Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * - - 5 votes

[Archived]Oera Linda Book and the Great Flood


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
11638 replies to this topic

#4861    The Puzzler

The Puzzler

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,649 posts
  • Joined:23 Feb 2007

Posted 13 May 2011 - 08:58 AM

What's in question here?

The validity of the book itself?

Or the 'fantastical' history given in the story?

Does the validity of the book compromise the contents of the book?

Does it make it any less true a history if the timeframe is not exact?

In an mmm bop it's gone...

#4862    Knul

Knul

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,045 posts
  • Joined:08 May 2011

Posted 13 May 2011 - 09:22 AM

Some remarks on older questions:

1. You may find a readable version of the article in LC on the home page of www.rodinbook.nl.

2. It would be preferred to use the DRW translitteration to compare the OLB text with Oldfrisian sources, incl. Riustringian. DRW stands for Deutsches Rechtswoerterbuch.

3. I have not published a book titled From Himmelum to Himalaya, but use the website www.rodinbook.nl instead to publish my ideas about the OLB and its authorship. A website is not static, but can be improved with new research results. Only part of the information is actually published on the website, the major part is not, because of current research, copy right and so on.

4. The best way to find out about the OLB is to read the letters between Cornelis over de Linden and Eelco Verwijs, between Eelco Verwijs and Johan Winkler and between Cornelis over de Linden and J.G. Ottema, published under Brieven on www.rodinbook.nl. If you come across of any letter not published in this collection, please let me know.

Knul


#4863    The Puzzler

The Puzzler

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,649 posts
  • Joined:23 Feb 2007

Posted 13 May 2011 - 10:09 AM

Abe, there is no Year 0. I've never heard it used, tell me, what happened in year 0?

There is, without doubt, information out that establishes that between 2300BC (the date for Biblical Flood) and 2200BC (date for the OLB flooding etc) the Earth had some sort of change.
----------

I'll add to this post rather than make a new one.

I was curious about the name of the Finns named by the Fryans because they (Fryans) were inferior to them in there bloody festivals.

I kept thinking the word was something for inferior but couldn't get anything.

Finna heten it said.

The rest of the sentence says this:

Thaet folk nêth navt ênis en nôme, thrvch vs send hja Finna hêten, hwand afskên hjara fêrsta algadur drov aend blodich send, thach send hja thêr alsa fin vp

Now I see the explanation - they were FINER.

This compares with the English translation: formal This people have not even a name; but we call them Finns, because although all the festivals are melancholy and bloody, they are so formal that we are inferior to them in that respect.

So, the ones they named Finns were called that because the word means FINE - Formal. Your finery is your formal wear, the finest.

http://en.wiktionary...org/wiki/f├şnna


Does anyone think it's something else?

Edited by The Puzzler, 13 May 2011 - 10:46 AM.

In an mmm bop it's gone...

#4864    Abramelin

Abramelin

    -

  • Member
  • 18,109 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2005

Posted 13 May 2011 - 12:55 PM

View PostThe Puzzler, on 12 May 2011 - 11:23 PM, said:

Read who was in Latium first:

Before the Indo-European tribes reached central Italy, Latium was possessed by a race of unknown origin,2 men of short stature and dark complexion, who had not yet learned the use of metallic implements. They are usually classed as members of the Mediterranean race. The Indo-European invaders began to enter Italy from the north and east during the third millennium B.C., and continued to come in wave after wave until they mastered the greater part of Italy. In the marshes of the Po valley the sites of the earlier of these immigrants can still be identified in the peculiarly formed "terremare" or "pile-dwelling." From a some what later period date the "Villanova" cemeteries of Umbria and Tuscany, which have yielded archŠologists so rich a fund of treasure. It was doubtless a branch of this immigrating race which took possession of Latium some time before the millennium that ended with the birth of Christ.
http://en.wikisource...Rome_and_Latium

We have the little dark Med. people.

Then the INDO EUROPEAN invaders came in from the NORTH and east during the 3RD MILLENIUM BC.

They lived in PILE DWELLINGS.


People from the North who lived on pile dwellings were in Latium after the indigenous Meds. in the 3rd millenium BC.

Puzz, it doesn't matter who was where first, it is simply a known fact that MADAM comes from Latin MEA DOMINA.

Let's say there is a word in the Dutch language, like 'pietsaa'. And we know it's from the Italian, "pizza".

Does it matter if there were Chinese living in Italy before the Italians lived there?


#4865    Abramelin

Abramelin

    -

  • Member
  • 18,109 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2005

Posted 13 May 2011 - 12:56 PM

View PostThe Puzzler, on 13 May 2011 - 10:09 AM, said:

Abe, there is no Year 0. I've never heard it used, tell me, what happened in year 0?

You are telling me??

I have been telling that since the moment we mentioned the 2193 BC date..


#4866    The Puzzler

The Puzzler

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,649 posts
  • Joined:23 Feb 2007

Posted 13 May 2011 - 01:00 PM

View PostAbramelin, on 13 May 2011 - 12:56 PM, said:

You are telling me??

I have been telling that since the moment we mentioned the 2193 BC date..
Oh, OK then, we're all good on that.

In an mmm bop it's gone...

#4867    The Puzzler

The Puzzler

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,649 posts
  • Joined:23 Feb 2007

Posted 13 May 2011 - 01:05 PM

View PostAbramelin, on 13 May 2011 - 12:55 PM, said:

Puzz, it doesn't matter who was where first, it is simply a known fact that MADAM comes from Latin MEA DOMINA.

Let's say there is a word in the Dutch language, like 'pietsaa'. And we know it's from the Italian, "pizza".

Does it matter if there were Chinese living in Italy before the Italians lived there?
I think it matters, in this case, because we are trying to identify if the Fryans were in Italy with their factories. Well, I am anyway.

I think they were and I think they are the Latin people, of Latium.

So, if they were, the Latin words should have come from the Frisian/Fryan words.

Mea domina meaning would be the meaning of Fryan madam, who had it first and it became a Latin word.

A circle - into Italy - is Latin base word - out of Italy again and seems like it's a Latin word but it might actually have come into Latium from the Fryans.

In an mmm bop it's gone...

#4868    Abramelin

Abramelin

    -

  • Member
  • 18,109 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2005

Posted 13 May 2011 - 01:08 PM

View PostThe Puzzler, on 13 May 2011 - 12:06 AM, said:

"Davis (1996) has reminded us of Clube and Napier's impact theory, and asked 'Where is the archaeological and geological evidence for the role of their 'Taurid Demons' in human history? The abrupt climate change at 2200 BC, regardless of an improbable impact explanation, situates hemispheric social collapse in a global, but ultimately cosmic, context." [Harvey Weiss: Late Third Millennium Abrupt Climate Change and Social Collapse in West Asia and Egypt. In: H Dalfes, G Kukla, H Weiss (eds.) Third Millennium BC Climate Change and Old World Collapse. Heidelberg/Berlin: Springer Verlag 1997, p. 719/20]
  
During the last two decades, researchers have discovered compelling evidence for abrupt climate change and civilization collapse in addition to sea level changes, catastrophic inundations and widespread seismic activity in many areas of the world at around 2200/2300 BC. Climatological proxy data together with sudden changes in lacustrine, fluvial and aeolian deposits have been detected in the archaeological, geological and climatological records. The most comprehensive survey of this particular climate disaster which coincided with (and most likely caused) the collapse of mankind's first urban civilizations can be found in the above mentioned volume on "Third Millennium BC Climate Change and Old World Collapse." Although there is still considerable disagreement about the "absolute" date of this catastrophe, a growing number of scholars agree that we are indeed dealing with an abrupt natural disaster with devastating effects on civilizations in West Asia, Europe and North Africa, but which was perhaps a global event.
  
When, between 1980 and 1988, the Society for Interdisciplinary Studies (SIS) published Moe Mandelkehr's pioneering research papers on archaeological, geological and climatological evidence for global climate and social catastrophes at around 2300 BC, Moe had gathered more than 350 references to back up his hypothesis with scientific data.
  
Now, almost 20 years later, 40 researchers from around the world have compiled the a.m. volume on the same event(s), analyzing and summarizing some 1700 references on abrupt climate change and social collapse around 4200/4300 BP.


http://www.zetatalk....rd/tword04m.htm

OK, now we are getting somewhere: civilizations in Europe were also effected.

Of course I'd like to more about that.


#4869    Abramelin

Abramelin

    -

  • Member
  • 18,109 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2005

Posted 13 May 2011 - 01:11 PM

View PostThe Puzzler, on 13 May 2011 - 01:00 PM, said:

Oh, OK then, we're all good on that.

OK, lol, a few pages back I even explained it, and also (with a screenshot) where the date 2194 BC came from: the Frisian Volksalmanak.

Of course the BIG question is: where did the compilers of the almanak get the date from in their turn.


#4870    Abramelin

Abramelin

    -

  • Member
  • 18,109 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2005

Posted 13 May 2011 - 01:16 PM

View PostAlewyn, on 12 May 2011 - 07:05 PM, said:

You forgot to mention the Hong Shan culture in China, North Africa’s desertification, the shrinking and eventual disappearance of the Mega Lakes after 2200 BC, your Delfzijl megalithic tombs that was covered with mud since 2200 BC, etc. etc.

Also check this site:
http://www.sciencedi...64&searchtype=a

Evidence of high-energy events in the geological record: Mid-holocene evolution of the southwestern Doñana National Park (SW Spain)

“ In the first period of the third phase ( 5200–4200 cal. years BP), estuarine infilling was probably the dominant process, with the accumulation of phyllosilicate-rich clays in the lagoon bed. This was followed by a renewed phase of instability ( 4200–4100 cal. years BP) indicated by the presence of fine storm-lain deposits and thicker, probably tsunami-induced shelly deposits.”


You might want to check how the Los Millares (S/E Spain) settlement got destroyed in 2200 BC: by extensive fires...

But the explanation is that is was destroyed by fire during wars.

Btw, I have read somewhere about a submarine volcano, west of Portugal, Mt.Tores something, causing this flood/tsunami.

+++


EDIT:

During the period of 2600 B.C. to 2400 B.C. there were signs of stress beginning to appear in the Millaren culture. Their fortifications were reinforced and enlarged to their maximum extent indicating violent encounters or war with the neighboring peoples from the west and north of them. It was in this period that the first Maritime Bell Beaker pottery appeared among the Millarens. The pottery spread quickly throughout the region on the existing maritime trade networks. By 2400 B.C. the social stress facing the Millarens began to worsen into a crisis and the large settlements began to depopulate. The graves of the elites were increasingly accompanied with weapons indicating the violent nature of the time. By 2200 B.C. the town of Los Millares was abandoned after a sequence of catastrophes (probably large-scale warfare). There is evidence of widespread fires and damage to the fortifications. But amid the destruction, the first settlements of the El Argar arose to take their place. The period began with the use of bronze in the Aegean in 2600 B.C. and ended in 2200 B.C. with it being used by the Beaker people in Britain.

http://www.minoanatl...inoan_Spain.php


+++

EDIT:

And the submarine volcano is the "Torre Seamount".

Edited by Abramelin, 13 May 2011 - 01:36 PM.


#4871    Abramelin

Abramelin

    -

  • Member
  • 18,109 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2005

Posted 13 May 2011 - 01:25 PM

View PostAlewyn, on 13 May 2011 - 07:29 AM, said:

Abe,
Not having grown up in a town or city and not being quite so familiar with the communal life in Europe, it took me quite some time to figure this one out.

It has only now dawned on me that this UM site is in effect no more than an internet piazza, plaza or town square. The locals drop in everyday to share a glass of vino, ale, whisky, cup of tea or whatever, have a good yarn and just laze the time away. They would share trivialities, local gossip and generally no one takes anybody else very seriously. It is actually quite a necessary part of social interaction. From that point of view, I must confess, I enjoy the discussions and acquaintances I made here over the last (almost) one year.

The mistake I made was to think that one could have a serious debate here on matters of academic interest. Please accept my apologies. I shall in future try to refrain from placing too much value on most of the discussions.


?? What is this then? Are the rest of us allowed to make a joke now and then, or only you?

I think I have contributed more then enough serious posts to this discussion.

.

Edited by Abramelin, 13 May 2011 - 01:26 PM.


#4872    Alewyn

Alewyn

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 537 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2010

Posted 13 May 2011 - 04:24 PM

View PostAbramelin, on 13 May 2011 - 01:25 PM, said:

?? What is this then? Are the rest of us allowed to make a joke now and then, or only you?

I think I have contributed more then enough serious posts to this discussion.

.
Abe,
To spell it out to you: I am not talking about our lighter moments or jokes here. I enjoy those as much as anyone else.

I am talking about your absolute refusal and chronic denial in accepting the irrefutable scientific evidence that the 4.2 ka BP event was world-wide, including in Europe. Your excuse is that you want "hard evidence". I gave you an extract of a geological report giving evidence of tsunamis in 4300/4200 BC in SW Spain which you just simply ignore. Instead you quote an older, meaningless date and then say one could equally make a case for a world-wide disaster in 3000 BC. Add to that your insistance that everything in the OLB was known in the 19th century. Now, do you realy expect me to take you serious any longer?

I have given abundant evidence in my book and here that the OLB's history is true and that many of the facts were not known in the 19th century. Now compare my facts with the speculation of the "Hoax Theorists". They all disagree with each other and none of them has given any facts whatsoever - i.e.none, zilch, nothing - just speculation. Yet, you believe they are right! Would you say you are objective?

Edited by Alewyn, 13 May 2011 - 05:17 PM.


#4873    Abramelin

Abramelin

    -

  • Member
  • 18,109 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2005

Posted 13 May 2011 - 06:49 PM

View PostAlewyn, on 13 May 2011 - 04:24 PM, said:

Abe,
To spell it out to you: I am not talking about our lighter moments or jokes here. I enjoy those as much as anyone else.

I am talking about your absolute refusal and chronic denial in accepting the irrefutable scientific evidence that the 4.2 ka BP event was world-wide, including in Europe. Your excuse is that you want "hard evidence". I gave you an extract of a geological report giving evidence of tsunamis in 4300/4200 BC in SW Spain which you just simply ignore. Instead you quote an older, meaningless date and then say one could equally make a case for a world-wide disaster in 3000 BC. Add to that your insistance that everything in the OLB was known in the 19th century. Now, do you realy expect me to take you serious any longer?

I have given abundant evidence in my book and here that the OLB's history is true and that many of the facts were not known in the 19th century. Now compare my facts with the speculation of the "Hoax Theorists". They all disagree with each other and none of them has given any facts whatsoever - i.e.none, zilch, nothing - just speculation. Yet, you believe they are right! Would you say you are objective?

I think you forgot what Otharus said about my presence here, as skeptic, and how my 'behaviour' could be usefull in a way. Remember that?

You also remember about what I said about Los Millares, or about the Torre Seamount? Or what I posted several pages back, about the latest scientific theory to explain geological fast rising and submerging islands (in connection with your theory about Friesland Island being Aldland), or about the Dunkirk Transgression at around 300 BC?

Think again before you say I am not serious...

Let me give you a hint: if I kiss your rear-end all the time, you will never feel challenged to prove your point.

THe OLB is considered a hoax or whatever name they want to call it. People have been discussing about it for 150 years !!

I know you are sincere, but scientists will need a lot more to be convinced, and I - in my very own irritating way - am helping you accomplishing that.

I still have LOTS of doubts, but I take your words seriously, although I am also quite certain that you think I don't.


.

Edited by Abramelin, 13 May 2011 - 07:09 PM.


#4874    Abramelin

Abramelin

    -

  • Member
  • 18,109 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2005

Posted 14 May 2011 - 03:50 PM

I found an interesting article, and a most interesting line.. "circa 2200 BC (now 2350 BC)




(2) THIRD MILLENNIUM BC CLIMATE CHANGE & OLD WORLD COLLAPSE

From: JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL SCIENCE 25,2 (1998), pp. 185-86

Book Review

By Mike Baillie m.baillie@qub.ac.uk

Third Millennium BC Climate Change and Old World Collapse.
Dalfes, H.N., Kukla, G. and Weiss, H. (Eds) 1996
Springer-Verlag (Published in cooperation with NATO
Scientific Affairs Division), Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, Barcelona,
Budapest, Hong Kong, London, Milan, Paris, Santa Clara, Singapore,
Tokyo
ISBN 3-540-61892-9
xiv, 728 pages, 156 figures, 35 tables
price DM 398,-; ÷S 2905.40; sFr 347,-; ú 172.-

This volume represents a brave attempt to bring together the evidence
for an environmental event in the later third millennium BC.
Thirty-three papers attempt to assemble the evidence from various
natural records and from archaeology. Their success is inevitably
constrained by the one key factor critical in any such endeavour -
chronological resolution. Thus, as a preliminary to the review I feel
it is necessary to set the scene from a chronological standpoint.

The problem posed by Dalfes, Kukla and Weiss is an inherently
interesting one. At the time the papers were assembled Weiss and
Courty were of the opinion that somewhere around 2200 BC there had
been a truly catastrophic environmental event. There was also a lot of
evidence pointing to the centuries between, say, 2300 BC and 1900 BC
representing some sort of environmental downturn, with widely altered
precipitation patterns. So a major question could be couched as
follows.. Were the widespread effects in Asia, Africa and Eastern
Europe actually the result of a general decline over some centuries,
or were they the result of an initial catastrophic trigger event with
longer-term implications? This is a general problem in studies of the
past where dating resolution is poor and where it is impossible to
relate different strands of evidence in real time. It is well typified
by the "suck in and smear" effects suggested in Baillie (1991). These
contrary effects represent a serious impediment to understanding past
phenomena. Abrupt or "point" events tend to be smeared by radiocarbon
dating. Thus radiocarbon effectively conceals abrupt events. The
converse case is where precisely-dated events, e.g. abrupt
environmental downturns deduced from tree-rings, tend to "suck in"
proximate but poorly dated evidence. In such cases it is easy to
envisage the creation of false horizons.

The present volume could be viewed as an exposition on exactly these
concepts. However, it is also important to know that new evidence,
deduced since the volume was produced, has actually made these points
even more emphatically. It is known that an abrupt downturn in Irish
oaks at 2354-2345 BC (Baillie 1995) falls close to the Icelandic Hekla
4 tephra horizon dated to 2310+/-20 CalBC by the wiggle-matching of
high precision radiocarbon dates (Hall et al. 1994). Courty (1997) has
now revised the dating of the original c.2200 BC abrupt environmental
event seen at Tell Leilan, in Syria, to c.2350 BC! Thus this volume of
papers has now to be seen against the existence of what may well be a
very dramatic and widespread environmental downturn - a classic point
event - the nature of which is hinted at by the report of both tephra
and glass spherules at and around the destruction layer at Tell
Leilan.

Do the contributing authors succeed in convincing the reader of the
existence, and chronology, of the proposed environmental change(s)?
The contributions (and I will mention only a few) start with Hassan
covering the breakdown known as the First Intermediate Period in
Egypt, given as 2180-2134 BC, though these cannot be true calendrical
dates. Hassan discusses the issue of the Nile floods in the context of
lake levels in Africa and suffers immediately the problem of
attempting to handle traditional historical dates in Egypt and
radiocarbon chronologies in Africa. Elsewhere Butzer quantifies the
difficulties by pointing out that at Lake Turkana, even with 15
radiocarbon determinations the dating of an abrupt rise in level
around 2150-2050 BC has "a relatively course resolution of +/-100
years". Butzer questions the very idea of a global event and sees no
good evidence for an abrupt change to "greater aridity affecting the
Near East" between 2400-1900 BC.

These few lines nicely exemplify the difficulties. Are we looking at,
or for, an event starting at 2400 or 2350 or 2200 or 2180 BC? Butzer
with his "2400-1900 BCE" has broadened the debate to a full half
millennium - a time period so long that we could reasonably expect
some environmental changes to be recorded in most areas. Courty and
Weiss remind us that there are possibly related socio-economic
disturbances from Egypt, Palestine, the Indus and the Aegean, but of
course there is no good evidence to link these possibly-related
collapses chronologically. Virtually the same applies in the Aegean
handled by Manning. While traditionally there is an Aegean wave of
collapse around 2200 BC, the dating is poor. The Early Helladic II
civilization collapses just when it seems to be at its peak, but what
date is the collapse? Is it c.2350 BC, or c.2200 BC? Manning points
to a related episode of severe soil erosion, unfortunately dated by a
single radiocarbon determination, which calibrates to 2900-2350 CalBC,
but ends up concluding that whatever the date of the EHII collapse the
date of the start of the succeeding EHIII is "after c.2300-2200 BC
(again with no precision)".

Really this is the joy of the whole book. Whether looking at evidence
from the Indus collapse, from drought in Bohemia, from pollen
sequences in Turkey or the Near East or Italy or from varves in
Germany, just about everyone thinks they can see evidence for
environmental change somewhere in the late third millennium BCE.
No-one can specify whether its initiation is really abrupt, nor when
that initiation was. Courty and Weiss have set a series of hares
running with their apparently abrupt and catastrophic event at c2200
BC (now c2350 BC). Can anyone else catch up? Students can be set
endless projects to mine this book in search of the answer.

I cannot resist drawing attention to Harvey Weiss's concluding
remarks. Given their evidence for what appears to be a "blast from the
sky" at Tell Leilan, Weiss is put in the uncomfortable position of
being probably the first archaeologist to have to suggest an impact
from cometary debris in recent millennia. I have absolutely no
problems with that concept but Weiss does; he is torn between claiming
a "hit" and being cautious. He stakes his claim to immortality by
saying

The abrupt climate change at 2200 BC (now 2350 BC),
regardless of an improbable impact explanation,
situates hemispheric social collapse in a global,
but ultimately cosmic, context.

If Baillie (1998) ever sees print, Weiss is going to find strong
circumstantial support that he is probably correct on all counts.
With abrupt change in ancient records, previously obscured by poor
chronological control, more common than previously imagined.

Kukla presents a nice piece on the philosophical difficulty of
disproving events "it is more difficult to prove that something didn't
happen than that it did". This is much in keeping with the suck-in
effect, where loosely dated evidence may be drawn in to support an
event. It then becomes difficult to disprove the event as this would
require better dating of a range of poorly-dated phenomena. This
raises the question whether the act of postulating a significant event
circa 2200 BC (now 2350 BC) has actually created one? I don't
personally think it does. Sufficiently many of the 33 contributions
see evidence for environmental alteration in the later third
millennium BC that something has to have been going on. Their problem
is that in any period of three to four, to five, centuries there is
plenty of time for all sorts of environmental downturns in all sorts
of areas. The real question remains, is there any evidence for a
synchronous global, or even hemispheric, environmental event. Nothing
in the book currently proves that there was. However, the drawing
together of the several contributions provides the student with a mine
of relevant information. The book is a must for the library shelves of
any departments interested in environmental change or in the
archaeology of the third millennium BC or in systems collapse.

The book has typographical errors sprinkled throughout and several
papers clearly required more rigorous proof reading by the editors.
More damning in a volume of this kind is the lack of a consistent
convention on dates. This is particularly significant when the
intention is to see what happened in a tight period of a few centuries
some four millennia ago. Ideally all historical and
dendrochronological dates should have been AD and BC, or BCE. All
historical/archaeological dates older than 600 BC should have been
quoted with estimated errors; this would also apply to dates from
ice-cores and varve sequences. Raw radiocarbon ages should have been
presented as BP with quoted errors, while calibrated radiocarbon ages
should have been signalled as CalAD or CalBC and should have been
quoted with their calibrated 2-sigma ranges. Failure to enforce a
dating code means that the reader has to work hard to compare evidence
both within and between papers. None of these criticisms damage the
work as a whole.


http://abob.libs.uga...c/cc022398.html


#4875    SlimJim22

SlimJim22

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,682 posts
  • Joined:10 Dec 2009

Posted 14 May 2011 - 03:51 PM

Esus

Etymology:
Likely originally Aisus, possibly from the PIE *eis- "passion", or *ais- "to respect". Thus the name means either "The Furious One" (like the Germanic Wodanaz, with whom Esus is often compared), or "The Respected One."

The god Esunertus/*Aisunertos may be a variaton on Esus, his name meaning "strong Esus," from nerto- "strength, power"

Gallic (Continental Celtic) god, part of the trinity of "Taranus, Esus, and Teutates" according to Roman historian Lucan:

And those who pacify with blood accursed
Savage Teutates, Hesus' horrid shrines,
And Taranis' altars cruel as were those
Loved by Diana, goddess of the north
According to the Berne commentary on Lucan, Esus' human victims were sacrificed by being tied to a tree and flailed.


http://www.maryjones.us/jce/esus.html

From the OLB:

Although they knew that Jessos had taught that men should regulate and control their passions, they taught that men should stifle their passions, and that the perfection of humanity consisted in being as unfeeling as the cold stones.

http://oeralinda.angelfire.com/

I was only interested in this angle after seeing a variant on the Ichtys symbol that reminded me of the Jul wheel and Berber flag.

Posted Image

the star’s three axes as formed by an “I”—for the Greek Iesus--and an “X”--for the “Ch” of Christus—the earliest and most widely used monogram for Jesus the Christ.

http://murraycreek.n...er/chapter8.htm

What the OLB says of Jessos does not really link to this but the IX cross was being used as a metaphor by 16th century alchemists. The YUle wheel was already well known so probably irrelevant but I thought it was a bit of a coincidence. 'IF' the OLB is a hoax then it is a damn good one but may still hold kernels of truth here and there.

However, there is justifiable reason to believe that it is more than a hoax and I appreciate the efforts. Gettng certainty is a different prospect however.

Is there any mention in the OLB of 'cup marked stones' or anything like that? They are apparently found in many of regions mentioned in the OLB but in greater frequency on Northern Europe.

Edited by SlimJim22, 14 May 2011 - 03:53 PM.

"I belive no thing, I follow the Law of One. I am a Man-O'-Sion under construction."