Your claim was that they destroyed “all temples from all pagan religions”.
Can you work out why your claim is flat earth wrong yet? If not go back and read more carefully with an open mind and you’ll be able to enlighten yourself.
To support your vapid claim, you showed some temples were repurposed.
My claim, supported with multiple peer reviewed sources, was that you were talking nonsense about all temples as it was merely some being replaced, and mostly not destroyed but repurposed like modern churches are being because they are no longer financially viable.
You can lead a horse to water…
This is a ridiculous attempt to completely change the focus of the discussion. Obviously my statement is somewhat hyperbole but the point remains. In the 4th century Rome Christianity took over Pagan temples and enacted all sorts of anti-pagan laws.
Eventually Pagan temples were outlawed, making my statement completely correct. Moving in with a new religion is still "destroying a temple".
"In 472 Leo I published a new law in 472 which imposed severe penalties for the owner of any property who was aware that pagan rites were performed on his property. If the property owner was of high rank he was punished by the loss of his rank or office and by the confiscation of his property. If the property owner was of lower status he would be physically tortured and then condemned to labor in the mines for the rest of his life."
Journal paper by Professor
Dr. Jitse H.F. Dijkstra
Classics and Religious Studies,
" The archaeological evidence that has now been collected for most parts of the Roman Empire, however, shows overwhelmingly that the destruction of temples and their reuse as churches were exceptional rather than routine events, and merely two aspects of the changing sacred landscape in late antiquity."
" am currently working on a project that will build on these recent trends by conducting the first book-length study of religious violence in late antique Egypt.12 Thus far the idea that violence, in particular against temples and statues, was widespread in late antique Egypt has been persistent.13 To quote the much-discussed study
Religion in Roman Egypt by David Frankfurter: “the gutting and conversion of traditional Egyptian temples, often still functioning, was a widespread phenomenon in Egypt during the fourth, fifth and sixth centuries.”14 My regional study of the process of religious transformation from the Ancient Egyptian religion to Christianity in the First Cataract region in southern Egypt, which exhaustively studies all sources from Philae and the two other towns in the region, Aswan and Elephantine, is a strong counter-argument against such views. It argues that the religious transformation in the whole region, including Philae, consisted of a gradual and complex process that was essentially peaceful.15 The present project extends the picture of a complex and gradual process of religious transformation, in which religious violence only occasionally occurred in specific local or regional circumstances, to Egypt as a whole."
Oh look, my words, destroy temples ........."These barbarians retained the temples on Philae right down to my day, but the Emperor Justinian decided to destroy them. Accordingly, Narses, . . . destroyed the temples on the emperor’s orders, held the priests under guard, and sent the statues to Byzantium."
"We have discussed three cases that have been taken as exemplary for widespread religious violence in late antique Egypt or even for the pervasive nature of religious violence in the late antique world. Each of these three cases is well documented in Christian literature, and even secular literature (Eunapius, Procopius), which describes the violence in dramatic terms as a direct consequence of Christian – “pagan” conflict, thus seemingly confirming the picture that the fourth and fifth centuries saw a struggle between the old and the new religion, leading to Christian triumph."
I don't even understand the point of this new line of discussion?
Never understood posters who pretend not to be able to see multiple quotes from multiple scholarly sources within posts.
Exactly, all of my prior posts with sources are ignored.
Very strange form of cognitive dissonance.
Yes, to think Christianity didn't actively attempt to end all pagan religions in Rome is strange?w
Doesn’t remotely support your claim if all temples of all pagan religions. Try reading more carefully next time.
Naw, Christianity didn't want to erase pagan religions? No way?
"
In 527, Emperor
Justinian I banned all Pagans from the right to hold public office and order the confiscation of their property.
[48]
According to the sixth-century historian
Procopius, the
Isis temple of Philae in Byzantine Egypte was closed down officially in AD 537 by the local commander
Narses the Persarmenian in accordance with an order of
Byzantine emperor Justinian I.
[49] This event is conventionally considered to mark the end of
ancient Egyptian religion.
["
Well you said the following " It's about the Roman Catholic church who went back and destroyed all temples from all pagan religions and also destroyed all material not in line with their canon."
Persecution of pagans in the late Roman Empire began during the reign of
Constantine the Great (r. 306–337) in the military colony of
Aelia Capitolina (
Jerusalem), when he destroyed a pagan temple for the purpose of constructing a Christian church.
[1] Rome had periodically confiscated church properties, and Constantine was vigorous in reclaiming them whenever these issues were brought to his attention.
[2] Christian historians alleged that
Hadrian (2nd century) had constructed a temple to
Aphrodite on the site of the
crucifixion of Jesus on
Golgotha hill in order to suppress
Christian veneration there. Constantine used that to justify the temple's destruction, saying he was simply reclaiming the property.
[3][4][5][6] Using the vocabulary of reclamation, Constantine acquired several more sites of Christian significance in the Holy Land.
[3]
Are you now accepting you were talking nonsense?
Right, Christians loved pagans, they were one big happy family.
I was trying to help you become slightly better informed of the impossibility of systematic destruction of texts in the ancient era.
There is a known blackout period in early Christianity. We have no information from detractors, many missing Epistles, all other Gospels are gone, 1st official canon is forever gone.
There are also many forged documents.
Localised, temporary and ad hoc destruction of texts occurred, but if you don't understand why long-term, systematic and empire wide destruction was impossible, then go back and read the quote.
We have lost almost all ancient texts of any genre, including orthodox Christianity (as in works of theology). Preserving any text was massively time consuming, very expensive and also relied on a fair bit of luck.
Is there any reason to believe that non-canonical tracts should have been preserved at a massively greater rate than the average texts of that era?
What is the evidence that the Church was systematically destroying them? When do you think this was happening? What were the logistics of it?
The church fathers created an entire set of Epistles.
The remaining four contested epistles – Ephesians, as well as the three known as the
Pastoral epistles (1 and 2 Timothy, and Titus) – have been labeled
pseudepigraphical works by most critical scholars.
There are two examples of pseudonymous letters written in Paul's name apart from the New Testament epistles, the
Epistle to the Laodiceans and
3 Corinthians.
The Epistle to the Hebrews is actually anonymous, but it has been
traditionally attributed to Paul.
[7] The church father
Origen of
Alexandria rejected the Pauline authorship of Hebrews, instead asserting that, although the ideas expressed in the letter were genuinely Pauline, the letter itself had actually been written by someone else.
[8] Most modern scholars generally agree that Hebrews was not written by the apostle Paul. Various other possible authorships have been suggested.
[9
