| Author | Message | ||
    Sanjin Member Post Number: 166 Registered: 06-2009 |
Hi Jim. If that what Quetzal said about how the Gospel of Matthew originated is true, I think that it is impossible that Matthew just made up the story and dictated it to the scribe. Someone must have had passed it on to him. Is is possible that Matthew is a descendant of the disciple Matthew, maybe his son or grandson? Love makes the world go round. | ||
Jim Member Post Number: 128 Registered: 07-2003 |
Hello Sanjin, Quetzal left it up to us to notice that he made no connection between the Gospel of Matthew and the Talmud of Jmmanuel. But if and when you notice the connection, then you'll realize that what Quetzal said about Matthew in Contact #212 is incompatible with the Talmud's content, its history of discovery and Meier's Epilogue report. | ||
Sanjin Member Post Number: 167 Registered: 06-2009 |
Hi Jim. Well, I certainly see the connection between the Gospel of Matthew and the TJ since I studied a large portion of your web page, read the TJ and several sections of the Gospel of Matthew. But I don't necessarily agree that Quetzal made no connection between the two. He might have made the connection but just didn't state it. As far as I see it, the disciples were set with a mission to spread the teachings of Jmmanuel. One easy way to do this would be to memorize what Judas Ischkerioth wrote so that they can then tell the stories to the other people by word of mouth. Plus, the disciples were there at many of the events so that would also attribute to them knowing the story. But since most of the disciples allegedly could not read or write, maybe Judas just taught them the words. The Matthew to whom the Gospel of Matthew is attributed could have even been the disciple Matthew. It is said that the disciple Matthew, as an ex-tax collector, was quite wealthy, so maybe he eventually decided that he should make a written account and hired a scribe to write it down for him. But I'm just theorizing based on what I've gathered and could be wrong. I'm also not quite sure what you are referring to when you say that Quetzals statement are not compatible with the history of discovery and Meier's Epilogue report. Could you please elaborate? Love makes the world go round. | ||
Jim Member Post Number: 129 Registered: 07-2003 |
Hello Sanjin, I think we agree on the IF part of Ben's No. 1 conclusion, call it a): "Therefore: 1. a) 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", since you now see the connection between the Talmud of Jmmanuel (TJ) and the Gospel of Matthew. In Contact #212 Quetzal is seen to have made no connection between the two because b) he was speaking of the disciple Matthew having dictated his gospel to a scribe, and this must have occurred while the disciple was still alive, say up to 80 C.E. And c) we know from the TJ's Epilogue that the TJ did not reach the Mideast until after Jmmanuel's death, circa 110-115 C.E. Presumably a transcription of it arrived there then. From a), b) and c) I conclude that the (illiterate) disciple Matthew was not involved in the writing of the gospel named after him. Thus Quetzal made no connection between the Gospel of Matthew supposedly being written before the end of the first century and the TJ becoming available only in the 2nd century, since the two time periods do not overlap at all. Is this not clear? Can a dead man write or dictate a gospel? Nor could the disciples memorize, word for word or event by event, what Judas Iscariot wrote in the TJ because they were dead long before the TJ became available to anyone in the Mideast. It was in Meier's Epilogue that we learn the approximate time when the TJ was delivered to the West. So by ignoring this information, Quetzal appears to have implied that either Rashid invented the highlights of the story he told Meier, of what the complete TJ said occurred decades after the crucifixion, or else Meier invented it. I think your best bet to make sense out of it without Quetzal having told a nonsensical lie, is to assume that by 50 C.E. Judas had written over a quarter of the final TJ, and had made a transcription of its first portion that related to Jmmanuel's Palestinian teachings and experiences. Then he gave that transcription to someone traveling west on the Silk Road with instructions to deliver it to some person in the Mideast who had known Immanuel, possibly even a disciple. Soon afterwards it was acquired by Matthew the disciple, who had a scribe read it to him, etc. For me this fails because Quetzal failed to mention any such scenario, and because the literature known to New Testament scholars strongly suggests to me that the Gospels weren't written or known until well into the 2nd century. | ||
Phenix Member Post Number: 371 Registered: 07-2008 |
Peace in wisdom be with you, Jim, Sanjin, Ramirez and all the others, I wonder, whether this would help the ongoing discussion, but the TJ i have - brown cover, Library of Congress Catalog Cd. No 90-34240; Wild Flower Press, copyright 1992; German and English, translation from Aramaic by Isa Rashid and Eduard Albert "Billy" Meier - has the following title: 'The Talmud of Jmmanuel The Original Book of Matthew'. Salome. | ||
Jim Member Post Number: 130 Registered: 07-2003 |
Phenix, The intent of that subtitle was to convey the information that the Talmud of Jmmanuel had been the source for the Gospel of Matthew. | ||
Savio Senior Member Post Number: 675 Registered: 07-2000 |
Hi Jim and all This is my speculations: 1. It is reasonable to assume that “Mathew the Gospel” was not written by a single person. 2. It came a long way and was only finalized around the 2nd century and was then given the name “Mathew the Gospel”. 3. I speculate what Quetzal mentioned about “Mathew the Gospel” is:- “the history of the making of Mathew” 4. That means “Mathew the disciple” dictated what he knew then to a scribe that fatefully started the building up of something that finally named “Mathew the Gospel” after a hundred years. 5. Later, someone took up “the messages” from “Mathew the disciple” (which was not complete of course) and added the rest of it from the then available TJ. 6. Finally, someone rewrote the whole thing and adjusted it contents according to “political correctness” and it became “Mathew the Gospel”. Now, it seems that everything is in line Salome Savio | ||
Bennyray37 Member Post Number: 65 Registered: 01-2010 |
I was looking at the TJ's Epilogue, where Jmmanuel's death is mentioned, and it gave a reference to the 334th Contact for further information. As far as I know, this section has never been published before in English. It seems that the date of Jmmanuel's death comes from the same source: Quetzal, the authoritative, distinguished expert with regard to the life and history of Jmmanuel, who gave us the interesting, to say the least, information about the origin of the gospel of Matthew: Excerpt from the 334th Contact - Monday, February 3, 2003, 12:34 AM Billy: … But tell me: Didn't Florena assign you something, to bring me an explanatory answer regarding an ancient urn of skeletal remains, concerning which it was reported in the month of October 2002 in all public media that it should allegedly be an urn containing the skeletal remains of James, the son of Joseph, brother of Jesus? That really is nonsense because Jmmanuel let his brother James follow him to Srinagar, where this one also died at the age of 93 years and was laid to rest, while also Jmmanuel did not die on Golgotha but likewise in Srinagar/Kashmir, and indeed, at the age of 115 years. Enjana: 41. Florena did actually assign me your question, which I forwarded to Quetzal, since he is the authoritative, distinguished expert with regard to the life and history of Jmmanuel and his brothers and sisters. 42. In accordance with his instruction, I am to report to you that an urn containing James’ skeletal remains never existed and, consequently, also could not be found in Jerusalem or elsewhere in Israel or Palestine, etc. 43. With the urn of skeletal remains mentioned by you, as was clarified by our investigations, it concerns a forgery, and indeed, even in the sense that it is declared to be James’ urn, which has nothing to do with the skeletal remains of Jmmanuel’s brother James, because this one actually died in Srinagar, like Jmmanuel, who was buried in Srinagar, according to his correct time of birth, in the year 115. 44. According to the so-called Christian calendar, this applies to the year 111. Billy: Jmmanuel was also never called Jesus, as was imputed to him after his departure by his male disciples and female disciples. And moreover, at his time, the names James, Joseph, and Jesus were very common; therefore, the “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus,” which is supposed to be written on the urn, shall apply to another James, Joseph, and Jesus. Like also at the current time, there were, even at that time, several possibilities, that the three names appeared in families concurrently. Enjana: 45. Your relevant question to Florena, which I also presented to Quetzal, corresponds to actuality. 46. At Jmmanuel’s time, so Quetzal explained, the names in the sequence - as they are listed: as son, father, and brother - should have appeared 34 times. 47. The aforementioned urn of skeletal remains, however, is a forgery. Billy: Aha, that’s what I thought. *************************** Billy: … Aber sag mal: Hat dir Florena nicht etwas aufgetragen, um mir eine aufklärende Antwort zu bringen bezüglich einer alten Gebeine-Urne, von der im Monat Oktober 2002 in allen öffentlichen Medien berichtet wurde, bei der es sich angeblich um eine Urne mit den Gebeinen von Jakobus, dem Sohn Josephs, Bruder des Jesus handeln soll? Das ist ja eigentlich Unsinn, denn Jmmanuel liess seinen Bruder Jakobus nach Srinagar nachkommen, wo dieser auch im Alter von 93 Jahren starb und beigesetze wurde, während ja auch Jmmanuel nicht auf Golgatha, sondern ebenfalls in Srinagar/Kaschmir starb, und zwar im Alter von 115 Jahren. Enjana: 41. Florena beauftragte mich tatsächlich mit deiner Frage, die ich an Quetzal weiterleitete, da er hinsichtlich des Lebens und der Geschichte Jmmanuels und seiner Geschwister die massgebende Koryphäe ist. 42. Seiner Weisung gemäss soll ich dir berichten, dass eine Urne mit Jakobus-Gebeinen nie existiert hat und folglich auch nicht in Jerusalem oder sonstwo in Israel oder Palästina usw. gefunden werden konnte. 43. Bei der von dir genannten Gebeine-Urne, so wurde durch unsere Nachforschungen abgeklärt, handelt es sich um eine Fälschung, und zwar eben in dem Sinn, dass sie als Jakobus-Urne deklariert wird, die nichts mit den Gebeinen von Jmmanuels Bruder Jakobus zu tun hat, denn dieser verstarb tatsächlich in Srinagar wie Jmmanuel, der gemäss seiner richtigen Geburtszeit im Jahre 115 in Srinagar beigesetzt wurde. 44. Nach der sogenannten christlichen Zeitrechnung trifft das auf das Jahr 111 zu. Billy: Jmmanuel hiess ja auch nie Jesus, wie ihm nach seinem Weggang von seinen Jüngern und Jüngerinnen angedichtet wurde. Und ausserdem war zu seiner Zeit der Name Jakobus, Joseph und Jesus sehr häufig, so also das “Jakobus, Sohn von Joseph, Bruder von Jesus,” was ja auf der Urne stehen soll, auf einen andern Jakobus, Joseph und Jesus zutreffen wird. Wie auch zur heutigen Zeit gab es ja auch damals mehrere Möglichkeiten, dass die drei Namen in einer Familie gleichzeitig auftraten. Enjana: 45. Deine diesbezügliche Frage an Florena, die ich Quetzal auch vorgetragen habe, entspricht dem Tatsächlichen. 46. Zu Jmmanuels Zeit, so erklärte Quetzal, dürften die Namen in der Folge, wie sie genannt sind, als Sohn, Vater und Bruder 34 mal in Erscheinung getreten sein. 47. Die besagte Gebein-Urne ist aber eine Fälschung. Billy: Aha, dachte ich mir doch. -- Benjamin Stevens | ||
Jim Member Post Number: 131 Registered: 07-2003 |
Thanks very much for that translation, Ben, and pointing out where the 115 date of Jmmanuel's death came from. Regarding that urn and its inscription, most scholars have come to the same conclusion, as of a year or more ago, that it's either a hoax or that the names on it just happen to coincide with those of New Testament fame. Regarding James or Jakobus, what Enjana told Billy, form Quetzal, sounds quite plausible to me. In Galatians 1 Paul mentions that he visited James, brother of "the Lord," 3 years after having gone to Arabia for a while. That timing commences after his conversion two years after the crucifixion. So it was apparently in the early 40's that Paul saw James, brother of Immanuel. The fact that he added "...I do not lie" after that sentence, of Gal 1:20, and says nothing about James's views, suggests that James's views did not agree with his own. This is compatible with James having long been convinced of his brother's survival of the crucifixion, and having left for India some time later, perhaps in the mid 40s. By then he could have received word via the Silk Road of Immanuel's whereabouts in northern India, if Immanuel had earlier sent word back via the Silk Road to James in Galilee or Jerusalem. Then it was another James, called James of Jerusalem or James the Just, who became a mainstay of the early church in Jerusalem and who later was stoned to death. This does make good sense to me, since the early church fathers of the 2nd century would have been eager to forget about Immanuel's brother James and instead identify him with James the Just. | ||
Smukhuti Member Post Number: 546 Registered: 06-2009 |
Hi Savio, All of your speculations 1-4 make sense. From contact 212: 10. I was also able to do that, yes. 10. Das konnte ich ebenfalls, ja. 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. 11. Matthäus war des Lesens und Schreibens ebenso unkundig wie alle anderen auch, denen die Evangelien und die Bibelbücher zugeschrieben werden. 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. 12. Das Matthäus-Evangelium wurde von Matthäus einem Schriftkundigen namens Josua diktiert, der das Ganze in freiem Ermessen auslegte und niederschrieb und folglich also auch verfälschte. Matthew was illiterate, hence could not have used TJ as source. Regarding 5 and 6, there is a strong probability that the copy of TJ that was stolen from Judas was be used for the same; otherwise, there could not be the current level of chapter by chapter/phrase by phrase similarity that exists between the TJ and the Book of Matthew. Also, it would be interesting to note, if Isa Rashid played any part to this effect. Saalome. Suv | ||
Jim Member Post Number: 132 Registered: 07-2003 |
Smukhuti, You wrote, "Matthew was illiterate, hence could not have used TJ as source." Would you agree this should be amended to read: Matthew the disciple, even if he had lived to be 125 years old, could not have used the TJ as his source because he was illiterate. The script stolen from Judas could not have been used as the source for Matthew because it was stolen too early in Jmmanuel's ministry to contain anything past what's in the TJ's 12th chapter. Hence, the Gospel of Matthew would then have been missing all about: a) The healing of the man with the withered hand; b) The parables by the Sea; c) The feeding of the 5000; d) Jmmanuel's walking on the sea; e) The power of appropriate prayer; f) The Pharisees & Saducees demanding a sign; g) The warning to beware of the teachings of the scribes and Pharisees; h) Jmmanuel's advice to become like children (in curiosity); i) What to do when your neighbor errs; j) Advice about marriage and divorce; k) Advice to his disciples to not hinder the children from coming to him; l) Healing of the two blind men; m) Jmmanuel's entry into Jerusalem on a donkey; n) His purging of the Temple; o) The questioning of his authority by chief priests and elders (and scribes); p) His questioning of them on whence came the baptism of John; q) His parable of the man with two sons; r) His parable of the vineyard; s) Give to Caesar, give to god...; t) The Saducees' question about the next life; u) The greatest commandment; v) Jmmanuel's question to the Pharisees about David; w) The Woes against the scribes & Pharisees; x) His big prophecy of future events; y) The suicide of Juda(s); z) Jmmanuel's anointment by a woman of Bethany; aa) The last supper; bb) Jmmanuel's three Gethsemane prayers; cc) His betrayal by Juda(s) and capture by the arresting party; dd) His "trial" before the Sanhedrin; ee) The denial by Peter; ff) The suicide of Juda(s); gg) Jmmanuel's "trial" before Pilate; hh) The dream of Pilate's wife; ii) The crucifixion; jj) Joseph of Arimathea's role; kk) The empty tomb; ll) The paralysis of the guards and their report to the chief priests; mm) The disciples go to the mountain to which Jmmanuel had directed them earlier. I've listed this in some detail in order to try to get across the point that the stolen writing of Judas was not used for constructing the Gospel of Matthew. All this it did not contain. | ||
Eddieamartin Member Post Number: 157 Registered: 08-2010 |
If I were Isad Rashid, considering the conditions he was faced with, having his life and his family's life threatened, it would be no surprise to me that Isad would simply copy the recorded accounts in the bible and inject the correct teaching of Jmmanuel in place of the falsified. Since the accounts of events were similar, I would not bother with translating the entirety of the TJ. It is clear that Isad Rashid was on a constant fear of threat to his and later to his family's life. Of his own accounts and claims, this is clearly evident. Does it not make logical sense that Isad would simply copy the bible and only inject the differences of Teachings as they differ between Jesus and Jmmanuel? As a former priest, and the fact that he was disturbed by what he read in Jmmanuel's teachings compared to what he was familiar with as Jesus' teachings, he clearly stuck to translating the teachings specifically and solely. The Plejarens were clearly pleased with Isad's correct translation of the teachings, but were still somewhat disappointed in the end results of his works and efforts. They also acknowledge the difficulties Isad faced with threats to his and his family's lives. This picture was clear to me when I pondered the similarities between the two books (accounts), the threat to life, the constant moving and evading said threat, the immensity of words in the TJ to be or not be in need of translation (the accounts or events perhaps being similar in some or most details in the bible) plus the fact that what was of most urgency was the actual Teachings of Jmmanuel as they compare with that of Jesus. Why the focus is on the identical and obvious copy of word per word in the TJ (the translated version) as it is found in the German bible (I would call this a hint) is a waste of time for me. What needs to be evaluated are the differences and the Teachings between Jmmanuel and Jesus. I consider the following: In all of the bible, there is no account as profound and impactful as the teachings of Jesus. Not one prophet before or after the life of Jesus ever exhibited the power and teachings of Jesus. By comparison, the teachings of Jmmanuel are bolder, exhibit more power, are more impactful and are clearly more profound than the teachings of Jesus. Salome, Eddie [7:-) | ||
Smukhuti Member Post Number: 548 Registered: 06-2009 |
Hi Jim, Would agree with you regarding the stolen copy of TJ. It could not have been the source of a..mm if it were really stolen in the time mentioned. Saalome. Suv | ||
Jim Member Post Number: 133 Registered: 07-2003 |
Eddie, If you were given the task of translating a document, I think you would do the best you could without progressing so slowly that you'd never make it through. So my guess is that Rashid did his best, but used whatever help he could get in order to make noticeable progress. So where it looked like the TJ was speaking of what was in the German Bible's Gospel of Matthew, he sometimes relied on that Gospel too much, to spare him from translating in detail, thus allowing him to progress faster. | ||
Earthling Member Post Number: 539 Registered: 05-2008 |
Not only was women's important role edited out of major religions textbooks and the TJ, but " God's Wife, Asherah, May Have Been Edited Out Of The Bible Says Theologian" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/22/gods-wife-asherah_n_839226.html ----------- And what are your thoughts on this article Bruce? Robyn (Message edited by indi on March 23, 2011) | ||
Earthling Member Post Number: 540 Registered: 05-2008 |
Robyn, it don't surprise me that God was married. Does it surprise you? After studying Billy's material, one can see where and how popular religions strayed from the truth. For instance, the implication that jesus was gods son or came down from heaven to help us; One could trace that to Nokodemion returning from spiritual levels to help humans. In this case, Billy says the gods were humans, so it is no shocker that they were married. What are your thoughts Robyn? -------- Bruce, I have not read the article, therefore reserve my opinion until such time. I think it is only fair to ask people once again, as has been asked more than once, to not just place links on the forum, but to also discuss the information in those links so as to make a discussion point. This is only a respectful thing to do and is what has been asked by the moderators in the guidelines. Otherwise there is little point in placing it on the forum. Robyn (Message edited by indi on March 23, 2011) | ||
Norm Member Post Number: 1415 Registered: 02-2000 |
Jim, Speaking of Hurtak. I found this tidbit on a message board. From a guy named Anders. "Vogel was skeptical at first. But I had convinced him at least to take a look at what we had on our hands. He was as amazed about the findings as we could have ever imagined: Atomic elements 1 through 59 all were present in the same substance; organic materials were cold fused and micromachined. Vogel couldn’t imagine how it could be made. Although he had agreed to absolute secrecy, we discovered he had shared the findings with Richard Haines of NASA-Ames and Dr. James Hurtak (Keys of Enoch). We had a box weighing more than 30 pounds filled with these. The metal samples are the single most compelling evidence in the case. It wouldn’t be long, however, before some of the samples started to disappear." http://204.74.214.194/forum1/message179581/pg7 My Website | ||
Patm Member Post Number: 60 Registered: 07-2006 |
The gods of the earthly human's past were 1) by their own self false decree a god, or; 2) by the misunderstood assumption on the part of those experiencing their (the designated gods) advanced understanding of spiritual/technical inspired events that were witnessed by the earth humans at the time. In either case they (the gods) were humans (terrestrial or extra-terrestrial in origin). Marriage, even though a possibly different understanding of the term than our use, was used by humans in the process for procreation. The question I have is why Gabriel (a human of Plejaren descent), whom I understand was perceived as a god and/or angel by earthly humans, pro-created outside of marriage with Maria, the mother of Jmmanuel. (the reasons something to possibly discuss further...or ask Billy) I understand the spiritual lineage of Nokodemion's spirit form to be outside of a physical lineage... RE: Yahweh and Asherah, I understand these gods to be equivalent of JHWH & JHRH as more correctly defined here: http://forum.figu.org/us/messages/13/4224.html?1162333621 As these terms define a human (male/female, respectively) there were more than just ONE through Earth (and Plejaren) history that fit these designations and were mistakenly called gods by the earth humans that experienced them in their time(s). I understand Gabriel was a JHWH and so was designated a god (by earth humans) even though he did not consider himself a god, neither did Jmmanuel who was the son (physical lineage) of the JHWH, Gabriel (not a god or a son of a god) as others in his time mistakenly designated him. -PatM | ||
Earthling Member Post Number: 543 Registered: 05-2008 |
Patm, others will correct me if I'm mistaken. I believe Jmmanuel needed a more highly evolved genetics/DNA to be able to have the powers he needed to succeed in his mission. Gabriel was involved with the mission and apparently that was his task, to supply the necessary DNA for Jmmanuel. I also think Gabriel is a former personality of Quetzal. | ||
Mahigitam Member Post Number: 349 Registered: 02-2009 |
Hi Norm, Is he quoting info from wendell books ? Or is he a part of the first investigation team ? All ideologies are idiotic, whether religious or political, for it is conceptual thinking, the conceptual word, which has so unfortunately divided man - Jiddu Krishnamurti | ||
Smukhuti Member Post Number: 559 Registered: 06-2009 |
Hi Jim, "A US scholar has claimed that the Bible may have been forged as several New Testament books were actually written by people who lied about their identity, pretending to be the apostles Peter, Paul or James." http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-03-28/science/29353499_1_scholars-bible-ancient-world I would be interested to know your opinion on the findings of Bart D Ehrman and if his theory could be valid - based on your research on TJ. "The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool". - As You Like It | ||
Jim Member Post Number: 136 Registered: 07-2003 |
Hi Smukhuti, Yes, what Ehrman says there has been the prevailing view of most NT scholars for some 15 or 20 years. (I agree on that.) What isn't said there is that they believe the four Gospels weren't written by their namesakes either. However, Ehrman isn't open to the idea that some edition of the Talmud of Jmmanuel could be genuine, nor that the Gospel of Matthew, written in a Hebraic tongue, preceded Mark. | ||
Norm Member Post Number: 1417 Registered: 02-2000 |
Mahigitam, I got it from a message board. Thats all I can say about it. My Website |
