Posted on 04/02/2005 5:41:14 PM PST by John Lenin
Check the thread again.
The Germans, BTW, according to the Greeks, were slave tribes to the Celts.
The Greeks even report on a slave uprising circa 700 BC which led to the river Celts fleeing all the way to the far West of the Mediterranean.
In short, they are different people!
General literacy was an unheard of concept, but scribes were known in even the most primitive environments.
Does make a difference, one supposes, to have been prophesied!
Abraham was, after all, a traveling man.
Be a good idea to learn the difference before you get in trouble with one of 'em.
We've even had a couple of threads based on ME news stories within the last year or so.
No doubt the Secret Service is aware of these stories, but I'll guarantee they have no idea what they mean!
Hard to tell who was the winner, of course, particularly when you look at where the oil deposits are.
The difference is moot to my mind. Any religion that makes a practice of building their most holly edifices on top of another civilization's has proven itself the enemy of all.
"Wrong poster.
Check the thread again."
Sorry, but this is in reference to what, again?
The business about the Celts not keeping records is an English story. It's simply not true.
The tradition is that Merlin had to replant the vinyards in Beaujolais!
BTW, way back then in the 7th and 8th Centuries, Brittany was considerably larger than today.
The German people were still fleeing the Continent at the time ~ see Angles, Saxons, etc.
So, you can name all the Continental Celtic tribes you want ~ they were, for the most part, reduced to a handful of people by whatever brought about the Dark Ages.
Is that what you mean?
Or do you have the idea that the Muslims somehow desecrated Temple Mount and the Hebrew Temple when they built a couple of mosques?
If so, remember that the Romans totally destroyed the whole of the Temple. The Temple Mount was yet another structure provided by Herod to support the Temple known in a lot of literature as "Herod's Temple".
After the Romans cleared the site it remained vacant and open to the elements for a long time ~ some attempts were made over the years to fix up the place, and even in the three years of Simon Bar Kokhba's rule, work was done. Of course, right after that the Romans completely razed the city of Jerusalem to the ground and built a Roman town on top of it.
The Eastern Romans did some improvements to Jerusalem and built several churches (which are still thee). Then the Dark Ages came, construction stopped, and Jerusalem dwindled to a small town (if that). Eventually it drew the attention of the Islamic Caliphate. Temple Mount was cleared of debris and two mosques were built, one of them on top of the stone that stood immediately under the Altar, and where Muslim tradition holds that Mohammad's horse leaped, with him, into Heaven.
So, how did Islam desecrate the site? Seems to me that shame belongs strictly to the Romans.
Try the poster called Lenin.
The area was depopulated ~ and not because they moved away. The Plague of Justinian did it's work. Northern and Western Europe took hundreds of years to recover.
BTW, the Celts from Bologna had, circa 390 BC, sacked Rome (among other places). For a quick timeline that brings up such interesting bits as the Celtic use of Greek scribes try http://www.timelessmyths.com/celtic/aboutceltic.html
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.