How much of Christianity came from Jesus, and how much came from other sources?

[One Bad Pig]

Here is a selection of his comments taken from various threads where the topic was raised.

[/FONT]

So you've got nothing. As I suspected.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

So you've got nothing. As I suspected.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I would know much less if I were to consider your pontification valid. The accuracy of what you post is inversely proportional to the insults in its content.

Do you consider this comment adequately explains the known situation at the time?

Why Caesar did this really doesn't matter. It

[tabibito]

Do you consider this comment adequately explains the known situation at the time?

Given that Caesar did not document his reasons ... it is acceptable.
He did it. We don't know why.

It is legitimate to engage in conjecture, but that is all it will ever be.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Given that Caesar did not document his reasons ... it is acceptable.
He did it. We don't know why.

It is legitimate to engage in conjecture, but that is all it will ever be.

Below is an extremely brief overview at the contemporary situation towards the mid first century BCE in Gaul.

There were already indications that unrest was imminent when the Aediu appealed to Rome for assistance over incursions by the Sequani. This situation risked escalating because the Sequani had called upon the Suebi [whose leader was Ariovistus] and he had agreed to their request on the condition that some of his people could settle in Sequani lands. At the same time the Helvetii who had only comparatively recently moved from the Rhine and Main region to what is now Switzerland felt themselves increasingly pressured by their Germanic neighbours across the Rhine and perceived that this would only increase if the Suebi settled in that region.

Considering that discretion was the better part of valour the Helvietii planned to move west. However, their route would take them through what is now Geneva and the lands of the Allobroges and while this route was beyond Roman territory it was perceived as a threat to the Roman province in southern Gaul. Purely for contemporary historical context, in its wider sense Transalpine Gaul referred to all of Gaul beyond the Alps but as far as the Romans were concerned at this period it related to the Roman territory in that region, i.e. the province that had been established in 121 BCE and which was intended to protect the port of Marseilles and the land route to Italy and Spain. The region then known as the Province still today retains a version of that name Provence. There was also some historical enmity between the Helvetii and Rome as at the end of the previous century those tribes had defeated Roman armies. Rome therefore prepared for war.

All of the above of which was considered by rogue06

really doesn't matter

A comment that illustrates that he [and yourself] are totally unfamiliar with Caesar's commentaries as Caesar writes of it in Book I where he provides his justification for his campaigns beyond the frontier. Namely that the Helvetii had offended Rome's allies, they presented a threat to the Province, albeit somewhat geographically implausible, and they had committed historical, and yet to be avenged, indignities and injuries against Romans.

[tabibito]

Below is an extremely brief overview at the contemporary situation towards the mid first century BCE in Gaul.

There were already indications that unrest was imminent when the Aediu appealed to Rome for assistance over incursions by the Sequani. This situation risked escalating because the Sequani had called upon the Suebi [whose leader was Ariovistus] and he had agreed to their request on the condition that some of his people could settle in Sequani lands. At the same time the Helvetii who had only comparatively recently moved from the Rhine and Main region to what is now Switzerland felt themselves increasingly pressured by their Germanic neighbours across the Rhine and perceived that this would only increase if the Suebi settled in that region.

Considering that discretion was the better part of valour the Helvietii planned to move west. However, their route would take them through what is now Geneva and the lands of the Allobroges and while this route was beyond Roman territory it was perceived as a threat to the Roman province in southern Gaul. Purely for contemporary historical context, in its wider sense Transalpine Gaul referred to all of Gaul beyond the Alps but as far as the Romans were concerned at this period it related to the Roman territory in that region, i.e. the province that had been established in 121 BCE and which was intended to protect the port of Marseilles and the land route to Italy and Spain. The region then known as the Province still today retains a version of that name Provence. There was also some historical enmity between the Helvetii and Rome as at the end of the previous century those tribes had defeated Roman armies. Rome therefore prepared for war.

All of the above of which was considered by rogue06

really doesn't matter

A comment that illustrates that he [and yourself] are totally unfamiliar with Caesar's commentaries as Caesar writes of it in Book I where he provides his justification for his campaigns beyond the frontier. Namely that the Helvetii had offended Rome's allies, they presented a threat to the Province, albeit somewhat geographically implausible, and they had committed historical, and yet to be avenged, indignities and injuries against Romans.

How does all of that explain why Julius Caesar chose to leave 2/3 of his forces out of the arena?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

How does all of that explain why Julius Caesar chose to leave 2/3 of his forces out of the arena?

It is unlikely that when Caesar entered upon his provincial command he required those legions. That his first intention was an Illyrian campaign is indicated by the fact that he based those three legions in Aquileia [northern Italy]. In Book III he recounts how he set out on a reconnaissance visit to Illyria which suggests he might have been attempting to still give the impression that he intended an Illyrian campaign in 56 BCE, had the Venetic revolt not intervened,. However, that this was not his first priority cannot be entirely ruled out..

Furthermore, and given that in 59 BCE Caesar had been instrumental in having Ariovistus declared as a "Friend of the Roman People" might likewise suggest that he was hoping to delay any potential eruptions of violence for Rome's clients beyond the Transalpine province.

[Sparko]

Bad puns deserve recognition.

The only good puns are bad ones.

[rogue06]

Because you never give details until pressed.

You didn't "press," but rather asked a question that you didn't know the answer for and presented as some sort of mystery. But it is a question with an easy answer to it -- at least easy for those who actually do know a bit about this rather than being a poser pretending to be an academic historian.

I noted some time ago that these commentaries had a political edge.

And subsequently ignored that given how you treat his writings as pure unvarnished truth.

[rogue06]

For rogue06 to write this with regard to Caesar's campaigns in Gaul:



Serves to illustrate his profound ignorance on the contemporary situation.

He does seem to have a tendency to claim he has read texts and then make posts that indicate he has not read such texts. Either that or, what appear to be increasingly problematic issues with his memory, leave him unable to recall to mind a single word of what he has apparently read.

I make posts that demonstrate that I realize that Caesar often stretched and occasionally shredded the truth in order to aggrandize himself and justify his actions. Pretty much what typically happens in propaganda.

You, OTOH, seem to believe if I don't mindlessly regurgitate Caesar's claims as truth carved into stone it somehow means I never read his account.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I make posts that demonstrate that I realize that Caesar often stretched and occasionally shredded the truth in order to aggrandize himself and justify his actions. Pretty much what typically happens in propaganda.

If you knew anything about the situation in late Republican Rome you would understand that political prestige and military prowess were, to a large extent, inseparable.

You, OTOH, seem to believe if I don't mindlessly regurgitate Caesar's claims as truth carved into stone it somehow means I never read his account.

That you could write such arrant nonsense as this:

Why Caesar did this really doesn't matter.

Serves to indicate, beyond reasonable doubt, that you are are almost entirely unfamiliar with Caesar's commentaries as well as the situation prevailing in Gaul in the early 50s BCE.

And to remind you yet again [as this memory problem of yours is getting worse by the day] I have in fact referred to the political aspect of his commentaries in a remark I made some time previously:

The text of The Gallic Wars as we now have it was not all written at one time. It comprises a series of dispatches regularly sent by Caesar back to Rome to be read [possibly in the senate] and certainly by his supporters to demonstrate and enhance his military prowess and political status. Bear in mind that military conquest and the booty that came with it was particularly important for Roman commanders and helped keep them [as it were] in the spotlight back in Rome.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

You didn't "press," but rather asked a question that you didn't know the answer for and presented as some sort of mystery.

On the contrary I was merely testing you and your reply served to confirm your ignorance of the details.