Celtic and English saints november 5
holy...@wondering.com
* St. Kanten of Wales
* St. Kea of Devon and Cornwall
* St. Bertila of Chelles
St. Kea, Bishop of Devon and Cornwall
(Kay, Ke, Kenan, Quay)
6th century. The British saint Kea left his name to Kea in Cornwall and
Landkey in Devon, where he is still venerated. He
passed some of his life and died in Brittany, where he is venerated as
Saint Quay (at Saint-Quay in northern Brittany and Saint-Quay-Portrieux
near Saint Brieuc). The details of his life are very uncertain;
however, it is possible that as Kea, Fili, and Saint Ruadan (f.d. April
15) travelled from Glastonbury into Devon and Cornwall they founded
churches and monasteries. Less certain is Kea's noble parentage and
association with Saint Gildas (f.d.January 29), who is said to have made
his bells (Benedictines,Farmer). In art he is depicted as a bishop
ploughing with seven stags (in pictures from Brittany); sometimes waters
gushes from a rock that he has struck (Roeder). Saint Kea is invoked
swa...@ozemail.com.au
through His mother, Mary, or Claudia (2 Timothy 4 : 21) or even Paul
may have taken the gospel to England shortly after Christ's
resurrection.
There are Internet sites taht deal with those issues.
You seem to me to be making out that England was a Roman Catholic
country
and that it should be so again today.
Instead of seeking to impose Roman Catholicism by media gimmicks
the hierarchy at Rome needs to review its part in bringing about the
divisions
within the Christian faith and make an apology to Protestants,
beginning with
John Wycliffe, a priest of the RC Church and others who sought to
follow more closely the New Testament teachings as they understood
them.
Gladys Swager
bob young
"s...@ozemail.com.au" wrote:
> On Nov 6, 12:40 am, holyf...@wondering.com wrote:
> > Celtic and Old English Saints 5 November
> >
> It may have been that Joseph of Arimathea, the uncle of Jesus Christ
> through His mother, Mary, or Claudia (2 Timothy 4 : 21) or even Paul
> may have taken the gospel to England shortly after Christ's
> resurrection.
> There are Internet sites taht deal with those issues.
Jesus with an Uncle ? what next.
Those sites are dedicated to perpetuating a myth.
I have a question about Jesus you may be able ot answer. Why did those
early writers make up a story about the said Jesus and ignore [all of
them] his first twenty years from the cradle ?
The son of a god that was supposed to have created the entire universe
lives in obscurity for almost twenty years. . . . ! ?
Maybe the myth writers overlooked it !
>
>
> You seem to me to be making out that England was a Roman Catholic
> country
> and that it should be so again today.
It was until the Pope sent an emissary first to Ireland where he
succeeded and then to England where he failed thanks to King Henry V
The point is, were there a god of Christianity all the nit picking,
snide comments and hatred for other sects would be outlawed, in fact
'He' would see to it that they didn't exist. were 'He' to exist, of
course.
All this nonsense does in prove, were such necessary, that religions
are ALL the work of man's fertile brain.
>
> Instead of seeking to impose Roman Catholicism by media gimmicks
> the hierarchy at Rome needs to review its part in bringing about the
> divisions
> within the Christian faith
An impossible task. Man can be arrogant and soon loses interest,
specially if 'he' is not 'centre of attraction'. So what does he do to
become the 'centre of attraction' ? Invent his own cliques that's
what. It will NEVER change.
Ref: Rev Jim Jones of suicide fame . . . . et al.
> and make an apology to Protestants,
> beginning with
> John Wycliffe, a priest of the RC Church and others who sought to
> follow more closely the New Testament teachings as they understood
> them.
"Christians, it is needless to say, utterly detest each other. They
slander each other constantly with the vilest forms of abuse and cannot
come to any sort of agreement in their teachings. Each sect brands its
own, fills the head of its own with deceitful nonsense, and makes
perfect little pigs of those it wins over to its side."
[R.J.Hoffmann]
Bob
Humanist, atheist Brit.
Hong Kong
>
bob young
Belatu-Cadros
The Celtic god of war and of the destruction of enemies. He was worshipped
in Britain, primarily in Wales. His name means "fair shining one". The
Romans equated him with their god Mars.
Andraste
The goddess of war in Celtic Britain. In 61 CE, the leader of a rebellion
against the Roman occupation -- Queen Boudicca (Latin: Boadicea) --
sacrificed captive Roman women to this goddess.
Andraste has been occasionally linked to hares and ravens.
holy...@wondering.com
through His mother, Mary, or Claudia (2 Timothy 4 : 21) or even Paul may
>
> have taken the gospel to England shortly after Christ's resurrection.
> There are Internet sites taht deal with those issues.
"You seem to me to be making out that England was a Roman Catholic
country and that it should be so again today. Instead of seeking to
impose Roman Catholicism by media gimmicks the hierarchy at Rome needs
to review its part in bringing about the divisions within the Christian
faith and make an apology to Protestants, beginning with John Wycliffe,
a priest of the RC Church and others who sought to follow more closely
the New Testament teachings as they understood them."
No, it was first a celtic catholic country, then later came under the
authority of rome and still later of mostly various protestant
traditions. This includes the coe which consideres itself a direct line
of being catholic as is given in the universal church creed.
Why all this paranoia about the "rc" church? It is best to get the
history correct then to invent a pope under every bed. Getting the
history right is more important then is serving your paranoia which is
in most parts irrelevant to this series of posts about the pre"rc"
history of nw europe..
bob young
holy...@wondering.com wrote:
Getting the history right about something created by
thousands of human minds from thousands of years ago
is an impossible task, but alas - one which the devout will
be struggling vainly with for as long as
man has a need for imaginary gods to lean on
holy...@wondering.com
minds from thousands of years ago is an impossible task, but alas - one
which the devout will be struggling vainly with for as long as man has a
need for imaginary gods to lean on"
I agree fully, indeed, we will have weather today and yes a spot of tea
would do well of an afternoon.
The above a classic example where the comment in response is irrelevant
to the post and merely taken as an place to insert some vicarious
comments now fully shop worn. Two things about which the brits can go
on, weather and tea.
bob young
holy...@wondering.com wrote:
Seems my point hit home and had you struggling again,
then all you could turn to was cute nastiness - Well done.
If this is what religion teaches people,
how pleased I am to be an atheist.
holy...@wondering.com
human
> minds from thousands of years ago is an impossible task, but alas -
one
> which the devout will be struggling vainly with for as long as man has
a
> need for imaginary gods to lean on"
>
> I agree fully, indeed, we will have weather today and yes a spot of
tea
> would do well of an afternoon.
>
> The above a classic example where the comment in response is
irrelevant
> to the post and merely taken as an place to insert some vicarious
> comments now fully shop worn. Two things about which the brits can go
> on, weather and tea.
"Seems my point hit home and had you struggling again, then all you
could turn to was cute nastiness - Well done."
Sorry no, only mentioning the obvious, your repeated bits are now well
worn and you toss them about in places where they logically don't apply.
Not nasty, only factual and to the point.
"If this is what religion teaches people, how pleased I am to be an
atheist."
Teaches? You mean that having faith does not excuse one from being
logical andrelevant to a topic? In that you are correct in something.
Whatever pleases you, go for it. One would wish that in doing so one
would express oneself logically and relevant.
Thommadura
No - it means that faith is NOT a valid reason for addressing things
with continuous nonsense of belief - when it has no proper application.
It is YOU that constantly post things that are completely illogical and
no relevant to a topic.
Such as - when you ask a christian a question - you expect a christian
answer - when that in itself is NONSENSE.
When you ask a question of someone who claims morals and ethics - you
expect an answer that is supportable in truth. When all they do is spout
religous dogma that has no basis in truth - they are basically proving
their dishonest by not actually answering a question TRUTHFULLY.
For example - your tirades against the actions of Communists in the USSR
and CHINA - which are historically INCORRECT.
You fail to address the fact that the actions YOU claim of those
governements - in trying to maintain their political supremecy over
religion - are nothing more than the acts religion did in the past.
YOu cannot turthfully say that Religions did not ENFORCE itself upon
people - they certainly did not support freedom of religion for all.
You complain that christians could not be part of the ruling class -
when in fact - ONLY christians could be part of the ruling class at one
time.
YOur complaints about heavy handedness seem to be directed at the
actions of the christian church throughout the dark ages - forcing its
dogmas - even when they were scientifically WRONG - on people - who had
to acquiesce or face death.