Is Yahweh an Anunnaku?
© by Jan Erik Sigdell,
This text will to
many readers probably appear very controversial or even heretic. I
therefore ask you to first read this text and
then as far as possible read the text below without pre-judice (i.e.
prejudice as a pre-judgement), so
that you can then judge it more properly. It would also be good to first read the
Conclusion. See also this article:
Polytheism and Christianity.
Is Yahweh an Anunnaku?
© by Jan Erik Sigdell, www.christian-reincarnation.com
This text will to many readers probably appear very controversial or even heretic. I therefore ask you to first read this text and then as far as possible read the text below without pre-judice (i.e. prejudice as a pre-judgement), so that you can then judge it more properly. It would also be good to first read the Conclusion. See also this article: Polytheism and Christianity.
Where not otherwise stated, this article is based on the more extensive texts in my German-language book Es begann in Babylon. . (Anunnaku is singular and Anunnaki is plural).
[Concluded September 25, 2010. Minor corrections and a short addition in July 2011.]
Who is Yahweh?
Correspondences with the Bible
Plurals in the Bible
The Gnostic Christian view of Yahweh
The abominable cruelties of Yahweh
So who, then, are these Anunnaki?
And who, then, is Yahweh?
And who is Jesus’ God?
A hypothesis about Jesus’ mission and the Christianity
And who, then, is Allah?
Also other extraterrestrial visits?
Are then all “Gods” only extraterrestrials?
The Anunnaki want to claim that they are our creators!
Are the Anunnaki mentioned in the Bible?
APPENDIX: Creation in the Gnostic Christian view
REFERENCES to the Appendix
ADDENDUM 1 – Two YHWHs in the Bible?
ADDENDUM 2 – On the death of Jesus according to the Gnostics
ADDENDUM 3 – Is Yahweh Marduk?
ADDENDUM 4 – Yaldabaoth and Hades (new addition)
Who is Yahweh?
His name is actually written with only the consonants YHWH. In the Hebrew writing the vowels are, if at all written, marked with diacritics (additional signs), which is never or only rarely done with YHWH. The reason may be that according to old tradition his name should not be pronounced. One therefore talks about him in indirect ways, such as Adonay = “the Lord”. For this reason the vowel signs for ADNY are used also for YHWH. This would actually lead to Yahowah, but it became Yehowah. Why is that? One reason for the “e” could be that Yehu is an alternative name for him (and apparently one that may be pronounced). The more proper pronunciation will, however, be Yahweh.
Recent discoveries of ancient texts and inscriptions  show that the archaic Hebrew religion knew a highest god ’El ‘Elyon (the sign ’ is in transliterations used for the Hebrew letter ’aleph and ‘ for the letter ‘ayin), who had 70 sons. One of his sons was Yahweh, who had a consort ’Asherah, i.e., a goddess. Her name is mentioned some 40 times in the Old Testament but it is almost always translated as “grove” or “tree”. This is because her symbol is a tree or and upright wooden pole. So when the Old Testament states that it is forbidden to plant a tree at the altar of Yahweh it really means that it is forbidden to place a symbol of ’Asherah there (Deut 16:21 – and what sense would it otherwise have to forbid planting a tree there?). Has Yahweh even rejected her?
The true creator god, the prime creator, was therefore not Yahweh, but ’El ‘Elyon. He has obviously created a number of secondary gods as his “sons” – better: deities – of which Yahweh is one (and, of course, also the “daughter” ’Asherah). Hence, Yahweh is not the prime creator he wants us to believe that he would be, even though he has also produced certain creations. We recognize a noticeable parallel to the Babylonian creation story Enûma Elish. This tells us about a prime creator pair Apsû and Ti’âmat (who we, in a way, could also regard as the male and female side of the prime creator, resp.), who created a number of deities, from which further deity races arose. One such deity race is the one of the Anunnaki (so called because their ruler and leader is named Anu). They separated themselves off from the prime creators and wanted to live and act without them. Enûma Elish tells about a murder of the highest gods. The Anunnaki are told to have killed first Apsû and then Ti’âmat! Is it possible to kill the prime creators? Of course not! This merely symbolizes that they turned away from them and didn’t want to have anything to do with them, as if they were dead – that was the fall, the plunge out of the divine light into a relative darkness. Therefore, the Anunnaki are fallen deities. The one who is said to have murdered Ti’âmat is Marduk who also became the lord of the Earth. The Anunnaki have under his rule created new human beings on our Earth by means of genetic manipulation, and from them to-day’s humanity arose. The first attempts for this were not very successful, but then they had the new race they wanted to produce.
Correspondences with the Bible
The first sentence in the Bible reads, in the common translation: “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (Gen 1:1). The Hebrew word that is here translated as God is ’Elohim. It is a linguistic fact that cannot be denied that this word is a plural and hence means “gods”. It has been tried to explain this away through declaring it as pluralis majestatis, which actually doesn’t seem to be common in Hebrew. It rather looks as if one is trying to sweep an embarrassing question under the carpet.
In Hebrew, the sentence is: Bere’shit bara’ ’Elohim ’et ha shamayim ve-’et ha ’aretz. Therefore, some want to translate it as: “In the beginning the gods created the heaven and the earth”, but this doesn’t fit, since the word bara’ = “create” is in singular. Furthermore, the word for “heaven”, shamay, is also in plural: shamayim. However, the problem has a solution.
According to cabbalistic sources, the word bere’shit means not only “beginning”, but also “the first one”, the “original one”, the first entity that was, the highest God. The little word ’et could be seen as an accusative particle but can also be translated as “with” (in ve-‘et the word ve means “and”, hence: “and with”). We now arrive at the following translation, which fits grammatically: “The first one created the gods [together] with the heavens [cosmic worlds] and with the Earth”. This translation, therefore, refers to a prime creator, who first created “gods” and cosmic worlds, of which one is the Earth. According to Gen 2, Yahweh is one of these gods, one of the ’Elohim (since the Bible here calls him “Yahweh ’Elohim” in the Hebrew text, and not simply “Yahweh”). Some regard the ’Elohim as creator gods, who (themselves created) in their turn created other entities – human beings, animals and plants, like Yahweh did.
The conventional and “dogmatically approved” translation of bere’shit is based on be = “in, at” and re’shit = “beginning”. However dictionaries (such as ) state that re’shit can also mean “the first (of its kind)” and be can be a reference to the “origin”. Therefore, the word bere’shit can also be understood as a somewhat tautological expression for “the original first”, “the very first” or “the first of all”. A cabbalistic interpretation is that the word is a combination of beyt = “house, residence” and re’sh = “the supreme, the lord” placed inside beyt (between be and yt). This is then interpreted as “the lord in his residence”.
In a more exact transliteration is bere’shiyt and re’shiyt, resp., and thus one can say “between be and yt”. In -iyt, however, the letter y (actually being a consonant) phonetically marks the prolongation of i and therefore the more common (but less exact) transliteration is bere’shit. More exactly then with a stroke over the i that marks the length: ī.
There are some more peculiarities in the sentence. If one still wants to translate as “in … beginning”, it should more literally be “in a beginning” rather than “in the beginning” (because the latter would be bare’shiyt – a contraction of be-ha-re’shiyt – and not bere’shiyt). This seems to make little difference, but the word is actually written in an undetermined form as if there could have been more than one beginning (like “in one of the beginnings”). Or it could be a genitive, like “beginning’s” or “of the beginning”. This again makes little difference, but in this case, the word “create” would have another grammatical form . Such little peculiarities also disappear if we accept the cabbalistic explanation that bere’shiyt actually can be understood as “the first one”.
Plurals in the Bible
First, we note that the Bible has two stories of creations of human beings. In Gen 1 it is stated that the gods – the ’Elohim – created humans in their image. Here the plural is obvious: “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness … So the gods [properly translated] created man in their own image … male and female they created them” (Gen 1:26-27). This, furthermore, means that the woman was created equivalent to man. They should reproduce diligently.
In Gen 2, we come to the second creation of humans. Here we meet Yahweh ’Elohim – hence one of the gods named Yahweh – who first created Adam and then Eve. He obviously makes his own creation and he forbids Adam to eat from the “tree of knowledge”. The two must later leave Eden and Yahweh ’Elohim said: “Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil” (Gen 3:22).
If we assume two creations of humans (which the conventional theology apparently doesn’t want to do), this also explains something in Gen 4 that would otherwise be a riddle. There obviously already were people of the first creation outside of Eden, to where Adam and Eve had to go. Cain killed Abel and Yahweh said: “…whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold” (Gen 4:15). Who would else be there to possibly kill him? Then Cain took a wife and had a son with her, etc. From where did otherwise these women come?
In Gen 18:1-5 Abraham is visited by three men – Yahweh together with two others. In Gen 19 Lot asks Adam about the three, who later destroy Sodom and Gomorrah. They will all three have been ’Elohim.
In many Bible passages, gods are mentioned in a context which gives us the following impression: there are other gods but you should stick to only one of them. The well-known command in Ex 20:3 (below) could be understood as a “non-competition clause”. There are in Exodus more relevant passages, such as:
“Who is like unto thee, O LORD, among the gods?” (15:11)
“Now I know that the LORD is greater than all gods…” (18:11)
“Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” (20:3)
“Thou shalt not revile the gods…” (22:28)
“…make no mention of the name of other gods, neither let it be heard out of thy mouth.” (23:13)
There is a large number of other examples in Ex 12:12; 20:5; 22:20; 22:28; 23.24; 23:32-33 and 34:14-16, in Num 25:2 and 33:4, in Deut 4:28; 5:7; 6:14; 7:4; 7:16; 7.25; 8:19; 10:17; 11:16; 11:28; 12:2-3; 12:30-31; 13:2; 13:6-7; 13:13; 17:3; 18:20; 20:18; 20:26; 28:24; 28:64; 29:18; 29:26; 30:17; 31:16; 31:18; 31:20; 32:16-17 and 32:37 as well as in many more passages in Joshua, Judges, 1Samuel, 2Samuel, 1Kings, 2Kings, 1Chronik, 2Chronik, Ezra, Psalms, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Hosea, Nahum und Zephaniah.
Another remarkable part in the Bible is the mentioning of the “sons of God” in Gen 6:2 and 6:4: “That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose … There were giants (tyrants) in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.” Here again the Hebrew text has ’Elohim and “the sons of God” are, correctly translated, “the sons of the gods”. The text makes a difference between them and the humans. Hence, they were not humans. Were they half-gods? And the “giants” who were born from them, where they maybe quarter-gods?
The Gnostic Christian view of Yahweh
In the early Christianity there were two mainstreams: the Paulinian and the Gnostic Christians. Saul had pursued Christians until he converted and became Paul. The year of his conversion is estimated to be between 33 and 35. The Paulinian Christianity began to develop only after that. Who were the Christians that Paul pursued? They will especially have been the so-called Christian Jews. This concept refers to groups among the earliest Christianity, to which belonged Jews who still adhered to Jewish customs – like Jesus and his disciples themselves. Out of these Christian Jews arose the movement of the Gnostic Christians. Because of his views, Paul cam into a conflict with this original Christianity . Hence, the Paulinian Christianity didn’t arise out of the original Christianity, and with Paul, who hadn’t known Jesus himself, an obviously modified Christianity began, that distanced itself from the Christianity close to Jesus that was in the beginning.
For the Gnostics, the creator of this world wasn’t the true prime creator, but a demiurge, a “craftsman”, a fallen angel, who also has an evil side. While the real God, the true prime creator (who Jesus calls “father”) is unrestrictedly good, an imperfect demiurge created an imperfect world. It has been shown that the Gnostics identified this imperfect demiurge-“god” with the god of the Old Testament, who they also called Yaldabaoth, who wants to keep humans in a state of ignorance in a material world and who punishes their attempts to achieve knowledge and insight (to “eat from the tree of knowledge”). The demiurge is a lesser god who wants to be the only one . The text The Apokryphon of John (or The Secret Book of John) states: “He is impious in his madness that dwells in him. For he said, ‘I am God and no other god exists except me’, since he is ignorant of the place from which his strength had come” . (Cf. Ex 20:23 and Deut 5:7). Could this be the explanation of all the abominable cruelties, which after all are literally described in the Old Testament (see below)?
A similar view was expressed by Marcion (approx. 85-160) , the first theologian who made a difference between the God of Love in the New Testament and an evil god of the Old Testament.
The abominable cruelties of Yahweh
Who reads the Bible in an objective and unprejudiced way without blinders that fade out certain passages, will (or should…) become deeply indignant about the abominable cruelties  described therein.
The “lord” guides his people to the “promised land”, but that land isn’t free. People already live there in various towns. Therefore, the “lord” commands his people to mercilessly slaughter all of them. In nearly all cases not even a child, a woman or an old man is spared, but they should completely all be killed, so that his people can live in: “great and goodly cities, which thou buildedst not, and houses full of all good things, which thou filledst not, and wells digged, which thou diggedst not, vineyards and olive trees, which thou plantedst not; when thou shalt have eaten and be full” (Deut 6:10-11). With this, a veritable holocaust begins!
In one city after the other, they murder and slaughter until no one is left. The only exception is in a few cases that they kidnap virgins. For what? It would certainly be naïve to claim that it would not be for sexual “services”.
When Moses by order of Yahweh could say as follows, he strongly disqualifies himself and his commissioner: “And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host... which came from the battle. And Moses said unto them, ‘Have ye saved all the women alive? … Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves’” (Num 31:14-18).
This rather looks like a mass human sacrifice for the “lord”…
For those who understand German I may suggest to read what the learned Karlheinz Deschner writes about this extremely blood-curdling common history of two world religions .
Persons who regard themselves as Christians like to suggest that the victims would be “evil” people who lived in “sin”, and don’t want to understand how they this way betray Jesus’ teachings. There can be no worse sin than to kill in the name of God (or of his messenger Christ)! And if one kills in the name of Yahweh, or by his order, this shows clearly enough that he cannot be the true god. Jesus taught us that who takes to the sword will be undone by the sword, and even to love our enemies.
When Yahweh rages as follows, he demonstrates his fake divinity: “And if ye walk contrary unto me, and will not hearken unto me; I will bring seven times more plagues upon you according to your sins. I will also send wild beasts among you, which shall rob you of your children, and destroy your cattle, and make you few in number; and your highways shall be desolate. …And when I have broken the staff of your bread, ten women shall bake your bread in one oven, and they shall deliver you your bread again by weight: and ye shall eat, and not be satisfied. And if ye will not for all this hearken unto me, but walk contrary unto me; Then I will walk contrary unto you also in fury; and I, even I, will chastise you seven times for your sins. And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat.” (Lev 26:21-29)
The macho behavior began already before the exodus from Egypt. Yahweh sent Moses several times to the Pharaoh to request letting the Hebrews free. The Pharaoh repeatedly declared that he would do that, but Yahweh the each time hardened his heart so that he, after all, refused: “…for I have hardened his heart, and the heart of his servants, that I might shew these my signs before him” (Ex 10:1). Yahweh insisted in showing his muscles and have all the ten plagues come over Egypt before he would let the Pharaoh allow the Hebrews to go. At last, he went through Egypt and killed all innocent first-born! (Ex 11:5, 12:12, 12:29, 13:15) For what did he want to demonstrate all this cruelty? In a similar way he hardened the hearts of the Hivites (living in the “promised Land”) so that they should not try to make piece with the Hebrews but meet them in battle so that they would be mercilessly destroyed (Josh 11:19.20). Everyone should die!
We might estimate that on the average a woman (married or not – even some unmarried had children) had five children in those days. The guess may be reasonable. Of the five only one, of course, was first-born. This would mean that he killed something like 20 % of the population!!!
Another of the many cruel incidents is where Yahweh requests that Abraham kill his own son as a sacrifice for him. When Abraham is prepared to do it, Yahweh stops him and makes it look like a test of Abraham’s slavish obedience. And that is, of course, a test that displays Yahweh’s cruelty. If he had tested Abraham’s love, he would have to declare him as failed ... because then Abraham should have strictly refused to do such a thing!
So who, then, are these Anunnaki?
The Sumerian texts tell about a planet Nîbiru that like a comet moves in a long-stretched elliptic orbit with a revolution period of 3600 years, and that that planet is the home of the Anunnaki. Hence, the planet during more than 3000 years is so far away from the sun that everything must be frozen there. How can they live in such a world?
The answer will be that they are multidimensional beings, maybe 5-dimensional. They are said to be of a reptilian nature. We are only three-dimensional, i.e., we can only perceive three space dimensions and think only three-dimensionally. It seems that the Anunnaki have made us this way so that we should not perceive them, unless they appear in there three-dimensional form. This form (their three-dimensional body) is in the long period when the planet is far from the sun – apparently during more than 3000 years – in some state of hibernation, and then they act in other dimensions, invisible to us. In times when it is closer to the sun, they have visited us in their three-dimensional shape and that is told about in the Sumerian and related clay-plate texts. During other times they, however, influence us invisibly from the other dimensions and want to control how things are going on our planet and manipulate us their way, in politics, in a controlled science (leaving out things they don’t want us to know) and in business.
They, of course, need life energy. They could have had it from still higher dimensions, but they instead take it from us and want to keep us as a kind “milking cattle” for such energies, but without us being conscious of it. We shouldn’t know what is going on. Why do they do it that way? The answer will be that they separated themselves off from their divine origin – they “killed” the prime creators. Hence, they cannot expect to get energy from there. They love brutality – fight, war, violence, bloodshed and violent death. Why that? When a human being dies violently, his body is normally still full of life energy (his “batteries are charged”). This energy is released at the time of death and the Anunnaki can gather it. But when someone dies wasting away or in old-age weakness, there is hardly any energy left to “harvest” (his “batteries are empty”). It furthermore seems that they enjoy animating us to violence and war, like when a child plays war games with a computer. They have for this reason put aggressiveness in our genes, but also character traits like obedience to superiors and easily feeling fear. To have fear, especially fear of death, is an effective means for manipulation. When we feel rage and hatred in aggressions, we unconsciously also set life energies free, and we do the same when we have a strong fear. Obedience makes us more easily manipulated to do things we really don’t want to do.
It should also be mentioned that they (being multidimensional beings) will know quite well what too few of us want to know: that there actually is no death. Only the body dies, but the soul is immortal. This doesn’t make things they do less cruel … but rather becomes a bad excuse. I wonder if it might not be the karma for many of them to become real “milk and slaughter cattle” after the end of their long lives …
We. however, get our life energy from above, through the light of the sun, since we have not intentionally and consciously cut off ourselves from that energy flow (yet we are not conscious of what is going on). The light energy is absorbed by plants that we eat, and we also eat animals (unless we are vegetarians) who have eaten plants and absorbed energy from them. So we indirectly do feed on energy from above.
This explains why the Anunnaki allegedly have very long life spans, of the order of thousands and even tens of thousands of years. In the state of hibernation, their three-dimensional bodies don’t age.
This interpretation of the Sumerian and related clay-plate texts is, of course, another one than that of official science. Who, however, studies the original texts (of which translations are found in University libraries) will find that there are no real contradictions to such an interpretation. It is really possible, but official science denies it. Only few have dealt with the subject from this aspect, the best known being Zecharia Sitchin . My book Es begann in Babylon (“It began in Babylonia”)  also does so, but describes several things differently than Sitchin does – which means that I don’t agree to everything he writes, especially not the remarkable embellishment of the Anunnaki (a.o., Sitchin doesn’t discuss the “primary murder” of the creator gods Anû und Ti’âmat).
In the fall of 2007, a rumor was around that Sitchin would have been arrested. This later turned out to have (highly probably) been a hoax (or maybe an intent was cancelled and later denied). No one should be astonished that some by all means strive to refute him as a crank or a liar. As an example, there is a website that claims that the words “Anunnaki” and “Nîbiru” would be found nowhere in the clay-plate texts. But I have an academic treatise by an ethnological scientist in which these words are certainly found in the translations .
As concerns channeling, I am very skeptical, since it is hard to separate the chaff from the wheat, and there obviously is much more chaff than wheat. There is, however, a book that deals with these things of which I (rather exceptionally) have a good feeling: Bringers of the Dawn by Barbara Marciniak . The Anunnaki are there called “lizzies” (as diminutive of “lizards”), since they are reptilian.
There is much information that indicates that the Anunnaki still to day have a secret influence, especially through secret societies like Zionism and related associations, like the Illuminati and certain Masonic orders. In them, only very few chosen ones at the very top of the pyramid know about the Anunnaki connection, but the mass of people – also of members – is kept in ignorance. (I suspect that something similar since almost 2000 years holds for the Church.)
The “harvest” of life energies from humans and animals gives a sense to the cruel practice of sacrifice. Of course, the meat is of no use to the “gods”, but the for us invisible life energies are. This underlines the remark above that all the murdering in the Old Testament may be seen as a mass human sacrifice for the “lord”. Since this life energy is especially contained in the blood, this also explains the command for the cruel practice of letting an animal bleed to death that is maintained in certain cultures. The blood – rather: the life energy in it – is for the “gods”, only the meat is for humans.
And who, then, is Yahweh?
Sitchin in one of his books  takes the question up, who Yahweh may be. Is he also an Anunnaku? He is visibly trying hard to show that Yahweh isn’t an Anunnaku, but the god of the Anunnaki. His argumentation is, however, not very convincing. In my book  I demonstrate that his reasoning can also be seen to demonstrate that Yahweh is Marduk, and that is something he certainly wants to deny. It is a question of the point of view. Thus, one can actually set up the hypothesis that Yahweh is an Anunnaku! And that he during their physical absence from the Earth is a kind of “governor” of the Anunnaki. This fits to what is stated above about his abominable cruelty, on one side, and on the other side the violent nutrition of the Anunnaki with our life energies. Does he supply the Anunnaki with such energies from the Earth during their hibernation?
Yahweh, then (together with two other, see above) had Sodom and Gomorrah (more correctly ‘Amorah) destroyed. There are indications that this could have been done by means of a nuclear explosions. Certain geological peculiarities in the area may be such an indication. This allegedly was done because the inhabitants of the cities were prone to sin. However, Sitchins understanding of the clay-plate texts claims that the Anunnaki in the area were operating a basis for space traffic with Nîbiru. One gets the impression that they wanted to destroy this and eliminate all traces before they at that time gave up their three-dimensional physical presence on Earth. Sinai would at the time have been a forbidden area for humans. And that is from where Yahweh came – he is in the history of religions described to be a war-god from Sinai ! The thing about “sin” may then rather have been an excuse … or the “sin” was being in, or too close to, the forbidden area (so that they knew about it, which others should not).
It is written in the Bible that the lord let “brimstone” and fire fall on the two towns. The Hebrew word that is here translated as “brimstone” is gaphrit, which rather means “pitch” (bitumen or tar) and generally refers to “inflammable material” , which may well be connected with explosions. Lot’s wife became a “pillar of salt” when this occurred (Gen 19:26). She had hesitated, stopped and looked back, and thus probably was too late to find protection and security, so that her body instantly died and became white from the radiation. As concerns “sin”, rabbinic sources like Talmud and Tanach but also gospels mention hostility towards strangers and denying hospitality , but later interpretations want to see voluptuousness and especially homosexuality here. If the latter would be true: why should so many heterosexuals and even children be punished along with the others? Actually: whatever the “sin” may have been: why punish also all the innocent? Here we again come to the unjust cruelty …
And who is Jesus’ God?
In the New Testament Jesus presents a divine father to us, who much more corresponds to our expectations of universal love and universal good. He also talks about the Holy Spirit, who by many original Christians and by the Gnostics was understood to be a female manifestation of God. God as the prime creator thus appears as male and female at the same time. The prime creators Apsû und Ti’âmat were described as a pair – prime God and prime Goddess. Could there be a connection between the Holy Spirit and Ti’âmat?
It isn’t easy to reduce the God, about whom Jesus spoke and Yahweh to a common denominator. The following quotation from the Gospel of John may be mentioned hereto:
“Then said Jesus to those Jews …” (8:31)
“’…If God were your Father, ye would
for I proceeded forth and came from God…” (8:42)
“Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of
your father ye will do.
He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth,
because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own:
for he is a liar, and the father of it.’” (8:44)
About whom did Jesus speak here? It can hardly have been Abraham, to which those he spoke to refer (8:39). The story of Abraham in the Old Testament gives no reason for that. It has been suggested that Jesus here spoke about Yahweh. One might object that the persons he spoke to probably were devoted to worldly things, materialists and in their true attitude servants of Mamon (the lord of richness). In that case, they were rather paying lip service in their belief. Is it imaginable that Jesus would speak about Yahweh as “the devil” or even “Satan”? The Greek text here has diabolos, which actually means “calumniator” or “defamer” and that would probably be a more suitable translation. That Yahweh isn’t the prime creator, but an anunnakian tribal god among others may in view of his undeniable cruelty even appear probable… Looked at it that way, the translation “calumniator” would fit.
But quite generally: Did Jesus want to teach original truths and was he for this reason killed by means of anunnakian influence? Did one want to prevent an attempt to give truth back to people? Has one for this purpose infiltrated the Church when it became clear that the new teachings could not be abolished ? People expected a Messiah, who would liberate them from Roman rule – but maybe someone came, who would show us the way to liberation from the Anunnaki, and no one really understood him…
A hypothesis about Jesus’ mission and the
Against the background of these considerations I have come to the following hypothesis.
Jesus came from above, sent with a revolutionary message to humanity and born in the very area, where the Anunnaki had had their center. These still had an invisible influence over humanity from “behind the veil”. Jesus gradually brought people a truth, which these invisible rulers didn’t want them to know. His teachings about love, peace and spiritual as well as human independence were seen as a threat. Then he also in a cautious way taught that his “Father” isn’t the god they believed in. As it came that far, he had to die for it. The invisible ruler hoped that, with his death, his teachings would with time become forgotten. But it came to be differently.
Christianity spread, and through the murder of Jesus it was rather reinforced than weakened. Seeing this, the invisible rulers conceived a new strategy. They intended to infiltrate this Christianity and modify it in there own sense, so that it would no more be a threat to them but serve their purposes. This was done and led to the formation of a Church, while the original Gnostic Christianity was lost. Jesus’ teachings became twisted and falsified. In their place came the dogma of the Church and the real Christ was replaced by a fake “Christ”.
In every Church, the dead Jesus hangs on a cross with nails in hands and feet, with thorns in his head and with a wound in his side. This is a real voodoo-technique for blocking his power. The subconscious message to us is: “Jesus is dead! Now we are in power!” Then the triumph over his death was symbolized with the torture and murder tool he was killed with: the cross … If they had hanged him, I suppose the symbol of the Dogma would have been a rope with a slipknot…
Paul played an important role, maybe as an unconscious agent for the invisible rulers. He “converted” from being Saul, an enemy of Christians, to become the “apostle” Paul, who in a clever and sneaky way modified the teachings. That is how the alienation began, which later Constantine and others continued. They thereby also strove for a return to earlier patriarchal conditions, away from positive attitude to women that Jesus had. A new misogyny came into Christianity through the back door, the way the invisible patriarchal rulers wanted to have it. The possibility for a return of the Goddess could not be allowed. The female quality of the Holy Spirit should again be forgotten, and all tendencies for devotion to a divine femininity were tactically diverted to Mary. She is, of course, revered in her own right, but this reverence at the same time serves a secret deviation from the Goddess, who anew became forgotten.
And who, then, is Allah?
Islam arose around 600 years after Christianity and reveres Allah as the one and only god. The word actually means “The God” and thus isn’t really a name but a designation (like “Yahweh” isn’t really a name either, but also a designation that means “he is”). One of the central basic principles of Islamic confession is: “There is no god except ‘The God’” (La ilaha illa Allah). This reminds strongly of Yahweh’s “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” Under the hypothesis that Yahweh saw himself threatened by Christianity and, therefore, infiltrated it, one can envision that the same Yahweh wanted to create an analogous religion under a new denomination in a related people. On one side in order to have a have a “second track” for his influence and on the other side in order to be able to play the two off against each other in a Machiavellian sense of “divide and rule”.
Also other extraterrestrial visits?
It is highly probable that humans of this Earth have had contacts with extraterrestrials already before. It seems quite possible that the Egyptians, Incas, Mayas and Aztecs had such contacts and that these extraterrestrials will not always have been Anunnaki. Regressions with persons, who once lived in Atlantis, indicate that the culture there had contacts with extraterrestrials, who gave them higher knowledge as a kind of development aid. They withdrew disappointedly when they saw that the knowledge was abused. One client experienced himself as a hybrid between extraterrestrials and humans, and suffered from being discriminated by both sides, since he didn’t really look like an Earth human, but also not like an extraterrestrial.
Very evil chapters of human history on our planet are the cruel conquests and destructions of above all the Latin-American cultures through European Yahwistic cultures. Why did the latter want that? A logical answer will be that Yahweh manipulated humans to that end, since he didn’t want competition in his influence on humankind. Thus, this will concern influence of other extraterrestrials than the Anunnaki or, maybe, rivaling Anunnaki groups.
It may be assumed that there were also other cultures on Earth before the anunnakian manipulation of human life here, and that they may in many cases have had benevolent contacts with other extraterrestrials.
In India, an ancient knowledge has to a large extent survived that probably also has to do with very early extraterrestrial contacts. The yahwistic attempts to eradicate this by means of the British rule (and earlier through the Muslim Moguls) luckily didn’t really work. Instead, the knowledge became accessible to the entire world, since ancient Sanskrit texts were translated to English! As if the plan backfired… (but to day business globalization is, instead, doing much damage to the Indian culture).
Are then all “Gods” only
There are authors who seem to claim that. But the true creator God certainly isn’t in that sense an extraterrestrial, since he – beyond that concept – is everywhere. That then some of his creations were regarded as “gods”, when they came from somewhere else to visit the Earth, is quite another matter.
The Anunnaki want to claim that they are our creators!
The Anunnaki are not our creators! They have by means of genetic manipulation in very ancient times only created the bodies of our prime ancestors but not created them out of pure energy, as the prime creator did when he created our souls. They are in no way our creators!
Are the Anunnaki mentioned in the Bible?
The Bible mentions a tall people called Anakim, the sons of Anak. They have to do with the Nephilim, who are the above-mentioned “sons of the gods” who came down to Earth to have children with the “daughters of man”. The following Bible passages mention “Anakim” and “Anak”: Num 13:22; 13:28; 13:33, Deut 1:28; 2:10-11; 2:21, 9:2, Josh 11:21-22; 14:12; 14:15; 15:13-14; 21:11, Judg 1:20.
The conclusion near at hand would be that these are Anunnaki (in their three-dimensional appearance) or probably rather there off-spring resulting from their sexual involvement with humans of the Earth.
Jan Erik Sigdell: Es begann in Babylon [”It Began in Babylonia“], Holistika, Meckenheim, 2008.
Ein Gott allein? JHWH-Verehrung und biblischer Monotheismus im Kontext der israelitischen und altorientalischen Religionsgeschichte [“One God alone? YHWH Worship and Biblical Monotheism in the Context of the Israelite and Ancient Oriental History of Religion”], 13th Colloquium of the Swiss Academy of Spiritual and Social Studies, ed. by Walter Dietrich and Martin A. Klopfenstein, Universitätsverlag, Freiburg (Switzerland), 1994 – several contributions are in English
Gesenius’ Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures, transl. by Samuel Prideaux Tregelles, W.M. B. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids MI, no year (preface dated 1846)
Åke Lundqvist: Vildåsnans törst [“The Thirst of the Wild Donkey”], Albert Bonniers, Falun, 2006 (a Swedish book about the Hebrew Bible)
Das neue Taschenbuchlexikon [a German encyclopedia], Bertelsmann, Gütersloh, vol. 12, 1992, “Paulus”, p. 70 and vol. 7, 1992, “Judenchristen”, p. 169
„The Apokryphon of John”, in The Nag Hammadi Library, Harper & Row, New York, no year, pages 98-116. See also http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/apocjn.html and reference 17 below
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcion and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcionism
A choice of the many cruelties in the Old Testament: Gen 34:25-29; – Ex 12:12; 12:29-30; 15:3; 32:26-28. – Lev 26:7-8; 26:21-22; 26:26-29. – Num 15:32-36; 16:29-35; 16:46-49; 21:3-6; 21:24-25; 21:33-35; 31:7-10; 31:14-18; 31:31-32; 31:35 – Deut 2:32-34;. 3:1-6; 7:2-3; 9:3; 13:9-10; 13:14-16; 20:10-17; 21:11-14. – Joshua 6:20-25; 8:2; 8:21-25; 8:29; 10:10-11; 10:17-40; 11:6-22. – Judges 1:4-11; 1:17; 1:25; 3:29-31; 4:14-16; 7:15-25; 8:17; 9:4-5; 9:43-45; 9:49-52; 11:30-40; 15:15-16; 18:27; 19:22-29; 20:2; 20:31-37; 20:41-48. – 1Samuel 5:8-9; 6:19 (wrong translation in many modern texts, it should be 50070 and not 70); 11:6-11; 15:3-9; 15:33; 18:7; 30:17. – 2Samuel 5:8; 5:25; 8:1-5; 10:18; 12:31 (wrong translation in many modern texts, he actually put them under saws, and under harrows of iron, and under axes of iron, and made them pass through the brick kiln); 18:6-7; 24:10-16. – 1Kings 20:28-30. – 2Kings 1:9-14; 2:23-25; 5:25-27; 6:18; 10:13-25; 14:5-7; 15:16; 19:35. – 1Chronicles 20:2-3 (wrong translation in many modern texts, he actually cut them with saws, and with harrows of iron, and with axes. – Psalms 137:9. – Isaiah 13:15-18; 45:5-7; 49:25-26. – Jeremiah 16:3-5. – Lamentations 4:9-11. – Ezekiel 6:12-13; 9:3-6. – Hosea 13:15; 14:1. References to the stated wrong translations, i.e., playing facts down, have been given by Karlheinz Deschner. Luther’s text as well as the English King James’ Bible are here more correct, and who doubts may compare with them.
Karlheinz Deschner: Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums [“Criminal History of Christianity”], vol. 1: Die Frühzeit [“The Early Times”], p. 73-89, Rowohlt, Reinbek, 1989
http://www.sitchin.com – on his books in English: http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&rh=i%3Astripbooks%2Cp_27%3AZecharia%20Sitchin&field-author=Zecharia%20Sitchin&page=1 and in German: http://www.amazon.de/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?__mk_de_DE=%C5M%C5Z%D5%D1&url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=sitchin&x=0&y=0
Alexander Heidel: The Babylonian Genesis, 2nd ed., The University of Chicago Press, Chicago IL, 1960
Barbara Marciniak: Bringers of the Dawn, Bear & Company, Santa Fe, 1992, also available for free here: http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/pleyades/esp_pleyades_14.htm
Zecharia Sitchin: Divine Encounters, Avon, New York, 1995: “Endpaper: God, the Extraterrestrial”, p. 347-380
Jan Erik Sigdell: Reinkarnation, Christentum und das kirchliche Dogma [“Reincarnation, Christianity and the Dogma of the Church”], Ibera, Vienna, 2001, Chapter 11 and 12, English translation available for free here (European page letter size A4): http://www.christian-reincarnation.com/PDF/ChristRein.pdf and here (US page size “letter”): http://www.christian-reincarnation.com/PDF/ChristRein2.pdf
Creation in the Gnostic Christian view
Mainly based on a German scholar translation of The Apokryphon of John [17, below]. Every translation is also an interpretation in the way the translator sees it (and, even if unconsciously, wants to see it). On top of that, the following text in part is my own interpretation (which I actually feel is a bit inspired...).
God, the creator, the “unknown father”, the first one that ever was, creates with his thought. He thinks – and then it is there. The creative power of his thought is Barbelo, the invisible virginal spirit, the supreme female (bearing = creating) principle. She became the womb of everything (that would come to be). Out of her the Holy Spirit appeared (who the Gnostics regarded as female), the mother of the living. Her collaborator is reason (intelligence). Out of these two Christ appeared, the divine Autogenes (Emerged-Out-Of-Himself, i.e.: not procreated).
On a lower level, Sophia (Wisdom) appeared as an Emanation of Barbelo. She wanted to create a male entity to appear out of herself, but without approval of the Spirit and without letting her consort know it (consorts are mentioned in connection with entities; hence, they are actually androgynous, but either the female or male part comes in appearance). It was her own idea. She actually had just a thought, but on that level thoughts are creative: you think it, and then it is there. Therefore, this entity came to be in ignorance and was imperfect. Sophia realized this and regretted it, cast the entity away from her and surrounded it with a luminous cloud, so that no one might see it but the Holy Spirit. She called it Yaldabaoth.
Yaldabaoth created further entities, which became his powers. They are called the Archons. He was himself the “first Archon”. The apokryphon tells about him: “…he is ignorant darkness. And when the light had mixed with the darkness, it caused the darkness to shine. And when the darkness had mixed with the light, it darkened the light and it became neither light nor dark, but it became dim. …And he is impious in his arrogance which is in him. For he said, ‘I am God and there is no other God beside me,’ for he is ignorant of his strength, the place from which he had come.”
Sophia recognized her mistake when the shining of her light became less and she became darker. She saw how bad her son was and wept for a long time.
Yaldabaoth said to his Archons: “Come, let us create a man according to the image of God and according to our likeness…” They created a being after the image of the first complete man (like a model for humans who would come to be) and said: “Let us call him Adam…” The being so created wasn’t yet alive. Messengers of God said to Yaldabaoth “'Blow into his face something of your spirit…” He did that ignorantly; because he didn’t himself really know what he was doing. And the being became alive. Adam was luminous and had a better intelligence then the archons, and he was free from wickedness. [So far, he wasn’t the physical Adam but an archetype of the human being.] Therefore, they threw him out on the lower side of matter (on a level within the dark region of Yaldabaoth).
God had pity and sent a helper to Adam, the Epinoia (insight through divine inspiration) of light that is called Life [Hebrew: Heva = Eva]. She assists all creation. This Epinoia became hidden in Adam, so that the archons would not know her and she might be a correction of the deficiency of the mother (Sophia), as an emanation out of her. [Eva, too, was so far archetypal.]
The archons saw that Adam’s intelligence was higher and brought him into the shadow of death to recreate his body out of matter that is the ignorance of the darkness. He became a mortal human [and now the physical Adam], who the archons put in a paradise [a harmonic and timeless place]. There, he should eat from the “tree of life”, from the trees of godlessness [and live without God].
The “tree of knowledge of good and evil”, however, is the Epinoia of light (v.s.) that in disobedience to Yaldabaoth improved Adam’s intelligence. [The Hebrew name in Gen 2 is more correctly translated as “tree of wisdom”!] Therefore, Yaldabaoth put him to sleep: “'I will make their hearts heavy, that they may not pay attention and may not see.” Then the Epinoia of light went to hide inside Adam. Yaldabaoth wanted to extract her through one of Adam’s ribs, but couldn’t. He therefore made another appearance in the shape of a woman, as an image of the Epinoia, into which he brought the part of Adam’s power that was all he managed to extract. Adam became awake and saw the woman. Then the Epinoia of light appeared and uncovered the veil that had been put over Adam’s intelligence. [Hence, eating from that tree has nothing to do with sexuality, but with wanting to know more than Yaldabaoth would allow…]
It wasn’t a snake (an entity in the shape of a snake) that made Eve eat from the “tree of knowledge [wisdom!], but it was Christ in the shape of an eagle who told her to do that, in order to “teach them and awaken them out of the depth of sleep.” That happened against the will of Yaldabaoth.
Sophia had come down as this Epinoia in order to correct her mistake, and for that reason she was then called Life [Heva, Eve], the mother of the living. Through her, they could taste full insight [they ate from the “tree of knowledge”, better: “tree of wisdom”]. Yaldabaoth saw that they were drifting away from him and cursed his Earth. He threw them out of his paradise and clothed them in darkness. He then raped Eve and through her begot two sons, who he called Cain and Abel. Later Adam begot Seth with Eve.
Yaldabaoth wanted to control the thinking of the humans and brought fate (Greek: heimarmene) into the world. Hence, his whole creating became blind and couldn’t see God. [Heimarmene comes from meiromai that means something like “acquire one’s part”, which may lead the thought to karma…]
[The identity Yaldabaoth = Yahweh is obvious… and as far as the archons are concerned, one may think of the Anunnaki, and Barbelo may remind us of Ti’âmat.]
Additions from other apocrypha:
In the Hypostasis of the Archons  is written that Yaldabaoth said: “‘It is I who am God; there is none apart from me.’ When he said this, he sinned against the entirety. And this speech got up to Incorruptibility; then there was a voice that came forth from Incorruptibility, saying, ‘You are mistaken, Samael’” Samael is another name of Yaldabaoth that means “god of the blind”. He is blind to all that is above him. Also here the archons wanted to “defile” Eve. It was forbidden to Adam and Eve to eat from the Tree of Knowledge. Therefore, the female spiritual principle came as a teacher in the shape of a snake and said: “…it was out of jealousy that he said this to you. Rather your eyes shall open and you shall come to be like gods.” They ate and recognized that they were naked, but not in the sense of being unclothed, but “naked of the spiritual element”, i.e., they discovered that a spiritual element was missing. Also in this text, it seems that possible Cain was the result of the “defilation” of Eve by the archons, but not Abel. Is that supposed to explain the difference between them?
In The Apocalypse of Adam  is written that Adam said to his son Seth: “Then the God who created us, created a son from himself and Eve, your mother.” Similarly as above.
In The Origin of the World  is written that the blood of the female principle Pronoia (Barbelo) flowed like light into the world. Out of this blood Eros arose, and with him the “pleasure of the flesh”. Here, too, the archons “cast their seed” upon Eve, and out of the seed of the first archon (Yaldabaoth) Abel was born.
Another Gnostic text is the recently discovered and much discussed Gospel of Judas, in which we read: “El (= the highest God)… said, ‘Let twelve angels come into being [to] rule over chaos and the [underworld].’ And look, from the cloud there appeared an [angel] whose face flashed with fire and whose appearance was defiled with blood. His name was Nebro, which means ‘rebel’; others call him Yaldabaoth.” This description of Yaldabaoth well fits to the discussion above.
http://web.archive.org/web/20070912005923/wwwuser.gwdg.de/~rzellwe/nhs/node62.html (in German), in English http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/apocjn.html and http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/apocjn-long.html
Why the “tree of knowledge of good and evil”? Or more correctly: “Tree of Wisdom [and therewith knowledge of good and evil]” – the Hebrew word for “knowledge” is jada‘ (and it also means “sexual intercourse” … e.g., in “And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain…“ [Gen 4:1]), but this word isn’t used here. The tree is in the original text called ‘atz ha-da‘at; da‘at means “Wisdom” (and the word has nothing at all to do with sexuality). Good and bad? Light and darkness? The true God and the archons? Does this concern the “forbidden” insight: the knowledge that except Yaldabaoth/Yahweh there are above him even higher gods, and even a Highest God? “You shall not know about other – and certainly not about higher – gods, because I shall be your only ‘god’!”
Yaldabaoth hence puts a lid over us with this “tree”: everything above him is taboo, everything with and below him is allowed. That is his world without the true God, analogous to the Anunnaki turning away from the prime creator pair to establish their own fake world without them.
Is it this very insight, this knowledge, which will make us free?! That Jesus wanted to give us and for which he, therefore, had to die?
The movie Equilibrium by Kurt Wimmer is an interesting analogy about a society in which personal emotions are suppressed by means of a daily injection everyone has to take. The main person in the story once skips the injection, because the vial falls and breaks, and he begins to discover things people shouldn’t know. He then continues skipping the injections and gradually “wakes up”. An interesting detail is that that future state is governed by a “Tetragrammaton Council”. Most viewers will have missed this point here: “Tetragrammaton” is an old term that paraphrases the name of “God” as it is written with only four consonants: YHWH. In ancient Greek, tetra means “four” and “tetragrammaton” simply means “written with four letters”. At the end of the movie it turns out that the leader of the council is dead and only the council itself keeps the control.
It will not be a coincidence that Yaldabaoth came to be, but a preparation for the exodus of souls from God’s light world. As the Gnostics (see Origen) taught, we all existed from the very beginning in that light world. However, some of us wanted to go out of it to have experiences that are not possible to have in the light world – and to fully experience our free will (also in ways that are impossible in the light world). For this reason, God created various angelic levels and then a region of darkness for those, who were to fall still further down. Yaldabaoth was intended to be the lord of that region – of the region of ignorance – and he should, therefore, be ignorant himself. Sophia was not ignorant to the same extent but also not fully conscious of what she was really doing, when she had Yaldabaoth come into being – and it should probably be so, or she wouldn’t have done it.
To create space for these levels below the divine light world, God contracted himself – cf. the cabbalistic concept of tzimtzum.
Also the archons have their Epinoias, but its light is deeply hidden in them. At the end they shall also find there way out of the darkness, even Yaldabaoth (a power, who according to Goethe “…always wants the evil, but as and end result yet creates the good”, that is: the souls that become free when their light-Epinoia is sufficiently awaken – illumination).
The Epinoia will open itself up in us, but institutions like the Church want to cover it up, and they don’t know what they are doing. They want to lull us to sleep with hypnotically working brainwashing suggestions (through monotonous rituals, singing songs together in certain ways and the art of speaking of the priests, as well as other things in the liturgy, but also by means of their power). Thus, religion becomes superficial.
Why is the Goddess suppressed? Because she is associated with the Epinoia and could take us to enlightenment!
We here see that “eating from the tree of knowledge” has nothing to do with sexuality, but with striving for “forbidden knowledge”. Yaldabaoth wants to keep us in ignorance. We also see that there is on all levels a kind of polarity that in Yaldabaoths world in a way got ripped apart. We, who live in his world, are no more androgynous – in one entity both male and female – but either the one or the other. That is why we seek to reunite to one being and that is one basis of sexuality. The other is procreation.
There are, however, teachings in various systems that we actually are both male and female, but that the one pole manifests physically in the incarnation and the other remains in the soul. That is why we can change gender from one incarnation to another.
Thus, sexuality has two aspects:
• the union of two souls (with the aid of the body), and
Yaldabaoth wants that we shouldn’t know of the spiritual aspect. He wants to have power over our sexuality and for that purpose reduce it to mere reproduction, because there could otherwise be a certain “danger” that we could have a little bit of spiritual awakening. And since every normally functioning human being will occasionally have sexual feelings (even though they may be suppressed, but then they subliminally are still there), this also helps to enable his power over humans. The archons in a way still want to rape Eve and drag the competition of male sexuality in the dirt, so that it looses the spiritual aspect and is devalued).
The first aspect is the basis of tantric sexuality in India. There was something similar in certain Gnostic (fringe) groups and it also exists, e.g., in Taoism and other systems.
As concerns Indian Tantra, an educational remark needs to be added. It isn’t simply a kind of “sexual yoga” but a natural science, to which all imaginable principles, states, relationships and processes in nature belong, and this not only in the material sense. Also sexual science belongs to it, and it is in this context that within Tantra also a kind of “sexual yoga” has evolved.
How do people react to such
Bible-based critique of religion?
As concerns these horrible stories, various “explanations” have been suggested:
In a majority of the cases, the translations
would be wrong.
In that case there would be an enormous amount of wrong translations and one would almost have to ask, what, if anything, is correct in translated Bibles… The language cannot be ambiguous to such an extreme extent that so very many of these passages could be translated completely differently! In the large majority of the cases, the translation will have to be at least essentially correct.
Most of these incidents never really
occurred, since they are not archeologically verified. One wanted to
glorify one’s own history.
In that case “horrify” would be a more proper way to put it! It may be that some incidents have been exaggerated or partly even invented, but why then I such an exceedingly atrocious way? One would have gained much more from describing a peaceful settlement in the promised land with friendly relations to the residents already living there, who might even had voluntarily converted to the new belief.
The bloody stories are to be understood as
symbolical. It is a matter of fighting against “inner
enemies” like negative tendencies, egoism, evilness and the like.
Then one has really chosen to use a contra-productive language for this symbolism which is destructive and ruins the intent. And if these should be a divine revelation, what kind of a god is it, who uses such a blood-chilling language? Why at all so much of such an extremely negative symbolism? Should one cure one evil with an even worse evil? And why so many pages long? Half a page in the Bible would have been enough… And to fight “inner enemies” like that would be the wrong way. Suppression doesn’t do it. To day we know well enough from psychology that you keep what you suppress. It only becomes hidden in your unconscious self and you are not free from it. As concerns the “inner enemies”, the way Jesus described works much better: “love your enemies”! Who turns towards the light and opens his heart enables that such “inner enemies” instead become transformed!
One would have to ask oneself how much of what is written in the Old Testament is really true – or maybe most of it is symbolical?
There are also those who claim that those slaughtered were “sinners” who devoted themselves to wrong beliefs and practices. Also the children? Such a claim reminds a lot of to-day’s Talibans ... who in their extremely subjective interpretation abuse alleged “sins against the Qur’an” as excuses for horrible atrocities against people.
To point 2: It actually seems to be that relatively few of these incidents can be archeologically verified. As an example: allegedly no remains of the walls of Jericho have been found. Does that prove that Jericho had no walls? If walls have been destroyed there, one would expect that the stones would have been used for reconstruction! They would to day be in house walls and new constructions and not on or in the earth… It can, of course, not be excluded that it was, e.g., an attack on a minor settlement that has later been “blown up” and – actually – “horrified”, or even that the story is really invented. May that be as it is, one can in any case not talk about a “glorification”. Such exaggerations and inventions could only make things worse! It has also been alleged that Jericho would not have existed at that time. In that case it would be highly remarkable that a not yet existing town is mentioned in ancient texts!
Doubt has also been cast about if there really was an exodus out of Egypt. Israel Finkelstein* wrote quite a sensational book about this. There is, however, a rather unknown papyrus written by one Ipuwer**, who lamented about catastrophes in the country that are quite similar to the “10 plagues”! Opinions are divided and the last word will not yet have been said.
As concerns these partly a bit naïve attempts it seems a little too much like one by all means wants to mitigate these horrible facts in the Bible or avoid them, and, therefore, seeks all kinds of alternatives instead of dealing with actual facts in an objective way… even in some cabbalistic texts (the good old and highly spiritual cabbalists will have had their difficulties with such text passages, but could, of course, not even partially reject the basis of the belief of the own people). It must not be true what is page-wise clearly written, but is has to be symbolical or wrongly translated… It could not be understood in another way… because the truth would be too atrocious… Psychological defense mechanisms?
* Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman: The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of its Sacred Texts, Simon & Schuster, New York, 2002
** A.o. www.specialtyinterests.net/ipuwer.html, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipuwer_Papyrus and http://ohr.edu/holidays/pesach/history/838
IS SUCH A CONSIDERATION
That would be a much too cheap argument! This consideration doesn’t turn against people and their culture, but instead questions a basis of religion – not only the Jewish, but just as much the Christian of the Churches. Then it would only for that reason also be, e.g., anti-European or anti-American (since most Europeans and Americans are Christian in the sense of one of the Churches). Most Christians and Jews will highly question Allah – are they, only for that reason, anti-Arabic? Und they will maybe even more question the Indian pantheon – are they, therefore, anti-Indian? And so on…
Reading about the Kabbalah of the great Rabbi Isaac Luria, the following came to my mind. Does he really mean the same YHWH as we generally do?
Could it be that there is a mix-up and confusion here that in the OT was obscured on purpose? In later times and OT texts one seems to have identified YHWH with ’El (‘Elyon). We find two expressions for YHWH in the original text of the Bible: 1. “YHWH” (only) and 2. “YHWH ’Elohim”, in which cased ’Elohim is usually omitted in translations, which simply have “the Lord” and the like. The latter can be understood as “YHWH, one of the ’Elohim”.
So when YHWH is mentioned, it may oftentimes refer to ’El (‘Elyon), identifying YHWH with him, and when the original text has YHWH ’Elohim, it may refer to one of the ’Elohim who pretends to be ’El and stole his role – or by the people is assumed to be him.
In the OT also good and benevolent sides of YHWH are mentioned, as they are certainly valid for ’El, and then one may assume that actually the latter is rather meant. When YHWH appears as blood-thirsty and cruel, ordering people to commit genocides, this would then rather refer to YHWH ’Elohim.
This would mean that we actually have two YHWHs in the OT! One would be ’El confused with YHWH and the other would be one of the ’Elohim imposturing as the highest god.
On the death of Jesus according to the Gnostics
From the book Cristología Gnóstica vol. II by Antonio Orbe (Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos, Madrid, 1976) pp. 407-408, translated; remarks by me in […], remarks in (...) are by Orbe:
“The demiurge and the archons
There were also those who ascribed the death of Jesus to the demiurge, and not to the devil.
So did the Audians, according to a remark by Agapio:
‘While (Christ) preached to the people, he disturbed the works (= introduced a new order) of his lord, and the father of life (= the demiurge) became furious against Christ and killed and crucified him.’
Bar Hebraeus informs us similarly:
‘God (= the demiurge) is subject to destiny and at the end dissolves and finishes with his collaborators [= the archons]; and God is the one who crucified Christ, and Christ is a creation…’
The supreme Christ, sent by the highest God, started his Gospel – after the baptism in Jordan – and with that attracted the hatred of the creator, who he practically dethroned. The demiurge and founder of laws became furious against him and brought him to death on the cross.
The same attitude was ascribed to Yaldabaoth according to the works of Irenaeus and, finally, the archons of the Dianoia:
‘(The Archons) knew about one of those who followed (Jesus)… He handed him over, because none (of the Jews) knew him. They seized him… and they handed him over to Sasabek for nine bronze coins.’” [Cf. “The Concept of Our great Power” 41:15-30 in The Nag Hammadi Library.]
According to the 1st Apocalypse of Saint James, the apostle expressed much resentment against the Jews because of the passion of the Lord. The Lord eased him [as he appeared to him] and explained that the Jewish people is not responsible of the crime. The Archons are the ones to blame. [Cf. “The First Apocalypse of James” 31:14-39 in The Nag Hammadi Library.]”
Who is here called “creator” is, of course, the one who declared himself to be one, i.e., the demiurge, and not the prime creator.
Is Yahweh Marduk?
Zecharia Sitchin in an interesting discussion takes up a question that will have become unavoidable: “So, who was Yahweh? Was He one of them? Was He an extraterrestrial?” Well, in one sense he is, of course, an extraterrestrial, since he comes from beyond the Earth! But is – or was – he an Anunnaku? Or, more generally, an inhabitant of Nîbiru? Or really the prime creator?
Sitchin establishes a series of comparisons with gods named in the clay plates. Even though there are various similarities with each of these gods in the biblical descriptions of Yahweh, the comparison doesn’t work out with anyone of them, since there are also contradictions. Yahweh cannot be one of them. Sitchin then tries with Thoth, the Egyptian god, who in Sumer was called Ningishzidda. He also was a son of Enki. But the comparison doesn’t work out here, either.
Then, finally, he compares Yahweh with Marduk. He refers to Isaiah 46,1 and Jeremiah 50,2, since they predict that Marduk  with his son Nabu will on the Day of Judgment bow down before Yahweh and be broken in pieces. That could, however – in view of the not very friendly relations between the Hebrews and the Babylonians, where they had been in exile – be seen as a politically motivated portrayal. He then also finds an objection in a Babylonian text, according to which various functions of Marduk are transferred to other gods. This would, in his view, contradict monotheism and, therefore, Yahweh could not be Marduk. In my view one could also se that as a confirmation! If we regard this assignment of functions as Marduk delegating tasks to other gods, who thereby represent Marduk in their functions, things look a bit different. These gods, in a way, are then manifestations or forms of appearance of the one Marduk, as he works through them! The hypothesis that Yahweh would be Marduk is then no more so out of place. 
Delitzsch wrote in a much disputed work : “Yes, the old testament poets and prophets even went so far that they transferred Marduk’s heroic deeds directly to Yahweh and then celebrated the latter as the one, who at the beginning of times crushed the heads of the sea monster (Ps 74:13ff, 89:10), as the one who smashed the accomplices of the dragon (Job 9:13).” With this, he meant the fight of Marduk against Ti’âmat, who is often described as a dragon of the primordial waters and sometimes also as a serpent with seven heads. “Passages like Isa 51:9: ‘Up, up! Equip yourself with power, arm of Yahweh! Up! Like in the primordial days, the generations of the beginning of times. Were you not the one who cut the dragon in pieces and pierced the monster?’ Or Job 26:12: ‘In his power he conquered the sea and in his cleverness he crushed the dragon’…” (his own translations from Hebrew).
The name Rahab occurs in two senses in the Bible. It is the name of a prostitute who was bribed to help the Hebrews to take the town of Jericho by means of a wicked trick. Thus, she betrayed her own people. But this is not the one we are concerned with here.
Rahab is also the “dragon” in the “chaos” – i.e., the primordial energy – that was before the creation, and she is compared to Ti’âmat in Enûma Elish and even identified with her. Later she was regarded as a demon.
The name occurs in the latter meaning in the following essential passages (and a few others that are not essential to us here):
Job 9:13 “If God will not withdraw his anger, the proud helpers of Rahab do stoop under him.”
Job 26:12 “He [Yahweh] divideth the sea with his power, and by his understanding he smiteth through Rahab. 13 By his spirit he hath garnished the heavens; his hand hath formed the crooked serpent.”
Ps 74:12 “For God is my King of old, working salvation in the midst of the earth. 13 Thou didst divide the sea by thy strength: thou breakest the heads of the dragons [Rahab and her company] in the waters. 14 Thou breakest the heads of the whales in pieces, and gavest him to be meat to the people inhabiting the wilderness.
Ps 89:9 “Thou rulest the raging of the sea: when the waves thereof arise, thou stillest them. 10 Thou hast broken Rahab in pieces, as one that is slain; thou hast scattered thine enemies with thy strong arm.” (Ps 89:10-11 in another counting.)
Isa 51:9 “Awake, awake, put on strength, O arm of the LORD; awake, as in the ancient days, in the generations of old. Art thou not it that hath cut Rahab, and wounded the dragon?”
[Not all Bible translations mentioned Rahab by name here, but the Hebrew text does (רהב), except in Ps 74:12, where she is alluded to among the “dragons in the water”.]
If we here replace “Yahweh” with “Marduk”, these quotations could just as well refer to Enûma Elish with Rahab corresponding to Ti’âmat and the water to the primordial energy before creation, which actually is Apsû, from which creation then emerged. John Day has in a comprehensive academic work dealt extensively with “God’s Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea” and sees these things in a similar manner, except that he doesn’t dare to compare Yahweh and Marduk. Instead, he wants to demonstrate an origin in the Cana‘anite mythology and not, as several other scientists do, in Enûma Elish. Since, however, the Cana‘anite texts (inscriptions) handed down to us begin at about 2350 BCE – and that fragmentary – and the Sumerian civilization is older than the oldest of these handed down texts, one cannot exclude that the Cana‘anites could have taken over mythological themes from the Sumerians. Even though the clay plates containing Enûma Elish date back to between 1800 and 1600 BCE, the mythology described therein could well be of much earlier origin and have belonged to the Sumerian culture long before they were recorded in the plates.
It is interesting that Day also takes up the plural in Gen 1, like “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness” (Gen 1:26). He refers to other authors and himself explains it such that God would have consulted a “divine council” (composed of the “sons of God”). To that he quotes Ps 8:5: “For thou hast made him a little lower than the gods (‘elohim, here often translated as ‘angels’), and hast crowned him with glory and honor” (in another counting Ps 8:6) [6, p. 54]. Here we may again think of the Gnostic doctrine of Yaldabaoth and the Archons…
1. Zecharia Sitchin: Divine Encounters, Avon, New York, 1995: “Endpaper: God, the Extraterrestrial”, p 347-380
2. Singular: Anunnaku, plural: Anunnaki.
3. He is in the Bible called Merodach and is according to Sitchin also called Bel, even though both names are stated in Jer 50:2 as if they are two.
4. Jan Erik Sigdell: Es begann in Babylon, Holistika, Meckenheim, 2008, pp 109-110.
5. Friedrich Delitzsch: Babel und Bibel, J.C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung, Leipzig, 1902, pp 33-34
6. John Day: God’s Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea, Cambridge University Press, London, 1985.
Yaldabaoth and Hades
In the Gospel of the Egyptians is written:
“After five thousand years, the great light Eleleth spoke: ‘Let someone reign over the chaos and Hades.’ And there appeared a cloud whose name is hylic Sophia [...]. She looked out on the parts of the chaos, her face being like [...] in her form [...] blood. And the great angel Gamaliel spoke to the great Gabriel, the minister of the great light Oroiael; he said, ‘Let an angel come forth, in order that he may reign over the chaos and Hades.’... Then Sakla, the great angel, saw the great demon who is with him, Nebruel... Sakla said to the great demon Nebruel, ‘Let the twelve aeons come into being in the [...] aeon, worlds [...].’ ... And after the founding of the world, Sakla said to his angels, ‘I, I am a jealous god, and apart from me nothing has come into being,’ since he trusted in his nature.”
Yaldabaoth is also called Saklas (the fool), Nebro (the rebel) or Samael (the blind one). The names are used a bit differently in various texts, sometimes as if referring to one and the same, sometimes as if describing somewhat different aspects of Yaldabaoth. Quotes from Wikipedia: “This [Samael] leads to a further comparison with Satan” and “This leads to a further comparison with Satan.” Several texts mention Saklas and Satan (the enemy) as equal.
The intention with this article has been to draw attention to how humanity is mislead and deceived by lesser gods and by religious institutions that are their tools and play their games, and to present factual evidence for it.
They use emotions like fear (and the reaction to fear in aggressiveness) to control, and they know how to do it.
They strive to maintain a predatory “food chain” that goes beyond the material-physical (corporeal) level, feeding energetically from below, not wanting to realize that they can get all energy they need for free from above. But for that they have to change their own form of being, and that they don’t want, because they then would have to give up power.
Power and love are like fire and water, you cannot have both, but have to choose the one or the other. No one loves the one who has power, but sticks to him out of fear. Fearing to loose what one has and sacrificing ones freedom for it.
Don’t just like that believe the preachers, manipulated traditions and non-original texts.
Question what they say and what they write. Negative energies and entities run our world!
And they pose as positive, since people otherwise wouldn’t listen to them …
The evil profits from not believing in it, since this gives it free hands to act.
Yet at the end there is only one solution: “Father, forgive them, because they don’t know what they are doing”!
That means that we, too, must be able to forgive them even for all the sufferings they cause for their own purposes, like sucking life energies from us and even for their perverted joy.
They are also our brothers and sisters in creation, who only are still unable to see the light (or in their ignorance maybe even fear it).
Forgiveness is the only final solution. Hatred only makes it worse and ties us to those we regard as enemies.
But there are no real enemies, and if there were, we would have to love even them.
There are only those who are caught in darkness and actually are lost in it, until they, too, begin to see the light.
There is always a little light in the darkness and the eyes get used to it, so that many believe it to be the real thing and don’t seek the true light.
We are not free before we have been able to forgive.
Then comes the time in which we can lift our eyes up to the light above them who deceive us.
The prayer to the Father, the true prime creator, that Jesus gave us, says:
“And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us.”
That means something that apparently few want to understand:
IF WE DON’T FORGIVE THOSE INDEBTED TO US, WE CANNOT EXPECT THE FATHER TO FORGIVE US!