Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Julian · 01-15-2008, 07:00 AM

I do want to say this, now that I remember. My issue with the writings of Acharya S is that she presents A, B, and C and then proceeds to conclusion D. Most of the time the evidence doesn't support her conclusions, at least, not to the extent that she takes them. An even bigger problem is with the issue of references. I see no footnotes regarding A, B, and C. When I have checked, I have been unable to corroborate her evidence in many cases. She must provide adequate references in order to be taken seriously. Secondly, she must stay within the bounds of where the evidence can carry her. Once a writer strays into the realm of speculation, it becomes open season, and rightfully so. I am not saying that her scholarship is bad, although it might be, merely that she has provided me with no means by which to assess it.

Julian

Ben C Smith · 01-15-2008, 07:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julian

While I do not see any obvious roman influence upon the gospel material and christianity (other than what have filtered in from common sources), I see lots of influence in catholic dogma.

I myself see some (Greco-)Roman influence in the titles ascribed to Jesus in the NT, as well as in the birth narratives. Augustus was called savior, son of God, divine, and so forth, and had a gospel. It seems to me that at least some of the NT biography of Jesus was modelled after the dogma of the emperor cult.

Ben.

dog-on · 01-15-2008, 07:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julian

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Thanks, Julian...

So it seems to be the case that the Romans did, indeed, worship the sun from time to time.

Do you think any of the customs/traditions associated with such practices where later infused into what became Roman Catholicism?

The dying and rising kind of god?

The catholic church is a carbon copy, more or less, of the roman administrative hierarchy, even down to many of the titles of offices. It is inevitable that many roman traditions would find their way into catholicism. While I do not see any obvious roman influence upon the gospel material and christianity (other than what have filtered in from common sources), I see lots of influence in catholic dogma. This dogma must be kept separate from the NT material, however, and cannot be used as evidence of influence. Despite this, I do believe that there is much in common in most religious traditions. Christianity wasn't born in a vacuum and traditions are clearly shared. Once we separate the ideas from the discrete and contextualized environments we see obvious correlation. This is not surprising since all was ultimately created by humans partaking in a continuous cultural evolution. I guess I just don't see the big deal here. My irritation is with the pertinaceous adherence to the idea of intent and perpetration.

Julian

You see no solar imagery (whether intentional or not) in the gospel story, at all?

dog-on · 01-15-2008, 07:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julian

While I do not see any obvious roman influence upon the gospel material and christianity (other than what have filtered in from common sources), I see lots of influence in catholic dogma.

I myself see some (Greco-)Roman influence in the titles ascribed to Jesus in the NT, as well as in the birth narratives. Augustus was called savior, son of God, divine, and so forth, and had a gospel. It seems to me that at least some of the NT biography of Jesus was modelled after the dogma of the emperor cult.

Ben.

Thanks, Ben.

Malachi151 · 01-15-2008, 07:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julian

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Thanks, Julian...

So it seems to be the case that the Romans did, indeed, worship the sun from time to time.

Do you think any of the customs/traditions associated with such practices where later infused into what became Roman Catholicism?

The dying and rising kind of god?

The catholic church is a carbon copy, more or less, of the roman administrative hierarchy, even down to many of the titles of offices. It is inevitable that many roman traditions would find their way into catholicism. While I do not see any obvious roman influence upon the gospel material and christianity (other than what have filtered in from common sources), I see lots of influence in catholic dogma. This dogma must be kept separate from the NT material, however, and cannot be used as evidence of influence. Despite this, I do believe that there is much in common in most religious traditions. Christianity wasn't born in a vacuum and traditions are clearly shared. Once we separate the ideas from the discrete and contextualized environments we see obvious correlation. This is not surprising since all was ultimately created by humans partaking in a continuous cultural evolution. I guess I just don't see the big deal here. My irritation is with the pertinaceous adherence to the idea of intent and perpetration.

Julian

Exactly. A recurring problem in Suns of God is the use of later influences to ascribe foundational linage. She does this with Buddhism, Hinduism, and Christianity.

An Indian branch of Christianity began around the 3rd or 4th century, and Christianity had influence over Indian culture ever since and was mingled with Hinduism and Buddhism ever since.

A.S. then proceeds to point out 12th-16th century notations of similarities by Christian monks and images from this same period as "evidence" that the two religions have the same foundational basis.

Yet, it is quite easy to ascertain that Christianity simply exerted an influence on Hinduism and Buddhism once it made its way into Eastern culture, just the same as, for example, it has influenced African religion within the past 400 years. One can easily find Brazilian, Haitian, and Southern African religions that integrate Christ theology and imagery with their earlier imagery and stories. This, obviously, isn't a case of both religion having the same root, its just an example of later cross fertilization.

Likewise, when we look at things like the use of halos, for example, we mostly see examples of cross fertilization. The first images of Buddha were made by the Greeks in the region of Afghanistan and Pakistan. These images humanized Buddha and portrayed him in the traditional Greek fashion, including the obligatory halo. Those images of Buddha then, being the first ever made, had a major impact on Buddhist imagery ever since, but what we are seeing here is not that Buddha originated as a "sun go", but that hundreds of years after the beginnings of Buddhism, the religion came into contact with a culture that did worship sun gods and that culture remade Buddha in the image of their gods.

Later influence has nothing to do with origins.

All of the so-called "sun god" imagery in Christianity is a product of the later influence, it has nothing to do with the origins of the cult.

Malachi151 · 01-15-2008, 07:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julian

While I do not see any obvious roman influence upon the gospel material and christianity (other than what have filtered in from common sources), I see lots of influence in catholic dogma.

I myself see some (Greco-)Roman influence in the titles ascribed to Jesus in the NT, as well as in the birth narratives. Augustus was called savior, son of God, divine, and so forth, and had a gospel. It seems to me that at least some of the NT biography of Jesus was modelled after the dogma of the emperor cult.

Ben.

Provide examples, and I'll be happy to prove you wrong

Julian · 01-15-2008, 07:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julian

While I do not see any obvious roman influence upon the gospel material and christianity (other than what have filtered in from common sources), I see lots of influence in catholic dogma.

I myself see some (Greco-)Roman influence in the titles ascribed to Jesus in the NT, as well as in the birth narratives. Augustus was called savior, son of God, divine, and so forth, and had a gospel. It seems to me that at least some of the NT biography of Jesus was modelled after the dogma of the emperor cult.

Ben.

An excellent point that I completely forgot about.

Julian

Julian · 01-15-2008, 07:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

You see no solar imagery (whether intentional or not) in the gospel story, at all?

I see all kinds of imagery, including solar, but so what? There are only so many popular images in human religious culture. Of course, there is bound to be overlap. Again, it is the implication of intent that bothers me.

Julian

Jeffrey Gibson · 01-15-2008, 07:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Since Acharya S is now participating on this board,

She is? Given what she says at "Truth Be Known", it seems that she has no real intention to do so.

Quote:

As concerns the moderator at IIDB and me posting there, it may be of benefit to engage in some discussion there, although I am currently working on what I believe is some of the most fascinating research I have ever done, so I don't know how much time I will want to spend there.

In any event, if some real ISSUES are raised in which I may actually find myself interested in the new thread about my work, I may very well make some commentary now and again. I am assuming that I will not be forced to address all sorts of vicious sniping, since that should not be allowed, now that I am a member.

It would be truly refreshing for people to become interested in the fascinating material I have worked very hard to bring to the forefront, rather than simply attacking me personally. Don't bite my finger - look where I'm pointing. This stuff really is GOOD, and I do what I do because I love to share it.

Jeffrey

Julian · 01-15-2008, 07:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

All of the so-called "sun god" imagery in Christianity is a product of the later influence, it has nothing to do with the origins of the cult.

An interesting assertion considering that we know next to nothing about the origins of the cult.

Julian

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

01-15-2008, 07:00 AM	#21
Julian Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Washington, DC (formerly Denmark) Posts: 3,789	I do want to say this, now that I remember. My issue with the writings of Acharya S is that she presents A, B, and C and then proceeds to conclusion D. Most of the time the evidence doesn't support her conclusions, at least, not to the extent that she takes them. An even bigger problem is with the issue of references. I see no footnotes regarding A, B, and C. When I have checked, I have been unable to corroborate her evidence in many cases. She must provide adequate references in order to be taken seriously. Secondly, she must stay within the bounds of where the evidence can carry her. Once a writer strays into the realm of speculation, it becomes open season, and rightfully so. I am not saying that her scholarship is bad, although it might be, merely that she has provided me with no means by which to assess it. Julian

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.