Was Jesus an Annunaki?

[Piney]

2 minutes ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

On a pizza?

Ewwwwwwwww...........My wife is Italian and you would be beaten for such a transgression in our household.

 

[SHaYap]

To quote a pal of mine... 

"I can hear the pizza scream.... "

~

[Alchopwn]

On 2/1/2022 at 11:57 AM, Thanos5150 said:

I think there is a pill for that. 

Viagra doesn't cure omnipotence.

[RFox1326]

i am just curious where and how people are so sure of their beliefs? for example, i’ve read sitchen, he of course would have us worshiping Enki, as the one who physically created mankind. 

then you get your spiritual satanist’s who believe christianity is the enemy, satan (who they believe is enki) is the only god to give salvation, that greys are the enemy race and the modern day jews are somehow of their blood, therefor the enemy? that hitler was somehow influenced by energy alien race? lots of confusion for me without their beliefs as well

then there’s Robert Morningstar, his account of our origins were so difficult for me to follow because of the names of the players involved, but if i’m not mistaken, basically he believes there’s a bunch of different alien races, they all came/come here, one race specifically (i’m still quite confused on who specifically though) genetically altered our DNA thus creating humanity. He mentions there’s an undisclosed amount of other human/animal alien races that all war with each other for control over the galaxy etc and so on. 

 

you have your people who belive that reptilian aliens are disguised as humans and here in earth are secretly in the positions of power around the world, controlling everything in their favor. That these lizard people live in caves dee in the earth. 

 

there’s just such an abundance of theories out there, i’ve no doubt we are more than likely the result of some race of aliens meddling or creation, but WHO exactly. How can Sitchin claim his book be the deciphered tablets of enjoy? has anyone ever cooberated that? have they ever been deciphered by anyone else? 

we’re the anunnaki benevolent for the most part, as sitchen suggests, or were they more of the use us until we’re no longer useful bunch, as Morningstar alludes to? 

 

i guess my question is, which one of these theories or stories has the most evidence attached to it, making it the most probable ? and WHAT evidence might that be? 

 

im still in my early days of searching for the truth of both our origins and where our afterlives may be spent, and just when i think i’ve got one figured out, something from the opposing side completely obliterated what i thought i knew. i’m just looking for answers. ones that make the most sense and have the most credible evidence to back it up

[cormac mac airt]

4 minutes ago, RFox1326 said:

i am just curious where and how people are so sure of their beliefs? for example, i’ve read sitchen, he of course would have us worshiping Enki, as the one who physically created mankind. 

then you get your spiritual satanist’s who believe christianity is the enemy, satan (who they believe is enki) is the only god to give salvation, that greys are the enemy race and the modern day jews are somehow of their blood, therefor the enemy? that hitler was somehow influenced by energy alien race? lots of confusion for me without their beliefs as well

then there’s Robert Morningstar, his account of our origins were so difficult for me to follow because of the names of the players involved, but if i’m not mistaken, basically he believes there’s a bunch of different alien races, they all came/come here, one race specifically (i’m still quite confused on who specifically though) genetically altered our DNA thus creating humanity. He mentions there’s an undisclosed amount of other human/animal alien races that all war with each other for control over the galaxy etc and so on. 

 

you have your people who belive that reptilian aliens are disguised as humans and here in earth are secretly in the positions of power around the world, controlling everything in their favor. That these lizard people live in caves dee in the earth. 

 

there’s just such an abundance of theories out there, i’ve no doubt we are more than likely the result of some race of aliens meddling or creation, but WHO exactly. How can Sitchin claim his book be the deciphered tablets of enjoy? has anyone ever cooberated that? have they ever been deciphered by anyone else? 

we’re the anunnaki benevolent for the most part, as sitchen suggests, or were they more of the use us until we’re no longer useful bunch, as Morningstar alludes to? 

 

i guess my question is, which one of these theories or stories has the most evidence attached to it, making it the most probable ? and WHAT evidence might that be? 

 

im still in my early days of searching for the truth of both our origins and where our afterlives may be spent, and just when i think i’ve got one figured out, something from the opposing side completely obliterated what i thought i knew. i’m just looking for answers. ones that make the most sense and have the most credible evidence to back it up

None of those stories are accurate. As for Sitchin, besides being dead he could neither read nor translate Sumerian yet BS’d others into believing he could. And his crap on Anunnaki, actually “anunna-ge”, was not only embarrassingly wrong but they were actually gods OF THE UNDERWORLD. 

Another hack was Lloyd Pye who, amongst other things, claimed there were only a certain number of DNA haplogroups amongst humanity and that anyone outside those haplogroups was an extraterrestrial. Well guess what, “I” fall amongst those groups of humans that Lloyd Pye said didn’t exist. Rest assured I’m very much human. The man was completely incompetent when it came to genetics. 
 

cormac

[ShadowSot]

I mean if you want to go with where the evidence is neither of these ideas really bare out. It's myth making on top of the ancient legends of Sumer. 

 Outside of the writers themselves there's no evidence for their claims. 

  Who the annunaki were and what their roles were weren't strictly speaking consistent across the ages they were worshiped, even among Sumerian let alone the Akkadians and Babylonians. 

 I actually enjoy reading tge ancient stories, worth reading if you have the time. But no there's no equivalent to what sitchin claims. 

 They're the oldest directly attested pantheon, as far as I understand, but mainly due to Sumer being where we have the earliest confirmed example of writing. There's evidence of the cults forming before writing was developed so even at the earliest the stories shouldn't be considered definitive. They just show what was believed at the time they were written. 

41 minutes ago, RFox1326 said:

How can Sitchin claim his book be the deciphered tablets of enjoy?

Because you are free to claim whatever you want. 

 

42 minutes ago, RFox1326 said:

has anyone ever cooberated that? have they ever been deciphered by anyone else? 

No, to both. As cormac points out Sitchin himself can't actually translate cuneiform. 

 If you want to study it yourself, there are actually a few dictionaries of the language and resources you can use to learn the language yourself. 

 

46 minutes ago, RFox1326 said:

guess my question is, which one of these theories or stories has the most evidence attached to it, making it the most probable ?

Strictly speaking? Niether of them have more evidence than the other. 

 About the most you could independently verify from their claims would that yes the early Mesopotamian civilizations did worship gods with those names and Annunaki was a term used for a inconsistently described and numbered group of them. Though there's a big distinction between them being the first religion and the first religion that was written down. 

 Sitchen and all then to present it as though the early Sumerian and Egyptians walked out of the desert and built cities. But you can read for yourself the slow development of what we consider civilization. 

[ShadowSot]

On the issue of being sure that's more complicated. People like Sitchen and Morningstar invoke conspiracy to explain why there's no evidence for their claims. Or that professionals in the field, geologists, physicists, astronomers, historians, archeologists, are either incompetent, blind to the truth, or actively coving up the proof. 

 Now for me, that's unlikely. I know scientists. Most of the time an NDA and legal repurcussions only barely keep them quiet on exciting findings and that's due to there being a time limit of a soon to come press release. 

 And even then there's been several times lately where mundane to the public but exciting to professionals news leaked anyway. 

 You're more likely to have a scientist fake exciting results than cover them up. 

 What about the facts that are laid out in the books? 

 To start would be to study the Sumerian texts and beliefs and compare them to what they wrote. 

 They make genetic claims. They make historical claims. Claims in regard to astronomy. 

 Where do they match up with consensus. Where do they differ. 

 Why do they differ? 

 This is where things get murky, since the threshold for this will be lower or higher depending on the person. 

 Sitchin would say humans were genetically engineered to mine gold. 

 But... Well, why? Were not particularly technically advanced compared to his take on the Annunaki. But we have machines that do much more work than we're capable of doing, something that is causing a good deal of economic problems for people. 

Much more useful and effective than slave labor. 

 You can go through each piece of evidence they claim and check up on it yourself. 

 Things like afterlife are much more wooly. 

 Personally I'm an atheist and have been for awhile. I don't particularly see any religion as particularly good though there's plenty of awful sects. 

 As far as an afterlife goes, being an atheist doesn't naturally preclude it. 

 But personally I don't believe in one. What evidence there is that people offer are personal experiences which I don't find convincing. There's loads of naturalistic reasons for people to have experiences that they consider paranormal. And when there isn't an obvious explanation it doesn't follow that the only answer is something paranormal. It just means you don't know what it is. 

 Some people like to go from there to speculate on the nature of reality and consciousness and afterlife. But when you start from "I don't know"  that sort of speculation isn't much interesting to me. 

 

[ShadowSot]

Big caveat : The above poster has been almost 48 hours with no sleep, barring the couple of hours grabbed in a noisy hospital before going to work. 

Wordiness and navel gazing abounds. Ye be warned

[Hanslune]

10 hours ago, ShadowSot said:

 As far as an afterlife goes, being an atheist doesn't naturally preclude it. 

 But personally I don't believe in one. What evidence there is that people offer are personal experiences which I don't find convincing. There's loads of naturalistic reasons for people to have experiences that they consider paranormal. And when there isn't an obvious explanation it doesn't follow that the only answer is something paranormal. It just means you don't know what it is. 

 Some people like to go from there to speculate on the nature of reality and consciousness and afterlife. But when you start from "I don't know"  that sort of speculation isn't much interesting to me. 

 

I have to wonder with 100-160 billion near or 'full' human beings having lived before what the heck are they all doing in the afterlife? What sort of afterlife would a Homo Erectus enjoy? for say 1,750,000 years? Galactic boredom?

[Harte]

Beats 1,750,000 years of excitement.

Harte

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

6 hours ago, Hanslune said:

I have to wonder with 100-160 billion near or 'full' human beings having lived before what the heck are they all doing in the afterlife? What sort of afterlife would a Homo Erectus enjoy? for say 1,750,000 years? Galactic boredom?

Yeah I would imagine that it becomes pretty repetitive after the first millenia.

[Hanslune]

11 minutes ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

Yeah I would imagine that it becomes pretty repetitive after the first millenia.

You wonder how 'afterlife' would actually work. Would your parents and children be frozen in time never aging - and would they be them or just copies? Who'd want to play the 75 year old grandmother forever or be 13 at perpetual puberty?

[RFox1326]

19 hours ago, ShadowSot said:

On the issue of being sure that's more complicated. People like Sitchen and Morningstar invoke conspiracy to explain why there's no evidence for their claims. Or that professionals in the field, geologists, physicists, astronomers, historians, archeologists, are either incompetent, blind to the truth, or actively coving up the proof. 

 Now for me, that's unlikely. I know scientists. Most of the time an NDA and legal repurcussions only barely keep them quiet on exciting findings and that's due to there being a time limit of a soon to come press release. 

 And even then there's been several times lately where mundane to the public but exciting to professionals news leaked anyway. 

 You're more likely to have a scientist fake exciting results than cover them up. 

 What about the facts that are laid out in the books? 

 To start would be to study the Sumerian texts and beliefs and compare them to what they wrote. 

 They make genetic claims. They make historical claims. Claims in regard to astronomy. 

 Where do they match up with consensus. Where do they differ. 

 Why do they differ? 

 This is where things get murky, since the threshold for this will be lower or higher depending on the person. 

 Sitchin would say humans were genetically engineered to mine gold. 

 But... Well, why? Were not particularly technically advanced compared to his take on the Annunaki. But we have machines that do much more work than we're capable of doing, something that is causing a good deal of economic problems for people. 

Much more useful and effective than slave labor. 

 You can go through each piece of evidence they claim and check up on it yourself. 

 Things like afterlife are much more wooly. 

 Personally I'm an atheist and have been for awhile. I don't particularly see any religion as particularly good though there's plenty of awful sects. 

 As far as an afterlife goes, being an atheist doesn't naturally preclude it. 

 But personally I don't believe in one. What evidence there is that people offer are personal experiences which I don't find convincing. There's loads of naturalistic reasons for people to have experiences that they consider paranormal. And when there isn't an obvious explanation it doesn't follow that the only answer is something paranormal. It just means you don't know what it is. 

 Some people like to go from there to speculate on the nature of reality and consciousness and afterlife. But when you start from "I don't know"  that sort of speculation isn't much interesting to me. 

 

I have a lot of trouble navigating how to reply to you all, so i apologize for quoting you to do so. I appreciate the response, I wasn’t sure I’d get one since the post is so old. I would put myself in the agnostic range or something like, I believe we come from somewhere, so when someone finally presents me with enough proof, I’ll believe it. As of right now, there’s no one religion that makes much sense to me, but my entire life I’ve been searching. I want to know what’s out there. Where we come from. Did someone create us (I guess some kind of supreme being(s) or god etc). Is there an afterlife. Are spirits real (do we contain a soul). Are there actually diff levels of existence all existing close to one another at the same time? Diff dimensions so to speak. And my questions go on in this general direction foreveve. Because I’ve never really found a definitive answer or one believable enough. That is until I opened to the idea that maybe it was aliens. At first I felt silly, but the more I read and learned ( I know very little compared to you all) the more it seemed more probable. I like asking others their opinions, and what they may believe or entertain as least a viable possibility. So I think that’s my main question, what do you guys believe may be the truth. Do our beginnings come from extraterrestrials? I can tell you with certainty, I’d rather find out we come from aliens, then find out we don’t. Because at least then there’s the possibility of finding a higher being who created us all. If we’re just an evolutionary accident or happening, with no purpose except to live and then die, that’s not only depressing AF, but scary. None of us really want to believe we’re alone and have no purpose ya kno? Thanks for the quick replies❤️

[cormac mac airt]

18 minutes ago, RFox1326 said:

Do our beginnings come from extraterrestrials? I can tell you with certainty, I’d rather find out we come from aliens, then find out we don’t. Because at least then there’s the possibility of finding a higher being who created us all. If we’re just an evolutionary accident or happening, with no purpose except to live and then die, that’s not only depressing AF, but scary. None of us really want to believe we’re alone and have no purpose ya kno? Thanks for the quick replies❤️

There’s no evidence of that. However there IS around 2.8 million years of human evolution preceded by more than that of hominid evolution all leading to us. WE make our own individual purposes in life there’s no evidence something else does it for us. 
 

cormac

[ShadowSot]

 Let me try to answer the best I can. 

 As far as aliens are concerned most of the folks who've replied to this thread since your post are heavily on the side that there's no proof of them having visited and being responsible either for modern humans or for human civilization. 

 The real solid evidence out there is for a long trail of development. Multiple branches of the human tree with the others dieing out from reintegration or extinction. 

 Human civilization starting out with small groups and growing more complex as we became more successful. 

 No sudden leap forwards in technology or evolution. Just a slow process with lots of backslides as time went on, side trips that went nowhere. 

 Getting faster as we had more communication and reliable data storage. 

 Even so it's sort of a messm not so much linear as stuff piled up on other stuff. 

 The question of does a God exist, because there's so many more options than the Abrahamic one, doesn't really strike me as one that can be answered from evidence. There's too many ways to define gods out there. Even if somehow you could disprove one conception of a God you'd have many more that can't be. 

And a deistic diety just won't have any proof to begin with. They are just there to get the ball rolling. 

It really comes down to your own personal beliefs and what you consider as evidence. 

 Personally nothing really reaches believability for me so I'm comfortable being an atheist. 

 Doesn't mean I can say a God or God's of some type definitely doesn't exist. But there's no reason to believe any particular one does any more than aliens created humanity. 

Questions about souls and spirits run into the same issue. I don't know about others here but I love the paranormal. It's a lot of fun for the most part. 

 But it falls into what I said earlier about the lack of evidence leading to wild speculation.

 A lot of claims are made but very little effort to demonstrate them. And a bunch of it comes from people who know very little science using what they think they know. 

 Though I'm not in any sense a scientist myself, there doesn't really seem to be anything that supports the idea of consciousness surviving outside the body. 

 One of the biggest misunderstandings I see for people who study spirits is the idea that ghosts somehow are supported by conservation of energy. They take that the brain uses energy as evidence that we are energy. 

 The reality is though that our bodies use energy to do things. Including thinking and creating a consciousness. Removing that energy removes consciousness. The brain can learn to work around or adapt to certain types of damage. But the sad truth is no matter how functional a person is after damage happens there's always effects. Personality changes, body it working right. 

 And our personality is shaped by more than our brain. Who we are is in total related to our body filtered through, our brain. Remove that and you aren't left with much. Nothing to store memories, nothing to drive you. 

 More rambling, and I'm sorry for that. 

[ShadowSot]

48 minutes ago, RFox1326 said:

None of us really want to believe we’re alone and have no purpose ya kno?

Wanted to take this part particularly. We're not alone, especially with the age of the internet. No matter what you believe there's someone else who shares it. There isn't anyone watching out for you, though. 

 As for purpose... Purpose is what you make it.  Personally being an atheist made me more motivated to define what it meant to be a good person and pursue it. I never really liked grand big picture destiny sort of things anyway. 

 You can define your own purpose. It can be whatever it you feel is important and right to you. 

It's not forced on you, it's something you discover for yourself. 

[RFox1326]

39 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

There’s no evidence of that. However there IS around 2.8 million years of human evolution preceded by more than that of hominid evolution all leading to us. WE make our own individual purposes in life there’s no evidence something else does it for us. 
 

cormac

I thought there was a large gap, or large jump in our brain size that remains unexplained though? Over the course of evolution, I thought that scientists were unable to explain why we evolved so fast, as in it didn’t follow the standards of the rest of human evolution. They call that the “missing piece” or something like that I think? Is that explainable another way? Or is it not true at all .

[cormac mac airt]

23 minutes ago, RFox1326 said:

I thought there was a large gap, or large jump in our brain size that remains unexplained though? Over the course of evolution, I thought that scientists were unable to explain why we evolved so fast, as in it didn’t follow the standards of the rest of human evolution. They call that the “missing piece” or something like that I think? Is that explainable another way? Or is it not true at all .

Define “fast” and what timeframe are you referring to? 
 

Here’s the Abstract for a good source for you: 

Quote

 

The evolution of modern human brain shape

Simon Neubauer,* Jean-Jacques Hublin, Philipp Gunz

Modern humans have large and globular brains that distinguish them from their extinct Homo relatives. The characteristic globularity develops during a prenatal and early postnatal period of rapid brain growth critical for neural wiring and cognitive development. However, it remains unknown when and how brain globularity evolved and how it
relates to evolutionary brain size increase. On the basis of computed tomographic scans and geometricmorphometric
analyses, we analyzed endocranial casts of Homo sapiens fossils (N = 20) from different time periods. Our data show that, 300,000 years ago, brain size in early H. sapiens already fell within the range of present-day humans. Brain shape, however, evolved gradually within the H. sapiens lineage, reaching present-day human variation between about
100,000 and 35,000 years ago. This process started only after other key features of craniofacial morphology appeared modern and paralleled the emergence of behavioralmodernity as seen fromthe archeological record.Our findings are consistent with important genetic changes affecting early brain development within the H. sapiens lineage since the origin of the species and before the transition to the Later Stone Age and the Upper Paleolithic that mark full behavioral
modernity.

 

http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/1/eaao5961/tab-pdf

cormac

Edited June 29, 2022 by cormac mac airt

[RFox1326]

20 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

Define “fast” and what timeframe are you referring to? 
 

cormac

I don’t actually precisely know, I would have to google that, but it was a drastically shorter period of time than all before that specific evolutionary jump. 

[cormac mac airt]

4 minutes ago, RFox1326 said:

I don’t actually precisely know, I would have to google that, but it was a drastically shorter period of time than all before that specific evolutionary jump. 

See the edit to my previous post. 
 

cormac

[RFox1326]

28 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

Define “fast” and what timeframe are you referring to? 
 

Here’s the Abstract for a good source for you: 

http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/1/eaao5961/tab-pdf

cormac

So are the scientists saying the study shows that these changes could have occurred naturally? I didn’t read that, or possibly misunderstood it if I did, but did they explain how the changes needed for the increase in intelligence came about? If they believe evolution to be the culprit, how did they prove that? Did previous Homo sapiens show the the type of evolutionary leap? Sorry for the questions I am horrible at deciphering scientific terminology with quickly, I need to read it slowly and several times before I have a confident concept grasped. Forgive me if the answers are literally in the text you just showed me

[cormac mac airt]

Just now, RFox1326 said:

So are the scientists saying the study shows that these changes could have occurred naturally? I didn’t read that, or possibly misunderstood it if I did, but did they explain how the changes needed for the increase in intelligence came about? If they believe evolution to be the culprit, how did they prove that? Did previous Homo sapiens show the the type of evolutionary leap? Sorry for the questions I am horrible at deciphering scientific terminology with quickly, I need to read it slowly and several times before I have a confident concept grasped. Forgive me if the answers are literally in the text you just showed me

Not could have, DID. 
 

As Homo sapiens started circa 300,000 BP there were none “before” then. 
 

Take your time reading and don’t rush. 
 

cormac

[RFox1326]

3 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

See the edit to my previous post. 
 

cormac

I have to apologize, I found that difficult to read, could you summarize their findings, specifically pertaining to the jump in intelligence homo sapiens on the chart ?

[RFox1326]

Just now, cormac mac airt said:

Not could have, DID. 
 

As Homo sapiens started circa 300,000 BP there were none “before” then. 
 

Take your time reading and don’t rush. 
 

cormac

Disregard my last reply lol I didn’t see yours fast enough 

[cormac mac airt]

Quote

Our data show that, 300,000 years ago, brain size in early H. sapiens already fell within the range of present-day humans. Brain shape, however, evolved gradually within the H. sapiens lineage, reaching present-day human variation between about 100,000 and 35,000 years ago. This process started only after other key features of craniofacial morphology appeared modern and paralleled the emergence of behavioralmodernity as seen fromthe archeological record.Our findings are consistent with important genetic changes affecting early brain development within the H. sapiens lineage since the origin of the species and before the transition to the Later Stone Age and the Upper Paleolithic that mark full behavioral
modernity.

In short, by 300,000 BP human brain SIZE was already within normal human range. 
 

Between 300,000 BP and 100,000 - 35,000 BP human brain SHAPE reached normal human range AFTER other changes to the cranium/skull took place and these latter changes were contemporary or nearly so with behavioral modernity (ie. Modern behavior). Does that help? 
 

cormac