GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2006-07 > 1152114302


From: "Jim Huston" <>
Subject: RE: [DNA] Everyone likely is descendent of a monarch
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2006 10:45:02 -0500
In-Reply-To: <037501c69f72$7b3d4960$0101a8c0@HighReaches.local>


Another alternative, and a more likely one in my opinion, is that the
"Woden" named in the chronicle under discussion was named for the god, just
as many Hispanics (in particular) today are named "Jesus".

- Jim H.


>From: "Glen Todd" <>
>Reply-To:
>To:
>Subject: RE: [DNA] Everyone likely is descendent of a monarch
>Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 08:02:26 -0600
>
>
> > Glen Todd wrote:
> > > Odhinn (the spelling that I prefer) / Odin / Woden is a
> > > God, and not a mortal human at all, so the question is
> > meaningless on its
> > > face.
> >
> >
> > No it is NOT meaningless on its face. Remember that Romans
> > could become Gods at the word of the Emperor.
>
>We're not Romans. I'm talking about the real thing, not political
>quasi-sanctification.
>
> > Odin very well
> > could have been a real man "who became a God" in legend.
> > This has happened often, and not just in Rome or Egypt.
>
>Frankly, this is getting a little bit offensive. If I were to start going
>on about how Jehovah/Allah/Yahweh was a real man, a middle eastern warchief
>of some sort, who 'became a god' in the legends of his followers I'd get
>all
>sorts of screams and calls for censorship from other people on this board
>who don't agree with that point of view, and I'm sure that you'd maintain
>that their actions were justified. Well, why do you find it different in
>this case? Personally, I don't care for double standards.
>
>Glen
>
>
>==============================
>New! Family Tree Maker 2005. Build your tree and search for your ancestors
>at the same time. Share your tree with family and friends. Learn more:
>http://landing.ancestry.com/familytreemaker/2005/tour.aspx?sourceid=14599&targetid=5429
>


This thread: