Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Archaeologists uncover pre-Christian temple in Norway

page: 4
21
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 


I understand that Christianity went against the teachings of Jesus to spread the faith but that does not change the facts of the conclusions are totally unfounded by the dig and are the opinion of one moron . He has nothing to draw this conclusion that can be based in artifacts from the dig . He wrote his conclusions based on a preconceived idea and what I would conclude from his statements a anti Christian point of view.




posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcher
What is it about my not needing to supply reference for his claims that you do not understand?

It is not my responsibility to supply reference to counter a CLAIM made from out of the blue.

oh so i have to explian that posters are expected to back up thier own claims

I see the author of the quoted article has archaeologists to bolster the stated opinion
you have knockers in a knot....thats so knotty....
.generaly its KNICKERS in a KNOT,,but hey
now...knowing all that who ya gonna call?

You don't understand this is a forum for posting things to enlighten others
you won't post references but expect others too
hmmmm....
edit on 18-3-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 04:04 PM
link   


Why do christians have to destroy and/or build on top of other people's holy sites?

Not only Christians, it runs through all religions. Monotheistic or not.
Hagia Sophia? Rings a bell i hope.
Every religion in period of expansion needs both to step on its spiritual predecessors and to draw former followers to familiar places for easier conversion.
edit on 18-3-2012 by ZeroKnowledge because: expnantion.cool



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by longjohnbritches
 


If there was not this Christian angle would we even be talking about this? I seriously doubt we would be. Could very well be why it is in there in the first place because i am not seeing any evidence.
edit on 18-3-2012 by Malcher because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcher
reply to post by longjohnbritches
 


If there was not this Christian angle would we even be talking about this? I seriously doubt we would be. That is reason enough to include unless your objective is factual information.


that is a classic strawman arguement
now references please


maybe go burn some witches and come back when perhaps you are feeling better
edit on 18-3-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Azadok
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 


I understand that Christianity went against the teachings of Jesus to spread the faith but that does not change the facts of the conclusions are totally unfounded by the dig and are the opinion of one moron . He has nothing to draw this conclusion that can be based in artifacts from the dig . He wrote his conclusions based on a preconceived idea and what I would conclude from his statements a anti Christian point of view.


the authour is refering to the archaeologists in the reference link
you missed that I see
how wude



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 04:10 PM
link   
Im beginning to understand why the church killed the guy who first translated the bible into english for people to read...guess they figure christians don't read



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcher
reply to post by longjohnbritches
 

If there was not this Christian angle would we even be talking about this?

I don't know...if we came up with more of the aforementioned Mayan codices, would you presume that the discussion would be about the fact that Christianity destroyed the vast majority of them?
The fact is that not many sites of this nature remain as they were destroyed during the conversion to Christianity.
It's a sidebar. Get over it.



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Danbones

Originally posted by Malcher
What is it about my not needing to supply reference for his claims that you do not understand?

It is not my responsibility to supply reference to counter a CLAIM made from out of the blue.

oh so i have to explian that posters are expected to back up thier own claims

I see the author of the quoted article has archaeologists to bolster the stated opinion
you have knockers in a knot....thats so knotty....
.generaly its KNICKERS in a KNOT,,but hey
now...knowing all that who ya gonna call?

You don't understand this is a forum for posting things to enlighten others
you won't post references but expect others too
hmmmm....
edit on 18-3-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)


Where have I made any claims?

All I did say is there is ZERO evidence as to why this site exists. Any claims related to the article that were made with ZERO evidence did not come from me. Do you just believe any claims made that do not have factual information.

So far all I am seeing from this article is a picture of what looks like glass beads. People are getting damn tired of being LIED to.



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcher
reply to post by longjohnbritches
 


If there was not this Christian angle would we even be talking about this? I seriously doubt we would be. Could very well be why it is in there in the first place because i am not seeing any evidence.
edit on 18-3-2012 by Malcher because: (no reason given)


The evidence you should bring forward is at the end of the article.
There is a blurb about the reporter. In my opinion she is a zionist shill.
If you do not know how to get a link up here, like me.
Just write what it says about the author of the article.
If the folks here don't get it then they never will.
I had this pegged as Christian bashing from the get go.
If there can be a side bar to the way this thread has turned is it is tha Norse.
edit on 18-3-2012 by longjohnbritches because: insert info



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 04:27 PM
link   

The historical phenomenon of Christianization (or Christianisation) is the conversion of individuals to Christianity or the conversion of entire peoples at once. It also includes the practice of converting native pagan practices and culture, pagan religious imagery, pagan sites and the pagan calendar to Christian uses, due to the Christian efforts at proselytism (evangelism) based on the tradition of the Great Commission.

Various strategies and techniques employed in Christianization campaigns from Late Antiquity through the Middle Ages: Ancient holy sites were destroyed or converted to Christian churches, indigenous pagan gods were demonized, and traditional religious practices were condemned as witchcraft and even criminalized — sometimes upon penalty of death.[1]

Reformatting native religious and cultural activities and beliefs into a Christianized form was officially sanctioned; preserved in the Venerable Bede's Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum is a letter from Pope Gregory I to Mellitus, arguing that conversions were easier if people were allowed to retain the outward forms of their traditions, while claiming that the traditions were in honour of the Christian God, "to the end that, whilst some gratifications are outwardly permitted them, they may the more easily consent to the inward consolations of the grace of God". In essence, it was intended that the traditions and practices still existed, but that the reasoning behind them was altered. The existence of syncretism in Christian tradition has long been recognized by scholars, and in recent times many of the instances of syncretism have also been acknowledged by the Roman Catholic church.[citation needed]

Humanistic studies of Antiquity and the Reformation combined in the sixteenth century to produce works of scholarship marked by an agenda that was occupied with identifying Roman Catholic practices with paganism, and identifying the emerging Protestant churches with a purgative "re-Christianization" of society. The Lutheran scholar Philip Melanchthon produced his Apologia Confessionis Augustanae (1530) detailing the rites derived from pagan practices. Heinrich Bullinger, De origine erroris libris duo (1539) detailed the pagan "origins of (Catholic) errors".

Isaac Casaubon, De rebus sacris et ecclesiasticus exercitationes (1614) makes a third familiar example, where sound scholarship was somewhat compromised by sectarian pleading. Thus such pagan precedents for Christian practice have tended to be downplayed or even sometimes dismissed by Christian apologists as a form of Protestant Apologetics.

The 20th century saw more purely historical inquiries, free of sectarian bias; an early historicist classic in this field of study was Jean Seznec's The Survival of the Pagan Gods: the mythological tradition and its place in Renaissance humanism and the arts. (1972).


en.wikipedia.org...

gotta get those tythes I guess the more the merrier



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by longjohnbritches

Originally posted by Malcher
reply to post by longjohnbritches
 


If there was not this Christian angle would we even be talking about this? I seriously doubt we would be. Could very well be why it is in there in the first place because i am not seeing any evidence.
edit on 18-3-2012 by Malcher because: (no reason given)


The evidence you should bring forward is at the end of the article.
There is a blurb about the reporter. In my opinion she is a zionist shill.


were the archaeologists some zionsts too
like the the 30 million or so christian zionists?
please references if possible
edit on 18-3-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by longjohnbritches

Originally posted by Malcher
reply to post by longjohnbritches
 


If there was not this Christian angle would we even be talking about this? I seriously doubt we would be. Could very well be why it is in there in the first place because i am not seeing any evidence.
edit on 18-3-2012 by Malcher because: (no reason given)


The evidence you should bring forward is at the end of the article.
There is a blurb about the reporter. In my opinion she is a zionist shill.


She is:

en.wikipedia.org...

She has made a whole career off of writing about Christianity. All she is doing here though is repeating what the original article states. Would have saved us all a lot of time if the OP would have linked to the original article.

I would be more willing to cut him some slack because i really dont bother reading tabloids. Even reading the original article just brings up that four letter word called fact.
edit on 18-3-2012 by Malcher because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 04:38 PM
link   
For what its worth there is ( as usual) not 100% agreement among scholars on hardly any subject. The "conversion" of the area of Scandinavia during the time of the Vikings in no exception..

So a few things to ponder..

Viking Religion


The Viking Age was a period of considerable religious change in Scandinavia. Part of the popular image of the Vikings is that they were all pagans, with a hatred of the Christian Church, but this view is very misleading. It is true that almost the entire population of Scandinavia was pagan at the beginning of the Viking Age, but the Vikings had many gods, and it was no problem for them to accept the Christian god alongside their own.
......
Archaeological evidence suggests that Christianity was adopted piecemeal in Norway, with settlements converting or not depending on whether the local chieftain converted. The same idea can also be seen on a larger scale. In the mid-tenth century Hakon the Good of Norway, who had been fostered in England, tried to use his royal authority to establish Christianity. However, when it became clear that this would lose him the support of pagan chieftains, he abandoned his attempts, and his Anglo-Saxon bishops were sent back to England.


This conversion of Chieftains in Norway and other areas of Scandinavia became somewhat wide spread and people there basically became Christian "by order of the chieftain" and it wasn't necessarily always a "conversion by force" as depicted in the article in the OP - however it could be. The author below lays out 3 important factors in the "Conversion of the Vikings"

Conversion of the Vikings, 800-1200 AD


1. The first aspect of the pattern is that in almost all of the Viking lands, "conversion was accomplished as a community affair by a kind of mass movement."1 Mass conversion that had been common in the Germanic or barbarian cultures happened here as well in part because of the tribal makeup -- and group decision-making process -- of Viking cultures.
2. The second feature of the pattern in which the Vikings were won to faith in Jesus Christ was that in almost all areas "the eventual triumph of Christianity (came) through royal initiative."2 In these cases Christianity was not a grass-roots, popular movement which in the end captured the tribal leadership. Rather "people (were) brought to the faith en masse as the monarch's subjects rather than as individually responsible persons."3 It looks like Viking kings sought to ride the crest of the wave. Certainly, accepting Christianity helped these rulers solidify their political authority. After becoming Christians, almost all of them got the church to create archbishoprics over which the kings themselves exerted some control.
3. The third feature of efforts to evangelize the Vikings was that instruction, baptism, and discipleship training were carried on largely by missionaries from England. The Vikings' repeated invasions of England brought them into close contact with already Christianized people. "Since the English were a subject people, the Scandinavians did not fear them militarily or politically." As a result, English missionaries were allowed to move about fairly freely in Scandinavian countries without being looked on with suspicion. As had been true with the barbarians, the religion of the conquered became that of the conqueror. The victor was preached to and baptized by the vanquished.



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 


There were many such books in existence at the time of the Spanish conquest of Yucatán in the 16th century, but they were destroyed in bulk by the Conquistadors and priests soon after. In particular, all those in Yucatán were ordered destroyed by Bishop Diego de Landa in July of 1562. Such codices were primary written records of Maya civilization, together with the many inscriptions on stone monuments and stelae that survived. However, their range of subject matter in all likelihood embraced more topics than those recorded in stone and buildings, and was more like what is found on painted ceramics (the so-called 'ceramic codex').

Alonso de Zorita wrote that in 1540 he saw numerous such books in the Guatemalan highlands that “...recorded their history for more than eight hundred years back, and that were interpreted for me by very ancient Indians.” (Zorita 1963, 271-2).

Fr. Bartolomé de las Casas lamented that when found, such books were destroyed: "These books were seen by our clergy, and even I saw part of those that were burned by the monks, apparently because they thought [they] might harm the Indians in matters concerning religion, since at that time they were at the beginning of their conversion." The last codices destroyed were those of Tayasal, Guatemala in 1697, the last city conquered in America.[3] With their destruction, the opportunity for insight into some key areas of Maya life has been greatly diminished.

There are only three codices whose authenticity is beyond doubt.
en.wikipedia.org...

also the christians took all of thier gold and silver too....for jesus
( hey Jesus did you get any of the gold and silver...?........he says no
)

and made them into slaves to work the mines

edit on 18-3-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Frogs
 

Well thank you Frogs awsome post!

that goes with the link back in the pile which i posted that said the same re chistian vikings


Meanwhile, on another lump of rock where there certainly was Norse settlement, it’s turned out not to be quite what was expected. When the Vikings took over in Orkney, they are usually supposed to have been raw and pagan still, fresh from Norway or wherever, and generally taking no prisoners. A really good place to fortify yourself in such an endeavour is this Orcadian stack, Brough of Deerness, on which we have for some time known there was some settlement. That settlement includes a church, which again we knew had a precursor, but now the precursor has been dug, and it turned up a coin of King Edgar of England (959-75). That might pretty much make it contemporary with the Viking take-over, though of course Vikings didn’t always take their coins in for reminting when it was ordered and it’s possible that coin had been in circulation a good long time by the time it was deposited. All the same, it may suggest that one thing the new warlords did was set up a chapel, or at least, keep one going. As the excavating officer, Dr James Barrett of Cambridge, says: “It shows us that, even in the most Scandinavianised regions of Viking Age Britain, power was maintained by eventually accepting the local religion, in this case Christianity.” So remodel your Viking chieftain image accordingly

tenthmedieval.wordpress.com...

ill repost for the non readers on the thread
edit on 18-3-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Danbones

A fascinating discovery is shedding light upon pre-Christian Scandinavian religion and early Christian inroads into Norway. In the Norwegian press, this highly important find is being called "unparalleled," "first of its kind" and "unique," said to have been "deliberately and carefully hidden" - from invading and destructive Christians.

Located at the site of Ranheim, about 10 kilometers south of the Norwegian city of Trondheim, the astonishing discovery was unearthed while excavating foundations for new houses and includes a "gudehovet" or "god temple." Occupied from the 6th or 5th century BCE until the 10th century AD/CE, the site shows signs of usage for animal sacrifice, a common practice among different peoples in antiquity, including the biblical Israelites. (E.g., Num 7:17-88) Over 1,000 years ago, the site was dismantled and covered by a thick layer of peat, evidently to protect it from marauding Christian invaders. These native Norse religionists apparently then fled to other places, such as Iceland, where they could re-erect their altars and re-establish the old religion.

www.examiner.com...

Well, I thought this was an interesting find

One aspect of this article is that it states they felt the need to protect their holy site from Christians.
This intrigues me...
Why do christians have to destroy and/or build on top of other people's holy sites?
Also do you have a favourite example of a holy site that Christians have built on top of, or is there such a site where you are?
edit on 17-3-2012 by Danbones because: spelling grammer



Hi I live in Jersey Channel Islands we got a site called la hougue bie il post the link

www.google.com...:&imgrefurl=http://www.celiahaddon.co.uk/standing%2520stones/jersey. html&docid=9m4gH4CwSWUepM&imgurl=http://www.celiahaddon.co.uk/standing%252520stones/images/jersey/large%252520images/La%252520Hougue%252520Bie%2525201 large.jpg&w=864&h=1152&ei=YlhmT4-lIJC98gO3yJCxCA&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=880&vpy=125&dur=1914&hovh=259&hovw=194&tx=114&ty=137&sig=108133949738422058243&pag e=1&tbnh=151&tbnw=113&start=0&ndsp=16&ved=1t:429,r:4,s:0



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 


Thanks for the repost. I admit I had missed that one.


One thing about the Vikings is they were really a group of different peoples. Yes, there were similarities amongst them. But as various articles linked here have pointed out there were different tribes, chiefs, villages, countries, etc. So, what might have held true for one group of Vikings may not hold 100% true for the next.

Some may have converted to Christianity because they wanted to. Some may have converted because it was better for trade or the chief told them to. Some may have fought tooth and nail against it. Kind of like with the Celts - another big group that encompassed a wide region with many different peoples. Some got along well with the Romans, some learned to eventually and some fought them tooth and nail to the end.

Its kind of like today if we get caught up in rhetoric and paint all of whatever big group (Muslims, Christians, Atheists, Liberals, Conservatives, Americans, Asians, etc, etc, etc) with the same brush, what we say may not always hold true in all cases.



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcher

Originally posted by longjohnbritches

Originally posted by Malcher
reply to post by longjohnbritches
 


If there was not this Christian angle would we even be talking about this? I seriously doubt we would be. Could very well be why it is in there in the first place because i am not seeing any evidence.
edit on 18-3-2012 by Malcher because: (no reason given)


The evidence you should bring forward is at the end of the article.
There is a blurb about the reporter. In my opinion she is a zionist shill.


She is:

en.wikipedia.org...

She has made a whole career off of writing about Christianity. All she is doing here though is repeating what the original article states. Would have saved us all a lot of time if the OP would have linked to the original article.

I would be more willing to cut him some slack because i really dont bother reading tabloids. Even reading the original article just brings up that four letter word called fact.
edit on 18-3-2012 by Malcher because: (no reason given)


What did you think I was putting you on?
Now for the kicker. While all the bashers are hiding in the corner with embaressment. Notice how they got off your back.
Go back and keep posting parts of that link so every one can read it.
These bashers won't read it, so expose them with it by posting it.
It will be cute to see what happens.
the best



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 05:17 PM
link   
I agree
generalizations the bigger they are the more room for error

the site in the OP may have been buried to prevent desecration from other vikings even
it may have been a familly site too...like the celts used to have kept round the house for generations
that was proof of ownership where the lineage was buried and maybe anscestors were worshiped





new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join