Dave31

The point is that Tertullian is clearly stating there were those who claimed Christianity was SUN WORSHIP.

- Again, this is false and you should stop repeating your false assumptions based on the fact that you've never read her work. Is this not clear to you?

- This is why you really shouldn't be commenting until you've actually read her work because you've got this all messed up. First of all, it's NOT Acharya's paraphrase as already indicated. Second, Tertullian repeated it on more than one occasion. Third, if you actually read her work before making false assumtions it would take some of your guess work out of it. Just because you don't get it doesn't mean it's all her fault. Understand?

Tertullian titles it "The Charge of Worshipping the Sun Met by a Retort" for a reason doesn't he?

Even Roger Pearse has this quote on his website - It's nearly identical to what's in the Catholic Encyclopedia. http://www.tertullian.org/works/apologeticum.htm

Tertullian makes this point on at least 2 different occasions in his "Ad Nationes" and in his "Apologeticum". Sorry there's no honest way out of it. Case closed. moving on...

Jeffrey Gibson

Established, apparently, by the Sabine Titus Tatius who also established (presumably on the Quirinal Hill) altars such divinities as Ops, Flora, Vediovis, Saturn, Vulcan, Summanus, Larundus, Terminus, Quirinus, Vortumnus, the Lares, and Diana Lucina).

Ah, but who was this "god"? And how important was his cult. I note (with thanks to David Meadows) that in his Festivals and Ceremonies of the Roman Republic (or via: amazon.co.uk) (Ithaca, 1981, p. 171) H.H. Scullard remarks that "the Indigetes have been regarded as di minores (gods of limited function)", as 'native' (as opposed to foreign) gods, or as ancestral gods. That it might refer to native or ancestral (in a national sense?) gods is perhaps suggested by the list of divinities (mentioned above) in which Sol is included.

Servius, commenting on Virgil's Georgics (1.48) doesn't appear to be sure himself. He tells us that divi indigetes are divinities which were created from humans; in other words, a sort of Roman/Italian equivalent to the Greek hero cult.

As to his importance, he had a public sacrifice offered to him on one day a year, Aug. 9th, on the Quirinal hill, the site of a small village of the Sabines.

So, hardly a Roman god, and if so, one of very little importance.

Jeffrey

Amaleq13

What is clear to me is that many of defenders here have claimed it false but I don't recall seeing them put forth any actual example establishing it as such.

Jeffrey Gibson

So what? There were those who claimed that Christians ate babies. That doesn't make it so.

Well, if it is, you should easily be able (and willing) to show just how this is the case. Please quote - and give some of the context of -- A.S.'s exact words on this point.

Jeffrey

Dave31

Already proved A.Abe wrong with 3 simple quotes from her books on page 1. The sources are cited very carefully in her books. Anyone who has read her books would know this. There was no discussion of her work in the other thread - it was just abusive.

I see the some of the same people that caused all the trouble in the other thread that got locked posting here now - I don't think they should be allowed to post here. Like the thread poster calling her and her readers a cult Malachi151. Do we really expect an unbiased opinion ever to come from a person like him. As soon as they began posting this thread already starting going negative once again. They ruin it for those who are seriously interested in discussing her work - which was never allowed to even begin in the other thread. So why go down this road again?

A.Abe and others who continue to make false assumptions while never having read her work at all but nothing is said to them. Is it just me or is there something disturbing going on here?

I would like to see an HONEST discussion of Acharya's work here not another diatribe against her. Is that even possible here at all?

Jeffrey Gibson

Here's what you gave:

Now please note that what I and others are asking for when we say citation is (a) an exact quote, not a paraphrase, and a citation of who it was who made the English translation of the "quoted quote"; (b) the original text of the quote -- i.e., a full reproduction of the text quoted in its original language; and (c), most importantly, a naming both of the specific work from which a given quote is found and the exact place within the work where the quote is to be found.

None of the above fits the bill -- especially the last portion of this bill.

Not only do we not have the original text of the "quotes" from Diodorus or Macrobius, let alone (and by AS's own admission) from Tertullian or any note of whose translation of Diodorus and Macrobius AS is using; there's no naming either of (1) the particular work of Diodorus/Macrobius/Tertullian from which the "quotes" are taken or (2) of the places where these quotes may be found within these works, whatever they might be.

I mean, would you know in which of Macrobius' works the "quote" is to be found from what AS says. Would you know where to go within whatever work the quote comes from to find it?

Well, they are certainly not cited "very carefully" in the quotes of her work that you gave us. So could you tell us where exactly in her work these "very careful" i.e., full citations of her sources appear?

With thanks in advance.

Jeffrey

rigorist

Has anybody let Doherty know about this thread?

Jeffrey Gibson

Can you tell me precisely in what work by Macrobius -- and where specifically within it -- we can find this "quotation" of Macrobius?

And is Macrobius himself saying it or is he quoting someone else as having said it?

Do you know?

Is there anything in Suns of God that speaks directly to -- and precisely answers -- these two questions?

Jeffrey

Amaleq13

I think Jeffrey has adequately explained why these are not actually primary source citations. Actual quotes from ancient texts with reference information so that others may confirm them for themselves. That's how it works in a scholarly venue.

Then it shouldn't be too difficult to produce them, right?

I agree there was no discussion of her work but that isn't entirely the fault of those who disagree with her. The defenders did an absolutely horrible job of presenting actual evidence to support their claims or deny the claims of others and, instead, engaged in exactly the same sort of behavior they were criticizing.

This is an excellent opportunity for those of you who feel she is not being fairly represented to do just that. Quit wasting time complaining about how mean her critics are and present evidence to show that their criticisms are wrong.

It is just you. You need to show that what he is saying is false rather than simply declaring it to be so.

That all depends on her and/or her defenders. Criticisms have been offered and no rules have been violated by them. Get to work on substantive rebuttals and quit wasting time complaing about the criticisms. :thumbs:

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.)