The Celtic Tau
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-08-2014, 11:42 AM
Thumbs Down The Celtic Tau
I came across a few papers on the net about how the cross is actually not of Christian origin at all: https://archive.org/details/masculinecrossor00lond

It seems that the story of Adam and Eve is about the Tau or the Tree of Life and eating from it, ie., ehem, some kind of sex going on.

Anyway, the Cross seems to be a phallic object of the Gauls or Celts. I find this interesting because Abraham was from Ur of the Chaldees which would make him a Keltoi or Celt. That would make the Old Testament a history of the Gauls.

This all seems very odd because science has caught up with this idea. A DNA study at John Hopkins has suggested that European Jews are genetically the same as other Europeans: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/20...pathizers/

This reminds me of the flood story which would be explained by the global flood following the melting of the glacier which covered much of the northern hemisphere. We skeptics initially discount these stories as myth but the myth often conveys an underlying truth about history.

I've been watching the coverage of Gaza and Syria on AlJazeera recently and I am seeing a very disturbing scenario and one which reminds me of the stories of the Jewish Revolts. It seems to me that the population of the Near East back then was not Arabic or Semitic in the sense we understand it. They were the ancestors of Gauls with their mixed race slave class. Even the name Golan comes from "Gaulitia" and the Gallatians were plainly Gauls. If the Sea of Galillee and the Dead Sea, both below sea level, were ever connected to the Red Sea then Galillee was a short distance from Sidon, the home of the Phoenicians and gave a pre-Suez Canal trade route to the Far East from Europe.

I digress. Seems to me that what was going on in the Near East and Egypt then is exactly what we are seeing now in the Near East. There was an old religion which was Pagan and astrological, fertilitity based. It had as a central feature the idea of insemmination and one of its central gods was the astrological Horus which is Orion with its phallic belt, chasing darkness away with the Celtic Tau strapped to its back. This is part of the origin of the idea of the annointed one, the Karas of the Egyptians or Christ. This was a dominant religion of the Near East from Egypt through Asia Minor and it was a religion which eventually became monotheistic when the Pharoah merged the cult of Ra with that of Horus so that the father god and the son god became one. This monotheism was a religion which believed in "revenge" against "evil".

I ask myself how this is any different from modern Islam as we see it in Gaza and Syria? I think it is essentially the same.

So, we have an ancient Gallic religion based originally on Tau/Phallic worship, giving rise to a vengeful monotheism.

In the midst of this I think Christianity has to be seen as anomalous and not an organic continuation of the theme of "Christ" worship of that time.

One can see this same issue playing itself out in the briefings by General Martin Dempsey. It's the same issue that the Romans faced. What do you do with people who adhere to a religion which says that they are acting on behalf of god? And this god is seeking revenge against non believers. Of course, one wonders why people in Gaza and or the Islamic State think they are so important that god would want to help them out after they lobbed missiles into the neighbouring state or beheaded truck drivers and journalists...

I watched as Dempsey wrestled with the situation, describing it as ideological and puzzling what to say about the whole thing. It nicely illustrated the dilemma people face in the west. We have adopted a religion which was forced on the pagan masses two thousand years ago because the Romans came up against the same problem. What do you do with people who are absolutely convinced that god is on their side and that god says it is ok to pursue political ends through aggressive violence towards neighbours?

I think Atwill and Ellis provide a very interesting take on this problem, that it is a matter of undermining a messianic religion. How did they do it back then? Construct a religion or redraft an existing one with a new, peaceful theme. And use a rebel leader with "aristocratic" credentials to sell the new religion.

How do we deal with this today? My view is that the way forward in the Near East and Middle East is going to have to be a complete stonewalling of this fanatical movement combined with a gradual degeneration of the religion via internet and cultural exchange so that the people who follow this religion are woken from the hypnotic slumber they are in.

We in the West have made this problem for ourselves. We went through centuries of barbarism and then an enlightenment and religious reformation and that still wasn't enough to avoid the two worst wars ever. So, in response we set up the UN and the EU and are committed to concepts like equality and respect, regardless of religion, etc...

But therein lies the problem. We in the West live in mainly secular societies but we are now giving equal status to religions like Islam which don't respect the very secularism which allows for religious freedom. It's a paradox.

You have to watch AlJazeera to get the full force of this problem. There has been a program on AJ about Muslims in France and how Frances long history of secularism (equality, liberty, fraternity) isn't able cope with religious tolerance towards its Muslim citizens. If they were a western news organization they would ask how a freedom loving country copes with people who dogmatically adhere to an ancient pagan religion which advocates child sacrifice and beheading. And if you don't like the child sacrifice theme, just watch "Alleppo, Notes from the Dark" on AlJazeera in which AJ portray the plight of an Islamic fighter who has recruited and armed three small boys and given them machine guns. "I would give them all to Allah", he says.

Amazing.

I am starting to see very clearly in Christianity exactly what Atwill and Ellis say it is, an early attempt at undermining this Near East monotheistic messianic militant religion by reworking it as a reason based religion carefully wrapped up in a narrative of a Gallic rebel leader.

That's IMHO.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2014, 06:06 PM
RE: The Celtic Tau
(23-08-2014 11:42 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  I came across a few papers on the net about how the cross is actually not of Christian origin at all: https://archive.org/details/masculinecrossor00lond

It seems that the story of Adam and Eve is about the Tau or the Tree of Life and eating from it, ie., ehem, some kind of sex going on.

Anyway, the Cross seems to be a phallic object of the Gauls or Celts. I find this interesting because Abraham was from Ur of the Chaldees which would make him a Keltoi or Celt. That would make the Old Testament a history of the Gauls.

No. Just no. Facepalm

The cross as a graphic, as a letter, as an artifact has arisen in many cultures independently - because it is a simple geometrical figure.

You went full Ellis on this. Weeping

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Chas's post
23-08-2014, 06:18 PM
RE: The Celtic Tau
(23-08-2014 06:06 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(23-08-2014 11:42 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  I came across a few papers on the net about how the cross is actually not of Christian origin at all: https://archive.org/details/masculinecrossor00lond

It seems that the story of Adam and Eve is about the Tau or the Tree of Life and eating from it, ie., ehem, some kind of sex going on.

Anyway, the Cross seems to be a phallic object of the Gauls or Celts. I find this interesting because Abraham was from Ur of the Chaldees which would make him a Keltoi or Celt. That would make the Old Testament a history of the Gauls.

No. Just no. Facepalm

The cross as a graphic, as a letter, as an artifact has arisen in many cultures independently - because it is a simple geometrical figure.

You went full Ellis on this. Weeping

No, Chas, you've got it all wrong.

Obviously, since a thing appeared to be important to an earlier culture, it must have certainly been ported over to all other cultures using it afterwards.

It's impossible that basic geometrical shapes could be developed independently by different groups at different times. The probability is like, one thousand to one!

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2014, 07:31 PM
RE: The Celtic Tau
I don't even read DB's posts anymore till I run them through a word find for " Ellis" or "Atwill". If I find them I just close the page and do something else. Not surprisingly....I barely read anything he posts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WhiskeyDebates's post
23-08-2014, 10:28 PM (This post was last modified: 24-08-2014 05:00 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: The Celtic Tau
(23-08-2014 11:42 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  Anyway, the Cross seems to be a phallic object of the Gauls or Celts. I find this interesting because Abraham was from Ur of the Chaldees which would make him a Keltoi or Celt. That would make the Old Testament a history of the Gauls.

You whine when you get ridiculed, then you post more shit to ridicule.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_the_Celts
The Celts came from Central Europe.

Ur was a famous city in ancient Sumeria.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ur
NOT ONE historian, has ever once suggested they were the same, except you, in your endless imaginary dot-connecting. This is so pathetic it is funny.


(23-08-2014 11:42 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  It seems to me that the population of the Near East back then was not Arabic or Semitic in the sense we understand it. They were the ancestors of Gauls with their mixed race slave class. Even the name Golan comes from "Gaulitia" and the Gallatians were plainly Gauls.

Fuck no. They are all totally different. And 3 distinct locations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golan_Heights
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaul
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galatia

You told us once you were from Turkey, as I recall. No one from Turkey would not know about ancient Anatolia.

You are on drugs, aren't you, or you're just dicking with us.
I call Poe. No one can write this crap seriously.


(23-08-2014 11:42 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  If the Sea of Galillee and the Dead Sea, both below sea level, were ever connected to the Red Sea then Galillee was a short distance from Sidon, the home of the Phoenicians and gave a pre-Suez Canal trade route to the Far East from Europe.

Which would be nice, but there is not a shred of evidence for it, and we all know The Capital of the ancient world was Disney World, because I found an article on the internet that said the lady said she was dizzy whenever she went to the Levant and used a cross for a dildo. Thumbsup

(23-08-2014 11:42 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  I digress.

No. This is about your speed.
Facepalm

You suffer from a well-known mental disorder :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: