Malachi151

BTW, here is a very rough draft (I haven't even proof read it once, nor have I vetted all of the info) of my review of Suns of God so far. Keep in mind that this is nowhere near complete and I will probably re-write the whole thing to make it more concise and to address more issues up front, but for those interested in some other issues of scholarship, there are a few more that are addressed in here:

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/temp/SunsofGod.pdf

Malachi151

Well we know that Paul was Jewish. The only other people that Paul mentions as leaders of this cult he also says were Jewish, and that they indeed held a more strongly Jewish view of the cult message. Likewise, the extensive use of references to the Jewish scriptures, as well as the theology, of Mark requires that at the very least the writer of Mark had an in depth knowledge of Jewish theology and the Jewish scritpures.

Could the writer of Mark have been a non-Jew? I guess, but it doesn't seem likely. It is not unlikely, however, that he was a diaspora Jew who had never been to the Palestine himself.

ApostateAbe

The origins of the New Testament writings probably had their roots in Israel, because there are accurate descriptions of the social environment. It is not completely out of the question that the first Christianity was a creation of a non-Jew (since the earliest sources are Greek), but I compare the likelihoods of the two competing propositions, and one proposition seems to trounce the other one.

dog-on

You may "know" that Paul was Jewish, but I question this "fact" and am not at all convinced that this was the case. The mentions of the Jewish Leaders (Peter, John, James), in Galatians 2:7-9 is, in my mind (with Walker, Price, Detering, etc....) an interpolation.



Mark only needed to be familiar with the Septuagint along with, maybe Philo, and/or, Paul to have come up with the minimal theology found in Mark. He did seem to really know Josephus, however.

Roland

That was very interesting. I look forward to reading it in its finished form.

andrewcriddle

Hi Malachi

Thanks for this, can I make some points of detail ?

i/ Origen probably did believe for philosophical reasons that the Sun and other heavenly bodies were living beings See for example Alan Scott Origen and the Life of the Stars
reviewed here. http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/1992/03.02.22.html

ii/ The bacchus amulet may well be a late 19th century forgery See http://www.bede.org.uk/orpheus.htm and threads on this forum. http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=169542

Andrew Criddle

Toto

No, there is no consensus here. When we reach a consensus on this question, we will go on to argue about something else.

This is just off the top of my head -

At one time, most cultural anthropologists saw everything in terms of fertility cults. There is probably a grain of truth in this, and also a grain of truth in the idea of solar worship lying at the root of a lot of religious traditions, alathough these roots may be hidden. We know that the Egyptians were big on worshipping the sun. Academics accept that there are solar deities in the Hebrew Scriptures - the golden calf that the Israelites worshipped was the rising sun. Samson is recognized as a solar deity.

There is no academic agreement that Jesus was a solar deity, although there are tantalizing hints. Tacitus knows little about Christians except that they get up before sunrise (to welcome the rising sun) and sing hymns to Jesus as a God. What's this all about? Why does Tertullian say that Christians pray facing east (towards the rising sun?) The relation between Jesus and John the Baptist fits into an astrotheological pattern, which you can read about in Joseph Campbell. But was it a story invented around the astrotheology, or astrotheological themes fitted around actual historical figures?

And Acharya's quote or paraphrase from Macrobius appears to be accurate, although you can debate what it means.

Flaming Moe

Thanks.

Dave31

- Speaking of ad homs, "LOYALIST" is an insult. I can't help but notice not a word is said to you by the moderators here. Actually, Amaleq13 is calling me a "defender" too. You guys are impossible. It's okay if the insults come this direction but I can't say anything in defense. That's not a double-standard, hypocritical or anything. Just because I shared a couple quotes and I'm not apart of the viciously attack Acharya cult, that makes me a "LOYALIST" and a "defender"? There really is something disturbing going here at IIDB.

So anyone here at IIDB who might have read Acharya's work and find it interesting enough to actually say polite things about her and her work are ridiculed instantly. I feel like an atheist stepping into a church on Sunday discussing Acharya's work here. It certainly doesn't make me want to discuss her work here at all. It's clear to me that a legitimate discussion of her work is not welcome here at IIDB unless of course, one wants to insult it and her personally.

- Not really, rather what Jeffrey, A.Abe, yourself and others here ARE exemplifying is that rather than consistently making false assumptions as if it were the authority on the matter, they really just need to actually read the book - which is where all the citations and footnotes are. A.Abe repeatedly states that she relies on 19th c. sources which is false and I provided 3 random quotes proving that false from Siculus 1st c.BCE, Tertullian and Macrobius around 400CE. They are not 19thc. sources. If you want more info about them then, read the book and stop spreading falsehoods. It just seems like a no-brainer to me, if you're really interested then, reading the book shouldn't be too much to ask (Shakes head in amazement)

Again, the citations Jeffrey asks for are in the book - don't even ask me to regurgitate them here because I will not do it. I will not regurgitate a 600 page book for anyone. If Jeffrey and others are interested, they can read the book.

You're correct the Macrobius quote came from "The Saturnalia" by Macrobius. The Siculus quote came from "The Antiquities of Egypt" by Diodorus Siculus. My point was to address A.Abes false assumption that Acharya relies on 19th c. sources. It's simply false to anyone who has actually read her books. She certainly comments on 19th c. works but as a starting point. She investigates why they said what they said and their sources to track down the origin. Also, a lot was happening in the 18th-19th c. with the translation of the Rosetta Stone giving the opportunity of understanding ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics for the first time and the translations of Indian texts etc. The argument about 19th c. sources is nothing more than a straw man.

Yes Abe, We know Tertullian denies it, you're missing the point completely. The point is that Tertullian is clearly discussing the accusation of sun worship. If nobody was accusing Christianity of being another sun worshipping religion then, why is Tertullian addressing it on several occasions? Got it? You wouldn't normally write "The Charge of Worshipping the Sun Met by a Retort" arbitrarily for no reason. The point is that there was a reason and Tertullian felt he had to address it on more than one occasion. Tertullian was not the only church father who needed to address this sun worship issue. This came up time and time again.

This is a joke, right? Geeesh

You've all gone-off the deep end with the Tertullian quote. That's not all Acharya said about that. In fact, she goes on to quote his apology and make commentary on it. You've made another false assumption by jumping to conclusions because it seems those who scream the loudest against Acharya have never read the books. I gave references for which book they were in and the page numbers for further reading. If you're actually interested, read the book - I am not typing all of that up for anybody. If you want to blame somebody for the Tertullian quote blame me for my selection of words to use.

Early Church Father Tertullian, "You say we worship the sun; so do you." (a paraphrase by the Catholic Encyclopedia)
~ "Christ Conspiracy" 158

"...All the gods of the Greek and Roman mythology represent the attributes of the one supreme divine power - the SUN."
~ Macrobius Roman scholar around 400ce
* source: "The Saturnalia" by Macrobius, "Suns of God" 67-68

"Now when the ancient Egyptians, awestruck and wondering, turned their eyes to the heavens, they concluded that two gods, the sun and the moon, were primeval and eternal; and they called the former Osiris, the latter Isis..."
~ Diodorus Siculus (90-21 BCE), Greek Historian
* source:"The Antiquities of Egypt" by Diodorus Siculus, "Suns of God" 89

Again, my point in sharing these quotes was to show A.Abe that these were not 19C. sources as he repeatedly claims Acharya is reliant upon - a false claim. If you want more read the book.

Gorit Maqueda

IIRC, he used a cigar for his metaphor, not a banana. He enjoyed smoking cigars. See how unreliable is oral tradition?