Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 23

Thread: The Aeneid

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Nanaimo
    Posts
    3,795

    The Aeneid

    This is my response to a very laudatory article on Virgil's great work of Empire promotion which he properly documents had a major enduring impact until very recent times.

    Yes, all true but also true is the extent to which Empires have lied, cajoled and outright performed the most heinous acts (See John Paul II in 1999 apologizing for two millennia of those acts). Such a tortured history is the basis for sovereign rights after the Treaty of Westphalia which still maintains the boot of the second Reich on the neck of this planet's poor people.

    "In 1944, in his presidential address to the newly founded Virgil Society, T. S. Eliot called Virgil’s Aeneid ‘the classic of all Europe’, and made the claim that ‘Virgil acquires the centrality of the unique classic; he is at the centre of European civilization, in a position which no other poet can share or usurp.’ Seventy years later the Virgil Society still meets regularly in London, but Virgil has lost the centrality he once had in western education and culture. Yet the story of the responses to Virgil’s epic over the last two thousand years, in poetry, drama, music and opera, and the visual arts, remains a central part of the history of western civilization.

    The enduring impact of Virgil’s last and greatest work, the Aeneid, is the result of a unique coincidence of moments in political and literary history at the time of its writing in the 20s BCE. In terms of political history, this was the decade in which the first Roman emperor, Augustus, established his new regime after the defeat of Antony and Cleopatra at the Battle of Actium in 31 BCE. In an epic that is both praise of and critical engagement with the new order, Virgil tells the story of the Trojan hero Aeneas, legendary ancestor of the Romans and, more particularly, of the Julian family of Julius Caesar, of which Augustus was a member by adoption. Aeneas flees from his home city Troy, sacked by the Greeks at the end of the Trojan War, to a land in the west, Italy, where he marries an Italian princess and founds a new city, to be followed in time by the foundation of Rome. The Aeneid is an epic about origins and roots, a charter myth both for the city of Rome and for the foundation of the Augustan principate, the Roman Empire that would survive until the sack of Rome in 410 CE, to be revived in the thousand-year long Holy Roman Empire which lasted from the coronation of Charlemagne in 800 CE until its abolition by Napoleon. {Then he was invested as the Holy Roman Emperor - so it was not ended.} The Augustan principate was also a model for other imperial and monarchical powers. The Aeneid provided a template for many later epics, both in Latin and modern European languages, celebrating kings and emperors, or tracing legendary and historical foundations. For example, Edmund Spenser’s The Faerie Queene, a romance epic which gives poetic form to the ideology of the British Protestant state under its queen Elizabeth I, is heavily indebted to the Virgilian model. As late as the late nineteenth century Tennyson’s Idylls of the King, drawing on a British legend of origins, have been seen as poems in a Virgilian tradition, both celebrating British empire and drawing attention to its costs.

    In terms of literary history, the Aeneid is the supreme monument of Augustan poetry, the body of works by Virgil, Horace, Propertius, Ovid, and others, which for the first time created a canon of literature in Latin that could stand comparison with the classics of Greek literature, imitated and emulated by Roman poets. The Aeneid pays homage to and challenges the epics of Homer, the Iliad and Odyssey, seen as the very summits of literature in antiquity. From the time of Virgil’s death in 19 BCE the Aeneid was indeed the central classic and school-text of first pagan and then Christian Rome, and subsequently of post-classical Europe, in whose schools the reading of ancient Latin authors was at the heart of the syllabus down to the first half of the twentieth century. The post-Virgilian Roman epics of Ovid, Lucan, Statius and Claudian, all of which have had a major afterlife in the post-classical world, all engage intensively, and often critically, with the Aeneid.

    A long line of Christian epics, beginning in the fourth century, rewrites the stories of the Bible in the elevated language and metre of the Aeneid. One example is the now little-read, but once well-known, Christiad, on the last days of Christ, by the sixteenth-century Italian neo-Latin poet Girolamo Vida, whom Alexander Pope mentioned in the same breath as Raphael as one of the luminaries of the Italian Renaissance. Vida is also praised, and imitated, by Milton, whose biblical epic Paradise Lost occupied, at least until recently, a position in English literature comparable to that of the Aeneid in Roman literature. Milton’s epic is a challenge in English to the Aeneid, as Virgil’s Latin epic challenged the Greek Homer. The Republican Milton elevates the values of the kingdom of God over those of earthly kingdoms and empires: the closing prophecy of the Second Coming with the promise of ‘New heavens, new earth, ages of endless date | Founded in righteousness and peace and love’ (Paradise Lost 12.549-50) corrects the promise of Virgil’s Jupiter to his daughter Venus that the Roman descendants of her son Aeneas will have ‘an empire without end’ (Aeneid 1.279). The universal rule of the Christian God replaces the universal Roman empire, whose providential history is plotted in the Aeneid.

    Another significant displacement is from Italy, the land in the west from the Trojan Aeneas’ perspective, to lands still further west, the New World of the Americas. The Aeneid’s story of a fated journey to an unknown land by a hero who brings his gods with him was easily adapted to epic poems on the voyages of Columbus, and the bringing of Christianity to the American heathen. An early example of New World Latin epic is the last book of Girolamo Fracastoro’s Syphilis (1530), the poem which gave its name to the disease, and which tells of the discovery of a cure for syphilis in the New World. The Protestant settlers in North America also saw analogies between Aeneas’ journey of destiny to Italy and their own flight from a corrupt Old World to a New World.

    The Aeneid offers a legend of origins for the momentous wars between the Romans and the Carthaginians in the story of Aeneas and Dido, the Carthaginian queen whose love turns to hate when the Trojan leader abandons her, at the command of the gods. This tale of tragic love has always been the most popular part of the Aeneid, and has called forth many responses and imitations. In his Confessions St Augustine reproaches himself for weeping for Dido when he read Virgil at school, rather than weeping for his own spiritual death. {I wonder if this guy knows how true that is?} There are countless paintings of Dido, above all of her suicide in her despair at Aeneas’ departure, and a good hundred operas on the Dido story, of which Purcell’s Dido and Aeneas and Berlioz’ Trojans are classics in the repertory."


    http://theibtaurisblog.com/2014/06/1...irgils-aeneid/

    When thinking is allowed to be taught and questions about religious cults are open and encouraged along with sex and politics - we might beat back the tide of ignorance. We might even become spiritually creative and productive - and prove the Mayan calendar prediction has merit.

    Please check out the thread Know Rome - Know Jesus, No Rome - No Jesus.
    Last edited by R_Baird; 04-10-2016 at 04:31 PM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Nanaimo
    Posts
    3,795
    Not only is Virgil used as a template for continuing writers promoting varied outreaches of Empire - it is a road map that continues to shine a light for concepts such as Manifest Destiny as we see here.

    "3.
    Roman, remember by your strength to rule
    Earth’s peoples—for your arts are to be these:
    To pacify, to impose the rule of law,
    To spare the conquered, battle down the proud.
    (VI.1151–1154)


    This passage is part of the speech Anchises delivers to Aeneas in the underworld, in Book VI, as he unfolds for his son the destiny of Rome. Virgil places his own political ideals in the mouth of the wise father, warning that the Roman nation should be more merciful than violent, even in its conquests. Virgil here propounds the values for which he wants Rome to stand, and which he believes he has, in his own time, let guide him. Anchises’s rhetoric here about the Roman Empire’s justification for its conquering of other peoples expresses the same justification that Aeneas and the Trojans make for settling in Rome. They defend their invasion by arguing that they bring justice, law, and warfare—with which they “pacify” and “battle down”—to the conquered. Especially in modern times, critics and readers have taken passages such as this one and labeled them propaganda for the Augustan regime. This criticism is valid, but when the values of a regime are expressed by a poet who shares those values, the line between art and propaganda becomes blurry."


    http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/aeneid/quotes.html

    Is Divine Providence the same ideological propaganda as the Divine Right of Kings which is still ensconced in our laws since the Treaty of Westphalia handed off the responsibilities of Kings to nations?

    "Out of that chaos, like a Lotus flower out of pond muck, rose Octavian, later known as Emperor Augustus. Virgil was in Octavian’s social circle and began writing the Aeneid as Octavian consolidated his power, following his naval victory over Mark Antony and Cleopatra at Actium in 31 BCE.

    Shrewd and subtle, Octavian was careful to avoid the mistakes of his great-uncle and adoptive father, Julius Caesar, who had begun to resemble a king — a dirty word to the Romans — and was murdered. So Octavian never called himself a king, but a princeps — “first head,” as in leading citizen (whence our word prince).

    Over time, Octavian allowed the Senate and people of Rome — his genius manifested itself in this psychological coup — to bestow upon him ever greater powers and titles, increasingly mocking the non-use of the word king. In 27 BCE, the Senate began calling him Augustus, the august or blessed.

    But to Virgil and most Romans of the time, all this was a huge improvement over the apparent alternative: more civil war. Augustus imposed peace, on Rome and on its empire. What we call the Pax Romana was really the Pax Augusta.

    Augustus thus appeared to be the reluctant hero, the hero who wages war only to end war, who finally lets Rome reach its full, world-ruling and world-changing potential and mission. He seemed to be the end of Roman history, its telos.

    What was needed was a story that would tell all of the past, starting before Rome even existed, as though everything inexorably led up to this man, this peace, by divine will."


    http://andreaskluth.org/2010/02/11/t...l-big-picture/

    Yes, subtle is the way that great deeds and heroes are created from murderous deceits.
    Last edited by R_Baird; 12-31-2015 at 05:49 AM.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Nanaimo
    Posts
    3,795
    Did Virgil know a lot more about the founding of Rome? I say he did, I find his fellow northern Italian Gaul named Livy to be far more useful to understanding Rome's true history. I also say he knew about the 'medieval castles' on the nearby island of Sardinia and the smaller ones on Corsica from whence a later Emperor named Napoleon came. Napoleon said his family were Royalty in Etruria and he worshipped Alexander the Great. I have done the absolute best history of the founding of Rome - no lies and lots of evidence.

    Why not comment on the over 9,000 medieval castles on Sardinia or the DNN (Greek) and Keltoi encampments there even before the castles (See Jacquetta Hawkes' Atlas of Archaeology) which were built by Phoenicians of Carthage and before Carthage even existed? Don't they want to know who the settlers or founders of Etruria/Rome, Sybaris and so many other places are? Don't you want to know who you are fool-owing to this day?

    Sardinia's castles in the era before Rome and as far back as the Hyksos rule in Egypt had cross bows and could defend every inch of the large island. No explanations forthcoming from academia. In fact you'll hear more about alien intervention than such facts. I say "pluck yew" (which is the derivation of the phrase often heard 'f*ck you') to those who think modern weapons up until the second world war were significantly better than the ancients.

    "Its size suggests that it was one of the most powerful bows of its era. Historical texts indicate that its firing range could have been up to 2,600 feet, according to Huashang Newspaper, which is double the range of an assault rifle, which is about 1,300 feet.

    Some historians believe that analysis of a number of historical texts shows that the crossbow was integral to several important military victories of the period."

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/peop...-Warriors.html

    The Phoenician ships which traveled the oceans of the whole world had windlass technology which I say lead to this crossbow technology. The founders of Greece are the Phoenician Danaus or DNN, according to Homer who Virgil was imitating or borrowing from. They are also the House of Mallia on Crete whose BEE symbol from that time in 2200 BCE to the time Napoleon wears those BEEs on his investiture robes have played a significant role in ruling this planet. I say the 19 areas of battle in the Trojan War were located all over the world, I am not alone in this regard, and I have gathered together more evidence on the matter than any other author I know about. But who cares, eh?

    If you are a student today who has to study the Aeneid you might like to read what shmoop says. They say their version won't make you snore. http://www.shmoop.com/aeneid/summary.html
    Last edited by R_Baird; 12-31-2015 at 11:22 AM.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Nanaimo
    Posts
    3,795
    There were many oracles or Sibylls (Druidic dryads) in Rome who did a lot more 'time viewing' or recalling the dead as the very name Vergil does portend. Yes, a mere bard or poet keeping the Qabala was a powerful seer. He however seems more of the sort who garnered fame and fortune by slavish adherence to those more powerful than himself. He went to school with Octavian and sucked up to him all his life but may have tried to destroy the Aeneid at his life's end, we are told Octavian/Augustus countermanded this wish because he saw the artistry in the book. Was he more of a seer than the man who follows almost two millennia later. This man influenced the Third Reich and talked about the First Reich - Rome is the Second Reich!

    The oldest date for a First Reich would seem related to Himmler's main occultist at Wewelsburg where they built a complex occult system. This man thought 12,500 BCE was how far back he could take his Teutonic line and I would be able to give them 15,000 more years to brag about (Dolni Vestonici).

    The man in charge or runes meister had been committed by his wife to a nut house for a few years before he met the chicken farmer Himmler. Here is a little about him from Wikipedia. He claimed to be from an ancient German Royal bloodline and you can see one book about him says Wiligut was the Secret King. How much influence he had on Hitler I do not know, Hitler was already quite aware of these matters.

    "Irminenschaft (or, Irminism, Irminenreligion) is a current of Ariosophy based on a Germanic deity Irmin which is supposedly reconstructed from literaric, linguistic and onomastic sources. Among other sources the Prefix "Irmin" is well documented in the from Irminsul "great pillar that supports all"/"Columna Universalis Sustenans Omni", as described in Einhards 'Vita Karoli Magni', and informed by Tacitus (~1st century) {A good source along with Strabo who tells us the Kelts had a 7500 year old written history before Rome destroyed it.} via a mentioned Germanic tribe name of Hermiones; The Old Saxon adjective irmin being synonymous to "great, strong". As such it may also have been an epithet of later deities like Ziu (Týr) or Wodan (Odin)). Purported evidence also stems from the occurrence of the word "Irmingot", found in the Old High German "Hildebrandslied". Notably the Nazi occultist Karl Maria Wiligut claimed a historical Irminism, established in 12,500 BC, later ousted by Wotanism.

    References[edit]
    Wiligut, Karl Maria (2001). The Secret King: Karl Maria Wiligut, Himmler's Lord of the Runes. Dominion. ISBN 1-885972-21-0.
    Goodrick-Clarke, Nicholas (2003). The Occult Roots of Nazism: Secret Aryan Cults and Their Influence on Nazi Ideology. Gardners Books. ISBN 1-86064-973-4.; originally published as Goodrick-Clarke, Nicholas (1992). The Occult Roots of Nazism: Secret Aryan Cults and Their Influence on Nazi Ideology; The Ariosophists of Austria and Germany, 1890-1935. New York University Press. ISBN 0-8147-3060-4.
    Mund, Rudolf. 1982. Der Rasputin Himmlers: Die Wiligut Saga.
    Lange, Hans-Jürgen. 1998. Karl Maria Wiligut - Himmlers Rasputin und seine Erben."



    To compare this man's influence to Rasputin might have merit in the SS of Himmler but not outside that very powerful circle. To say they actually had a lineage of Jesus or the Grail Kings to 12,500 BCE is very possible. Wewelsburg Castle was their Grail Castle and they had done researches to get whatever was of value at Rennes-le-Chateau. The book Occult Roots of Nazism tells us these things about Himmler's warlock as he was known. Given the fact that Hitler was a channeller of sorts (Trance) and this man impressed Himmler in that regard I could easily surmise he also influenced Hitler greatly.

    ""In September 1933, Wiligut joined the SS under the pseudonym 'Karl Maria Weisthor.'" Wiligut and Himmler became fast friends. Himmler never tired of hearing the old man talk about "the hidden history of Atlantis," as revealed in his visions, or reading Wiligut's endless magazine articles on European prehistory.

    Wiligut designed the dreaded SS Totenkopf ring and hat badge, plus the runic symbols used on black SS uniforms and flags. With his newest disciple, Gunther Kirchhoff, he sent archaeological teams to investigate prehistoric sites at Gaggenau in 1934, Germany's Murg valley in 1936 and Glozel, France in 1940.

    Money was no obstacle. Himmler created the SS-Ahnenerbe in 1936, promoted his elderly mentor-in-magick to SS-Brigadefuhrer (General), and turned him loose on several dozen crackpot projects. First prize undoubtedly goes to "Wiligut's Tunnel." This was a vertical tunnel 16 kilometers (10 miles) deep begun in Hungary in 1941, designed to carry an elevator car that would lower Himmler and Wiligut into "the Inner World of Agharti" (Better known to readers of Edgar Rice Burroughs as Pellucidar--J.T.) Millions were spent on the tunnel, and work continued until November 1944, when the lack of supplies forced the SS project to close.

    But age had finally caught up with the old warlock. He resigned from active duty in the SS in August 1939 and moved to his "beloved Goslar" the following year. Himmler sent Elsa Baltrusch, a member of his household staff, to look after Wiligut, who spent his declining years with his runes and spells and ancient artifacts.

    Evacuated to Austria in 1943, Wiligut was there when the war ended. He was briefly detained and questioned by the British Army at Velden, but then was allowed to return to Germany. He fell ill during the trip in December 1945. "The journey proved too much for the old man and he was hospitalized on arrival. Karl Maria Wiligut died on 3 January 1946, the last of his secret line.""


    How many people of the present buy into some Atlantean crap seen on TV all the time? How many are starting to see Hitler was a pawn, or framed, or what happened at Nuremberg is a travesty of so-called history and justice (see Weber)? Let me assure you the Second Reich was far worse!!!
    Last edited by R_Baird; 12-31-2015 at 11:13 AM.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Nanaimo
    Posts
    3,795
    Virgil also ends up creating the Romulus and Remus legend which grew ever larger and probably begins with a loose woman who cried rape.

    "There is much debate and variation as to whom was the father of Romulus and Remus. Some myths claim that Mars appeared and lay with Rhea Silvia; other myths attest that the demi-god hero Hercules was her partner. However, the author Livy claims that Rhea Silvia was in fact raped by an unknown man, but blamed her pregnancy on divine conception. In either case, Rhea Silvia was discovered to be pregnant and gave birth to her sons. It was custom that any Vestal Virgin betraying her vows of celibacy was condemned to death; the most common death sentence was to be buried alive. However, King Amulius, fearing the wrath of the paternal god (Mars or Hercules) did not wish to directly stain his hands with the mother's and children's blood. So, King Amulius imprisoned Rhea Silvia and ordered the twins' death by means of live burial, exposure, or being thrown into the Tiber River. He reasoned that if the twins were to die not by the sword but by the elements, he and his city would be saved from punishment by the gods. He ordered a servant to carry out the death sentence, but in every scenario of this myth, the servant takes pity on the twins and spares their lives. The servant, then, places the twins into a basket onto the River Tiber, and the river carries the boys to safety."

    Of course the river basket story only needs bulrushes to make more BULL apparent. These family legends and propaganda give insight into what direction to go in seeking for other facts to make a true history. Sargon the Great of Akkad had a similar legend and tablets from his era are in existence. That was a millennium before Moses who is also a largely mythical character or Hyksos 'foreigner' from Troy around the time of the Trojan War.

    http://www.ancient.eu/Romulus_and_Remus/

    When I say Moses is largely a mythical character I am actually giving more credence to his having some element of actual existence. That is much more than most scholars today. I say the main man in his legend is Akhenaten. Egyptian princes who are Hyksos also keep their old family titles and names and get new names wherever they conquer or deceitfully gain control over new people with new languages. Moses is a leader and there certainly were many with that title - Moshe translates as 'leader'. Unlike Wikipedia authors I see the name Moshe in Peru and know about the cocaine mummies of Egypt which were forensically proven from this era. I have also read Nat Geo and much more.

    I see Amarna and Ashkelon as well as Mt. Serabit and much more including emeralds used throughout the Mediterranean which there is no source for such volume of these precious gems. And I have much more including the disappearing people of Rome called Ostro (Light) Goths who built huge nine story buildings in Peru at high elevations with roads as wide as the Appian Way.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Nanaimo
    Posts
    3,795
    It is amusing to see a University site allow words like 'leaded' to appear in anything. This half-assed story of what lead to the founding of Rome does not mention Sybaris was later defeated by re-routing a river. Herodotus had said that but he was called a fiction writer until archaeology proved him right in the 1970s. You also should know Kroton or Croton and Bruttium in other languages, the Brutti founded Britain and one of them killed Julius Caesar in Shak-hes- spear's work. It is better than what used to be available when I was doing the research on my books, which is to say not much at all.

    http://pages.uoregon.edu/klio/maps/Italy-changes.htm
    Last edited by R_Baird; 01-05-2016 at 03:55 PM.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Nanaimo
    Posts
    3,795
    In the various regions of what had been the Rome of Caesar there still remained people who could think for themselves before the Ostrogoths disappeared a century or so later. This timeline is interesting and also not much of an alternate view despite the website it comes from saying it is all about alternative views or ideas about history. If they accept me as a poster I will cover how trade in the Americas certainly was managed by Carthage and the Phoenicians (Far earlier) who established Carthage almost two millennia before the Ostrogoths went to Peru where cocaine forensics and cities over eight thousand feet in the Andes have streets and buildings as big as Rome.

    http://www.alternatehistory.com/disc...d.php?t=377910
    The Twilight Ages

    I was accepted and posted one of the posts from this thread along with points about emeralds, purple dye and cocaine forensics proof of the sources in the Americas. I expect to be roundly booed.
    Last edited by R_Baird; 01-06-2016 at 12:59 PM. Reason: add content

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Nanaimo
    Posts
    3,795
    But back to the era just after Virgil and during his time we see Seneca having a thing or two to add.

    Jesus was A Hippie

    Actually he was more appropriately called a Cynic, but that kind of free-thinking humanist is indeed kin to being a Hippie. The Cynics were a school of thought or religious approach to intellectual understanding which many more modern hippies seem to emulate.

    Jesus may have been a zealot seeking to establish a country or kingdom like David (his ancestor) or he may have harkened back to a time when Brotherhood existed, as most Cynics really saw must happen. Seneca and all the other rich or poor Cynics clearly saw man must think and learn for himself, or else things would continue to grow ever more class and racially differentiated. I think Jesus had the Gnostic training of ecumenism and was not into the Kingdom of Israel zealotry as much as he was against Rome and Empire in general, even if he was a zealot at some point in his life. I also think Plato was no where near as elitist or Fascist as his succeeding philosophic school up to Hegel and Fukayama today have become. In fact I think Plato would have preferred universal education and enablement of citizens as the foundation for his Republic. But let's be real! Even today it is hard to find interested and open-minded 'thinkers'."

    Easy answers sought to explain what humanity has feared or regarded through superstition as 'gods', are not the kind of things that allowed adepts to know themselves and their soul. The structures of power and priestly prevarications are rife even in the halls of supposed fair and academic institutions. Pardon me for disagreeing with the likes of Fukayama and others who would have us believe in 'absolute' religions of any form. As a human with the ability to consciously apprehend his or her environment; we must all eschew these black and white answers that our education has expected us to regurgitate in order to get better grades.

    Maybe the noted Jesus scholar from DePaul University can shed a little light on Jesus and his Cynical accoutrements and inclinations. I suggest and recommend reading his many books on Jesus who was (like most of us) incarnated in a variety of different groups and beliefs during his time on earth.

    There were three main philosophic attitudes in the Classical world. They were Stoic, Epicure and Cynic. It is important to see the way Jesus dresses in the accounts of the myth and to know there is veracity in these myths. Here are some words from Farrand Sayre which will help set this idea in perspective.

    "The Cynics sought happiness through freedom. The Cynic conception of freedom included freedom from desires, from fear {Again the all important Keltic Creed is here.}, anger, grief and other emotions, from religious or moral control, from the authority of the city or state or public officials, from regard for public opinion and freedom from the care and support of wives and children {Not to suggest Mary Magdala required support due to her family wealth, which is certain if she was the daughter of Joseph of Arimathaea.}... The Cynics scoffed at the customs and observances of others, but were rigid in observance of their own. The Cynic would not appear anywhere without his wallet, staff and cloak, which must invariably be worn, dirty and ragged and worn so as to leave the right shoulder bare. He never wore shoes and his hair and beard were long and unkempt."


    Knowing Jesus is a Cynic or at least was one for much of his life, we are asked to consider how this might be. I hope there is merit in evaluating the people he would have been associated with. I think Jesus was a lot like Seneca who was one of Thomas Jefferson's great inspirations. Here we find Crossan detailing some of this matter.

    "'By the middle of the first century of our era, elements of the Cynic and Stoic tenets were fairly well merged,' according to Cora Lutz, 'in the teachings of the popular philosophers'. Cynicism was founded by Diogenes of Sinope, who lived from about 400 to about 320 B.C.E. and was born on the mid-southern coast of the Black Sea {Where Pont of Phoenicia had been.} The term itself comes from kyon, the Greek word for dog, and it was used of Diogenes by Aristotle, as if quoting a well-known nickname. It was originally a derogatory term for the provocative shamelessness with which Diogenes deliberately flouted basic human codes of propriety and decency, custom and convention, doing as the third-century historian of philosophy Diogenes Laertius delicately puts it, 'everything in public, the works of Demeter and Aphrodite alike' (6.69; Hicks 2.70-71). Stoicism was founded by Zeno of Citium, who lived from about 333 to 264 B.C.E. and was born on the southeastern coast of Cyprus. That title comes, more demurely, from the Athenian agora's Stoa Poikile, where Zeno taught for many years. Both philosophies sought the happiness of inner freedom and personal self-sufficiency, but where Stoicism found it in detachment from the world, Cynicism found it in abandonment of the world. Insofar as they interacted together, and especially on the popular level, Cynicism was practical and radical Stoicism; Stoicism was theoretical and moderate Cynicism. Take for example, the case of Seneca.

    Lucius Annaeus Seneca - Seneca the Younger - Stoic philosopher, author, and multimillionaire, lived between about 4 B.C.E. and 65 B.C.E. As tutor to Nero, his responsibility for the imperial virtue and vice remained somewhat ambiguous, but he was, in the end, ordered to commit suicide for alleged participation in the anti-Neronic conspiracy headed by Gaius Calpurnius Piso. Despite his extreme wealth, he was greatly influenced by the Cynic philosopher Demetrius, who lived in his household during the years between 51 and 65 C.E. when Seneca was composing his Epistulae Morales, moral treatises fictionalized as letters to his friend Gaius Lucilius. One can see, for instance, the difference between the theoretical dispassion of the Stoic Seneca (I have but do not care) and the practical dispossession of the Cynic Demetrius (I do not have but do not care) in this story:

    When Gaius Caesar [Caligula] wanted to give Demetrius two hundred thousand, he laughingly refused it, not even deeming it a sum the refusal of which was worth boasting about.... 'If he meant to tempt me.' said he. 'he ought to have tested me by offering me his whole kingdom.' (Seneca, De Beneficii 7:11; Basore et al. 3.482-483)" (1)


    We can look at the words of Camus and the 'naturel ordre' of Rousseau that may have guided him and see there is something the Cynics and undoubtedly many before them perceived which is archetypical to humankind. Some would like us to believe we are naturally competitive and aggressive and there is some truth in that too. Civilized humankind has higher aspirations though. At least that is how a Hippie sees it. 'Make LOVE not War' was certainly a mainstay of the recent humanitarian effort and it binds many Goths, Beatniks and Hippies together. But this natural order is no simple thing wherein there is one obvious approach which makes sense to all people who seek good acts or results for the bulk of life on earth. I knew many Hippies felt confident that Jesus 'was just alright with' them and the man inspired them to act as he would. But there was no agreement from the Churchians to the most part.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Nanaimo
    Posts
    3,795
    If Etruria is founded by Lydians as genetics does prove why have so many academics not changed their books or attitudes about all history and the Trojan Worldwide War? Why do we still have noble families in charge of Empires and enjoying their ill-gotten gains? Do we really need a bigger de-population program than the last time they fought wars of horrific proportions for no real reason history can explain? Or maybe the Wars of Enlightenment before that need to be re-enacted?

    In my research on the founding of Rome the navy of Sybaris was said to be the largest in all of the Mediterranean. They located near another city with a name of great importance to the Keltoi - Tara. Later we have Pythagoras moving his people near there when he no longer could handle the Greeks who abused women (IMHO). His city was named after the clan or family which founded Britain and was all over Italy. In fact these Brutti (yes, et tu Brutti) defeated their Etruscan brothers at the Battle of Alalia which lead to the creation of a fair land use for all people and SPQR. That battle included the Phoenicians they had fought with at Troy and it was two hundred and more years before the local Brutti again had to ask for help from far away places to kick the elites of Etruria out. So my history says Kroton or Croton was Brutti in another tongue and all of the Brutti were involved in subjugating Sybaris. I think the Sybarites had allied with the Etruscans who no academic understands the origins of. These were the same peoples who fought over Troy many centuries earlier. The Brutti were still being ridiculed as 'runaways' before they put Etruria out of history. But the real reason I post these tidbits has to do with the ridicule heaped on Herodotus who was called a fiction writer. Maybe that is what people call me and maybe a millennium from now someone will say - I told the truth and those who called me names were cultish liars for the paradigm.

    http://www.naplesldm.com/sybarite.html

    Another proof that Herodotus was correct and academic paid liars were propagandists. Not to suggest that there is no value in reading Livy whose northerner or Hyperborean theory has merit if you go back far enough (Gimbutas and archaeology concur). But that would mean telling a lot more truth than these journalists or the academics know.



    "They then compared their Y chromosomes, which are passed from father to son, with those of other groups in Italy, the Balkans, modern-day Turkey and the Greek island of Lemnos, which linguistic evidence suggests could have links to the Etruscans.

    "The DNA samples from Murlo and Volterra are much more highly correlated to those of the eastern peoples than to those of the other inhabitants of [Italy]," said Alberto Piazza of the University of Turin, who presented the research. "One particular genetic variant, found in the samples from Murlo, was shared only with people from Turkey."

    This year, a similar but less conclusive study that tracked the DNA passed down from mothers to daughters, pointed to a direct genetic input from western Asia. In 2004, a team of researchers from Italy and Spain used samples taken from Etruscan burial chambers to establish that the Etruscans were more genetically akin to each other than to contemporary Italians.

    The latest findings confirm what was said about the matter almost 2,500 years ago, by the Greek historian Herodotus. The first traces of Etruscan civilisation in Italy date from about 1200 BC.

    About seven and a half centuries later, Herodotus wrote that after the Lydians had undergone a period of severe deprivation in western Anatolia, "their king divided the people into two groups, and made them draw lots, so that the one group should remain and the other leave the country; he himself was to be the head of those who drew the lot to remain there, and his son, whose name was Tyrrhenus, of those who departed".

    It was a Roman who muddied the waters. The historian Livy, writing in the first century BC, claimed the Etruscans were from northern Europe. A few years later, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, a Greek writer living in Rome, came up with the theory that the Etruscans were, on the contrary, indigenous Italians who had always lived in Etruria.

    The Lydian empire had by then long since passed into history. Its inhabitants were said by Herodotus to have been the first people to make use of gold and silver coins and the first to establish shops, rather stalls, from which to trade goods. They gave the world the saying "as rich as Croesus" - Croesus was their last king.

    Herodotus's story about the drawing of the lots may or may not be true, but the genetic research indicates that some Lydians did, as he wrote, leave their native land and travel, probably via Lemnos, to Italy."


    http://www.theguardian.com/world/200...aly.johnhooper

    What happened in Macedonia lead to what Rome became.

    https://books.google.ca/books?id=8EX...page&q&f=false
    Last edited by R_Baird; 01-13-2016 at 12:08 PM.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Nanaimo
    Posts
    3,795
    And one of (if not the) most important thing in my book on Rennes and Sauničre is Dominus Iesus (Iesa being the Brotherhood of Man which the Great pyramid was built to honour). Ecumenicism or the coming together of all religions is what this world must soon achieve if we are ever to address the issues including war and slavery (Including the treatment of women). Here is an analysis from academics or theologians http://www.cwrc-rz.org/analysisofdi.html.

    "Analysis of Dominus Iesus

    Read Dominus Iesus>>

    Brief History


    Many of you are now familiar with a flurry of ecumenical endeavours on the part of Catholic and Protestant churchmen. One document that recently caused lively debate is "Evangelicals and Catholics Together" (1994), a document signed by such leading Evangelicals as J.I. Packer and Charles Colson in which past differences between the divided communions were verbally minimized so that steps toward ultimate unity might be accomplished. Recently, the Vatican has responded to these ecumenical efforts, indirectly, with a document entitled "Declaration Dominus Iesus" (DI) (September 5, 2000) presented by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger {Later made Pope and a very bad cover-up artist of Pedophilia.} and approved by the "magisterium" of the Roman Church. This document outlines the direction in which Rome intends to proceed in ongoing dialogue with those outside the Roman Church. It re-affirms Rome's so called supremacy in matters of salvation, faith and practice. Timothy George, who is Dean of Beeson Divinity School at Samford University and the executive editor of Christianity Today, welcomes the document on the grounds that, "In an unusual way it is an encouragement to the kind of ecumenism we ought to be engaged in." As George goes on to explain, "In some ecumenical circles, the barometer of conviction has fallen so low that it no longer registers the temperature of truth." Clearly then, Dominus Iesus has presented itself with conviction and certainty.

    What then is the conviction that the document is seeking to express? The answer is the necessity mentioned by Paul in I Cor. 9:16, to preach the Gospel! (The Gospel here would not be what Paul, or we, would understand by the Gospel but rather how the Roman Catholic Church perceives the Gospel according to her own peculiar tenets). To quote from Para. 2 of DI, "This explains the Magisterium's particular attention to giving reasons for and supporting the evangelizing mission of the Church, above all in connection with the religious traditions of the world." In other words, the document is primarily addressed not to recent attempts at ecumenism but rather to a desire to confront modern society, awash in relativism, with the absolute claims of the Christ of the Roman Catholic Church. While recognizing faint glints of "truth" in other religions, the document claims that the full truth is confined to the Roman Church. It closes on this note, "We believe the one true religion continues to exist in the Catholic and Apostolic Church, to which our Lord Jesus Christ entrusted the task of spreading it among all the people."

    Now, no one can quarrel with the intent of the document, as Catholics are certainly entitled to their convictions and to challenge the world to examine them. As has been mentioned, the document says little about the status of present ecumenical endeavours and inter-church relationships. Further, we can be thankful for DI because it sets out in no uncertain terms how Rome perceives herself in relation to other religions and other Christian expressions. With no pretence at dissembling, Rome explicitly declares her estimation of other Christian Churches. Under the section heading "Unicity and Unity of the Church", DI states that,


    ...the Church of Christ, despite the divisions which exist among Christians, continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church, and on the other hand, that 'outside of her structure, many elements can be found of sanctification and truth' (1) that is, in those Churches and ecclesial communities which are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church. But with respect to these, it needs to be stated that 'they derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church.

    The Athenians at Mars' Hill should have felt cheated, had this been true. Nonetheless, is this not what Rome has always taught?" And the answer is yes. While we may marvel at "the mystery of iniquity", we also marvel at how slow present day evangelicals are to admit the totalitarian nature of the Roman Church. The Roman Church has by and large made herself into a substitute for God. As B. B. Warfield puts it in his treatise, The Plan of Salvation,
    "In a word, the Church in this system is conceived to be Jesus Christ himself in his earthly form, and it is therefore substituted for him as the proximate object of the faith of Christians" (Warfield, 54).
    Warfield reminds us that in Catholic thought the God of salvation is largely deistic. He, God, has provided the means of salvation and then has given the whole matter of salvation over to the Church to offer salvation to all men through the mediatorial role entrusted to the Roman Catholic Church. The difference between Biblical Christianity and the Roman system needs to be clearly understood. In the Roman system salvation is found only through the mediation of the Church and the various things she has to offer for lost sinners. God has provided a way of salvation for all men but it is up to the Church to administer the means to as many men as she can reach. On the other hand, classic Protestantism in the form of pure evangelicalism, as Warfield so succinctly states, "...suspends the welfare of the soul directly, without any intermediaries at all, upon the grace of God alone."

    A failure to understand this fundamental difference will mean that all ecumenical talks will fail or Evangelicals will capitulate completely to Rome, which is Rome's avowed aim. The only other course would be for Rome to recognize its error and dismantle its whole superstructure, along with its vaunted claims, something that would be most unlikely.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •