It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
it should right up your alley and on topic.
Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
People often mistake self confidence for arrogance.
Which is why I feel I now have no choice but to raise everyone's taxes, and start conscription into the legions.
Thanks for commenting Centurian!
Evidence for God from Science: Christian Apologetics
Old Testament Dates of Solomon and Egyptian King Shishak Confirmed by 14C Dates from Tel Rehov
by Rich Deem
The dating of events in Hebrew Old Testament is often assumed to be incorrect by many secular scholars. Much of the scholarship related to the dating of these sites is based upon pottery and other items that are associated with certain civilizations and times. However, the discovery of pottery assemblages with biblical data relating to the monarchies of David and Solomon in the destruction layer of Jezreel, a royal citadel of the Omride Dynasty, which ruled over the northern Kingdom of Israel from 885 to 843 B.C., suggested that the older dates for key sites in Israel (e.g., Hazor, Megiddo, and Gezer) might be much later than the time of King Solomon (second half of the 10th century B.C.). The implication was that archaeological layers traditionally associated with the monarchies of David and Solomon were too young to fit the biblical claims.
A team of archeologists from Netherlands and Israel, Drs. Bruins, van der Plicht, and Mazar examined the site of Tel Rehov, in the Beth-Shean/Jordan Valley, 4 miles west of the River Jordan.1 14C radiocarbon dating placed the destruction of Tel Rehov at 940-900 B.C., instead of the later date suggested by the associated pottery.
Biblical and extra-biblical evidence
The place name Rehov occurs on the list of cities conquered by Pharaoh Shoshenq I, known as Shishak in the Bible.2 His Asian campaign was recorded on the southern wall of the temple of Amun at Karnak in Upper Egypt, where Rehov appears after the term "The Valley" (probably referring to the Beth-Shean/Jordan Valley) and before the city name Beth Shean. The Bible says that King Shishak invaded Israel in the fifth year of the reign of Solomon's son, Rehoboam.3 The biblical timeframe would place Solomon's death at 930 B.C., putting Shishak's invasion at 925 B.C., exactly within the range of radiocarbon dates (940-900 B.C.) for the destruction of Tel Rehov.
Conclusion Top of page
High-precision radiocarbon dating of Tel Rehov establishes a date earlier than that suggested by previous studies utilizing pottery finds. The accuracy of 14C dating calls into question previous studies based solely upon pottery evidence. The current dating of Tel Rehov confirms the biblical date for Shishak's invasion of Israel.
14C Dates from Tel Rehov: Iron-Age Chronology, Pharaohs, and Hebrew Kings
Hendrik J. Bruins,1* Johannes van der Plicht,2 Amihai Mazar3
Stratified radiocarbon dates provide an independent chronological link between archaeological layers and historical data. The invasion by Pharaoh Shoshenq I (Shishak) is a key historical synchronism, ~925 B.C.E., mentioned in both Egyptian inscriptions and the Hebrew Bible. The list of places raided by Shoshenq, mentioned at Karnak (Egypt), includes Rehov (Israel). The site yielded a consistent series of radiocarbon dates from the 12th to 9th century B.C.E. Our results (i) suggest a revised Iron-Age chronology; (ii) date an archaeological stratum to Shoshenq's campaign; (iii) indicate the similarity of "Solomonic" and "Omride" pottery; and (iv) provide correlation with Greece and Cyprus.
Originally posted by On the Edge
reply to post by Aquarius1
it should right up your alley and on topic.
When you say that,it appears to say that what I posted was not "on topic".
But it nonetheless sounds like a somewhat strained effort by later Romans to avoid admitting that Rome had in fact been ruled by Etruscans.
The earliest settlement at Troy was in the Early Bronze Age at ca. 3000 B.C. This small fortified settlement was destroyed by fire and was followed by Troy II (2500-2200 B.C.), which Schliemann incorrectly believed to have been the city of Priam. Settlement continued throughout the Bronze Age at the site. The latest prehistoric levels are Troy VI (1800-1275 B.C.) and Troy VII (1275-1100 B.C.) and scholars debate which of these levels represent the city of Priam and scene of the Trojan War.
Following the end of the Late Bronze Age there was a 400 year hiatus at the site until it was resettled at ca. 700 B.C. by Greek colonists, possibly from Lesbos or Tenedos. The Early Iron Age city (Troy VIII) was founded with the name Ilion and believed at the time to be the site of Homeric Troy. The city had little political power, but was symbolically important. It was under Persian control from the 6th century B.C. until the liberation of Asia Minor by Alexander the Great in 334 B.C.
In 480 B.C. Xerxes halted at Troy to sacrifice a thousand oxen before crossing the Hellespont into Greece. In 334 B.C. Alexander went to Troy immediately after crossing into Asia Minor to make an offering. Following the death of Alexander in 323 B.C., his successor in Thrace had a new temple of Athena built at the city. Julius Caesar, who believed himself to be a direct descendant of Priam, visited the city and gave it immunity from taxation. In the reign of Augustus the city and the sanctuary of Athena under went a large rebuilding program. Constantine considered Troy as a possible site for his new capital before chosing Byzantium, and as late as A.D. 355 the site was visited by the emperor Julian. By the 4th century A.D., however, the site was little more than a small farming community and by the 12th century A.D. it was completely abandoned.
You might want to ask yourself, were the Romans perhaps purposefully providing a magnificent new cultural center for Islam, replete with established trade routes already to it, so that there could be an easy exchange on some trade and diplmoatic levels, but still at the same time, create those schisms of which the Church has suffered many of, as it divides itself into different portions, while making sure that the most important concepts and goals are embraced?
Was Constantinople put out there as a prize, as bait, to encourage the Muslim world to grow a bit larger and reach a bit further?
And was that point they would reach in fact where Rome wanted them to be all along as part of the plan?
Further you have to understand that while your theory on time, actually supports the concept of Caesar as Christ, because it would have been much harder to pattern Caesar off of Christ had Christ in fact existed and come first, you should though keep in mind, as should I that our only real accounts of all this, are Rome’s accounts. How Rome portrays the Time Line may not be entirely accurate.
Next to better understand, Caesar would initially live on in the next 8 dictators that would follow who were descendents of him.
Much of what the Oligarchs do, is hand things down from Father to son, Father to son, ask the Rockefellers, Bush Family and Rothschild Family if you don’t believe me.
The plans of the Father often are tasked to the son, to the grandson, to the great grandson and so on and so forth to carry out.
[edit on 26/4/10 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]
All dates and names are given as they appear in Magistrates of the Roman Republic by T.R.S. Broughton.
* 501 BC: Titus Lartius Flavus. Rei gerundae causa.
* 501 BC: Manius Valerius. Rei gerundae causa.
* 498 BC: Aulus Postumius Albus Regillensis. Rei gerundae causa.
* 494 BC: Manius Valerius Maximus. Rei gerundae causa.
* 463 BC: Gaius Aemilius Mamercus? Clavi figendi causa? (possibly interrex, not dictator).
* 458 BC: Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus (first term). Rei gerundae causa.
* 439 BC: Cincinnatus (second term). Rei gerundae causa or seditionis sedandae causa.
* 437 BC: Mamercus Aemilius Mamercinus (first term). Rei gerundae causa.
* 435 BC: Quintus Servilius Priscus Fidenas (first term). Rei gerundae causa.
* 434 BC: Mamercus Aemilius Mamercinus (second term). Rei gerundae causa.
* 431 BC: Aulus Postumius Tubertus. Rei gerundae causa.
* 426 BC: Mamercus Aemilius Mamercinus (third term). Rei gerundae causa.
* 418 BC: Quintus Servilius Priscus Fidenas (second term). Rei gerundae causa.
* 408 BC: Publius Cornelius Rutilus Cossus. Rei gerundae causa.
* 396 BC: Marcus Furius Camillus (first term). Rei gerundae causa.
* 390 BC: Marcus Furius Camillus (second term). Rei gerundae causa.
* 389 BC: Marcus Furius Camillus (third term). Rei gerundae causa.
* 385 BC: Aulus Cornelius Cossus. Rei gerundae causa.
* 380 BC: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus Capitolinus. Rei gerundae et seditionis sedandae causa.
* 368 BC: Marcus Furius Camillus (fourth term). Rei gerundae causa.
* 368 BC: Publius Manlius Capitolinus. Seditionis sedandae et rei gerundae causa.
* 367 BC: Marcus Furius Camillus (fifth term). Rei gerundae causa.
* 363 BC: Lucius Manlius Capitolinus Imperiosus. Clavi figendi causa.
* 362 BC: Appius Claudius Crassus Inregillensis. Rei gerundae causa.
* 361 BC: Titus Quinctius Poenus Capitolinus Crispinus. Rei gerundae causa.
* 360 BC: Quintus Servilius Ahala. Rei gerundae causa.
* 358 BC: Gaius Sulpicius Peticus. Rei gerundae causa.
* 356 BC: Gaius Marcius Rutilus. Rei gerundae causa.
* 353 BC: Titus Manlius Imperiosus Torquatus (first term). Rei gerundae causa.
* 352 BC: Gaius Julius Iullus. Rei gerundae et comitiorum habendorum causa.
* 351 BC: Marcus Fabius Ambustus. Comitiorum habendorum causa.
* 350 BC: Lucius Furius Camillus (first term). Comitiorum habendorum causa.
* 349 BC: Titus Manlius Imperiosus Torquatus (second term). Comitiorum habendorum causa.
* 345 BC: Lucius Furius Camillus (second term). Rei gerundae causa.
* 344 BC: Publius Valerius Publicola. Feriarum constituendarum causa.
* 342 BC: Marcus Valerius Corvus (first term). Seditionis sedandae causa or rei gerundae causa.
* 340 BC: Lucius Papirius Crassus. Rei gerundae causa.
* 339 BC: Quintus Publilius Philo. Non military; carried out certain legal reforms.
* 335 BC: Lucius Aemilius Mamercinus Privernas. Comitiorum habendorum causa.
* 333 BC: Publius Cornelius Rufinus. Rei gerundae causa?
* 332 BC: Marcus Papirius Crassus. Rei gerundae causa.
* 331 BC: Gnaeus Quinctius Capitolinus. Clavi figendi causa.
* 325 BC: Lucius Papirius Cursor (first term). Rei gerundae causa.
* 324 BC: Lucius Papirius Cursor (second term). Rei gerundae causa.
* 322 BC: Aulus Cornelius Cossus Arvina. Rei gerundae et ludorum faciendorum causa.
* 320 BC: Gaius Maenius (first term). Quaestionibus exercendis.
* 320 BC: Lucius Cornelius Lentulus. Rei gerundae causa?
* 320 BC: Titus Manlius Imperiosus Torquatus (third term). Comitiorum habendorum causa?
* 316 BC: Lucius Aemilius Mamercinus Privernas. Rei gerundae causa.
* 315 BC: Quintus Fabius Maximus Rullianus (first term). Rei gerundae causa.
* 314 BC: Gaius Maenius (second term). Rei gerundae causa.
* 313 BC: Gaius Poetelius Libo Visolus. Rei gerundae et clavi figendi causa.
* 313 BC: Quintus Fabius Maximus Rullianus (second term). Rei gerundae causa.
* 312 BC: Gaius Sulpicius Longus. Rei gerundae causa?
* 312 BC: Gaius Junius Bubulcus Brutus. Rei gerundae causa (possibly magister equitum, not dictator).
* 310 BC: Lucius Papirius Cursor (third term). Rei gerundae causa.
* 309 BC: Lucius Papirius Cursor (fourth term). Rei gerundae causa.
* 306 BC: Publius Cornelius Scipio Barbatus. Comitiorum habendorum causa.
* 302 BC: Gaius Junius Bubulcus Brutus (second term?). Rei gerundae causa.
* 302 BC: Marcus Valerius Corvus (second term). Rei gerundae causa.
* 301 BC: Marcus Valerius Corvus (third term). Rei gerundae causa.
* Between 291 and 285: Marcus Aemilius Barbula. Rei gerundae causa?
* Between 291 and 285: Appius Claudius Caecus. Rei gerundae causa?
* Between 291 and 285: Publius Cornelius Rufinus. Rei gerundae causa?
* 287 BC: Quintus Hortensius. Seditionis sedandae causa or rei gerundae causa.
* 280 BC: Gnaeus Domitius Ahenobarbus. Comitiorum habendorum causa.
* 263 BC: Gnaeus Fulvius Maximus Centumalus. Clavi figendi causa.
* 257 BC: Quintus Ogulnius Gallus. Ludorum faciendorum causa.
* 249 BC: Marcus Claudius Glicia. Rei gerundae causa?
* 249 BC: Aulus Atilius Caiatinus. Rei gerundae causa.
* 246 BC: Tiberius Coruncanius. Comitiorum habendorum causa.
* 231 BC: Gaius Duilius. Comitiorum habendorum causa.
* 224 BC: Lucius Caecilius Metellus. Comitiorum habendorum causa.
* 221 BC: Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus Cunctator (first term). Rei gerundae causa?
* 217 BC: Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus Cunctator (second term). Rei gerundae causa.
* 217 BC: Marcus Minucius Rufus. Rei gerundae causa.
* 216 BC: Marcus Junius Pera. Rei gerundae causa.
* 216 BC: Marcus Fabius Buteo. Legendo senatui.
* 213 BC: Gaius Claudius Centho. Comitiorum habendorum causa.
* 210 BC: Quintus Fulvius Flaccus. Comitiorum habendorum causa.
* 208 BC: Titus Manlius Torquatus. Comitiorum habendorum et ludorum faciendorum causa.
* 207 BC: Marcus Livius Salinator. Comitiorum habendorum causa.
* 205 BC: Quintus Caecilius Metellus. Comitiorum habendorum causa.
* 203 BC: Publius Sulpicius Galba Maximus. Comitiorum habendorum causa or rei gerundae causa.
* 202 BC: Gaius Servilius Geminus. Comitiorum habendorum causa
* 82/81 to 81: Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix Legibus faciendis et rei publicae constituendae causa.
* 49 to 45 BC: Gaius Julius Caesar (first to fifth terms). Rei gerundae causa.
* 44 BC: Gaius Julius Caesar. Rei gerundae causa (fifth term), then perpetuus.
# Rome ruled by a monarchy before 510 BCE
# The original monarchs were of Latin or Sabine ethnic origin
# The last monarchs were Etruscan who greatly influenced Rome's political and religious traditions.
# The monarchs were driven out by an aristocractic rebellion.
# After a somewhat rocky start, the Romans adopted a republican form of government.
# The most enjoyable account of Roman legends about their kings if found in Livy, Book 1.
The selection of Jupiter as a state god and the descent of the name Latini to the name of the Latin language are sufficient to identify the Latins as a tribe of Indo-European descent. Vergil, a major poet of the early Roman Empire, under Augustus, derived Latium from the word for "hidden" (English latent) because in a myth Saturn, ruler of the golden age in Latium, hid (latuisset) from Jupiter there.
The traditions of what happened prior to the foundation of the City or whilst it was being built, are more fitted to adorn the creations of the poet than the authentic records of the historian, and I have no intention of establishing either their truth or their falsehood. This much licence is conceded to the ancients, that by intermingling human actions with divine they may confer a more august dignity on the origins of states. Now, if any nation ought to be allowed to claim a sacred origin and point back to a divine paternity that nation is Rome
476-493 Odoacre * Odoacer
Conquered by East Rome
Theodoric the Great
Divided into several duchies
Desiderio * Ratchis
Frankish Part Kingdom
Ludovico il Pio (the Pious)
Carlo il Calvo (the Bald)
Carlo il Grosso (the Fat) = 800
Ludovico III (the Blind)
Ottone I (Otto the Great)
From 1014 was Italy united with Germany in a personal union.
The kingdom of Italy was not formally dissolved until 1648, but
it had been divided into numerous feudal petty states and self-
governing communes since the 13th century.
House of Bonaparte
Divided into petty states
House of Savoy
Vittorio Emanuele II
Vittorio Emanuele III
"The Club [of Rome] had its beginnings in April of 1968, when leaders from ten different countries gathered in Rome...The organization claims to have the solutions for world peace and prosperity...The Club of Rome has been charged with the task of overseeing the regionalizaton and unification of the entire world...
"The Club's findings and recommendations are published from time to time in special, highly confidential reports, which are sent to the power-elite to be implemented. On 17 September 1973 the Club released one such report, entitled Regionalized and Adaptive Model of the Global World System... The document reveals that the Club has divided the world into ten political/ economic regions, which it refers to as 'kingdoms.'"
". The president NEVER got that Constitutionally required consent for NAFTA, or CAFTA or the SPP which is an agreement to merge our country with Mexico and Canada in order to create the NorthAmerican Union