Starseed theory

That is the issue for me...from the onset I had no idea of the Druids/Celts...well perhaps a little...my fav book is Way of Wyrd by Brian Bates; when I read about the Celts 'writing in Greek for all other purposes' it really made me think. The Celts were very secretive and I would really like to have been a fly on the wall when Caesar met the Celts, Caesar's account provides a legitimate basis; And insight into the Celts sacred traditions?

The Indigenous Australians' are also an oral culture...it is only recently that the western culture is realising the wealth of knowledge they possess. Previously this knowledge was discarded because they didnt have written records.

Now Sacred Knowledge is just that..absolutely sacred with respect to Indigenous AU's...women in the tribe didnt even know about the men's sacred rituals and vice versa, other groups did not know of another groups sacred rituals. Ethnography provides some insight into the cultures BUT I wouldn't read anything pre 1970 on the account that the majority of ethno is written from a superior and racist viewpoint. The best insight I feel into the cultures can be found in archaeo-ethnographic accounts...it is very matter of fact without the euro/western ideology. Anyway, the point I am making is that even with the knowlegde we have about the Indigenous AU's there exist huge amounts of sacred knowledge that we will never be told. The Hindmarsh Island affair is testimony to this...in sum...Native Title heritage claim relied on sacred info..women's business...even under oath, the women would not disclose the details and so, tragically the claim was rejected.

I am more intrigued because there is no records of the real Druids...



thanks so much for the additional info and links..



lol I think your right...takes the edge of it very nicely! I would also agree with leaving the garlic out...the taste is really unique thats about how best I can describe it with the few tastebuds I had working!


[edit on 24-4-2006 by NJE777]

excellent point...it would have been prime material so why isnt it there? very strange...but stranger that Plato would make it up as a teaching story without stating it was fictional.

It is perhaps a big if, but the complete absence of this material in other cultures, could it be possible that the Celts knew about atlantis and were forbidden to disclose the info? Macalister suggested ogham was an early form of sign language; it isnt generally an accepted theory, but if the Celts were secretive, sign language would serve that purpose, almost like in the spy movies...getting the note and then eating it...lol there would be no proof of any communication.

I am also reluctant now to make reference to 'ancient Druids' because nothing exists to prove or give weight to their existence. I had the impression that Druids and Celts were the same? Different terminology for different epochs.

hmm and now I am not sure!

& how can we prove if Plato, the only? source of atlantis is fiction or non fiction?




[edit on 24-4-2006 by NJE777]

What is your website called?


thanks

This earlier usage of the word "Atlantis" was first brought to my attention here at ATs. Here is the thread:
www.abovetopsecret.com....
There is an actual passage from this text quoted in this thread. It comes from a post at a Google group by Doug Weller, whom I consider to be extremely credible. He operates Doug's Archaeology Site, where I would live if I could, but there's no place to sleep.
Here's the link to the aformentioned Google group post by the esteemed Mr. Weller:
groups.google.com...# f81f2fb016ff5c0a

In the above ATS thread, Atala is also mentioned. I've looked into Atala before, and again quite recently. I have found it wanting so far, at least as regards it's being part of some ancient Atlantis myth. Here's a recent post of mine where I give what I think are fairly good reasons for this:
www.abovetopsecret.com... .
Now, I realize that Atala is also mentioned in the Mahabarata, not just the Vishnu Purana. But I haven't found an indexed version of the Mahabarata. I don't intend to go through tens of thousands of pages (or however many) searching for Atala, just to find out that the Mahabarata agrees with the Vishnu Purana.

Atala, apparently, is one of the seven regions of the Hindu underworld, populated by demons, spirits, elementals, etc. At least in the Vishnu Purana, it is certainly not by any stretch of the imagination described as an island.

Pehaps the next time you cite the Vedas as source for some Atlantean myth, you can provide us with some link to the actual book, chapter and page, preferably. I realize the amount of work this requires, but as you can see, I've done some of this myself, can't you? Just saying "The Mahabarata" without backing it up is pretty much meaningless because of the huge size of that work. Find it and post it, please.

Harte

Wow! Great stuff! Thanks SO much for that recommendation! I can see I have some good reading ahead of me!

I found that post, actually, on Usenet and scanned it for more. I'm glad to hear that Castledan is a credible source!

But... what I wanted to find out is whether this piece actually refers to a place called "Atlantis." It could, of course refer to a person or a temple or a lot of other things. Any idea, or is that one sentence the only surviving bit of the play? If so, then that's truly not much evidence of anything.

It is simple Byrd.

All cultures reflect a similiar basis of a Main God, generally being good, and have him set upon some highpoint or mountian. There is similiar ceremonies in the very basic sense, and days that are marked days which again have commonality.

This is because, at some point in the ancient past, they all worshiped according to the Good God. Christians call him God, Muslims call him Allah, and despite who you look at, he is always there, buried under the changes that occured regionally and culturally to the peoples in later days.

Of course, you would first have to wash away what the petty "dieties" and lesser "gods" brought into the picture to confuse the matter, but even then, the foundation of what was carried out by all peoples on this earth, is still evident.

But, this has nothing to do with Christianity, and making some stretch to imply this. You will find this may get detailed more, in the Great Flood post. Infact I am certain it will.

Have a good day Byrd

Ciao

Shane

I'm so happy again...so happy la la

well to cut a long story short..emailed Dr Bradley and asked to have his research..got very excited when he sent me article..but crushed cos my OE wouldnt let me open the attachment..so email again and say..hi I am a moron and can u send it to me in any other format, please no PDF...he he he he he

and well the answer was No..but gave me a link where I could get it!!!!!

wooo hooo
this is so good... I believe, I believe (singing) this indicates the true age of the Celts...





isnt that the best? Still waiting on some other info/permission but this is FANTASTIC!!!

oh edit againx2 to say thankyou to Shane for posting the Scotsman article where Dr Bradley's etal work was.....

oh and now I have decided based on 'authority' to refer to the Celts as 'Ancient Celts!'


oh so excited, edit to correct so many spelling errors in the little of my writing there was

[edit on 25-4-2006 by NJE777]

[edit on 25-4-2006 by NJE777]

[edit on 25-4-2006 by NJE777]

[edit on 25-4-2006 by NJE777]

Actually, no. Many cultures (Aboriginies, many Native American cultures before the Europeans came, Eskimos, rainforest Indians, some Polynesian cultures (Hawai'ians come to mind), K!ung and other African tibes) have no "Main God." Some have no gods; only spirits that control certain places and are powerless elsewhere (this is called "animism."

Gods reflect the social organization of the believers. In tribal cultures where there is often no chief but many "chiefs" (who can be thought of as specialists -- a hunting chief, a boat building chief, a clan that specializes in locating game, a clan that specializes in finding water) there will not be a "main god" or even a chief of gods. For example, in the original Chumash mythology, Sky Coyote was a beneficent creator god but he was not the chief of the gods (their gods had no chief.)

Creators (Grandmother Spider) of humans did not necessarily make the earth and they may need help or heroes (The Twin Heroes) to conquer fairly ordinary threats like giants. They could also die (Coyote, in many myths) and be resurrected innumerable times.

A few of the AmerInd cultures did have a chief god, but not many of them.

Gods also follow the moral beliefs of their followers... so you don't have a Christian god with 500 wives, for example. And you don't have Zeus killing himself by throwing himself on a pyre to make sure that the sun rises the next day (Aztec).

??? I thought this was a given. The Celtic culture's demonstratably over 3,000 years old. www.joellessacredgrove.com...

Uhm... whoever told you it wasn't an ancient culture was wrong. HOWEVER... it's an ancient culture that was not literate and got overrun with other cultures (Roman and then the European traditions.) What we know of their practices in the 1200 BC to 400 AD era comes from writings of other people and from objects and villages and altars and temples.

Wikipedia gives a good overview:
ms.wikipedia.org...

The Boring Archaeological Stuff:
www.celticcorner.com...

Hey Byrd

I know you are noting what you have, as accurately as possible when delving into this subject, but I just posted a"Similiar" theme in another area, which would disagree with you in respects to Native Americans. Here's a link

www.sacred-texts.com...

Also, You are noting the result, and not delving into the Origin. I do care what some diety or lesser god have twisted things to become, and the eventual way their beliefs became. It was the Start of those beliefs, and this is what is common to quite a few distinct peoples.

Myself, I have nothing to offer on the Polynesians, and Africans are a bit different, to some extent, but that may deal with Their Origins, and from where they came from.

Not that these peoples surrounding the Med and "Cradle of Civilization" are anything special, but they all have the same basic story.

This is what is meant.

And try and remember Byrd. This has little to do with Christianity. Its solely observation. Christainity is about Christ.

Ciao

Shane

Nice to see you up and at it again Nat.

I trust the medicine worked.

Since you seem to one, who welcomes thoughts, and exhibits interest, without dismissing everything because thats the nature, I have been reviewing Ignatius Donnelly's work on Atlantis, and I will suggest, Byrd maybe incorrect in swaying you to presume, evidence beyond Plato is not to be found.

The Deluge Legends from around the Globe, suggest otherwise, but my dear, it will take one with the dedication and desire you have shown to decide this for yourself.

Review the Part II Chapter 1 thru 6
www.sacred-texts.com...


And I am pleased Dr. Bradley was helpful in some manner.

Ciao

Shane

Hello again Nat

I was reviewing some Sacred Texts at that site and seen a Celtic link.

www.sacred-texts.com...

The Religion of the Ancient Celts by J.A. MacCulloch 1911

I thought you may enjoy this.

Ciao

Shane

ty...I had called the ancient Celts -> Druids and that isn't correct, based on the fact that there exist no records to show that the Druids existed. All this time, I have been persistently trying to show that the Celts were in fact 'ancient', and finally I had some more info: Dr Bradley's etal research.

As I said before, I thought the ancient Celts were called Druids...now that is (I think) incorrect??? That's why I said I was hesitant in even making reference to the 'ancient' Druids within the timeline of 3000 BCE.

lol am I making sense? I hope that explains where I am at?!

edit: Now I am quite sure, that when I said the Celts were in the Hellenic period I was met with some opposition and that 3000BCE timeframe was rejected.
The error may have been with the terminology I used. As I said, I called the ancient Celts, Druids. Perhaps thats where the contention lies?
Ogham cannot, at this time be found anywhere in that timeframe.

Who came first, the Celts or the Druids? I, after reading info, had believed the ancient Celts to be the Druids and yet this is wrong?


[edit on 26-4-2006 by NJE777]

Ref directly above.

Wow! Atlantis ties in with Biblical story of Noah?



I am absolutely sure, The Dreaming incorporates the Great Deluge story…I will have to follow up with that.

I haven’t heard Noah & Atlantis connection before at all. This relies solely upon Biblical interpretation? I am not dissing the source, as I have previously said, scriptures run often more than not parallel with science...just absolutely gobsmacked as I havent ever considered the connection nor had I considered the Flood to wipe out a select group of people.

thanks for this info Shane! I cant imagine that this would be a popular/accepted line of thought, re Mediterranean races...very interesting though

I cant believe I missed this! Think I was head down bottom up with Gombach/Fell debate when you posted this?



Yes it is, perhaps the info from Vera Stanley Alder I posted explains it.



So how does this sit with the Rhine origins? Would they have escaped to the Rhine region?

And how can it be possible that if ogham was the language of the Druids, est (2400BC) and the language is at a later point? (700 BC).

So what, they just didnt have a language until 700 BC? What did they have pre 700BC?

Hi Nat there are a number of dreamtime stories that relate to floods, most of these are only localized events, though there are some that could be interpreted as having greater meaning.

From a book of dreamtime stories 'Tjarany-Roughtail' by Gracie greene, Joe Tramacchi and Lucille Gill,



Then theres this from Wikipedia



here

And lastly this tale,



I found it amusing that the aboriginal fella telling the story is called Moses!!

www.didgeridoos.net.au...

Hope there is something of interest there for you.

Cheers
M4S

Erm, did you check your Bible and doublecheck that source? Acts only has 28 chapters.
www.gnpcb.org...

I do find one modern Bible with an "Acts 29." In this site which offers verses in a large number of Bibles, the verse says nothing about druids:
www.biblegateway.com...

That particular chapter "Acts 29" comes from something called "The Sonnini Manuscript and was discovered in the archives in Constantinople in the 1780's. No one knows where it came from.

In the 1700's, they certainly knew about druids.



Did he? Based on a manuscript that "mysteriously" turns up in the 1780's at the time when there was a need to "justify" the English as the "lost tribe of Israel?" During the time of a rise of Irish nationalism and British imperialism -- a document that shows the English are "God's Chosen"?

There is no proof that "Acts 29" existed before that.


Ogham isn't a language. It's an alphabet.

They spoke various Celtic dialects (and various other dialects.)

[edit on 26-4-2006 by Byrd]

Hi Nat

Nice to see you are catching up on things.

I will say, I did give you a lot of things for consideration. You remarked, as follows:

"I haven’t heard Noah & Atlantis connection before at all. This relies solely upon Biblical interpretation? I am not dissing the source, as I have previously said, scriptures run often more than not parallel with science...just absolutely gobsmacked as I havent ever considered the connection nor had I considered the Flood to wipe out a select group of people."

We must believe, if the Biblical account of the Great Flood is an accurate account of the Deluge, then we must also believe in what the intent of the flood was.

Enoch tells us exactly what was occuring, and Genesis 6 gives a few remarks in passing.

From the Original Sin, in the Garden until the Great Flood, the Sons of God, namely Satan and the Fallen, according to the Bible, or detailed by name and speciality in Enoch, came to earth and did serveral things.

The took the Daughter of Man, and sired offspring.
They taught man the Mystries such as Astrology, according to the Fallen.
And Satan, and to a lesser extent, the Fallen, set themselves up as gods.

The Biblical Flood was intended to wipe the Spawn of the Fallen off the Earth. It was also to cleanse the polluted bloodlines off the earth as well. And in some readings we can find, it was also to bind the Fallen in the abyss, so their physical form could no longer interfere with man.

Where did all the Gods and Deities of Ancient history go Nat? What became of them?

Reviewing Donnelly's theory on the Deluge and the reports of the Deluge legends, we see the same story, but from another perspective.

I do not believe in coincidence, and there is far too many here, to simply dismiss it all away.

But keep an open mind Nat, and I am sure everything will fit inplace. One day you will find something that is not directly related to all of this, that will suddenly draw it all together.

Have a Good Evening

Ciao

Shane

Are you certain you are not from "The Show Me State" Byrd. No worries!

I am fully aware, my KJV does not include an Acts 29, and I can assure you, my KJV has no Amen at the end of Acts 28, as is customary with Pauls writings.

I am fully aware it was found in the 1700's and ponder, what does it gain a Frenchman to offer this up? Proving his Enemy is one of God's People.

Here's some reference material for review.

www.angelfire.com...
www.asis.com...
www.zazzle.com...

Seems I find Druid's mentioned in the Text, but was not surprised by the New Age Speak version you offered. Had a good laugh looking at that thing. And you call it a bible.

Ciao

Shane