the king arthur myth

man's search for christ consciousness

None of you are very close....very basically put jesus and mary magdalene had three children, one of the boys continued the line on and it descends to one aedan macgaebran, the arthur legend is to do with his son arthur.

is not religion specific.

i dont think so it is not religion specific

Man's search for redemption and the glory of God.

the holy grail is not religion specific?

religion specific is very narrow minded imho

i'm not necessarily christian, gnostic perhaps

Arthurs father...

Áedán mac Gabráin (pronounced [aiðaːn mak avraːn] in Old Irish) was a king of Dál Riata from circa 574 until his death, perhaps on 17 April 609. The kingdom of Dál Riata was situated in modern Argyll and Bute, Scotland, and parts of County Antrim, Ireland.

its quite possible that it was the middle kingdom sited in northern european mythology. yes, king arthur was not myth..

For a pretty good run-down you might try reading "Le Morte D'Arthur" (It's not in French, just the title). Also, "The Crystal Cave", which presents the story from Merlin's perspective.

King Arthur introduced and supported the concepts of Christianity, chivalry, honor and HUGE (for that time period)steps toward equality and kindness toward the peasant class. (Thus the "Round Table" so that no knight was more honored than any of the others).

As a boy, he was tutored/mentored by Merlin, who had been responsible for his conception by putting a "glamour" on Arthur's Father, King Uther, so that he would be able to go and seduce Arthur's (future) mother, Ygraine, by looking like her husband (she was very moral and wouldn't "fool around" with anyone, even the King). When Arthur was born, Merlin spirited him away, and he was raised in relative poverty without knowing of his royal heritage. When Uther was dying, he had no son to inherit the Throne (or so he thought) so there was a big contest to see who was the most valiant knight who would then become King. Merlin persuaded the Lady of the Lake to loan him the sword ExCalibur, which he then thrust into a boulder and put a spell upon it so that only the next King, one who was honorable and worthy, would be able to pull it out. The teen-aged Arthur was the only one who was able to remove the sword, and so he became King.

Arthur's half-sister was Morgan Le Fey, and (using witchcraft) she became the Mother of Arthur's son, Mordred. Mordred always maintained a hatred toward Arthur, and eventually during a great battle he mortally wounded Arthur. Arthur lived long enough to be taken, by Merlin, to the Isle of Avalon where he returned the magic sword, ExCalibur, to the Lady of the Lake where it had originally come from. According to legend he did not actually die, but was put into a "Sleeping Beauty"-type sleep by Merlin, and will return to Great Britain in her most desperate hour when she needs his wisdom again.

Of course there is much, much more to the story. But those two books should give you a pretty good start, anyway. Happy reading!!

Camelot likely colchester castle

Also as a way to inspire and unite the various smaller Dukedoms which were always squabbling and fighting amongst themselves. The Holy Grail presented a goal which everyone wanted to attain, much like Kennedy in the 60's uniting the USA behind putting a man on the Moon.

Where to start..?

The earliest Arthurian legends we know of in detail appear to have been written by Geoffrey of Monmouth (twelfth century), where he gives "translations" of the prophecies of Merlin, and a history of Arthur, both from unspecified sources. His contemporaries thought the stories largely made up. It's very similar to Plato's description of Atlantis - "It was told to me by x that..."
In Arthur's case, he does appear in some ancient Celtic poems and stories, where he appears to be a great (exaggerated) warrior, in the sort of world depicted in the Mabinogion. He was probably a real character, but he's been the focus of entirely (or near-entirely) made up stories ever since. Most of our popular ideas about Arthur and Camelot are Victorian - blame Tennyson for that.

Merlin is much more complicated (if possible). The Merlin of the stories seems to be a blend of several different people, including Myrddin Wyllt - a bard who was driven mad by war, and lived a life as a mysterious wood-dwelling nutter (for which, read sage, magician and prophet). The traditional Merlin seems to be Myrddin Wyllt combined with Aurelius Ambrosius, to create Myrddin Emrys. After that it gets really complicated, and there are hundreds of different stories and versions of stories, by hundreds of writers, which agree on very little.

The Arthurian legends are not a cycle of stories, but a world full of them. They have been used by later authors as a vehicle for telling religious tales (e.g. the Grail legend), or for putting forward various sides of different arguments, but there is no 'truth' (at least, not any more). The critical thing is probably that the characters and situations are always complex, on the cusp of one worldview or another (pagan/Christian, order/chaos, reason/magic, etc...). The legends are a playground for telling morals and viewpoints in a semi-historical way. What you make of them is up to you.

well said

and awesome.

A time of a clash between Roman and British Christianity, re-written by Roman Christian Saxon scholars to suit their needs, and the re-written again by Roman Christian Norman Scholars to suit their needs...

But roll it back to the original era, and British Christianity is deeply at odds with Roman Christianity over things like original sin and free will..

Rome sent Bishops and Generals to Britain to eradicate this Christian view, a view that extends into Ireland and Scotland, which is where the British Christians where exiled to by Rome..

(for further evidence of that see Paladius, first Bishop of Ireland, otherwise known as the first St Patrick, was sent to Ireland to keep an eye of the exiles)

Votigern the much berated British King, berated by clerics who supported Rome, was a British Christian leader, and the British leader who requested Saxon support.

The Saxon, Picts, Scotti and British where all already working together at this point again Rome (see the Great Conspiracy for further evidence)

The British that fled to Brittany from Britain at this point where mainly Roman Christians.. which is why the sense of bitterness of so deep.. and why contrary to popular beleive the Saxons did not wipe out the British.

A good example, is the leader purported to be leader of the Saxons that fought Aruthur is Aelle of Sussex.. Sussex being the last Pagan Kingdom to fall to Roman Christianity,

But there is almost NO evidence of Saxon paganism in Sussex, the earliest Saxon burials where in the manner of Christians (body position and orientation see the large Saxon burials ground at Highdown, and Alfriston for evidence)

What is evidenced is the ongoing battle between Roman and British Christianity, it was Rome failing to completely eradicate British Christianity from these Isles after Augustine that supported the Norman invasion of England and again Rome that supported the Norman invasion of Ireland.

We consistently see that conflict continue down the ages, each time British Christianity gets a renamed, Pelagian, Celtic, Lollard, Puritan, Anglican etc

Which side of that fence Arthur really sits is beyond me, after all it was Vortigern who consulted Merlin.. and the Saxons do have many (more than anywhere else) non glosses of the Vulgate.. and it has always intrigued me what those non glosses say, and if we had access to them, perhaps we might understand British Christianity better.

I do find the grail aspect interesting, as at the time (5th century) a Bishop from Gaul was researching the path Lazarus and the others took, and from his research the account he wrote was that they ended up in Britain which was the scary edge of the Empire.

(the notion that Britain was a scary place can be seen in the Roman invasions of that age, with whole Roman armies nearly deserting rather than cross the water into the Isles of Monsters)

Perhaps it was his writing that set that whole ball in motion that the Grail was in Britain? a copy of that book like the others still exists in the British library, but yet again another we know about, like the non glosses of the Vulgate, but that is also not shared.

the Saga of King Arthur is a battle not just of empires, but also a theological battle that is still evident to this day.

"Which side of that fence Arthur really sits is beyond me, after all it was Vortigern who consulted Merlin.. and the Saxons do have many (more than anywhere else) non glosses of the Vulgate.. and it has always intrigued me what those non glosses say, and if we had access to them, perhaps we might understand British Christianity better."

This is it right here from the poster above -- but he is a little confused as many people are ..!

There are two blue eyed genetics - brythonic (what you would call celtic) and Scandinavian - the scandies dont have freckles where as we do. Anyway - when the romans invaded the brythonic lands we scarpered to many areas in europe like germany and the scandy lands where the romans did not get to.

Hengist is called an anglo saxon which is WRONG he was actually BRYTHONIC saxon as he had red hair and freckles. He came HOME he didnt invade and after the romans left he was a brythonic hero. It is plausible that he was indeed arthur, named such by geoffrey of Monmout, but based on Hengist.

It is Hengist that kills Vortigern who would have been a mixed race roman infidel. When the romans came here many years ago part of roman conquest invlived rape and out breeding of the national population this was to encourage integration of the ofspring by patrilineal lines etc.

Vortigern built a castle near Cornwall and it kept falling down, it was suggested that to stop it falling down he had to sacrifice a child that had NO FATHER, in other a child of miraculous conception. This of course relates when written to the 13th centuary and christianity myths. Anyway, Merlin was that very child and Vortigern before he was killed by Hengist et al, was about to sacrifice merlin but merlin explained to him WHY his castle was falling down and explained that below his castle the red dragon and the white dragin were at war, erradicate one blah blah and the castle will not fall down.

You see the similarity here in symbolic terms between BLONDE HAIR blue eyed (no freckled) scandinavian and red hair freckled brythonic, and in regards to the dragons.

Anyway it would have actually been HENGIST that was the ally of merlin - rem Vortigern was going to kill merlin and he would have been mixed race not brythonic.

The point being as another poster suggested - myths usually have an essence and only an essenceof truth within them, better than religion which is based on nonsense predominantly unless you allude to religions being myths which of course they are. It is the essential quality that you should tune into but dont be led astray from the truth of history - that being that romans near on extincted brythonic people from the face of the earth, certainly pretty much killed our culture, it wasnt christianity that built stonehenge. In fact the most successful and intelligent societoes in human history have always been MULTI THEISTIC not monotheistic. Remember the beast of revelations is a SINGLE beast with many heads, is not islam a monto theistic religion - same as judaeo christianoty - you see the HEADS of the beast ARE the varying mono theisms, and it is under monotheisms that so many millions and billions of people have died.

Regards
Jules

The clever people amongst you would suggest in regards to my post (sorry about typos), that the romans were multi theistic - indeed they were - but they were also a DICTATORSHIP whilst we brythonic people were democratic. We had many tribal kings in our lands - the Romans had one EMPEROR in Caesarian terms he saw himself as a god.

None of our kings were gods, they try to set out Arthur as a god but note the symbolic relevance that Arthur was merely a king. It was the druid Merlin that only had CONTACT or was a mouthpiece for the gods.

This was exactly as it was before roman invasion. Our druids were the go between if you like between our LORE and gods of the natural world and wisdom. A bit like academics and priests all rolled into one. They knew ancient secrets and advised the people on things like planting seeds seasons, plant lore healing music arts etc etc.

Regards
Jules

nice.

In the horrorible Eighties we had
"The Mist of Avalon" which opened
the Door for this Myth for Thousands
of People, even i liked that Book!

[link to en.m.wikipedia.org]

Maybe it is good for the Op. too!

Last Edited by the mighty Atom on 10/14/2012 09:39 AM

they where real just make a trip to france to broceliande forest they sey sometimes you can see there merlin andmorgan the witche ....

Actually, the allegorical name of King Arthur is a fictional one for a true king named in the Irish Annals as Baedan MacCoirill, King of Ulster.



This Saint Baedan / Baithen called Baitan Mor, AKA Aedan or Aidan was a contemporary of Saint Columba in Iona


and he is who we also know in legend as Odin.Baithen was the son of Brendan, the son of Fergus, the son of Conal Gulban, the son of Niall of the nine hostages.



Merlin would have been King Baedan's son or grandson. A man we know today as the father of English history and father of the catholic church, Saint Bede or should I say "Saint Baedan/Aedan Jr."

Watcch the Stargate-SG1, season 10 I think. Everything is explained there.

Give it up freemason. The Legend is ancient, well before Christianity reared it's ugly head from the pit of the middle east.

And no your family is not nor ever will be the bloodline of the future King of the Celts.

[link to atomictoasters.com]


Sword out of the stone :)

[link to profile.ak.fbcdn.net]

sword of mars ; Scythian

King Arthur is the 'Once and future King' said to return when we need him most.

Gonna read......(Thanks!)

Gonna read these too!!!!! Thanks!

Interesting notion... however the point I was trying to make was that during the period in question Britain Christianity, allied with Picts, Scotti, Saxons in opposing Rome..

So it is not surprising that the later clerics who lean towards Rome would record Rome in a favourable light and the British, Saxons, Picts and Scotti in a less than favourable light.

But there is no doubt together they managed to pull off the Great Barbarian Conspiracy that shook Rome to it's core.

The notion that British, then later Celtic Christianity appeared either out of no where or because of the absence of Rome is laughable as during that same period, many non glosses of the Vulgate appear.

Lets not forget Jerome, main translator of the Vulgate equally came under criticism from British Christianity for not teaching the original message brought by Jesus..

Now, as far as I am concerned where Roman Christianity took it's cue via St Augustine of Hippo and his cue from his manichaeism background, British Christianity drew on it's Druidic background and so the 2 churches where forever destined to clash.

Thus I am deeply interested in reading what those non Glosses of the Vulgate say, their interpretation would give us greater insight into Druidic thoughts.