Amaleq13

I commend you for correcting the error on Tertullian though relying on a secondary source offering a paraphrase rather than consulting the original continues to be a practice best avoided by amateur and professional alike.

I would contend that asserting Tertullian says the complete opposite of what he actually says is certainly not a "minor error" nor indicative of careful scholarship but I agree that it is definitely not enough on its own to warrant a complete rejection of the thesis.

Regarding Wheless, I have seen numerous examples brought forth in various threads here over the years that suggest your confindence in his scholarship is misplaced. IIRC for example, several of his Catholic Encyclopedia quotes have been shown to have come from an outdated version. Again, IIRC, it was outdated when he used it as a reference.

Jeffrey Gibson

Do you really consider calling Tertullian a Bishop when he was not a minor error?

Why do you think it was a "substitution"? Are you saying he actually knew otherwise?

I think we should note the equivocation that's going on here in the implicit claim that the meaning that an English dictionary gives for the English words Bishop and Presbyter was the same as, let alone is determinative for understanding, the meaning and significance that the Greek terms ἐπίσκοπος and πρεσβύτερος (and their Latin counterparts ĕpīscŏpus and presbyter) had for Greek (and Latin) speakers, let alone Greek and Latin Christians, of Tertullian's time or their understandings of the differences in function and hierarchical status that the terms denoted.

In any case, that you apparently did not recognize until now that your source for your claim about Tertullian's status in Carthage was factually incorrect only goes to show that you are not as well acquainted, if you are acquainted at all, with the life and times of Tertullian as you -- with your apodictic claims about his intent and what he said -- would have us believe. Othewise, you would not let the error stand when you wrote what you did about Tertullian.

Be that as it may be, may I ask about the claim in which your note about the irony of Tertullian's remark is grounded -- that by Tertullian's time Christians had engaged in a censorship campaign and had gone all out -- and had succeeded in their efforts -- to destroy as much pagan evidence and influence as possible?

What's you evidence that by Tertullian's time Christians had indeed engaged in "a censorship rampage that led to the virtual illiteracy of the ancient world" that was intent to, and, according to you, actually "ensured that their secret [presumably that Christians were sun worshipers] would be hidden from the masses"?

Was this the case in Alexandria? In Antioch? In Ephesus? In Rome? In North Africa? In Jerusalem?

If you think the answer is yes, would you please be kind enough to provide us with primary evidence that supports your claim?

I'd also like to know what your source was for your claim that Tertullian renounced Christianity.

Yours,

(the "mentally disturbed", "socially retarded" and "demented") Jeffrey -- who BTW is Earl Dorherty.

andrewcriddle

Clement of Alexandria is one of the earliest witnesses to this practice
Stromateis Book VII http://www.tertullian.org/fathers2/A...#P9223_2585270 Andrew Criddle

No Robots

Wow, that's great, Andrew. Here we have a fine and very early example of how Christian practice borrowed from paganism. This quotation makes it very clear what the source of the practice is, why it was adopted, and the symbolism that it carries. Further, it makes it clear that the practice has nothing at all to do with fundamental doctrine.

Jeffrey Gibson

To my eyes, it makes clear that the practice was "borrowed" from Judaism. Am I missing something?

Basil says as much, at least with respect to the direction in which prayer is sayd, and not with the idea that Christians should pray.

Was praying "borrowed" from Paganism, do you think?

Jeffrey

No Robots

No, it was probably me. Please explain. Are you saying that facing East is an anti-pagan Jewish practice? In any case, the important thing is that direction is oriented toward the sun for reasons that have nothing to do with solar worship.

Yeah, of course I was talking about direction. Why bring up Basil, anyway? Clement is far more interesting here because he is, as you know, far earlier.

Well, yeah, in the sense that Christ discouraged prayer, but that's another issue.

Toto

Tim Callahan is the religion specialist for the Skeptics Society. As far as I know, he has no relevant degrees, but is widely read, and tries to be accurate. I think he should be read as an informed journalist. The Secret Origins has been criticized for a lack of footnotes.

Callahan does think that there was a historical Jesus, overlaid with a lot of mythmaking.

Toto

some stuff has been split off here.

Just a note - I asked you to be "polite."

This might have been confusing, because there are different social standards of politeness. In some circles, challenging anyone's belief system is considered impolite, or "negative." Obviously, we cannot hold to that standard here. We only make progress by challenging beliefs and ideas.

But I would request that participants avoid emotionally charged words like "bogus" or other mere expressions of contempt. It should be enought to show that a theory is wrong without also pouring scorn on anyone who holds the theory.

It is also standard practice on II to send all discussion about other boards down to ~E~. There are reasons for this.

Clivedurdle

I think there has been an amazing amount of losing the plot in this discussion!

An earlier comment was that sun worship was not done by the Greeks - that was Barbarian.

But who were the Barbarians? They were not only yer northern tribes but also the very long standing enemy of the Greeks and the Romans - the Persians.

Not worshipping the sun has obvious political and nationalistic implications.

Malachi has brought up the Judaic influences - but where did the Jews learn their ideas? What was that about Babylon?

And what was the religion of Darius etc?

I am going to quote a very extreme xian website as it is fascinating.

http://www.cuttingedge.org/news/n2015.cfm

May I again link to a 5000 year old monument expressly showing worship of the sun?

http://www.knowth.com/newgrange.htm

May I kindly note that until only the last few decades and in only certain cities of the world that light at night has been dependent on the moon and the stars and something that for me is a rarity because of light pollution - seeing the stars - was an every day event (apart from cloudy nights!)

And the light in the day was the sun.

Kipling points this out:

http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~wldciv/worl...2/kipling.html

We have clear evidence from daily experience of day and night that the sun was and still is worshipped. Certain very sophisticated cultures who were developing rational thought - the Greeks - asked logical questions and were very rude about their enemies - who were in fact "Barbarian" because they really had borrowed technologies and not the Greek freedoms of thought to develop science!

We then have this fascinating xian cult develop out of the mishmash of ideas in the Roman Empire with an eclectic mix of Jewish, Greek, Roman and Persian ideas - like Churches facing East.

I wonder if instead of arguing endlessly that xianity is a son of Mithras it would be simpler to cut to the chase and note it is in fact a Zorastrian heresy, and Mithras is another Zoroastrian heresy.

youngalexander

I was just being helpful in quoting the 'primary' source of p158, since Dave31 claimed that you were fighting blind on that score. That it was based upon the references to Doane & Wheless was merely a little additional irony.