Was Jesus an Annunaki?

[MichaelB 1]

I have long puzzled over something – and that is the pre-identity of Jesus. It seems that for most everyone else this is a non-question, as they are in two different, non-overlapping camps, e.g., "He is Jesus Christ the Only Son of God," or "He was a great teacher," but a crucial point is being missed, as he himself alluded several times to his pre-existence.

What to me is a simple connecting-of-the-dots gives the conclusion that Ninurta, son of Enlil, incarnated into the son of Joseph and Mary (or "possessed" him, choose your terminology).

-- The research is very convincing that the Anunnaki leader Enlil was Jehovah/Yahweh.

-- His son Ninurta was designated as his successor.

-- Enki's son Marduk siezed power instead, thus he was termed "The Usurper." This led to "The Pyramid Wars," culminating in nuclear-type weaponry being used.

-- As a way of creating a new covenant with mankind (and breaking the hold of Marduk's, and other, "pagan" cults) the plan was created for Ninurta to form a once-and-for-all religion in which "The Father" would be worshiped, and the rancorous human population would become peaceful and loving.

-- On at least two occasions, a voice spoke from the clouds, or mists, "This is my son, in whom I am well pleased."

So the question becomes, who else could this father-son team be? It seems unlikely that it is Enki referring to his son Marduk because of, among other reasons, all the references to the devil being a serpent, which is the Enki line’s trademark. And Jesus gave full "props" to Jehovah/Yahweh and the prophets who spoke for and about him, even saying he was here to fulfill the words of the prophets. Also, "the Father and I are united" and "He who has seen me has seen the Father."

None of the books I have on this subject even vaguely hint at this possibility. As well, I’ve done several Internet searches, Google and others, and nowhere is this connection made. It seems so obvious to me now that I am amazed that it has not previously been seized upon. (I’m even surprised at myself, but pre-conceived mindsets can be a stubborn obstacle.)

If I had to speculate, I would say that the Vatican has this information in it’s off-limits library, and this is the reason why they, to this day, retain many symbols from the ancient times in their vestments and architecture.

I would appreciate any comments from the good folks at this forum.

Edited July 17, 2006 by MichaelB

[Ichiban Avtar 0]

no he was not.

he is the good son, as in a hundred other 'myths'.

[louie 14]

no he was not.

he is the good son, as in a hundred other 'myths'.

i think there is a bit more to it than that.

[Essan 3,382]

Someone's been confusing Sitchin's fantasies with the real world again .....

[jillh10 1]

yup he was

[Bella-Angelique 181]

Ninurta was evil. He was called the Accuser and Prince of the Air.

Bad choice for early archetype comparison.

Try this one.

Satan (Greek: Satan or Satanas) as used in the New Testament is a word of Hebrew origin. It means the accuser, the adversary, the opponent, the prosecution (in a legal case). In the Greek New Testament the Hebrew word Satan is often translated into the Greek word diabolos, which most commonly is translated into English as Devil. Diabolos means the accuser, slanderer, calumniator, backbiter, enemy, one who separates.

source

[Bella-Angelique 181]

Someone's been confusing Sitchin's fantasies with the real world again .....

Not really.

The bible itself states that the Hebrew faith evolved out of the Sumerian city of Ur.

Anyone who attempts to trace back the beginnings of Hebrew stories eventually ends up in Sumerian mythology.

Christian Reincarnationists are especially prone to try to trace back roots.

Edited July 17, 2006 by Bella-Angelique

[odas 1,489]

I find this topic rather interesting, like it or not, agree with it or not.

And yes, our three main monotheistic religions have a root in the Summerian religion.

I am not refering to Stichins world but to the similarities to Summerian and Hebrew ( later Christianity and Islam ) religion, storys, legends myths call it as you wish.

MichaelB, could you write some more of your thoughts in this matter. I realy do not have a clear opinion yet, but your ideas could get my braincells encourage to work.

Since I never liked the idea to blindly and dogmatic follow someones teachings only because they are famous I appreciate freestyle historians and believe everybody diserves a chance to express themselfs.

[MichaelB 1]

Thank you Odas. I do have more to add to this discussion. My main point is that there is every reason to believe that the Anunnaki, those who promulgated and fostered most of the ancient religions of the world, were likewise active in starting Christianity. That was, after all, their turf, even if they had removed themselves from visibility. Whether it was Ninurta or not who appeared as Jesus is a secondary question. I just think that if the main point is a true one, the most likely candidate would be Ninurta, who was Enlil's designated successor.

This process of removing themselves was begun several thousand years before when "kingship was lowered" from them to their designated human/Anunnaki hybrids -- the long-lived kings of Mesopotamia. It is interesting to note that the "divinity" who oversaw the first such establishment, created in Kish, was none other than Ninurta. Many Sumerian histories record that he was considered a benevolent god. This lends some further weight to his being chosen for the mission.

(Sidenote to Bella-Angelique: As for your assertion that Ninurta was The Accuser and the Prince of the Air, you're confusing him with Enki's son, Marduk. In this conjecture of mine, Marduk is indeed the devil.)

One of the curious things in the New Testament records, and something which supports my hypothesis, is when Jesus, as he went about casting out demons (fallen angels, Nephilim) from people, cautioned the demons not to reveal his identity. That means they knew who he was from a previous time.

[Essan 3,382]

Not really.

The bible itself states that the Hebrew faith evolved out of the Sumerian city of Ur.

Anyone who attempts to trace back the beginnings of Hebrew stories eventually ends up in Sumerian mythology.

Christian Reincarnationists are especially prone to try to trace back roots.

I have no problems with tracing Hebrew religion back to the Sumerians and agree that many of their myths are derived foirm much earlier Sumerian stories.

But where does Jesus being a minor Sumerian god come into all this?

And as for pyramid wars using nuclear weapons .......

[redmantis3 0]

I'll be back a little later to elaborate more but, for now, read some of Crowley's stuff (he makes much reference to the connections you speak of). Also read the literature put out by some of the Vampyric Cabals (some of them are very interested in this topic).

Back Later,

Redmantis3

[J T Handy 0]

I have often thought of the possibilies of this topic. However, I see it the other way. Enlil has always been opposed to humanity. It has always been Enki that has been there to save humanity - his creation.

Enki gave mankind the ability to procreate. Enki saved man from the deluge.

The following relies on Sitchen's claim that the Annunaki arrives in an interval of about 3600 years. At the time of Jesus, I believe the Annunaki were heading out. Before the time of Jesus, Human Technology or rather the understanding of Technology was limited. At this time however mankind had breached that understanding - and were growing.

I suspect Enki - or rather his realm had a subversive plan to once again save humanity. Upon the departure of the Annunaki, the Enki Faction placed on this planet a person we have come to know as Jesus. Considering Jesus' message hovered around individuality, freedom and charity and not bogged down with dogmatic regulations, I suspect that once spread it would captivate the human spirit thus aiding to the destruction of the multiple god worship pushed by the Roman Empire. It worked.

Since Mankind has - on its own developed into a power that has reached beyond the confines of his own atmosphere. The earth is primed for a Enki takeover.

[dani10 18]

Unless there were Annunakis in Jerusalem when Jesus was born, I don't think he would be one

Wait, Annunakis are american indians right? If not that would make my statement completely wrong

[isis-999 8]

Someone's been confusing Sitchin's fantasies with the real world again .....

Yes it does sound like he has mixed fact and fiction....Just a heads up if your getting information from Sitchin's book's they are fake sweetie...He's been proven to make half of his stuff up.....

[drew hempel 0]

I have long puzzled over something – and that is the pre-identity of Jesus. It seems that for most everyone else this is a non-question, as they are in two different, non-overlapping camps, e.g., "He is Jesus Christ the Only Son of God," or "He was a great teacher," but a crucial point is being missed, as he himself alluded several times to his pre-existence.

What to me is a simple connecting-of-the-dots gives the conclusion that Ninurta, son of Enlil, incarnated into the son of Joseph and Mary (or "possessed" him, choose your terminology).

-- The research is very convincing that the Anunnaki leader Enlil was Jehovah/Yahweh.

-- His son Ninurta was designated as his successor.

-- Enki's son Marduk siezed power instead, thus he was termed "The Usurper." This led to "The Pyramid Wars," culminating in nuclear-type weaponry being used.

-- As a way of creating a new covenant with mankind (and breaking the hold of Marduk's, and other, "pagan" cults) the plan was created for Ninurta to form a once-and-for-all religion in which "The Father" would be worshiped, and the rancorous human population would become peaceful and loving.

-- On at least two occasions, a voice spoke from the clouds, or mists, "This is my son, in whom I am well pleased."

So the question becomes, who else could this father-son team be? It seems unlikely that it is Enki referring to his son Marduk because of, among other reasons, all the references to the devil being a serpent, which is the Enki line’s trademark. And Jesus gave full "props" to Jehovah/Yahweh and the prophets who spoke for and about him, even saying he was here to fulfill the words of the prophets. Also, "the Father and I are united" and "He who has seen me has seen the Father."

None of the books I have on this subject even vaguely hint at this possibility. As well, I’ve done several Internet searches, Google and others, and nowhere is this connection made. It seems so obvious to me now that I am amazed that it has not previously been seized upon. (I’m even surprised at myself, but pre-conceived mindsets can be a stubborn obstacle.)

If I had to speculate, I would say that the Vatican has this information in it’s off-limits library, and this is the reason why they, to this day, retain many symbols from the ancient times in their vestments and architecture.

I would appreciate any comments from the good folks at this forum.

Sorry but Jesus never existed! You've been had!! http://truthbeknown.com

[isis-999 8]

I have to disagree, Jesus did live and he was a real person..Now did he do all the thing's that the bible said he did, Well we can't really answer that sense none of us where there during that time period...But for the question of him being a real man who lived and walked the earth, Well then yes he did that and he was real...maybe it's you who have been had......

[sonofkrypton 31]

I have to disagree, Jesus did live and he was a real person..Now did he do all the thing's that the bible said he did, Well we can't really answer that sense none of us where there during that time period...But for the question of him being a real man who lived and walked the earth, Well then yes he did that and he was real...maybe it's you who have been had......

i'm with you there isis i believe he existed and had access to medical books of the era only available to ''initiates'' or royalty and he used this knowledge to help people and through word of mouth it was hyped up after a few rounds like fisherman and '' you should have seen it it was this <-------------------------> big lol but yes i think people needed something to believ in and he fitted the bill.

son of god no mere mortal yes showman definately

[Bella-Angelique 181]

Yeshua ben Yoseph, now called Jesus, was a Nazarene who lived in Alexandria, the capitol of education in the ancient world at that time. He did not have to travel to the east or the west to seek knowledge as the knowledge of the known world was gathered together in Alexandria at that time.

(And I am not wrong about Ninurta. Check various translations of Sumerian texts by different scholars.)

[SunDogDayze 5]

First of all, let's deal with the idea that Jesus Christ never existed. I have read a ton of theories as to why he may not have been who modern Christians believe, but I have yet to read one thing that proves he was totally fabricated.

Actually, here is an article on why he can not be who the Bible claims:

http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/7748/106446

But, when you read it, you notice that the argument they use is that he couldn't be the messiah, because other religions already had myths of men doing the same 'miracles' and teachings and ressurection before Jesus ever came around.

Where does it say that Jesus was the first to do these kinds of things??

In my opinion, that doesn't prove he didn't exist...in fact, it makes me think that he very well could have been Annunaki.

Why? Well, look at it this way:

The Annunaki were supposed to have come to this planet, established 'kingdoms' and create man. They are also reported to have lived extremely long lives compared to humans. They performed 'magic' and 'miracles' which most people believe was actually technology that was far advanced from what the humans of the time knew of. They had a vested interest in the outcome of humanity.

Then they disappeared.

Generations later, humanity was evidently not following the Annunaki's plan. We were going straight downhill.

What if the Annunaki, either observing from hiding, or on a passing by some 3600 years after they left, appointed a representative to go and try to point man in the right direction?

This representative, being Annunaki, would most likely be able to perform the same 'miracles' that were performed by the Annunaki from older times.

Why couldn't it be Jesus? The reasons for Jesus being on Earth are similar to the reasons the Annunaki would return to Earth at that time, and the 'miracles' were the same. It seems logical to me to assume they could have been one and the same.

[J T Handy 0]

Unless there were Annunakis in Jerusalem when Jesus was born, I don't think he would be one

Wait, Annunakis are american indians right? If not that would make my statement completely wrong

Thank you Daniella for your reply,

I have read debunking theories of Sitchen that were just as creative as the various authors claim Sitchen to be. I don't put a lot of clout in theories or debunkers unless hard fast factual data can be found. Since no one really has definitive proof of one way or the other, then no one can say for sure what did happen.

What Sitchen has offered fiction or otherwise is compelling questions and theories to answer those questions. This is no different than any leading Egytologist or other archeologists. Using the likes of such archeologist who defend to the death their own theories to debunk theories of others is flawed. Especially when any two archeologists have different theories on the same findings. An eye-opener for the theories of archeology is David Macauley's work of fiction, "Motel of the Mysteries". This childrens book takes several products of our daily lives and interprets them for some future society. For example, a TV was interpreted as an alter!

The bottom line is using one person bias to prove another person's bias when there is very little hard fact to help either is disingenuous. This unfortunately is all I read from people who debunk Sitchen.

I personally do not buy the history we are fed in the text books. I also do not believe totally in the theories of the likes of Sitchen or Erik D-V either. But I do see validity in questioning the mainstream chronology. I hope that by taking it all in with an open mind, that the true story will reveal itself by the bits and pieces of truth everyone has.

Some facts:

1) Bible says: according to the "gods" - - "Man was created in our image"

2) There is no direct archeological evidence that links man to ape (i.e. "Missing Link")

3) Apes still exists - relatively unchanged from the very ape we "evolved" from! Why do we no longer see the dwarfed horses our current horses evolved from?

4) Civilization erupted from crude stone tools to law and order in an instant.

I could go on . . . It seems there is a big mystery as to the sudden appearance of mankind on the planet. No one has yet to explain this other than we "evolved", and even this is loosing ground among scientist.

Enki vs. Enlil is one of the earliest of many brother vs. brother myths to exist on this planet. The early part of the creation story found in Gilgamesh is also a compelling story when considering planetary movement as opposed to warring gods. A story that explains the development of the solar system we live in. A story that has echos in Genesis.

In the twelfth Planet, Sitchen stated that Neptune and Uranus would be blue planets based on his interpretations of the ancient texts. Decades later this proved to be true.

Long before we knew of the cities of Troy, Ur, Eridu ans so on, archeologist found these cities by their interpretations of the Bible and other ancient texts.

The assumption that these stories are myth - are simply an allegory message from a long ago people is fantastic. While stripping mankind all of their historical technological skill and knowledge, we gave early man an even higher order of intellect of telling stories in metaphor! We have proven so many mythical stories to be true. Why do we still hold the remaining unsolved stories in this realm? What are we protecting ourself from.

The creation of man lacks a motive. The stories from the past we do not yet believe offer the motive. The Adipsu (sp?) (i.e. slave) was created to serve their gods. If we do not accept that, if the masters do return, we will be once again entrapped in centuries of slavery.

[metacast 10]

I have to disagree, Jesus did live and he was a real person..Now did he do all the thing's that the bible said he did, Well we can't really answer that sense none of us where there during that time period...But for the question of him being a real man who lived and walked the earth, Well then yes he did that and he was real...maybe it's you who have been had......

so your saying jesus was just a gnostic who discovered his divine birth right? and not the incarnation of the true living god into the fleash to serve as a living example for humans?

Sorry but Jesus never existed! You've been had!! http://truthbeknown.com

ive seen you do this alot, you need to open a new thread and make a case yourself. if you can...

In my opinion, that doesn't prove he didn't exist...in fact, it makes me think that he very well could have been Annunaki.

Why? Well, look at it this way:

The Annunaki were supposed to have come to this planet, established 'kingdoms' and create man. They are also reported to have lived extremely long lives compared to humans. They performed 'magic' and 'miracles' which most people believe was actually technology that was far advanced from what the humans of the time knew of. They had a vested interest in the outcome of humanity.

Then they disappeared.

Generations later, humanity was evidently not following the Annunaki's plan. We were going straight downhill.

What if the Annunaki, either observing from hiding, or on a passing by some 3600 years after they left, appointed a representative to go and try to point man in the right direction?

This representative, being Annunaki, would most likely be able to perform the same 'miracles' that were performed by the Annunaki from older times.

Why couldn't it be Jesus? The reasons for Jesus being on Earth are similar to the reasons the Annunaki would return to Earth at that time, and the 'miracles' were the same. It seems logical to me to assume they could have been one and the same.

why does our creators have to exist within the material realm. I believe that levels of existance (heaven Earth) are vibrational states of energy. Where as Macro: lower vibrations = material world; higher vibrations = heaven. Micro-material: solid liquid gas plasma etherial, electricity, other material stuff) and Micro-heaven: concepts I cant attempt to define...

so what I am saying is: If Annunaki are our creators, and they speak of a heaven, why does heaven hold material beings like annunaki.

all that is confusing. sorry.

For example, a TV was interpreted as an alter!

bill hicks(comedian) calls it lucifer's dream box. I guess that would make it marduck's dream box? or enki's dream box.

Bible:according to the "gods" - - "Man was created in our image

[god, his] but i see the image as not being a physical appearance... i see image as the total of existance, and man being a part of that total existance of god experiencing himself. but there is no clarification on that topic anywhere that I know of.

4) Civilization erupted from crude stone tools to law and order in an instant.

this was the birth of agriculture.

Edited September 23, 2006 by ADbox

[Unreality 0]

And yes, our three main monotheistic religions have a root in the Summerian religion.

Hey, would someone mind giving me an explanation about this? I'm not questioning, but I haven't heard this before and would like to be informed on the topic.

[Essan 3,382]

Hey, would someone mind giving me an explanation about this? I'm not questioning, but I haven't heard this before and would like to be informed on the topic.

Much of the Book of Genesis derives from earlier Sumerian myths - including the stories of Creation, Eden and the Flood. These stories in turn are still believed in by adherents to Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Maybe if they knew the true origins of the stories they might be more sceptical;)

[Essan 3,382]

I have read debunking theories of Sitchen that were just as creative as the various authors claim Sitchen to be.

Creative? As in Sitchin made it up as he went along, mixing and matching bits of different religions and stories (Sumerian, Akkadian, Babylonian) with liberal abandon, and every Sumerian scholar alive translates those texts completely differently to him

Some facts:

2) There is no direct archeological evidence that links man to ape (i.e. "Missing Link")

http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20060923/fob1.asp

3) Apes still exists - relatively unchanged from the very ape we "evolved" from! Why do we no longer see the dwarfed horses our current horses evolved from?

Modern apes evolved from archaic apes. Modern humans evolved from archaic apes. Archaic apes have been extinct for million of years, just as archaic horses have.

The idea that we evolved from modern apes or monkeys is a childish myth perpetuated by Creationists and the ignorant.

4) Civilization erupted from crude stone tools to law and order in an instant.

If you consider tgousands of years 'an instant' We evolved from spear and horse and cart to nuclear missiles and spacecraft in a tiny fraction of the time.

I could go on . . . It seems there is a big mystery as to the sudden appearance of mankind on the planet. No one has yet to explain this other than we "evolved", and even this is loosing ground among scientist.

We evolved rather slowly. And the idea has only 'lost ground' amongst cranks and those looking to make a fast bob by fleecing the gullible.

[boemba 0]

Maybe the bible is just an ancient lawbook? I can't imagine people to just go and obey some laws that some wannabe president made up. So what to do, what to do? Ah i know! Write a book about God, insert your laws in there and everybody will obey them! The bible is full of rules. Do that, don't do that, do this and die, do that and be praised. It seems that everytime you do something that is 'bad' you will die!!! die and go to hell!!! Except if you accept Jezus back in your life and then you will be saved. So in other words: if you accept the law, you will be saved. Is it wrong if i say that most laws we obey today are based on what is in the bible?