09 Apr 10
Originally posted by Conrau KThen you could probably let me know why Cyril failed to condemn Hypatia's murder whilst he made on the spot a martyr out of Ammonious😵
[b]I do not know if Christianity is “superior” as rabbie pointed out earlier; but I know that the Christian temples were built on Pagan holy grounds and that the Christians kept the Pagans on the run mainly by means of accusing them for “witchcraft”. Even the famous philosopher and mathematician Hypatia was cut in pieces by Nitrian monks because she was rid ...[text shortened]... up from the anti-clerical historiography of the likes of Edward Gibbon during the Enlightenment.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
09 Apr 10
Originally posted by black beetleI cannot say whether St Cyril did or did not condemn Hypatia's murder. The evidence, however, that he was somehow involved is scant and based only on writings composed some centuries after the event. The earliest account we have is from Socrates Scholasticus (vii.15 of Ecclesiastical History):
Then you could probably let me know why Cyril failed to condemn Hypatia's murder whilst he made on the spot a martyr out of Ammonious😵
There was a woman at Alexandria named Hypatia, daughter of the philosopher Theon, who made such attainments in literature and science, as to far surpass all the philosophers of her own time. Having succeeded to the school of Plato and Plotinus, she explained the principles of philosophy to her auditors, many of whom came from a distance to receive her instructions. On account of the self-possession and ease of manner, which she had acquired in consequence of the cultivation of her mind, she not unfrequently appeared in public in presence of the magistrates. Neither did she feel abashed in coming to an assembly of men. For all men on account of her extraordinary dignity and virtue admired her the more. Yet even she fell a victim to the political jealousy which at that time prevailed. For as she had frequent interviews with Orestes, it was calumniously reported among the Christian populace, that it was she who prevented Orestes from being reconciled to the bishop. Some of them therefore, hurried away by a fierce and bigoted zeal, whose ringleader was a reader named Peter, waylaid her returning home, and dragging her from her carriage, they took her to the church called Cæsareum, where they completely stripped her, and then murdered her with tiles. After tearing her body in pieces, they took her mangled limbs to a place called Cinaron, and there burnt them. This affair brought not the least opprobrium, not only upon Cyril, but also upon the whole Alexandrian church. And surely nothing can be farther from the spirit of Christianity than the allowance of massacres, fights, and transactions of that sort. This happened in the month of March during Lent, in the fourth year of Cyril's episcopate, under the tenth consulate of Honorius, and the sixth of Theodosius.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/26017.htm
Nowhere in Socrates' account is there any suggestion that Cyril had any responsibility in this attack (this is significant because, as you can see, Socrates is very critical of Cyrial.) Socrates' account shows a politically tumultuous and unstable city with growing rivalry between Christians and Jews. Oreste's had previously killed Ammonius and the people had become increasingly restless. I think Cyril deserves some sympathy.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
09 Apr 10
Originally posted by karoly aczelSituated in its historical context, the murder of Hypatia shows a lot not just about Christian violence but also Jewish and pagan violence. Christians too had been murdered before Hypatia's death; her own murder seems to be a reprisal against this.
Thanks everyone. Especially Beetle.
This info has furthur confirmed my understanding that the Christian Church has done nothing but supress and kill people in order that the powers that be maintain their hold on the world. A power that they still have right up this day.
09 Apr 10
Originally posted by Conrau KI guess if it wasn't the christians it would've been someone else, right?
Situated in its historical context, the murder of Hypatia shows a lot not just about Christian violence but also Jewish and pagan violence. Christians too had been murdered before Hypatia's death; her own murder seems to be a reprisal against this.
09 Apr 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau K[/b]Cyril was a fanatical tyrant.
[b]I do not know if Christianity is “superior” as rabbie pointed out earlier; but I know that the Christian temples were built on Pagan holy grounds and that the Christians kept the Pagans on the run mainly by means of accusing them for “witchcraft”. Even the famous philosopher and mathematician Hypatia was cut in pieces by Nitrian monks because she was rid ...[text shortened]... up from the anti-clerical historiography of the likes of Edward Gibbon during the Enlightenment.
The attack and expulsion of the large population of Jews from Alexandria; the destruction of the synagogues; the contemptible slaying of Hypatia; the Machiavellian politicking at the synod of Ephesus; his antagonism to secular politics; his acceptance of the sacrifice of a virgin.
The fact that he was made a Church Father and venerated as a "Pillar of Faith" is disgraceful.
09 Apr 10
1 edit
Originally posted by black beetleit is not a very complicated symbol. you just put one stick on top of another.
No my friend;
All the primitive Egyptian sepulchers were a chamber that had the form of a cross. The cross was the symbol of the unification of the human races and it was laid on the breast of the deceased Egyptians; the same tactic was followed by the Buddhist adepts with the swastika, which is also a specific cross and, as you remember and pointed ...[text shortened]... s the Latin cross, whilst the pectoral cross that was used by the Greeks had Egyptian origin
😵
the thing is, the christians didn't adopt the cross as a symbol from another culture and slightly modified it. the got it directly from jesus crucifiction which is argued to be a christian act.
the christian cross has even less connection with pre christian crosses than the nazi zvastika has with the tibetan holy symbol
09 Apr 10
Originally posted by Green PaladinThe question of Cyril's complicity in this affair has long been hotly debated. Assessments are normally made along "party lines". Roman Catholic commentators normally stoutly defend him; anti-clericals gleefully denounce the man. Perhaps the closest we find to a balanced view is that of the Anglican historian Canon Bright, who wrote: "Cyril was no party to this hideous deed, but it was the work of men whose passions he had originally called out. Had there been no [earlier such episodes], there would doubtless have been no murder of Hypatia."
Cyril was a fanatical tyrant.
The attack and expulsion of the large population of Jews from Alexandria; the destruction of the synagogues; the contemptible slaying of Hypatia; the Machiavellian politicking at the synod of Ephesus; his antagonism to secular politics; his acceptance of the sacrifice of a virgin.
The fact that he was made a Church Father and venerated as a "Pillar of Faith" is disgraceful.[/b]
But even this moderate line may perhaps be queried. Cyril is especially venerated by the Coptic church, and last century, among their archives, an Ethiopic translation of an old Greek text was discovered. So if more needs to be said, let us take it from the mouth of Cyril's most vigorous defender, the Coptic bishop John of Nikiu: "[After Hypatia's death] all the people surrounded the patriach Cyril and named him 'the new Theophilus'; for he had destroyed the last remains of idolatry in the city."
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ockham/or030897.htm
09 Apr 10
Originally posted by Zahlanziactually the Greek word is stouros, let W.E Vine a respected Greek and Biblical scholar tell us about it,
it is not a very complicated symbol. you just put one stick on top of another.
the thing is, the christians didn't adopt the cross as a symbol from another culture and slightly modified it. the got it directly from jesus crucifiction which is argued to be a christian act.
the christian cross has even less connection with pre christian crosses than the nazi zvastika has with the tibetan holy symbol
"STAUROS....denotes, primarily, an upright pale or stake. On such malefactors were nailed for execution. Both the noun and the verb stauroo, to fasten to a stake or pale, are originally to be distinguished from the ecclesiastical form of a two beamed cross.
so you see great Zahlanzi there is even debate on whether Christ was actually crucified on an upright pole, stouros, as the Greek word suggests. Here is a very interesting site to consider.
http://englishatheist.org/cross/nccross.shtml
09 Apr 10
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobiea, the very nice jehova witnesses claim that jesus was "crucified" on a non-cross: a stake
actually the Greek word is stouros, let W.E Vine a respected Greek and Biblical scholar tell us about it,
"STAUROS....denotes, primarily, an upright pale or stake. On such malefactors were nailed for execution. Both the noun and the verb stauroo, to fasten to a stake or pale, are originally to be distinguished from the ecclesiastical form of a tw ...[text shortened]... Here is a very interesting site to consider.
http://englishatheist.org/cross/nccross.shtml
edit:
The Fathers who wrote in Latin, used the word crux as a translation of the Greek word stauros. It is therefore noteworthy that even this Latin word "crux," from which we derive our words "cross" and "crucify," did not in ancient days necessarily mean something cross-shaped, and seems to have had quite another signification as its original meaning.
yes, why believe they meant cross. why not believe they meant something else. lets ask them.
The first of those questions was why John the Baptist, who was beheaded before Jesus was executed, and so far as we are told never had anything to do with a cross, is represented in our religious pictures as holding a cross.
The second question was whether this curious but perhaps in itself easily explained practice had in its inception any connection with the non-Mosaic initiatory rite of baptism; which Jesus accepted as a matter of course at the hands of his cousin John, and in which the sign of the cross has for ages been the all-important feature. And it was the wonder whether there was or was not some association between the facts that the New Testament writers give no explanation whatever of the origin of baptism as an initiatory rite, that this non-Mosaic initiatory rite was in use among Sun-God worshippers long before our era, and that the Fathers admitted that the followers of the Persian conception of the Sun-God marked their initiates upon the forehead like the followers of the Christ, which finally induced the author to start a systematic enquiry into the history of the cross as a symbol.
The third question was why, despite the fact that the instrument of execution to which Jesus was affixed can have had but one shape, almost any kind of cross is accepted as a symbol of our faith.
The last of the four questions was why many varieties of the cross of four equal arms, which certainly was not a representation of an instrument of execution, were accepted by Christians as symbols of the Christ before any cross which could possibly have been a representation of an instrument of execution was given a place among the symbols of Christianity; while even nowadays one variety of the cross of four equal arms is the favourite symbol of the Greek Church, and both it and the other varieties enter into the ornamentation of our sacred properties and dispute the supremacy with the cross which has one of its arms longer than the other three.
Pursuing these matters for himself, the author eventually found that even before our era the cross was venerated by many as the symbol of Life; though our works of reference seldom mention this fact, and never do it justice.
He moreover discovered that no one has ever written a complete history of the symbol, showing the possibility that the stauros or post to which Jesus was affixed was not cross-shaped, and the certainty that, in any case, what eventually became the symbol of our faith owed some of its prestige as a Christian symbol of Victory and Life to the position it occupied in pre-Christian days.
the above are called relevant. which is laughable.
i only got to the second chapter. it was enough for me.
09 Apr 10
Originally posted by Conrau KYou cannot say whether or not Cyril did or did not condemn Hypatia's murder, however I can definately say that there is no evidence that he condemn it -and to me this is a matter of great significance.
I cannot say whether St Cyril did or did not condemn Hypatia's murder. The evidence, however, that he was somehow involved is scant and based only on writings composed some centuries after the event. The earliest account we have is from Socrates Scholasticus (vii.15 of Ecclesiastical History):
[quote]There was a woman at Alexandria named Hypatia, daugh ...[text shortened]... nius and the people had become increasingly restless. I think Cyril deserves some sympathy.
I am aware of Socrates Scholasticus's quote, as I am aware of the later ones by Damascius and, of course, by that disgusting joker John, Bishop of Nikiou. The most one studies these quotes the clearer it becomes that Cyril should and could have condemn the murder. The Orthodox and the Catholic Church are free to honour whoever they want, but ask no sympathy for Cyril from me😵
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
09 Apr 10
Originally posted by black beetleThere is no evidence that Cyril did or did not condemn the attack. This is not surprising. Many written works of Cyril have not survived (and pursuant to that point, it is unlikely that Cyril would have issued his condemnation in a written form.)
You cannot say whether or not Cyril did or did not condemn Hypatia's murder, however I can definately say that there is no evidence that he condemn it -and to me this is a matter of great significance.
I am aware of Socrates Scholasticus's quote, as I am aware of the later ones by Damascius and, of course, by that disgusting joker John, Bishop of Nikio ...[text shortened]... Catholic Church are free to honour whoever they want, but ask no sympathy for Cyril from me😵
he Orthodox and the Catholic Church are free to honour whoever they want, but ask no sympathy for Cyril from me
I think that attitude is unfair. By Socrates' account (which, mind you, is not sympathetic to Cyril), Alexandria was a politically unstable city. Tensions between Christian and Jewish citizens were rife. Cyril himself had acquired his bishopric by questionable means, essentially banishing his predecessor. Whether he even had the power to condemn the Christian mob is unclear.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
09 Apr 10
Originally posted by Green PaladinSeveral of those allegations are questionable. Cyril had a number of detractors in his time and Enlightenment thinkers have been determined to use him as proof that Christianity is essentially unreasonable. The true picture of Cyril is harder to find.
Cyril was a fanatical tyrant.
The attack and expulsion of the large population of Jews from Alexandria; the destruction of the synagogues; the contemptible slaying of Hypatia; the Machiavellian politicking at the synod of Ephesus; his antagonism to secular politics; his acceptance of the sacrifice of a virgin.
The fact that he was made a Church Father and venerated as a "Pillar of Faith" is disgraceful.[/b]
