MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Will the Real Cynesians Please Step Forward? (History)
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 11, 12, 13, 14  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Ishmael, you are falling once more into your tiresomely gnomic mien. Why not decide now to stop doing it forever (except for startling effect). You will find your life improving radically. The reason being...no, I think that is enough.
Send private message
Chad


In: Ramsbottom
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Ishmael wrote:
But the proper mystery may concern where exactly "Egypt" is.


I'm pretty sure "The people" of the Nile never referred to themselves as Egyptians.

So we have one group of "Rom", the Roma, who have a folk memory of coming from "Egypt", another group of "Rom", the R_m_t, who lived in a region named "Egypt" by outsiders (but not themselves) and a third group of "Rom", the Romans, who...err...have the same name.

If the "Egypt" of the ancients wasn't the land of the Nile, then maybe all three groups of Rom (and there may be others... the Armenians?) are refugees from the original "Egypt".

You know... I'm starting to think there may have been two groups of refugees from pre-deluge civilisations... The Wals/Gals from the west and the Rom from the east.

Better send for the men in white coats.
Send private message
Hatty
Site Admin

In: Berkshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Chad wrote:
I'm pretty sure "The people" of the Nile never referred to themselves as Egyptians.

Might not people flocking to get a share of the country's prosperity and/or economic migrants want to become naturalised citizens? Must have been lots of "Romans" who weren't from Rome or even from Italy originally.
Send private message
Chad


In: Ramsbottom
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
Ishmael, you are falling once more into your tiresomely gnomic mien.


I thought that was his Halloween costume.
Send private message
Chad


In: Ramsbottom
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Whilst reading Fomenko (in ebook format no less!) I came across this passage (where he was explaining how a fairly recent barrow had been erroneously "scientifically" dated to antiquity). But what grabbed my attention, was reference to a Romish pagan church:

The 'ancient' barrow belongs to the XIX century. And there is nothing surprising about it, since the pagan church also known as 'Romish' had existed in Russia and Byelorussia until the XX century, complete with specific burial rites. The centre of the Romish church had been in the Byelorussian village of Romy. In the XIX century it had possessed an archbishop, more than a hundred parishes, and a special language used by priests in sacraments. There is a XIX-century volume containing a detailed description of this old Russian pagan church.


After a bit of googling, this "Romish" pagan church appears to be unconnected (directly) to either, Rome, the Roma, or even the Romans.

The connection, I think, is to the old pagan religion of the Baltic/Prussian region (which wasn't fully Christianised until the 14th century... but that deserves a thread of its own)... anyway, that was centred on the temple at Romuva in Old Prussia. (The name is said to mean sanctuary.)

So we have another group of "Rom" to add to our list of: Romans, Roma and R_m_t.... And again they appear to have entered the vicinity from the east.
Send private message
Chad


In: Ramsbottom
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Can anybody shed any light on this? It all smells very fishy to me.

There was a Romish (pagan) church based in Romy, whose priests gave sacrament in a special language unfamiliar to their parishioners... and a Roman (christian) church based in Rome, whose priests gave sacrament in a special language unfamiliar to their parishioners.

Which came first?

And was one imitating the other?
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Very enlightening, Chad, but you haven't mentioned another candidate which is the Uniate Church. This is basically the Orthodox Church in ritual but with the Pope as its head. Russians are always a bit weird when it comes to these attempts (mainly by Ukrainians and White Russians) to break away from Mother Russia so I wouldn't be surprised if Fomenko is getting it all a bit warped.

However your Googling seems to make this unlikely. And anyway Fomenko is a Ukrainian name!
Send private message
Chad


In: Ramsbottom
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I initially assumed that this must be a reference to a Roman Catholic enclave in an Eastern Orthodox dominated region. But even an Orthodox fundamentalist, referring to the Roman church as pagan, would be like a pot calling the kettle black. (And the Uniate church did maintain Orthodox practices.)

Also, Fomenko's assertion that they were the builders of the "ancient" pagan barrow, was supported by the finding of anomalous nineteenth century artefacts. That together with the existence of the earlier pagan religion based at Romuva suggests that this was indeed a true pagan church.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

The Romish Church is the fossilized remains of what the Roman Church once was.
Send private message
Chad


In: Ramsbottom
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Ishmael wrote:
The Romish Church is the fossilized remains of what the Roman Church once was.


That does sound rather appealing. And it opens up some intriguing possibilities.

Was the structure of the Roman Church in place before it adopted Christianity, or was it, in its early stages, a fusion of paganism and Christianity?... After all, Pontiff does mean "bridge builder".

But I think it actually indicates that the Old Prussians (and part of Kievan Rus) were early converts to Christianity and not late converts as we are led to believe.

If they were converted to the Roman Church and named their religious centres after Rome (but were then isolated from Rome when the area fell under Byzantine influence) they may have reverted to their former pagan beliefs while retaining the structures of the Roman Church.

And it would have been their RE-Christianisation that continued into the fourteenth century... (Isn't that what the Northern Crusades were all about?)
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Chad wrote:
Was the structure of the Roman Church in place before it adopted Christianity, or was it, in its early stages, a fusion of paganism and Christianity?


The Roman Church did not adopt Christianity. It invented it. Slowly. Christiantiy is evolved paganism. It began as the fusion of worldwide traditions assimilated to build a "universal" or "Catholic" faith that could unite a globe-spanning empire.

That is my current thinking.

The faith, once united, could then be modified on a global scale. I suspect the Jesuits invented Jesus -- inspired by the work of philosophers and astrologers. Martin Luther invented the Bible, following on from work begun by John Hus et al, but possibly -- just possibly -- gaining much of the text by way of the British Isles.

That's a bit of the model I've got floating around in my head.

... After all, Pontiff does mean "bridge builder".


I think the "bridge" in question is the one over the river Styx. And I expect it's a ferry, not a bridge. And the captain is a "Pontiff Pilot".

And it would have been their RE-Christianisation that continued into the fourteenth century... (Isn't that what the Northern Crusades were all about?)


I've no idea. These details are beyond my scope.
Send private message
Chad


In: Ramsbottom
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Chad wrote:
The significance here is that these three groups of "The people" all call themselves ROM.


I'm pretty sure now that Rom simply means refugee... people forced to roam.

The Romans were refugees from Anatolia... The Roma are still roaming and the Rmt were not indigenous to Africa but roamed down the Nile valley from somewhere in Eurasia.
Send private message
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

    Titania is the name of a character in William Shakespeare's play A Midsummer Night's Dream. In Shakespeare's play, she is the queen of the fairies...
Dunno much about the Tuatha D' Danann, but since they became the Faery Folk, living underground, I assume they are the Dwarves, Elves, Trolls... Titans.

So Titania is the "right" name for the Faery Queen. But I thought I was the only one who makes this equation. Maybe it's well known (long known anyway) after all.

Wiki continues:

    In traditional folklore, the fairy queen has no name. Shakespeare took the name 'Titania' from Ovid's Metamorphoses, where it is an appellation given to the daughters of Titans.
So it's not "well known" at all.

Shakespeare must have known something no one else did.

Or at least, since we're now sure Shakespeare was just the scribe for a theatrical movement {Plagiarist? Entrepreneur?}, some people must have known something no one else did.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

You forget that he was the "swan" of Avon ie a direct inheritor of the Megalithic Tradition (the swan being an alchemical symbol, see my piece in Crying Wolf in the Life Sciences section ...er... momentarily).
Send private message
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

...the Dwarves, Elves, Trolls... Titans.

The other creature that gets mentioned in the same breath as Troll, in particular, is Ogre.

I suggest these are all the same as the Giants, or, in Norse terms:

    A jötunn is a giant in Norse mythology, a member of a race of nature spirits with superhuman strength, described as sometimes standing in opposition to the races of the tribes of the Æsir and Vanir, although they frequently mingle with or intermarry with these... In some legends and myths they are described as having the same height as humans. {Remember, Giants are not necessarily giant, nor Dwarves ncecessarily dwarf.}

    In later Scandinavian folklore, the nature spirits called trolls (deriving from the term for 'magic') take over many of the functions of the more ancient concept of the jötunn.

    Jötunn (Proto-Germanic *etunaz) might have the same root as "eat" (Proto-Germanic *etan) and accordingly had the original meaning of "glutton" or "man-eater", possibly in the sense of personifying chaos, the destructive forces of nature.
    {Nah.}
An Ogre, "a man-eating monster" is clearly the same again.

Ogre is "French, of unknown origin", but that doesn't necessarily means it's French, of course. I say the Giants/Dwarves/.../Ogres are the Celts. Komori is explicit in the claim, somewhere around here, that they came to Britain and Brittany to farm acorns and cow hides. Consuming the countryside?

Ogre = "oaker"?
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 11, 12, 13, 14  Next

Jump to:  
Page 12 of 14

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group