| Author |
Message |
   
Jjim Deardorff
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 13, 2000 - 01:21 pm: | 
|
Here's a question. In the TJ's genealogy, the 1978 German version spells the names in the long list with i's present, instead of j's (except for the J in Jmmanuel). Example: Akibeel rather than Akjbeel (1:5). But in the 1992 and 1996 versions, these dozens of i's were edited into j's at Meier's request. Yet, going by the 1996 edition, in verse 1:81 Rasiel is spelled that way rather than as Rasjel. And Gabriel is spelled like that (2:6), and not as Gabrjel. Similarly, Elisha is spelled that way (11:19,24) rather than as Eljsha. Same with Elijah and Jeremiah (18:18).
Although I think I've asked someone in FIGU about this before, I still don't understand why the change in spelling was made, using the old Lyran alphabet's J for i, in the genealogy. And why not consistently, then, for these other names? |
Anthea
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 13, 2000 - 03:16 pm: |
|
TJ 3:1,2,3 & 23
What was the significance and/or reason of the physical baptism in water? |
Anthea
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 13, 2000 - 03:22 pm: |
|
TJ 4: 3,4,5
Verse 3: "But then he was let off by the metallic light between North and West, where the guardian angels had received cords with which they had to measure the place for the chosen ones."
Were "the chosen ones" mentioned here referring to Jmmanuel's teachers?
Moderator: - Anthea is referring to 1996E. |
Anthea
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 13, 2000 - 03:45 pm: |
|
Apologies - I am referring to the 1996E of the TJ |
Andrew C. Cossette
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 13, 2000 - 05:31 pm: |
|
Hi Jim,
I have wondered this myself. I do know that "i"s were used early in the mission so that people would understand, but "j"s were replaced later for correctness. You bring up an exact question that I have had about Rasiel. If one looks upon the Lyrian alphabet, there simply are no "i"s at all. I think we must assume (a sometimes dangerous thing) that a "j" must always be used in place of an "i" in any and every case, but this is just my opinion.
It is also interesting to note that even the Arahat Athersata names are spelled the 'true' way, i.e., Gabrjel. Further, it is shown on the ancient document in Billy's possession that the name "Jeremiah" was indeed spelled "Jeremja" -- as well, "Billy" was written "Bjllj."
Comments welcome.
Kind regards,
Andrew |
Jim Deardorff
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 13, 2000 - 10:21 pm: |
|
Hi Andrew,
But besides that, I question the reasoning behind using the j's for i's anywhere but in Jmmanuel's name. It evidently had not been that way in what Isa Rashid translated, except in the name Jmmanuel, and it would make sense to keep the TJ as close as possible to the way Rashid translated it, except for corrections of content in his translation. |
Jim Deardorff
| | Posted on Thursday, September 14, 2000 - 10:46 am: |
|
Anthea, I would suppose that the significance was that repenting of one's sins, and adopting good intentions of not committing such sins any more, was like taking a good bath and cleansing away all the dirt. (TJ 3:23 says that John was baptizing them into repentance with water.) |
Jim Deardorff
| | Posted on Thursday, September 14, 2000 - 11:06 am: |
|
I've wondered about that, too. It might help if we knew what sort of "cords" it refers to, and how they were used in "measuring." But your guess seems as good as any I know of.
Perhaps another possibility is that the "chosen ones" were the peoples of the three races whose procreation the ET "god" had directed, and whom he had jurisdiction over. Their "place" would then have been all of Europe and the Mideast, eastward to India. But this had taken place long ago and would take pretty long cords(!), while verse 3 implies a measurement taken while or shortly before Jmmanuel was there (in a mother ship?). So I like your guess better than this one.
The chosen ones wouldn't refer to the Israelites, as Jmmanuel elsewhere comes down strongly against that concept. |
Ardie Fox
| | Posted on Friday, September 15, 2000 - 09:18 am: |
|
Hello,
I have also wondered why Jmmanuel was baptised.
In the pamplet "FIGU in a Nutshell" paragraph 9, it says "We do not perform any baptism (driving out the devil)."
It would seem that baptism would have been against Jmmanuel's teachings. And, that he was least likely to have needed to have his sins (errors) washed away.
I like what you said, Jim, about taking a good bath and cleansing away all the dirt. Perhaps, Jmmanuel was just setting an example for the other people present. The baptism is symbolic of starting over fresh.
It is good to see you on the discussion forum, Jim.
Salome, Ardie |
Ardie Fox
| | Posted on Friday, September 15, 2000 - 09:29 am: |
|
Hello,
This may be way off, but suppose the "Chosen Ones" referred to Jmmanuel and possibly others that had been "let off between North and West". Maybe Jmmanuel was not the only one CHOSEN to receive additional education. Just a thought.
Salome, Ardie |
Ardie Fox
| | Posted on Friday, September 15, 2000 - 11:52 am: |
|
Hi,
I remembered reading about cords in one of Zecharia Sitchin's books, so I went back to try to find it. The last few pages in his book "The Stairway to Heaven" brings up cords several times.
I get the impression that cords were used to measure distances on maps and to plan flight directions and destinations.
So, the guardian angels may have used cords to measure the distance TO the destination for the "Chosen Ones" and not a place AT the destination.
On the subject of just where "between North and West" actually is... I asked Christian over a year ago about this. If I understood him correctly, he said that Jmmanuel was taken to Hyperborea, in the area where Greenland is now. BUT, at that time, Florida was where Greenland is now. My question now is...Has the Earth actually tilted that much in 2000 years or did they also go back in time?
Salome, Ardie |
Jim Deardorff
| | Posted on Friday, September 15, 2000 - 06:21 pm: |
|
Hello Ardie,
Actually, I was responding to Anthea's question about John's practice of baptism of the people in general.
As to why J was baptized, we need to understand his words, "because it is fitting for us to fulfill all justice, since we are both sons of the earth." I admit to not knowing why baptism helps fulfill all justice. The concept of baptism doesn't seem to be in the Old Testament. It apparently originated with John. I can only guess that because of J's great respect for John, and knowing that John was (probably) his senior and had already been engaged in preaching and baptizing for some time, he wished to partake in the practice that John had initiated.
It seems to me that John, like Jmmanuel, was also a contactee, and also had a Plejaran as his father, in view of both John and J being "sons of the earth" (having earthly mothers). |
Jim Deardorff
| | Posted on Friday, September 15, 2000 - 06:56 pm: |
|
Let me add an interesting problem for the TJ, regarding its verse 3:28. In the letter that Bishop Ignatius wrote to the Smyrnaeans (around 100-108 A.D.), one sentence (Smyr. 1:1) reads, "He was truly born of a virgin, was baptized by John, in order that all righteousness might be fulfilled by him, and..." Since the TJ (original + a transcription, we presume) didn't get carried back from India to the Mideast until after J's death, and so probably not until after 110 A.D., how did Ignatius learn of this detailed clause "in order that all righteousness be fulfilled"? He wouldn't have known it from the Gospel of Matthew, since that gospel wasn't written until after the TJ had arrived on the scene. And the rest of Ignatius's epistles just had early Christian material in them, nothing else distinctive that looks like it might have come from the TJ.
One possibility is that the righteousness clause got carried down from oral tradition, from around 30 A.D. to 108 A.D or so. But one usually doesn't expect the wording of oral tradition to be that close to the real thing.
Another possibility is that Ignatius's letter to the Smyrnaeans had been added to later, by a Christian editor, with knowledge of the Gospel of Matthew, which may have been written around 120 A.D. This verse from Ignatius that I quoted lies within the "short version" of Ignatius's epistles, which New Testament scholars regard as basically OK; but there is a longer version of all seven of them to which later Christian additions are very evident, as even the scholars realize. So the shorter version could well have received a bit of later editing, also.
I tend toward this second solution to the problem. However, most scholars assume that Matthew was written much earlier, by around 80-100 A.D., so that Ignatius had access to the Gospel of Matthew, and picked up the righteousness clause from it. And so they would use this to help argue that the TJ is a fraud based upon Matthew instead of preceding Matthew. However, I find that the writer of Matthew had had some access to Ignatius's epistles, with that explaining why a certain few verses in Matthew have rather close parallels to some pieces from Ignatius's epistles.
Do others of you have other solutions? |
Jim Deardorff
| | Posted on Friday, September 15, 2000 - 07:14 pm: |
|
Those are interesting thoughts. Jmmanuel would certainly qualify as having been a Chosen One, and maybe John the Baptist was one, and so possibly others, too? But probably they had been there at different times, as there's no indication that any other earthling besides J was "up there" with the ETs at the time he was.
Cords and "measure" certainly do imply a measurement of some sort. However, I think of J as having been taken up into a Plejaren "mothership" hovering invisibly somewhere, where the concept of "measurement," especially with some low-tech means as cords, doesn't fit. So I remain pretty mystified.
Re "between North and West," perhaps it was somewhere in or above Greenland. However, there certainly could not have been any major shift in the earth's crust that would interchange Greenland and Florida just some 2,000 years ago or less. Everything else would have been messed up badly, too, including the Middle East. |
deeh
| | Posted on Friday, September 15, 2000 - 07:25 pm: |
|
Regarding the babtism of Jmannuel,I asked Bruni this question when I was in Switzerland in 1991. I don't recall her exact words but my interpertaion of them was that John was a good friend and did this to wash the negative vibration away.
Dee |
Anthea
| | Posted on Saturday, September 16, 2000 - 10:33 am: |
|
Hi,
That sounds like a plausible explanation - it is interesting (if this is the exact explanation) to see how the "meaning" of baptism got twisted by false translations.
Anthea |
Jim Deardorff
| | Posted on Sunday, September 17, 2000 - 11:50 am: |
|
How do you suppose that Jmmanuel learned that, back when he was a baby, Herod Antipas had asked the wise men, secretly, when the bright light had appeared in the sky (TJ 2:12, 1996E)? |
Andrew C. Cossette
| | Posted on Sunday, September 17, 2000 - 01:16 pm: |
|
Hi Jim,
Can you deduce an age for him (at that time) through all your investigations? |
Anthony Alagna
| | Posted on Sunday, September 17, 2000 - 01:37 pm: |
|
Hello,
This is very interesting discussion on Jmmanuel's birth. And it makes you wonder, How could this story have made it into the TJ because this event happened before Matthew was old enough to write, let alone remember this incident?
Perhaps a clue can be found in TJ 2:8, where it describes Herod Antipas as being "...frightened, and with him all of Jerusalem, because they feared that the new-born child might exercise dreadful power."
It seems to me that Jmmanuel's birth was a pretty big deal at the time it happened, most of the people in Jerusalem probably saw the bright spaceship (light) in the sky. With this you have Antipas, all the chief priests and scribes, the wise men, and probably the rest of the people in the city talking about it, at one level or another. Maybe not so secret after all?
I'd bet this story, the night the bright light showed up in the sky out of nowhere, was quite alive with the public when Matthew was writing the TJ; and I would think that Matthew tried to capture the true truth of the story when he scribed it for his work.
Regards,
Anthony |
Anthea
| | Posted on Sunday, September 17, 2000 - 02:25 pm: |
|
In TJ 2:17 it says "the voice rang out from the light high above, saying that they should not return to Herod Antipas because he planned evil for the young child." This was in the presence of Joseph and Mary (verse 16) and in verse 19 it mentions that Gabriel appeared to Joseph after the three wise men had departed.
It would appear not to be as important how Jmmanuel became informed about the exact details of this bit of biographical history, otherwise I would imagine the how would have been mentioned in the writing of the TJ.
One may speculate on quite a few answers to this question:- Gabriel may have informed Joseph and Mary of the details of this secret meeting because of it's direct bearing on Jmmanuel's life and Joseph and Mary could have related the story to Jmmanuel when he was older.
The Celestial Sons could have informed Jmmanuel too; OR verse 25: "When Herod Antipas and his followers had had a change of mind ..." verse 26: "Arise and take the young child and his mother Mary back to the land of Israel; all those who sought the child's life have had a change of heart." There was probably no more need for secrecy and the story was most likely related in all it's detail for all to hear.
Anthony - Matthew did not write the Talmud Jmmanuel. Matthew's writings came after the TJ and contained many errors and ommissions - am I right in this Jim? |
Jim Deardorff
| | Posted on Sunday, September 17, 2000 - 04:38 pm: |
|
Andrew -- Jmmanuel was only one day, or at most a few days, old at that time, as it is very unlikely that Joseph and Mary would decide to live there in a manger for any length of time. This was in 6 A.D., when Antipas was given the dynastic title of Herod, and the year the decree from Augustus went out on enrollment for taxation, and the year that Quirinius became governor of the area.
Anthony Alaqna -- Anthea is right, the TJ was not written by Matthew, but by Judas Iscariot. You learn that right away upon opening up to Chap. 1 of the TJ.
Anthea -- you're right, it's not particularly important how J learned about the wise men's meeting with Herod Antipas. I just wanted to gather a few plausible ideas, and so was glad to read yours. My own thoughts on this had been that the wise men told Joseph and/or Mary about it at the time of their visitation. Then his parents told Jmmanuel all about it as a youth, before he went off to India. Or perhaps Mary told him of this particular detail on their travels after the crucifixion, and then he told Judas, who traveled with them and wrote the TJ. But it's an interesting thought that Gabriel or one of the celestial sons informed him about it. |
Ardie Fox
| | Posted on Sunday, September 17, 2000 - 08:36 pm: |
|
In the booklet "Clarification of a Defamatory Claim" on page 11 it states that Jmmanuel's true birthday was February 3 in the year 0.
I have also heard though, that there is a 6 or 7 year error in our calendar. Would that account for the different years given for Jmmanuel's birth? |
Jim Deardorff
| | Posted on Sunday, September 17, 2000 - 11:36 pm: |
|
If the 6-7 year error occurred at the right time, it would help. But the writer of that document didn't, as far as I know, realize that Jmmanuel was born in the year that Antipas took on the Herod dynastic title instead of a couple years before the death of Antipas's father, King Herod, as scholars and clergy both assume.
And there was no year 0. It got left out, as the concept of zero as a number hadn't yet developed, so I've heard. |
Jim Deardorff
| | Posted on Monday, September 18, 2000 - 09:57 am: |
|
The Great Harvest is in this chapter. I think verse 9:47 means that the "workers" for the harvest that were found were additional disciples, whose number only then totalled twelve. Does that sound reasonable?
Previous verses here and there speak of "the disciples" or "his disciples," but their number being twelve is not mentioned until the very next verse after 9:47, which begins the tenth chapter. And it makes sense that only after they had reached their full complement were their names all given, in 10:2.
So it seems to me that until the Great Harvest, there may have been only Peter & Andrew, James (Jacob) and John, and Matthew as disciples. And probably Judas Iscariot, who may have felt it unimportant to mention when he was called to be a disciple. In that case, the Great Harvest reaped 6 more disciples.
The writer of the Gospel of Matthew omitted TJ 9:47, and so from Matthew one doesn't usually draw this conclusion. |
Ardie Fox
| | Posted on Monday, September 18, 2000 - 12:50 pm: |
|
The following is taken from Billy's letter called "The Year 2000 and Beyond":
"However, in reality the Christian chronology is not correct, because there were made some big mistakes during its calculation. Therefore, the Christian world of 1999/2000 is already living in the year of 2005 or 2006, respectively."
Maybe leaving out the year 0 was one of the reasons for the miscalculation.
If Antipas was given the dynastic title of Herod in 6 AD and the miscalculation was done before that, it would actually have been 12 AD. So, the mistake is going the wrong way for the 6 AD and the year 0 to match up.
I am getting confused :) |
Jim Deardorff
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 19, 2000 - 12:08 pm: |
|
Ardie, the miscalculation was done a lot later, when the official calendar(s) were made up. But even then, they didn't have the concept of zero as a number.
However, I've never kept any of the details of the early calendars in mind, and so haven't tried to make sense out of that quote from Billy's letter. Perhaps it would be best if I just said that the TJ indicates for sure that Jmmanuel was born in the same year that Antipas became Herod Antipas, and when the decree of Caesar Augustus went out, and when Quirinius became governor of Syria. Conventional dating places those dates all at 6 A.D.
Dating back in the early days, in the Roman empire, was done in terms of the number of years since the last important Roman emperor had died. This dating didn't know anything about 1 B.C. or 1 A.D. Later, church officials and historians pieced it all together as best they could. |
Philip McAiney
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 20, 2000 - 01:25 pm: |
|
Hello Jim and Everyone Else:
Nice to finally have a forum specifically about the TJ - finally or, as they say in Switzerland, "endlich!"
My feelings about John baptising is that it was not a religious act but merely a symboy of a person being washed of wrong doctrines from the past and starting over "fresh and clean".
As to Ignatius, whom I call "Iggy", and his use of the phrase "to fulfill all righteousness" in reference to J. being born from a virgin and later baptized: I think he was passing on an oral history originating from Isaiah, whom Billy and the P's say was a true prophet.
The Book of Isaiah in the Old Testament, however, is probably as distorted as all the other books in the Bible. But there are pieces here and there that ring true, like Isaiah's description or prophecy that a great prophet would be born centuries in the future called "Emmanuel". Since the letters "E", "J" and "I" were interchangeable when translated, we know he was talking about Jmmanuel then, back around 550 B.C.
The "righteousness" of being baptized, I think, is of fulfilling the customs of the time. At the same time, John the Baptist avoided the propaganda of the false teachings and kept the baptism to a ritual act of cleansing oneself of past mistakes and starting afresh. That's my feeling. |
Phil Mcainey
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 20, 2000 - 01:35 pm: |
|
Dear Jim and Andrew:
Rashid did not speak/write great German. His attempt to make the names familiar might have made him alter the "j"'s in the names to Germanic and Westernized "i"'s.
I would like accuracy in using the original, Lyrian spelling of the names much like exists in the "Book of Names". Pronunciation is important and an "i" helps with it, but seeing the true, original spelling is just as important.
It could be that the TJ to come out soon will correct this spelling discrepancy. |
Phil McAiney
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 20, 2000 - 01:42 pm: |
|
The original story of the furtive acts of Herod Antipas were recorded by Judas Iscariot as told to him by Jmmanuel, not the group of religious writers and conspiratists calling themselves "Matthew". I feel Jmmanuel knew about this event when he was an infant through his contacts with his father, Gabrjel, who would tell him about his upbringing like any father would for his beloved son.
When Jmmanuel visited the JHWH on the ship as a young man, this is another time he could have learned things like this. Or he might have learned it from his Foster Father, Joseph, or his Mother. Both would certainly have recalled such a radical event and their having to escape it. |
Phil McAiney
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 20, 2000 - 01:47 pm: |
|
Billy told me quite emphatically that Jmmanuel was born in the year 4 B.C.
We have to arrange our calculations as to when this was but it certainly was not in 6 A.D. |
Phil McAiney
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 20, 2000 - 01:54 pm: |
|
I think the "chosen ones" are the people of Henok, the ones intended and who volunteered to assist the one prophet of Earth, beginning with Henok and including the line down to Jmmanuel and beyond. Teaching the never-ready-to-learn Earth humans the laws of Creation and undoing the false teachings is impossible for one man alone, even for one with unlimited physical and mental strength like Billy. |
Phil McAiney
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 20, 2000 - 02:28 pm: |
|
In Chapter 5, Verse 17, (1996E) J. says in his Sermon on the Mount,
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have not come to abolish, but to fulfill and to reveal knowledge."
I have noticed the past few years several newspaper articles and TV shows more and more trying to portray "Jesus" as a man who was fulfilling the laws of Moses, the laws of the Covenant etc., and to make him into a deranged and confused Rabbi who was originally a devout Jew along with his parents, using this New Testament phrase of "having come to fulfill the law" as proof of their claim.
We know the difference between "Jesus" and "Jmmanuel" but the point is the same as the verse in the Bible and the TJ is almost identical in this instance.
No doubt they might succeed in convincing people of this ruse as they are promoting it often enough. But looking at the original saying of Jmmanuel, we all know what "law" he had come to fulfill - the law of the JHWH that he be born at this time, and the law of Creation that earth needed a prophet to teach it the spiritual laws, and the law of the prophet that he teach all the varied races throughout Earth.
Anyone else have a thought about this revising of the person of "Jesus" in recent TV documentaries? No doubt as more and more truth comes out, we will see more and more lies also appearing. |
Jim Deardorff
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 20, 2000 - 10:09 pm: |
|
Phil,
I doubt that Rashid would have altered them on his own authority. But if he had, why didn't he then alter the J in Jmmanuel back to an I?
Regards,
Jim |
Jim Deardorff
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 20, 2000 - 10:17 pm: |
|
If so, then the decree of Caesar Augustus was in 4 B.C., Quirinius became governor then, and Herod Antipas was already tetrarch then. The TJ lets us know that.
It then follows that King Herod, Antipas's father, had died 10 years earlier, in 14 B.C.
I feel it is important to keep these relative time scales correct, whether or not Meier should know that the historical time scale back to 2000 years ago is off by 10 years or so. |
Jim Deardorff
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 20, 2000 - 10:23 pm: |
|
Phil, what do you think the cords were, and what were they supposed to measure? |
Jim Deardorff
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 20, 2000 - 10:29 pm: |
|
The view you mention of Jesus has been with us ever since the Gospel of Matthew came out, I'd say. For it's there that this verse came out without any mention or explanation of the laws of Creation and of nature. It's this verse in Matthew (Matthew 5:17) that has all the New Testament scholars and theologians thinking that "Jesus" was a Jew at heart, with Jewish beliefs in the correctness of the Torah. So I don't think the recent documentaries are giving us anything new in this regard.. |
Jean Pierre Lagasse
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 20, 2000 - 10:42 pm: |
|
Hi all,
Phil, I like your posts & observations, they make me think...
Some "thinking out loud" babblings of my own:
If Jmmanuel would have taught in terms of abolishing old thought/concepts/ways of "life", his teachings would have been in terms of the old thoughts/attitudes. What was needed (instead) was an entirely "new" or self (spiritually) empowering teaching. His teachings certainly did abolish (for those who understood) the "stickiness" of the old thoughts, & therefore he did "abolish" (in one fashion) the old ways/laws anyway.
Also, to have directly stated anything other than what he did, would have been really bad physically for him (immediately) & also counterproductive.
The terminologies & concepts used would been "tailored" for the understanding of the people at that time.
He certainly seems to have "fulfilled" & revealed knowledge, either way.
Most of today's "Jesus concepts" (a separate issue) as portrayed by the press & popular opinion are useful to determine the "mood of the times" or what the "average understandings" are of our present society. Marketing etc. also. Little more. The same can be said about cartoons, sports, advertising etc. That any real truth is present is mostly by chance... (I know I'm getting nasty so I'll stop right here...!)
I find it interesting that Jewish ideas are presently somehow being interwoven into “current Jesus concepts”.
I wonder who is financing this info…? *s*
As a (very appropriate) previous post on this board summarized: “$”
Salome,
JPLagasse |
Anthea
| | Posted on Thursday, September 21, 2000 - 12:14 pm: |
|
Hi All :)
I was informed by a Core Group Member that Baptism is of purely pagan origin. Original baptism was a symbolic act of blessing and of honoring the person and the church has misconstrued the meaning of baptism to suit it's own agenda ie. the cleansing of sins.
Salome and Kind Regards,
Anthea |
Phil McAiney
| | Posted on Thursday, September 21, 2000 - 02:04 pm: |
|
Jim,
I don't know. Maybe Judas Iscariot altered it. Without seeing the original scripts, who knows what the difference is in ancient Aramaic between the letters of J, E and I ? Maybe they were too hard to read and that this particular scroll with all the names was the most decayed. |
Phil McAiney
| | Posted on Thursday, September 21, 2000 - 02:07 pm: |
|
I agree and think you should draw up a chart with the relevant dates on it above the accepted dates so we can see the two side-by-side. When can you have that finished for us? :) |
Phil McAiney
| | Posted on Thursday, September 21, 2000 - 02:16 pm: |
|
The German word "Schnure" is translated as "cord" in English but other translations of that word are:
"string, braid, piping, rope, (fishing)line,
flex, and lead"
Somehow I feel this "Schnure" might be lasers that were used to geographically mark out a certain location on Earth, maybe like some ley lines. |
Phil McAiney
| | Posted on Thursday, September 21, 2000 - 02:23 pm: |
|
The other item that makes Jesus an observant Jew is the fact of him gathering his disciples to celebrate the Passover.
In the TJ, we know Jmmanuel used this holiday to just have a meeting with his group, not to deliberate and dwell over the inflated fantasies and superstitions of how the Hebrews escaped the "bondage" of the Egyptians (a good joke as Moses himself was an Egyptian, being the second son of Ramses II, and left Egypt as he knew he could never be Pharaoh as long as son Number One lived). |
Jim Deardorff
| | Posted on Thursday, September 21, 2000 - 07:16 pm: |
|
If so, Anthea, why was John the Baptist doing Baptisms years before Christianity got going? John believed in the supremacy of Creation, and was not, I'd say, any pagan. |
Jean Pierre Lagasse
| | Posted on Thursday, September 21, 2000 - 11:05 pm: |
|
Hi all,
We seem to need "symbols" or "ceremonies" to "officiate" accomplishment or "changes of state". Marriage ceremonies, rings & certificates, graduation ceremonies & certificates, birthday celebrations etc. Big cars, expensive homes (show success) etc. Somehow, these "social events" (or objects) make whatever we go through, more official (or real). Most of us (primitive) earth people need something visual to re-enforce “abstract concepts”. These ceremonies & symbols are worthless in themselves. It is the associated concept & attitude (or whatever) that is “important”… (Is marriage a certificate & a ring, or a commitment/love/attitude?)
Could baptism (most likely of pagan origin) have been used for the same reason? Could John have used baptism merely as a symbol? Jmmanuel (& John?) would have known human nature & the effect these “symbols” had on the people at that time.
A "knowledgeable" person might have suspected that in itself, the ceremony was worthless. Jmmanuel, was far more advanced than being just “knowledgeable”. Perhaps, he was "bridging gaps" between old & new teachings. Could the saying: “…all righteousness might be fulfilled by him…” be an indication of this? He seemed to teach that “Man’s laws” should be followed as well as “Creation’s laws”. They were simply two different set of laws. Nothing to “go to war” about.
Perhaps the old societies were too wrapped up in violence & destruction. Perhaps this tendency had to be “downplayed” or “reconciled” (neutralized)?
Could Jmmanuel (& John?) have taught their “inner core” members both the uselessness of the old ways & yet the importance of “neutral attitude” towards these ways? Could baptism have (also) been a ceremony symbolizing “making peace” between the old obsolete ideas & a “new understanding” towards them?
Could baptism have been a symbolic demonstration of this reconciliation?
Is it possible that the above concept was known amongst “Christians” & survived long enough to make it into several writings, years apart, almost as a slogan or saying?
Best Regards,
JPLagasse |
Anthea
| | Posted on Friday, September 22, 2000 - 06:18 am: |
|
Hi Jim,
That is a question I have asked myself. The answer most likely lies in researching the by-now-obscure pagan rituals and the origins of baptism. As to why John should choose to use a pagan ritual I could only hazard a guess :) I was told by the same Core Group member that the reason water was used for baptism was not because of it's cleaning effect, but because it is clean itself.
The definition for the word pagan is "Not acknowledging the God of Christianity and Judaism and Islam." The ancient "pagans" did not worship the all-powerful god of religion, so if not worshipping a Religious creator-god then it seems logical to me that they could have acknowledged Creation and the laws of nature and so it follows that the ritual of baptism has ancient roots that has at it's foundation a law of nature (this however is only my theory).
Something that was mentioned to me by the same Core Group member made me think that this could very well be the case. She said that flowing water can neutralize negative vibrations ... The fluidum of negative thinking deposits on material objects in the environment (including the human body) ... and can be neutralized in (clean) flowing water.
This is my own conjecture based on what I was told and it requires further research and confirmation of facts :oD
Kind Regards,
Anthea |
Andrew C. Cossette
| | Posted on Friday, September 22, 2000 - 06:37 am: |
|
Hi JP,
You bring up some good points. Water has always symbolized 'cleansing'. The core group member Anthea is referring to made the statement that water is used to clean negative forces. I would see Baptisms as a 'new start' so-to-speak, symbolizing a cleansing effect -- a starting over and starting anew. Yet, either way you slice it, Baptism had to have been symbology due to the fact that 'moving water' MUST be run over a human being or any other object for weeks before it truly succeeds in cleaning anything -- as much as 350 hours or more. I think John's arms would have gotten tired by then, eh?
One can also realize that the so-called Pagans were around long before history tells us they were, albeit with different names. An important point to realize is that the current dictionary meaning has been changed (and generalized) so that the truth can not be found by the layperson today.
Just like Wicca, the church loved to change meanings in dictionaries, as well as to rewrite history itself. Currently, however, it is so much harder to do this as we are now an 'open' society with evidence in our hands at any given moment. Thanks to the media and other forces (and even overpopulation!), it has become harder to rewrite word meanings and history, although governments still try to this very day, depending on the leaders and their control over their people, e.g. Iraq, etc. It is also interesting to note just how much of the Pagan rituals the church stole to make them their own. |
Michael Horn
| | Posted on Friday, September 22, 2000 - 09:35 am: |
|
Regarding the benefits of water, I learned a procedure from a teacher of Russian martial arts that apparently is common, in some form or another, throughout parts of Eastern Europe.
It is suggested that twice a day, once before noon and once before midnight, you pour a bucket of cold water over yourself, preferably outside when possible. It is claimed that, in addition to cleansing negativity physically and even mentally/emotionally, it has a positive effect on the central nervous system and the immune system.
The explanation is that the body temperature rises, for about a second, to 108 F. (42.2 C) which asssists in killing off pathogens.
This was the one practice I decided to avoid...until my curiosity got the best of me. I can report that, after doing this for about a year now, I actually look forward to it each day. Although you never really get used to the initial shock the feeling that immediately follows is very refreshing. In warm weather I have actually added ice to the water to increase the effect. I usually do this after a shower, first splashing a little over my arms and face to "warn" the rest of the body what's coming.
Perhaps coincidentally, I haven't been ill during this time and will continue to monitor the effects. |
Jim Deardorff
| | Posted on Friday, September 22, 2000 - 05:01 pm: |
|
Phil,
Presumably Judas Iscariot wrote in the J symbol at Jmmanuel's request. If he had written it in all the other names, including those of Gabriel and Rasiel, they surely wouldn't all have been illegible, particularly since the J is such a simple, readable symbol.
We'll probably never know all the details, but I do think that Meier knows that the J symbol in Jmmanuel's name had been in the original scrolls. |
Jim Deardorff
| | Posted on Friday, September 22, 2000 - 05:09 pm: |
|
A chart this isn't, but:
Accepted dates:
5-7 B.C."Jesus" born
4 B.C. King Herod died
6 A.D. Caesar's decree to enroll the Roman world
" Quirinius becoming governor of Syria
" Antipas becomes Herod Antipas & tetrarch
" Jmmanuel born (RELATIVE to these events, but not necessarily these dates) |
Jim Deardorff
| | Posted on Friday, September 22, 2000 - 05:18 pm: |
|
Phil,
This would tend to go along with one of my guesses, namely that it was to mark out the boundaries on Earth where the chosen ones would dwell, with the chosen ones having been the three races that god or the ancient ISHWSH had procreated.
Or do you have different ideas for the "chosen ones"? |
Jim Deardorff
| | Posted on Friday, September 22, 2000 - 05:23 pm: |
|
Phil,
I've been uncertain in deciding when the last supper (of Jmmanuel's) was. I tend to place it a day before the Passover meal. What do you or others think?
(If this thread persists, we'll need to move it over to the TJ's chapter 27.)
Moderator: An. C. - Hello all, Jim is correct. If you want to continue on this thread, it would be better to send the discussion over to Chapter 27. For the purpose of consistency, I hope you all agree.
|
Mark Campbell
| | Posted on Friday, September 22, 2000 - 09:06 pm: |
|
Michael ; That's something I'll have to try myself. A word of warning , If you have just come from strenuous activity and are sweating , or close to it, you can get a stroke from that shock. I learned this from someone that I know who is now slowly learning to function again . Mark
FIGU Forum Moderator - Back to Chapter 3 discussion. |
Savio
| | Posted on Saturday, September 23, 2000 - 05:05 am: |
|
Hi Michael
I agree with your idea that putting cold water over oneself will have a positive effect on the central nervous system and the immune system.
Me too, I keep on having cold water shower for a few years (Even during winter time. Be careful you might get a heart attack) and get simular effect like yours.
It is a training for the body and the mind as well. Perhaps this is one of the purposes of Baptism?
Regards
Savio |
Phil McAiney
| | Posted on Saturday, September 23, 2000 - 01:21 pm: |
|
Jim - how do we know Caesar engaged in his census of people under Roman rule in 6 A.D.? I am interested in looking this up. And if it was around 6 A.D., was it the first one or could there have been an earlier census around 4 B.C.? Any references I can check? |
Phil McAiney
| | Posted on Saturday, September 23, 2000 - 01:26 pm: |
|
I think, again, the term "chosen ones" refers to the line of spirits that were living, had lived and who would live in the future that would help Jmmanuel as they were called on to help Henok spread the truth. Marking the areas they would do this in on Earth, connected by lines or markings would give a global picture of where they would come from or be at when drawn to or called upon to help. |
Andrew C. Cossette
| | Posted on Saturday, September 23, 2000 - 04:29 pm: |
|
Hi Jim and others who are interested,
Billy already explained at length about the so-called "chosen ones" in his interview on November 20th, 1988, in the 4th question.
The pamphlet, (to which this interview is included), "The Truth About Billy Meier - UFO Billy," is available through the FIGU.
To type the entire response here would take too long. The brass tacks is this: The chosen ones were actually the ringleaders that were to blame for the mistakes made against humanity (not a fun title to have). These included the leaders and the sub-leaders, some of whose names are mentioned in OM. 207 of these are of the highest blame, while 144,000 were followers of these leaders and must be held responsible as well. Further, there are an additional 21 who would become 'helpers' to these spirit forms in the future times. Therefore, if the time comes when someone claims that they are a 'chosen one', a terrible misunderstanding has occurred. Waving this kind of flag is a terrible sign, and these people are completely mistaken.
A further law states that not one of these "chosen ones" will proclaim it in public, so anyone who openly says that they are one of the so-called "chosen ones" is lying or, in the least, deeply misguided.
It has never been a secret (from Billy or others) whom these "chosen ones" really are. Anyone who knows the OM, will know the story. The problem, in my opinion, is in the wording. It sounds special, viz., "elite, primary, higher ranking, chosen few, God's chosen, the chosen race," etc. To be sure, it is not special at all. It is meaning that 'they' are the ones who harbour the most guilt, (self-induced) punishment, wrongdoing and evil misconduct from times past -- the egomaniacs and power-hungry who had (have) an idée fixe for control (as is still the case even today).
Kind regards,
Andrew |
Michael Horn
| | Posted on Saturday, September 23, 2000 - 06:29 pm: |
|
Does this apply to the concept of the Hebrews as the "chosen people" or is this something else, separate or different, altogether? |
Jim Deardorff
| | Posted on Saturday, September 23, 2000 - 10:24 pm: |
|
Phil,
There's a discussion on this in my website file: http://www.proaxis.com/~deardorj/birthyr.htm
The reference to Prof. Wiseman in that file is important. He lets us know that Quirinius, who took over for the Romans in Syria/Judea the same year (6 A.D. by standard dating) that Caesar's edict for enrollment of Romans occurred, would likely have had his own census of the Jews at the same general time as the Roman census of Romans. And so Joseph with Mary had to go to Bethlehem to enroll. And he mentions how Caesar's edict must have been the one known to have occurred in 6 A.D. (by standard dating) for purposes of applying a new inheritance tax for Romans.
And then in Acts 5:37 the uprising of "Judas the Galilean" is known to have occurred in 6 A.D. (by standard dating), and this was "in the days of the census." |
Jim Deardorff
| | Posted on Saturday, September 23, 2000 - 10:32 pm: |
|
Andrew,
Then the word "chosen" to describe them is quite incorrect, is it not? Or were they chosen by Creation to be scoundrels?
I feel it's too bad that a more appropriate word wasn't used to describe them. The usual phrase we here is "the fallen ones." Maybe "the to-blame ones" would be better? Or "the faulty ones?" |
Mark Campbell
| | Posted on Sunday, September 24, 2000 - 12:30 am: |
|
I wonder if some of these "chosen" are the ambitious religious of today, reincarnated ? The ones who are using their so called "righteousness" to gain favor and power .It seems that after so many lives, the might that they enjoyed from being advanced races before would have diminished , but evened out to be commonly power-hungry .Politicians are another group that I wonder about. Also , about the "cords" - "ley lines" comes to mind . |
Andrew C. Cossette
| | Posted on Sunday, September 24, 2000 - 07:55 am: |
|
Hi Michael,
Yes it applies. It (the term) is all the same.
Regards,
Andrew
PS - Yes Jim, it is a wrong word choice and shows itself to be quite incorrect. Maybe "The Idiots" would be more appropriate? :) |
Norm
| | Posted on Sunday, September 24, 2000 - 08:58 am: |
|
Andrew, Are you saying the real "chosen ones" know who they are? |
Michael Horn
| | Posted on Sunday, September 24, 2000 - 12:28 pm: |
|
Dear Andrew,
Then would it be logical to conclude that many of these chosen ones incarnate in the Hebrew linneage, perhaps as part of the karma of that group? If so, it could be seen that they are acting out the "chosen ones" role but seemingly in contradiction to what you said about the chosen ones never identifying themselves as such, unless of course it means that they are uninformed about the real meaning of the term.
Moderator: An. C. - No, they do/will not incarnate into the Hebrew lineage (-- the bulk of them). They will incarnate over hundreds of years, spread out over many cultures. Kind regards, Andrew
|
Ardie Fox
| | Posted on Sunday, September 24, 2000 - 01:18 pm: |
|
Maybe they are not referred to as the "Chosen Ones" because of the bad things they once did, but because of the special mission they agreed to, or became part of, to make up for their past errors.
"Attacking Questions from Japan..." pg 7 |
Andrew C. Cossette
| | Posted on Monday, September 25, 2000 - 06:43 am: |
|
Hi all,
Norm - Yes.
Ardie's post (nice to see her again!:) is right on. In the pamphlet she mentions above, there is more information available about these so-called "chosen ones." |
Norm
| | Posted on Monday, September 25, 2000 - 11:15 am: |
|
Sorry Andrew, I have to ask.
How do they know and how much do they know?
Are the "chosen ones" members of the same organizations?
Are the "chosen ones" running this planet? |
Andrew C. Cossette
| | Posted on Monday, September 25, 2000 - 07:15 pm: |
|
Hi Norm,
Sorry, I don't know. :)
Regards,
Andrew |
Mark Campbell
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 26, 2000 - 11:48 pm: |
|
Isn't "the elect" another term that's been used for these knaves ? In that regard , I would say that they were elected for some type of duty.All elections are duty oriented. Just an observation. |
Anthony Alagna
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 04, 2000 - 08:00 pm: |
|
Hello,
I think the story about the swine drowning themselves (TJ 8:32-37) symbolizes the negative effects on nature of counter-Creational thoughts. And I don't think Jmmanuel was responsible for their deaths, nor were the two confused people who abandoned their "evil consciousness" upon the pigs.
My thoughts on this are that this story shows that nature (automatically existing within Creation) is harmed when a human being's free will interferes with this natural flow. So these animals being bombarded with negative energy could not continue to exist and evolve as pure creatures of Creation, and drowned themselves to escape this negative effect. Swine being considered "unclean" animals in the first place, were the perfect example for this story, since they didn't even want to be around these two counter-Creational (possessed) people.
Regards,
Anthony |
Chris Frank
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 10, 2000 - 12:12 pm: |
|
I find these passages in Chapter 4 of the TJ verses 28-31 very interesting:
"Behold, humans begotten by the celestial sons were different in a specific way from other people on Earth.
They were not like Earth humans, but like the children of the celestial sons, a different kind.
Their bodies were white as snow and red as the rose blossom, their hair at the top of the head white as wool and their eyes were beautiful.
The human races will now retain their inherited beauty and propagate it further.....
This gave me a flashback to what I once heard on one of the documentary channels as a Hebrew discription of Noah.
Recently I have found that same discription in Sitchin's works when he talks about the Books of Enoch and the birth of Noah. He gives a discription of Noah:
His body was white as snow and red as the blooming of a rose, and the hair of his head and his long locks were white as wool, and his eyes were beautiful.
And when he opened his eyes, he lighted up the whole house like the sun, and the whole house was very bright.
And thereupon he arose in the hands of the midwife, opened his mouth and conversed with the Lord of Righteousness.
Shocked, Lamech ran to his father Methuselah and said:
I have begotten a strange son, diverse from and unlike Man, and remembling the sons of God of Heaven: and his nature is different, he is not like us....
And it seems to me that he is not sprung from me but from the angels.
Lamech was suspicious that his wife had had an affair with one of the sons of god. Judging from the discription, I was wondering something similar. Was Noah indeed a hybrid? Was that why he was singled out?
Thank you.
Chris |
Jim Deardorff
| | Posted on Saturday, October 14, 2000 - 11:15 am: |
|
Hello Chris,
I have an e-mail friend, a black Muslim, who would have been appalled if he had gotten far enough into the TJ to read what you quoted,
"Behold, humans begotten by the celestial sons were different in a specific way from other people on Earth. They were not like Earth humans, but like the children of the celestial sons, a different kind. Their bodies were white as snow and red as the rose blossom, their hair at the top of the head white as wool and their eyes were beautiful. The human races will now retain their inherited beauty and propagate it further..."
However, he was turned off by chapter 1's mention of the "white human race" in its verse 2. He didn't want to read any further, and was left fuming about it and assuming it was all a hoax.
This just indicates, I think, that important truths that have been long withheld are bound to seem very harsh to some, while being extremely interesting to others like us. |
Jim Deardorff
| | Posted on Saturday, October 14, 2000 - 11:28 am: |
|
Hi Anthony,
Please excuse the lateness of this response. But what do you think of TJ 6:42 (Edition 1996)?
"Look at the birds in the sky: They wipe out the harmful insects, and they have plumage for clothing, yet they have no self-developing spirit."
I think "self-developing" here could also be translated as "evolving."
This verse suggests that pigs also don't have spirits that evolve like ours.
Of course, one may say that this verse is not literally correct where it says that the birds "wipe out" the harmful insects (if we can distinguish which ones those are), as these insects still exist for the birds to eat. Rather, the birds help keep their population under control. So perhaps it's also not literally correct in saying that birds, and therefore pigs, too, have no evolving spirits? |
Norm
| | Posted on Saturday, October 14, 2000 - 03:34 pm: |
|
Jim, I agree, but there doesn't seem to be much info on other Earth races in the Plejaran materal. I wish they would give a history of every Earth race, to clear up the reason there's so many races. Plus it would help bring other races to the Plejaran material. Maybe you can share this quote with your Black Muslim friend.
Below is a quote from Wendell Stevens book Message from the Pleiades volume 3 p. 149 - 150
Meier- something astonishes me:You have such very pretty black eyes, which marvelously fits your dark skin. We here on the Earth have, and that in the African sphere, a human race, which we call "Hottentots" who have quite considerable European influences. Asket once explained to me at an earlier time about this. This race mixture would have been generated together from the actual Negroid people and the white people, or similar. Is that right?
Menara- Our race really originated on this earth, because our forefathers mingled together with the earthly inhabitants and generated the so-called tribes of the Huns, who in later epochs came together for a short time with the Negroid races of Africa. From there rose new races, as for example during a very long span of time the Hottentots. Some of those races now connected themselves again to our later forefathers, and generated with them our presently existing races. |
Jim Deardorff
| | Posted on Saturday, October 14, 2000 - 06:41 pm: |
|
I'm afraid this e-mail friend of mine is in no mood to hear more from Meier's contactors or the TJ. Moreover, if he were to ask any questions about that passage from Contact Report #60, I would have to plead ignorance. How would some of the interracial offspring of Huns and Negroids end up among the Pleiadians? Do you think the last sentence (Menara's No. 11) means that certain Pleiadians/Plejarens' forefathers sexually co-mingled with the Hun/Negroid group, and took the resulting children with them back through space, and from then on let them in-breed, with Menara being a descendant of this in-breeding?
If you reply to this, it would be good if you put it in a more relevant forum, and just inform us here which forum it's in. |
Norm
| | Posted on Saturday, October 14, 2000 - 07:16 pm: |
|
Jim,My reply is in the Races, racism, and rights section. |
Anthony Alagna
| | Posted on Saturday, October 14, 2000 - 10:29 pm: |
|
Hi Jim,
A self-developing spirit means to me that a person has complete control over their spiritual development, unlike animals that also evolve but do not have a free will to deviate from Creation's plan. Since animals evolve physically, why wouldn't they also evolve spiritually (grow in consciousness)?
So the Creational law might be spiritual evolution for all forms within Creation; but the self development of this consciousness-related growth only applies to human beings, and not animals, plants and other living forms. Perhaps only humans (Creative consciousness beings) have the freedom to propel, or stagnate or even degenerate their spiritual development, unlike other spirit forms (like animals) that are 'straight line' evolving without any control over this process?
So I do not think that "self-developing" can be interchanged with the word, "evolving" in this case.
Best regards,
Anthony |
Michael Uyttebroek
| | Posted on Saturday, October 28, 2000 - 04:55 pm: |
|
Dear Jim and all...
With regards to the evolution of the spirit within animals here is a brief quote from "An Interview with Billy Meier
- the Spiritual Teachings"...taken from answer 9:
"By the same token, animals can never be reborn as humans because the animals' spirit form is neither focused in this direction nor is it intended to evolve toward knowledge and wisdom as is the case with human spirit forms or the spirit, respectively."
Salome, Michael Uyttebroek |
Jim Deardorff
| | Posted on Sunday, October 29, 2000 - 12:48 pm: |
|
Hi Michael U.,
What Billy said there accords well with what past life researchers have found. The absence of past-life memories of having lived within a lower animal -- memories either spontaneously arisen or gathered during hypno-regression, out of thousands of cases reported -- is at least consistent with the human spirit never doing so.
However, this does not say that one or more possessing spirits still on the earth plane could not temporarily inhabit the body of an animal, which is what TJ 8:34 indicates. But one does wonder just what happened between the depossessed spirits from the two blind men and all those pigs when the former went into the latter and drove them into a panic drowning. Can one human spirit temporarily occupy many pigs? Or had there been a large number of possessing spirits within the two possessed men (zwei Besessene), not just two possessing spirits? In the research of Dr. William Baldwin, he finds multiple possession (by many spirits) to be the usual case, and reports that they can be attached to one's aura, or within the aura, or to a chakra, or attached even outside of the body of the possessed person. |
Scott Baxter
| | Posted on Friday, December 01, 2000 - 12:30 am: |
|
Hello
I dont think the topic of fasting has been brought forth yet.
Has anyone experimented with fasting? What are the benefits and drawbacks of fasting?
In the Talmud Chapter 6 page 45 the subject of fasting is mentioned briefly by Jmmanual. In line 26 it is stated: "You fast for the sake of your health and for the expansion of your spirit and knowledge."
This to me indicates that fasting can be a spiritual exercise which benefits our spirit as well as the body.
Im curious if any information as been issued forth by the FIGU in regards to fasting?
Salome
Scott B. |
Savio
| | Posted on Friday, December 01, 2000 - 05:36 am: |
|
Hi Scott
I think fasting for a day or two is good to the health, it gives our bodies a chance to clean up all those toxic substances and consume any additional fat etc. hence we might feel better and perhaps beneficial to the spirit as well.
However, there was a wellknown story that Buddha entered into a long term fasting aiming hard at spiritual advancement (a few years?), he gave up because he achieved nothing. He understood then that living in such a way will only damage one's health and with spiritual progress frozen.
Any comments?
Regards
Savio |
Adam
| | Posted on Friday, December 01, 2000 - 07:41 am: |
|
Hi Scott and all J
I have experimented with fasting before and can say that Jmmanuel's words are absolutely correct. I believe fasting strengthens the link between the spirit and the mind and also the mind and the body and benefits the health of one's body at the same time.
I have fasted on numerous occasions for approximately 48 hours, sometimes more, eating and drinking nothing or drinking only fruit juice and/or water.
Initially, i realised that eating is very habitual, almost addictive, and that when my body sends impulses to my mind that it is hungry it takes a lot of will power to reverse those impulses and regain self-control. Fasting definitely strengthens and conditions the way the mind and will power are utilised.
Also, i think that well-being is greatly increased as fasting flushes out any impurities in the body and prevents illness. This is what i have found.
The only drawback i know of is that fasting makes me feel 'light-headed' but this pales into insignificance when compared to the benefits and when a regular balanced diet is resumed.
Hope this helps.
Regards,
Adam |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page
