posted 27 December 2004 12:15 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by supercar:
As an Egyptian, Gadalla is obviously not an impartial observer, and therefore has this passionate tone expressed in his notes. It may or may not be offensive to a reader, but if this is what history entails, then what? Can you prove that much of what he said about the Christianization or Arabization of the country, didn't happen that way? If so, I welcome the specifics of that case!

---

Gadalla is not from the Takrur i.e. West Africa. In his book Exiled
Egyptians he applies his inflammatory statements to the people of
Takrur, Hodh, Gnawa, etc. And on top of that, in the very same tradition
of the Hamiticists, claims Sahel civilization to be an import item
attributable to light skinned Egyptians.
Then going them even one better claims that the Forest civilizations
were Egyptian in origin too!

But Gadalla is an infallible god to some and therefore whatever comes
out of his amateur historians pen is beyond all doubt toatally factual
and certainly unbiased, just exposing the truth. Bow down!

posted 27 December 2004 12:26 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
[QUOTE]
I am not upset and I am not revealing my religion or lack
thereof. This is, or so I thought, a more or less academic forum.
As such, so is my approach to it.

Gadallas approach on the other hand is self admittedly antiChristianity,
antiJudaism, and antiIslam.

---

[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 26 December 2004).][/QUOTE]

You were talking about approaches and that was how I answered.
In earlier posts I have directly relayed the arguments for Coptic
identity from the Copts themselves. Apparently those direct quotes
and URLs went unread so much the less analyzed.

posted 27 December 2004 12:34 AM            

quote:

---

alTakruri:
Gadalla is not from the Takrur i.e. West Africa. In his book Exiled
Egyptians he applies his inflammatory statements to the people of
Takrur, Hodh, Gnawa, etc. And on top of that, in the very same tradition
of the Hamiticists, claims Sahel civilization to be an import item
attributable to light skinned Egyptians.
Then going them even one better claims that the Forest civilizations
were Egyptian in origin too!

But Gadalla is an infallible god to some and therefore whatever comes out of his amateur historians pen is beyond all doubt toatally factual and certainly unbiased, just exposing the truth. Bow down!

---

Again, whatever personal issues Gadalla has, is probably something to discuss in another topic. I am not claiming to agree on each and every thing Gadalla states. Anyone who comes to such conclusions without any foundation, isn't building a case from a scholarly perspective, but merely making assumptions. We are talking about the excerpts provided herein this topic. In this case, you still haven't proven him to be wrong. Other observation of Gadalla outside what was given herein, is another matter and another topic, and I haven't provided my insights on them. Any conclusion about my stance on his other works, is just pure speculation!

posted 27 December 2004 01:08 AM            

quote:

---

You were talking about approaches and that was how I answered.
In earlier posts I have directly relayed the arguments for Coptic
identity from the Copts themselves. Apparently those direct quotes
and URLs went unread so much the less analyzed.

---

I did read it, but was very unimpressed by it. That's why I asked if you were trying to make point A or point B? Some of it sounded like really bad imperialist religious propaganda which I would take with a huge grain of salt in any context with regard to any nations history...like; millions of men and women up and down the Nile deserted the ancient temples and went to church, they found
themselves in the spiritual world of their masters; and the result was
the demand for a national church.;

Which did not exactly resolve As Lianius of Antioch describeds the rampages during the 380's, their ''black-robbed tribes'' would hasten to attack the temples with sticks and bars of iron........ Then utter desolation follows, with the stripping of roofs; demolition of walls, the tearing down of statues and the overthrow of altars, and the priests must keep quiet or die. After demolishing one, the scurry to another and to a third, and trophy is pilled on trophy. Such out rages occur even in the cities but they are most common in the countryside

...the above is not even related by Gadalla and in turn weakens responses like...
But Gadalla is an infallible god to some and therefore whatever comes
out of his amateur historians pen is beyond all doubt toatally factual
and certainly unbiased, just exposing the truth. Bow down!

This tells us you have an axe to grind with Gadalla, but tells us nothing about the history of the Copts. Attacking Gadalla personally is of little help to you as the irrefutable facts are still there even without him relating them. Since I could care less about Gadalla that makes your approach all the less effective with me. It apears to be your way of not dealing with the reality of the Coptic church single mindedly destroying much of the very heritage that some now piously (pun intended) claim to be soley theirs.

posted 27 December 2004 01:41 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
I did read it, but was very unimpressed by it. That's why I asked if you were trying to make point A or point B? Some of it sounded like really bad imperialist religious propaganda which I would take with a huge grain of salt in any context with regard to any nations history...like; millions of men and women up and down the Nile deserted the ancient temples and went to church, they found
themselves in the spiritual world of their masters; and the result was
the demand for a national church.;

Which did not exactly resolve As Lianius of Antioch describeds the rampages during the 380's, their ''black-robbed tribes'' would hasten to attack the temples with sticks and bars of iron........ Then utter desolation follows, with the stripping of roofs; demolition of walls, the tearing down of statues and the overthrow of altars, and the priests must keep quiet or die. After demolishing one, the scurry to another and to a third, and trophy is pilled on trophy. Such out rages occur even in the cities but they are most common in the countryside

...the above is not even related by Gadalla and in turn weakens responses like...
But Gadalla is an infallible god to some and therefore whatever comes
out of his amateur historians pen is beyond all doubt toatally factual
and certainly unbiased, just exposing the truth. Bow down!

This tells us you have an axe to grind with Gadalla, but tells us nothing about the history of the Copts. Attacking Gadalla personally is of little help to you as the irrefutable facts are still there even without him relating them. Since I could care less about Gadalla that makes your approach all the less effective with me. It apears to be your way of not dealing with the reality of the Coptic church single mindedly destroying much of the very heritage that some now piously (pun intended) claim to be soley theirs.

[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 27 December 2004).]

---

I cant imagine, page after page from Coptic sources leave no impress
but a few sentences from an antiCopt are not only inpressive but cinclusive?

As the Stylistics sang, guess thats what makes the world go round.

posted 27 December 2004 01:55 AM            

It's like a judge weighing evidence in a murder trial.

You have the reality of habeaus corpus - the dead body - and multiple witnesses who say they saw the defendant commit the murder.

Council then calls the defendant's mother as a character witness to the effect that the defendant is in fact a 'nice boy'.

posted 27 December 2004 02:01 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Which did not exactly resolve As Lianius of Antioch describeds the rampages during the 380's, their ''black-robbed tribes'' would hasten to attack the temples with sticks and bars of iron........ Then utter desolation follows, with the stripping of roofs; demolition of walls, the tearing down of statues and the overthrow of altars, and the priests must keep quiet or die. After demolishing one, the scurry to another and to a third, and trophy is pilled on trophy. Such out rages occur even in the cities but they are most common in the countryside

[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 27 December 2004).]

---

Again let us forget zealous converts are known to go
overboard convincing their fellow ethnics of the purported truth
of the new religion at the expense of the old.

Oh yes let us overlook the mention of the early Egyptian Christian
rampagers who were themselves the children of old Egyptian priests.

What percentage of the rampagers were native Egyptians of sincere
Christian conviction who were embarrassed by their fellow ethnics
retention of the old religion and operated in hateful reaction?

And nowhere have you countered the Coptics presentation with the
slightest bit of counter evidence to their points of heritage
from anyone, that Egyptian Christianity is transplanted Syrian,
Greek, or anybody elses language, music, foods, festivals, theology, etc.

These are strong points beyond hero worship of a single authors bias.

posted 27 December 2004 02:05 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
I don't even view it as Copt vs. anti-Copt.

It's like a judge weighing evidence in a murder trial.

You have the reality of habeaus corpus - the dead body - and multiple witnesses who say they saw the defendant commit the murder.

Council then calls the defendant's mother as a character witness to the effect that the defendant is in fact a 'nice boy'.

Well...yeah, that's what I expect her to say.
And....no, I'm not impressed.

---

And of course family members never murder each other. In fact murder
is the proof that they are not members of the same family.

Yeah, right.

posted 27 December 2004 02:17 AM            

quote:

---

alTakruri:
And nowhere have you countered the Coptics presentation with the slightest bit of counter evidence to their points of heritage from anyone that Egyptian Christianity is transplanted Syrian,
Greek...

---

alTakruri, even your own reference says something noteworthy:

quote:

---

"St. Mark the Evangelist is said to have been the founder of the Egyptian Church and to have been martyred and buried in Alexandria, where his relics were venerated until the Moslem Conquest. His first converts were Greeks, and Greek was the language of the Church."

---

Now, obviously foreigners brought the religion to the country, first converting Hellenized foreign settlements, and then working their way up to other Egyptian territory.

posted 27 December 2004 02:18 AM            

quote:

---

Again let us forget zealous converts are known to go
overboard convincing their fellow ethnics of the purported truth
of the new religion at the expense of the old.

---

quote:

---

What percentage of the rampagers were native Egyptians of sincere
Christian conviction who were embarrassed by their fellow ethnics
retention of the old religion and operated in hateful reaction?

---

quote:

---

And nowhere have you countered the Coptics presentation with the
slightest bit of counter evidence to their points of heritage
from anyone that Egyptian Christianity is transplanted Syrian,
Greek,

---

quote:

---

These are strong points beyond hero worship of a single authors bias.

---

posted 27 December 2004 02:29 AM            

quote:

---

This has devolved into rhetorical debate because no one can
bring any evidence of external import for the charactaristic components
of Egyptian Christianity.

---

quote:

---

So, until somebody can show the Coptic cultus origins in Syria, Greece or where ever,

---

posted 27 December 2004 02:35 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by supercar:
Now, obviously foreigners brought the religion to the country, first converting Hellenized foreign settlements, and then working their way up to other Egyptian territory.

---

Yes, obviously Judeans introduced Christianity to
the world. Does this mean that all the pushers of Christianity
everywhere in all times were Judean and
every countrys expression
of Christianty were imposed by Judeans?

posted 27 December 2004 02:35 AM            

Egyptian Christians are known collectively as 'Copts', a word derived from the Greek word 'Aigyptos', meaning 'Egypt'.

They trace their history to the first century AD when St Mark introduced Christianity to Egypt.

This Christian community is divided into several groups: Coptic Orthodox, Coptic Catholics, Coptic Evangelicans (Protestants) and other minorities.

The largest group of Egyptian Christians belongs to the Coptic Orthodox church.

They number 6-7 million and account for an estimated 93% of Egypt's Christians.

Own pope

They have their own pope, Pope Shenouda III, and give allegiance to him rather than to Rome.

No mass for the pope at the Monastery of St.Catherine

Orthodox Copts are patriotically Egyptian and some even resent the coming visit by a Pope from Rome, seeing it as a form of global domination by the Vatican.
Prominent Orthodox Copts include the former UN Secretary General Boutros Boutros Ghali and the heart surgeon Dr Magdy Yacoub.

Independent from Rome

Egypt's Catholics are nearly all 'Coptic Catholics', a group independent from Rome.

They number between 200,000 and 250,000 and are led by Patriarch Stephanos II Ghattas, although they see the Pope in Rome as their spiritual leader.

Their community dates from the days of French and British colonisation of Egypt, and today they run over 150 schools throughout the country.

The coming visit by Pope John Paul II means the most to them, and some Coptic Catholics have already begun travelling hundreds of kilometres from southern Egyptian villages to Cairo for the open-air mass on Friday.

Roman Catholics

Egypt's Roman Catholics are thought to number less than a thousand.

The Coptic Evangelicans are the Protestants of Egypt and they number around 150,000.

They have close historic links with churches in America, dating back to the work of nineteenth century missionaries.

Today they are heavily involved in education and healthcare for low-income Egyptians.

Orthodox

Greek Orthodox Christians number only a few thousand, down from a peak of 150,000 two centuries ago.

Their decline was spurred by the nationalisation policies of Egypt's first president, Gamal Abdul Nasser.

The best-known Greek Orthodox Christians in the country are the monks who inhabit the fortified Monastery of St Catherine high on Mt Sinai.

This site will form the climax of Pope John Paul II's Egyptian visit on Saturday as he performs what the Vatican is calling "a Jubilee Pilgrimmage" to celebrate the millennium.

Like the Orthodox Copts, these monks owe no allegiance to Rome and the Vatican, and Pope John Paul II has not been allowed to hold mass inside the monastery.

Minorities

The remaining Christian communities make up a tiny minority, totalling a few thousand.

Because of the historic rivalry between the Orthodox and Catholic branches of the Christian faith, Pope John Paul II's visit is controversial for some Egyptian Christians.

While they welcome him as a man of peace, they fear the massive media attention will give the impression that Egypt's own Pope Shenouda III is somehow subordinate to Rome.

Nationalism is deeply ingrained in Egyptian Christianity and is likely to remain so.

posted 27 December 2004 02:43 AM            

quote:

---

Yes, obviously Judeans introduced Christianity to
the world. Does this mean that all the pushers of Christianity
everywhere in all times were Judean and
every countrys expression
of Christianty were imposed by Judeans?

---

posted 27 December 2004 02:46 AM            

quote:

---

alTakruri:
Yes, obviously Judeans introduced Christianity to the world. Does this mean that all the pushers of Christianity
everywhere in all times were Judean and
every countrys expression of Christianty were imposed by Judeans?

---

This discussion is becoming funny indeed. Of course, the pushers of Christianity in Egypt were foreigners, as all evidence thus far points out. Who do you suppose took the iniative to convert Native Egyptians, who had their own indigenous religions and traditions?

posted 27 December 2004 02:48 AM            

quote:

---

Yes how very disappointing that you still have not shown the
Coptic cultus origins in Syria, Greece or where ever

---

posted 27 December 2004 02:52 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

Christianity itself is an external import into Egypt, and was specifically imported by the Greeks as a matter of historical record. Your attempt to evade this reality by evoking the empty qualifier 'charactaristic components' is itself empty rhetoric. Christianity in South Africa doubtless has 'characteristic components'. It was also introducted by Europeans and thru often violent means, and it's practitioners include Native Africans and Europeans who have no ethnic AFrican blood. This is true of the Copts as well, and frankly you are not directly arguing otherwise, so we don't know what exactly you are arguing?

[QUOTE] So, until somebody can show the Coptic cultus origins in Syria, Greece or where ever,

---

Sorry but no one has shown the Coptic cultus to be external.
Youre confusing Christianity in general with its particular Egyptian
manisfestation which is unlike Syrian or Greek versions of Chritianity.
The cultus of each variant differ from one another, all cute rhetorical
non sequitors aside <but denile did make me grin>.

posted 27 December 2004 03:04 AM            

Debate without supporting data.

Africa introduced and imported people to the world so all people
are Africans right?

posted 27 December 2004 03:04 AM            

scroll to the picture album item, or click on the pictures.

posted 27 December 2004 03:15 AM            

quote:

---

ausar:
I stumbled upon a picture album...scroll to the picture album item, or click on the pictures.

---

I knew that it wasn't my imagination, about your attempt to post pictures of "copts".

quote:

---

alTakruri:
Debate without supporting data.
Africa introduced and imported people to the world so all people are Africans right?

---

This is the problem:

quote:

---

rasol:
...you keep inventing new qualifiers that help you miss the point that in my opinion, was made in the parent thread.

---

posted 27 December 2004 03:17 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
This is getting a little embarrassing.
The analogy is hopeless because Egypt was conquered and settled by Greek foreigners. And Judaism is a really poor comparison as it is not characteristically a violent proseletyzing faith...unlike Chrisianity and Islam, both of which do have a looooong history of conquest by force, which is apparently too touchy and personal and issue for you to face forthrightly, and that is why this 'debate' goes nowhere.

---

Neither touchy or personal to me as I have absolutely no
investment in either one.

But the analogy is a perfect fit and thank you for proving
my point that religions get tailored to fit the national ethos
of their practitioners! You fell right into that one.

And yes as a debate this thread will go nowhere. The data
has already been presented and cannot be refuted precisely
because it is that, cold hard data. Coptic Christianity wrinkles
alongside beauty traits is native to Egypt and incorporates elements
of the religion it deposed and the folkways of its practitioners, Egyptians.

posted 27 December 2004 03:19 AM            

quote:

---

But the analogy is a perfect fit and thank you for proving
my point that religions get tailored to fit the national ethos
of their practitioners! You fell right into that one.

---

posted 27 December 2004 03:33 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by supercar:
You are busy with the above, that you've failed to take notice of Ausar's notes, which are pretty much from other sources, supporting something or the other in the excerpts.

---

No I havent missed the point or changed qualifiers. I have
stood by the subject header Latent Egypt In Modern Egypt and
presented the Copts contribution in that direction without
denying that others in Egypt have some of the exact same contribution
as well as unique ones of their own. Others have dragged me all over
everywhere with arguments but no data that the Copts have no
Kmtisms and arent even Egyptians outside of being some kind of
resident aliens.

posted 27 December 2004 11:53 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:
No I havent missed the point or changed qualifiers. I have stood by the subject header Latent Egypt In Modern Egypt and
presented the Copts contribution in that direction without denying that others in Egypt have some of the exact same contribution as well as unique ones of their own. Others have dragged me all over
everywhere with arguments but no data that the Copts have no Kmtisms and arent even Egyptians outside of being some kind of
resident aliens.

---

Yes, you have missed the point. The point you were questioning you failed to understand from the outset of this discussion was the following:

Copts who are referred to as the "True" descendants of Ancient Egypts.

To find out about the true "non-Egyptian" origins of Copts go to so and so link...

This was the point that you questioned; amazingly zoning out the first portion of the point, but focusing instead on the following statement connected to the first one.

Then you go on to make an analysis of the excerpt, which as it turns out doesn't really do justice to the excerpst, in terms of the format you put it. The format of your analysis itself showed that you didn't quite understand the context of the excerpt in question.

Your immediate conclusion was that the point was solely based on racial diversity of Copts, which as it turns out, isn't the only point addressed in the excerpts. It talks about the foreign origins of the religion, how it started within the circles of Hellenized foreigners before spreading to indigenous populations, how even the language was Hellenized in the form of Greek characters, track records of conversion tactics, the popularity issue, the misconception of the terminology itself and how that relates to the modern conception of the word "Copts", and the racial diversity issue. All these were points made in the excerpt to justify the statment for which the link was intended. So, unlike your statement, that the point was made solely on the racial background of Copts is proven to be wrong, as judged by the content of the excerpts!

Your claim was that "Copts" are descendants of Ancient Egyptians, which nobody denies here anyway, but you go onto make it sound that this is a further premise for argument.

Please answer these questions with answers if you will, and not with questions, and we might get to the bottom of this once and for all:

1. Was Christianity introduced by foreigners or not?

2. Was the early Church literature in Greek or not?

3. Was the early Christian Priests foreigners or not?

4. Was the earliest converts hellenized foreign settlers or not?

5. Did the missionaries adopt Coptic Script to convert native Egyptians or not?

6. Did the dispell of Jews, destruction and conversion of Temples into churches occur or not?

7. Are "Copts" not as racially diverse as various other groups in Egypt or not?
   

If your answer to all these questions is yes, than you have just agreed to what is mentioned in the excerpt.

You brought about the question of the distinct-ness, that is, the cultus, theology and all that. But that development actually enforces the "un-Egyptian" origins of the religion. If the "Copts" have to add distinct values to the religion that was brought from outside, it merely shows that it was felt that the new religion didn't entirely address local traditions, culture and value!

We are going in circles, precisely because you are arguing with yourself and nobody.

posted 27 December 2004 04:54 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by supercar:
Yes, you have missed the point. The point you were questioning you failed to understand from the outset of this discussion was the following:

Copts who are referred to as [b]the "True" descendants of Ancient Egypts.

To find out about the true "non-Egyptian" origins of Copts go to so and so link...

This was the point that you questioned; amazingly zoning out the first portion of the point, but focusing instead on the following statement connected to the first one.

Then you go on to make an analysis of the excerpt, which as it turns out doesn't really do justice to the excerpst, in terms of the format you put it. The format of your analysis itself showed that you didn't quite understand the context of the excerpt in question.

Your immediate conclusion was that the point was solely based on racial diversity of Copts, which as it turns out, isn't the only point addressed in the excerpts. It talks about the foreign origins of the religion, how it started within the circles of Hellenized foreigners before spreading to indigenous populations, how even the language was Hellenized in the form of Greek characters, track records of conversion tactics, the popularity issue, the misconception of the terminology itself and how that relates to the modern conception of the word "Copts", and the racial diversity issue. All these were points made in the excerpt to justify the statment for which the link was intended. So, unlike your statement, that the point was made solely on the racial background of Copts is proven to be wrong, as judged by the content of the excerpts!

Your claim was that "Copts" are descendants of Ancient Egyptians, which nobody denies here anyway, but you go onto make it sound that this is a further premise for argument.

Please answer these questions with answers if you will, and not with questions, and we might get to the bottom of this once and for all:

1. Was Christianity introduced by foreigners or not?

2. Was the early Church literature in Greek or not?

3. Was the early Christian Priests foreigners or not?

4. Was the earliest converts hellenized foreign settlers or not?

5. Did the missionaries adopt Coptic Script to convert native Egyptians or not?

6. Did the dispell of Jews, destruction and conversion of Temples into churches occur or not?

7. Are "Copts" not as racially diverse as various other groups in Egypt or not?
   

If your answer to all these questions is yes, than you have just agreed to what is mentioned in the excerpt.

You brought about the question of the distinct-ness, that is, the cultus, theology and all that. But that development actually enforces the "un-Egyptian" origins of the religion. If the "Copts" have to add distinct values to the religion that was brought from outside, it merely shows that it was felt that the new religion didn't entirely address local traditions, culture and value!

We are going in circles, precisely because you are arguing with yourself and nobody.

[This message has been edited by supercar (edited 27 December 2004).][/B]

---

If I am arguing with myself then why do you keep answering?

Moral of the story: Copts are a perfect example of Latent Egypt
In Modern Egypt.

Every one of your questions are applicable everywhere Christianity
spread and became the state religion.

And, by the way, the Jews were not expelled. Alexandria held one
of the most vibrant Jewish communities of the early common era.

The truth of your questions in fact does not
stop the native membership of any country from being the true
descendents of their ancient fathers. That is the point. You say
that is the point. The origin of the Copts is the point. You abandon
the point and replace it with the origin of Christianity which we
all know is Judean and its books were written in Koine Greek,
hence it is a foreign intrusion everywhere outside of Judea. But
that does not change the descent of its practitioners who remain
true descendents of the native population and do not become true
descendents of the foreign missionaries who brought the religion.
That is what you fail to understand. If I get you, you are saying
that Copts are not true descendents of AE because they converted to
Christianity. If so, then by the same logic, the Egyptian Muslims are
not true descendents of AE either. Which is why I stated anti religious
bias is at the base of denying that Copts are not true descendents of
AE, but you aint tryin to hear that see?

1. Was Islam introduced by foreigners or not?

2. Was the early Masjidh literature in Arabic or not?

3. Were the early Muslim Imams foreigners or not?

4. Was the earliest converts arabized foreign settlers or not?

5. Did the missionaries force Arabic language and script onto converted native Egyptians (all of whom were dubbed Copts) or not?

6. Did the complete suppression of any and all AE survivals including dismantling of monuments and defacing of art occur or not?

7. Are "Egyptian Muslims" not as racially diverse as various other groups in Egypt or not?
   

Does all that prove the EMs are not the true descendents of AE?

Since you say the point is >>are Copts the "True" descendants
of Ancient Egypts<< then turn around and say >>"Copts" are descendants
of Ancient Egyptians, which nobody denies here anyway<<, then what
is it you are arguing about? No one ever posited that Christianity
was an Egyptian invention. So what is your real point? How does it
exclude Copts and what are its criteria of inclusion?

posted 27 December 2004 08:06 PM            

quote:

---

alTakruri:
If I am arguing with myself then why do you keep answering?

---

Rescuing you, that is what I am doing!

quote:

---

alTakruri:
Every one of your questions are applicable everywhere Christianity spread and became the state religion.

---

We are talking about a "cradle of Civilization" here, and as such, pride for the native traditions embodying this, doesn't compare to any other. So if one abandons or compromises that identity, and then turns around and tells others (who share the same indigenous heritage) that oneself is the “closest” thing to representing the native identity, that claim becomes questionable to any clear thinking individual. Such an assertion had better be backed by facts, which are absent in this case!

quote:

---

alTakruri:
And, by the way, the Jews were not expelled. Alexandria held one of the most vibrant Jewish communities of the early common era.

---

So you are denying that dispelling of Jews didn't occur?

Here is a second source that in a sense corroborates the point made about Jews in Alexandria,:

Site: www.stshenouda.com:
“ The legacy that St. Mark left in Egypt was a Christian community made up primarily of converted hellenized Jews. Christianity remained eclipsed by the powerful Jewish community in Alexandria at the time. After the Jewish Revolt in the first quarter of the second century AD. and subsequent annihilation of the Jews in Alexandria, the Christians of Egypt became visible to the world.”

Yet another source: “Encarta”:

“A Jewish revolt in AD 116 resulted in the annihilation of the Jewish population and the destruction of a large portion of the city.”

Source: i-cias.com:
“116 CE: A revolt among local Jews leads to an annihilation of the Jewish community”

Another source: www.touregypt.net:
“In reality, there is a growing consensus among historians that the Library of Alexandria likely suffered from several destructive events, but that the destruction of Alexandria's pagan temples in the late 4th century was probably the most severe and final one. The evidence for that destruction is the most definitive and secure. One certainty is that the "Daughter Library" at the Serapeum (the Temple of Serapis) was sacked during the Jewish revolt of 115 AD, and again destroyed by the monks of Theophilus in 391. It is entirely possible that the Great Library may have fallen victim to the same campaign, though we know with certainty that the Mouseion functioned for some time afterwards“.

Must I go on. What are your specific sources for coming to the conclusion that the aggression against the Jews in Alexander didn’t take place, other than simply denying it?

quote:

---

alTakruri:
The truth of your questions in fact does not stop the native membership of any country from being the true descendents of their ancient fathers. That is the point.

---

...and you are telling us you got the point. You are in a lot more trouble than I thought.

quote:

---

You say that is the point. The origin of the Copts is the point.

---

WRONG! As usual, repetition becomes the order of the day. In simpler terms:

The rejection of reference to Copts as the THE "True" descendants of indigenous Ancient Egyptians, is the point that was made in the parent thread!

quote:

---

alTakruri:
You abandon the point and replace it with the origin of Christianity

---

You really do have a problem grasping points; it wasn’t just a suspicion I had! What is the contemporary reference to "Copts"? Is it not "Christians"? I suppose next, you will tell me that this has nothing to do with Christianity.

quote:

---

alTakruri:
which we all know is Judean and its books were written in Koine Greek, hence it is a foreign intrusion everywhere outside of Judea.But that does not change the descent of its practitioners who remain true descendents of the native population and do not become true descendents of the foreign missionaries who brought the religion.

---

This is just a bunch of gibberish that isn't worthy of addressing. Plain and simple: you aren't addressing the questions, nor the point made.

quote:

---

alTakruri:
That is what you fail to understand. If I get you, you are saying that Copts are not true descendents of AE because they converted to Christianity. If so, then by the same logic, the Egyptian Muslims are
not true descendents of AE either. Which is why I stated anti religious bias is at the base of denying that Copts are not true descendents of AE, but you aint tryin to hear that see?

---

Wrong as usual. You have given a cold shoulder to just about everyone, who has tried to make you see the point. Instead, you are busy with ranting and making red herring arguments. The above remarks just go to show that you just don't get the point; plain and simple.

We are talking about the absurdity of the idea of "Copts", as a nationalist element and identity, being referred to as the "true" link between indigenous Ancient Egypt and the present…of all Egyptians, while you are merely arguing with essentially “nobody” , about "Copts" being descendants. See the difference? I doubt it…time will tell.

quote:

---

alTakruri:

Was Islam introduced by foreigners or not?

Was the early Masjidh literature in Arabic or not?

Were the early Muslim Imams foreigners or not?

Was the earliest converts arabized foreign settlers or not?

Did the missionaries force Arabic language and script onto converted native Egyptians (all of whom were dubbed Copts) or not?

Did the complete suppression of any and all AE survivals including dismantling of monuments and defacing of art occur or not?

Are "Egyptian Muslims" not as racially diverse as various other groups in Egypt or not?

Does all that prove the EMs are not the true descendents of AE?

---

You couldn't even follow the simplest instruction asked of you. The first thing I asked, was for you to answer these questions, NOT with a question, but with straight-forward answers. You couldn't even handle that. Anyway, to answer YOUR question, even though you don't afford others the same, my answer is: Of all the Egyptians, the "Muslims" are no more "the" true descendants of Ancient Egyptians, than Copts are "the" true descendants of AEs. Everyone else recognized this point immediately , or at least eventually, except you. When someone says that the "Copts" are "THE" true descendants of Ancient Egypt, this implies that "of all Egyptians, they come the closest thing to representing Ancient Egyptian identity". This is what was rejected in the intro note, and in a nutshell, this was the point that seems to have been, and probably still is, lost on you.

quote:

---

alTakruri:
Since you say the point is >>are Copts the "True" descendants of Ancient Egypts<< then turn around and say >>"Copts" are descendants of Ancient Egyptians, which nobody denies here anyway<<, then what is it you are arguing about? ever posited that Christianity was an Egyptian invention. So what is your real point?

---

You are becoming notorious for carelessly interpreting other folk’s comment. This is what you did with the Gadalla excerpt. What I was trying to point out, which you clearly failed to see, is that you keep making a red herring argument about "Copts" being descendants of Ancient Egyptians, when this isn't the issue. All has agreed, that given the diversity, naturally various "Copts" may trace their lineage to some Kemetian ancestry. But this wasn't the point. The point was this, and it will probably have to be repeated time and again:

Baseless comments have been made that "Copts" represent THE "True" link between Ancient Egypt and the present, which goes without saying, that “Copts” come the closest to preserving Egyptian identity of all Egyptians. This is the notion that is being rejected, and in Gadalla's own way, the excerpt in the link provided explains why this needs to be rejected. I bet that this will not sink in, despite all the effort on my part.

You are frightfully beginning to sound like Orionix, in terms of the redundancy that others find themselves facing, just to make you see the point.

posted 27 December 2004 09:02 PM            

At any rate, in terms of vandalism of native temples and other symbols of indigenous culture, the iniative was taken by foreign Christian Priests. Whether they were Romans or Greek, doesn't change the idea that they attributed their actions to the religion. When talking about vandalism of temples, it is these foreign Christian elements that are generally referred to, not the natives.

posted 27 December 2004 09:25 PM            

But if you want to hurl ad hominem invictives instead of giving
some data on Copts, or showing how they are less truly descendents of AEs
you start to sound like Neo*Geo and resemble Orionix in making statements
in direct contradiction to each other.

Then, going ad hominem is conceding you have no factual argument.
REMINDER the topic is LATENT EGYPT IN MODERN EGYPT not WHAT SUPERCAR
THINKS OF ALTAKRURI.

Do you even know what the Jewish Revolt actual was? No you dont.

The Anti-Roman rebellion of 115-117 instigated by the Jews themselves
led to the destruction of Jewish communities and not only antedates the
establishment of Coptic Christianity but was the work of Pagan Romans.

Far from being dispelled Hadrian recognized the validity of the claims
of the Jewish community that led to the riots and restored their full
rights.

Now let me rescue you from further cut and paste methodoly errors
by suggesting constructing a timeline of events to avoid blurring
happenstances out of their actual context and the ethnicity of their
perpetrators.

I am here for serious discussion of Egypt related topics not to
surrender my mind to old boyism and groupthink. If, because I
dont agree with you in the light of the facts of my own research,
you are going to devolve to personal ridicule and name calling and
such instead of recognizing that even the scholars do not all always
agree then I have nothing to relate to you and perhaps need to
reaxamine the operating level of objectivity if this group.

If you have personal emotive stakes in this issue I cannot
discuss it with you on a cartesian rational non ad hominem
level which means I should no longer talk about it to you.
The facts I gave continue to stand quite well on their own
and are unassailable. The rest is all just debaters rhetoric.

posted 27 December 2004 09:48 PM            

quote:

---

alTakruri:
Sorry didnt know you have personal emotive stakes in this issue.

---

You are the one guilty of that, thank you.

quote:

---

alTakruri:
But if you want to hurl ad hominem invictives instead of giving
some data on Copts, or showing how they are less truly descendents of AEs
you start to sound like Neo*Geo and resemble Orionix in making statements
in direct contradiction to each other.

---

It seems to you that I am contradicting myself, because you are clueless about the point that you are purportedly questioning. Nor, have you to date, understood the message I have been trying to get through.

quote:

---

alTakruri:
Then, going ad hominem is conceding you have no factual argument.
REMINDER the topic is LATENT EGYPT IN MODERN EGYPT not WHAT SUPERCAR
THINKS OF ALTAKRURI.

---

In case you missed it, the author of this thread is "Supercar", not "Let me remind supercar what his own topic is about".

You didn't understand the point made in the thread from the beginning up until now. Your excuse is to refer to the "title of the thread", for which if you actually take time to read the intro notes, isn't fixated on your perspective of descendancy based on race. It isn't merely about Copts or Afrangi per se, but its about the attempts of ordinary folks to preserve their indigenous traditions under atmosphere of intimidation from the ruling elite, from historic time up until now. Best to ask the author about the intended message of the thread, rather than hanging onto assumptions. That is the least you can do, if not read the whole intro to get its gist.

quote:

---

Do you even know what the Jewish Revolt actual was? No you dont.

---

Calling yourself "Mr. know it all". I can clearly see that according to you, "assumptions" is the basis for scholarly debate, because you are becoming notorious for doing just that! Proof: just made one above.

Note: AlTakruri, I really could care less whether you want to discuss issues or not. That is your call. I have been participating here in your absence, and your disobedience or whatever isn't suddenly going to be of concern to me. One thing is clear, when you make questionable remarks or use questionable tactics in debates, you will be called on it. Thank you!

posted 27 December 2004 10:13 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by supercar:
Baseless comments have been made that "Copts" represent THE "True" link between Ancient Egypt and the present, which goes without saying, that “Copts” come the closest to preserving Egyptian identity of all Egyptians. This is the notion that is being rejected, and in Gadalla's own way, the excerpt in the link provided explains why this needs to be rejected. I bet that this will not sink in, despite all the effort on my part.

[This message has been edited by supercar (edited 27 December 2004).]

---

Who in this thread made baseless comments that the Copts alone
are a true link between AE and the present. Its winter now, time
to build snowmen not strawmen.

Gadalla said >>the Christians in Egypt are NOT natives of Egypt,
but a foreign minority<<. However, the Copts are not foreigners
and Coptic Christianity was officially birthed in 451 CE as
native Egyptians demanded a spirituality more in tune to their
national ethos than that of their colonial governors of Byzantiym.

posted 27 December 2004 10:16 PM            

quote:

---

alTakruri:
Who in this thread made baseless comments that the Copts alone
are a true link between AE and the present. Its winter now, time
to build snowmen not strawmen.

Gadalla said >>the Christians in Egypt are NOT natives of Egypt,
but a foreign minority<<. However, the Copts are not foreigners
and Coptic Christianity was officially birthed in 451 CE as
native Egyptians demanded a spirituality more in tune to their
national ethos than that of their colonial governors of Byzantiym.

That is the point which has not sunk in.

---

posted 27 December 2004 10:31 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:

But if you want to hurl ad hominem invictives instead of giving
some data on Copts, or showing how they are less truly descendents of AEs
you start to sound like Neo*Geo and resemble Orionix in making statements
in direct contradiction to each other.

---

Where have I contradicted myself on this topic or better yet, when have I contradicted myself on this forum? I don't appreciate you injecting my name into your example. Let's not name names. I could call every single poster on this forum but I'd rather not go there.

posted 27 December 2004 10:38 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by supercar:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do you even know what the Jewish Revolt actual was? No you dont.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Calling yourself "Mr. know it all". I can clearly see that according to you, "assumptions" is the basis for scholarly debate, because you are becoming notorious for doing just that! Proof: just made one above.

[This message has been edited by supercar (edited 27 December 2004).]

---

You think you can slink away that easy with bait and switch tactics?

Calling yourself Mr Daddy who sets and changes the
rules to declare himself winner doesnt change the
fact that you are dead wrong about the Jewish Revolt.
More ad hominem madness wont make that truth disappear.
Just shows youre king at questionable debate tactics.
BTW I couldnt give a shis about debate I am discussing
history and disgreements abound among historians.

So just quit your whining and cut the crap and fess up.
You were wrong about the Jewish Revolt. Now I am calling
you on that.

posted 27 December 2004 10:51 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
Where have I contradicted myself on this topic or better yet, when have I contradicted myself on this forum? I don't appreciate you injecting my name into your example. Let's not name names. I could call every single poster on this forum but I'd rather not go there.

---

Sorry man, I got swept up in the asininity. I had no right
to bring yours or anyone elses name up in this debacle
just because someone else did that to me.

I am not part of the old boyism network I now see is a ground
operative of this group. Step outside of the groupthink of a certain
clique of posters and suddenly facts no longer matter, just the ego.

posted 27 December 2004 10:56 PM            

quote:

---

alTakruri
You think you can slink away that easy with bait and switch tactics?

---

One often feels that what one does, is what others do!

quote:

---

alTakruri:
Calling yourself Mr Daddy who sets and changes the rules...

---

From the way you behave, it appears that you need a "Daddy" figure to guide you.

quote:

---

alTakruri:
BTW I couldnt give a shis about debate I am discussing history and disgreements abound among historians.

So just quit your whining and cut the crap and fess up...

---

I am calling on you to start learning to accept your weakness, when correctly pointed out by so many. These toddler tactics won't get you anywhere. Nor, will your fascistic approach to matters fare any better.

posted 27 December 2004 11:23 PM            

quote:

---

rasol:
This has been a good thread and useful contributions have been made by several sources. Religion gets to be an extremely touchy issue. Not like race, which is not as controversial. Sometimes one can only share ideas and leave others with something to think about, without necessarily persuading. Fun debate though. I learned something from all contributors.

---

The thing about Ancient Egypt, is that if you are going to talk about their traditions, leaving the religion aspect out isn't something that is easily done. The nature of the original topic herein, is such that one can't escape the forces acting in the way of Ancient Egyptian traditions. These forces find their expression in the religions mentioned herein, notably Islam and Christianity. If there were negative things done in the name of religion in the past, as is still true to this day, it has to be told as such. History isn't just about making people feel good; it is the reflection into the past, which in some occasions isn't pleasant, while on other occasions, encompasses development that can become the symbol of pride.

posted 27 December 2004 11:28 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by supercar:
I am calling on you to start learning to accept your weakness, when correctly pointed out by so many. These toddler tactics won't get you anywhere. Nor, will your fascistic approach to matters fare any better.

[This message has been edited by supercar (edited 27 December 2004).]

---

More name calling instead of data again?

All distraction aside, you have yet to admit your error
concerning the Jewish Revolt.

Quit the retard antics. This is not about personalitues, its
about history.

posted 27 December 2004 11:35 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by supercar:
If there were negative things done in the name of religion in the past, as is still true to this day, it has to be told as such.
[This message has been edited by supercar (edited 27 December 2004).]

---

This is very true.

posted 27 December 2004 11:39 PM            

quote:

---

alTakruri:
More name calling instead of data again?

All distraction aside, you have yet to admit your error concerning the Jewish Revolt.
Quit the retard antics. This is not about personalitues, its about history.

---

This is what I describe what you are doing above, using your own words:

quote:

---

alTakruri:
You think you can slink away that easy with bait and switch tactics?

---

posted 27 December 2004 11:54 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by supercar:
Face saving tactics of shifting gears, is nothing new. Food for thought: You need to grow up from these blatantly juvenile and worn-out or antiquated tactics. Remember, you aren't fooling nobody, but yourself!

---

Its like this, whats true is true. Now you can lie all you want.
I presented the AE elements in Coptic Christianity. I did not
defend the actions of anyone.

You still need to become man enough to admit you were wrong
about the Jewish Revolt.

All your distracting debate tactics and refusal to confront
your error over the last few posts shows your intellectual
dishonesty as your ad hominem responses and personal vandetta shows
your immaturity.

Its not about you its about the issues. Its not you that I have
anything against. Its the lack of data and shallowness of
interpretation that i am at odds with. But you keep going on
with personal insults like a poor loser.

posted 28 December 2004 12:40 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:
Its like this, whats true is true. Now you can lie all you want.I presented the AE elements in Coptic Christianity. I did not defend the actions of anyone.

---

More ranting that has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

quote:

---

You still need to become man enough to admit you were wrong about the Jewish Revolt.

---

How about you becoming man enough, to know that using assumptions as a platform of building up scholarly point of view, is a dead end? As an exposure of your crack pot tactics; you fail to see that there wasn't just one Jewish revolt, but there have been many, due to tensions between Greeks and Jews, as well as native Egyptians. For instance you had a notorious one in 38ce, several followed, and then the 116/117 AD revolt. I'd love to play your petty games, but that is not the topic at hand. You can make all kinds of childish deductions from that, if you will. If this helps you build your ego, then by all means proceed. I Just don't give a damn!

quote:

---

alTakruri:
All your distracting debate tactics and refusal to confront your error over the last few posts shows your intellectual
dishonesty as your ad hominem responses and personal vandetta shows your immaturity.

---

Look in the mirror, and you will realize that the person you are addressing above, is naturally yourself. It is quite easy to fall into the trap of projecting one's character onto others, particularly if its negative enough that one can't accept the shortcomings. I don't have apathy for you on this, but sympathy!

quote:

---

alTakruri:
Its not about you its about the issues. Its not you that I have anything against. Its the lack of data and shallowness of interpretation that i am at odds with. But you keep going on with personal insults like a poor loser.

---

Frankly, I really could care less about your impression of me. That is your prerogative. I can only tell you the truth, and hope that you will be man enough to handle it. I don't think you are a mere loser, I believe you suffer from such contagious arrogance, that you feel you are somehow above criticism. Well, you are in for a ride. Poor scholarship, as you have exemplified here, will not go unquestioned. Think about that for a minute!