Iao to Yahweh

Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 12:25 pm

I loved the show where Dr. Robert Price lays out the polytheistic origins of monotheism. I set up a blog page on myspace that has a series of video interviews that deal with the origins of all of these modern monotheistic ideas.

I have been reading through the work of Acharya S ( www.truthbeknown.com ) and I found that Yahweh of the elohim pantheon of Gods was created out of the Egyptian term "Iao".

I (unity) a (first) o (last)

(I) am (a)lpha and (o)mega.

The tetragrammaton was constructed in such a way that the priest added a fourth letter to the original three letter symbolism. This served to keep people at distance from having access to the original format.

Basically, considering everything that I've read so far, Judaism is nothing more than a combination of all of the surrounding mythologies of the near east roled up into one.

The whole idea of Jew or Gentile, as well as Christian or Pagan, looses meaning on this level. They are all self evidently the very same in the grand scheme of things (IMO).

Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 7:57 pm

PantheistWorldView wrote:

They are all self evidently the very same in the grand scheme of things (IMO).

You could add an 'H' to that last part and make it 'IMHO' "to keep people at distance from having access to the original format."

Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 11:44 pm

The second hey, in yud hey vav hey, was supposed to obscure the name so that no one could pronounce it from what I'm getting.

This is pretty understandable considering the roots of the God concept. Joseph Campbell used to say that the best things can't be spoken because they transcend all thought. The second best things are generally misunderstood because they simply refer to the first best things. The third best things are what we usually talk about in conversation.

So there was certainly a reason behind what they did to the tetragrammaton - in terms of trying to keep it silent because it referred to the first best thing - transcendence.

But through all of the esoteric symbolism, Neith-Isis traces right to Yahweh, which then traces directly to Yahshua-Jesus. So we're looking at pagan near eastern mythology as being so interwoven into Judeo-christianity that if one were to try and separate it out, we would be staring at a blank void (IMHO). Wink

Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2008 6:59 pm

It's very easy for linguists to figure out the relationship between Yahweh and Yeshua. But what's your support for the Egyptian-to-Hebrew theory for Yahweh?

"They kinda sound alike and have similar meanings" will not support the theory. Spanish and English are both in the same family, Indo-European. The Spanish word "mucho" and the English word "much" both mean basically the same thing and sound similar. Yet they are not cognates: "mucho" derives from a Vulgar Latin form of "multo" (much/many), whereas "much" is cognate with Latin "magnus" (great).

Similarly, Japanese "namae" and English "name" are clearly NOT related, and any suggestion that they are is just silly. HOWEVER, in this case, Spanish "nombre" IS cognate with English "name," and yet it would still be a misrepresentation (and a patently false one at that) to say that the English was "created out of" the Spanish or vice-versa.

As for the last part about "[the] whole idea of Jew or Gentile... [losing] meaning on this level", I don't even think you need to go there. That's a religious concept to begin with, and it would seem to me to be pretty silly to take it seriously unless you take Jewish dogma seriously. I'll joke about being a goy, but I certainly don't think it really says a damn thing about me.

Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2008 8:20 pm

If you read through the "Zetgeist part 1 companion guide", by Acharya S., this issue will become more obvious.

www.truthbeknown.com

Isis is an "I am" declaring God.

Yahweh, being taken from the Egyptian "Iao", which is what Isis is expressing, is an "I am" God as well.

There are lots of these Gods. They serve the purpose of symbolically representing existence itself in the storylines:

"I am yesterday, today, and tomorrow, I have the power to be born a second time..."

"I am Alpha and Omega..."

"I am that I am"

"I was, I am, and will forever be"

These sayings are 'clues' that let the reader know what the priests are expressing with their astrotheological symbolism. The supreme God is existence, the son of the supreme god is the "Sun", and the lower deities are representing the "stars" and the various "elements" of nature in general. Such as the Egyptian Neters.

Acharya has several books out that show the direct evolution of Judaism and Christianity out of the Egyptian, Zoroastrian, Babylonian, and Brahmanic traditions. I like to try and bring an awareness to these studies as often as I can.

Ultimately the symbolism is what gives it all away. When two symbols are self evidently representing the 'same thing' it makes it much harder for someone to argue that they are not.

Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2008 8:45 pm

The following regarding Yahweh is an excerpt from "The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold."

"Prior to being labeled Yahweh, the Israelite god was called "Baal." signifying the sun in the Age of Taurus. When the sun passed into Aries, "the Lord's" name was changed to the Egyptian Iao, which became YHWH, IEUE, Yahweh, Jahweh, Jehovah and Jah. This ancient name "IAO/Iao" represents the totality of "God," as the "I" symbolizes unity, the "a" is the "alpha" or beginning, while the "o" is the "omega" or end.

In fact, the name Yahweh, Iao, or any number of variants thereof can be found in several cultures:

"In Phoenicia the Sun was known as Adonis...identical with Iao, or, according to the Chinese faith, Yao (Jehovah), the Sun, who makes his appearance in the world 'at midnight of the twenty-fourth day of the twelfth month.'"

YHWH/IEUE was additionally the Egyptian sun god Ra:

"Ra was the father in heaven, who has the title of 'Huhi' the eternal, from which the Hebrews derived the name 'Ihuh.'"

Thus, the tetragrammaton or sacred name of God IAO/IEUE/YHWH is very old, pre-Israelite, and can be etymologically linked to numerous gods, even to "Jesus," or "Yahushua," whose name means "salvation" or "Iao/YHWH saves." As Godfrey Higgins says in Anacalypsis:

"The pious Dr. Parkhurst...proves, from the authority of Diodorus Siculus, Varro, St. Augustin, etc., that the Iao, Jehovah, or ieue, or ie of the Jews, was the Jove of the Latins and Etruscans.... he allows that this ie was the name of Apollo... He then admits that this ieue Jehovah is Jesus Christ in the following sentences: 'It would be almost endless to quote all the passages of scripture wherein the name... (ieue) is applied to Christ... they cannot miss of a scriptural demonstration that Jesus is Jehovah.' But we have seen it is admitted that Jehovah is Jove, Apollo, Sol, whence it follows that Jesus is Jove, etc."

Yahweh had yet another aspect to "his" persona, as at some early stage the "sacred tetragrammaton" of "God" was bi-gendered. As Walker states:

"Jewish mystical tradition viewed the original Jehovah as an androgyne, his/her name compounded as Jah (jod) and the pre-Hebraic name of Eve, Havah or Hawah, rendered he-vau-he- in Hebrew letters. The four letters together made the sacred tetragrammaton, YHWH, the secret name of God.... The Bible contains many plagiarized excerpts from earlier hymns and prayers to Ishtar and other Goddess figures, with the name of Yahweh substituted for that of the female deity."
Thus, even Yahweh was at one time plural, but "he" eventually became an all-male, sky god. This singular Yahweh was a warrior god, representing the sun in Aries, which is ruled by the warlike Mars and symbolized by the Ram - the same symbolic ram "caught in a thicket" near Abraham and used by him as a replacement sacrifice for his son Isaac. This warrior god Yahweh was not only Jealous but Zealous, as his name is rendered in Young's Literal Translation:

"...for ye do not bow yourselves to another god - for Jehovah, whose name [is] Zealous, is a zealous God." (Exodus 34:14)

In fact, the same word in Hebrew is used for both jealous and zealous, although is transliterated differently, "qanna" being jealous and "qana," zealous. As El Elyon was but one of the Canaanite Elohim, the Most High God, so was "Yahweh," as "El Qanna," the Jealous/Zealous God, which is why in the Old Testament he keeps sticking his nose in and shouting at everyone. The title "Jealous/Zealous" is also appropriate for a god represented by a volcano, as was Yahweh by the smoky and fiery Mt. Sinai. Hence, Yahweh's followers themselves were intolerant and hotheaded zealots." - Acharya S

Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2008 10:39 pm

PantheistWorldView wrote:

Ultimately the symbolism is what gives it all away. When two symbols are self evidently representing the same thing it makes it hard to argue that they are not.

Are you joking? Humans are pattern-seeking animals. Anybody can do this shit and make assertions to support it. And that's exactly why it's easy to argue that they're not necessarily representing the same thing.

My favorite part about Zeitgeist is when he gets into the symbol for Virgo, and how it looks like an 'm', and that's tied to Mary and Maya, the mother of Buddha. Why Indians would have been thinking in terms of Greco-Roman alphabets, along with astrological symbols that hadn't even been devised yet, much less brought to India, is beyond me, but that's part of the comedy.

Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2008 10:57 pm

Thank you very much EyeDunno.. I have argued similar.

Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2008 12:08 am

How does this relate to Yahweh being a member of the Elohim pantheon of pagan gods, with a name that means "to exist", expressed through the statement "I am alpha and omega"?

Iao of Egypt, being a name for Neith-Isis (I am alpha and omega), turns out to be the name of Yahweh in Isreal (I am alpha and omega). This isn't a far stretch here. This is a self evident symbolic comparison.

Are you pro religious fundamentalism or something? What sort of Judeo-Christian 'apologetics' are you trying to lay out here?

Am I to assume that Judeo-Christianity is not largely based on the pagan mythology of Egypt and it's God's, along with the other God's of the surrounding nations?

This interview with Robert Price is certainly interesting when considering the issue of 'pagan mythic origins' for the God's of ancient Judaism that had specifically been taken in from the 'surrounding nations' of the 'middle eastern region':

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExTFL1FgL9U&mode=related&search=

Are you trying to disagree with this scholarship?

Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2008 11:54 pm

PantheistWorldView wrote:

How does this relate to Yahweh being a member of the Elohim pantheon of pagan gods, with a name that means "to exist", expressed through the statement "I am alpha and omega"?

Iao of Egypt, being a name for Neith-Isis (I am alpha and omega), turns out to be the name of Yahweh in Isreal (I am alpha and omega). This isn't a far stretch here. This is a self evident symbolic comparison.

Only if the Egyptians also expressed it in terms of the Greek alphabet. Otherwise, you just have a god saying it's eternal, and big whoop. And even if Egyptians had used the Greek alphabet stuff somehow (which again, I doubt), it would seem more prudent to suggest that the author of Revelation (one of the worst Biblical sources you could possibly have chosen from which to obtain insight into early Judaism, BTW) and whatever Egyptian writer had written that had simply chosen the same (again, Greek) cultural idiom.

PantheistWorldView wrote:

Are you pro religious fundamentalism or something?

Yes, I'm pro-religious-fundamentalism. You should try it sometime. It's bliss.

PantheistWorldView wrote:

What sort of Judeo-Christian 'apologetics' are you trying to lay out here?

I'm trying, of course, to prove definitively that Jesus Christ is the only son of God the Father, born of a virgin, who died, was born again on the third day, sits in heaven at God's right hand (with Moses and Rabbi Hillel to the left, for those playing at home), and in the last days will stand in judgement of all mankind, and will force-feed you several pounds of limburger cheese if you don't immediately convert to evangelical Christianity.

PantheistWorldView wrote:

Am I to assume that Judeo-Christianity is not largely based on the pagan mythology of Egypt and it's God's[sic]

You're not "to assume" anything. Just that that hypothesis is going to be a tough one to support.

PantheistWorldView wrote:

along with the other God's of the surrounding nations?

Now I never said that. I don't even consider it controversial to suggest that ancient Jews were polytheistic, with their religion being an offshoot of earlier Semitic religions. However, an Egyptian origin is harder to support, and that leaves some people playing "hey, look at the parallels I found!" games and accusing anyone who's not impressed with their "findings" of having an agenda.

PantheistWorldView wrote:

This interview with Robert Price is certainly interesting when considering the issue of 'pagan mythic origins' for the God's of ancient Judaism that had specifically been taken in from the 'surrounding nations' of the 'middle eastern region':

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExTFL1FgL9U&mode=related&search=

Are you trying to disagree with this scholarship?

How that clip supported the Neith-Isis hypothesis and the tetragrammaton conspiracy hypothesis is beyond me. Bob Price talks fast, and sometimes I miss things, but I think I would have noticed that.

Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2008 12:47 am

Ok, now I understand your position a little bit better.

The Egyptian Iao Is expressing "The First and Last", through Hieroglyphs. When translated to greek we get "alpha and omega", and when translated to Hebrew we get "aleph and tau". No matter which language, its the same statment being made as the "Name of the God".

Isis says, "I was, I am, and I will be". This went into ancient Judaism along with all of the other concepts that had been adopted from the Egyptian religion. Circumsion is another. Baptism is another. The name Meri-Isis be
ing changed to Mary is yet another. There are tons of more.

You'll have to read through the "Zeitgeist part 1 companion guide" in order to get the depth of what Acharya is suggesting. It's a short 50 page e-book aimed at showing what the claims made in the film are based on.

www.truthbeknown.com

I would like to invite you to come onto Acharya's forum and present your system of apologetics to the online community. I would be honored if you would join me there and present your view point for everyone to consider.

If you want to get a feel for the argument then I would suggest reading through the material and taking it in for yourself in order to get a better feel for what the critics are up to. I often read through books like "The Case For Christ" just to get a feel for what the apologists are up to.

What you will find is that Jesus' life, being based around earlier pagan concepts such as the virgin birth motif, life of miracles motif, death-resurrection-ascension motif, and the second coming motif, is nothing more than ancient pagan mythology. The second coming motif is largely Zoroastrian in nature. The book of Revelation is largely Egyptian and Zoroastrian, among other pagan mythic symbolism. The bible was written post Babylonian exile making for a large collection of Babylonian, Zoroastrain, and Egyptian subject matter and ideas.

What this boils down to is that the modern Christian concepts of God, the Devil, and the Afterlife, are all so deeply rooted in pagan near eastern mythology that one needs to ask them-self whether or not they believe that pagan mythology is to be taken literally. How can one dislike paganism, as a Christian, yet solely depend on pagan material for their idea's of God and salvation?

I apologize for the abruptness of this approach, but this is what you're up against these days as a Christian apologist. It's only going to get more intense from here on out and certainly it pays to get familiar with the biblical criticism movement sweeping the world community.

Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2008 11:18 pm

I'm not particularly interested on getting on Acharya S's mailing list though.

There was a flamewar here probably three or four years ago in a thread about some conspiracy website (full of Alex Jones stuff and crazy moonbat theories about the invasion of reptilian aliens) that did an interview with her.

That was on the Jesus myth stuff, but it really impressed on me this idea that I still hold. It's highly unlikely, to say the least, that a first century peasant was born of a virgin, walked on water, cured the sick with his touch, and rose from the dead. But for whatever reason, this isn't enough for a huge number of people on atheist forums, and they adopt, and defend vigorously, the hypothesis that Jesus is entirely fictional. Now I'm not saying that couldn't be the case, just that their evidence isn't all that convincing, and I remain agnostic on this subject. It also doesn't help that every six months, or so it seems, somebody (Acharya, The God Who Wasn't There, Zeitgeist, and so on) throws out a version of Kersey Graves' 16 Crucified Saviors list, which is so flawed as to be worthless and to turn me off to everything else they want to say.

This topic kind of rubs me the same way, especially when it's suggested that if I won't just accept any theory about the origins of Hebrew mythology, I must have an agenda to protect said mythology.

Anyway, back to Acharya S. I still feel that she's the kind of author who just throws out tons of theories uncritically and in doing so puts a huge burden on the reader to check up on these sources. Maybe in a couple months, when I go back to the U.S. and have access to some decent libraries with English books, I'll read her stuff though. And if you wouldn't mind sending me the PDF as an attachment, I'll check it out as well.

Anyway, on to this other stuff.

PantheistWorldView wrote:

The Egyptian Iao Is expressing "The First and Last", through Hieroglyphs. When translated to greek we get "alpha and omega",

No we don't. That's just a metaphor using the Greek alphabet, and furthermore, it's a Christian metaphor; not a Jewish one.

PantheistWorldView wrote:

and when translated to Hebrew we get "aleph and tau".

Which has precisely what to do with the tetragrammaton?

PantheistWorldView wrote:

No matter which language, its the same statment being made as the "Name of the God".

Except that it's not the name of the god in the Hebrew. Your argument there seems to still rest on "it sounds kinda similar." Oh, but...

PantheistWorldView wrote:

Isis says, "I was, I am, and I will be".

Even if true, so what? Two groups both had god concepts involving a long timespan! Oh, mercy me!

PantheistWorldView wrote:

This went into ancient Judaism along with all of the other concepts that had been adopted from the Egyptian religion.

I can't tell if you're begging the question or just making a naked assertion here. In either case, cut it out.

Quote:

Circumsion is another. Baptism is another.

I bet they also had priests that fucked little boys. The Catholics must have stolen that from the Egyptians!

Quote:

The name Meri-Isis being changed to Mary is yet another.

More begging the question, but aside from that, you're again conflating Judaism and Christianity. Oh, and you seem to be doing more of the "sounds alike, therefore common origin" stuff that I think I already proved to be worse than useless.

PantheistWorldView wrote:

I would like to invite you to come onto Acharya's forum and present your system of apologetics to the online community.

PantheistWorldView wrote:

this is what you're up against these days as a Christian apologist.

Somebody isn't too good with sarcasm. Either that, or he thought I was a member of some Christian denomination that postulates a limburger cheese hell.

Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 1:04 am

I was being sarcastic when I called you an apologist, you went with it, I then nailed you with some more of it, and it seems that you're ready to stop playing games now you brilliant man.

Isis existed in the region as representing "The first and Last", and stating "I was, am, and will be" well before Yahweh was constructed. The whole issue appears to be the case of a Patriarchy offshoot in the ancient symbolism.

This isn't a case of sort of sounds alike, it's the case of multiple self-evident comparisons showing an evolving religious tradition moving around through a given region of the world.

Newbie First Class Joined: Dec 21, 2005 Posts: 44

From what I have researched the Hebrew religion started during the Babylonian captivity in conjunction with the Greeks. As we have no evidence of there being any of the patriaches mentioned in the OT.
It all started with the Greeks and the Babylonians.
The Pharisees where the Babylonian watch dogs of the invented religion of the Jews.

Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 10:20 am

PantheistWorldView wrote:

This isn't a case of sort of sounds alike, it's the case of multiple self-evident comparisons

"Self-evident" is perhaps in the eye of the beholder.

PantheistWorldView wrote:

showing

With a tangled web of cherry-picked data?

Quote:

an evolving religious tradition moving around through a given region of the world.

But you don't have to go to Egypt for that. Mesopotamia is much more plausible in terms of gods and other mythology. This is not to say that they didn't get some traditions from Egypt (or, for that matter, that Egypt didn't get some traditions from the Levant and from Mesopotamia). But what you seem to have been advancing from the beginning is the hypothesis that Jews plucked their chief god out of Egyptian mythology.


Create an account	Home · Articles · Downloads · Video Library · Forums · Chat Room · aStore