Sumerians and the ancient Annunaki

ByTheSpirit

Come Lord Jesus
May 17, 2011
11,422
4,650
Manhattan, KS
✟186,512.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Like Godhead and trinity ;)

The Trinity is in Scriptures... Read through the New Testament and mark all passages that speak of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

--Jesus' Baptism is one. He was baptized in water, the Holy Spirit came like a dove, the Father spoke from Heaven.

--The Great Commission is one Matthew 28:19-20... Baptize them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

--2 Corinthians 13:14, "May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all."

Even if you do or do not accept the scripture in 1 John 5:7, there are plenty of scriptures to show there are three personalities to God. Jesus in John 10:30 said I and my Father are One. Then in Acts 5 while dealing with Ananias and Sapphira, Peter told Ananias that he had lied to the Holy Spirit, who he says just a couple verses later is God.

So I think you argument of no trinity in Scripture is faulty at best. Read through it for yourself and mark all the references that mention the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They are there
 
Upvote 0

heirmiles

Rookie
Apr 14, 2012
475
28
East coast of Vancouver Island on the West Coast o
✟12,198.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
First, Romans 1:18-23 may be applicable at this point, particularly
Romans 1:20 which reads, "For since the creation of the world His
invisible attributes are cleary seen, being understood by the
things that are made, even His ETERNAL POWER AND GODHEAD, so that
they are without excuse."

Discussion of Gnostic approach: (derivations from Gnostic gospels,
&.etc.)

There appears to be signficant hermeneutical
(interpretational) issues present. On one hand, there is the
"humanistic gnostic" approach (If there is any possible alternative
interpretation available this alternative must be accepted as
truth) or the "traditio-orthodox" approach regarding the most
natural interpretation in light of the entire canon of Scripture.
I use these "terms" in reference to the gnostic/orthodox debate of
the first 3 centuries of the Christian Church (though I personally
tend a lot more toward the Historical-Grammatical approach). The
gnostic approach aimed for the conclusion that since flesh and
matter is and can only be evil, any deity that came in contact with
the physical world could only be the furthest emmination away from
that which is truly holy. Hence the Creator was least of the
eminations and Christ could and must have only been the best of
humanity.
The humanistic variation of this kind of gnosticism is
to place all men (and women) on par with Christ as the best of all
humanity. Deification of Christ on par with the Holiest of Holy as
Christians do believe is repugnant to them.
The early church apologists found that discussion of Scripture
with them was pointless, as whatever scripture they pointed too
in defense of 'orthodoxy' would quickly be reinterpreted by the
gnostic as not being what the Scripture actually said, but made
to fit into the gnostic framework. This tendency of the gnostic
was because of a completely different framework of first truths
and first principles.

Hence, gnostic approaches are mutually exclusive of the
orthodox Christian faith.

RESPONSE:

Preamble:
Many believe that Colossians was written by Paul as a proto-
apology against gnosticism as well as for the instruction and
edification of the church in Collosae, by pointing to the reasons
for our partaking in the inheritance of the saints in the light
(Col. 1:12 cf John 1:4 "In Him was life, and the life was the light
of men") that the Father has qualified us to be partakers of this
inheritance.

Emphasis:
Colossians 1:13-20, speaks of God's deliverance of the Christian
from the power of darkness into the kingdom of His Son, who is the
image of the Invisible God (that which can't be seen, revealed to
be seen), the firstborn (not of, but) over all creation ( first
born = the pre-eminence of right over creation). "By Him
(Christ/logos [John 1]) all things were created that are in heaven
and that are on earth, visible, and invisible....All things were
created through Him and for Him (verse 16). "He is before all
things
, and in Him all things consist" (still talking about Jesus)
(verse 17). Verse 18, "And He (the prime subject in the sentence)
is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the
firstborn from the dead, THAT IN ALL THINGS HE MAY HAVE THE
PREEMINENCE"
. And, verses 19,20, "For it pleased the Father that in
Him all the FULLNESS should dwell
, and by Him to reconcile ALL
THINGS to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in
heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross".

Conclusion:
And what is this FULLNESS? Colossians 2:9 "For in Him (Christ)
dwells all the fullness of the GODHEAD bodily."


In response the gnostic has to degenerate their concept of the
Creator of the Heavens and Earth to the lowest eminence of the
divine and deny Christ's participation as the active agent of
Creation, the Word of God, who created not only matter and life,
but also all that is spiritual. Unable to admit the holiest of
holy deity as the Lord Jesus Christ in all ways equal in the triune
essence of God, they have to deny the very nature of that Godhead.
Hence any "revelation" has to be only (and can only be) of human
authorship, without any divine author or subject, everything in the
Bible has to be interpreted only humanistically.

If the Bible was only of human authorship the Gnostic is safe.
But since Scripture is clearly "God-breathed", Scripture has to be
interpreted as God's truth. Hence to understand God's truth, one
needs the divine interpreter (the Holy Spirit) to truly understand
what God has said, without Him we have only a cacophony of voices,
none of which leading to the God of our creation, redemption, and
salvation.
 
Upvote 0
L

LantanaAnna

Guest
I don't know. There are some pretty tall basketball players today!

Ok. Assuming there are nephilim and the human race's dna is corrupted: What do you do with that knowledge; how does it help you in living the Christian life?
I guess the help is knowledge, I had questions, I looked for answers, I think our Father in Heaven wants us to know and understand so that the evil ones cannot deceive us. I understand I cannot understand much and I think more will be revealed as time goes on. Just an opinion.
 
Upvote 0

heirmiles

Rookie
Apr 14, 2012
475
28
East coast of Vancouver Island on the West Coast o
✟12,198.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
In Ancient Near Eastern Mythology the place of the annuniki varied
according to which work was written i.e, the creation epic, the
epic of Gilgamesh, the flood epic, etc., and which era they were
written about, (e.g. whether during Sumerian, Akkadian, Old
Babylonian time periods.). Their role ranged from lower tier
deities to the great over-all deities, who controlled the cosmos
from the destruction of Tiamat (from whom's corpse, the heavens and
earth were created) onward. Obviously, they were the result of a
poly-theistic and animistic cosmogony, more closely related to
Hinduism than occidental mono-theistic religious beliefs.

More specifically they were the beings who directly benefitted from
the food and drink offerings (taxes) of the people who believed in
their religion, as the flood epic points out: when almost all the
people were destroyed, they were the gods that went hungry and
thirsty. In keeping with Mythological Purpose, the lesson here
for the rulers of Sumer, Akkad, and Old Babylon: don't destroy
the people who put the food on your table.

Though there are similarities in the "headings" of these myths to
the accounts in the Bible of Creation, the Flood, and the tower of
Babel, these similarities end regarding the person and nature of
God, and His actions. To equate the fanciful annuniki with 'the
sons of God' of the ante-deluvian (pre-flood) world is more of a
stretch than saying that these sons were 'fallen angels'.

In the pre-flood era, people consistently lived close to a millenium long,
the physical effects of the fall had not yet completely
worked its way into the physical genetic constitution of mankind,
until after the flood. So by the time of Moses (when the Pentateuch
was written) these lifespans were considered "god-like".
God's choice in destroying mankind in Noah's 600th year, was because of
the severe nature of sin which had immediate effects on the
people's ethical and behavioural preoccupation with evil and
violence. In response, God also chose to limit man's life-span to 120
years.

Now you are probably wondering about my assertion concerning
Genesis 6:2 and 6:4 of natural, fleshly, men being called "the sons
of God". What's my support? Or at least my rationale?

'1. The "according to their kind" restriction in Genesis 1.
I have yet to see a germster or hambil (hamster and gerbil). The
closest "kind" cross-over is the horse/donkey mix, which leads to a
sterile mule unable to reproduce. I find it difficult to believe
that an angel, fallen or otherwise is able to pro-create a
human/angel hybrid.

'2. Then why verse 4? "There were giants on the earth in those
days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the
daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the
mighty men who were of old, men of renown."

a) sons of God (notice the small 's') in Genesis 6 has more of a
sense of a Title, than of a description of nature.
b) these sons and their offspring were as guilty from the fall
of Adam as all mankind.
c) the description of nature following 6:4 is of the evil and
sinfulness all mankind. Though fallen, man had still been
originally created in the image of God, in His likeness. Adam had
for a time been perfect and without sin before the fall. In Genesis
5:3, we read, "And Adam lived one hundred and thirty years, and
begot a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him
Seth." If Adam had been created in the image of God, and Seth in
the image of Adam, the expression of 'sons of God' is not far
removed, making the description of the line of Seth comingling with
the line of Cain a much more likely understanding of 6:2 and 4.

But:

There are appearances of angels in the form of men elsewhere in
scripture, so why not here?
To pro-create there must be the actual "kind" nature of flesh,
not merely an appearance of it. The only time in history where the
male contribution was not active was in the conception of Jesus.
As in Hebrews 1: 5, "to which of the angels did He ever say: 'You
are My Son, Today I have begotten You'? And again: "I will be to
Him a Father, And He shall be to Me a Son"?" Notice as well the
statement in relation to Genesis 6, "to which of the angels did He
ever say: 'You are my Son, Today I have begotten You'?"

But:
Wouldn't the 'fallen angels' have taken on the title of sons
of God?
Answer: It would be just as likely (and more so) for men to do
so.

Since the Annuki/Nephalim/fallen angel conversation is
speculative in nature, I hope I have at least represented in
some degree, the beginnings of a rational critique of the issue.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,509
Georgia
✟899,962.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
good question. I'm thinking some of Noah's daughters in law had Nephilim dna.
.

Indeed they did - just as did Noah and his family in all.

All pre-flood people were Nephilim and so also all post-flood people coming off the boat.

Nephilim is never said in all of scripture to mean "angel plus human".

In Matt 22 Jesus is very specific about Angels not even forming families among THEMSELVES - because they are not created with that function.

If anyone knows biology - it is God.

The Annunaki were the false gods of the Sumerians. Pure and simple.

Fallen Angels - but not nephilim humans.

And "yes" those guys will be back for the last act of the drama.

in Christ,

Bob
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,509
Georgia
✟899,962.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
In Ancient Near Eastern Mythology the place of the annuniki varied
according to which work was written i.e, the creation epic, the
epic of Gilgamesh, the flood epic, etc., and which era they were
written about, (e.g. whether during Sumerian, Akkadian, Old
Babylonian time periods.). Their role ranged from lower tier
deities to the great over-all deities, who controlled the cosmos

Indeed. By contrast when the OT post-flood diminutive humans encountered Nephilim they go to war with them and kill them in battle instead of making them gods.

The false gods of the Sumerians (the annunaki) where as Paul states in 1Cor 8 - demons.

in Christ,

Bob
 
Upvote 0
Apr 14, 2012
140
1
✟7,781.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
In Relationship
In Matt 22 Jesus is very specific about Angels not even forming families among THEMSELVES - because they are not created with that function.

If anyone knows biology - it is God.


in Christ,

Bob

That really help to clear this up for me. Demons or Angels cant reproduce. end of discussion.

Now when a Demon takes on a human form they still cannot pass any of there physical make up into the offspring, creating an evil being?
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,509
Georgia
✟899,962.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Because it only means that they were tall and that they lived for many centuries - not that they were half-angel.

Gen 6:9 "Noah was blameless in his time" NASB.

Noah had lived for 6 centuries at the time of the flood - which by the standard of Moses - was many generations.

God never condemned anyone for "being Nephilim" nor does the Bible say that "Nephilim is half angel".

As for the "sons of God" being evil -- notice that John 1 says that we are given the right to be called "the sons of God" -- we are not angels.

Matt 22 says that Angels are not created with the purpose/function/ability to form families and have children.

in Christ,

Bob
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,509
Georgia
✟899,962.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
In Matt 22 Jesus is very specific about Angels not even forming families among THEMSELVES - because they are not created with that function.

If anyone knows biology - it is God.

That really help to clear this up for me. Demons or Angels cant reproduce. end of discussion.

Now when a Demon takes on a human form they still cannot pass any of there physical make up into the offspring, creating an evil being?

Correct. Which puts an end to this whole "Nephilim are half angels" story.

It also explains why it is that there are Nephilim both before the flood and after the flood. Noah and his family were all Nephilim because the people living before the flood were all giants, all lived many centuries and even those after the flood lived many centuries for a few generations.

The greater the distance from Adam - who ate from the Tree of Life -- the less the centuries of life, and the more diminutive the person until humanity leveled out at the bottom.

New diseases, pandemics surface because our physical nature is more and more weakened as more generations are added.

Only our technology and understanding of biology is working to prop us up.

John 1 - the saints are given the right "to be called the sons of God" -- we are not angels ;)

in Christ,

Bob
 
Upvote 0

Psyfy

Newbie
Jan 2, 2013
1
0
✟15,111.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Invalid argument. The nature of the interrelationship among God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit is evident through Scripture and cannot be successfully argued against. There is no such connection among the Annanukis and the giants, Nephilim and fallen angels. I'd say "nice try", but it wasn't even that.

Actually, yours is an invalid argument and not even a particularly good one at that. I say this simply for the fact that the bible and scripture, cannot be used to successfully argue their own existence, as they themselves are unproven. This is called a cyclic argument and is well documented as an error of logic.

Personally, the tale of the 'Annunaki' makes far more sense than that of the 'Bible'...



Regards.
 
Upvote 0