Originally posted by spearchucker
I beg to differ my friend there is only one record that survives today maybe youve heard of it THE GALLIC WARS!
Yes I noted it.
Guess who wrote it Julius CEASER! All other records historys are from a latter period.
your right the gospels are from a latter period my point being made.
The gospels are mostly annonymous documents that were circulating around about a hundred and some odd years after the events supposedly protrayed in
them took place. Caesars accounts of his war in Gaul was contemporary, and the other historians who wrote about it were contemporary.
And by the way could you name the four lines in the republican roman army i would be suprised. Teach me oh great swammy
I think they were called
That sounds about right, eh?
wow by the way what were the roman cavalry called.And im not talking about the auxillerys
I should hope you aren't talking about the auxillary, you can't even spell it. I certainly can't name all
the lines of the legion from
memory but I certainly don't need to demonstrate to you
that I am 'worthy'.
Caesar dies in 44 bc. He writes the Commentaries himself and the romans are aware of this and keep it in circulation. The text is maintained by
romans and put into libraries.
Suetonious writes about it in the Lives
, and lived 69-140 ad.
Plutarch wrote about it and lived around 45-102 AD, and Appian in generally the same time period.
THese men are historians. They were educated, Plutarch at Athens. They were studied, they had teh works collected in libraries to go from.
There is also epigraphic evidence that caesar was in gaul and that he was invloved in the actions over there, not to mention that the actions
themselves are undisputed and caesar seems to have reported them accurately enough.
No one claims anything similar for the christian texts. They were passed around and composed at different times and even had things added to them,
such there it was sometimes a matter of great significance as to what ones were blatant frauds.
If you could in all sencerity point out some contemperary historians who wrote first hand acconts of the gallic wars i would be very
First hand eyewtiness accounts? No, I wouldn't even expect such things to be around outside of Caesars own report which the historians of his own
time were able, uncontroversially, attribute to him.
Because and the reason i posted on the subject, my recent reading of ceasar man tyrant soldier by JF Fuller
Oh man, that book is great!
I understand your point, infact I vaguely recall reading something like that when reading fuller. Nevertheless, Caesar himself certainyl existed,
gaul was conquered by the romans, he was the proconsul of the relevant provinces, his Commentaries were known and established in the educated and
literate roman society, and their own historians considered the question of whether or not he wrote them and found that he did. This, taken with teh
epigraphic evidence, such as grave markers and building inscriptions and the like, along with archaeological evidence, make the events something of a
This is not true of the christian gospels, in any way, on any counts. They were not historical documents, they were pseudo-anonymous collections of
letters and thoughts on the passion and ressurection, and are also completely unverifiable, except as so far as judea existed or there was a city
called tarsus and the like.
Why do so many people fail to even spell his name right?
And most people mis-pronounces it as 'see zer' too!
[edit on 10-3-2005 by Nygdan]