| Author | Message | ||
    Eddieamartin Member Post Number: 150 Registered: 08-2010 |
Benjamin, What is James Deardorff's website? I found him on the FIGU website. Is this the one? He makes this observation, which is similar to the one I had. Only about 17% of Matthew's verses are very highly correlated with verses within the 1978 TJ (Celestial Teachings, p. 232). Even this much correlation may probably be attributed largely to the fact that Rashid was a priest who, in translating the TJ into German, must have had the German Bible in front of him as a guide in choosing optimal words in those verses that seemed to be about the same in the TJ as in the German Bible. In the next paragraph he states the following. To move on to the last part of the report's same question, restated – "How could the Gospel of Matthew agree with substantial portions of the TJ if the latter lay buried until 1963?" – it is not at all difficult to understand how the TJ likely came to be known to the writer of Matthew. So far from what I've read, none of this conflicts with Quetzal's statement. Also, where does it say that "the origin of the book of Mathew" was the TJ? Also, is it your opinion that the TJ is the origin? I ask because you wrote the following statement in your post: ""That is, one author necessarily had to have used the work of the other."" Also, you mentioned, in the same paragraph, that ""the observable evidence shows that there is definitely (beyond a reasonable doubt) a dependence between the Talmud Jmmanuel and Matthew."" - Is this your opinion? If the TJ that was stolen from Judas was used for the Gospel of Mathew, then why did that scribe need to consult Mathew? Why was Mathew then dictating to this scribe? If Mathew indeed was illiterate, then the scribe could have been writing his mother a letter (lol) and Mathew would not have known. Thus, the scribe could have distorted it how ever it fit his agenda. The gospel of Jesus Christ is based on the life and teachings of Jmmanuel and his limited opportunities to teach and instruct the disciples; never the less, the disciples did at some point gain some wisdom from correct knowledge since they acquired some of the gifts themselves. Meaning, that Mathew was versed in the records kept by Judas, especially the events that were to be recorded in Judas' scrolls. If Jmmanuel had other men and women who shared in the duty of teaching, this means that the accounts of Jmmanuel teaching are not the only times where the Teachings were shared or discussed. Following are questions worthy of thought: Did Jmmanuel know of the future distortion of the Teachings? Was he not aware of what was to be (his time and ours)? Jmmanuel knew from whom the distortions would come from, he knew that the teachings would be distorted deliberately; including his next prophetic re-incarnation as Muhammad, and, even what would occur in Billy's time. Question: Does everyone here understand why Jmmanuel did nothing to change these events from happening, as he did with the crucifixion? Salome, Eddie [7:-) | ||
Jim Member Post Number: 120 Registered: 07-2003 |
Eddie, The fact that the Talmud of Jmmanuel bears a close resemblance to the Gospel of Matthew in the portions which they have in common has been known since soon after the time the Talmud Jmmanuel first appeared in 1978. It's obvious to anyone who compared it to the Matthew in the German Bible. The earliest (negative of course) mention of it I recall was by James Hurtak, author of Keys of Enoch. But I haven't yet been able to locate what piece of his writing it was in or the exact date, somewhere around 1980. Anyway, Hurtak wrote in effect that the Talmud Jmmanuel was a crude hoax based on the Gospel of Matthew. He didn't offer any reasoning for his belief that the hoaxer was Meier rather than the writer of Matthew. | ||
Eddieamartin Member Post Number: 151 Registered: 08-2010 |
Jim, Excellent point (post#120). Also; Further analysis of the content and type of information, comparing the bible and the TJ, where, they are found similar, is where the evidence is to be found; namely this, which is the actual one with the spiritual-related truth? What should be encouraged is for everyone to compare the differences in what is being taught. Salome, Eddie [7:-) | ||
Bennyray37 Member Post Number: 63 Registered: 01-2010 |
Eddie, Here is a homework assignment for you: First, retrieve the German version of the Gospel of Matthew that is found in the Luther Bible here: http://www.bibelcenter.de/bibel/lu1545/cmatth.htm Make a copy of this for yourself for working purposes. Then, get out whatever version of the Talmud Jmmanuel that you have and go through each and every line in the German version, comparing it to Martin Luther's (mostly Luther's in this case; I know some changes were made in this online version) translation of Matthew. Highlight every single phrase in your working copy of the Luther Bible that lines up exactly with what is found in the German version of the Talmud Jmmanuel. If there are omitted words or inserted words in either work in relation to the other work but other phrases around such cases still line up word for word, still make a note of all these instances. You don't have to know German at all in order to be able to do this exercise. Once you are done with the whole project, think to yourself: Is it possible that one eyewitness of the life of Jmmanuel just happened to write down independently not only so many sections and events in the exact same order as another eyewitness of the life of Jmmanuel but also so many phrases with such similar word choices and orders of words? Once you do this entire project, come back to me and tell me whether this lies within the realm of my own personal opinion. Also, James Deardorff has been regularly posting on this thread as "Jim." All one would have to do these days when one is told to look at "James Deardorff's website" is to type "James Deardorff's website" into the Google search engine and select what will most likely be the first result. Such tactics are usually used in citing websites on Internet forums in case one is charged with inappropriate advertising on the forum, but such probably wouldn't happen in this case since Jim's website is so well known and, strangely enough, advertised by FIGU, though FIGU's stance on the entire premise doesn't seem to match up, since Matthew is officially said to have written down his gospel independently. -- Benjamin Stevens | ||
Rarena Member Post Number: 659 Registered: 10-2005 |
Hi Eddie, It is my understanding Juda Icariot who was the son of a Pharisee (seperatist) somehow ended up with the actual or copy of the unfinished manuscript dictated from Jmmanuel to Judas Iscariot (the only literate deciple, well... the only one who could write). A Pharisee is a title for a member of an ancient Jewish sect whom strictly (?) interprets the Mosaic law (of Moses) but may have indeed been handed down by Jmmanuel (incorrectly named Jesus). Current definitions also describe a Pharisee as a hypocritically self-righteous person... Since he takes his (strict?) knowledge from both written and interpreted sources... interpretation may vary depending upon knowledge and wisdom of the interviewed man or woman and may be incorrectly understood... such as... calling an orange a golden apple, or a talking snake... DNA. Either way, the manuscript which was taken... unfinished... from Judas (the good guy) and given somehow to Juda (son of a Parisee, the one who hung himself and took money to turn in Jmmanuel to the Romans) and the words were not correctly understood which is understandable. Even though the information given by Jmmanuel was simple and clear, it was not understood by the men of that time, either that... or... completely ignored since the truth was, as is now, harsh; they were in denial... and I'm not talking about the river in Egypt... "No robbery and expropriation? No Lies... how are we supposed to carry out our business? (feigning naivete'; They don't REALLY do business that way... do they?" So the sad fact may be... the data given from the prophet Jmmanuel (today Billy) was misinterpreted and copied with the wrong meaning probably from the very first copy. It is understandable when you read the contact notes, and then read them after they've been translated from German to English to find a marked difference in the meaning of the text. The Talmud Jmmanuel tells a story that makes sense without big words and flowery prose. It is a manuscript that helps I'll guess... anyone improve in everyday life, without fear and undue judgement. It tells us to treat each other with love, respect, and equality and gives us hope for a harmonious future once we understand the simple message and adhere to the twelve recommendations presented. What makes me think this? Well the first three biblical recommendations sound like a marketing strategy to me... Sabbath day, Lord's name, Strange Gods: ~spooky~ language... As to Billy's previous incarnations here is a document (Moses was not included as being part of Billy's spiritual lineage) taken from underneath the Gizah pyramid by Asket and given to Billy:  Christian Frehner made an English translation of the above in 2007, which reads as follows: It has been said in the prophetic sentence of the herald Henoch: He in his mission as prophet will be (live) again in repeated lives in multiple reincarnations as most important herald of the teachings of the spirit, as they are given in the laws of creation, and brought and announced to the Earth human on Terra by the guardian angels from the stars of Lyra and Vega. The herald Henoch says: I am the herald of truth, and in this mission I will be (live) again in important times by the names: Elia, Jesaia, Jeremia, Jmmanuel, Muhammed, Billy, (and) so I will serve the human beings as a prophet among seven times, before the change for the compliance with the laws and commandments of creation will take place in their thinking (convictions). So I will be (live) in reincarnation in the new time when space will be conquered, and when the guardian angels from foreign stars will appear once again. My reincarnation in that time will be as Billy and with the name Eduard Meier, and I will dwell in a land of peace in the North, which will be called Schweiz (Switzerland). The human being then may listen to my voice, so he may be led into the light of the teaching of the spirit. | ||
Eddieamartin Member Post Number: 152 Registered: 08-2010 |
Hey Benjamin, I can certainly do the homework you posted. It will show that Isad Rashid had, undoubtedly, used the bible during his translation. I probably would myself in his shoes. None of this would give an official stamp to the idea that the TJ was used to write the Gospel of Mathew nor that the TJ was written using the Gospel of Mathew. It all made me wonder. Consider the following: Nothing was deliberately done to avoid all of this from happening; I mean the distortions (falsifications) of the Teachings and thus the religious christian denominations that sprung from it, the indoctrinating miss-information that has been passed off to the church members, and, the very topic of authenticity of the TJ we are discussing now. At this time in our earth history, it was not foreseen that the general global population was going to embrace the Teachings, period, from any source. This would occur only with a number of incarnated spirit-forms who are developed and ready enough that they are receptive towards the investigation of and embodiment of what these teachings have to reveal. Are there to be found discrepancies between the TJ and the bible? Discrepancies with the fotos of the beam ships and all that? Absolutely. Careful analysis clearly shows that there was some intelligent design behind this. Our concern is not how to, or, to be able to, convince the general part of humanity on the globe, that true spirituality has been withheld by religious institutions. I have personally seen friends nearly have a mental breakdown, because I was able to demonstrate that there is no God Almighty in heaven looking down at them and whom they can supplicate to. This causes people to get very defensive and it is downright frightening to them to have to accept the idea that a powerful deity, who they could look to in times of trial and difficulties and sadness or despair is not there to give them courage and hope. Now, let me ask you this: If you and I were to develop our power of Consciousness as Nokodemion (as Jmmanuel) instructs, then we would be asked by the recipient of this ability, "how are you able to do this?" ....and the answer would be welcomed and sought after. I can confidently say this because I have experienced this myself. These abilities do not develop on their own overnight. They must be sought and exercised. One must grow in the knowledge and understanding of Creation and all that pertains to this incredible gift from Creation. This, most here, already know. It is not in the similarities and discrepancies, but, where the differences are clear that we should concern ourselves with. Because either Nokodemian is an imaginary delusion or Allah and God Almighty are. Period. Our life spans don't reach 900 years. We are lucky if we hit 100, not to mention how much of that total time frame are we able to be productive. How would you invest this limited time you have? My concerns are, which contains the real spiritual related information; that I can study, analyze and exercise and thereby see the fruits? The fruit is what tells you whether the tree is worth keeping or cutting down. Why is it, that the thousands of religious clergy (rabbis, priests, bishops, cardinals, apostles, the pope, etc.) are unable to heal the sick and relieve physical and mental suffering? Jesus said, "draw near unto me, and I will draw near unto you" he also said, "greater things than these shall you do" ....yet, not one of the very spiritual clergy I've met with could explain why no religious person can do the things Jesus said that a "man of God" should be able to do. The difference between Jesus and Jmmanuel is that Jmmanuel tells you the "how." But this has been my analysis, observation and discoveries from my personal search into the Teachings. These have been my personal experiences thus far (mainly of which I have not and will not post). So I can tell you this, a person could demonstrate, irrefutably, that the TJ is a hoax. But to me, the proof is in the pudding. It boils down to the Teachings, not the source. Salome, Eddie [7:-) | ||
Jim Member Post Number: 121 Registered: 07-2003 |
Hello Eddie & Rarena, Somehow some strange misunderstandinga are creeping in, from Eddie: "If the TJ that was stolen from Judas was used for the Gospel of Mathew, then why did that scribe need to consult Mathew?" and from Rarena: "It is my understanding Juda Icariot who was the son of a Pharisee (seperatist) somehow ended up with the actual or copy of the unfinished manuscript dictated from Jmmanuel to Judas Iscariot..." According to the Talmud (of Jmmanuel), Juda stole the early version that Judas had been writing. He stole it rather early in Jmmanuel's Palestinian ministry, before any of the events in TJ chaps. 13-on and Matthew chaps. 12-on had occurred. So, the scribe/converted-Pharisee who much later wrote Matthew did not use the stolen writing in writing his gospel; he used the first portion of the full Talmud of Jmmanuel that had been delivered to the Mideast some 80 years later. He must have used a transcription of it, which Jmmanuel's oldest son brought with him, since its original had been preserved in parchment & resin and hidden by him under a rock in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea. (Details: we don't know if it was in India that the original Talmud was wrapped in parchment and coated with resin, or while on the trip west along the Silk Road, or after the elder son Joseph had reached the Mideast. It seems most likely to me it was preserved in this manner before Joseph set out west from India with it and its transcription. Did Joseph the son bury the original in the tombsite soon after reaching the Mideast and release the transcription to someone later? Or did he hand the transcription to some seemingly reliable person in the Mideast before going on to Jerusalem and burying the original there?) Returning to around 31 C.E., it seems very likely to me that Judas had started writing about Jmmanuel's ministry and teachings right away after becoming one of the disciples, and wrote a little more each few days, until it was stolen. I doubt that Jmmanuel dictated any of it to him during this period. I've already repeated some of the evidence that indicates it was the writer of Mark who learned about the recovered stolen writings that had apparently languished in one of the house-churches in Rome. It was some 60 years earlier that Peter and his friend and interpreter, John Mark, had been in Rome with the recovered stolen writing apparently in their possession. The writer of Matthew, being located in the Mideast, perhaps in Edessa or in Jerusalem, did not have access to the recovered stolen writing in Rome. Eddie's question seems especially confused to me because he seems to be basing it upon what Quetzal told Billy rather than upon the Talmud of Jmmanuel and its comparisons with the Gospels of Matthew and Mark. The Talmud emphasizes the importance of using logic, in TJ 5:22,24,40,44; 6:2; 7:3,7; 13:7,9; 16:46,56; 18:48; 24:28; 26:12; 32:29; 34:43; 35:29; and 36:18,28. It also recognizes that illogic and false logic exists, which we should try to avoid. | ||
Eddieamartin Member Post Number: 154 Registered: 08-2010 |
Jim, I only focused on Quetzal's statement because it was said that Quetzal, in his statement, alluded to whether or not the gospel of Mathew was based on the TJ. Your post #121, you, as I and others, wrote what you speculate could have been possible. Who did what? Who used what? Irrelevant. Logic would dictate that one should contemplate if there is any spirituality in the first place. If one finds evidence of it in a church, temple, monastery or Billy's writings, then one should evaluate the teachings therein. In the TJ, Jmmanuel says that by "their fruits" will you know them. I'm only saying that one should consider that there is only one spirituality or there is no spirituality and when we die there is no spirit-form, there is no reincarnation or that there is no judgment day or heaven or that a resurrection will occur. I want to know which it is. That's logical, would you agree? I'm not defending Quetzal or any particular theories on this subject or any of the speculated possibilities as to why this or that. Quetzal's statement does not allude to anything that has been discussed here. It is documented that Mathew could not read and write. If he was consulted by a scribe to relate what Jmmanuel dictated to Judas was to be written of his life and teachings (of which only a fraction was) then I can see Mathew, after years and a life time of study, should have been versed in the specifics chosen by Nokodemian to be recorded and taught. As a master mason, I can tell you this, all the principles of the Masonic degrees are taught by masons reenacting, as if a play by actors on stage, events and scenes for the benefit of the applicant or masons. Like actors, there are masons that have memorized over 100,000 words and the associated acting that goes along with it. It would not surprise me to know that Mathew and the other disciples committed to memory, what Nokodemian instructed to be learned, taught and recorded in the scrolls by Judas. Did you read how Jmmanuel was not bothered at all by the stolen scrolls? That he even knew it was going to happen? You quoted many passages of the TJ where in 'logic' is encouraged. You are then familiar with Nokodemian's knowledge of what was to occur, by whom and the results of which, caused the state of spirituality we have today. Nokodemian also emphasized logic in the pursuit of the study of the teachings. This would dictate that one seeks out the fruits of the source and thereby be in a position to judge whether the source is the true source or a distorted and falsified source. That is my priority in all this. But to Quetzal's statement, he did not allude to whether or not the TJ was the referencing source of the gospel of Mathew. That's all I said in regards to his statement. Salome, Eddie [7:-) | ||
Ramirez Member Post Number: 565 Registered: 06-2008 |
Greetings, Aren't you guys missing something about the so called Gospel Of Mathew ..... isn't it full of the name Jesus .... Did Judas Iskariot write the name Jesus on his scrolls ? Did Jmannuel speak of Jesus or call himself Jesus during his lectures to public gatherings and perhaps around the campfire among the disciples (students).... all 29 of them including the 17 never (never in the big book of lies anyway) mentioned females. Did any of this group of 29 call him Jesus ? Did his parents Joseph & Mary or his brothers & sisters call him Jesus ? So when and where did the name Jesus enter the scene ? Was it invented in 325 by Constantine and his gathering of celestial novelists during the Council Of Nicaea ? When was the name Jesus invented and by who ? So if Mathew or someone copied the TJ where did the name Jesus creep in and how ? This might be important, to establish who copied what from where because it appears the principal stakeholder and proponent for inserting the name Jesus into various texts was Constantine who apparently wanted to establish a coherent legend based on a marketable figure. Was this the foundation of modern large scale state sponsored disinformation ? If you read the rather short Gospel Of Mary it never mentions Jesus ..... only Lord & Savior which seems reasonable for the scenario & times. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/gospelmary.html Then another curious gospel. Again no mention of Jesus but more sayings attributed of Mary. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/dialoguesavior.html So with these examples of Nag Hamadi texts whoever wrote them hadn't included Jesus so they might be far more authentic records than texts with Jesus plastered all over them.. Cheers. | ||
Markcampbell Member Post Number: 621 Registered: 10-2008 |
Hi Eddie a. martin ; Nokodemion . your ''a is an 'o' . Thanks , Mark | ||
Eddieamartin Member Post Number: 155 Registered: 08-2010 |
Hello Mark, I did misspell it. Thanks. Salome, Eddie [7:-) | ||
Michael_horn Member Post Number: 370 Registered: 07-2009 |
Under a different spelling (Immanuel) the name is mentioned in Isaiah 7:14 (OT) and once (Emmanuel) in Matthew 1:23 (NT). Does this shed any light on things? | ||
Jim Member Post Number: 122 Registered: 07-2003 |
Ramirez, That's an interesting thing you point out -- some gnostic writings avoided mention of Jesus/Immanuel's name. That's part of a large pattern extending over a century, as follows (scroll down to 135-170 for the name-avoidance bit): 32 C.E. The crucifixion 34 Saul's conversion experience. Saul-->Paul ~40 Paul prefers to think of Immanuel as the Savior from sins and Son of God ("God saves" = Y'shua = Joshua = Jesus) rather than Immanuel (God with us). So he calls him "Jesus". ~40-60 Paul preaches and writes of Jesus Christ, tries to persuade others to call him that and not "Immanuel." ~40-100 There must have been several writings about Immanuel, which competed with Paul's preachings & epistles. Paul won out. ~100-200 The early churches wiped out practically all writings that mentioned "Immanuel." They also wiped out all writings that mentioned there was a controversy over the name. This explains the great shortage of any writings about Immanuel/Jesus until well into the 2nd century. ~115 A transcription of the Talmud Jmmanuel (TJ) and its original are delivered to the Mideast. The original is buried in the tombsite, the transcription circulates a little, briefly, and excites the interest of some potential gnostics. ~117 The TJ falls into the hands of the writer of Matthew. ~120 The Gospel of Matthew is written in Hebrew (the narrations) & Aramaic (the discourses and conversations), with its writer making full use of as much of the TJ that was "fit to print". It was transcribed multiply and circulated. It is anti-gentile in tone because its writer had been a Jewish scribe & Pharisee, and possibly a rabbi. Its writer mentions "Immanuel" only for the purpose of showing that Isaiah's prophecy about "Immanuel" had come true in "Jesus." This shows he knew his true name had been Immanuel/Jmmanuel, otherwise it would not have constituted validation of Isaiah's prophecy. ~125-126 The Gospel of Mark is written in Rome, in Greek, based almost entirely upon Hebraic Matthew. It is not-so-subtly anti-Semitic in tone. Its writer makes limited use of the recovered stolen writings that had languished in Rome from ~60 to ~125. (The Roman empire was rife with anti-Semitism.) ~128-130 The Gospel of Luke is written, in Greek, making use of Matthew and Mark, plus a slight use of a few pieces of the TJ that the writer of Matthew had not used. ~132 Gospel of John is written, making use of Matthew & Luke and a bit more of the TJ. ~135 Hebraic Matthew is translated into Greek, with a few changes in it made so that it would be less anti-gentile. The new version is multiply transcribed and circulated, with intstructions to destroy the old Hebraic Matthew. ~135(?) Gospel of Thomas written, making use of Matthew & Luke & a bit of the TJ that a gnostic had recalled. ~136 The TJ is destroyed by the church where Matthew was written. ~135-170 The writers of several gnostic gospels know that his name had not been "Jesus", and so avoid calling him "Jesus", and even mention that there was a mystery to the "Savior's" name. So the Gospel of Mary and Dialogue of the Savior (as mentioned by Ramirez). Also, in the "Acts of Thomas" (Act 13.163) we read: "And Misdaus said [to Judas-Thomas]: 'What is his [your master's] name?' Judas said: 'Thou canst not hear his true name at this time... but the name which was bestowed upon him for a season is Jesus, the Christ.'" Similarly relevant is verse 9.5 from the "Ascension of Isaiah": "...and he who gave permission [for Isaiah to ascend to the seventh heaven] is thy Lord, God, the Lord Christ, who will be called Jesus on earth, but his name thou canst not hear till thou hast ascended out of thy body." ~150 Justin Martyr mentions a mystery in the name "Joshua" or "Jesus." See www.tjresearch.info/hisname.htm ~172 Only then did the first mention of a gospel by name (Matthew) appear in the literature (by Apollinaris of Hierapolis). An exception around 130 C.E. by Bishop Papias was reported by Eusebius over a century later. Eusebius heavily edited Papias, whom I suspect warned that the Gospels (of Matthew & Mark, at least) had not been written by the names attributed. But by 172 and a bit later (e.g., Irenaeus ~180), enough time had passed that the Gospels could safely be claimed to have been written early and by the names attributed. Anything else became heresy. My apologies for having left out a lot of material, mostly by the early Church Fathers. | ||
Ramirez Member Post Number: 566 Registered: 06-2008 |
Hi Jim, Ah so you consider Paul was the architect of the name Jesus ..... Somewhere, not sure but I think it may have been mentioned by Ptaah that this was the case though finding a contact report reference would be valuable. Billy asked so many questions it's logical he might enquire about such a thing ..... who dreamed up Jesus Christ and why. So from what you are saying comes an impression that political - religious correctness held great sway in those days like the emperor's clothes for scholars and teachers therefore to refer to Jmannuel was gradually made taboo except in small independent circles ..... however .... what exactly were the ruling elites afraid of ? Did they know precisely that theirs was a shameless delusional farce & cheap racket compared to the message of the one whose name they attempted to obliterate. Also to consider is that to impose & maintain such a taboo required relatively less extensive efforts than today because only a small percentage of the population could read & write so only the articulate required threats to ensure silence. Also something to consider is modern religious pseudonyms .... the holy ones & priests are given or take on false names so the mania for concealing identity & disassociation seems to have remained & flourished at the personal level in those circles where acceptance of, compliance with and spreading of unreality appears to be an ingrained deeply seated psychological condition. Cheers. | ||
Jim Member Post Number: 123 Registered: 07-2003 |
Hi Ramirez, Yes, I think it was mostly Paul to blame for the name change of Immanuel, though as I recall, one of the Plejarens included James of Jerusalem (Jmmanuel's brother?) in on it. It seems that Paul/Saul (who wasn't averse to name changing) realized he had been the worst possible sinner, in having opposed Immanuel's teachings and persecuting the disciples after the crucifixion. So he craved forgiveness by his new Savior, thus wanting to change the name to "Jesus." He must not have wanted to think back upon his great sin (thorn in his side?) every time every day he worshipped the man, and so not wish to continually have to remind himself of his great sin every time he worshipped Immanuel. So he eased this burden from himself by making it be "Jesus" he worshipped instead. I tend to believe also that by the 1st century the title EL for the God of Israel was pretty much out of fashion in comparison with YHWH (Yahweh). (And EL had been the god of the Canaanites.) If so, this would have contributed to Paul's implementation of the switch from ImmanuEL to Jesus. But even so the switch took a couple generations to be accomplished, as I see it. And yes, the name/title for one's god was very important especially in those days when the oral word dominated over the written word. | ||
Earthling Member Post Number: 526 Registered: 05-2008 |
http://us.figu.org/portal/BillyMeier/HisWork/ClarificationofaDefamatoryClaim/tabid/58/Default.aspx "The Jesus Christ of the New Testament was simply, but incorrectly, placed into the same time period as Jmmanuel; he was considered and even presented as the identical person. This occurred in spite of clear and explicit explanation revealing that the term Jesus Christ was only invented approximately 150 years later, after Jmmanuel's activities and alleged death on the cross. The misconception was generated at a very early stage, however, by Jmmanuel's brother Jacob along with an individual known as Paul. Jmmanuel was very familiar with future events as they pertained to the invention of the imaginary person called Jesus Christ, and he confided the following words to Billy Meier, some 2000 years ago: "Truly, this is a vile insult, foreign to any truth. This name has never been mentioned up to this point in time that I now speak to you. It will only be introduced later by a person whose mind will be confused. Once I am associated with this name, however, I will be accused of unrighteousness and lying. This name wrongs me and I am saddened to know that I will be known by it in the future." According to his own words, Jmmanuel states that he has had nothing to do with the concocted teachings of the imaginary Jesus Christ. It is well known that the term Jesus Christ is simply the invention of some elements who lost their way in religion, and falsified history. The instigators who first created this nomenclature were Jmmanuel's brother, Jacob, and a person called Paul. This correlation to idolatrous and sacrificial cults was one of the reasons why Jmmanuel rebelled at the time against the name Jesus Christ. He was perfectly aware that his spiritual teachings would be greatly falsified and coupled with an insanely contrived person called Jesus Christ. " | ||
Jim Member Post Number: 124 Registered: 07-2003 |
Earthling (Sorry, I haven't yet learned your real name to connect with your alias), It might be puzzling to some to try to reconcile what Hans Georg Lanzendorfer wrote in the article of the URL you included, with what I've posted. So let me clarify this. The spot where I've disagreed with Hans Georg for many years now is with his figure of "150" in his statement, "The 'alias' term [Jesus] for Jmmanuel simply reveals the falsification and substitution of his name by those who have falsely renamed him Jesus Christ some 150 years later. Since Saul/Paul (and Jacob) lived contemporaneously with Immanuel, and since one or both of them was responsible for altering his name to "Jesus", this sorry deed occurred while they were alive, which was much less than 150 years later. Consequently, Hans Georg is 150 years off when he wrote (hoping it was translated correctly), "The Jesus Christ of the New Testament was simply, but incorrectly, placed into the same time period as Jmmanuel." Most everyone knows that Paul's epistles were written around 50-60 C.E., and we know that those epistles falsely call Immanuel by the name "Jesus" and "Jesus Christ." This was some 30 years later, not 150. Where Jmmanuel, in speaking to Billy in 32 C.E., says: "It [the name 'Jesus'] will only be introduced later by a person whose mind will be confused", I accept that this person turned out to be Saul/Paul. Saul's mind was quite confused for a long time after his confrontation with Immanuel on the Road to Damascus. I hope this clarifies the differences between Hans Georg Lazendorfer's article and my understanding based upon much of the same information. And let no confusion come about regarding "Jacob" versus "James". "James" is (strangely) the English way of representing "Jacob", one of Immanuel's brothers. So Jacob is James who became known as "James of Jerusalem" and also "James the Righteous". | ||
Ramirez Member Post Number: 568 Registered: 06-2008 |
Hi Jim, With this "It seems that Paul/Saul (who wasn't averse to name changing) realized he had been the worst possible sinner, in having opposed Immanuel's teachings and persecuting the disciples after the crucifixion. So he craved forgiveness by his new Savior, thus wanting to change the name to "Jesus." This seems a little premature because soon after his death Jmannuel's teachings hadn't yet been transformed and distorted towards the position where he was proclaimed as the savior - solution - path to eternal salvation simply by virtue of believing in or worshiping him. (these are highly subjective concepts which could mean many things) Also at that time there was no notion of original sin so craving forgiveness might mean a guilty conscience for actual unpleasant acts committed against others that Saul-Paul recognised as being incorrect by some standard ??? maybe do unto others had sunk in. It's just a speculation but all the recent new age infatuation with angels & spirit guides ..... do you think it's possible that Saul - Paul and some of the others responsible for the gradual alterations & falsifications held personal beliefs that Jmannuel was somehow directly connected to/infused by an actual external higher power in the form of a spirit or angel (celestial entity) and that on various days when he might have addressed crowds or gatherings of disciples his radiant appearance reinforced these beliefs ? So after experimenting with various prayers - invocations - affirmation techniques they failed to achieve any sort of personal experience comparable to Jmannuel so in dismay & despair became depressed and sought to cash in on the situation & legend as best they could by exagerating their participation in events & bending the facts to suit an inflation of their status as new age story tellers with direct connections to the recently departed savior - lord rather than staying true to mission and spreading Jmannuel's basic teachings as they had learned them firsthand. Hi Earthling, Ah Jesus Christ invented some 150 years later ..... this is very interesting because if that's correct it puts all the Nag Hamadi texts claimed to be pre 180 into question if they have mentions of Jesus. Still there appears to be no exact specific date. There is however a possible explanation similar to the dilema of Isa Rashid. If a religious scholar - translator was working on an old text and came across words that appeared to be lord, savior, master they might have substituted the word Jesus ..... because it fits the story and reinforces the scenario as they expect it to unfold in line with their preconceptions. Also we need to consider the social - political - religious dynamics in play throughout the different Roman controlled regions in those early years from 30 onwards. Who were the major stakeholders ? ... Jewish religious fraternity working towards their own interests, the various Roman temples & associated groups of priests each pushing their own agenda, the remnants of Jmannuel's not so cohesive group doing a 2000 year old new age village to town to city spread the word campaign except it had become a campaign of promoting self interests for some of the former disciples and finally the Roman governors - ruling elites who wanted a piece of everyone's action plus social cohesion & control and finally the general public .... hearts & minds plus off course ...... coins. Cheers. | ||
Jim Member Post Number: 125 Registered: 07-2003 |
Hi Ramirez, Regarding the problem you see with this reasoning: With this "It seems that Paul/Saul (who wasn't averse to name changing) realized he had been the worst possible sinner, in having opposed Immanuel's teachings and persecuting the disciples after the crucifixion. So he craved forgiveness by his new Savior, thus wanting to change the name to "Jesus." You wrote: "This seems a little premature because soon after his death Jmannuel's teachings hadn't yet been transformed and distorted towards the position where he was proclaimed as the savior - solution - path to eternal salvation simply by virtue of believing in or worshiping him. (these are highly subjective concepts which could mean many things)." It might have taken up to ten years after his conversion experience before Paul had fully sorted out his new, confused views. But the experience had made such a huge impression upon him, causing him to decide it must have been a resurrected Immanuel who confronted him, and his powers of persuasion were so strong, that I believe we must attribute the "Jesus as Savior" philosophy primarily to him. Don't forget that Paul had been a Pharisee, and most Pharisees believed in resurrection (at the End Days). Most of the disciples must have thought that Immanuel somehow survived the crucifixion, since they saw him afterwards and heard him talk. Presumably even Doubting Thomas must have realized it. But Saul only heard, and didn't see, Immanuel that night on the Road. So Paul could assume that if Immanuel/Jesus could save himself from death through resurrection, so also could he save himself (Paul) and others. I agree that Paul didn't have any concept of "original sin" in mind in his reasoning, but after converting considered himself the arch sinner who, neverthless, had been considered worth "saving" by Immanuel/Jesus himself. So I agree, Paul had a very guilty conscience whenever he thought back upon Immanuel, but no longer so when he thought only of "Jesus the Christ." I have doubts that Immanuel's brother Jacob/James believed Immanuel hadn't survived, so I'm not convinced that he was also, besides Paul, in on the name change to "Jesus." After all, Immanuel's mother and brother Judas/Thomas realized he hadn't died and been resurrected, so why not brother Jacob too? However, I realize the possibility that Paul may have been able to persuade Jacob and even Peter that it was a resurrected Immanuel/Jesus whom the disciples had witnessed after the crucifixion. So I regard Paul as the primary culprit who transformed Immanuel's teachings, rather than assuming that his teachings had somehow just "been transformed" largely by others. You asked, "do you think it's possible that Saul - Paul and some of the others responsible for the gradual alterations & falsifications held personal beliefs that Jmannuel was somehow directly connected to/infused by an actual external higher power in the form of a spirit or angel (celestial entity) and that on various days when he might have addressed crowds or gatherings of disciples his radiant appearance reinforced these beliefs ?" Perhaps Paul and those he convinced had something like that in mind -- after all they regarded him as "Son of God." I have no reason to believe that Jmmanuel exhibited a distinctively "radiant" appearance. | ||
Ramirez Member Post Number: 569 Registered: 06-2008 |
Hi Jim, Well for sure some huge scares confronted Saul - Paul and what you say makes sense when combined with the Lazarus episode so now various persons connected to Jmannuel have witnessed him on the face of it restoring life to someone then even more dramatically coming back to life himself which would be a shock for most persons. Given his swaying mental state Saul - Paul seems to have been a relatively vulnerable type as many of the present new age fantasmagoria adherents are so sorting out the events, analyzing them into rational unemotional possibilities probably presented substantial difficulties. Also the issue of 150 years after the events for the use of the name Jesus is a huge dilema. I wonder where Hans Georg came by that figure ? I guess some various disciples continued passing on the teachings in some capacity as they knew them but must have realized .... the man is gone, there are hardly any written records, people are willing to believe on the basis that those who were actually present have a degree of authority & expertise so what's to stop us from presenting our version ..... "I realize the possibility that Paul may have been able to persuade Jacob and even Peter that it was a resurrected Immanuel/Jesus whom the disciples had witnessed after the crucifixion." Ah the critical issue here is Maria Magdalena the first to see an arisen Jmannuel. He must have explained something to her but the mystery remains .... why didn't she accompany him to India and what happened to her ? If you take in The Gospel of Mary & Dialogue Of The Savior group dynamics begin to reveal themselves and they may have been not unlike Billy's early years from 1975. It's all pointing towards jealousy, opportunity, weak egos on the part of some, caught up in the unfolding drama & emotions of the time for most. No reset or replay button .... history unfolded before their eyes because they were the ones creating it. With the radiance .... more like observing someone in love rather than a glowing aura .... they have that far away lost in something presence which is magnetic, often calming, invigorating to be near yet it also accentuates & amplifies an observers state of consciousness which might harbor all manner of nasty deficiencies. It's energy though those present utilize it subjectively. So his presence may have brought to the surface the best & worst personality characteristics of those around him depending on their dispositions & states of mind at the time which were enhanced by his radiated energies. Cheers. | ||
Jim Member Post Number: 126 Registered: 07-2003 |
Hi Ramirez, Let me flesh this out a bit: "Ah the critical issue here is Maria Magdalena the first to see an arisen Jmannuel. He must have explained something to her but the mystery remains .... why didn't she accompany him to India and what happened to her ?" I'd say that Joseph of Arimathea and a couple of their Indian friends were the first to see Immanuel well enough to rise -- arisen. After that, according to the Talmud, all the disciples saw him in the evening. I presume Immanuel also saw his mother and other members of his family early on, but that that wasn't considered important enough to report in the Talmud Jmmanuel. Mary Magdalene was a friend and disciple, not necessarily a girlfriend or potential fiancee. So she may have had good reasons for staying behind. P.S. How long have you been used to using a space before a question mark? | ||
Ramirez Member Post Number: 570 Registered: 06-2008 |
Hi Jim, Those Indian healers were behind the scenes insiders to the story so it's a credit to author of TJ for having revealed their part and off course your right they were the first but sorta from the inside vantage point. For those unaware of what had been transpiring in the cave initial meetings must have been quite a shock probably only equaled by the look on Quetzal's face when he realized who Billy was  It's a real shame so much of the details are missing and will probably remain so but that's how it's worked out. Moving forward to India .... who accompanied Jmannuel ? His mother, Judas Thomas his brother, Judas Iskerioth the scribe ..... do you know who else ? A space before ? ..... always, just a habit. Why, does it mean something ? Cheers. | ||
Jim Member Post Number: 127 Registered: 07-2003 |
Hi Ramirez, As far as I know, from the TJ, only those four traveled east to northern India. And Judas Iscariot didn't go along on the earlier trip through Anatolia -- TJ chap. 35. I asked about why write a question this way ? because of having once looked into that style of typing. It turns out that Meier himself had (has?) that typing style, when typing his original contact Notes. Then someone noticed that Rashid, in the photocopy of his letter to Meier at the rear of the 1978 TJ did the same thing. So they then accused Meier of having invented and typed the Rashid letter himself. However, it was easy to show that the Rashid letter had been typed on a different typewriter. So I was still curious as to how common that style of typing in punctuation was. I happened across it in several personal letters, mainly from persons in Europe. Some do it because of personal original preference -- it just looks better to them that way, some have seen another do it and so they do it too. In parts of France it was customarily done that way, I understand, with ; : ? " << . A similar typing habit occasionally seen is to omit any space after a period or comma. Rashid had that habit, but Meier doesn't. You have to look for such a style on the original typing, as editors "fix it up" in the published versions. |
