Sign in to follow this  
Fawzo

What Level Of Responsibility Does Christianity Hold For The Dark Ages?

Recommended Posts

??? They are facts--there are studies all over the world including US about this. Read the sites below! I have more for serious reading :derisive: Ancient Magyar /Sumerian connection .Fact! Ancient religion. Fact! Taltos. Fact! Actually we have a Taltos, he is the 7 son, of a 7 son. of a 7 son , of a 7 son going back many, many generations--his name today is Andras Kovacs. Fact! He is the living legend of the ancient religion. Fact! --today and a serious school to study the methods. Fact! There are certain pre-requisites to be taken to attend. Fact! The site below is very interesting!

http://www.eaus.ee/JuditKis.pdf

There is a picture in that site of the Taltos.

The modern Magyar language is 99% ancient Sumerian--we understand it. Fact! That is why there is so much interest in it linguistically all over the world. Fact!. It is the only language on earth that has not changed.Fact! Check out the Cassiopaea blog, the article there--especially the references at the end!

http://www.imninalu.net/myths-Huns.htm

http://sms.zrc-sazu....MS_03_Kurti.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_prehistory

http://ancientmagyarworld.tripod.com/

http://hungarianhist...nspir/hsp04.htm

http://hungarianhist...nspir/hsp08.htm

http://www.federatio.org/mi_bibl/AlfredToth_EDH_5.pdf

http://users.cwnet.c...lenia/myths.htm

http://www.hunmagyar.org/tor/index.html

http://cassiopaea.or...p?topic=13148.0

An interesting forum

http://forums.skadi....ead.php?t=11315

Blessings and peace,

S

Edited by sarkany

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ancient Magyar /Sumerian connection .Fact!

Wishful thinking not fact. The hungarians are a finno-ugric people. Genetics have shown that the majoiry of hungarians are of european descent and not middle eastern.
Ancient religion. Fact!
Yes they had an ancient religion. That it was monotheistic is not a fact. It was polytheistic as was the other related finno-ugric peoples.

.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_mythology for a brief overview.

Taltos. Fact! Actually we have a Taltos, he is the 7 son, of a 7 son. of a 7 son , of a 7 son going back many, many generations--his name today is Andras Kovacs. Fact! He is the living legend of the ancient religion. Fact! --today and a serious school to study the methods. Fact! There are certain pre-requisites to be taken to attend. Fact! The site below is very interesting!

http://www.eaus.ee/JuditKis.pdf

There is a picture in that site of the Taltos.

Just because the taltos are real does not make the other claims real.
The modern Magyar language is 99% ancient Sumerian--we understand it. Fact! That is why there is so much interest in it linguistically all over the world. Fact!. It is the only language on earth that has not changed.Fact! Check out the Cassiopaea blog, the article there--especially the references at the end!

Bulldonkey and not fact. The sumerian language became extinct around 4,000 years ago as it was slowly replaced by akkadian (a semetic language). It was only used ceremonially for another couple of thousand years. It became completely dead and mostly lost until the 1800's. Hungarian is a finno-ugric language. This is a fact. The sumerians and akkadians were polytheists as well. This is also a fact.

Notice this directly at the beginning.

Preliminary remarks: Owing to the lack of conclusive evidences available until now, this research proposes likely hypotheses, not definitive solutions. The historic facts exposed here and the reasonable credit that may be bestowed on ancient myths allow the author to frame feasible hypotheses open to further discussion.

It is admitting right here that this is not fact. A hypotheses is something that is untested and unproven. It is what people generally use the word theory mistakenly for. As a theory is tested, established, and can even be fact.

This article also talks about the Huns as being synonymous with hungarian. The Huns were a confederation of many peoples and tribes. Including germanics. They were present in hungary as it was part of their empire. However, they were not synonymous with hungarians. They consisted of many peoples who spoke different languages and had different religious beliefs. the huns used Gothic as their lingua franca which is a Germanic language and originated in northern europe.

Emergence from the Ugric speakers

The Hungarian language is traditionally classified in a Ugric branch of the Uralic languages,[1][3][4] though the Ugric similarities may be due to an areal influence that also included Samoyedic.[5] The Uralic languages may have separated sometime around 4000 to 2000 BC.[3][4]

Ugric as in Finno=Ugric and not sumerian. They are also from the Ural mountains in western Russia and not mesopotamia.

A white supremacist forum.

From the original article you posted.

One of the main characteristics distinguishing early Hungarians from other Eurasians and primarily the Finno-Ugrinas is their ancestral belief.
They are Finno-Ugrians
No chronicles were able to call Hunnish deities by name, because there were no deities at all.
Once again the Huns were a confederation of many tribes and peoples with many different religious beliefs. They are not synonymous with hungarians. They spoke a germanic language as their lingua franca. Tosome this would have been a first language to most it was a second language. There were germanics in the Huns. Atilla is in german and scandinavian legends under the name Etzil andAtli I believe among others. There are german legends about Dietrich von Bern serving with him in the Huns.

  • Ibn-Fadlan, the Arab historian noticed of the Rus people: “Hungarians worship God in Heavens above all”

Ibn Fadlan did not write this about the Rus. I have read his account of the Rus. The Rus were also not hungarian. They were Viking traders/merchants from Sweden also known as Varangians. They were polytheists and worshipped germanic gods. Ibn Fadlan talks about how they made sacrifices to their main merchant god (Most likely Odin) for favorable prices and when that didn't work they went back to the altar and made sacrifices to the other gods which had smaller figurines. If that didn't work They went back and made another sacrifice etc...

If there is this much wrong in the first couple of paragraphs then the rest is not worth reading. It is either a complete fabrication or not very well researched. Either way it should not be relied upon as being accurate or fact.

Edited by Hrodebert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not going to debate this--the Fin connection is gone with the wind. Please don`t comment before you do some serious research about the language. I would also seriously check out whom the members are in the below institute.

http://www.magtudin.org/index.htm

http://www.szabir.co...y-of-hungarian/

Genetics and Linguistics disagree with this.

A fringe theory that is well-known is that the Hungarian language is a descendant of Sumerian. Some nationalist linguists and historians (like Ida Bobula, Ferenc Badiny Jós, dr Tibor Baráth and others) have published this theory.[24] There are some artifacts which they claim support this view (like the Tartaria tablets). Mainstream linguists reject the Sumerian theory as pseudoscience.

http://en.wikipedia....sy_over_origins

By now this Asiatic element has almost disappeared: 84% of Hungarians are totally of European origin and only 16% carry Asiatic markers.

And that leads us to the linguistic debate. As you most likely know by now, the Hungarian extreme right is very dissatisfied with the universally held belief in the Finno-Ugric linguistic relationship. The Szeged group's findings prove that Finns, Estonians, and Hungarians are related even genetically

. http://esbalogh.typepad.com/hungarianspectrum/2009/11/genetic-markers-in-the-hungarian-population-then-and-now.html

Edited by Hrodebert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I meant to add this originally.Wouldd be nice if you understood Hungarian--you could read some serious research from some prominent Sumerologists--Wikipedia is not gospel :derisive: serious research is.

peace,

S

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not going to get into the debate regarding the Ancient Magyar /Sumerian and/or Finno-Ugrians connection for a couple of reasons. One there is a huge difference between linguistic connections, cultural connections and genetic connections. And second, for what we know today, based on archaeological evidence and artifact research....anyone alive today, making observations on either side of the controversy, that was not alive then is only making "likely hypotheses, not definitive solutions"...but mostly because it's not integral to the topic.

When I researched the material for my Troy to Moses thesis at Uppsala Universitet, 99.99% of my peers thought I was absolutely nutz...yes, I am nutz, but that has nothing to do with researchable interpretations of historical evidences. The Hungarian Runes(1) were one of the many keys to my making the connection regarding the historical Oden and Thor of 3rd and/or 4th cities of Troy (Turkey) in direct relation to the Odhinn (Odin, Oden) and Thor of the Nordic sagas, due to probable migration routes. Interestingly enough, further research in this area by other scholars and academics are beginning to reveal the connections not as wild of a theory as once thought. In fact, U. Prof. Öster Linderberg(a) has advanced this connection quite readily and will be publishing his findings (over 15 yrs. of research) in the near future.

Etymology is a major factor in tracing any lineage...look at modern day "Ebonics"(2) and it's correlation to poverty and gang activity as one example...but language and writing systems are still only a part of any culture overall. As they say in real estate...location, location, location is a big part of the rest. As vast as the Ottoman Empire was at one time, there really is no telling how much influence they had on wiping out direct evidences to what would much later become the Hungarian-Sumerian connection.

I mean during my studies in Sweden, don't you think I found it just a bit odd to see, Asian, African and Middle Eastern descent peoples speaking perfect Swedish when my entire life I had only been around the atypical white skinned, blond haired, blue eyed Scandinavian??? Many of the younger immigrants, who are now "native Swedes", spoke fluent English as well so conversations were extremely enlightening. However, what will become of their ancestral tongue several generations down the road? It won't be the perfect and beautiful Canton, Nairobi and Arabic their ancestors spoke and 50-100 years from now the Swedish "Ordbok" (dictionary) may just have numerous new entries with foreign origins.

Dialects also play an important part... put a blue blood London aristocrat, a bayou Cajun, native Bostonian, "Outback" Australian and a reclusive moonshiner from Kentucky... in the same room and tell me they all speak English??

The point I'm making here, Sarkany and Hrodebert, is the evidence, as we interpret it today, really is a "best guess"....because even the info we use to formulate our hypothesis is based on what?....others subjective "best guess" research!! I refer once again to the professor at Birka(3) who would find an artifact and immediately begin to postulate how it got there, what is was used for etc....while all the other students and even associate scholars would roll their eyes and give a unanimous "Mmmhmm!" Bottom line, there could have been a dozen other reasons for an arrow, shoe, knife blade, bundle of rune staves or piece of jewelry to be where it was found 1000 years later....don't ya think?

While I agree there very well could be a connection between the Hungarian and Sumerian languages, let's take all evidences into consideration. I am certain we would find Hungarian dialects that could prove a stronger connection to Sumerian than others, even though those parts of old Hungary may be buried under much of modern day progress. I would not dismiss this etymological connection at all, even though there may be strong cultural and physical evidence to the contrary.

Remember, history is written by the victor and only people with large grants dig up the past....in short, their interpretation could well be a bit slanted! Tacticus wrote about the Vikings, Gauls, Druids and many others, based on a momentary observation. How could he possibly have a complete understanding of these peoples' history and ancient rites based on a few glimpses of their day to day life, under captivity? Yet Tacticus is universally accepted as being one the foremost sources of historical fact regarding many of the Germanics....I'm afraid I find great fault with that.

Even with all our modern technology and advances in sciences, if we're not very careful to keep an open mind we could easily, once again, fall into another Dark Age. I do agree with one thing about religions in general... and that is the eagerness in which most of the leadership (of any religion) is willing to bury the facts of the past to advance the current belief.

Just because something isn't brought forward into current knowledge, doesn't mean it didn't once belong there or was not at one time an integral part of any culture, language or place.

Blessings of Peace,

(1) http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=91719 (scroll down a little past ½ way)

(2) http://www.bing.com/search?q=Ebonics%2C+poverty%2C+crime&pc=ZUGO&form=ZGAFDF

(3) My favorite was his finding an arrow in a secluded area, about 9-10" underground, (roughly 600-650CE) and immediately going off on how the "game animal" would have been there, hunter standing here, the miss went there etc etc...a long story...but the bottom line is is it could have just as easily of been a child playing with the arrow, someone discarding it for any number of reasons, an invader's missed shot etc etc. Rabbits were the only known "game animal" on Birka, after the few deer had been long eradicated (450-500CE) and those were mostly bred in cages. Who would have need to chance losing an arrow (a lot of hard work and expensive in those days) to something readily available out of a cage??...buuuut he was the resident "expert"... :unsure:

(a) http://www.bing.com/search?q=%C3%96ster+Linderberg&pc=ZUGO&form=ZGAFDF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember, history is written by the victor and only people with large grants dig up the past....in short, their interpretation could well be a bit slanted! Tacticus wrote about the Vikings, Gauls, Druids and many others, based on a momentary observation. How could he possibly have a complete understanding of these peoples' history and ancient rites based on a few glimpses of their day to day life, under captivity? Yet Tacticus is universally accepted as being one the foremost sources of historical fact regarding many of the Germanics....I'm afraid I find great fault with that.

What captivity?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What captivity?

those that didn't choose to die in battle, by suicide or were put to death of many kingdoms of the ancient land...what is now"Europe". "Roman Rule" could be considered nothing but 'captivity'...it certainly was not free except for those few with the luxury of becoming Roman citizens....very few.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

those that didn't choose to die in battle, by suicide or were put to death of many kingdoms of the ancient land...what is now"Europe". "Roman Rule" could be considered nothing but 'captivity'...it certainly was not free except for those few with the luxury of becoming Roman citizens....very few.

When tacitus wrote such things as Germania it was of the people outside of Roman rule. He walked among those who were not in captivity and wrote about them. I would think you would like Tacitus as his gives one of the best accounts of divination and most likely runic divination among germanic people. Something which many asatruar like to deny to your frustration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You've read Sigurths risting or Lay from the Poetic Edda I'm sure. Sigurth was a well known, higher up of Scandi aristocracy and wrote many things outside of what is found in the Eddas. His passed down accounts, if I remember correctly a gggggreat-grandfather lived in the time of Tacitus (sorry about earlier misspelling) and under Saxon slaving, under Roman rule. The Njordördmans Risting [Codex] (one of the one's I told you about awhile back) goes into great detail about Tacitus being "well liked by Rome, despised by those Rome conquered".

Sure, Tacitus walked among the freemen of many kingdoms, but shall we just say his "reports" to Rome were just a bit tainted with flowers....and I'm not talking the "Steven kind" here.... :rofl: In first century CE a historian, even a Senator historian, who didn't put Rome first and above all else wouldn't survive to write another story.

Even though I feel a bit indebted to him for his annals regarding runic divination, I personally do not believe he wrote a very accurate account...only what he was "told" as none of the rituals and rites would have been easy for him to observe, unless completely for show. And if 'for show' there would only be a modicum of accuracy or completeness to any of them. Esoteric does mean "hidden", no matter how much we would like it be more open.

I genuinely wish there was more I could share about the codex I've seen, but alas, I have no copy or even picture and all I have are a few handwritten notes, which according to authentication processes, are of little validity. My short time examining these documents was only of use to my personal experience and theories. Hopefully one day that will change.

Blessings Be,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You've read Sigurths risting or Lay from the Poetic Edda I'm sure. Sigurth was a well known, higher up of Scandi aristocracy and wrote many things outside of what is found in the Eddas. His passed down accounts, if I remember correctly a gggggreat-grandfather lived in the time of Tacitus (sorry about earlier misspelling) and under Saxon slaving, under Roman rule. The Njordördmans Risting [Codex] (one of the one's I told you about awhile back) goes into great detail about Tacitus being "well liked by Rome, despised by those Rome conquered".

Sure, Tacitus walked among the freemen of many kingdoms, but shall we just say his "reports" to Rome were just a bit tainted with flowers....and I'm not talking the "Steven kind" here.... :rofl: In first century CE a historian, even a Senator historian, who didn't put Rome first and above all else wouldn't survive to write another story.

Even though I feel a bit indebted to him for his annals regarding runic divination, I personally do not believe he wrote a very accurate account...only what he was "told" as none of the rituals and rites would have been easy for him to observe, unless completely for show. And if 'for show' there would only be a modicum of accuracy or completeness to any of them. Esoteric does mean "hidden", no matter how much we would like it be more open.

I genuinely wish there was more I could share about the codex I've seen, but alas, I have no copy or even picture and all I have are a few handwritten notes, which according to authentication processes, are of little validity. My short time examining these documents was only of use to my personal experience and theories. Hopefully one day that will change.

Blessings Be,

I disagree. Tacitus it is also postulated might have been a celt. As he was the son of a freed slave and also his sympathetic writings of the barbarians which was uncommon at the time. Yes some of the accounts he wrote about were told to him and some he witnessed. He gave a rather nuetral account in most cases and even wrote admirably about the germanics. Germania was not under roman rule and were not captives. He wrote about free men practicing their beliefs. His is an excellent source of information imo. I read germania frequently as my research focuses on pre christian german beliefs and not norse. The eddas are secondary to me as they are written 1100 years later by christians in post conversion iceland. They are an excellent backdrop and help immensely.

I'm not sure how sigurd figures in. I also am not aware of him having written anything. Especially since he seems to be largley a legendary figure. In germany he was known as Seigfried the dragon slayer and star of the nibelungelied. He is roylaty in Germany as well being the crown prince of Xanten Germany and travels to the court of the burgundians and helps them defeat invading saxons. Interestingly enough he also travels to a legendary city in iceland in the story so his loves brother can woo the queen.

Perhaps we can contrast and compare more privately in the future vitki as we have not had one of our conversations lately :)

Edited by Hrodebert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Windwalker--this maybe of interest to you--and others regarding monotheism and concepts of spirit almost 5000BC.

http://hargita.award...s/taltosen.html

blessings,

S

This link and its contents are so intriguing I saved the webpage to my documents. I definitely gives a good perspective on early religious- or Spiritual though and practices. many thanks...Blessed Be

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you'll find, eventually, that Sigurd and SigurTH are two separate people which are commonly confused. Sigurth, the Swedish aristocrat was well known to the Nordics, especially the Swedes and Finns.

But all that aside, by your evaluation of Tacitus, sure, I can bow to your reasoning behind his writings. Perhaps the Germanics weren't as coy with him as the Nordics which is very possible having completely different relationship with him. As far as I know Tacitus never made it over to what would become Norway and Sweden.

Anyway, glad you are delving into the core of the differences between the Nordics and Germanics. Too many of the Ásatrú Folk seem to bundle them together and really confuse the lore and history, even though there are indeed many commonalities.

As far as Snorri goes and the Eddas, yes he was clergy on paper, but a close look at his journals and other letters to the Norwegian king you have to believe he was anything but "clueless" about his ancestry. Don't forget the times these folks lived. Nay saying the church could be lethal.

Blessings of Peace,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you'll find, eventually, that Sigurd and SigurTH are two separate people which are commonly confused. Sigurth, the Swedish aristocrat was well known to the Nordics, especially the Swedes and Finns.

But all that aside, by your evaluation of Tacitus, sure, I can bow to your reasoning behind his writings. Perhaps the Germanics weren't as coy with him as the Nordics which is very possible having completely different relationship with him. As far as I know Tacitus never made it over to what would become Norway and Sweden.

Anyway, glad you are delving into the core of the differences between the Nordics and Germanics. Too many of the Ásatrú Folk seem to bundle them together and really confuse the lore and history, even though there are indeed many commonalities.

As far as Snorri goes and the Eddas, yes he was clergy on paper, but a close look at his journals and other letters to the Norwegian king you have to believe he was anything but "clueless" about his ancestry. Don't forget the times these folks lived. Nay saying the church could be lethal.

Blessings of Peace,

You weren't talking about Sigurd Fafnicide from the poetic edda?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You weren't talking about Sigurd Fafnicide from the poetic edda?

Faf-nicide is an unfortunate last name. Particular to those of us who sometimes like to faf around. :crazyeyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You weren't talking about Sigurd Fafnicide from the poetic edda?
You're thinking that Sigurth and Seigfried are the same...aha...okay.....I can see now why the names are confused .....you are reading the William Reaves translations of the Eddas, right?

In germany he was known as Seigfried the dragon slayer and star of the nibelungelied. He is roylaty in Germany as well being the crown prince of Xanten Germany and travels to the court of the burgundians and helps them defeat invading saxons.
Okay, so be it. I won't further confuse the issue....so never mind....I won't introduce other Swede historical characters that have little to do with your Germanic endeavors. In the future, I'm certain, you'll discover the reason for the confusion here.

I read germania frequently as my research focuses on pre christian german beliefs and not norse.

Another 'last' question though...if your "focus" is pre-Christian Germanic beliefs, why would you explore the Nine Doors curriculum, a dedicated Rune-Gild study?

Okay, I think I've distracted enough from the topic....sorry, again, for the interruption Fawzo.

Blessings of Peace,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're thinking that Sigurth and Seigfried are the same...aha...okay.....I can see now why the names are confused .....you are reading the William Reaves translations of the Eddas, right?

I read multiple translations including thorpe, chisholm, bellows, etc.

Sigurd and Seigfried are the same. They both are culturalvariations of pan germanic legends. For a brief overview of this I suggest checking the wiki as reading the lieds and lays to compare and contrast would probably take too long and wiki does cover it nicely.

]Sigurd (Old Norse: Sigurðr) is a legendary hero of Norse mythology, as well as the central character in the Völsunga saga. The earliest extant representations for his legend come in pictorial form from seven runestones in Sweden[1] and most notably the Ramsund carving (c. 1000) and the Gök Runestone (11th century).

As Siegfried, he is one of the heroes in the German Nibelungenlied, and Richard Wagner's operas Siegfried and Götterdämmerung.

As Sivard Snarensven(d) he was the hero of several medieval Scandinavian ballads.

In the Middle High German Nibelungenlied, Sîfrit (Siegfried) is a prince of Xanten who is later revealed to have a heroic background including killing a dragon and winning lands and an immense fortune from a pair of brothers. From bathing in the dragon's blood, he is invulnerable except for a spot on his back where a leaf adhered to his skin. Determined to marry Kriemhild, the sister of King Gunther of the Burgundians, he assists Gunther in wooing Brünhild, queen of Iceland, using his cloak of invisibility to enable Gunther to beat the phenomenally strong queen at javelin throwing, boulder tossing, and the long jump. He also single-handedly conquers Nibelungenland to provide troops in case Brünhild tries to kill Gunther and his kin. Finally married to Kriemhild, he then wrestles Brünhild into submission, again invisible, so that Gunther can consummate his marriage. He gives Kriemhilt Brünhild's ring and belt. After some years, the two queens quarrel over precedence and Kriemhild shows Brünhild the ring and belt and calls her Siegfried's concubine. Siegfried and Gunther make peace but Gunther's courtier Hagen von Tronje plots to kill Siegfried and Gunther and his brothers go along with the plan. Hagen has Kriemhild place a cross on the spot on Siegfried's back where he is vulnerable, and spears him when he is drinking from a stream on a hunting trip, thus fulfilling a prophecy that whomever Kriemhild marries will die violently. He throws Siegfried's treasure into the Rhine so that Kriemhild cannot raise an army. The second half of the epic concerns her revenge

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigurd Notice the characters Seigfried (Sigurd) Gunther (Gunnar), Kriemhild (Grimhild), Brunhild (Brynhild).

The Nibelungenlied is based on pre-Christian Germanic heroic motifs (the "Nibelungensaga"), which include oral traditions and reports based on historic events and individuals of the 5th and 6th centuries. Old Norse parallels of the legend survive in the Völsunga saga, the Prose Edda, the Poetic Edda, the Legend of Norna-Gest, and the Þiðrekssaga
It is thought that seigfried may be based upon the historical figure of Arminius who defeated the romans at the battle of tuetoberg forest in scale armor around 9 ad and kept germany free.

There are many such figures that seem to be pan germanic and extend back into pre christian times. There are also not only the common germanic beliefs but the ones that extend even farther back to the indo european roots. The Norse did after all start out in Northern germany and eventually moved up into southern scandinavia around 4,000 years ago. Displacing the Sami and eventually taking over all of scandinavia. The connection remained and so did contact. Especially since denmark is in jutland above northern germany. One such character that is pan germanic is Volundr to the norse, Wieland to the Germans, and Wayland to the anglo saxons. The Saxons in Northern germany had Irminsul instead of Yggdrasil. It was a world pillar insterad of tree. It of course was the pillar of the God Irmin a biname of Wodan (Odin) who's cognate can be found in the norse biname for Odin, Jormun. Charlemagne I think it was chopped down the Irminsul in suppression of the heathens. In germany it seemed a world pillar was a popular motif and in Central Germany the Chatti tribe had Donar's (Thor) Oak. A massive ancient oak tree in a forest of them that reportedly touched the sky and grew taller then the others. People came from all over the continent to visit and worship at it. Until of course St. Boniface cut it down to prove the Christian God was more powerful than Thor. There are however differences between continental germanics and the norse. Such asthe absence of the vanir, whome simek belieeves may actually be an invention of snorri including the vanir war, Freyr might be the god Ing on the continent. Freyja seems to have been the same goddess as Frigg who's name was Frija among others, originally on the continent. The two later being worshipped separately. Balder who was also known as Phol was present. There is of course Nerthus (earth) who's name is the female version of Njord. Some think maybne this was his sister/wife they talk about in the eddas. It's all very confusing at times and takes a lot of research. I would be happy to discuss with you some of the theories and connections through email at a later time.

Okay, so be it. I won't further confuse the issue....so never mind....I won't introduce other Swede historical characters that have little to do with your Germanic endeavors. In the future, I'm certain, you'll discover the reason for the confusion here.

As always your input is more than welcome and as the norse beliefs are the most well documented they are valuable.

Another 'last' question though...if your "focus" is pre-Christian Germanic beliefs, why would you explore the Nine Doors curriculum, a dedicated Rune-Gild study?
I'm not sure I understand your question. The Germans had the Elder Futhark. Edred is also very into the Goths. I'm not sure why focusing on continental germanic beliefs precludes one from Rune study. Tacitus was recording use of the runes for divination in Germany after all. Another thing going back to what you previously said. The Germans it is obvious did not tell tacitus the meanings of rituals. He merely observed them and recorded what happened. They did not tell him why they did things or what they represented. Take for example his writings of rune use.

10. Augury and divina

10. Augury and divination by lot no people practise more diligently. The use of the lots is simple. A little bough is lopped off a fruit-bearing tree, and cut into small pieces; these are distinguished by certain marks, and thrown carelessly and at random over a white garment. In public questions the priest of the particular state, in private the father of the family, invokes the gods, and, with his eyes towards heaven, takes up each piece three times, and finds in them a meaning according to the mark previously impressed on them. If they prove unfavourable, there is no further consultation that day about the matter; if they sanction it, the confirmation of augury is still required. For they are also familiar with the practice of consulting the notes and the flight of birds. It is peculiar to this people to seek omens and monitions from horses. Kept at the public expense, in these same woods and groves, are white horses, pure from the taint of earthly labour; these are yoked to a sacred car, and accompanied by the priest and the king, or chief of the tribe, who note their neighings and snortings. No species of augury is more trusted, not only by the people and by the nobility, but also by the priests, who regard themselves as the ministers of the gods, and the horses as acquainted with their will. They have also another method of observing auspices, by which they seek to learn the result of an important war. Having taken, by whatever means, a prisoner from the tribe with whom they are at war, they pit him against a picked man of their own tribe, each combatant using the weapons of their country. The victory of the one or the other is accepted as an indication of the issue.

http://www.heathengo...itus/g01010.htm

Notice how they don't tell him what the symbols being used are or what they mean, how they ascertain the meaning, etc.. Instead he just observes what they are doing and records it. If someone tells him of a particular ritual by a certain tribe they do not tell him the meanings behind it or what the priests know and do. Only what goes on during the ritual. Such as with Nerthus, who rides around in a cart visiting towns. He records that when the diety is thought to be in the cart and this is determined by the priest, the procession begins. He does not know how the priest knows this.

Okay, I think I've distracted enough from the topic....sorry, again, for the interruption Fawzo.
I've always enjoyed the tangents in conversations on this forum. Topics change as they are discussed between people and many times things have been taught or learned on here because of the tangents. Edited by Hrodebert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always enjoyed the tangents in conversations on this forum. Topics change as they are discussed between people and many times things have been taught or learned on here because of the tangents.

Ditto! I'm eating this up! I'm just quiet because the things that are being discussed are things I don't know about, so I'm learning from all of your input and looking up stuff as I read along.

Edited by Tsukino_Rei

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this