part0018

Throughout this book has been a recurring theme that essentially weaves a tapestry of human unity not widely perceived. In order to appreciate further this unity, we can turn to etymology, or the study of the origin and development of words, to demonstrate how closely cultures are related and how there has been basically one mythos and creed with many different forms. We will also discover, therefore, further evidence of what has been demonstrated herein concerning the Christ conspiracy.

Etymology is also significant because, to the ancients, words were magical, as it was believed that the “Word of God” created the universe. To the ancients, then, words were not, as Allegro says, “just vocalic utterances communicating ideas from one mind to another; they were expressions of real power in themselves. The word had an entity of its own; once released it could effect the desire of its creator. The god’s or prophet’s word was a thing to be feared, and if maleficent, ‘turned back’ as the Bible would say. Words which looked alike, we might think accidentally, were considered actually to be connected in some way.” dccxl Furthermore, the Hebrews, like other peoples, were fond of wordplay and used it extensively in their texts.

Many people believe that the concept of God as Father originated with Christianity, but this assumption is erroneous, as numerous pre-Christian cultures had their God the Father as well. As it turns out, God the Mother has been a more popular idea for a longer period of time, but the Greeks, Indians and Egyptians, to name a few, also conceived of the male aspect of deity. In the Greek mythology, the sky-god father-figure, aka “Zeus Pateras,” who is a myth and not a historical figure, takes his name from the Indian version, “Dyaus Pitar.” Dyaus Pitar in turn is related to the Egyptian “Ptah,” and from Pitar and Ptah comes the word “pater,” or “father.” “Zeus” equals “Dyaus,” which became “Deos,” “Deus” and “Dios”—“God.” Dyaus also means sky, which is indicative of “God’s” atmospheric and unhistoric nature. Dyaus Pitar also mutated into the Roman “Jupiter,” likewise not a historical character.

Although most people think the name Jesus originated with the Christian godman, it was in fact quite common, particularly in Israel, where it was Joshua. As such the name appears in the Old Testament over 200 times. As demonstrated, the name Jesus also comes from the monogram of Dionysus, “IES,” “Yes” or “Jes,” among others. Jacolliot elaborates on these widespread names:

As we have seen, all these names of Jesus, Jeosuah, Josias, Josue derive from two Sanscrit words Zeus and Jezeus, which signify, one, the Supreme Being, and the other, the Divine Essence. These names, moreover, were common not only amongst the Jews, but throughout the East. dccxli

Higgins relates that the followers of Krishna shouted “Jeye” or “Ieue” during celebrations. dccxlii This “ieue,” as we have seen, is the same as both YHWH and “Jesus,” as admitted by Clement of Alexandria (153-214), who noted that “the Savior” had been represented by the letters “IE,” the same designation found applied to Apollo on his temple at Delphi. The “Savior,” of course, was not a carnalized, historical person but a spiritual construct that, as noted, was known to many mystery schools and sects, which could thus be termed “salvation cultists.”

The title of Christos was applied not only to the kings and priests of Judah but also to a number of anointed savior-gods prior to the Christian era. As Walker says:

“Anointed One,” a title of many Middle-Eastern sacrificial gods—Attis, Adonis, Tammuz, Osiris—derived from Oriental cults of the sacred marriage. In the east, the god’s lingam or the erect penis of his statue was anointed with holy oil (Greek chrism) for easier penetration of his bride, the Goddess, impersonated by one of the temple virgins.… Jesus became a Christos when he was christ-ened by Mary, the magdalene or temple maiden (Matthew 26:12), who also announced his resurrection (Mark 15:47). dccxliii

In other words, anyone anointed would be called “Christ” by the Greek-speaking inhabitants of the Roman Empire, who were many, since Greek was the lingua franca for centuries. As noted, in Greek Krishna is also Christos, and the word “Christ” also comes from the Hindi word “Kris,” which is a name for the sun, as is evidently “Krishna” in ancient Irish.

In fact, in the face of criticism that his “new superstition” was fabricated, Eusebius protested that “the names Jesus and Christ [were] known and honoured from the first.” Eusebius further insisted:

Eusebius’s ruse of “bore the image of our Saviour” was a common argument by Christian apologists, who, when confronted with the truth that the gods and/or patriarchs of other eras and cultures had similar or identical “lives” as that of Jesus, sought to explain that these preceding individuals were either Pagan imitations created previously by the prescient devil or Hebrew/ Jewish “archetypes” or “patterns,” as Eusebius calls them, for the real Christ who was to come. As we have seen, Tertullian considers these archetypes to be God’s “rehearsals” for his big role.

Despite the attempts of the Christian fathers to prove the antiquity of their savior, Hotema maintained that the name “Jesus Christ” was not formally adopted as a phrase until after the first Council of Nicea, i.e., in 325. Says he, “The name Jesus Christ was unknown until after the Nicean Council. It appeared in no writings before that time.” dccxliv And Roberts says:

Prior to the Fourth Century, there was frequent and general mention of “Christos,” and his worship to the east of Rome. But nowhere can be found any authentic mention at that time of a Jesus Christ. It was not until after the Nicean Council that the name Jesus Christ was ever known to the world. dccxlv

Many people today do not readily express belief in Satan, or the devil, as portrayed in Christianity, which in actuality depends upon the belief in such an absolute evil being for it to be “true.” The devil was a very popular figure when the Church, Christianity and general hysteria reigned supreme, but in the time since secularism and freethought have become more influential, the devil seems to have dropped out of sight, save for the occasional hauntings and possessions. For example, before rationalism and science established their voice, lightning strikes and hurricanes were regarded as the devil’s work. They are now often considered as “acts of God,” leaving one to wonder where the devil has gone and if God is next.

Of course, the dualistic concepts of absolute good and evil did not originate with Christianity but are found long before the Christian era, particularly within Zoroastrianism. Satan is an adaptation of the Persian representative of evil “Ahriman,” the twin brother of “God,” the same as the Egyptian Set, Horus’s twin and principal enemy, also known as “Sata,” whence comes “Satan.” Horus struggles with Set in the exact manner that Jesus battles with Satan, with 40 days in the wilderness, among other similarities, such as the revealing from the mount “all the kingdoms of Earth.” This myth represents the triumph of light over dark, or the sun’s return to relieve the terror of the night. Horus/Set was the god of the two horizons; hence, Horus was the rising sun, and Set the time of the Sun-SET.

As noted, Set is the biblical Seth, the progenitor of the Hebrew race, demonstrating the culture’s stellar cult origins. While solar brotherhoods such as the Essenes and Nazarenes wore white, the priesthood of Set/Seth/Saturn/Sata wore black robes, “black as night”; hence, the black dress of Catholic, Jewish and Muslim clerics to this day.

In Hebrew, the name “Satan” or “Shaitan” merely means “adversary,” not absolute evil being. The title of Satan as the “adversary,” also at 1 Peter 5:8, refers to the sun as “Lord of the Opposite, which means a sign or constellation opposite to the sun at any given point.” dccxlvi

Moreover, Satan is called “the father of lies,” yet it is Yahweh who claims to be the deceiver: “If a prophet is deceived, I the Lord deceived that prophet.” (Ezekiel) This example is but one of the instances in which “the Lord” lies (1 Kings 22, Jer. 22:7), leaving one to speculate as to the true identity of the “Father of Lies.”

The origin of the “devil” also can be uncovered through etymology, in that the word comes from the Sanskrit term “deva” or the Persian “daeva,” both of which originally referred to angelic entities, usually female, who were demonized by Christian propagandists. In actuality, “devil” shares the same root as “divine.” In addition, the word “demon” is a Christian vilification of the Greek word “daemon,” which likewise referred to a divine spirit.

The devil was called “Baalzebub,” but this word was also used for God, prior to its vilification. As Graves says, “Baal, as synonymous with Bel, was the Chaldean name for the Lord dwelling in the sun. Baal-Shadai was the sun in the zenith of his glory, and Baalzebub the sun while in the sign or constellation of the scorpion.” dccxlvii It also meant “Lord of the Flies,” the god propitiated to keep flies away.

In fact, any number of names for the devil found within Judaism and Christianity are vilifications of the gods and goddesses of other cultures. The form of the devil commonly represented over the past several centuries, i.e., a man with horns and hooves, is in large part a demonization of the Greek god of Nature, Pan, who was wild and capricious. Several other gods were also involved in the creation of the Christian devil, such as Hades/Pluto and Dionysus/Bacchus. Massey elaborates:

The devil was of Egyptian origin, both as “that old serpent” the Apap reptile, the devil with a long tail, and as Sut, who was Satan in an anthropomorphic guise. Sut, the power of drought and darkness in physical phenomena, becomes the dark-hearted evil one… dccxlviii

Jerusalem in the Egyptian mythos is “Arru-Salaam,” or Salam, Shiloam, Siloam. Arru is the garden or fields where the wheat or barley is sown and harvested, the Elysian fields, where Osiris, the sun, takes his rest. It was said that in order to “reap” the Egyptian paradise or Arru-Salaam, one’s “sowing” had to be in proportion to the reward; hence, “As you sow, so shall you reap.”

Arru-Salaam is the celestial Holy City to which the “angels” ascend and descend the zodiacal ladder of Set/Jacob. The Holy City has no single location on Earth but appears first in the heavens and afterwards is constructed around the globe, being “the Eternal City, the City of the Blessed, the Holy City, the City of the Great King, the Heavenly City, the Eternal City that was the model of Memphis and Annu, Thebes and Abydos, Eridu and Babylon, Jerusalem, Rome, and other sacred Cities of the world.” dccl

“Bethany,” site of the famous multiplying of the loaves, means “House of God,” and is allegory for the “multiplication of the many out of the One.” Any town of that designation was named for the allegorical place in the texts that existed centuries before the town’s foundation. The Egyptian predecessor and counterpart was “Bethanu.” That a “historical” or localized Bethany did not even exist at the time of Christ’s alleged advent is attested to by Church father Origen, who “said he could find no trace of ‘Bethany beyond Jordan.’” dcclii

There have been too many “Rivers Jordan” to name here. The Danube in Europe is one, as is the mythical Eridanus or Iarutana of Egypt. These bodies of water basically represent the “river of the sun,” as can be demonstrated etymologically. dccliii Without water, there would be no life, so it was quite common for migrating peoples to rejoice at the discovery of a potable body of water. Thus, rivers were venerated as “gifts from God” and named for “his” most visible proxy.

The “great” king Solomon, so-called wisest man in the world, with his 1,000 wives and concubines, should today be considered an immoral criminal, were the story true. Obviously, this absurd tale is not historical. In fact, “Sol-om-on” refers to the sun in three languages: “Sol” is Latin, “om” is Eastern, and “on” is Egyptian. “On” means both “sun” and “lord,” reflecting an association found in countless cultures. Solomon can also be traced to the same root as “Salvation,” which is related to “Salivahana,” the Indian savior-god. dccliv

Much has been made of the great “Temple of Solomon,” yet, as stated, this magnificent temple and the entire empire of Solomon were never found by ancient historians, nor did Alexander the Great pay heed to them. Furthermore, even if it had existed, the temple as outlined in the Bible would not be impressive, especially compared to the monuments of other cultures of the time. Such a blueprint was apparently followed, however, as, according to Higgins, the ruins at Persepolis indicate a temple similar to the biblical description of Solomon’s temple. dcclv

There are a number of other problems with the “history” of Solomon presented in the Bible. As Graham states:

The Bible states in three different places that Solomon built the walls of Jerusalem, yet the historical Jerusalem was a walled city in the fourteenth century B.C., and the Jews as a distinct sect did not then exist…The statement that he began to build the temple some four hundred years after the Exodus from Egypt is also historically false.… The literature of the Jains of India tells this same story of their Solomon. Proverbs 22:17-23:11 is a nearly verbatim translation of the Egyptian book, The Wisdom of Amenemope, written about 1000 B.C. dcclvi

In reality, there have been numerous Temples or Mounts of Solomon, found largely in India and Persia, under a variety of spellings, such as Soleiman, Soolimana, Suleiman, Sulimon or Solumi. In fact, as noted, the entire story of Solomon can be found in India, as can be that of Genesis and David, among others. dcclvii This pervasiveness demonstrates that the temple of Solomon was originally allegorical, not literal. As Hazelrigg relates:

As an example of the allegorical method used in the elucidation of these mysteries, take, for example, the story of King Solomon, deemed a personage of some importance in Holy Writ, whose temple “builded not with hands, neither with sound of iron or metal tool.” Now, the word Solomon is a compound from three languages great in olden times—Latin, Sol or Solus, sun; Sanskrit, Aum or Om, heat; and Ethiopic, On, being—all pointing to solar principle in manifestation: Sol-om-on, the personification of wisdom, and described in his songs as of “brightness of the everlasting light, the unspotted mirror of the power of God, and the image of His goodness.” Solomon’s Temple meant nothing more nor less than the temple or vault of the heavens, of which Sol is king, or center… dcclviii

The sun in Egyptian is Sire, Osiris, in Sanskrit, Aum, in Chaldean and Ethiopic, On, in other languages, Sol. And whether we call him Sol-aum or On, or altogether Sol-om-on, it matters little, since his temple has never yet been made by hands and is eternal in the heavens. And though Herod’s temple has been found and the remains of many others, no one has yet had the audacity to claim Sol-om-on’s Temple as a discovery… dcclix

Solomon’s Temple is, in fact, the tent or tabernacle of the sun mentioned at Psalms 19, the same temple as Jesus’s body. The “mounts of Solomon” are the 72 decans or divisions of the zodiac, reflected in the ancient Persian tradition that there were 70 or 72 Soleimans before the advent of Adam/Atum. dcclx Traditionally it has been thought that the Knights Templar were designated for the “historical” temple of Solomon; however, they were in actuality named for the “templum of the heavens” or “starry vaults.” dcclxi As Hazelrigg explains:

Incredibly, many people have believed the biblical tale of Jonah and the whale to be true. The fact that this belief can be rationalized, particularly since those selfsame believers roundly dismiss the “absurd” stories of other cultures, is an example of conditioning and cultural bias. In reality, the story of Jonah is itself found in other cultures, as Walker elaborates:

Jonah’s whale is described in the Bible as a “fish,” because writers of that period (and for many centuries afterward) were unaware that whales are mammals. The whale of the original Jonah story was the Babylonian Sea Goddess Derceto, “The Whale of Der,” who swallowed and gave rebirth to the god Oannes…Swallowing by the whale indicates an initiation rite, leading to rebirth. The Finnish hero Ilmarinen was similarly swallowed by a giant fish to be re-born. A variant of the story shows that the fish was really a womb…Biblical writers masculinized the image as Jonah, whose name means “Dove.” The word ionah or ione may have descended from yoni, for the dove was a primary symbol of female sexuality. dcclxiii

Far from being literal, the tale of Jonah is astrological, as “Jonah” in the “belly of the whale” for three days represents the sun in the “womb” of the earth. These three days are the “entombment” of the sun in darkness, nightly but also during the time between a new and old moon, as the “whale” is also the “moon-fish.” As Doane says:

There is a Hindoo fable, very much resembling [the Jonah tale], to be found in the Somadeva Bhatta, of a person by the name of Saktideva who was swallowed up by a huge fish, and finally came out unhurt.… In Grecian fable, Hercules is said to have been swallowed by a whale, at a place called Joppa, and to have lain three days in his entrails. …That the story is an allegory, and that it, as well as that of Saktideva, Hercules and the rest, are simply different versions of the same myth, the significance of which is the alternate swallowing up and casting forth of Day, or the Sun, by Night, is now all but universally admitted by scholars. The Day, or the Sun, is swallowed up by Night, to be set free again at dawn…The Sun was called Jona…Jonah, Hercules and others personify the Sun, and a huge Fish represents the Earth. dcclxiv

Moreover, the words Jawna, Jon, Jona and Ionn are demonstrably the same as Baal, the Lord, or the “First Principle.” dcclxv In addition, the Scandinavians purportedly called the sun “John,” and in Persian the sun is “Jawnah.” “Thus,” says Doane, “we see that the Sun was called Jonah, by different nations of antiquity.” dcclxvi

In the New Testament, Jesus is identified with the solar hero Jonah: “For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so will the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” (Matthew 12:40) When Jesus is asked by the Pharisees and Sadducees for a “sign from heaven,” he enigmatically answers, “An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign shall be given to it except the sign of Jonah.” (Matthew 16:4) The sign, of course, is the sun.

Thus, in studying the origins of words, we discover the fascinating fact that many of them can be traced to the same source, and that source is often the sun. In fact, as seen, the names of the various solar gods and heroes are often related to each other. For example, in the very ancient and mysterious Basque language, Dionysus is “Dunixi,” which seems related to the “Dumuzi” of the Sumerians, which in turn became “Tammuz.” Dionysus, or Bacchus, can also be traced to Yahweh, as Bacchus was also written “Iacchus,” which in turn is related to “Iao” or “Jah.” The Greek solar myth “Heracles” (Hercules) is the same as “Har-acles,” referring to Horus, also called “Heru,” while Krishna is called “Heri,” the Sanskrit for lord, shepherd and savior. Buddha is also called “Heri-maya,” which would correspond to Hermes. In old Irish, the word “Budh,” as in Buddha, means sun, fire and universe. dcclxvii Furthermore, the word “Baal,” as in “the Lord,” is found in India as “Bala” and is related to the word “Bull,” reflecting that it was a common term in the Age of Taurus. The word “Bull” in turn can be traced to the same root as “syr,” as in Syria, another term for the sun.

Like all other sciences, etymology is not exact or perfect, and etymological speculation at times may be faulty. Nevertheless, the theme demonstrated is too overwhelming to be dismissed. What such research reveals is that the various human cultures, nations and races have much more in common than they realize and that the focus of their religious attention was originally non-sectarian and non-racial, i.e., it was not a man of any particular ethnicity.