Animore
Active Member
I'm only going to span from aspects of a friendly conversation/friendly debate if it is a general necessity. That was my last post to him, and it will remain that way. I'm sensing you are only replying to prolong the debate.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Overwhelming Historical Proof: Why do you doubt Jesus?
- Thread starter Animore
- Start date
Satans_Serrated_Edge
Deicidal
Well this is a fun 'the bible is true because the bible says so' thread.
I frankly can't wrap my mind how such feeble circular nonsense could convince anyone of anything.
TruthEnder
Member
This answer lacks the necessary ingredients. I think you're telling me who Jesus is, but not how he acts. Either way, I'm just trying to get you to see that all the most important ways Jesus acts are your own highest ideals. And in that case, how could you say you're not the best Christian? Honestly, you're probably not even the best non-Christian who lives up to your moral ideals as best as they can. Perhaps Satan in his deceiving glory could muster up to act like Jesus much better than you because he is cunning, but he wouldn't do it earnestly. Even Christians can live better than the next person, and not do it earnestly. So what. Do you smoke? I do. I want to quit, but it's very hard to give up the habit. I'm in the process of getting there. I'd rather not smoke for a plethora of reasons. Maybe there are people out there who don't smoke, and the reason they don't do it is just because it was never a thing. They didn't think they'd like it, because it just felt nasty. I'd say when I quit smoking I'm going to be a better non-smoker than a lot of non-smokers in that regard. Even if I trip up and have a cigarette every now and again. But now I'm ranting.
Leaving? Please be sure to take the litter that you try to pawn off as "Overwhelming Historical Proof" with you.
Was that really necessary? It is not so hard, after all, to simply not bother dissing people. Like smiling and frowning -- the first actually requires less effort!Leaving? Please be sure to take the litter that you try to pawn off as "Overwhelming Historical Proof" with you.
No. Then again, neither was the litter or, for that matter, your condescension.
Satans_Serrated_Edge
Deicidal
The moral of the story is: Some people are easily overwhelmed, and even more easily convinced.
One mans 'overwhelming evidence' is another mans discardable fluff. I think this is proportionate to both ones raw intelligence and ones learned ability to do reason and logic.
One mans 'overwhelming evidence' is another mans discardable fluff. I think this is proportionate to both ones raw intelligence and ones learned ability to do reason and logic.
I don't understand why other posters like you.Leaving? Please be sure to take the litter that you try to pawn off as "Overwhelming Historical Proof" with you.
Tom
Skwim
Veteran Member
Oh, ho, ho, you've said much more than that, all of which is up for discussion. Around here you don't get to pick and choose which of your remarks people respond to.
So it seems. But because it is beyond your conception let me explain. Your original post was an expansion on your post title. "Overwhelming Historical Proof: Why do you doubt Jesus?" In effect, Jesus shouldn't be doubted because Biblical scripture is "overwhelming historical proof." Well, Evangelicalhumanist showed you why it is not, and you immediately blew him off with a dismissive. "and let's agree to disagree. There's no point in continuing to reply to every argument. Even a cretin is smart enough to know not everyone has the same beliefs." "Let's agree to disagree" is the ploy of someone beaten so badly he's throwing up his hands in surrender. And this would have been fine; however, you then made the disparaging remark that "Even a cretin is smart enough to know not everyone has the same beliefs." So I took it on to explain---not so much to you at all, but to all the others here whom you're trying sell your story to why your OP and its title is so pitiful.
.
Skwim
Veteran Member
I believe it's a matter of need. People will do whatever it takes, be it silliness, extremely bad logic, or even lying to convince themselves their need-sustaining beliefs are right.
.
Kelly of the Phoenix
Well-Known Member
All people are currently the offspring of "the woman." It doesn't really say much. As for all the "the Messiah will descend from" stuff, I mean, by the time of Roman Judea, there are only really a few lineages left available, you know what I mean?
Also, a lot of your prophecies have quotes from the NT, so you don't really prove your point. To prove a prophecy, you have to prove the story existed prior to the event, not vice versa.
Not really. None of them clobber with much more force than a feather on a rock.
It's hard to prove, since Jesus himself doesn't actually have anything written in the bible. Only the authors said anything, so if anything, they are lying first.
He vandalized other people's stuff, dishonored his parents, worked on the Sabbath, called people foolish and then said anyone who does so is going to hell, etc...
So you believe people in real life or on the internet whenever they claim to be God, or the Messiah, or whatever, right? You have as much evidence that they are who they say THEY are, after all.
The Romans wouldn't have cared much about some theological claim. Jesus was executed for fomenting rebellion, just as they crucified basically anyone who did so, like Spartacus.
They all wore similar garments. Did it have "Jesus" on the tag or something?
I think the centurion whose servant Jesus healed was in on this. I don't think it's a mistake he is included in the story. He could easily pull rank and get this to work.
I'm a nurse. It is entirely within the realm of plausibility that Jesus "died" (remember, it's not like it says anyone checked for a pulse or anything) due to health reasons. Even Pilate was shocked at how fast Jesus died, as it was supposed to last awhile. While only John, IIRC, mentions the spear in the side, the fact he claims water came out of the side tells me that the spear inadvertently relieved the pressure of fluid in Jesus' torso, so that he was able to recover in about 3 days or so.
Paul is a Trojan Horse. He couldn't stop the Way (Christianity wasn't invented as a thing until later), so he joined the group and then detracted the followers from the apostles. Peter and Paul are both arrogant charlatans, but for different reasons.
I see. You're into false martyrdom. Yawn.
You know, there are still some sects that flagellate themselves. If you're into that kind of thing, go do that.
The original Saul, King Saul, also talked to a very dead Samuel. Does that make Samuel God?
Be fair. We can actually dive and go see the boat.
You have to prove they are prophecies. Given that the texts were written after the fact, good luck.
Revelations almost didn't make it into canon and is a revenge story by someone high as a kite. It's Theology by Michael Bay: short on substance, lots of pretty explosions.
LOL, "born of the woman"? EVERY human can claim that!
And yet I'll most often see others posted on giant billboards put up by churches. It's rarely Jesus... hmmm ...
Also, mentioning that there is a group called "Christians" who worship "Christ' is not the same thing as proving "Christ" existed or that any of the stories around him are true. It's like saying Trekkies love this or Whovians like that and that therefore we must conclude the characters and plots in the respective franchises actually happened.
His relationship to you should be why you follow Him, not ancient words of self-serving people. God is more than the bible. It is idolatry to elevate it to the concept that God can only be seen there.
No, they aren't: they are using the HISTORICAL context of the texts. If you went back in time and tried to insert Jesus into everything, the OT authors would look at you like you're nuts.
We are all children of God, though. Jesus isn't even the only person with superpowers or compassion or empathy (well, towards Jews, anyway ... if you're a gentile you have to guilt-trip him to get him to help you), even in the bible. Jesus said to let your light shine. That means YOU have power too, not just him.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
It seems Josephus was referencing early Christians at the time. Not Christ exclusively. Anyways, why would a Jewish scribe acknowledge Jesus alone? It was an acknowledgement of early Christians who followed one called Christ.
ukok102nak
Active Member
as you started to point out firstabout scriptures
meaning
its a scriptural facts ... .
as it is written carefully check
every detail on it
and kindly correct us if we are wrong
:read:
Acts 11:18
When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then has God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.
*
*
*
. ...
26 And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.
27 And in these days came prophets from Jerusalem unto Antioch.
28 And there stood up one of them named Agabus, and signified by the Spirit j that there should be great dearth throughout all the world: which came to pass in the days of Claudius Caesar.
:ty:
godbless unto all always
Last edited:
ukok102nak
Active Member
@ NotOfTheWorld
NOTE: your message and mine are too loooooong to post when it is combined
that's why we have to break it down first
~;> now because this is according to history
meaning it is a historical facts
as it is written carefully check
every detail on it
and kindly correct us if we are wrong
:read:
Roman historian Tacitus referred to Christus and his execution byPontius Pilate in his Annals (written c. AD 116), book 15, chapter 44.[48] Robert E. Van Voorst states that the very negative tone of Tacitus' comments on Christians make the passage extremely unlikely to have been forged by a Christian scribe and Boyd and Eddy state that the Tacitus reference is now widely accepted as an independent confirmation of Christ's crucifixion, although some scholars question the authenticity of the passage on various grounds.
Tacitus
Historian
Publius Cornelius Tacitus was a senator and a historian of the Roman Empire. The surviving portions of his two major works—the Annals and the Histories—examine the reigns of the Roman emperors Tiberius,
Died: 117 AD, Roman Empire
Quotes
Other considerations outside Christendom are the possible mentions of Jesus in the Talmud. The Talmud speaks in some detail of the conduct of criminal cases of Israel and gathered in one place from 200-500 C.E. "On the eve of the Passover Yeshua was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practised sorcery and enticed Israel to apostacy." The first date of the Sanhedrin judiciary council being recorded as functioning is 57 B.C.E.
Two widely accepted historical facts
See also: Baptism of Jesus and Crucifixion of Jesus
Almost all modern scholars consider his baptism and crucifixionto be historical facts.[9][59]
The Pilate Stone from Caesarea Maritima, now at the Israel Museum
John P. Meier views the crucifixion of Jesus as historical fact and states that based on the criterion of embarrassment Christians would not have invented the painful death of their leader.
Meier states that a number of other criteria, e.g. the criterion of multiple attestation (i.e. confirmation by more than one source), thecriterion of coherence (i.e. that it fits with other historical elements) and the criterion of rejection (i.e. that it is not disputed by ancient sources) help establish the crucifixion of Jesus as a historical event. Eddy and Boyd state that it is now firmly established that there is non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus – referring to the mentions in Josephus andTacitus.
:ty:
godbless
unto all always
that's why we have to break it down first
~;> now because this is according to history
meaning it is a historical facts
as it is written carefully check
every detail on it
and kindly correct us if we are wrong
:read:
Roman historian Tacitus referred to Christus and his execution byPontius Pilate in his Annals (written c. AD 116), book 15, chapter 44.[48] Robert E. Van Voorst states that the very negative tone of Tacitus' comments on Christians make the passage extremely unlikely to have been forged by a Christian scribe and Boyd and Eddy state that the Tacitus reference is now widely accepted as an independent confirmation of Christ's crucifixion, although some scholars question the authenticity of the passage on various grounds.
Tacitus
Historian
Publius Cornelius Tacitus was a senator and a historian of the Roman Empire. The surviving portions of his two major works—the Annals and the Histories—examine the reigns of the Roman emperors Tiberius,
Died: 117 AD, Roman Empire
Quotes
- 1 of 7
The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws.
It belongs to human nature to hate those you have injured.
The desire for safety stands against every great and noble enterprise.
Other considerations outside Christendom are the possible mentions of Jesus in the Talmud. The Talmud speaks in some detail of the conduct of criminal cases of Israel and gathered in one place from 200-500 C.E. "On the eve of the Passover Yeshua was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practised sorcery and enticed Israel to apostacy." The first date of the Sanhedrin judiciary council being recorded as functioning is 57 B.C.E.
Two widely accepted historical facts
See also: Baptism of Jesus and Crucifixion of Jesus
Almost all modern scholars consider his baptism and crucifixionto be historical facts.[9][59]
The Pilate Stone from Caesarea Maritima, now at the Israel Museum
John P. Meier views the crucifixion of Jesus as historical fact and states that based on the criterion of embarrassment Christians would not have invented the painful death of their leader.
Meier states that a number of other criteria, e.g. the criterion of multiple attestation (i.e. confirmation by more than one source), thecriterion of coherence (i.e. that it fits with other historical elements) and the criterion of rejection (i.e. that it is not disputed by ancient sources) help establish the crucifixion of Jesus as a historical event. Eddy and Boyd state that it is now firmly established that there is non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus – referring to the mentions in Josephus andTacitus.
:ty:
godbless
unto all always
Last edited:
ukok102nak
Active Member
~;> as it is written carefully check
every detail on it
and kindly correct us if we are wrong
:read:
Acts 11:28
And there stood up one of them named Agabus, and signified by the Spirit that there should be great dearth throughout all the world: which came to pass in the days of Claudius Caesar.
Claudius (10 BC - 54 AD)
Claudius was born on 1 August 10 BC in Gaul (now France) into the Roman imperial family. Tiberius, the second emperor of Rome, was his uncle. Claudius suffered from physical disabilities, including a limp and a speech impediment and was therefore treated with disdain by his family, and not considered as a future emperor. When Tiberius's successor Caligula was assassinated in January 41 AD, the Praetorian Guard found Claudius in the palace and acclaimed him as emperor. The senate held out against Claudius for two days, but then accepted him.
Relations between Claudius and the senate continued to be difficult, and the new emperor entrusted much of his administration to influential Greek freedmen of low social standing, which in turn alienated the senators. He also heard trials in private, rather than allowing senators to be judged by their peers.
Although he lacked a military reputation, the essential attribute of an emperor, in 43 AD Claudius undertook the conquest of Britain. He visited the island for 16 days, to preside over the capture of Colchester, the capital of the new province, and then returned to Rome in triumph. As well as Britain, Claudius added Mauretania (North Africa), Thrace (the Balkans) and Lycia (part of Turkey) to the Roman Empire.
Claudius had two children by his wife Messallina - Britannicus and Octavia. In 48 AD Messallina went through a marriage ceremony with the consul Silius as part of a plot against Claudius. Both were executed. Claudius then married his niece Agrippina the Younger who with her son Domitius, was the only surviving direct descendant of Augustus. Agrippina quickly appointed her own supporters to important positions and persuaded Claudius to adopt Domitius - who took the name Nero - as his son.
Claudius died on 13 October 54 AD after being poisoned, probably on the orders of Agrippina who feared Claudius would appoint Britannicus his heir over her son Nero. Nero became Emperor.
Last edited:
meghanwaterlillies
Well-Known Member
I love the stuff you posted here after:: O think its overwhelming actually how much there actually is.
about scriptures
meaning
its a scriptural facts ... .
as it is written carefully check
every detail on it
and kindly correct us if we are wrong
:read:
Acts 11:18
When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then has God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.
*
*
*
. ...
26 And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.
27 And in these days came prophets from Jerusalem unto Antioch.
28 And there stood up one of them named Agabus, and signified by the Spirit j that there should be great dearth throughout all the world: which came to pass in the days of Claudius Caesar.
:ty:
godbless unto all always
meghanwaterlillies
Well-Known Member
Everybody is posting it they are filling up the pages write now. Just as much even if not more that Jesus existed. Like historians have said that without trying to sell it on television as part of "easter" propaganda or something like that. There's not much to even say that some of the emperors or caesars even existed in context of writing or historical proofs even some scribes but people will gladly accept that if they are told that.
meghanwaterlillies
Well-Known Member
.. haha dreath this one..... good beans..~;> as it is written carefully check
every detail on it
and kindly correct us if we are wrong
:read:
Acts 11:28
And there stood up one of them named Agabus, and signified by the Spirit that there should be great dearth throughout all the world: which came to pass in the days of Claudius Caesar.
Claudius (10 BC - 54 AD)
A statue of Claudius, c.41 AD ©Claudius I was the emperor who added Britain to the Roman Empire.
Claudius was born on 1 August 10 BC in Gaul (now France) into the Roman imperial family. Tiberius, the second emperor of Rome, was his uncle. Claudius suffered from physical disabilities, including a limp and a speech impediment and was therefore treated with disdain by his family, and not considered as a future emperor. When Tiberius's successor Caligula was assassinated in January 41 AD, the Praetorian Guard found Claudius in the palace and acclaimed him as emperor. The senate held out against Claudius for two days, but then accepted him.
Relations between Claudius and the senate continued to be difficult, and the new emperor entrusted much of his administration to influential Greek freedmen of low social standing, which in turn alienated the senators. He also heard trials in private, rather than allowing senators to be judged by their peers.
Although he lacked a military reputation, the essential attribute of an emperor, in 43 AD Claudius undertook the conquest of Britain. He visited the island for 16 days, to preside over the capture of Colchester, the capital of the new province, and then returned to Rome in triumph. As well as Britain, Claudius added Mauretania (North Africa), Thrace (the Balkans) and Lycia (part of Turkey) to the Roman Empire.
Claudius had two children by his wife Messallina - Britannicus and Octavia. In 48 AD Messallina went through a marriage ceremony with the consul Silius as part of a plot against Claudius. Both were executed. Claudius then married his niece Agrippina the Younger who with her son Domitius, was the only surviving direct descendant of Augustus. Agrippina quickly appointed her own supporters to important positions and persuaded Claudius to adopt Domitius - who took the name Nero - as his son.
Claudius died on 13 October 54 AD after being poisoned, probably on the orders of Agrippina who feared Claudius would appoint Britannicus his heir over her son Nero. Nero became Emperor.
ukok102nak
Active Member
~;> let us continue for further analysis
about
Claudius, Vatican Museums, Vatican City
Tiberius Claudius Drusus
Nero Germanicus
(10 BC - AD 54)
Tiberius Claudius Drusus Nero Germanicus was born in Lugdunum (Lyon) in 10 BC, as the youngest son of Nero Drusus (Tiberius' brother) and of Antonia the younger (who was the daughter of Marc Antony and Octavia).
Suffering from ill-health and an alarming lack of social skills, for which most believed him mentally handicapped, he received no public office from Augustus except once being invested as an augur (an official Roman soothsayer). Under Tiberius he held no office at all.
Generally he was considered an embarrassment at court.
Under Caligula's reign he was granted a consulship as colleague to the emperor himself (AD 37), but otherwise he was treated very badly by Caligula (who was his nephew), suffering public disrespect and scorn from him at court.
At the assassination of Caligula in January AD 41, Claudius fled to one of the apartments of the palace and hid behind one of the curtain. He was discovered by the praetorians and taken to their camp, where the two praetorian prefects proposed him to the troops who hailed him emperor.
His being made emperor, despite his feebleness and having no military or even administrational experience at all, is most likely due to his being the brother of Germanicus who had died in AD 19 and had been very popular with the soldiery. Also he might have been deemed a possible puppet emperor, whom one could easily control, by the praetorians.
The senate first considered the restoration of the republic, but faced with the praetorians' decision, the senators fell in line and bestowed imperial power upon Claudius.
He was short, possessed neither natural dignity nor authority. He had a staggering walk, 'embarrassing habits', and 'indecent' laugh and when annoyed he foamed disgustingly at the mouth and his nose ran. He stammered and had a twitch. He was always ill, until he became emperor. Then his health improved marvelously, except for attacks of stomach-ache, which he said even made him think of suicide.
In history and in the accounts of ancient historians, Claudius comes as a positive mishmash of conflicting characteristics: absent-minded, hesitant, muddled, determined, cruel, intuitive, wise and dominated by his wife and his personal staff of freedmen. He was probably all of these things. His choice of women was in no doubt disastrous. But he may well have had good reason to prefer the advice of educated and trained, non-Roman executives to that of potentially suspect aristocratic senators, even if some of those executives did use their influence to their own financial advantage.
The senate's initial hesitation in granting him the throne was the source of much resentment by Claudius. Meanwhile the senator disliked him for not being their free choice of ruler.
So Claudius came to be the first Roman emperor in a line of many to follow who was not truly appointed by the senate, but by the army's men.
He also came to be the first emperor who granted the praetorians a large bonus payment at his accession (15'000 sesterces per man), creating another ominous precedent for the future.
Claudius first actions in office though marked him out as an exceptional emperor. Though he needed to for honour's sake to deal with Caligula's immediate assassins (they were sentenced to death), he did not begin a witch hunt.
He abolished the treason trials, burned criminal records and destroyed Caligula's infamous stock of poisons. Claudius also returned many of Caligula's confiscations.
In AD 42 the first revolt against his rule took place, led by the governor of Upper Illyricum, Marcus Furius Camillus Scribonianus.
The attempt of rebellion was easily put down before it ever really got started. However it revealed that the instigators of the uprising had possessed connections with very influential nobility in Rome. The subsequent shock of just how close to his person such conspirators may be, led the emperor to adopt stringent security measures. And it is partly due to these measures that any of the six or more plots against the emperor during his twelve year reign didn't meet with success.
However, the suppression of such conspiracies cost the lives of 35 senators and over 300 equestrians. what wonder that the senate didn't like Claudius !
Immediately after the failed rebellion of AD 42, Claudius decided to distract any attention from such challenges to his authority by organizing a campaign to invade and conquer Britain. A plan close to the army's heart, as they already once before had intended to do so under Caligula. - An attempt which had ended in a humiliating farce.
It was decided that Rome could no longer pretend that Britain did not exist, and a potentially hostile and possibly united nation just beyond the fringe of the existing empire presented a threat which could not be ignored. Also Britain was famed for its metals; most of all tin, but also gold was thought to be there. Besides, Claudius, for so long the butt of his family, wanted a piece of military glory, and here was a chance to get it.
By AD 43 the armies stood ready and all preparations for the invasion were in place. It was a formidable force, even for Roman standards. Overall command was in the hands of Aulus Plautius.
Plautius advanced but then got into difficulties. His orders were to do this if he met any sizable resistance. When he received the message, Claudius handed over the administration of the affairs of state to his consular colleague Lucius Vitellius, and then himself took to the field. He went by river to Ostia, and then sailed along the coast to Massilia (Marseilles). From there, travelling overland and by river transport, he reached the sea and crossed to Britain, where he met up with his troops, who were encamped by the river Thames.
Assuming command, he crossed the river, engaged the barbarians, who had rallied together at his approach, defeated them, and took Camelodunum (Colchester), the barbarian's apparent capital. Then he put down several other tribes, defeating them or accepting their surrender.
He confiscated the tribes' weapons which he handed over to Plautius with orders to subdue the rest. He then headed back to Rome sending news of his victory ahead. When the senate heard about his achievement, it granted him the title of Britannicus and authorized him to celebrate a triumph through the city.
Claudius had been in Britain just sixteen days. Plautius followed up the advantage gained, and was from AD 44 to 47 governor of this new province. When Caratacus, a royal barbarian leader, was finally captured and brought to Rome in chains, Claudius pardoned him and his family.
In the east Claudius also annexed the two client kingdoms of Thracia, making them into another province.
Claudius also reformed the military. The granting of Roman citizenship to auxiliaries after a service of twenty-five years was introduced by his predecessors, but it was under Claudius that it truly became a regular system.
Were most Romans naturally intent on seeing the Roman empire as a solely Italian institution, the Claudius refused to do so, allowing senators to be drawn also from Gaul. I order to do so, he revived the office of censor, which had fallen into disuse. Though such changes caused storms of xenophobia by the senate and appeared only to support accusations that the emperor preferred foreigners to proper Romans.
With the help of his freedmen advisors, Claudius reformed the financial affairs of the state and empire, creating a separate fund for the emperor's private household expenses. As almost all grain had to be imported, mainly from Africa and Egypt, Claudius offered insurances against losses on the open sea, to encourage potential importers and to build up stocks against winter times of famine. Among his extensive building projects Claudius constructed the port of Ostia (Portus), a scheme already proposed by Julius Caesar. This eased congestion on the river Tiber, but the sea currents should gradually cause the harbour to silt up, which is why today it is no longer present.
Claudius also took great care in his function as a judge, presiding over the imperial law-court. He instituted judicial reforms, creating in particular legal safeguards for the weak and defenceless.
Of the loathed freedmen at Claudius' court, the most notorious were perhaps Polybius, Narcissus, Pallas, and Felix, the brother of Pallas, who became governor of Judaea. Their rivalry did not prevent them from working in concert to their common advantage; it was virtually a public secret that honours and privileges were 'for sale' through their offices. But they were men of ability, who rendered useful service when it was in their own interest to do so, forming a sort of imperial cabinet quite independent from the Roman class system.
It was Narcissus, the emperor's minister of letters (i.e. he was the man who helped Claudius deal with all his matters of correspondence) who in AD 48 took the necessary actions when the emperor's wife Valeria Messalina and her lover Gaius Silius attempted to overthrow Claudius, when he was away at Ostia. Their intent was most likely to place the Claudius' infant son Britannicus on the throne, leaving them to rule the empire as regents.
Claudius was extremely surprised and appears to have been indecisive and confused as to what to do. So it was Narcissus who took hold of the situation, had Silius arrested and executed and Messalina driven into suicide.
But Narcissus was not to benefit from having saved his emperor. In fact it became the reason of his very downfall, as the emperor's next wife Agrippina the younger saw to it that the freedman Pallas, who was finance minister, soon eclipsed Narcissus' powers.
Agrippina was granted the title of Augusta, a rank no wife of an emperor had held before. And she was determined to see her twelve year old son Nero take the place of Britannicus as imperial heir.
She successfully arranged for Nero to be betrothed to Claudius' daughter Octavia. And a year later Claudius adopted him as son.
Then on the night of the 12 to 13 October AD 54 Claudius suddenly died. His death is generally attributed to his scheming wife Agrippina who didn't care to wait for her son Nero inherit the throne and so poisoned Claudius with mushrooms.
:ty:
godbless
unto all always
ukok102nak
Active Member
andthis is another one of written history facts
as everyone here has their own history to tell like the history of their ancestors who
existed even before the birth of computerize certificate of true copy of birth certificate (atleast now its easy to provide one if someone lost it becaused of natural calamity such as floods and anything alike when nor where a nature disaster is involved
or
accidents like everyone use to tackle on
fire prevention act for safety precaution)
is established in this present day
and we considered them all as a fact
:read:
Claudius
Tiberius Claudius Drusus Nero Germanicus
born on 1 August 10 BC at Lugdunum, Gaul, son of Nero Claudius Drusus (38-9 BC), brother of Tiberius, and Antonia (36 BC - AD 37), daughter of MArk Antony. Became emperor in AD 41. Married (1) Plautia Urgunlanilla (one son, Drusus, (d ca. AD 26) and one daughter, Claudia); (2) Aelia Paetina (one daughter, Antonia); (3) Valeria Messalina (one son, Tiberius Claudius Britannicus (AD 41 -55) and one daughter, Octavia (d. AD 62); (4) Agrippina. Died on 12 October AD 54. Deified in AD 54.
As news of Caligula's assassination spread, the senate gathered in haste, several of them ready to press their own claims to the succession, other urged that the moment had come to restore the republic.
Though the praetorian guard had its own ideas as to who should take the throne. Claudius, Caligula's feeble-minded uncle, had been dragged from his hiding place in the palace to the praetorian camp, where he was promptly hailed as emperor, and then marched back to the senate, who had no choice but to confirm their decision.
But the soldiers had chosen better than they knew. Claudius had spent his life a the almost forgotten, half-witted brother of the great Germanicus. But now in office he proved extremely conscientious. His intentions were excellent, and his political theory, if derived wholly from books, was intelligent. He was 'the wisest fool' in Rome, but he kept his wisdom for the state, while his domestic follies made him a figure of contempt to his contemporaries and ridiculous to posterity.
Claudius was already fifty years old when he began his reign (AD 41- 54). Throughout the period the empire enjoyed general prosperity and there were few complaints from the provinces. Claudius held firmly to the belief that the existing border was to be maintained but not extended.
Military expeditions conducted against the aggressive German tribes of the Chauci and Catti - who had probably absorbed the Cherusci - were completely successful, though not followed by any attempt of annexation.
Within the empire the practice of extending full Roman citizenship to favoured communities was actively developed.
But the main achievement of the reign of Claudius was the organized conquest of the south of Britain.
Had Claudius stayed true to Augustus' advice not to expand the empire, this was the one time he broke with it. Was it either to prove himself worthy to his contemporaries in a bid to shake off his image as a half-wit, or simply because the threat of a largely unknown kingdom off the coast of Gaul was too serious to go unchecked, Claudius in AD 43 sent forth a giant invasion force under the command of Aulus Plautius.
Claudius himself took the field at one time and the entire expedition was resounding military success.
It is however to the credit of Claudius that when the brave Caractacus, the leader of the Britons, was sent to Rome as a captive, he was granted an honourable liberty by the emperor.
But unhappily the feature of Claudius' reign most annoying to the public of the time, was the influence of freedmen, for the most part Greeks, who won his confidence, and by the successive wives who plotted against him while they fooled him as they pleased.
Of the freedmen the most notorious were perhaps Narcissus and Pallas. Their rivalry did not prevent them from working in concert to their common advantage. They quite literally sold public honours and privileges. Though they were men of ability, who rendered useful service when it was in their own interest to do so, forming a sort of imperial secretariat, free of influence by class interests or social prejudices.
In AD 48 Claudius finally rid himself of Messalina, a wife who had disgusted Roman society with her constant betrayal and ridicule of her husband, until alas his eyes had been opened to the fact. The place vacated by Messalina was secured by the emperor's ambitious niece, Agrippina the younger, sister of Caligula, widow of Domitius Ahenobarbus and the mother of the young Nero.
Right from the beginning Agrippina set out to see her son Nero become heir to the imperial throne. Alas he was persuaded to adopt Nero as his own son. Nero being three years the senior to Claudius' own son Britannicus meant that Agrippina had achieved her ambition.
But then as signs became apparent that Claudius was inclining to Britannicus rather than Nero Agrippina sought the advice with a certain Locusta, a woman of not only a shady, if not evil reputation, but also a known expert in poisons.
Claudius died suddenly. Nero, nor Britannicus, succeeded him.
Nero
Nero Claudius Drusus Germanicus
born Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus at Antium in AD 37, son of Gnaeus Domitius Ahenobarbus, consul in AD 32, and Agrippina, sister of Caigula, who then married Crispus Passienus and, later, in AD 49, her uncle Claudius. Became emperor in AD 54. Married (1)Octavia; (2) Poppaea Sabina (one daughter, Claudia Augusta, who died in infancy); (Statilia Messalina. Committed suicide in AD 68.
Nero was highly educated, and his tutor was a famous philosopher and writer, Lucius Annaeus Seneca (5 BC - AD 65).
For five years the government was directed by Seneca and Burrhus, the prefect of the praetorian guard, whose support had ensured the succession of Nero. These initial five years were such of good, competent government and stood in stark contrast with the notorious period which was to follow.
Britannicus soon died in suspicious circumstances.
A breach opened up between the ministers and Agrippina, who found her influence with her son slipping away, and tried to recover it by means which only made the young man resent it more.
Meanwhile Nero became infatuated with Poppaea Sabina, who was to become one of the worst influences of his life.
He had his mother killed in AD 59, and divorced his wife Octavia, then married Poppaea Sabina who later died from his brutality.
Nero, by then clearly deranged, continued to reign for nine gruesome years.
The reign of Nero saw the confirmation of the Roman dominion in Britain, by the campaigns of Suetonius Paulinus in Wales and by the crushing of the great revolt of the Iceni in the eastern area under their queen Boadicea.
Still more familiar is the story of the Great Fire of Rome in AD 64, when half Rome was burnt to the ground while Nero gave himself up to the emotional joys of the thrilling dramatic moment, and then sought to recover his popularity with the mob by illuminating his gardens with a public display of burning Christians, on the pretence that they had set fire to Rome.
Roman sentiment was especially scandalized when the emperor gloried in taking personal part in public competitions which to Roman eyes were fit only for Greeks, or freedmen, as well as the shamelessness of his vices and extravagances. No man was safe, whose character earned the dislike of the emperor or whose wealth excited his desire.
In AD 67 the Jewish revolt broke out, which saw Nero dispatch Vespasian to put down the rebellion.
Eventually it became all too much and the old soldier Servius Sulpicus Galba raised his standard in revolt in Spain against a despised emperor. Galba, a rigid old warrior, marched on Rome. Nero found himself deserted on all sides and killed himself.
:ty:
godbless
unto all always