Marcus Caelius

How many other nations have a Society of the Cincinnatus in their past? From where did the Founding Fathers draw their ideas of government? Perhaps you should broaden your definition of "memory of Roman rule."

I've had my eye on the Barrington atlas, but the price tag gives pause.

The purported fact of Jesus' existence and the existence of certain ideas are two separate things. The attribution of those ideas to Jesus is a third. Certainly, the ideas, as well as other ideas, existed; the other ideas were why the Romans needed troops in the area. The Romans acquiesced in Jesus' execution because those other ideas had also been attributed to him. If one set of ideas can be wrongly attributed to someone, why not another? "Jesus" could have been a single personification for two philosophies. Personally, I think Jesus may well have been nothing more than an itinerant rabbi who kept himself fed by repairing furniture, or such. A sort of religious Traveller. What he did to get an anti-Roman message attributed to him is anyone's guess. Maybe he really was an anti-Roman rabble-rouser with two separate messages. Thing is, because the Council of Nicaea cherry-picked what went into the Bible (ie, the Church sat down and got its story straightened out, intentionally discarding everything that didn't fit the picture it wanted to present), it's difficult for the average person to find out what else was attributed to Jesus. BTW, in a modern court, the actions of the Council of Nicaea would be seen as illegal, and would probably earn the council members a prison term.

There are all kinds of possibilities; the idea is to rank them into probabilities and to throw out those that have absolutely no evidentiary corroboration. As to the need to do so, I'm no "Soldier of Truth." At the same time, I'm not ignorant of the dangers of unchecked pseudo-history/medicine/news/whatever.

I'm an immigration officer. Trust me (I'm from the Government), there's no such thing as a "mere" immigrant.

Not destroyed, but certainly undermined and perverted. Pseudo-anything is dangerous because it can, and demonstrably does, distract attention, resources and effort from reality and, in extreme cases, can be used to rationalize, justify and inspire virtually any action. Since this is a forum for historical discussion I'll leave aside other disciplines and just mention the state-sponsored pseudohistory of the Third Reich as the most outstanding example. Although an extreme example, it actually did happen, it is still a living memory, and it is completely possible that it could happen again. Should historians ignore the pseudohistorians? Humans are gullible and the tendency is to believe what they are told. If they're only told one thing, that's what they're going to believe.

I would agree. I think it safe to begin by placing the primary initial responsibility on Saul/Paul of Tarsus. As to how he managed to elevate a small Jewish sect into an internationally dominant religion, I'll leave the historical explanation to those more knowledgeable. I, personally, am much more comfortable in using modern examples to show that and how such a thing can be done. For this post, I'll just mention that it can be surprisingly, indeed appallingly, easy to convince modern, college-educated people to enthusiastically accept new religions based on the most fantastic and/or obscure claims, ideas and philosophies. And the Mormons believe Jesus came to North America to preach to the Indians, who are in reality the 10 Lost Tribes of Israel. Sounds far-fetched, but who knows? Thor Heyerdahl has proved the possibility of crossing the Atlantic in those days. (Note to self: Remove tongue from cheek.)

What Jews and/or Romans wrote about Jesus? BTW, it means absolutely nothing that someone "wrote about Jesus." If that is the extent of your evidence and reasoning, then by that same criteria we have also just established the historical existence of Alfred Bulltop Stormalong, Paul Bunyan and Pecos Bill. It is possible to see "Jesus" as nothing more than a personification of collected folklore that gained an international audience.

That is your understanding and belief, but are they based up by any evidence, whatsoever?

And don't forget that the Judeans had been developing the concept of their Messiah/Christ for several centuries. It doesn't seem that large a step from "He is coming" to "He is here!" especially in a world where comparatively no one will be an eyewitness and news is almost exclusively word-of-mouth (remember, the group of "eyewitnesses" was limited to a dozen or fewer individuals). Besides, developing an entire religion from scratch isn't all that difficult; L. Ron Hubbard came up with Scientology almost overnight, supposedly on a bet. Then, there's Mohammed, Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, Anton Levay, Ayn Rand... That's just off the top of my head; give me some time and I'm sure I can come up with a much larger list.

I would just like to ask where in history does it say that Jesus is a myth, and did the Jews not mention him in written archeological evidence? You're probably talking about the writings of Josephus, ~90 AD, and the authenticity of his passage(s) about Jesus have been called into question. Josephus therefore constitutes undependable heresay evidence.

No, I was quibbling with you, I wasn't saying that you were doing the quibbling. We agree on the essentials, but you seem to feel Christianity lost its innocence, while I feel it never had any innocence to lose. Even from the beginning Christianity, relied on sideshow trickery; after Constantine, "the Church" retained the sideshow and added brute force, becoming indistinguishable from what it was supplanting. Jesus' name wasn't added to any of these activities, it was all supposedly done in his name from the very beginning, and the Church is/was not "in effect" misleading people about the facts, it is/was attempting to make it impossible to register any kind of dissent. And what is "pure Christianity," anyway? All of the four Gospels were written after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Jesus supposedly was crucified ~33 AD. Did anybody who actually heard the words of this carpenter-turned-rabbi know how to write? Paul of Tarsus, who never knew Jesus, injected his own personal quirks into the mix, and it was only after he wrote his epistles, thus providing a filter for any oral tradition of the words of Jesus, that Christian history began to be recorded. "Pure Christianity" has never been practiced by any organized body, simply because no one knows what Jesus actually said. Assuming he existed at all.

Quibble. The Church was not trying to appeal to pagans, it was actively working to supplant, replace and bury paganism for all time. Holidays were co-opted, gods were replaced by saints, and religious sites were "paved over" and literally buried by churches and cathedrals. It was a coherent plan promulgated via edict of Pope Gregory I. As to whether this constitutes "paganising Christianity," what's your point? The Church has never been a stranger to deceit, propaganda, and misinformation, witness the Shroud of Turin, various weeping statues and bleeding mummified hearts, claimed miracles, the Inheritence of Constantine, etc. It's even possible to convincingly argue with the very existence of Jesus of Nazareth (personally, I don't see any need to go that far, so long as you bear in mind the description of Mithras, above - thanks to whomever wrote it).

Probably Davis' Falco, because she features one particular aspect of the "nuts and bolts" of Rome in each novel. In one, the story centered on the structure of the Vigiles/Praetorians; in "Silver Pigs" you learned about tin mines; in another, Spain and the uses of and trade in olive oil; and so on.

I'm not Phil, but I would recommend them. I just finished #9 (The Princess and the Pirates) which, so far, is the weakest of the series and takes place sometime after Pompey defeated the pirates, and sometime before the Rubicon. The series is lighter in tone than Saylor's but slightly more serious than Davis'. Also, the protagonist is the eldest son of a senatorial-rank family attempting to maintain its position, so the perspective is somewhat different from the other series (in fact, he marries a fictional niece of Caesar, whom he can't stand).

Political science is less technical and complicated than computer science, and "extremely dull students" are only one part of the bell curve. Anyway, we're not even talking political science, we're talking 10-minute videos entitled "Johnny Meets His Senator" in the classroom, once a week. And antipathy and dullness are not inherently connected. (10 minutes later: Here is a not-unrelated item.)

I'm saying that Americans have not evolved much since then.

So, you think the whole concept of brainwashing is invalid?

Different kind of god. Seriously. The Founding Fathers were largely deists, not theists; that is, the god they believed in was the Creator, but that was the end of its involvement in earthly affairs. Read de Toquevill'es Democracy in America and get back to me with that thought.

To whom are you directing your response? Assuming this is directed at me (the post immediately before yours), please quote the passage to which you refer. If this isn't in reply to my post, please never mind.

What does "accepting God" or mouthing some words under compulsion have to do with American citizenship? I'm a veteran, my two sons are veterans (one of them served two tours in Iraq), and I'm currently a federal officer. I've had two US flags flying from my porch every day since 9/11, I've affirmed to protect the Constitution as both a serviceman and as a civilian, and I vote in every election. I never liked the Pledge and I refuse to say it, with or without the "under God." The "under God" is a later graft onto the original, not unlike the passage in Josephus supposedly confirming the existence of Jesus, while the whole is an extra-legal propaganda piece intended to indoctrinate children into an unthinking loyalty. And maybe you'd better look up what the likes of Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and James Madison had to say about God and religion. The greatest danger this nation faces is the well-intentioned citizen who insists on adherence to the principles of the Founding Fathers without knowing what those principles are. One more thought: Those oaths that are actually required by Federal law say nothing about loyalty to either the flag of the United States or to the United States, itself. The person taking the oath pledges to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, not the nation nor the flag. The Constitution and its principles are more important than real estate or symbols, and that is what I have pledged myself to protect.

For the simple reason that Empire sucked. And I've got better reason than most here to complain, since I seem to be the only one who spent money on the DVD. We'd never heard of the sereies, and thought it might be a European show that just hadn't made it to the US market. We're well-known at our local FYE, so were able to trade it in on a used Looney Toons boxed set.

Mine is taken from the only known Roman tombstone from the Teutoberger Wald, erected to the memory of a centurion in the 18th Legion.

Call your nearest school supply outlet or college bookstore. Much as I hate to recommend it, there would also probably be a market through various religious outlets. You might also call the map publishers directly. Talk to the folks at Buns and Nobble, Amazon, etc. Err, you've already got a copyright, don't you?