quoteminer

Norse mythology is Torah prophecy for Gentiles To see how deeply the Christian authors of the Eddas drew from the Bible, we can examine their telling of Ragnarök — the “Fate of the Lords,” prophesied to Odin by a treacherous seeress. Here all the gods shall be slain before a “Mighty One who rules all” descends and admit the guiltless into heaven. Gylfaginning summarises the spectacle in the following manner: "When these tidings come to pass, then shall Heimdallr rise up and blow mightily in the Gjallar-Horn, and awaken all the gods ... Odin rides first with the gold helmet and a fair birnie, and his spear, which is called Gungnir. He shall go forth against Fenris-Wolf, and Thor stands forward on his other side, and can be of no avail to him, because he shall have his hands full to fight against the Midgard Serpent... Thor shall put to death the Midgard Serpent, and shall stride away nine paces from that spot; then shall he fall dead to the earth, because of the venom which the Snake has blown at him. The Wolf shall swallow Odin; that shall be his ending. ...Then straightway shall Surtr cast fire over the earth and burn all the world; so is said in Völuspá" If we add to this, that Baldr was killed by an arrow, we find the following instruments applied in the slaying of the lords: Arrows, teeth of beasts, serpent's venom and a fire consuming the whole earth. These are the exact same instruments prophesied in the "Song of Moses" glorifying the Day of Vengeance, where Yahwe is to kill the other "sons of god": Deuteronomy 32 "They made me jealous by what is no god and angered me with their worthless idols… For a fire will be kindled by my wrath, one that burns down to the realm of the dead below. It will devour the earth and its harvests and set afire the foundations of the mountains. “I will heap calamities on them and spend my arrows against them.I will send wasting famine against them, consuming pestilence and deadly plague; I will send against them the teeth of wild beasts, the venom of vipers that glide in the dust." Arrows, teeth of wild beasts, venom of serpents and a fire consuming the whole earth. It is these kinds of correspondences, which confirm professor Gro Steinsland’s point regarding the intent of the christian "master theologian", who authored the Eddas. And they show the deeper meaning behind the frequent use of the pagan Seeress in the church’s fabrication of heathen mythology. "The oracles were used by early Christian apologists because through them heathendom was shown to have realised its own undoing and prophesied the coming victory of Christianity through the medium of a pagan seeress."

Oera Linda; The Forbidden Chronicle In 1867 a manuscript known as the "Book of Oera Linda" appeared in Friesland. Written in old Frisian, supposedly passed down from generation to generation, it tells the story of a vanished culture, Atland, in Northern Europe. The chronicle tells of a caste of priestesses who kept "the light of truth". It mentions wars with peoples from the South, a flood that swept away vast regions and a time when the peoples of the North still possessed great power. The mainstream quickly dismissed the work as a forgery, supposedly a 19th-century joke. But there is one detail: linguistic details appear in the text that were not scientifically deciphered until decades later. How could a supposed forger have known words and laws of language that were way ahead of his time? Even more interesting: many motifs are reminiscent of Atlantis, the flood, but also Nordic myths. Could the chronicle of Oera Linda be a buried memory of a true culture originating in Europe, a kingdom erased from the History books?

The “Scholarly Consensus” and The Oera Linda Book It is indeed odd that the very same people who will happily gobble up the countless myths and court-histories of the priests suddenly become very strict and demanding whenever the one chronicle exposing these ancient priesthoods is brought up, namely The Oera Linda Book. Unable to read a word of the manuscript, they will constantly appeal to a “scholarly consensus” found over at Wikipedia which says that the book is a 19th century forgery. So, let's investigate this “scholarly consensus” and see whether it really is a consensus and to what extent it is scholarly. It is after all not insignificant that the Oera Linda Book came to be known as “Himmler's Bible” and with Heinrich Himmler being the so-called “architect of the holocaust”, it is not unthinkable that some political bias might have snuck in over there at Wikipedia. Deciding this issue is best done by simply comparing the scientific credentials of the most cited and esteemed scholars speaking for and against authenticity, prior to any engagement with the controversial Oera Linda Book. This will show whether or not the postulated consensus was derived from demonstrable scientific merit, without having to wade through all the evidence itself. So, let the games begin! Which experts had, through prior publications, demonstrated actual expertise in relevant fields, and who hadn't? The two most cited scholars to claim the book was a forgery are undoubtedly Jan Beckering Vinckers (“De onechtheid van het Oera Linda-Bôk”, 1876) and Goffe Jensma (“De gemaskerde god”, 2004). So let's begin by checking what their scientific credentials were before they entered the controversy: In the case of Jan Beckering Vinckers, the answer is quite simple: none. He was a high-school English teacher who had never worked in academia nor had any relevant education or publications to his name. And oddly the same is true of Goffe Jensma. His 2004 book attacking the Oera Linda was also his 1998 thesis. In other words his attack on the authenticity was the start of his career in academia. He had not demonstrated any scientific competence before that. Objectively, this is not a good look for the detractors. Weren't they supposed to be “the scholars”? Shouldn’t we expect them to have published at least a paper or two within a relevant field before postulating an ability to decide this crucial issue? Anything really, to show some mastery of the basic tools any scholar would need to detect a forgery? Now let's turn to Jan G. Ottema and Otto Ernst Mausser, the two best-known scholars to conclude that the Oera Linda Book was not a forgery, but indeed an ancient chronicle of the Anglo-Saxo-Frisian tribes. Were they also just noobs licking sunshine in the controversy? No, apparently not! Both Otto Ernst Mausser and Jan G. Ottema had not just demonstrated scientific rigor, but in fact demonstrated this rigor within the exact disciplines most relevant for determining the question of authenticity. From their publications, again prior to any engagement with the controversy, they clearly seem to have taken upon themselves the job of deciding the issue because of their competence in the field. How about that! Collectively their works span from critical editions of other ancient Frisian manuscripts, geology of ancient Frisia, mastery of the classic Greek and Roman sources, academic textbooks in linguistics, dictionaries of German dialects, studies in dialectology, membership of esteemed dictionary committees, authoring of introductions and index volumes for specialised dictionaries, etc. etc. In other words, what we find in the publications of the scholars who defended the authenticity of the book, can best be summed up in a single word: merit. And as the short bibliography of Ottema and Mausser below demonstrates, the “consensus of scholars” found on Wikipedia is therefore clearly a product of political bias. It is in fact the real forgery.

What is the Oera Linda Book? New video scheduled for 4:30EST on YT We look into the: - Historicity - Chronology - Laws & Customs - Spiritual wisdom Were they potentially one of the progenitors of the European people? And what can we learn from their wisdom? (link below soon)

Elard Hugo Meyer, once heralded as an absolute expert on Germanic Mythology has curiously been erased from all academic curricula. In the 1880s he was entrusted the major responsibility of editing and significantly expanding the most foundational and 'unsurpassed' text of the field, namely Jacob Grimm‘s Deutsche Mythologie, after which this was named the "Grimm-Meyer -edition". He then went on to publish the standard academic textbook of the field, the Germanische Mythologie as well as a 3-volume set on Indogermanic Mythology pioneering the rigor of philology within the field of comparative mythology. Today he is not mentioned anywhere. Why? Well, in 1889, inspired by Sophus Bugge‘s work, he published a meticulous 300-page historical-philological analysis of the most famous poem of the Poetic Edda, the Völuspa. His conclusion of the work was brutal. And unlike others, he did not hide the sense of betrayal and deceit, which anyone looking into this matter eventually feels. "The age and homeland, the peculiar nature of the Völuspa with its faults and virtues, and its literary and mythological significance now appear in a completely different and, I believe, more accurate light. It was written in the second quarter of the 12th century at Oddi, probably by Saemund the Wise, as a Christian doctrine of salvation presented in the skaldic mythological language of the pagan north.[...] Only with its rediscovery in the 17th century did it begin to be considered the holiest and most beautiful flower of the oldest and most genuine Nordic paganism, and the Völuspa in particular, which in reality contains the Christian Summa Theologica, is to this day considered to be the Summa of Germanic paganism." -Elard Hugo Meyer:Völuspa - Eine Untersuchung. p. 294 Mayer & Müller 1889

BuT wHaT dO YoU rEpLaCe cHriStIaNiTy WiTh? How about European myths. At least that's our stories.