The Polytheistic Origins Of Ancient Israel

[Joshpantera]

http://contradictionsinthebible.com/are-yahweh-and-el-the-same-god/

 

I have to thank readyforchange for posting this excellent and informative article in another thread where we were exploring the depths of christians completely misunderstanding the Bible. The article outlines what academia has uncovered - as far as the forensic's of god belief in Judaism. And we have to start there at the foundation of the three monotheistic religions. This is of the utmost importance to understand for those either in christianity, one foot in and one foot out, out for a little while and out for a long time. And it deserves an entire thread of it's own. 

 

This is something that has been swept under the rug by copiest's and translators who have tried to make it appear as though the Bible speaks of one monotheistic god throughout, who has many titles and names. That's very disingenuous, however. And as the conversation unfolds we can add on the slew of likewise scholarship from Biblical archaeology and other fields of study that all point to the same conclusion - that the creation account found in Genesis and a good portion of the OT was written by those who believed in an entire pantheon of gods (no different than any other mythology) who created mankind, and brought a flood, and confused man's language, and so on and so fourth. 

 

[LogicalFallacy]

Hey just are quick note here. Aside from all the issues of Christianity, isn't it amazing, almost wondrous that many millennia later our civilization is still influenced by the early Canaanites, Babylonians and Sumerians? Today Christians still use the word Elohim without realizing they have been influenced by people living millennia before, and with far less knowledge than today. I find that fascinating.

 

The ancients stamped their mark on the world and proclaimed loudly "We were here!"

 

Right now that my spiritual side is  appeased I'll go keep studying this stuff.  

[Joshpantera]

This has many ramifications. For one, the Ancient Aliens Theory!

 

It seems funny, perhaps crackpot. But at the end of the day the AAT hinges on the idea that the gods of the earliest cultures like Sumerian, Babylonian, Egyptian, etc., were in fact alien visitors. They offer reasons for these conclusions. That runs directly into Judaism, Christianity and Islam. If for some wild reason these allegations were to be proven true, it would literally mean that the three monotheistic religions have been worshiping alien beings the entire time having no idea what they've been doing. I can imagine the "wailing and gnashing of teeth." 

 

All fun aside, this is a serious matter. 

 

At the minimum we have a fanciful mythological system in place in the ancient world. The Jews are no different than the Greeks or Romans in the sense of their mythological traditions. We're raised to see Greek Mythology as lesser non-sense, stupid in comparison to the supremacy of our sophisticated monotheism. But it's the same fucking thing! 

[Joshpantera]

[Joshpantera]

Another classic, this is an exert from a deconverted christian who made a video series about his personal journey:

 

 

My first thought on the ramifications of this video that targets Yahweh as this Aries style war God, evolving over time and circumstance, is that the NT is about Yeshua whose name literally means, "Yahweh Saves," or "Yahweh is Salvation." This is a calling, once again, back to the old god of war, Yahweh. Although the god had gone through many transformations through the Babylonian exile and thereafter. And it doesn't seem like the writers of the NT intended to call attention to Yahweh that far back in time. But it's just another episode of this general trend to call attention to Yahweh and suggest that the salvation of Israel depends on it. 

 

Looking at this evolution you can see that Yahweh seems to have started out with pagan origins and they later tried to separate those origins out. But they never really went away. And by the time of the NT there's this Yahwist movement formatted through the name Yeshua which is equally completely mixed up with pagan mythology as usual and once again. I come from a background of fundamentalist's who are concerned with how much of christianity is paganized and how to try and separate the paganism out. So this topic is especially interesting to me. It exposes the logical outcome of such an adventure. 

 

And these fundamentalist's zealous to campaign against pagan influence and content have no idea where their ideas lead in the end, if followed through completely. The most zealous position possible, is to simply take the entire Bible and dump it into the trash as cover to cover pagan mythology!

[Geezer]

This has many ramifications. For one, the Ancient Aliens Theory!

 

It seems funny, perhaps crackpot. But at the end of the day the AAT hinges on the idea that the gods of the earliest cultures like Sumerian, Babylonian, Egyptian, etc., were in fact alien visitors. They offer reasons for these conclusions. That runs directly into Judaism, Christianity and Islam. If for some wild reason these allegations were to be proven true, it would literally mean that the three monotheistic religions have been worshiping alien beings the entire time having no idea what they've been doing. I can imagine the "wailing and gnashing of teeth."

 

All fun aside, this is a serious matter.

 

At the minimum we have a fanciful mythological system in place in the ancient world. The Jews are no different than the Greeks or Romans in the sense of their mythological traditions. We're raised to see Greek Mythology as lesser non-sense, stupid in comparison to the supremacy of our sophisticated monotheism. But it's the same fucking thing!

 

I am intrigued by the massive structures the ancients built without power tools, technology, & supposedly without the knowledge of modern mathematics. Those structures were incredible feats of engineering. It is also interesting that many cultures around the world built similar structures. Structures built in Mexico are similar to those built in Egypt & that is even more fascinating.

 

That kind of stuff makes one wonder about those alien theories.

[readyforchange]

You're welcome Joshpantera. The author of the article, Dr. Steven DiMattei, also posts on this website sometimes. I sent him a message in case he may want to contribute to the thread. This is also a subject of interest to me as well.

 

In the "End of Monotheism" video you posted, I think there was a brief statement at one point that Yahweh was identified as one of El's sons in one of the Ugarit KTU tablets or texts. From what I understand, the name Yahweh is not directly attested in the Ugaritic writings. But the inference is supported by passages such as Deuteronomy 32:8-9, where the author appears to recall the older tradition of the Caanannite pantheon and El assigning his 70 sons as Gods over each nation. In this scenario, El assigned Yahweh to Israel.

 

There is a book by Mark S. Smith called "The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel's Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts" that goes into topics such as the background of the divine council, similarities in Caananite descriptions of Baal and Biblical descriptions of Yahweh, and includes the full translated text of a couple of the Canaanite stories about El. Needless to say, the depiction of El is very much within a polytheistic setting. In one of the stories, El hosts a drinking party with his sons and either has sex with his consort Athirat or with one or more other female goddesses.

 

There is possible evidence that Yahweh once had Asherah as his consort. This is not attested in the Bible, but there were inscriptions discovered at the site Kuntillet ‘Ajrud that appear to translate as "Yahweh and his Asherah". There seems to be debate on what is referenced, whether it was the actual goddess or her cult symbol of a tree. Here is an article from Bible Archaeology with more background - http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/ancient-cultures/ancient-israel/asherah-and-the-asherim-goddess-or-cult-symbol/

[Geezer]

Ancient history is one of my interest & reading it is what inspired me to reject present day religion. It is somewhat amazing that religion has managed to survive for thousands of years considering the advances mankind has made in science & technology.

 

The God Virus by Darrel Ray offers an explanation for religions ability to survive. I recommend his book it's a good read.

[Blood]

Hey just are quick note here. Aside from all the issues of Christianity, isn't it amazing, almost wondrous that many millennia later our civilization is still influenced by the early Canaanites, Babylonians and Sumerians? Today Christians still use the word Elohim without realizing they have been influenced by people living millennia before, and with far less knowledge than today. I find that fascinating.

 

I share your sense of wonder that the religion of Second Millennium Canaan -- a small, obscure region of the ancient world -- still survives today, in highly fragmented form. That El, Ba'al, Asherah, and Yahweh are still talked about as if they were/are "real" gods who once walked the earth long ago, which is just how the Canaanites were talking about them 3,000 years ago. How in the hell did this happen? 

[Blood]

http://contradictionsinthebible.com/are-yahweh-and-el-the-same-god/

 

I have to thank readyforchange for posting this excellent and informative article in another thread where we were exploring the depths of christians completely misunderstanding the Bible. The article outlines what academia has uncovered - as far as the forensic's of god belief in Judaism. And we have to start there at the foundation of the three monotheistic religions. This is of the utmost importance to understand for those either in christianity, one foot in and one foot out, out for a little while and out for a long time. And it deserves an entire thread of it's own. 

 

This is something that has been swept under the rug by copiest's and translators who have tried to make it appear as though the Bible speaks of one monotheistic god throughout, who has many titles and names. That's very disingenuous, however. And as the conversation unfolds we can add on the slew of likewise scholarship from Biblical archaeology and other fields of study that all point to the same conclusion - that the creation account found in Genesis and a good portion of the OT was written by those who believed in an entire pantheon of gods (no different than any other mythology) who created mankind, and brought a flood, and confused man's language, and so on and so fourth. 

 

 

It appears that someone from the Canaanite tribes took his family southeast and settled there. With the new settlement came the need for a new religion based on the old one, with a new deity, "Yahweh," who was a fusion of El and Ba'al from the old religion. 

 

Wherever people moved, there arose the need for a new religion or new god in order to unify the tribe and provide an authority structure for the new community. But it was rarely an "ex nihilo" religion. It usually took elements from an existing religion and added some new things (but pretended they were old things). 

 

All of this activity pre-dated the composition of the Torah by hundreds of years. The Torah is the product of a sophisticated and highly literate later time, when Yahwehistic monotheism had started to become the norm. 

[Joshpantera]

And we were discussing in the other thread about the Bethlehem star, when the NT writers quote mined their way through the scriptures some of this old polytheism was inadvertently dug up. For instance in the book of John:

 

 

 

29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all[c]; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. 30 I and the Father are one.”

31 Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, 32 but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”

33 “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”

34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”’[d]? 35 If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside— 36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?

 

There's two ways of taking this and neither work out well for christianity. The one way is to assume that even as late as the book of John was written, it describes a real dialogue that took place between a real Jesus and the Jewish leaders. The other way is that the writer of John made up the dialogue to try and further his own mystical school of thought and stamp it as Jesus. Either way, what's going on is a claim to be equal with Yahweh. The leaders lash out and accuse blasphemy. Then the writer comes back thinking he's clever and quotes from Psalm 82 to assert that Yahweh told the people of Israel (whom the word of God came) that they are gods.

 

 

Psalm 82 A psalm of Asaph.

1 God presides in the great assembly;
    he renders judgment among the “gods”:

2 “How long will you[a] defend the unjust
    and show partiality to the wicked?[b]
3 Defend the weak and the fatherless;
    uphold the cause of the poor and the oppressed.
4 Rescue the weak and the needy;
    deliver them from the hand of the wicked.

5 “The ‘gods’ know nothing, they understand nothing.
    They walk about in darkness;
    all the foundations of the earth are shaken.

6 “I said, ‘You are “gods”;
    you are all sons of the Most High.’
7 But you will die like mere mortals;
    you will fall like every other ruler.”

8 Rise up, O God, judge the earth,

    for all the nations are your inheritance.

 

So here the writer of John uses this old chapter about the old polytheistic times of ancient Israel and uses it completely out of context. This is where El is telling the lesser gods of the Elohim (gods) pantheon that they are gods, sons of the most high, but they will die like mortals. This doesn't justify in any way what John is suggesting to the Jewish leaders that it justifies, namely Jesus saying that he and god are "one." And if a real Jesus said this, it shows how absolutely ignorant he must have looked before the Jewish leaders. 

 

It's a tough choice for christians. 

 

Which is it, did John make all of this up whole cloth and the error was his own doing, which involves the error of introducing the idea that Jesus and god are one? Or did Jesus really exist and say something this blatantly stupid and ill conceived in front of the Jewish leaders? 

[★ Citsonga ★]

This is an interesting topic that I wish I had a better handle on. I know enough to know it's an issue but not enough to be able to make an issue of it myself when conversing with others. These videos are good, and I should probably read Karen Armstrong's "History of God" (which I have but haven't had the time to delve into).

 

Anyway, I was just thinking that it would be great to have an English translation of the Bible that uses the original divine names instead of obscuring them. I did a search and found that there is actually a translation called The Names of God Bible (abbreviated NOG), and it's available for free on Bible Gateway. For anyone interested, here's a link to the first chapter:

 

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1&version=NOG

 

It's a completely new translation to me, so I really can't vouch for it, but I hope it's done well. I'd expect it to at least be useful to some extent.

 

What would really be nice would be to have some sort of "study Bible" with a well-done translation like that and a bunch of notes and articles explaining the true history of the evolution of Judaeo/Christian religion (as opposed to the brainwashing propaganda that study Bibles typically have).

[Joshpantera]

26 Then Elohim said, “Let us make humans in our image, in our likeness. Let them rule the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky, the domestic animals all over the earth, and all the animals that crawl on the earth.”

 

When you know about the Elohim pantheon of gods, the plural aspect makes much more sense. Here we find some imagined pantheon of mythological gods wanting to make human beings in their image, in the humanoid likeness of the humanoid gods. This isn't very different than Greek mythology at the bottom of it all. 

 

Imagine if things went differently and some Zeus cult emerged centered around the figure of Hercules, the son of Zeus. And then the Zeus cult grew in numbers and eventually found recognition with Imperial Rome. And then the religion was forced on everyone throughout Europe and the middle east. Then eventually the names of the gods were changed in the religious texts to make it seem as if every name had been with respect to Zeus the entire time. And after time passes people forget that there ever was a pantheon in the first place. And the cultist's made up an idea of a holy trinity which can then absorb the plurality of the old pantheon language of creation and so fourth.  Then some one finds all of this old archaeological and scriptural evidence that shows the true origins of the pantheon. That's really what were dealing with.  

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

Wow I really like this thread. I found some of this while researching on the net last month and that's what put the final nail in the Coffin concerning my faith in the bible. 

     For now I'm going to just study your links because this is all a new train of thought for me. I'm just trying to take it all in at this point.

 

DB

[LogicalFallacy]

On ‎05‎/‎02‎/‎2017 at 8:28 AM, Blood said:

 

I share your sense of wonder that the religion of Second Millennium Canaan -- a small, obscure region of the ancient world -- still survives today, in highly fragmented form. That El, Ba'al, Asherah, and Yahweh are still talked about as if they were/are "real" gods who once walked the earth long ago, which is just how the Canaanites were talking about them 3,000 years ago. How in the hell did this happen? 

 

I think our concept of a long timeframe is too short. Humans have been around in our current form for 100,000 years. It's clearly obvious that religions and associated ideas survive time, societal change, and natural disaster. Certainly they are altered and changed each generation to suit - but the basic underlying foundations are the same. We just don't recognise them today.

 

So perhaps it is not as strange as we think that today we are worshiping the same gods from the cradle of civilisation some 3-5,000 years later?

[readyforchange]

On ‎3‎/‎2‎/‎2017 at 8:42 AM, DarkBishop said:

Wow I really like this thread. I found some of this while researching on the net last month and that's what put the final nail in the Coffin concerning my faith in the bible. 

     For now I'm going to just study your links because this is all a new train of thought for me. I'm just trying to take it all in at this point.

 

DB

I recently came across a website that provides background/evidence regarding the evolution of Israelite religion at http://www.houseofdavid.ca/israelite_religion.htm.  I am not familiar with the author (David Steinberg) but overall, the content seems consistent with scholarly works/positions and contains cross-references from reputable sources.  Might be a good starting point for further research. 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

1 hour ago, readyforchange said:

I recently came across a website that provides background/evidence regarding the evolution of Israelite religion at http://www.houseofdavid.ca/israelite_religion.htm.  I am not familiar with the author (David Steinberg) but overall, the content seems consistent with scholarly works/positions and contains cross-references from reputable sources.  Might be a good starting point for further research. 

This is an awesome link. I haven't read it all but I got to this area talking about Els consort Asher ah. It blew my mind. He brought out the origin of Eve. 

 

"

Asherah is symbolized by the Tree of Life which, in turn, may be symbolized by a pole. On a thriteent century BCE ewer found near a temple, a female, probably goddess, figure has its pubic triangle replaced by a tree[16].

§         Her title Ela (Hebrew) or Elat (Phoenician) is the feminine form of El and hence means "goddess".  “Another name of ´Asherah in the first milleneum BCE is Chawat, which is Hawah in Hebrew and Eve in English. “Her full title is Rabat Chawat ´Elat, Great Lady Eve the Goddess, and is associated with the serpent "

 

thank you for this link. ?

DB

[LogicalFallacy]

Something to add to this topic.

 

I was listening to a lecture by Professor Christine Hayes from Yale University and an interesting point was made.

 

When the Hebrews came out of Egypt (After 480 years) they went to Sinai and there after Moses went up the mountain they made a golden calf and worshiped it saying this is our god which brought us out of Egypt.

 

What is interesting is the choice of god - why a golden calf? (Or bull - I believe that bull is a possible translation of the Hebrew word that is used). The Canaanite god Baal (Which means lord - another interesting crossover here) is represented by a... bull.

 

So these people were (apparently) in Egypt for 480 years believing in the one god of the Hebrews, but for some reason chose to worship a god of the people whose land they were going to, AFTER they had witnessed the apparent power of their own god. This does not make sense... except if we take what Richard Friedman says.

 

Friedman thinks that these stories were written by competing authors - one from the Southern Judah, the other from the Northern Israel. This was after the united tribes had split and the Northern King built alters to.... yep Baal.

 

So the southern writer includes in his story the tale about the children of Israel worshiping the golden claf and being punished in order to show disagreement with the northern religion.

 

What is interesting is that the southern state of Judah seems to have taken Yahweh as their chief deity (Hence the J source - J because Y in German translates to J so hence Jehovah) while the Northern states had Elohim, and some of the other gods.

 

This is all clear indication that the religions of the area were intertwined and evolved, separated and combined over time in the area. It is not an indication of an actual one true deity messing with human affairs having the name Yahweh.

Also what's more is that god actually doesn't give the name Yahweh - this was translated by Moses in third person. In the story the name is "I am that I am" (Christine Hayes)

[Joshpantera]

26 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

Also what's more is that god actually doesn't give the name Yahweh - this was translated by Moses in third person. In the story the name is "I am that I am" (Christine Hayes)

 

You wanna know what's below the YHWH level? 

 

This: http://www.yhwh.com/assets/what-is-god-s-real-name.pdf

 

It's not even YHWH, it's AHYH. It says in the scene, "I will be what I will be." And then thereafter becomes referred back to as, "I am that I am." I came across that years ago when I came across that kooky new age christian (who got the domain name www.yhwh.com He had his name changed to AHYH over this insight). And he's racking his brain trying to figure out some way of trying to interpret it within his christian mind set. Trust me, I lit the guy up years ago over his interpretations of what he thinks "I will be" means. 

 

I think it must be examined against the scholarly and intellectual framework we're discussing here. "I will be what I will be," in the context we're speaking of, would seem more to do with the fact they were taking many different gods and conflating them as if they referred to one god. So this god, "will be what it will be." It will be any of the other gods used previously. 

 

 

[Storm]

On 10/2/2017 at 11:27 PM, Joshpantera said:

 

You wanna know what's below the YHWH level? 

 

This: http://www.yhwh.com/assets/what-is-god-s-real-name.pdf

 

It's not even YHWH, it's AHYH. It says in the scene, "I will be what I will be." And then thereafter becomes referred back to as, "I am that I am." I came across that years ago when I came across that kooky new age christian (who got the domain name www.yhwh.com He had his name changed to AHYH over this insight). And he's racking his brain trying to figure out some way of trying to interpret it within his christian mind set. Trust me, I lit the guy up years ago over his interpretations of what he thinks "I will be" means. 

 

I think it must be examined against the scholarly and intellectual framework we're discussing here. "I will be what I will be," in the context we're speaking of, would seem more to do with the fact they were taking many different gods and conflating them as if they referred to one god. So this god, "will be what it will be." It will be any of the other gods used previously. 

 

 

Is this really legit, like bulletproof legit that the name is AHYH and not YHWH and that the actual translation should be I will be what I will be? I would love to use this as a defense, however, I want to make sure its legit 100% bulletproof. Yea, I am sure that some BS "apologist" has arguments that "back" the use of YHWH rather than AHYH. Are there any more articles that address this that are trustworthy?

[mwc]

6 hours ago, Storm said:

Is this really legit, like bulletproof legit that the name is AHYH and not YHWH and that the actual translation should be I will be what I will be? I would love to use this as a defense, however, I want to make sure its legit 100% bulletproof. Yea, I am sure that some BS "apologist" has arguments that "back" the use of YHWH rather than AHYH. Are there any more articles that address this that are trustworthy?

     It's basically accurate. One is first person and the other is thirst person.  Basically one is "I am" and the other is "He is."  I think Kabbalists are into this distinction.  I don't know if there's any archaeology that references the first person form.

 

          mwc

 

[Geezer]

There is a great deal of historical evidence that shows Christians are worshipping the mythical son  of a myrhical Canaanite War God named EL. The evidence is very strong that present day Jews were originally Canaanites. Internal conflict & civil wars forced some of them to separate from the various Canaanite tribes & form their own culture that eventually became Judaism. 

[Joshpantera]

12 hours ago, Storm said:

Is this really legit, like bulletproof legit that the name is AHYH and not YHWH and that the actual translation should be I will be what I will be? I would love to use this as a defense, however, I want to make sure its legit 100% bulletproof. Yea, I am sure that some BS "apologist" has arguments that "back" the use of YHWH rather than AHYH. Are there any more articles that address this that are trustworthy?

 

I've seen the footnotes in bibles that add, "I will be" or "I was, I am, I will be." Outside of that I haven't gone much deeper with the source material. 

 

Quote

Now, let’s take a look at the Hebrew on page 151 above, starting where you see the white #1. This is Exodus 3:12. Notice the Hebrew word, which is from right to left A (Aleph), H (Heh), Y (Yod) H (Heh).

 

 

Also notice that right below the Hebrew word, we see that the NIV has correctly translated this as “I Will Be.” This word, “AHYH” appears numerous times in the Bible. Just to mention a few, see Genesis 26:3 and 31:3, Joshua 1:5, etc. Each time “AHYH” appears in the entire Bible, the NIV translates it, “I will be,” with the notable exception of Exodus 3:14 (see the white #2), where the same Hebrew is translated “I am.”

 

This is quite interesting, and shows that the bias of the translators prevents them from doing a 100% correct job. However, they are not deceptive people, so they feel constrained by honesty to put a tiny side-note in at white #6: “Or, I will be what I will be.”

 

These are facts.

 

The Hebrew , or AHYH, means “I will be,” and is the first person infinitive of the verb to be. It is translated everywhere in the Bible by the NIV translators as “I will be,” except for Exodus 3:14. There, the correct translation “I will be” is relegated to a side-note.
 

 

 

This guy is a Kabbalistic, christian apologist of sorts. I interacted with him years ago, not favorably. But I've assumed that he's correct about aleph, heh, yud, heh being the old translation. That puts the whole thing much closer to the mythological roots that I suspect it came out of. 

 

Clearly, many ancient gods and goddesses declare of themselves, something to the tune of, "I am all that ever was, is, or shall ever be." 

 

One popular instance is the temple of Isis in Sais, Egypt. Where apparently Isis as Neith declares, "I am all that is, was, or will be, no mortal man hath unveiled me. My first fruits were the sun..." 

 

The mother goddess is something of the totality of all existence. Everything that ever was, is, or will ever be. A totality. Very absolute. All of the trappings of what we find the later patriarchal god to acquire, in terms of omnipresence and omni anything else conceivable to ancient minds.

 

And it's hard to say for sure, but YHWH ("I am") - AHYH ("I will be") seems to be a degraded version of the ancient mother goddess symbolism well into the patriarchal ages. Something of an echo of the past more than likely.

 

Probably through it's Canaanite origins, to follow up on what Geezer pointed out. As far as I know the origins seem Canaanite pantheon oriented, which, was a region ruled by Egypt at one point. All the Egyptian and Canaanite connections are there. And going through time I don't doubt that this, "I will be" thing was being used by someone to suggest that this later god AHYH - YHWH 'will be who ever it will be', including the names of the old pantheon gods which appeared before it had appeared.  It became an expression of the absolute, which previously belonged to goddess mythology going back far enough. 

 

 

 

 

 

[LogicalFallacy]

"The Hebrew , or AHYH, means “I will be,”"

 

Interesting that the guys name is Pastor Ahyh

 

"Do you have a question for Pastor Ahyh?"

 

http://www.yhwh.com/contact.html

 

How arrogant can people be? I'm sure his parents didn't name him that. I mean he is taking the name of god for his own name? Is this the second coming of Jesus or something?

[Joshpantera]

1 minute ago, LogicalFallacy said:

"The Hebrew , or AHYH, means “I will be,”"

 

Interesting that the guys name is Pastor Ahyh

 

"Do you have a question for Pastor Ahyh?"

 

http://www.yhwh.com/contact.html

 

How arrogant can people be? I'm sure his parents didn't name him that. I mean he is taking the name of god for his own name? Is this the second coming of Jesus or something?

 

This ass wad legally changed his name to AHYH. A real douche bag to interact with.