Were Humans Created by Reptilians?

Respectfully hello.
I have a rock head. You can hardly ever change my mind.
It is not impossible however and so I read...you know try to pick up what I can. Vigorous debate is wonderful and maybe you were doing that. I respect that of course.

Long before this thread started I concluded there were two major groups or types of people. It has nothing to do with bloodtypes per se. I notice contradictions of messages through out the Bible, still the greatest book in my mind and I believe there is a message for us within it.
If there were any way for Catholics or Christians to disassociate themselves with a snake they would have done it. Yet this same reptile features prominently throughout not only the Bible but in encryption, hieroglyphics, petroglyphs all over the world, along with so many other first man and woman stories, creation stories, myths, fables, folk lore passed down generation to generation, and so to me it is overwhelmingly obvious, we have some lizard root. The fact of a reptilian brain is just like a confirmation.

We have some lizard root - just like they are trying to say without actually saying in the Bible.

This website is against serpent seed doctrine or anything like that www.carm.org... but I think like most people they are scared to imagine it. doesn't really bother me much. I know who I am.

I know firsthand people, cold blooded, with hearts of stone. We think differently. We are different.

And so I say it every day with my name. Are you Seth or are you Cain?

In my readings I see that God though not thrilled obviously surprisingly - rather than despising the Cain archtype he gives him every chance and loves him too like a son. It is kind of sick to me yes, but it is repeatedly evidenced, God (if there is one) loves them both.

One is decidedly favored and the other is to be brought around.
That is very clear.

So with this I leave you...
Peace on earth good will to men and lizard men.

reply to post by rusethorcain

we have some lizard root. The fact of a reptilian brain is just like a confirmation.

I was wondering if you could go more indepth here. Last time I checked the reptilian brain is much different from ours. While our hindbrain has the same structures as a reptilian brain, there are many other animals that have a brain composed of just the structures that make up our hindbrain, such as frogs. It just goes to show that if you go back far enough all animals have a common ancestor.

reply to post by Xcalibur254


Well...I am a bartender

but I will try to explain.... some point in our evolutionary process an extra brain was layered on top of the one we had. The one we had didn't grow larger or more complex...another brain is actually slapped on top of the one we have.

This is what gives some of us feelings.
Our neo cortex sepeates us from the reptiles and in some people I don't think their neo cortex is up to the task. For the rest of it...see above and as I say I am a bartender so we needn't start a fly diet yet.

For more on the brain serendip.brynmawr.edu...

Edit: Well thanks but I know all this from 3rd grade science and yup yup yup but the neo-cortex IS UNIQUE TO HUMANS and a late addition evolutionary-wise.

The link above says interestingly/helpfully WHEN each part of the brain was added to the stem in our evolutionary history, you can compare that to skill sets and accomplishment of early man. There are the 35,000 year leaps. Whats that all about? Think that is significant.

There's a book by Robert Heinlein (sp?) great called When Gravity Fails. Total sci-fi decadence but in it he describes people who assume the thoughts and memories of famous characters by attaching a bluetooth device on their heads. They become James Bond or Gunga Din or Marilyn Monroe, whatever, learn their memories and become them. They are moddy's, in the book. Modified biological units.

I think we have the capacity for love and compassion already because we see this in animals at rest but I do believe we were organically/ biologically modified so we could make our evolutionary leaps, learn languages, and tackle long range thinking. At least once.

I don't think we could have evolved as we have all by our self.
I am sure there was some heavenly induced enhancement from some unearthly realm or certainly we would still be evolving along the lines of the apeman...


Now that I think of it, you do have a good point.




Later - Martini Time





[edit on 6-3-2010 by rusethorcain]

reply to post by rusethorcain


The reptilian brain is essentially the human hindbrain. It is is composed of the brainstem and the cerebellum. These structures control basic functions like heart rate and movement. These structures are seen in every organism that has developed a brain, they are not unique to humans. As animals evolved structures such as the amygdala, and hippocampus evolved. These allowed for memory and emotion and are found in all mammals. As mammals evolved the cortex began to appear which allowed for complex thought amongst other things. The cortex is found in pretty much every modern mammal, although it is most developed in humans. So, I'm not sure what this shows. Reptiles were the first creatures to move onto land and develop a brain, so all land animals are going to have a brain descended from theirs.

reply to post by Xcalibur254


another vase found at abydos (read abzu). they are underwater
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/aee027514bb01531.jpg[/atsimg]



[edit on 6-3-2010 by undo]

reply to post by undo


Have they done much in excavating the flooded part of Abydos. I remember you talking about it a while back and that they were scheduled to start, but I thought the excavation was canceled.

reply to post by Xcalibur254


no, i was talking about the flooded part of the tomb of seti i, in the valley of the kings, which is not in abydos. the tomb of seti 1 and the monument of seti 1 are two different things, in two different areas of egypt.

tomb is in valley of kings
monument is in abydos
osirieon is in abydos but its not seti 1's monument and its not seti 1's tomb, it's attached, however, to seti 1's monument by a long tunnel created by seti i, to link the osirieon to his monument. there is water in the osirieon and there is also water in seti 1's tomb in valley of the kings, in the K corridor below his sarcophagus room. but there's no water in the monument.
hopefully that didn't get even more confusing

there's a book out there by a guy named RA BOULAY, who claims that adam and eve were reptilians themselves, created by reptilian geneticists, and that the whole "realized they were naked thing" is about us being genetically modified to be more mammalian, and in the process, we shed our reptile skins. when we became mammalian, we smelled bad to the reptilians, who insisted we not stand by them or in their holy breathing space with our stinky bodies and smelly shoes. and that reptiles are inherently cleaner and less smelly than mammals, who exude several offensive body odors, vs reptiles who don't appear to have the same odors.

it had some convincing parts in it and i could see how a reptilian god would be offended that his people had been turned into smelly sweaty hairy mammals like, DUDE, you need some personal hygiene products.

here's the book
www.apollonius.net...

[edit on 6-3-2010 by undo]

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by rusethorcain

 

The reptilian brain is essentially the human hindbrain. It is is composed of the brainstem and the cerebellum. These structures control basic functions like heart rate and movement. These structures are seen in every organism that has developed a brain, they are not unique to humans. As animals evolved structures such as the amygdala, and hippocampus evolved. These allowed for memory and emotion and are found in all mammals. As mammals evolved the cortex began to appear which allowed for complex thought amongst other things. The cortex is found in pretty much every modern mammal, although it is most developed in humans. So, I'm not sure what this shows. Reptiles were the first creatures to move onto land and develop a brain, so all land animals are going to have a brain descended from theirs.

From link above[ The neocortex occupies the bulk of the cerebrum. This is a six-layered structure of the cerebral cortex which is only found in mammals. It is thought that the neocortex is a recently evolved structure, and is associated with "higher" information processing by more fully evolved animals, such as humans, primates, dolphins, etc.

The Cerebellum: The cerebellum, or "little brain", is similar to the cerebrum in that it has two hemispheres and has a highly folded surface or cortex. This structure is associated with regulation and coordination of movement, posture, and balance.

The cerebellum is assumed to be much older than the cerebrum, evolutionarily. In other words, animals which scientists assume to have evolved prior to humans, for example reptiles, do have developed cerebellums.

However, reptiles do not have neocortex.

Limbic System: The limbic system, often referred to as the "emotional brain", is found buried within the cerebrum. Like the cerebellum, evolutionarily the structure is rather old. This system contains the thalamus, hypothalamus, amygdala, and hippocampus.

Underneath the limbic system is the brain stem. This structure is responsible for basic vital life functions such as breathing, heartbeat, and blood pressure. Scientists say that this is the "simplest" part of human brains because animals' entire brains, such as reptiles (who appear early on the evolutionary scale) resemble our brain stem.] end quote



[edit on 7-3-2010 by rusethorcain]

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
Reptiles were the first creatures to move onto land and develop a brain, so all land animals are going to have a brain descended from theirs.

So I guess the debate is whether there is validity in the reptiles developing a brain any more advance than what is seen in nature. Also with mammals, even though they have the most advanced brains there is still a rather large difference between our mental abilities and other mammals, so even if a reptile had a more advance brain (which I don’t see any evidence) it doesn’t mean it had even the intelligence of the lowest level mammal.

With some history of all brains somewhat related I guess it boils down to whether we got that relationship 35,000 years ago or 50 million. Since all animals has the same relationship with reptilian brains I would suggest it was more along the 50 million year mark or even earlier.

Isn't the premise of this debate that these "reptilians" (might just look like ours, not necessarily have much in common with the ones found on Earth) are from another world/planet/star system?

Originally posted by undo
it had some convincing parts in it and i could see how a reptilian god would be offended that his people had been turned into smelly sweaty hairy mammals

like, DUDE, you need some personal hygiene products.

Are you sure that personal hygiene companies are not reptilian owned?

But on a serious note your post is a great example in the process of just creating a fantasy picture and then presenting it as a history. I think that is where much of all this sits, just someone’s made up fantasy world where they see huge gaps, but either totally ignore those gaps or just make up other stuff along the way to fill them. This is why I call this example a pure fantasy.

Originally posted by Ayrton
Isn't the premise of this debate that these "reptilians" (might just look like ours, not necessarily have much in common with the ones found on Earth) are from another world/planet/star system?

Well then is it right to even call them reptilians in the first place. We need some foundation here, and just pulling ideas out of thin air does not go very far.

So are these reptiles from an evolution on earth or are they aliens? If they are alien and look like us why do we call them reptilian? If they are from earth where did they go? If they are still here, where? The earth gets smaller every year with our technology and still we are about as close to the truth in this (if there is a truth) as the clay tablets were 4000 years ago. One would think we would have a huge amount of evidence by now.


[edit on 7-3-2010 by Xtrozero]

reply to post by Xtrozero


which part of the post is fantasy? what picture is fantasy?
you need to clarify cause that was a pretty generalized statement and i'd like to have some confirmation as to what you are addressing specifically

reply to post by undo


You are making a shed-load of assertions, one after another, and they are all required to be true for even the basic foundation of your idea to even be possible. Reptile skulls near bipedal skeletons of known, non-reptilian mammals = definite proof of reptilian bipeds? Brilliant.

reply to post by davesidious


i think it's more a case of potentially prejudicing the findings because your mind already has an idea of what it should be looking for.

These are excerpts taken from wiki en.wikipedia.org... regarding the Serpent Seed Doctrine.

A website lost to me now featured St Thomas Acquinas as a proponent of this doctrine. His argument was that God repaid blood for blood and Eve's punishment meant she must have spilled blood, (as in her virginity) and not just eaten a piece of fruit (to the devil who appeared to her as a snake -reptile -lizard) or the punishment would not have been so severe.

Another interesting point I think is that God cursed the reptilian ever after to crawl on his belly indicating he did not up to this point crawl on his belly.

If this is a fable to prove a point rather than a story to be taken literally, it is a creation tale that clearly references two distinct lines or types of people.

Along with lovers and warm and fuzzy mammalian family types (describing inner nature) I see other people with such a cold hard unforgiving countenance -they resemble reptiles.
And I encounter both types evidenced across all races.

quote

[" Another key difference is in the descendants of Cain. Some believe that the two lines remained separate and that eventually Cain's descendants were all destroyed, others believe that Cain's descendants became completely mixed with the descendants of Adam (meaning that all humanity is partially descended from Cain),[15] and still others believe that the two lines remain separate to this day.[16] "]

end quote

I vehemently disavow Christian Identity Theology which ascribes an unfounded and racist interpretation to this doctrine. but the rest of the interpretation makes a lot of sense.

quote

History

[The Serpent Seed idea appears in a 9th century book called Pirke De-Rabbi Eliezer.[9] Rabbi David Max Eichhorn, in his book Cain: Son of the Serpent, traces the idea back through early Jewish Midrashic texts and identifies many rabbis who taught that Cain was the son of the union between the serpent and Eve.[9] Some Kabbalist rabbis also believe that Cain and Abel were of a different genetic background than Seth. This is known among Kabbalists as "The Theory of Origins".[10] The theory teaches that God created two "Adams"(Adam means MAN in Hebrew). To one he gave a soul and to the other he did not give a soul. The one without a soul is the creature known in Christianity as the serpent. The Kabbalists call the serpent Nahash (nahash means serpent in Hebrew). This is recorded in the Zohar:

"Two beings [Adam and Nachash] had intercourse with Eve, and she conceived from both and bore two children. Each followed one of the male parents, and their spirits parted, one to this side and one to the other, and similarly their characters. On the side of Cain are all the haunts of the evil species; from the side of Abel comes a more merciful class, yet not wholly beneficial -- good wine mixed with bad."(Zohar 136)

In The Scofield Study Bible Scofield says, "The serpent, in his Edenic form, is not to be thought of as a writhing reptile. That is the effect of the curse (Gen. 3:14). The creature which lent itself to Satan may well have been the most beautiful as it was the most "subtle" of creatures less than man".[11] Scofield's notes are silent as to the idea of Cain being the serpent's seed, however in Genesis 6:2 his notes claimed that while it was an "error" to believe that the offspring mentioned were the product of supernatural unions, it was instead the intermarriage of the "godly line of Seth" with the "godless line of Cain" being referred to.[12] Advocates suggest that modern Christian translations of the Old Testament reduce emphasis on this concept, which they believe indicated the serpent had been an upright, human-like creature.

The foundational scripture for the serpent's seed doctrine appears in Genesis 3:15, which in the King James Version states "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." Advocates interpret this literally to mean that an offspring of the Serpent via Eve would eventually lose in a mortal conflict with one of "her seed". Eve's son by Adam would have presumably been called "Adam's seed" so it has been suggested, since a woman does not naturally produce seed, that "her seed" is the first prophesy of an eventual human messiah produced by means of a virgin birth. Adherents believe this sets up the serpent's seed as a antitype to Jesus Christ.

Advocates also point out that in Genesis 4:1-2 it is mentioned only once that Adam "knew" his wife, yet twice it is mentioned that she "bare" sons (see, hetero paternal super fecundation). Advocates also believe an unmentioned act of infidelity is implied by reproductive and marital curses placed on Eve in Genesis 3:16, that otherwise seem inappropriate to merely eating a forbidden fruit. St. Paul seems to suggest as much in 2 Corinthians 11:2-3, where he may have implied that Eve was not a chaste virgin at the time Adam first had relations with her: "For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ. But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted..."

In the New Testament epistle of 1 John, ch. 3 v. xii it also states, "Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother." John also recorded in his gospel (8:44) that Christ said, "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."
These passages, if taken literally as they are by advocates, seem to suggest that the New Testament writers believed that Cain, the first murderer, was indeed the serpent's seed."]

end quote

On the flipside...here is the whole argument against

quote

[Most Christians and Jews do not believe the serpent seed doctrine based on Genesis 4:1 which states "And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bore Cain, and said, I have gotten a man child from the LORD,"]

end quote

However:

1) She could have known them both.

2) I find it more curious that Eve feels the need to tell her husband where this child came from, since they were supposedly alone. "I have gotten a man child from the Lord"

Now, where else would you have gotten this child from Eve?
And she makes no such acclamation at the birth of Abel or Seth.












[edit on 8-3-2010 by rusethorcain]

reply to post by rusethorcain


it's interesting that he loses his legs as part of his punishment, but not long after, we see elijah talking to the king of tyre as if he were the serpent. how'd the serpent get in the king of tyre pray tell? the problem here is the english text is too generalized. truth be known seraphim is a race of angels who are serpentine in appearance. what's that mean then? dr. michael s. heiser attempts to explain it in his paper entitled, "NACHASH AND HIS SEED," Some Explanatory Notes on Why the “Serpent” in Genesis 3 Wasn't a Serpent. you can read it here: www.thedivinecouncil.com...

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by Xtrozero

 

which part of the post is fantasy? what picture is fantasy?
you need to clarify cause that was a pretty generalized statement and i'd like to have some confirmation as to what you are addressing specifically

Sorry I did a poor job of quoting. My joke was towards your quote, the rest was towards your post in that I find the book by Ra Boulay as a great example of someone who pushes pure fantasy as fact.

reply to post by Xtrozero


yeah i had a hard time with it myself. but he does bring up some very interesting points that lead me to do further study, which is always good.