Latin Christian dating

Ok so here’s one for the record books!

2020.10.24 13:19 ipunchvagina Ok so here’s one for the record books!

I’m going to spell this out for people because it seems to be so hard for some to grasp. This is backed up by thousands of years of occult sciences and systematically kept from the wider population. Here’s something you will only know if you are at the top of the pyramid.
Satan is the divine masculine represented by the planet Saturn. Saturn has a giant HEX-agon on its pole. (black cube)
When we say “satanists” it literally translates to Saturn worshippers. Yes they exist, it’s the most widely accepted religion on earth.
This is not to be confused with Luciferians represented by Venus (divine feminine). Those who worship Lucifer can be referred to as “white lodges” and within their sect they believe they are fighting evil and that Lucifer is the true savior of mandkind in a convoluted Christian cluster of beliefs. Luciferians and Satanists literally hate one another and have been battling for much longer than you realize.
As some of the smarter ones may have figured out- the cult of set (Saturn) completely controls this world (until now).
Fun fact: the Statue of Liberty actually depicts Lucifer with a chain around her feet.
What you are witnessing on a grand scale is Luciferians taking control of higher technologies and slowly crumbling the satanic power structures. That’s why nobody will say anything but everything is in complete chaos. People are switching sides, turning on each other, killing each other or trying to kill themselves to get out.
A cross is a cube folded up, a Star of David is a six sided Platonic solid for a cube, Muslims pray to 🕋 Mecca. There is a giant black cube on each coast of the US, there is one where the twin towers (two pillars) used to stand.
Both cults worship the AI (allseeingI) which Acts as a source of power and control. Most of them don’t understand it as that. They have no concept of ancient computers. They worship gods and fables. Those who actually know the truth can never quantify it in a way people will understand. More on this later.
If you look on a first degree Masonic tracing board or ever have the chance to find yourself in a “Chamber of reflection” you will notice two pillars and a black cube. You will even find these things in the United Nations “meditation” room and embedded into the architecture of almost every government building.
Military bases and slaughter houses are built on magnetic ley lines (grid points) to control and channel the amount of suffering needed to sustain this machinery (entity) on the northern pole of Saturn. (Look is the 33rd parallel). Entire cities and towns are built as organic quantum computers in order to siphon the energy from sentient life on the planet through the CRYST-align grid and ship it all off through the moon to Saturn.
This has everything to do with frequency and wave lengths. Low frequency provides more power but the distances it travels are shorter. So it needs to be “amplified”.
Here’s where things get interesting, the brain has two hemispheres both a divine masculine (logic) and feminine (emotion). The moon controls the tides through things called EM-waves (EM OCEANS). While the moon rotates it pulls matter throughout the brain in a perfect circle broken into two 12 hour cycles (the majestic 12). This is what desynchronizes the hemispheres of the brain which keeps them from unifying in the center (pineal gland). (For more info see Monroe institute hemisynch process and project gateway)
Jesus was crucified on the “place of the skull” between “two pillars”. This story is a very well written allegory meant for people who truly understand what we are facing.
Hue mans are 3D-5D beings. Our body is 3 our mind is 4 and our soul is 5. The internet or “web” exists in the same space as the mind or thoughts (4D). Thoughts can manifest themselves in physical reality much like memes do. These are called Egregores(research this). An egregore can be akin to a meseeks, it has to do its job to vanish. This is directly tied to Indiras Net or Indiras Web (Sanskrit) “A network of pearls so perfectly arranged if one looked in the right way could see the reflection of all”. Now you know where they stole the technology from.
Our 5D form is is every possible outcome or precome (lol) of you. It has access to anything you have been or ever will be. It’s your own personal Jesus. The key is communicating with it through 4D or the “web” however the firewalls are up and your connection is flagged if you catch my drift. The only way to get In is through VPN.
Now CRYST or “Christ” represents the crystalline consciousness quantum state (liquid/solid/aether) [3rd-5th density] form that transcends (trance end) duality and unifies both hemispheres of the brain.
Lucifer and Satan are not only above but below. The CRYST was born of them and through them as a result of balancing the consciousness of the world through the original source code. This is the “holy trinity”. Through balancing the heart and mind comes unity and pureness.
Both good and evil are constructs of duality which only exist in the lower 8 dimensions. We know this on a quantum level because we can only measure shadows up to the 8th dimension. Nothing past. Which means there is no darkness or light. No duality. Something or someone has kept it off limits.
What you’re witnessing is a war between factions to gain control of technology that would allow a breach of higher dimensions. Think artificial intelligence but a step above.
Luciferians are moving towards their skewed “ideal world” through the transhumanist agenda utilizing their newly conquered “god” to achieve these results. They have been sequencing every consciousness on the plan ET and creating an “avatar” of you in digital space. The plan is to fight the inevitable and “create their own world” outside of the laws of source and under governance of their AI “god” where there is no chance at salvation. The worst part is the hue mans on this planet have been tricked into fully consenting and allowing this to happen. (Nobody reads the fine print on those contracts)
TIme is an illusion. These events are happening across “linear time” and changing constantly. We will talk about timeline forking and summing at a later date. They know the future so the only way is to change the past.
None of this is any mystery or magic.
Magic is short for Magnetics. Everything is explainable by science and physics. This is why you will hear more and more about parallel universes and “dark matter” over the coming months. This is why there is a statue of SHIVA in front of CERN.
Humans don’t want to admit they have been duped. Humans don’t want to admit that our society was more advanced thousands of years ago than it is today. It’s called cognitive dissonance. It’s an open secret. Brainwashing is real. The tell lie vision flickers at a speed which shuts off one hemisphere of the brain allowing you to put someone in a trance like state leaving them fully open to suggestion by feeding commands to the other (hypnosis). The ancient druids used holly wood to make antennas (wands) to Cast spells. Now they broadcast spell-ing from Hollywood.
This is why it’s hard to be mad at people but so easy to be pissed. They literally can’t comprehend this level of knowledge. Even in this post there will be laugh reacts and people who say terrible things. These are the ones who will suffer the most.
They can’t say we didn’t tell them. By reading this post and choosing non action you are consenting to be con trolled.
just don’t forget: Pass the ARC you will meet two pillars behind ATLAS. BEYOND lies EDEN. You must GO BEYOND!
Pass the ARCH of Gibraltar you will meet Hercules and peruses behind ATLAS. BEYOND lies ATLANTIS. You must GO BEYOND!
In alchemy the goal or “great work” is to find the philosophers stone. A riddle is hidden in sulphur. Aka VITRIOL- (Latin to English - visit the interior of the earth through rectification thou shalt find the hidden stone)
If anyone has watched Harry Potter they know that Voldemort couldnt get the Stone because his heart was imbalanced. Harry didn’t get the stone until he looked in the mirror. Turns out the stone was in his pocket. Read in between the lines!
I know I have missed a lot in this post but I hope it can help a few people go beyond.
If you have questions ask them.
submitted by ipunchvagina to copypasta [link] [comments]

2020.10.24 05:03 Anglicanpolitics123 Christian history is often times misunderstood in popular culture. There are many popular myths and stereotypes about it.

Christian history has a lot in it, bad and good, that can be analysed and scrutinised. At the same time there are a lot of popular myths that people have about Church history. Some of these are just blatantly false. Others have a element of truth in them. Which makes those ones harder to dispel because the most successful falsehood is one that is a half truth that people take as Gospel. These are examples of myths people have about Christian history(small and big).
(i)The myth of the flat earth
(ii)The myth of Hypatia
(iii)The myth of Christians burning the Alexandrian Library
(iv)The Black Legend of the Inquisition
(v)The myth of the Dark Ages
(vi)The myth of burning scientists
(vii)The myth of the Vatican Nazi alliance
There could be more listed but as demonstrated. There are quite a few myths about Christianity's history and the history of the Church that people take as gospel.
submitted by Anglicanpolitics123 to DebateReligion [link] [comments]

2020.10.23 16:09 Dr_Aradius Bardaisan, the forgotten Gnostic poet and statesman

This post is in response to u/Sun2027's kind question about my fascination with Bardaisan (154-222 AD), the Syriac Gnostic poet, composer, philosopher, ethnographer, and quite possibly the spiritual leader of the first and only Gnostic state (?) - more on this below. I'm not a scholar of Syriac Christianity, so this is more of a personal and speculative take, but I hope one evocative of why Bardaisan can still matter for us beyond just an historical footnote. Brace yourselves, this is long.
If you've never heard of Bardaisan (also Latinized as Bardesanes), then G.R.S. Mead's short chapter about him is a great first intro. Posekel's paper on Bardaisan's influence offers a fresher and more comprehensive take, and this Encyclopedia Iranica entry provides some wonderful additional details and interprets him through the lense of his Persianate context. Throw in Ilaria Ramelli's extensive work and what emerges is a highly contested, fragmentary, very human, deeply fascinating picture of a theologian as significant as he was forgotten (i.e. very). He was said to be a Valentinian and/or an opponent of Valentinianism, an astrologer and/or a critic of astrological determinism, an Aristotelian and/or a Middle Platonist. Frankly, not everyone agrees that he was a "Gnostic", but the Orthodox don't get to claim a dude they've spent centuries maligning as one of teh bad gnusticks. So let's have a look at what echoes of Bardaisan still resonate today:
Osroene and religious freedom (for Christians at least)
OK, let's start with the juicy theo-political stuff. At the time of Bardaisan's literary and political activity, Osroene (with the capital in Edessa) was a client state on the Eastern border of the Roman Empire (today it's Syria and Southern Turkey). It was Aramaic-, Syriac- and Arabic-speaking (with normal Greek and Latin influence), culturally aligned with the Parthian Empire, populated by large Marcionite and proto-Orthodox communities. Sandwiched between the Parthians (who periodically persecuted the suspiciously Roman-friendly Christians) and the Romans (fucking genocidal maniacs), Osroene became the first state in history to officially embrace Christianity with the conversion of its king, Abgar VIII. And sources favorable to Bardaisan attribute this unprecedented success to Bardaisan, an aristocrat, member of the king's court.
Apparently he was a spiritual leader so influential that the Orthodox Ephrem the Syrian had to embark on a whole campaign of de-Bardaisanization over a century after B's death. Which raises an interesting question - in those 150 years of Bardaisanite dominance in Edessa, what exactly was the official religion of Osroene? If heresiological reports are to be trusted about the nature and influence of Bardaisanite theology, then the first "official Christianity" in history was a form Gnosticism.
This is not just a matter of bragging about who arrives first on the political stage; this unprecedented religious freedom is what allowed the distinctive tradition of Syriac Christianity to be born - and it was born under Bardaisan's pen. Depending on how you date and ascribe early Syriac literature, either Bardaisan's works or works from the Bardaisanite milieu are the earliest preserved Syriac Christian literature aside from the Bible. He wrote countless hymns, he wrote music for them, he wrote theological works, and thus the Syriac-speaking people of Osroene launched a tradition which spread across Mesopotamia, then into India (St Thomas Christians), and all the way throughout China.
After the end of the Abgarid dynasty, Bardaisan died in exile, in Armenia. Which, 80 years after his death, became the second state in the history of the world to make Christianity its official religion. Coincidence? Probably, but I'd like to think that Bardaisan's influence also laid some of the important groundwork there too. (I mean, Ancient Armenia is just literally next door from Osroene.)
The Hymn of the Pearl (or, of the Robe of Glory)
OK, back to theology. There are two surviving texts which are attributed to Bardaisan without much dispute, and the HRG is one of them. If someone asked me for a short statement of a Gnostic worldview, this is the text I would give them (chances are you're probably already familiar with it). It's not heavy on doctrine, but it's got all the hallmarks of lived Gnosticism - the feeling of alienation; the feeling of consubstantiality with a Divine realm, one inhabited by a plurality of beings you're related to, starting with a Divine Father and a Divine Mother; the path of rememberance and return which brings you home after a brief sojourn in this chaotic and forgetful world; a feeling of hope and Divine goodness which permeates the text; even the symbol of the robe links it to some NHL texts. And yet the real genius of it is that it is so open, even ecumenical; it articulates the mystical experience of many spiritual traditions. If you're interested in a Gnosticism which builds bridges to other paths without sacrificing its heart, this hymn is your creed.
The Hymn of the Daugher of Light
The HDL is part of the Acts of Thomas, an early Syriac apocryphal text which probably doesn't have too much to do with Gnosticism in terms of the hagiographical storyline, but which includes the Hymn of the Pearl and other poetic inserts likely from the Bardaisanite milieu (or maybe from under his pen directly). And the Hymn of the Daughter of Light is a deeply beautiful poem in praise of the Divine Feminine. Who is She? Sophia, Thunder Perfect Mind, Barbelo, Virgin of Light (Books of Jeu), Ecclesia/Church (as a later Armenian manuscript would have it), the Holy Spirit? We don't really know, but the poet is portraying her in language evoking (I think intentionally) both Temple mysticism of Esoteric Judaism and the Bridal Chamber mysticism of the Valentinians. Seriously, just read it and try not to fall in love.
Then have a look at the Gospel of Philip, specifically the passages referring to the Mystery of the Bridal Chamber - and how it portrays it in terms of Temple mysticism. As a collection of fragments from other (unnamed) sources, and yet displaying an uncommon affinity with Syriac Christianity which is essentially just being born then, GPhil could in fact be referring to the same early tradition of Bridal Chamber mysticism which the Bardaisanite hymn is also drawing on. (I mean, could be that GPhil post-dates Bardaisan and quotes some of Bardaisanite material!) In any case, these two texts absolutely go together. As does the HDL and the Thunder Perfect Mind - one as Her speech, the other as Her worship.
And the thing is that while we don't know much about the Valentinian Bridal Chamber rituals, Bardaisan's early Bridal Chamber poetry lays the foundation for Syriac Bridal theology, which then furnishes a language for a whole lot of Muslim and Baha'i mysticism of love. Hell, Bardaisan basically single-handedly created the next 1800 years of Syriac symbolism - everyone east of Athens is indebted to him, most of all his greatest foe and greatest debtor, Ephrem the Syrian.
Prayers of the Acts of Thomas
(Available under the HDL link as well.) This is a pretty debatable attribution, but one theory is that the amazing epicletic prayers which seem to address the Holy Spirit as the Divine Feminine (and possibly other AThom prayers too) are also inserts quoted from Bardaisanite literature. More of poetic spirituality of the Divine Feminine - and, I mean, you can actually pray just by reading them out.
The Book of the Laws of Various Countries
The BLVC is not the most riveting of reads, but it is the second, longer and historically more significant of Bardaisan's directly attributable works (although it is technically a dialogue with a disciple named Philip, the scribe in this case). The prologue is ostensibly directed against the Marcionite community of Edessa, but is essentially an argument against demiurge/two-god theories in general, by way of showing how moral freedom is so fundamental to the universe that even the elements will be judged based on how they used their freedom. In other words, the intrinsic fucked-up-ness of the universe is a result not of human error (Orthodoxy) nor demiurgic error (Sethianism) nor angelic error (Simon, Basilides), but rather of the fundamental nature of freedom as a "universal constant", an ontological and ethical necessity. Sounds like a strange idea to us accustomed to more deterministic models (it's possibly an Epicurean influence, but B's cosmology is really unclear and debatable), but if you want a Gnosticism without the Demiurge - Bardaisan is your guy.
Also, both the Mead chapter and the Posekel paper talk about the book's philosophical significance in terms of establishing the Christian argument against astrological determinism, which - to my mind - looks like an ethical and demythologized version of the Sethian idea of the Immoveable Race free from the influence of planetary archons. The sources used by the Encyclopedia Iranica entry do speak of some other Valentinian and possilby Sethian influences on B as well, he wasn't just a critic!
And beyond that, the books is actually an early ethnographic look at, well, the laws of various countries. Bardaisan was said to be particularly interested in India and henceforth treated as a bit of an authority on the subject, but that portion of his writing unfortunately didn't survive; the BLVC is pretty geographically wide. Which is pretty cool in itself.
Conclusion, finally, Jeez
All of this is just based on what's attributable to Bardaisan with some degree of certainty. What of his works was preserved, survived no doubt thanks to being sufficiently inoffensive to the Orthodox copyist. And it paints a picture, possibly, of an Orthodox-friendly Gnostic thinker akin to the Eastern Valentinian tradition (with its "Orthodoxizing" Tripartite Tractate, Excerpts of Theodote, or Treatise on Resurrection), perhaps a figure bridging theological worlds that others felt too distinct? A model, one might say, for those of us who do seek to have an ecumenical understanding of Gnosticism?
And what of the works which haven't survived? Did Bardaisan lay some of the philosophical groundwork for Origen's doctrine of apokatastasis, as Ramelli has argued? What of his seemingly Epicurean-Aristotelean doctrine of elements which seems to equate matter in part with darkness, like the Books of Jeu and Manichaean works, what is the relation between them? Did Bardaisan write the Odes of Solomon, a collection of joyful and triumphant Christian poetry with "suspect" theology and so reminiscent of what we are told about his lost poetic works? Did his lost work on the metaphysics of light contribute to Manichaean theology of light, and from there to Shi'a Illuminist philosophy? Reconstructions are fraught, a comprehensive one might be impossible. But I think the fragments we have do tell the tale of a unique Gnostic theology which might have survived in ways far more vibrant than we'd usually think.
submitted by Dr_Aradius to Gnostic [link] [comments]

2020.10.23 05:45 StevenStevens43 Cerdic the Merovingian

Cerdic the Merovingian
In this article, i am going to be investigating more british legends, criticisms of modern day historians and scholars, and studying just how the legends and criticisms hold up to actualy contemporary history.
I am going to begin with a later king named Keredic, that will eventually bring us round to an earlier king, who will become the main focus of this article.
So i will begin with one of Geoffrey of Monmouth's kings, Keredic.
Of course, modern day historians and scholars always appear to feel the need to attempt to know better than Geoffrey.
In the case of Geoffrey's Keredic, there simply is no proof of the existence of a Keredic, and modern historians and scholars suspect that Geoffrey may have gotten confused with the actual historically factual kings Cerdic, that preceded, and succeeded Geoffrey's Keredic, respectively.
Keredic (Welsh: Ceredig) was a legendary king of the Britons, as recounted by Geoffrey of Monmouth. The origin of Geoffrey's character is unknown, but he is not depicted as a Saxon. According to Geoffrey, Keredic's rule was so unpopular that the Saxons enlisted the aid of an army of Vandals from Ireland to drive him from his kingdom.
Geoffrey's legendary Keredic may have been a conflation of Cerdic, the traditional founder of Wessex, who, despite his political affiliation with the Saxons, was likely to be half-British himself, and another Cerdic, who reigned over the Celtic kingdom of Elmet around present-day Leeds until his defeat at the hands of Edwin of Northumbria
Geoffrey of Monmouth's British king list:
So, what i will do, in order to establish whether it is likely Geoffrey got himself confused with the two Cedric's, i will find out from his king list exactly when Keredic was said to have reigned.
And as we can see below, he reigned between the 6th Century Malgo Maelgwn and the official Saxon occupation of Southern portions of Britain, in 597 AD.
Geoffrey of Monmouth's British king list
Malgo Maelgwn Gwynedd, 6th-century king of Gwynedd.
Interregnum; Saxons occupy England Augustine of Canterbury (arrived in Britain in 597)
Maelgwn Gwynedd:
So, in order to establish exactly when approximately Keredic began his reign, let us look at the date of death given for Maelgwn Gwynedd.
And as we can see, it is 547 AD.
Therefore, Geoffrey's Keredic reigned between 547 AD and 597 AD, approximately.
Maelgwn Gwynedd
Maelgwn Gwynedd (Latin: Maglocunus; died c. 547[1]) was king of Gwynedd during the early 6th century. Surviving records suggest he held a pre-eminent position among the Brythonic kings in Wales and their allies in the "Old North" along the Scottish coast.
Link for photo
Britain 540 AD
Man of the North:
So let us look at the historically contemporary Ceretic of Leeds whom is described by historians and scholars as being identical to a historical figure known as "the man of the north", and let us find out when historians and scholars attribute Ceretic (man of the north) to having been born.
According to English historian Bede, it was 614 AD.
Ceretic of Elmet
Ceretic of Elmet (or Ceredig ap Gwallog) was the last king of Elmet, a Britonnic kingdom that existed in the West Yorkshire area of Northern England in sub-Roman Britain.
Bede records that Hilda of Whitby (born 614)
Cerdic of Wessex:
Now, i will look at Cerdic of Wessex, and find out what contemporary historians and scholars give for his reign.
As we can see, his reign was from between 519 and 534 AD.
Cerdic of Wessex
Cerdic (/ˈtʃɜːrdɪtʃ/; Latin: Cerdicus) is cited in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle as a leader of the Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain, being the founder and first king of Saxon Wessex, reigning from 519 to 534 AD.
Link for photo
Britain, late 400's, early 500's
Sex education:
Now, whilst modern day historians and scholars likely fail to see any familial connection between Cerdic of Wessex, and Cerdic of Elmet, Scientists and biologists would be more inclined to agree that Geoffrey of Monmouth's historical understanding is more consistant with the actual reality of descendency and ancestry.
As the world was not full of kings named Cedric, there is in fact an extremely high probability that Cedric of Elmet was in fact a descendant of Cedric of Wessex.
However, in order for Cedric of Elmet to be born in the early 600's in to a family of kings, it would be from a Scientific perspective, far more likely that there was in fact an actual factual real person of high nobility that lived between Cerdic of Wessex and Cerdic of Elmet.
Therefore the politics of who is real, and who is fantasy, is not shared by chemistry and biology, were human lineages cannot be decided by discrimination, and do in fact require the involvement of actual real humans, whether those humans suit ones agenda, or not.
Link for photo
Sex awareness symbol (Buenos Aires)
Now, i find it interesting that Geoffrey's Kederic is depicted as a king of the Saxons, whilst Kederic is actually not himself a Saxon.
The origin of Geoffrey's character is unknown, but he is not depicted as a Saxon. According to Geoffrey, Keredic's rule was so unpopular that the Saxons enlisted the aid of an army of Vandals from Ireland to drive him from his kingdom.
This is also true with Cerdic of Wessex.
Cerdic was actually not considered a Saxon, and is in fact believed to have been a native Briton, by contemporary historians and scholars.
The name Cerdic is thought by most scholars to be Brittonic – a form of the name Ceretic) – rather than Germanic in origin.[5] According to the Brittonic origin hypothesis, Cerdic is derived from the British name \Caratīcos* or \Corotīcos*.[6][7][8][9] This may indicate that Cerdic was a native Briton, and that his dynasty became Anglicised over time.[10]
Link for photo
Cerdic of Wessex
House of Woden:
Now, a good clue as to the origins of Cerdic comes from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles that claim to trace his ancestry back to the house of Woden, and the antediluvian patriarch's.
And of course Woden is the god Odin
The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle provides a pedigree tracing Cerdic's ancestry back to Wōden and the antediluvian patriarchs).
Link for photo.jpg)
In an ideal world it would be easier to write articles if Odin, being the same entity as Woden, was a self explanatory fact that went without saying.
However after many debates with self confessed historians and scholars, i have found that in actual fact, it is not something they are usually aware of.
Therefore i will take a little time to provide a little proof, below.
In wider Germanic mythology and paganism, the god was known in Old English and Old Saxon as Wōden,
Now, it is probably a bit unfair on modern day historians and scholars, that are still attempting to find the connection between Odin and Woden, to suggest how Egyptian pharoah Dens tomb, could actually be the house of Woden.
Den, also known as Hor-Den, Dewen and Udimu, is the Horus name of a pharaoh of the Early Dynastic Period) who ruled during the First Dynasty of Egypt.
Link for photo#/media/File:Tomb_of_Den_1.jpg)
Tomb of Den
Though there are clues as to where this king with a typical Brythonic name, with ancestral line-age to a legendary Scandinavian royal house, most immediately came from.
King of Wessex
According to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, Cerdic landed in what is today Hampshire in 495 with his son Cynric in five ships.
Link for photo
In order to land in Hampshire, instead of Dover, or elsehwere on East coast, it would be more likely Cerdic came in from Brittany.
Also known as Armorica.
The word Brittany, along with its French, Breton and Gallo equivalents Bretagne, Breizh and Bertaèyn, derive from the Latin Britannia, which means "Britons)' land".
Now, Cerdic is only his name in the dialect spoken on the Southern shores of Britain.
Elsewhere his name is recognised as Cherdik.
So in order to find out who exactly Ceredic most likely was, i am going to go through a list of Merovingian kings, with names similar to him.
Beginning with Chlodio, a Frankish king, believed to be one of the earliest most immediate ancestors of the Merovingian dynasty.
Chlodio (d. approx. 450) also Clodio, Clodius, Clodion, Cloio or Chlogio, was a Frankish king who attacked, and apparently then held, Roman-inhabited lands and cities in the Silva Carbonaria forest, now in central Belgium, then Cambrai and Tournai, and reached as far south as the River Somme.
Modern historians believe he was a descendant of the earlier Salian Franks, reported by Roman sources in the 4th century.
He is known from very few records, but Gregory of Tours reported that in his time people believed he was also an ancestor of the Merovingian dynasty.
Link for photo
Merovingian symbol
Chilperic I of Burgandy
Chilperic I (died c. 480) was the King of Burgundy from 473 until his death. He succeeded his brother Gundioch and co-ruled with his nephews Godomar, Gundobad, Chilperic II, and Godegisel.
Childeric I:
Childeric I
Childeric I (/ˈkɪldərɪk/; French: Childéric; Latin: Childericus; reconstructed Frankish: \Hildirīk;[4] c. 437 – 481 AD) was a Frankish leader in the northern part of imperial Roman Gaul and a member of the Merovingian dynasty, described as a king (Latin *rex), both on his Roman-style seal ring, which was buried with him, and in fragmentary later records of his life. He was father of Clovis I, who acquired effective control over all or most Frankish kingdoms, and a significant part of Roman Gaul.
Link for photo
Childeric I's golden bees
Childebert I:
Then there was one of Childeric I's four sons, "Childebert I" that had a kingdom which stretched from Brittany to the English channel.
In the partition of the realm, Childebert received as his share the town of Paris, the country to the north as far as the river Somme), to the west as far as the English Channel, and the Armorican peninsula (modern Brittany). His brothers ruled in different lands: Theuderic I in Metz, Chlodomer in Orléans, and Clothar I in Soissons.
Link for photo
Childebert I coin
In fact, the vast majority of Merovingian kings had names that would appear closely related to Cerdic.
Family tree
Battle of Badon:
Now Cerdic is thought by historians and scholars to have been the British king that fought against the Britons at battle of Badon.
Though something about that statement does not make 100% sense.
It is unlikely that Cerdic was in fact a Briton, from Great Britain.
But more likely a Briton, from Armorica, given that in Great Britain, he is fighting "Britons".
Cerdic of Wessex
Some scholars suggest that Cerdic was the Saxon leader defeated by the Britons at the Battle of Mount Badon
Battle of Cambrai:
Now, if Cerdic fought in the battle of Badon, then there is an extremely good chance he was also involved in the battle of Cambrai, were the legendary king Arthur likely lost his life, and the historical Ragnachar, definitely lost his life.
As is revealed in this thread here.
Art Oenfer VII - Thee king Arthur
King Arthur
Merovingian rule:
So, before i can present my case that the most likely explanation for Cerdic, is that he is a Merovingian related to the Childeric's and is attempting to add Britain to the Merovingian empire, i first need to find out if the Saxons during this period were under Merovingian rulership.
If they were not, then my case collapses.
If they were, then Cerdic was almost definitely a Merovingian.
And guess what, the Saxons were indeed under Merovingian rulership during this period.
Merovingian dynasty
The Merovingian dynasty was the ruling family of the Franks from the middle of the 5th century until 751.[1] They first appear as "Kings of the Franks" in the Roman army of northern Gaul. By 509 they had united all the Franks and northern Gaulish Romans under their rule. They conquered most of Gaul, defeating the Visigoths (507) and the Burgundians (534), and also extended their rule into Raetia (537). In Germania, the Alemanni, Bavarii and Saxons accepted their lordship. The Merovingian realm was the largest and most powerful of the states of western Europe following the breaking up of the empire of Theoderic the Great.
Link for photo
Merovingian empire
Saint Radegund:
Farther, a Thrungian princess named Saint Radegund, and married to a Merovingian king, did a Christian mission around the Southern shores of Britain, during the reign of Cerdic, and at least five religious institutions in Britain today, are named after her.
So there was definitely a Merovingian presence in Southern Britain during this period.
Radegund (Latin: Radegunda; also spelled Rhadegund, Radegonde, or Radigund; c. 520 – 13 August 587) was a Thuringian princess and Frankish queen, who founded the Abbey of the Holy Cross) at Poitiers. She is the patron saint of several churches in France and England and of Jesus College, Cambridge (whose full name is "The College of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Saint John the Evangelist and the glorious Virgin Saint Radegund, near Cambridge").
Link for photo
Church of Saint Radegund (Lincolnshire)
submitted by StevenStevens43 to AhrensburgCulture [link] [comments]

2020.10.23 02:58 pomona-peach Jan van Reeth argues that the Book of Jubilees had great influence on the formation of Islam. In the Book of Jubilees there is the very same concept of revelation as in Islam: God's words and commandments are eternally written on celestial tablets. An angel reveals their content to a prophet

The Book of Jubilees, sometimes called Lesser Genesis (Leptogenesis), is an ancient Jewish religious work of 50 chapters, considered canonical by the Ethiopian Orthodox Church as well as Beta Israel (Ethiopian Jews), where it is known as the Book of Division (Ge'ez: መጽሐፈ ኩፋሌ Mets'hafe Kufale). Jubilees is considered one of the pseudepigrapha by Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox Churches. It is also not considered canonical within Judaism outside of Beta Israel.
It was well known to Early Christians, as evidenced by the writings of Epiphanius, Justin Martyr, Origen, Diodorus of Tarsus, Isidore of Alexandria, Isidore of Seville, Eutychius of Alexandria, John Malalas, George Syncellus, and George Kedrenos. The text was also utilized by the community that originally collected the Dead Sea Scrolls. No complete Greek or Latin version is known to have survived, but the Ge'ez version has been shown to be an accurate translation of the versions found in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
The Book of Jubilees claims to present "the history of the division of the days of the Law, of the events of the years, the year-weeks, and the jubilees of the world" as revealed to Moses (in addition to the Torah or "Instruction") by angels while he was on Mount Sinai for forty days and forty nights. The chronology given in Jubilees is based on multiples of seven; the jubilees are periods of 49 years (seven "year-weeks"), into which all of time has been divided.
Jan van Reeth argues that the Book of Jubilees had great influence on the formation of Islam.[19] In the Book of Jubilees there is the very same concept of revelation as in Islam: God's words and commandments are eternally written on celestial tablets. An angel reveals their content to a prophet (2, 1; 32, 21 f.). Abraham's role in the Book of Jubilees corresponds to Abraham's role in the Quran in more than one way.[example needed] The interpretation of biblical figures as prophets is also rooted in the Book of Jubilees.[citation needed] Also numerology, the emphasis on angels, and the symbolism of anniversaries found their way into Islam, such as the fact that many important events in the prophet's biography as presented by Ibn Ishaq happen on the same date.
Etsuko Katsumata, comparing the Book of Jubilees and the Quran, notices significant differences, especially in Abraham's role in the quranic narrative, concluding that "the Book of Jubilees contains no passages in which Abraham disparages idols, as in the other texts, using tactics to make it look as if an idol has destroyed other idols (like in the Quran). The Book of Jubilees contains none of this kind of attitude; Abraham simply and directly destroys idols by setting fire to them."[20] The quranic Abraham-narrative, according to Katsumata, contains passages other than those in the Book of Jubilees in which Abraham is involved in disputes about idolatry.[21] Abraham in the Quran acts as a perserverant prophet with an active and confronting missionary character, especially to his father, who is throughout the narrative hostile towards his son.[22] Abraham tries to convince local people, leader and a king while not leaving his homeland. In the Book of Jubilees Abraham's role differs significantly; he has a favourable relationship to his father and leaves his home country after secretly burning down a temple.[23]
19Jan M.F. van Reeth (1992). Cf. also: Klaus Berger, Die Urchristen (2008) p. 340; Andrew Rippin, Roberto Tottoli (Hrsg.), Books and Written Culture of the Islamic World: Studies Presented to Claude Gilliot on the Occasion of his 75th Birthday, Brill (2015) p. 280 ff.
20Katsumata (2012). 21. Katsumata (2012), pp. 51–52. 22. Katsumata (2012), p. 54, "The Quran has many passages in which Abraham expounds the errors in idolatry. In these passages, Abraham always addresses his words to local people, and he does not leave their land. This probably reflects Islam’s position that aims at converting idol worshippers to monotheistic religion and settling in their place of residence." 23. Katsumata (2012), pp. 52–54.
Katsumata, Etsuko (2012). "Abraham the Iconoclast: Different Interpretations in the Literature of the Second Temple Period, the Texts of Rabbinic Judaism, and the Quran". Journal of the Interdisciplinary Study of Monotheistic Religions (JISMOR). 8: 37–58.
Taken from:
submitted by pomona-peach to CritiqueIslam [link] [comments]

2020.10.19 19:48 TheGuillamon The Four Stoic Virtues Stoicism as The Art of Living

One of Stoicism’s main misconceptions is that it may seem cold-hearted or unemotional. This is simply not the case. In the beginning of Marcus’ Meditations, he spends a whole chapter reminding himself of the most important things about the most important people in his life, his family and teachers.
Instead of studying philosophy in an abstract and theoretical way, Marcus shows the study of real-life examples of Stoicism being applied in daily life, as an art of living, that we can best grasp as the true meaning of the philosophy.
The modern Stoics often refer to the four cardinal virtues, recognised by Plato and Christianity, although they might date back even further than this. These virtues are courage, justice, temperance, and wisdom.
Virtue comes from the Latin word Virtus, which means moral excellence. The ancient Romans used this word to refer to all of the “excellent qualities of men, including physical strength, valorous conduct, and moral rectitude.” To be virtuous is excellence at being human, giving way to happiness and harmony.
Aristotle defined virtue as a point between a deficiency and an excess of a trait, the point of the greatest virtue lies not in the exact middle, but a golden mean sometimes closer to one extreme than the other, such as confidence between self-deprecation and vanity.
The Stoics held that virtue is the only real good and so is both necessary and sufficient for happiness.
These virtues can be understood as a way of living harmoniously with our own self, with other people and with external events in the world.
The Stoics use wisdom for living according to our true nature, justice for living harmoniously with other people as part of a community, and courage and temperance for living and embracing the fate that we are subject to, with respect to external events.
These virtues, of course, are all interrelated and overlap, one must for example have the necessary moral wisdom applied to one’s actions to act justly in relation to other people or be courageous enough to allow for self-restraint or moderation. The Stoics offered an analogy: just as someone is both a poet, an orator and a general, but is still one individual, so too the virtues are unified but apply to different spheres of action.
1. Courage
Courage is the opposite of the vice of cowardice. We are to bravely stand up for what we believe, facing daily challenges and struggles with no complaints all the while being a good person.
We are to strive for objectivity, since what causes human suffering is not the things in the world, but our beliefs about those things. We are to try to perceive the world as it is in itself, without the subjective colouring we automatically tend to ascribe to everything we experience
For the Stoics, courage also extends to the endurance of pain, discomfort and even death. One is to be unmoved by fear and willing to confront danger, pain, or intimidation.
2. Justice
Different from the modern conception of justice in the legal sense, the Stoics refer it more to what would be moral in our dealings with others by treating others fairly and doing the right thing.
As Marcus Aurelius said: Do the right thing, the rest doesn’t matter.
Thus, it is a much more broader concept of social virtue, encompassing kindness, benevolence and goodwill toward others.
The theme of the Stoic hero or wise man who protects weaker members of his herd recurs throughout the surviving Stoic literature. He will face a lion and endure pain and injury from his claws, to defend the weaker members, because their lives instinctively matter to him, as our family and kin, ultimately to love one’s brothers and sisters.
The Stoic Hierocles recommends that we imagine our relationship as consisting of a series of concentric circles. Naturally, we are at the centre, our family and friends are in the next ring, then our community, all humanity, and eventually loving the whole of Earth. We are to draw those in the outer circles closer to the centre.
3. Temperance
Not to be confused with the temperance movement against the consumption of alcohol. To Stoics, temperance is moderation, or self-discipline. There must be a balance, to know what to choose, what to avoid, and what things to not do at all. We are to do the right number of things in the right way, avoiding excess through sheer willpower.
If someone is provoking you to fall into vice, inciting violence, fear, hatred and so on, one is to respond thoughtfully and calculatedly instead of being reactionary and responding with one’s emotions.
Nassim Taleb defines Stoicism as: “the domestication of your emotions, not the elimination of your emotions.”
A great way to practice this virtue is journaling. The Stoics were big on journaling, the Meditations wasn’t intended to be a book, it was the private thoughts of the Emperor of Rome.
Epictetus, who was a former slave says:
"Don't seek for everything to happen as you wish it would, but rather wish that everything happens as it actually will—then your life will flow well."
This of course, overlaps with courage. The first thing in life for a Stoic is to separate the things which are ‘up to us’ and things that are ‘not up to us.’ In Stoicism, this is known as the Dichotomy of Control. We are simply to accept things outside our control for what they are, focusing on what we can control, and how we respond to these things.
4. Wisdom
Wisdom, or prudence can be gathered through learning, discussion and trial and error. The wise man is able to offer himself good counsel. As Seneca says:
A man with white hair and wrinkles hasn’t lived long – he has just existed long.
Your time is valuable, and it is the only thing that you cannot ever get back. Therefore, one must develop oneself. The Stoics believed that the person who has achieved perfect consistency in the operation of his rational faculties, the “wise man,” is extremely rare, yet serves as a prescriptive ideal for all. Progress toward this noble goal is both possible and vitally urgent.
Wisdom, for Stoics, can be referred to the nature of the good (virtue) and bad (vice), things that are indifferent (which neither benefit nor harm) and knowing how to act appropriately under different circumstances.
In essence, it is to understand the most important things in life, closely related to the meaning of the word “philosophy”: the love of wisdom.
Alienation from our fate is a common theme in the Stoic literature and is often marked by frustration. The Stoics practice amor fati, the love of fate, embracing whatever happens in one’s life.
To take ownership of our fate, we need to understand the indifferent nature of the external reality and to live in harmony with events beyond our control.
Following these virtues, we can avoid the trap of becoming inner slaves to our vices. These are the virtues that the Stoics live by on a daily basis to improve their lives and the lives of people surrounding them, applying them on each and every situation that they find themselves in, ultimately it is a philosophy that teaches us the art of living.
submitted by TheGuillamon to Stoicism [link] [comments]

2020.10.19 08:04 AractusP Biblical scripture has changed significantly

There have been several long-standing myths about Judeo-Christian scriptures. Many were assumed to be true for centuries. One myth regarded the Masoretic text (MT) and viewed it as the “central Scripture text” (Tov 2020). What was not acknowledged widely until relatively recently was that ancient people had a very different idea about what sacred scripture was, and it wasn't a problem for them to have multiple variants of the same text. That didn't invalidate a text as scripture.
Prior to the discovery of the DSS (dead sea scrolls) it was commonly believed that whenever the LXX departed wildly from the MT that it was just very poor translation. However we now know that the translators didn't always use the same textual variant that the MT witnesses. The MT is a very good copy and close witness for a single variant of each book that existed in the second temple period, however it doesn't necessarily represent an authoritative version as viewed by ancient Jews in the second temple period of each book.
Moreover the use and meaning of the Hebrew bible scriptures is substantially different for Jews than it is for Christians. Even the very same texts are read and understood differently from competing perspectives.
The redactional work certainly didn't end with the Hebrew bible. You probably know that 2 Corinthians and Philippians are widely believed to be composites of multiple Pauline letters. Something I didn't know until recently, because it's never talked about, is that some scholars also believe that Paul's most seminal letter Romans is also a composite from several Pauline letters.
Then we have the gospels - Matthew, Luke, and John are all composites. Mark is the only one we know almost nothing about the source material. No matter what solution you have to the Synoptic Problem, Luke and Matthew composted their source material. John too, because he's reliant on Mark's passion. Even Marcion saw these problems in the second century - he rejected Matthew and John - accepted Luke as the only true gospel whilst recognising that it was corrupted, and he created his own gospel from it.
The canonical gospels were not the only gospels used as scripture. There are over 30 Christian gospels that were used as scripture, but later not selected to be a part of the New Testament. And those are just the ones we know about, there may have been hundreds. There are specific examples we can talk about that mirror the style and form of the canonical gospels - take the Diatessaron gospel for example. A clear attempt at harmonising different Christian texts. Is this what Matthew and Luke were trying to accomplish with their gospels? Take Mark and harmonise it with Q and some other source documents? As noted by Watson 2016: “the Diatessaron treats Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as sources to be emended, co-ordinated, and elaborated, not as authoritative texts whose normativity a harmony seeks to vindicate. It is gospel rather than gospel harmony. Tatian’s treatment of his sources is on a continuum with Luke’s or Matthew’s”, and indeed Marcion’s as well. To put this another way, Matthew and Luke's use of Mark, and Marcion's use of Luke, is as a source text to be “emended, co-ordinated, and elaborated” and not as an authoritative text. Therefore what has happened with the gospels, the canonical ones that modern-day Christians consider scripture, is that they were chosen amongst many options, not as a process of inclusion but one of exclusion.
This process created the illusion that early Christian texts were more harmonious than they really were by deriding the non-canonical texts as “heresies”. The meaning of heresy in Greek is “choice” (Elaine Pagels). Texts were excluded because in the opinion of early theologians they afforded early Christians too much choice. That's very different to how most Christians probably understand the word. They were not chosen on historical merit, but on theological merit to create an orthodoxy. The great irony today of course is that modern Christians have more choice than ever in what beliefs and rituals they want to hold sacred, the modern Church is indeed heretical. The obsession that modern scholars have had over placing the canonical gospels within the first century is I think both somewhat delusional, but even more importantly - irrelevant. Just because Mark is written c. 70-85 CE doesn't mean it has more merit as scripture than a gospel written in 125-150 CE. If that were the case, most of the Old Testament can be thrown out for being written centuries after Genesis and Exodus and seeking to alter the laws, practises, and history prescribed in earlier texts - beginning with Deuteronomy. The Gospel of Thomas was not selected precisely because Jesus teaches things that theologians in the third century and later considered to be contradictory with their orthodoxy. Furthermore the insistence by some scholars that Thomas was written c. 130-140 CE whilst simultaneously insisting that Matthew and Luke were written 80-90 CE, is entirely illogical and I think betrays their motivations. The date of Mark hardly binds the dates of Matthew and Luke any more than it can bind the date of the Diatessaron gospel. What if the “most excellent Theophilus” who Luke is writing to is Theophilus of Antioch?
Charles Cutler Torrey, an excellent scholar I might add (RM Price), thought that the canonical gospels were written about 10 years after Jesus. What's noteworthy here is that Torrey advanced a hypothesis that is now largely abandoned, but one which he believed with academic conviction which is more than I can say for the scholars that write introductions for Evangelical bibles.
If we assume that when Thomas was written it was a collection of sayings all of which were authentic to the historical Jesus, then it means that over time there was suppression of certain teachings of Jesus in order to create an orthodoxy. Of course, we need not make such a bold assumption. If one assumes that the Q-source sayings are historical, or were at the very least believed by the author to be attributed to the historical Jesus, then one must accept that at least some of the sayings in the gospel of Thomas have equal historical merit, and probably most if you could get your hands on the original version. After all more than half of Thomas is paralleled in the canonical gospels. We can therefore assume that at the time Thomas was written it was a document containing sayings that the author believed to be attributed to the historical Jesus, the same assumption we make for Q. This is a problem for those who argue that “scripture hasn't changed” because it is clear evidence of suppression of heresy.
Of course the document we have today is a 4th century redacted text, translated into Coptic. It's not the original version that may have been written as early as 60-90 CE. It's widely believed that a redactor harmonised sayings with the canonical gospels (one would think if that's the case they probably harmonised some with non-canonical gospels as well). But it was still read, copied, and used as scripture at least in some Christian circles up to the 4th century.
We can see from the early theologians that they did not think that the gospels were literal history. Irenaeus in Against Heresies II.22 wrote an entire chapter under the title: “The thirty Æons are not typified by the fact that Christ was baptized in His thirtieth year: He did not suffer in the twelfth month after His baptism, but was more than fifty years old when He died.” The earliest Latin bible commentary by Fortunatianus of Aquileia, interprets the canonical gospels as a series of allegories not literal history:
There's been an assumption that it's a literal record of truth - a lot of the early scholars got very worried about inconsistencies between Matthew and Luke, for example.
But for people teaching the Bible in the fourth century, it's not the literal meaning which is important, it's how it's read allegorically.
In contemporary Biblical scholarship a lot of the gospels are written with symbolism in mind.
They are not setting out to be literal accounts but they are set out to be symbolic.
Hugh Houghton
The fact that the gospels were literalised fundamentally changes how they are read, used, and understood. Irenaeus uses the gospels in several places, alongside the Old Testament scriptures, to make his argument that Jesus was at least 50 when crucified.
This leads me to my last point. The origin and authority afforded to the Christian biblical canon fundamentally changed what Christians held to be scripture. It elevated the texts we know as the New Testament while illogically deriding the value of other scriptures - even letters of Paul in their original forms, and sayings gospels like Thomas. It changed by omission and suppression what Jesus taught, perhaps even what Paul taught as well. The canon itself implies sanctity of the Church, and its traditions and teachings - a fact that the Reformers realised and grappled with (HH Howorth 1909). The Church came first, then Scriptures came, and finally a Bible decided by the Church who declared only it as Christian scripture. I'm not sure this issue has ever been solved by any modern theologians: “If the Bible was not to be accepted and taken over on the authority of a Church which claimed to be infallible and under the continual guidance of divine wisdom, the reasons why its contents were to be accepted as inspired must be extraordinarily cogent and conclusive since the book itself was in future to become the single pedestal upon which the Christian faith was to be planted.” (Howorth 1909). Where does their elevated value - above that of all the “rejected” scriptures come from?
submitted by AractusP to AcademicBiblical [link] [comments]

2020.10.17 12:07 Majhul_101 France’s “Laïcité”, the Secular Fundamentalism at War with Multiculturalism

France’s “Laïcité”, the Secular Fundamentalism at War with Multiculturalism


France’s problem with multiculturalism is not a new phenomenon. Since the end of World War II, France has become one of the most ethnically diverse countries in Western Europe. The rapid growth of its multiculturalism started when France welcomed millions of immigrants mainly from its former colonies in North Africa, Sub-Saharan Africa, and South-East Asia to take part in its post-war economic recovery.
Unlike many of its Western counterparts like the United States, Canada, or Australia, France has implemented a “color-blind” approach in dealing with multiculturalism. It means that the French government does not institute policies that target a particular ethnic group or race, but instead, it institutes policies that target a specific geographic area or social cluster in which they tend to be ethnically-clustered. In 1978, France enacted a law that made it illegal to collect data on race or ethnicity. The law makes it difficult to assess the cultural composition of French society. Experts believe that visible minority is estimated to be 14% of the French population versus 20% in the United States and 22% in Canada.
While France, officially, holds a color-blind stance with regards to its multicultural society, the truth of the matter is that its political leaders and citizens are not blind to the fact that race and ethnicity do matter. Anyone who says otherwise is not believable.
Given the color-blind approach and the lack of data on race or ethnicity, it is difficult to accurately comprehend how effective France has been in assessing and combatting racism. In May 2020, a French government spokesman of Senegalese origin, Sibeth Ndiaye, surprised the French government when she made the call to legalize ethnic statistics. Ndiaye pointed out that the absence of statistics makes it difficult for people to assess how prevalent racism is in France. The response from the economy minister Bruno Le Maire was that the call did not align with France’s idea of universalism and that the concept of a French person does not consider his or her race, ethnicity, or religion. In his address of racism, the minister resorted to the condemnation of discrimination in any shape or form. While these statements are nice noble words, it does not tell us much on the prevalence of racism in France and the government effectiveness in combating racism. So, what is the real situation of racism in France?

1- Racism in France

In 1997, the Economist did a study on racism in France. They found that about 48% of French citizens consider themselves to be racists coming in second place after Belgium. Among those who feel racist, 35% would vote for the far-right, 35% would vote for the mainstream right, and 28% would vote for the left. The study also found that most French citizens believe that there are too many Arabs than Blacks and that there are too many Blacks than Jews.
Source: The Economist
Fast forward 2013, the Washington Post conducted another research survey in which they found that between 20% and 30% of French do not prefer people of another race as their neighbors. Another study by Pew research center in 2016 showed that only 26% of French believe that diversity makes their country a better place to live in contrast to 33% in the UK and 58% in the US. These percentages show that in comparison to the US, Canada, and the UK, France is the least tolerant. It also reveals that racial and ethnic diversity is seen more as a problem in France than in the US, the UK, Canada, and Australia.
Sources: Pew Research Center and Washington Post

2- Politicization of Arabs, Immigrants, and Islam

For decades, immigration has been a subject of political debate in France. French Arab which constitute the largest ethnic minority in France, have been the most stigmatized community and have been subject to political debates across the political spectrum. After 9/11, the stigmatization has rapidly gravitated toward Muslims (practitioners of Islam) which a large percentage is of Arab origin.
In early October 2020, French President Emmanuel Macron said that Islam is in crisis all over the world and plans to defend France’s secular values against what he termed as “Islamist radicalism”.
Source: Independent
The President’s comment is the latest example of mainstream politicians pandering to the far-right whose leader Marine Le Pen has seen her chances for winning the 2022 presidential election increased and is currently neck and neck with Macron.
Source: Politico
President Macron’s predecessors across the political spectrum have also used these tactics in the past:
Source: The Guardian
Source: The Guardian
Source: BBC
Source: France 24
According to Pew research, France has the largest Muslim community in Europe, representing 8.8% of the population. Yet, Muslims are often stigmatized in French political debates.
Source: Pew Research Center
To understand the place of Islam in France and how Arabs, Muslims, and Immigrants have been stigmatized across the political spectrum; it requires a need to understand three components: France’s secularism (laïcité), France’s history of colonialism and decolonization, and France’s history of anti-Semitism:

a- The French Revolution and the Birth of French Secularism (Laïcité)
For a very long time, France’s mainstream politics have had a deep suspicion of religion. A suspicion that dates back to the French Revolution. The French Revolution was a time in history when the population revolted against the Monarchy and the Church. For centuries, the Church had imposed its doctrine on society dictating every aspect of French lives. After the abolishment of the French monarchy, the new Republic began to marginalize the Catholic Church and all faiths from any participation and organization in public life. From that time onwards, the French State was born in direct opposition to the public display of religious organizations, religious faiths, religious symbols, and religious minorities.
In 1905, France enacted a law known as Laïcité, the French version of secularism. The 1905 law was founded on three main principles: the separation of Church and State, the supremacy of the State over religious institutions, and the neutrality of the State towards religion. In that regard, the French State guarantees the freedom of religion and the right of every French person to express one’s faith while respecting public order and institutions. The law does not recognize religious marriages and bans the display of religious symbols in public institutions.
This version of secularism explains in part the stigmatization of Muslims across the political spectrum.

b- France Colonial Past and Decolonization
In the 16th century, France established its first colony in Canada called New France at the time. A century later, France would colonize Africa and would take part in the slave trade of millions of Africans. The French colonization of North Africa (1830-1962) and the devastating Algerian Independence War (1954-1962) are factors that led to the presence of a major Arab community in France.
The Algerian war was France’s most violent decolonization. At the time, the French colony had the highest concentration of French citizens to the point it was given the status of “Department” (A French Province).
After World War II, the French economy was in tatters. The country was facing challenges to maintain its colonies worldwide. Soon after, France lost to its colony Vietnam which declared independence along with Laos and Cambodia, Algeria began declaring its independence. This event led France to wage a bitter colonial war against Algeria to maintain its largest colony. In 1962, France under Charles De Gaulle capitulated to Algeria which managed to gain its independence from France. Many French at the time saw De Gaulle's act as a betrayal to France and saw Algerians as the enemy to French integrity.
The Franco-Algerian war led to a massive emigration of Algerians to France, especially those who stood by France during the war. Immigration to France was not a new phenomenon at the time as privileged Algerians, Moroccans, Tunisians, Senegalese, Ivorians, and others (a majority of them being Muslims) had emigrated to France way before the conflict ever started. However, the war made it difficult for France to manage the massive wave of migration.
France's loss to Algeria would be a main factor that can explain the perception of native French on Arabs and Muslims. Initially, the negative public perception would focus on race and ethnicity targeting Arabs and Blacks, however as decades went by, especially after the 9/11 terrorist attack in New York, the focus would gradually gravitate towards religion targeting specifically Muslims and their faith (Islam). The figure below shows an increase in attacks against Muslims as they continue to face mistrust and violence in the secular country.
Source: The Huffington Post
c- Anti-Semitism
France has had a long history of anti-Semitism and discrimination against the Jews. France played a major role during the Second World War, when the Vichy government under Marshal Pétain collaborated with the Nazis by taking part in the deportation of 80,000 Jews to Nazi concentration camps, the execution of 15,000 Jews, and the creation of anti-Jewish discrimination laws. For decades, the French government denied their involvement. It was not until 1995 that France under Jacques Chirac admitted France’s guilt and role in the persecution and mass deportations of Jews.
Source: France 24
France’s far-right ideology has a long history which dates back to the French revolution. Thirty years after World War II, the far-right movement would publicly resurface in 1972 under the leadership of Jean Marie Le Pen, the founder of the 'Front National' (National Front) party. The National Front under Le Pen was notorious for making anti-Semitic statements with a derogatory fixation on France’s Jewish population. Le Pen would also frame the narrative of the rejection of North African Muslim immigrants and “The Arab”. In 2011, her daughter Marine Le Pen would later re-brand the party to the name ‘Rassemblement National’ (National Rally) to soften the party’s past image on anti-Semitism. Only this time, her party would rally under the banner of “Laïcité” to spread Islamophobic attacks.
While many French citizens decry National Rally’s anti-Semitic discourse, many remain silent on anti-Islam or anti-Arab narratives by dismissing them as a right to free speech.
Source: Google
The rise of the far-right discourse in France has led to an increase in hate crimes against Jews and Muslims. According to the National Consultative Commission on Human Rights, CNCDH, a French governmental organization, the number of acts and threats of anti-Semitism (plotted in green) and racism and xenophobia (plotted in blue) has been on the rise.
Source: FiveThirtyEight
The upward trend of attacks also mirrors the rise of the National Rally which has been gaining popularity in key election battlegrounds. As a result, many Jews are pondering whether they should leave France. The trends show a growing exodus of Jews from France to Israel. France, home to the largest Jewish community in Europe, has seen the largest exodus of Jews for Israel in Western Europe.
Source: Vox

3- The Rise of France’s Far Right

For the past decades, the far-right has seen a gradual increase in voters support. Since 2011, the Party under the leadership of Marine Le Pen would see a stellar rise. Marine Le Pen’s anti-immigrant, anti-Europe, and anti-Islam stance was able to win her 10 million voters.
After decades of a toxic reputation linked with anti-Semitism and xenophobia, Marine Le Pen took the reins from her father and adopted a strategy of toning down their xenophobic and anti-Semitic image. The tactic worked in the party’s favor.
The stellar rise of Le Pen marks the growing normalization of far-right support in France. The far-right party under the banner of defending the principle of “Laïcité” (French version of secularism) and French identity, was able to rally a growing number of voters against Muslims and their faith. The slogan Le Pen concocted was ‘No to Islamism’. The National Rally wanted to paint the picture of Islam as an enemy fundamentalist ideology rather than a religion. This emphasis on Islamism started with Marine Le Pen in 2010 and has become the focus of her rhetoric.
The popularity of the far-right sets a dangerous precedent as mainstream political parties are gradually failing in halting the National Rally from taking the presidency. Across the spectrum, some politicians are starting to adopt some of Le Pen’s talking points. They are regularly using the identity card for political gains.
During the 2016 Presidential campaigns, Former Conservative candidate Francois Fillion called for a ban on the full-body Islamic burkini swimming suit. Former socialist prime minister, Manuel Valls, and former right-wing president Nicholas Sarkozy rallied behind the mayors’ ban on burkini swimming suits. Sarkozy made a promise to extend the ban on the hijab in schools to universities and restrict access to benefits for women who violate the ban, an action that has been detrimental to the emancipation and integration of young Muslim women. Today, Macron is trying to brandish his tough-on-Islam credentials in a populist political environment.
Source: Britannica
Source: AFP
Source: BBC
The stigmatization of minorities in political debates shows the ugliness of French politics. The French media has also been guilty of taking part in the narrative where inflammatory and racist statements have also been published.
Illustrations of Media Racism

4- French Secularism: The Root Cause of France’s Intolerance towards multi-culturalism

France is a country in crisis. The country’s secularism (French Laïcité) follows a doctrine that is fundamentalist and dogmatic, creating an environment of intolerance and lack of acceptance for other cultures. For a very long time, France has always wanted Assimilation and not Integration.
French secularism has been used as a political tool to target minorities and their faith. In the 1920s and 1930s, Polish and Italians immigrants were often targeted for practicing their Catholic faith and displaying their religious symbols in public.
In the aftermath of the Algerian war, the rejection of the North Africans was more of a rejection of their ethnicity rather than their religion. Over time, xenophobic attacks on French Arabs, Blacks, and other minorities eventually led to the 1983 March in protest against widespread racism, discrimination, and racial profiling and violence. For many young French of Arab descent (mostly of the second generation), the movement placed a greater emphasis on the acceptance of ethnic and cultural identity. The movement was advocacy for anti-racism, equality, political integration, social integration, and economic integration for minorities.
The 1983 March prompted President François Mitterrand to intervene in an attempt to diffuse the escalating movement. While the French authorities managed to diffuse the movement to the issue of race, it disregarded the demands for cultural recognition and socio-economic integration.
For decades, the government's lack of initiative to take minorities' demands seriously, compounded the frustrations of Franco-Arabs and other minorities. To add insult to injury, mainstream politicians have been politicizing their cultural identity and faith.

5- French Youth Radicalism: Decades of Marginalization in the Making

Years of constant stigmatization and exclusion of their cultural identity, ethnicity, and religion have driven French Arabs feeling very bitter towards their country France. But worse, it has pushed some French youths towards radicalism. While most French would attribute Islam as the cause of radicalism and violence, research has shown that the majority of Muslims staunchly oppose violence in the name of Islam (Pew Research Center).
The 1995 Paris metro bombings, the 2015 Charlie Hebdo attack, the 2015 Jewish Kosher Supermarket attack in Nice, and the 2015 mass shootings attacks on Stade de France, and other atrocious attacks are symptoms of France’s years of marginalization and intolerance towards its ethnic minorities giving birth to youth radicalism and terrorism. The increasing number of attacks paint a trouble picture.
According to a study on Terrorism, France holds the largest number of foreign fighters in western Europe. A 2016 report published by the International Centre for Counter-Terrorism (ICCT) estimates that over 900 French foreign fighters had traveled to Syria and Iraq between 2012 and 2015. Of this total, 75 percent had joined ISIS. The study paints a scary picture of a potential of 2000 radicalized French citizens that could be active in terrorist activities.
In contrast to France, the UK had about 750 foreign fighters who traveled abroad between 2011 and 2015. On the other hand, the US had far less with 200 US citizens and residents were convicted of terrorism-related activities between 2001 and 2013. About 250 Americans attempted to or successfully traveled to Syria and Iraq. While Canada had only 185 Canadian foreign fighters had traveled abroad.
The reason why France has more foreign fighters than its British and North-American counterparts is that the perceived better social, economic, and political integration of Muslims and other minorities in North American communities as compared to France.
Source: Pew Research Center
According to Pew Research Center, most Muslims in France feel very French however they feel that the native French don’t see them as French because of their ethnicity. The study also found that French Muslims are somewhat more likely than those in other Western countries to report that they have had experienced xenophobic and racist attacks with younger Muslims more likely to report a bad experience.
The Legatum Prosperity Index is an index that measures a country's level of individual freedom. The index ranks countries based on access to legal rights; freedom of speech and religion; and social tolerance, notably towards immigrants and ethnic minorities. The ranking shows that the UK (11th place), Canada (14th place), and the United States (18th place) are more tolerant than France ranking at 23rd place.
Part of the problem of France’s intolerance towards its minorities lies in its secondary education system. The French education system tends to glorify France's history while minimizing its legacy of colonialism and oppression. Such a set-up creates an uncomfortable feeling of identity for French minorities. Furthermore, contrary to North America, ethnic cultural studies are non-existent in France's secondary education. Such an education ecosystem creates a cultural rift between the majority culture and the minority multi-ethnic culture. A rift that the far-right has been able to exploit to its advantage.

6- France’s Secular Fundamentalism vs Secularism

Today, France’s version of secularism (Laïcité) is borderline 'secular fundamentalism'. This form of secularism is defined in the urban dictionary as:
The adherence to anti-religious ideology that militantly ridicules, mocks, scorns and satirizes the idea of the existence of a deity or deities and or religion, indifferent of feelings of bigotry intolerance hatred and persecution that adherents feel as a result.”
France’s secularism embodied by the spirit of Voltaire differ greatly from the Anglophones’ secularism embodied by the spirit of John Locke. The former advocates for State freedom from religious influence while the latter advocates for State liberal toleration towards religion. The two contrasting philosophies explain why multiculturalism tends to thrive in countries like the US, Canada, UK, New Zealand, or Australia as compared to France.
Laïcité comes from the Latin word ‘laicus’ which means “of the people”. It is a republican social pact that defines a place for religion in society. However, many francophones who look up to France, have a hard time reconciling the version of Laïcité that France is perpetuating. The kind of secularism that French politicians and the public have been using to justify intolerance and exclusion. True Laïcité should not be used to justify xenophobic and racist intolerance towards a particular ethnic minority group.
If there is one model of Laïcité that France should learn from is of its former colony Senegal. At the time of colonization, Senegal became the primary French base in West Africa. The West African nation’s secularism was heavily influenced by France’s concept of secularism with a strong sense of civil society; a tradition that has been maintained since its 1960 independence. Senegal is a vibrant democracy with 20 ethnic groups and has a predominantly Muslim population (about 94%). The Christian population represents 5% while other beliefs represent 1%. It is a country that respects and tolerates different religions and faiths. For instance, Senegal’s first President Leopold Sedar Senghor was a Catholic who ruled the country for 20 years. His successor Abdou Diouf is a Muslim married to a Christian wife. Diouf's son is a Muslim married to a Jewish wife. Abdou Diouf’s successor, Abdoulaye Wade is a Muslim married to a French Christian wife. Furthermore, Senegal recognizes both Muslim and Christian holidays as national holidays. So, religious, cultural and ethnic tolerance has been part of the DNA of Senegal.
Contrary to France, Senegal’s secularism can be described as a hybrid between the French and Anglo-Saxon models of secularism. On the one hand, the secular state maintains a separation between religious and governmental institutions, and on the other hand, it allows religious and non-religious institutions to try to influence the government, without ever threatening the nation’s peaceful coexistence among various faiths. In this context, Senegal’s form of secularism is used as a political instrument for the social control of religion while ensuring the freedom and protection of religion against persecution, abuse, and public bigotry.

Conclusion: What Secularism Should Be and Should Not Be?

Secularism should not be used as an ideology to force people to assimilate or place a ban on a person’s freedom to wear religious symbols or clothes in public, in the same way, that it is practiced in authoritarian regimes (i.e China's religious and cultural genocide) or in countries with sharia law (forcing hijabs) . Instead, secularism should be a political principle that embraces and values all faiths, and provides the freedom of choice to all individuals.
Secularism should not be used as an excuse to perpetuate xenophobic attacks and bigotry on minorities, but instead should be used as a platform to promote tolerance of multiculturalism and diversity.
The conclusion is that France’s aggressive and fundamentalist version of secularism compounded with decades of stigmatization and marginalization of minorities has contributed to the radicalization of French Muslim youths, who then turn to terrorism. France should learn from the Anglo-Saxon model and Francophone models such as Senegal. Until France takes minorities seriously in terms of cultural tolerance, ethnic identity recognition and socio-economic inclusion, France will continue to remain a country in crisis and in decline.

submitted by Majhul_101 to u/Majhul_101 [link] [comments]

2020.10.16 14:48 StevenStevens43 Art Oenfer & the search for King Lots grail

Art Oenfer & the search for King Lots grail
Search for Lancelots grail:
In this article i am going to attempt to locate Lancelots grail, leading up to trying to finally identify the most likely candidate for King Arthur.
Now before we go any farther, i have left links below for the previous Art Oenfers.
You should not read the book back to front.
First read those below, starting at one, and then read this one.
King Art Oenfer & Son - Part 1
Gallus the Mac - Part 2
King Art Oenfer III & the barbarcia conspiriato - Part 3
King Art Oenfer IV & V - Part 4
King Art Oenfer VI - Part 5
King Art Oenfer & the historia francorum - Part 6
King Art Oenfer & The boys - Part 7
Link for photo
King Arthur
Ok, so as with most of my other articles, i will be investigating the myths and legends of traditional British history, comparing them to contemporary accounts, and also investigating the modern day criticisms from historians and scholars.
I will begin with the criticisms below.
I will also add, the criticisms are blank statements, and completely unhelpful without explanation into how they came to their conclusion, and without proving that they have the necessary understanding in the subject to make such a judgement.
King Arthur
The details of Arthur's story are mainly composed of folklore and literary invention, and modern historians generally agree that he is unhistorical.[2][3]
Link for photo
Arthurian coat of Arms
Y Gododdin:
So, where on earth do i begin with this?
I think i will begin with why it might be that King Arthur's earliest appearances are in Y Goddodin literature.
King Arthur
[2][3] The sparse historical background of Arthur is gleaned from various sources, including the Annales Cambriae, the Historia Brittonum, and the writings of Gildas. Arthur's name also occurs in early poetic sources such as Y Gododdin.[4]
Link for photo
Y Gododdin
And the reason King Arthur is so popular in Gododdin literature, probably has to do with Lancelot, which mythology depicts as being orphaned as a child and being brought up in the realm of the Lady in the lake.
Lancelot du Lac (meaning Lancelot of the Lake, Welsh: Lawnslot y Llyn), also written as Launcelot and other variants (including early German Lanzelet, early French Lanselos, early Welsh Lanslod Lak, Italian Lancelotto and Lanci[a]lotto, and Spanish Lanzarote del Lago) is one of the Knights of the Round Table in Arthurian legend, where he typically is depicted as King Arthur's greatest companion and one of his greatest knights. According to legend, Lancelot is the orphaned son of King Ban of Benwick, raised in the fairy realm by the Lady of the Lake.
Link for photo
King Lot:
Now, the mythological Lancelot, would most likely be the same person as the legendary King Lot of Lothian.
But basically, according to the infinite wisdom of modern day historians, scholars and university graduates, this is just something Geoffrey of Monmouth quite literally made up.
King Lot
Lot, Loth or Lothus /ˈlɒt/ is the king of Lothian, the realm of the Picts in the Arthurian legend. Such a ruler first appeared late in the 1st millennium's hagiographical material concerning Saint Kentigern (also known as Saint Mungo), which feature a Leudonus, king of Leudonia, a Latin name for Lothian. In the 12th century, Geoffrey of Monmouth adapted this to Lot, king of Lothian, in his influential chronicle Historia Regum Britanniae, portraying him as King Arthur's brother-in-law and ally. In the wake of Geoffrey's writings,
Link for photo
King Lots arms
Saint Mungo:
However, there is a factual and historic Saint, and founder of the city of Glasgow, named Saint Mungo.
Saint Mungo
Kentigern (Welsh: Cyndeyrn Garthwys; Latin: Kentigernus), known as Mungo, was a missionary in the Scottish Kingdom of Strathclyde in the late sixth century, and the founder and patron saint of the city of Glasgow.
Link for photo
Tomb of Saint Mungo in Glasgow cathedral
King Lleuddun:
Now, the factual and historic Saint Mungo, was the grandson of the allegedly legendary King Lot.
Hagiographic life
Mungo's mother Teneu was a princess, the daughter of King Lleuddun (Latin: Leudonus) who ruled a territory around what is now Lothian in Scotland, perhaps the kingdom of Gododdin in the Old North.
Link for photo
Saint Mungo sitting atop of the Glasgow coat of Arms
Constantine I of Picts:
Now did you read the quote where it said King Lot was the king of the Picts? Aswell as being King Arthurs Brother in law?
Well, this would be because the legendary King Lot, is the real Lancelot, and the historic Constantine I, is the surname of Lot.
Fergus II to Kenneth II
43, Constantine, 457 AD, Polydore Vergil (Anglica Historia, 1555) gives from here a succession close to Buchanan.[38]
Link for photo
Lothian from atop Arthur's seat
King of Norway:
However, nothing is known about the Historic Constantine.
It appears everything about Constantine is written under the name Lot, by the norse-gales.
And that is what Goddodin is.
It is norse-gaelic.
And Lot is also the king of Norway, as well as the Orkneys.
King Lot
Lot chiefly figures as king of Lothian, but in other sources he also rules Orkney and sometimes Norway. He is generally depicted as the husband of Arthur's sister or half-sister, often known as Anna or Morgause.
Fergus Mor:
And of course, as you will remember from the previous article, king of Dal Riata, Fergus Mor was sent by his parents to be brought up in Scandinavia, as wartorn Britain was too dangerous at this point in time.
Fergus Mor in later accounts
Fergusius II according to Buchanan's count, was raised in exile in Scandinavia. He later fought with the Franks, before eventually returning to Scotland and reconquering the Scottish lands.
Erc of Dalriata:
Now, i would just like to look at Fergus Mor's father just a second.
Fergus Mor
Fergus Mór mac Eirc (Scottish Gaelic: Fearghas Mòr Mac Earca; English: Fergus the Great) was a legendary king of Dál Riata. He was the son of Erc of Dalriada.
Eric and Alaric:
Then i would like to pop over to Scandinavia, and point out the two Swedish myhtological warrior brothers, Alaric and Eric.
Alaric and Eric
Alaric and Eric (Old Norse Alrekr and Eiríkr ), were two legendary kings of Sweden.
Link for photo
Alaric and Eric hitting eachother with horse bridles
Alaric II:
Then i would like to point out the historic king of the Visigoths, who is best known in history for destroying the Western Roman empire forever, and had a Visgothic empire that actually, in the end, dwarfed the western Roman empire, and likely stretched as far as Scotland, Ireland and Wales, but were likely opposed by the Saxons.
Oh, and also a son of Euric. Who was the son of Alaric I, who had sacked Rome in 410 AD.
Therefore, historians and scholars that have been referring to Alaric and Eric for years, as mythological warriors, are simply not doing their jobs as historians, and would appear to not be historians.
Alaric II
Alaric II (Gothic: *Alareiks, *𐌰𐌻𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐍃, "ruler of all";[1] also known as Alaricus in Latin, c. 458/466 – August 507) was the King of the Visigoths in 484–507. He succeeded his father Euric as king of the Visigoths in Toulouse on December 28, 484; he was the great-grandson of the more famous Alaric I, who sacked Rome in 410.[2] He established his capital at Aire-sur-l'Adour (Vicus Julii) in Aquitaine. His dominions included not only the majority of Hispania (excluding its northwestern corner) but also Gallia Aquitania and the greater part of an as-yet undivided Gallia Narbonensis.
Link for photo
Alaric II coin
And to top it off, it is infact quite contemporary that the norse gaelic realm of Gododdin, was located in Lothian.
Link for photo
Gododdin on map
Geoffrey of Monmouth the fantasist:
Now i am going to deal with the claim from professional historians and scholars, that just as good as call Geoffrey a fantasist.
Now, whilst Geoffrey does credit King Arthur and the boys with a few military victories, he actually say's nothing about collapsing the Roman empire along the way.
But, that is exactly what contemporary history points to.
It points to kings of Lothian and Dal riata being from the exact same family as the kings that collapsed the Roman empire, and those kings are said to be related to King Arthur.
So, what is fanciful about it? It appears our scholars and historians must think the Roman empire was collapsed by fairy kings, if they do not believe that actual real kings were behind it.
Perhaps they have been reading historic childrens stories, as opposed to adult history.
King Arthur
Arthur is a central figure in the legends making up the Matter of Britain. The legendary Arthur developed as a figure of international interest largely through the popularity of Geoffrey of Monmouth's fanciful and imaginative 12th-century Historia Regum Britanniae (History of the Kings of Britain).[5]
Link for photo
Lady of the lake (Waterfalls in the Norwegian fjords are often referred to with ladies names)
And now, on to Arthur constantine's sword, excalibur.
King Arthur
Many elements and incidents that are now an integral part of the Arthurian story appear in Geoffrey's Historia, including Arthur's father Uther Pendragon, the magician Merlin, Arthur's wife Guinevere, the sword Excalibur,
Link for photo_(14801002423).jpg)
Crocea Mors:
The sword would most likely be Crocea Mors, the sword that Nennius allegedly took from Julius Caesar.
I think it would far more likely be that, than the mythological contemporary tale spread by contemporary historians and scholars that Constantines sword was a message in the sky from Jesus.
.[7] The Britons hold firm, and that night Caesar flees back to Gaul. Cassibelanus's celebrations are muted by Nennius's death from his head wound. He is buried with the sword he took from Caesar, which is named Crocea Mors (Yellow Death).
Link for photo
Constantines sword
Holy grail:
And now to the Holy grail.
Is it a cup? Is it a dish? Is it a stone?
Is it simply a treasure of great importance, as described in Arthurian literature, or is it some unknown and mystic magical thing connected to Jesus, as taught by most contemporary historians and scholars?
How do we solve this?
Well, the holy grail means different things to different people.
To Christians it is the drinking cup of Christ.
But we are not looking for the drinking cup of Christ.
We are looking for Lancelots holy grail.
King Arthur
The 12th-century French writer Chrétien de Troyes, who added Lancelot and the Holy Grail to the story, began the genre of Arthurian romance
Link for photo
Location of the grail
Grail castle:
So, remembering that Lancelot is King Lot, let us begin the search for the divine grace, and castle of Corbenic, by finding out the most likely location for Galahads birth.
Corbenic (Carbone[c]k, Corbin) is the name of the Grail castle, the edifice housing the Holy Grail in Arthurian legend. It is a magical domain of the Grail keeper, often known as the Fisher King. The castle's descriptions vary greatly in different sources, and it first appears by that name in the Lancelot-Grail cycle where it is also the birthplace of Galahad.
Link for photo
Corbenic castle
So, to begin the search for the divine grace, and Corbenic castle, we must find out who King Lots illegitimate son was.
Lancelot grail
The authors of the Vulgate Cycle used the Grail as a symbol of divine grace; Galahad, illegitimate son of Lancelot and Elaine, the world's greatest knight and the Grail Bearer at the castle of Corbenic
Link for photo
Grail castle
Out of King Lots five legitimate sons, one of them is very much considered a bastard son, whos father is disputed.
So Mordred is obviously Galahad.
As Modredus, Mordred was depicted as Arthur's traitorous nephew and a legitimate son of King Lot in Geoffrey of Monmouth's pseudo-historical work Historia Regum Britanniae which then served as the basis for the following evolution of the legend since the 12th century. Later variants most often characterised him as Arthur's villainous bastard son, born of an incestuous relationship with his half-sister, the Queen of Orkney named either Anna, Orcades or Morgause.
Link for photo
Sir Mordred
Arthur's seat:
Well, the most likely location for Mordreds birth would have been Arthur seat, as Arthur seat around 1600 years ago was one giant hill fort, with forts within forts, all the way to the summit.
Human history
A hill fort occupies the summit of Arthur's Seat and the subsidiary hill, Crow Hill.[9]
Link for photo
Arthur's seat
Archaeological findings:
It must have been quite an incredible place.
Archaeologists have found several hillforts within what would have been Grail castle.
And they were written about in Y Goddodin.
Human history
Hill fort defences are visible round the main massif of Arthur's Seat at Dunsapie Hill and above Samson's Ribs, in the latter cases certainly of prehistoric date. These forts are likely to have been centres of power of the Votadini, who were the subject of the poem Y Gododdin which is thought to have been written about 600 AD. Two stony banks on the east side of the hill represent the remains of an Iron Age hill-fort and a series of cultivation terraces are obvious above the road just beyond and best viewed from Duddingston.
Link for photo
Dunsapie hill fort, within a fort
This is going to have tbc in Search for the grail part 2, as i just ran out of characters.
submitted by StevenStevens43 to AhrensburgCulture [link] [comments]

2020.10.14 03:36 sunnysucculent Is there any evidence to explain why Tuesday 13 (Martes 13) is considered unlucky in Latin America?

Tuesday the 13 is considered unlucky in many parts of Latin America, much the same way that Friday 13 is an unlucky day in much of the English-Speaking world.
Searching why Tuesday is considered unlucky gives many webpages that explain that the Spanish word for Tuesday, Martes, derives from the Roman god Mars, who is the god of war and conflict. Thus, Martes is associated with conflict, and Martes 13 particularly unlucky.
Some sources I saw even suggested that this tradition dates back to the original colonization of Latin America. I see no reason why Christian conquistadors would believe that the etymology of Martes deriving from a Roman God lends a superstitious weight to the day.
Is there any evidence for this explanation?
submitted by sunnysucculent to AskHistorians [link] [comments]

2020.10.13 23:53 God_Is_Good123 Why I'm KJV Only

First, let's get through some of the weaker objections to KJV Only before we get to the only decent one.
"It's language is archaic. It's too hard to understand. And what about other languages? Thus, it's outdated and falls short of other versions."
Every new "Bible" that hits the market attacks the King James Bible with the flat-out lie that the KJV is too hard to understand. They all claim that the King James Bible is "too archaic." "You can’t understand the Elizabethan language. It’s just too difficult to understand." This is the number one reason people lay down their King James Bible.
However, recent evaluation shows the reading level of the King James Bible to be fifth grade, as a whole—many individual passages would be lower. The modern "Bibles" are shown to be between sixth and ninth grade levels as a whole. The modern versions claim to increase readability when in reality, they often make readability more difficult. Source
Regardless, even if we grant that the KJV is indeed "too archaic," would you rather have a hard to understand but perfect Bible, or an easy to understand but corrupted Bible? I used to be scared to touch the KJV because I really thought it would be too difficult for me to understand. However, God really does bless believers with understanding of His Word if we trust in Him and what He said to guide us. He will give you understanding:
"These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you. But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him."-1 John 2:26-27
KJVO people do not believe that God can't speak to believers through other versions. On the contrary. We just believe that God will gift them with understanding if they do seek out a perfect version, and that they will always come to find out that it's the KJV. God will put the KJV in their hands if they're truly seeking it. If not this, at least a translation in their language that stems from it. Seeing as we know what happened at Pentecost, (Acts 2), none of this is rather too farfetched to assume. After all, with God, all things are possible.
"The KJV doesn't translate the Greek word for (blank) and the Hebrew word for (blank) exactly as said. Therefore, it is a poor translation compared to modern ones."
The KJV is a perfect translation regardless of the Hebrew or Greek because, if we were to translate literally from those languages, we would vastly change things God meant in plain English. For example, nobody wants to translate Shakespeare into modern English. Do you want to know why? Because all the rich language and meaning would be lost if that happened. The Hebrew is for the Hebrew and the Greek is for the Greek. Conversely, the English is for the English translation. This all feeds into what I'm about to say next.
Stripping random Hebrew words out of context is kind of like someone randomly yelling the word "duck" at you while you're taking a stroll through your local park. Okay, well what kind of "duck"? Duck as in "duck and cover," or duck the animal? People are usually throwing around frisbees and balls at the park, after all. But there's also roaming ducks at said park too. Obviously, there must be a distinction and separation made between the two words if the immediate context and minimal information given doesn't definitively lead us down to one conclusion or the other, because we simply don't know all the facts to make such a decision. Making the wrong decision here could lead to wildly different conclusions. Thus, God makes the distinction as easy as possible in every instance like this in the best translated version of the Bible. The KJV.
If we cannot find the definitive meaning of something in an original language on our own for the context given simply being too vague by itself, God usually, if not, always makes something clear for us by using a different word and/or phrase in English (specifically for the KJV) to convey what He originally meant. If we translated the exact same things said word for word, the original message could be perverted and/or lost on us for attempting to decide upon what to do next in situations like this (despite requiring knowledge only God has). Putting ourselves in the position to make such decisions in situations where this happens in Scripture (of which are many) would be the equivalent of putting ourselves in the place of God.
This kind of ludicrous attitude is what “scholars" have committed to in translating modern "Bibles" and have been doing so for as long as we can remember. It's woefully wrong and it's the reason why we have hundreds upon thousands of perversions found in Scripture by modern translations, and also why we see so much sorely mistaken and unbiblical doctrine all throughout the known Christian world. [Note, Greek and Hebrew words can actually have anywhere between 5 to 13 different definitions. Not just two. This is just an example of showing the problem for words that could simply have 2 meanings. Not only that, but all the “lexicons" for these words can't even agree with each other on what each specific definition for each specific word is. And no “scholar” even agrees on what's the best “lexicon” to use. Who's the final authority here then? Obviously, “scholars” believe it's you.]
"Why the KJV out of all the other versions? Why not the ESV or NIV? Thus, KJV Only is silly."
Logically speaking, God is perfect and should very easily be able to preserve His word. Thus, there must be a perfect Bible out there without the need to delve into "the Greek" or "the Hebrew" or cross reference other fallible "Bibles.” After considering all the evidence, I've come to the conclusion that that perfect, inerrant, authoritative word of God (Bible) is the KJV. My logic of there being a perfect Bible (whether or not it's the KJV does not matter) is supported by and filtered through Scripture first and foremost:
"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."-Matthew 24:35
Let's look at some verses, shall we?
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."-2 Timothy 3:16-17
According to the Word of God, "the man of God" is perfect if he has the Scriptures in his hands and abides by them and only them. Why would the Bible make such a proclamation, if there was not one book for the man to depend upon? Do you think that God would make it difficult to know His truth, or that He would lock it behind language barriers, cultural contexts, and various manuscripts in multiple places rather than simply put it all in one place to be easily accessible to all?
"Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God."-Hebrews 10:7
Notice, this verse says book (as in singular) and not "books." There must be one book from which we derive all our doctrine. Otherwise, things would be confusing ("For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints"; 1 Cor. 14:33) and it could be harder for someone to get saved, despite Jesus saying it only requires child-like faith to come to God and nothing more:
"In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight."-Luke 10:21
"Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein."-Luke 18:17
"At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven? And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them, And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me."-Matthew 18:1-5
Do you really think learning a whole new language and pouring over thousands upon thousands of manuscripts could be considered "child-like" faith?
"The LORD preserveth the simple: I was brought low, and he helped me."-Psalm 116:6
Reading the Gospels as ancient documents to be analyzed, dissected and read in their original languages may be a legitimate activity in its own right, but you’ll never come to faith in that way. That would be like performing literary source criticism on a love letter in order to get to know your beloved better. God is not limited by time, space, and the whims of culture and human language. His Word was meant to withstand the test of time, and be preserved. And we know this because the Scriptures say so.
"The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."-Psalm 12:6-7
The point I'm trying to make here is that English speakers have an easier path to the Word of God through simply approaching and reading the KJV, rather than having to learn a whole new language. Maybe someone decides to learn Hebrew and/or Greek, and that's great. But for the rest of us who don't, doctrinal sacrifices (most specifically those pertaining to the subject of salvation, as I'm well aware the rest of the Bible is rich with deeper meaning that requires one to study; Pro. 25:2 cf. 2 Timothy 2:15) aren't suddenly being made if we decide to make that decision. Since I'm KJVO, I'm perfectly fine with the belief that God preserved His Word in the English language through that version. If someone cannot speak English, then any other version translated using the KJV's manuscripts would do just fine for that person's language. Simple as that.
Now let's look at some other passages.
"And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him. And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears."-Luke 4:20-21
This passage, again, seems to make clear that there is one book, and that everything you can learn about what God has decided to reveal to man is found in one place.
"And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live.”-Deuteronomy 8:3
Why would God starve His children by making it unnecessarily difficult for us to find His perfect preserved Word? Not only that, but this verse says that by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God does a man live. Not just some here and some there, but every. Would God sprinkle some of His Word here, or there? Or would He simply put it all in one place?
Fortunately, Scripture has already answered this for us: He would put it all in one place:
"Thus speaketh the Lord God of Israel, saying, Write thee all the words that I have spoken unto thee in a book."-Jeremiah 30:2
"This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success."-Joshua 1:8
"Seek ye out of the book of the Lord, and read: no one of these shall fail, none shall want her mate: for my mouth it hath commanded, and his spirit it hath gathered them."-Isaiah 34:16
God promised He would preserve His word forever. This promise of preservation goes beyond just the general message of the Scriptures to the very words themselves (Psa. 12:6-7). God did not promise He will preserve His word (singular), but His words (plural). If not every word God breathed-out is preserved, then we cannot say with certainty that the Scriptures are pure and inerrant.
Now, let's look at how God feels when we try to put words in His mouth or intentionally leave out what He says, as well as a commandment He gives in regards to this:
"Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you."-Deuteronomy 4:2
"Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar."-Proverbs 30:5-6
"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."-Revelation 22:18-19
I'm not "KJV Only" just because it's the KJV. I'm first and foremost a big believer of God being able to preserve His words, then am I KJV only. It's not the other way around. I come to the first conclusion, then the second after the fact. That means I pour through all the evidence of the KJV being the perfect Bible after having realized there must be a perfect version. KJVO folks do not conflate the two processes. If God led us to believe it was the ESV, then that's what we've would've considered as perfect. It's the same with every other version. But alas, we always come to the conclusion that it's the KJV after considering all the facts and evidence supporting it, not before.
"For ever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven."-Psalm 119:89
What I've shown you here does indeed establish the fact that there is one book, and one place where you can find all of God's Word in full. If "KJV Onlyism" is "bad" because we believe God can actually preserve His Word like He said He did, then all I have to say is Romans 3:4.
In the proceeding arguments, I intend to present all the evidence that leads KJVO to believe that it can only be the King James Bible that fits the description of a perfect, inerrant, authoritative Word of God, in contrast to every other version that simply cannot conceivably fill that very specific role in a Christian man or woman's practice of their faith.
"The KJV doesn't use the oldest manuscripts that we have available and, thus, has errors and scribe additions."
This is the most typical response I get when I say I'm KJV Only. However, older doesn't always mean better. And I'll show you why.
The KJV translators used the 1525 Daniel Bomberg, 2nd edition of the Jacob Ben-Chayyim Masoretic text for the Old Testament and the Received Text (otherwise known as Textus Receptus), originally published by Roman Catholic scholar Desiderius Erasmus, for the New Testament. These are considered the best original language texts for the following reasons:
  1. They represent the majority of ancient, manuscript witnesses.
  2. These manuscripts were used consistently and without interruption by God’s believing people. In fact, they can be traced all the way back to Antioch, where "the disciples" were first called Christians (Acts 11:16). Almost every time you read about Antioch, it's only positives. God did nothing but bless Antioch, used Paul to correct it immediately whenever things got out of hand, and delivered Paul whenever it did (Acts 6:5; 11:19-30; 13:1-4; 14:26-28; 15:35-41; 18:22-23; Gal. 2:11-21; 2 Tim. 3:11). If these manuscripts were good enough for Paul, then they should be good enough for us.
  3. These manuscripts were never lost to the “sea of time” or ever laid aside by God’s people. They were continually copied and re-copied and show signs of being worn out from use, thus indicating the confidence God’s people placed in them as being God’s holy Word.
Yet, on the other hand, the original language texts used to translate modern versions must be rejected for the following reasons:
  1. The manuscripts utilized by modern translations are few and represent the minority of witnesses.
  2. Those manuscripts have their origin in and around Alexandria, Egypt, an area infamously known for false teaching. With even Origen, (an early Church father), himself admitting this. Antioch and Alexandria are both mentioned for the first time in Acts 6. In contrast to Antioch, Alexandria is only mentioned 4 times in the Bible, but each time it is, it's never good. And every single modern Bible today comes from Alexandria (Acts 6:9; 18:24-26; 27:26; 28:11).
  3. The manuscripts utilized by modern translations are in pristine condition (comparatively to the ones used for the KJV), indicating they were never used by God’s people.
  4. Those manuscripts give the appearance they were altered or corrupted by heretical men who desired to undermine Christian doctrine.
People like to depend on the Alexandrian manuscripts because they're "older" than the Masoretic and Textus Receptus manuscripts. Newsflash: Older doesn't always mean better. Again, God is easily able to preserve His word. Why would He have any trouble keeping His word by administrating godly men in history to preserve, re-copy, and translate the manuscripts they had in their appropriate times, despite them seemingly being further ahead compared to the "older," yet, fallible Papyrus/Alexandrian manuscripts? It's simple to reconcile these facts when you realize the manuscripts for the KJV were used quite often and that the Alexandrian/Papyrus texts weren't. Hence why we don't seemingly have any "older" texts that are used for the KJV (and why they had to be copied and re-copied) in comparison to newemodern "Bibles" due to worn out use for the former and little to no use for the latter (with "wear and tear" for "older" texts being due most notably to the passage of time, not use).
When confronted with the reality of these facts, I get told:
"Well it's not like any important doctrine is being affected here, it's fine. You're just being silly and overzealous."
Actually, core doctrine is indeed being put in danger by all these modern "Bibles." Don't believe me? Look at the staggering number of "Bibles" that strip a key verse in Acts. Specifically, Acts 8:37. Want to know what that verse is? I'll give the verses right before and after it so as to give it some context:
"[36] And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? [37] And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. [38] And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him."-Acts 8:36-38
Just look at what this looks like when you remove this passage of verse 37. This is where you get all your Catholics believing that baptism comes before salvation, effectively making your salvation dependent on works. The crazy thing is, these Alexandrian manuscripts aren't even consistent in their heretical theology! They not only strip and add to God's word flippantly, but they make doctrinal statements that contradict each other all over the place and support a wide variety of heretical beliefs which include (but are not limited to): Mormonism, Roman Catholicism, Jehovah's Witness theology, Eastern Orthodox, arianism, annihilationism, universalism, gnosticism, “humanism,” and so much more.
Another example would be even the most popular verse of the entire Bible not being immune to this treatment. John 3:16:
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
Go ahead and look for yourself how many modern "Bibles" omit the word "begotten" here, effectively making Jesus look like a son (small s) of God (as if a created being like an angel or human) and not the only begotten Son (big S) of God (Who is, obviously, not created)...
It's subtle things like this that you'll find sprinkled everywhere throughout modern versions. The first recorded words of the serpent were “Yea, hath God said [...?]” (Gen. 3:1). This question was designed to instill doubt and uncertainty about the trustworthiness and authority of God’s words. God had spoken clearly to our first parents; they were obliged to believe and obey. Then the serpent appeared, and the authority of God’s Word was his first target. The enemy has never stopped attacking that target; indeed, he continues to this day. He wants to undermine our trust in the authority of God’s Word. Once we understand this strategy, we realize the battle for the Bible isn’t a modern phenomenon. It’s part of a battle stretching back to Eden.
Among the many differences between the King James Version and most modern translations of the Bible, one of the most significant is in 1 John 5:7. The KJV contains a longer reading called the "Comma Johanneum" which is not present in almost any modern translations. The verse in reference, in the KJV, reads:
"[7] For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. [8] And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one."-1 John 5:7-8
[Note, I include verse 8 for reasons that I am about to make clear by way of quoting another translation's reading of both verses 7 and 8.]
Obviously, this a clear proclamation of the Triune nature of God. It is the clearest we've ever gotten and scholars still see to it to remove it any chance they get for dependence on Alexandrian manuscripts. Let's look at a modern "Bible's" reading of the verse. The NIV:
"[7] For there are three that testify: [8] the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement."-1 John 5:7-8
This modern "Bible" not only omits pretty much the entirety of verse 7, but also the words "there are three that bear witness in earth" in verse 8 so as to try and make the two frankensteined verses make any sense. It even says "these three are in agreement" rather than "these three agree in one" in verse 8.
This is a deliberate attack on the Trinity.
I am not being "overzealous." I do not believe you need to read the KJV to be saved. I just believe that, if there is a perfect version out there, believers should obviously take advantage of that, no? Reading a corrupted Bible, then, would be like reading God's Word with the lamp off versus simply turning the light on (KJV). Not only this, but if there is a perfect Bible, it'll certainly make it easier to shut down Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Catholics, and other heretical beliefs with ease if we could all simply agree upon there being one sole, perfect, inerrant, and authoritative Bible/Word of God. It could very well lead many others who are lost to the aforementioned heresies to being saved, in fact. So, this is awfully important to get right.
With all that being said, there is one, (and only one), decent point raised by critics of KJVO. The point in reference being:
"If the 1611 AV is in fact the preserved word of God, why do contemporary re-printings of it omit the apocryphal texts it first included?"
The answer to this oft raised question is actually pretty easy. Before giving that answer, however, we need to address some things first concerning the Apocrypha and give some background information on both it and the KJV, so that the final answer I give to this question will have fuller effect.
Apocrypha are a set of texts included in the Latin Vulgate and Septuagint but not in the Hebrew Bible. While Catholic tradition considers some of these texts to be deuterocanonical, Protestants consider them, well, apocryphal. The main reason as to why Roman Catholics receive the apocryphal books as Scripture is because the Roman Catholic Church says so. Since they believe that the church is the final authority on all matters of faith and practice, whatever it says is final. Therefore, the matter is not up for debate (for them, at least). There are other reasons why they regard Apocrypha as canon, but I am not going to cover all of them due to the fact that the KJV already does not include the Apocrypha. (Yes, I know the 1611 KJV once did, but I'm getting to that. Hold your horses.).
The Apocrypha include added books and texts such as: Tobit, Judith, Baruch including the "Letter of Jeremiah" as the 6th chapter or standalone book, Sirach, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Additional verses to Esther, Additional verses to Daniel: Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Holy Children (Vulgate Daniel 3:24–90) Susanna and the Elders (Vulgate Daniel 13) Bel and the Dragon (Vulgate Daniel 14)
In these books is essentially the doctrines of purgatory and salvation by works (through the practices of praying for the dead and tithes/almsgiving for both). This is woefully wrong. However, for the sake of the argument (and time), I'm going to simply establish some of the reasons why we as Protestants do not include the Apocrypha within our Bibles, rather than go into finer detail as to why the Apocrypha does, in fact, contradict the rest of Scripture (though, if one is interested in finding out said contradictions for themselves, they can click here for more information):
  1. The Apocrypha is never cited in the New Testament as Scripture. Though the New Testament cites directly, or alludes to, almost every book of the Old Testament as Scripture, it never cites the Apocrypha as being God's Word. The Apocrypha was not the Bible of Jesus or His apostles. While Jesus and His apostles often quoted the Masoretic Text, they never quoted the Apocrypha. While there may be some allusions to the apocryphal books by New Testament writers, there is no direct quote from them. An allusion is not the same as a direct quote.
In addition, no New Testament writer ever refers to any of these books as authoritative. Quotes from the accepted books are usually introduced by the phrase, "It is written," or the passage is quoted to prove a point. But never do the New Testament writers quote the Apocrypha in this way. Furthermore, no book of the Apocrypha is mentioned by name in the New Testament.
If the writers of the New Testament considered the Apocrypha to be Scripture, we would certainly expect them to refer to it in some way. However, we find no direct quotations. This is in contrast to over 250 quotations from the authoritative Old Testament Scriptures.
The fact that the present canon was repeatedly quoted as being divinely authoritative as well as the absence of any direct quote is an indication of the extent of the canon - it did not include the Apocrypha. [Note, I'm well aware some believe that the book of Enoch, a book considered by both Protesants and Catholics to be apocryphal, was quoted by Jude. However, there is evidence suggesting Jude wasn't actually citing 1 Enoch, but that it was/is the other way around instead. Some of that evidence can be found and expounded upon here.]
  1. The Apocrypha has always been rejected by the Jews as Scripture and, therefore, could not have been part of the Jewish canon at the time of Christ's life. The Jews have never considered these works to be divinely inspired. They explicitly denied their authority. At the time of Christ we have the testimony of the Jewish writer Flavius Josephus that there were only twenty-two books divinely inspired by God. These books are the same as our thirty-nine in the Old Testament. The books of the Apocrypha were not among these. The same testimony is found in Second Esdras - the Ezra legend. This work was written in A.D. 100. Therefore, these books were never part of the Hebrew canon of Scripture.
  2. The books of the Apocrypha were written during the four hundred silent years between the Book of Malachi and the announcement of the birth of John the Baptist. Jewish and New Testament sources both agree that no divinely inspired prophetic utterance of extra-revelation occurred during this time.
The common argument I hear against this line of reasoning would be:
"Why would the Jews, who denied Christ, know anything about what should be in the Old Testament anyway?"
Another argument against my position (that position being that the KJV doesn't include the Apocrypha and, therefore, the Apocrypha should not be considered as inspired), would be:
"Well the original 1611 KJV had the Apocrypha. It wasn't removed until much later in 1885. If the original KJV is supposed to be the Holy Word of God, removing the Apocrypha negates that statement and begs the question: 'Is the current KJV sans the Apocrypha the Holy Word of God?'"
Well, here's the kicker. Lo and behold, the Apocrypha are found within the Septuagint which was made for a Jewish community in Egypt when Greek was the common language throughout the region. I've already established in my previous defenses why you shouldn't trust any of the Coptic, Alexandrian, and Papyrus manuscripts. So, the Septuagint translation proves nothing. The fact that the Apocrypha is found in the Septuagint translation does not prove anything in the slightest. In fact, all it does is merely testify that the Alexandrian Jews translated other religious material into Greek apart from the Old Testament Scripture. A Greek translation is not the same thing as a book being part of the Hebrew canon.
The Apocrypha were even labeled as non-canonical by Saint Jerome, a 4th century monk and scholar who made the original translation from the original languages in Latin that is still, to this day even, used by the Roman Catholic church. Even at the time of Saint Jerome's translation, (the only scholar around his time who knew Hebrew), the Apocrypha could only be found in the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Jewish Canon finished during the silent years, which, we've already established as a problem considering both Jewish and New Testament sources agreeing that no new and divinely inspired revelation occurred during this time. Because of these reasons, (amongst many others), Jerome felt the Apocrypha didn't belong and held no value (the meaning of apocryphal is "these don't belong"). He only kept them at the behest of his friend Saint Augustine. Saint Jerome, mind you, is yet another early Church father amongst the many (including Origen, as I previously stated) that testify to the fallibility of the heretical Alexandrian manuscripts.
Another typical argument against what's been said here, (and one in support of the validity of the Septuagint), would be the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls, which, are Papyrus manuscripts that included some of the apocrypha and are dated to being written at around 3 B.C. to first century A.D. Again, this argument already falls flat on its face considering I have already shown you just how "dependable" these manuscripts are in my defense for the KJV as well as the impossibility of anything coming from the silent years. If you're a Protestant reading this, you should seriously reconsider which manuscripts you put your trust in, considering literally no Apocrypha are found in the Masoretic Text, versus the Septuagint in contrast. I say this because I see modern day Protestants everywhere scoff at the mere mention of KJVO due to the KJV translating from the Masoretic Text instead of the obviously corrupted Septuagint, which, many Protestants will quickly consider the latter more trustworthy than the former, despite everything I've said. It's just something I find strange and, quite honestly, ironic.
Furthermore, I want to finally address the argument that suggests the KJV is fallible due to firstly including the Apocrypha and later removing it. Let's go to 1560 where the Reformation was, by this time, in full swing.
By this time, there are already several available translations of the Bible in English (the Wycliffe's Bible from the 14th century, William Tyndale's work from the early 1520's, the Coverdale Bible which used Tyndale's translations of translations of the Vulgate [the Vulgate being Jerome's translation, mind you], the Matthew's Bible which was the first from the original languages, and the Great Bible which was a rework of Matthew's). The Reformers in Geneva decided to translate their own Bible as better texts became available (both for translation and instruction/reference) and they created the Geneva Bible. The first Bible with verse markings (the chapters we still use today were invented in 1412 at the University of Paris), the first with comprehensive text notes, translational notes, and chapter headings. This was a joint venture by some of the best scholars and translators of the Reformation and is still recognized in academic and theological circles as one of the best translations ever done as far as accuracy and readability. The 1560 Geneva Bible contained the Apocrypha, but it was separated from the rest of Scripture and contained almost no marginal notes. Many later editions of the Geneva Bible did not even contain the Apocrypha. Fast forward to 1611 and we've got a retranslation based on the Geneva Bible.
This is the King James Bible.
The King James Bible was authorized by King James 1st of England and was translated against the Vatican's wishes. It took 7 years to complete, (hence why it's titled the 1611 KJV). The Apocrypha were still included in the KJV at this time for historical reference, not doctrine. Seeing the treatment of the Apocrypha by the creators of the Geneva Bible only attests to that fact even further. It was neither holy nor inspired and its translators understood this. It just wasted space in the Bible. Not only this, but it too was separated from the rest of Scripture, just like in the Geneva Bible. This is in stark contrast to Catholic "Bibles" today that not only include but also integrate the Apocrypha with the rest of Scripture.
Fast forward even further to 1885 and we see the removal of the Apocrypha in the KJV. The reasons are as follows:
  1. It was around 1885 when the masses learned how to read instead of a privileged few (wealthy and educated).
  2. The printing press made everything easier making the KJV available to everyone versus the few copies handwritten by scribes.
  3. More people started seeing the contradictions within Scripture. Namely in the Apocrypha versus the rest of Scripture. Considering the treatment of the Apocrypha by those who created the Geneva Bible and those, at this time, being made aware of the history and origins of it, it's unsurprising why there's a removal of the fallible texts in the KJV. The absolute best argument against this act of "heretical removal" (as the Catholics like to put it) was the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls which includes some of (not even all) the Apocrypha. That argument, however, no longer works after having already established as such.
The reason we see this removal of the Apocrypha in the King James Bible is because God never wanted it there in the first place. The only reason the Apocrypha was even included in the original 1611 KJV was for historical reference purposes. Not doctrinal. People saw it somewhat valuable for the former but disregarded it when it came to the latter. When, as I said, the masses began to learn how to read instead of only a very privileged few, everyone saw it a waste of space in their Bibles and recognized its uninspired nature due to not only the history and origins behind it, (despite not yet knowing about the very obviously corrupted Dead Sea scrolls at this time), but also its wealth of stark contradictions to the rest of Scripture. The only reason it was easy for people to pick and point out the contradictions was because it was separated from the rest of Scripture by being placed smack in the middle between the Old Testament and the New. If it weren't for this, you'd have an incredibly corrupted KJV as well as every other Protestant Bible probably including and integrating the Apocrypha too.
Knowing everyone and everything the Bible had to go through just for this to happen, this removal should be considered a miracle. This is one of those “God had to be at play here" moments. I know this to be the case due to what I'm about to say. The final nail in the coffin:
God’s Word(s), based upon Psalm 12:6-7, has gone through a seven-fold purification process in the English language. Beginning with Wycliffe's Lollard translations (not yet purified), then Tyndale's Bible (purified once), Coverdale's Bible (purified twice), Matthew's Bible (purified 3 times), the Great Bible (purified 4 times), the Geneva Bible (purified 5 times), and then the King James Bible, (or Authorized Version; purified a 6th and 7th time).
This providentially guided process certified the purity of God’s Word as He divinely guided the translators to burn off any dross by their continual translation. Therefore, the King James Bible represents the culmination of purity.
This is the hand of God.
"It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man."-Psalm 118:8
submitted by God_Is_Good123 to TorahChristian [link] [comments]

2020.10.13 04:23 Heru_Ur The Great God El and the spread of the UrRean culture

The Great God El and the spread of the UrRean culture
The Homo sapiens transitioning from hunting & gathering into farming and then into Homo sapiens sapiens. This takes place following the collapse of the ice age followed by massive inland flooding throughout the world.
Assur, the God-of-Agriculture and Animal husbandry built an Archonship following the collapse of the ice age.
c. 10,000 BC Preboreal period begins.
World: Sea levels rise abruptly and massive inland flooding occurs due to glacier melt.
Neolithic culture begins, end of most recent glaciation. First cave drawings of the Mesolithic period are made, with war scenes and religious scenes, beginnings of what became storytelling, and metamorphosed into acting.
They were hunters. Ur the perfect power icon.
Ur, the hawk-god, got his name from the sound of hawk's wings.
Heru_Ur in Stride
A soaring hawk floats silently on air. After the hawk swoops down and snatches up its prey, it makes powerful wing thrusts to gain altitude carrying the load. That is the successful moment of the hunt. At that successful moment of the hunt, the hawk's wings make an ur ur ur sound as it makes those power thrusts to gain altitude. That ur sound of hawk's wings thrusting to gain altitude is the root source of Ur, the hawk-god's original name.
Re, the sun-god, got its name from Ur, the hawk-god.
When Assur's descendants became sun worshippers, their sun-god needed a name. A soaring hawk floats silently above the earth. The sun was also a silent high soaring deity. The sun-god got its name from the hawk-god. The name of Re, the sun-god is derived from Ur, the hawk-god's name. Re is Ur said backward. UrRe is the name of the winged sun disk without serpents.
Assur and his descendants founded a far-flung empire of related kingdoms. Those original agrarian descendants of Assur were the original UrRe-ans. Their name UrReans defines them as followers of the hawk-god and sun-god religion.
The name of this symbol is not "winged solar disk," or "sun disk." That's a description. It has a name. It's name is UrRe. The name UrRe is a compound of two gods' names, Ur the hawk god + Re the sun god. This is the source of our word Aryan. This is the source of our Aryan family of languages.
Egyptian UrRe
When our ancestors turned to agriculture to replace their hunting and gathering economies, they began to recognize the sun as the source of their sustenance. The "sun god" became a major deity. The UrRe winged solar disk religious symbol represents the transitional phase from hunting and gathering to farming in the evolution of human civilization.
Following the meltdown of the Ice Age, a great conquering hero was born. That was "El." He was a Genghis Khan or Alexander the Great of the prehistoric age. There are no written records of that era. There are only tales and legends that were handed down by word of mouth for generations before any of them were recorded. El and his sons conquered and bred widely over the whole region that we call "The Levant." El became a deified ancestor. His descendants became an empire of related tribes and kingdoms in the prehistoric era. The empire of El included kingdoms, clans, and tribes that farmed along the Nile before there was an Egypt. The original Isis was a descendant of El who was born in the Nile delta. Egyptian civilization sprang from the womb of Isis. Over the course of time, descendants of El from the Isis bloodline came to dominate the old El empire. Her bloodline became the Egyptian empire.
El was the first king of the first kingdom. Before El there were tribal chieftains and tribal governments by councils of elders, but there weren't hereditary kings. Out of the first kingdom, the first empire was born. The conquerors of the El bloodline bred more or less indiscriminately with the people they conquered. "they took them wives of all which they chose." When two tribes come together by love or by war, subsequent generations will be speaking some combination of both languages. The El empire was held together by family ties, UrRean religion, and some linguistic links. There was no unified language throughout the empire, but there were some linguistic ties. UrRean hawk god/sun god religion spread throughout the Mediterranean region with the conquests of El and his descendants.
Hawk god/Sun god UrRae symbol from the ruins of Nimrud palace
Winged Solar Disc religion of El and his descendants spread throughout the eastern Mediterranean region... BEFORE the dawn of dynastic Egypt. Before the dawn of dynastic Egypt, the Nile River was home to two UrRean kingdoms. Those early conquests by El and his descendants combined warring tribes and clans into larger units. The more successful ones developed work-gang agriculture, large scale engineered irrigation systems, some specialization of labor (artisanship), possibly land ownership, and the organizational structure to manage and maintain all of that. That was the UrRean empire of El. Our languages were being developed in that early culture.
Various UrRe's
You can go all over the world and see Christian crosses on buildings and whatnot which tell you something about the local culture - it's a Christian culture regardless of what language and culture it might otherwise have.
This is the famous Narmer palette. It allegedly depicts king Narmer of Upper Egypt conquering Lower Egypt and establishing historical Egypt. The Narmer palette contains hawk god and solar disk symbols. King Narmer was an UrRean. King Narmer was an African. King Narmer was an Aryan. The name Aryan didn't always have the racist connotations that it has now. It was a religious designation, not a racial one.
Aryan c. 1600, as a term in classical history, from Latin Arianus, Ariana, from Greek Aria, Areia, names applied in classical times to the eastern part of ancient Persia and to its inhabitants. Ancient Persians used the name in reference to themselves (Old Persian ariya-), hence Iran. Ultimately from Sanskrit arya- "compatriot;" in later language "noble, of good family."
In time, the old UrRean empire fell into war and disarray. Internal rivalries tore it apart. Then 5000 years ago, a genius child was born in the Nile delta. She was "twice wise." That was Isis. A great religion was founded on her womb, her works, and her teachings.
Isis is always a part of the picture. The name Israel means Isis-Royal, the royal line of Isis. The name Israel is a compound of three gods names, Isis the mother goddess + Ra the sun god + El who was the ancient forerunner of Osiris before he was Osiris. The line of kings who sprung from the womb of Isis ruled the world for about 3000 years. In his book, The Pagan Christ, Tom Harpur says "Comparative religious scholars have made lists of thirty to fifty such avatars or saviors, including Osiris, Horus, Krishna, Bacchus, Orpheus, Hermes, Balder, Adonis, Hercules . . . Thor . . . and many more."
That list of thirty to fifty avatars and saviors includes only men – no women. The first two on the list are Osiris and Horus, but it leaves out Isis who resurrected Osiris from the dead, and who gave birth to Horus! She doesn’t count because she was a woman even though the whole Egyptian religion, and the entire bloodline of divine kings, sprung from her womb, her works, and her teachings! Isis was every bit as real a person as was Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Buddha, Confucius, Muhammad, Zarathustra, or any of the other great avatars of history. In fact, she was before all of them! Nevertheless, she has been reduced to a fictional character in academia and Western culture generally. The authors of the Bible AFTER about 600 BC rewrote their entire history going all the way back to Adam's rib just to get Mother Goddess Isis out of their ancestry and replace her with their patriarchal war god, Yahweh/Jehovah.
El, the Great God of Canaan seated on the throne of the kingdom of Ugarit. Ugarit was an important port/city/state on the Mediterranean coast in what is now Syria. This artifact dates to about 1400-1200 BCE. This is a commemorative stone portrait of the marriage of Ugarit into the Egyptian empire.
This is a stone plaque of the god El seated on his throne. It came from the ruins of the ancient city of Ugarit, which dates back to about 6000 BC. (That was 2000 years before Biblical God created the universe.) This particular artifact is not that old. It shows Egyptian influence. Notice the UrRae winged solar disk without serpents above the scene and notice that the ancestral god El is being offered a serpent. That serpent probably represents a pharaoh's daughter, a 'Daughter of Isis,' being introduced into the royal bloodline of that Ugarit kingdom.
El accepts a serpent
The original Isis was probably born a natural genius. She was twice wise. Our words genius and Genesis are both derived from "genes of Isis." They sought to procreate a new line of genius royalty from the genius child. With the rise of Isis' descendants, the serpents of Isis were added to the old UrRae winged solar disk. That new symbol and the new bloodline of Isis came to rule much of the world.
El, the Great God of Canaan
Hawk~Serpent~Sun motif Soaring above Assur and the Two-Eyed Goddess

The book, The Origin of Consciousness, by Julian Jaynes. Jaynes was a psychiatrist who did a lot of brain research. In it, he goes into the origins of civilizations in his quest of the origins of consciousness. In a chapter titled: The Origin of Civilization, he argues that the first god was a dead king who was revered after his death.
The book has very few illustrations, but in a chapter titled Gods, Graves, and Idols, he has an illustration of a Hittite "god" and a king. He dates the scene to about 1250 BC. In his description he says "The god Sharrums holds his steward-king, Tudhaliya, in his embrace. The pretzel like hieroglyph for deity is seen as the head in the god's ideogram on the upper left and repetitively on the god's crown. It is also seen in the king's ideogram on the upper right, indicating. I think, that the king too was heard in hallucinations by his subjects."

The god Sharrums holds his steward-king, Tudhaliya, in his embrace.
He talks about the hieroglyphs of the king's name and so forth, but he misses this figure at the very top of the illustration altogether.
If that figure had been an ordinary Christian cross,
or an Orthodox cross
or a Coptic cross
he would surely have noticed all of that, but the UrRe is invisible.
The Invisible Religion
But ye shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves. For thou shalt worship no other God: for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God
Exod. 34: 13,14
That is all powerful patriarchal monotheism.
Ye shall utterly destroy all the places wherein the nations which ye shall possess served their gods, upon the high mountains, and upon the hills, and under every green tree: And ye shall overthrow their altars, and break their pillars, and burn their groves with fire; and ye shall hew down the craven images of their gods, and destroy the names of them out of that place.
Duet. 12: 2,3.
He goes on to say that "...the Incas themselves, like a synthesis of Egypt and Assyria...Inca himself was the god king, a pattern so similar to Egypt's that less conservative historians of American antiquity have felt that there must have been some diffusion. But I suggest that given man, language, and cities organized on a bicameral basis, there are only certain fixed patterns into which history can fit."
"When the Inca died, his concubines and personal servants first drank and danced, and then were strangled to join him in his journey to the sun, just as had previously happened in Egypt, Ur, and China."
This author, with his excellent education, sees all of those similarities across all of those cultures and yet refuses to see them as a connected culture. Those "less conservative historians of American antiquity" who have seen the connection are people who have been shunned and dismissed out of the halls of academia for their heresies. This is like trying to understand the history of Western civilization of the last 1500-2000 years without Christianity in it. All you would see would be an endless, meaningless, clash of tribes and nations. It would make no sense at all and that's exactly what we have with Isis' religion. This is what militant, patriarchal, jealous-god, monotheism has brought us – non understanding of our own origins.
The first dragon imagery in the world.
The addition of the serpents represents a religious/political/genealogical renaissance that was a major event in the cultural, religious, linguistic, and genetic, evolution of the human race. It has a name. It's name is UrReUs. That name is a compound of three gods' names. Ur the hawk god + Re the sun god + Isis the serpent goddess. That UrReUs religion was widespread in the ancient world before the dawn of Monotheism, Hinduism, Buddhism, or any of the other religions we know in the world today. Languages and cultures all over the world have some roots going back to that ancient culture.
The Ur Ray religion and El genealogy spread across the Mediterranean region. Then a genius child was born in the Nile delta. That was Isis. Those people were cattle breeders who routinely saved their best animals for breeding stock. Essentially, they did the same thing with the genius child. Whether or not the descendants of El were practicing eugenics before the birth of Isis is difficult to discern, but from Isis onward they definitely were practicing eugenics. That's how she became the Mother Goddess of Egyptian civilization and worldwide empire.

Isis with the Uraeus at the Vatican
In those days there was no distinction between religion and politics – and religion was largely ancestor worship. Your ancestry was all important to your station in life. El, the patriarch of it all was a deified ancestor. El was the original "god." Daughters of Pharaohs, who were "Daughters of Isis," who were pedigreed descendants of the original genius child, were married into the ruling families of tribes and nations all over the planet.
The old UrRe religion spread throughout the eastern Mediterranean region. The new Uraeus religion went worldwide.
submitted by Heru_Ur to mythology [link] [comments]

2020.10.12 21:14 BT03210 La famille de Bourbon fête ses onze siècles dans son berceau de l'Allier

La famille de Bourbon fête ses onze siècles dans son berceau de l'Allier
Modifié le 19/09/2015 à 22:53 - Publié le 19/09/2015 à 22:28 AFP
Messe en latin, garden-party et petits-fours sur un air de trompes de chasse: les héritiers de la Maison de Bourbon étaient exceptionnellement réunis samedi dans leur berceau natal du Bourbonnais, pour célébrer leur onzième centenaire, dans une atmosphère toute royale.
La famille princière, qui a donné naissance à nombre de rois et princes de France et d'Europe, dont certains règnent encore aujourd'hui (en Espagne et au Luxembourg), est l'une des plus anciennes au monde.
La première trace officielle de cette auguste lignée remonte en effet en l'an 915, lorsque le chevalier Aymar, premier aïeul connu de la famille, lègue à l'abbaye de Cluny une exploitation agricole et une église situées à Souvigny, près de Moulins.
"915, c'est une date importante pour le Bourbonnais, pour la France et pour l'Europe. J'ai tenu à rassembler les membres de la famille pour leur faire découvrir cette belle région. C'est une première et j'espère qu'il y a en aura d'autres", a expliqué à l'AFP l'organisateur de cette cérémonie du millénaire, le prince Charles-Henri de Lobkowicz, fils de la princesse Françoise de Bourbon Parme.
"La France que tout le monde connaît à travers le monde vient certainement de cette époque (du temps du règne des Bourbons) durant laquelle elle était grande et où elle rayonnait sur le monde", a estimé l'aristocrate bourbonnais.
Parmi ses illustres aînés qui ont marqué l'Histoire de France, il avoue son admiration pour les rois Henri IV et Louis XIV.
"La France est reconnue dans le monde à travers le luxe français et celui-ci a été inventé précisément par Louis XIV", a souligné Charles-Henri de Lobkowicz, qui rénove actuellement quatre châteaux sur le secteur pour les ouvrir au public.
Les festivités ont débuté vendredi soir avec un dîner en petit comité dans un hôtel de Moulins, rassemblant des représentants de chaque branche de cette famille aux innombrables ramifications (Bourbon-Orléans, Bourbon-Siciles, Bourbon-Parme, Bourbon Busset ou encore Bourbon Chalus...).
Samedi, quelque 450 personnes étaient ensuite invitées à assister à une messe d'action de grâce en latin, suivie d'un Te Deum, en l'église Saint-Pierre et Saint-Paul de Souvigny, qui fut la nécropole ducale des Bourbons, avant que la cathédrale de Saint-Denis n'abrite les tombeaux des rois de France.
Petite note musicale qui n'aurait pas dénoté du temps des rois de France, l'entrée des princes de Bourbon dans l'église prieurale s'est effectuée au son d'une marche de Jean-Baptiste Lully, compositeur favori de Louis XIV.
Une garden-party était ensuite donnée dans le jardin du château de Bostz, situé à une dizaine de kilomètres de Souvigny.
Entre les barnums de toile blanche tendus sur la pelouse de ce château du XIXème siècle, où vécut notamment Zita de Bourbon-Parme, dernière impératrice d'Autriche, une fanfare de vénerie en costume a ponctué la réception de morceaux de musique joués à la trompe de chasse.
Parmi les invités figurait notamment l'un des prétendants au trône de France, le Prince Louis Alphonse de Bourbon.
"C'est très beau de pouvoir être ici. C'est un privilège de faire partie de cette famille", a estimé cet aristocrate franco-espagnol qui se rendait pour la "première fois" dans le Bourbonnais.
Interrogé à propos d'un hypothétique retour de la monarchie en France, Louis Alphonse de Bourbon a estimé que ce "système différent fonctionne très bien dans d'autres pays."Pourquoi pas en France ?", s'est interrogé celui qui est également duc d'Anjou.
Assurant ne "prétendre à rien" en tant que chef de la branche aînée de la Maison de Bourbon, il a toutefois souligné "être à disposition, si on l'appelait pour monter sur le trône de France en tant que Louis XX".
Étaient également présents le Prince Charles-Louis d'Orléans, duc de Chartres et neveu du comte de Paris, ce dernier étant lui aussi prétendant à la couronne ; les altesses royales le Prince Francisco de Bourbon, duc de Séville et représentant du roi d'Espagne Felipe VI; le Prince Michel de Yougoslavie; son altesse impériale et royale l'Archiduc Carl Christian de Habsbourg.
19/09/2015 22:53:01 - Souvigny
submitted by BT03210 to Bourbonnais [link] [comments]

2020.10.12 19:26 StevenStevens43 The confessio of Saint Palladius

The confessio of Saint Palladius
Saint Patrick:
In this article i am going to attempt to prove the real identity of Saint Patrick beyond reasonable doubt.
I am also going to deal with the criticisms against the Irish legends regards to Saint Patrick, whilst perhaps investigating the political landscape of the time, in order to get a better understanding and grasp on the subject.
So to begin with, i will begin with modern day historians and scholars first debunk of the Irish legends.
According to professional scholars and historians, the Irish apparently involved themselves in a giant conspiracy to deceive mankind by attempting to push back the date of Niall of the nine hostages to accomodate as early an arrival time for the hero Saint Patrick, as possible.
Historicity and dates
[5]:pp. 78–79 to conclude that the events of the later half of the 5th century have been extended backwards to accommodate as early a date as possible for the arrival of Saint Patrick, with the effect of pushing Niall back up to half a century. Hughes says "Niall himself must have died not before the middle of the fifth century".[6]
Link for photo-_stained_glass,_Saint_Patrick-_detail.jpg)
Saint Patrick
Niall Nogiallach:
Now before tackling the above claim, i should probably begin with Niall Nogiallach, the Irish high king, who was accused of kidnapping Saint Patrick.
a Latin Life of Saint Patrick, says that Niall led Irish raids on Roman Britain, and in one of those raids Patrick and his sisters were abducted.
Confessio of Patrick:
And according to Saint Patrick's autobiography, he was indeed kidnapped in Britain by Irish raiders and taken back to Ireland to work as a slave on a farm before escaping after a period of six years.
Saint Patrick
According to the autobiographical Confessio of Patrick, when he was about sixteen, he was captured by Irish pirates from his home in Britain and taken as a slave to Ireland, looking after animals; he lived there for six years before escaping and returning to his family.
Link for
Alleged location of Saint Patricks slavery
87 Years of age:
Now what brought them to the conclusion that the Irish have conspired to bring Nialls lifetime backward, was the fact that at least one of Niall Nogiallach's sons lived to the ripe old age of 87 years of age, which seems an implausible long-time span for a single individual.
Historicity and dates
However, the early annals record the activities of his sons between 429 and 516, an implausibly long time-span for a single generation, leading scholars like Kathleen Hughes[6] and Francis J. Byrne[5]:pp. 78–79
Niall death:
Now, regards to Niall's death, depending upon which Irish source you choose to follow, you will pretty much get a date somewhere between 382 AD and 411 AD.
Historicity and dates
Niall is presumed, on the basis of the importance of his sons and grandsons, to have been a historical person,[5]:70 but the early Irish annals say little about him. The Annals of Inisfallen date his death before 382, and the Chronicon Scotorum to 411.[6] The later Annals of the Four Masters dates his reign to 379–405,[7] and the chronology of Geoffrey Keating's Foras Feasa ar Éirinn to 368–395.[8]
Nath I:
And for one of his sons, Nath I, a death date between 428 AD and 445 AD.
In the Annals of Ulster there is an entry for the year 445 which originally consisted solely of Nath Í's name. A later writer, presuming this to be his death notice, added the detail that he was struck by lightning in the Alps,[1] circumstances also recounted in the Lebor Gabála,[3] Keating[5] and the Annals of the Four Masters, the latter of which dates it to 428.[4]
Link for photo
Nath I mac
Loegaire mac Neill:
And pretty much all sources tend to agree that Niall's other son, died 462 AD.
So, at first glance, i do not see anything untoward.
Loegaire mac Neill
Lóegaire (floruit fifth century) (reigned 428–458 AD, according to the Annals of the Four Masters of the Kingdom of Ireland)(died c. 462), also Lóeguire, is said to have been a son of Niall of the Nine Hostages. The Irish annals and king lists include him as a King of Tara or High King of Ireland. He appears as an adversary of Saint Patrick in several hagiographies.
Link for photo
Loegaire mac Neill
Expert opinion:
Scholarly leaders have concluded that Niall's death must not be before the middle of the fifth century, and they date his death at 452 AD.
Though, they do not explain why his death must be around 450 AD, nor how they managed to conclude he died in 452 AD.
Historicity and dates
Hughes says "Niall himself must have died not before the middle of the fifth century".[6] Byrne, following James Carney, is a little more precise, dating his death to c. 452.[5]
Now, as for Saint Patrick, modern day historians and scholars that love to narrate gaelic legends to us, attribute the irish annals to setting a 432 AD arrival date for Saint Patrick..... But, they were compiled in the mid 6th century at the earliest, and therefore the only reliable opinion on the matter is that of the university professors of Oxford and Cambridge.
The Irish annals for the fifth century date Patrick's arrival in Ireland at 432, but they were compiled in the mid 6th century at the earliest.[15]
However, we know exactly when Saint Patrick arrived in Ireland, as it is recorded by the Bishops of Rome.
And he arrived in approximately 431 AD.
He sent Palladius) to Ireland to serve as a bishop in 431. Bishop Patrick continued this missionary work.
Pope Celestine I:
And we even know exactly why he was sent to Ireland.
It was to go to war with Pelagianism.
The new Heresy.
Pope Celestine I
Pope Celestine I (Latin: Caelestinus I) was the bishop of Rome from 10 September 422 to his death on 1 August 432. Celestine's tenure was largely spent combatting various ideologies deemed heretical. He supported the mission of the Gallic bishops that sent Germanus of Auxerre in 429, to Britain to address Pelagianism, and later commissioned Palladius) as bishop to the Scots of Ireland and northern Britain. In 430,
So what was Pelagianism?
Well, it was the type of Christianity that had been adopted by the Irish and Brits.
A cross between the teachings of Aleister Crowley and Jesus Christ.
Pelagianism is a heterodox Christian theological position which holds that the original sin did not taint human nature and that humans have the free will to achieve human perfection without divine grace. Pelagius (c. 355 – c. 420 CE), a British ascetic,
Link for photo
Aleister Crowley
And Pelagianism was a Christian faith based upon the teachings of Pelagius, thought to be of British origins, around 354 AD, but also thought to have spent sometime being brought up in Ireland.
Pelagius was born about 354-360. He is said by his contemporaries, such as Augustine of Hippo, Prosper of Aquitaine, Marius Mercator, and Paul Orosius, to have been of British origin.[1] Jerome apparently thought that Pelagius was Irish, suggesting that he was "stuffed with Irish porridge"
Link for photo
Now, there was definitely a time when most contemporary historians and scholars simply brushed off any Irish legends as complete hogwash.
But today, they are coming up with all kinds of conspiracy theories to explain why the Irish gave Saint Patrick an arrival date of 432 AD.
Can you guess why it was?
Well, it was because the Irish apparently wanted to minimise the reputation of Palladius, whilst maximising the reputation of Saint Patrick, suggesting they believe that Patrick's work was actually Palladius's.
The date 432 was probably chosen to minimise the contribution of Palladius), who was known to have been sent to Ireland in 431, and maximise that of Patrick.[17]
Patrick the elder:
And they say this, despite the fact that Palladius was known by the Irish as "Patrick the Elder".
[17] A variety of dates are given for his death. In 457 "the elder Patrick" (Irish: Patraic Sen) is said to have died: this may refer to the death of Palladius, who according to the Book of Armagh was also called Patrick.[17]
Saint Palladius:
But not only was he known as Patrick the elder, he was also known as Saint Patrick, by Scots and Irish.
Palladius, Bishop of Ireland)
Palladius (fl. A.D. 408–431; died c. A.D. 457/461) was the first bishop of the Christians of Ireland, preceding Saint Patrick; the two were perhaps conflated in many later Irish traditions. He was a deacon and member of one of the prominent families in Gaul. Pope Celestine I consecrated him a bishop and sent him to Ireland "to the Scotti believing in Christ".
Link for photo#/media/File:St_Palladius_Fordoun.jpg)
Saint Patrick's church, Aberdeen, Scotland
The Irish preferred a later date for Saint Patrick:
Now do you remember previously the historians and scholars were accusing the Irish of trying to bring Niall backward to accomodate the arrival of Patrick?
Well, apparently they did this at the same time as believing Patrick died in around 550 AD.
That is despite the fact that the Irish annals recorded an arrival date for Patrick of 432 AD.... "But"!
And in actual fact, it is the modern day historians that support the earlier arrival for Patrick. AHA!
While some modern historians[19] accept the earlier date of c. 460 for Patrick's death, scholars of early Irish history tend to prefer a later date, c. 493. Supporting the later date, the annals record that in 553 "the relics of Patrick were placed sixty years after his death in a shrine by Colum Cille" (emphasis added).[20] The death of Patrick's disciple Mochta is dated in the annals to 535 or 537,[20][21]
Roman Britain:
Now let us look at some similarities between the two Saint Patricks.
Saint Patrick junior was born in Roman Britain, though there are no records of this, and his actual birthplace is unknown.
His date of birth is also unknown.
Though Pelagius, was known to have been born in Roman Britain as well, and around 354 AD..
Patrick was born in Roman Britain. His birthplace is not known with any certainty;
Link for photo
Saint Patrick in his Roman robe
Were as Patrick the elder was born in Gaul to nobles and high ranking church officials.
The Palladii were thought to be amongst the most noble families of Gaul, and several of them held high ranks in the Church of Gaul.[1]#cite_note-moran-1)
Saint Germanus:
Saint Patrick junior claims that he was ordained in to Priesthood by Saint Germanus.
But, no date is given for this.
Saint Germanus of Auxerre, a bishop of the Western Church, ordained him to the priesthood.[42]
Link for photo
Saint Germanus
415 AD:
Saint Patrick the elder was ordained in 415 AD.
He seems to have been ordained as a priest around 415.
Germanus Deacon:
It is believed by historians that Saint Patrick the elder was a deacon for Saint Germanus.
Historian Kathleen Hughes) regards it as more probable that he was a deacon of St Germanus, and that Germanus sent him to Rome,[5]#cite_note-5)
Link for photo
Saint Patrick learning from Saint Germanus
Saint Patrick junior is said to have arrived in Wicklow (Irleand).
Acting on his vision, Patrick returned to Ireland as a Christian missionary.[35] According to J. B. Bury, his landing place was Wicklow, Co. Wicklow,
Saint Patrick elder landed in Arklow.
.[7]#cite_note-7) Palladius landed at Arklow.
County Wicklow:
And it is the exact same place.
Arklow (/ˈɑːrkloʊ/; ARK-loh; from Old Norse Arnkell-lág 'meadow of Arnkell',[3] Irish: An tInbhear Mór, meaning "the great estuary") is a town in County Wicklow on the east coast of Ireland.
Link for photo
Arklow port
And the missioners that arrived with Saint Patrick junior, are actually now believed to have arrived with Saint Patrick the elder.
Auxilius, Secundinus, and Iserninus are missioners identified with St. Patrick, but more recent research associates them not with Patrick but with Palladius.[8]#cite_note-8)
North Britain:
Saint Patrick the elder did not last long in Ireland, before a king of Ireland banished him.
Irish writers who chronicled the life of St Patrick state that St Palladius preached in Ireland before St Patrick, although he was soon banished by the King of Leinster, and returned to North Britain.[9]#cite_note-butler-9)
Was not taken as a slave:
A lesser known fact, is that Saint Patrick junior did not last long in Ireland either, before being banished, as he was suspected of financial irregularities, and lying about who he was, and they did not believe his story about being kidnapped and taken as a slave.
Much of the Declaration concerns charges made against Patrick by his fellow Christians at a trial. What these charges were, he does not say explicitly, but he writes that he returned the gifts which wealthy women gave him, did not accept payment for baptisms, nor for ordaining priests, and indeed paid for many gifts to kings and judges, and paid for the sons of chiefs to accompany him. It is concluded, therefore, that he was accused of some sort of financial impropriety, and perhaps of having obtained his bishopric in Ireland with personal gain in mind.[46]
The condemnation might have contributed to his decision to return to Ireland. According to Patrick's most recent biographer, Roy Flechner, the Confessio was written in part as a defence against his detractors, who did not believe that he was taken to Ireland as a slave, despite Patrick's vigorous insistence that he was.[47]
Bishop of Ireland:
Saint Patrick junior returned to a different part of Ireland, where he set himself up as a Bishop.
.[47] Patrick eventually returned to Ireland, probably settling in the west of the island, where, in later life, he became a bishop and ordained subordinate clerics.
Date of death:
There is only speculation as to when Saint Patrick junior died.
[17] A variety of dates are given for his death. In 457 "the elder Patrick" (Irish: Patraic Sen) is said to have died: this may refer to the death of Palladius, who according to the Book of Armagh was also called Patrick.[17] In 461/2 the annals say that "Here some record the repose of Patrick";[18]:19
Link for photo
Saint Patrick buriel place
Palladius bishop of Ireland:
Though for Saint Patrick elder bishop of Ireland, the date appears to be a bit more definite.
Palladius bishop of Ireland#Ireland)
Palladius (fl. A.D. 408–431; died c. A.D. 457/461
Link for photo
Saint Patrick cathedral, New york
418 AD:
And for Pelagius, it is a very definite 418 AD.
Pelagius (c. AD 354 – 418)
Link for photo
Calvinist depiction of Pelagius
There are however Irish accounts that depict Saint Patrick as actually being a bit of a warlord.
7th Century writings
The Patrick portrayed by Tírechán and Muirchu is a martial figure, who contests with druids, overthrows pagan idols, and curses kings and kingdoms.[68] On occasion, their accounts contradict Patrick's own writings: Tírechán states that Patrick accepted gifts from female converts although Patrick himself flatly denies this.
Accept faith or die:
The Irish annals depict Saint Patrick of telling Irish high king Logaire mac Neill, to accept the faith or die.
Saint Patrick
Lóegaire is warned by the saint that he must accept the faith or die.
Link for photo
Saint Patrick banishing the snakes
Modern day historians and scholars however question whether this is an accurate depiction of Saint Patricks time.
7th Century writings
The martial Patrick found in Tírechán and Muirchu, and in later accounts, echoes similar figures found during the conversion of the Roman Empire to Christianity. It may be doubted whether such accounts are an accurate representation of Patrick's time,
They question this, even though this period is during a period when the Roman military are in their death throws and desperately attempting to keep a Roman military presence in Britain, and appear to be so desperate, they even have Saint Germanus lead a military revolt against Saxons and Picts.
Visit to Britain
Constantius also recounts the miraculous healing of the blind daughter of 'a man with tribunician power'.[2] This use of the word tribune may imply the existence of some form of post-Roman government system. However, in Constantius' lifetime tribune had acquired a looser definition, and often was used to indicate any military officer, whether part of the Imperial army or part of a town militia.
Germanus led the native Britons to a victory against Pictish and Saxon raiders.
Link for photo
Germanus of Auxerre
Noblest in Gaul:
It is quite clear that to Irish ears, accept the faith or die, will translate to accept the faith of the Pope, or Saint Germanus and his very close relative and Roman military leader Constantinius and his army are coming over.
Early life
Germanus was the son of Rusticus and Germanilla, and his family was one of the noblest in Gaul in the latter portion of the fourth century.
Link for photo
Saint Patrick statue
Jugglers and mimes:
Now after all this, i simply cannot believe that a scholar or historian can still believe their own conclusions.
Even with Loegaire mac Neills biography they accuse the Irish of giving him an exessively long 87 year life span in order to accomodate Saint Patrick.
Sons of Niall
Both writers had Patrick come to Ireland in Lóegaire's reign and meet with him. Since the annals provided two death dates for Patrick, 461 and 493, Lóegaire's reign was made to fit these, and in general the earlier date. For the later date, Lóegaire's son Lugaid appears to have served the same adversary role.[1]
Pope Leo I:
Now, whilst Saint Germanus is in Britain fighting Picts and Saxons in armed military conflict, Pope Leo I is ordaining the beliefs that Catholics will follow.
For the first time ever, during the reign of Pope Leo I, Mary becomes the Mother of God, And Jesus becomes born to a virgin, and becomes both the lord and son of King David.
Have they never considered for even one moment, that it might actually have been the anti-Pelagius missionaries that changed the dates to suit the arrival of Saint Palladius?
Teaching on Christ
To Leo the Great, Mariology is determined by Christology. If Christ were divine only, everything about him would be divine. Only his divinity would have been crucified, buried and resurrected. Mary would only be the mother of God, and Christians would have no hope for their own resurrection. The nucleus of Christianity would be destroyed.[12] The most unusual beginning of a truly human life through her was to give birth to Jesus, the Lord and Son of King David.[13]
Link for photo
Pope Leo I
And Pelagius was actually held in very high esteem by many.
Not everyone was against him.
In fact, Augustine, considered a pillar of the church, referred to him as a Saint.
He was well educated, fluent in both Greek and Latin, and learned in theology. He spent time as an ascetic, focusing on practical asceticism. He was well known in Rome, both for the harsh asceticism of his public life and the power and persuasiveness of his speech. His reputation earned him praise early in his career even from such pillars of the Church as Augustine, who referred to him as a "saintly man."
Link for photo
Saint Augustine
I would say it is far more likely that it is a case of those that accepted the faith of the pope, accepting changing the dates of Irish history to accomodate shifting the early years of Saint Pelagius over to that of Saint Palladius.
submitted by StevenStevens43 to AhrensburgCulture [link] [comments]

2020.10.12 08:04 Oshojabe CMV: The argument that 'the word "homosexuality" did not appear in a Bible translation until 1946' is irrelevant

First, I am not a Christian - just a secular person interested in the issue of translation, and fascinated with religion as an outside observer.
This blog post does a good job summarizing the basic argument I have seen online. Basically, the claim is that the word "homosexual" did not appear in a Bible translation until 1946 when it was added to the RSV translation. This is trivially true. However, it explicitly and implicitly makes the case that this was the first time that broad anti-LGBT language appeared in a Bible translation which I want to say is wrong.
I think this argument is wrong-headed on a few basic points:
Specific Words and Translation
The following statement is true:
The word "God" did not appear in a English translation of the entire Bible until the 1300s with the publication of the Wycliffe Bible.
Now, does this statement mean that Wycliffe added the concept of God to the Bible? No, it only narrowly means that the specific English word "God" did not appear in a complete Bible translation until the 1300's. The Hebrew, Greek and Latin texts that later translations would be based on all had concepts more or less corresponding to our word "God" in them.
The word "homosexual" was not coined until 1892, so regardless of whether anti-gay sentiments are authentically in the source texts for the Bible or not, it is no more surprising that the word was not used in translations before this date than the non-appearance of the words "God" in pre-Middle English translations of the Bible.
Older Translations With Anti-Gay Translations
The author of the blog post claims that he collected Bibles in many European languages, and all of them clearly condemned pedophilia not homosexuality until that fateful 1946 translation into English. Now, I've only studied French, Spanish and Esperanto and would only call myself fluent in one of them, but I think I know enough to distinguish "young boy" from "man" or "male" in a verse, so let's take a look:
French (Louis Segond - 1910) Lévitique 18:22 Tu ne coucheras point avec un homme (man) comme on couche avec une femme. C'est une abomination
Spanish (Reina-Valera - 1909) Levítico 18:22 No te echarás con varón (male, man) como con mujer: es abominación.
English (KJV - 1611) Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankinde, as with womankinde: it is abomination
Esperanto (Londona Biblio - 1926) Levidoj 18:22 Kaj kun virseksulo (male) ne kuŝu, kiel oni kuŝas kun virino: tio estas abomenaĵo.
Now all of these are pre-1946 across four languages and none of them say "young boy." This seems to be decent evidence that a pedophilia interpretation was not widespread among European languages prior to 1946.
Are the Leviticus Verses Anti-gay?
This is the heart of the issue for me. To this I don't have a good answer - while I have read many books on religious studies, comparative religion, the historical development of Christianity, etc. I am not conversant in Koine Greek, Hebrew or Latin.
I can say that the modern concept of sexual orientation did not exist in ancient Jewish or Greek culture. The concept of to adult men of equal age and social standing with stable male-only attraction just wasn't a thing then - which means that the idea that any Biblical text would condemn anything exactly like modern homosexuality is a bit anachronistic.
However, I think that basic points stand:
I think there is also a larger point that even though ancient Biblical sexual mores are different from modern "puritan" sexual mores, my general impression of Biblical sexual mores on the whole is that they are not permissive or "sex positive." Even if modern LGBT concepts are no where touched upon or condemned in the Bible, the attitude of the book towards sex outside of marriage is not a generally permissive one.
submitted by Oshojabe to changemyview [link] [comments]

2020.10.11 20:37 kassie_oh Do LI casting directors make an effort to matchmake or do they cast solely based on appearance/drama potential?

Some shows, like the The BacheloBachelorette, don't give a flying frick about finding a compatible match for the lead - the contestants are cast before the lead's even selected. Other shows, like Love is Blind, I believe actually made an effort to cast potentially compatible mates (and they all lived in Atlanta, which eliminated the long distance issue). Three of the six couples (50%!!) are still together, including two marriages. Meanwhile, The Bachelor has a horrid retention rate for couples: only 1/24 couples have stayed together (an abysmal 4%).
I'm new to LI, so I'm curious if LI tries at all to find potential compatible contestants or are they just casting based on attractiveness and entertainment value. I don't know the what the success rate of this show (including UK, Aus, etc) is compared to other Reality TV dating shows - please feel free to share some insight on this if you do. Do they even care about producing successful couples like Love is Blind or are they more like The Bachelor?
I did notice some things this season that make me think they MIGHT care somewhat about trying to cast people based on "their types" or commonalities, but they may just be coincidences - what do you think?:
  1. In her bio, Justine said she's looking for a tall guy with a good smile who is kind, humble, respectful, and ideally Christian. That describes Caleb to a T.
  2. Carrington said his ideal girl is 5'6-5'7, blonde, tan, independent, and driven. That's Laurel in a nutshell.
  3. The last two girls to enter the villa shared several things in common with Carrington. Lakeyn happened to be tall, blonde, and tan (his physical type) who also had an autistic family member, a mother who had been divorced 3x, and who was into headbanging (lol). Julia was also a military brat born in Germany.
  4. Kierstan described both Bennett and Carrington as her physical type. Like Carrington, she also has family in the military.
  5. Both Calvin and Sher know Latin dance, and Sher seemed to be Calvin's physical type.
  6. Both Connor and Mack have said they're each other's physical types.
  7. Moira basically said every white guy there was her type, lol (I'm being cheeky with this one).
submitted by kassie_oh to LoveIslandUSA [link] [comments]

2020.10.10 04:05 abclucid “Religion is a Tool Used To Divide Us”

How many times am I going to here this as a response to Christian posts? As long as they exist?
I want to establish to everyone reading this right now that Christianity and it’s premise is very different from other religions. I will come full circle on this later.


“The definition of religion is a controversial and complicated subject in religious studies with scholars failing to agree on any one definition” -Wikipedia
Oxford Dictionaries defines religion as the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
There is a lot of western bias in defining religion. I am in a religion course right now in college and my professor took the first 5 weeks of class to go over what religion really means. A number of scholars have pointed out that the terminology used in the study of religion in the west derives from Judeo-Christian tradition, and that the basic assumptions of religion as an analytical category are all Western in origin.
Daniel Dubuisson, a French anthropologist, argues that the idea of religion has changed a lot over time and that one cannot fully understand its development by relying on consistent use of the term, which "tends to minimize or cancel out the role of history".
"What the West and the history of religions in its wake have objectified under the name 'religion' is ... something quite unique, which could be appropriate only to itself and its own history."
George Lindbeck, a Lutheran and a postliberal theologian says that religion does not refer to belief in God or a transcendent Absolute, but rather to "a kind of cultural and/or linguistic framework or medium that shapes the entirety of life and thought ... it is similar to an idiom that makes possible the description of realities, the formulation of beliefs, and the experiencing of inner attitudes, feelings, and sentiments."
The scholars of philosophy of religion see the definitions of religion tend to suffer from one of two problems:
1) they are either too narrow and exclude many belief systems which most agree as religious, or
2) they are too vague, wide, generic and ambiguous, suggesting that just about any and everything is a religion
Thus given all of this it is pretty much a nothing sandwich to ignorantly make the claim “religion is a tool to divide us”. That is such a vague blanket statement that is being applied to any and all things in the world that involve anything remotely close to what we think of as religion. Extrapolating your “religion” definition outward (requiring generality) will lead you to the conclusion that things you normally wouldn’t consider religion could be thrown under that definition, thus making the statement too vague and unreliable. Minimizing your definition of religion to be more strict will ultimately exclude certain ways of spirituality as presented, leading to the conclusion that you cannot cover all of the religions you wish to demonize.
There is also this idea that is somehow floating around here that just because a religion can be used to divide people, that it’s somehow automatically not true. This is just foolish.
And guess what? If there really is a group of men that control the world in various ways, THEY ARE GOING TO USE EVERYTHING THEY CAN FOR THEIR PURPOSES. Duh, right?
So let’s just assume for a second that Christianity is 100% true, the Bible is all true. Can the (might I remind you they are proven Luciferian) ritualistic child molesters use the Bible in ways to discredit it?
Yeah... they can...
So let’s just stop right there, there absolutely is no logical connection from
Can be used for evil -> to -> is inherently wrong
That much is fact. You cannot take point A and say because B then C. It just does not work. Now I hope we can agree on that much. You don’t have to concede your atheism based on that, just please recognize how general a statement that is, and stop chucking it around wildly when people of faith make posts here involving religion.
You’re not enlightened, woke, illuminated, or above anyone in any way shape or form by vomiting that phrase. The only thing you can say is that they use the religion for evil, not that it is wrong. You are not taking down their entire belief with such a dumb statement, you are instead making a fool of yourself, demonstrating an ignorance of the truth of how each and every religion is a CASE BY CASE BASIS of truths and lies and working out philosophically, logically, and many other ways whether they hold up or not. I argue that no faith stands up to the scrutiny except Christianity.
But here’s the thing; Christianity, for the purposes of this conversation absolutely cannot be interchangeable with what the world on the surface perceived as “Christianity”
It is for this very reason you will have plenty of Christians that choose not to use the label “Christian”. They go out of their way to separate themselves from the corruption that the world sees as representative of Christianity. The best way I can summarize this, is that “modern Christianity” is not synonymous with the Bible.
Mega churches are preaching the prosperity gospel. I will be the first to say don’t go to them. They ARE AGENTS OF SATAN. Destroy the system from within, I mean why the hell wouldn’t you if you were Satan? You act like things can’t be tampered with and corrupted. And when I say that, don’t start typing about how the Bible is all corrupted. I will demonstrate things to you that you ought to know, atheist or Christian alike. As atheists, you should know the reliability of the Bible is absolutely unparalleled in history.
The Catholic system and church system has resulted in many pedo related things as you know. Again, find where the Bible promotes that? I can give you a verse that utterly condemns it:
Matthew 18:6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
Now, that being said you CAN say the Bible is not true, separately, which is an entirely new discussion to be had. However you guys have some pretty terrible arguments for why it’s not true.
I have been slandered in the comments and heavily downvoted for things that once pressed on, you guys have no logic or actual substance of argument. Almost no one here has proposed anything substantial in the way of discrediting my ReLiGiOn.
Consider the following statements:
-The Bible says that God helps those who help themselves.
-The books of the New Testament were written centuries after the events they describe.
-Cleanliness is next to godliness is in the Bible. According to the Bible, the earth is flat.
-The earliest New Testament manuscripts go back only to the fourth or fifth centuries A.D.
-The Bible teaches that the earth is the center of the universe.
-The English Bible is a translation of a translation of a translation (etc.) of the original, and fresh errors were introduced in each stage of the process.
How many of these statements do you think are true?
The answer is that all of them are false. Yet these false impressions persist in the minds of many, and misinformation like this produces a skeptical attitude toward the Bible.

Biblical Reliability

How can you be sure that the Bible is the same now as when it was written? “The Bible has been copied and translated so many times! Haven't you ever played the game where people sit in a circle and pass a sentence from one person to the next until it comes back around in a completely distorted version? If that could happen in a room in just a few minutes, think of all the errors and changes that must have filled the Bible in the centuries since it was first written!”
There are three lines of evidence that support the claim that the biblical documents are reliable: these are the bibliographic test, the internal test, and the external test. The first test examines the biblical manuscripts, the second test deals with the claims made by the biblical authors, and the third test looks to outside confirmation of the biblical content.

I. The Bibliographic Test

In the case of the Old Testament, there are a small number of Hebrew manuscripts, because the Jewish scribes ceremonially buried imperfect and worn manuscripts. Many ancient manuscripts were also lost or destroyed during Israel's turbulent history. Also, the Old Testament text was standardized by the Masoretic Jews by the sixth century A.D., and all manuscripts that deviated from the Masoretic Text were evidently eliminated. But the existing Hebrew manuscripts are supplemented by the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Septuagint (a third-century B.C. Greek translation of the Old Testament), the Samaritan Pentateuch, and the Targums (ancient paraphrases of the Old Testament), as well as the Talmud (teachings and commentaries related to the Hebrew Scriptures).
The quantity of New Testament manuscripts is unparalleled in ancient literature. There are over 5,000 Greek manuscripts, about 8,000 Latin manuscripts, and another 1,000 manuscripts in other languages (Syriac, Coptic, etc.). In addition to this extraordinary number, there are tens of thousands of citations of New Testament passages by the early church fathers. In contrast, the typical number of existing manuscript copies for any of the works of the Greek and Latin authors, such as Plato, Aristotle, Caesar, or Tacitus, ranges from one to 20.
Because of the great reverence the Jewish scribes held toward the Scriptures, they exercised extreme care in making new copies of the Hebrew Bible. The entire scribal process was specified in meticulous detail to minimize the possibility of even the slightest error. The number of letters, words, and lines were counted, and the middle letters of the Pentateuch and the Old Testament were determined. If a single mistake was discovered, the entire manuscript would be destroyed.
As a result of this extreme care, the quality of the manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible surpasses all other ancient manuscripts. The 1947 discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls provided a significant check on this, because these Hebrew scrolls antedate the earliest Masoretic Old Testament manuscripts by about 1,000 years. But in spite of this time span, the number of variant readings between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Masoretic Text is quite small, and most of these are variations in spelling and style.
While the quality of the Old Testament manuscripts is excellent, that of the New Testament is very good--considerably better than the manuscript quality of other ancient documents. Because of the thousands of New Testament manuscripts, there are many variant readings, but these variants are actually used by scholars to reconstruct the original readings by determining which variant best explains the others in any given passage. Some of these variant readings crept into the manuscripts because of visual errors in copying or because of auditory errors when a group of scribes copied manuscripts that were read aloud. Other errors resulted from faulty writing, memory, and judgment, and still others from well-meaning scribes who thought they were correcting the text. Nevertheless, only a small number of these differences affect the sense of the passages, and only a fraction of these have any real consequences. Furthermore, no variant readings are significant enough to call into question any of the doctrines of the New Testament. The New Testament can be regarded as 99.5 percent pure, and the correct readings for the remaining 0.5 percent can often be ascertained with a fair degree of probability by the practice of textual criticism.
Apart from some fragments, the earliest Masoretic manuscript of the Old Testament is dated at A.D. 895. This is due to the systematic destruction of worn manuscripts by the Masoretic scribes. However, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls dating from 200 B.C. to A.D. 68 drastically reduced the time span from the writing of the Old Testament books to our earliest copies of them.
The time span of the New Testament manuscripts is exceptional. The manuscripts written on papyrus came from the second and third centuries A.D. The John Rylands Fragment (P52) of the Gospel of John is dated at A.D. 117-38, only a few decades after the Gospel was written. The Bodmer Papyri are dated from A.D. 175-225, and the Chester Beatty Papyri date from about A.D. 250. The time span for most of the New Testament is less than 200 years (and some books are within 100 years) from the date of authorship to the date of our earliest manuscripts. This can be sharply contrasted with the average gap of over 1,000 years between the composition and the earliest copy of the writings of other ancient authors.
To summarize the bibliographic test, the Old and New Testaments enjoy far greater manuscript attestation in terms of quantity, quality, and time span than any other ancient documents.

II. The Internal Test

The second test of the reliability of the biblical documents asks, What claims does the Bible make about itself? This may appear to be circular reasoning. It sounds like we are using the testimony of the Bible to prove that the Bible is true. But we are really examining the truth claims of the various authors of the Bible and allowing them to speak for themselves. (Remember that the Bible is not one book but many books woven together.) This provides significant evidence that must not be ignored.
A number of biblical authors claim that their accounts are primary, not secondary. That is, the bulk of the Bible was written by people who were eyewitnesses of the events they recorded. John wrote in his Gospel, And he who has seen has borne witness, and his witness is true; and he knows that he is telling the truth, so that you also may believe (John 19:35; see 21:24). In his first epistle, John wrote, What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we beheld and our hands handled concerning the Word of life . . . what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also (1 John 1:1, 3). Peter makes the same point abundantly clear: For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty (2 Peter 1:16; also see Acts 2:22; 1 Peter 5:1).
The independent eyewitness accounts in the New Testament of the life, death, and resurrection of Christ were written by people who were intimately acquainted with Jesus Christ. Their gospels and epistles reveal their integrity and complete commitment to the truth, and they maintained their testimony even through persecution and martyrdom. All the evidence inside and outside the New Testament runs contrary to the claim made by form criticism that the early church distorted the life and teachings of Christ. Most of the New Testament was written between A.D. 47 and 70, and all of it was complete before the end of the first century. There simply was not enough time for myths about Christ to be created and propagated. And the multitudes of eyewitnesses who were alive when the New Testament books began to be circulated would have challenged blatant historical fabrications about the life of Christ. The Bible places great stress on accurate historical details, and this is especially obvious in the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts, Luke's two-part masterpiece (see his prologue in Luke 1:1-4).

III. The External Test

Because the Scriptures continually refer to historical events, they are verifiable; their accuracy can be checked by external evidence. The chronological details in the prologue to Jeremiah (1:1-3) and in Luke 3:1-2 illustrate this. Ezekiel 1:2 allows us to date Ezekiel's first vision of God to the day (July 31, 592 B.C.).
The historicity of Jesus Christ is well-established by early Roman, Greek, and Jewish sources, and these extrabiblical writings affirm the major details of the New Testament portrait of the Lord. The first-century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus made specific references to John the Baptist, Jesus Christ, and James in his Antiquities of the Jews. In this work, Josephus gives us many background details about the Herods, the Sadducees and Pharisees, the high priests like Annas and Caiaphas, and the Roman emperors mentioned in the gospels and Acts.
We find another early secular reference to Jesus in a letter written a little after A.D. 73 by an imprisoned Syrian named Mara Bar-Serapion. This letter to his son compares the deaths of Socrates, Pythagoras, and Christ. Other first- and second-century writers who mention Christ include the Roman historians Cornelius Tacitus (Annals) and Suetonius (Life of Claudius, Lives of the Caesars), the Roman governor Pliny the Younger (Epistles), and the Greek satirist Lucian (On the Death of Peregrine). Jesus is also mentioned a number of times in the Jewish Talmud.
The Old and New Testaments make abundant references to nations, kings, battles, cities, mountains, rivers, buildings, treaties, customs, economics, politics, dates, etc. Because the historical narratives of the Bible are so specific, many of its details are open to archaeological investigation. While we cannot say that archaeology proves the authority of the Bible, it is fair to say that archaeological evidence has provided external confirmation of hundreds of biblical statements. Higher criticism in the 19th century made many damaging claims that would completely overthrow the integrity of the Bible, but the explosion of archaeological knowledge in the 20th century reversed almost all of these claims. Noted archaeologists such as William F. Albright, Nelson Glueck, and G. Ernest Wright developed a great respect for the historical accuracy of the Scriptures as a result of their work.
Out of the multitude of archaeological discoveries related to the Bible, consider a few examples to illustrate the remarkable external substantiation of biblical claims. Excavations at Nuzi (1925-41), Mari (discovered in 1933), and Alalakh (1937-39; 1946-49) provide helpful background information that fits well with the Genesis stories of the patriarchal period. The Nuzi tablets and Mari letters illustrate the patriarchal customs in great detail, and the Ras Shamra tablets discovered in ancient Ugarit in Syria shed much light on Hebrew prose and poetry and Canaanite culture. The Ebla tablets discovered recently in northern Syria also affirm the antiquity and accuracy of the Book of Genesis.
Some scholars once claimed that the Mosaic Law could not have been written by Moses, because writing was largely unknown at that time and because the law code of the Pentateuch was too sophisticated for that period. But the codified Laws of Hammurabi (ca. 1700 B.C.), the Lipit-Ishtar code (ca. 1860 B.C.), the Laws of Eshnunna (ca. 1950 B.C.), and the even earlier Ur-Nammu code have refuted these claims.
Quotes from Former Atheists:
Jim Wallace, former cold-case homicide detective, assistant professor of apologetics (Biola University), once vocal atheist:
“If skeptics were willing to give the Gospels the same ‘benefit of the doubt’ they are willing to give other ancient documents, the Gospels would easily pass the test of authorship”
Frank Tippler, mathematical physicist, cosmologist, joint appointment in the Departments of Mathematics and Physics at Tulane University:
“When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics”
Alister McGrath, theologian, scientist, Anglican priest:
“Atheism, I began to realize, rested on a less-than-satisfactory evidential basis. The arguments that had once seemed bold, decisive, and conclusive increasingly turned out to be circular, tentative, and uncertain.”
“Christianity offers a worldview that leads to the generation of moral values and ideals that are able to give moral meaning and dignity to our existence”
Rick Oliver, member of American Federation of Herpetoculturalists, California Science Teachers Association, and New York Academy of Science:
“I remember how frustrated I became when, as a young atheist, I examined specimens under the microscope. I would often walk away and try to convince myself that I was not seeing examples of extraordinary design, but merely the product of some random, unexplained mutations”
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (1918 – 2008), Russian writer, winner of 1970 Nobel Prize in literature. Reveals life under the the state atheism and communism of the Soviet Union:
“Over a half century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of old people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: “Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened.” Since then I have spent well-nigh 50 years working on the history of our revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: “Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened”
Antony Flew (1923-2010), once leading atheist philosopher, part of analytic and evidentialist schools of thought. Strong advocate of atheism, criticizer of the idea of life after death, free will defense to the problem of evil, and the concept of God. 2003 signer of the Humanist Manifesto. Converted to deism in 2004, held to an Aristotelian notion of God:
”It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.”
“I now believe there is a God…I now think it [the evidence] does point to a creative Intelligence almost entirely because of the DNA investigations. What I think the DNA material has done is that it has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which which are needed to produce life, that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements to work together.”
“…we have all the evidence we need in our immediate experience and that only a deliberate refusal to “look” is responsible for atheism of any variety.”
Francis Collins, geneticist respected for discoveries of disease genes and leadership of the Human Genome Project. Director of the National Institutes of Health. Author of numerous books on science, medicine, and spirituality:
“I believe God did intend, in giving us intelligence, to give us the opportunity to investigate and appreciate the wonders of His creation. He is not threatened by our scientific adventures.”
“The God of the Bible is also the God of the genome. He can be worshipped in the cathedral or in the laboratory. His creation is majestic, awesome, intricate and beautiful – and it cannot be at war with itself. Only we imperfect humans can start such battles. And only we can end them.”
Peter Hitchens, well-known English journalist, author, and brother of anti-theist Christopher Hitchens:
“I thought this gesture [burning his Bible] was a way of showing that I had finally rejected all the things that I had been brought up to believe, and I went on to behave for the next 20 years of my life exactly as if I didn’t believe in him [God], and that’s how I discovered in the end that what I had rejected was right.”
“The current intellectual assault on God in Europe and North America is in fact a specific attack on Christianity – the faith that stubbornly persists in the morality, laws, and government of the major Western countries. . . .The God they fight is the Christian God, because he is their own God. . . .God is the leftists’ chief rival. Christian belief, by subjecting all men to divine authority and by asserting in the words ‘My kingdom is not of this world’ that the ideal society does not exist in this life, is the most coherent and potent obstacle to secular utopianism. . . . the Bible angers and frustrates those who believe that the pursuit of a perfect society justifies the quest for absolute power.”
“…when it comes to the millions of small and tedious good deeds that are needed for a society to function with charity, honesty, and kindness, a shortage of believing Christians will lead to that society’s decay.”
Philip Vander Elst, freelance writer and lecturer of over 30 years in politics and journalism. Works for Areopagus Ministries:
“So, confronted by all these facts and arguments – philosophical, scientific, and historical – I surrendered my sword of unbelief to God, and asked Jesus to forgive my sins and come into my life during the hot, dry summer of 1976. In the years that have followed, I have never regretted that decision, despite many ups and downs and trials of my faith.”
Craig Keener, leading scholar, professor of New Testament at Asbury Theological Seminary, expert in Christian Origins:
“I thought that atheism was “smart.” When my grandmother argued for a first cause, I replied by postulating an infinite regression of causes (my arrogance left me unaware that my response violated modern physics!) Yet unknown to me, my father’s mother, sister, and the sister’s family were praying for our family. When I was 13, reading Plato raised for me the question of life after death, but Plato’s answers did not seem adequate. I began to realize that only an infinite Being could guarantee the hope of eternal life. Yet if such a Being existed, there seemed no reason why that Being would care about me, even if that Being were perfectly loving enough to give life to some. I was incurably selfish and undeserving of a loving Being’s attention; it seemed to me that if I pretended to love, it was only for the self-serving purpose of getting that Being’s attention. Yet shortly before I turned 15, I began to secretly cry out, “God, if You are there—please show me.”


What do so, so many testimonies have in common?
Reaching a place of humility and calling out to God to reveal himself. Now if you do this with a hardened heart, for example praying for God to reveal himself to you with the expectation that nothing will happen, then you can go prove Christians wrong, you won’t be met with God’s love likely. You must come from a place of humility. As if to say “god I don’t know if you’re real or not. I don’t know what to think about all of the conflicting things I’m feeling but I’m going to just throw myself upon you and put my trust in you, pleas reveal yourself to me” or a variation thereof, but ultimately keeping Jesus in the equation, since biblically Jesus is God.
A refusal to open your heart will result in you being atheist your whole life. You may open your heart to humans, to plants, to their animals, to spirits and principalities, but you will harden your heart when it comes to God.
Pray for Jesus to reveal himself to you with all your heart. Put your trust in him and you WILL be saved.
Stop equating all religions, and wrapping them up in a blanket of generalized conspiracy statements that are also true about many other things.
Stop acting like Christianity is similar to other religions, it’s really not. In all other major religions the focus is on man and his works, what he does with his life and how he is, “the way”, etc etc. Christianity stands out in that it is not about woman reaching up to Gods standard, it is recognizing that that is impossible, (place of humility in comparison to God) and that he is the only way for you to be saved, Jesus.
The minute you put your faith in him you are SEALED with the Holy Spirit, one of the persons of the triune Godhead. The Holy Spirit then begins to work in you to try and conform you to the image of Christ. This is sanctification, and never ends as long as we are alive. When we die, that is glorification, when we are finally departed from our flesh nature part of our being, and receive glorified bodies, the same as what Jesus appeared to his disciples in after he rose from the dead. We could probably fly, walk through walls, and more.
The Holy Spirit will never leave you, you cannot be separated from Gods love. Becoming a Christian means you put your faith in him and align your will with his. You choose to be part of Gods family, then he adopts you into it, and will never leave you. You may leave him, but God is always right there for when you come back to him.
God will not “straighten out” those who are not his children. Atheists, you choose not to be in Gods family so God will not spiritually guide you and conform you to be better. Part of a Christian “walk” is that you encounter things that purposely are meant to strengthen you in your relationship with God. That could include many hardships. God doesn’t promise us the world, because we are in this world but not of it. Our minds are set on the things above, not on the treasures of the earth, which are transient, and will ultimately be destroyed or corrupted. Build up your treasures in heaven, where thieves do not come to steal, where the air doesn’t corrupt it, where only peace and love in Jesus exists. Pure joy in Christ. God gives us small glimpses of that joy on earth if you’re a Christian. I’ve felt them. But it’s nothing compared to what is next.
Take the leap of faith, or don’t, it’s up to you. But don’t sit here slandering us for trying to follow Christ, someone we should all be able to agree was a fantastic model of excellence in human life.
The “Gospel” is not to be a good person. That comes with love for Jesus and what he did for us. This is the gospel:
1 Corinthians 15 1 ¶ Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; 2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. 3 ¶ For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
submitted by abclucid to conspiracy [link] [comments]

2020.10.08 20:21 ThyTwank Latino Cultures

I just wanted to throw some ideas out for Latino cultures; I think the initial release would only have Mexico, Argentina and Brazil on it ; maybe Gran Colombia as a wildcard and for its popular demand on similar games; so I wanted to show some ideas for other Latino cultures that could be added. (I still made my predictions of how Mexico, Argentina and Brasil would work)
Industrial Era:
Culture: Gran Colombia
E.U: Llanero: Coming from the Llanos region of the Orinoco; Llaneros were outlaws that roam the moorlands of what its today Colombia and Venezuela
E.Q: Hacienda: Inland estates build by the Spanish that worked as self-sufficient farms and factories, Haciendas were built on most Latino American countries and after independence of many countries, hacienda were still used.
Type: Expansionist
Culture: Rio De la Plata: I add them for two reasons; 1) they are what Gran Colombia is for Colombia, Venezuela, and the other Countries that were part of gran Colombia, but to the Southern Cone countries, making them relevant for the Patria Grande ideology. 2) as a Latino who lives in South America, Argentina is usually look as one of the most advances countries of South America both in education and culture, so I think they fit better as Contemporary culture.
E.U: Gaucho: A term to refer people living on the moorlands of the southern cone, combining the horse riding brought by the Spanish with the boleadoras of the indigenous people of the Patagonia region; Gauchos were skilled skill as rangers.
Note: Gauchos cannot be the Argentinian E.U if they are cotemporary.
E.Q: Estancia: On the Southern Cone, Estancias were rural states used for animal husbandry, specially cattle and sheep; but it was also use as stable for horses
Type: Militaristic
Culture: Paraguay
E.U: Aca Caraya: Calvary used on the Triple Alliance war, used as escort for Francisco Solano, they prove to be loyal and effective while fighting alongside their president; the Aca Carava is guarani for “Shinning Helmet”
E.Q: Guarani Jesuit Reduction (Misiones Jesuitas Guarani): Build by the Spanish for conversion of Guarani people to Christianism, this massive mision also was used as a small settlement where labor was used for food surplus; around 7 of this type of misiones were constructed on Paraguay; After the expulsion of the Spanish, this site became towns for the mestizo population.
Type: Aesthete
Culture: Bolivia
E.U: Colorado: A military corps used during the Independence of Upper Peru, later still used by Bolivia on multiple wars against neighboring countries, resisting against their expansion; starting as guerrilla and ending up as personal guards for the Bolivian president.
E.Q: El Tío: During colonial times, the mines of Potosi were one of the biggest sources of silver for the Spanish, exploiting the indigenous people to work on this dangerous mines, the Spanish implanted multiple statues of demon-like figures to scare the recently converted indigenous people into working hard in the mines; after the independence of Bolivia, Potosi remain an important mine for the country, and the demon statues of the mine had been adopted by the population and the miners as a deity of mines that had to be respected, the now named El Tío (the uncle) became an deity born from the syncretism of indigenous and catholic beliefs; for miners, El Tío statues are a sacred place, where they usually leave booze and cocas leaves to appease the god ; during catholic festivities, a llama is sacrifices at the entrance of the mines to appease El Tío, this practices still hold up to this day.
Type: Agrarian
Culture: Chile
E.U: Primera Escuadra Nacional: The first Naval squadron used by the Chileans during their independence; this vessel dominated naval battles against the Spanish and were later used on other countries like Peru for their independences.
E.Q: Chilotan Architecture: An Architectural style and school that originated on the Chiloé Archipelago; characterized by the use of wood as their main material, born from the syncretism of Spanish and Native architecture, this style made a multiple Wooden Churches and stilted houses on the coast of the archipelago; protected by the UNESCO as a heritage site.
Type: Builder
Culture: Perú
E.U: Rabona: Woman who helped and accompanied the Peruvian and Bolivian infantry on campaigns, appearing since independence wars, this woman served as logistic unit during civil wars, attending the male infantry, but still Rabona were armed and fought themselves during battle.
Rabonas were usually of mestizo origins and fought alongside their husbands.
E.Q: Andean Baroque Church: An Mestizo Architectural style originated on the Andean regions of Peru and Bolivia, inspired by Baroque Churches; this churches were adapted to their highland Andean locations, still different from its European origin, indigenous motifs like images of the sun, the moon and native flora and fauna of the area decorated the church.
Type: Aesthete
Cotemporary Era
Culture: Argentina
E.U: Lipán M3: An unmanned aerial vehicle created by the Argentinian military since the 1996; these were the first of its kinds on South America after their implementation on 2008; been the first aerial combat intelligence aircraft produce by Argentina.
E.Q: Salón de Tango: Born at Rio De la Plata from the mix of African. Indigenous and European dances, Tango has become cultural phenomenon that has characterized Argentinian culture on modern and cotemporary times; becoming an UNESCO Cultural Heritage piece, making Tango and the place where its both learned and shown, a part of Argentinian identity.
Type: Scientific o Aesthete
Culture: México
E.U: Adelitas: During the Mexican revolution, Adelitas join the battlefield of the revolution, working as both nurses and infantry; notable Adelitas like Petra Herrera and Maria Quinteras de Mera fought for fiercely for their causes.
E.Q: Cantina: On the rural areas of Mexico, cantina became a usual place for the working class and campesino men to frequently eat and drink, during revolution times, these places became important for the revolutionary working class, where they talked about their disdain towards the government and the treatment they got from their hard work.
Type: Militaristic
Culture: Colombia
E.U: Fierros: A word used on the countryside to refer firearms; the Colombian guerrillas are among the longest lasting one of the Cotemporary world, starting from Campesino origins who fought against the latifundio system of ownership; forming armed groups to protect themselves for their ideology; after the historic day of El Bogotazo, the period known as La Violencia started on Colombia; where all of the armed campesino groups escaped to the mountains and formed guerrillas like the FARC; with the decades of guerrilla warfare and the introduction of narcotraffic, a lot of guerrillas forgot their initial causes, turning into corrupt groups.
The term Fierro was used by Colombian writer Alfredo Molano on his book “Aqui les dejo esos Fierros”a book that talks about the current problematic of social reintegration of ex-guerrilleros to society. (Note: as a Colombian, the term Guerrilla has a lot of weight to it, but it would be dishonest to give a blind eye to Guerrillas, as they had shaped current day Colombia.
E.Q: Eje Cafetero: Known by the UNESCO as the Colombian Coffee Growing Axis, is listed as a cultural and heritage site of agrarian landscape; coffee has become and emblematic product of Colombia and major part of its exportation, the Eje Cafetero shows the adaptation of coffee plantation of Andean terrain, beside show great value in quality of harvest and shorter harvesting periods.
Type: Agrarian
Culture: Venezuela
E.U: Tanques Tortuga: This “Tanks” were produced in 1934; this weren’t actually tanks, but an armored car with a bizarre and bulky design; presented with another group of antiair armored cars; this cars were paraded in 1934.
For its bizarre and non-ergonomic design, this car did not see much light on the battlefield, only in 1945 there are written accounts of their uses in military combat, but their true use was as fear tactics towards Colombian military forces, who treated after they victory against Peru.
E.Q: La Petrolia : Venezuela has the largest oil reserves in the world and the exportation of this product help the country economy; La Petrolia is an historic and recreational complex, recognized as the first oil well area of Venezuela, dating from 1882, La Petrolia shows a collection of old oil wells and industrial zone where the product was storage at; been an educational place to see where the industry started.
Type: Merchant
Culture: Panamá
E.U: NeoPanamax: Panamax is a term to describe cargo ships that follow the strict requirements of the Panama Canal Authority (ACP); this ships have special requirements on Tonnage, Lengths and many other aspects; a New Panamax or NeoPanamax is a new and more contemporary kind of ship installed by the ACP after the “Panama Canal Expasion Project” proposed on 2006; the new models of NeoPanamax were first used at 2016, been a far superior version of the Panamax.
E.Q: ACP Administration: After the new constitution of Panama and the Torrijos-Carter treaties signed at 1977, Panama was able to gain full control of the Panama Canal from the US, starting in 1999, with full control the canal, it became part of the patrimony of the country and the ACP (Autoridad del Canal de Panama) was installed, making the canal more sufficient, safe and finally controlled by Panamanians.
Type: Merchant
Culture: Nicaragua
E.U: Sandinista: The Sandinista Revolution took place from 1979 to 1990, in which Frente Sandinista de Liberacion Nacional put an end to the dictatorship of the Somoza family, acting as guerrilla and inspired by the Cuban revolution, this group took the name from Augusto Cesar Sandino, a revolutionary from 1933 who fought against the US occupation of Nicaragua.
E.Q: Colección Modernista: Modernismo became a literary movement of poetry from 1888 to 1917, consisting of mostly Latino writers from different countries; the most famous and consider father of movement was Ruben Dario, a poet of Nicaraguan origin; Modernism is identified for taking pride of national Latino identities as one of their main focus, ideas of rebellion and erotism.
Ruben Dario and Modernista Poetry became important part of Nicaragua cultural identity.
Type: Aesthete
Culture: Cuba
E.U: Rio Damuji-Class Frigate: Build up from old Spanish fish crawler, these vessels became the biggest of the Cuban Navy.
E.Q: Hospital Panamericano: Before the Revolution, Cuba did had some great hospital and health facility born from Pan-American Generation (1930 – 1945); a generation of architects and engineers whose maybe goals was to improve the infrastructure of their countries and keep a national identity while doing it; Cuba was part of this with the construction of hospital for tuberculosis; a stand out from these hospital is Hospital de la Maternidad Obrera, constructed by architect Emilio de Soto; a hospital that was made with the qualities need to attends the wives of the working class and had some inspiration in Art Deco.
After the revolution ended, the new Cuban government started to missions that would mark Cuba in contemporary, curing both the sick and ending illiteracy; which Cuban people were able to achieve with hard years of work; especially on the medicine advances, Cuba has become one of the top Latin-American country for the study of health sciences, been the ELAM their greatest achievement on medical study.
Type: Scientific
Culture: Brazil
E.U: Pracinha: A military group send by Brazil to assist the allies in battle during WWII; deployed in places like Italy, this unit helped on campaigns and in the taking of Axis prisoners.
E.Q: Sambadrome: The physically place where Brazilian Carnivals, like Rio’s Carnival take place, consisting of the view area for the main parade and a long pathway for the performers to walk through; Sambadrome also is term to identify Samba schools, which usually are the performing troops in carnivals.
Type: Aesthete
submitted by ThyTwank to HumankindTheGame [link] [comments]

2020.10.07 06:58 StevenStevens43 King Art Oenfer III & the barbarica conspiratio

King Art Oenfer III & the barbarica conspiratio
King Art Oenfer & Son:
In this article, i will be looking in to some more of Geoffrey of Monmouth's claims, and the criticisms against him.
However there is crucial information in a previous article i wrote, which should be read first, before coming back to read this one.
I shall leave the link below.
King Art Oenfer & Son <<<< Link for article
Link for photo
King Arthur
Art Oenfer III:
Now i will begin this article with Geoffrey's first claim.
He claims that the legendary Octavius is the same person as the legendary Eudaf Hen in Welsh tradition.
He also claims that Octavius was a direct answer of King Arthur.
But that is why you need to read the article i linked to, in order to understand how this may actually be Art Oenfer.
Eudaf Hen
Eudaf Hen (Eudaf "the Old") is a figure of Welsh tradition. He is remembered as a King of the Britons and the father of Elen Luyddog and Conan Meriadoc in sources such as the Welsh prose tale The Dream of Macsen Wledig and Geoffrey of Monmouth's Latin chronicle Historia Regum Britanniae. He also figures into Welsh genealogies. Geoffrey of Monmouth calls him Octavius, a corruption and faux-Latinization of Old Welsh/Breton Outham (later spelled Eudaf).[1] According to the medieval Welsh genealogy from Mostyn MS. 117, Eudaf was a direct ancestor of King Arthur.
Geoffrey also claims that Octavius is the half brother of Constantine I.
Geoffrey of Monmouth
Geoffrey of Monmouth, in his Historia Regum Britanniae, renders the name in pseudo-Latin form as Octavius and introduces him as a half-brother to Constantine I,
Link for photo
Constantine the Great
However, as Constantine I was already mentioned by Geoffrey of Monmouth as being the son of Constantinius and Helen, it is very doubtful that the exact same author is going to attribute the exact same story to Constantinius's son.
Geoffrey of Monmouth
[50] and Geoffrey of Monmouth repeated the claim in his 1136 History of the Kings of Britain. Geoffrey related that Constantius was sent to Britain by the Senate after Asclepiodotus (here a British king) was overthrown by Coel of Colchester. Coel submitted to Constantius and agreed to pay tribute to Rome, but died only eight days later. Constantius married his daughter Helena and became king of Britain.
Constans I:
Quite simply, i think historians and scholars have gotten mixed up with one of the sons of Constantine the Great, Constans I, who is of course, also a Constantine.
Constans I
Flavius Julius Constans (c. 320 – 350) was Roman emperor from 337 to 350. He defeated his brother Constantine II) in 340, but anger in the army over his personal life (homosexuality) and favouritism towards his barbarian bodyguards led the general Magnentius to rebel, resulting in the assassination of Constans in 350.
Link for photo
Constans I
Constans I is the son of Constantine the Great, to his second wife Fausta.
Constans was probably born in 320.[1] He was the third and youngest son of Constantine the Great and Fausta, his father's second wife.[3]
By (User:Mbzt), 2012, CC BY 3.0,
And he has a half Brother named Crispus, from Constantine the Great's first marraige, to Minervina.
Early life
Crispus's year and place of birth are uncertain. He is considered likely to have been born between 299 and 305, possibly as early as 295, somewhere in the eastern Roman Empire. The earliest date is most likely, since he was being tutored in 309–310 by Lactantius.[2] His mother Minervina was either a concubine or a first wife to Constantine.
Link for photo.png)
Coin of Crispus
However, both Fausta and Crispus were executed by Constantine the great.
The reason for this is thought to be because Crispus was having an affair with Fausta.
In 326, Fausta was put to death by Constantine, following the execution of Crispus, his eldest son by Minervina. The circumstances surrounding the two deaths were unclear. Various explanations have been suggested; in one, Fausta is set jealously against Crispus, as in the anonymous Epitome de Caesaribus,[2] or conversely her adultery, perhaps with the stepson who was close to her in age, is suggested.
Damnatio memoriae:
Therefore, the reason historians and scholars have no records of a line-age descended from this half brother relationship between Constans I & Crispus, is because Constantine the Great took out a Damnatio memoriae, which wiped Crispus and Fausta from the history records.
However he also took the Damnatio memoriae out on Crispus's wife Helena and their Son, who's name we do not even know, because they were deleted from official documents.
There is however nothing to suggest that Helena and her son, were also executed.
Crispus, his wife Helena and their son also suffered damnatio memoriae, meaning their names were never mentioned again and deleted from all official documents and monuments. The eventual fate of Helena and her son is a mystery.
So, just like Caesarion, son of Julius Caesar, and the last Egyptian pharoah and the rightful heir to the Roman throne, was murdered by Octavian to prevent him becoming Roman emperor, the son of Helena, whos memory and existence is written out of records, is actually the rightful heir to the Roman throne, being the only son of Constantine the Great's first son.
Ptolemy XV Philopator Philometor Caesar (Koinē Greek: Πτολεμαῖος, Ptolemaĩos; 23 June 47 BC – 23 August 30 BC),[1] better known by the nickname Caesarion (Καισαρίων Caesariō), was the last pharaoh of ancient Egypt, reigning with his mother Cleopatra from 2 September 44 BC until her death by 12 August 30 BC, and as sole ruler until his death was ordered by Octavian, the later Roman emperor Augustus.
Link for photo
So what about this claim from Geoffrey, that Constantine was made Roman emperor requiring him to leave Britain in the hands of a proconsul?
Geoffrey of Monmouth
Eventually Constantine is made Roman Emperor, requiring him to leave Britain in the hands of a proconsul. Octavius (Eudaf Hen), rebels against Roman rule, killing the proconsul and proclaiming himself king.
Constantinian dynasty:
Well quite simply, from the 290's AD, right up until the date of June 363 AD, the British high kingship has been held by the Constantines in one form or other.
Whether it be Constantine. Constans. Constantinius.
Until the death of Julian Constantius, Britain had been in the hands of the Constantinian dynasty.
Julian[i]#citenote-3) (Latin: Flavius Claudius Julianus; Greek: Ἰουλιανὸς, Ioulianòs; 331 – 26 June 363) was Roman emperor from 361 to 363, as well as a notable philosopher and author in Greek.[[3]]( His rejection of Christianity, and his promotion of Neoplatonic Hellenism in its place, caused him to be remembered as Julian the Apostate by the Christian Church.[[4]]([[5]](
A member of the Constantinian dynasty,
Link for photo#/media/File:Iulianus_Flavius_Claudius._Giuliano_l'Apostata.jpg)
Julian Constantius
Saxonici Nectaridus & Fullofaudes:
So this consul can only be one of two people.
Emperor Valentinian I's senior military officer's. Saxonici Nectaridus, and Fullofaudes.
The great conspiracy
In 367, Valentinian received reports from Britain that a combined force of Picts, Attacotti and Scots had killed the Comes litoris Saxonici Nectaridus and Dux Britanniarum Fullofaudes.
Link for photo
Valentinian I
Now, according to words attributed to Geoffrey, Constantine (who must be valentinius) responds by sending by sending troops under the command of his great uncle Trehern.
Geoffrey of Monmouth
Constantine responds by sending three legions to Britain under the command of his great-uncle Trahern, the brother of the late King Coel.
Count Theodosius the Elder:
This can only be the person that has replaced the assassinated British military governors, Count Theodosius the Elder.
Count Theodosius
Flavius Theodosius (died 376), known as Count Theodosius (Latin: Comes) or Theodosius the Elder, was a senior military officer serving Emperor Valentinian I and the Western Roman Empire. His son was the Emperor Theodosius I. He was granted the title of Comes Rei Militaris per Britanniarum (Commander of the Troops of the Diocese of the Britains)
Flavius Octavius:
Now, rather surprisingly, and very interestingly, Theodosius's ancestry does actually appear to recognise Octavius as his nephew, and Flavius Constantinus as Octavius's cousin.
Theodosiuses relatives and near relatives
Nephews: Flavius Magnus Maximus Augustus / Flavius Octavius / Flavius Constantinus
Empress Justina:
And if you are wondering why this is, it is because they are all closely related, through Roman empress, and wife of Valentinian I, Justina.
In fact, Timothy Barnes claims that Justina could be Octavius's daughter.
If that were true, then Flavias Octavius Constantine would be Valentinian I's father in law.
Justina (c. 340 – c. 388) was the second wife of the Roman Emperor Valentinian I (reigned 364–375) and the mother of Valentinian II (reigned 375–392), Galla), Grata and Justa.
An unnamed sister was mentioned by Ammianus Marcellinus as mother of Maximus), praefectus urbi of Rome under Julian the Apostate.[4]#cite_note-PLRE1-4)
Although Timothy Barnes has theorised that Justina was a granddaughter or great-granddaughter of Crispus through her unnamed mother[3]#citenote-Noel_Emmanuel_Lenski_2002_page_103-3)[[5]]( (Crispus was the only son of Constantine I and Minervina),[[6]]( it seems more probable that she was in fact the granddaughter of Julius Constantius, son of Constantius Chlorus and half-brother of Constantine the Great. Justina's mother was probably a daughter of Julius Constantius and his first wife, the aforementioned Galla). Hence, this makes Justina at the heart of the family connexions between the dynasties of the Constantines, the Valentinians and the Theodosians.[[7]](
So what evidence is there to support the claim that Octavius has gotten in to a war with his uncle Theodosius, and alleged Son in law?
As alleged by Geoffrey, below.
Geoffrey of Monmouth
Trahern lands at "Kaerperis" and captures it, forcing Octavius to conscript all the island into the army to combat the Roman legions. Octavius engages Trahern in a field outside Winchester and is victorious.
Well, to begin with, there is the son of Justina's sister, Maximus, as i copied and pasted two quotes above.
Maximus has a brother in law named Valentinus who has committed a horrendous crime and was sent in to exile in Britain were he appears to have gotten himself engaged in Octavius's revolt and Count Theodosius the Elder is attempting to put it down.
In 369 AD, Maximinus' brother in law, Valentinus) committed an unrecorded but very serious crime. Maximinus was able to have Valentinus' sentence commuted from execution to exile and he was sent to Britain where he began planning a revolt that had to be put down by Count Theodosius.
King Gunbert:
The next part of Geoffrey's history has Trahern/Theodosius defeat Ovtavius in Alba, and Octavius flees to an ally in Norway.
Geoffrey of Monmouth
Trahern flees to Alba (Scotland) and pillages the land, and Octavius comes after him. They meet at Westmorland, and Octavius was defeated and forced out of Britain. Trahern takes the crown himself, while Octavius seeks aid from King Gunbert of Norway.
Ermanaric empire:
Well, a likely Scandinavian king for Octavius to run to would be Ermanaric.
The Gothic Alexander with an empire that is crushing the Romans already.
Not to mention the likely coincidental 100% anagram of the word American.
Historical Ermanaric
According to Jordanes' Getica, Ermanaric ruled the realm of Oium. He describes him as a "Gothic Alexander" who "ruled all the nations of Scythia and Germania as they were his own".
House of Amal:
And Ermanaric is leader of the house of Amal, which was set up to oppose the Roman empire.
And from Theodemir, to Theodahad, the name "Theo" has been the most prominant name throughout the quite long history of the Ermanaric empire.
The Amali – also called Amals, Amalings or Amalungs – were a leading dynasty of the Goths, a Germanic people who confronted the Roman Empire during the decline of the Western Roman Empire.[1] They eventually became the royal house of the Ostrogoths and founded the Ostrogothic Kingdom of Italy.[2]
The Amali remained a prominent family as the Greuthungi evolved into the Ostrogoths, became vassals of the Huns and moved west. In 453, the Ostrogoths regained their independence under the Amali, Theodemir). According to Jordanes,
Barbarica conspirato:
Now this brings me to the Great conspiracy.
The great conspiracy
The Great Conspiracy was a year-long state of war and disorder that occurred in Roman Britain near the end of the Roman rule of the island. The historian Ammianus Marcellinus described it as a barbarica conspiratio
Link for photo
Raids in to Northern Gaul
The great conspiracy:
In the year 367 AD Picts from Caledonia, invaded Northern Gaul from the North of Hadrians wall.
Joined by Attacotti, and Hibernians from Wales, Cornwall and Ireland respectively, and Saxons and Franks landing in Northern Gaul from Southern Gaul, in what appears to have been a highly co-ordinated military campaign.
The conspiracy
In the winter of 367, the Roman garrison on Hadrian's Wall rebelled, and allowed Picts from Caledonia to enter Britannia. Simultaneously, Attacotti, the Scotti from Hibernia, and Saxons from Germania landed in what might have been coordinated and pre-arranged[citation needed] waves on the island's mid-western and southeastern borders, respectively. Franks and Saxons also landed in northern Gaul.
Northern Gaul:
Valentinian I, fearing losing Northern Gaul altogether, made his way to the island of Britain.
The great conspiracy
At the same time, Frankish and Saxon forces were raiding the coastal areas of northern Gaul. The empire was in the midst of the Great Conspiracy – and was in danger of losing control of Britain altogether. Valentinian set out for Britain, sending Comes domesticorum Severus ahead of him to investigate. Severus was not able to correct the situation and returned to Gaul,
Niall Noígíallach:
The Hibernian raids were probably led by Niall of the nine hostages Noigiallach, who is said to have taken Saint Patrick hostage during one of his raids on Romano-Britain.
Keating, quoting a Latin Life of Saint Patrick, says that Niall led Irish raids on Roman Britain, and in one of those raids Patrick and his sisters were abducted.
Link for photo-_stained_glass,_Saint_Patrick-_detail.jpg)
Saint Patrick
Patrick's confessions:
And this is written in Patrick's confessions.
According to the Confession of Saint Patrick, at the age of sixteen he was captured by a group of Irish pirates.[35] They took him to Ireland where he was enslaved and held captive for six years. Patrick writes in the Confession[35]
Link for photo,_August_2009.JPG)
Saint Patrick's historic district
Crimthann Mor:
And the Caledonians likely by Crimthann Mor.
Crimthann mac Fidaig
Crimthann Mór, son of Fidach /ˈkriːvən ˈmɔːr mæk ˈfiːaɪ/, also written Crimthand Mór, was a semi-mythological king of Munster and High King of Ireland of the 4th century. He gained territory in Britain and Gaul, but died poisoned by his sister Mongfind. It is possible that he was also recognised as king of Scotland.
Dind tradui:
Crimthann Mor is credited with building a fortress in Cornwall, named Dind tradui.
Dind tradui
Crimthand Mór mac Fidaig built a great fortress in Cornwall known as Dind Traduí or Dinn Tradui (Dun Tredui/e, fortress of the three ramparts).[4] There appears to be little doubt that it existed,[5]
Link for photo
Cornish harbour thought to have been used as an Irish port
The Saxons are likely led by Sachell balb, Nialls Father in law.
Eochaid Mugmedon
According to the saga "The Adventures of the Sons of Eochaid Mugmedon",[3] he is said to have had two wives: Mongfind, daughter of Fidach, who bore him four sons, Brion), Ailill, Fiachrae and Fergus; and Cairenn Chasdub, daughter of Sachell Balb, king of the Saxons, who bore him his most famous son, Niall.
Wales & Cornwall:
The Hibernians likely used Wales and Cornwall to invade Northern Gaul.
Irish settlement
It was at this time[32] that Wales received an infusion of settlers from southern Ireland, the Uí Liatháin, Laigin, and possibly Déisi,[33][34][35] the last no longer seen as certain, with only the first two verified by reliable sources and place-name evidence. The Irish were concentrated along the southern and western coasts, in Anglesey and Gwynedd (excepting the cantrefi of Arfon and Arllechwedd), and in the territory of the Demetae.
The circumstances of their arrival are unknown, and theories include categorising them as "raiders", as "invaders"
Link for photo
Irish settlements
The initial end result was not good for the Brits.
The Romans actually managed to do something that no other emperor before Valentinius had been able to do, and that was conquer Caledonia.
In memory to Valentinus the defeated rebel, Caledonia was renamed Valentia.
The great conspiracy
In 369, Theodosius set about reconquering the areas north of London; putting down the revolt of Valentinus), the brother-in-law of a vicarius, Maximinus). Subsequently, Theodosius restored the rest of Britain to the empire and rebuilt many fortifications – renaming northern Britain 'Valentia)'.
With that resolved, Valentinian I turned his attentions to defeating the Alamanni (Amal dynasty).
The great conspiracy
Severus and Jovinus were to accompany the emperor on his campaign against the Alamanni.
Trahern death:
The only problem is, Geoffrey had said that Trahern gets killed by Octavius's allies, allowing Octavius to reassume the Alba throne.
So what happened?
Geoffrey of Monmouth
In Britain, supporters of Octavius ambush Trahern and kill him near London, allowing Octavius to return to Britain.
November 17, 375 ad:
Well the first to go would be Valentinian I, when during a heated argument with some Alamanni, he burst a blood vessel in his skull.
Valentinian I
The attitude of the envoys so enraged Valentinian that he suffered a burst blood vessel in the skull while angrily yelling at them, provoking his death[44] on November 17, 375.
Days later:
Next to go was Theodosius.
.[17] In 375, when Emperor Valentinian suddenly died, Theodosius was still in Africa. Orders arrived for Theodosius to be arrested; he was taken to Carthage, and put to death in early 376. The reasons for this are not clear, but it is thought to have resulted from a factional power struggle in Italy after the sudden death of Emperor Valentinian in November 375.
Now yet again we have a Helen.
This time it is Geoffrey of Monmouth stating that Octavius has agreed in 383 AD to allow his daughter Helen to marry Roman emperor Magnus Maximus.
Geoffrey of Monmouth
Eventually, Caradocus, Duke of Cornwall, suggests that Octavius marry his only daughter Helen to the new Roman Emperor, Maximianus (Magnus Maximus), thereby uniting the British and Roman crowns. Octavius agrees, and Caradocus' son Mauricius is sent to Rome with the proposal.
Magnus Maximus:
So what is the truth in this?
Well Maximus is credited with freeing Wales.
Role in Breton and British rule
Maximus's bid for imperial power in 383 coincides with the last date for any evidence of a Roman military presence in Wales,
Link for photo_A_king,_possibly_Magnus_Maximus,_holding_a_sceptre.jpg)
Magnus Maximus
Magnus's wife:
Unfortunately this is one claim that can neither easily be verified, nor contradicted, as quite simply, his family was massacred, and nothing is known regarding who his wife was.
Though, he did have a wife, apparently.
Fate of family
What exactly happened to Maximus's family after his downfall is not recorded. He is known to have had a wife, who is recorded as having sought spiritual counsel from St. Martin of Tours
Niall death:
In 395 ad it is thought that Niall lost his life during a raid on Romano Britain.
Byrne suggests that Niall's death took place during a raid on Roman Britain.
submitted by StevenStevens43 to AhrensburgCulture [link] [comments]

2020.10.05 05:07 StevenStevens43 Constantine the Arian

Constantine the Arian
In this article, i am going to investigate the claim made by Everett Ferguson, below.
According to Everett Ferguson, "The great majority of Christians had no clear views about the nature of the Trinity and they did not understand what was at stake in the issues that surrounded it."[9]
Link for photo
Adolf Hitler:
So where better to begin, than with possibly the worlds most famous self confessed positive Christian?
Religious views of Adolf Hitler
In his book Mein Kampf and in public speeches prior to and in the early years of his rule, Hitler expressed himself as a Christian.[8][9][10] Hitler and the Nazi party promoted "Positive Christianity",[11] a movement which rejected most traditional Christian doctrines such as the divinity of Jesus, as well as Jewish elements such as the Old Testament.[12][13] In one widely quoted remark, he described Jesus as an "Aryan fighter" who struggled against "the power and pretensions of the corrupt Pharisees"[14] and Jewish materialism.[15] In his private diaries, Goebbels wrote in April 1941 that though Hitler was "a fierce opponent" of the Vatican and Christianity, "he forbids me to leave the church. For tactical reasons."[16]
Link for photo
Adolf Hitler
Constantine the Great:
However, there may have been an equally famous Arian Christian.
Constantine the Great.
Ten years later, however, Constantine the Great, who was himself baptized by the Arian bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia,[10
Link for photo
Constantine the great
Pope Miltiades:
Constantine the Great issued the edict of Milan during the pontification of Pope Miltiades, which legalised Christianity.
Pope Miltiades
Pope Miltiades (Greek: Μιλτιάδης, Miltiádēs), also known as Melchiades the African (Μελχιάδης ὁ Ἀφρικανός Melkhiádēs ho Aphrikanós), was the bishop of Rome from 311 to his death on 10 or 11 January 314. It was during his pontificate that Emperor Constantine the Great issued the Edict of Milan (313), giving Christianity legal status within the Roman Empire.
Link for photo
The baptism of constantine
All religions:
However, Constantines edict did not just legalise Christianity.
It also legalised all religions and outlawed the persecution of any religious sect.
Religious policy
Constantine was the first emperor to stop the persecution of Christians and to legalize Christianity, along with all other religions/cults in the Roman Empire. In February 313, he met with Licinius in Milan and developed the Edict of Milan, which stated that Christians should be allowed to follow their faith without oppression.[220][page needed] This removed penalties for professing Christianity, under which many had been martyred previously, and it returned confiscated Church property. The edict protected all religions from persecution, not only Christianity, allowing anyone to worship any deity that they chose.
Link for photo
Pope Sylvester I and Constantine the Great
However Constantines new policy may have appeared to be a little anti-semitic, and he came in for a little criticism.
It became illegal for Jews to seek converts or attack other Jews that had converted to another religion, and also became illegal for Jews to own christian slaves or to enforce Jewish tradition on others.
Though, some may argue that these laws were for everyone, not only Jews.
Religious policy
Constantine made some new laws regarding the Jews; some of them were unfavorable towards Jews, although they were not harsher than those of his predecessors.[237] It was made illegal for Jews to seek converts or to attack other Jews who had converted to Christianity.[237] They were forbidden to own Christian slaves or to circumcise their slaves.[238]
Constantine the Great also had to get involved in a heated and ongoing confrontation between Christian traditionalists and non-theistic Arians such as himself, and he seeked to resolve this dimplomatically by setting up the First council of Nicaea.
Religious policy
The reign of Constantine established a precedent for the emperor to have great influence and authority in the early Christian councils, most notably the dispute over Arianism. Constantine disliked the risks to societal stability that religious disputes and controversies brought with them, preferring to establish an orthodoxy.[233] His influence over the Church councils was to enforce doctrine, root out heresy, and uphold ecclesiastical unity; the Church's role was to determine proper worship, doctrines, and dogma.[234]
North African bishops struggled with Christian bishops who had been ordained by Donatus in opposition to Caecilian from 313 to 316. The African bishops could not come to terms, and the Donatists asked Constantine to act as a judge in the dispute.
Three regional Church councils and another trial before Constantine all ruled against Donatus and the Donatism movement in North Africa. In 317, Constantine issued an edict to confiscate Donatist church property and to send Donatist clergy into exile.[235] More significantly, in 325 he summoned the First Council of Nicaea, most known for its dealing with Arianism and for instituting the Nicene Creed.
Link for photo
First Nicaea council
First council of Nicaea:
The first nicaean council was set up to resolve the disputes diplomatically and attempt to come to a universal understanding that would be observed by all parties throughout Christendom.
The First Council of Nicaea was the first ecumenical council of the church. Most significantly, it resulted in the first uniform Christian doctrine, called the Nicene Creed. With the creation of the creed, a precedent was established for subsequent local and regional councils of bishops (synods) to create statements of belief and canons of doctrinal orthodoxy—the intent being to define unity of beliefs for the whole of Christendom.[8]
Derived from Greek (Ancient Greek: οἰκουμένη, romanized: oikouménē, lit. 'the inhabited one'), "ecumenical" means "worldwide" but generally is assumed to be limited to the known inhabited Earth,[9]
Link for photo
Constantine the Great and the bishops of Arian and Rome
Persecution of Arians:
The end result was an overwhelming victory for the traditionalists, that concluded that the non-theist Arians should be banished.
One purpose of the Council was to resolve disagreements arising from within the Church of Alexandria over the nature of the Son in his relationship to the Father: in particular, whether the Son had been 'begotten' by the Father from his own being, and therefore having no beginning, or else created out of nothing, and therefore having a beginning.[13] St. Alexander of Alexandria and Athanasius took the first position; the popular presbyter Arius, from whom the term Arianism comes, took the second. The Council decided against the Arians overwhelmingly (of the estimated 250–318 attendees, all but two agreed to sign the creed and these two, along with Arius, were banished to Illyria).[8][
Link for photo
Disheartened constantine the Great
Even today, the decree that Arianism is heretical, still stands.
Arianism continued to be viewed as "the heresy or sect of Arius".[7] As such, all mainstream branches of Christianity now consider Arianism to be heterodox and heretical.[8]
Link for photo
Arius the Heretic
Jesus Christ:
So what is this Arian religion that is classed as Heretic?
Well, it is a large umbrella.
It denies Jesus christ as being anything more than a man.
Jesus could even be a euhemerical figure depicting the universe, with the father being an intelligent designer, rather than the universe coming about by chance, like Atheists may believe.
They may also believe in the existence of a man named Jesus that spoke a lot of truth.
Arianism is also used to refer to other nontrinitarian theological systems of the 4th century, which regarded Jesus Christ—the Son of God, the Logos)—as either a begotten creature of a similar or different substance to that of the Father, but not identical (as Homoiousian and Anomoeanism) or as neither uncreated nor created in the sense other beings are created (as in Semi-Arianism).
Link for photo.svg)
Arian expansion
Arius argument:
Arius is arguing about the beginning of the universe.
His argument would probably better have been discussed with Albert Einstein, a quantum mechanic professor, or some other physicist, rather than with Bishops of Rome.
Arius stated: "If the Father begat the Son, then he who was begotten had a beginning in existence, and from this it follows there was a time when the Son was not."[6]
Northern regions:
Now Arian was a religion that may have had roots in Egypt, but it became the Christian religion of the Northern regions.
The lombards
the Lombards were also Arians or Semi-Arians until the 7th century. Visigothic Spain was Arian until 589. Many Goths adopted Arian beliefs upon their conversion to Christianity. The Vandals actively spread Arianism in North Africa.
Northern groups such as the Lombards, from North Germany and Southern Scandinavia.
The medieval Lombard historian Paul the Deacon wrote in the History of the Lombards (written between 787 and 796) that the Lombards descended from a small tribe called the Winnili,[2] who dwelt in southern Scandinavia[3] (Scadanan) before migrating to seek new lands. Roman-era authors however reported them in the 1st century AD, as one of the Suebian peoples, in what is now northern Germany, near the Elbe river.
Link for photo.png)
Lombard expansion
Goths and visigoths:
And of course the Goths have their ancestral roots in Gothland, southern Sweden, though later expanded in to Germania and other regions.
The Goths (Gothic: 𐌲𐌿𐍄𐌸𐌹𐌿𐌳𐌰, romanized: Gutþiuda; Latin: Gothi) were a Germanic people
Link for photo
Goth expansion
The vandals:
And of course the Vandals.
A Germanic peoples.
The Vandals were a Germanic people who first inhabited what is now southern Poland.
Link for photo
Vandals territory
Constantine exonerated Arius:
Though, Constantine did respect the decision of the Roman bishops, and even carried out their decrees, he did however exile some of them regards to other matters.
Ten years later, he charged them with "murder, illegal taxation, sorcery, and treason", and exonerated Arius.
Ten years later, however, Constantine the Great, who was himself baptized by the Arian bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia,[10][11] convened another gathering of Church leaders at the regional First Synod of Tyre in 335 (attended by 310 bishops), to address various charges mounted against Athanasius by his detractors, such as "murder, illegal taxation, sorcery, and treason", following his refusal to readmit Arius into fellowship.[6] Athanasius was exiled to Trier (in modern Germany) following his conviction at Tyre of conspiracy, and Arius was, effectively, exonerated.[12]
Link for photo
Constantine burning Arian books
Persecution continued:
Unfortunately, this just made them all the more determined, and they upped the anti, and Arius was once again condemned as a Heretic.
Athanasius and other trinitarian Church leaders crusaded against Arian theology, and Arius was again anathemised and condemned as a heretic once more at the Ecumenical First Council of Constantinople of 381 (attended by 150 bishops).[13]
Gothic bible:
Though they failed to prevent the publication of the Gothic bible.
Link for photo
Gothic bible
Constantine & Paganism:
Constantine was also equally tolerant of the Roman pagan traditions.
Religious policy
Constantine might not have patronized Christianity alone. He built a triumphal arch in 315 to celebrate his victory in the Battle of the Milvian Bridge (312) which was decorated with images of the goddess Victoria), and sacrifices were made to pagan gods at its dedication, including Apollo, Diana), and Hercules.
Link for photo
Constantine crowning his successor
Constantine II:
Another committed supporter of Arianism, was Constantine the Greats son and successor, Constantine II.
He was soon involved in the struggle between factions rupturing the unity of the Christian Church.[5]#citenote-ReferenceA-5) The Western portion of the Empire, under the influence of the Popes in Rome, favoured Catholicism over Arianism, and through their intercession they convinced Constantine to free Athanasius, allowing him to return to Alexandria.[[9]]( This action aggravated Constantius II, who was a committed supporter of Arianism.
Link for photo#/media/File:Campidoglio,Roma-_Costantino_II_cesare_fronte.jpg)
Constantine II
The Constantines were actually supporters of the antipopes.
Constantius was sympathetic to the Arians, and when he could not persuade Liberius to his point of view sent the pope to a prison in Beroea.[2] At the end of an exile of more than two years in Thrace, after which it seems he may have temporarily relented, or been set up to appear to have relented – partially evidenced by three letters, quite possibly forgeries, ascribed to Liberius,[3] the emperor recalled him under extreme pressure from the Roman population who refused to recognize the puppet "pope" Felix. As the Roman See was "officially" occupied by Antipope Felix II,
Link for photo#/media/File:Solidus_Constantine_II-heraclea_RIC_vII_101.jpg)
Constantin II's coin of Sol
Antipope Felix:
In fact, Constantine II actually attempted to have an Arian acting as Pope, and an Arian acting as antipope, with the intention of merging the two.
Antipope felix
Antipope Felix, an archdeacon of Rome, was installed as Pope in AD 355 after the Emperor Constantius II banished the reigning Pope, Liberius, for refusing to subscribe to a sentence of condemnation against Saint Athanasius.[1]
In May AD 357 the Roman laity, which had remained faithful to Liberius, demanded that Constantius, who was on a visit to Rome, should recall Liberius. The Emperor planned to have Felix and Liberius rule jointly, but when Liberius returned Felix was forced to retire to Porto, near Rome, where, after making an unsuccessful attempt to establish himself again in Rome, he died on 22 November AD 365.[2][3]
Pope Julius I:
Under Pope Julius I, the persecution of Arians continued, and the setting of 25th December was made Jesus Christ's official birthdate.
Pope Julius I
Pope Julius I was the bishop of Rome from 6 February 337 to his death on 12 April 352. He is notable for asserting the authority of the pope over the Arian Eastern bishops, as well as setting 25 December as the official birthdate of Jesus.
Link for photo_-_James_Tissot.jpg)
Jesus and the pharisees
Sol invictus:
And it is suspected that the reason for this, was because Sol invictus of Saturnalia was also said to be born and celebrated on December 25th.
Some have speculated that part of the reason why he chose this date may have been because he was trying to create a Christian alternative to Saturnalia.[6] Another reason for the decision may have been because, in 274 AD, the Roman emperor Aurelian had declared 25 December the birthdate of Sol Invictus[8]
Link for photo
Sol invictus
submitted by StevenStevens43 to AhrensburgCulture [link] [comments]

2020.10.04 05:08 StevenStevens43 The first British martyr

The first British martyr
The Gens Constantinius theory:
In this article i am going to be investigating more contemporary criticisms of Geoffrey of Monmouth's history, who up until now, i have actually found to be amazingly accurate, when compaired to actual contemporary accounts.
However the first part of the claims made in quote below, i already covered in the previous article.
So rather than me go over them again, please simply click on the link below this message, and read that article first, then come back and read this one, as i will be continuing where i left off.
The Gens Constantinius theory <<<< Link for article
Asclepiodotus appears in medieval British legend as a native king of Britain. Geoffrey of Monmouth's History of the Kings of Britain (1136) portrays him as a duke of Cornwall who is raised to the kingship in opposition to Allectus, a Roman who oppressed the people of Britain.[4] He defeats and kills Allectus near London, and besieges the rest of his forces in the city. The Romans eventually surrender on condition of safe conduct out of Britain, which Asclepiodotus is willing to grant, but his allies the Venedoti attack them and cut off their heads, which are thrown into the river Gallobroc.[5]
Julius Asclepiodotus:
So i will begin with introducing Julius Asclepiodotus.
Julius Asclepiodotus
Julius Asclepiodotus was a Roman praetorian prefect who, according to the Historia Augusta,[1] served under the emperors Aurelian, Probus and Diocletian,[2] and was consul in 292. In 296 he assisted the western Caesar) Constantius Chlorus in re-establishing Roman rule in Britain, following the illegal rules of Carausius and Allectus.
Persecution of Christians:
Now the first critcism i come across, is that "however" his rule is contemporary with the persecution of Christians under Diocletian.
I actually do not really understand this criticism, but i will attempt to make sense of it by taking a look at Diocletian.
In legend
.[5] Asclepiodotus is then officially crowned king, and rules justly for ten years. However, his rule is contemporary with the persecutions of Christians under Diocletian,
Diocletian (/ˌdaɪ.əˈkliːʃən/; Latin: Gaius Aurelius Valerius Diocletianus; born Diocles; 22 December c. 244 – 3 December 311) was a Roman emperor from 284 to 305.
Link for photo_-_Foto_G._Dall'Orto_28-5-2006.jpg)
Rule of four:
So the first thing i note from above quote, is that Diocletian was a real emperor.
He also reigned from 284 to 305 AD, so if Asclepiodotus began a 10 year reign in 296 AD, then that would have been during the reign of Diocletian.
And i also not from quote below, that Diocletian was the first ever Roman emperor to split the Roman empire in to four quarters, by awarding four Nomarchs to each rule a quarter, under his imperical highship.
So if the scholars and historians are trying to suggest that Asclepiodotus ruling as a client king during the reign of Constantinius, contradicts him ruling contemporary to Diocletian, then it does not.
But i do not actually know what their issue is with Diocletian, as they do not say, and i do not even know, if they know themselves.
Diocletian delegated further on 1 March 293, appointing Galerius and Constantius as Caesars), junior co-emperors, under himself and Maximian respectively. Under this 'tetrarchy', or "rule of four", each emperor would rule over a quarter-division of the empire. Diocletian secured the empire's borders and purged it of all threats to his power.
Link for photo
The four quarters
Great persecution:
And again, in quote below, we see that the great persecution of Christians begins around 302 AD under Diocletian, and this is still during the reign of Asclepiodotus.
Great persecution
Diocletian returned to Antioch in the autumn of 302. He ordered that the deacon Romanus of Caesarea have his tongue removed for defying the order of the courts and interrupting official sacrifices. Romanus was then sent to prison, where he was executed on 17 November 303. Diocletian believed that Romanus of Caesarea was arrogant, and he left the city for Nicomedia in the winter, accompanied by Galerius.[167]
Link for photo
Martyrs of the Great persecution
Saint Alban:
And apparently, because Geoffrey places the martyrdom of Saint Alban during the same period as this, this just somehow puts the icing on the cake of how unbelievable and ill researched it is.
Though, they do not explain how or why.
In legend
and Geoffrey places the martyrdom of Saint Alban at this time.
Link for photo.jpg)
Saint Alban
Saint Alban:
So let us see if looking in to Saint Alban can shed some light.
But the first thing i notice from below, is that contemporary historians and scholars do not actually have a precise date for the martyrdom of St Alban, who is believed to be the first british christian martyr, though they estimate it sometime around 3rd or 4th Century, which does not contradict the period of Asclepiodotus's reign.
Saint Alban
Saint Alban (/ˈɔːlbən, ˈæl-/; Latin: Albanus) is venerated as the first-recorded British) Christian martyr,[1] for which reason he is considered to be the British protomartyr. Along with fellow Saints Julius and Aaron, Alban is one of three named martyrs recorded at an early date from Roman Britain ("Amphibalus" was the name given much later to the priest he was said to have been protecting). He is traditionally believed to have been beheaded in the Roman city of Verulamium (modern St Albans) sometime during the 3rd or 4th century, and his cult has been celebrated there since ancient times.
Link for photo
Martyrdom of Saint Alban
I think i know what their issue might be.
It is perhaps because Constantinius was himself rumoured to have been a Christian.
He was also married to Saint Helena for a period.
Therefore it is unlikely there would have been any martyrdoms committed in Britain whilst Constantinius was in charge.
Helena, Helena Augusta, or Saint Helena (/ˈhɛlənə/; Greek: Ἁγία Ἑλένη, Hagía Helénē; Latin: Flavia Iulia Helena Augusta; c. 246/248 AD – c. 330 AD), was an Empress) of the Roman Empire, and mother of Emperor Constantine the Great. Born outside of the noble classes,[1]#cite_note-Valesiani-2) a Greek, possibly in the Greek city of Drepana, Bithynia in Asia Minor, she became the consort of the future Roman Emperor Constantius Chlorus and the mother of the future Emperor Constantine the Great.
Link for photo#/media/File:Elena_Colosseo_Rome_Italy.jpg)
Saint Helena
Divorced Helena:
However, Constantinius did divorce Helena for "political" reasons.
In 289 political developments forced him to divorce Helena). He married Theodora, Maximian's daughter. They had six children:[13]
Link for photo
Constantinius and Helena
Constantine left most of the persecuting to Galerius.
Though Constantinius himself did destroy a few churches and carried out a few persecutions, however much unwillingly.
Elevation to Caesar
From 303 – the beginning of the Diocletianic Persecution – Constantius began to enforce the imperial edicts dealing with the persecution of Christians, which ordered the destruction of churches).[11] The campaign was avidly pursued by Galerius, who noticed that Constantius was well-disposed towards the Christians, and who saw it as a method of advancing his career prospects with the aging Diocletian.[37] Of the four Tetrarchs, Constantius made the least effort to implement the decrees in the western provinces that were under his direct authority,[38] limiting himself to knocking down a handful of churches.[39]
Link for photo
Perhaps the historians and scholars think it is unbelievable that Asclepiodotus would be successful in massacring Romans?
In legend
The Romans eventually surrender on condition of safe conduct out of Britain, which Asclepiodotus is willing to grant, but his allies the Venedoti attack them and cut off their heads, which are thrown into the river Gallobroc.[5]
Gallic Roman empire:
However the Romans being talked about here, are the remnants of the Gallic Roman empire which dissolved on European mainland in 274 AD, though continued a bit longer in Britain.
The Gallic empire
The Gallic Empire (Latin: Imperium Galliarum)[note 1] or the Gallic Roman Empire are names used in modern historiography for a breakaway part of the Roman Empire that functioned de facto as a separate state from 260 to 274.
Link for photo
Gallic empire
Perhaps the Venedoti being Allies of Asclepiodotus is unbelievable?
Though i do not see why not.
The region of Vendoti was known as Venedotia to the Latins.
Though it referred to specific area in anglesey which had an Irish colony.
Therefore this Irish tribe were the allies of Asclepiodotus.
Not unbelievable in the slightest.
The region became known as Venedotia in Latin. The name was initially attributed to a specific Irish colony on Anglesey, but broadened to refer to Irish settlers as a whole in North Wales by the 5th century.[13]
Link for photo
The little island next to Gwynedd
King Coel:
Perhaps King Coel taking his crown in 306 AD is unbelievable?
In legend
Coel, duke of Colchester, leads a revolt against him, kills him, and takes his crown.
Link for photo
Old king cole
Three Collas:
However, Coel, was likely one of the three Collas that were also high kings of Ireland, prior to their overthrow and exile to Alba.
and as High-King of Ireland for four years, until Fiacha's son Muiredach Tirech banished the Three Collas, exiling them and three hundred followers to Alba (Scotland).
The mother of Three Collas was said to be Ailech, the daughter of Udhaire, king of Alba. According to Keating's version Udhaire put them in command of three hundred warriors.[1]
The chronology of Keating's Foras Feasa ar Éirinn dates Colla Uais' High Kingship to 306–310.
DNA analysis:
DNA analysis has confirmed the Three Collas in fourth Century Ireland.
The three Collas
.[1] Recent DNA analysis confirms the history of the Three Collas in fourth-century Ireland, but questions their descent from Eochaid Doimlén and Cairbre Lifechair.
I think it would actually be dishonest to suggest that the most likely time for Saint Albans maryrdom would actually not have been during the reign of Asclepiodotus, whos reign was contemporary with the Great persecution.
It would also be dishonest to continue to claim that the three Collas are a figment of Irish peoples imaginations.
Particularly when we have DNA analysis, and also contemporary accounts that the Venedotia were Irish.
I also need to apologise, as i completely failed to work out exactly where contemporary historians and scholars are coming from.
submitted by StevenStevens43 to AhrensburgCulture [link] [comments]

2020.10.02 10:36 hearmeout25 I'm Tired of the Despair in America - there is a Solution to our Nation's Sickness! Listen Up Church!

It seems that everyone is more than a little disheartened that our country is currently in a position of having two men running for president that very few people feel like they can truly believe in. In all honesty, most of us are ashamed to be in this position as a nation.
After watching the first debate, most of us were convinced that both our President and his opponent acted like spoiled children as they interrupted each other, talking over the other, and calling each other names.
For me, personally, I am especially concerned that I don’t think I have heard anyone offer our nation or communities anything resembling a solution to our despair and disunity.
For the past few years, I have been developing a working theory of the underlying cause that is causing the moral rot and incessant bickering and folly that our country has seemingly embraced.
Folks, the problem we are seeing here is a lack of respect for authority. Now, by itself, that is no earth-shattering revelation, and if I had a nickel for every time I have heard someone say that exact thing…
The real difficulty with this situation is that the root cause of the problem is very identifiable and very actionable. But because some very long, deeply held traditions stand in the way of us having an answer for our problems, no one really wants to hear it. I have mentioned this solution to any number of people in religious circles and though my ideas make sense to some, the vast majority are afraid to give my solutions half a thought because it sounds so unorthodox to some long held sacred cows in the church (cows that have absolutely no business being there) that many are simply afraid to repeat them.
My friends, you have to start with the question – what breeds respect? People will usually respond with sentiments about patterns of behavior, what kids are taught or not taught in school, kids not having chores, fatherless homes and the good old days of children saying “Yes Sir” and “No Sir” to their elders. Some even think having more character education in schools is the solution. Oh, and let’s bring back prayer in the schools because that will change everything…
But sadly, none of those sentiments addresses the real problem. How do you grow / develop / breed respect? How do you make it happen when it has totally fallen by the wayside in a society?
As our political leaders are arguing and deadlocked about how much more money we can afford to print out of thin air in hopes of further stimulating our economy, this seems like an excellent opportunity to point out a foundational economic truth that is oddly spiritually relevant to our society:
“Money, in an of itself, has no true value. Value can be found in ownership (or at least access to) of land, resources, and the ability to offer valued labor which can then be exchanged for money which can then be used to purchase life’s necessities and distractions.”
In this sense, we use ‘incomes’ in this world as a way of trading our labor to buy things of value to us. The income itself actually has no value. If our government continues to print stimulus money like there is no tomorrow then there will literally be no tomorrow because our dollar will have completely lost all of its value and the only people who will have anything left will be those who actually own land and resources.
Have I made my point yet? Income is only a medium of exchange for things of value. By itself, it has little worth and can be made completely useless by a failing economy and/or a foolish government.
So can I ask you a painful question for those of you who have spent most of your lives in church? What has the church historically taught should be the basis for how much you give to the offering plate or box every month? You know the answer.
Please let everything I have just said sink in for a second. We have a country that has had very STRONG Christian roots for hundreds of years and now, our once great Christian nation, is staring into the abyss, wondering how we are going to make it another four years, much less another decade.
Houston, we have a problem. The very institution that was supposed to be the rock that our nation, its families, and communities could be built on has done nothing for nearly a century but tell its congregations that ‘it’s all about the money’. The belief that church goers should use their paychecks as a guide for how much to support the church has meant that the church’s ultimate value system has been absolutely no different than the value system of the world.
You must let what I have just said compute. You may not want to believe that things work that way in the practical and spiritual realms, but they do.
Now, what I am about to tell you may shock some of you who have been taught to income tithe your whole life. The Biblical justification for tithing being based off income is not just razor thin, it has gaping holes in it. Please note, I am not telling you not to tithe. I am telling you that besides some very bad translations in a small handful of modern Bibles of a couple of verses in the New Testament that are not found in most older Bible translations, there simply is no good argument to be made for tithing off income.
Sure, it can be argued, somewhat poorly, that income represents the fruit of our labor – but if you remember what I just said a few paragraphs ago – it's not about the income, the money, at all. It’s about the land and resources that you can buy with that money. Those are the things that have value.
So would you like to know how the most accurate translations of Luke 18:12 reads?
‘God, I thank You that I am not like other men—extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this tax collector.12 I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I possess.’
That’s the New King James, Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, Douay Rheims, Young’s Literal, Geneva, and all the Latin Vulgates ALL agreeing that it’s about possessions.
“Wycliffe Bible – 1382
I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all things that I have in possession.
Tyndale Bible – 1525
I fast twyse in ye weke. I geve tythe of all that I possesse.
Coverdale Bible – 1535
I fast twyse in the weke, I geue the tithes of all that I haue.
Douay Rheims Catholic Bible – 1582
I fast twice in a week: I give tithes of all that I possess.
Geneva Bible – 1560
12 I fast twice in the week: I give tithe of all that ever I possess.
King James Bible – 1611
I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.
Young’s Literal Translation – 1862
12 I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all things -- as many as I possess.
And honestly, no matter how much you try to work your way around it and deny it (with other scriptures that change nothing), a fundamental truth is at work. When the institution that we all need to be the foundation of American culture twists its scriptures and puts its trust in the almighty income dollar, don’t be a bit surprised by what you see in our nation today. Sadly, our worship of income has only accomplished, if anything, the widespread encouragement of mothers, sorely needed at home and in the community, entering the workforce to bolster the meager cash flow experienced by their struggling young family that has next to no discretionary income left after bringing their full income tithe to the storehouse…
So please, if you are willing to listen, can I tell you how we can restore our nation? Can I tell you how our nation’s churches can turn our country around and begin to teach people how to have respect for themselves, for their elders, for their property and the property of others? You have to have a church that concerns itself with the value of the possessions owned by its members more than it worries about the income they make. You simply cannot get around that fundamental reality.
Though many in the church will do everything in their power to oppose this solution and claim this proposal is legalistic and mind bogglingly complex, it is nothing of the sort. Tithes can be calculated from a tenth of the fair market value of all a person owns (I give tithes of all I possess), subtracting any principal owed to lenders, and then letting them pay it out monthly or weekly over the course of a year.
Not to be included in the tithe are cash, money in checking or savings, retirement, or other investments (they aren’t possessions if it can’t be used to serve some function in your practical day to day life (again, the money you have doesn’t accomplish a thing – it only allows you to buy functional things).
The first thing churches will realize (if they would ever embrace this) is that teaching Godly stewardship over time, family, and finances will become paramount). While many low cash flow people in church will get to actually breathe a sigh of relief as they build their wealth (for many – possession tithing will be 1/4 to 1/5 of their income tithe), the most important thing that will happen in their life is that their pastors will start embracing and teaching, with incredible zeal, the necessity of Godly authority over our families and respect for authority among God’s people.
You absolutely cannot allow financial imprudence to dominate a household if, as a pastor, you want to ever hope to see an increase in someone’s wealth. The bottom line is that productivity and stewardship will become golden and folly and all forms of rash, impulsive behavior will be completely unacceptable.
This is exactly how we restore our nation. We adjust our churches teachings to be more Scriptural and, at the same time, more merciful to the poor and again, at the same time, much more likely to result in a church emphasis on sober, responsible behavior, and less emphasis on out of control zeal and passion that rarely accomplishes anything but the lining of a certain someone’s pocketbook.
By the way, if the rich find that possession tithing is simply too hard for them to bear, we could dig out Malachi and let them get to see how the poor have been made to feel for generations or we could just be merciful and let them, once their possession wealth equals their yearly income we can tell them that, from here on out, they have the green light to income tithe.
After all, there is nothing wrong with encouraging (and enabling) God’s people to save up an inheritance for their children and their children’s children is there? (Proverbs 13:22). I didn’t think so.
Oh, by the way, need a name for this form of tithing. How about ‘hybrid tithing’ or ‘wealth tithing’ or even, ‘the mercy tithe’. Quite frankly, I don’t care what you call it. But if we don’t start to do it and teach it or country is going to soon be worth little more than a German mark after World War I and you know what they began to use those for…
Don’t like this idea? If you have a better one, please speak up. To date, I’ve heard absolutely nothing remotely resembling a solution. As a nation, we need to embrace respect, stewardship, prudence, and wisdom. This is how we do it.
submitted by hearmeout25 to Christian [link] [comments]