Yahweh = Canaanite War God/Cult?

[The Puzzler]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Djed

As per the myth of Osiris and Isis, Osiris is killed by Set by being tricked into a coffin made to fit Osiris exactly. Set has the coffin with the now deceased Osiris flung into the Nile. The coffin is carried by the Nile to the ocean and onto the city of Byblos in Syria. The coffin runs aground and a sacred tree takes root and rapidly grows around the coffin, enclosing the coffin within its trunk. The king of the land, intrigued by the tree's quick growth, orders the tree cut down and installed as a pillar in his palace, unaware that the tree contains Osiris's body. Meanwhile, Isis searches for Osiris aided by Anubis, and comes to know of Osiris's location in Byblos. Isis maneuvers herself into the favor of the king and queen and is granted a boon. She asks for the pillar in the palace hall and upon being granted it, extracts the coffin from the pillar. She then consecrates the pillar, anointing it with myrrh and wrapping it linen. This pillar came to be known as the pillar of djed

osiris corresponds to Greek Ouranos (Adam[ant]) and Set corresponds to Cronus.

Tree, pillar...

That's right granpa, even the myth tells you what he really is.

Again:

Grimm's Deutsches Wörterbuch under Ans (plural Ens) lists a noun meaning tignum, jugum ("stave, yoke"), in Bavarian and Tyrolian dialect denoting barrel staves, cognate to Gothic ans for δοκος "beam" and Old Norse áss "pole, beam, mountain-ridge". Grimm considers this word etymologically identical to áss "god", as he explains in his Deutsche Mythologie:

whether because the mighty gods were thought of as joist, rafter and ceiling of the sky, or that the notions of jugum and mountain-ridge were associated with them, for âs is especially used of jugum terræ, mountain-ridge"[6]

Anderson, in his translation of the Prose Edda (1897), similarly states that, "in this latter sense, the gods are the pillars of the universe," and notes that the sense "mountain-ridge" of ás had been compared to Strabo's Aspargum in the Caucasus (as "the Asburg or castle of the asas") "by those who look for historical fact in mythological tales".

Grimm further notes a resemblance to the name of the gods of the Etruscans reported by Suetonius and Hesychius, æsares or æsi. He notes that Etruscan religion, as well as Greek (Dodekatheon) and Roman polytheism, supposed a circle of twelve superior beings closely "bound" together, as it were forming a fasces, in Rome known as the dii consentes paralleling the Eddic expressions höpt and bönd "bond" for the Æsir.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%86sir

[cormac mac airt]

Osiris, Isis and Horus are nothing more but repeats of the above and it has been pointed out that the Sami Gods are the same as the Holy Trinity, the mistake people make is in thinking the Sami took on OTHERS religions. This does mean all the Egyptian people were European, it means the priests and shamans who controlled the religion bought it via the Berbers/Libyans even Ethiopians to the people who lived along the Nile as far back as 7000BC.

Making it up as you go along does not make it true. And no, the Egyptians were not European but a mixture of ethnicities from the start. Their gods were of native origin from the beginning.

cormac

[Abramelin]

Parallels have also been drawn between the djed pillar and various items in other cultures. A parallel has been suggested between the representation of the djed pillar to the Assyrian "sacred tree." Sidney Smith in 1922, first suggested a parallel when he drew attention to the presence of the upper four bands of the djed pillar and the bands that are present in the center of the vertical portion of the tree. He also proposed a common origin between Osiris and the Assyrian god Assur with whom he said, the sacred tree might be associated. Cohen and Kangas suggest that the tree is probably associated with the Sumerian god of male fertility, Enki and that for both Osiris and Enki, an erect pole or polelike symbol stands beneath a celestial symbol. They also point out that the Assyrian king is depicted in proximity to the sacred tree, which is similar to the depiction of the pharaoh in the raising of the djed ceremony. Additionally, the sacred tree and the Assyrian winged disk, which are generally depicted separately, are combined in certain designs, similar to the djed pillar which is sometimes surmounted with a solar disk.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Djed

The tree of life, the pole to the Heavens, the backbone, spine, or enduring pillar of the World.

Osiris is not special, he is the same as many of the same type of Gods around the world at the time, before and after. He is just the Egyptian Asir.

The superior deity is the ruler of the Cosmos. In his honour, the Sami erected a sacrificial pole every autumn, symbolizing the world-pillar, which was considered as a connection the World to the firmament. The pillar reached from the centre of the Earth to the fix point on the firmament - the Pole star. The superior deity was also the “giver of life” and was considered the god of fertility.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radien-attje

See, the pillar is the giver of life, the God of fertility.

It connected the World to the firmament (Heavens).

It's no surprise if you follow my threads, that I have followed the Sami around since around 14,000BC, (see my Sami of Lapland thread) I know that at around 7000BC the people who became the Sami and the people who became the Berbers were of one people, in Europe. The ones who came into North Africa will have the same original religious ideals as we can still find in the Sami, give this 3000 years to find itself entrenched throughout North Africa and you have the same concepts appear in both.

Osiris, Isis and Horus are nothing more but repeats of the above and it has been pointed out that the Sami Gods are the same as the Holy Trinity, the mistake people make is in thinking the Sami took on OTHERS religions. This does mean all the Egyptian people were European, it means the priests and shamans who controlled the religion bought it via the Berbers/Libyans even Ethiopians to the people who lived along the Nile as far back as 7000BC.

Radien-attje is often portrayed as the main figure in a Trinity, which besides him, consists of the Raedieahkka or Radien-akka (Maadteraahka, the superior mother) and their son Radien-pardne. There are critics who claim, that this Trinity is a consequence of the meeting with the Christian religion, and that it is a match to the God the Father, Jesus the Son and the Holy Spirit. If this is the case, it is interesting, that the Sami have replaced the Holy Spirit with a wife.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radien-attje

The Sami didn't replace the Holy Spirit with a wife, the wife was always there, SHE was replaced.

And don't forget where Santa lives either, with the Sami and their reindeer in Lapland of course, who comes the same day Jesus was born, you can pretend that is just a huge co-incidence if you like and nothing is relative to each other at all for all I care but as you know, that's not my style.

Many cultures will have had (and did have) a Trinity: Sun, Moon, and some guy responsible for rumblings of the earth (earthquakes) and rumblings in the skies (thunder/lightning).

The idea of a 'Celestial Tree' is also a concept that didn't necessarily have to have travelled from one to the other culture: many civilizations studied the heavens and must have noticed the earth's axis revolved around a central point, the Pole Star.

And something else: a genetic link doesn't automatically mean a cultural link. After the end of the last ice age people travelled to the north to re-occupy the land that had become free of ice and again grown over with forests with game in it. The Sami may only have been a people who stayed separated for far longer than all the other peoples and therefore showed a clearer genetic link to the people around the Med.

But I think Cormac can tell you more about that (which he already did like dozens of times, lol).

.

Edited January 13, 2012 by Abramelin

[The Puzzler]

Making it up as you go along does not make it true. And no, the Egyptians were not European but a mixture of ethnicities from the start. Their gods were of native origin from the beginning.

cormac

Is this the best answer you could muster?

You repeat something I already said - that the Egyptians would not have been European and add a sentence that you have no proof for, that thier Gods were native origin.

[The Puzzler]

Many cultures will have had (and did have) a Trinity: Sun, Moon, and some guy responsible for rumblings of the earth (earthquakes) and rumblings in the skies (thunder/lightning).

The idea of a 'Celestial Tree' is also a concept that didn't necessarily have to have travelled from one to the other culture: many civilizations studied the heavens and must have noticed the earth's axis revolved around a central point, the Pole Star.

And something else: a genetic link doesn't automatically mean a cultural link. After the end of the last ice age people travelled to the north to re-occupy the land that had become free of ice and again grown over with forests with game in it. The Sami may only have been a people who stayed separated for far longer than all the other peoples and therefore showed a clearer genetic link to the people around the Med.

But I think Cormac can tell you more about that (which he already did like dozens of times, lol).

.

cormac and I discussed Sami genetics for quite a few pages in my Sami thread, he can't tell me anything new now.

Briefly:The diversity of haplogroup V is much higher in Iberia than in North Africa and therefore it is supposed that this haplogroup spread from Europe to the Imazighen as well as northwards to the Saami areas. The old genetic link in haplogroup U5b1b supports the hypothesis of early connections Amazigh – Iberia - Saami. Haplogroup U5b is very low frequently observed in the Imazighen populations.

http://saamiblog.blogspot.com/2007/12/prehistoric-genetic-link-of-amazigh-and.html

Anyway, that's my opinion on it.

[cormac mac airt]

This does mean all the Egyptian people were European...

and

...that the Egyptians would not have been European...

So you've contradicted yourself in your above posts.

As has already been mentioned, evidence for Osiris only dates from the late 5th Dynasty, while many other gods show an origin dating back to predynastic times. And all within Egypt and Sudan. There is nothing from the archaeological record that would suggest that they originated from anywhere in Europe.

cormac

[granpa]

http://religion.wikia.com/wiki/World_tree

The world tree is a motif present in several religions and mythologies, particularly Indo-European religions, Siberian religions, and Native American religions. The world tree is represented as a colossal tree which supports the heavens, thereby connecting the heavens, the earth, and, through its roots, the underground. It may also be strongly connected to the motif of the tree of life.

Specific world trees include the one in Hungarian mythology, Yggdrasil (or Irminsul) in Germanic (including Norse) mythology, the Oak in Slavic and Finnish mythology, and in Hinduism the Ashvattha (a Sacred Fig).

[Abramelin]

cormac and I discussed Sami genetics for quite a few pages in my Sami thread, he can't tell me anything new now.

Briefly:The diversity of haplogroup V is much higher in Iberia than in North Africa and therefore it is supposed that this haplogroup spread from Europe to the Imazighen as well as northwards to the Saami areas. The old genetic link in haplogroup U5b1b supports the hypothesis of early connections Amazigh – Iberia - Saami. Haplogroup U5b is very low frequently observed in the Imazighen populations.

http://saamiblog.blogspot.com/2007/12/prehistoric-genetic-link-of-amazigh-and.html

Anyway, that's my opinion on it.

Did you read what I wrote:

"And something else: a genetic link doesn't automatically mean a cultural link. After the end of the last ice age people travelled to the north to re-occupy the land that had become free of ice and again grown over with forests with game in it. The Sami may only have been a people who stayed separated for far longer than all the other peoples and therefore showed a clearer genetic link to the people around the Med."

[kmt_sesh]

The Djed-pillar and "tree of life" are not to be confused. The Egyptians themselves drew the distinction. The tree of life is often depicted in Books of the Dead (Spell 59) and on tomb walls, among other media:

The Djed is different from the tree of life, although in its earliest manifestations (late prehistory) it may have been an actual tree with its branches lopped short. The Djed also ought not to be confused with the pillars of heaven, from which again the Egyptians drew a distinction. The Djed did not represent the sky or a mountain ridge.

Anyone is free to come up with invented and imaginative interpretations, but if such results run counter to what the particular ancient culture itself believed, then it is not accurate. Drawing idle comparisons in the modern mind is not research. At all times a strict adherence to the traditions and beliefs of the source culture must be observed.

Edited January 14, 2012 by kmt_sesh

[The Puzzler]

and

So you've contradicted yourself in your above posts.

As has already been mentioned, evidence for Osiris only dates from the late 5th Dynasty, while many other gods show an origin dating back to predynastic times. And all within Egypt and Sudan. There is nothing from the archaeological record that would suggest that they originated from anywhere in Europe.

cormac

haha That should read that DOESN'T mean, which I thought I'd written when I corrected you...it was 4 am when I wrote that, sorry to lead you (and others) astray, my fault.

I do not think the Egyptians were European, I meant to say, it 'doesn't' mean they were European.

Edited January 14, 2012 by The Puzzler

[The Puzzler]

The Djed-pillar and "tree of life" are not to be confused. The Egyptians themselves drew the distinction. The tree of life is often depicted in Books of the Dead (Spell 59) and on tomb walls, among other media:

The Djed is different from the tree of life, although in its earliest manifestations (late prehistory) it may have been an actual tree with its branches lopped short. The Djed also ought not to be confused with the pillars of heaven, from which again the Egyptians drew a distinction. The Djed did not represent the sky or a mountain ridge.

Anyone is free to come up with invented and imaginative interpretations, but if such results run counter to what the particular ancient culture itself believed, then it is not accurate. Drawing idle comparisons in the modern mind is not research. At all times a strict adherence to the traditions and beliefs of the source culture must be observed.

Ancient Egypt

Worshipping Osiris, Isis, and HorusIn Egyptian mythology, in the Ennead system of Heliopolis, the first couple, apart from Shu & Tefnut (moisture & dryness) and Geb & Nuit (earth & sky), are Isis & Osiris. They were said to have emerged from the acacia tree of Iusaaset, which the Egyptians considered the "tree of life," referring to it as the "tree in which life and death are enclosed." A much later myth relates how Set killed Osiris, putting him in a coffin, and throwing it into the Nile, the coffin becoming embedded in the base of a tamarisk tree.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_of_life#Ancient_Egypt

Just to clarify, my own opinion is Osiris as the Djed is more of a pillar or pole, a spine or backbone (Aesir) than a tree of life.

[cormac mac airt]

Just to clarify, my own opinion is Osiris as the Djed is more of a pillar or pole, a spine or backbone (Aesir) than a tree of life.

And I will point out what I'm sure kmt_sesh would. That being the fact that Wiki is NOT an adequate source for valid information in and of itself, regardless of the fact that you keep quoting it as if it were. Nor are quotes from outdated sources. Kmt_sesh, I and likely others have pointed this out many times before.

cormac

[Swede]

The Djed-pillar and "tree of life" are not to be confused. The Egyptians themselves drew the distinction. The tree of life is often depicted in Books of the Dead (Spell 59) and on tomb walls, among other media:

The Djed is different from the tree of life, although in its earliest manifestations (late prehistory) it may have been an actual tree with its branches lopped short. The Djed also ought not to be confused with the pillars of heaven, from which again the Egyptians drew a distinction. The Djed did not represent the sky or a mountain ridge.

Anyone is free to come up with invented and imaginative interpretations, but if such results run counter to what the particular ancient culture itself believed, then it is not accurate. Drawing idle comparisons in the modern mind is not research. At all times a strict adherence to the traditions and beliefs of the source culture must be observed.

Kmt_sesh - Can understand the frustration of yourself , cormac, et. al. One of the perpetual problems would appear to be (yet again!) the understanding of timelines. Perhaps Bard put it well:

"Egyptian contact in the 4th millennium B.C. with SW Asia is undeniable, but the effect of this contact on state formation in Egypt is less clear (Wenke 1991: 301). There is the archaeological evidence of Palestinian wares at Maadi and later Abydos (Tomb U0j), and also Nagada classes of pottery and stone vessels in forms resembling Palestinian prototypes (wavy-handles and ledge-handles). Cylinder seals of Egyptian manufacture, which undeniably originated in Mesopotamia, are found in a few late Predynastic graves (see Kantor 1952: 246), and Uruk culture architectural elements have recently been excavated at Tell el-Fara'in/Buto (see von der Way 1992b: 220-223). The unified state which emerged in Egypt in the 3rd millennium B.C., however, is unlike the polities in Mesopotamia, the Levant, northern Syria, or Early Bronze Age Palestine - in sociopolitical organization, material culture, and belief system. There was undoubtedly heightened commercial contact with SW Asia in the late 4th millennium B.C., but the Early Dynastic state which emerged in Egypt was unique and indigenous in character."

http://www.antiquityofman.com/EgyptianPredynastic.html

One must, of course, delve into the archaeological and genetic data of the somewhat earlier periods. Realize that you and others are well aware of such. Just a sampler that may be of interest to readers not as well versed.

http://www.faiyum.com/html/naqada_iii.html

http://www.columbia.edu/itc/anthropology/v1007/baryo.pdf

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1181965/

.

[The Puzzler]

Swede: I'm talking way before any 'Early Dynastic State'.

My statement was simple, Osiris as Asir and it's variation names as well as the Djed Pillar is an ancient concept and the same as other Aesir, which all began development prior to 7000BC.

kmt, you go on about how we should note what the Egyptians themselves believed:

series of years which the Egyptians pro-

fessed to draw from a recorded chronology 17,000 years from

their god Herakles, and 15,000 years from their god Osiris or

Dionysus, down to their king Amasis (550BC)

http://www.archive.org/stream/notesonherodotus00turniala/notesonherodotus00turniala_djvu.txt

Osiris was from 15,000 years ago. You all disregard this statement, why? Because archaeology doesn't show it, or they can't find it, or don't recognise his form any earlier than 5th Dynasty, they made up stories to make themselves appear older, anything, you all come up with anything, rather than accept this might actually be factual.

[cormac mac airt]

Osiris was from 15,000 years ago. You all disregard this statement, why? Because archaeology doesn't show it, or they can't find it, or don't recognise his form any earlier than 5th Dynasty, they made up stories to make themselves appear older, anything, you all come up with anything, rather than accept this might actually be factual.

Herodotus was not an historian in any meaningful sense of the word and Herakles and Dionysus were not Egyptian gods at any point in AE history.

cormac

[kmt_sesh]

Swede: I'm talking way before any 'Early Dynastic State'.

My statement was simple, Osiris as Asir and it's variation names as well as the Djed Pillar is an ancient concept and the same as other Aesir, which all began development prior to 7000BC.

It's not a matter of variation in names. What you see in something like Abramelin's Post 76 (e.g., Asar, Asari, Aser, Ausar, Ausir, Wesir, Usir, Usire or Ausare) is variations in spellings of the original name as best as we can reconstruct it. In all my years of research into ancient Egyptian linguistics, I've seen "Osiris" transliterated really in only two ways: Asir and wsir. Not even the leading experts in Egyptological linguistics are certain on the first consonant (the "A" or the "w"), although the majority favor wsir.

Mind you, the "A" in the Asir variant is not a vowel but a weak consonant. Linguists like James Allen stress that the original sound the "A" represented is not even certain, although it may have been a kind of "r" sound that morphed into a glottal stop by the time of the Middle Kingdom. So, as confusing as it tends to be, do not look at this "A" as a vowel like in "father" or "fate" or any other variant of our English or Western vowel "a" because it's not a vowel at all. It's a transliteration symbol.

It's a long way to go to stress--but it must be stressed in no uncertain terms--that no realistic comparison can be drawn between a Dutch loan word possibly deriving from Basque and the ancient Egyptian, Afro-Semitic name Asir or wsir, from which the Greeks derived "Osiris."

kmt, you go on about how we should note what the Egyptians themselves believed:

series of years which the Egyptians pro-

fessed to draw from a recorded chronology 17,000 years from

their god Herakles, and 15,000 years from their god Osiris or

Dionysus, down to their king Amasis (550BC)

http://www.archive.org/stream/notesonherodotus00turniala/notesonherodotus00turniala_djvu.txt

Osiris was from 15,000 years ago. You all disregard this statement, why? Because archaeology doesn't show it, or they can't find it, or don't recognise his form any earlier than 5th Dynasty, they made up stories to make themselves appear older, anything, you all come up with anything, rather than accept this might actually be factual.

The above chronology is not from the ancient Egyptians themselves. It's from Herodotus. Nothing the Egyptians left in their many religious writings concords with this. Although the Egyptians were certainly into antiquity and by extension legitimacy of tradition, they were not concerned with pinning down at what specific point in time (i.e., "15,000 years ago") this or that deity first appeared.

You and I are cut from very different cloths. You're a lot more free thinking than I. And I admit I am stodgy, highly conservative, and fixed to evidence. So, yes, I cannot accept the above because there is no evidence to demonstrate it--and this after some two centuries of concerted explorations, excavations, and research conducted by countless people much smarter than I'll ever be. I greatly enjoy Herodotus and have fully read The Histories a couple of times and Book II a great many times, but the fact is his Book II is riddled with errors. It would be an error to accept everything he writes as hard-core fact because it obviously is not.

No researcher has ever found definitive evidence for Osiris that dates to before late Dynasty 5. That is a simple fact. It cannot be ignored. Any attempt to draw Osiris to a time period prior to Dynasty 5 is speculation, not fact. Does this mean Osiris didn't exist before Dynasty 5? No, it doesn't mean that, nor have I argued something to that effect. But what is clear is that if Osiris existed prior to Dynasty 5, he was a deity of such minor status that he warranted not a single mention on the monuments of a single royal or official. That fairly screams the fact of Herodotus' inventions--or if not inventions, the poor nature of the information obtained from Egyptian informants.

What would be interesting from a research standpoint would be the ability to define why Osiris pops up all of a sudden in the private tombs of Dynasty 5, and why he quickly became so popular. Some have tried to do this. No one has succeeded.

I cannot accept something as factual if there is not evidence to show it is a fact. Isn't that reasonable?

[The Puzzler]

Herodotus was not an historian in any meaningful sense of the word and Herakles and Dionysus were not Egyptian gods at any point in AE history.

cormac

Herodotus recorded what the priests TOLD him was their known history, he didn't make it up as 'you all' would like to think he did.

The explanation given by him says this is not the Greek Heracles 'you all' think it is.

[kmt_sesh]

Herodotus was not an historian in any meaningful sense of the word and Herakles and Dionysus were not Egyptian gods at any point in AE history.

cormac

What one might append to your statement is that as fascinated by Egyptian religion as many Greeks seem to have been, the Egyptians never seem to have reciprocated. By all appearances the Egyptians didn't care a whit about Greek religion and its deities. It's kind of unusual because this wasn't always the case with foreign deities. It's believed that the popular household god Bes came from Nubia, while Canaanite deities like Baal and Qetesh made popular inroads within Egyptian culture. You don't see the same with Greek deities, as far as I'm aware. I can't think of any examples of Greek deities receiving popular cults in the Nile Valley, while conversely the Greeks spent considerable times drawing superficial and inaccurate comparisons between their deities and the Egyptian ones.

LOL I'm probably painting too bleak a picture of the Greeks. I don't mean to. Greek history fascinates me. I've spent several years now researching Greek politics, the development of their city-state, and their warfare. It's great stuff. I also enjoy studying their religion to a point because one cannot separate it from any other facet of their lives, but to this day I cannot get motivated about Greek mythology. I don't know why. Go figure.

[cormac mac airt]

Herodotus recorded what the priests TOLD him was their known history, he didn't make it up as 'you all' would like to think he did.

The explanation given by him says this is not the Greek Heracles 'you all' think it is.

And yet, there is no evidence whatsoever that anything like that was recorded in Egypt from their history or that Herakles or Dionysus were EVER part of that same history. Therefore "because Herodotus said so" is meaningless.

cormac

[granpa]

Herakles is another name for Chronos

[kmt_sesh]

Herodotus recorded what the priests TOLD him was their known history, he didn't make it up as 'you all' would like to think he did.

...

This is probably true in many cases, but how can you be sure in all cases? You can't, of course. Logographers and historians of late antiquity were not above inserting material where they saw fit, and to the design they desired. Herodotus was probably better at avoiding this than many writers of his time, but to me it seems clear he might not always have been so honest. For instance, from his descriptions of the things to be found and seen in the Fayoum region, it's altogether possible he never saw the region for himself. His accounts are far off the mark. He may have just recorded stories Egyptians told him about the region, but he doesn't admit as much.

In my own opinion probably the best of ancient Greek historian was Thucydides. Some of his accounts have been called into question (especially certain speeches), but Thucydides took historical writing to a whole new level.

Editing to add: This thread is called "Yahweh = Canaanite War God/Cult," right? LOL I'm always entertained by the twists and turns our discussions take. From the origins of Yahweh to the question of Herodotus' veracity, where will it lead next? To Atlantis?

Edited January 14, 2012 by kmt_sesh

[cormac mac airt]

Herakles is another name for Chronos

Not according to the Greeks, not that it matters anyway as Chronos doesn't belong to the Ancient Egyptians either.

cormac

[granpa]

Orphica, Theogonies Fragment 54 (from Damascius) (trans. West) (Greek hymns C3rd - C2nd B.C.) :

"Originally there was Hydros (Water), he [Orpheus] says, and Mud, from which Ge (the Earth) solidified: he posits these two as first principles, water and earth . . . The one before the two [Thesis], however, he leaves unexpressed, his very silence being anintimation of its ineffable nature. The third principle after the two was engendered by these --Ge (Earth) and Hydros (Water), that is--and was a Serpent (Drakon) with extra heads growing upon it of a bull and a lion, and a god’s countenance in the middle; it had wings upon its shoulders, and its name was Khronos (Unaging Time) and also Herakles. United with it was Ananke (Inevitability, Compulsion), being of the same nature, or Adrastea, incorporeal, her arms extended throughout the universe and touching its extremities.

[cormac mac airt]

Orphica, Theogonies Fragment 54 (from Damascius) (trans. West) (Greek hymns C3rd - C2nd B.C.) :

"Originally there was Hydros (Water), he [Orpheus] says, and Mud, from which Ge (the Earth) solidified: he posits these two as first principles, water and earth . . . The one before the two [Thesis], however, he leaves unexpressed, his very silence being anintimation of its ineffable nature. The third principle after the two was engendered by these --Ge (Earth) and Hydros (Water), that is--and was a Serpent (Drakon) with extra heads growing upon it of a bull and a lion, and a god’s countenance in the middle; it had wings upon its shoulders, and its name was Khronos (Unaging Time) and also Herakles. United with it was Ananke (Inevitability, Compulsion), being of the same nature, or Adrastea, incorporeal, her arms extended throughout the universe and touching its extremities.

As stated in your above quote, these are the first "principles" and have nothing to do with the god Dionysus or Herakles as they are understood in Greek mythology. Again, not that it matters as neither has anything to do with AE beliefs or history.

cormac

[kmt_sesh]

As stated in your above quote, these are the first "principles" and have nothing to do with the god Dionysus or Herakles as they are understood in Greek mythology. Again, not that it matters as neither has anything to do with AE beliefs or history.

cormac

Or Yahweh history, for that matter. Whatever happened to Yahweh?