I personally believe that the christian god, are aliens. Im about 99% sure of this.

there is supposed to a planet somewhere in the asteroid belt that homes a form of sapiens that are giant forms of us. http://www.crystalinks.com/sitchen.html

read that to further your understanding. It makes alot of sense. (more sense than any religion i have ever heard)

i wonder why the US so zealusly attacked Iraq (the former sumerians , in which Sitchin, the reporter of this information, bases most of his reports on)[artifacts etc] aroudn that time. also i wonder why the skull and bones members (including bush and much of his cabinet) went to a pyramid in egypt on new years 2004, to see a supernatural cross apear on one of the great pyramids. btw the cross is supposed to represent the annunuki (the aliens)from nibiru (the planet). the cross is also symbol of christianity. hmm, conspiracy.. i guess we will never know.

edit: added some things

definately read the link i posted. http://mars-earth.com/sitchin.htm

more information

watch the movies http://mars-earth.com/sit.mov http://mars-earth.com/sit2.mov http://mars-earth.com/sit3.mov http://mars-earth.com/sit4.mov http://mars-earth.com/sit5.mov http://mars-earth.com/sit6.mov

seems very eerie with current and coming events (bush wanting to go to mars SOOOO badly) http://xfacts.com/ancient/index.html

^many sumerian artifacts.

Where then, do you think these aliens came from?

What force/or being began the material realm?

Since you believe that the Christian religion is just made around these beings who truly are aliens, then who/what made them?

[This message has been edited by Metalligod (edited 05-15-2004).]

read the links and watch the videos and it is all explained very simply for you. i do not know where these other beings came from. this researcher uses sumerian artifacts to decifer the secret of life

Those links are bad. It takes me to a white blank page.

extra-terrestrials made all life on earth, we mistook them for gods and distorted their teachings of love.

the word "Elohim" has been mistranslated as "God" in the singular, but it is a plural, and means "those who came from the sky"

edit: links work fine for me

[This message has been edited by SARDONICPILLOW (edited 05-15-2004).]

...Speaking on judging a book by its cover.

When I read your topic sentence, I was like I'm not going to waste my time with this, but I think that's shallow and I give everything a chance.

I think this man is truly, truly on to something big.

How long do you think it'll be before we humans will find a sufficient means of space travel? I wish I could be here in the days that is achieved.

quote:Originally posted by Metalligod:

Where then, do you think these aliens came from?

What force/or being began the material realm?

Since you believe that the Christian religion is just made around these beings who truly are aliens, then who/what made them?

[This message has been edited by Metalligod (edited 05-15-2004).]

Question: Are you a GOD? No, your human just like the rest of us. Although we as humans, have now reached a level of technonlogy, where we can creat life. Who's to say that sichin isn't right?

That doesn't mean that there isn't a "GOD" who made them. Just think about this. In the bible they use the word ELOHIM, as GOD'S name. But according to many jewish biblical researchers. ELOHIM actually means GODS, not GOD. Hmmm aliens/GODS, kinda makes you wonder, don't it?

reading into it a bit... but i must say... sounds like some sort of cult.

Ok, I checked the first link - why didn't we see the arrival of these aliens last year like they said we would?

oh yeah and:

quote:the word "Elohim" has been mistranslated as "God" in the singular, but it is a plural, and means "those who came from the sky"

Actually it means 'Shining ones', but yes it is plural, and is also used to signify the Malachim - angels.

I recently read that they'd found that the writers of the Jewish/Christian texts got the Hebrew and Greek words for paradise and hell mixed up. Thus, a Christian's 'salvation' actually means they burn in hell. Unlucky.

quote:Originally posted by inquisitor_11:

I recently read that they'd found that the writers of the Jewish/Christian texts got the Hebrew and Greek words for paradise and hell mixed up. Thus, a Christian's 'salvation' actually means they burn in hell. Unlucky.

The concept of hell was thought up by the jerks that called themselves translating the text. In the original bible, Hebrew, everyone goes to hell. Which is truly called Sheol. Everyone goes to Sheol before they can enter heaven.

The Greeks were right on in this case, I believe the KJ bible even recognizes that. I believe in the KJ version, both the Greek term, Tartarus, was used. As well as, Ghehenna. These place are were spirits roam before being accepted into paradise/heaven.

Gehenna, is where souls suffer until they've been redeemed.

I've come to find out that I mustn't be crazy, because I'm not the only one who believes hell is where souls suffer forever. It simply doesn't makes sense. I'm also not the only one who believes the whole 'evil Satan' concept is ridiculous. I suggest that you people give Anne Rice's 'Memnoch the Devil' a little read. It is very, very enlightening.

quote:I recently read that they'd found that the writers of the Jewish/Christian texts got the Hebrew and Greek words for paradise and hell mixed up. Thus, a Christian's 'salvation' actually means they burn in hell. Unlucky. Ha. You get a single laugh there.

Anywho.

quote:The concept of hell was thought up by the jerks that called themselves translating the text.

Actually, no hell has some reference in the bible, but has no relation to any human. Hell is Satan's personal punishment (check out Revelations for Satan being thrown into the lake of fire). No, Satan doesn't rule hell - hence why his title is 'Prince of the Earth'.

quote:In the original bible, Hebrew, everyone goes to hell. Which is truly called Sheol. Everyone goes to Sheol before they can enter heaven.

Not quite. Sheol translates as the grave, and is equivalent to Hades in the Greek. Effectively, it's just a place, and not necessarily painful. In fact, from what I've read, those who don't believe in Christ or (in the BC times), God, would just cease to be after they died - they just died.

And I'll check out that book, although I hope you realise it's just a fiction someone wrote. Memnoch wasn't one of Sammael's names... as far as I know.

[This message has been edited by VampireSlaya (edited 05-17-2004).]

^ What he said. Pretty much the post-death theology presented in the bible BC wasn't real developed. You went down to the grave (sheol), or "rested with your fathers". I don't know a whole lot about about the theology of hell (I'm sure it has it's own special ology word...).

As far as I know, the references to Gehenna in the gospels evoked immagery of a perpetually burning fire (the city dump). Jesus also talks about people being taken either into the feast (paradise w . God) or being cast out to where there is "weeping and gnashing of teeth" .

quote:Originally posted by Nemisis:

Question: Are you a GOD? No, your human just like the rest of us. Although we as humans, have now reached a level of technonlogy, where we can creat life. Who's to say that sichin isn't right?

That doesn't mean that there isn't a "GOD" who made them. Just think about this. In the bible they use the word ELOHIM, as GOD'S name. But according to many jewish biblical researchers. ELOHIM actually means GODS, not GOD. Hmmm aliens/GODS, kinda makes you wonder, don't it?

I find it strange that alot of people think the bible is the oldest written record of early human history, when we know thats not true. Also anything that contradicts the bible, alot of people automatically dismiss it, even if it's older then biblical teachings.

quote:I find it strange that alot of people think the bible is the oldest written record of early human history, when we know thats not true. Also anything that contradicts the bible, alot of people automatically dismiss it, even if it's older then biblical teachings.

Very true - the bible began with the writings of Moses, so it wasn't written from the beginning of time. However, I still haven't found anything that completely contradicts the bible, and in fact, the bible is often used as an accurate archaeological text. Take the canaanites - no-one ever found them, until someone took a bible, and went out using it as a guide.

quote:Originally posted by VampireSlaya:

Very true - the bible began with the writings of Moses, so it wasn't written from the beginning of time. However, I still haven't found anything that completely contradicts the bible, and in fact, the bible is often used as an accurate archaeological text. Take the canaanites - no-one ever found them, until someone took a bible, and went out using it as a guide.

So all your saying is. That is some archaeological truths in the bible, but that doesn't automaticaly make all the religious aspects true.

No, I'm saying it hasn't been proven false, and so far, it's proven archaeologically accurate.

The only problem is that historical accuracy doesn't necessarily confer that the spiritual claims are true.

No one's saying that it's historical accuracy proves it's spiritual accuracy, however, I personally think it adds to the bible's overall credibility.

If they want us to obey them for there own stupid schemes, to me it is all the more reason not to.

Oddly enough, I've found some infor on meta-religion.com to help support your idea. I'll be brief and just post the link. http://meta-religion.com/World_Religions/Christianity/Other_Books/Dead_Sea_Scrolls/book_of_giants.htm

I think you'll find that interesting, even though it doesn't paint for nephilim in a very favorable light. Possibly because the people found out that they were really aliens? Perhaps because the writers want to discredit them? Perhaps they simply don't exist and they wrote a parable to dissuade people from beleiving in them. Who knows...

quote:Originally posted by VampireSlaya:

No, I'm saying it hasn't been proven false, and so far, it's proven archaeologically accurate.

Ok? So if other books are filled with archaeologically accurate information. Should we believe everything else that's in that same book? Case in point. There was an archaeologist who followed clues in the book "Odessy" I think it was. But don't quote me on the title. Anyways the book is filled with all of these mythalogical stories, and he found clues that he used to find a lost arabic city. So should we now believe in everything else in the book?

It depends on a lot of factors. Unfortuently I don't know Odyessy well enough to give you an answer. The role of archaeology in biblical criticism has been primarily to disprove the textual criticism that came out in the c19th onwards. i.e. When passages say that a certain thing happened in a certain place and certain people were involved, it either did or it didn't.

Archaeology has generally vindicated the Bible's claims in the face of criticism claiming that the accounts were spurious myths. Unfortuently, this doesn't automatically confer that the spiritual claims are true, but adds alot of weight to the claims.

e.g. If the original tablets of the "10 Commandments" were found they could be placed in a period and location. However, how could you *prove* that they were indeed from God?

quote:Originally posted by inquisitor_11:

It depends on a lot of factors. Unfortuently I don't know Odyessy well enough to give you an answer. The role of archaeology in biblical criticism has been primarily to disprove the textual criticism that came out in the c19th onwards. i.e. When passages say that a certain thing happened in a certain place and certain people were involved, it either did or it didn't.



Or the writers of the biblical stories simply used real cities & towns for their fictional religious stories. Like we use existing cities like N.Y. and L.A in some of the stories that we write today.

Yeah, and that's far enough. Especially when dealing with texts or sections that have literary characteristics conducive to being "stories". However most of the passages that are made up of historical recount suggest otherwise:

e.g. The book of Jonah is often said to be pure myth. To me it doesn't really matter is it is or it isn't. That said....

A prophet named Jonah son of Amittai (same name as Jonah 1:1) is also referred to in 2 Kings 14:25 (written quite independently of Jonah). The material surrounding the Jonah ref. talks about Jeroboam II King of Israel and his restoration of Israel's boundaries. This suggests that Jonah was at least a real person, known to be a prophet and was connected with a King that is confirmed by history which places him in a time period (800-750 B.C.)

Whilst the account of what happened to Jonah (dated around 725-700 B.C.) may well be spurious, there can be little doubt that he was a real person. It is also fairly doubtful that you would construct such an unimpressive account of a "man of God", so shortly after his life and have it gain acceptance by contemporaries of someone how we can assume was well known.

I dunno if I made my point real clear, this post might have been entirely irrelevant...anyway...

quote:Originally posted by inquisitor_11:

e.g. The book of Jonah is often said to be pure myth. To me it doesn't really matter is it is or it isn't. That said....



Ok so someone name Jonah lived around that time, and was a very religious person. That doesn't make the religious myths about these people true. But there are people buy every word in the bible verbatim. That kind of blind faith is very dangerous, as we have seen in the middle east first hand.

quote:Originally posted by Nemisis:

Ok so someone name Jonah lived around that time, and was a very religious person. That doesn't make the religious myths about these people true. But there are people buy every word in the bible verbatim. That kind of blind faith is very dangerous, as we have seen in the middle east first hand.



You can't "prove" it to be true, certainly not from the evidence that we have.

Whilst it contains elements of the supernatural, its certainly not highly mytholgised. Do we reject that this bloke went to Nineveh (a real city) in a real period? I can't see any reason not to.... but our immeadiate reaction is to automatically dismiss any claims to the supernatural without even considering the substance of the claim.

A lack of understanding of the bible and its context is a huge problem in Christianity- it's just becoming more and more dumbed down. In the US especially there appears to be this whole attitude among christians of not even trying or wanting to understand it properly but rather to hold onto a "god bless amerika" religion.

quote:Originally posted by inquisitor_11:

You can't "prove" it to be true, certainly not from the evidence that we have.

Whilst it contains elements of the supernatural, its certainly not highly mytholgised. Do we reject that this bloke went to Nineveh (a real city) in a real period? I can't see any reason not to.... but our immeadiate reaction is to automatically dismiss any claims to the supernatural without even considering the substance of the claim.

A lack of understanding of the bible and its context is a huge problem in Christianity- it's just becoming more and more dumbed down. In the US especially there appears to be this whole attitude among christians of not even trying or wanting to understand it properly but rather to hold onto a "god bless amerika" religion.

I don't dismiss everything in the bible. Sure there was this guy, yes he might have traveled to this city, and yes he might have preached his religious beliefs to other people. My problem with the bible is that to many people take it way to literally. Also it's not female friendly. Also one would think, if these were truly the words of GOD, that GOD would make an appearance today, and say Yep that's what I said! If anyone says otherwise I'll smite them with a lightening bolt! But Nope thats not happening so we are all left to fight it out over whos right and whos wrong.

you people killed Jesus!

quote:Originally posted by Kryolotor:

you people killed Jesus!

No actually the "Romans" supposedly did a long, long time ago.

quote:Originally posted by Kryolotor:

you people killed Jesus!

No, according to the old joke, it couldn't have been... like a Jew could hammer in a nail.

I submitted an essay type thing about this a week ago it's called Theories of the beginning of life 1

The history channel did something called UFOs in the Bible and it was really convinceing for me. Check the local listings to see if its on because they show it every couple of months.

Also when they were writing the bible they used this big trash dump named hell. It had everything, human sacrifices, burning trash and alota crap and so they just used that because they had nothing else to refernce it to.

[This message has been edited by HeavymetalRock (edited 05-28-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by HeavymetalRock:

The history channel did something called UFOs in the Bible and it was really convinceing for me. Check the local listings to see if its on because they show it every couple of months.

Also when they were writing the bible they used this big trash dump named hell. It had everything, human sacrifices, burning trash and alota crap and so they just used that because they had nothing else to refernce it to.

[This message has been edited by HeavymetalRock (edited 05-28-2004).]

I try to watch shows like that when they come on tv. I've missed a couple here and there. Some are well thought out, and filled with alot of compelling evidence, while others are silly, and full of assumptions that can't be backed up.

Yeah the BBC's made some good ones, its also made some really poor ones.

A recent one they did had footage from inside the purported "tomb of Jesus" in Kashmir. To even get inside the building is supposed to be uberhard (It's held by hardcore muslims in disputed territory).

quote:Originally posted by inquisitor_11:

Yeah the BBC's made some good ones, its also made some really poor ones.

A recent one they did had footage from inside the purported "tomb of Jesus" in Kashmir. To even get inside the building is supposed to be uberhard (It's held by hardcore muslims in disputed territory).

Must have missed that one.

It was pretty good (pretty aggressive too btw). They talked about all the usual alternate empty tomb theories Knights Templar, swoon etc. . But they brought up this whole Hindu thing, where Jesus (Isus or smthn like that) goes to India post-crucifixtion, which I'd never heard about. Its certainly an interesting idea, however its got a few major problems. A few people are big on it though.

http://www.tombofjesus.com/

Interesting.