MarmINFP

How I see it is that various scholars have presented many pieces of evidence in support of astrotheology and other theories within comparative mythology. If you don't like one specific piece of evidence presented by any given person, then ignore it. I'm sure even the most adamant critic would find something within Acharya's work that they'd agree with. Instead of focusing on endless criticism, why don't we look for where seemingly different theories agree?

Even proponents of astrotheology don't always agree with eachother. For instance, Acharya was an advisor for the Zeitgeist film, but she didn't agree with all of the info the producers decided to use.

I'm happy if someone finds evidence that supports Acharya's theories better than some particular evidence than she presented. If that is the case, then she can add it to her next book. She has said that her second book was partly a response to the criticisms of her first book, and so I'd say its a good thing if criticism is helping her to clarify her theory. She has admitted before that she isn't infallible which is a humble attitude for a scholar to take.

rigorist

Not relevant.

Only goes to admissibility, not weight, of the evidence. I think I only got a B in Evidence, but I have enough trials under my belt to know the hearsay rule and its exceptions pretty well.

So, Ms. Acarya does not present the portion in quotes as a translation of Tertullian? If that is the case and we are busily refuting a paraphrase of a paraphrase, just say so and we'll move right along.

Dave31

Oh you're right, you said you read ONE online article - probably skimmed it too...Geesh. :banghead:

Dave31

Yes, Acharya addresses some of this "East" info. As I said, she quoted Tertullian's apology and made commentary on it. I shared the pages for this along with my original post with this quote. She didn't just quote the paraphrase - I've said this several times now.

Dave31

Good point. I understand that she did consult for part 1 and tried to remove as many inaccuracies as possible but, in the end it wasn't her movie so she could only do so much. It wasn't all within her control. Besides, it was only a 25 minute basic intro into mythology and religious fraud. And she had nothing to do with parts 2 or 3.

http://www.truthbeknown.com/videos.html

ApostateAbe

OK, thanks for clearing that up. I can't read Latin or Greek, so I never attempted to find Latin or Greek texts.

Yeah. You are an atheist, yes? How many times did you need to fight the Christian misconception that you are immoral? That you were never really a Christian? That you don't know anything about Christianity? You have to repeatedly fight those claims. Does the repetition mean that the claims hold water?
Dave, I would understand why Acharya S would rely on a encyclopedia paraphrase on Tertullian if that were the only information she had on Tertullian. Like, suppose I didn't have access to the Internet, and all the information I had on Tertullian was a Catholic Encyclopedia sitting on my shelf. If I desperately needed information on Tertullian, then I would quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia. And I would be careful not to rely on the nuances in meaning because it is a secondary source.

But, if I also have the English translation of Ad Nationes sitting on my shelf, then whatever the Catholic Encyclopedia says about it becomes wholly irrelevant. If I have the original Latin words of Ad Nationes sitting on my shelf, and I know how to read Latin, then why in God's name would I choose an English paraphrase from the Catholic Encyclopedia as my reference on Tertullian? It doesn't matter if the encyclopedia is Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, or Muslim. If you want to make a scholarly argument, you don't go to secondary sources, especially if you have direct access to the primary sources. The secondary paraphrases are going to distort the original meaning, whether intentionally or unintentionally.

Does this make any sense to you? Am I being too nit-picky? Too long-winded? Too irrelevant?

MarmINFP

I don't know for certain the reasons why Acharya chose to use the Catholic Encyclopedia, but I can make an educated guess.

I suspect she was trying to make a two-pronged argument. She was using Tertullian's statement as evidence and at the same time demonstrating that a well-respected Christian authority agrees that Tertullian's statement is valid. She is partly arguing against traditional Christian interpretations and so she likes to use Christian sources when they're available. If I remember correctly, she uses the Catholic Encyclopedia many times throughout her work probably for the reason I just stated. However, maybe it would have been more clear if she had also included a direct quote of Tertullian along with the reference to the Catholic Encyclopedia.

Jeffrey Gibson

You might want to note the context of this appellation:

Quote:

Now, let the serpent hide himself as much as he can; let him twist his entire "wisdom" into the windings of his lairs. Let him live deep in the ground, push into dark holes, unroll his length coil by coil; let him slither out--but not all of him at once, the light-hating beast. Our dove, how ever, has a simple home, always in high and open places toward the light (et ad lucem) since this symbol of the Holy Spirit (figura spiritus sancti) loves the sunrise (amat orientem), the symbol of Christ (Christi figuram). (trans by Mark T. Riley)

No mention of worshiping Jesus here, let alone an attestation that he is the sun.

As to him being called the "Sun of Righteousness", it's hardly a reference to belief in Jesus as the sun. let alone derived from sun worship. It's from Malachi 4:2.

In the mean time, note Origen's and Basil's explanation for praying towards the East:

Quote:

So much for what seem to me to have been necessary observations in considering the place of prayer and in setting forth its special virtue in respect to place in the case of the meetings of saintly men who come together reverently in churches. A few words may now be added in reference to the direction in which one ought to look in prayer. Of the four directions, the North, South, East, and West, who would not at once admit that the East clearly indicates the duty of praying with the face turned towards it with the symbolic suggestion (ποιεῖσθαι τὰs εὐχάs) that the soul is looking upon the dawn of the true light? (ὡs τῆs ψυχῆs ἐνορώσηj τη τοῦ ἀληθινοῦ φωτὸs ἀνατολous;) On Prayer XX (Greek text 32)

Jeffrey

Julian

I have read, and actually own, a copy of The Christ Conspiracy.
You are correct, I don't provide specific criticisms. I didn't expect you to respond, to tell you the truth, nor did I consider that my opinion may have been in any way important to you. I based that assessment upon your single reply up until that point in time.
I will provide examples soon-ish, see below.
I have absolutely no interest in defaming you. I have no agenda, no preference, other than what the evidence brings. Since I don't know you personally, I have no feelings about you one way or another. I do have strong feelings about evidence and scientific methodology. Facts are facts, regardless of my personal proclivities. I, personally, would welcome a civilized and disciplined discussion of the pertinent points. While I cannot claim expertise in every area, I do attempt to pursue certain fields with some semblance of scientific rigor, especially early church history and textual criticism along with Koine Greek and Latin. I will not claim to be an expert in any of those fields.

I, for one, am glad to see you active here and hope that you can ignore those who seem to froth at the mouth when typing their criticisms. Claims should stand or fall on their own merits, not the merits of their author.

Now, as I was reading this thread I began to grow uncertain as to the level of references in your book so I dragged it from my shelves to see if I had mis-remembered anything. I still found it very thin in terms of supporting references, or simply thin in terms of documenting what appears as direct quotations.

As it is now past midnight here, I shall refrain from providing specific examples at this time. After some rest, I shall write up something more specific. Hope that will suffice.

Julian

rigorist

That's not scholarship. That's advocacy.

I, at least, am pounding on the Tertullian thing because his works are among the most easily accessible of the ECFs. If Ms. Acharya is blowing references to simple things that can be easily verified, I don't have much confidence in her references to more obscure works.

It is a simple matter of credibility.