Talk:Caesarea Maritima/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

It was a far from universal practice to build Christian churches on the sites of pagan temples. It sometimes happened because the temple occupied the most prominent spot in a city which the Christian community would naturally feel to be more suitable for a church, or because a temple's podium was a convenient pre-built foundation. Some of the more exceptionally beautiful pagan temples, such as the Pantheon in Rome or the Parthenon in Athens, were simply taken over intact. But the Christians of the time were more likely to regard a pagan temple site as accursed. They never regarded it as sacred because of its former use. Csernica 09:26, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is uninformed, as everyone who knows any details of the founding of any Christian church in the first five or six hundred years will immediately realize. Think of any church, large or small, founded before ca 800. A large class of exceptions, however, are churches built on the sites of shrines over the tombs of prominent figures (the Basilica of Saint Peter etc) or developing from abbeys. This is a historical phenomenon not without interest. There is no need to disguise it. --Wetman 15:26, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I can think of a great many churches founded before that date that were not founded on the sites of pagan temples. As I said, some were, but this was because of the desireable location and not because the site was thought to be sacred somehow. Primary sources such as we have evince quite the opposite attitude about pagan temples. By your logic all the holiest pagan places ought to have been Christianized -- yet the great temple of Artemis at Ephesus, the Oracle at Delphi, the temple of Zeus at Olympia, the temple to Jupiter on the Capitoline Hill in Rome, and even the temple to the same god on the site of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem, were all allowed to simply fall into ruin along with the vast majority of other less magnificent shrines. There are far more counterexamples refuting your notion than examples supporting it.

I'm aware that your POV is a popular one in some circles, but the preponderance of the documentary and archaeological evidence does not support it. Csernica 18:43, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(Taking the above with a grain of salt, the informed reader might want to add a further category, of early Christian churches that were adapted from the basilicas of private individuals to the categories of those founded on consecrated pagan sites or to mark shrines. --Wetman 05:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC))

The current edit is perfectly acceptable. Csernica 22:30, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Merge tag

I have remove the mergeto tag. They shouldn't be merged. One is an archaeological site, the other a modern city. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 17:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Golan Heights dispute

According to the Caesarea Philippi article, Caesarea Philippi is in the Golan Heights which is disputed between Israel and Syria. Saying that it is in Israel is not NPOV. Sowelilitokiemu 03:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Israel holds the Golan Heights. Syria has sour grapes about losing a war they started; that doesn't make their whining fact. Regardless, this is not the article on Caesarea Philippi, so why mention it here? Rogue 9 14:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Caesarea photos & review

 Anyone have a Map available, like the vast majority of other wiki articles on cities and nations?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.81.245.172 (talk) 01:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC) 

Dubious

“ After the revolt of Simon bar Kokhba, which ended with the destruction of Jerusalem and expulsion of Jews, Caesarea became the center of Early Christianity in Palestine. ”

According to whom? In my reading, sources have not regarded it as such. Instead, they typically mention that it later become a center of Christian scholarship (one of many), due to Origen, such as mentioned by PBS Frontline's website.[1] --Vassyana (talk) 06:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Catholic Encyclopedia: Jerusalem (A.D. 71-1099): "As the rank of the various sees among themselves was gradually arranged according to the divisions of the empire, Caesarea became the metropolitan see; the Bishop of Ælia [Jerusalem as renamed by Hadrian] was merely one of its suffragans. The bishops from the siege under Hadrian (135) to Constantine (312) were:". 75.15.201.5 (talk) 21:55, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Date formatting

In the lead section alone we have four different styles: 133 AD, A. D. 70, CE 134 and 6. Unlike (apparently) vast numbers of Wikipedians, I don't have particularly strong views on which of these styles is best... but I think some consistency would be in order. Loganberry (Talk) 13:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

What region is this in?

The content currently states that Cesaeria Maritima is in Judea. It is in the Haifa district of Israel, not Judea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jreitsema (talk • contribs) 19:11, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

References