| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
1X2Willows
Guest
|
 Posted: Sat Sep 22, 2007 12:56 pm Post subject: Re: Hey Michael ! |
 |
|
"aine" <aine_nicneven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1190440398.723821.99780@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | On Sep 21, 10:24 pm, "1X2Willows" <spambuc...@euro-celts.dot.com
wrote:
"aine" <aine_nicne...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1190438346.693055.98300@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 21, 10:09 pm, "1X2Willows" <spambuc...@euro-celts.dot.com
wrote:
"aine" <aine_nicne...@hotmail.com> wrote
http://www.paranoiamagazine.com/dragonlegacy.html
Book Review
The Dragon Legacy: Secret History of an Ancient Bloodline
Awfully interesting about sumerians and celts and all. Anyone know
if
I am being duped on this or has this author already been mentioned?
Nicholas de Vere
What are "Nicholas de Vere"s and "Joan d'Arc"s real names?
That's where it all starts...
Dan
Joan d'Arc is simply the magazine Paranoias book reviewer.
Yes, but what is the person's real name who reviews books
under the name of "Joan d'Arc" for the Paranoia magazine?
It is a
book review of the Author Nicholas deVere. The Dragon Legacy. Secret
History of an Ancient Bloodline.
jaja.
What is the author's real name?
I would bet a lot it's not "Nicholas deVere".
Dan- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Okay Dan..where ya going with this? Alot of people use "ghost" names.
Dear Abby..etc. The author I do not know either but I do not know why
that would make a difference.
|
Nomen est Omen |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
aine
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 22, 2007 1:27 pm Post subject: Re: Hey Michael ! |
|
|
On Sep 21, 11:48 pm, Mairtin O'Druachain <DruidE...@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: | On Sep 22, 5:38 am, aine <aine_nicne...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 21, 8:14 pm, "Kevin" <laighl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
"aine" <aine_nicne...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1190426696.641952.140340@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 21, 5:22 pm, odubh...@comcast.net wrote:
On Sep 21, 6:36 pm, aine <aine_nicne...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Years ago my teacher said he was pretty sure that the Irish Druids
were
called Dragons.
YES!! They were. Which is why I named my son Talon, for the Dragon and
the Red Dragon is is birth spirit guide.
Druids may have been known as adders but not as dragons. Dragon was a
nickname for Irish warriors. The Druids themselves liked to call
themselves "swineherds" (for obvious reasons). :-)
Either is good. He was born with the caul over his head and after
being checked out as healthy, the nurses and Doctor said except he has
a long snake tongue.
As an infant he use to hang it out and point it. Damdest thing. To
this day he can whip that thing out and stick it up his nose. He
grosses people out in cold season.
Still I swear I saw they said Druids were Dragons. Would make sense as
well why some Kings had Dragon banners if the Druids advised the
Kings? Or why so many references to waking the Dragons? I don't know.
Most of us know that the Celts held the head as sacred. When in
battle, it was written (somewhere sorry) that they drank a bit of
blood from the Fallen Warriors (I believe their own) from the head to
take in the Fallen Warriors greatness and battle experience. A bit of
their spirit.
Which is why I asked here somewhere recently but was never answered,
if possibly this could be where the term Vampire came from or Dracula?
Not sure how I put it.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
It's not where the idea of vampires comes from. Drinking blood from a
fallen hero or relative is an old Irish and European custom. It's also
have bonds and oaths are instigated. Using the head as a drinking cup
by Celts or drinking from a head is considered to be taking in the
soul or spirit of the fallen. That is why so many sacred wells are
said to have heads within them.
Think about it though. Even if Vlad tortured people or however the
Dracula story went to name him..the drinking of blood always falls
back to the thought of bats that do. As if it were never heard of by
people that warriors did. If it was such an accepted practice back
then why is vampirism seen as so fictional?
Isn't a vampire feeding off the life force as a warrior did? I really
think there is something that connects it all somewhere.
Hmm! I'm not sure that warriors could be said to feed off the life force.
Kill, yes. Have rituals involving blood - maybe. But feeding off the life
force for sustenance? That's something else altogether.
The earliest vampire related legends would involve the death of newborns and
pregnant women - the usual way of characterising sudden, unexpected fatal
illness. That turns up as a feature of a number of other vampiric legends.
Then you've got the whole connection with the dead, which following various
strands back to antiquity connects with ancient Greek ideas of the forces of
chaos opposing the gods, which in Roman myth were responsible, via the Roman
idea of witches (who obeyed neither the laws or gods or human society), for
sudden unexpected death and plagues. The most notable Roman witch, Erictho,
was effectively antilife - her very presence sterilised seeds. You might say
that she sucked the life out of them.
Just a few notions off the top of my head - however, highly unlikely in that
case to be connected to warriors, since warriors frequently used things like
amulets invoking a deity's power to avert illness, death in battle and so
on.
Celtic Sacrifice, Prayer, and Divination
By J. A. MacCulloch
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:pC9NOmT2yKAJ:www.worldspiritualit...
Diodorus says the Irish ate their enemies, and Pausanias describes
the eating the flesh and drinking the blood of children among the
Galatian Celts. Drinking out of a skull the blood of slain
(sacrificial) enemies is mentioned by Ammianus and Livy, and Solinus
describes the Irish custom of bathing the face in the blood of the
slain and drinking it.[821] In some of these cases the intention may
simply have been to obtain the dead enemy's strength, but where a
sacrificial victim was concerned, the intention probably went further
than this. The blood of dead relatives was also drunk in order to
obtain their virtues, or to be brought into closer rapport with them.
[822] This is analogous to the custom of blood brotherhood, which also
existed among the Celts and continued as a survival in the Western
Isles until a late date.[823]
Aone, those classicists were describing the ancient Celts of Gaul, not
the Irish.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
|
So the Gauls were the Head Kults? |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
aine
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 22, 2007 2:06 pm Post subject: Re: Hey Michael ! |
|
|
On Sep 21, 10:53 pm, Mairtin O'Druachain <DruidE...@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: | To this day you will not see the serpent in the art of the
Catholic Church - except where "The Blessed Virgin Mary, the Mother of
God" crushes the Serpent under her foot as God himself promosed in the
Garden of Eden story, "I shall send a woman who shall crush the
serpent under her foot. "
|
Oh the cleverness of....
Hmmm. My Life has suddenly become The Da vinci Code. I don't think
there is any joking my way out of this.
Thank-you for all the information. I really do appreciate it. Very,
very much. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
1X2Willows
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 22, 2007 2:18 pm Post subject: Re: Hey Michael ! |
|
|
"aine" <aine_nicneven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1190449676.898303.41850@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | On Sep 21, 11:48 pm, Mairtin O'Druachain <DruidE...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 22, 5:38 am, aine <aine_nicne...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 21, 8:14 pm, "Kevin" <laighl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
"aine" <aine_nicne...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1190426696.641952.140340@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 21, 5:22 pm, odubh...@comcast.net wrote:
On Sep 21, 6:36 pm, aine <aine_nicne...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Years ago my teacher said he was pretty sure that the Irish
Druids
were
called Dragons.
YES!! They were. Which is why I named my son Talon, for the
Dragon and
the Red Dragon is is birth spirit guide.
Druids may have been known as adders but not as dragons. Dragon
was a
nickname for Irish warriors. The Druids themselves liked to call
themselves "swineherds" (for obvious reasons). :-)
Either is good. He was born with the caul over his head and after
being checked out as healthy, the nurses and Doctor said except he
has
a long snake tongue.
As an infant he use to hang it out and point it. Damdest thing. To
this day he can whip that thing out and stick it up his nose. He
grosses people out in cold season.
Still I swear I saw they said Druids were Dragons. Would make sense
as
well why some Kings had Dragon banners if the Druids advised the
Kings? Or why so many references to waking the Dragons? I don't
know.
Most of us know that the Celts held the head as sacred. When in
battle, it was written (somewhere sorry) that they drank a bit
of
blood from the Fallen Warriors (I believe their own) from the
head to
take in the Fallen Warriors greatness and battle experience. A
bit of
their spirit.
Which is why I asked here somewhere recently but was never
answered,
if possibly this could be where the term Vampire came from or
Dracula?
Not sure how I put it.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
It's not where the idea of vampires comes from. Drinking blood
from a
fallen hero or relative is an old Irish and European custom. It's
also
have bonds and oaths are instigated. Using the head as a drinking
cup
by Celts or drinking from a head is considered to be taking in the
soul or spirit of the fallen. That is why so many sacred wells are
said to have heads within them.
Think about it though. Even if Vlad tortured people or however the
Dracula story went to name him..the drinking of blood always falls
back to the thought of bats that do. As if it were never heard of
by
people that warriors did. If it was such an accepted practice back
then why is vampirism seen as so fictional?
Isn't a vampire feeding off the life force as a warrior did? I
really
think there is something that connects it all somewhere.
Hmm! I'm not sure that warriors could be said to feed off the life
force.
Kill, yes. Have rituals involving blood - maybe. But feeding off the
life
force for sustenance? That's something else altogether.
The earliest vampire related legends would involve the death of
newborns and
pregnant women - the usual way of characterising sudden, unexpected
fatal
illness. That turns up as a feature of a number of other vampiric
legends.
Then you've got the whole connection with the dead, which following
various
strands back to antiquity connects with ancient Greek ideas of the
forces of
chaos opposing the gods, which in Roman myth were responsible, via
the Roman
idea of witches (who obeyed neither the laws or gods or human
society), for
sudden unexpected death and plagues. The most notable Roman witch,
Erictho,
was effectively antilife - her very presence sterilised seeds. You
might say
that she sucked the life out of them.
Just a few notions off the top of my head - however, highly unlikely
in that
case to be connected to warriors, since warriors frequently used
things like
amulets invoking a deity's power to avert illness, death in battle
and so
on.
Celtic Sacrifice, Prayer, and Divination
By J. A. MacCulloch
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:pC9NOmT2yKAJ:www.worldspiritualit...
Diodorus says the Irish ate their enemies, and Pausanias describes
the eating the flesh and drinking the blood of children among the
Galatian Celts. Drinking out of a skull the blood of slain
(sacrificial) enemies is mentioned by Ammianus and Livy, and Solinus
describes the Irish custom of bathing the face in the blood of the
slain and drinking it.[821] In some of these cases the intention may
simply have been to obtain the dead enemy's strength, but where a
sacrificial victim was concerned, the intention probably went further
than this. The blood of dead relatives was also drunk in order to
obtain their virtues, or to be brought into closer rapport with them.
[822] This is analogous to the custom of blood brotherhood, which also
existed among the Celts and continued as a survival in the Western
Isles until a late date.[823]
Aone, those classicists were describing the ancient Celts of Gaul, not
the Irish.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
So the Gauls were the Head Kults?
|
Now that, I can confirm.
Valid to the present day.
Irish Catholes preferred.
Dan |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Kevin
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 22, 2007 4:06 pm Post subject: Re: Hey Michael ! |
|
|
"1X2Willows" <spambucket@euro-celts.dot.com> wrote in message
news:fd25gc$2t2$1@news.albasani.net...
| Quote: | "Kevin" wrote
[....]
since warriors frequently used things like amulets invoking a deity's
power to avert illness, death in battle and so on.
Sovereignty or translated "Genus Locii" are the only ones I can
think of, in said context. Never a so-called "deity".
|
Wheel symbols. Definitely the attribute of a god.
Mind you, genius loci was the term the Romans used when they didn't know
what to call the spirit or deity at a shrine.
Kevin
Kevin |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Kevin
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 22, 2007 4:26 pm Post subject: Re: Hey Michael ! |
|
|
"aine" <aine_nicneven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1190435917.650840.272510@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | On Sep 21, 8:14 pm, "Kevin" <laighl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
"aine" <aine_nicne...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1190426696.641952.140340@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 21, 5:22 pm, odubh...@comcast.net wrote:
On Sep 21, 6:36 pm, aine <aine_nicne...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Years ago my teacher said he was pretty sure that the Irish Druids
were
called Dragons.
YES!! They were. Which is why I named my son Talon, for the Dragon
and
the Red Dragon is is birth spirit guide.
Druids may have been known as adders but not as dragons. Dragon was a
nickname for Irish warriors. The Druids themselves liked to call
themselves "swineherds" (for obvious reasons). :-)
Either is good. He was born with the caul over his head and after
being checked out as healthy, the nurses and Doctor said except he has
a long snake tongue.
As an infant he use to hang it out and point it. Damdest thing. To
this day he can whip that thing out and stick it up his nose. He
grosses people out in cold season.
Still I swear I saw they said Druids were Dragons. Would make sense as
well why some Kings had Dragon banners if the Druids advised the
Kings? Or why so many references to waking the Dragons? I don't know.
Most of us know that the Celts held the head as sacred. When in
battle, it was written (somewhere sorry) that they drank a bit of
blood from the Fallen Warriors (I believe their own) from the head
to
take in the Fallen Warriors greatness and battle experience. A bit
of
their spirit.
Which is why I asked here somewhere recently but was never answered,
if possibly this could be where the term Vampire came from or
Dracula?
Not sure how I put it.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
It's not where the idea of vampires comes from. Drinking blood from a
fallen hero or relative is an old Irish and European custom. It's also
have bonds and oaths are instigated. Using the head as a drinking cup
by Celts or drinking from a head is considered to be taking in the
soul or spirit of the fallen. That is why so many sacred wells are
said to have heads within them.
Think about it though. Even if Vlad tortured people or however the
Dracula story went to name him..the drinking of blood always falls
back to the thought of bats that do. As if it were never heard of by
people that warriors did. If it was such an accepted practice back
then why is vampirism seen as so fictional?
Isn't a vampire feeding off the life force as a warrior did? I really
think there is something that connects it all somewhere.
Hmm! I'm not sure that warriors could be said to feed off the life force.
Kill, yes. Have rituals involving blood - maybe. But feeding off the life
force for sustenance? That's something else altogether.
The earliest vampire related legends would involve the death of newborns
and
pregnant women - the usual way of characterising sudden, unexpected fatal
illness. That turns up as a feature of a number of other vampiric
legends.
Then you've got the whole connection with the dead, which following
various
strands back to antiquity connects with ancient Greek ideas of the forces
of
chaos opposing the gods, which in Roman myth were responsible, via the
Roman
idea of witches (who obeyed neither the laws or gods or human society),
for
sudden unexpected death and plagues. The most notable Roman witch,
Erictho,
was effectively antilife - her very presence sterilised seeds. You might
say
that she sucked the life out of them.
Just a few notions off the top of my head - however, highly unlikely in
that
case to be connected to warriors, since warriors frequently used things
like
amulets invoking a deity's power to avert illness, death in battle and so
on.
Celtic Sacrifice, Prayer, and Divination
By J. A. MacCulloch
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:pC9NOmT2yKAJ:www.worldspirituality.org/celtic-sacrifice.html+celtic+warriors+drink+blood&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=43&gl=us
Diodorus says the Irish ate their enemies, and Pausanias describes
the eating the flesh and drinking the blood of children among the
Galatian Celts. Drinking out of a skull the blood of slain
(sacrificial) enemies is mentioned by Ammianus and Livy, and Solinus
describes the Irish custom of bathing the face in the blood of the
slain and drinking it.[821] In some of these cases the intention may
simply have been to obtain the dead enemy's strength, but where a
sacrificial victim was concerned, the intention probably went further
than this. The blood of dead relatives was also drunk in order to
obtain their virtues, or to be brought into closer rapport with them.
[822] This is analogous to the custom of blood brotherhood, which also
existed among the Celts and continued as a survival in the Western
Isles until a late date.[823]
|
The Maoris also ate their enemies, but from their POV - as explained to me
by a Maori - "well, there's not a lot of huntable meat in New Zealnd. After
a battle there was all this meat lying around, and it seemed a shame to let
it go to waste!"  He also taught me how to cook someone. At the time,
there were still folk amongst his people who could remember eating people
and the method fo how to do it was still traditional knowledge.
Eating the bodies of the dead is a bit different from a vampire feeding off
the life essence. A lot of cultures do the former in order to keep the
attributes of someone in the family or, as you point out, to bring them into
closer rapport with their spirit. However, the essential point is that the
individual is already dead, i.e. the essence of life has already fled. Same
with drinking the blood of a *dead* enemy, or drinking something from the
skull of a dead enemy. OTOH, the essential point about a vampire is that
they extract the essence of life from the *living*, eventually making them
dead - they don't eat the dead to extract the life essence, because there is
none in the dead, nor do they drink the blood of the dead.
Now you might have a case if Celtic warriors descended on a struggled,
living enemy and sucked all the blood out of him till he was dead, but I'm
not aware of them doing that. :-)
As for sacrificial victims, by analogy with sacrificial animals, the
sacrifice was offered to the gods, with people taking the bits the gods
didn't take by right (e.g. Rome, India, since we don't know much on Celtic
attitudes about sacrfice). There isn't any consumption of an animal's spirit
in animal sacrifices - just its meat. For the purposes of sacrifices, I
don't see why people should be seen in a different light from animals that
were sacrificed.
And of course, eating your enemies makes for a good terror tactic.
Kevin |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Kevin
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 22, 2007 4:27 pm Post subject: Re: Hey Michael ! |
|
|
"aine" <aine_nicneven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1190449676.898303.41850@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | On Sep 21, 11:48 pm, Mairtin O'Druachain <DruidE...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 22, 5:38 am, aine <aine_nicne...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 21, 8:14 pm, "Kevin" <laighl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
"aine" <aine_nicne...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1190426696.641952.140340@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 21, 5:22 pm, odubh...@comcast.net wrote:
On Sep 21, 6:36 pm, aine <aine_nicne...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Years ago my teacher said he was pretty sure that the Irish
Druids
were
called Dragons.
YES!! They were. Which is why I named my son Talon, for the
Dragon and
the Red Dragon is is birth spirit guide.
Druids may have been known as adders but not as dragons. Dragon
was a
nickname for Irish warriors. The Druids themselves liked to call
themselves "swineherds" (for obvious reasons). :-)
Either is good. He was born with the caul over his head and after
being checked out as healthy, the nurses and Doctor said except he
has
a long snake tongue.
As an infant he use to hang it out and point it. Damdest thing. To
this day he can whip that thing out and stick it up his nose. He
grosses people out in cold season.
Still I swear I saw they said Druids were Dragons. Would make sense
as
well why some Kings had Dragon banners if the Druids advised the
Kings? Or why so many references to waking the Dragons? I don't
know.
Most of us know that the Celts held the head as sacred. When in
battle, it was written (somewhere sorry) that they drank a bit
of
blood from the Fallen Warriors (I believe their own) from the
head to
take in the Fallen Warriors greatness and battle experience. A
bit of
their spirit.
Which is why I asked here somewhere recently but was never
answered,
if possibly this could be where the term Vampire came from or
Dracula?
Not sure how I put it.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
It's not where the idea of vampires comes from. Drinking blood
from a
fallen hero or relative is an old Irish and European custom. It's
also
have bonds and oaths are instigated. Using the head as a drinking
cup
by Celts or drinking from a head is considered to be taking in the
soul or spirit of the fallen. That is why so many sacred wells are
said to have heads within them.
Think about it though. Even if Vlad tortured people or however the
Dracula story went to name him..the drinking of blood always falls
back to the thought of bats that do. As if it were never heard of
by
people that warriors did. If it was such an accepted practice back
then why is vampirism seen as so fictional?
Isn't a vampire feeding off the life force as a warrior did? I
really
think there is something that connects it all somewhere.
Hmm! I'm not sure that warriors could be said to feed off the life
force.
Kill, yes. Have rituals involving blood - maybe. But feeding off the
life
force for sustenance? That's something else altogether.
The earliest vampire related legends would involve the death of
newborns and
pregnant women - the usual way of characterising sudden, unexpected
fatal
illness. That turns up as a feature of a number of other vampiric
legends.
Then you've got the whole connection with the dead, which following
various
strands back to antiquity connects with ancient Greek ideas of the
forces of
chaos opposing the gods, which in Roman myth were responsible, via
the Roman
idea of witches (who obeyed neither the laws or gods or human
society), for
sudden unexpected death and plagues. The most notable Roman witch,
Erictho,
was effectively antilife - her very presence sterilised seeds. You
might say
that she sucked the life out of them.
Just a few notions off the top of my head - however, highly unlikely
in that
case to be connected to warriors, since warriors frequently used
things like
amulets invoking a deity's power to avert illness, death in battle
and so
on.
Celtic Sacrifice, Prayer, and Divination
By J. A. MacCulloch
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:pC9NOmT2yKAJ:www.worldspiritualit...
Diodorus says the Irish ate their enemies, and Pausanias describes
the eating the flesh and drinking the blood of children among the
Galatian Celts. Drinking out of a skull the blood of slain
(sacrificial) enemies is mentioned by Ammianus and Livy, and Solinus
describes the Irish custom of bathing the face in the blood of the
slain and drinking it.[821] In some of these cases the intention may
simply have been to obtain the dead enemy's strength, but where a
sacrificial victim was concerned, the intention probably went further
than this. The blood of dead relatives was also drunk in order to
obtain their virtues, or to be brought into closer rapport with them.
[822] This is analogous to the custom of blood brotherhood, which also
existed among the Celts and continued as a survival in the Western
Isles until a late date.[823]
Aone, those classicists were describing the ancient Celts of Gaul, not
the Irish.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
So the Gauls were the Head Kults?
|
Well, there are references in the sources to Irish warriors collecting
heads.
Kevin |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Kevin
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 22, 2007 7:00 pm Post subject: Re: Hey Michael ! |
|
|
"Kevin" <laighleas@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fd2u73$pl$1@aioe.org...
| Quote: | "aine" <aine_nicneven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1190435917.650840.272510@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 21, 8:14 pm, "Kevin" <laighl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
"aine" <aine_nicne...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1190426696.641952.140340@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 21, 5:22 pm, odubh...@comcast.net wrote:
On Sep 21, 6:36 pm, aine <aine_nicne...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Years ago my teacher said he was pretty sure that the Irish
Druids
were
called Dragons.
YES!! They were. Which is why I named my son Talon, for the Dragon
and
the Red Dragon is is birth spirit guide.
Druids may have been known as adders but not as dragons. Dragon was a
nickname for Irish warriors. The Druids themselves liked to call
themselves "swineherds" (for obvious reasons). :-)
Either is good. He was born with the caul over his head and after
being checked out as healthy, the nurses and Doctor said except he has
a long snake tongue.
As an infant he use to hang it out and point it. Damdest thing. To
this day he can whip that thing out and stick it up his nose. He
grosses people out in cold season.
Still I swear I saw they said Druids were Dragons. Would make sense as
well why some Kings had Dragon banners if the Druids advised the
Kings? Or why so many references to waking the Dragons? I don't know.
Most of us know that the Celts held the head as sacred. When in
battle, it was written (somewhere sorry) that they drank a bit of
blood from the Fallen Warriors (I believe their own) from the head
to
take in the Fallen Warriors greatness and battle experience. A bit
of
their spirit.
Which is why I asked here somewhere recently but was never
answered,
if possibly this could be where the term Vampire came from or
Dracula?
Not sure how I put it.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
It's not where the idea of vampires comes from. Drinking blood from a
fallen hero or relative is an old Irish and European custom. It's
also
have bonds and oaths are instigated. Using the head as a drinking cup
by Celts or drinking from a head is considered to be taking in the
soul or spirit of the fallen. That is why so many sacred wells are
said to have heads within them.
Think about it though. Even if Vlad tortured people or however the
Dracula story went to name him..the drinking of blood always falls
back to the thought of bats that do. As if it were never heard of by
people that warriors did. If it was such an accepted practice back
then why is vampirism seen as so fictional?
Isn't a vampire feeding off the life force as a warrior did? I really
think there is something that connects it all somewhere.
Hmm! I'm not sure that warriors could be said to feed off the life
force.
Kill, yes. Have rituals involving blood - maybe. But feeding off the
life
force for sustenance? That's something else altogether.
The earliest vampire related legends would involve the death of newborns
and
pregnant women - the usual way of characterising sudden, unexpected
fatal
illness. That turns up as a feature of a number of other vampiric
legends.
Then you've got the whole connection with the dead, which following
various
strands back to antiquity connects with ancient Greek ideas of the
forces of
chaos opposing the gods, which in Roman myth were responsible, via the
Roman
idea of witches (who obeyed neither the laws or gods or human society),
for
sudden unexpected death and plagues. The most notable Roman witch,
Erictho,
was effectively antilife - her very presence sterilised seeds. You might
say
that she sucked the life out of them.
Just a few notions off the top of my head - however, highly unlikely in
that
case to be connected to warriors, since warriors frequently used things
like
amulets invoking a deity's power to avert illness, death in battle and
so
on.
Celtic Sacrifice, Prayer, and Divination
By J. A. MacCulloch
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:pC9NOmT2yKAJ:www.worldspirituality.org/celtic-sacrifice.html+celtic+warriors+drink+blood&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=43&gl=us
Diodorus says the Irish ate their enemies, and Pausanias describes
the eating the flesh and drinking the blood of children among the
Galatian Celts. Drinking out of a skull the blood of slain
(sacrificial) enemies is mentioned by Ammianus and Livy, and Solinus
describes the Irish custom of bathing the face in the blood of the
slain and drinking it.[821] In some of these cases the intention may
simply have been to obtain the dead enemy's strength, but where a
sacrificial victim was concerned, the intention probably went further
than this. The blood of dead relatives was also drunk in order to
obtain their virtues, or to be brought into closer rapport with them.
[822] This is analogous to the custom of blood brotherhood, which also
existed among the Celts and continued as a survival in the Western
Isles until a late date.[823]
The Maoris also ate their enemies, but from their POV - as explained to me
by a Maori - "well, there's not a lot of huntable meat in New Zealnd.
After a battle there was all this meat lying around, and it seemed a shame
to let it go to waste!" He also taught me how to cook someone. At
the time, there were still folk amongst his people who could remember
eating people and the method fo how to do it was still traditional
knowledge.
Eating the bodies of the dead is a bit different from a vampire feeding
off the life essence. A lot of cultures do the former in order to keep the
attributes of someone in the family or, as you point out, to bring them
into closer rapport with their spirit. However, the essential point is
that the individual is already dead, i.e. the essence of life has already
fled. Same with drinking the blood of a *dead* enemy, or drinking
something from the skull of a dead enemy. OTOH, the essential point about
a vampire is that they extract the essence of life from the *living*,
eventually making them dead - they don't eat the dead to extract the life
essence, because there is none in the dead, nor do they drink the blood of
the dead.
Now you might have a case if Celtic warriors descended on a struggled,
living enemy and sucked all the blood out of him till he was dead, but I'm
not aware of them doing that. :-)
As for sacrificial victims, by analogy with sacrificial animals, the
sacrifice was offered to the gods, with people taking the bits the gods
didn't take by right (e.g. Rome, India, since we don't know much on Celtic
attitudes about sacrfice). There isn't any consumption of an animal's
spirit in animal sacrifices - just its meat. For the purposes of
sacrifices, I don't see why people should be seen in a different light
from animals that were sacrificed.
And of course, eating your enemies makes for a good terror tactic.
|
Mulling it a bit more, it might be described as the biological difference
between a predator and a parasite. A parasite may cause the death of its
host, but that isn't its purpose, and in fact parasites co-evolve with hosts
to keep them alive until the parasite can reproduce, or else (in the case of
some insect parasites) hijack the nervous system to get the organism into a
position where the parasite can reproduce (e.g. turning an ant bright red,
getting it to climb a stem where it can easily be seen by a predator which
is the parasite's next host, then locking the ant's legs round the stem so
that it is immobile and served up as a meal for the predator).
Parasites otherwise want the host alive, because a dead host is no good to
the parasite - there's nothing it can feed off, and it would have to move to
another host. In short, it needs a living body to provide it with things
that only a living body can provide. If the body of the host dies, it
discards it since it is of no further use.
A predator, OTOH, is just after the meat. It's not too fussed if it has
killed something, or whether something else has killed something, or whether
the animal has died of natural causes. It's got to be dead - a predator has
no interest in keeping an organism alive, nor in any of the products of an
organism that continues to live. It does have a very high interest in a dead
body though.
It's just a functional comparison, and doesn't take into account cultural
practices. However, one could definitely say that a vampire falls into the
category of a parasite.
It is also interesting to note that a lot of causes of vampires seem to
arise from going against the norms of society, and thus of whatever gods
that society believes in - suicide, impiety and so on. this is unlikely to
apply to warriors in, for example, Ireland where victory in battle is an
indication of the king maintaining the laws of the gods aka firenne. The
same mindset, BTW, is seen in Republican Rome - when they lose a series of
battles, they start wondering if they've ticked off the gods. Such
communities are therefore not going to consider doing practices which they
believe lie in opposition to 'natural law'.
In the case of the modern vampire myth, it would be difficult if not
impossible to make a connection with Celtic-speaking people, since the
modern one largely arises from Slavic culture. The only Irishman involved
was Bram Stoker. Not surprisingly, he had spent eight years researching
European folklore - to be more accurate, it may be better to say that the
modern myth is exclusively Balkan, since it includes Greek and Slav elements
(probably Serbian). There have been sporadic accounts of British vampires,
most predating Stoker. Though these largely seem to be the dead getting out
of coffins and attacking the living, they miss out chunks of the modern
myth. One wonders how these would square with ideas in Ireland and Scotland,
and the notion of putting out food for the dead at Samhain. There may have
been an similar ancient idea that has since got submerged, but it probably
had its roots in the idea of Samhain being one of the dangerous times of the
year, when unhuman forces were abroad. Samhain was not, however the only
time such forces were abroad:
"The mouth of the night is the choice hour of the Sluath, the Host of the
Dead, whose feet never touch the earth, as they go drifting in the wind till
the Day of Burning; of the Fuath, the Spirit of Terror that frightens folk
out of the husk of their hearts; of the Washer, who sits with herself in the
twilight; of the slim green-coated ones, the Water-Horse, and what not. The
light that is shadowless, colourless, softer than moonlight, is ever the
light of their liking. At the mouth of the night, along the water-courses by
ways that at the hour of dusk and of lateness you had best be shunning, you
are like to meet them; to west of houses they past - what to do, who shall
say? Their ways being nowise human.""
Amy Murray, "Father Allan's Island"
Kevin |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Kevin
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 22, 2007 7:05 pm Post subject: Re: Hey Michael ! |
|
|
This is the full quote on the subject:
"At the mouth of the night, between daylight and dark, come abroad ill
things to meet, from out of the earth, from out of the air, from out of the
water and the Underworld . . . But the mouth of the night is the choice hour
of the Sluagh, the Host of the Dead, whose feet never touch on earth as they
go drifting on the wind till the Day of Burning; of the Fuath, the Spirit of
Terror, that frightens folk out of the husk of their hearts; of the Washer,
who sits at the ford with herself in the twilight; of the green-coated ones,
the Water-Horse, and whatnot. The light that is shadowless, colourless,
softer than moonlight, is ever the light of their liking. At the mouth of
the night, along the water courses, by ways that at the hour of dusk and
lateness you had best be shunning you are like to meet them; to the west of
houses they pass - what to do, who shall say? their ways being nowise
human."
Kevin |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Jim
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 22, 2007 7:42 pm Post subject: Re: Hey Michael ! |
|
|
"aine" <aine_nicneven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1190427429.385851.179570@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | On Sep 21, 4:51 pm, "Jim" <stonelo...@softcom.net> wrote:
"aine" <aine_nicne...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1190414346.846387.315680@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 21, 3:36 pm, aine <aine_nicne...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 21, 1:48 pm, "Jim" <stonelo...@softcom.net> wrote:
"Mairtin O'Druachain" <DruidE...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1190406715.519925.198350@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 21, 8:55 pm, "Jim" <stonelo...@softcom.net> wrote:
"Mairtin O'Druachain" <DruidE...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1190403566.649958.278980@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 21, 8:36 pm, Mairtin O'Druachain <DruidE...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sep 21, 7:22 pm, "Jim" <stonelo...@softcom.net> wrote:
You overlooked Tuathmhumhan---Thomond.
Its all Kilkenny with you.
Jim
Some powerful Druids came from Tuathmhumham, were invited to
the
Rock
of Cashel by the King of Munster, and were granted land by him
in
the
Comeragh Mountains of the Deise. And they survived.
You're psychic to mention that just now.
Michael is not of Kilkenny, I may be.
I'm not knocking Kilkenny. Just trying to get a rise out of
Michael.
I
miss
talking with him.
P.S. I'm really enjoying your posts. I prefer substantive writing
like
yours
to the empty fluff
that appears on ARD, i.e. the American expert nonsense. :-)
I tend to pick on Christians but only in the American
fundamentalist
case.
All my relatives in your country are Catholics and the absolute
salt
of
the
earth.
Jim
Kilkenny, Cill Chainnigh = The Church of Canice, the most modern
name
for here, coming from 597 A.D. when the missionary Canice arrived
with
a Christian Army and the Druids fought to the death above on the
Mound, where St. Canice's Cathedral with Round Tower stands
majestically today (built by the Normans), here was the last of
the
Irish Druid Order.
It took 220 years since the days of St. Kieran, 377 AD to the
onslaught of St. Canice in 597 AD to 'convert' Kilkenny and the
People
of the Osrai, and then by bloody force of arms as the Osrai fought
to
the death against Christian armies pouring into Kilkenny from all
over
Ireland.
Canice went to seminary with Colmcille, and Canice was the son of
a
Filidh of Donegal. To this day there is a dustrust of Donegal
people
in these parts.
Strangely, Kilkenny (The Diocese of Ossory) went on to be the most
Loyal Catholic part of Ireland, was seat to the Catholic
Conferation
of Kilkenny (The Irish Parliament of the Normans and native Irish)
and
capital of Ireland until Cromwell came to bloodily put an end to
their
Royalist resistance in 1649 A.D.
In Druidic times, The Kingdom of the Osrai, or Usrai = The Kingdom
of
the People of the Serpent (probably meaning Dragon). In Urmhumhan
(East Munster) then, anglicised to Ormonde. Since the Normans
came,
in
Leinster.
Years ago my teacher said he was pretty sure that the Irish Druids
were
called Dragons.
YES!! They were. Which is why I named my son Talon, for the Dragon and
the Red Dragon is is birth spirit guide.
Most of us know that the Celts held the head as sacred. When in
battle, it was written (somewhere sorry) that they drank a bit of
blood from the Fallen Warriors (I believe their own) from the head to
take in the Fallen Warriors greatness and battle experience. A bit of
their spirit.
Which is why I asked here somewhere recently but was never answered,
if possibly this could be where the term Vampire came from or Dracula?
Not sure how I put it.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Take Dracula out..I already know how that name came about. I meant
Vampires in general.
Try Draco. - Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I did not like Draco as well. Talon was unique and he could apply it
to any bird of prey so I did not trap him into one personality all of
his life. Right after he was born the first Harry Potter movie came
out on DVD. I was glad I did not choose Draco.
|
How about Draconis |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
aine
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 22, 2007 11:38 pm Post subject: Re: Hey Michael ! |
|
|
On Sep 21, 10:53 pm, Mairtin O'Druachain <DruidE...@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
Yes, I agree. One of our teachers in the ODI, a native born Irish
speaker, graduate in Irish History and of course the Irish language,
college Vice-Principal and teacher for 35 years, and of a line of
Hereditary Druids (Ben McBrady was not the very last of a line of
hereditaries, there were and are others) always said that the Serpent
was venerated in Irish Druidry. When they say that Patrick "drove the
snakes out of Ireland" they actually mean that he drove the Druids
out ! This comes from Christian propaganda, for instance in the Bible
the Devil is portrayed as a snake/serpent in the Garden of Eden story,
and the Devil is always portrayed to this day, in kindergarten, by
Catholic and Protestant teachers as a serpent/snake.
There were adders in Ireland up to Christian times, just as there are
adders in parts of Britain to this day.
What happened in Ireland, as we know, is that Rome decided to conquer
us on the mind when it could not conquer us any other way. It seems
that Jesus as the son of God was not of much use as a tool of
conversion to the Irish who had their own colourful gods and giddesses
a plenty. So instead they concentrated on preaching Hellfire and
damnation - Patrick was an absolute lunatic on this sunject. It comes
through the literature time and again, Hellfore and damnation for all
eternity is preached incessantly, non-stop, day in, day out, all
across Ireland. Purgatory figures massively, as does Limbo (if the
Irish don't get their babies baptised) - and of course there is the
promise of Paradise for all eternity, but it is more a fanatical
preaching of the fire and brimstone type that the missionaries
employed all across Ireland. And all the time, the Devil who ran Hell
and who came for you if you were not 'saved' was portrayed as a
serpent - as the local adder, which indeed was the very symbol of the
Irish Druids. As a result the Irish as they were converted went out
and actually destroyed all nests of adders across the land, as actual
earthly symbols of Satan, the Devil. I do not know the actual reason
why there was such a connection between the Druids and the Serpent.
Perhaps they were used for medicinal purposes ? As the symbol today of
medics is intertwined serpents, which comes from Egyptian healing.
That's all I can offer. The monks themselves were actually terrified
of the serpent, believing even a simple adder to be of the devil,
which is why we don't read anything about the serpent in the
mythology. To this day you will not see the serpent in the art of the
Catholic Church - except where "The Blessed Virgin Mary, the Mother of
God" crushes the Serpent under her foot as God himself promosed in the
Garden of Eden story, "I shall send a woman who shall crush the
serpent under her foot. "
Irish Christianity even back then was of the Arian/Pelagian variety,
it still is, where Irish Catholics actually believe Jesus to be of a
different substance than God the Father - and the Irish, from those
early converting missionaries have a devout actual worship of Mary to
an extent unknown anywhere else in the Catholic Church, even more
intense than Spain, Portugal or the South of France.
|
Mairtin when I Google in Mary and get Mary Magdalene, I come up with
alot of references to Blue Rose. Especially The Order of the Blue
Rose.
I have Googled *Blue Rose* for years now and it never referred to Mary
Magdelene or any of this information or possibly it is pages and pages
down the line and I never saw it.
Not being in the mindset to know this history or apply it to my life
before, I was wondering if you knew if this was true. About the Blue
Rose and Mary?
Thank-you. I have had fitful sleep. I hope that made sense. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Kevin
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 23, 2007 7:06 am Post subject: Re: Hey Michael ! |
|
|
"aine" <aine_nicneven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1190486327.708297.198560@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | On Sep 21, 10:53 pm, Mairtin O'Druachain <DruidE...@gmail.com> wrote:
|
If Mairtin is a historian, then I'm Coco the clown.
| Quote: | When they say that Patrick "drove the
snakes out of Ireland" they actually mean that he drove the Druids
out !
|
Hardly controversial. I remarked on that over10 years ago.
| Quote: | This comes from Christian propaganda, for instance in the Bible
the Devil is portrayed as a snake/serpent in the Garden of Eden story,
|
The serpent is not the Devil, though the two are often conflated. Nowhere in
Genesis does it say that the serpent is the Devil and you won't find a
theologian to argue for that identification. The most they might say is that
in popular thinking, the serpent as the tempter, became identified with
Satan, even though the Bible does not make that equation.
OTOH you will always find some numbskull who took a correspondence course
with some Southern Baptist college and got a 'degree' in theology that isn't
worth the paper it is photocopied on - they'll argue that the serpent and
the Devil are one and the same. There arguments tend to be along the lines
of "well, what the Bible meant to say . . . " or "well, what the Bible
really says is . . . " They're the same folks who argue that the Bible is
the immutable Word of God, so why they go putting words into God's mouth is
beyond me. :-)
| Quote: | There were adders in Ireland up to Christian times, just as there are
adders in parts of Britain to this day.
|
Absolute hogwash, balderdash and piffle! Ask any biologist. There aren't any
vipers in ireland because of the last Ice Age. The landbridge between
Britain and Ireland broke before it was warm enough for them to get there
and survive. This is hardly new knowledge.
http://nationalzoo.si.edu/Animals/ReptilesAmphibians/NewsEvents/irelandsnakes.cfm
| Quote: | What happened in Ireland, as we know, is that Rome decided to conquer
us on the mind when it could not conquer us any other way.
|
Rubbish! Patrick died some time in the first half of the fifth century. By
that time the capital of the western Empire was at Ravenna, as any historian
with a passing interest in the period would know - not Rome.
"In 402, Emperor Honorius transferred the capital of the Western Roman
Empire from Milan to Ravenna. The transfer was made primarily for defensive
purposes: Ravenna was surrounded by swamps and marshes and had ease of
access to Imperial forces of the Eastern Roman Empire."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ravenna
By 410 AD Britain was outside what was left of the crumbling Western
Empire - it had been cut off on several occasions by a succession of British
usurpers. Between 455 AD and 475 AD the Visigoths, the Burgundians and the
Franks took power in Gaul. In 476 AD the last Western Emperor, Romulus
Augustus, was deposed by Odoacer, who sent the imperial regalia to
Constantinople. In 486 AD a Frankish army under Clovis I defeated the Romans
under Syagrius (the last magister militum per Gallias) at the Battle of
Soissons, which marks the point where Gaul comes under Merovingian rule and
modern France starts to evolve. Syagrius governed a Gallo-Roman enclave, the
Kingdom of the Gallo-Romans, as dux following the collapse of central rule.
The Kingdom of the Gallo-Romans was a rump state - all that was left of the
Western Roman Empire in Gaul - or by then, pretty much anywhere.
The Western Empire was therefore not only not considering conquering
anyone - it was falling apart at the seams to form the successor states.
The Bishop of Rome gained political as well as religious importance since
Constantine, but he was for a long time under the thumb of the Emperor in
Constantinople. Rome remained nominally part of the Byzantine Empire until
751 AD when the Lombards finally abolished the Exarchate of Ravenna. In the
5th century the Eastern Roman empire (the Byzantine Empire) wasn't about to
do anything really major for another 100 years, and even then Ireland wasn't
even in their sights. Justinian (527-565 AD) was far more concerned about
reconquering the bits of the collapsed Western Empire that surrounded the
Mediterranean - it is doubtful that he even considered Britain, let alone
conquering bits of the world that had never been in the Empire. In 756 AD
Pippin the Short gave the pope temporal jurisdiction over Rome and
surrounding areas, thus creating the Papal States.
Shortly after Patrick's time however, the best that Constantiople could
manage was Leo's abortive attempt to reconquer Africa in 468 AD, and Zeno
sending the Ostrogothic leader Theoderic to Italy in the 490s to govern as
his magister militum. By about that time, Britain - let alone Ireland - had
become so unknown round the Med that there were fanciful accounts of it,
even though we have evidence for trade between Cornwall and the Med after
410 AD.
Rome therefore did not "decide to conquer" Ireland because by then Rome
wasn't the capital of the Western Empire, and the Western Empire was falling
apart and was thus not in any shape for conquering anyone. It ceased to
exist not long after Patrick's death. The Eastern Empire couldn't have cared
less - it was only interested in beating the crap out of those that
threatened its borders, and in reclaiming what used to be the Western Empire
for itself. Even so, its plans for reconquering the Western Empire do not
seem to have included Britain, let alone extended to Ireland. There appears
to be no mention of Ireland in any of the contemporary Byzantine documents
that have come down to us, so they may not have even been officially aware
of the island.
The Church did however decide to have a go at converting people - not just
the Irish, but also the Saxons and other groups - but they really did
believe that they knew the truth and that they had an obligation to spread
the Word.
As for being unable to conquer the Irish any other way - the Romans never
tried. The most you got was, centuries earlier, Agricola considering that it
could be done with one legion. Other than that, the Romans don't appear to
have been very interested in the place. Incidentally, the Romans did have
heavy cavalry - cataphracti. Heavy cavalry wasn't an invention of the
Normans - the medieval European heavy cavalry developed from the Roman use
of cataphracti. In fact the Roman tactics seem to have been very much more
disciplined that the later tactics of medieval knights, and was often
supported by cataphract archers. They would therefore quite probably have
been more effective:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cataphracti
One such unit consisted of 2,500 Sarmatians stationed in Britain in the 2nd
century. They stayed there after their term of service ended.
A historian with an interest in the period would know all of this, and would
certainly research it if he was going to venture an opinion.
| Quote: | So instead they concentrated on preaching Hellfire and
damnation - Patrick was an absolute lunatic on this sunject.
|
Patrick was no worse than any other Christian of the period.
| Quote: | It comes through the literature time and again,
|
The only reliable account of Patrick is in the two works accepted to have
been written by him - Confessio and the Epistola (Letter to Coroticus). Of
course these days it is widely accepted by historians, following O'Rahilly,
that many of the traditions later attached to Saint Patrick originally
concerned Palladius, a deacon from Gaul who came to Ireland. This agrees
with Prosper of Aquitaine's contemporary chronicle:
"Palladius was ordained by Pope Celestine and sent to the Irish believers in
Christ as their first bishop."
Prosper associates this with the visits of Germanus of Auxerre to Britain to
suppress the Pelagian heresy. The appointment of Palladius and his
fellow-bishops does not appear to have been a mission to convert the Irish,
but was instead probably intended to minister to existing Christian
communities in Ireland. That's hardly "conquering." Again, a historian
interested in the period would be aware of all of this.
| Quote: | As a result the Irish as they were converted went out
and actually destroyed all nests of adders across the land, as actual
earthly symbols of Satan, the Devil.
|
I am gobsmacked at this. Not only is there unequivocally absolutely no
evidence for this, there weren't any adders in Ireland for converts to
destroy. The Ice Age had seen to that.
| Quote: | I do not know the actual reason
why there was such a connection between the Druids and the Serpent.
|
The same connection existed in Cornwall and Wales. There is some evidence to
suggest that the connection existed in Scotland. I could, with very little
difficulty, make a connection via the iconography to central beliefs. A
historian interested in the subject would note that serpent symbolism is not
unknown in Romano-Celtic iconography and is based upon indigenous motifs,
and not on Classical themes.
| Quote: | As the symbol today of medics is intertwined serpents, which comes from
Egyptian healing.
|
A historian would be aware that the caduceus was Greek, and was the symbol
of Hermes, the messenger of the gods. It is not Egyptian. A non-historian
with any wit would Google it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caduceus
Hermes has his roots in the Minoan ermaas (the Mycenaean phase if I recall),
which were roughly phallically shaped stones. However, the caduceus is *not*
the symbol of medicine - the rod of Asclepius is the correct symbol -
although the two are frequently confused, even by the medical profession:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_of_Asclepius
It has been suggested that this confusion may have arisen because Hermes,
whose symbol the caduceus is, was the deity associated with alchemy, and
alchemy became associated with medicine by the 16th century. It might
however be better to say that the two have been confused on many occasions
for different reasons.
| Quote: | Irish Christianity even back then was of the Arian/Pelagian variety,
|
It is not surprising that Irish Christianity was Pelagian - Pelagius was
either British or Irish, the Catholic Church regarded Britain and Ireland as
the origin of the Pelagian heresy (it is still called the English heresy by
the Church), and it may well have been a fusion of indigenous ideas and
Christianity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagius
On the subject of his origins:
"While the most trustworthy witnesses, such as Augustine, Orosius, Prosper,
and Marius Mercator, are quite explicit in assigning Britain as his native
country, as is apparent from his cognomen of Brito or Britannicus, Jerome
(Praef. in Jerem., lib. I and III) ridicules him as a "Scot" (loc. cit.,
"habet enim progeniem Scoticae gentis de Britannorum vicinia"), who being
"stuffed with Scottish porridge" (Scotorum pultibus proegravatus) suffers
from a weak memory."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11604a.htm
'Scotti' being the Latin term for the Irish back then.
It is therefore highly probable that Irish Christianity - and British
Christianity - was therefore Pelagian from the first. To say that it was
Pelagian "even back then" implies that there was a point when it was not
Pelagian.
Kevin |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
aine
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 23, 2007 7:34 am Post subject: Re: Hey Michael ! |
|
|
On Sep 22, 7:06 pm, "Kevin" <laighl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
| Quote: | "aine" <aine_nicne...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1190486327.708297.198560@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 21, 10:53 pm, Mairtin O'Druachain <DruidE...@gmail.com> wrote:
If Mairtin is a historian, then I'm Coco the clown.
When they say that Patrick "drove the
snakes out of Ireland" they actually mean that he drove the Druids
out !
Hardly controversial. I remarked on that over10 years ago.
This comes from Christian propaganda, for instance in the Bible
the Devil is portrayed as a snake/serpent in the Garden of Eden story,
The serpent is not the Devil, though the two are often conflated. Nowhere in
Genesis does it say that the serpent is the Devil and you won't find a
theologian to argue for that identification. The most they might say is that
in popular thinking, the serpent as the tempter, became identified with
Satan, even though the Bible does not make that equation.
OTOH you will always find some numbskull who took a correspondence course
with some Southern Baptist college and got a 'degree' in theology that isn't
worth the paper it is photocopied on - they'll argue that the serpent and
the Devil are one and the same. There arguments tend to be along the lines
of "well, what the Bible meant to say . . . " or "well, what the Bible
really says is . . . " They're the same folks who argue that the Bible is
the immutable Word of God, so why they go putting words into God's mouth is
beyond me. :-)
There were adders in Ireland up to Christian times, just as there are
adders in parts of Britain to this day.
Absolute hogwash, balderdash and piffle! Ask any biologist. There aren't any
vipers in ireland because of the last Ice Age. The landbridge between
Britain and Ireland broke before it was warm enough for them to get there
and survive. This is hardly new knowledge.
|
Curiosity..Why could they have not been brought in by ship? WA State
is not exactly home to Boas, Pythons and the like of exotic
animals...yet..here we have them. Brought in, breed, escape and live
they do. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
aine
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 23, 2007 7:46 am Post subject: Re: Hey Michael ! |
|
|
On Sep 22, 7:06 pm, "Kevin" <laighl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
| Quote: | "aine" <aine_nicne...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1190486327.708297.198560@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 21, 10:53 pm, Mairtin O'Druachain <DruidE...@gmail.com> wrote:
If Mairtin is a historian, then I'm Coco the clown.
When they say that Patrick "drove the
snakes out of Ireland" they actually mean that he drove the Druids
out !
Hardly controversial. I remarked on that over10 years ago.
This comes from Christian propaganda, for instance in the Bible
the Devil is portrayed as a snake/serpent in the Garden of Eden story,
The serpent is not the Devil, though the two are often conflated. Nowhere in
Genesis does it say that the serpent is the Devil and you won't find a
theologian to argue for that identification. The most they might say is that
in popular thinking, the serpent as the tempter, became identified with
Satan, even though the Bible does not make that equation.
OTOH you will always find some numbskull who took a correspondence course
with some Southern Baptist college and got a 'degree' in theology that isn't
worth the paper it is photocopied on - they'll argue that the serpent and
the Devil are one and the same. There arguments tend to be along the lines
of "well, what the Bible meant to say . . . " or "well, what the Bible
really says is . . . " They're the same folks who argue that the Bible is
the immutable Word of God, so why they go putting words into God's mouth is
beyond me.
|
Ask 10 people who the serpent is in the Bible..10 people even pagans
would say the Devil. Even reading the Bible I was led to believe it
was the Devil so, maybe in direct sense it was not stated but they did
a great job of wordplay.
If I was going to bring it up, I would equate the serpent with the
Devil to appeal to the understanding of the masses.
In the middle here I am. I see your point yet I see Mairtins in saying
it the way he did.
| Quote: | The Church did however decide to have a go at converting people - not just
the Irish, but also the Saxons and other groups - but they really did
believe that they knew the truth and that they had an obligation to spread
the Word.
As for being unable to conquer the Irish any other way - the Romans never
tried. The most you got was, centuries earlier, Agricola considering that it
could be done with one legion. Other than that, the Romans don't appear to
have been very interested in the place. Incidentally, the Romans did have
heavy cavalry - cataphracti. Heavy cavalry wasn't an invention of the
Normans - the medieval European heavy cavalry developed from the Roman use
of cataphracti. In fact the Roman tactics seem to have been very much more
disciplined that the later tactics of medieval knights, and was often
supported by cataphract archers. They would therefore quite probably have
been more effective:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cataphracti
One such unit consisted of 2,500 Sarmatians stationed in Britain in the 2nd
century. They stayed there after their term of service ended.
A historian with an interest in the period would know all of this, and would
certainly research it if he was going to venture an opinion.
So instead they concentrated on preaching Hellfire and
damnation - Patrick was an absolute lunatic on this sunject.
Patrick was no worse than any other Christian of the period.
It comes through the literature time and again,
|
But you are not denying he was a lunatic.? Whether he was no worse
than another is not important. He would have been the one lunatic at
the time and place. Right? |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Kevin
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 23, 2007 7:59 pm Post subject: Re: Hey Michael ! |
|
|
"aine" <aine_nicneven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1190514846.266416.195460@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | On Sep 22, 7:06 pm, "Kevin" <laighl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
"aine" <aine_nicne...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1190486327.708297.198560@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 21, 10:53 pm, Mairtin O'Druachain <DruidE...@gmail.com> wrote:
If Mairtin is a historian, then I'm Coco the clown.
When they say that Patrick "drove the
snakes out of Ireland" they actually mean that he drove the Druids
out !
Hardly controversial. I remarked on that over10 years ago.
This comes from Christian propaganda, for instance in the Bible
the Devil is portrayed as a snake/serpent in the Garden of Eden story,
The serpent is not the Devil, though the two are often conflated. Nowhere
in
Genesis does it say that the serpent is the Devil and you won't find a
theologian to argue for that identification. The most they might say is
that
in popular thinking, the serpent as the tempter, became identified with
Satan, even though the Bible does not make that equation.
OTOH you will always find some numbskull who took a correspondence course
with some Southern Baptist college and got a 'degree' in theology that
isn't
worth the paper it is photocopied on - they'll argue that the serpent and
the Devil are one and the same. There arguments tend to be along the
lines
of "well, what the Bible meant to say . . . " or "well, what the Bible
really says is . . . " They're the same folks who argue that the Bible is
the immutable Word of God, so why they go putting words into God's mouth
is
beyond me. :-)
There were adders in Ireland up to Christian times, just as there are
adders in parts of Britain to this day.
Absolute hogwash, balderdash and piffle! Ask any biologist. There aren't
any
vipers in ireland because of the last Ice Age. The landbridge between
Britain and Ireland broke before it was warm enough for them to get there
and survive. This is hardly new knowledge.
Curiosity..Why could they have not been brought in by ship? WA State
is not exactly home to Boas, Pythons and the like of exotic
animals...yet..here we have them. Brought in, breed, escape and live
they do.
|
Well, firstly most introductions/reintroductions fail. You need a minimum
number of individuals of any species to successfully establish it in a new
environment, assuming that the environment is favourable - just releasing a
male and female won't do. That's why reintroducing species to an old
environment is so tricky, and why species become endangered when their
numbers drop below a critical amount. OK, that amount may be lower for pack
animals like wolves, or herd animals, cos they all hang round together.
However, for solitary species they've all got to find each other in order to
breed.
Then again,there are considerations as to whether the new environment is
capable of supporting a breeding population, whether the introductions will
be predated shortly after they are released, whether the environment will
allow the species to spread and thus maintain genetic diversity (if it
can't, the introduction will fail), and umpteen other factors, including
climate and humidity. As I said, most introductions have failed - some still
fail even though the factors for success are now understood.
Now exotic introductions like pythons invariably start off as pets - they
are not accidental shipboard introductions. That means that there's a huge
< | |
