• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Sumerians and the ancient Annunaki

Discussion in 'Baptists' started by Searching For Truth, May 15, 2012.

  1. ByTheSpirit

    ByTheSpirit Pray always!!

    +3,012
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Others
    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
     
  2. heirmiles

    heirmiles Rookie

    466
    +23
    Christian
    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.
     
  3. LantanaAnna

    LantanaAnna Guest

    +0
    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.
     
  4. heirmiles

    heirmiles Rookie

    466
    +23
    Christian
    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.
     
  5. LantanaAnna

    LantanaAnna Guest

    +0
    heirmiles, thank you, I will take your imput into serious consideration.
     
  6. BobRyan

    BobRyan Junior Member

    +2,932
    United States
    SDA
    Married
    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
     
  7. BobRyan

    BobRyan Junior Member

    +2,932
    United States
    SDA
    Married
    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
     
  8. Searching For Truth

    Searching For Truth Newbie

    140
    +1
    Seeker
    In Relationship
    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?
     
  9. LantanaAnna

    LantanaAnna Guest

    +0
    Bob, if all were Nephilim in Noah's time, why does the Bible say Noah was perfect in all his generations?
     
  10. BobRyan

    BobRyan Junior Member

    +2,932
    United States
    SDA
    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
     
  11. BobRyan

    BobRyan Junior Member

    +2,932
    United States
    SDA
    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.

    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
     
  12. Psyfy

    Psyfy Newbie

    1
    +0
    Non-Denom
    Married
    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.
     
Loading...