I still don't know what it is, but I was almost right with puppy.

The three headed dog is Cerberus, that's simple enough.

Im guessing the statue is Hades taking Persephone away with him. The three headed monster is Cerberus, which was a dog, not a dragon.
Hades was the lord of the Underworld.
Persephone was the daughter of Demeter.
Cerberus was the three headed dog that guarded the entrance to Hades.

Vision of Isaiah.

Seraphim....

Class of heavenly beings, mentioned only once in the Old Testament, in a vision of the prophet Isaiah (vi. 2 et seq.). Isaiah saw several seraphim, their exact number not being given, standing before the throne of Yhwh. They were winged beings, each having six wings—two covering their faces, two covering their feet, and two for flying. The seraphim cry continually to each other, "Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory" (vi. 3). The "foundations of the thresholds" (R. V.) of the Temple were moved by the sound of their voices. One of the seraphim flew to Isaiah with a live coal in his hand, which he had taken with the tongs from off the altar, and with which he touched the lips of the prophet to purge him from sin. Isaiah gives no further description of the form and appearance of the seraphim; he apparently assumes that his readers are acquainted with them. Nevertheless, it may be concluded from the description that the seraphim were conceived as having human faces, human hands, and human voices. However, one should not too hastily conclude that the seraphim were winged human forms. At least this was not the original conception, although later Judaism pictured them so. The seraphim are frequently mentioned in the Book of Enoch (xx. 7, lxi. 10, lxxi. 7), where they are designated as δράκονες ("serpents"), and are always mentioned, in conjunction with the cherubim, as the heavenly creatures standing nearest to God. In Rev. iv. 6-8 four animals are pictured as standing near the throne of God; each has six wings, and, as in Isaiah, they sing the "Trisagion."

No where here does it say that its translated to Drakon or Dragon, or any other word similar... they are simply known as Seraphim...

And can you guess the source for this???

The Jewish Encyclopedia.

And heres a bit more for you... Also from the jewish encyclopedia.... is it just my imagination or is the one source you so happily quote, stating that dragons are nothing more than myth....

Sometimes considerable information is given ofthese monsters. "In the beginning of things Yhwh overpowered them in creating the world." It is clear that this story, which is found only in fragments in the O. T., was originally a myth, representing God's victory over the seas (; Isa. li. 9 et seq.), or the hemming in of the Nile (Ezek. xxix. 3). The Babylonian story of Marduk's victory over the dragon of the sea, Tiamat, is analogous; but other traditions, especially those of Egypt, may also have influenced the story. The Hebrew poets and Prophets were fond of using this old myth to symbolize the destruction of Israel's enemies.

so far, so good...

Actually, Grem whiel the sea serpents that attacked Laocoon were not considered gods, in many cases the arrival of serpents, drakons, and dragons was felt to be a sign of displeasure of one of the gods (such as in the case of Andromeda, for example).

DC's theory that the Greek gods were merely the humanoid expression of an older dragon religion is but one way to examine the interesting interactions of the dragons and deities of Greek lore. I think that what we have here is a case of a conquering people (the Myceanins) who subjuted and destroyed a previous people, and made their gods, the monsters that were defeated at the hands of their humanoid, conqueror gods (for example: Zeus slaying Typhon, Apollo slaying Python). Essentially the same thing that later happened in western Europe, the previous gods became the demons of the new faith. In the case of Greece, however, these fantastic creatures remain as tame serpents of the gods. The cases of the gods assuming different forms appear to be a way of incorporating stubborn local belief systems of previous deities into the religious hierarchy.

There are other instances of drakon/serpent religion being significant in the early days of Greece. There have been Minoian "goddess" stattuetts where the female is wrapped with serpents (the actual meaning of these statues is under conjecture) and the mythic founder of Athens was supposed to have been a half-man half-dragon.

(Yes )

Actually archie I just said that drakons troiades were not gods. perhaps i should have provided a link and pointed out that they were sent by Athena....in mythology.



this is true, Cecrops was...in mythology...half serpent. The point im getting at with relating the statue of the rape of proserpina (persephone) to Demeter and Athena, and Medusa ...which may include those minoan cults... is their significance. What im trying to get people to think of is 'why?' Its a big area with lots of room for discussion. It is interesting you mentioned Cecrops...athena here too sends 2 serpents though this time as guards.

Consider Triptolemus ...here's one pic...(notice who is with him?)



here's another....

I see you edited out all of the parts about them saying the MOST LIKELY explanation is that Seraphim are fiery flying serpents, becasue this is what the ONLY NOUN version of the word mean and theo book of Enoch confirms this, where they are either called serpents or drakons. And they also connect the DRAGON SPRING in the Bible with the Seraphim. As I said before, SERPENT MEANT a winged four legged creature in the near east. For example, Mushushu means 'furious serpent' and this creature has wing and clawed feet so modern scholars refer to it as a dragon and not a serpent.

Isaiah's 'serpents' have wings and limbs exactly like the mushushu serpent.

The Jews started using the word drakon when Greek became the language of the educated in Western Asia. WE KNOW they were referring to winged and limbed reptiles because they are physically described in some places, the the winged dragon who uses his arms to saw stone blocks for solomon's temple. And we know dragons has special HOLY significance because ancient Jewish religious laws, written in Greek go into great detail to explain how a HOLY dragon must be depiected so not to be confused with pagan dragons.

By the way, why do you make the text block so large, it makes your posts hard to read and respond to.

Actually Arch, the creatures could have been gods or children of god in the greek mentalitiy. Since they came from the sea, they were probably Ketos dragons, though in fact, the word ketos orginally referred to a specific creature who was the offspring of two GODS and therefore a god as well, such as the dragon-like scylla. As you know, depiction of Keti are often remarkably dragon like, though some sculptors and artists unfamiliar with the creature sometimes depict them as fish instead of long necked, wicnged and clawed footed dragons.

The Lacoon sculpture would have been difficult to represnet with a huge ketos dragon. By turning them into mere snakes of moderate size, the humand figures could be represented better by the sculptor. Supposedly Cerbus was a huge monster too, with some depictions of it swallowing people whole, yet like the snakes, it was reduced in the sculpture.

The thing that gets me is if Seraphim are in fact Dragons, then why are Dragons not mentioned anywhere else as having six wings.

I edited nothing, and if you would care to click on the link provided you would see that.

*sigh, here we go again*

Actually DC the Jewish Encyclopedia says this....



http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp...88&letter=S

Since you do not identify Tiamat with the mushushu (or drakon for that matter), and since the uraeus looks nothing like a mushushu, you cannot claim that the Jewish encyclopedia supports your view that Seraphim are mushushu looking dragons that really exist.

To claim that 'serpents' exclusively referred to mushushu looking creatures is absurd.

regarding 'fiery flying serpents'


Written by the same isaiah visionary as the first explanation of the term 'seraphim'....the Jewish Encyclopedia concludes on this episode....



so the 'scourge' in the desert in their opinion were snakes.

but Isaiah's 'vision' compounds the matter of 'heavenly seraphim'......


Since they regard Isaiah as a 'visionary', influenced by the cultures around him, it is likely (from his earlier description) that he connected the seraphim with the egyptian serref which adorned thrones.....

there is very little draconic about it...but Isaiah would have been familiar with it, and associated it with grand thrones....

This one was actually found in Samaria.....so folk like isaiah would have been very familiar with the concept.

it doesnt mean they exist....and it doesnt mean that the Hebrews were attacked by such 'real creatures' in the desert......those were snakes.

I do hope that you write your blog as Saru suggested it would be a shame for this thread to become, like the others, all about your pet theory....and shut down because the same issues argued over time and time again....a

p.s. my bad about the text-box resize ....big picture....

Indeed, that is brilliant Grem! Thanks for that. As well, I must certainly agree.

here's another....


An ivory plaque from pre-Israelite Megiddo illustrates the Canaanite conception of such a creature, which in this carving flanks the king or prince on his throne.

I wonder....did they also perhaps get their idea from the egyptians....

Since the area came under egyptian rule for long periods of time, and its cultural influence for longer...it is more than likely that Isaiah was thinking along these lines when he mentions the 'heavenly seraphim' who sit at gods throne.

But as the Jewish encyclopedia says, the things that attacked the Hebrews in the desert were snakes. and the brazen serpent was originally a bronze (or copper) snake.

It may have been like an uraeas serpent originally, or more likely, became winged like one later as a cult around the object developed.
It was destroyed because the eventual worship of it (or perceived worship of it) was anathema to the hard-line JHVH folk who believed it contravened a Commandment.

Here's one such copper serpent (on the right and top right) found in Midianite territory....where there were copper mines....



Interestingly, moses married a midianite girl, and his father in law was a bigwig midianite priest......it was at this time that he was introduced to God, and got the message from god to 'set my people free'

makes you think....apparently the midianites claimed descent from ishmael. and so would have had the same Abrahamic god.

The midianite priest was present with moses at the mountain of god....

when the Hebrews were plagued by poisonous snakes....in my opinion the horned viper... (also synonymous with 'seraph'- since the israeli apache helecopter is called both seraph and adder) ....they were told to make a brazen serpent, and to set it on a pole....
Where would they have got the metal....copper mines nearby????
This copper snake is technically a seraph, since it has been 'fired'.


i dont think it was likely to have been a representation of a mushushu.

Although technically they could be described by greek speakers as 'drakones'. .....Just not the quadrupedal, winged, fire-breathing, immortal ones of DC's theory, or those of modern fantasy.

I believe that there were dragons at sommetime of the world. In the ancient world, many places, around the world had dragon carvings.

Yea but that's because indigenous tribes misinterpreted what they were seeing. People overestimate the intelligence of people back in those time periods, they didn't know what it was they were seeing.

And so how did you know how much intelligence they had? You went back in time?

I never said references to serpents in the ancient mideast ALWAYS meant quadrapedal dragons, but it certainly does some of the time. And it seems clear it does in Isaiah as these 'serpents' are described with wings and arms and legs just a s the mushushu AND the hieroglyph of the Egyptian Serref, that despite the wings and legs is still refereed to a a form of serpetn.

I think we can conclude then, that serpent seems to have meant reptile, and when a certain lving species of snake is referrred to then its proper name is given. But the Seraph was a heavenly creature that could follow instructions.

Your posting of canannite sphinxes has nothing to do with anything we are talking about. Just a smoke screen. There is nothing to connect them with the reptilian/serpentine seraph.

Sure, DC, the Greek deities could have been become humanized over time, losing their original form in myth. Thus the drakons that appear helping the gods are their relatives, and this also explains the Greek gods turning into such forms. This seems to be the case in the Babylonian tradition, at least in part, as Marduk is a grandchild of the great serpent-dragon, Tiamat. Still, I think other explanations are possible as well.

In the cases of these mythologies, Greek, Norse, etc, we have a migratory, conquering people coming into an area. In the case of the Greeks, we have the violent and conquest-oriented Mycenaian culture moving in next door to the older Minoian culture. While the Minoians were civilized, and had an extensive trade network (while the Mycenaians used their ships often in coastal raiding) they are recorded in myth as bloodthirsty worshipers of monsters, such as the Minotaur. When we compare the Minoian religion's focus on creatures such as the bull and the serpent, and the Greek gods conquest of powerful, monstrous figures (such as Typhon and Python) thus displacing their positions of authority, there appears to be a parallel theological struggle.

Sorry guy, but many of those civiliazations that stated their gods were "great serpent dragons from heaven" , or similar deities were extremely advanced in astronomy, mathematics etc. like the Sumerians, Chinese, Maya etc. But like the primitive cultures all identified these "dragons" as real creatures that were also their gods.

In many respects, these ancient people were just as 'intelligent' as people today. I bet many one of those people who worshipped a dragon god, could survive lost in the desert longer than anyone on these boards. In this respect then, these dragons worshippers are more intelligent than most modern, city dwelling folk. Even the less civilized people too. Aborigines who believed in the great rainbow serpent live in an environment where modern, so called intelligent city dwellers would surely die.

The worldwide belief in similar dragons cannot be easily dismissed by thinking people.

What you say is certainly possible and a popular concept. It also goes hand in hand with the idea that after the dragon gods were ejected from the early city states where they masqueraded as gods (By a higher entity that felt their work was done), it is no surprise the new gods would spring from the humans filling the vacum left by the dragons. "Apollo" may have originally been the first clever man who learned that 'Python' left the Delphi oracle, perhaps to find a mate and never return. His original claim to other humans was that he drove Python away since there were no remains to prove he killed it, but over centuries, like so many later tales, it could become embellished into a 'dragon slayer story'.

But since zeus appears to be a shape shifting dragon, with the same weather controlling abilities of earlier dragon gods, the original story of the fight with Typhon might be early mans recollection of battles (territorial disputes?) between dragons. This may be the case of the quarrel between Apsu and Enki. Like territorial disputes between crocodilians, they may have been largely bloodless, but would have been memorable events to the human flocks that witnessed the battles.

Marduk may have simply been the last human 'surrogate' of the dragon Enki, when this dragon was expelled (or left on his own, when the dragon's viv ilizing influence mission was completed.

Not more intelligent, just a different set of skills.

Yeas, they dont look egyptian at all do they. ...dont look like the serref thrones of the pharoahs either?....

look at the headdress and the double crown....in another thread you even agreed they were serrefs.....shall i get the quote? you did postulate that they 'had evolved from their more reptilian form...and acquired human heads etc.' pointing to the only (foreign-looking) hieroglyph of one that you can find.....(which looked more like a gryphon than a mushushu....having a raptor's head)...yet you could not provide a date or a context for the hieroglyph.

Given the context of Isaiah's life, and the influences around him, im confident that when referring to those seraphim at the side of God's throne, he was basing his description on these.

It doesnt mean that that's what they really are, or were originally conceived as being....or that they really exist....its just isaiah's vision.


As the Jewish Encyclopedia says, the beasties that attacked the Hebrews in the desert were poisonous snakes. It may be that Isaiah took some license to present them as 'agents of punishment from God'.....but he was writing much, much later.....they were snakes.

Balderdash....i think you must be under the mistaken impression that these gods actually existed. To blurt that they were infact originally dragons masquerading as gods is quite ridiculous.
Zeus was not a shape-shifting dragon. You seem eager to fill the cavernous gaps in your knowledge with these fantasies....perhaps if you read more....
While you are welcome to your speculations they cannot be accepted as fact...or even close...they are not even consistent with mythology.
You might as well be saying that they were aliens...its like Sitchin...and just as reliable.


Write a blog DC.

No, people in that time did not know anything about science, and biology, and if they did it was just based on their speculation. The only thing they were intelligent in were the basic instincts on how to survive, this has already been known.



Well yea they were intelligent when it came to the basic instincts on how to survive. But when it comes to actual science, and biology they're not that intelligent as people today. When they see something they don't know they come up with these stories, and make them into "gods" and "dragons." Creating religion is not based on intelligence, anybody can create a religion.

They wouldn't know, as they were not there. This is no different than modern Christians trying to pretend the dragons in the Bible are just whales in one chapter, jackals in another and snakes in yet another, which does not make sense, but better than admitting to dragons and being subjected to ridicule.

But an intelligent 'agent of punishment from god' makes more sense than a herd of pea brained snakes that all of a sudden decided to attack the hebrews. Even the medieval chruch understood this and depict the scene with dragons, as in fiery flying serpents, attacking the Hebrews. I haven't seen to many common vipers that fly.

I am not saying a dragon named Zeus could really change his shape, but for someone who claims they are familiar with classical mythology, you should know there are myths describing Zeus changing his form from human to drakon or swan. Everything I hav stated is consistent with the ancient mythologies. YOu have demonstratedy time and time again that you know far less about these things than you would ever let on.

So please show us that I am wrong.

Mythology has nothing to do with reality. Mythology only makes drgaons exist to you.

So by your statement you admit that the Jewish Encyclopedia does not in fact support your theory: that the scourge in the desert were mushushu looking beasties....but instead they say that it was snakes that plagued the Hebrews.

the rest of your post is concerned with discrediting the source you once relied on so heavily.

What makes 'sense' to you is of little concern for me. You have consistently shownn that you do not understand what you read.

So to belittle the explanation of snakes you try to conjour an improbable image of 'herds of pea-brained snakes all of a sudden deciding to attack the hebrews'. This is not what the Jewish Encyclopedia, or myself, is proposing.....but it does show how your mind works.

QUOTE

So please show us that I am wrong.

an appropriate time to quote Sporkling's sig.... cheers sporkling


well I have on a number of occasions pointed out to you that Zeus occasionally changed into animals to have his way with women, he rapes Europa in the form of a bull, Ganymede in the form of an eagle, and Leda in the form of a swan......These are the myths....it was usually an attempt to hide his infidelity from Hera. There is a tradition that Olympian Zeus (Zeus Meilichios...do you know the difference?) transforms into a snake (not a quadrupedal dragon) to mate with Rhea in the spring-rites....but you probably wern't referring to that....because you are thinking of a medieval depiction of a dragon coming to have sex with Olympias...its what you always refer to when you claim Zeus is a dragon.



so much much much later than these myths.....there was an anti-Alexander the Great propoganda slander started that stated that Olympias had sex with one of her pet snakes...and Alexander was the issue.
This was to attack Olympias' position at court and to challenge Alexander's legitimacy for the throne.
After becomming king, and getting as far as Egypt....the Oracle of Zeus-Ammon 'recognised' him as the son of the god. (no doubt either after a hefty contribution, or at the point of a sword (probably the latter knowing alexander) This gave Alexander legitimacy in Egypt.
He turned the old propaganda slur on its head and suggested that Olympias really had done it with a snake and Philip wasnt his dad after all......something he had laughed off as ridiculous up until then....The snake, the claim goes was possessed by Zeus.

The story was laughed at by the Greeks and the Macedonians who knew better...but the 'legend' gathered pace...and Alexander took to wearing the rams horns of ammon at booze-ups and other stately events. And to those who heard the myth before they met the man, they were about to be visited by a demi-god.

This story was laughed at by the historians that recorded it, and was only transmitted as plausible approximately 6 hundred years or so later.....when the vulgar romance (ie spurious account) of him was very popular. And as far as i know the wings were only added to the snake in early medieval depictions....
regardless of the exact dates this story cannot compare with or rank alongside the tradition that had gone before of Zeus' metamorphoses....to suggest that a quadrupedal winged dragon was Zeus' real form in light of this is absolutely absurd.

And remember, Zeus never really existed. And Alexander was just using the religion he felt he was above, to get what he wanted....manipulate the people. He was only pious when it suited him.

The fact was he was philip's son, he knew it, everybody around him knew it.....if he wasnt he'd never have gotten to be king.....even as a son it wasnt a done deal, he'd have to prove he was the chosen son....and even then he had to kill all the other claimants.....and with a mother who was a foreigner...who was hated by a powerful group of pureblood macedonians...it was no easy feat.


I can provide dates, authors, quotes for all of this....what can you provide?

Your theory is not consistent with the ancient mythologies

I don't know if Alexander simply used the myths, or was so egotistical that he actually believed that he was a demi-god (he certainly acted as though other people were mere tools for him to use, so either could be the case). I haven't read any of these accounts on Olimpias, though, nor have i seen any of these illustrations, you mention and am interested in more detail on the legend.

That Zeus is described as changing into different animal forms and begetting local demi-gods upon the local women seems to be a clear way of transplanting the Greek relegion to neighboring states. Everywhere the supreme god must be Zeus. So, if the supreme god looks like a bull, snake, or swan (and mated with a mythical queen to sire the local kingly line), than that must have "actually" been Zeus, fooling around.

While the actual existence of supernatural beings (barring extraordinary proof) must remain a matter of faith and speculation, Dc raises an interesting point in coparing mythical abilities of the Greek gods and dragon legends. Specifically, the weather controlling, shape-shifting (with lurid romances) and other magics have some similarity with many of the older dragon legends, particullary of the East. Weather these attributes were transposed to dragons from local deities in areas where dragons were revered, or these attributes came to the legends of the gods as they displaced earlier traditions, or something else is an interesting question.

Ah but if only children then the story and in a way dragons still live on, now wheather or not they forsake the belief when they grow up is another story

I myself have little douts about disbelieveing in dragons in gerneral


and a bit off topic and old

Undeadskeptic:

I never asked for any1 to abbriviate my name

No, the experts of the Jewish Encyclopedia DO SUPPORT my theory that the Seraphim deities were a kind or reptilian deity. But even many practiciing Jews who believe in a creator god, DO NOT believe in angels or other supernatural beings. This was true even in the time of Jesus.

So yes, they have NO CHOICE but to accept the seraphim were perceived by the ancient Hebrews to be reptilian/serpentine entities, becasue this is what the word means in Hebrew, BUT, they are not going to admit to the physical existence of winged serpents or dragons, so they have essentially taken a more conservative view that CONTRADICTS the scripture, that the beasts that attacked the Hebrews were not the heavenly reptilian agents of heavenly retribution, but rather, a herd of magically controlled normal snakes. This is just like modern Jews and Christians thinking the plagues of Egypt, came from God, but through the Volcanic eruption of Thera, rather than overt supernatural acts.

The medieval christians understood the Serahpim to be winged dragons in many pieces of medieval art, both surround the thorne of god per Isaiah, and punishing Hebrews in the desert as per Numbers. Modern disbelief in what the scriptures really say, by both modern Jews and Christians have turned the winged reptilian seraphim described in Numbers to mere desert vipers.

You may like to pretend the Greeks you love so much didn't believe in their religion, but you are mistaken. They were a very supterstitious people, and it was largely the Greeks who accepted the Christian doctrine, not the Jews, and thic Jesus being 'begot' in a way similar to Alexander, previously the greatest man before Jesus. Remember too that back then, Jews and Christians understood what a seraphim was , and a seraphim did "visit" Mary, just a a Drakon visited Olympias.

Alexander embarked on a dangerous, and very time consuming journey to Siwa, right in the middle of his campaigning BECAUSE we was probably as superstitous as the rest of the Hellenistic world and may have genuinely wanted to know if he was the offspring of Zeus. In fact, it may very well have been that visit to the oracle, that convinced him he was, and drove him on to do such remarkable things.

DC, this is from the Jewish Encyclopedia.

Don't take my word for what it says these Seraphim are, it says it right there.


Link - Jewish Encyclopedia

I think the Jewish Encyclopedia guys have a better understanding of the mindset of their ancestors than you do....and are more qualified to do so.

they would not support the view that JHVH was a quadrupedal mushushu looking dragon, who ordered an idol of himself to be made ... in order to relieve the Hebrews of the attacks of his similar looking minions... This is fantasy on your part, as has been shown.

I repeat, they do not propose a herd of magically controlled pea-brained snakes descended on the Hebrews....this is just your attempt to rubbish the most accepted explanation of events.

I never said that Greeks didnt believe in their own religion. read my post again and show me where i said that.


so by your logic a seraph visited Olympias? give me evidence that suggests this that dates before 500AD. Give me any evidence that Olympias was visited by a winged drakon. Since you know so much about the episode, how about you provide the evidence for myself and Archie...who is interested in the tale.
Who relates this tale? Who gives this 'tale' any credibility? Are they reliable? Is it the only myth surrounding his birth?????

There is one twist which i havent mentioned here...it relates to the Ptolemaic use of the slur on Olympias' fidelity to legitimize their position as pharaoh.....Ill let you enlighten us further.

either you wont because you cant, or because it will make your statement look silly.



The highlighted word here shouldnt be 'because' it should be 'probably'....Although this view can be argued....Alexander himself apparently gave those reasons...and the one about 'whether he had avenged his father philip satisfactorily' ....look, find us the quotes and you'll see.

I would argue that Alexander believed he knew a 'higher truth' that set him and his companions, who also received the same teaching were above certain superstitions....he used superstition and religion as a tool. He did genuinely believe certain things, and spent his life earning the 'divine favours' that he eventually was honored with. He struggled to outdo Achilles, Herakles and Dionysus in achievements and deeds....he wanted to be considered a god. But this all does not contradict those 'higher truths' that he believed. Ive posted about this before, and i wont again here because i dont want to distract from the argument that he was philip's son, he believed he was philip's son....and he didnt believe that his mum was doofed by one of her pet snakes...and neither did his macedonian and greek men.

so go on, post that medieval picture of Nectanebo visiting Olympias in the guise of a winged dragon...its all youve got....and it doesnt support the view that Zeus was really a dragon....because in the picture it is not Zeus.

You misrepresent source material with a willful intent to mislead....but its all you can do to support your theory.


Edit: to spare you the agony DC of actually researching something, here's my previous post on the subject...

and archie, you'll probably find that you have read them before.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...amp;pid=1672944


Hey DC remember when you said this?


you said it was from your copy of the original greek version of Justin.....LOL ....the original was in latin, and 'drakon' is not used.
oh we had a laugh over that one....

But then there is no smoke without a flame. Mythology is something to think about.

Sure. Dino bones fueled the mythology. Boo ya.

My thoughts exactly

yep, that's about as close as your going to get to dragons... the Chinese still grind up fossils as 'dragon bones' for their 'medicines'...

Lil Gremlin thanks for the links, and of course the skeptics think alike, as do most closed minded people, if you open your mind, you realize that almost anything can be possible

Just like your belief in Santa, right?

lol, very funny


but seriously though think about, with all of the myths and legands out there and surrounding it, is it absolutely impossible for it to be any bit true?

Yes they could have been based on dinosaur bones, but i think that is not the case

I think that they did at one point in time exsist, however today they are non-exsistant, well other than the myths and legands and like my siggie says

For so long as there are belivers in this world dragons shall ever live on in their hearts and minds


that is what im trying to say do you understand now?

I dont think these people have closed minds about the subject. They've heard all of these arguments before, and are bored by them because mythology cannot prove that dragons actually existed, it just makes the waters murkier....showing that what we recognise as a 'dragon' is something that has evolved through centuries of retelling old stories, and re-depicting old episodes. Cross cultural influence had turned the once snakey drakon of the greeks into a reptilian winged beastie of varying physical configurations in the west. The term dragon became a blanket term for any exotic reptile of any size and prowess, and was then applied by travellers and anthropologists etc. to such creatures from around the world. There was no single 'dragon-type' that started all of this off, the nearest thing to that is the snake.
In mythology all of these different creatures were important and significant to their own cultures, and has been pointed out, tangible proof of them was often provided by presenting body-parts of dinosaurs, and other exotic reptiles.....the Brno dragon is a crocodile carcass for example...
There is a reason why they were important, but most people dont want to know 'why'...some who want to believe so desperately will latch onto anything they can label as 'dragon' and add it to their pile of 'evidence' for these creatures without considering the context and significance of what they have found....and if the evidence does not fit their fantasy exactly, they will twist it and pervert it until it does.

Its one thing to have an open mind, and quite another to live in a fantasy reality.
Not everything is possible.

So true.

ERIC!!!! BOOYA!!!!

I remember when I was little I thought that dragons did exisist...that they was once a dinosaur. (HEY...They look like one) LOL...plus I have always loved dragons.

Dinosaurs and dragons are indeed closely linked. The most promising archosaur (possibly a dino) was selected by the creator to beome the stewards of this planet, and thus, dragons came about.

People either love dragons or hate them. Those that hate them the most 'pretend' they never existed. Evidentally their ancestors' dragon god was 'unkind' to that human flock and these unpleasant memories are locked in in minds. It is much like Carl Sagan's idea, but instead of memories going back over 65 million years, these memories only have to go back around five thousand years.

You should know better, Grem. In Greek, it would be Drakon.

None of us today really know what Alexander believed. My theory is as good as yours. Dragons controlled greek politics through the oracles, using women as their mouthpieces. Oracles could be extremely reliable because dragons could make things come true.

We really do not know if Olympias had pet snakes. Even if she did, I doubt she had access to any snake large enough to make a convincing 'lover'. Therefore, if she was observed "copulating with a drakon", would would have been something quite impressive to be mistaken for Zeus.

I can imagine a lot of dragons would want to give Alexander all of the help they could in conquering Persia, with its very anti-dragon religion. If doofing a Macodonian queen to inspire Alexander to greatness was required, then why not? But yes, Phillip, or another mere human, would have still been Alexander's biological father, as such a union would never produce a viable egg.

most amusing DC. Thanks for giving me a chuckle.

Again, another commendable post by 'lil gremlin'. Bea-u-tiful!