GakuseiDon

Oh, please. I know exactly who you are. You don't spend two years trying to get someone to answer one simple question about Horus without getting to recognise their writing style. But it doesn't matter. As long as you abide by the rules of this well-moderated forum, I'm happy to see you here, and I hope you continue posting on this board.

Sure. I agree that Christians were charged with worshipping the sun, and this provides some support for Acharya's position. But it's her analysis that is the problem. (For example: If I claim that "Tertullian believes in a historical Jesus, admitting the true origin of Christianity", you would -- rightly -- question my analysis)

Amaleq13

For me it is the same "agenda" for every one of the many books that have been similarly critiqued in this forum. Namely, I want to determine if it is worth my money to buy it and my time to read it.

This is simply false. I have said nothing about your "character". Criticisms against your book and criticisms of blatant error in your reference to Tertullian say absolutely nothing about your "character".

No, I clearly read it each and every time I quoted you using it.

Yes but I have offered no criticism of that statement. The statement I did and continue to criticize as an incomprehensible error on your part is where you claim that Tertullian "ironically admits the true origins of the Christ story" based on one part of a paraphrase when he quite clearly and explicitly does the exact opposite in the actual text.

As I've already pointed out, it is difficult to understand how you could obtain such a clearly wrong conclusion from the paraphrase unless one only read the portion you quote and incomprehensible how anyone could obtain such an understanding from his actual words. This, in my view, is secondary to why any professional scholar would rely on a paraphrase rather than his actual words if accurately relating what Tertullian wrote was at all a priority.

I look forward to your response regarding the statement I have criticized rather than one I have not.

Only if there are other similarly egregious errors.

I haven't assumed anything about you. I'm simply responding to what you have written. Frankly, I had assumed that your critics were engaging in hyperbole when they called into question your scholarship. This has not been a point in your favor but, as I indicated, I continue to hold out hope that subsequent discussion will reveal this error to be an aberration.

Amaleq13

To my knowledge, only Richard has ever been a member and you can use the search function to learn that the answer to your question is "yes". He has obtained some quite hostile opposition in the past and, in my opinion, he handled it much better.

Amaleq13

There is a difference between strongly criticizing what someone has written and/or the quality of the research behind it and engaging in ad hominem attacks.

Only the latter is prohibited.

Amaleq13

Nobody is denying that there were such accusations. :huh:

Does that point apply equally to the charges of worshipping the head of an ass and eating babies?

Amaleq13

I continue to be interested in any answers to this question?

Do I have to buy the book?

Dave31

Agreed to a certain point. However, Solitary Man has admitted that he has never read her work so in his case, yes, it is an ad hom as he knows nothing about her work at all since he's never seen it.

GakuseiDon

Yes, I wonder about that, too. I found this on Tertullian's comment about praying towards the east here: http://www.tertullian.org/articles/b...ndley_apol.htm

"This custom was common to nearly all religions. Its natural symbolism, the east being the quarter of light, was adopted by Christians as expressive of the coming of the Sun of Righteousness, the Light of the World. Tertullian speaks of the East as a 'figure of Christ,' adv. Valent. 3. See Dict, Chr. Ant., i. 586."

That probably offers more support for Acharya than her use of the Catholic Encyclopedia, ironically enough.

Solitary Man

Now here you're wrong, since I've in the mean time remedied never having read any of her work. Having read the drivel, I know regret doing so. But still nothing was thrown at her as a person, so you're again wrong. How many factual "misinformations" are you willing to spew in this thread?

Dave31

AAbe, I'm fully aware that the works of Tertullian are translated into English and online. Maybe I wasn't clear in my comment. I was asking if you have ever attempted to find Latin or Greek text for yourself that wasn't so easily available.

Anyway, If anyone has an issue with the paraphrase then, you need to take it up with the Catholic Enc. And if you have a problem with this translation you'll have to take it up with Roger Pearson

Also, I've already commented to you on Tertullian Abe in Whether or not Tertullian denied or conceded to sun worship, whether or not he was responding to slander is besides the point - the point is he felt the need to address it on more than one occasion.

YOU HAVEN"T SEEN HER ANALYSIS SINCE YOU"VE NEVER SEEN HER BOOK!

- The reason, as I understand it, is because:

1. It wasn't just ANY Encyclopedia. It was the CATHOLIC Encyclopedia and

2. The fact that it is in there is an ADMISSION AGAINST INTERESTS.

3. They knew what Tertullian was saying and it is their paraphrase - NOT ACHARTA'S

4. THE PARAPHRASE IS STILL THERE TODAY