Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

God and the gods


Nighthawk9653

Recommended Posts

Ah yes the famous scholarly work of, this culture had a god named like this and this culture had a god with similar letters.... 2,000 years from now I wonder if they will tie Satan and Santa Clause together. Maybe even Pokemon = Goetia. Hell its not like the names of our dietys are messed up after all, like how Jesus is a accurate jewish name.... errrrr oh wait.

If you refer to the connection between Dyaus and Zeus and Deus and Tiwas, then that is fact and is not disputed by any real historian or etymologist that I know about.

Edited by Kaa-Tzik
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it is an assumption, and you need to justify it.

No, because it is not an assumption.You justify your denial that there have not been cheif gods before the classical period. Who was Tiwas if not chief god of Germanics?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, because it is not an assumption.You justify your denial that there have not been cheif gods before the classical period. Who was Tiwas if not chief god of Germanics?

I don't have to justfy anything, and certainly not a negative. We simply have no records. It's your theory, for it to be taken seriously you need to justify why sky gods are chief gods.

Written information about Tiwas dates from the Classical period, indeed, the very end of the Classical period and into the Middle Ages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have to justfy anything, and certainly not a negative. We simply have no records. It's your theory, for it to be taken seriously you need to justify why sky gods are chief gods.

Written information about Tiwas dates from the Classical period, indeed, the very end of the Classical period and into the Middle Ages.

Tacitus writes of Germanic peoples worshipping what he describes as Regnator omnium Deus, in modern terms, cheif god, and this god has been identified as Tiwas, a sky god. Two questions answered in one. Is this okay your majesty?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tacitus writes of Germanic peoples worshipping what he describes as Regnator omnium Deus, in modern terms, cheif god, and this god has been identified as Tiwas, a sky god. Two questions answered in one. Is this okay your majesty?

Last time I checked, Tacitus was writing in the Classical period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you refer to the connection between Dyaus and Zeus and Deus and Tiwas, then that is fact and is not disputed by any real historian or etymologist that I know about.

Actualy its theory bud theres very very little on those gods and they used Word association or Comparative association to come up with those. Its theory because it can not be tested. How neat is that I can make up any historical evidence with no hopes of it being disputed factually.

The whole idea that alot of english words sound alot like Italian words therefore they must come from the same proto language.... Cool that all works out ofcourse we know this cause we have information from those times. But how would it hold up if we have no idea how they pronounced there words. For some reason it reminds me of Big Brother and the whole Neanderthal debacle.

Hell I would love all those scholars to go down to georgia talk to some regular folks there and see there face of confusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last time I checked, Tacitus was writing in the Classical period.

Then you assume that Tiwas only became chief god just before Tacitus arrives on the scene. The etymology of his name shows he was around for a very long time before Tacitus, many millenia I would think. And last time I checked, the Ancient Egyptians predated classical times by some margin. So we have Ra predating classical times, and in particular Tacitus, by some millenia. Or will there now be denial that Ra was chief god.

Edited by Kaa-Tzik
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actualy its theory bud theres very very little on those gods and they used Word association or Comparative association to come up with those. Its theory because it can not be tested. How neat is that I can make up any historical evidence with no hopes of it being disputed factually.

The whole idea that alot of english words sound alot like Italian words therefore they must come from the same proto language.... Cool that all works out ofcourse we know this cause we have information from those times. But how would it hold up if we have no idea how they pronounced there words. For some reason it reminds me of Big Brother and the whole Neanderthal debacle.

Hell I would love all those scholars to go down to georgia talk to some regular folks there and see there face of confusion.

No, it's etymology, not theory, and as I said, nobody serious denies this. Well, I do understand why you say what you do, as it is possible to make errors, but this case is not one of them as there is far more weighing on scale for than against, so much that the onus has to be on nay sayers to give good reason against.

Edited by Kaa-Tzik
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then you assume that Tiwas only became chief god just before Tacitus arrives on the scene. The etymology of his name shows he was around for a very long time before Tacitus, many millenia I would think. And last time I checked, the Ancient Egyptians predated classical times by some margin. So we have Ra predating classical times, and in particular Tacitus, by some millenia. Or will there now be denial that Ra was chief god.

On the contrary, I am making no assumptions at all about when Tiwas became the chief god. It's you who are doing that. What I'm saying is we simply don't know. The etymology of his name may indeed show he was around for a very long time, but not as any sort of chief god, rather, as the sky god.

Ra is not the Egyptian chief god, he was the sun god. Egyptian religion changed a lot during 3 millennia, and was different in each city, each of which had its own chief god. In later times Ra was merged with other gods. Furthermore, Egyptians were not Indo-Europeans, so are not even relevant to your hypothesis, as you've presented it so far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the contrary, I am making no assumptions at all about when Tiwas became the chief god. It's you who are doing that. What I'm saying is we simply don't know. The etymology of his name may indeed show he was around for a very long time, but not as any sort of chief god, rather, as the sky god.

Ra is not the Egyptian chief god, he was the sun god. Egyptian religion changed a lot during 3 millennia, and was different in each city, each of which had its own chief god. In later times Ra was merged with other gods. Furthermore, Egyptians were not Indo-Europeans, so are not even relevant to your hypothesis, as you've presented it so far.

There is so much wrong in your post that I doubt you are actually serious yourself. Not much more to add really as I will not be drawn into wasting my time and giving a free history lesson, unless you are prepared to pay me of course. Please send your bank details to my bank in Lagos, thank you.

Edited by Kaa-Tzik
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then you assume that Tiwas only became chief god just before Tacitus arrives on the scene. The etymology of his name shows he was around for a very long time before Tacitus, many millenia I would think. And last time I checked, the Ancient Egyptians predated classical times by some margin. So we have Ra predating classical times, and in particular Tacitus, by some millenia. Or will there now be denial that Ra was chief god.

I wouldnt generalize that Ra was Chief god. It depends on the time and CIty plus theres the whole Sun cult that one pharoah tried to do. I would say Ptah thats as close as you get to there "Hidden One" seeing as it was said that he put all the Netjer in there position and power. I think it was middle Kingdom when they put the title Amun with Ra. Egypt had alot of cults duking it out for power, all decided upon by the pharoah which he usually chose his family's cult.

Read up on the early incarnations of Heru/Horus, he wasnt always the fun loving bird god of vengeance.

Funny thing about gods who ended up ruiling, they werent the most high god or First god. The Story of Marduk always comes to mind. Also Water gods or primordial gods were usualy the first dieties, where a warrior god,usually associated with the sky ends up defeating them and bringing about civilization. Depending on what you read even Abrahams Heaven had the kingdom of Edom before them.

Infact now that I think about it Odin wasnt the chief god, there were the Vanir. And about Zeus I thought his other brothers ruled with him just different kindgoms: sky, water, death.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldnt generalize that Ra was Chief god. It depends on the time and CIty plus theres the whole Sun cult that one pharoah tried to do. I would say Ptah thats as close as you get to there "Hidden One" seeing as it was said that he put all the Netjer in there position and power. I think it was middle Kingdom when they put the title Amun with Ra. Egypt had alot of cults duking it out for power, all decided upon by the pharoah which he usually chose his family's cult.

Read up on the early incarnations of Heru/Horus, he wasnt always the fun loving bird god of vengeance.

Funny thing about gods who ended up ruiling, they werent the most high god or First god. The Story of Marduk always comes to mind. Also Water gods or primordial gods were usualy the first dieties, where a warrior god,usually associated with the sky ends up defeating them and bringing about civilization. Depending on what you read even Abrahams Heaven had the kingdom of Edom before them.

Infact now that I think about it Odin wasnt the chief god, there were the Vanir. And about Zeus I thought his other brothers ruled with him just different kindgoms: sky, water, death.

On a specialised forum I would be exact in my posts, but this is not, it is a general forum. That is not to say we can all tell outrageous lies and expect be believed of course, as I see genuine experts in their field on this forum to put us right. I think if you did a straw poll among the general poulation about who Egypt's chief god was, then I would be surprised if Ra did not get most of the votes. Odin may never have been chief god except in our modern imagination. I think we get the idea of that because he was the god of kings, and yes, I know there is a debate about exactly what kingship was in those days. Thor probably had more following, though I still say that Tiwas had been chief god. I think by classical times he was already being pushed into a subsiduary role, though this would depend on what tribe of Germanics you encountered, and by Tacitus they were rather spread about, if you count the various Goths as still being Germanic, or mostly Germanic at that time. We tend to look mostly at the classical period as we have written history. By that time the end of these gods was on the horizon, some hundreds of years of course, but compared to what had gone before, not much more than the blink of an eye. I think what we see is a snapshot of the end period of these gods and as such we do not see the full picture, and probably never will. I think if we see evidence of something different from earlier periods, and with this name Dyaus I believe we do, then we should not brush it aside. I still say that the entire god "thing" with us is bobbin shaped. Narrow at the beginning, fat in the middle and then narrow at the end, or rather at where we are now. Things can and will change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On a specialised forum I would be exact in my posts, but this is not, it is a general forum. That is not to say we can all tell outrageous lies and expect be believed of course, as I see genuine experts in their field on this forum to put us right. I think if you did a straw poll among the general poulation about who Egypt's chief god was, then I would be surprised if Ra did not get most of the votes. Odin may never have been chief god except in our modern imagination. I think we get the idea of that because he was the god of kings, and yes, I know there is a debate about exactly what kingship was in those days. Thor probably had more following, though I still say that Tiwas had been chief god. I think by classical times he was already being pushed into a subsiduary role, though this would depend on what tribe of Germanics you encountered, and by Tacitus they were rather spread about, if you count the various Goths as still being Germanic, or mostly Germanic at that time. We tend to look mostly at the classical period as we have written history. By that time the end of these gods was on the horizon, some hundreds of years of course, but compared to what had gone before, not much more than the blink of an eye. I think what we see is a snapshot of the end period of these gods and as such we do not see the full picture, and probably never will. I think if we see evidence of something different from earlier periods, and with this name Dyaus I believe we do, then we should not brush it aside. I still say that the entire god "thing" with us is bobbin shaped. Narrow at the beginning, fat in the middle and then narrow at the end, or rather at where we are now. Things can and will change.

General population != Knowledgeable in fact it means the opposite. The "chief god" title if you will Would be Tem/Atum (Sorry mixed it up with Amun who was also taken over by Ra). Ra became very popular later on and swallowed up other gods(not really). Ptah, Tem and Amen were some of the deitys that were absorbed into him. But its hard to say that Tem was head God in early periods because it depends in what City you were in. See Gods resided over Citys, Tem was over Heliopolis and later on it was Ra. One could say Ra turned into Tem (of course that would throw your lingustic science that gods through out the ages kept the same name or pronunciation) . But Ra was around during Tem, It was during the old Kingdom when that dynasty started building temples to him that it rose to popularity.

And im sorry it hurts your feelings that a few of us dont buy into your God, created through psuedo spelling science. I took a few minutes and read up on it. And its BS. Some even tried to use him as an origin for dionysus, which if you know the mysteries...uhhhh no just no .

Hard to believe but alot of ancient dogma and text arnt lost. They just arnt shared with the academic world.

Edited by Heru
Link to comment
Share on other sites

General population != Knowledgeable in fact it means the opposite. The "chief god" title if you will Would be Tem/Atum (Sorry mixed it up with Amun who was also taken over by Ra). Ra became very popular later on and swallowed up other gods(not really). Ptah, Tem and Amen were some of the deitys that were absorbed into him. But its hard to say that Tem was head God in early periods because it depends in what City you were in. See Gods resided over Citys, Tem was over Heliopolis and later on it was Ra. One could say Ra turned into Tem (of course that would throw your lingustic science that gods through out the ages kept the same name or pronunciation) . But Ra was around during Tem, It was during the old Kingdom when that dynasty started building temples to him that it rose to popularity.

And im sorry it hurts your feelings that a few of us dont buy into your God, created through psuedo spelling science. I took a few minutes and read up on it. And its BS. Some even tried to use him as an origin for dionysus, which if you know the mysteries...uhhhh no just no .

Hard to believe but alot of ancient dogma and text arnt lost. They just arnt shared with the academic world.

About the part I put in bold. You are making things up. I do not create a god through "psuedo spelling science", this is ridiculous and shows a lack of knowledge on your part. And nowhere do I state that "gods through out the ages kept the same name or pronunciation" You clearly missed that part of my posts were this Indo-European sky god Dyaus changes into Zeus, Deus, Tiwaz and several others. I think you will find that is caused by a change in pronounciation. You will also find that the academic world does not have a problem with this, though you seem fit to speak for the academic world when you clearly are not fully in command of facts, as your rather rambling speech about Egypt shows. I have to presume, on the basis of your posts, that you are fringe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

About the part I put in bold. You are making things up. I do not create a god through "psuedo spelling science", this is ridiculous and shows a lack of knowledge on your part. And nowhere do I state that "gods through out the ages kept the same name or pronunciation" You clearly missed that part of my posts were this Indo-European sky god Dyaus changes into Zeus, Deus, Tiwaz and several others. I think you will find that is caused by a change in pronounciation. You will also find that the academic world does not have a problem with this, though you seem fit to speak for the academic world when you clearly are not fully in command of facts, as your rather rambling speech about Egypt shows. I have to presume, on the basis of your posts, that you are fringe.

What about the fact that Zeus was not originally the chief god of the Greeks, but had to dethrone Cronus in order to attain that role?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about the fact that Zeus was not originally the chief god of the Greeks, but had to dethrone Cronus in order to attain that role?

The Greeks, and everybody else, make up stories about their gods. The god comes first, then to put them in a context that makes them more human, or to use them as metaphors or analogies for various events, etc, stories are made up. Your question does not change anything, as Zeus was chief God of the Greeks, who never worshipped Cronus. That is as false as saying that as Ra emerged from chaos, then the Egyptians originally worshipped this chaos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Greeks, and everybody else, make up stories about their gods. The god comes first, then to put them in a context that makes them more human, or to use them as metaphors or analogies for various events, etc, stories are made up. Your question does not change anything, as Zeus was chief God of the Greeks, who never worshipped Cronus. That is as false as saying that as Ra emerged from chaos, then the Egyptians originally worshipped this chaos.

What it shows is that the Greeks, and many other cultures who had very similar myths, recognised that there was a time when Zeus, and his various equivalents such as Marduk, Jupiter and so on, was not the chief god, but later became so. This is quite strong evidence against your theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What it shows is that the Greeks, and many other cultures who had very similar myths, recognised that there was a time when Zeus, and his various equivalents such as Marduk, Jupiter and so on, was not the chief god, but later became so. This is quite strong evidence against your theory.

No, and when did I state that this was my theory. All I have done is repeat what others say is the link between Dyaus and variants used down the ages in differing cultures. I also point out that the variants of this name have been used for the chief god of those cultures, and have also pointed out that these gods were not always chief god, as in the case of Tiwaz. You split hairs about Cronos and avoid some questions. You also have no answer to my quote from Tactitus. If you disagree with what I have posted, if you disagree with the academics that this information comes from, then publish a paper. You seem to say things for the sake of saying them, for the sake of being contrary. To some, your post at face value may seem valid, but I know it is actually vacuous. I have no further interest in this.

Edited by Kaa-Tzik
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, and when did I state that this was my theory. All I have done is repeat what others say is the link between Dyaus and variants used down the ages in differing cultures. I also point out that the variants of this name have been used for the chief god of those cultures, and have also pointed out that these gods were not always chief god, as in the case of Tiwaz. You split hairs about Cronos and avoid some questions. You also have no answer to my quote from Tactitus. If you disagree with what I have posted, if you disagree with the academics that this information comes from, then publish a paper. You seem to say things for the sake of saying them, for the sake of being contrary. To some, your post at face value may seem valid, but I know it is actually vacuous. I have no further interest in this.

Why are you taking it so personally?

Mentioning Cronus is not spliiting hairs, it is crucial to the fact that the Greeks recognised that Zeus was not always chief god. My answer to your quote from Tacitus was that he was a Classical source, and we are talking about a much earlier period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why are you taking it so personally?

Mentioning Cronus is not spliiting hairs, it is crucial to the fact that the Greeks recognised that Zeus was not always chief god. My answer to your quote from Tacitus was that he was a Classical source, and we are talking about a much earlier period.

You twist meanings and even your own posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I most certainly do not. Please refrain from personal insults.

You perfectly well know that Cronos was part of a story about Zeus and that there is no evidence of him even being worshipped, let alone as a chief god. You twist the story of him being the father of Zeus into making him chief god simply because the story says he was Zeus's father. This is called twisting, or manipulation or semantics. Then we come to Tacitus. You wheeled him out to support what you have been saying, then when I quote what Tacitus writes about about a chief god, who is believed to be Tiwaz, you become silent about Tacitus, only to suddenly reverse your position a few posts ago and try to make it seem that he proved your point, instead of the reality of demolishing it. This is also twisting and manipulation. So please, don't make posts like the one I quote in order to deflect away from your inconsistent posts and make it seem I am at fault. You want to play games on this forum, then I suggest you go and sniff around somebody else, as I really am not interested in these games at all. Over and out.

Edited by Kaa-Tzik
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You perfectly well know that Cronos was part of a story about Zeus and that there is no evidence of him even being worshipped, let alone as a chief god. You twist the story of him being the father of Zeus into making him chief god simply because the story says he was Zeus's father. This is called twisting, or manipulation or semantics. Then we come to Tacitus. You wheeled him out to support what you have been saying, then when I quote what Tacitus writes about about a chief god, who is believed to be Tiwaz, you become silent about Tacitus, only to suddenly reverse your position a few posts ago and try to make it seem that he proved your point, instead of the reality of demolishing it. This is also twisting and manipulation. So please, don't make posts like the one I quote in order to deflect away from your inconsistent posts and make it seem I am at fault. You want to play games on this forum, then I suggest you go and sniff around somebody else, as I really am not interested in these games at all. Over and out.

Now I will admit in my posts I can be an @55, im a satanist so I will challenge you or in other words be your villian so you can become stronger like a pheonix being reborn.

Elfin on the other hand she seemed genuine in trying to have a discussion with you. I doubt she took the time to post the many replies because she wanted to prove you wrong or make fun of you or something so dont miss out on maybe learning something from her or her from you. Forum is for Debating, I think its a roman thing :P

Cronus was his father cause Cronus is time, if I remember right they used his bones for blah blah blah and all that.

And im sure there were some who worshiped Cronus, probably some underground cult. Plus the most worshiped or prayed to god would probaly be a fertility god... Most ancient common man usually had idols for fertility and protection, not prayers to chief gods.

As a Side note Elfin do you remember who Cronus killed? I remember there was one before him, Cause didnt Aphrodite come from Cronus cutting his fathers groin and then it failing into the sea or was it from Cronus's cut groin?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You perfectly well know that Cronos was part of a story about Zeus and that there is no evidence of him even being worshipped, let alone as a chief god. You twist the story of him being the father of Zeus into making him chief god simply because the story says he was Zeus's father. This is called twisting, or manipulation or semantics. Then we come to Tacitus. You wheeled him out to support what you have been saying, then when I quote what Tacitus writes about about a chief god, who is believed to be Tiwaz, you become silent about Tacitus, only to suddenly reverse your position a few posts ago and try to make it seem that he proved your point, instead of the reality of demolishing it. This is also twisting and manipulation. So please, don't make posts like the one I quote in order to deflect away from your inconsistent posts and make it seem I am at fault. You want to play games on this forum, then I suggest you go and sniff around somebody else, as I really am not interested in these games at all. Over and out.

It was you who brought up Tacitus, not me, and since you introduced him, I have in no way been silent on him. Please stop trying to twist my words or my argument. As for Cronus, his very existence in Greek mythology is a very strong argument against the idea that Zeus was always regarded as the chief god, which is absolutely central to this debate. According to Greek myth (maybe you should study it some time), Zeus deposed Cronus, who had been the previous ruler during the golden age.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.