|
|
Post by ardri79 on Jul 3, 2006 4:32:00 GMT -5
OK just to start the mokingbird paper must have been written by a new student because its 90% personal opinion and contradicted by the facts in your other ref's.
No Holy Books...
This depends on how you define holy. To the Gael the legends were and still are sacred with that in mind we have the book of lecan, the yellow book of Lecan, the book of the Dun Cow... Im not going to go into the significance and importance of legend cos Im sure ye know well enough yerself.
Celtic Christianity preserved writing and Christianity through the dark ages. There are many versions of the Bible from that time. Celtic christianity was the major force in europe at one time and was eventually crushed by the Roman Pope Adrian giving King henry II of England the right to invade Ireland on the provision that he wipe celtic christianity out and here we are today.
Holy books abound man.
The Archaeological and biblical compliment...
In your post you said LGE quotes the celts arrival at 1472 BC
According to archaeology in the paper you quoted local copies of Celtic weapons didnt appear until 700 bc and the Belgian Celts only invaded england in 75 BC and Celtic weapons only appeared in ireland in the 3rd century bc.
realistically few of the ref's you quoted have anything to do with Celts unless you consider Irish people proto celts which would rule out invasion anyway.
The milesean invasion is part of the mythological cycle and has been studied for hundreds of years because it was used to give Ireland ties with Spain in times of war. its been proven as myth. an important part of Gaelic Culture but none the less not historically or archaeologically correct.
And IMO if you view the mythological cycle as history you're missing out on the majority of what our ancestors were trying to convey.
*edited because I accidently replied on your post*
|
|
|
|
Post by Senbecc on Jul 6, 2006 13:47:59 GMT -5
OK just to start the mokingbird paper must have been written by a new student because its 90% personal opinion and contradicted by the facts in your other ref's. No Holy Books... This depends on how you define holy. To the Gael the legends were and still are sacred with that in mind we have the book of lecan, the yellow book of Lecan, the book of the Dun Cow... Im not going to go into the significance and importance of legend cos Im sure ye know well enough yerself. Celtic Christianity preserved writing and Christianity through the dark ages. There are many versions of the Bible from that time. Celtic christianity was the major force in europe at one time and was eventually crushed by the Roman Pope Adrian giving King henry II of England the right to invade Ireland on the provision that he wipe celtic christianity out and here we are today. Holy books abound man. The Archaeological and biblical compliment... In your post you said LGE quotes the celts arrival at 1472 BC According to archaeology in the paper you quoted local copies of Celtic weapons didnt appear until 700 bc and the Belgian Celts only invaded england in 75 BC and Celtic weapons only appeared in ireland in the 3rd century bc. realistically few of the ref's you quoted have anything to do with Celts unless you consider Irish people proto celts which would rule out invasion anyway. The milesean invasion is part of the mythological cycle and has been studied for hundreds of years because it was used to give Ireland ties with Spain in times of war. its been proven as myth. an important part of Gaelic Culture but none the less not historically or archaeologically correct. *sigh* As I said...History, and Psuedo history... And IMO if you view the mythological cycle as history you're missing out on the majority of what our ancestors were trying to convey Sorry, I'm just not seeing the contridiction. All the dates for Halstatt cultures arival in Ireland are strikingly close to the date given in the texts. Given dates seem to range granted from around 2000 BC to 800 BC and 1472 seems to be right in the middle which is one of many reasons that the date is being given so much attention these days IMO. Who has proven it as myth? Where is the evidence? I personally see it as the Celts comming into contact with possible neolithic races, and the early texts are the shadowy, echos of these accounts. As I said before, there are 9 ways of looking at the texts, Symbolism and fact are just two. As was pointed out before, our ancesters saw the texts as historically accurate. It is important IMO, to take the ancesters views on the texts in order to more fully understand them. When you can tell me which Lebor actually runs paralell to the Vedas, Bible, Torah, Talmud, or any other recognized holy book, I'll admit I was wrong on the subject of Holy books. |
|
|
|
Post by ardri79 on Jul 7, 2006 7:05:02 GMT -5
If you're looking for a book of shadows you're out of luck. Look at the Auducht Morainn for our trad Brehon laws like the bible it tells you how to live.
Archaeologists like Laurence Flanagan have proven the celtic invasion myth, professor Robin Flower proved there was no invasion and the LGE timeline is the work of christian pseudo history and if you follow the ref material I gave in the post you'll find them quoted.
If you're still looking for the diff types of marriage allowed go to the fenechas group and search my login Im recently married and researched it there.
|
|
|
|
Post by Senbecc on Jul 9, 2006 0:10:56 GMT -5
If you're looking for a book of shadows you're out of luck. Look at the Auducht Morainn for our trad Brehon laws like the bible it tells you how to live. If you're still looking for the diff types of marriage allowed go to the fenechas group and search my login Im recently married and researched it there. You just got mad at the whole site didn't you...Poor thing. Brehon law is Brehon law...It isn't a Bible. Anyway, if your not coming back I see no reason to waste anymore time here. |
|
|
|
Post by wren on Jul 9, 2006 15:03:07 GMT -5
All right, gentlemen, now I've had it! Get back in here and keep these threads going or I'm going to pick up my foot and kick someone in their celtic @#$%! I like these discussions, even if I dont' always know the sources quoted, etc. You never know who is lurking here and what they are learning from you when you disagree so stop nursing your wounds and get back to educating us!
*Ahem* That said... I shall put my foot back down...
|
|
|
|
Post by Senbecc on Jul 11, 2006 14:13:09 GMT -5
All right, gentlemen, now I've had it! Get back in here and keep these threads going or I'm going to pick up my foot and kick someone in their celtic @#$%! I like these discussions, even if I dont' always know the sources quoted, etc. You never know who is lurking here and what they are learning from you when you disagree so stop nursing your wounds and get back to educating us! *Ahem* That said... I shall put my foot back down... LoL, I seriously don't know whats up with either of those two. One little debate and they delete their accounts........Anyway. I'm happy to keep the conversation going if you have any questions. |
|
|
|
Post by wren on Jul 11, 2006 14:55:03 GMT -5
Any questions? HA! Hundreds! Just have to pull out my notes and get back here shortly...
Very simply... Didn't the Irish Celts see their ancient ancestors as their gods and goddesses (I know I'm oversimplifying here) and therefore there would have to be some truth to the "myths' of the invasions?
|
|
|
|
Post by Senbecc on Jul 12, 2006 2:09:55 GMT -5
Any questions? HA! Hundreds! Just have to pull out my notes and get back here shortly... Very simply... Didn't the Irish Celts see their ancient ancestors as their gods and goddesses (I know I'm oversimplifying here) and therefore there would have to be some truth to the "myths' of the invasions? I have come to prefer the word legend over myth, as myth is something that someone imagined or made up, where as legend has both elements of symbolism and truths. It really depends of your definition of gods and goddesses. With all the gods and goddesses at their disposal, it was still told to the Greeks and Romans that it was the Druids who had created the world. |
|
|
|
Post by wren on Jul 12, 2006 10:07:44 GMT -5
I always see that as the fact that they saw world as still in the process of being created and we are a part of everything, even creation. The idea of shaping rather than bringing out of nothing...
|
|
|
|
Post by Senbecc on Jul 13, 2006 8:57:24 GMT -5
I always see that as the fact that they saw world as still in the process of being created and we are a part of everything, even creation. The idea of shaping rather than bringing out of nothing... Which is one reason I for one have never had a problem with the idea of evolution as a part of my personal beliefs structure. We are each in the process of creating and evolving our own three fold cosmos, just as creation creates it's own. I see evolution as the "universes" quest for knowledge and wisdom, just as we each quest for our own centers of being. We are the evolution of the universe, the beings of other worlds (whether symbolic or literal) are the evolution of the universe. We have each ties to the ancesters, and to creation and evolution in our blood. One of the best stories I've read I've posted somewhere in the native American boards. They spoke of how the white people, red people, black people, and yellow people each have associations to a different element and how each offer a nessisary part of the enlightenment of the human speicies. |
|
|
|
Post by wren on Jul 13, 2006 14:39:04 GMT -5
It really depends of your definition of gods and goddesses. With all the gods and goddesses at their disposal, it was still told to the Greeks and Romans that it was the Druids who had created the world. But it was the Greeks and Romans who wrote that about the druids, not the Druids writing that about themselves. It was also written that when told to make a day and night without sun and moon, the druids left the room scratching their heads in confusion. I think much as to be put into perspective, given the Roman and Greek slant on things. After all, Irish druids also used mistletoe in their ceremonies according to Pliny (the only one to ever say this), but mistletoe does not grew as a native plant in Ireland. The Romans were critical of the Druids for committing human sacrifice, though little documents the practice, even though they themselves sacrificed prisoners to Mars regularly. How do we KNOW the druids said they created the world, anymore than we KNOW the Milesean invasions are purely legend? Perhaps they spoke of this all-encompassing creation idea, only to be misquoted. Much of what was written by the Romans just feels so wrong to me. I have the same problem with the Christianization of the legends. They just feel wrong... |
|
|
|
Post by Marcus on Jul 17, 2006 17:07:50 GMT -5
It really depends of your definition of gods and goddesses. With all the gods and goddesses at their disposal, it was still told to the Greeks and Romans that it was the Druids who had created the world. After all, Irish druids also used mistletoe in their ceremonies according to Pliny (the only one to ever say this), but mistletoe does not grew as a native plant in Ireland. I have to do alittle reading before i have a go at answering some of your questions wren but i can tell you some things on what I quoted above. You where right in saying that Pliney wrote that the Druids cut mistletoe for their ceremonies. But it was never written that the Irish Druids did this. Pliny never set foot in Ireland. The ceremony he recorded was one he witnessed in Gaul which would have meant mainland Europe where misteltoe did grow. |
|
|
|
Post by Senbecc on Jul 18, 2006 0:42:50 GMT -5
After all, Irish druids also used mistletoe in their ceremonies according to Pliny (the only one to ever say this), but mistletoe does not grew as a native plant in Ireland. I have to do alittle reading before i have a go at answering some of your questions wren but i can tell you some things on what I quoted above. You where right in saying that Pliney wrote that the Druids cut mistletoe for their ceremonies. But it was never written that the Irish Druids did this. Pliny never set foot in Ireland. The ceremony he recorded was one he witnessed in Gaul which would have meant mainland Europe where misteltoe did grow. Yeah, I'm pretty sure Marcus has hit it on the head here. I believe Pliny the Elder was refering to the Druids of Gaul, and *maybe* Briton *if* the reference was even meant to go outside of Gaul. Though you are right, the references as given by Pliny and other clasical writers were usually second hand accounts at times meant to scare those at home into believing that Gaul needed to be tamed and modernized. |
|
|
|
Post by wren on Jul 18, 2006 13:20:17 GMT -5
Which is why I consider myself first and foremost a student!
Now, getting back to james' questions (his post..."According to archaeology in the paper you quoted local copies of Celtic weapons didnt appear until 700 bc and the Belgian Celts only invaded england in 75 BC and Celtic weapons only appeared in ireland in the 3rd century bc.
realistically few of the ref's you quoted have anything to do with Celts unless you consider Irish people proto celts which would rule out invasion anyway.
The milesean invasion is part of the mythological cycle and has been studied for hundreds of years because it was used to give Ireland ties with Spain in times of war. its been proven as myth. an important part of Gaelic Culture but none the less not historically or archaeologically correct.")...
Does he completely discount the idea of a celtic invasion because he also discounts the milesean invasions as myth? Is he then saying that the Irish developed as an insular people completely on their own until the Christian Church arrived?
|
|
|
|
Post by Senbecc on Jul 22, 2006 9:56:21 GMT -5
Which is why I consider myself first and foremost a student! Now, getting back to james' questions (his post..."According to archaeology in the paper you quoted local copies of Celtic weapons didnt appear until 700 bc and the Belgian Celts only invaded england in 75 BC and Celtic weapons only appeared in ireland in the 3rd century bc. realistically few of the ref's you quoted have anything to do with Celts unless you consider Irish people proto celts which would rule out invasion anyway. The milesean invasion is part of the mythological cycle and has been studied for hundreds of years because it was used to give Ireland ties with Spain in times of war. its been proven as myth. an important part of Gaelic Culture but none the less not historically or archaeologically correct.")... Does he completely discount the idea of a celtic invasion because he also discounts the milesean invasions as myth? Is he then saying that the Irish developed as an insular people completely on their own until the Christian Church arrived? While I won't go so far as to say that I agree with many of Ardri's views (at all), I will restate that the texts shouldn't be taken completely at face value. One thing he seemed to base many of his posts on it seemed, was hanged on an apparent belief that the Irish were the only people with a claim to the word "Celt" (if he knew what it meant he may not be so quick to claim it however). I previously stated that the texts say the Celts landed on the shores of Erenn in 1472 bc, and that the beginning of Halstat culture in Ireland has been proven to have been around from around the same time. This is an important point yes, and certainly isn't the only example of the texts being proven in some way or another. The texts are the traditional histories of Ireland, and as I said before the Celts of Ireland saw them as "gospel", and as the basis of law and order. I would wager, that if he isn't looking at the texts as the ancesters looked at them, then it isn't the rest of us "ignorant Americans" who's missing what they were trying to convey...But anyway enough about that... I know how I personally have come to interpret the texts, and that I have about 9 interpretations of them, each given by looking at the texts from a different angle with a different attitude. The most important words used in this thread so far however (imo) are "Histories and pseudo histories". |
|
