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.

 

Archaeologists uncover pre-Christian temple in Norway

page: 9
21
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 02:07 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

looks like rome went christian about the late 300s
the germanic peoples when christian about the late 600s
the norse about the late 900s




posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 02:08 AM
link   
if there was prince of peace would he have wanted it this way?


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]

en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 19-3-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 02:08 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


The Romans most certainly knew of Norway, but I can't recall any specifics of them "invading" or what have you. But if the dates are correct for what they're finding at the site are correct it puts it a few centuries beyond Romes collapse.
But since you mention it I think I'll go do some reading and see what areas they may have been in up there.

Unless we're talking Holy Roman Empire Roman. If that's the case, then the times may fit a bit better I think. But I don't think there is documentation for any incursion of that type into Norway.
edit on 3/19/2012 by LuckyLucian because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 02:23 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


It seems that Rome and Norway only had passing knowledge of each other with the occasional movement of goods between far-flung tribes and perhaps Roman traders supplying legions abroad. Rome never conquered far enough north and east to reach Norway.
It also looks like the Holy Roman Empire never even made serious inroads into Denmark and certainly not across into Norway.
edit on 3/19/2012 by LuckyLucian because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 02:27 AM
link   
reply to post by LuckyLucian
 



a few centuries beyond Romes collapse.


But the Empire itself didn't collapse then, the eastern leg of it outlasted the western leg by 1,000 years. We call it the Byzantine Empire, Constantine moved the capitol to Turkey. I have no idea then, the only thing I've heard similar to this Norway thing is what the Romans did to the pagan temples when Theodosius I made Christianity the state religion of the Empire.

Can't help out fellas, interesting thread though.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 02:35 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


True, but the Byzantine never really expanded beyond its borders when the Empire split in... 285? 385? Whenever it was. Rome was in it's decline by that time.
It was a good point to bring up though. With all the silly bickering the thread got way off topic...

edit on 3/19/2012 by LuckyLucian because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 02:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by LuckyLucian
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


It seems that Rome and Norway only had passing knowledge of each other with the occasional movement of goods between far-flung tribes and perhaps Roman traders supplying legions abroad. Rome never conquered far enough north and east to reach Norway.
It also looks like the Holy Roman Empire never even made serious inroads into Denmark and certainly not across into Norway.


Okay, it didn't sound right, but like I said, the only thing similar to that I've heard of is what happened in the Empire when it was Christianized during Theodosius I. I wasn't aware if they had moved that far north or not.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 02:52 AM
link   
The Christians did terrible things to the Aesir, and their followers. A friend of mine converted to Asatru, and he was given a series of dreams in which Lord Thor showed him an analogy of what happened to them. The Aesir are very real, and they're extremely kind Gods, as well; they really didn't deserve that.

Their worship was almost completely wiped out; they literally only had a single small village left at one point. The contemporary Asatruar have written the Book of the Raven, though, and they have started coming back. Modern Asatruar tend to be white supremacists, unfortunately, but I don't believe that the Aesir themselves think like that. It can be a very positive religion, in its' own way; but it is very white centric.
edit on 19-3-2012 by petrus4 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 03:04 AM
link   
Well this is my first post on ATS, but I have been a frequent visitor. I dislike the subtle, veiled swipe at Christians as conquerors in this piece. It is strange that people are so quick to dismiss the whole of Christendom on account of a few corrupt leaders of the faith; who may or may not have been responsible for some killings in the name of Christianity.

So a few King/Popes declared a holy war in the name of spreading Christianity...that has nothing to do with following Jesus Christ and accepting him as Lord and Savior. It is actually a prime example of what Jesus preached against, which were the man-made rules created in an attempt to form a religion out of God's gifts.

Power corrupts...and that is true in secular kingdoms as well as for those in religious power. It is a fact that many faithful people are actually faithful to the rules of their church above the written rules of The Bible....and yet they would call themselves Christians.

Furthermore, you and I were not alive in the days that these supposed "Christian Marauders" were invading (as you are implying) peaceful groups of people. So we really don't know the whole story...we only know what we read into it. I read into it that maybe these Nordic people abandoned their false gods and decided to follow the one true God...and thus built a place of worship over their old establishment



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 03:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by NaptownBrown
Well this is my first post on ATS, but I have been a frequent visitor. I dislike the subtle, veiled swipe at Christians as conquerors in this piece. It is strange that people are so quick to dismiss the whole of Christendom on account of a few corrupt leaders of the faith; who may or may not have been responsible for some killings in the name of Christianity.


Truthfully, my experience with Christianity, on balance, has been overwhelmingly negative; which is one of the main reasons why I'm not Christian now. Most people don't like Christianity these days, and there are genuine reasons for that. I continue to hold Jesus Christ himself in high regard, yes; but maybe 5% of the Christians I've come across, if that, have even vaguely emulated his behaviour, and even those who do to a small degree, still tend to be very forceful evangelists.

Christianity is a more positive religion than Islam, for the most part...but then again, truthfully that isn't really saying very much. It's not so much a case of Christianity being more desirable than Islam, as it is simply being marginally less undesirable.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 03:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by NaptownBrown
Well this is my first post on ATS, but I have been a frequent visitor. I dislike the subtle, veiled swipe at Christians as conquerors in this piece. It is strange that people are so quick to dismiss the whole of Christendom on account of a few corrupt leaders of the faith; who may or may not have been responsible for some killings in the name of Christianity.

So a few King/Popes declared a holy war in the name of spreading Christianity...that has nothing to do with following Jesus Christ and accepting him as Lord and Savior. It is actually a prime example of what Jesus preached against, which were the man-made rules created in an attempt to form a religion out of God's gifts.

Power corrupts...and that is true in secular kingdoms as well as for those in religious power. It is a fact that many faithful people are actually faithful to the rules of their church above the written rules of The Bible....and yet they would call themselves Christians.

Furthermore, you and I were not alive in the days that these supposed "Christian Marauders" were invading (as you are implying) peaceful groups of people. So we really don't know the whole story...we only know what we read into it. I read into it that maybe these Nordic people abandoned their false gods and decided to follow the one true God...and thus built a place of worship over their old establishment


hey congrats to your first post
Naptown

well see there is the rub
other people's god(s) may not be false gods
to claim them as such indicates that the topic in the OP is still alive and well
multiple dieity systems can tolerate other gods
monotheistic systems it seems can not

as you just said it is unfair to judge your religion and then you judge the others' false
IMHO this is exactly why the OP is as pertinant today as it was then

edit on 19-3-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 03:36 AM
link   
reply to post by petrus4
 

well even though if Petrus were to say subscribe to a belief in the Norse gods
and I have different systems we have certain things in common

he might for instance throw runstone where I might use the Iching
which are two different systems that accomplish the same things
according to christian doctrine we would technically be witches
and though shalt not suffer a witch to live.

so there we are under threat right from the get go while NOT threatening
just for our exercising of FREE will

a christian determines our free will is what he has been told it is...
which is the opposite of free will

edit on 19-3-2012 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 03:39 AM
link   
reply to post by NaptownBrown
 


Congratulations on your first post, NaptownBrown. Indianapolis, yes?
I'll be gentle with you, I promise.

I fully agree with your point on secular and religious groups/kingdoms and power corrupting.
But for "christian marauders", it's documented quite thoroughly by both those being attacked and those attacking. Even third parties have documented many many many instances of christian groups/kingdoms/armies going into "pagan" lands and waging basically full-on genocide against the indigenous people. Not just in this instance in Norway, but South America, other places in Europe, Africa, the Middle East, even in Asia and Africa in recent centuries. Those are simply historical truths.
In the particular instance cited in the OP, the hypothesis they are working with is informed by historical data and the estimated age of the dismantling and burial. Further work should clarify what exactly happened at that location.

For full disclosure, I don't dismiss the whole of christendom on account of a few corrupt leaders (a few is quite the understatement), but because I think religion is a foolish thing. There is no "may or may not", they did in fact kill untold numbers in the name of christianity.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 04:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Danbones
reply to post by petrus4
 

well even though if Petrus were to say subscribe to a belief in the Norse gods
and I have different systems we have certain things in common


I am not Asatruar. As far as I am concerned, the Aesir exist; but they are not the pantheon that I primarily associate with. I would liken my relationship with them, (as one example) to a treaty which existed between the Revantusk trolls, an independent tribe, and the rest of the Horde, within World of Warcraft. In other words, we're friends, and I respect them, (which also means that I will generally advocate for them in threads like this one) but I also do my own thing.


he might for instance throw runstone where I might use the Iching
which are two different systems that accomplish the same things
according to christian doctrine we would technically be witches
and though shalt not suffer a witch to live.


I don't use the Futhark, no. Well, I actually have used them as an alphabet for creating sigils once or twice, yes; but that was actually the reason why the contact I've had with the Aesir happened. If you ask for someone's help, and you get it, it's generally polite to say thank you; and sometimes to give them a little something in return, as well.
edit on 19-3-2012 by petrus4 because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-3-2012 by petrus4 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 04:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 

Whoknows100
You used an example of Irish people killing eachother over religion?!? If you don't know what your talking about then shut up you look like a fool. It was over an illegal force occupying Ireland. In English schools they try and make out it's about religious divides? Only morons believe that



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 05:19 AM
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


and how exactly do they know they buried it all to protect it from marauding christians, did they leave a tablet stating "we are leaving because those damned christians are coming" would they have had time to pack it all down nice and neat if an army was on the march. come on how rediculous it would be like england burying westminster because hitler was going to invade. a more logical reason would be that a prominant person for the town was buried inside the building and the people moved on. burying nord kings in there ships was common practice. i feel somehow someone has has put an anti christian spin on this for there own purpose.
i'm not a god person, but this stuff pisses me off



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 05:51 AM
link   
reply to post by repeatoffender
 


So would it be equally ridiculous if say, a Jain community tore down a temple and buried statues to protect them from invaders? Or if Buddhists in Afghanistan gathered up their important relics before Muslim invaders destroyed them? Or even if the Hebrews saved the arc of the covenant from the Temples plunder?
But hey, this is just anti-christian "spin" here. No culture has ever protected its sacred places or objects from invading peoples.

Edit: if you go through the thread, it's discussed that the author of the article most certainly has an agenda, but you can still follow her own link to the source. Or a bunch of others I tried checking on Google.
edit on 3/19/2012 by LuckyLucian because: (no reason given)

edit on 3/19/2012 by LuckyLucian because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 06:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Donahue
Isn't there a sin saying that you can't enforce Christianity on others.. hmm..so according to the their belief they all went to hell.....


sometimes, the willful ignorance of other people absolutely astounds me. You choose to ridicule the idea of Christianity by pointing at its dumbest followers.

You're no different than the people who call all Muslims terrorists.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 07:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by repeatoffender

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


and how exactly do they know they buried it all to protect it from marauding christians, did they leave a tablet stating "we are leaving because those damned christians are coming" would they have had time to pack it all down nice and neat if an army was on the march. come on how rediculous it would be like england burying westminster because hitler was going to invade. a more logical reason would be that a prominant person for the town was buried inside the building and the people moved on. burying nord kings in there ships was common practice. i feel somehow someone has has put an anti christian spin on this for there own purpose.
i'm not a god person, but this stuff pisses me off


Many people are content to live in a world of their very own making. The truth is just a distraction and sometimes an annoyance. It is hard to just sit by and watch as we are consistently manipulated and told lies about history. If there is no proof then just dont make stuff up to get publicity and fill up a book. This does not seem to bother a few in this thread though.

Just goes to show how easily people are worked into a lather. Granted some like to hear these things but all i am asking for is the truth. The truth is not just something that automatically generates from the brain of a self anointed "scholar". This is a vicious cycle that humanity has dealt with probably from the first time a human could form a sentence.

I am not religious either, as much as DanBones wants me to be. I just accept peoples beliefs because that is THEIR belief. Rest assured if this religion, from the article, was still around they would be hated by some here which is what i find somewhat comical about their arguments here. I honestly dont think they realize this though.

If there is no proof there is no proof. Now i am supposed to just shut up and tow the line?

That is basically what i have been told in this thread. Has nothing to do with religion, as far as i am concerned.

Now i will also go on record right here and say that much of what we are told prior to the turn of the century is made up. Not the major points but the fine details are so embellished that it is virtually useless information. People write whole books with absolutely no proof that what they are saying actually happened. So we are expected to sit by like good little children. And the stories get accepted as fact, the story teller generates an income off ignorance because we cannot prove their work is fiction MEANWHILE...it is the other way around. The need to show proof does not lie with me but the story teller.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 07:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Danbones

Originally posted by longjohnbritches

Originally posted by Danbones

Originally posted by longjohnbritches
reply to post by LuckyLucian
 


Have you been following the thread? Have you read how it has been exposed?
Especially the author of the article?
None of the other anti-Christianites will address it.
I am waiting for a show down with them.
I am not trying to avoid your well thought out reply to me.
Thank you very much.
One point at the end of your reply I remember was about native Americans and the USSR.
My question basically was "How would they like living under Communist rule instead of Christian democracy. And ask a Russian. The Reds were anti religon, like you claim to be.
thanks for you patience. I will get back to you


a show down
?
the authour of the post is relaying an article published by norwegian archaeologists
you didn't even know that even though the link from the article was posted three or four times
you haven't dealt with a thing on this thread
like the historical record of christian destruction I just posted
conversions for every reason but for anything the mythical christ stood for

show down???

Geta grip ole boy,

Can you produce the article?
Let's start now.


produce the article?
like in the posts preceding yours?
its been linked too at least three times
plus its in th OP which you couldn't even have read
start now?
I started in POST 1 page 1

all this flaq from posters who haven't read the OP
there isn't much respect for those that don't read the OP before posting

its considered poor form


Archeologists do not write articles.
They write reports.
Your so called house Archeologist verified that.
The link is to an article written by a woman who is not an Archeologist.

Please produce the so called Archeologist's writting.
Don't link to it. Or spin that it is here and it was there.
If you are honest you will post it with your next post to me.

edit on 19-3-2012 by longjohnbritches because: sp



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join