Conspiracy theories and the burning of Rome and all that
Matt Giwer
just before New Orleans flooded and it being established the women was
simply repeating what she was told not what she heard.
So to all (3?) sources on the fire which of them can be taken to be
reporting personal knowledge of events from their own experience?
With 9/11 everyone should be aware of the conspiracy theories. I
give you 9/11 without any form of mass communication or any form of regular
travel to New York City nor much travel of the wealthy around the city
itself. What would they report of the events of 9/11? Just what those Roman
writers did. They would report the common stories without first hand
information.
This is not to say everything written is worthless. It is at least
questionable as fact. It is probably not questionable as to what was
commonly believed at the time. It can be considered the information about
events upon which people formed opinions and made decisions.
OTOH there is always the possibility that juicy conspiracies were
copied more often than real facts and as such that is all we have surviving.
On the third claw whatever narrow interest today's believers have in
a document likely had absolutely no connection with why there were so many
copies that a few of them did survive. It is more likely Seutonius survives
for the purient interests of the copyists and the side usage of being source
material to condemn the enumerated sins of the pagans.
--
The Holocaust is no worse then Iran having an atom bomb.
Israel says so.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4191
http://www.giwersworld.org/israel/is-seg.phtml a14
Tue Nov 10 07:05:22 EST 2009
JTEM
Matt Giwer <matt@localhost> wrote:
> With 9/11 everyone should be aware
> of the conspiracy theories.
It's beyond you, far more than you could ever grasp.
See, most people (yourself included) speak of the
"Conspiracy Theories" surrounding 9/11 with contempt,
while simultaneously accepting a conspiracy theory.
19 people planning & carry out an attack is by definition
"A Conspiracy."
"Only the nuts believe in conspiracy theories, while I
myself believe in a conspiracy theory."
And that's a crippling human trait -- the ability to hold
two completely contradictory positions at the same time.
In this case, look to the Great fire of London. Was there
scape-goating? Absolutely:
http://europeanhistory.about.com/od/ukandireland/a/agreatfirelon_4.htm
Now there's a number of huge differences between the
above and the fire of Rome. One is that the above is
official information, while all the stories concerning the
fire of Rome came to us only after first passing through a
filter of many centuries & agendas.
What did the great fire of London look like WITHOUT all
those centuries, all those competing cultures and
beliefs? Well, feast your eyes on this....
: Catholics remained the favoured villain and accusations
: against them were added to the Monument in 1668: "...the
: most dreadful Burning of this City; begun and carried on
: by the treachery and malice of the Popish faction."
Same cite. Here's a different cite though:
: Still the hatred of the Catholics continued. 'Priests and
: Jesuits' were ordered to leave the kingdom, and when
: further fires broke out in 1676 they were accused again.
: Two years after The Monument was opened an inscription
: was added near the base. It read 'The burning of this
: Protestant City was begun and carried on by the
: treachery and malice of the Popish faction…' It was
: removed in 1685 after King James II came to the throne
: (he was Catholic). It reappeared in 1689 when Protestant
: rulers came back to the throne, and was eventually
: removed for good in 1831.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A3851129
And that's WITH official sources, official inquires. All the
accounts of the fire of Rome come to us via medieval
monks who regularly jacked themselves off fantasizing over
the Christian Martyr myths...
Matt Giwer
> Matt Giwer <matt@localhost> wrote:
>> � � � � With 9/11 everyone should be aware of the conspiracy theories.
> It's beyond you, far more than you could ever grasp.
> See, most people (yourself included) speak of the "Conspiracy Theories"
> surrounding 9/11 with contempt, while simultaneously accepting a
> conspiracy theory.
> 19 people planning & carry out an attack is by definition "A Conspiracy."
Quite so but the 20th member who both is and is not identified as
having chickened out.
Then there is the all time gov favorite for masterminding it raising
the number to at least 21 with an unknown number of co-conspirators in the
Sunni community who were and were not Taliban and/or Al Qaeda.
Then we can listen to the number of the 19 who are still alive but
whose pictures and names still appear as official conspirators.
From there we can go to all the true and correct theories which
include several governments including that of the US in various combinations
which were also co-conspirators.
We can then consider the scurrilous rumor that Jews were warned of
the attack while we read the Haaretz report of Odigo cooperating with the
FBI to determine who in fact did IM the jewish-Israeli company with a
warning. That can be coupled with the Sharon staff acknowledging they were
warned before the 7/7 bombing in London.
I do not dismiss conspiracy theories at all. I simply note there are
very many mutually exclusive ones for 9/11, 7/7, JFK, RFK, MLK, Ruby Ridge,
Waco and many more too numerous to mention.
You are free to believe them all, pick only one for each, mix and
match as well as develop your own.
I simply note major events result in many different and mutually
exclusive theories.
> "Only the nuts believe in conspiracy theories, while I myself believe in a
> conspiracy theory."
Not nuts per se but if they would all retire to a locked room I am
quite willing to declare the survivor to have the correct theory.
> And that's a crippling human trait -- the ability to hold two completely
> contradictory positions at the same time.
> In this case, look to the Great fire of London. Was there scape-goating?
> Absolutely:
... etc
What should have been clear if the participants were in fact
familiar with the Roman sources they were citing rather than quickly reading
up on them to sound knowledgeable is that none were writing about personal
observations.
It should be clear from what they wrote that they were reporting
what they believed to be true or perhaps with Seutonius the juciest.
When historians write of the third millennium events I assume they
will mention odd nature that the citizens of the oldest democracy at the
time were also the first to blame their own government while doing nothing
to change it and note the obvious contradiction a the major both believing
their government was involved and supporting the wars which followed the
event which, logically, were falsely started by their government's
involvement.
I see the same thing with these Christians and the fire. It was
believed, commonly said, what was part of common knowledge. Jews were kicked
out of Rome in the 1st BC for their behavior. The odd part is finding they
were called Christians instead of Jews. Such a name differentiation so early
is what makes it questionable for me as at the time they had to be less
different than Shiite and Sunni. By that I do not mean Jews today but rather
Judeans back then as best we know them and without the fairytale they were
always the same.
BTW: You forget the Islamic cow in Chicago and how "coincidental" it is
Obama comes from there.
--
Happiness is simple. Do not compare yourself to others.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4205
http://www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml a16
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. a16
Thu Nov 12 21:26:14 EST 2009
Poetic Justice
>I see the same thing with these Christians
>and the fire. It was believed, commonly
>said, what was part of common
>knowledge.
>Jews were kicked out of Rome in the 1st
>BC for their behavior.
What did they do and who expelled them?
>The odd part is finding they were called
>Christians instead of Jews.
You have a source claiming that these expelled Jews were called
Christians in the 1stC BCE before the birth of Christ and decades before
the Christian cult even began?
>Such a name differentiation so early is
>what makes it questionable for me as at
>the time they had to be less different than
>Shiite and Sunni.
>By that I do not mean Jews today but
>rather Judeans back then as best we
>know them and without the fairytale they
>were always the same.
..And Paradise Was Lost...like teardrops in the rain...
JTEM
The Other Guy <knewskg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Why, they were BEING JEWISH.
>
> That's all the reason prejudiced morons need.
>
> But PLEASE don't feed the trolls!!!!!!
Sources state that Tiberius expelled the Jews from
Rome, while still others state it was Claudius.
Poetic Justice
>Sources state that Tiberius expelled the
>Jews from Rome, while still others state it
>was Claudius.
Sources state that both expelled them ~30yrs apart in the *1C AD*.
I recall some modern scholars question Tiberius' explusion but
Claudius' explusion is backed-up by Suetonius and the **NT.
**I don't recall exactly but one of the disciples (Paul?) stayed with a
married couple in Turkey(?) who had been booted-out of Rome during
Claudius' explusion.
Regards, Walter
ADR
> With 9/11 everyone should be aware of the conspiracy theories. I
> give you 9/11 without any form of mass communication or any form of regular
> travel to New York City nor much travel of the wealthy around the city
> itself. What would they report of the events of 9/11? Just what those Roman
> writers did. They would report the common stories without first hand
> information.
Well, this is clearly a fallacy. Let's first make certain that
Tacitus probably met and discussed the fire of Rome with many eye
witnesses. He was 9 years old when it happened and most likely had
many lively discussions about it with many fellow Romans who
experienced it. Second, there were dozens of contemporary accounts
that Tacitus and other historians could and did consult. Suetonius,
for example, had access to all of the state archives and hundreds of
authors whose work has now disappeared. The fact that we are now
missing the sources does not mean that the sources did not exist at
the time when these histories were written. In fact, we know that
they did because various historians used the same sources. So, let's
render this argument moot.
> On the third claw whatever narrow interest today's believers have in
> a document likely had absolutely no connection with why there were so many
> copies that a few of them did survive. It is more likely Seutonius survives
> for the purient interests of the copyists and the side usage of being source
> material to condemn the enumerated sins of the pagans.
Not so. Actually, we know it is not so. Do not forget that polemics
against Christianity also survive (such as Julian's letters). In
addition, neither Suetonius nor Tacitus were at all charitable to
Christianity and the Christians. Their opinion of them (especially
Tacitus) was mostly negative. There is no reason to believe that the
reason for the preservation of their work was anything else than its
great value. For these works to make it to the Christian age, they
had to survive a number of centuries in which Christianity was either
a minor movement or a persecuted one. Even in this environment,
copyists continued to churn out copies of Tacitus and Suetonius.
There were of major interest to many later historians.
Matt Giwer
> On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 14:56:25 -0500, paradi...@webtv.net (Poetic
> Justice) wrote:
>> Matt Giwer wrote;
>>> I see the same thing with these Christians and the fire. It was
>>> believed, commonly said, what was part of common knowledge.
>>> Jews were kicked out of Rome in the 1st BC for their behavior.
>> What did they do and who expelled them?
> Why, they were BEING JEWISH.
> That's all the reason prejudiced morons need.
The fantasy of eternal victim is not given credibility by
repetition.
If one were to take seriously their imagined stories of conquest
that would be sufficient reason for exterminating them. It would be
analogous to the present day war on terrorists.
--
Which is better? Many gods or one swiss army knife god?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4202
http://www.giwersworld.org a1
Sat Nov 14 00:57:43 EST 2009
JTEM
Matt Giwer <matt@localhost> wrote:
[---many lines deleted---]
Odd that both you and so very many sock puppets
are unable to discern the "Main Idea" in any text...
My point was limited to the human ability (or, as in
this case) "Habit" of holding two contradictory positions
simultaneously... using YOUR example of 9/11.
Why did I do this? Well, to ascertain THAT you had to
continue to the next part of my post -- assume that it
wasn't a randomly chosen group of words and was in
fact related to the first part. Because, as it turns out, it
was related.
See, what it all boils down to, what I was saying is that
people take what they know about, say, the fire of London
and then believe the exact opposite about the fire of Rome.
"History," as we know it, didn't exist in ancient Rome. There
might have been a writer here or there who did his honest
best to get things right, but even they were no better than
the sources they had to draw on.
Fact is, we know from examples like the London fire that there
can be an enormous gap between the official explanation and
what is popularly believed, not to mention political agendas.
Next, we only read accounts of the fire of Rome through the
filter of Medieval monks and their agenda.
But, even though we have every reason to expect that the only
accounts of the fire of Rome to reach us would have to look
like the popular (and highly inaccurate) accounts of the London
fire, but more agenda driven, most simply read the medieval
records untainted histories derived from unimpeachable
eyewitness accounts.
...yeah, of course, there was the added twist of the fire of
London cites themselves being examples of the human ability
to hold contradictory positions...
It was all pretty clever, actually, going several levels deep....
JTEM
ADR <aretz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Let's first make certain that Tacitus probably met
> and discussed the fire of Rome with many eye
> witnesses.
This is ridicules.
You're simply putting forward one assumption after another,
even as you ignore equally safe if not safer assumptions
regarding latter-day flourishments...
http://www.fromchristtojesus.org/English/DrillDown/Tacitus.htm
> Second, there were dozens of contemporary accounts
> that Tacitus and other historians could and did consult.
Again, nothing more than an assumption...
> Suetonius, for example, had access to all of the state
> archives and hundreds of authors whose work has now
> disappeared.
Speaking of contradictory positions...
On Suetonius:
: Fortunately, we have an inscription that was discovered in
: his hometown Hippo Regius in 1952. It informs us that the
: man who had been portrayed by Pliny as a slightly
: unworldly scholar, occupied very important offices: he had
: been a bybliothecis, an a studiis, and an ab epistulis.
: This last office gave Suetonius more power than Pliny
: could ever have dreamt of.
But, wait! Letters -- as in those letters of Pliny's -- are
considered primary source documents! Yet they're
denounced as inaccurate!
> The fact that we are now missing the sources
Weird. Because, when you do have sources -- like
Pliny's letters -- you throw them under the bus.
ADR
> ADR <aretz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Let's first make certain that Tacitus probably met
> > and discussed the fire of Rome with many eye
> > witnesses.
>
> This is ridicules.
>
> You're simply putting forward one assumption after another,
> even as you ignore equally safe if not safer assumptions
> regarding latter-day flourishments...
Why are they assumptions? Tacitus was a young boy when the fire
happened and he was in his twenties when he studied oratory with
Quintilian in Rome. I am certain that in that school he had many
acquaintances that experienced the fire themselves (virtually all his
Roman contemporaries). This is really not an assumption, it is a
certainty.
As for the latter-day "flourishments" as you call them, they are an
impossibility simply because of the number of manuscripts, their
dispersal and the fact that they had already being quoted by later
historians.
> http://www.fromchristtojesus.org/English/DrillDown/Tacitus.htm
>
> > Second, there were dozens of contemporary accounts
> > that Tacitus and other historians could and did consult.
>
> Again, nothing more than an assumption...
No, this is not an assumption. They do refer to these sources
occasionally.
> > Suetonius, for example, had access to all of the state
> > archives and hundreds of authors whose work has now
> > disappeared.
>
> Speaking of contradictory positions...
How is it contradictory???? Below you are posting something that
verifies that Suetonius had access to the state archives (or can't you
understand his titles in Latin??)
> On Suetonius:
> : Fortunately, we have an inscription that was discovered in
> : his hometown Hippo Regius in 1952. It informs us that the
> : man who had been portrayed by Pliny as a slightly
> : unworldly scholar, occupied very important offices: he had
> : been a bybliothecis, an a studiis, and an ab epistulis.
> : This last office gave Suetonius more power than Pliny
> : could ever have dreamt of.
>
> But, wait! Letters -- as in those letters of Pliny's -- are
> considered primary source documents! Yet they're
> denounced as inaccurate!
You did not have this conversation with me!!! But I fail to
understand what Pliny has to do with anything in this conversation
> > The fact that we are now missing the sources
>
> Weird. Because, when you do have sources -- like
> Pliny's letters -- you throw them under the bus.
I have not thrown anything under the bus and you had no discussion
with me about Pliny's letters.
JTEM
ADR
Are you trying to be cute? I explained why they are not assumptions
but certainties.
....Why are they assumptions? Tacitus was a young boy when the fire
happened and he was in his twenties when he studied oratory with
Quintilian in Rome. I am certain that in that school he had many
acquaintances that experienced the fire themselves (virtually all his
Roman contemporaries). This is really not an assumption, it is a
certainty. ....
If you have a comment, post it. Otherwise, move on.
JTEM
ADR <aretz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> If you have a comment, post it.
I did, you fool. I pointed out the fact that you were laboring
entirely on assumptions, even as you dismissed everybody
else's assumptions.
And you were.
The fact that you can't recognize an assumption when it's
staring you in the bleeding face is irrelevant to me.
Weland
Two different events, and in some cases referred to by the same writers
who refer to the expulsion under Claudius.
JTEM
Weland <gi...@poetic.com> wrote:
> > Sources state that Tiberius expelled the Jews from
> > Rome, while still others state it was Claudius.
>
> Two different events, and in
Amazing. You just zero in on me and hit that ol'
reply key...
Or did you intend to post the single most interesting
piece of information since the last time someone
posted the exact same thing?
Oh, I know, how 'bout actually trying to keep track of
the topic, and posts something on THAT?
Too much to ask? Okay, sure...
Matt Giwer
I am not quite sure what I was thinking writing BC rather than AD
but I suspect it is this whole politically correct BCE CE thing which does
annoy me.
In any event note the previous confident posts on the mention of
Chrestus by those who have no idea the context of the mention.
I attribute it to the depth of knowledge engendered by wikipedia.
--
The amount of sleep the average person needs is one snooze more.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4200
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo3/holo-survivors.phtml a3
Sun Nov 15 05:15:37 EST 2009
Matt Giwer
> On Nov 10, 4:29�am, Matt Giwer <matt@localhost> wrote:
>> � � � � With 9/11 everyone should be aware of the conspiracy theories. I
>> give you 9/11 without any form of mass communication or any form of
>> regular travel to New York City nor much travel of the wealthy around the
>> city itself. What would they report of the events of 9/11? Just what
>> those Roman writers did. They would report the common stories without
>> first hand information.
> Well, this is clearly a fallacy.
I do not know of a definotion of fallacy which might apply here
> Let's first make certain that Tacitus probably met and discussed the fire
> of Rome with many eye witnesses.
I do not see any point in guessing what he "probably" did. Either he
recorded what he did or he did not. Even today "everyone knows" is a common
source. Now I am not going to get too deep into this but let us assume there
was some sort of legal system at the time of the fire. Let us further
suppose there was an interest in speedy trials and slow executions for those
responsible. But we have no legal determination surviving nor reference to
one. Absent any kind of an official determination what is the point of
speculation?
> He was 9 years old when it happened and most likely had many lively
> discussions about it with many fellow Romans who experienced it. Second,
> there were dozens of contemporary accounts that Tacitus and other
> historians could and did consult.
If that is what he said he did then one assumes that is what he did.
Absent the modern habit of citation we have no idea of the validity of what
he consulted nor his reasons for reporting what he did. I see no reason to
assume his sources were as infallable as Fox News.
> Suetonius, for example, had access to all of the state archives and
> hundreds of authors whose work has now disappeared. The fact that we are
> now missing the sources does not mean that the sources did not exist at
> the time when these histories were written. In fact, we know that they did
> because various historians used the same sources. So, let's render this
> argument moot.
I did not question the existence of sources. I noted the problem
with sources for the cause of major events. I cannot help but notice a
parallel between Nero fiddling while Rome burned and the CIA was behind
9/11.
>> � � � � On the third claw whatever narrow interest today's believers have
>> in a document likely had absolutely no connection with why there were so
>> many copies that a few of them did survive. It is more likely Seutonius
>> survives for the purient interests of the copyists and the side usage of
>> being source material to condemn the enumerated sins of the pagans.
> Not so. Actually, we know it is not so. Do not forget that polemics
> against Christianity also survive (such as Julian's letters).
Speaking of Julian that was three centuries after this fire and by
his description of the Galileans it is clear he is referring to the people
who would come to call themselves Christians if they had not done so
already. I do find it interesting his distinction between the two groups was
only between Judeans and Galileans.
> In addition, neither Suetonius nor Tacitus were at all charitable to
> Christianity and the Christians.
That assumes your conclusion that they were talking about Christians
as we would recognize them today. You are attempting to establish they were
doing do.
> Their opinion of them (especially Tacitus) was mostly negative.
What exactly is negative which was undeserved? Negative implies an
opinion rather than a recitation of a conclusion based upon fact.
> There is no reason to believe that the reason for the preservation of
> their work was anything else than its great value. For these works to make
> it to the Christian age, they had to survive a number of centuries in
> which Christianity was either a minor movement or a persecuted one.
The idea of persecuted is not in evidence. There were specific
obligations on people. Failure to perform them was punishable. That is the
law not a pogrom.
> Even in this environment, copyists continued to churn out copies of
> Tacitus and Suetonius. There were of major interest to many later
> historians.
Nice platitudes. You would make a better post if you had in fact
recited why they were preserved from people who said why they chose them for
preservation rather than nothing more than platitudes.
--
Hodie decimo septimo Kalendas Decembres MMIX est
-- The Ferric Webcaesar
http://www.giwersworld.org/israel/is-seg.phtml a14
Sun Nov 15 06:11:48 EST 2009
Weland
> Weland <gi...@poetic.com> wrote:
>
>>> Sources state that Tiberius expelled the Jews from
>>> Rome, while still others state it was Claudius.
>> Two different events, and in
>
> Amazing. You just zero in on me and hit that ol'
> reply key...
Well, if you are going to misreport historical facts and put a big red
target on your ass, don't be surprised when your ass gets kicked again.
Seems we detect a little whining about poor Jtard here...poor Jtard.
>
> Or did you intend to post the single most interesting
> piece of information since the last time someone
> posted the exact same thing?
Too bad you didn't pay attention to it last time someone posted it and
learned something instead of getting basic facts wrong---again.
> Oh, I know, how 'bout actually trying to keep track of
> the topic, and posts something on THAT?
Oh, you mean like you getting the facts wrong on trhe 13th and complain
about getting corrected a day later.
>
> Too much to ask? Okay, sure...
>
Tell you what, start misreporting facts and I won't need to offer the
facts correcting you. That's too much to ask, I know.
Poetic Justice
>Jews from Rome, while still others state it
>was Claudius.
Matt Giwer wrote;
>I am not quite sure what I was thinking
>writing BC rather than AD but I suspect it
>is this whole politically correct BCE CE
>thing which does annoy me.
So your BC/AD mistake was caused by society?
"Jews were kicked out of Rome in the 1st BC for their behavior".
>In any event note the previous confident
>posts on the mention of Chrestus by those
>who have no idea the context of the
>mention.
Perhaps you could enlighten us and then you could back-up your claim
that;
>The odd part is finding they were called
>Christians instead of Jews. Such a name
>differentiation so early is what makes it
>questionable for me as at the time they
>had to be less different than Shiite and
>Sunni.
What ancient source calls the Jews expelled by Claudius "Christians"?
JTEM
Weland <gi...@poetic.com> wrote:
> Well, if you are going to misreport historical facts
I didn't misreport historical facts.
It's not a matter that I find particularly interesting, nor
one I claim to have investigated much (so little, in fact,
that I appear to know as little as you turds), but...
I have often come across mention to ancient references
to Jews being expelled from Rome, but none to Jews
being allowed back in.
So, you worthless little turd of a mental case, if you
want to claim that there were multiple events, please
establish when Tiberius' ban was lifted -- and by whom.
ADR
> On Fri, 13 Nov 2009, ADR wrote:
>
> > Let's first make certain that Tacitus probably met and discussed the fire
> > of Rome with many eye witnesses.
>
> I do not see any point in guessing what he "probably" did. Either he
> recorded what he did or he did not.
Of course he did. You know this. His entry on this was actually
quoted in Latin as well as in English
> Even today "everyone knows" is a common
> source. Now I am not going to get too deep into this but let us assume there
> was some sort of legal system at the time of the fire. Let us further
> suppose there was an interest in speedy trials and slow executions for those
> responsible. But we have no legal determination surviving nor reference to
> one. Absent any kind of an official determination what is the point of
> speculation?
Well, the fact that you have difficulty understanding how Roman law
actually worked is not surprising at all. You really need to
understand that the office of the emperor combined several republican
offices and certain additional powers that would have allowed the
imprisonment and execution of all those that the emperor declared as
"enemies of the state". This is the same power that earlier triumvirs
used for the summary arrest and execution of their opponents. Thus,
Nero only had to issue an edict based on these powers for Christians
to be arrested and executed. No other legal process was necessary.
And, of course, Tacitus provides documentation on this.
> > He was 9 years old when it happened and most likely had many lively
> > discussions about it with many fellow Romans who experienced it. Second,
> > there were dozens of contemporary accounts that Tacitus and other
> > historians could and did consult.
>
> If that is what he said he did then one assumes that is what he did.
> Absent the modern habit of citation we have no idea of the validity of what
> he consulted nor his reasons for reporting what he did. I see no reason to
> assume his sources were as infallible as Fox News.
Well, you have great confidence in Fox News, I see. Not surprising.
In any case, as I stated, sometimes the ancient authors discussed
their sources and sometimes they did not. Citations are modern
practices. In fact, the works of Tacitus were not meant for the
masses. After completing a piece of work, he would have probably
commissioned something like a few hundred copies, most of which were
given to members of his own class who were quite erudite and had
access to the same sources he had. There were not tens of thousands
of books in circulation at that time; there were a limited number of
copies, some fetching high prices; the senatorial class was quite
literate. Tacitus could not have easily bended the facts and hoped to
have gained much by it.
> > Suetonius, for example, had access to all of the state archives and
> > hundreds of authors whose work has now disappeared. The fact that we are
> > now missing the sources does not mean that the sources did not exist at
> > the time when these histories were written. In fact, we know that they did
> > because various historians used the same sources. So, let's render this
> > argument moot.
>
> I did not question the existence of sources. I noted the problem
> with sources for the cause of major events. I cannot help but notice a
> parallel between Nero fiddling while Rome burned and the CIA was behind
> 9/11.
Nero did not fiddle while Rome was burning. This is a popular
fantasy. He was at Actium and he went back to Rome to oversee the
firefighting effort. In fact, it was his effort to rebuilt Rome that
cost him his throne because he imposed high taxes on the wealthy.
> Speaking of Julian that was three centuries after this fire and by
> his description of the Galileans it is clear he is referring to the people
> who would come to call themselves Christians if they had not done so
> already. I do find it interesting his distinction between the two groups was
> only between Judeans and Galileans.
I only brought up Julian's letters and polemics as types of books that
continued to be copied despite the fact that they were hostile to
Christianity. I am not sure why you want to move the "posts" of this
discussion
> > In addition, neither Suetonius nor Tacitus were at all charitable to
> > Christianity and the Christians.
>
> That assumes your conclusion that they were talking about Christians
> as we would recognize them today. You are attempting to establish they were
> doing do.
They were talking about the Christians. And no, we would not be
familiar with the practice of Christianity in the 1st century AD
today. In fact, it is quite unlikely that there was anything like a
mass. The mass, as it exists today, was an imperial introduction. To
make the Christian worship more acceptable to the aristocracy, it was
transformed along the lines of Greek Theater with one main actor (the
priest) and two choruses. The actor addresses the chorus and the
chorus addresses the actor. Occasionally, in the mass, the left
chorus addresses and right chorus and the jointed choruses address the
priest. Let's not forget the fact the the "fathers of the Church" -
such as Basil and Gregory- including John Chrysostom (who wrote the
masses that are operable today in Orthodox and Catholic Christianity -
some are synoptic versions of his extended masses) studied philosophy
and oratory in Athenian Universities. Whatever was going on in Rome
in the 1st century AD did not resemble this but we get some glimpses
of what was happening by the letters of Apostle Paul. Likely, there
were elements of the Jewish Synagogue worship mixed with elements of
mystery religions. There are excellent texts on early Christianity
and there is no reason to start this discussion here.
> > Their opinion of them (especially Tacitus) was mostly negative.
>
> What exactly is negative which was undeserved? Negative implies an
> opinion rather than a recitation of a conclusion based upon fact.
If it was undeserved or not is in the eye of the beholder. I only
noted that it was negative
> > There is no reason to believe that the reason for the preservation of
> > their work was anything else than its great value. For these works to make
> > it to the Christian age, they had to survive a number of centuries in
> > which Christianity was either a minor movement or a persecuted one.
>
> The idea of persecuted is not in evidence. There were specific
> obligations on people. Failure to perform them was punishable. That is the
> law not a pogrom.
The periods of persecutions are well noted and included in the texts
of many contemporary historians. If for the longest period of time a
sect is allowed to flourish and even built its sanctuaries and temples
and then this sect is dragged to courts and members of it are executed
while its temples are either torn or re-purposed, I would call this
persecution. For example, a major persecution was launched by
Aurelian. Aurelian introduced a new state religion, that of Mithraism
and "Deus Sol Invictus" (In fact, Christianity borrowed December 25th
from that religion). In the process, Aurelian tried to suppress
Christianity. Diocletian and his successors (Galerius, Licinius)
continued the policy of suppression in the East. It is not peculiar
that they did so as the senior emperor was the personification of "Sol
Invictus". The similarities between these religions rendered
Christianity rather hostile (both dealt with death and resurrection).
It is not surprising that the cross and Jesus halo were direct
transfers from Mithraism to Christianity, when Christianity got the
imperial nod. Thus, on the basis of two religions competing on the
same philosophical themes, the persecutions of the 3rd century are not
hard to be figured out.
> > Even in this environment, copyists continued to churn out copies of
> > Tacitus and Suetonius. There were of major interest to many later
> > historians.
>
> Nice platitudes. You would make a better post if you had in fact
> recited why they were preserved from people who said why they chose them for
> preservation rather than nothing more than platitudes.
The platitudes exist only in your mind. We know that these works were
chosen for preservation during non-Christian times. So, their
preservation has nothing to do with Christianity at all. If you read
the works of Procopius, you would find out that a good number of the
aristocrats in the 6th century were still not Christians and many who
were, were so only in name. Since it was the senatorial and wealthy
class in Roman society that preserved these books and since this
aristocracy conversion to Christianity was more political than a
matter of will, one has to accept that they chose to preserve texts
(and buy texts) on the basis of their worth. They had a limited
number of scribes at their disposal and they had to make choices. The
fact that many decided to preserve anti-Christian polemics clearly
shows that texts were not selected on the basis of their
"friendliness" to Christianity.
Tiglath
>
> Well, the fact that you have difficulty understanding how Roman law
> actually worked is not surprising at all.
That is funny as hell from someone like Anastassios, who believes that
there were no lawyers in ancient Rome.
>
> Nero did not fiddle while Rome was burning. This is a popular
> fantasy. He was at Actium and he went back to Rome to oversee the
> firefighting effort.
Don't believe this man.
That's impossible. For the news of the fire to travel from Rome to
Actium and for the Nero to sail back to Rome it would take many more
days than the fire lasted. Nero would have arrived just to see
smoking ashes.
Weland
> Weland <gi...@poetic.com> wrote:
>
>> Well, if you are going to misreport historical facts
>
> I didn't misreport historical facts.
Yes you did:
"Sources state that Tiberius expelled the Jews from
Rome, while still others state it was Claudius."
Some sources tell us that *BOTH* Tiberius and Claudius issued some kind
of expulsion decree; not a "some say it one, some say it was the other".
> It's not a matter that I find particularly interesting, nor
> one I claim to have investigated much (so little, in fact,
> that I appear to know as little as you turds), but...
>
> I have often come across mention to ancient references
> to Jews being expelled from Rome, but none to Jews
> being allowed back in.
>
> So, you worthless little turd of a mental case, if you
> want to claim that there were multiple events, please
> establish when Tiberius' ban was lifted -- and by whom.
This of course assumes that Tiberius' decree affected ALL Jews living in
Italy, and that it was consistently and utterly and forever enforced.
If you want to claim that a source like Tacitus simply got it wrong by
reporting that both Tiberius and Claudius issued such decrees, please
provide evidence that Tacitus is wrong....something beyond an argument
from silence.
Usually, Tiberius' decree is understood to be against Egyptian and
Jewish *converts* to Isis and other Egyptian based cults and Judaism,
not Jews themselves (hence the demand that they renounce their faith,
which a native adherent to the religion of their people could not do by
Roman definition...that would be to say they were not of that people.)
The expulsion is often understood to be against those who would not
serve their military service when proscripted.
Matt Giwer
>> Sources state that Tiberius expelled the Jews from Rome, while still
>> others state it was Claudius.
>
> Matt Giwer wrote;
>
>> I am not quite sure what I was thinking writing BC rather than AD but I
>> suspect it is this whole politically correct BCE CE thing which does
>> annoy me.
>
> So your BC/AD mistake was caused by society?
Is this the sum and substance of your post? That you, knowing of the
mention of Chrestus you were defending were confused by an obvious error?
> "Jews were kicked out of Rome in the 1st BC for their behavior".
>
>> In any event note the previous confident posts on the mention of Chrestus
>> by those who have no idea the context of the mention.
> Perhaps you could enlighten us and then you could back-up your claim
> that;
>> The odd part is finding they were called Christians instead of Jews. Such
>> a name differentiation so early is what makes it questionable for me as
>> at the time they had to be less different than Shiite and Sunni.
> What ancient source calls the Jews expelled by Claudius "Christians"?
That comes later from the Pliny citation.
You are presenting yourself as familiar with this material are you
not?
--
What is the point of worshiping a god that cannot be seen when its
performance is no better than a statue of Apollo?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4193
http://www.haaretz.com What is Israel really like? http://www.jpost.com a7
Mon Nov 16 05:43:05 EST 2009
Matt Giwer
> On Nov 15, 3:44�am, Matt Giwer <matt@localhost> wrote:
...
>>> He was 9 years old when it happened and most likely had many lively
>>> discussions about it with many fellow Romans who experienced it. Second,
>>> there were dozens of contemporary accounts that Tacitus and other
>>> historians could and did consult.
>> �� If that is what he said he did then one assumes that is what he did.
>> Absent the modern habit of citation we have no idea of the validity of what
>> he consulted nor his reasons for reporting what he did. I see no reason to
>> assume his sources were as infallible as Fox News.
> Well, you have great confidence in Fox News, I see. Not surprising.
That was the joke. However you can substitute just about any news
source you like if it makes you feel better.
--
When one says there are people worse than he is, his is also say he is no
better than them.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4198
http://www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml a16
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. a16
Mon Nov 16 05:56:09 EST 2009
Poetic Justice
>writing BC rather than AD but I suspect it
>is this whole politically correct BCE CE
>thing which does annoy me.
>So your BC/AD mistake was caused by
>society?
Matt Giwer wrote;
>Is this the sum and substance of your
>post? That you, knowing of the mention of
>Chrestus you were defending were
>confused by an obvious error?
From you in all honesty...Yes.
I didn't know;
(a) If it was a simple mistake.
(b) You actually believed it and could back it up with some fringe
website (Xians in the 1C BC).
(c) You didn't know the time-frame in question.
Of course it would have been alot easier to just admit making an error
rather than
"but I suspect it is this whole politically correct BCE CE thing which
does annoy me" was at fault.
[This is what you wrote with the BC/AD corrected]
>"Jews were kicked out of Rome in the 1st
>AD for their behavior.
>The odd part is finding they were called
>Christians instead of Jews.
>Such a name differentiation so early is
>what makes it questionable for me as at
>the time they had to be less different than
>Shiite and Sunni".
[This is the question I asked]
>What ancient source calls the Jews
>expelled by Claudius "Christians"?
[Your reply]
>That comes later from the Pliny citation.
Ok thanks, What is the citation where he mentions Christians in Rome in
the 49/50AD time-frame?
>You are presenting yourself as familiar
>with this material are you not?
Not really, I'm often wrong and usually thank the poster for the
correct info.
I'm just asking you to back-up your claim.
Now no dancing around as usual just a straight answer to the exact
question.
>"Jews were kicked out of Rome in the 1st
>AD for their behavior".
Ok we are in agreement here; This is the Emperor Claudius expulsion of
JEWS from ROME in 49/50 AD for fighting among themselves.
[In the very next line]
>The odd part is finding they were called
>Christians instead of Jews.
Ok the *QUESTION*;
What ancient source calls THESE Jews expelled from Rome by Emperor
Claudius in 49/50 AD _CHRISTIANS_???
A name is nice but how about a cite and quote from the ancient source
also.
ADR
All I have to do is make a spelling error and you walk right into it
displaying your stupidity and ignorance. Nero was in Antium (modern
Anzio), not Actium, a short ride from Rome. Anybody who knows basic
history would have known this. In fact, Nero was able to see the glow
of the fire from Antium before heading back to coordinate the
firefighting efforts. And I do not even have to peruse the web to
find this.
But it shows how ignorant you are! Go back to the hole where you
crept out from.
Tiglath
> On Nov 15, 10:42 pm, Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 15, 2:15 pm, ADR <aretz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Well, the fact that you have difficulty understanding how Roman law
> > > actually worked is not surprising at all.
>
> > That is funny as hell from someone like Anastassios, who believes that
> > there were no lawyers in ancient Rome.
>
> > > Nero did not fiddle while Rome was burning. This is a popular
> > > fantasy. He was at Actium and he went back to Rome to oversee the
> > > firefighting effort.
>
> > Don't believe this man.
>
> > That's impossible. For the news of the fire to travel from Rome to
> > Actium and for the Nero to sail back to Rome it would take many more
> > days than the fire lasted. Nero would have arrived just to see
> > smoking ashes.
>
> All I have to do is make a spelling error and you walk right into it
> displaying your stupidity and ignorance.
Hardly so, Retzios.
I am fully cognizant of the crap you are capable of posting.
If you cannot remember a name don't blame it on others.
It doesn't look like a typo. The letter n is not next to the letter
c.
> Nero was in Antium (modern
> Anzio), not Actium, a short ride from Rome.
Tell that to yourself not to me.
ADR writes as if it was me who had made his mistake.
Such stupid arrogance.
> Anybody who knows basic
> history would have known this.
Tell that to yourself.
>
> But it shows how ignorant you are! Go back to the hole where you
> crept out from.
To think that Anastassios had anything to do with the manufacture of
medicines is a frightening thought.
A man of fathomless ignorance who uses it as knowledge to guide action
and is involved in pharmacy imparts to medication a sense of Russian
roulette that's worse than the fear of disease.
Be afraid.
A man for whom Actium is the same as Antium, inequalities are the same
as negative statements, thinks just as well that chloride is the same
as clorate and sulfide the same as sulfate. There never was a
sophist movement, ancient Greece and Rome had no lawyers, and science
is never concerned with proving negatives. Anything goes, folks.
A mind that dysfunctional in a relaxed history forum with not
deadlines or bosses must be even worse in the spheres of life with
strict obligations.
Bingo! Then one hears that such a man failed to meet his performance
goals at his work and got a bonus of exactly zero dollars last year.
And that shortly afterward his employer reconsidered Mr. Retzios'
business contribution in his 24 months of employment and felt he was
being robbed, and rightfully fired the goober's ass.
How many times must that have happened to Anastassios,... and
counting?
JTEM
Tiglath
I've seen tool in Home Depot smarter than you.
JTEM
Tiglath
“In fact, it was his [Nero’s] effort to rebuilt Rome that cost him his
throne because he imposed high taxes on the wealthy.”
-- ADR
The historical muggings continue…
Imagine a youngster interested in ancient history reading ADR’s
post. He would come away thinking that Nero was toppled because of
his high taxes on the rich to rebuild Rome.
So he repeats it until one day someone who knows better tells him the
truth, and from that day he believes that soc.history.ancient is all
shit, like ADR’s
Multiply that by the many posts ADR pollutes us with and the many
people who can potentially be duped and it’s another step down for a
newsgroup that could take a hitch upward in historical quality.
Nero was a singer who happened to be emperor. Near the end of his
reign he was absent from Rome for a year and a half on a singing tour
in Greece. Object of derision or not Nero sincerely believed that he
was a great artist gifted by the gods, and he could not bring to
concern himself with the menial tasks of governing. Many thought it
a disgrace, especially the legions. The conditions for revolt turned
favorable until a provincial governor, Vindex, actually revolted in
Gaul. This is what he had to say according to Dion Cassius:
“[Nero] has despoiled the whole Roman world, because he has destroyed
all the flower of the senate, because he debauched and then killed his
mother, and does not preserve even the semblance of sovereignty. Many
murders, robberies and outrages, it is true, have often been committed
by others; but as for the other deeds committed by Nero, how could one
find words fittingly to describe them? I have seen him, my friends and
allies,— believe me,— I have seen that man (if man he is who has
married Sporus and been given in marriage to Pythagoras), in the
circle of the theatre, that is, in the orchestra, sometimes holding
the lyre and dressed in loose tunic and buskins, and again wearing in
general-soled shoes and mask. I have often heard him sing, play the
herald, and act in tragedies. I have seen him in chains, hustled about
as a miscreant, heavy with child, aye, in the travail of childbirth —
in short, imitating all the situations of mythology by what he said
and what was said to him, by what he submitted to and by what he did.
Will anyone, then, style such a person Caesar and emperor and
Augustus? Never! Let no one abuse those sacred titles. They were held
by Augustus and by Claudius, whereas this fellow might most properly
be termed Thyestes, Oedipus, Alcmeon, or Orestes; for these are the
characters that he represents on the stage and it is these titles that
he has assumed in place of the others. Therefore rise now at length
against him; succour yourselves and succour the Romans; liberate the
entire world!"
While high levies may have been in Vindex’s list of grievances, it is
clear that if a single reason for Vindex’s rebellion can be singled
out is not high taxes to rebuild Rome, but Nero’s affronts to the
dignity of the Emperor’s office.
Nero extinguished Vindex’s uprising easily but his own disaffected
legions clamored for a new emperor and Galba was happy to take the
role. Nero’s demeanor during the rebellion did not earn him any
friends. He intended to regain the hearts of the malcontent by
singing to them and playing a new organ. So instead of battle plans
to put down the insurgency Nero composed new songs for a grand musical
and choreographic tour of the West. The people were not amused, and
his friends melted away, all to the benefit of his enemies. Next the
legions renounced allegiance to Nero and proclaimed Galba emperor.
“He was dethroned in the end not because he was cruel or unjust, as
was later pretended, but simply because music had taken possession of
him to the exclusion of almost everything else; and his critics are
unanimous in blaming him for his frivolity in allowing himself to
become absorbed in anything so trivial.”
-- Weigall, A. 1930, Nero The Singing Emperor of Rome,
p. 355,56, Garden City
Learn the difference, ignoramus.
Stop the bunk, Retzios.
Tiglath
If I found you floating in my swimming pool, I'd punish the dog.
JTEM
Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
> If I
You're a worthless piece of shit who's mistaken
himself for a big brave (f)Lamer, and that's
funny.
Tiglath
John does a poofy boy's imitation of a tough man.
Hilarious. Bring it on.
J Antero
"ADR" <aret...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:df9e42c2-4523-4344-84a9-
==
In fact, it was his [Nero] effort to rebuilt Rome that
cost him his throne because he imposed high taxes on the wealthy.
==
Not likely, but maybe you have a credible source you would like to cite.
A more likely interpretation is that Emperors could get away with all kinds
of weird, vicious and confiscatory behavior - high taxes often went to pay
the army, and it was the army that emperors
really had to worry about.
Nero appointed corrupt low grade exploiters as adminstrators to tax-squeeze
the provinces, which in turn provoked serious rebellions in places like
Britain (70,000 Romans killed) and Judea. A very serious external
development was that the Parthians began challenging the Romans in the east.
As internal and external problems mounted, Nero went of to Greece to compete
in singing contests. Just in case anybody missed how lame he was, he
had coins minted showing him playing a lyre.
The one thing a Roman emperor couldn't afford was not to be (in reality or
perception) an effective miltary leader.
Even elderly lame Claudius had earned military respect by going off and
directing the successful invasion and take over of Britain.
Nero was causing internal and external dangers. He apparently had no
legions that were loyal to him - members of hs own guard participated in a
failed conspriacy against him a couple years before he was overthrown.
Also, Nero had killed off anyone else with blood line claims to the
emperorship, which meant that with Nero gone, it was open to whoever could
take it.
The only thing a wanabe emperor with a legion at his back had to worry
about, was other wanabe emperors with legions at their back.
Everybody hated Nero (the "666" reference is to him); a lot of problems were
occuring under his reign; he didn't seem to be handling these problems well
(Britain was held by the bravery of the legions and the incompetence of
Boudica); he didn't appear to have much of a military shield protecting
him..
Bad combination.
JTEM
Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
> John does
Oh, come on! You can't possibly be fooling even
yourself with those (f)Lames!