Alfred the Great, descendant of Woden
Agnarb
Alfred the Great,King of the Anglo Saxons, the only English king to be
called 'Great', is another one of our heroic Anglo saxon ancestors who was
of the line of Woden.
Relate this to my earlier Hengest posts, who also sprung from Woden's line.
<849, was born Alfred, king of the
Anglo-Saxons, at the royal village of Wanating, in Berkshire, which
country
has its name from the wood of Berroc, where the box-tree grows most
abundantly.
His genealogy is traced in the following order. King Alfred was the son
of king
Ethelwulf, who was the son of Egbert, who was the son of Elmund, was the
son of
Eafa, who was the son of Eoppa, who the son of Ingild. Ingild, and Ina,
the famous
king of the West-Saxons, were two brothers. Ina went to Rome, and there
ending
this life honourably, entered the heavenly kingdom, to reign there for
ever with
Christ. Ingild and Ina were the sons of Coenred, who was the son of
Ceolwald,
who was the son of Cudam, who was the son of Cuthwin, who was the son of
Ceawlin, who was the son of Cynric, who was the son of Creoda, who was
the
son of Cerdic, who was the son of Elesa, who was the son of Gewis, from
whom
the Britons name all that nation Gegwis, who was the son of Brond, who
was
the son of Beldeg, who was the son of Woden, >
Taken from Asser's Life of King Alfred.(online medieval library)
Just another example of our heroic/mighty Anglo Saxon ancestors who are
descendants of Woden.
Wes Thu hal
Ronald Branga
RKN
David J Brooks - KC5WNK
> Forgive me if I'm wrong, he may have been descended from odin (woden, etc)
> but if I remember correctly he was also a very staunch shove it down thier
> throats, burn em and pillage em if thier not christian type king.
Genealogy is genealogy, regardless of religion, politics, deeds, etc.. its
about ancestry.
> I think also being baptized he could no longer consider himself from the
> line of Odin. Christian Baptizm is being adopted into the family of Christ,
> renouncing all other ties. (ie his ancestoral heritage etc.)
Christians do not renounce their ancestors at baptism.
--
David J Brooks - KC5WNK
Seabrook, Texas - EL29ln
-.- -.-. ..... .-- -. -.-
Ravenreape
but if I remember correctly he was also a very staunch shove it down thier
throats, burn em and pillage em if thier not christian type king.
line of Odin. Christian Baptizm is being adopted into the family of Christ,
renouncing all other ties. (ie his ancestoral heritage etc.)
red...@hotmail.com
> > I think also being baptized he could no longer consider himself from the
> > line of Odin. Christian Baptizm is being adopted into the family of Christ,
> > renouncing all other ties. (ie his ancestoral heritage etc.)
>
> David J Brooks
Eala David,
You are wrong on this point, David. Maybe nowadays Christians don't renounce
their ancestors (most of their ancestors are Chr'ians), but in the centuries
when the North Folk was converted to Christianity, being baptized did mean a
seizure with one's ancestors. One of the finest examples in written history
that this was the case, is the failed baptizing of the Frisian Heathen king
Redbad in the 7th century. With one foot in the 'tub' king Redbad asked the
priest if he would see his ancestors after he died. The priest answered that
his kinfolk were burning in hell since they were not baptized, and he
(Redbad) would go to heaven. Redbad pulled his foot out of the water and
replied; He would rather spend all of eternity in hell with his forebears,
than spend it with pitiful people in heaven.
Groetnis fan Ade
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
St Loop
> Genealogy is genealogy, regardless of religion, politics, deeds, etc.. its
about ancestry.
Yeah, but ... this sounds more like mythology than genealogy.
What does it mean to say that somebody is descended from a god?
Are we to take this as being *literally* true? Or are we to understand
this as being the sort of claim that is made in behalf of a royal line by
way of affirming that it rules, as it were, by divine right?
Personally, I cannot take a fundamentalist attitude; I cannot believe
that just because something is written down somewhere, it MUST be
literally true. I believe, however, that there are such things as mythic
truth, religious truth, "higher" truth -- but these are matters of faith.
I'm always surprised to find the spirit of fundamentalism alive in a
religion like Asatru. Maybe it's part of our collective Christian baggage.
David J Brooks - KC5WNK
> > Christians do not renounce their ancestors at baptism.
> You are wrong on this point, David.
I'm interpreting the word 'renounce' more literally perhaps. The Christian
formula for baptism has been fairly well fixed since the early councils. The
only things renounced are "Satan, all his works, and all his pomp".
> Maybe nowadays Christians don't renounce
> their ancestors (most of their ancestors are Chr'ians), but in the centuries
> when the North Folk was converted to Christianity, being baptized did mean a
> seizure with one's ancestors.
While it's true that familes are sometimes split apart by religious
differences, I wouldn't call that renunciation. But here we get into
semantics. My original point was that converted or not, Alfred's ancestors
remain his ancestors, in the same way that my father is still my father,
regardless his Christianity or my Heathenism.
If we stipulate the contrary, that by his conversion to Christianity, Alfred
somehow lost his heathen lineage, then it follows that few if any of us have
heathen ancestry, which is absurd. Contrarywise, if we renounce lineage with
religion, then I have no ancestors at all! (So why do I still have a
belly-button? :)
Looking up my family tree, I find a wide assortment of chicken theives, slave
owners, missionaries to the heathens and invaders of other peoples' countries.
While it's very easy for me to disdain their actions from this end of the
timeline, it's impossible for me to say with certainty that I would have made
different choices in their shoes. Nor does wishing it were different change
the past. I am still a product of my ancestors, and for that, I honor the
whole scandalous lot of them.
David J Brooks - KC5WNK
> > Genealogy is genealogy, regardless of religion, politics, deeds, etc.. its
> about ancestry.
>
> Yeah, but ... this sounds more like mythology than genealogy.
> What does it mean to say that somebody is descended from a god?
Our heathen ancestors apparently believed this. The idea of divine descent of
kings runs all through Norse mythology and archaeology. What is surprising is
that even through the filter of christian editing, the primary sources still
make these kinds of claims. Even in modern Asatru the idea of kinship with the
gods persists. I'm not willing to say that it isn't so.
What does it really mean to claim kinship with the gods? Are we simply saying
that we and the gods are a product of the same culture? Are we saying, as
Snorri Sturluson does, that the gods were living men and women, who were
elevated to divinity in the hearts and minds of their descendants? Or did
'otherworldy' gods actually mix their genetic material with our species?
Frankly, I don't know. I could make a decent argument from any of those
points of view. Maybe all of them are true. But ultimately, for me, kinship
with the gods means that we and they come from the same beginning, are headed
to the same end, and are together for the long haul. From that perspective
it's irrelvant to me whether Woden is actually my 59xGreat Grandfather or the
god of my 58xGreat Grandfather, either way, he's been in the family for a long
time.
> Are we to take this as being *literally* true? Or are we to understand
> this as being the sort of claim that is made in behalf of a royal line by
> way of affirming that it rules, as it were, by divine right?
Well, since Alfred's lineage in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle takes him back to
Woden, and then traces Woden on back through Noah to Adam, I'm going to guess
that the chronicler was trying to make a general point to heathen and
christian alike that Alfred came from solid roots. And since it was an
audience of Anglo-Saxon Christians, the inclusion of Woden at the head of a
line of heathen kings indicates to me that these folks continued to honor
their heathen ancestors, in spite of their conversion.
> Personally, I cannot take a fundamentalist attitude; I cannot believe
> that just because something is written down somewhere, it MUST be
> literally true. I believe, however, that there are such things as mythic
> truth, religious truth, "higher" truth -- but these are matters of faith.
I don't think literalism is the case here. Why do you make that assumption?
> I'm always surprised to find the spirit of fundamentalism alive in a
> religion like Asatru. Maybe it's part of our collective Christian baggage.
I wonder where you have found it? Perhaps in a voice that judges and condemns
our Christian ancestors for being Christian, rather than hailing them as
ancestors?
--
David J Brooks
red...@hotmail.com
I'm sorry David, but I think you didn't quite understand my argumentation. To
keep the discussion clear: 1. I would like to separate the baptising of
Christians nowadays, with the baptising of king Alfred or king Redbad (Radbod
in Frankish). The way heathens regarded their forefathers at the turn of the
1st millennium, can in no way be compared with the baptising of Christians
today. 2. I did not imply that renunciation/seizure of lineage was a genetic
one; of course Alfred and Redbad remain the "fruits of the loins" of their
forefathers.
Mediaeval Heathens believed their forefathers would remain with them after
death. Practices like keeping a chair free, and setting an extra plate of
food at the dinner table for the recently deceased, are witnesses of this.
Heathens also believed the dead lived on in their grave (it is said people
with special psychic abilities could see the dead in their mounds and hear
them singing). These practises and believes are blasphemous to Christians and
were therefore forbidden. Forbidding these practises, meant forbidding the
worshipping of ones forefathers (after all, there was only room for one!! to
be worshipped). The end of the worshipping of the forefathers also meant the
end of the mediaeval genealogy in the form of epic poems or sagas. Thanks to
early Christian zealots not one Frisian epic poem has survived to date. I
argue that the end of the worshipping of forefathers can be seen as the
breaking of lineage. Not in a genetical way, but more as a mindset (out of
sight, out of mind).
In my last discussion I referd to the failed Christening of the Frisian king
Redbad. The reason for his refusal to be baptized, was the fact he could no
longer be with his kinfolk after death (in:Vita Wulframni). Redbad did not
want to be SEPERATED from his kinfolk. This seems to me to be a quite strong
point for the argument that there is a connection between the renunciation of
lineage and religion in the mind frame of early heathens.
Wow, this is a pretty cool discussion, hope to hear from you soon,
Doug Freyburger
> What does it mean to say that somebody is
> descended from a god?
It is certainly a tough claim to prove.
> Are we to take this as being *literally* true? Or
> are we to understand this as being the sort of
> claim that is made in behalf of a royal line by way
> of affirming that it rules, as it were, by divine
> right?
That is the problem in this case. It is FAR easier
to claim descent from a God than it is to show the
results of the DNA tests that establish its truth.
The kings at the time had motivation to make the
claim, but nothing substantial to back it up with.
Of course, NO religion in history has EVER had
anything substantial to back it up with. Any that
did is now called a science!
In the specific case of the royal lines, I think
it WAS made up at some point: How did you become
pregnant? It was Odin! Are you sure? He had a
grey cloak!
> I cannot believe that just because something is
> written down somewhere, it MUST be literally true.
On the other hand, lack of substantial proof does
not constitute DISproof, either. We all *should*
know that, because we are here for the religion.
> Personally, I cannot take a fundamentalist attitude;
The Rigsthula teaches that all humans are physically
descended from the Aesir. How do we take that? Are
the Aesir able to assume bodies when needed? I tend
to think so. Could they have produced children over
the centuries that why? I tend to think so? Is
there any *objective* proof that it was EVER actually
happened? Certainly not!
> I believe, however, that there are such things as
> mythic truth, religious truth, "higher" truth --
> but these are matters of faith.
Asatru teaches that humans are the blood kin of the
Aesir. It is a mechanism to keep us from becoming
ascetics, as well as a clear way of describing how
the Aesir feel about us. How much literal truth is
there to it, though? I don't know for sure and
neither does anyone else. The Aesir have taken an
active part in the world and in the development of
humanity, by various means. We are the descendents
of their efforts at least, and of their blood perhaps
as well. (Assuming that they even HAVE genetics in
their natural form).
> What does it mean to say that somebody is
> descended from a god?
Whenever anyone tries to take a myth literally, its
beauty and inner truth are corrupted and lost in the
process. Descendents of the efforts of the Aesir,
descendents of the Aesir appearing in human bodies,
descendents of humans posessed by the Aesir,
descendents of humans who took one of the Aesir as
an adopted parent, usw. The common elements are
there. The meaning is in there somewhere, to be
found by each of us.
> I'm always surprised to find the spirit of
> fundamentalism alive in a religion like Asatru.
> Maybe it's part of our collective Christian baggage.
It depends on what you mean here. I understand that
no person in history has ever had *objective* proof
of the existance of any God. Many Heathens say that
believing in the Aesir is NOT an act of faith. How
can these conflicting statements happen? Because
there is more to evidence than objective evidence.
Because we have experiences that are *subjective*.
They are enough to convince us, individually and
with no way to show anyone else, that the Gods exist
in fact, so we are not taking it on faith.
I *know* that the Aesir exist, that they each have
their own recognizable personality. This is an
extremely fundimentalist stance by a person not
otherwise inclined to fundimentalism, and it is an
extremely non-Christian attitude. The source and
type of conviction I have is in no way baggage from
another faith.
Hail Asgard!
Doug Freyburger
David J Brooks - KC5WNK
> > Christians do not renounce their ancestors at baptism.
> Since he no longer acknowledged odin's existence, i'm sure he did. Anyhow,
> this talk of paternal ancestry is silly without proof - who can say there wasn't
> a milkman along the way?
Since Alfred was claiming lineal descent from Woden, it is impossible to
assume that he was also disavowing his existence, or that he was renouncing
his ancestry.
--
David J Brooks - KC5WNK
Nick Smith
Alfred was truly Great. I honour his memory.
Hail Alfred!
Bless
Nik Warrensson
Nick Smith
Odin the being that walked this earth was an Avatar sent by
the All Father of himself. Thus he could sacrifice himself to himself.
Similar, I suppose to the Christian view in this regard.
Amusing isn't it that Jesus - also an Avatat - dies similarly
with a spear wound in his side hanging from a wooden object.
Bless
Nik
Agnarb
Agnarb
>throats, burn em and pillage em if thier not >christian type king.
Not Alfred. He was a king who gave to and protected his folk, in the manner
of Germanic leaders everywhere.
It should be unthinkable for a Germanic person to harm folks under their
ward.
Oh religiously, Alfred was very Xtian, although he was not an Olaf, or
Charles the Saxon slayer type of Xtian king.
His warring was against a foriegn nation that was trying to conquer England.
From the very brink of disaster, he grabbed victory and kept his country
free from foriegn rule. Xtian or Heathen, that rocks. I have never read or
heard of him destorying folks for not converting. Part of the peace he
forced on Guthrom, had Guthrom convert to Xtianity. The point I was making
is that Alfred the Great, who is another Shining example of Anglo Saxon
pride, was a descendant of Woden.He was a fine example of the Germanic
spirit.
Most of us here have Xtian as well as Heathen Ancestors. That does not mean
that I live Asatru any less than my personal Langobard or Anglo Saxon
Heathen Ancestors. Germanic Heathenry is a way of life as well as a
religion. You cannot seperate the two. Way of Living/culture =Asatru.
Asatru=Way of Life/culture. You can put a Heathen in a new suit(Xtianity),
and as long as the culture/way of life is still 'germanic or germanicly(is
this a real word?) descended', you still have a Heathen in a new
suit(Xtianity). Some people wear the new suit so tightly and completey, that
it is almost impossible to see the Heathen wearing it. But, if you look at
the core culture of the person in the suit, you will see your Heathen.
Although, I freely admit, that in some people, it is so shriveled and
transparent, as to be almost nonexistant.
Anyways,,,,Xtian or not, Alfred the Great is descended from Woden and is a
fine example of our Anglo Saxon heroes. England was so close to defeat, he
lived in a swamp for a period of time, but HE NEVER GAVE UP. In fact he
turned the war around and attained victory.
He fostered learning.
He was a player in the Western European World.
After the war, he maintained a peace which allowed the folks in England,
English and Dane alike, to reap the benifits of peace.
He commissioned beautiful objects to be made.
Sounds like someone I think I should be like, without the new suit of
course. My heathen clothes fit me better and more naturally than anything
gotten from some foriegn bazaar! (except maybe some heating oil!):)
Wes Thu Hal
Ronald Branga
RKN
David J Brooks - KC5WNK
> I'm sorry David, but I think you didn't quite understand my argumentation. To
> keep the discussion clear: 1. I would like to separate the baptising of
> Christians nowadays, with the baptising of king Alfred or king Redbad (Radbod
> in Frankish). The way heathens regarded their forefathers at the turn of the
> 1st millennium, can in no way be compared with the baptising of Christians
> today. 2. I did not imply that renunciation/seizure of lineage was a genetic
> one; of course Alfred and Redbad remain the "fruits of the loins" of their
> forefathers.
Oh, I did understand your point, Redbad, and I'm not disagreeing that
conversion in the dark ages may have and often did entail radical breaks with
family, culture, the past, and so on. My actual point is that it need not be
so in every case, and clearly was not so in Alfred's case. This is
demonstrated by the inclusion of a list of ancestors in the Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle which in effect says, "Look, I come from a long line of honorable
Saxons all the way back to their gods." I see no room there to argue that he
has 'renounced' his ancestors, even if one puts forth the Christian argument
that Woden himself is a devil, (and this is certainly an argument that
Christian theologians were making at that time.)
<description of ancestor veneration snipped>
> were therefore forbidden. Forbidding these practises, meant forbidding the
> worshipping of ones forefathers (after all, there was only room for one!! to
> be worshipped).
That is true, at least until those ancestors are identified with saints.
> The end of the worshipping of the forefathers also meant the
> end of the mediaeval genealogy in the form of epic poems or sagas.
But apparently not in the form of chronicles; there's Alfred, giving us his
genealogy and not even bothering to whitewash out the obvious heathen
references. Likewise in Iceland, genealogies are still recorded and passed
down, right on through the conversion.
> Thanks to
> early Christian zealots not one Frisian epic poem has survived to date. I
> argue that the end of the worshipping of forefathers can be seen as the
> breaking of lineage. Not in a genetical way, but more as a mindset (out of
> sight, out of mind).
Are you sure the Christians are to blame for the lack of Frisian epics? The
one's we have from Iceland come to us -because- Christians took the time to
collect and record them. Likewise what comes to us from the Anglo-Saxon record
comes by way of clerical scribes. Granted they come filtered through Christian
editing, but without those editors, we wouldn't have these sources at all.
Perhaps the Frisians were too busy fighting missionaries to dictate their
stories? ;)
Meanwhile, the Saxons hung crosses around their necks and continued to act
like heathen. Consider for a moment Christianity's two holiest holidays,
Easter and Christmas: how are they celebrated in Anglo-Saxon cultures? Yule
trees and bearded men with sleds? When did it ever snow in Palestine? Do you
suppose there were bunnies and eggs at the ressurection, or could those be
involved with the heathen festival of Oestre? Rather than renouncing their
ancestors, it seems that the heathen-cum-christian in England carried his past
into the new religion.
<reiteration of Redbad the blisterfooted snipped>
> want to be SEPERATED from his kinfolk. This seems to me to be a quite strong
> point for the argument that there is a connection between the renunciation of
> lineage and religion in the mind frame of early heathens.
Certainly there was such a connection for Redbad. Almost as certainly, there
was no such sense of renunciation for Alfred.
Rat & Swan
> St Loop wrote:
> > What does it mean to say that somebody is
> > descended from a god?
> It is certainly a tough claim to prove.
snip
> That is the problem in this case. It is FAR easier
> to claim descent from a God than it is to show the
> results of the DNA tests that establish its truth.
I find it intriguing that the double helix of DNA so closely resembles
the Jera Rune. Perhaps the Gods' knowledge of DNA prompted them to give
us the key in Runic form, knowing that one day we would unlock the
mysteries They created. Mayhap *that* is our descent-proof.
snip
> In the specific case of the royal lines, I think
> it WAS made up at some point: How did you become
> pregnant? It was Odin! Are you sure? He had a
> grey cloak!
IMHO, if such a claim was made at the time, there would be as much
pressure to substantiate it as there is today. My guess is that the
claim was made in the same way that Pharaoh claimed to be the son of
Amon. By the king taking on, or becoming infused with the God's Presence
as he impregnated the Queen, the resultant child was said to be of
Divine lineage, as well as the lawful heir of the King. Since we do
know that in Seidhr workings the Gods can, and oft times do, possess
participants, then such a union would be possible.
As to transubstantiation of DNA into the God-bearing man's semen (or the
Goddess-bearing woman's ovum) it would be possible... after all... the
Gods ARE the Gods! But what if the infusion is not semen or ovum or DNA
but SPIRIT? It may well be that the child of the King and Queen is
theirs, genetically, but Odhinn breathed part of His spirit INTO the
fetus at Quickening? There are SEVERAL ways in which a God might place
part of Him or Herself into a child at any point in that child's
development.
what may be important here is to find out (if we can at this late date)
HOW the Divine parentage AFFECTED the King so parented. Was he subject
to being taken over by the God, in a trance, visions, Falling Sickness
or intuition? I would imagine that a man making claim to Divine
parentage would *experience* connection with that parent in a spiritual
or physical way. We need to find historical evidence of WHAT that King
said or did or showed to PROVE his lineage.
> > I cannot believe that just because something is
> > written down somewhere, it MUST be literally true.
> On the other hand, lack of substantial proof does
> not constitute DISproof, either. We all *should*
> know that, because we are here for the religion.
Xtianity offers not one *shred* of scientific proof of JC's Pop being
JHVH! "He just IS!" they chorus. Well, in the words of James Randi,
"Extroardinary claims demand extroardinary proof!" I don't quarrel with
JC's claim to Divine parentage, but I DO quibble (and mightily) with the
Swiss a\rmy Knife Trinity thing! all is One and One is All... nope.
BTW, as to claims of physical descendence from the Divine, read Man Of
Steel, Woman Of Kleenex by Larry Niven. It details the sex life of
Superman and holds a lotta truth as to a crossing between mortal and
God.
> > Personally, I cannot take a fundamentalist attitude;
> The Rigsthula teaches that all humans are physically
> descended from the Aesir. How do we take that? Are
> the Aesir able to assume bodies when needed? I tend
> to think so. Could they have produced children over
> the centuries that why? I tend to think so? Is
> there any *objective* proof that it was EVER actually
> happened? Certainly not!
I find it interesting that we tend to take the tales and Eddas for
truth, but question the idea of parentage. Odhinn can nearly drain the
sea through a mighty horn and raise the World Serpent's body, but he
cannot father a child with a mortal woman? Huh? And in case nobody has
realised it, Thorr's Hammer, head up and handle downward is the EXACY
profile of penis and testicles and Freyja's heart is the labia. Our
faith was an earthy one, my friends! I find the Gods mating with mortals
FAR easier to believe! Especially if such matings were done in Seidhr!
> Asatru teaches that humans are the blood kin of the
> Aesir. It is a mechanism to keep us from becoming
> ascetics, as well as a clear way of describing how
> the Aesir feel about us. How much literal truth is
> there to it, though? I don't know for sure and
> neither does anyone else.
I would say this: that 90 generations back, counting forward, the blood
concentration (or quantum, as the Natrive Americans reckon it) is
pret-ty thin! Of course, with intermarriage, several descendant lines
may meet and mate again and again over the generations. The spiritual
quantum is easier to maintain and nurture, IMHO and THAT is the lineage
we should claim. Easier than saying "I'm one gazillionth Divine!"
> The Aesir have taken an
> active part in the world and in the development of
> humanity, by various means. We are the descendents
> of their efforts at least, and of their blood perhaps
> as well. (Assuming that they even HAVE genetics in
> their natural form).
Good question! I should imagine that They made Their genetics
*recessive* traits in order that such traits NOT become common in
genetic stocks. After all, rarity and difficulty to acquire a thing or
property lends value and worth.
snip
> Whenever anyone tries to take a myth literally, its
> beauty and inner truth are corrupted and lost in the
> process. Descendents of the efforts of the Aesir,
> descendents of the Aesir appearing in human bodies,
> descendents of humans posessed by the Aesir,
> descendents of humans who took one of the Aesir as
> an adopted parent, usw. The common elements are
> there. The meaning is in there somewhere, to be
> found by each of us.
And found on an individual basis, much as Odhinn found the Runes by His
own hard effort. While I would *love* to be handed all my genealogy on
an electrum platter, I also know that the loss of my own effort would
cheapen and tarnish the value to me of the results. I need to mine my
own gold from the rock and distill it into my own coin.
snip
> Because we have experiences that are *subjective*.
> They are enough to convince us, individually and
> with no way to show anyone else, that the Gods exist
> in fact, so we are not taking it on faith.
This is the kernel of every religious system. It MUST be personal or it
is meaningless.
> I *know* that the Aesir exist, that they each have
> their own recognizable personality. This is an
> extremely fundimentalist stance by a person not
> otherwise inclined to fundimentalism, and it is an
> extremely non-Christian attitude. The source and
> type of conviction I have is in no way baggage from
> another faith.
And that belief is personal and intensely close to your soul, as is each
one of our faiths. If a King states that his father is Odhinn or Thorr
or Amun, then perhaps the reference IS to that closeness, that worship
on almost a *cellular* level of the body. It may be that a God can
father one already born! By the intense inbinding and entry into a
person's soul, the God BECOMES part of the person's body, (remember the
old Jesus lives in your heart stuff?) and infills a person so that that
person BECOMES the child, or brother of the God.
Worth mulling over.
Sigrun Wynnisdottir
> Hail Asgard!
> Doug Freyburger
David J Brooks - KC5WNK
> You've got the wrong guy.
> Alfred was Cyning of the Anglo Saxons. England. Not Germany. How could he
Actually the West Saxons, Wessex, which later became part of England. ;)
Interestingly enough, the Kings of the Angles and Mercia also traced their
lineage to Woden:
Woden -> Withlaeg -> King Wermund of Angle -> Offa -> Angeltheow -> Eomer ->
Isel -> Cnebba -> Cynewald -> King Creoda of Mercia (no relation to the Creoda
in Alfred's line of ascent.)
Ravenreape
honor, at that time)He enacted in Germany in his time. Specifically dealing
with heathan religions. Death was most often the punishment.
Agnarb
>honor, at that time)He enacted in Germany in his time. Specifically dealing
>with heathan religions. Death was most often the punishment.
>
Alfred was Cyning of the Anglo Saxons. England. Not Germany. How could he
slayer?(Charlemagne)? Then you would be right in your contempt.
Ron
Agnarb
>
>> You've got the wrong guy.
>> Alfred was Cyning of the Anglo Saxons. England. Not Germany. How could he
>
>
>Interestingly enough, the Kings of the Angles and Mercia also traced their
>lineage to Woden:
>
Tip of my hat to you. You are being more specific than I was. ;)
red...@hotmail.com
Thanks for your response, I still have some questions though.
> Oh, I did understand your point, Redbad, and I'm not disagreeing that
> conversion in the dark ages may have and often did entail radical breaks with
> family, culture, the past, and so on. My actual point is that it need not be
> so in every case, and clearly was not so in Alfred's case. This is
> demonstrated by the inclusion of a list of ancestors in the Anglo-Saxon
> Chronicle which in effect says, "Look, I come from a long line of honorable
> Saxons all the way back to their gods." I see no room there to argue that he
> has 'renounced' his ancestors, even if one puts forth the Christian argument
> that Woden himself is a devil, (and this is certainly an argument that
> Christian theologians were making at that time.)
In Alfred's case, I agree with you David, that there was no radical break with
his forebears or his lineage with the heathen Gods after his conversion to
Christianity. The text of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle speaks for itself. Even
though I have two questions for you:
1. To what extent could this lineage to Woden 'and' to Adam be a carefully
constructed plan to appease the Anglo-Saxon nobility that had remained
heathen? 2. Could the Chronicle have written by secular scribes whom were
still heathen (the language after all is English and not Latin), and the
additions concerning Adam be a Christian addition of later times (The Frisian
history is living proof of the Christians are the best historical
revisionist!)
Both questions leave room open enough to state again that baptising did imply
renunciation of the ancestors.
> > Thanks to
> > early Christian zealots not one Frisian epic poem has survived to date. I
> > argue that the end of the worshipping of forefathers can be seen as the
> > breaking of lineage. Not in a genetical way, but more as a mindset (out of
> > sight, out of mind).
>
> Are you sure the Christians are to blame for the lack of Frisian epics? The
> one's we have from Iceland come to us -because- Christians took the time to
> collect and record them. Likewise what comes to us from the Anglo-Saxon record
> comes by way of clerical scribes. Granted they come filtered through Christian
> editing, but without those editors, we wouldn't have these sources at all.
>
> Perhaps the Frisians were too busy fighting missionaries to dictate their
> stories? ;)
The "splendid isolation" from the Francs (and the Christian zealots that
accompanied them) saved Great Britain and Scandinavia. The Francs broke the
backbone of the Frisian monarchy in the eight century, and in doing so they
ruined the chance of a "The Frisian Chronical" ever to be written by the
scribes of a Frisian Royal court (be it heathen or Christian). The X-tian
zealots were so thorough in their destruction of Frisian idols and cult
places, that up to date near to nothing has been found. Yes, they literally
whiped away a great part of my cultural heritage.
> Meanwhile, the Saxons hung crosses around their necks and continued to act
> like heathen. Consider for a moment Christianity's two holiest holidays,
> Easter and Christmas: how are they celebrated in Anglo-Saxon cultures? Yule
> trees and bearded men with sleds? When did it ever snow in Palestine? Do you
> suppose there were bunnies and eggs at the ressurection, or could those be
> involved with the heathen festival of Oestre? Rather than renouncing their
> ancestors, it seems that the heathen-cum-christian in England carried his past
> into the new religion.
Thank the Gods for that!
Greetings/Groetnis fan Redbad
David J Brooks - KC5WNK
> In Alfred's case, I agree with you David, that there was no radical break with
> his forebears or his lineage with the heathen Gods after his conversion to
> Christianity. The text of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle speaks for itself. Even
> though I have two questions for you:
As far as I know, Alfred didn't convert. By 849 England was pretty thoroughly
christianized, and had been so for a couple of centuries.
> 1. To what extent could this lineage to Woden 'and' to Adam be a carefully
> constructed plan to appease the Anglo-Saxon nobility that had remained
> heathen?
Practically none, see above.
> 2. Could the Chronicle have written by secular scribes whom were
> still heathen (the language after all is English and not Latin), and the
> additions concerning Adam be a Christian addition of later times (The Frisian
> history is living proof of the Christians are the best historical
> revisionist!)
No. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle was commisioned (and parts of it perhaps
written) by Alfred himself. It is from the beginning to the end, a christian
document. The fact that it is written in the dialect of Wessex, and that
Alfred went to great lengths to encourage learning and literature in the
vernacular, underscores the tenacity with which these folks continued to honor
their heathen forebears.
> Both questions leave room open enough to state again that baptising did imply
> renunciation of the ancestors.
The answers, however, do not.
Wes thu hal!