They are secular colleges that were founded in religious times. There is now no kind of religious weight one way or another in either All Souls' or Trinity.

 

Why would there be credible sources that say it didn't happen - if it didn't happen? You asserted it initially. Do you understand what burden of proof means? You asserted it; now you find the scholarly book or article that confirms it. Pay attention to the credentials of the author. Check for footnotes and citations.

You assert (or the assertion is at least implied) that the city of Aphrodisias was renamed Stauropolis in 450. The sources I find indicate that the first mention of Stauropolis is in 640, and Aphrodisias was featured as late as 553. What's more, from the pagan Life of Isidore by Damascius, and the Christian Life of Severus by Zacharias, it can be seen that in the latter half of the 5th century (450+, precisely the time you assert the place had been sacked) , "...a picture emerges of a society at Aphrodisias in which both Christians and pagans occupied prominent positions."

A discussion can be found here, complete with citations.

Until you find a scholarly source that confirms it, I refuse to believe it. Why should I?

 

Good instead of just running your mouth show me some "credible" sources that says Christians didn't burn books and libraries and I'll be happily corrected.

But the only thing I've found is in dispute about whether MOST of the Libraries and books were burned by Christians or barbarians.

Are you deny any kind of Christian persecution on Pagan's. Are you saying Christian Emperors didn't issue decrees outlawing all other religions?

I've found a preponderance of references that say these things did happen and none from you or Orion that says it did not.

 

And neither of us are arguing that such decrees didn't take place. Enough with your straw-man arguments!

I am asking you to provide evidence of your assertion, which is as follows: The Christians undertook a wide-scale and systematic desctruction of all pre-Christian knowledge'.

You haven't backed that up. I have called the credibility of your sources into question, exhorted you to be more rigourous, and pulled up sources that document occasions where I have discovered complete falsehoods in the sources you have used.

[Edit] You tell me you're arguing about things you learned in college and have read about. Then - for God's sake - cite me the name and page-number of those textbooks that taught you it in college!

 

That is not the desctruction of pre-Christian knowledge like you initially asserted. You are moving the goalposts.

That is the burning of religious writings. This is not what the argument is about.

 

So your source actually says there were some pagan and Christians getting along in Aphrodicias?

Aphrodisias (Greek: Ἀφροδισιάς, Aphrodisiás) was a small city in Caria, on the southwest coast of Asia Minor. Its site is located near the modern village of Geyre, Turkey, about 230 km from İzmir.
Aphrodisias was named after Aphrodite, the Greek goddess of love, who had here her unique cult image, the Aphrodite of Aphrodisias. According to the Byzantine encyclopedic compilation called the Suda, before being known as Aphrodisias, the city had held three previous names: Lelégōn Pólis (Λελέγων πόλις, "City of the Leleges"),[1] Megálē Pólis (Μεγάλη Πόλις, "Great City"), and Ninóē (Νινόη),[2] The city was renamed Stauroúpolis (Σταυρούπολις, "City of the Cross") in around 640.
The city was built near a marble quarry that was extensively exploited in the Hellenistic and Roman periods, and sculpture in marble from Aphrodisias became famous in the Roman world. Many examples of statuary have been unearthed in Aphrodisias, and some representations of the Aphrodite of Aphrodisias also survive from other parts of the Roman world, as far afield as

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aphrodisias

 

Arguing what 'caused' the Dark Ages is also meaningless, you fool, because modern scholars and archeologists have comes to the conclusion that the Dark Ages (as a period of intellectual drought) simply did not exist.

As has been pointed out a page ago.

 

Your quote has no bearing on what I said; Wikipedia is not a scholarly reference; you are not advancing the argument.

 

Life and Work in Medieval Monasteries: Copying Books at Monasteries

Some of the most important work carried on during the Dark Ages was done by humble monks copying ancient manuscripts in cold, dark monasteries. The printing press had not yet been invented and all documents were copied by hand on parchment. Scribes copied thousands of Bibles and classical works for circulation in the Christian areas of Europe. Theirs was the labor that would lift the western world out of the darkness of ignorance and illiteracy.

http://diane-evans.suite101.com/a-light-and-a-small-demon-in-the-dark-ages-a158584#ixzz1gRU9SObW

By "classical works" the writings of pagan Greeks and Romans is meant.

 

I'll see if I can find it. But I stand by what I'm saying here and will say again I have seen nothing to really refute it.

PS What good would a text book do whey you would just claim the author(s) are not credible and that lots of things in text books are wrong.

 

You've seen nothing to refute it?

So the proving wrong of various parts of your 'list' means nothing? My pointing out that there were no Dark Ages to 'descend' into means nothing? My arguing that you have no scholarly back-up to support the assertion that Christians systematically destroyed pre-Christian knowledge on a large scale means nothing?

Pointing out that your sources seem to include a ring of sites copying each other, as well as an organisation that has every reason to be biased, and Wikipedia - this means nothing?

You wouldn't know a scholarly source, it seems, if a citation jammed itself up your japseye.

 

The source still speaks directly to Christian Monks burning books and libraries Orion. I think you defeated your own point. As I pointed out it was a Christian "Mob" that burned the library at Alexandria.

 

I didn't dispute that point, Stumbler.

As regards the Library at Alexandria: Socrates of Alexandria writes about the destruction of the temples in Alexandria but he doesn't mention books being burnt or destroyed, only pagan iconography.

Ammianus Marcellinus, historian of the 4th century AD, writes that 700,000 books were burned by Caesar. He may well be mistaken, though, as the text explains. From The Library of Alexandria: centre of learning in the ancient world By Roy MacLeod, available on Google Books, page 71. [link]

The book goes on to say, however, that there are so many conflicting sources on it that, "we cannot draw any certain conclusions from this contradictory information. It seems possible, however, if not likely, that it was only a warehouse of books, or some other comparatively small part of the library's collection, that was burned, and that this story was elaborated into the tradition that the whole library was destroyed."

So you see, Stumbler - this constant arguing for Christian mobs destroying the Alexandrian Library may well be based on an entirely incorrect premise.

 

For fear of a back-lash, but you are beginning to sound a lot like Baller on the idea of Wikipedia NOT being a credible or scholarly reference...

If you scrolled down to the BOTTOM of the Wiki page, you will find section named NOTES which is basically sources from where the information can be found..Also there is another section named BIBLIOGRAPHY, which any person who reads books knows is a LIST of the books used when gathering the information...

NOW please EXPLAIN why, with all this information listed on the relevant Wikipedia page, IT IS NOT a credible reference...

 

To continue this post about the above book: it goes on to support Clarise's point that the library died a beaurocratic death.

The final destruction of the museum library probably occurred in AD 272. Ammianus Marcellinus records: 'But Alexandria itself was extended, not gradually, like other cities, but at its very beginning, to great dimensions, and for a long time was exhausted with internal disputes, until finally, after many years, when Aurelian was emperor, the civic quarrels escalated into deadly strife. Its walls were torn down and it lost the greater part of the area which was called the Brucheion, and which had long been the dwelling place of its most distinguished men'.

The destruction of the Serapeum was to following in AD391, though our sources (mainly Christian chronicles of the period) do not directly record this, any more than they do the destruction of the main library in the Brucheion. In 391 the Christian patriarch of Alexandria, Theophilus, attempted to turn one of the temples in the city into a church. After a resistance from the pagan side, which led to street-fighting and much destruction, Theophilus obtained the approval of the emperor Theodosius I for closing all the temples, including the Serapeum. A number of pagan scholars and philosophers were forced to leave the city.​

But as shown above, there is no evidence that books were stored in the Serapeum at the time that it was closed. None are mentioned, by either pagan sources or Christian ones.

 

One: anyone can falsify it. Two: citations do not exist for every posited point on Wikipedia. Three: the citations that are included may be untrue or unverifiable.

Wikipedia is useful only as a starting point. As a source in and of itself, it is worthless.

[Edit] And given that using Wikipedia as a reference will get you a fail on papers submitted to Glasgow University, I do believe that saying it is not scholarly is perfectly accurate.

 

This is WHY you cross-reference the information....YOU go and find the listed source and check it out...YOU also do other checks and seek out other information sources, if they ALL agree with what has been posted on the Wikipedia page then it stands to reason that the information is credible and reliable

 

The onus is on the one making the assertion to provide direct links to the sources. If they've been to Wiki, then they can do that. It's not up to me, it's up to him. Merely pasting something from Wiki is not sufficient. I shouldn't have to do the legwork he won't do - and what's more, many of the sources cited are not available on the internet. Since this is a discussion that we are having on the internet, it seems prudent (as I have done) to ensure that all one's sources can be accessed electronically.

Would you not agree?

Furthermore, the information he posted wasn't in relevant in any meaningful way, so the point is moot.

 

Here is a link to the "About Wikipedia" page, where you can read this copied and pasted section...

The High-lighted section is of particular interest...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

People of all ages, cultures and backgrounds can add or edit article prose, references, images and other media here. What is contributed is more important than the expertise or qualifications of the contributor. What will remain depends upon whether it fits within Wikipedia's policies, including being verifiable against a published reliable source, so excluding editors' opinions and beliefs and unreviewed research, and is free of copyright restrictions and contentious material about living people. Contributions cannot damage Wikipedia because the software allows easy reversal of mistakes and many experienced editors are watching to help and ensure that edits are cumulative improvements. Begin by simply clicking the edit link at the top of any editable page!
Wikipedia is a live collaboration differing from paper-based reference sources in important ways. Unlike printed encyclopedias, Wikipedia is continually created and updated, with articles on historic events appearing within minutes, rather than months or years. Older articles tend to grow more comprehensive and balanced; newer articles may contain misinformation, unencyclopedic content, or vandalism. Awareness of this aids obtaining valid information and avoiding recently added misinformation (see Researching with Wikipedia).

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++