The Anunnaki: in Reality

page: 3
24
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 7 2012 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by SystemResistor
 


how would you know that? From watching movies on Youtube?




posted on Nov, 7 2012 @ 05:59 PM
link   


I only have this to say about this subject OP .... Heiser is a fool. He tries to discredit Sitchin and his work soley because Sitchin was not credentialed enough to suit him. Heiser can say all he wants, but at the end of the day, Sitchin is still believed more than Heiser's so called friends, who by the way, are laughing at him behind his back, sorry to say.


That's because real sumerology is borrrrrrriininnnnnnng. Sitchin is a novelist and great story teller. But his theories are nonsense. Nonsense sells. He made a lot of moolah convincing hordes of people that space aliens came here to mine gold



posted on Nov, 7 2012 @ 08:06 PM
link   
Oh man I LOVE Ancient Aliens!!! You see, I have a really bad case of insomnia, I pop that show on and I am out like a light!

Seriously though, look into this link:
jcolavito.tripod.com...

It ties all of von Daniken's ancient alien therories back to a french science fiction magazine that idolized HP Lovecraft! Don't even get me started on the Necronomicon...

Then Sitchen comes along and names the aliens Annuaki and we can all forget about the Great Cthullu. The more I have heard about the Annuaki the curiouser I have become about Sitchen. I mean, he didn't own the writings right? How could he have been the only one to have read this? Now I know, thanks for the post and the vids!



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 12:39 AM
link   
reply to post by bowtomonkey
 


I'm OK with disagreement. I consider my beliefs to be beliefs because they make the most sense to me. That's the wonderful thing about science though: it is open to being updated as new information comes to light. The most commonly accepted age of the universe is a little less than 14 billion, which is still a very, very long time. If the majority of the evidence shifts towards 80, 90, or several hundred billion I will certainly open myself up to those theories.

The same thing happened to me concerning the "Big Crunch," which I was taught as a child in school. When the evidence shifted to favor a "Big Rip" cosmological theory, I accepted the evidence and have since lived my life with that theory at the helm. I'll continue to let the most well-supported theories be my guide; however much I may want another thing to be so.

reply to post by MasonicFantom
 


Please MasonicFantom, summon the Americans to save America!

reply to post by D1ss1dent
 


From a 2011 publication, linked here, as recorded on wiki (where I'm quoting from):

"The best current estimate of the age of the universe is 13.75 ± 0.11 billion years[1][2] (4.339 ± 0.035 ×1017 seconds) within the Lambda-CDM concordance model."

I'm always open to the advancements of science. I, in no way, consider myself to "know everything."

reply to post by doG24maI
 


I neither disagree with, nor disbelieve, in the existence of extraterrestrials, cryptids, spiritual Giants, or anything closely akin to them. What I disagree with, is the presentation that humanities first organized religious institution was a pantheon of blood-thirsty, gold-loving, human-enslaving space aliens from a distant world who only settled here and guided humanity for the sake of harming us.

Please read the entire thread.

reply to post by six67seven
 


I am very glad you enjoyed the video!

I feel no need to force my views on anyone else. I simply want the facts, as they are understood, to be presented. The facts disagree with the "Ancient Aliens" theories and outright lies. So, you're welcome to avoid the philosophy elements, as I plan to ignore anyone who proposes an already-debunked philosophic view.

reply to post by Labrynth2012
 


Art does not always imitate life, I'm afraid.

Additionally, Hollywood and fiction writers utilize common writing tropes, themes, bait-and-switches, and other emotional traps to make their works more entertaining for the masses. A more entertaining movie, with more emotional twists, and especially an "underdog overcomes faceless foe" twist is guaranteed to sell more tickets than a movie about a faceless corporation planning an air-tight mission which goes off without a hitch. More tickets equal more money; and media presentations, at the end of the day, are not about education, but entertainments and money.

More often than not, the underdog ends up being wrong in real life; meanwhile the people who put the endless hard work and funds into their research turn out to be right.

Enjoy your fantastical movies. I like them too. But don't assume they constitute reality.

The cake is a lie.

reply to post by whargoul
 


You sir, or madame, deserve an internets.

 


Thanks for the continued replies, everybody.

~ Wandering Scribe



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 12:54 AM
link   
reply to post by bowtomonkey
 


Unfortunately, what something begins as, and what it ends up as, are not always the same thing. The New Age, when it began, was indeed very spiritual. It did certainly focus on unifying spiritual themes from the world over. That does not mean it remained pure. In the modern day the New Age is less about legitimate consciousness expansion and spiritual wholeness, as it is about believing in yourself and wanting peace and happiness for everyone.

I really have no problem with the original New Age, as it was born out of Hermeticism, the occult as practiced by Theosophists, and Western Buddhist and Jain philosophies; all things which I enjoy myself and partake of. The unfortunate thing is that it has completely lost any real substance it once had.

Today, the New Age is more closely linked to blatantly phoney Mediums, post-Beat Generation hippies, self-help gurus, and spiritual fads (like Feng Shui, "special" foods, and crystallomancy). Gone are the days of rigorous meditation, inward reflection, magic and ritual, and genuine connection to the energies of the Earth.

Also, the Anunnaki are not "science fiction," they are mythology. Religious mythology specifically. They were a group of creator-deities from the Fertile Crescent (between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers). Their mythological significance began as early as 7000 B.C.E. (the earliest records of Enki and Inanna) and carried on all the way 'til Greece; and then regained importance in the 21st century.

They are hardly science fiction, or fantastical. They are the blue print for religious myths from cultures as diverse as Mesopotamia, the Hebrews, the semites from the Levant, Egypt, Anatolia, Greece, the Celts, the Norse, and even the Christians to some extent. The archetypes the various Anunnaki represent are still present in the human psychological make-up today, and probably will be for millennia more.

Not to come off as rude or offended (because I'm really not). I just hold a special place for the Anunnaki in my mind. They were our first deities. As humans grew in cultural and artistic expression, so did they. Which is why we shared a bond with the Anunnaki for nearly 4000 years before the rise of Rome and the inevitable sweep of Christianity via Catholicism.

~ Wandering Scribe

edit on 9/11/12 by Wandering Scribe because: grammar



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 01:28 AM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 


I think I need to clarify something here, as the conversation is getting to the point where I fear words may become heated. I do not think that Pagan culture is primitive, barbaric, or chaotic. In fact, I believe quite the opposite. What they lacked in scientific knowledge, and technical know-how, they made up for in creativity and psychological understanding. Were the Pagans great inventors? Hardly. They began our studies of arithmetic, astronomy, herbology, anatomy, and the liked but were hardly physicists, chemists, or scientists. Were they masterful story-tellers who understood how to map the emotions, thoughts, and personalities of people the entire world over? Definitely. Pagan works almost always have a literal parallel in history; a metaphorical lesson to be interpreted; and a spiritual evaluation. They can be read as history, as fictional literature, or as spiritual manuals most times. A feat which even writers today tend to lack.

So I hope you do not take offense when I sort of disagree that the Hebrews were the more sophisticated, refined, and civilized culture. I tend to think that much of what is recorded in the Old Testament (forgive my Christian references, it is how I am familiar with the Hebrew traditions) to be quite primitive and barbaric. The collecting of foreskins; the mistreatment of slaves; the ordered murder of infants, children, and women; the insistence on racial superiority... Not that it is all bad. Every culture has it's mishaps, and it's strengths. Like the possibility that Minoans were cannibals, despite the rest of their culture being mostly normal - as we today might call it.

 


Concerning thirty-nine firsts.

If you adhere to Sumerology, then the explanation is simple. Enki, the lord of wisdom, sent his son, Adapa, who had a human mother, to teach us the arts of astronomy, agriculture, animal husbandry, architecture, the brewing of alcohol, weaving, and a variety of other skills. Basically, in my mind, it stands for enculturation; the discovery of agricultural techniques: farming, and animal domestication. When humans mastered both of these skills they were capable of raising live stock, growing crops, building more permanent houses, and securing their lands against invading humans and other predators.

That the Old Testament recognizes this date as well, is testament to it's more factual basis. It's the same reason why every religious mythology has their god/s create their people as the central and dominant peoples of the whole Universe. Considering that the Hebrews were trying to break from Pagan traditions, it is easy for me to see why they would attribute it to their God, reap the benefits, and leave out the fact that an earlier (primitive in their eyes) culture was responsible for discovering and mastering it.

For a modern comparison, consider the way that a particular set of Americans hold that African-Americans are not deserving of equal rights, and that non-Evangelical Christians should not be able to make or enforce laws, or hold political offices. All of this being despite the fact that America was built on freedom of expression (religious and otherwise), and that America's original economy was structured around the slavery of African-Americans. One groups wants to keep the prestige and benefit, while ignoring the actual origins.

 


I am running out of characters in this reply, but, there is one more thing I would like to touch on: the idea that the Hebrew God has pathos and a deeper emotional connection with His creations, while the Pagan pantheons do not and are always in constant conflict. I must very strongly disagree with you on this front.

In Greece this is very true. When atheism and philosophy, independent of the Olympians, became prominent the gods very quickly became petty, angry, bitter beings. However, the gods of the older, what I consider pre-classical, Pagans were anything but.

I don't have the character-count to fully delve into it here, but the Pagan gods are actually more human than the Hebrew God. They have weaknesses, strengths, moral dilemmas; they make mistakes and repent for them, while also attempting to teach men about the misfortunes of making those same mistakes; they joke, they think, they make peace when others suffer. Pagan deities are full of life.

Perhaps further in this thread I will be able to expand upon this, as it is one of the main reasons why I, personally, feel drawn to the Anunnaki and a small set of other Pagan deities. While you say the Hebrew God is personable and warm, I found that He was distant, domineering, aggressive, and often times acted on angry impulse without thought or repent for His actions.

Obviously I expect that you wouldn't hold this view, but you seem to be a much more devout Jew than I am. Which is fine; to each their own.

~ Wandering Scribe



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 01:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Wandering Scribe
 





Not to come off as rude or offended (because I'm really not).


I find that incredibly offensive! Jk





I just hold a special place for the Anunnaki in my mind. They were our first deities. As humans grew in cultural and artistic expression, so did they. Which is why we shared a bond with the Anunnaki for nearly 4000 years before the rise of Rome and the inevitable sweep of Christianity via Catholicism.


I'm still curious as to how these developments popped out of nowhere.

You'd expect some natural progression of a sort, no? But then again, perhaps the rapid advancement of our modern era was paralleled 6000 years ago in the lower Euphrates. And maybe Allegro was right about the mushrooms.

As you say, you feel a connection with the religion of Sumer, and, I think, there's no denying that Sumer is an incredibly interesting civilization. Me, on the other hand, the Hebrew Bible is what fascinate me. My heart draws me to it's perspective.

Just a cold shame that more research has been conducted into the literary intent of a 5500 year old clay tablets then on a book that is in almost every house the world over. We can thank the Romans and the Catholics (perhaps the same people?) for deranging the memory of the Hebrew scriptures. In any case, more scholars are beginning to tackle this aspect of Biblical research, if even for purely anthropological reasons, it's good to understand what the Hebrews meant and really believed.

Clearly, the two 'testaments', the "old" and the "new" are diametrically opposed to one another in terms of metaphysical perspective. The Hebrew Scriptures is far less mystically disposed, in the sense of viewing things in terms of 'nonduality', as the new testament conveys. Hazony has showed that the reason people have such difficulty getting this is because the Hebrew scriptures contained an array of different viewpoints.

The most basic metaphysical ideas are contained in the first parts of Genesis. But as you progress, various paths unfold. Even the book of Judges seems to be an incredibly sophisticated political theology. In the period of the first judge "people did what was good in their own eyes", i.e. it began with anarchism. By the time you reach Samson, the people are in disarray, everyone is at odds with each other. In the end, the people demand a monarchy (a constitutional monarchy, with the Torah as it's constitution), which Samuel positively describes as evil, but God tells Samuel to listen to the voice of the people (democracy?).

There's a reason why Jews are so intellectually developed. It's not just because of the Talmud. The Talmud is a perpetuation of a scientific approach to reality. Their literature is not "revelation" (solely), but a systematic exposition of various things, in the form of allegory. The allegory was clearly forgotten when the Jews began dealing persecution after persecution, leaving them only with a concept of the 'revelatory' power of the Hebrew scriptures.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 02:05 AM
link   
reply to post by GrantedBail
 


Yup, I have noticed that "different" treatment, even the overall change of tone when mentioning biblical references. It eroded what had seemed to be a very balanced but not fully independent analysis (some hate for specific personages is transparent beyond simple frustration with the nonsense they spew).

To a point I understand the hate, I also loved the fiction and real work had to be put into checking the facts, this type of dedication can only come from real interest regarding the possibility of the allegations having some basis. In the section regarding the biblical references I think we get a glimpse of the pain and resistance in accepting the destruction of the complete house of cards.

There is a point that only the happy deluded will never accept, that some events transcend time, cultures and geography in ways that makes them extremely perplexing, but I wouldn't go as far in that read to make some of the assertions that, as you and I noted are in the video. I think most people will agree that there is much we do not know about human history and that the experts demonstrate at times an detrimental unwillingness to think out of the box or examine and promote real understanding. For instance in regards to the discovery of the Americas there is still much misinformation circling about. From contacts with Egypt to China there are many very interesting points that are lost in the shuffle.

The analysis of the crystal skulls myth is the most complete I've haver seen...

PS: Did you ever seen a documentary regarding the strange acoustic properties of the Mayan temples, very intriguing (THE ACOUSTICS OF MAYAN TEMPLES, there are some videos on youtube of teheffect)



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 02:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Wandering Scribe
 





I do not think that Pagan culture is primitive, barbaric, or chaotic.


I was speaking from the Hebrew viewpoint (in their opinion). Clearly, yours would be different. Which is fine.





Were they masterful story-tellers who understood how to map the emotions, thoughts, and personalities of people the entire world over? Definitely.


I can appreciate your understanding of pagan doctrines. My use of the word pagan, just so you know, is not meant pejoratively. It just happens to refer to anything that is not influenced by Judaism (or the Hebrew Bible). Even then, Christians have called Muslims pagans and Muslims called Christians pagans. etc

For convenience sake, I use the word. But I mean no offense.




So I hope you do not take offense when I sort of disagree that the Hebrews were the more sophisticated, refined, and civilized culture.


Actually, it's inevitable that we butt heads here. But I can keep it light-hearted and not be bothered.

What I do hope people appreciate is the goodness within other traditions. The Jews have been slighted bad in this area - beginning with the antisemitic insinuations of the new testament down to our modern era. People inveigh non-stop against the Bible, ignoring the fact that 'love the stranger' etc, ideas preached by Jesus, are derived from the 5 books of Moses

What I hate with an utter passion, however, is the type of barbarity that allowed the Romans to take human beings and pit them against animals in gladitorial fights. Just the more I read about them, the more I'm sickened to my stomach with their callousness. Smart, Sophisticated, wily, sagacious, etc, the Romans were, but men with hearts who didn't sacrifice the person to the principle, they werent. And as I think I mentioned, this is the beautiful idea contained in the Hebrew Bible with the story of Abraham and Isaac. The sanctity of a human life. That we are not objects to bring entertainment to a mass of frothing sadists.




I tend to think that much of what is recorded in the Old Testament (forgive my Christian references, it is how I am familiar with the Hebrew traditions) to be quite primitive and barbaric.


Do you take the weirdness within pagan myth so literally?




The collecting of foreskins; the mistreatment of slaves; the ordered murder of infants, children, and women; the insistence on racial superiority.


The Hebrew clearly picked up this somewhat tawdry approach to story telling from their pagan brothers.

Mistreatment of slaves? Where does this idea appear? Historically speaking, a slave was a member of a household, as Josephus describes. Sort of akin to our concept of a 'hired worker'. A hired worker is a modern slave; whether he realizes it or not, he is subject to someone elses authority, and lives according to his good will (although today there are laws etc, sometimes that isn't enough, especially under socialism).

In any case, it's hard to pronounce judgement on a world that was so harshly different from what we know today. When all your enemies kill the woman/children/ etc, or take them as concubines, you do the same thing. The Hebrews, of course, in their own social affairs, were just. And perhaps when dealing with enemy combatants, they were coldly realistic about what would happen if you left alive children who's parents you just killed.

In any case, it's the philosophy - the ideas beneath the literal narratives, that I'm attracted to. I'm not an orthodox Jew, although I do enjoy the works of Martin Buber and Abraham J Heschel.




I don't have the character-count to fully delve into it here, but the Pagan gods are actually more human than the Hebrew God.


I understand your criticism and respect your claim that pagan gods had pathos. Let me frame it this way: the Jewish God was very much a 'reasonable' God, in what he asked of his creations - ignoring of course the war bits in the Hebrew Scriptures, which, in the context of war, is hard to judge. But, with the 10 commandments, the idea of love the stranger (which was HIGHLY UNUSUAL in a day where tribal gods were the be all and end all), let the land lie fallow every 7th year, leaving the extra cuttings in the field for the poor, these are tremendously good ideas that have received scant appreciation.




e main reasons why I, personally, feel drawn to the Anunnaki and a small set of other Pagan deities. While you say the Hebrew God is personable and warm, I found that He was distant, domineering, aggressive, and often times acted on angry impulse without thought or repent for His actions.


Strange that you get this idea. Read the Psalms. The God being referred to is a God who is obviously a God of warmth and sensitivity, who arouses awe and wonder.

This I feel is due to a great deal of propaganda and bad press. It's no secret that the intellectuals of the 17th, 18th, 19th etc centuries hated the Jewish element within their cultures. And they took this hatred to an extreme. Read Spinoza's nonsense tracatus. This is where Hegel got his ideas of Judaism. And yet, these were the most false and ignorant ideas from a guy who knew little himself of Judaism (spinoza grew up in a christian household, despite being from a Jewish family).

The Jews themselves forgot the the precise meaning of their scriptures, but their spiritual traditions certainly retained the crux of their spiritual bent. Kabbalah, Chassidut, both represent highly spiritual paths towards understanding God. Path's I feel very touched by. You see similar ideas in certain schools of Sufism and the works of certain Christian mystics.




Obviously I expect that you wouldn't hold this view, but you seem to be a much more devout Jew than I am. Which is fine; to each their own.


You're Jewish? What do you know! Me, the gentile, takes a liking to the Hebrew Bible, while you, the Jew takes a liking to pagan scriptures.

Funny how life works.
edit on 9-11-2012 by dontreally because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Wandering Scribe
 




That the Old Testament recognizes this date as well, is testament to it's more factual basis.


Indeed. And it definitely means the book of genesis bases itself upon some source material which records the history from this 'beginning'. That this beginning is interpreted as the 'creation" of man in Gods image, is further evidence for what the Book of Genesis is talking about.

I should clarify however that there are two creation episodes in Genesis. The first one is your ordinary creation epic. The second one, which appears in Genesis two, refers to the creation of man, and this one included the name YHWH Elohim. So the first is the birth of the physical/spiritual universe; the second the beginnings of mankind's self understanding.

And of course it passes a criticism on pagandom in the character of Cain and his line - who after 'killing his brother' (this being the aspect of harshness of pagan civilization i.e Cain wasn't Abels keeper, and didn't feel as such; which reminds me of the character of Ivan Karamazov verses Alexei Karamazov in 'the brothers karamazov'; the former a type of Cain, and the latter, a type of Abel) goes on to found a city named after his "son" Enoch (to educate), this being the net effect of city dwelling, as Rousseau and many other's noticed.

It's an extremely interesting book, and I'm avidly awaiting further research into these areas, although I have my own ideas.




It's the same reason why every religious mythology has their god/s create their people as the central and dominant peoples of the whole Universe.


The Hebrews were the first, to my knowledge, to 'humanize' myth. To depart from the images of animals, and warring gods and goddesses. To establish the myth in a form that responded to mans existential situation, not dressed up in imagery that departed from what we were, as humans, living in this world.




(primitive in their eyes)


You're mistaking my use of the word primitive. It's the lack of heart, social awareness, or community, that lies at the core of the Hebrew criticism of pagandom. Only in that way could they be called 'undeveloped'. But of course the creation epic of Genesis is largely built from prototypes in earlier cultures. Other criticisms are in the form of the narrative of Sodom and Gemorrah i.e. sexual depravity. How homosexuality, and sexual vice in general, leads to a culture (in their eyes) of insensitivity and rapine. The Godly part in man (symbolized by the angels with Lot) becomes attacked by the rapacious appetite of the mindless mob.

No one should doubt that a society overly-sexualized is both a benefit to the PTB, and a detriment to their own spiritual selves.

BTW, if you want to continue a post, simply press 'edit', and you can continue for as long as you want. This is what I often do.




posted on Nov, 24 2012 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by downunderET
reply to post by Wandering Scribe
 



Architects of the Underworld..............highly recommended


I looked this up on Amazon and bought it. It's right up my alley of interest! I can't wait to get it and read it! Thanks for sharing your list. I found Humanity's Extraterrestrial Origins as well but it's about 80 bucks and doesnt get great reviews. Could you tell me or summarize why this is one of your top book choices? The others I have heard of and are actually in my book "wish list" on Amazon. I try and buy one book a week if I can afford it. I usually go with used since it's cheaper. I got the one I mentioned for 5.98 with shipping




OP great thread! I find the Anunnaki quite interesting as well as the Sumerians. I never read anything by Sitchin. I tend to want to read information that isn't "mainstream" on these types of topics. I watched a documentary a while back that explained the Anunnaki the same way the first video you posted does. It was about 4hrs long! I watched in parts over a few days.

As for Ancient Aliens. I do like the show but only because it gives me stuff to research on my own. I dont think aliens did all the things the shows gives them credit for. I tend to think our ancestors were far more advanced than we give them credit for.

I am glad I came across this thread! It will give me something to read and look into on my next two days off.






new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join