It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

All Roads Lead to Rome

page: 115
607
<< 112  113  114    116  117  118 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by masqua
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Since we're now arguing the veracity of historians on the historical Jesus, which, in my humble opinion, has absolutely nada to do with Christianity being used as a tool for the pacification and decline of the Roman empire in the first instance and the general conspiratorial direction of the thread OP encapsulating the following ~1600 years of history, I'm afraid I must rebut your Tacitus quote as being of questionable authority.


A survey of the literature indicates that this citation by Tacitus has not been given enough regard, having often been overshadowed by the citations in Josephus (see next entry). Respected Christian scholar R. T. France, for example, does not believe that the Tacitus passage provides sufficient independent testimony for the existence of Jesus [Franc.EvJ, 23] and agrees with G. A. Wells that the citation is of little value.

www.tektonics.org...



Otherwise Tacitus was profound....yea right.

Here is what make Tacitus good here....he is clearly under no pressure, is not trying to prove a Jesus. Plus he was not even born yet so we know there was a source or sources from where he gets his info here. It is said that he used good sources like senate records ect. Also taken with the other info in the passage like the idea of what christains were in harsh terms, the conspiracy against them, ect ect we see more than just a passing refrence to Christ but a well known fact of who killed him and a king that conspired against his followers. Wells and France are all wet.




posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 01:36 AM
link   
reply to post by masqua
 



Originally posted by masqua

I believe it contains the ONLY historically recorded account of a living, breathing Jesus Christ. (this is why I'm surprised)



That's all fair, but the Testimonium Flavianum has not been accepted as a valid source for centuries now. The worlds leading scholars dismiss it as a forgery, most likely a misinterpretation or misrepresentation by the Catholic Church through the "historian" (I use that loosely) Eusebius.

Here's an interesting excerpt, dismissing the validity of the TF from Dr. Lardner:



"Mattathias, the father of Josephus, must have been a witness to the miracles which are said to have been performed by Jesus, and Josephus was born within two years after the crucifixion, yet in all the works he says nothing whatever about the life or death of Jesus Christ; as for the interpolated passage it is now universally acknowledged to be a forgery. The arguments of the 'Christian Ajax,' even Lardner himself, against it are these: 'It was never quoted by any of our Christian ancestors before Eusebius. It disturbs the narrative. The language is quite Christian. It is not quoted by Chrysostom, though he often refers to Josephus, and could not have omitted quoting it had it been then in the text. It is not quoted by Photius [9th century], though he has three articles concerning Josephus; and this author expressly states that this historian has not taken the least notice of Christ. Neither Justin Martyr, in his dialogue with Trypho the Jew; nor Clemens Alexandrinus, who made so many extracts from ancient authors; nor Origen against Celsus, have ever mentioned this testimony. But, on the contrary, in chap. 25th of the first book of that work, Origen openly affirms that Josephus, who had mentioned John the Baptist, did not acknowledge Christ. That this passage is a false fabrication is admitted by Ittigius, Blondel, Le Clerc, Vandale, Bishop Warburton, and Tanaquil Faber.'


Christian Mythology Unveiled (1842), page 47

Dr. Lardner was, by the way, a Christian himself.

The first person to ever quote the TF was Eusebius himself, more than 250 years after it was supposedly written. Josephus, being a Jew, would not refer to Christ as being divine, it does not make sense. The passage is a clear forgery.



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 03:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 


Aeneid, an epic Latin poem, was written by Virgil who discusses the Trojan hero (Aeneas) who traveled to what is now Rome. Aeneas is viewed as the ancestor of Romans. The Julio-Claudian dynasty (first five Roman emperors) built numerous cults and religions around the Romans being descendants of the founders of Troy. Including, comparing themselves to the Trojan gods.

Aeneid



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 03:22 AM
link   
reply to post by infinite
 


The Aeneid is a poem.

Should we just ignore the role of the Etruscan kings in the foundations of Rome as a city state like the OP has?



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 04:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by serbsta
The Aeneid is a poem.


I know. That's why I said "poem" above.



Should we just ignore the role of the Etruscan kings in the foundations of Rome as a city state like the OP has?


Well, if you do - large sections of Roman history and myths surrounding it will be isolated from understanding the modern Rome and her power structures.



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 04:11 AM
link   
reply to post by infinite
 


No, maybe I just misunderstood your point of view.

Do you stress the importance of the Etruscan connection with the foundation of Rome or do you side with the OP where its all purely based on mythology?

Cheers.



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 04:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by serbsta
Do you stress the importance of the Etruscan connection with the foundation of Rome or do you side with the OP where its all purely based on mythology?


Of course I stress the importance, you cannot just dismiss it. I'm rather confused, the OP and myself wrote extensively in another thread about connection of Troy to Rome



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 04:20 AM
link   
And to the Minnesota Capitol as well.

This photo was taken from the steps of the Capitol building with the road leading to the Roman Catholic Cathedral of Saint Paul:



On the Capital campus there is a monument to civil rights activist Roy Wilkins that consists of a number of obelisks placed in the shape of a spiral. While obelisks were very prominent in ancient Rome I don't think they played much of a role in the civil rights movement of the 1960's. So I ask, why use obelisks? This makes me wonder if this is really a tribute to Rome disguised as a tribute to civil rights.




On this same monument there are a number of benches that I thought at first to be rather oddly shaped for benches until I realized that they appear to look like masonic squares. I doubt this is accidental and I did not see any explanation at the site for the right angled benches. Additionally after doing a quick perusal of the Wikipedia bio for Roy Wilkins I didn't see any reference to him being a mason.




The Minnesota Judicial Center building displaying a strong influence of Roman architecture.


Here on the main Capitol building are statues who all appear to be figures from ancient Rome with one of them appearing to be a Roman soldier carrying a scroll and circular shaped shield:


The goddess Victoria planting a victory wreath atop the heads of all who enter Capitol building underneath the central archway of the buildings main entrance:




On the Wabasha st overpass leading to the capitol grounds on each side of the center of the bridge there is a prominent obelisk. Additionally, on each end and each side of the bridge there are what appears to be cement Roman chalices.








edit on 20-9-2010 by QtheQ because: small grammatical repair (I had written 'Roman' when it should've been 'Rome')



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 04:21 AM
link   
reply to post by infinite
 


What do the Etruscans have to do with Troy?

I was debating with the OP earlier on this, he dismissed the fact that the Etruscans who were living within the area up until the Roman city state was established had any significance to the foundation of Rome.

Instead, he claimed Rome's founders came from Troy. That theory is based purely in myth.




posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 04:31 AM
link   
reply to post by serbsta
 


Ah, my mistake. Confusion over what you were suggesting.

Well, Etruscan were not responsible for the founding of Rome (that was Aeneas) - but the Etruscan civilization was assimilated into Rome. It's governmental structure, culture and military infrastructure became the basic foundations of the Roman society and political system. Roman architecture was purely influenced by Etruscan, and not Troy, and even though the first Roman dynasty glorified the Trojan heroes - its basic religious premise was Etruscan in nature.

The Etruscan civilization did not found Rome, but it influenced nearly segments of Roman life. Therefore, we cannot just ignore it.


edit on 20-9-2010 by infinite because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 05:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
reply to post by serbsta
 


Ah, my mistake. Confusion over what you were suggesting.

Well, Etruscan were not responsible for the founding of Rome (that was Aeneas) - but the Etruscan civilization was assimilated into Rome.



Where's the evidence to support this? That Rome was founded by Aeneas (Troy)? The only source is Virgil and his poem.

You yourself just pointed out the importance of Etruscan influence within the area, so why substitute what's already there with a myth?

Quoting myself, from about 60 pages ago:


Originally posted by serbsta
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 



Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler

Yet it’s important to understand as far as the myths go that Trojans did not establish the city of Rome as a colony but rather the descendants of one solitary Trojan did.


No, the city of Rome was formed in Etruscan lands and the earliest Roman Kingdom was ruled by Etruscan kings. Your sources say that Rome is the legacy of Troy, where is the evidence? There is none. You sound like a logical and grounded individual, why ignore the evidence (linguistic, archeological, etc.) which clearly points to the Etruscan connection and just choose to follow along some fairy tale?



Before the consuls, before the emperors, before Rome ever reached its zenith at the height of the world, it was a small town ruled by the Etruscan kings. Seven kings of Rome took the throne until the Republic was formed.

The first king of Rome was Romulus, the founder who killed his brother Remus. Ruling from 753 to 716 BC, his rule tainted by the incident with the Sabine women. As Rome's population growth was stagnating, there weren't enough women. So, Romulus invited the entire Sabine population to the festival of Consulia. During the festival, the Roman men abducted the women.

In most monarchies, the eldest son of the king inherits the throne. However, the successors of Roman kings were their sisters sons. The second king, Numa Pompilius ruled from 715 to 674 BC. Son to Pomponius, Numa himself was born on the day of the founding of Rome.


Rome was founded by Etruscan nobles (Ruma in Etruscan). The name of the mythical founder of the city of Rome, Romulus, is connected with the family name Rumelna found in Volsinii (close to Orvieto, look at map) and with the Etruscan forename Rumele.

Many Roman words such as populus was derived from Etruscan puple, there are many more examples which can be provided.

Here is a map of the Etruscan area of influence:



Rome was created by Etruscans and has NO links with Troy.

You say that the ONLY link between Troy and Rome supposedly being a legacy of it, is with the God Apollo. This baffles and surprises me.

It's important to note that Apollo was purely a Greek god, he had no Roman counterpart, the only worship of Apollo was derived from the Hellenic model. Apollo was worshiped on a larger scale though, and not only in Rome and Greece. You say the secret societies hold the secrets of Rome and have some form of Apollo worship, etc. Firstly, there is no proof of this and directly contradicts the evidence I've provided above. Second, why tie Apollo so close to Rome? If anything Apollo should be tied to Greece and the Delphic tradition and not Rome.

The whole fable about Aeneas coming from Troy to found Rome is just that, a fable. It was encompassed in the Aeneid written by the poet Virgil in the 1st century. It was a poem, not a historical account.

Again, there is no Trojan link to the founding of Rome. Scholars and experts in the field have consensus with the Etruscan foundation of Rome and the evidence can be viewed by anyone, the links are quite clear. So no Proto, again I believe you are wrong with this respect and I think if you examine the evidence by following the (very) brief information I have presented in this post and the one prior, you will reach the same conclusion.

Rome & Troy = No No.

This whole Roman global plan gets weaker when you actually research each aspect, no disrespects to you and your effort of course. I think using the argument that the modern world has been influenced by Roman social structures therefore meaning Rome is still running the world is a VERY weak argument...

We took democracy and education from Greece, we took military tactics from God knows how many armies, etc, etc. It is simply the nature of human progression. How would this world be if as soon as one generation invented something which would benefit humanity, the next generation ignores it?

In summary I believe your source is either totally uneducated on the issue, or simply refuses to see the facts.



edit on 20/9/2010 by serbsta because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 06:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by serbsta
Where's the evidence to support this? That Rome was founded by Aeneas (Troy)? The only source is Virgil and his poem.


I am quoting and giving audience to all. As I said, the first dynasty of Rome (the first five emperors) explicitly aligned Rome to Troy. If this thread is about Rome, you cannot reject all the mythology of its creation. It would be ludicrous.

Virgil's poem is considered an important source of information. Archaeologists have used it as a reference. But, everyone disagrees. However, what is clear, Etruscan culture had MORE influence over Rome and the surrounding area.



You yourself just pointed out the importance of Etruscan influence within the area, so why substitute what's already there with a myth?


I haven't substituted it. You're pushing an open door with me. I'm not downgrading the Etruscan influence or even rejecting it. I'm not even remotely suggesting Troy had greater influence - the Etruscan Kings are what made Rome. Without them, you could argue, there wouldn't have been a Roman Empire.


edit on 20-9-2010 by infinite because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 06:19 AM
link   
reply to post by infinite
 


Aha, I see the point you're making now.

I think we pretty much agree, I was getting confused due to this part of your post.


Originally posted by infinite

Well, Etruscan were not responsible for the founding of Rome (that was Aeneas)



edit on 20/9/2010 by serbsta because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 06:23 AM
link   
reply to post by serbsta
 


Ignoring Etruscan Kings and civilization, and her respected influence on Rome, would be like learning the history of the United States without the colonial period.



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 06:24 AM
link   
reply to post by QtheQ
 


Nice pics QtheQ, everybody think Washington is controlled and manipulated by freemasonry but you are right, it is without a doubt Rome, the real Power that be.

here is something you might find interesting,



Obama Opens First Full Day As President With Prayer Service at Washington Catholic National Cathedral



Barack Obama & McCain under Rome's control

Barack Obama under Rome's control

G.W.Bush & Al Gore under Rome's control

Powell under Rome's control

Giuliani under Rome's control

Tony Blair under Rome's control

The European Union under Rome's control

The United Nation under Rome's control

Masons under Rome's control

G.Bush under Rome's control

JFK & NIxon under Rome's control

Hitler under Rome's control



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 06:32 AM
link   
reply to post by serbsta
 


Well, there are two reasons for the Julio-Claudian dynasty linkage to Troy and worshiping Trojan heroes.

1) A spiritual linkage. Troy were the ancestors of Rome and, therefore, Rome feels the need to emulate them. The legend is a metaphor.
2) A direct linkage. The legend is literally true. A Prince, who fled after the fall of Troy, come to a place near the Palatine Hills (which is now Rome, one of the seven hills) and created a small settlement. It was never self governed and was under the influence of the nearby Etruscan kings.

What is clear, before the Etruscan period, Rome had no real government or infrastructure. Majority of nation state was constructed by Etruscan rule.


edit on 20-9-2010 by infinite because: hills not hells



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
reply to post by serbsta
 


Ignoring Etruscan Kings and civilization, and her respected influence on Rome, would be like learning the history of the United States without the colonial period.


There is no doubt that all the early and later kingdons and civilizations Rome asorbed played a part in how Rome continued to develop.

As I have said many times Rome was the first multi-ethnic, multi-national empire. They absorbed the best in technology and thinking in peoples that they incorporated into the Republic and Empire.

Yet once again incorporated into the Republic and Empire is in fact what happened.

In the Etruscans case like many small Kingdoms in Italy, that joined Rome after Rome disposed of it's King and formed a Republic they saw an advantage in folding in with Rome peacefully.

Yet while under the Tuscan Sun is really a charming movie, Rome was not renamed the Etruscan Empire, nor did Rome cease being Rome regardless who Rome absorbed or forced into the Republic or Empire.

Serbsta "seems" to be stating that Rome is an Etruscan invention. This is where I disargee with her. When it comes to agreeing that Rome incorporated the technologies and some of the customs and Gods of the peoples absorbed into it, I have highlighted that yes that is the case time and time again.

Where I differ with some people is when they say oh well once Rome conquered and began running Egypt, Egypt's power lived on in essence controlling Rome, when Rome conquered Babylon, Babylong's power lived on in essence controlling Rome, when Rome conquered Persia, Persian power lived on in essence controlling Rome. When Rome conquered Greece, Grecian power lived on in essence controlling Rome. When Rome conquered Carthage, Carthaginian power lived on controlling Rome.

Because the Etruscans were one of the closest in geographical proximity to Rome, yes it stands to reason they were amongst the first to be absorbed by Rome, which continued being Rome and was Rome before that occured.

If Serbsta is claiming Rome, and if is the key word there, that Rome is an Etruscan invention, then no, it truly isn't. If Serbsta is just wanting the Etruscans to have a bigger mention in the credits at the end of the movie because Serbsta feels their contribution was larger than other absorbed and conquered people, then I think Serbsta and others need to wait until the movie actually ends in that regard, as Rome has still not died or ended and the movie is still playing.

It seems a trivial point to be stuck on frankly page after page month after month, as so many different absorbed and conquered peoples played a role in shaping Rome.

In later middle age periods one could argue that Venice became the center of Rome's wealth and thinking, etc., then Berlin, then London, then Washington.

In my humble opinion a lot of the nitpicking regarding the ancient past, just takes us away from the present parts of the conspiracy.

Considering most of the nitpicking about the ancient past, is sourced through dogmatic texts written largely from a Roman/Christian/Judean perspective the veracity and authenticity of them leaves something to be desired.

The past still being the past, it seems to me is all a deflection away from the present elements of the conspiracy, just as those who are stuck on the notion that Rome is the Catholic Church and Pope, when clearly there are many other international organizations that are not Catholic or involved with the Church operating in the name of Rome openly like the Club of Rome, and many that are not trying to advertise it like the Masons, Bilderbergers, etc.

Correct me if I am wrong but did not you and I discuss and discover in another thread, Masonic lodges with strong ties to the Church?

Which were also closely affiliated with the Nazi Party?



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
Correct me if I am wrong but did not you and I discuss and discover in another thread, Masonic lodges with strong ties to the Church?


Yes.
The sinister Propaganda Due (P2) Masonic lodge that was closely linked to the Vatican bank.



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
This is where I disargee with her.


I'm a he... It's cool though, I thought you were a girl until someone told me otherwise...

What did you even say in your post? Re-read your post and try to understand what you said. You claimed many times earlier that Rome was created by Trojans, by Aeneas. There is no proof for this besides one poem. Meanwhile, the role of the Etruscans is the biggest and most fundamental in the formation of the Roman city state as I have shown proof for this and have countless more books/journals to back up my argument which can all be posted if need be. The importance of this point should not be under-stressed, you harnessed so much mystique and intrigue into your version of Rome in the OP simply because you drew on myths and legends to formulate your argument. While if you would have stuck to facts, which are supported by archeological evidence, you would have painted a much less 'extravagant' picture of the creation of Rome and in turn destroying any further links you said existed between Rome and the earlier civilizations of ancient Egypt and Babylon.

Stick to the present? There is a reason why so many posts in this thread are focused on the past, because its necessary to understand the past in order to understand the present. You're telling members to "understand present elements of the conspiracy" when there has been no proper foundation laid for the past (see above).

Stop digging holes without making any ladders. Too deep now.



edit on 20/9/2010 by serbsta because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by serbsta
 


serbsta, i took a look at your threads and it all turn around speculative theories about a outer space powerful aliens PTB who visite and control us and 2012 end of the world prophecies.

i respect you, in my humble opinion your beliefs and science fiction theories are only good for twilight zone episodes and it is probably why you keep trying to derail and harm this thread but i respect it. ProtoplasmicTraveler presented real research results based on realistic past and present events. If you think that by obsessively and aggressively attacking ProtoplasmicTraveler, it will make you feel better, more secured and make you look stronger well, on the contrary it is quite the opposite.

please respect all the works ProtoplasmicTraveler did for us and at least respect all of us who are interesting in his researchs.

Thank you serbsta



new topics

top topics


active topics

 
607
<< 112  113  114    116  117  118 >>

log in

join