnu who incarnated as Human Avatars to The Logos can make a little sense, but comparing the Holy Spirit to Shiva the God of Destruction makes no sense, their functions are literally the opposite.

And then there is the fact that this Trimurti idea developed late, I don’t think you can actually find it in the Rigveda, Ramayana or Mahabharata, and even some of those writings come after the Northern Tribes were dispersed Eastward.  The Kurma Purana seems to be the earliest clear expression of it and it’s Eighth Century AD at the earliest.  Christians had migrated to India from Persia at least as early as the 4th Century AD.

I also think the development of Hinduism and Buddhism may have been influenced by the Gnostics. The Manicheans had spread throughout Persia and further east. And the Mahabrahma is like the Gnostic Demiurge, a lesser creator who thinks he's the top god even though he isn't.

A closer Comparison to The Trinity would be Neo-Platonism’s concept of The One, The Intellect and the World Soul.  A key distinction I’d make there is that it is mostly the Intellect emanating from The One and the World Soul emanating from The Intellect.  While the Christian Trinity is much more Triangular in its relationship, in fact the Greek Orthodox would stress that the Holy Spirits proceeds from The Father not The Son.

But again, while Neo-Plaotnism draws on Plato, nothing this close to a Trinity is in Plato.  Neo-Platonism is largely said to have began with Plotinus (204-270 AD) or his mentor Ammonius Saccas (175-242 AD).  Tertullian (155-240 AD) had already laid out a doctrine of The Trinity pretty similar to the Nicene one before their careers started, and he was just inserting himself into a discussion Christians were already having.  Theophilus of Antioch (died by 185 AD) was the first to use the term Trinity and defined it as The Father, The Logos and Sophia. 

Porphyry, an Anti-Christian Neo-Platonist writer, said that Saccas’s parents had been Christians but he rejected their faith.  So actually there is good reason to suspect that many similarities between Christian and Neoplatonic Philosophy came from Christians first.  That said I do still believe reverence for Socrates, Plato and Aristotle has been a very bad influence on Church History.

Learning this about Saccas as I researched this post was quite interesting.  It’s easy to assume Christian ides didn’t influence the secular world before Constantine, but what Constantine did was possible because Christianity was already becoming mainstream in many places.  So this documentation of a Pre-Nicene Pagan writer with a Christian background is quite fascinating.

I suppose I should mention briefly the Zoka SanShin (Three Kami of Creation) from Shinto Mythology.  Everything we know about Japanese mythology stems from the Kojiki and the Nihon Shoki which were both early Eighth Century writings.  If certain theories about the Hata Clan are true then Christians could have been an influence on Japan well before then.  Though in its final form the Zoka SanShin is more like the Neoplatonist trinity then the Christian one, being more linear than triangular.  And they are in no way defined as being Homusias.
https://solascripturachristianliberty.blogspot.com/2018/04/nestorianism-and-church-of-east.html

Richard Carrier says the differences don't matter.

I've read a couple articles on Richard Carrier's website about the Christ Myth Hypothesis.  And he basically stubbornly says that the differences like what InspiringPhilosphy and Chris White point out don't matter, it's only the similarities that matter.
[Update August 17th 2018: I need to add a major qualifier to my endorsement of Inspiring Philosophy's Copycat Savior playlist since in the new Inanna video he engages in the massive Hersey of denying The Harrowing of Hell.]

Well it's nice that you feel you get to write the rules of this debate in a way that inherently favors your side.  But if you took George Lucas to court for plagiarizing The Hidden Fortress in Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope and said "all these differences don't matter" the Judge would laugh at you.  "No one is claiming Star Wars is a true story" you might respond, well things that actually happen sometimes seem like history repeating itself, there were a lot of jokes back in the 2000s about a second George Bush starting a second war with Iraq.  And sometimes things that actually happen seem like earlier fiction coming true, which is a recurring meme about our current President, fictional Donald Trumps got into the White House long before the real one did, and in most cases those writers thought they were writing an inherently impossible absurdity.  Or I could leave politics out of this and point to The Wreck of the Titan: Or, Futility.

Christianity has never claimed to base it's credibility on saying no one had ever thought of the idea of coming back from the dead before.  Quite the contrary I seek to show that the idea was firmly set up by the Hebrew Bible, including The Torah, in Genesis 22 and Joseph's narrative, and some of the Psalms.  And everything that's a basis for the Messiah Ben-Joseph tradition.  And the general Resurrection of the Dead was foretold in Isaiah 26, Ezekiel 37 and Daniel 12.

Richard Carrier is unique, he brings up his beliefs about the Old Testament not being much different from Pagan beliefs either in the same articles he talks about the Christ Myth Hypothesis.  You see lots of Christ Mythers are doing this partly with an agenda of denying the Jewishness of the New Testament, of saying it uses the situation of First Century Judea as a setting but that it's fundamentally philosophically Greco-Roman.  And that attitude is what I'm trying to oppose in posts like Greek words that are viewed as Gnostic and The Hebrew precedent for the Last Supper.

For example, people who see Virgin Births in every ancient Pre-Christian special birth story BUT Isaiah 7:14.  Saying "Isaiah couldn't possibly have been talking about a Virgin Birth because his said Almah not Bethulah", and then turn around and read Virgin Births into Greek stories that never called anyone a Parthenos and do graphically describe sexual intercourse.

One website I read went on about how "Goddesses aren't like Humans, we can assume they remain Virgins even when they have sex", as if the "Hyman" was the point.  Only three Olympian deities are called Virgin as a title and none of them reproduced, likewise with the non Olympian Astraea.  And in the Ugarit texts only Anath is called any word for Virgin and she never reproduced either, one line in the Baal Cycle can be taken out of context about her "Bearing a calf" but that was about her carrying one in her arms not giving birth.  The Egyptian Virgin Goddess was Nephthys, who Wikipedia says was the mother of Anubis but there is no actual solid source on that.  Isis was never ever called a Virgin until post Enlightenment Thesophists and Neo-Pagans decided it suited them to do so.

If the Christ Mythers stated this part of their argument as just being that there were miraculous births before Jesus, it wouldn't be so easy to nit pick it to death.  But they don't do that, the names of their articles and blog posts are always about Virgin births. But you see they know deep down only calling it a "Virgin" birth is specific enough to be an impressive similarity.

However I'm not as invested in the uniqueness of the Virgin Birth as I am the Resurrection, because the Virgin Birth isn't the definition of The Gospel, The Resurrection is. And that is where I'll firmly respond to Carrier's attitude by saying that to me the similarities don't matter, because the difference between Jesus Resurrection and pagan Dying and Rising god myths is where the definition of The Gospel lies.

Pagan dying and rising god myths are mere allegories for the "Circle of Life", meant to reinforce that Death is a natural part of how the world works that we need to accept.  Which is also the Moral of the Epic of Gilgamesh.  You see these Pagan "dying and rising gods" don't permanently rise, Osiris winds up right back down in the Underworld after being reanimated just long enough to conceive Horus.  After the Sermon on Mars Hill in Acts 17 the Greek audience is baffled by Paul's declaration of The Resurrection, not because the author of Acts was unaware of Greeks myths that could be called dying and rising myths, but because Paul is referring to someone who stayed Risen.

The Harrowing of Hell doctrine gets compared to Orpheus traveling to Hades, but Orpheus failed, like Izanagi failed, however Jesus succeeded in getting His Bride out of Hades.  The stories of Orpheus and Izanagi are the Bad News, they send the message that there is no escape from Hades/Yomi.  Paul proclaimed in 1 Corinthians 15:55 that Death has no Sting and Hades has no Victory.  Revelation chapter 20 foretells that Hades will one day be emptied.  And in my interpretation of Scripture it's not merely some Humans who will be risen to Eternal Life, it is all of us, because I believe in Universal Salvation.

Lilith, Serpents and Izanami

This post is somewhat a follow up to my post on The Two Seed Line Theory on another Blog.

I talked about Lilith once on my Prophecy Blog in Edom and Lilith.  I still think that theory might have some truth to it, but I want to talk about some other factors here.

The 8th-10th Century Alphabet of Ben Sira is the first known example of Lilith being identified as a previous wife of Adam.  Though the suggestion that Adam had a previous wife is made in the 3rd-5th Century Genesis Rabbah.  But the Rabbah is weird, implying it's earlier woman was also made from a piece of Adam but he wasn't put to sleep that time.

Later on some Kabbalah writings like Treatise on the Left Emanation would identify Lilith with the Serpent of Genesis 3.  And to be honest there is no solid proof in the Genesis text that the Nahash is male rather then female.  Even Lilith being traditionally depicted as red haired could come from Nahash being similar to the Hebrew word for Bronze.  Lilith has also been associated with the Serpents in Isaiah 27:1, Humm, Alan. Lilith, Samael, & Blind Dragon.  And for some context in the Egyptian Ogdoad the female deities are depicted as Serpents while the males are Frogs.

Nahash is given in 2 Samuel 17:25 as the name of a parent of at least one of David's sisters.  And attempts to explain that usually debate between Nahash as another name for Jesse or a theory that David's mother had a husband before Jesse.  But it's occurred to me that maybe this name can be used by men and women and that this Nahash could have been a wife of Jesse.

Some scholars think the Lilith (Screech Owl in the KJV) of Isaiah 34 is most likely just some normal animal, other words used around there are clearly animals elsewhere in Scripture.  For example the Satyr in the KJV is actually Sayir a Hebrew word for Goat.  Lilith coming from a word for Night could mean it's some kind of Nocturnal animal.  Babylonian Talmud on Tractate Nidda 24b implies Lilith is a winged creature.  Those clues could support the Owl translation.  But if it refers to an animal called by some other term elsewhere in scripture, the flying Serpents of Numbers and other parts of Isaiah are arguably placed near the region of Edom.

The Latin Vulgate of Isaiah 34 translated Lilith as Lamia, the Lamia was a creature in Greek Mythology often depicted as part woman and part serpent. But Lamia's etymology has also been interpreted to mean "Nocturnal Spirit", being related to Lemures.

It is commonly theorized that the idea of a Jewish tradition of Adam having a wife before Eve must come from a desire to reconcile a supposed contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2.  But the truth is if you view them as accounts of separate events, then more then one Adam was created too.  Also if you separate them neither the male or female Adam is made from the dust of the earth in Genesis 1.

It is often overlooked that without even leaving Genesis 2:4-25 there is a basis for Adam having possible wives or at least wife-candidates before Eve, who were also formed from the Dust of the Earth like he was.  That is when Adam names the "Beasts of the Field".

Some of my fellow Creationists may feel the need to mock the suggestion that God was seriously considering mating Adam with any of them.  Indeed if you read verses 19 and 20 in isolation there is no clear indicator they were possible spouses.  But the fact is verse 18 comes before this narrative rather then being saved till after it, that presents it as somehow linked.  Now I certainly believe God knew what the outcome of this would be, but this still happens in the text.  And indeed the actual text of The Alphabet of Ben Sira supports this being where it placed Lilith's creation.

After God created Adam, who was alone, He said, "It is not good for man to be alone." He then created a woman for Adam, from the earth, as He had created Adam himself, and called her Lilith.

Plenty of Creationists have already seen the creation of these animals as separate from their initial creation in Genesis 1, whether we place these events on day six or a later point.  In Genesis 1 they're made before Adam, even those that were the same day, but in Genesis 2 they're made after Adam is placed in The Garden.  In which case I suspect Genesis 1 records the ancestors of the animals we generally see today, while Genesis 2 could be beings peculiar to the Garden, who perhaps were more "sentient".  Maybe the Living Creatures of Revelation aka the Cherubim and the Seraphim were among these?

Genesis 3:1 also says that whatever the Nahash is, it could qualify as a Beast of the Field.  Some use the terminology of that verse to say it's distinguished from being a Beast of the Field, but what's even the point of mentioning Beasts of the Field in that case?  Or maybe the Serpent is distinguished from them because he was the offspring of one? possibly by Adam?  I don't know, I'm not planning on building any doctrines on the theories in this post.

I've read that the most direct translation of the Hebrew would be something like "crafty from all of animals of the field", and that Genesis 3:14 clearly defined the Serpent as a a fellow beast of the field.

Maybe the extra-Biblical traditions of Lilith came to involve confusing or conflating all the creatures of chapter 2 verses 19 and 20 together?  After all Lilith is technically a feminine Plural.  Fowls of the air are also explicitly mentioned in those verses.

I've also noticed lately that comparing Amos 9:11-12 as it is in the Masoretic text/KJV to how it's quoted in Acts 15:15-17 shows that what reads Edom in the Masoretic was probably originally Adam, which is spelled the same in Hebrew.  So maybe Isaiah 34 is the same, it was never about Edom but about the domain of Adam?

In my post about why we should not call Satan Lucifer.   I pointed out that Shachar/Shahar the Hebrew word for Dawn/Morning in Isaiah 14:12 is spelled the same as Shachor a Hebrew word that means Black or Dark, and that relating that meaning to the Dawn kind of makes sense because "The Night is Darkest just before The Dawn".  In that context it could make a good synonym for Lilith given the Night association of the name Lilith.  Giving me a basis to argue that Isaiah 14:12 says Satan is the Son of Lilith.

In the past I have noted possible parallels between the figure of Lilith and Izanami of Japanese Mythology.  In the Edom post I already linked to, in a post talking about the Anime called Evangelion, and when speculating on The Lost Tribes possibly going to Japan.  However as I've been reading up more on Lilith, I've noticed even more parallels.

Before it was mostly just her being the Wife of an Adam figure, plus Izanami speaking first in their mating ritual being an issue having a possible parallel to Lilith wanting to be on top in The Alphabet of Ben Sira.

But now I'm learning things like Lilith also being sent to an Underworld type location, from the Myths linking her to Asmodeus, to the Kaballah tradition of her going down to the Great Abyss.   Meaning the debate about if the Queen of The Night Relief is Lilith or Ereshkigal could be redundant, it could be they were always the same woman.

Izanami also possibly reflects Lilith's status as a mother of Demons via her sending Rajin and Shikome after Izanagi from the Underworld, and being the mother of many Kami.  Ryujin could also be compared to Isaiah 27:1, as he's literally a Dragon in the Sea, and as Watasumi is an offspring of Izanagi and Izanami.

In the context of all of that, there are two figures from Greek Mythology it might be plausible to compare to Lilith.

One is Echidna, a Half-Woman and Half-Snake monster who was the wife of Typhon.  And Aristophanes says she was a denizen of the Underworld.  And she was known as the Mother of Monsters.  The word Echidna also appears in the New Testament, the KJV always translated it Viper.  Is it possible that means Echidna was used in the Septuagint where the KJV has Viper in the Old Testament?  I don't know, checking the Septuagint isn't easy given how sometimes the Chapters aren't even in the same order.  Eph'eh is the Hebrew word Translated Viper in the KJV, it's used in Isaiah 30:6 in a way that's possibly synonymous with the fiery flying Serpent.  The Apocryphal Acts of Philip tells a story of Philip dealing with a Temple ruled by Echidna.

Another would be Eurynome who was the wife of Ophion, or in some theories his mother, who was also cast into Tartarus according to Lycophron (1191).  It's possible Eurynome and Echidna could have originally been the same, considering how Typhon and Ophion are almost certainly different versions of the same original myth.  Other Greek mythical figures who could be based on this same original idea are Nyx (means night) and Ceto, and maybe Lamia who was mentioned above.

There has naturally been a tendency to compare some takes on Lilith to Sophia in Gnosticism.  And Robert Graves basically made Eurynome a Sophia figure in his reconstruction.

This Mother of Monsters aspect could also make one think of Grendel's Mother in Beowulf.  Or in Norse Mythology Angrboða who by Loki was the mother of Hella (the Underworld Goddess), Jormungander, a Sea Serpent monster comparable to Serpents discussed above, and Fenrir a wolf creature you might recognize from Thor Ragnorock.  Sometimes another possible offspring named Larnvidia (she of the Iron-Wood) is mentioned, who is sometimes refereed to as a She-Wolf and the mother of Fenrir's children.  Fenrir and his offspring no doubt played a role in inspiring Tolkien's Wargs and Werewolves (who are not what the term Werewolf generally means), and Fenris Ulf in Narnia, as well as the Direwolves on Game of Thrones.  But the usual "Mother of Monsters" figure in Tolkien's lore is Ungoliant, the ancestress of both Shelob and the Spiders of Mirkwood.  Sulkaris is a villainess from a Zelda fan game who might be partly inspired by Ungoliant.

When I finally read George MacDonald's Lilith, I wonder how relevant all this speculation will be?

Update December 25th 22019: It seems like Fate/Grand Order: Babylonia is identifying the Mesopotamian Tiamat with Echidna since they're clearly implying a relationship with Medusa (Fate/Stay Night's Rider) via a similar look and having the same Voice Actress in both Japanese and the Aniplex Dub, and a similar "mystic eyes" ablity.  And there does seem to be prior precedent for such an identification.  Graves makes Tiamat the same kind of goddess he makes Eurynome.

Turns out the initial Tiamat isn't quite Tiamat but "Gorgon", they're still implying Tiamat is a Mother of Monsters.