GakuseiDon

I agree, though note that it was Dave31 who brought up Tertullian and Macrobius in support of Acharya's theories. If such minutiea is presented as support, it should be looked at. I doubt Dave31 or Acharya supporters would be happy if evidence they present was just ignored -- and for good reason. It would be good if Dave31 could admit the problems with those quotes, and then we can move on, since those quotes alone don't disprove Acharya's theories.

Yes, I'd like to see whether Acharya can back up her theories about astrotheology and earliest beliefs, and veer away from impact on Christian theology at this stage.

Perhaps Dave31 or Acharya can present evidence towards her "Atlantis" theory, where she postulates the existence of one or more centralized civilizations to have spread a well-developed Mythos and Ritual throughout the world during a very remote period in protohistory? Those Mythos and Rituals then mutated into the various forms found around the globe.

GakuseiDon

I agree. The idea that ancient peoples looking to the sky and getting their myths from observed events seems highly likely. But perhaps that should induce more caution in looking at the evidence, to ensure that more isn't being read into things than the data can bear? That's why I think it would be great if Acharya can contribute, for the very purpose of presenting her conclusions for evaluation.

A LOT of people have said the same. (I'm actually trying to get it on Interlibrary Loan, but managed to look through it at a bookstore, examining her references. I wasn't impressed!) But even if Acharya's theories can be shown to fail on scholastic grounds, I think there is something to astrotheology that I'd like to hear more about.

It would be good if we can have two threads going: one for discussing Acharya's theories (like "Atlantis") and the other on astrotheology.

Flaming Moe

So, is the general consensus here that there is NO truth to the idea of astrotheology having an impact on the character of Jesus and equally that that pagan sun worship is NOT at the root of Christianity?

The equilibrium of this thread is fragmented and straining towards alternative tangents without clarifying where the accepted academic position lies. As someone without qualifications in this area I would be grateful to know exactly where we can agree and what specifically undermines the astrotheological position for those who do not subscribe to it.
Thanks:devil2:

ApostateAbe

I can't help you on what the consensus opinion is on "astrotheology." I am only vaguely aware of what "astrotheology" is. I find it likely that the cultures of and surrounding Greek and Rome had at least some impact on the mythical character of Jesus as we see it today. The root of Christianity is probably not that but instead an Israeli cult led by Jesus of Nazareth.

EDIT: Welcome to the forum.

dog-on

...or it is a Greek/Roman cult that used the Septuagint as it's guide which allowed for a claim of historical (ancient) authority.

ApostateAbe

I certainly find that to be the likely case. It was a cult that started in Israel, and it very soon migrated to the Greek and Roman cultures, finding more popularity there than among the Jews. The gospels (written in Greek) along with the Hebrew Bible translated into Greek (such as the Septuagint) would be the scriptures that formed the basis of the Christianity we know today.

dog-on

I do not even see the necessity of "a cult that started in Israel". Though there may have been some influence from diaspora Jews, even that is not really necessary to get what we end up with.

It does seem to be the case that "ancient authority" was important to some (orthodoxy), at that time, thus the massive ink spent countering Marcion's or the gnostic's relegation of Yahweh to lowly demiurge status.

ApostateAbe

Yes, the authority of ancient written scripture is certainly a powerful motivating factor for a religion, which is why I figure the most persuasive religion in the world emerged from a religion that kept written scriptures. I find it unlikely that the gospels are inventions of Greek or Roman cultures, since the gospels contain accurate descriptions of the social environment in Israel (the Pharisees, Jewish leadership, discontent against Roman rule, passover, towns, temple, landmarks, and so on). It is too much of a stretch to say that is all an elaborate invention of some guys living outside of Israel, and it is less of a stretch to say that it is a religion that migrated out of Israel, in my opinion.

Flaming Moe

But as Ehrman writes at the conclusion of 'Lost Christianities' the gospels we have today are highly unlikely to be the gospels that were used by early Christians so factual accuracy (which I don't see specifically or being differential to ANY ancient texts) NOW is no indicator of factual accuracy then. Of course the bigger picture with regard to the gospel message and its relationship to sun myths is what we are looking for here.

dog-on

Hypothetically....

Someone (Paul), upon reading the Septuagint, invents and starts preaching a savior.

Someone (Mark), upon hearing/reading Paul and reading the Septuagint, decides to make a story about the life of this savior and uses the writings of Josephus for grounding in first century Palestine.

Is it really necessary that either of these people need to have been in Palestine, or even have been Jewish?

Why?