Ceasar in Gaul the beast movie, page 1

posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 03:30 PM

link

First off if your a pegan,wiccan,athiest,islam,whatever i will never change anybodys mind here arguing or bashing insulting or trying to reason.

When mel gibson put out his movie the passion it was inspiring and give alot of believers hope.

If you were not a believer fine whats the point you dont believe, or if your of some other persuasion you stayed at home.

What i have a problem with and i think alot of christians have a problem with is when some great inlightend individual some will no doubt post here and tell me im as wrong as can be. Gets on there little box and tells us were all wrong Jesus was just a man.

Continues with the usual stuff about the Bible being incorrect labeling us as intolarant of other religons. But i mean come on cant we even have a movie,I remember when it came out all the great minds were shouting anti jewish,racist,and any thing else that crossed there tiny minds.

It turns out it was a great hit made a ton a cash and guess what there were no riots in europe.I dont know about other christians here but I hold the Jewish people in a special place as do i love all people.

After that when it turns out the great ones were wrong thay have to counter attack some way. So we get that piece of trash SAVED a movie to bash christians which i havent heard a whole lot about since it was released. Now there is a movie the beast which brings into doubt Jesus even existed

I know there are alot of folks who believe differntly than i do even some christians will disagree.But since were talking to the great minds out here I throw out a question DID CEASAR REALLY CONQUER GAUL i want real evidence i dont want pictures of ruins, roman forts walls and towns.No doubt the romans did conquer but the real question is did ceaser do it.

There is only one written record of it from the same time by ceasar himself so how do we really know he did. It could be a conspiracy to set up worship of future roman emporers and bring about the end of the roman republic.

As stupid as this theroy is ,there is a lot more evidence that a historic Jesus existed than there is of Julius Ceasar conqust of gual and britain.

Like i said before what ever your religon or lack of it is ,whats with the attacks on one hand ,and if anyone brings into doubt what you believe why your just a intolrant boob.

I think the whole problem is that christians will not accept based on what we believe any immoral lifestyle.I do not hate anyone but I will not tell someone who is knowingly living in that manner what ever it is.That it is acceptable in the eyes of my god why do you people care any way were just intollerant racist boobs or are we?

I dont remember those movies about disproving wiccans,pagans,and islam, furthermore you lump us all together with all christians from the past. I think thats why we had that little thing called the reformation i think it was started by a guy called Martin Luther.If i remember correctly it was to correct the corrupt ways of the church at that time

So to all the bible is wrong crowd show me the proof, it is an accepted part of history i want the proof. I have four gospals further writtings from the apostals and the OT. Show me further proof of ceasars great conquest i mean since he was the only one to write about it at the time

Nygdan

posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 03:50 PM

link

Originally posted by spearchucker
DID CEASAR REALLY CONQUER GAUL i want real evidence i dont want pictures of ruins, roman forts walls and towns.

This is absurd, you are rejecting solid physical evidence?

No doubt the romans did conquer but the real question is did ceaser do it.

Ah, well, that makes a little more sense.

There is only one written record of it from the same time by ceasar himself

No, there are mutliple records from mutliple people. There are no written records from the first century AD and there are no gospels that are definitly written by any of the apostles.

I have four gospals further writtings from the apostals

You have nothing. The gospels are not unattesably written by the apostles. There are not historical materials noting that the apostles wrote the gospels. There are that for Caesars Commentaries and The Gallic War. And, also, there is the supporting evidence that the romans did invade and conquer gaul. There isn't any archaeological evidence for the events in the jesus passion.

spearchucker

posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 04:51 PM

link

I beg to differ my friend there is only one record that survives today maybe youve heard of it THE GALLIC WARS! Guess who wrote it Julius CEASER! All other records historys are from a latter period.

And yes by plunder it is stupid, and yes your right the gospels are from a latter period my point being made.

This new movie THE BEAST is equally dumb! the whole premise of this post was to point out if some great minds can blunder ideas around.

Make false claims it is equally plausable to assume such ideas about some accepted parts of history.

If you could in all sencerity point out some contemperary historians who wrote first hand acconts of the gallic wars i would be very interested.

Because and the reason i posted on the subject, my recent reading of ceasar man tyrant soldier by JF Fuller points out there are no other points of veiw on the subject of the gallic wars but ceaser himself.

And it amounts to a big pat on the back for himself hard to believe he did it all him self when he had to keep running between gaul and Rome to keep in touch with the politics.

The point being made thank you

spearchucker

posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 05:06 PM

link

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 know you will have plenty of time to goggle it but you know and so do i you my be a religous expert but give us all a break. an anceint historian too! wow by the way what were the roman cavalry called.And im not talking about the auxillerys

I accept you may have alot of knowledge know alot a stuff but people who go around pretending to know everything is just crazy.

I do not post alot but when i do i get another great mind cyber space is full of them. Kind of reminds me of my father in law if he dont know it by granny hes gonna lie.

Not only am i crazy for believe in Jesus but the military history books i read are wrong too.its a conspiracy i tell ya

SomewhereinBetween

posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 05:12 PM

link

No one claimed Jules to be a God requiring reverence to get into heaven, so who cares if he did or did not drive his chariot over Le Champ D'Elysee?

He has much more on his side than Jesus...He is written about as having lived, by people we know did live.

There is that little book attributed to his own hand, that is far more than we can say for Jesus.

We have have depictions of what he looked like. Can't say the same for Jesus.

And then again there was that intriguing story posted just a couple of weeks ago linking the start of the Jesus church to Ole Jules himself. Now that was fascinating and far more plausible than anything found in the book after Malachi.

[edit on 3/10/05 by SomewhereinBetween]

Iasion

posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 06:30 PM

link

Ceasar?
Ceaser?

Why do so many people fail to even spell his name right?

It doesn't look like you have researched ANYTHING about Julius Gaius Caesar, spearchucker.

Caesar described the battle of Alesia in detail - archeology confirmed some of the details.

Iasion

Nygdan

posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 09:51 PM

link

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
Drop
the
attitude
dork

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 interested.

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 certainty.
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.

Iason
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]

ADVISOR

posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 10:08 PM

link

In fact the Gauls SACKED ROME, in 400 (390 to be more exacting) BCE! That is what sparked off the wars, that happened to last nearly 800 years. Rome only did good in that entire history for what, eight years a decade maybe. Of course he wrote about it, if he had not, no one would know Rome was king of the hill, for a spell, while barbarians flooded into the lands raiding and sacking like they always have.

It was a moment in history, for Julius and Rome, but their fifteen minutes of fame was just that. Of course Julius wasn't the only Kayzar, Caligula and Claudius got some too. My ancestors are Celtic, as are many peoples, but my family history is intertwined, apart of North Western Europe, I'm expected to know these things. The history that is, it's a hobby also.

[edit on 10-3-2005 by ADVISOR]

Nygdan

posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 11:03 PM

link

Originally posted by ADVISOR
In fact the Gauls SACKED ROME, in 400 (390 to be more exacting) BCE!

Indeed, fear of a repeat, along with some manipulation on Caesar's part, helped make the wars popular.

Rome only did good in that entire history for what, eight years a decade maybe.

How do you figure? Outside of the Bacaudae, they only had to really worry about germans invading. Not gallic and celtic armies. Tho, I suppose, the Saturninus affair might be classed as a domestic problem.

It was a moment in history, for Julius and Rome, but their fifteen minutes of fame was just that. Of course Julius wasn't the only Kayzar, Caligula and Claudius got some too.

My ancestors are Celtic

Bah. Damned uppity provincals, addicted to superior italian wine.

I'd have to say that rome well won in gaul. I don't understand how you figure taht they didn't? The romans were even able to regulate the setting aside of acreage in gaul for vine, and the gauls wer postively addicted to this foreign wine thing, so they must've had good control. NOt to mention they collected taxes and built cities, and that when the outsiders like the germans and central asian peoples came in, it was roman armies that protected the cities.

ADVISOR

posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 11:09 PM

link

You forgot the most famous of all, the prunes.

Many a chieftain of Gaul were assassinated, with poisoned prunes. A favorite of the Romans...assassination almost high lights the history of Rome.

Nygdan

posted on Mar, 11 2005 @ 10:58 AM

link

And orgies. Don't forget the orgies.

toolmaker

posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 03:59 PM

link

the man did something right, they named a salad after him.