| Author |
Message |
   
Pureharmony
Member
Post Number: 93
Registered: 08-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, October 02, 2003 - 02:05 pm: | 
|
I have found that the Gospel of Thomas is very similar to the Talmud Jmmanuel in many of the passages. I don't know what Billy thinks. But note this passage from the Gospel of Thomas-
"Be strong, for you are the one to whom these
mysteries have been given, to know them through revelation, that he whom they crucified is the first-born, and the home of demons, and the stony vessel in which they dwell...."
Howard, how is this like the New Testament? Maybe we should move this discussion to the Non-Figu/ Religion thread.
*pureharmony*
|
Pureharmony
Member
Post Number: 94
Registered: 08-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, October 02, 2003 - 02:38 pm: |
|
TJ 15:51 "The weeds hinder the good fruit from growing, yet later the weeds will become compost and nourish the ground."
*pureharmony*
|
Savio
Member
Post Number: 457
Registered: 07-2000
| | Posted on Monday, December 29, 2003 - 02:17 am: |
|
Hi Jim
According to the TJ, we know that the name "Jmmanuel" means "the one with godly knowledge", and "god" means "king of wisdom".
Can we find reference to the above meaning elsewhere outside the TJ?
Thanks
Savio
|
Jim
Member
Post Number: 14
Registered: 07-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 29, 2003 - 09:39 pm: |
|
Hi Savio,
My understanding is that by "God" you don't mean the source of that word's root, which is the German "Gott," but rather the Aramaic or Canaanite "El", which I think means power, or the powerful one.
But in ImmanuEL, one needs to fill in some missing words to get a meaning out of it. The best I know, from one scholar I once quizzed, is that its roots just mean "God with" or "El with". This agrees with what my concordance dictionary gives (im = with and El = God; it didn't say any more), leaving one to wonder about the "manu" part. The meaning in Matthew is slightly expanded: "God with us", while the corrected meaning that the latest TJ gives is as you say above, and is expanded more.
It could be, though, that the central "manu" of it does refer to "knowledge," because the Aramaic "manda" means "knowledge." But that's a bit of a stretch! Or, could "manu" refer to "manna" which means "bread," but in the TJ's Prayer to One's Spirit refers to spiritual knowledge (which one should try to learn each day).
Regards,
Jim |
Savio
Member
Post Number: 458
Registered: 07-2000
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 30, 2003 - 07:43 am: |
|
Hi Jim
Thanks for the information, it is really useful for me 
I did a search a few months ago, I found that God is Elowahh and Gods is Elohiym.
Within the Genesis, it was mentioned that Elohiym created everything = Gods (not the only God) created everything.
Hence it is deduced that many Gods were actually mentioned at the very beginning of the OT, not only one God as later became the main theme.
I wonder if there is any truth in this.
Regards
Savio
|
Michael
Member
Post Number: 421
Registered: 10-2000
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 30, 2003 - 12:14 pm: |
|
Hi Savio,
Check out Genesis 1:26. As I recall it's mentioned there.
Michael Horn
|
Jim
Member
Post Number: 15
Registered: 07-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 30, 2003 - 03:41 pm: |
|
Hi Savio,
Actually, "ha Elohim" (the gods) is used a lot in the OT. I do agree with you that its original meaning had indeed been "the gods", back before Judaism started switching from paganism to henotheism, and finally to monotheism. But by the latter time, perhaps around the 9th century BCE, Elohim had for so long been the reverential term for addressing the gods as a group that it just stuck, and could not be changed to the singular, due to the persistence of oral tradition. So it had to be left as "the gods," to be strictly interpreted from then on as THE ONE God. Just my opinion, though.
The fact that "ta elohim" did indeed indicate plural gods is attested to by its use in this plural sense to mean the plural gods of heathen or paganistic peoples in Deuteronomy and other OT books. However, try to tell the other explanation to any Christian or Judaistic email list and you'll be shouted down. They'll instead argue that it must mean the "plural majesty" -- God being so all-important that He could only be referred to in the majestic plural form.
Regards,
Jim |
Savio
Member
Post Number: 459
Registered: 07-2000
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 31, 2003 - 07:16 am: |
|
Hi Michael
Thanks for the information
It is a pity that the English version of Genesis that I can find uses the word "God" all the time, hence there is no way to find the word "Elohim" anywhere.
That is why a translation can be misleading....
Regards
Savio
|
Savio
Member
Post Number: 460
Registered: 07-2000
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 31, 2003 - 07:22 am: |
|
Hi Jim
Thanks for the explanation
Yes, I can have a better picture now .
Happy new year to all!
Savio
|
Anonymous
Member
Post Number: 25
Registered: 09-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 18, 2004 - 10:25 am: |
|
It is said that Jmmanuel was an "unmitigated rogue and arch-crook", in the sense that he was "very clever, very adroit, shrewd, adept at judging and dealing with people..." (from Those Who Lie About Contacts, pages 10 & 12, quoting from An Open Word). If this was so, surely then he would not have thought anything of being known by a different name such as Jesus? Admittedly, the Christ title could have been added later to this name. But there are a number of historical records that refer to an Issa (Buddhism), Yuz Asaf (Muslim), Yuzashaphat (Hindu) Isa Masih (Hinduism, meaning Jesus the Messiah) and Bohdi sattva (Indian Buddhism), or as the world knows him Jesus (Orthodox Greek). Is it not conceivable therefore that, although we are told by Billy that this was not Jmmanuel's real name or even the same person, he was in actual fact known also as Jesus? To dismiss one account of the genuineness of this name (which is presented to us through Christian literature) may be permissible, but to dismiss several accounts seems somewhat foolish to me. Of course, as "believers" of Billy Meier's prophethood we are obliged, to a certain degree, to believe what he tells us. But on the other hand, he does encourage us to question the information we are presented with, and he only tells us what we need to know for now; plus, seeing as his real name is Eduard, being known by another name is something that he clearly accepts.
Perhaps a good reason why he would feel the need to disassociate Jmmanuel with the name Jesus is because of its association with Christianity, and because of his reincarnation lineage, linking him to Jmmanuel. This of course would contradict the Clarification of a Defamatory Claim, where Billy states quite clearly that he is not the reincarnation of Jesus Christ. Yet his denial here can be seen to be a play on words, or splitting hairs, as the saying goes. The Christ in Jesus is essentially a Christian concept, and so in this regard Billy can safely state that he was not the reincarnation of Jesus Christ, who resurrected after being crucified and was referred to as the son of God. But the name Jesus could very well have been another name under which Jmmanuel was known, just like Eduard is also known as Billy.
I don't think that this is at all impossible, given that Billy too is very clever, adroit, shrewd, and adept at judging and dealing with people. He knows the consequences he would have to face were he to say publicly that his reincarnation lineage links him to Jmmanuel, who was also known in his time as Jesus. This name is too closely linked to a false concept of God and to a great many falsifications. It is better just to say that his reincarnation lineage links him to Jmmanuel, and by doing so have no connection whatsoever to Christianity, which would no doubt hinder his mission even more so than it has done so far.
Has anyone anything to say on this? |
Jim
Member
Post Number: 16
Registered: 07-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 18, 2004 - 04:16 pm: |
|
Hello Anonymous,
Yes, I for one certainly view "Jesus" as being the falsified form of Jmmanuel. The "Jesus" image originated mainly from Paul and the writers of the Gospels. The degree of falsification is so great that it's alright with me if the reincarnation of Jmmanuel should not wish to be identified with "Jesus."
Jim |
Jeedi
Member
Post Number: 40
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 18, 2004 - 10:34 pm: |
|
Hi Anonymous,
Perhaps people who were responsible for the writings, and many translations of the Bible understood the power of words?
Jmmanuel, half extraterrestrial -- higher spirit to earth people prophet fig. -- could probably even pin point the exact name of slander with understanding of Universal teachings, using meditation, not to mention alien family buddies help.
I understand name Jesus Christ means the "annointed one"; obviously, this is religious approach to enslave people to failure so the Holy leaders, scribes, chief priests, and elders, can maintain control. There is no way Jmmanuel would accept this religious primitiveness, even though I think he could foresee real future name.
Best regards,
Anthony |
Edward
Member
Post Number: 367
Registered: 05-2002
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 09:36 am: |
|
Hi Jim Deardorff....
I would like to know...if you have seen "The Passion" yet, and if you did: what did you think of it??
I have not yet had a chance to see it; not yet in my city.
I watched a debating last week on television; some Rabbis and Catholic/
Christians speaking out their "What Is...and What Is NOTS..". Of course, the
Rabbis blame the Catholic/Christians..for "Provoking" with the film. I guess
you can imagine what I mean.
Funny...that they Both say that Jesus/JMMANUEL "Sacrificed"..Him Self...when
in Reality...He Was "Mobbed and Lynched"!!! Which Is Very Very Clear!! How
dare They Say..- he Sacrificed..Him Self -! When in the TJ; it speaks very
clear that Jmmanuel was in much Fear and Anxiety...for his Life. Thus, he
would have rather "Dodged" this terrible Mobbing and Lynching.
Some Torah and Biblical Untruths...Not??
I guess they Both do not want the Blame...for this Action....which took
place; seeing that Both Their Religions Originate from the Falsified and
Fabricated teachings; for their Own benefit and Advantages!
Can you please give me your opinion on this...if you can??
Thank you Jim....
Edward. |
Jim
Member
Post Number: 17
Registered: 07-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 05:02 pm: |
|
Hi Edward,
No, I haven't seen it; don't know if I shall. I've seen/heard enough reviews of it to know I'd soon be disgusted with all the usual fallacies in it, and wouldn't want to endure watching such junk for very long. People sitting near me in the theater wouldn't want to hear my repeated objections, which I might not be able to keep to myself.
Jim |
Markc
Member
Post Number: 117
Registered: 06-2000
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 07:19 pm: |
|
Hi Jim and Eduard ;
I feel the same way Jim . It's considered to be such a crime to make a film even when it agrees with their beliefs .
Wouldn't Mel Gibson be surprised to discover the real controversial truth behind it all .
Mark
Mark Campbell
|
Edward
Member
Post Number: 368
Registered: 05-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, January 24, 2004 - 12:17 am: |
|
Hi Jim....
Thank you for your review!
Yes, I would agree with you. Seeing that ALL...Life Stories..Lecture and
Motion Pictures...of The True Prophet Jmmanuel has been "Falsified" to the
point of NO RETURN! Thus...leaves it full ENDLESS...LIES. Indeed, it would
be(The Passion) just another Falsification of the True Life Of Jmmanuel.
Well, I just think there will not be a change in this..as so far to come.
So, I figure...they(Rabbis and Catholic/Christians) have to Thank...Them
Selves..for the MESS they got themselves into! Now..its being Played
"Against" them! Figures...."Crime NEVER Pays!"
Thanks you again...Dear Jim..
Edward. |
Jeedi
Member
Post Number: 42
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 24, 2004 - 01:29 pm: |
|
Hi Edward,
Hey, I forgot about this jesus movie; I wanna go see it.
Sometimes lies make a good sparing partner for the Creationaly minded.
I try not to fear religious impulses directed at me. In fact, I look at it as a good opportunity to see how spiritually strong I am. Noticing and observing the un-truth in media can help a person better understand why they seek the truth, eh maybe?
Hey Jim, don't blame ya not going to a crowded house. On second thought, maybe I'll just wait for the DVD.
Best regards,
Anthony |
Jplagasse
Member
Post Number: 301
Registered: 09-2000
| | Posted on Sunday, January 25, 2004 - 03:00 pm: |
|
Hi Jim,
From what you say, I would very much enjoy sitting beside you (listening to your comments), while watching this movie !!
(My sense of humour gets me into much trouble at times...)
Best regards,
JP |
Siddhartha
Member
Post Number: 9
Registered: 04-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, May 01, 2004 - 04:48 am: |
|
I'm somewhat confused!
In the TJ it says that Jmmanuel and his parents are from Nazareth in Galilee. It mentions Nazareth at least nine times. Yet it has been said that Jmmanuel was from Tiberia. Strangely the TJ doesn't acknowledge this. What's more, I have read an article that claims "there occurs not a shred of evidence for a city named Nazareth at the time of the alleged Jesus". It does not appear in the OT, nor does it appear in the volumes of Josephus' writings, who provided a detailed list of the cities of Galilee. In fact no one mentions Nazareth until the Gospels were written. Yet it is mentioned in the TJ as Jmmanuel's hometown.
Has anyone any information on this - Jim, Jacob, Scott, anyone. I find it a little confusing, and contradicting. I would especially like some clarification concerning Tiberia and Nazareth. I don't see how Jmmanuel could have come from both. The TJ calls him the Nazarene.
Somebody help...
S |
Jim
Member
Post Number: 21
Registered: 07-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 01, 2004 - 01:11 pm: |
|
Hi Siddhartha,
Scholars are rather split on whether there was a Nazareth or not. Some say yes, some say no. Some are uncertain. I think the TJ is the best evidence yet that there indeed had been a town of Nazareth.
I don't know where your information comes from that claims Jmmanuel was from Tiberia. In fact, I don't know where Tiberia is! I think you mean "Tiberias," and then also, "Sea of Tiberias." The latter is the same thing as the "Sea of Galilee." And Nazereth of course is close to Lake Galilee.
You might also say he was from Bethlehem, in the first week or so of his life.
Regards,
Jim |
Truthspupl
New member
Post Number: 1
Registered: 02-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 01, 2004 - 09:09 pm: |
|
I have seen the movie "The Passion" and I feel 'Blessed' by it. I believe that Mel Gibson has had a sort of 'vision'. Those of you posting on this issue obviously misunderstand the movie's content since it seems as if you feel this portrays the entire LIFE of Jesus.
It does not portray his entire life and is only the last days of his life. It begins in the Garden of Gethsemene when he is pleading with his 'Father' to remove this cup from him. It portrays an illusive pale androgenous figure as Satan tempting him as he does this. Is this not 'FEAR'? Of course he did not want to be lynched. But he knew it was coming.
The TJ tells of this horrible LYNCHING but the traditional text does NOT veer far from this assumption. This is the very reason he pleads to have this 'cup removed from me'. Of course he is TERRIFIED!
But, he has this ET connection and has even been 'taken up' by them on occasion. Yet they do not take him out of this situation? Why? Why did he not RUN when he had every means to do so? He could have called for help?
He was lynched and that would have included the 'scourging' which is depicted in The Passion.
Dispite any 'dialog' that is misinterpreted in the movie from the actual truth, to see the sheer malicious, viciousnous of man and what he did to an Innocent and the greatest spiritual teacher of all time is horrifying! But it is ABOUT TIME that the TRUTH be shown. I am sure it wasn't pretty folks.
This is like seeing the truth of the War in Iraq. That would, of course, be seeing men cradling their dead children with their feet hanging from bloody sinew at the bottom of their legs. That is the reality of what man does to himself. SAD and HARSH, but true.
I LOVED this movie and the controversy it has provoked. That shows, that at the very least, people are THINKING.
|
Siddhartha
Member
Post Number: 10
Registered: 04-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, May 02, 2004 - 01:06 am: |
|
Hello Jim
Thanks for your post. It helps, and it certainly makes more sense, but I feel it contradicts what has been said on this forum. If what you say is true, then what has been posted here is somewhat misleading. Here are some of the posts I found. Let me know what you think.
From Billy in answer to a question –
“The matter regarding Joseph is as follows: He was the son of a certain Jacob, by trade a shipbuilder and a carpenter from Tiberia… Mary was not of Jewish faith, too, and she also came from Tiberia, and was the daughter of a family of traders.”
From Edward –
“It was made clear by Christian Frehner that Jmmanuel was from Lake Tiberias, which makes him (Jmmanuel) a ‘Tiberian’”
From Scott –
“Here is the quote from Christian regarding Tiberia -
"According to Billy (and Quetzal during a contact in 1988), Joseph and Mary were a married couple that did not belong to any denomination/religion. Both came (originated) from Tiberia at the Sea of Galilee.”
Except for Edward’s post, which specifically refers to Lake Tiberias, neither Scott, Christian nor Billy mention this. They seem to give the impression that Jmmanuel was from Tiberia and not Lake Tiberias. The TJ, however, does mention the “Sea of Tiberias”. But if, as you say, this is near Galilee, how can Jmmanuel be said to come from Tiberias? Was there a village built by the sea known as Tiberias or Tiberia? I guess there must have been. Yet in the TJ Jmmanuel is known as the Nazarene, indicating that he was from Nazareth, not Tiberia or Lake Tiberias. Why none of the posts above made this clear is a mystery. The last of these, by Christian Frehner, certainly makes one think that there was a village known as “Tiberia at the Sea of Galilee”.
In any case you are saying that Jmmanuel came from the Sea of Tiberias, (possibly a village rather than the sea itself), which was situated near Galilee, which was in Nazareth.
Is this correct? |
Memo00
Member
Post Number: 16
Registered: 03-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, May 02, 2004 - 08:32 am: |
|
hi truthspupl
i do think that jmmanuel
did not escape from the crucifixion
because it was the only way that the priests would stop his persecution
so that he could continue his mission
i don´t think that movie is a "healthy" thing for people to see
i think that instead of making people think
it promotes degenerate fanatism
(ooohhhh he sacrified for our salvation . . .
ooooooohhhh we have to adore him and his church . . . and that kind of stuff)
(but that is only my opinion . . .)
take care
and be well
|
|
