Is Yahweh really the prime creator?

page: 1
11
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 02:27 AM
link   
Who is Yahweh?
His name is actually written with only the consonants YHWH. In the Hebrew writing the vowels are, if at all written, marked with diacritics (additional signs), which is never or only rarely done with YHWH. The reason may be that according to old tradition his name should not be pronounced. One therefore talks about him in indirect ways, such as Adonay = “the Lord”. For this reason the vowel signs for ADNY are used also for YHWH. This would actually lead to Yahowah, but it became Yehowah. Why is that? One reason for the “e” could be that Yehu is an alternative name for him (and apparently one that may be pronounced). The more proper pronunciation will, however, be Yahweh.
Recent discoveries of ancient texts and inscriptions [2] show that the archaic Hebrew religion knew a highest god ’El ’Elyon (the sign ’ is in transliterations used for the Hebrew letter ’aleph and ‘ for the letter ‘ayin), who had 70 sons. One of his sons was Yahweh, who had a consort ’Asherah, i.e., a goddess. Her name is mentioned some 40 times in the Old Testament but it is almost always translated as “grove” or “tree”. This is because her symbol is a tree or and upright wooden pole. So when the Old Testament states that it is forbidden to plant a tree at the altar of Yahweh it really means that it is forbidden to place a symbol of ’Asherah there (Deut 16:21 – and what sense would it otherwise have to forbid planting a tree there?). Has Yahweh even rejected her?
The true creator god, the prime creator, was therefore not Yahweh, but ’El ’Elyon. He has obviously created a number of secondary gods as his “sons” – better: deities – of which Yahweh is one (and, of course, also the “daughter” ’Asherah). Hence, Yahweh is not the prime creator he wants us to believe that he would be, even though he has also produced certain creations. We recognize a noticeable parallel to the Sumerian creation story Enûma Elish (I here simply use the notation “Sumerian” generally without dividing texts up in a more exact ethnological manner as “Sumerian”, “Accadian”, “Assyrian”, etc.). This tells us about a prime creator pair Apsû and Ti’âmat (who we, in a way, could also regard as the male and female side of the prime creator, resp.), who created a number of deities, from which further deity races arose. One such deity race is the one of the Anunnaki (so called because their ruler and leader has the name Anu). They separated themselves off from the prime creators and wanted to live and act without them. Enûma Elish tells about a murder of the highest gods. The Anunnaki are told to have killed first Apsû and then Ti’âmat! Is it possible to kill the prime creators? Of course not! This merely symbolizes that they turned away from them and didn’t want to have anything to do with them, as if they were dead – that was the fall, the plunge out of the divine light into a relative darkness. Therefore, the Anunnaki are fallen deities. The one who is said to have murdered Ti’âmat is Marduk who also became the lord of the Earth. The Anunnaki have under his rule created new human beings on our Earth by means of genetic manipulation, and from them to-day’s humanity arose. The first attempts for this were not very successful, but then they had the new race they wanted to produce.

Correspondences with the Bible
The first sentence in the Bible reads, in the common translation: “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (Gen 1:1). The Hebrew word that is here translated as God is ’Elohim. It is a linguistic fact that cannot be denied that this word is a plural and hence means “gods”. It has been tried to explain this away through declaring it as pluralis majestatis, which actually doesn’t seem to be common in Hebrew. It rather looks as if one is trying to sweep an embarrassing question under the carpet.
In Hebrew, the sentence is Bere’# bara’ ’Elohim ’et ha shamayim ve-’et ha ’aretz. Therefore, some want to translate it as: “In the beginning the gods created the heaven and the earth”, but this doesn’t fit, since the word bara’ = “create” is in singular. Furthermore, the word for “heaven”, shamay, is also in plural: shamayim. But the problem has a solution.
According to cabbalistic sources, the word bere’# means not only “beginning”, but also “the first one”, the “original one”, the first entity that was, the highest God. The little word ’et could be seen as an accusative particle but can also be translated as “with” (in ve-‘et the word ve means “and”, hence: “and with”). We now arrive at the following translation, which fits grammatically: “The first one created the gods [together] with the heavens [cosmic worlds] and with the Earth”. This translation, therefore, refers to a prime creator, who first created “gods” and cosmic worlds, of which one is the Earth. According to Gen 2, Yahweh is one of these gods, one of the ’Elohim (since the Bible here calls him “Yahweh ’Elohim” in the Hebrew text, and not simply “Yahweh”). Some regard the ’Elohim as creator gods, who (themselves created) in their turn created other entities – human beings, animals and plants, like Yahweh did.
The conventional and “dogmatically approved” translation of bere’# is based on be = “in, at” and re’# = “beginning”. However dictionaries (such as [3]) state that re’# can also mean “the first (of its kind)” and be can be a reference to the “origin”. Therefore the word bere’# can also be understood as a somewhat tautological expression for “the original first”, “the very first” or “the first of all”. A cabbalistic interpretation is that the word is a combination of beyt = “house, residence” and re’sh = “the supreme, the lord” placed inside beyt (between be and yt). This is then interpreted as “the lord in his residence”.
In a more exact transliteration is bere’shiyt and re’shiyt, resp., and thus one can say “between be and yt”. In -iyt, however, the letter y (actually being a consonant) phonetically marks the prolongation of i and therefore the more common (but less exact) transliteration is bere’#. More exactly then with a stroke over the i that marks the length: ī.
There are some more peculiarities in the sentence. If one still wants to translate as “in … beginning”, it should more literally be “in a beginning” rather than “in the beginning” (because the latter would be bare’shiyt – a contraction of be-ha-re’shiyt – and not bere’shiyt). This seems to make little difference, but the word is actually written in an undetermined form

[edit on 30-8-2010 by memyself]




posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 02:29 AM
link   
Forgotten references:
2. Ein Gott allein? JHWH-Verehrung und biblischer Monotheismus im Kontext der israelitischen und alt-orientalischen Religionsgeschichte [“One God alone? YHWH Worship and Biblical Monotheism in the Context of the Israelite and Ancient Oriental History of Religion”], 13th Colloquium of the Swiss Acad-emy of Spiritual and Social Studies, ed. by Walter Dietrich and Martin A. Klopfenstein, Universitätsver-lag, Freiburg (Switzerland), 1994 – several contributions are in English
3. Gesenius’ Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures, transl. by Samuel Prideaux Tregelles, W.M. B. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids MI, no year (preface dated 1846)
4. Åke Lundqvist: Vildåsnans törst [“The Thirst of the Wild Donkey”], Albert Bonniers, Falun, 2006 (a Swedish book about the Hebrew Bible)



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 02:34 AM
link   
reply to post by memyself
 


Please. I can't handle another debate about the existence of God which this will quickly devolve into. An ugly fight between atheists and theologians where someone always walks away with their feelings hurt.
But while I am here lamenting...
I wonder why the most strictly religious people cannot say, spell or write the full name of God. They are not allowed to say the name. What is that all about?

You wrote all the above yourself? No quote from other sources? Just curious.

[edit on 30-8-2010 by rusethorcain]



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 02:43 AM
link   
Well, what you cannot bear will interest many others ... so that will be your problem.

In the Hebrew religion it is actually not allowed to pronounce the name of God. That is why many write "G-d" and the like.

Now here is some more to wonder about - for those who have "eyes to read" and can bear it ...

The Gnostic Christian view of Yahweh
In the early Christianity there were two mainstreams: the Paulinian and the Gnostic Christians. Saul had pursued Christians until he converted and became Paul. The year of his conversion is estimated to be between 33 and 35. The Paulinian Christianity began to develop only after that. Who were the Christians that Paul pursued? They will especially have been the so called Christian Jews. This concept refers to groups among the earliest Christianity, to which belonged Jews who still adhered to Jewish customs – like Jesus and his disciples themselves. Out of these Christian Jews arose the movement of the Gnostic Christians. Because of his views, Paul cam into a conflict with this original Christianity [5]. Hence the Paulinian Christianity didn’t arise out of the original Christianity, and with Paul, who hadn’t known Jesus himself, an obviously modified Christianity began, that distanced itself from the Christianity close to Jesus that was in the beginning.
For the Gnostics, the creator of this world wasn’t the true prime creator, but a demiurg, a “craftsman”, a fallen angel, who also has an evil side. While the real God, the true prime creator (who Jesus calls “father”) is unrestrictedly good, an imperfect demiurg created an imperfect world. It has been shown that the Gnostics identified this imperfect demiurg-“god” with the god of the Old Testament, who they also called Yaldabaoth, who wants to keep humans in a state of ignorance in a material world and who punishes their attempts to achieve knowledge and insight (to “eat from the tree of knowledge”). The demiurg is a lesser god who wants to be the only one [6]. The text The Apokryphon of John (or The Secret Book of John) states: “He is impious in his madness, she who dwells in him. For he said, ‘I am God and no other god exists except me’, since he is ignorant of the place from which his strength had come” [7]. (Cf. Ex 20:23 and Deut 5:7). Could this be the explanation of all the abominable cruelties, which after all are literally described in the Old Testament (see below)?
A similar view was expressed by Marcion (approx. 85-160) [8], the first theologian who made a difference between the God of Love in the New Testament and an evil god of the Old Testament.

The abominable cruelties of Yahweh
Who reads the Bible in an objective and unprejudiced way without blinders that fade out certain passages, will (or should…) become deeply indignant about the abominable cruelties [9] described therein.
The “lord” guides his people to the “promised land”, but that land isn’t free. People already live there in various towns. Therefore the “lord” commands his people to mercilessly slaughter all of them. In nearly all cases not even a child, a woman or an old man is spared, but they should completely all be killed, so that his people can live in: “great and goodly cities, which thou buildedst not, and houses full of all good things, which thou filledst not, and wells digged, which thou diggedst not, vineyards and olive trees, which thou plantedst not; when thou shalt have eaten and be full” (Deut 6:10-11). With this, a veritable holocaust begins!
In one city after the other they murder and slaughter until no one is left. The only exception is in a few cases that they kidnap virgins. For what? It would certainly be naïve to claim that it would not be for sexual “services”.
When Moses by order of Yahweh could say as follows, he strongly disqualifies himself and his commissioner: “And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host... which came from the battle. And Moses said unto them, ‘Have ye saved all the women alive? … Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves’” (Num 31:14-18).
This rather looks like a mass human sacrifice for the “lord”…
For those who understand German I may suggest to read what the learned Karlheinz Deschner writes about this extremely blood-curdling common history of two world religions [10].
Persons who regard themselves as Christians like to suggest that the victims would be “evil” people who lived in “sin”, and don’t want to understand how they this way betray Jesus’ teachings. There can be no worse sin than to kill in the name of God (or of his messenger Christ)! And if one kills in the name of Yahweh, or by his order, this shows clearly enough that he cannot be the true god. Jesus taught us that who takes to the sword will be undone by the sword, and even to love our enemies.
When Yahweh rages as follows he demonstrates his fake divinity: “And if ye walk contrary unto me, and will not hearken unto me; I will bring seven times more plagues upon you according to your sins. I will also send wild beasts among you, which shall rob you of your children, and destroy your cattle, and make you few in number; and your highways shall be desolate. …And when I have broken the staff of your bread, ten women shall bake your bread in one oven, and they shall deliver you your bread again by weight: and ye shall eat, and not be satisfied. And if ye will not for all this hearken unto me, but walk contrary unto me; Then I will walk contrary unto you also in fury; and I, even I, will chastise you seven times for your sins. And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat.” (Lev 26:21-29)
The macho behavior began already before the exodus from Egypt. Yahweh sent Moses several times to the Pharaoh to request letting the Hebrews free. The Pharaoh repeatedly declared that he would do that, but Yahweh the each time hardened his heart so that he, after all, refused: “…for I have hardened his heart, and the heart of his servants, that I might shew these my signs before him” (Ex 10:1). Yahweh insisted in showing his muscles and have all the ten plagues come over Egypt before he would let the Pharaoh allow the Hebrews to go. At last he went through Egypt and killed all innocent first-born! (Ex 11:5, 12:12, 12:29, 13:15) For what did he want to demonstrate all this cruelty? In a similar way he hardened the



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 02:45 AM
link   
Again I have to add some references (you asked for them, anyway):
6. de.wikipedia.org...
7. „The Apokryphon of John”, in The Nag Hammadi Library, Harper & Row, New York, no year, pages 98-116. See also www.gnosis.org... and reference 17 below
8. de.wikipedia.org... and de.wikipedia.org...
9. A choice of the many cruelties in the Old Testament: Gen 34:25-29; – Ex 12:12; 12:29-30; 15:3; 32:26-28. – Lev 26:7-8; 26:21-22; 26:26-29. – Num 15:32-36; 16:29-35; 16:46-49; 21:3-6; 21:24-25; 21:33-35; 31:7-10; 31:14-18; 31:31-32; 31:35 – Deut 2:32-34;. 3:1-6; 7:2-3; 9:3; 13:9-10; 13:14-16; 20:10-17; 21:11-14. – Joshua 6:20-25; 8:2; 8:21-25; 8:29; 10:10-11; 10:17-40; 11:6-22. – Judges 1:4-11; 1:17; 1:25; 3:29-31; 4:14-16; 7:15-25; 8:17; 9:4-5; 9:43-45; 9:49-52; 11:30-40; 15:15-16; 18:27; 19:22-29; 20:2; 20:31-37; 20:41-48. – 1Samuel 5:8-9; 6:19 (wrong translation in many modern texts, it should be 50070 and not 70); 11:6-11; 15:3-9; 15:33; 18:7; 30:17. – 2Samuel 5:8; 5:25; 8:1-5; 10:18; 12:31 (wrong translation in many modern texts, he actually put them under saws, and under harrows of iron, and under axes of iron, and made them pass through the brick kiln); 18:6-7; 24:10-16. – 1Kings 20:28-30. – 2Kings 1:9-14; 2:23-25; 5:25-27; 6:18; 10:13-25; 14:5-7; 15:16; 19:35. – 1Chronicles 20:2-3 (wrong translation in many modern texts, he actually cut them with saws, and with harrows of iron, and with axes. – Psalms 137:9. – Isaiah 13:15-18; 45:5-7; 49:25-26. – Jeremiah 16:3-5. – Lamentations 4:9-11. – Ezekiel 6:12-13; 9:3-6. – Hosea 13:15; 14:1. References to the stated wrong translations, i.e., playing facts down, have been given by Karlheinz Deschner. Luther’s text as well as the English King James’ Bible are here more correct, and who doubts may compare with them.
10. Karlheinz Deschner: Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums [“Criminal History of Christianity”], vol. 1: Die Frühzeit [“The Early Times”], p. 73-89, Rowohlt, Reinbek, 1989



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 02:53 AM
link   
References 6 and 8 should better be:
6. en.wikipedia.org...
8. en.wikipedia.org... and en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 03:04 AM
link   
And, please ...
this is NOT a debate about the EXISTENCE of God, but about who God really is!
Is he really the one we are told that he is?



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 03:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by memyself
but about who God really is!
Is he really the one we are told that he is?


most the people do not know who yahweh is . for the jews is yahweh, for the muslims is allah for the christians is god.

every religions has its own name for god and interprets it however some ancestors wanted to.

for me , it's god, and the bible is written by men.



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 03:25 AM
link   
Those that created us may not actually be the Great Architect of the Universe. I my view, and this is just my personal opinion, God (the ultimate creator of the Universe) is beyond comprehension. It cannot be named or quantified.
For us to understand God would in essence make us as Gods ourselves, something we could never achieve.

If we were indeed created by external influences, I do not think it was by God. However, I am certain there is a creative force, but what it is is totally beyond my understanding as I stated above.

Now, all you members that are either Chritian, Jew or Muslim or other religious belief, I fully respect your views, however, God is more than what we have written. God is in our very hearts and existance. God is around us, in the fibre of our being.

Peace to you all.
&

S&F to All Brethren Members.



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 03:31 AM
link   
This is fascinating...and dangerous. As a young child forced into Christianity I have at times flung away the Bible in disgust at what I read in the OT. I left it entirely in my early teens and late teens. It's a long story on how and why I willingly chose Christianity as a young adult. But I have never been able to reconcile the God I know personally from revelations in my daily life and from the New Testament with the acts popularly attributed to him in the OT. It's only dangerous in that I've researched and been lead astray by deceptive information before.

My husband and I don't go to church but we have strong faith in the teachings of Jesus. Even if it were somehow proven Jesus was just a mythical figure after all, we would still have our faith that the teachings have their own truth and merit for us to live by. So we are quite comfortable discussing and puzzling over the apparent contradictions and gaping holes we see in the only written text we have as the framework for our faith.

Many of your points and questions are not new to me. I've read about Gnosticism before. I appreciate you bringing the topic up for new discussion here. I have nothing more to add so I will look forward to reading any further contributions by yourself or others.



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 04:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheLoneArcher
Those that created us may not actually be the Great Architect of the Universe. I my view, and this is just my personal opinion, God (the ultimate creator of the Universe) is beyond comprehension. It cannot be named or quantified.
For us to understand God would in essence make us as Gods ourselves, something we could never achieve.

If we were indeed created by external influences, I do not think it was by God. However, I am certain there is a creative force, but what it is is totally beyond my understanding as I stated above.

Now, all you members that are either Chritian, Jew or Muslim or other religious belief, I fully respect your views, however, God is more than what we have written. God is in our very hearts and existance. God is around us, in the fibre of our being.

Peace to you all.
&

S&F to All Brethren Members.


One feels a sense of elation when a fellow ATSer every now and then reiterates what one holds as the truth. What you stated in your post has been my thinking for sometime. I think the whole confusion in religion is about the idea people have of God. If you look closely, it is entirely absurd to give a name to God. Why does God need a name? Isnt naming people a way to distinguish? How could we possibly give a finite name to an infinite God? The bottomline is that we have never and will never know anything about the true creator of the universe. To me, this makes the bible a human job, maybe those who controlled the world from the beginning. It is like they put down the destiny of the world in coded words.



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 04:17 AM
link   
Sure we can never really know who God. the prime creator, truly is. But we can come a bit closer to it and try to recognized erroneous concepts.

So who, then, are these Anunnaki?
[The ones the Sumerian texts wrote about.]
The Sumerian texts tell about a planet Nîbiru that like a comet moves in a long-stretched elliptic orbit with a revolution period of 3600 years, and that that planet is the home of the Anunnaki. Hence the planet during more than 3000 years is so far away from the sun that everything must be frozen there. How can they live in such a world?
The answer will be that they are multidimensional beings, maybe 5-dimensional. They are said to be of a reptilian nature. We are only three-dimensional, i.e., we can only perceive three space dimensions and think only three-dimensionally. It seems that the Anunnaki have made us this way so that we should not perceive them, unless they appear in there three-dimensional form. This form (their three-dimensional body) is in the long period when the planet is far from the sun – apparently during more than 3000 years – in some state of hibernation, and then they act in other dimensions, invisible to us. In times when it is closer to the sun, they have visited us in their three-dimensional shape and that is told about in the Sumerian and related clay-plate texts. During other times they, however, influence us invisibly from the other dimensions and want to control how things are going on our planet and manipulate us their way, in politics, in a controlled science (leaving out things they don’t want us to know) and in business.
They, of course, need life energy. They could have had it from still higher dimensions, but they instead take it from us and want to keep us as a kind “milking cattle” for such energies, but without us being conscious of it. We shouldn’t know what is going on. Why do they do it that way? The answer will be that they separated themselves off from their divine origin – they “killed” the prime creators. Hence they cannot expect to get energy from there. They love brutality – fight, war, violence, bloodshed and violent death. Why that? When a human being dies violently, his body is normally still full of life energy (his “batteries are charged”). This energy is released at the time of death and the Anunnaki can gather it. But when someone dies wasting away or in old-age weakness, there is hardly any energy left to “harvest” (his “batteries are empty”). It furthermore seems that they enjoy animating us to violence and war, like when a child plays war games with a computer. They have for this reason put aggressiveness in our genes, but also character traits like obedience to superiors and easily feeling fear. To have fear, especially fear of death, is an effective means for manipulation. When we feel rage and hatred in aggressions, we unconsciously also set life energies free, and we do the same when we have a strong fear. Obedience makes us more easily manipulated to do things we really don’t want to do.
It should also be mentioned that they (being multidimensional beings) will know quite well what too few of us want to know: that there actually is no death. Only the body dies, but the soul is immortal. This doesn’t make things they do less cruel … but rather becomes a bad excuse. I wonder if it might not be the karma for many of them to become real “milk and slaughter cattle” after the end of their long lives …
This explains why the Anunnaki allegedly have very long life spans, of the order of thousands and even tens of thousands of years. In the state of hibernation, their three-dimensional bodies don’t age.
This interpretation of the Sumerian and related clay-plate texts is, of course, another one than that of official science. Who, however, studies the original texts (of which translations are found in University libraries) will find that there are no real contradictions to such an interpretation. It is really possible, but official science denies it. Only few have dealt with the subject from this aspect, the best known being Zecharia Sitchin [11]. My book Es begann in Babylon (“It began in Babylonia”) [1] also does so, but describes several things differently than Sitchin does – which means that I don’t agree to everything he writes, especially not the remarkable embellishment of the Anunnaki (a.o., Sitchin doesn’t discuss the “primary murder” of the creator gods Anû und Ti’âmat).
In the fall of 2007, a rumor was around that Sitchin would have been arrested. This later turned out to have (highly probably) been a hoax (or maybe an intent was cancelled and later denied). No one should be astonished that some by all means strive to refute him as a crank or a liar. As an example, there is a website that claims that the words “Anunnaki” and “Nîbiru” would be found nowhere in the clay-plate texts. But I have an academic treatise by an ethnological scientist in which these words are certainly found in the translations [12].
As concerns channeling, I am very skeptical, since it is hard to separate the chaff from the wheat, and there obviously is much more chaff than wheat. There is, however, a book that deals with these things of which I (rather exceptionally) have a good feeling: Bringers of the Dawn by Barbara Marciniak [13]. The Anunnaki are there called “lizzies” (as diminutive of “lizards”), since they are reptilian.
There is much information that indicates that the Anunnaki still to day have a secret influence, especially through secret societies like Zionism and related associations, like the Illuminati and certain Masonic orders. In them, only very few chosen ones at the very top of the pyramid know about the Anunnaki connection, but the mass of people – also of members – is kept in ignorance. (I suspect that something similar since almost 2000 years holds for the Church.)
The “harvest” of life energies from humans and animals gives a sense to the cruel practice of sacrifice. Of course, the meat is of no use to the “gods”, but the for us invisible life energies are. This underlines the remark above that all the murdering in the Old Testament may be seen as a mass human sacrifice for the “lord”. Since this life energy is especially contained in the blood, this also explains the command for the cruel practice of letting an animal bleed to death that is maintained in certain cultures. The blood – rather: the life energy in it – is for the “gods”, only the meat is for humans.



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 04:18 AM
link   
And who, then, is Yahweh?
Sitchin in one of his books [14] takes the question up, who Yahweh may be. Is he also an Anunnaku? He is visibly trying hard to show that Yahweh isn’t an Anunnaku, but the god of the Anunnaki. His argumentation is, however, not very convincing. In my book [1] I demonstrate that his reasoning can also be seen to demonstrate that Yahweh is Marduk, and that is something he certainly wants to deny. It is a question of the point of view. Thus one can actually set up the hypothesis that Yahweh is an Anunnaku! And that he during their physical absence from the Earth is a kind of “governor” of the Anunnaki. This fits to what is stated above about his abominable cruelty, on one side, and on the other side the violent nutrition of the Anunnaki with our life energies. Does he supply the Anunnaki with such energies from the Earth during their hibernation?
Yahweh, then (together with two other, see above) had Sodom and Gomorrah (more correctly ‘Amorah) destroyed. There are indications that this could have been done by means of a nuclear explosions. Certain geological peculiarities in the area may be such an indication. This allegedly was done because the inhabitants of the cities were prone to sin. However, Sitchins understanding of the clay-plate texts claims that the Anunnaki in the area were operating a basis for space traffic with Nîbiru. One gets the impression that they wanted to destroy this and eliminate all traces before they at that time gave up their three-dimensional physical presence on Earth. Sinai would at the time have been a forbidden area for humans. And that is from where Yahweh came – he is in the history of religions described to be a war-god from Sinai [2]! The thing about “sin” may then rather have been an excuse … or the “sin” was being in or too close to the forbidden area (so that they knew about it, which others should not).
It is written in the Bible that the lord let “brimstone” and fire fall on the two towns. The Hebrew word that is here translated as “brimstone” is gaphrit, which rather means “pitch” (bitumen or tar) and generally refers to “inflammable material” [3], which may well be connected with explosions. Lot’s wife became a “pillar of salt” when this occurred (Gen 19:26). She had hesitated, stopped and looked back, and thus probably was too late to find protection and security, so that her body instantly died and became white from the radiation. As concerns “sin”, rabbinic sources like Talmud and Tanach but also gospels mention hostility towards strangers and denying hospitality [15], but later interpretations want to see voluptuousness and especially homosexuality here. If the latter would be true: why should so many heterosexuals and even children be punished along with the others? Actually: whatever the “sin” may have been: why punish also all the innocent? Here we again come to the unjust cruelty …

And who is Jesus’ God?
In the New Testament Jesus presents a divine father to us, who much more corresponds to our expectations of universal love and universal good. He also talks about the Holy Spirit, who by many original Christians and by the Gnostics was understood to be a female manifestation of God. God as the prime creator thus appears as male and female at the same time. The prime creators Apsû und Ti’âmat were described as a pair – prime God and prime Goddess. Could there be a connection between the Holy Spirit and Ti’âmat?
It isn’t easy to reduce the God, about whom Jesus spoke and Yahweh to a common denominator. The following quotation from the Gospel of John may be mentioned hereto:
“Then said Jesus to those Jews …” (8:31)
“’…If God were your Father, ye would love me:
for I proceeded forth and came from God…” (8:42)
“Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do.
He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth,
because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own:
for he is a liar, and the father of it.’” (8:44)
About whom did Jesus speak here? It can hardly have been Abraham, to which those he spoke to refer (8:39). The story of Abraham in the Old Testament gives no reason for that. It has been suggested that Jesus here spoke about Yahweh. One might object that the persons he spoke to probably were devoted to worldly things, materialists and in their true attitude servants of Mamon (the lord of richness). In that case they were rather paying lip service in their belief. Is it imaginable that Jesus would speak about Yahweh as “the devil” or even “Satan”? The Greek text here has diabolos, which actually means “calumniator” or “defamer” and that would probably be a more suitable translation. That Yahweh isn’t the prime creator, but an anunnakian tribal god among others may in view of his undeniable cruelty even appear probable… Looked at it that way, the translation “calumniator” would fit.
But quite generally: Did Jesus want to teach original truths and was he for this reason killed by means of anunnakian influence? Did one want to prevent an attempt to give truth back to people? Has one for this purpose infiltrated the Church when it became clear that the new teachings could not be abolished [16]? People expected a Messiah, who would liberate them from Roman rule – but maybe someone came, who would show us the way to liberation from the Anunnaki, and no one really understood him…



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 04:21 AM
link   
And gain some references:
11. www.sitchin.com... – on his books in English: www.amazon.com... and in German: www.amazon.de...=nb_sb_noss?__mk_de_DE=%C5M%C5Z%D5%D1&url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=sitchin&x=0&y=0
12. Alexander Heidel: The Babylonian Genesis, 2nd ed., The University of Chicago Press, Chicago IL, 1960
13. Barbara Marciniak: Bringers of the Dawn, Bear & Company, Santa Fe, 1992, also available for free here: www.bibliotecapleyades.net...
14. Zecharia Sitchin: Divine Encounters, Avon, New York, 1995: “Endpaper: God, the Extraterrestrial”, p. 347-380
15. en.wikipedia.org...
16. Jan Erik Sigdell: Reinkarnation, Christentum und das kirchliche Dogma [“Reincarnation, Christianity and the Dogma of the Church”], Ibera, Vienna, 2001, Chapter 11 and 12.



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 05:13 AM
link   
reply to post by memyself
 


The Anunnaki theory of creation seems to resonate well with critical thinkers and I want to belong to this group. But then at the end of the day, the Anunnaki do not come close to explaining the truth of the universe.

The Anunnaki IMO must be a tiny fraction of creators in the physical universe. When we talk of them we always do so in relation to earth. People also say they went back to Niburu. This is enough to tell you that the Anunnaki are just beings who take up residence on a piece of rock just like us.

If we confine the Anunnaki to just to earth, what of other maybe trillions of other "earths" in the universe? Really it must be hard for people to imagine this in a boundless universe. People want ETs to make contact. But why should they? Contact with ETs or other earthlings could only happen if we to have a new consciousness.

I have no doubt that some alien race were interracting with earthlings at some point in time. My grand father told me a story in Africa when some beings would direct people back home who missed their way in the bush. This is what Africans called spirits. They had the power to cloak themselves and alter the state of mind of people. Is it not logical to say that these were extraterrestrials who were closely monitoring man to stand on his feet? They could as well still exist among us today in other forms.

There is no other way to explain the survival of man. Think of the situation when man was living together with wild animals and he didnt even have any weapons or when he had no shelter under torrential rains and extreme cold. Or who showed man which plants and fruits to eat. There is a mushroom I know that you could only eat once. The result is instant death. So how did people avoid this at early times?



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 05:15 AM
link   
Re: Memyself

VERY, very well done.

I have worked on similar, close to identical, lines myself for years, and your way of ordering and presenting the material is impressive.

Being busy today, I haven't read everything with the attention it deserves, and my comment will be correspondingly short.

Apart from mainstream Abramic religions, quite a few theological/cosmogenic/cosmologic systems exist, which have tried to unravel the god/creator/'the nameless' concept, and strong agreements exist.

There is actually also a scientific possibility for association. Scientific cosmology where it gets close to the idea of an event horizon (don't worry, I won't touch 'intelligent design' in its present form with a ten-foot pole). We can't use deductive reasoning across event horizon, but we can use inductive arguments, or at least inductive speculations.

Finally. Have you any ideas on the mysterious entity 'Melchizedek' turning up a couple of times in OT and NT? He seems to be a likely candidate for a behind-the-scenes puppeteer in Judeo-christianity. Paulus apparantly leaned on a somewhat secret line, bringing in Melchizedek.

[edit on 30-8-2010 by bogomil]



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 05:27 AM
link   
Thanks for positive replies!
I have more to add:

A hypothesis about Jesus’ mission and the Christianity
Against the background of these considerations I have come to the following hypothesis.
Jesus came from above, sent with a revolutionary message to humanity and born in the very area, where the Anunnaki had had their center. These still had an invisible influence over humanity from “behind the veil”. Jesus gradually brought people a truth, which these invisible rulers didn’t want them to know. His teachings about love, peace and spiritual as well as human independence were seen as a threat. Then he also in a cautious way taught that his “Father” isn’t the god they believed in. As it came that far, he had to die for it. The invisible ruler hoped that, with his death, his teachings would with time become forgotten. But it came to be differently.
Christianity spread, and through the murder of Jesus it was rather reinforced than weakened. Seeing this, the invisible rulers conceived a new strategy. They intended to infiltrate this Christianity and modify it in there own sense, so that it would no more be a threat to them but serve their purposes. This was done and led to the formation of a Church, while the original Gnostic Christianity was lost. Jesus’ teachings became twisted and falsified. In their place came the dogma of the Church and the real Christ was replaced by a fake “Christ”.
In every Church, the dead Jesus hangs on a cross with nails in hands and feet, with thorns in his head and with a wound in his side. This is a real voodoo-technique for blocking his power. The subconscious message to us is: “Jesus is dead! Now we are in power!” Then the triumph over his death was symbolized with the torture and murder tool he was killed with: the cross … If they had hanged him, I suppose the symbol of the Dogma would have been a rope with a slipknot…
Paul played an important role, maybe as an unconscious agent for the invisible rulers. He “converted” from being Saul, an enemy of Christians, to become the “apostle” Paul, who in a clever and sneaky way modified the teachings. That is how the alienation began, which was later continued by Constantine and others. They thereby also strove for a return to earlier patriarchal conditions, away from positive attitude to women that Jesus had. A new misogyny came into Christianity through the back door, the way the invisible patriarchal rulers wanted to have it. The possibility for a return of the Goddess could not be allowed. The female quality of the Holy Spirit should again be forgotten, and all tendencies for devotion to a divine femininity were tactically diverted to Mary. She is, of course, revered in her own right, but this reverence at the same time serves a secret deviation from the Goddess, who anew became forgotten.

And who, then, is Allah?
Islam arose around 600 years after Christianity and reveres Allah as the one and only god. The word actually means “The God” and thus isn’t really a name but a designation (like “Yahweh” isn’t really a name either, but also a designation that means “he is”). One of the central basic principles of Islamic confession is: “There is no god except ‘The God’” (La ilaha illa Allah). This reminds strongly of Yahweh’s “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” Under the hypothesis that Yahweh saw himself threatened by Christianity and, therefore, infiltrated it, one can envision that the same Yahweh wanted to create an analogous religion under a new denomination in a related people. On one side in order to have a have a “second track” for his influence and on the other side in order to be able to play the two off against each other in a Machiavellian sense of “divide and rule”.

Also other extraterrestrial visits?
It is highly probable that humans of this Earth have had contacts with extraterrestrials already before. It seems quite possible that the Egyptians, Incas, Mayas and Aztecs had such contacts and that these extraterrestrials will not always have been Anunnaki. Regressions with persons, who once lived in Atlantis, indicate that the culture there had contacts with extraterrestrials, who gave them higher knowledge as a kind of development aid. They withdrew disappointedly when they saw that the knowledge was abused. One client experienced himself as a hybrid between extraterrestrials and humans, and suffered from being discriminated by both sides, since he didn’t really look like an Earth human, but also not like an extraterrestrial.
Very evil chapters of human history on our planet are the cruel conquests and destructions of above all the Latin-American cultures through European Yahwistic cultures. Why did the latter want that? A logical answer will be that Yahweh manipulated humans to that end, since he didn’t want competition in his influence on mankind. Thus this will concern influence of other extraterrestrials than the Anunnaki or, maybe, rivaling Anunnaki groups.
It may be assumed that there were also other cultures on Earth before the anunnakian manipulation of human life here, and that they may in many cases have had benevolent contacts with other extraterrestrials.
In India, an ancient knowledge has to a large extent survived that probably also has to do with very early extraterrestrial contacts. The yahwistic attempts to eradicate this by means of the British rule (and earlier through the Muslim Moguls) luckily didn’t really work. Instead, the knowledge became accessible to the entire world, since ancient Sanskrit texts were translated to English! As if the plan backfired… (but to day business globalization is, instead, doing much damage to the Indian culture).

Are then all “Gods” only extraterrestrials?
There are authors who seem to claim that. But the true creator God certainly isn’t in that sense an extraterrestrial, since he – beyond that concept – is everywhere. That then some of his creations were regarded as “gods”, when they came from somewhere else to visit the Earth, is quite another matter.

The Anunnaki want to claim that they are our creators!
The Anunnaki are not our creators! They have by means of genetic manipulation in very ancient times only created the bodies of our prime ancestors but not created them out of pure energy, as the prime creator did when he created our souls. They are in no way our creators!



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 05:28 AM
link   
... and (the max. # of characters was reached):

Are the Anunnaki mentioned in the Bible?
The Bible mentions a tall people called Anakim, the sons of Anak. They have to do with the Nephilim, who are the above-mentioned “sons of the gods” who came down to Earth to have children with the “daughters of man”. The following Bible passages mention “Anakim” and “Anak”: Num 13:22; 13:28; 13:33, Deut 1:28; 2:10-11; 2:21, 9:2, Josh 11:21-22; 14:12; 14:15; 15:13-14; 21:11, Judg 1:20.
The conclusion near at hand would be that these are Anunnaki (in their three-dimensional appearance) or probably rather there off-spring resulting from their sexual involvement with humans of the Earth.



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 05:39 AM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 


I have not given Melchizedek much thought until now, but:
www.abarim-publications.com...
it is interesting that this text mentions that Melchizedek would be a priest of El Elyon, being the highest God (above Yahweh) – see above. Interesting is also the reference to lost scriptures (which would probably have explained a lot). Why were the lost? Destroyed?

A side issue is that a person who calls himself “Drunvalo Melchizedek” seems to have written his name backwards, and if that is so, I wonder why?

“Drunvalo” turned around becomes “Olavnurd” and that sounds very much like a Norwegian name: Olav Nurd!



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 05:48 AM
link   
reply to post by memyself
 


According to Kabbalah, which is the mystical basis of Genesis, God has 10 divine qualities called "Sephiroth." Each Sephirah manifests in the four 'Worlds' of Atziluth, Beriah, Yetzirah & Assiyah as, respectively, the Godname, Archangel, Order of Angels & Mundane Chakra. Yahweh is the Godname assigned to the SECOND Sephirah (in order of emanation) after Kether, the first Sephirah whose Divine Name is Ehyeh ("I am").

Judaism and Christianity have focused on God as "God the Creator" because this refers to the 'male' function in Nature, whereas this aspect really refers to the second Sephirah, Chokmah, whose Godname is Yahweh. The androgyne source of all existence - physical and superphysical - is Kether, but this is still only the beginning stage of Creation, the objective Life of God, so tp speak. There are three prior stages called the three 'Veils of Negative Existence' (Ain, Ain Soph & Ain Soph Aur), representing transitions within the subjective Life of God, which is commonly referred to as the "Absolute."

For those who would like to learn about the mathematical meaning of the Godnames, such as Yahweh, and how they determine the nature of reality, including the space-time continuum and matter, please study the research articles at:
smphillips.8m.com...
as well as the material in the main pages of this website.

It is very important that you understand that there is a hierarchy of divine names used in Genesis, each having its own metaphysical context, of which the English translators of the bible were totally oblivious. This is why one gets into semantic problems when one uses the inaccurate translations and catch-all terms that appear in Genesis. The Hebrew hides a profound conceptual level of meaning that needs an understanding of Kabbalah. Etymology and biblical scholarship are not enough to elucidate the meaning of words and passages in Genesis because they are symbolic, not literal.





top topics
 
11
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join