It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Did James convert Ireland 300 years before "Patrick"

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 08:05 AM
link   
There is much evidence that Joseph the uncle of Christ and James the brother of Christ took the true gospel of Jesus to Ireland and Scotland 3 centuries before "St Patty" appeared.


Irish writer Liam de Paor wrote that "Ireland was not converted by one man [Patrick]… it may be that Christianity reached the west country [of Britain] and the southern Irish sea virtually independent of the Roman system, at a very early date… centuries before Patrick" (Paor, pp. 21, 23). There are traditions that the Apostle James preached the gospel in Ireland before returning to Jerusalem, where he was martyred (see MacManus, The Story of the Irish Race, p. 103). Indeed, many historical sources confirm that the apostles brought true Christianity to Ireland four centuries before Patrick’s visit. The story that Patrick was the first to bring Christianity to Ireland is a fable!


Link

Why is this important? Because it shows a specific effort by the paganized church after "constantine" to destroy the oringinal teachings of the Apostles. To deliberately lead christians away from the teachings of Jesus into an all powerful false church called "Holy Roman Church" thatis still leading millions astray.............

This is a true story of the "church" hiding truth from the masses on a scale larger than the book "The DiVinci Code"..............




posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by heliosprime
 


not surprising that the whole patrick thing is a big ol' tall tale. i mean...that whole "driving the snakes out" thing kind of reeks of exaggeration



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 05:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by heliosprime
 


not surprising that the whole patrick thing is a big ol' tall tale. i mean...that whole "driving the snakes out" thing kind of reeks of exaggeration


Here is a real conspiracy issue. If you read the data, the HRC church systematically exterminated the preexisting preists to set forth the paganized church. Changing the teachers and the gospel to a single "catholic" point of view, then rewrote historical accounts, making the patrick legend grow. But inside thier own history they kept the truth alive as seen in the article.

"Why"?



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 06:49 AM
link   
the article that you've linked to seems, to me, to be presenting a conspiracy that doesn't exist.

for instance, st.patrick was welsh, which is widely accepted by even the catholic church, so clearly, to suggest augustine is believed to be the bringer of christianity to england, scotland and wales is spurious.

also, patrick, from historical record, is not the first to attempt an evangelical mission to ireland, he was reported to be the first to succeed on any large scale. others clearly attempted it and were either killed outright or were banished from the island by the powerful druids that held power at the time.

his most spurious suggection comes in the last section when he claims that the "anglo-saxon-celtic people are israelites", there is no evidence of this and another clear and blatant "mistake" in that the angles and the saxons went to britian in the 5th century ad and replaced the celts who arrived in britain about 600bc, at least in respect to the leading classes.

there is indeed a form of celtic christianity, that can be viewed as separate from the roman church, but it is quite well understood and documented. not only that, but it is practiced to some extent to this day. strangely this is not mentioned.

personally, i think there are far to many half-truths, vague insinuations and outright omissions in this article for the author to be taken seriously.



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by heliosprime
There is much evidence that Joseph the uncle of Christ and James the brother of Christ took the true gospel of Jesus to Ireland and Scotland 3 centuries before "St Patty" appeared.


According to accepted tradition James the Just, brother of Jesus, was the first Bishop of Jerusalem (Catholic sources) and was eventually stoned to death by the will of the Sanhedrin, the Jewish leadership, in 62 AD. Strange that he would suddenly appear in Ireland... Btw. did you know that Dublin was founded by Norwegian vikings?



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 06:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Neo Christian Mystic

According to accepted tradition James the Just, brother of Jesus, was the first Bishop of Jerusalem (Catholic sources) and was eventually stoned to death by the will of the Sanhedrin, the Jewish leadership, in 62 AD. Strange that he would suddenly appear in Ireland... Btw. did you know that Dublin was founded by Norwegian vikings?


Actually the data indicate James traveld to ireland before returning to be "stoned". And there is much evidence Ireland was a tin mining outpost of rome long before "vikings" left norway. As to dubin...proof babe. show me proof..................



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 06:26 AM
link   
reply to post by heliosprime
 


the romans never had a base in ireland, you're thinking of england.

the dublin area was first settled by the vikings in 841 and again on a more perminant basis in 917. there's enough evidence to be pretty sure

now i have a question, what evidence is there that james the just traveled to ireland?



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 06:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by heliosprime

Originally posted by Neo Christian Mystic

According to accepted tradition James the Just, brother of Jesus, was the first Bishop of Jerusalem (Catholic sources) and was eventually stoned to death by the will of the Sanhedrin, the Jewish leadership, in 62 AD. Strange that he would suddenly appear in Ireland... Btw. did you know that Dublin was founded by Norwegian vikings?


Actually the data indicate James traveld to ireland before returning to be "stoned". And there is much evidence Ireland was a tin mining outpost of rome long before "vikings" left norway. As to dubin...proof babe. show me proof..................


OK.

As for Dublin. Here's a snippet from an article on Wikipedia:

en.wikipedia.org...

The settlement 'Dubh Linn' dates perhaps as far back as the first century BC and later a monastery was built there, though the town was established in about 841 by the Norse.


[edit on 7/4/2008 by Neo Christian Mystic]



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 06:43 AM
link   
841??????????? I am talking about the apostles bringing the gospel to Ireland in ohhhhh..........less than 50 AD.............

Ireland was the site of ROMAN tin mines.......which may had dated back to the days of king solomon...............


The first occasion on which humanity "used up" a natural resource was 4,000 years ago, when the supply of tin ore, needed to make bronze, was used up in the Middle East around 2,000 B.C. The rich tin mines of Cornwall, England were dug in the thirteenth century B.C. by Phoenicians looking for tin. In over 3,000 years of mining, around three million tons of tin have been removed from the Cornish mines, and they still have not been exhausted. [ Ancient Britain | Exploration | Ancient Peoples ] (source)


www.sentex.net...



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 07:00 AM
link   
Cornwall is in Ireland now?



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 07:45 AM
link   
reply to post by heliosprime
 


OK.. first off the entire reason Patrick came "back" to Ireland was to preach not to the Irish "pagans" but to the Irish Christian communities and slaves.

He was supposedly Irish born, which is why he spoke fluent Irish, but had lived in England and probably France (or thats what we call them now, then they where not named these) and spoke fluent Latin. He was quite obviously a higher ranking official within the Church, and was charged with going "back" to Ireland and taking care of the settlements.

In Ulster as far back as first century there had been small Christian communities.. so long as they paid the Irish tribute system no one bothered them just because they where Christian.

The OTHER Christians in Ireland, which had been there as long as they had been in England, where the slaves. The Saxons, which the reason they where taken was that ironically (given the future of how the Saxons would think of the Irish) the Saxons where considered inferior as a race, and submissive because of their religion. Submissive in relation to the Irish mythology which did not require such servitude as Christians.

So St. Patrick came back to Ireland, most likely held his base of operations in Ulster where the Christian population was centered and slowly began converting the people.

The whole notion that "St. Patrick drove the snakes from Ireland" had nothing to do with snakes.. as there are no snakes in Ireland (unless put their by people) .. but there are no native snake populations of Ireland. It most likely has more to do with driving Pagan's out of Christian areas.

Though it should also be noted St. Patrick did NOT convert the entire country of Ireland. Paganism in the West, which was never truly contained until the later centuries, carried on for several centuries. In Ulster and Leinster Christianity was adopted because these are where the bigger cities of influence where, thus the Church put far more effort into the area.

Heliosprime:

Rome never went to Ireland. They may have stopped.. looked around, saw that there was literally nothing to conquer except a few country men yet still sparse and few and far between.. they never went to Ireland. Rome conquered people, they transformed civilizations.. they did not travel to empty islands and create a new civilization for the sake of doing such.. Ireland was populated.. but there was not a single major city (Tara was not a major city) until the Norse men founded Dublin.

The fact that Rome never conquered Ireland, is what makes it so different culturally then every other Western European country. They where never "romanized"

And um, by the way.. Cornwall is a duchy of England, its not in Ireland.


But anyways, the point being Christianity has been in Ireland, albeit very, very small communities since around 100ad



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 08:59 AM
link   
For how many years did James roam the island, converting people then? It took Olav the Holy used all his life trying to convert Norway from the Norse religion, and still Norway wouldn't be fully Christian for decades and even centuries. But Olav Christened the Tings the juridical courts and the law and established Harald Fairhair's bloodline as the only Norwegian line with rights to the throne.

It takes time to convert a nation. It's not something you do on a short trip. James was fully occupied being the bishop of Jerusalem remember.



posted on Apr, 9 2008 @ 12:31 PM
link   
It is highly unlikely anyone of the appostals made to to Ireland.. there was no reason to go there.. nor England, it was a dysfunctional land that still used tribal (clan) systems of governing.. if there was a man or men roaming Ireland at the hight of the Aird Righ, the King would have made sure the Christians where killed.

The small communities that formed on Ireland's coast where for the most part probably fishermen from other countries or traders who ended up settling down there. And Saxons and Scottis of course. It takes generations for an entire country to convert to a religion, Patrick only set a stronger foundation for Christianity and established the Church in Ireland.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join