What is the most powerful empire ever to grace us?
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: General History
Forum Name: General World History
Forum Discription: All aspects of world history, especially topics that span across many regions or periods
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=25651
Printed Date: 13-May-2024 at 19:34
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: What is the most powerful empire ever to grace us?
Posted By: Goblin Monkey
Subject: What is the most powerful empire ever to grace us?
Date Posted: 11-Oct-2008 at 13:57
|
What was the most powerful ever to be created?What empire could conquer all the rest.Who had the best army, navy etc. ------------- Is it just me or did your mom just wink at me? |
Replies:
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 11-Oct-2008 at 14:59
|
Any empire with nuclear weapons beats any empire without them. ------------- |
Posted By: Count Belisarius
Date Posted: 11-Oct-2008 at 16:42
|
Very true
I personnaly think the best empire (pre nucs) was the romans since they lasted a thousand years you have to be doing something right to last that long, and they were very advanced for their time, and they wern't to proud to employ an enemy weapon that was better than their own. All the other bigger empires like Genghis Khan's or Alexander's fragmented into smaller states a few years after they're making ------------- 
Defenders of Ulthuan, Cult of Asuryan (57 Kills and counting) 
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 11-Oct-2008 at 20:52
 The wisdom of Graham.  .------------- |
Posted By: Panther
Date Posted: 12-Oct-2008 at 00:27
|
Maybe the question should have been defined a little more clearly?
In the pre-nuclear era, no one, but countries still tried anyways. There are atleast a dozen notable contenders. As far as too whom they are, this forum is littered with the remains of threads with discussions setup like this, which had lead me to my conclusion in the beginning of this post and my vote for "other". I believe this forum has a search engine, if you wish to look around a little more?
Post nuclear, i think Graham summed it up rather nicely. ------------- |
Posted By: Voskhod
Date Posted: 12-Oct-2008 at 02:50
| At its height, for that brief period in history between the defeat of the Khwarizm Shah and the defeat of the Southern Song, the Mongol Empire is easily the most powerful empire existing then and could potentially defeats almost anyone in the world who are not entrenched in tropical jungles. |
Posted By: Count Belisarius
Date Posted: 12-Oct-2008 at 03:04
|
By that do you mean the empire of G.K? -------------
Defenders of Ulthuan, Cult of Asuryan (57 Kills and counting)
|
Posted By: Voskhod
Date Posted: 12-Oct-2008 at 03:54
| The Empire of Genghis Khan up until the beginning of the reign of Kublai Khan, after which the Empire began to break up (the Ilkhanate and the Golden Horde were warring by the 1280s.) |
Posted By: Count Belisarius
Date Posted: 12-Oct-2008 at 04:27
|
So by the time of his grandson the empire had fragmented? not much of an empire in my opinon. Whereas the romans lasted a thousand years -------------
Defenders of Ulthuan, Cult of Asuryan (57 Kills and counting)
|
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 12-Oct-2008 at 05:13
|
I don't know how you are counting a thousand years. At the extreme end, say, first punic war to fall of Constantinople, you'd count 1453+241 = 1694 years. (Although I don't think that's a fair count) Clean it up a little and say from Augustus to the 4th Crusade and you have 1204+27=1231 years (but I think the Roman Empire really should be subdivided) So if we say the western empire from Augustus to the fall of Rome that would be 410+27 = 437 years. (Which I think is an accurate and fair reflection) Then the eastern from Constantine to the Arab conquests: 634-325=309 years (which again I think is fair) Whether after the Arab conquests you can still consider the Romans to be a major world empire I am quite dubious about, but certainly that period ended with the 4th crusade. So another 1204-634 = 570 years could possibly be added to the 309 years. But I think should be treated separately. If you ignore the existence of Europe and go from Caesar to the Arabs there is 634+27 = 661 years. Or from the 1st punic war to the Arabs is 875 years. I'd accept 437, 309, or 661 years ideally. But which ever way you look at it its still a long lived empire! Either way, 1000 years isn't valid.
But the affect of those conquests was enormous, and far outweighs other longer lived empires ------------- |
Posted By: Count Belisarius
Date Posted: 12-Oct-2008 at 06:40
|
bzantium lasted a thousand years and I'm thinking the romans pre- Julius so technically the romans lasted two thousand plus years I thought after kublai died the khanates distenigrated into intenral squabbling and turmoil and fell and or fractured in matter of years not to great in my opinion
-------------
Defenders of Ulthuan, Cult of Asuryan (57 Kills and counting)
|
Posted By: Voskhod
Date Posted: 12-Oct-2008 at 13:01
|
The "Roman Empire" before the First Punic War is basically a collection is loosely allied states. Also, most historians consider the Byzantines separate from Rome, although I tend to disagree. Yes, after Kublai died all hell broke loose and the Mongol khanates began fighting each other (even when he was alive he couldn't stop the Golden Horde and the Ilkhanate trying to destroy each other, and Central Asia was pretty much autonomous of Khanbaliq). Still, the Mongols' impact on history were enormous, and while their Empire lasted they were pretty much the most powerful people on earth. It's worth noting that each of the "fragments" of the Mongol Empire after the death of Kublai were still pretty powerful. The Yuan Dynasty lasted well into the 14th century, until the Black Death and the Red Turban finished it off, and after that the Mongols continue to be a major presence in Central Asia until the 1700s. Chagatai survived until the 1680s. The Golden Horde lasted until the end of the 15th century. One of the fragments eventually became the Mughal Empire. |
Posted By: Count Belisarius
Date Posted: 12-Oct-2008 at 15:42
|
Well they were powerful no denying that, but what was their cultural and historical impact? -------------
Defenders of Ulthuan, Cult of Asuryan (57 Kills and counting)
|
Posted By: Goblin Monkey
Date Posted: 12-Oct-2008 at 20:17
|
It seams a better explanation of the question is needed.What Empire at their time was the most dominint compared to any other empires dominince during their time?My empire for instence could topple any other nation in the world if I wanted to but I pity you humans and spare your lives. ------------- Is it just me or did your mom just wink at me? |
Posted By: IamJoseph
Date Posted: 13-Oct-2008 at 05:24
|
Any nation which prevailed the longest, against the greatest adversities, is the most powerful.
Tomorrow, some 14 year old nerd may come up with a nullifying response to Nukes. All roads did not lead to Mighty Rome.
Q: Can anyone explain what is 'ALTERNATIVE FORUM'; no such thing in any Dictionary. ------------- Moses - the First Zionist. |
Posted By: IamJoseph
Date Posted: 13-Oct-2008 at 05:28
Its the same people, in the same space-time, using the same divine man doctrine, and it continued the same decree of heresy. Then it crowned itself with the prefix of 'ROMAN' Catholicism. If there are differences, these would be very subtle and subjective. ------------- Moses - the First Zionist. |
Posted By: Voskhod
Date Posted: 13-Oct-2008 at 09:45
There's significant regional impacts, eg in China (reunified, sea-borne imperialism, placed under foreign regime for the first time, paper money first used widely), Russia (large Muslim population, Buddhist republic on the Caspian Sea, rise of Muscovy), Middle East (depopulated, centre of power shifted away from Baghdad and Mesopotamia, etc) and of course Mongolia itself. The most significant impact was however the reopening of the Silk Road and the restart of trade and contact between East and West via Central Asia, and the transfer of people, ideas and technologies (and plague. The Black Death spread from China to Europe via the Silk Road). |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 13-Oct-2008 at 11:50
Byzantines were ROMAN Catholics?  You never cease to amaze.------------- |
Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 13-Oct-2008 at 12:15
|
I wasn't aware we've had 11 world wars. Anyway isn't this historical amusement? It's pretty obvious it's not meant to be serious.
------------- |
Posted By: Count Belisarius
Date Posted: 13-Oct-2008 at 17:56
I think the romans made a greater impact -------------
Defenders of Ulthuan, Cult of Asuryan (57 Kills and counting)
|
Posted By: Goblin Monkey
Date Posted: 13-Oct-2008 at 23:59
|
The romans revoulutionised meaning of empire.Most empires had been for land and money.Rome invented great things.They used new profound battle tactics.They are the building blocks of empire today. ------------- Is it just me or did your mom just wink at me? |
Posted By: Count Belisarius
Date Posted: 14-Oct-2008 at 00:32
 Uh, the byzantines were eastern orthrodox -------------
Defenders of Ulthuan, Cult of Asuryan (57 Kills and counting)
|
Posted By: Husaria
Date Posted: 14-Oct-2008 at 00:41
|
You can't compare i am pretty sure German empire Hitler time period could wreck all the other ones because of simple things like automatic weapons and tanks ect.
------------- "The best tank terrain is that without anti-tank weapons." -Russian military doctrine. |
Posted By: Goblin Monkey
Date Posted: 14-Oct-2008 at 00:44
|
Im pretty sure my empire is most dominent.When I conqured the ant colony in my back yard I sent a message to the rest of the world.Like "dont mess with me!", or"potatoes!" ------------- Is it just me or did your mom just wink at me? |
Posted By: Byzantine Emperor
Date Posted: 14-Oct-2008 at 03:08
I have already explained this to you once. It is a subforum here at All Empires:
http://allempires.net/forum_topics.asp?FID=76 - http://allempires.net/forum_topics.asp?FID=76
According to your position, who determines what is heresy and what is orthodoxy? Definitionally, what is heresy and orthodoxy according to your position? Although one might say God determines this in Judaism and Christianity, citing God or saying "because God said so" is a circular form of begging the question. Your reasoning is already suspect because of your statement that confuses the ecclesiology and historical theology of medieval Western Europe with the Byzantine Empire.
Also, my challenge for you to examine and explain the passages of Scripture which I have provided in the "creatonism or evolution" thread still remains unanswered. Despite the thread's recent moving, I do not think my argument or question is in the realm of alternative history and does still require an answer from you.
Here is the direct link once again for your ease of access:
http://allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=22759&PID=483319#483319 - http://allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=22759&PID=483319#483319
------------- http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=12713 - Late Byzantine Military http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=17337 - Ottoman perceptions of the Americas |
Posted By: IamJoseph
Date Posted: 14-Oct-2008 at 04:28
The issue is ultimately about the right to freedom of belief, and this is the failure of christianity [better, the European Church] in following Rome's ways. Judaism differs from christianity and the NT in that its laws mandate equal rights to the stranger as the native inhabitant, irrespective of one's status, king or commoner. This situation changed when America, founded as a christian nation, established its Consitution on the OT laws, and thereby is a true savier of chrstianity - saving it from medevial Europe.
I answered all questions addressed to me. The thread was siezed without notice or warning, with the Mod positing a pov w/o giving anyone an op to respond. ------------- Moses - the First Zionist. |
Posted By: IamJoseph
Date Posted: 14-Oct-2008 at 04:31
|
Governments DON'T work when its peoples fear death. This is what caused Rome's fall. ------------- Moses - the First Zionist. |
Posted By: IamJoseph
Date Posted: 14-Oct-2008 at 04:45
Rome did NOT invent great things, and the few it did [4], were for reasons of continueing its brutal, self-serving rule:
Tarred roads to more speedilly conquer and control [as opposed giving its citizens better thoroughfare], inter-marraige [because its conquered nations' women would be deemed in violation for refusuing marraige to a Roman], the right to appeal [hardly of merit with a one party rule by decrees], can't remember the last one.
Rome ruled only by might, and it is a regret it never used its mind to allign with what was a great power; the same occured with Nazi Germany - it used its otherwise great powers wrongly. These are hostorical syndromes which pointed humanity in the wrong path, consituting mass murders in the billions.
Most Roman rulers were grotesquely depraved - introducing crucifixion, where upto 800 were strung on crosses in town squares - as an example. Its Emperors and war Generals laughing in carraiges and performing sex with concubine women, and ordering the victim's families to be beheaded before them as they hung in crosses. This was not a great empire, and has no good lessons for humanity. ------------- Moses - the First Zionist. |
Posted By: Byzantine Emperor
Date Posted: 14-Oct-2008 at 04:55
Again, by changing the subject, you did not answer my questions from the previous post. Let me repeat my questions:
We need to know the foundation or epistemological basis from which you are arguing. Please be specific (not cryptic) so we understand where you are coming from.
------------- http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=12713 - Late Byzantine Military http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=17337 - Ottoman perceptions of the Americas |
Posted By: Count Belisarius
Date Posted: 14-Oct-2008 at 05:41
They had to be doing somehting right since they lasted a thousand years and the byzantines lasted another thousand years not to mention the fact that in the early htird century the romans were christian and only a few officers and rulers were that depraved and you're forgetting that everyone is different and unique -------------
Defenders of Ulthuan, Cult of Asuryan (57 Kills and counting)
|
Posted By: Byzantine Emperor
Date Posted: 14-Oct-2008 at 06:26
You are making a value judgment that is absolutely outside the context of ancient Greco-Roman concepts of authority and legitimacy. Therefore it is anachronistic and constitutes nothing more than an opinion.
In the Roman Republic and the Empire, what authority decided who was permitted to have access to the imperial post? From where was this authority derived and how was it enforced?
Here, once again, you are making an anachronistic value judgment, although now it consitutes a fallacy of guilt by association, and a dubious one at that.
Do you have any concept of how the Romans built their "Empire?" Please don't just say by killing tons of people. How did Roman law, which both enemies and allies respected for the most part, guide how they treated the conquered? How did the Romans interact with their allies? Also, would the "hapless victims" of the Roman war machine have treated the Romans any differently if they had defeated them, according to common practice in the ancient Mediterranean (not the rules of 20th-21st century Geneva Convention or UN Security Council)?
Here you are using invalid logic by projecting a generalization of the particulars or exceptions to the rule onto the "most Roman rulers." How do you account for the good rules (by Roman standards) of Augustus, the Antonine emperors, Diocletian, or even as far up as the Macedonian dynasty and the Laskarids? You cannot project the "immorality" or "insanity" of Nero, Caligula, and Elagabalus onto "most Roman emperors."
Speaking of crucifixion, for whom was this punishment prescribed according to Roman law and general practice? What was the result of such a brutal punishment for those observing and for those who had the authority to inflict it?
------------- http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=12713 - Late Byzantine Military http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=17337 - Ottoman perceptions of the Americas |
Posted By: IamJoseph
Date Posted: 14-Oct-2008 at 07:26
It became so - which is not amazing considering it was an enforced religion. ------------- Moses - the First Zionist. |
Posted By: IamJoseph
Date Posted: 14-Oct-2008 at 07:35
I listed relevent factors which cannot be divorced from any depictions of Rome. The reasons you site as Rome being tolerent is a hoax: despite paying all taxes and adhering to all its demands, Vespasian invoked the 40 BCE Caligula decree of heresy, because he wanted a 'win' to enabe him to be appointed Emperor, and he picked on a small nation all previous Roman Emperors knew such a decree would never be accepted. It was not.
You have agrandised Rome's powers, while you neglected totally its total human rights abuses. A mighty power should have been at the forefront of elevating humanity, not emulating the Pharoahs. The war between Rome and Judea is perhaps the most significant event in history: the right to freedom of belief began here. It is hardly a dismissive or reducable factor, as we see it unpardonably omitted in the NT.
------------- Moses - the First Zionist. |
Posted By: IamJoseph
Date Posted: 14-Oct-2008 at 07:49
Here, the relatively good emperors expose who was bad only. There is no invalid logic, only a runaway from better logic: the Romans laughed at the OT laws against killing off a baby deemed not pretty. This empire fell because of its base treatment of humanity - and the good you cling to were only vested in its own self. Humanity must be thankful such an empire has vanished, and those who followed it also harken to Rome's errors and not emulate them. What continued in Europe, and what Islam did in Asia, is a telling lesson how humanity went wrong. ------------- Moses - the First Zionist. |
Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 14-Oct-2008 at 08:57
Christianity was only halfway forced on the Roman empire. By the time it was decreed as the official religion of the state many if not the majority of the Roman elite were already Christian. Being a pagan in the 4th century was decidedly unfashionable, and Constantine's sons did introduce the death penalty for those who did not cease to worship in the old way, but even in medieval times you could find "pagan" enclaves in remote regions in Italy.
The Romans could not further human rights when no such concept existed at the time. You might as well ask why the crusaders didn't fight in the name of scientology. The Judean war happened because the Jews' strict monotheism prevented them from performing rites in the name of the emperor. Partition in the imperial cult was how the empire's subjects acknowledged the legitimacy of its rule, refusing to do so undermined the foundation of the empire and was considered an act of open rebellion, much like a vassal refusing to pay homage to his lord. In other words this was not so much about religion as the legitimacy of the state, and a state whose citizens do not recognize its legitimacy will simply disintegrate.
The Jews too conquered and forced their beliefs on others, which was how the Jewish states on the Levant were created in the first place, according to the OT. This type of behavior is natural for all human societies, the only reason they didn't do it to the same extent as Rome was because they couldn't. ------------- |
Posted By: IamJoseph
Date Posted: 14-Oct-2008 at 10:52
There is a mix of yes and no there. While paganism was to cease, Christianity also cast all its venom on the jews, introducing what became global antisemitism, and exploiting the Hebrew bible as its own, which its adherents [Europeans] never followed or understood. It was evident the NT could not impress without the Hebrew bible as its foundation. At this point, Jesus was 'voted' as a diety, and all who rejected this were persecuted, the decree of heresy was utilised far more than did Rome, and millions were murdered and turned to thrid class humans. How Jews survived the church is a miracle.
This was in absolute contradiction of its doctrine of love and Godliness: it is tested only how it acted with the Jews, and cannot warrant any merit from any other avenue. The cross was a pre-christian jewish symbol, used as a warning against Roman crucifixion, and the Messiah [Christos] was never a European doctrine. Basically, christianity Romanised the Hebrew bible, embellishing it with false stories of a Roman trial and the release of Barabus - nothing of the sort occured. Today's believing christians are the hapless victims of these falsehoods.
Not true. The Hebrew bible, with its laws, had already been translated in 300 BCE, and there was an active aspiration by the greeks to unionize their beliefs according to the OT: they saught to make Moses a universal figure. This great proposal fell when the Greeks also insisted that images of Zeus and the God of Israel be melted and made into one. The Greeks never forgave the jews for rejecting this proposal, and a great war, followed by continueing animosity, resulted - all prior to the Roman Empire's invasion in this region.
The Greeks got their revenge via the Gospels, a Greek document, rather than the false premise it was written by Jews. Basically, it is incorrect to say there were no good laws - the OT laws were considered the most superior treatise of all nation's laws, and began to spread throughout the middle-east, eventually emerging via islam. The church's delete and retain only those OT laws which could allign with the Gospels is a great tragedy, but a battle which christianity lost: all these laws are active today in the world's judiciary institutions - not a single NT law was accepted. It just happens a series of false stories were spread, because Israel was deemed destroyed, and today there is a worldly non-acceptance or formidable bewilderment of real history.
This is also not correct. The Romans never insisted on the jews abandoning their Monotheist beliefs, even after Caligula, agreeing with their own conclusion it predated Rome and thus not directed against the Empire. The situation changed because of Hellenist Greeks instigating the Romans against the jews, which began in an event in Ceasara in 66 CE, namely they started sacrificing pigs outside the Synagogues as a provocation. They then went to Nero and said the jews stopped them from sacrificing unto Nero, and obtained a decree in favour of them. Here, 50,000 jews were massacred by Vespasian on Nero's orders.
Upto this time, the Jews honored Rome by sacrificing outside the Temple, but now this was ceased [rebelion], following the Cesaera massacre, an event which began the war which culminated in 70 CE. All of the villifications and antisemitism in the Gospels is the Greek input, and nothing therein is based on factual history. Its not true that the jews rebelled for no reason than Monotheism - this was not the case for a 100 years under Rome before this time.
If one examines history even further back, one will see that this was the same which occured in ancient Egypt and babylon: the priests of those nations becamse diminished by the OT and a great animosity resulted. The Greek hellenist priests were also affronted by Alexander's decision to esteem the OT and have it translated: this made the intelligent greeks prefer the OT to their own beliefs, but the priests changed the course by manufactring formidable stories. The drowing of first born Hebrew males by the Egyptian preists, the Babylonian Arab Haman who told the Persian King Darius the jews insulted the king by not worshipping him, are the kind of reports which resulted in the previous history and that of the Gospels.
Again, not true. The only incidence of a war concerned Canaan, and this was not due to any conversion goal. The Hebrews were 100% Canaanites themselves, the belief and nation of Israel being incepted in Canaan, and living side by side with different Canaanite belief systems. The Canaanites refused entry to the Hebrew Canaanites when they returned to their land. This was a legitimate war, where two of the 8 Canaanite kingdoms sided with the Hebrews, and lived there for many centuries. The Jews have never stolen anyone's lands in all their 4000 year history, nor did they enforce their religion on others, despite being a most dispersed peoples throughout the world's nations. There appears no reason for the christian and islamic antisemitism, other than those religions feel affronted that Israel exists, and this is a suspicious syndrome.
------------- Moses - the First Zionist. |
Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 14-Oct-2008 at 11:20
|
Folks, the topic here is the greatest empire. Lets get back on topic shall we. IAJoseph, I will not allow this thread to be hijacked. Start another thread. BTW- I did not "seize" the other thread. I merely moved it from one forum to another in order to keep order, something we can do without warning anyone.
 And no, you did'nt answer BE's questions. In fact you slickly avoided them for over a page of posts.------------- "Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces". Unknown. |
Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 14-Oct-2008 at 13:19
Surely this is against the forum codes, good sir.
You consider the OT to be a human rights document!?  It is the story of a capricious and jealous God who both perpetrates and condones one atrocity (in light of modern human rights) after the other. When the Jews misbehave, God massacres them, when infidels threaten the Jews, God massacres them, when the Jews massacre infidels, God condones it. "Thou shalt not kill" ends up sounding somewhat hypocritical coming from this God, or coming from Moses, who surely brought up a hammer and chisel up Mt. Sinai.
This is just going one step back on the chain of events though. The massacre triggered a Jewish counterreaction which caused them to become more conservative in their beliefs, even fanatic (zealots), and refuse the imperial cult. Of course partition in the imperial cult can't have been considered as proper behavior for an orthodox Jew at any point.
I'm not saying Israel shouldn't exist, even though that's another debate. What can't be denied however is how both modern and ancient Israel have been created with blood.
But why? This thread was just another juvenile wankfest over who would beat up who until IamJoseph posted. Now we have an interesting discussion on the moral legitimacy of the Roman empire, judged by both contemporary and past standards. ------------- |
Posted By: IamJoseph
Date Posted: 14-Oct-2008 at 14:53
All human rights come from the OT - exclusively. Name me another source? All womens rights and animal rights also come from the OT.
Zealous [fastidious; requiring truth] The OT is true to history - ancient times were like that - nations engaged in wars of anihilation, out of a superstitition. The OT's historical stats are factual and vindicated - the NT is not, despite being 2000 years later.
Your assessment is wanting. Jews have subsisted and should be grateful, while 1000s of older and mightier did not. It is not credible that the NT assures automatic salvation for signing on a name, while all laws of truth and justice are flaunted. There can be no credibility of the NT where it flaunts the OT, which it claims to believe in. More innocent humans were killed under the Gospels and in JC's name than any other - so how can you even assess the OT?
Not at all. This was a war to sustain the most vital factor, and it would be a crime not to defend against Rome. The early nazerite christians went that-away. What you call Zealots were majestic people who did not agree with Rome's depraved decrees, and they sacrificed their and their families for it - over a million sacrificed themselves. That this is not mentioned in the Gospels, makes it a lie-by-omission.
Christianity does say that, and act out is deeds covertly today, at the UN:
'WE WILL NEVER SUPPORT THE RETURN OF THE JEWS TO *THEIR HOMELAND* - BECAUSE THEY REJECTED JESUS' - Pope not so Pious.
That is a genocidal doctrine, notwithstnding it also persecuted Jews in Europe. I doubt JC will tap him on the shoulder...he was not a christian u know!
Thou shalt not murder. Yes, it came with majestic laws - not a free bonus for signing a VIP club. This was the first time a sector of humanity was given such controversial, but majestic laws, when the world was quote savage. But comparatively, Christianity massacred a million times more - while chanting love is all u need. Critical mass applies. first assess christianity's record - then the OT God. The Hebrews erred - they witnessed greater proof than anyone else, and were also sorely tested. They eventually passed the tests. Would you have?
There is a false picture painted of Rome, as if she was rght to massacre over 1.5 million people for defending their beliefs, and destroy Jerusalem and a 2000 year archive of history: a largess far greater than what Rome represented. Fortunately, the scrolls were saved from the fire - evidence the Jews respected books more than the booty aspired by Rome. The divine man is BS - no matter who it comes from. This was defended against the Pharoahs and a host of other sharlatans - so there is no credence in either Rome or Roman's catholics' premises. The issue who ultimately rules the universe is humanity's most pivotal one, even for atheists.
Its correct that Rome went down. as did the Pharoahs - all roads did not lead there, and humanity was inclined in a wrong path. You should be hailing, not rediculing Jews for their stand against the world's greatest super-power: there is no greater example in history of the defense against Rome. But you probably been fed the false versions of History the past 2000 years, and now appear shocked some alternative truths are emerging - but how can the NT & Quran both be true against their claims of the OT - they're mutually exclusive, in their beliefs as well their depictions of History, remember? ------------- Moses - the First Zionist. |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 14-Oct-2008 at 15:05
What does 'it' refer to? Who was enforcing what on whom?
The very concept of ROMAN Catholicism doesn't actually emerge till after the fall of the western empire (long after depending on how you see the schism starting). Byzantium never recognised the primacy of the Roman Pope, apart arguably from the short period of the Latin Empire, during which time it wasn't really 'Byzantine'. ------------- |
Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 14-Oct-2008 at 17:59
No doubt the Bible played its part when the first declaration of universal human rights was written, but I would say the rationality of the enlightenment played a far greater role. If the OT was the sole source of human rights then we would still have irrational prohibitions against homosexuality and premarital sex among other things. In any case the NT provides a far better basis; the OT was what medieval kings cited when they needed to justify war, the NT just wasn't useful for that.
Wild exaggeration. Any scholar in the field will tell you that the OT is a difficult source and that it's hard to determine how much we can actually know about the events it describes, and that's not even including the mythological aspects. I recall a friend of mine, an archaeologist, who specialises in this area and who has done much excavation work on the ruins of ancient Israel and Assyria. She maintains that we are dependent on archaeology because the OT is too unreliable. This is of course disputed; there is the school of the minimalist scholars who believe the OT can tell us very little, and there is the school of the conservative biblical scholars who accept the veracity of most OT narratives. Neither school however believes the OT is completely historical, that much is established.
The historicity of the OT if not affected by how many people were killed in the name of NT. Weak deduction.
Isn't it ironic then that modern Israel would be both Arab and Muslim today without intervention by the traditional Christian nations.
Actually there are several who not only made a stand but won.
Absolutely. This is because all three works are part historical, legendary and mythological. ------------- |
Posted By: Goblin Monkey
Date Posted: 16-Oct-2008 at 13:48
|
Poor little Russian empire hasnt got one vote.They where the third largest ever empire. ------------- Is it just me or did your mom just wink at me? |
Posted By: IamJoseph
Date Posted: 16-Oct-2008 at 14:28
|
Russia's water gymnastics at the Beijing Olympics was a difference in kind than degree. There was no equavalence. ------------- Moses - the First Zionist. |
Posted By: IamJoseph
Date Posted: 16-Oct-2008 at 15:05
The enlightenment was a belated allignment of the OT laws, and a rebuff of its flaunting in Europe. Eventually, the OT laws were fully accepted in Europe's Institutions exclusively [accept the ritual laws], but called as COMMON LAW.
It may be confounding to you, but it sure is: name a law accepted by the world's Instituions which is not already contained in the 613 OT laws? None come from the NT or Quran - so don't look there.
The OT is not wrong here. Gay is an existential issue more than a moral or an individual rights issue: if 20% of the world pop became gay, humanity would not survive after a few generations. This makes the gay issue even more precarious than incest; nor would incest be negatable once gay is sanctioned by the judiciary. Gay rights is good; equal gay rights is not good for gays.
This is unquestionably in the OT laws' favour. Even the issue of celibacy is wrong, specially so for one in a position of advocating proper relations - without first hand evidential example. The OT says: IT IS NOT GOOD FOR MAN TO BE ALONE. This premise is vindicated best in the church's failings.
Exactly the reverse applies. There is simply no basis for this, and no laws assuming this in the NT. Even the touted premise of love, presented generically and abstractly as a new [?] answer to all and everything, is not illustrated or defined. In contrast, the OT gives the inherent mechanics of love:
The first moral/ethical law is HONESTY [3rd C]; followed by RESPECT/HONOR [5th C]. This is of course the correct pre-requisites of a real love: for what kind of love is it where there is no honesty and respect as its foundation?
The OT criteria for love is superior: LOVE THE STRANGER, as opposed LOVE THY NEIGHBOUR. The former is more demanding and selfless, while the latter ican be self servicing. Significantly, there is no merit for love of parents and kin, because this is biological and involuntary; thus the command to HONOR THY PARENTS - which calls for respect even in a discourse.
Love is not exclusive to the heart [emotions], by which one can soon go astray. It is best when it incorporates other fulcrum faculties: AND YOU SHALL THE LORD WITH ALL YOUR HEART AND ALL YOUR MIND AND ALL YOUR SOUL. The OT understands the nature of man.
Dont believe everything you believe. ------------- Moses - the First Zionist. |
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 16-Oct-2008 at 15:14
|
So, after reading all of your posts IamJoseph there is nothing left for us good citizens of the world to do but repudiate our current beliefs, pick up the pages of the bible only relating to the old testament and become Jewish.
Old testament laws are an empire are they? Or were old testament laws existant in the worlds most powerful empire to grace us? ------------- |
Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 16-Oct-2008 at 15:22
|
I feel like I'm talking to the Western Wall here. First of all I have never heard it claimed by any scholar that the Enlightenment was a "alignment" of OT laws. Second you ignore the heritage of Roman law, Rome's perhaps greatest contribution to human civilization. There is no point in naming any laws for in my experience religious people are experts at interpreting (read: twisting) anything to fit with their scripture. Gay is not an existential issue at all because homosexuality will never occur naturally in as many as 20% of the population. If so it would have happened a long time ago regardless of any laws. I don't see how premarital sex makes a man alone or celibate, it's quite the opposite. If you're that concerned about populating the already overpopulated earth you should be in favour of any kind of sex as long as it's unprotected. And your last sentence is a paradox and not a particularly clever one. ------------- |
Posted By: IamJoseph
Date Posted: 16-Oct-2008 at 17:14
Perhaps you should see how a bigger picture applies. The over-population factor may in fact be the only one which saves humanity than any other - nor is this the reason behind premarital sex , no matter how sanctimoniously one wants to cushion it. We are also all subject to the same criteria of the most powerful force impacting on us, and none will be able to resist its temptation when push comes to shove [its not money which makes the hormones go round!].
If one sees the future outcome of humanity and this planet, say 500 or 5000 years ahead - our population will be in the trillions, no matter how many birth control and other measures adopted. These only pushes the goal post further at best. Eventually, we have to 'GO HAVE DOMINION OF THE WORLDS' [not a supefluous verse in Genesis!] - with no options around it. And it is only a vast and more pronounced population explosion which will compell this outcome. It is of course a mistep to focus on climate, when we should be designing ET fashion attire and structures to live on the Moon and Mars - because there is no choice factor here, once we go past the immediate self limitation tresholds limited to the next few decades only. Planet earth is the first step of humanity - not the one and final one. Look out there - ask why and what for this vast empty universal backyard - then ponder how nothing in the universe is superfluous and there is a blatant display of awesome wisdom in its engineerings and structures!
One can see humans wearing a Modona style mouth piece gadget which would regulate a suitable oxygen mix, and hi-tech footware which counters gravity - enabling humans and animals to walk hands free - just like Madona on stage. Then moonbases will be commonplace for communities and even nations. Thereafter, there is no population problem, and the horizon of space becomes very sparsely populated indeed. All thanks to the population prompts feared today.
The OT has never been wrong yet. Its a mysterious document. There is only much apprehension of seeing it anew, namely differently from how it was presented to the world via Christianity and Islam: two sources which never observed or experienced its hidden wisdom ever - because they assumed Israel was no more after 70 CE. This was an error - and you guys will get around it in time, even if dragging and cussing and fussing about it. It is not so hard to take on board: for sure both the NT & Quran cannot be right - one has to be 100% wrong, because they contradict each on fundamental factors - even in historical criteria. So there is not much of a choice factor here.
Ultimately, the solutions for humanity can only come from a source which possesses it - whatever that may be. New age science - the latest diety and belief system, was actually introduced in genesis - with the first introduction of the universe being finite - which had to make one think what that means. If the NT made any sense, I would surely harken - but there is nothingness there - not a squeek about what impacts science, history, geography, space, future problems staring at us - zilch. It just speaks of Jesus and son - not the sun, and this only results in a blank look when this becomes bewilderingly irrelevent.
So my reasonings are hardly vested in theological factors, and I see the OT as more than just another theological piece - it is a pivotal factor of chunks of history which is not available elsewhere, of science, judiciary, geography and the whole kaboodle. Give me a half decent premise from the NT and Quran, and I'll harken. I'd be a fool not to. But it is pointless to reject something based on your own beliefs, as opposed to the pursuit of truth and sound reasonings. I have nothing against any belief system - its only the other way around. Check some history and geography? ------------- Moses - the First Zionist. |
Posted By: IamJoseph
Date Posted: 16-Oct-2008 at 17:28
'There is wisdom and rightious in all nations and all places'
because:
'THE UNIVERSE WAS CREATED IN WISDOM'
...And wisdom is a place.
Please forgive me if that blatant logic comes from the Hebrew bible. ------------- Moses - the First Zionist. |
Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 16-Oct-2008 at 17:31
|
So the conclusion is we should colonize space and create a galactic Jewish empire. Well I for one is glad we cleared that up. ------------- |
Posted By: IamJoseph
Date Posted: 16-Oct-2008 at 17:46
As opposed to....WHAT ELSE? - faster and more efficient de-pops and more powerful contraceptions? For how long? Then what? The china syndrome will soon have the west screaming blue murder if their right to not have a child or to have one - is messed with.
Your problem is hardly the miniscule dot of a Jewish empire. 2B Christians and 1.2B Muslims are going to have a face off - that will be a far more exciting affair. One rests on resurrection, the other denies it. And both claim to rule the world by their being the only acceptable path for humanity - and woe unto those who disagree. With issues of land - who's going to tell Muslims not to repro - and where will they fit when the west becomes negative population based? And there's nothing in the Hebrew bible which even mentions any of your two - the space time factor ensures this.
Call me when you two have decided if Jesus was a palestinian and the Jewish temple a myth - because these negate your gospels.
Life is what happens to you while your busy making other plans. ------------- Moses - the First Zionist. |
Posted By: Goblin Monkey
Date Posted: 17-Oct-2008 at 00:23
|
IamJoseph, please stop talking relgion.This is Earths most powerful empire.NOT the relgion forum.Please go some whre else for that. ------------- Is it just me or did your mom just wink at me? |
Posted By: IamJoseph
Date Posted: 17-Oct-2008 at 02:10
|
Ok, I'll go somewhere else. But I was not talking religion, just 101 history and logic. The most powerful empire cannot be one which is not around anymore, while one it went to war with, is. Is that religion too? You can sort that one out between yourselves. ------------- Moses - the First Zionist. |
Posted By: Goblin Monkey
Date Posted: 17-Oct-2008 at 02:45
|
Shoo, go, faster! ------------- Is it just me or did your mom just wink at me? |
Posted By: Count Belisarius
Date Posted: 17-Oct-2008 at 04:43
|
Guys I think you both need to calm down and apologize before you both get BANNED! thats B-A-N-N-E-D! -------------
Defenders of Ulthuan, Cult of Asuryan (57 Kills and counting)
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 17-Oct-2008 at 05:01
Now you're a sage, too?  ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 17-Oct-2008 at 05:02
 ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 17-Oct-2008 at 05:03
Yes and Creationism apparently is logical, too. Anyway obviously this is a non-theological thread as the OP wanted a temporal discussion of Empires. ------------- |
Posted By: IamJoseph
Date Posted: 17-Oct-2008 at 08:41
While there is no dispute theology and history are seperate realms and should not be inter-related here, allow me to clarify the applicable factors which impact what is theology and what is reality - namely what transcends theology and is deemed reality.
If a premise is accepted and enshrined with the current times' judiciary and civic Institutions - it is historical - regardless of its source. The US Constitution and the Judiciary - are not theologies but realities. If a theology says murder is a punishable crime, or one day per week is free of work, or an accusation which cannot be proven amounts to slander or equal justice for all - it is not theological myth anymore but a valid reality same as the theory of relativity or gravity. By the same criteria, if a theology says turn the other cheek, or one is an infidel - and these are not accepted in the judiciary as a law - that is not a reality today, and markedly varied. From this pov, my positions were historically based and a manifest reality today.
Here, 'shhh - go away' is not a debated responsa, but an I LOSE admission, and I don't feel alligned as being equally bannable because someone cannot differentiate between belief based theology, and historically based reality.
Creationism is not theology, as in belief; there is no scientific counter to it. It stands till some one shouts eureka! Creationism is an alternative reality. Hint: it is top of every forum debate side by side with any science - marking its difference from belief based theologies.
Rome was a depraved bulldog which declined humanity; the precedent Greek empire was greater and contributed much more. Tarred roads was only a tool to futher Roman attrocities quicker and more resourcefully. Humanity does not honor anything learnt from the Romans: Catholicism should seriously think of dropping this prefix - same as it did its heresy doctrine. Not reality anymore. I would nominate N. America as perhaps the greatest empire - worts and all she wins hands down. ------------- Moses - the First Zionist. |
Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 17-Oct-2008 at 10:05
You are aware, of course, that the US political institution is inspired by the Roman republic. There are other parallels as well. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/sep/18/usa.comment - http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/sep/18/usa.comment ------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 17-Oct-2008 at 11:08
Why both?
IAmJoseph is the one who hi-jacked the thread to his favourite and somewhat boring topic. Everybody else is quite right. Apart from being nonsense (which is not against the principles of the forum in general since we have a special place for it) his contributions are completely off-topic, which is against the principles of the forum.------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 17-Oct-2008 at 11:10
Then don't bloody well relate them. Go find yourself a theology forum so people who want to talk sense can without being drowned out. ------------- |
Posted By: IamJoseph
Date Posted: 17-Oct-2008 at 11:27
No, I'm not. But I am aware the Constitution is based on one document only:
------------- Moses - the First Zionist. |
Posted By: IamJoseph
Date Posted: 17-Oct-2008 at 11:33
|
Is the Constitution and the judiciary you live under - a theology or a reality? FYI, the OT laws are more reality based than ToE: flaunt an OT law and one can get slimed into prison; not so with ToE. Reality does not become negated because you use a word called 'theology' as your proof. Rome is not reality - it is dead. ------------- Moses - the First Zionist. |
Posted By: Styrbiorn
Date Posted: 17-Oct-2008 at 11:33
What world are you living in? |
Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 17-Oct-2008 at 11:36
|
Well if you're going to close your ears to everything that doesn't fit with how you want the world to be then we might as well drop this, since debate will be fruitless anyhow. Sigh.
------------- |
Posted By: Goblin Monkey
Date Posted: 17-Oct-2008 at 14:36
|
Lets relocate this debate back from the connection between constitutions and Rome to somthing like why the Persian Empire has more votes then Alexanders Empire, when Alexanders empire conqured Persia? ------------- Is it just me or did your mom just wink at me? |
Posted By: IamJoseph
Date Posted: 18-Oct-2008 at 16:22
3rd rock from the sun. That's why I can produce 100s of archives to evidence what is otherwise commonly known this side of the milky way. The US Constitution, one of the greatest mad made treatise, marks the break from Europe, and is foundational to the OT as its source - exclusively. This is a 'history' forum, right?  ------------- Moses - the First Zionist. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 18-Oct-2008 at 22:38
Because it lasted for a less than two decades and splintered. The Persian Empire (Achamenid ) that is grew,matured, and died in the span of centuries. ------------- |
Posted By: IamJoseph
Date Posted: 19-Oct-2008 at 02:29
|
The Persian history is greatly described in the book of Esther - an authentic, contemporary document which describes in minute details, Persia under Darius and other kings, and its conquering of Babylon, prior to Greece's invasion. Persia's political admin and historical names of its prominant officers, as well as numerous other historical details, are not available from any outside sources.
One of Persia's significant impacts on modern history is it over-turned Babylon's decree and allowed the Hebrews to return to their land, enabling the city of Jerusalem to remain till today. The other historical impact is the Hebrews introduced alphabetical writings in far away places like India, which Persia invaded, and employed Hebrews in its armies. Persia did not possess alphabetical books. ------------- Moses - the First Zionist. |
Posted By: Voskhod
Date Posted: 19-Oct-2008 at 03:09
|
Jerusalem remained there to this day because the Romans rebuilt it as Aelia Capitolina, after they razed the old Jewish city in AD70. Jews were then only allowed by into the city after the Muslim Conquests. The Achaemenid Persians did have an alphabet by the way, but they were based on the cuneiform system, rather than the Phoenician alphabet. |
Posted By: IamJoseph
Date Posted: 19-Oct-2008 at 03:29
Babylon destroyed Jerusalem in 586 BCE. The Persians allowed Jerusalem and its temple rebuilt 70 years later, and it remained a sovereign nation till 70 CE. That both Greece and Rome made Judea vasal provinces does not change anything - this was done throughout the Roman empire, which effected all states in Europe and Arabia. Buth Israel survived this, along with its historical heritage, language and people. Many did not.
When you evidence some alphabetical persian books - you will correct me, and I will concede my history was wrong. ------------- Moses - the First Zionist. |
Posted By: King John
Date Posted: 19-Oct-2008 at 04:07
| Since this is tangental to the thread, IamJoseph, I will be short in my reply. You are entirely wrong about Persian alphabet and Voskhod is correct. You don't need books to have an alphabet. A simple google search of Old Persian Cuneiform would prove your "history" wrong. Here is one page for you to peruse: http://www.omniglot.com/writing/opcuneiform.htm - Old Persian Cuneiform at Omniglot For an actual example of Old Persian writing please google the Behistun Inscription. |
Posted By: IamJoseph
Date Posted: 19-Oct-2008 at 04:34
Note that I specified alphabetical 'books' - a multi-page continueing narrative. These do impact on the spread of writings more than any other factor, as they are mobile forms of communication and retention. I never said anything contradicting older writings - the stone picture etchings on pyramids, for example, are of course older.
Aside from books, I would also imagine that a continueing, periodical display of writings, displaying contemporary, identifiable historical descriptions, is also a vital factor here. Advanced alphabetical books have to be factored in what constitutes greatness, as opposed 'empire'. Arguably, Alexander's greatest contribution was not his wars, but his decision to translate the Hebrew bible into another language for the first time: this, though I don't want to devert, caused Greek alphabetical writings, Democrasy, and later on Christianity itself. Not small factors of 'great'. ------------- Moses - the First Zionist. |
Posted By: IamJoseph
Date Posted: 19-Oct-2008 at 04:40
I am surprised you never took up instead the case of the Romans being nominated as the source of the Jerusalem Temple, and its disregarding of the period of independent from Rome sovereignty of this city since 586 BCE - before Rome entered this region. That was not correct either. There is loads of dishistory which has become history - I wonder how and why this happened. ------------- Moses - the First Zionist. |
Posted By: IamJoseph
Date Posted: 19-Oct-2008 at 07:07
This is well after 586 BCE, by which time 100s of alphabetical Hebrew books were already existent. I fail to see any logic in nominating a writing which exended the cunieform to an alledged alphabetical script as applicable here, and which most probably would have come from interaction with the hebrews, already in this land at this time, with a vast archive of alphabetical books. Darius was known to be very closely associated with the Hebrews, even concerning the love of his life, and his chief adviser. ------------- Moses - the First Zionist. |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 19-Oct-2008 at 11:06
We don't have any books remaining from as far back as you're talking about now. Apartt from anything else the word 'book' doesn't really apply to the original Torah, since books hadn't been invented then, and even now it is also kept in its original form as a set of scrolls.
That decision was taken decades after Alexander died. But I don't suppose it's worth pointing that out to you again, since you're capable of beieving he visited Jerusalem more than twenty years after he died.
You really are ridiculously ignorant of history. ------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 19-Oct-2008 at 11:07
Why wonder? You seem to be doing your best to contribute to the process, so you should know. ------------- |
Posted By: IamJoseph
Date Posted: 19-Oct-2008 at 12:13
|
Parchment, such as the Torah, and later printed book, have the same application here: these are different from tombstone epitaphs and trade reciepts.
Alexander's visit to Jerusalem and his meeting with the temple priests was the negotiated point for the Septuagint's translation. It was initiated some 18 years later, whereby Ptolemy honored Alexander's wish, and assembled 70 translators for this enormous task. That this event was Alexander's most lasting impact on history is not in doubt. It is not dismissable when a history of powerful deeds is being debated. I am educating you. ------------- Moses - the First Zionist. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 19-Oct-2008 at 19:57
|
You are not educating anyone, you are elevating your heritage above any one elses. First the Persian deeds for the Jews, then the Jews invented the world, etc... Get over your own superiority complexes before engaging in constructive debate.
------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 19-Oct-2008 at 20:51
Why? And why do you call scrolls books?
But if it happened in 300BC as you claimed, then it was negotiated with his ghost. ------------- |
Posted By: IamJoseph
Date Posted: 19-Oct-2008 at 23:57
This is a history thread. Please say what you know about Alexander's visit to Jerusalem, and what marked that event. Then attack me or what I post, as you have been doing. If the quest is for history, then it must be for historical truths, not what has been spread to the world as total misrep, dis-history and lies-by-omissions via Europen christianity [Deicide!], and Islam [Moses was a muslim!]. My quest is for truth, wherever it points. ------------- Moses - the First Zionist. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 20-Oct-2008 at 00:56
|
He is doing constructive criticism of your "vision of history." By making that comment he perciesely practices what a history forum is ought to be there for. You give us your opinion and think that that is it and there is no criticism in it. Neither you nor your opinion of the world are made of gold just in case you did not know. Other than that he said if it happenned in 300BC that it would have been too late since Alexander had been already dead, thus the ghost part. ------------- |
Posted By: Goblin Monkey
Date Posted: 20-Oct-2008 at 02:30
|
Again the Russian empire, not one vote!The third largest ever empire and not one vote.Oh yay and who else voted for my empire because now you are the coolest! ------------- Is it just me or did your mom just wink at me? |
Posted By: IamJoseph
Date Posted: 20-Oct-2008 at 04:35
Correcting is fine, but this is hardly what his comments do. The issue was not even addressed, so there cannot be a correction applicable. The issue was Alexander's visit to Jerusalem, and the impact of the Septuagint translation?
Alex entered Jerusalem 331 BCE; the Septuagint was initiated, to cater to his wish, in 285 bce, which translation and writings took several decades under the follow-up kings Ptolemy I & II. The factor of referring to ghost and a dating [I said Septuagint began about 18 years after Alex's death], is superflous to the issue that Alex initiated this work. This was not acknowledged, so what use is this ghost issue? My main claim was the Septuagint translation can be seen as Alexander's greatest impact on history, as opposed to his conguests.
# The above makes an historical error in naming Judea as Palestine, a name which was placed by the Romans in 70 CE.
------------- Moses - the First Zionist. |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 20-Oct-2008 at 18:43
He almost certainly didn't go there at all, and it's simply a story, a legend. And he absolutely and completely certainly didn't go there in 300 BC.
Yes, I already did, so why ask me to do it again? Your assertion that Alexander went to Jerusalem in 300 BC (or did anything at all in 300 BC) is just nonsense. He was DEAD in 300BC.
You wouldn't know the truth if it stood up and hit you. And yxou're not interested in finding it. ------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 20-Oct-2008 at 19:02
Better, but not what you said in the first place. Moreover there is no evidence for the alleged visit in 331 (when Alexander was at least in that part of the world). Every minor little city and village liked to think it was important enough to warrant a visit from Alexander. Himself, he preferred to create his own city.
By the by, check up on your dates again. Ptolemy I had nothing to do with the Septuagint which was commissioned by Ptolemy II Philadelphus, whose reign didn't start until 283 BC. Wikipedia, as you quote below, confuses the dates, because it says it was commissioned by Philadelphus in 285 BC which is impossible.
For which there is no evidence at all.
And you originally said that Alexander visited Jerusalem 23 years after he died (hence the ghost reference). And in fact the translation wasn't commissioned until forty years after he died, not 18.
It showed you had little historical consciousness. Dates are all important: at least they are when they are inconsistently quoted.
Your main claim is totally unjustified. Alexander had nothing to do with the Septuagint.
Even Josephus makes no mention of the Septuagint at all. And anyway he'e no particular authority for what happened three centuries or so before he was born.
Calling it an historical error is wrong, since he wrote in 1st century Latin and the Latin name for the area was Palestina. Moreover you can't pick and choose. Either Josephus is an authority here or he isn't.
See my comment above. If you check wikipedia itself on Philadelphus you'll find his reign started in 283.
Note also that there is no suggestion here that translating the Torah was Alexander's idea. ------------- |
Posted By: Goblin Monkey
Date Posted: 20-Oct-2008 at 21:07
|
Wikin isnt always relibele though.I mean I can go in there and write about Alexander the great saying he was a latino folk singer in the 70's and 80's that traveled with a band named the Kayan pepers. ------------- Is it just me or did your mom just wink at me? |
Posted By: Jams
Date Posted: 20-Oct-2008 at 23:43
|
I'd say the British, as it was the first and only global empire. Many of the other empires lasted far longer, so it's not an obvious choice, but I think the British legacy will be here for a long time -I include the US in that, and the spread of English. ------------- |
Posted By: IamJoseph
Date Posted: 21-Oct-2008 at 01:02
Agreed, tho this is in my favor - Wiki has a number of law suits against it, because it is agenda based - I stated its error in calling Judea, pre 70 CE, as Palestine - a historical impossibility.
However, the issue of the Septuagint's impact should not thereby be confused - it is one of the most important events in world history. I am being questioned not on this factor - which does not depend on Wiki - I can post 100s of evidences for it, but rather the rejections are deflected - with no acknowledgement or debate on the premise made.
If the premise concerns dates, this is evidential, al beit with some disagreements of its precise date to a few years variances; if the debating is the Septuagint's impact - that is another. If the debate is silence from everyone when someone is making foolish arguements - in a history thread - that is yet another issue. It is obvious there is some dis-history concerning a major issue in this history thread. ------------- Moses - the First Zionist. |
Posted By: IamJoseph
Date Posted: 21-Oct-2008 at 01:11
|
I would say Briton would rank high in modern history. She did great things, tho also mixed with bad stuff as well - common to any nation, and did educate the world more than any other modern empire. However, Briton was not alone - other nations like France and Spain also did much conquerings alongside Briton, and eventually, all were superceded by America - which clearly takes the prize in educating the world, whatever one's politics are of this fact. Briton has been in decline since she left the M/E and then India, in some shame.
Briton applied laws of the Septuagint, which it referred to as 'common law', the factor of Judiciary laws being at the core of Briton's educating of the world. ------------- Moses - the First Zionist. |
Posted By: IamJoseph
Date Posted: 21-Oct-2008 at 01:24
There is a small margin of variances of the exact datings, namely a few years, when one examines many historical descriptions. The issue of which Ptolemy is also not impacting here - there was a time period between I & II Ptolemy, as well as a time period in assembling the translation, whereby 70 prominant translators were contracted in what was a mammoth task. One must allow for these minutae variances, instead of making them the impacting factors.
The issue of Alex visiting Jerusalem, of whether he initiated the Septuagint, has no credence, and should not be made as the factor of agreeing or not agreeing the Septuagint was the major issue which should be debated.
If one knows the writings of Josephus, for instance, which is the most contemporary of the period in question, we see numerous factors which allign with what I presented: he quites also the Greeks begat much of their knowledge from the OT translation, including alphabetical writings. The writings of St. Paul also quotes the septuagint as one the main documents he used in spreading his beliefs - he menions the Septuagint numerously, and he was a 3rd generation Greek teacher. ------------- Moses - the First Zionist. |
Posted By: Goblin Monkey
Date Posted: 21-Oct-2008 at 01:59
|
My Empire,again could topple Alexanders empire any day.The Hoplites cant stand up to my plastic army men army! ------------- Is it just me or did your mom just wink at me? |
Posted By: IamJoseph
Date Posted: 21-Oct-2008 at 02:00
Josephus even says the greeks begat their alpha beta directly from the alef bet Hebrew, when they translated the OT; the Greeks also acknowledge this factor. A greek named Paul also mentions the Septuagint, which is a cross reference proof of Josephus.
Josephus is the most reliable source here, or any place else - his writings is not centuries ago but closest to the events available. His writings do make him an authority: he was appointed royal scribe for and by Rome, and had access to the entire archives of Rome and Greece; he was a latin, greek and hebrew scholar of his times - and his writings are accepted by all scholars as totally accurate and of an excellent, unequalled standard. This is true notwithstanding some charges of later cut and paste jobs on his works, and that at times he showed a bias in his descriptions. But his historical stats are never questioned.
Wrong again. He wrote in greek, latin, then in hebrew also. The name for the area then [pre-70 CE], was not Palestine - this totally contradicts the decree of Rome which occured after Judea was destroyed. There was the Greeks who once referred to the entire Arabian region as Syria-Palestina; but this concerned the ancient Philistines, associated as kin to the Greeks, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the contemporary usage of today's palestine used as referring to Judea-palestine; this is not true and only a political manouver. Judea was Hebrew, and known as such by all empires throughout history; the fiction is made by today's agenda based politics, but it is not history.
FYI, the term Palestinian, till recently [post Arafat], was never used by any other peoples but Jews. Feel free to show a non-Jewish Palestinian pre-60. Any shred of evidence will suffice, such as a national anthem, a coin, an independence day, an historcial document or description - anything you like. In fact, this was the most hated name for Muslims pre-60, and today's Jerusalem Post was called the palestinian Post - a Hebrew newspaper. However, your statements are ridiculous, and what causes me to devert here. It indicates your history here is either in error, or twisted up. ------------- Moses - the First Zionist. |
Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 21-Oct-2008 at 08:10
The trouble with comparing old and new empires is that the old were never as tightly organized as the new and thus their size and longevity is misleading. With the technology of the industrial revolution the British could govern India centrally from Britain itself, since it allowed communication and transportation between the two at a much greater frequency than what would have been possible in earlier times. If the British had established their empire say 500 or 1000 years earlier, provinces like Egypt and India would've been virtually independent due to the time and effort it would take to administer them effectively. Point being that these older empires, while many of them lasted longer they weren't empires to the same extent.
Exactly. Everyone knows he retired in the 60s. ------------- |
Posted By: IamJoseph
Date Posted: 21-Oct-2008 at 09:58
Rome used its tarred roads relative to how Britain used its industralized hi-tech like radar; the time factor ratio was stablized by other factors, causing the same treshold effects while nullifying any extra benefits. Earlier still, most people never left their villages and towns all their lives, and it took a very long time to be impacted by their ruler's decrees. The factor of immigrating or moving to another country was extremely difficult, with no guarantee of returning alive and not ending up as a slave commodity.
To Briton's credit, she became the first nation to outlaw slavery, while this was Ancient Egypt and Rome's primal source of wealth. Amazingly, all discoveries and inventions appear to emerge only when its due time arrived. Otherwise, even a small nation with greater communication, could cause devastation to the world.
The bombardment of new information is today at its greatest levels with the net - this has totally changed the world, and one can only wonder what is next on the horizon: universal communication via the weak forcefield, which pervades all the universe as a glue? Is communication the required tool for a global revelation, aka a Messiah? This becomes not so fanciful if one accepts the premise of Monotheism and Creationism - and there are no alternatives to these precepts as of today. IMHO, the net has an ultimate utility potential for far more than just Instant Messaging - a world changing invention which came from two Israelis notwithstanding. ------------- Moses - the First Zionist. |
Posted By: Voskhod
Date Posted: 21-Oct-2008 at 10:48
|
First nation to abolish slavery were Lithuania and Japan, circa 16th century AD. Ancient Egypt's primary source of wealth was agriculture. Ancient Rome's was plunder and, later, tax.
I am a Buddhist and an evolutionist. |
Posted By: Styrbiorn
Date Posted: 21-Oct-2008 at 11:18
Well, slavery in Sweden has been forbidden by law since 1337. In the ancient era, it was once abolished by Cyrus the Great as well, though I don't remember if it was for one group or slavery as a concept. |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 21-Oct-2008 at 15:51
Utter nonsense. The Common Law has nothing whatsoever to do with the Abrahamic religions. In origin, its principles go back to before anyone in the Germanic areas of Europe had even heard of Abraham, the Ten Commandments or Israel, though of course, being flexible, it has changed in detail over time. It is certainly much older than the Septuagint. ------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 21-Oct-2008 at 16:15
The grossly impacting factor is that, through your disregard of dating, and your confusion about Ptolemies, you disply your ignorance of the facts of the period, which destroys the credibility of what you say.
Though I'll grant you do seem to have done some hasty homework and updated some of your more egregious errors.
There is no 'issue' with regard to the Septuagint (except possibly whether there were actually 70 or 72 translators). It was commissioned by Ptolemy II Philadelphus[1] for the Alexandrian library, it was written by Alexandrian Greek-speaking Jews, and it later gained its importance largely because of its use by the many Jews in the contemporary diaspora who no longer spoke Hebrew.
[1] Not Cleopatra and Mark Anthony's son of the same name. Pretty obvious but you never know with IAmJoseph's flari for creative chronology.
No it's not. Aristobolus is the earliest commentator we have, more than a century before Josephus. The letter of Aristeus is also earlier I believe.
No-one denies that the Apostles used the Septuagint as a source, or that the Greeks referred to it as well. There's nothing unduly significant about that: it was simoply the handiest Greek version. ------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 21-Oct-2008 at 16:39
What's surprising about that? (What Paul are you talking about incidentally - it's not a Greek name?) All sorts of people mention the Septuagint; there's no question but that it existed (and indeed exists).
He's not a bad authority for events of his period and a reasonable time before - say the Maccabean period. Biassed of course, but not more than you'd expect.
Nonsense.
Nonsense.
They are unreliable pre about 100 BC or thereabouts (as regards Jewish history). Basically they're reliable for the periods the Bible is reliable. Not suprisingly, since for anything earlier than the period I mention he was relying on the Bible as a source.
And in Latin he used the Latin name. He was mostly writing for Romans: it's where he lived and it's where his patrons lived.
The Greeks spoke Greek, the Romans spoke Latin, and we're supposed to be writing in English. The English name for the area is Palestine. It's somewhat irrelevant. though not uninteresing, what the name is in another languages. Names are language-dependent.
Nonsense. Except that Judea is a Hebrew (and indeed English) name for part of Palestine, the same way 'Israel' is.
Pre-60 what?
The very fact it was called the Palestinian Post indicates that Palestine was the name for the area. The police force in the area under the British mandate was called the Palestinian Police for that matter. I have an old Bible with maps in the back showing what it calls the 'Holy Land of Palestine'. It's commonplace to see English documents referring to Palestine over the last several centuries.
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/shepherd/assyrian_empire_750_625.jpg - http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/shepherd/assyrian_empire_750_625.jpg
for instance. ------------- |