Outing the Abrahamic God

Richard Stanley

As Jerry and I have asserted regarding the close association between Abraham and the unnamed 'pharaoh' (whether fact or fiction) implied by the Genesis narrative, Immanuel Velikovsky's (IV) realignment of historical chronology places the famous Egyptian 18th Dynasty in the same time frame as the OT kings beginning respectively with Ahmose I and Saul. By doing so, this places the so-called Amarna Letters within the same time and place as the 'kings' of Judea, Samaria/Israel, Syria, Moab, Edom, Ugarit, etc.. This means either that these Judeans and Israelites were Canaanites, or vice-versa.

The Amarna Letters, combined with the associated bible verses also reveal, as we discussed, that all these vassal kings are actually typical hereditary feudal lords with the complete hierarchy as was later transported to Europe and established in the wake of the establishment of normative Catholicism. And just as the Romans used their proconsuls to govern provinces such as Judea, so did the Egyptians, who names are addressed or mentioned in the letters, as well as can be easily identified in the respective biblical verses.

This hierarchical order is also complete from peasants at the bottom to even someone above these regional kings at the top. This latter person then was the pharaoh, and in the time of the Amarna Letters, by default, this was the monotheistic Sun King, Akhenaton. And as we'll find out later, there is also a dark sun, Akhenaton's figurative (at least) 'brother', Shalmanesar III who harries the vassal kings while Akhenaton "fiddles while Rome burns" so to speak. This dualistic arrangement, I am guessing, is the reason for the Black Pope to be typologically termed 'Papa Nero'.

In any case, while Akhenaton is lavishing rich gifts upon his 'brother' Shalmanesar III, the latter is continuously attacking the various vassal kingdoms who complain endlessly to their sun king, Akhenaton, and plead for him to send military and other aid, which the supposedly self infatuated sun king can not be bothered with (like the narcissistic Nero). Shalmanesar, who is identified at least once by something very close to his Assyrian name in the letters, also seems to employ various alter egos, including being termed the king of Hatti. IV claims that this is because Shalmanesar has already conquered the various princelings of Hatti and can therefore claim to be their king of kings, just as the Levant kings acknowledge Akhenaton as their own king (of kings).

One of the cities that the character identified by IV as Shalmanesar is proud of destroying is Ugarit. Certain foreign ethnicities, such as the Carians, are forced to flee. By dint of IV's chronological repair, this places this event into the time frame of the foundation of Carthage (and Rome BTW), otherwise typically tied to the fall of Troy. The fleeing king of Ugarit, Nikmed, can then be plausibly linked to the Messenians, the soon to be helot slaves of the Spartans. Nikmen respectfully writes a letter to Akhenaton that they are all hopping into fleeing boats, including that he is also commandeering Akhenaton's ostensible rescue fleet.

Now, into the time where Jerusalem is under peril, and also the basis for the recent Shmita concerns, also linked to 9/11 aspects and the Pope's recent visit to NYC, we have the following except from Ages in Chaos.

From pp. 277-280:
From the hills surrounding Jerusalem the mountains of Moab are distinctly seen in the clear air over the Jordan and the Dead Sea. But no movement of troops can be discerned from that distance, unless by their multitude they color the slopes and the ravines.

II Chronicles 20:1-3 It came to pass ... that the children of Moab, and the children of Ammon, and with them other beside the Ammonites, came against Jehoshaphat [the Judean king - rs] to battle.
Then there came some that told Jehoshaphat, saying There cometh a great multitude against thee from beyond the sea, from Syria ...1 And Jehoshaphat feared.

His prayer before the congregation of Judah and Jerusalem is preserved in the Book of Chronicles. It begins with these words:

II Chronicles 20:6 ... O Lord God of our fathers, art not thou God in heaven? and rulest not thou over all the kingdoms of the heathen? and in thine hand is there not power and might, so that none is able to withstand thee?
Then he reminded the Lord that the land had been given to the people of Israel forever:

II Chronicles 20:7 Art not thou our God who ... gavest it to the seed of Abraham they friend for ever?
He expressed his belief that the Lord would not abandon the place where a sanctuary was built to His name, and would come with help.

II Chronicles 20:8-9 And they [the people of Israel] dwelt therein, and have built thee a sanctuary therein for thy name, saying, If when evil cometh upon us ... and [we] cry unto thee in our affliction, then thou wilt hear and help.
Then Jehoshaphat explained the distress of his people.

II Chronicles 20:10-11 And now, behold, the children of Ammon and Moab and mount Seir ... come to cast us out of thy possession, which thou hast given us to inherit.
He concluded with an invocation declaring his and his people's helplessness because of the great number of the invading hordes.

II Chronicles 20:12 ... We have no might against this great company that cometh against us; neither know we what to do: but our eyes are upon thee.
The feelings of the king of Jerusalem at the sight of the immense hordes converging on his kingdom are expressed both in his prayer and in his letters. On earth his house was in vassalage to Egypt, and the pharaoh was obliged to protect him.

The king of Jerusalem wrote to the pharaoh:

[Amarna] Letter 288: Let the king [pharaoh - rs] care for his land. The land of the king will be lost. All of it will be taken from me; their is hostility to me as far as the land of Seeri and even to the Gintikirmil.2 There is peace to all the regents, but to me there is hostility.
The same region - Mount Seir (Seeri) - is distinctly named in both sources as the far land from which a part of the invaders came.

The king expressed the belief that his lord would not abandon the place on which he had set his name forever:

Letter 287: Verily, the king has set his name upon the land of Urusalim for ever. Therefore he cannot abandon the lands of Urusalim [Jerusalem].

The king of Jerusalem, unlike other vassal kings, omits expression of respect for the gods of Egypt; he does not call the pharaoh "my sun, my god," as all other vassal correspondents did, in distinction to other writers of the letters, he does not mention his God, he may be recognized as a servant of a Lord whose name he would not profane in his letters to his pagan protector.

IV goes on to further express that the king of Jerusalem must be genuine in his religious purity, and perhaps this is so, and therefore evidence also of having one's vanity stroked into gullibility. But here, I assert that there was some other special relationship between Judea (specifically) and Egypt, as the preferred veil and distractionary foil going forward for the elites.

In this regard, elsewhere in the Judaic annals, they record that their god employs such as the Egyptian, Assyrians etc, as the "iron rod" with which to punish others and themselves for disobeying this god's wishes. Akhenaton's actions, combined with his dark 'brother' display the metaphoric and cynical truth of Isaiah 45:7 that this god is the proud author of all that is good and evil. It's a dirty job, but somebody has got to do it.

Here we must remember that eventually such as Caesar Augustus and Claudius, at least, were officially recorded as being Egyptian pharaohs in addition to being Roman emperors. The emperors, and the later Christian popes, just had to transfer the Egyptian obelisks to Rome including in the Vatican plaza. Inside St. Peter's Basilica the replicated Judaic pillars of Jachin and Boaz are prominently illuminated.