Freethought & Rationalism Archive

ApostateAbe · 01-15-2008, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geetarmoore

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Dude, maybe you should read that quote that you brought up from Tertullian's Apologeticum one more time. You should read it and remember the point that Acharya S was trying to make. Acharya S thinks that Jesus represented the Sun in early Christianity. Now here comes that quote from the early Christian writer Tertullian:

"A few of the more refined of you think we worship the sun. Again, that is your practise, not ours."

This statement continues (source):

"Instead we worship the one God, the creator. He gave us books to allow us to know him, unknowable as the infinite is of itself, and sent men to tell us about him."

Tertullian explicitly says that he does not worship the Sun. Acharya S says that he does worship the Sun.

Maybe it is not you, and it is me. Am I missing something here? (That is my bad attempt at being polite.)

Yea.. Well, I don't think Acharya is saying that Tertullian was worshiping the sun, or even that he thought he was. I think she is saying that other people were claiming that Christianity was based on principles or ideas of sun worship, which Tertullian denied. This clearly demonstrates that Christian detractors, at the time of Tertullian, at least made the charge enough to require two rebuttals.

I hope that isn't the case that Acharya S is making. There isn't even a case to rebut.

hatsoff · 01-15-2008, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Since Acharya S is now participating on this board, I have closed the previous thread and started this new thread, for a fresh start.

I would start off by noting that there is something about her theories, and astrotheology in general, that seems to resonate with people. Astrotheology was once a more popular topic in academics, and its time may come again.

Can we discuss these ideas without getting too emotional?

I didn't participate at all in the other thread, mostly because I didn't know who Acharya S was, and based on the Zeitgeist videos, I didn't want to. However, since she made such a fuss in her first and likely last post on this board, my interest was snared long enough to check out her website and read the beginning to her essay What is God? I had initially been under the impression (again, from the Zeitgeist videos) that she was an anti-Christian whose overzealousness lead her to frequent factual error. It turns out, however, she's just another theist with groundless religious convictions, not unlike the Christians she decries. I suppose you can chalk her popularity up to the present trendiness of alternative religion and pop mysticism.

If she wants to have a civil discussion, as opposed to throwing out wild and bizarre accusations concerning board moderation, I'd be glad to participate, but until then I don't see the point.

rigorist · 01-15-2008, 04:13 PM

If someone blows a freakin' Tertullian reference, why should I give credibility to anything else they have have to say about more obscure authors?

Toto · 01-15-2008, 04:22 PM

I think that Acharya has not "blown" the quote. She is inferring from Tertullian's denial that there were charges that Christians worshipped the sun, and that he wouldn't bother denying this if it didn't have some truth to it.

You can argue with that, but it's not that farfetched as analysis. Christians make much greater leaps of logic in trying to interpret their early history, but it doesn't set off quite this barrage of scorn and bolded letters.

rigorist · 01-15-2008, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I think that Acharya has not "blown" the quote. She is inferring from Tertullian's denial that there were charges that Christians worshipped the sun, and that he wouldn't bother denying this if it didn't have some truth to it.

You can argue with that, but it's not that farfetched as analysis. Christians make much greater leaps of logic in trying to interpret their early history, but it doesn't set off quite this barrage of scorn and bolded letters.

I was thinking more of claiming he was a bishop rather than a presbyter and claiming he left Christianity.

ETA: And the "ex-Pagan" scare quotes a bit of a tip-off, too.

GakuseiDon · 01-15-2008, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I think that Acharya has not "blown" the quote. She is inferring from Tertullian's denial that there were charges that Christians worshipped the sun, and that he wouldn't bother denying this if it didn't have some truth to it.

You can argue with that, but it's not that farfetched as analysis. Christians make much greater leaps of logic in trying to interpret their early history, but it doesn't set off quite this barrage of scorn and bolded letters.

That's right, we all know how kind internet posters can be when Christians use bad arguments.

She isn't just inferring that there were charges that Christians worshipped the sun, though. This is what she writes:

"For example, early Church Father Tertullian (@ 160-220 C.E.), an "ex-Pagan" and Bishop of Carthage, ironically admits the true origins of the Christ story and of all other such godmen by stating in refutation of his critics, "You say we worship the sun; so do you."

The leap of logic being made is more than just the charge of Christian sun worship.

God Fearing Atheist · 01-15-2008, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geetarmoore

Yea.. Well, I don't think Acharya is saying that Tertullian was worshiping the sun, or even that he thought he was. I think she is saying that other people were claiming that Christianity was based on principles or ideas of sun worship, which Tertullian denied. This clearly demonstrates that Christian detractors, at the time of Tertullian, at least made the charge enough to require two rebuttals.

On page 447 of Suns of God, after asserting that "Christians bowed to the rising sun before entering churches" (typically, without citing any primary source) she writes:

Quote:

Despite his protestations, in On the Resurrection of the Flesh (XLIX), Tertullian refered to Paul's comments at 1 Cor. 15.21 [sic] and compared the 'glory of the sun' to that of Christ:

In like manner does he take examples from the heavenly bodies: "There is one glory of the sun" (that is, of Christ), "and another glory of the moon" (that is, of the Church) "and another glory of the stars" (in other words, of the seed of Abraham).

She doesn't come out and say 'therefore, Tertullian thought Jesus was the sun," but that certainly seems to be the implication.

Yellum Notnef · 01-15-2008, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

This is from her website: (I've included the paragraph before and after. The key statement is in italics)
http://www.truthbeknown.com/origins5.htm[indent]The Creation of a Myth

The Christians went on a censorship rampage that led to the virtual illiteracy of the ancient world and ensured that their secret would be hidden from the masses, but the scholars of other schools/sects never gave up their arguments against the historicizing of a very ancient mythological creature. We have lost the arguments of these learned dissenters because the Christians destroyed any traces of their works. Nonetheless, the Christians preserved the contentions of their detractors through the Christians' own refutations.

Wow! Only the contentions? Not their actual words?

Quote:

For example, early Church Father Tertullian (@ 160-220 C.E.), an "ex-Pagan" and Bishop of Carthage, ironically admits the true origins of the Christ story and of all other such godmen by stating in refutation of his critics, "You say we worship the sun; so do you." Interestingly, a previously strident believer and defender of the faith, Tertullian later renounced Christianity.

Looks like AS is doing to Tertullian exactly what she claims -- though apparently without an ounce of documentation -- Tertullian and others (like Origen?) did to the works of the "learned dissenters".

If so, what irony. She decries early Christians as anti-intellectual and immoral for doing it , but then engages in the very thing she decries.

And no, Tertullian was never the Bishop of Carthage, only a presbyter within that church. And his leaving "orthodoxy" was because he felt it was not Christian enough, not because he renounced Christianity.

I'm wagering that AS does not cite a source for her claims on these matters either.

Jeffrey

Perhaps you should go and ask the folks over at New Advent since they also have this quote in the Catholic Encyclopedia. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14520c.htm:huh:

Quote:

The "Ad nationes" has for its entire object the refutation of calumnies against Christians. In the first place they are proved to repose on unreasoning hatred only; the procedure of trial is illogical; the offence is nothing but the name of Christian, which ought rather to be a title of honour; no proof is forthcoming of any crimes, only rumour; the first persecutor was Nero, the worst of emperors. Secondly, the individual charges are met; Tertullian challenges the reader to believe in anything so contrary to nature as the accusations of infanticide and incest. Christians are not the causes of earthquakes and floods and famine, for these happened long before Christianity. The pagans despise their own gods, banish them, forbid their worship, mock them on the stage; the poets tell horrid stories of them; they were in reality only men, and bad men. You say we worship an ass's head, he goes on, but you worship all kinds of animals; your gods are images made on a cross framework, so you worship crosses. You say we worship the sun; so do you. A certain Jew hawked about a caricature of a creature half ass, half goat, as our god; but you actually adore half-animals.

mountainman · 01-15-2008, 04:58 PM

Hi Philosopher Jay.

Your posts balance some of the inanities here.
Balance is one of the chief characterics of the
methodical and harmonius approach. I am sure
there are many here (and elsewhere) that can
and do learn from your balanced positionality.

In a nutshell, I will permit Arnaldo Momigliano
to recount the state of affairs both with the
mainstream "christians" and also - equally -
with the myopic "Biblical Historians" who view
the world with a conjectural, fixed and very
narrow chronology (over which Acharya passes):

Quote:

Originally Posted by ARNALDO MOMIGLIANO

opening address ....

Biblical Studies and Classical Studies:
Simple Reflections upon Historical Method

Principles of Historical research need not
be different from criteria of common sense.
And common sense teaches that outsiders
must not tell insiders what they should do.

I shall therefore not discuss directly what
biblical scholars are doing. They are the
insiders.

Best wishes,

Pete Brown

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi Malachi151 and Peter.

I only read her early work, so I cannot comment on her new stuff. In defense of her, I would say that she's approaching the subject from the point of view of genera - ancient Gods. This is different than those of us who are approaching the subject from the point of view of the species -- Christianity from the 1st-4th centuries. We naturally deal in very different specific issues regarding the historical development of the specific religion. Think of a person who is studying modern wars in general and a person studying the war in Iraq in particular. The generalities of the person discussing all modern wars will seem like cliches and quite unhelpful to the person who is examining every specific detail of a specific war. On the other hand, the specific differences of the Iraq War to every other war will seem unimportant and simply a matter of insignificant detail to the person looking at how the Iraq War resembles other modern wars.

As far as making mistakes, we could counter the "clock is always right twice a day" commonplace with the commonplace that "only the person who remains silent is never wrong."

While many of her theories may be from the 18th-19th centuries, sometimes it can be very helpful to go over older theories and use them as a new starting point for new investigations.

It is probably true that she does not test claims in what may be called a vigorous manner. She certainly does not examine every claim from several different sides, measuring each angle down to the the fifth degree, and folding them six different ways. (It is interesting to think about how often too-vigorous testing methods bring poor results.) Rather, she takes reasonable claims and puts them together to form reasonable hypotheses. It is up to us to test them.

Her writing style may not be well annotated, but it is clear, funny, charming and honest and that accounts for her deserved popularity. Is this really undermining the field or just expanding it beyond its small core of (overwhelmingly male) academics?

I am now putting my other foot on the ground.

Sincerely,

Philosopher Jay

Incidentally, Malachi151, you or some one, I believe, mentioned that you have one or two books out. Can you tell me where I may purchase them?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

Agreed. I mean seriously, anyone who puts an image of a Medieval Irish figure of Jesus being crucified in their book and calls it an "Irish Budha or Krishna crucifix", and then proceeds to tell us that its not an image of Jesus because he's not wearing a crown of thorns, instead he's wearing a royal crown, thus its not Jesus, simply isn't even in any reasonable realm of scholarship at all.

A blind squirrel gets a nut every now and then. Perhaps a few things of value happen to randomly fall into her writing, despite her best efforts, but 9 out of 10 statements made are wholly uncredible.

I have yet to find any original ideas or analysis in The Suns of God anyway. The book should really be called, "a compilation of old and discredited 18th-19th century works." Every argument made is just a repetition of arguments made by others. Its a matter of taking a bunch of different claims made by people in the past and lumping them all together, without any critical assessment of any of the ideas.

Her treatment of the dating of the Gospels and the Testimonium Flavianum is a perfect example. She just repeats bogus arguments about the Gospels being very late, written in the late 2nd century - 3rd century, and repeats arguments about the TF having been the product of a conspiracy by Eusebius.

There is nothing at all new in these arguments, and actually they undermine the case against historicity anyway. There is nothing cohesive or coherent in this book, its just throwing mud at all a wall to see what sticks.

The Suns of God, and all of her works as far as I can see, are a step backwards for critical scholarship and mostly serve to remind us just how bad much of the 18th-19th criticism of Christianity was. Mostly her works just undermine the field of religious criticism, they do nothing to bolster it.

GakuseiDon · 01-15-2008, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fenton Mulley

Perhaps you should go and ask the folks over at New Advent since they also have this quote in the Catholic Encyclopedia.

ApostateAbe already commented on this earlier in this thread:

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Why did Acharya S choose to cite a paraphrase from an encyclopedia from 1913 when she could have quoted Tertullian directly? My guess is that the direct quotation wouldn't prove her point.

This is one criticism that is often made about her research: why cite a modern source when referring to the words of an ancient writer? Why not give the reference to the ancient source directly? It would have saved others from having to hunt around to see if the inference taken from the quote accurately reflects the original author.

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

01-15-2008, 04:13 PM	#63
rigorist Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: The Court of the Weirdo King Posts: 8,818	If someone blows a freakin' Tertullian reference, why should I give credibility to anything else they have have to say about more obscure authors?

01-15-2008, 04:22 PM	#64
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	I think that Acharya has not "blown" the quote. She is inferring from Tertullian's denial that there were charges that Christians worshipped the sun, and that he wouldn't bother denying this if it didn't have some truth to it. You can argue with that, but it's not that farfetched as analysis. Christians make much greater leaps of logic in trying to interpret their early history, but it doesn't set off quite this barrage of scorn and bolded letters.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.