Author |
Message |
   
Jim Member
Post Number: 114 Registered: 07-2003
| Posted on Monday, February 21, 2011 - 05:50 pm: |
|
Certainly your translation, Ben, seems to be the one that conveys the correct meaning. The "von Jmmanuel" phrase has to go with the 40-day absence, and does not allow Jmmanuel be the noun that does the teaching. However, the present TJ gives no clue that Jmmanuel did any teaching to anyone in Palestine, man or woman, before the 40 days and nights. Except he perhaps "taught" John the Baptist that it was proper for him to go ahead and baptize Jmmanuel. It might be conjectured that the two women could have taught about love, harmony and peace as contrasted with sorrow, strife and war. They needn't have heard Jmmanuel teach to do this. However, it does sound more likely that it would be Jmmanuel who taught about the folly of using idols. So I can see why this might have been what caused Dyson to change it. So perhaps the revised TJ will mention that Jmmanuel did some teaching to both genders before his 40-day absence. (If it does, critics may say that such a revision was made to the TJ just for the purpose of solving this problem.) |
   
Ramirez Member
Post Number: 561 Registered: 06-2008
| Posted on Monday, February 21, 2011 - 07:42 pm: |
|
Hi Benjamin, Surely your translation makes complete sense and it's logical the disciples including females were continuing to spread Jmannuel's teachings during his absence. Verification ..... Ptaah & Quetzal who are familiar with the details of what occurred during those 40 days are the most qualified to offer explanations and hopefully these would be included in the expanded TJ. Really what's the problem in openly stating that they (Plejaran) have used time travel capable spacecraft to return to those times, remain unobserved in the vicinity where events took place whilst collecting data plus relying on their own historical records which might have been in the form of visual - audio recordings, written material or both. That's one possibility. Another is Billy presenting clarifications based on memories of his own experiences though that would be a bit much for some to accept. Also ... those Nag Hamadi texts openly discuss Mary Magdalene and her position among Jmannuels group. Considering someone wrote this information maybe 50-100 years after the events ... where did they obtain records of conversations ? Billy has remarked that much of the Essene material is make believe but is the Gospel Of Mary included into that ...... make believe. Also during those times the status and equality of females wasn't all that great but obviously the author of Gospel Of Mary had no problem portraying Mary as having a leading role among the group which supports the German text. Your frustration is understood and appreciated. Just a small error can change so much and lead readers towards all manner of wild speculations. Cheers.
|
   
Bennyray37 Member
Post Number: 55 Registered: 01-2010
| Posted on Tuesday, February 22, 2011 - 06:28 pm: |
|
Based on what I have read and thought about during the translation of the reader's (Dyson's) question about the Talmud Jmmanuel, I am convinced that the new Talmud Jmmanuel is, indeed, going to have Jmmanuel teaching before his 40-day absence. It seems that in the new Talmud Jmmanuel, women will be shown to be the first disciples of Jmmanuel. Jmmanuel may not have all 17 female disciples before the 40-day absence, but he will at least have two, Esther and Mary Magdalene, and he will have taught them about love, harmony, peace, sorrow, strife, war, idols, etc. The new Talmud Jmmanuel may or may not show much of Jmmanuel's teaching the women prior to the 40-day absence; my guess is that it won't. Rather, during the 40-day absence, the new Talmud Jmmanuel will have a detailed section of the women teaching others what Jmmanuel already taught them earlier, and this in itself will reveal to the present-day reader of the new Talmud Jmmanuel that which Jmmanuel already taught the women prior to this section. There certainly could be a lot of new information contained in the new Talmud Jmmanuel already before Jmmanuel's 40-day absence, but we'll just have to wait a little longer to see. -- Benjamin Stevens |
   
Eddieamartin Member
Post Number: 144 Registered: 08-2010
| Posted on Tuesday, February 22, 2011 - 07:16 pm: |
|
I'm looking forward to the Teachings that came after Jmmanuel's apparent-death experience. Salome, Eddie [7:-)
|
   
Bennyray37 Member
Post Number: 56 Registered: 01-2010
| Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2011 - 05:41 am: |
|
As far as the new material goes, I am pretty confident that although the new Talmud Jmmanuel is going to be almost twice as large as the first, all of the new material will still be contained within the chronology of the original first quarter of the scroll that Markus-Isa Rashid worked on. In other words, I don't think that any new material will exist beyond the last section that is shown in the current Talmud Jmmanuel after Jmmanuel's crucifixion. I know that the Plejaren weren't willing to reveal any part of the last three-fourths of the text before, and I am quite confident that even though the Arahat Athersata level is said to have the entire original text, they still won't reveal any material of that section. It seems that they are allowing this new material in because Isa is said to have worked on it but to have suppressed it. But if Isa never worked on it, then we never get to see it. -- Benjamin Stevens |
   
Eddieamartin Member
Post Number: 145 Registered: 08-2010
| Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2011 - 10:26 am: |
|
Hello all, I have a question. (The following post may not be for everyone, or, may not be tangible enough, or, may be a bit of a challenge, for some to fully fathom). This question stems from my study and analysis of the various books (prophets) of the Goblet of Truth and the 4th edition TJ. (?) If we all made effort to develop and embody, what is 'evident' from the mission of the incarnated Nokodemjan as Jmmanuel, when we develop and can exercise this gift from Creation, which we of earth are not aware of as being in our possession; would we need to seek out the people, or would the people flock to us? Markus Isa Rashid and Judas Ischarioth, with all due respects to their efforts and labors, are NOT the focal point, nor is the need for corroborating writings that biblical scholars can identify with and thus 'believe' the authenticity of the TJ. Consider the below from Contact Report 224. ( http://www.futureofmankind.co.uk/Billy_Meier/Contact_Report_224 ) And what is still to be said: it really was so, that in Jmmanuel’s time, as I said, out of all the disciples, only Judas Ischarioth was knowledgeable of reading and writing, while the others were illiterates. This also applies to the seven disciples who belonged to the group, but of whom no records exist from Judas Ischarioth, as well as not of the various other women and men, who were on the move with Jmmanuel during the time of his spreading of the teaching. At the same time, I also wonder whether it will one day become known that Jmmanuel’s disciples only went with him occasionally because they repeatedly had to perform their work and business, etc. at home, about which Judas Ischarioth also wrote nothing, and thus, the impression is given that the disciples had always been with and around Jmmanuel. Furthermore, everything written by Judas is only a brief outline of the entire life, teaching, and work of Jmmanuel, for in fact, this one wasn’t just on the move and spreading the teaching for only three years or so, as is maintained by Christianity; rather, he was already active in this form starting from his sixth year of age, and thus, for a total of almost 29 years when he was beaten to the cross at the age of a little more than 34 years. Now the short question of the long speech: will everything that I have now disclosed one day be found out and made known? So Jmmanuel had been teaching since the age of 6 (nearly 29 years). Consider the following from Contact Report 192:32-40 ( http://www.futureofmankind.co.uk/Billy_Meier/Contact_Report_192 ) (Quetzal) 32. As always, all evil is done to you because as of old, you are the most unwanted and unusually hated person on Earth because you should bring the truth, the teachings, and peace. 33. And in truth, it is also the case that I have to say once that even we were not always correct toward you, even though you are, in every respect, our example. 34. But often, my friend, we simply felt confused by your Earth manhood and regarded you as an original Earth person. 35. We have often misled ourselves in this and have seen you in such a way as how you mimic the perfect Earth person, even though we know that your spirit form is far superior to ours, even if it has to be choked in its power on the Earth up to 27%. 36. It would be good if even the group members would think once about that; then they could, perhaps, learn to understand that you are the loneliest person on Earth. 37. Thus, for once, I would like to give them a nut to crack and tell them that already for a long time, you have truly no longer been a person but rather a pure spirit form, who has allowed himself, out of the deepest love for 7 billion years, to be pressed and forced into a human body again in order to help. 38. Yet how these do give you this agony – even those who should be your allies? 39. It is truly a disgrace, like with the Wisest of the Wise, referring to Nokodemion, whom one calls, in the level of the Arahat Athersata, the perfection of love and fulfillment. 40. All of those people who are gathered around you should think of that at least once. Have we considered the following: without literacy, facebook or twitter, a FIGU forum, books or the internet and emails, Jmmanuel was able to get 5,000 people to follow him and listen to his Teachings, and, some even spread the word and brought others to him when he visited the various towns. Thus, I present my question again: (?) If we all made effort to develop and embody, what is 'evident' from the mission of the incarnated Nokodemjan as Jmmanuel, when we develop and can exercise this gift from Creation, which we of earth are not aware of as being in our possession; would we need to seek out the people, or would the people flock to us? Salome, Eddie [7:-)
|
   
Norm Member
Post Number: 1404 Registered: 02-2000
| Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2011 - 05:40 pm: |
|
Jim, Hi Billy, I have another question about the Jmmanuel script that was stolen by Juda Iharioth from Judas Iscarioth & sold to the Pharisees & Scribes. Do you know what became of that script? Answer Billy doesn't know. Hi Billy, The Jmmanuel script that was stolen by Juda Iharioth from Judas Iscarioth & sold to the Pharisees & Scribes. Was that script used by the some of the writers of Mathew, Mark, Luke & John? Answer No My Website
|
   
Jim Member
Post Number: 115 Registered: 07-2003
| Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2011 - 07:34 pm: |
|
Hello Norm, It's possible that Billy said No to that 2nd question because that script appears to have been used by just one of the gospel writers, not some of them. (Some implying more than one; so it wasn't used by some of them). Or Billy could be wrong. Or it could just be a coincidence that the order of events in the Gospel of Mark follows Matthew's order precisely from Chap. 13 of the Talmud Jmmanuel on (from Chap. 12 of Matthew on) while deviating strongly before then, and that this is the point at which we expect Judas had not written any more on his scripts because they had just been stolen. So the writer of Mark had only Matthew to follow from that point on. A further coincidence is that the Talmud of Jmmanuel indicates Matthew was formed out of it, not Mark, and that the writer of Mark did not have access to the Talmud of Jmmanuel. So this is why from that point on in his gospel, the writer of Mark had only Matthew to go by. And a further coincidence is that the disciple Peter and John Mark his interpreter were reported to have some writing with them in Rome which Peter neither urged forward nor kept secret; this makes sense in that their document (assumed to be the stolen scripts later recovered) referred to Jmmanuel while Paul called him "Jesus" and preached salvation through belief in Jesus Christ. So Peter would have run into a lot of opposition if he had urged dissemination of transcriptions of the stolen scripts in opposition to Paul's teachings. And a related coincidence is that there are quite a few Latin words within the Gospel of Mark's Greek text suggesting it was written in Rome. Another coincidence is that in Paul's epistle to the Galatians, he opposed Peter to his face and said that Peter was not straightforward about the truth of the gospel. (Gospel here referred to Paul's own oral version of the "good news" or "gospel" in Greek.) To me these "coincidences" cried out to be connected by dots, but perhaps they should not be. |
   
Norm Member
Post Number: 1407 Registered: 02-2000
| Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2011 - 08:02 pm: |
|
Jim, Why not ask Billy in the next round of questions. My Website
|
   
Bennyray37 Member
Post Number: 57 Registered: 01-2010
| Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2011 - 09:04 pm: |
|
Let's not forget the Plejaren's official stance on the creation of the book of Matthew: 212th Contact - Thursday, November 6, 1986, 1:04 AM ... Quetzal: 11. Matthew was just as ignorant of reading and writing as all the others, to whom the Gospels and the books of the Bible are attributed. 12. The Gospel of Matthew was dictated by Matthew to a scribe named Joshua, who interpreted the whole thing in his free discretion and wrote it down and, consequently, also falsified it. Conclusion: According to Quetzal's statement quoted above, Matthew, one of the twelve disciples – who could not read at all according to Quetzal and, therefore, could not read the Talmud Jmmanuel – dictated “something” to a scribe named Joshua, who then falsified this “something” at his own discretion, the end result of which was the book of Matthew. Thus, Quetzal's information shown above allows no room for the Talmud Jmmanuel to have been used in the creation of the book of Matthew. Therefore: 1. If one holds that the Talmud Jmmanuel was used in the making of the book of Matthew, one MUST conclude that the Plejaren, as represented by Quetzal, have given false information on the origin of the book of Matthew. 2. If one holds that the Plejaren have given true information on the origin of the book of Matthew, then one MUST conclude that the Talmud Jmmanuel was not used at all during the making of the book of Matthew. Any faults with this reasoning? -- Benjamin Stevens |
   
Jim Member
Post Number: 116 Registered: 07-2003
| Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2011 - 09:48 pm: |
|
Norm, I doubt that Billy is interested enough in this topic to want to spend time on it. You can look into the reasoning for yourself, if you wish, and look into the source evidence behind the various points, and decide for yourself. |
   
Jim Member
Post Number: 117 Registered: 07-2003
| Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2011 - 11:50 pm: |
|
That's a good reminder, Ben. If the next, revised edition of the Talmud of Jmmanuel still retains about the same order of events and their descriptions as the earlier editions, then one must conclude that the Talmud of Jmmanuel is a hoax or forgery based on the Gospel of Matthew, if Quetzal's statement 12. is true and your conclusion 2. is correct. This follows from the order and descriptions of so many events in the Gospel of Matthew being the same as in the Talmud of Jmmanuel. One has to be based upon the other. I wonder, could 12. be true in any other way? What if an early Jewish-Christian man who happened to be named Matthew (not the disciple who had died decades earlier) is who Quetzal referred to. I'll call him Matthew2. Matthew2 could speak Greek and Aramaic, but could not read or write. After Matthew2 had acquired the Talmud of Jmmanuel in the early 2nd century, he had an unnamed literate friend of his, who could read Aramaic, dictate it to him. Then Matthew2 at the same time translated & dictated it in Greek to Joshua, and Joshua wrote it down in Greek while also making many falsifications. Would something like that work? I don't care for this solution myself, because of external evidence by a certain Bishop Papias that the Gospel of Matthew was first written in the Hebrew tongue, not in Greek. But a consensus of scholars prefer that it have been written first in Greek, so perhaps it's OK. |
   
Earthling Member
Post Number: 521 Registered: 05-2008
| Posted on Thursday, February 24, 2011 - 03:01 am: |
|
or maybe Matthew was present while Jmmanuel was dictating the TJ to Judas; Matthew then (from memory) had Joshua write down what he remembered ... or some variation thereof. This should be cleared up. The work Jim has done on the subject reveal that it is far too much of a coincidence that the book of Matthew & the TJ are generally in sync. |
   
Bennyray37 Member
Post Number: 58 Registered: 01-2010
| Posted on Thursday, February 24, 2011 - 07:11 am: |
|
I agree with your reasoning, Jim. I myself cannot see how Matthew could have dictated something to someone who then falsified it at his free discretion, and this, then, just happened to result in something that lines up almost word for word with another written document in so many cases – at least, the later translations of both documents into German happen to line up almost word for word with each other so often. By the way, even though your proposition doesn't seem to be too serious, I don't see how Quetzal's statement allows any other Matthew to be in view. Quetzal describes Matthew as one "to whom the Gospels and the books of the Bible are attributed." Matthew the tax collector and one of the twelve disciples is the only Matthew in history that has ever been attributed to creating the first gospel account. After Quetzal describes Matthew as such, he then says that "Matthew" dictated his gospel to a scribe, etc. – without any other descriptive information being given. If Quetzal was referring to another Matthew, then he truly should have clarified this with more descriptive information. The primary reason why I brought up Quetzal's statement is because I sense that there are some who are simply willing to take everything that the Plejaren say at face value and who simply "trust" that everything that the Plejaren say is true, not necessarily anyone on this forum but certainly ones elsewhere. But while much of what the Plejaren have said has been and can be verified to be accurate, I am convinced that in the case of Quetzal's description of the origin of the book of Matthew, a serious problem arises when one tries to reconcile this information with the observable evidence that is left behind in the current Talmud Jmmanuel. And because of this, one should strongly analyze everything to see if this information can be validated on good reasoning. Quite frankly, Earthling's proposition is the only thing I can think of that could possibly reconcile this and allow both of my earlier points 1 and 2 to be true at the same time. If Matthew couldn't read, then he would have had to have had the entire Talmud Jmmanuel memorized word for word, and in order to do so, he would have had to have had a literate person with much patience helping him and dictating it to him many times, since Matthew couldn't have memorized it through his own personal study through reading. In this way, he could have given the Talmud Jmmanuel to his scribe, word for word, without having to read it to him. The scribe, however, creates another obstacle to get over, if one wants to reconcile Quetzal's 12th line in Contact 212 with the observable evidence in the current Talmud Jmmanuel, because the scribe is said to have falsified what Matthew gave him at his free discretion. The first question one has to ask oneself in this scenario is: was Matthew determined to present the Talmud Jmmanuel to his scribe in its true form? If Matthew truly memorized it, one would think that he had the intention to preserve it; otherwise, what would be the point in going to all the trouble of memorizing it? One could simply come up with a false story about Jmmanuel by oneself while silencing the Talmud Jmmanuel altogether, without going to all the trouble of memorizing it in the first place. If Matthew did desire to have the Talmud Jmmanuel preserved in its true form but the scribe was the only one who desired to falsify it, one must then ask why the scribe desired to follow along with anything that Matthew said in the first place, since so much of it was later distorted and since Matthew apparently couldn't verify whether the scribe accurately reported what he told him or not in Quetzal's given scenario. One must then ask how the scribe managed to get away with not letting Matthew know of the falsification, since a Matthew who wanted the Talmud to be preserved would have been very angry at the scribe for changing it and since a rich Matthew, as Matthew is also described in the Contact Reports elsewhere, certainly would have paid someone who could read to verify whether what the scribe wrote was in accordance with what was dictated to him, if such a desire to preserve the Talmud was truly present on Matthew's part. But an even bigger monkey wrench to throw into the whole scenario is that if it was truly the Matthew who was one of the twelve disciples dictating something to his scribe, why would he have to use the Talmud Jmmanuel as a basis in the first place, since he himself was an eyewitness to so many of the events surrounding Jmmanuel? The idea of Matthew memorizing the Talmud Jmmanuel and dictating it to a scribe who then only falsified certain portions of what he heard is, indeed, a good start at reconciling Quetzal's information about the origin of the book of Matthew with the observable parallel passages between the current Talmud Jmmanuel and Gospel of Matthew that we have in our hands today, but it does still create a lot of problems, and I'm sure that what I mentioned above is only the beginning of a long list of problems that one would have to work through and solve in order to create the reconciliation. IF one cannot resolve this, however, then I am convinced that one must pick a side. Either there is a dependence between the Talmud Jmmanuel and the Gospel of Matthew AND Quetzal's information on the origin of the Gospel of Matthew is false – or – Quetzal's information on the origin of the Gospel of Matthew is right AND the Talmud Jmmanuel could not have been the basis for the Gospel of Matthew, which would mean that the large amount of parallel passages between the two just happened to arise by chance or some other incredible means. Of course, there is still the open question of: Are there actually a large amount of parallel passages between the TRUE Talmud Jmmanuel and the Gospel of Matthew? It doesn't seem that we can answer this question yet since the TRUE Talmud Jmmanuel hasn't been released yet, according to Meier. There were a couple of things that I read in the "Reader's Question about the Talmud Jmmanuel" which make me strongly wonder about this. It was written that "The new version of the 'Talmud Jmmanuel,' revised from the ground up, is not comparable with the previous edition." It was also written that "Through the entire translation of the old 'Talmud Jmmanuel' which originally came from Markus-Isa Rashid, the influence of the Christian teachings can, therefore, clearly be recognised, and whoever deals intensively with the New Testament – no matter which version – will find parallels, page after page, which are no longer given in the new, completely revised version of the Talmud." This does make me extremely curious as to how much has been changed. Will there no longer be any parallels between the German Talmud Jmmanuel and the Luther Bible? If so, what would have possessed Isa to use the Luther Bible in the first place, if the true Aramaic Talmud Jmmanuel didn't resemble the German Luther Bible's version of the Gospel of Matthew on so many occasions? This new version of the Talmud Jmmanuel is certainly going to cause a stir if there are a lot of changes made to the sections in the previous edition, apart from there just being new sections that are said to have originally been suppressed by Isa. -- Benjamin Stevens |
   
Jim Member
Post Number: 118 Registered: 07-2003
| Posted on Thursday, February 24, 2011 - 09:36 am: |
|
You make a lot of good points, Ben, and cover a lot of the monkey wrenches involved in possible scenarios that might make Quetzal's statements true. But any scenario that has Matthew the disciple involved with the Talmud of Jmmanuel is fatally flawed from the start. By the time that the Talmud of Jmmanuel, or a transcription of it, was written and delivered westward to the Mideast area (115? CE), Matthew the disciple would have been dead already for a few decades. That's why I (not too seriously) posited a second Matthew of a later generation. |
   
Bennyray37 Member
Post Number: 59 Registered: 01-2010
| Posted on Friday, February 25, 2011 - 07:05 am: |
|
Hi Jim, That was actually another big monkey wrench that I thought of after I made my earlier post. The chronology of events given at the end of the Talmud Jmmanuel just doesn't seem to allow that Matthew could have ever seen Judas Iscariot's writing of the Talmud Jmmanuel. Judas Iscariot comes to Jmmanuel at the beginning of Chapter 33, right after Matthew had returned to Jerusalem in chapter 32, verse 53 with all the other disciples. Judas then sets off to India with Jmmanuel in verse 35 of chapter 33. It seems that this would have been Judas' final parting from Matthew. So if one wanted to have Matthew memorizing the Talmud Jmmanuel with the help of a literate person, one of two scenarios, which I can presently think of, would have to be created in one's mind: 1. Judas had written the Talmud Jmmanuel in its exact form up to the time of the crucifixion. This document was stolen, though no mention of this has ever been made, and was somehow made accessible to Matthew, who then memorized it with the help of a literate person, in order to dictate it later to a scribe who then only falsified certain parts of it. Judas, then, would have had to have written the Talmud Jmmanuel portion up to the crucifixion again in its exact form, before adding the later sections that Matthew never got his hands on. 2. Matthew did, somehow, come across Judas Iscariot after his setting off to India. Matthew must have become friends with him again in order to be able to memorize the portion of the Talmud Jmmanuel up to the events shortly after the crucifixion, since Judas still had the only working copy of the Talmud Jmmanuel. Matthew then later attempted to dictate the TJ perfectly to a scribe, who then falsified certain portions – OR – Matthew himself then turned against Jmmanuel again and dictated an almost perfect TJ to his scribe but with many of the alterations that can be seen today. The scribe then, only added some further alterations, but most of them are attributable to Matthew. But if what you said, Jim, is true, that the TJ wasn't even written until around 115 CE, then Matthew would have had to have risen from the dead, remained illiterate still, found someone who would willingly dictate the only known copy of the Talmud Jmmanuel to him multiple times, so that he could memorize it, dictate this or a modified version of this to a scribe, who then may or may not have added his own falsifications later, etc. Here's the main point that I'm trying to get at: One might think that one should be able to trust everything that the Plejaren say about the Talmud Jmmanuel, its history, and any circumstances or events surrounding it. After all, they have time traveling capabilities and can look into the past and can accurately retrieve facts and report them to us accurately, right? Well, just because they have such capabilities and opportunities doesn't mean that they have actually used them for such things or that they have accurately reported what they have found. Why on earth would I dare to bring up such a charge? Well, Quetzal's information on the origin of the book of Matthew is a good starting point. I already know that Jim has accumulated a lot of knowledge about the Talmud Jmmanuel and the book of Matthew, and I know that he isn't buying what Quetzal has to say about the creation of the Gospel of Matthew, and quite frankly, I'm not ashamed to say that I'm not buying it either. Still to this day, when I look at this statement from Quetzal, I think to myself: "What in the world was Quetzal thinking when he made such an assertion?" Such a statement stands against all known facts about the Talmud Jmmanuel and its making and its relationship to the book of Matthew, and Quetzal gave such a statement after saying that he concerned himself in detail with the matter and asked all his historians and worked through all of the historical records that the Plejaren had available on the subject. And yet, that's what came out of his mouth? As soon as one finds such a statement that can be determined to be unlikely beyond a reasonable doubt and, therefore, false – not just on the basis of "faith" but on logical reasoning after deeply contemplating the observable evidence – one should then have good reason to question other information provided by the Plejaren on such matters. Therefore, one shouldn't just say "Well, the Plejaren said it's true or said it happened and I know that they have great means to verify this to be true so it just has to be true and I have to start my reasoning from there." And certainly, one shouldn't just quote something that the Plejaren said directly or that Meier said after getting it from them, as if such must be error-free truth and must be accepted. Quetzal's information on the origin of the book of Matthew has to be the most shocking thing, at least to me, that I've read so far during the translating of the Contact Reports. I really would love to know what the Plejaren would have to say on this matter. They would have to be the ones to clear this up since they let such information be put forth in the first place. -- Benjamin Stevens |
   
Eddieamartin Member
Post Number: 148 Registered: 08-2010
| Posted on Friday, February 25, 2011 - 03:00 pm: |
|
With all due respects, Quetzal's statement needs to be re-read. Many of these posts read like some of my conversations with priests who took a scripture and created a sermon out of it without taking a good look at the adjoining scripture. Quetzal has made no error. Re-read and analyze carefully his statement. Salome, Eddie [7:-)
|
   
Jim Member
Post Number: 119 Registered: 07-2003
| Posted on Friday, February 25, 2011 - 10:06 am: |
|
Ben, A couple of points: "But if what you said, Jim, is true, that the TJ wasn't even written until around 115 CE,..." The 115 date is an estimate of when the Talmud of Jmmanuel was delivered to the Mideast. Its actual writing took place during all the intervening years, starting perhaps when Jmmanuel, Mary, Judas and Judas-Thomas were on their way to northern India. Or perhaps it didn't start until after they were in India. As to why the Plejarens would make up lies, now and then, to tell Meier who would pass them on to us, I presume there are several reasons (as I've mentioned before elsewhere). 1) They want us to think for ourselves and not just accept everything they say as truth. 2) They don't want us to treat them once again as gods and godesses, who certainly wouldn't ever tell a lie! 3) They want to maintain Meier in an easily debunkable state, both for his own protection and so that scholars and scientists won't suddenly catch on to the reality of their presence and his experiences, thereby blowing the UFO coverup prematurely. 4) Such self-contradicting statements from the Plejarens are scarcely lies if they are so easily shown to be false, but rather are more like amusing fibs. The question remains, does Meier himself believe everything they tell him is truthful and nothing else but the truth, except for occasional errors or mistakes? I would hate to put the question to him directly, because if he doesn't, he may be under strict orders to deny that he doesn't. |
   
Gaiaguysnet Member
Post Number: 1196 Registered: 03-2004
| Posted on Friday, February 25, 2011 - 04:47 pm: |
|
Mea culpa. Mea culpa. Mea maxima culpa. Yes, indeed, upon a close re-examination, we (Vivienne and I) are now pretty sure, in this isolated but important example, that Benjamin’s machinery got it right, and (what passes for) my machinery (my brain) then proceeded to unright it! Who knows? There may still be other errors. That said, several actual corrections were made. Obviously, FIGU’s (quasi) official translation procedures still need adjusting, and – if Benjamin and I do another one of these collaborations – I’ll make damn sure to consult with him again before rushing to pre-publish. This could have been prevented. Thanks to all those who picked this one up. I do take full personal responsibility, apologise enthusiastically for the pain and suffering, and am now taking steps to make sure that FIGU’s finished .pdf file, which will eventually surface @ http://www.figu.org/ch/index/downloads/translations, is the correct one. It is instructive that this topic is about a wrong translation of a text about wrong translations. Moral of story: Try to learn German. Don’t believe translations - or anything else for that matter. Original sentence from Bernadette: „Diese 17 Jüngerinnen, die auch in den Evangelien totgeschwiegen werden, liess auch Isa Rashid unerwähnt, und er hat sogar zwei kurze Texte von Judas Ischkerioth nicht übersetzt, in denen die Rede davon ist, dass zwei der Jüngerinnen, nämlich Esther und Maria Magdalena, während der 40tägigen Abwesenheit von Jmmanuel über Liebe, Gleichklang und Frieden bzw. Kummer, Streit, Krieg und Abbild (Idol) lehrten.“ Original sentence translated by Benjamin: “These 17 female disciples, who are also silenced in the gospels, Isa Rashid also left unmentioned, and he didn’t even translate two short texts of Judas Ischkerioth, in which there is talk of the fact that two of the female disciples, namely Esther and Maria Magdalena, during the 40-day absence of Jmmanuel, taught about love, harmony and peace as well as sorrow, strife, war, and figures (idols).” Original (wrong) “finalised” sentence translated by Dyson: “These 17 female disciples, who are also utterly silenced in the gospels, were also left unmentioned by Isa Rashid, and he did not even translate two short texts of Judas Ischkerioth, in which there is talk of the fact that two of the female disciples, namely Esther and Mary Magdalene, during Jmmanuel’s 40-day absence, were taught by him about love, harmony and peace as well as sorrow, strife, war, and images (idols).” Corrected sentence, which now replaces the above: “These 17 female disciples, who are also utterly silenced in the gospels, were also left unmentioned by Isa Rashid, and he did not even translate two short texts of Judas Ischkerioth, in which there is talk of the fact that, during Jmmanuel’s 40-day absence, two of the female disciples, namely Esther and Mary Magdalene, taught about love, harmony and peace as well as sorrow, strife, war, and images (idols).” Cheers! Dyson P.S. Our official translation of Macht der Gedanken (The Might of Thoughts) goes well. 25 pages done – only 204 to go! Steps have been taken (Vivienne is very thorough, and Wiebka/Vibka is checking our work) to prevent errors similar to the one I made with Bernadette’s answer to my question in SB58. P.P.S. I have not returned to the English forum. |
   
Bennyray37 Member
Post Number: 60 Registered: 01-2010
| Posted on Monday, February 28, 2011 - 05:48 am: |
|
Eddie, As your statement stands, one must accept on the basis of faith that Quetzal has made no error, since you gave no explanation. Can you elaborate on why Quetzal has made no error? -- Benjamin Stevens |
   
Eddieamartin Member
Post Number: 149 Registered: 08-2010
| Posted on Monday, February 28, 2011 - 06:54 pm: |
|
Hello Benjamin, (Re; your posts #'s 57 & 60) To which definition of 'faith' do you allude to my friend? 'Confidence' perhaps? (1). No amount of reasoning would justify faith in the assumption that an JHWH, whose former incarnation was Gabriel, would say something accurately because he 'said so.' (2). To have faith (confidence) in one's ability to reason, analyze and ponder in the hopes to find an answer, would be more like it. (3). My statement stands on the wording used by Quetzal and makes no interpretations of them. Let us consider your words below: Therefore: 1. If one holds that the Talmud Jmmanuel was used in the making of the book of Matthew,.... "If one holds"....that the Talmud Jmmanuel was used.... I'm having a hard time finding where it has been officially stated that the Talmud Jmmanuel itself was used. But back to Quetzal's statement: 12. (A). The Gospel of Matthew was dictated by Matthew to a scribe named Joshua, (B). who interpreted the whole thing in his free discretion and wrote it down and, (C). consequently, also falsified it. I fail to read wherein Quetzal says, in this statement, that the TJ was used. Jmmanuel taught for nearly 29 years. His disciples came from families that were familiar with the teachings of Creation. Mathew was a disciple. On a side note: As for me, there are scenarios that can be conjured up such as Isad being a priest at one time, was drawn to read for himself, and thereby translate, regarding that which most closely mirrored the story of Jesus found in the bible. So on and so on. To me, no matter how you tackle it, you will come up with discrepancies and so forth and even more so if you plant it in your mind that it is such that you wish to find. I personally wouldn't care if a Plejaren floated down in a beam ship then materialized outside of his craft and told me so. That's no different than any of these posts, my conversations with clergy or my own analysis of scriptures. And this is what it all boils down to; the proof is in the pudding. How many here have actually studied, analyzed and exercised the development and embodiment of what Nokodemion revealed in his incarnation as Jmmanuel? How many have studied and analyzed the Goblet of Truth, with the understanding that these were written by Nokodemion? How many here have actually put Nokodemion's teachings (as Jmmanuel) to the test? Therein is the TRUTH to be found. It is in the 'evidence' spoken of. Nokodemion, as Jmmanuel, as the 5th prophet, had at his time, specific teachings to reveal to humanity, regarding something of which no religion or religious person can ever attempt to match, which are gifts from Creation to its incarnated spirit-forms. So when all this confusion and misunderstandings clear up and everyone is comfortable with the authenticity of the Talmud; my question follows: Will you then exercise faith (confidence) in what Nokodemion revealed to humanity and actually make efforts to grasp and acquire the mentioned gifts from Creation? After all, the proof is in the pudding. Salome, Eddie [7:-)
|
   
Norm Member
Post Number: 1408 Registered: 02-2000
| Posted on Monday, February 28, 2011 - 08:22 pm: |
|
Jim, Billy takes questions from everybody. I'm sure he would like to hear yours. My Website
|
   
Bennyray37 Member
Post Number: 62 Registered: 01-2010
| Posted on Tuesday, March 01, 2011 - 05:54 am: |
|
Eddie, Your response has only validated everything that I posted earlier. You wrote: "I'm having a hard time finding where it has been officially stated that the Talmud Jmmanuel itself was used." You also wrote, "I fail to read wherein Quetzal says, in this statement, that the TJ was used." Thus, you fall into the category of my original Number 2 above: 2. If one holds that the Plejaren have given true information on the origin of the book of Matthew, then one must conclude that the Talmud Jmmanuel was not used at all during the making of the book of Matthew. In doing so, you are a person who, therefore, either rejects everything or hasn't deeply contemplated everything that James Deardorff has posted on his website. I can't go into an in-depth post on why the observable evidence shows that there is definitely (beyond a reasonable doubt) a dependence between the Talmud Jmmanuel and Matthew. That is, one author necessarily had to have used the work of the other. I said before that one must look at this "not just on the basis of 'faith' but on logical reasoning after deeply contemplating the observable evidence." So either you have read everything that Jim has posted on his site, deeply contemplated it, and rejected all of it, in order to conclude that Quetzal is right on this matter, or you have not even looked into the observable evidence and are making your conclusion based on a great lack of knowledge. The latter is that which approaches "blind faith." Regards my friend. -- Benjamin Stevens |
|