| Author |
Message |
   
Howard
Member
Post Number: 30
Registered: 05-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 07, 2003 - 07:24 am: | 
|
Stated in the talmud verse 6, translated from norwegian;
36. "You know the power of the spirit, but beware to misuse it".
According to Semjase spiritual power can newer be used to something negative.
Howard |
Norm
Member
Post Number: 598
Registered: 02-2000
| | Posted on Thursday, August 07, 2003 - 01:40 pm: |
|
Sounds like a bad translation to me! |
Jim
New member
Post Number: 4
Registered: 07-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 16, 2003 - 10:52 am: |
|
It looks like a very good translation to me: TJ 2001, verse 35: "You know the power of the spirit, but beware of abusing it." ("misusing" would work just as well).
I wonder where Semjase said "spiritual power can never be used to do something negative"? Elsewhere in the TJ, as in 18:24, Jmmanuel implies it can be misused. And wouldn't some of Semjase's discourses to Billy about the bad ISHWSHs of the past imply abuse of spiritual power? |
Gicayhwh
Member
Post Number: 16
Registered: 06-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 16, 2003 - 03:33 pm: |
|
Hi Jim,
I think that Semjase was referring to the psychic power we all have, and use it to bless or course someone, or keep on learning to the point where according to the Creation, there is no war between ourselves, like on the Erra planet.
With love,
Gica |
Jim
Member
Post Number: 11
Registered: 07-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 29, 2003 - 06:21 pm: |
|
Hello All,
I'd like to point out an error in TJ 6:3 and also in 6:24. The word "forfeited" or "forfeit" should not be there, as it is not in the German, and it reads best without it. In thinking back, I had thought this error was corrected before the 2001 TJ went to print, but unfortunately it wasn't. The mistake occurs in the earlier versions of the English TJ also.
The sense of it is that the hypocrites have their reward, which is the praise from some people for giving alms or for looking sour due to fasting. This is one thought that the writer of Matthew agreed with and didn't have to alter or omit. In fact, he liked it so well he added it in to another spot where the TJ doesn't have it.
The spiritually knowledgeable person doesn't need any kind of reward except the reward of knowing he's doing what's right for others or for his own spirit. |
Savio
Member
Post Number: 449
Registered: 07-2000
| | Posted on Thursday, October 30, 2003 - 02:04 am: |
|
Hi Jim
Thanks for your kind clarification 
Yes, I agree with you.
Regards
Savio
|
Edward
Member
Post Number: 332
Registered: 05-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, October 30, 2003 - 11:57 pm: |
|
Hi Jim...
Yes, that would Truely Be in it's Place.
I had noticed this also, when reading the passages.
Good that you have put it's correction in place.
Ofcourse, that is what The Hypocrites want as reward;
as this/that... to "Stroke" their Flattering "Egos".
Surely, a Spiritually Knowledgeable person is Rewarded and Content
Knowing he/she does whats right for others and for his/her Own
Spirit. I would Think..."Both" would be in it's Place.
Well said, Jim.
Edward. |
Jim
Member
Post Number: 24
Registered: 07-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 29, 2004 - 09:59 pm: |
|
Mario,
I'm 3 years late in responding, but just happened upon your post while looking to post one of my own on another topic in chapter 9. But I think it is possible that Matthew could not read or write; or perhaps he could read numbers. I don't know, but wouldn't they need some workers at the tax office who would examine or count or weigh the amount of tithed goods that were brought in, and carry them from one place to another, and of course count money and such? |
Jim
Member
Post Number: 25
Registered: 07-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 29, 2004 - 10:15 pm: |
|
I have a question about TJ 9:5, concerning the paralytic he would heal, where Jmmanuel asks the scribes which is easier to say, "Your faith has helped you" or "Stand up and walk."
What is the meaning of this question? Is the second thing easier to say than the first?
My own first impression is that it was easier to say the first thing, because anybody could say it and perhaps not be proven wrong. It would be tough to say the second thing and then be proven a charlatan if the paralytic still couldn't move. But this possible answer assumes that the man might have been "helped" but only to too small a degree to be noticeable, and doesn't take into account that "faith" or "trust" was involved.
Regards, Jim |
Savio
Member
Post Number: 481
Registered: 07-2000
| | Posted on Thursday, July 01, 2004 - 05:17 am: |
|
Hi Jim
I would think there might be two answers to your question.
1. For a spiritual person, he would know for sure that the first task is more difficult, it is because a lot of effort and works on teachings has to be done in order to earn trust from a person (or achieve a correction of thinking from deep-rooted wrong teachings).
2. As for those who do not want to think or accept the truths (in this case scribes), to implement the order “stand up and walk” is the only way to present a wake up call, where to the scribes, in their way of thinking, this will be the most difficult task.
Just a few thoughts
Salome
Savio |
Peter_brodowski
Member
Post Number: 54
Registered: 01-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, July 01, 2004 - 10:32 am: |
|
hello jim
"which is easier to say, "Your faith has helped you" or "Stand up and walk."
i think this is to be looked at in various angles
1. it is easier for us to have things told or given to us, then for us to learn it or go out and get it.
2. jmmanuel is also in a way insulting the scribes without so many words.
3. jmmanuel is challenging them to define the imortance of one statement over the other.
4.basically i'd say that "Your faith has helped you" is like being given the answer, while "stand up and walk" is being the answer. |
Jim
Member
Post Number: 27
Registered: 07-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 01, 2004 - 10:41 am: |
|
I like those thoughts, Savio! Makes good sense.
In the Gospel of Matthew, the first statement by Jmmanuel was changed into "Your sins are forgiven." Biblical analysts, who of course have never heard of the TJ, likewise consider this, the first statement, to have been the more difficult of the two things in the question.
Jim |
Jim
Member
Post Number: 28
Registered: 07-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 02, 2004 - 08:01 am: |
|
Peter,
Your comments also make much sense. I cannot disagree with any of them. The context in which Jmmanuel spoke and asked the question is all important. I must admit not knowing now even if the question was meant to have an answer.
Regards,
Jim Deardorff |
Jim
Member
Post Number: 29
Registered: 07-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 02, 2004 - 04:12 pm: |
|
I have a question on TJ 3:27-28, in particular, the meaning of Jmmanuel being baptized by John when he said, "Let it happen so now, because it is fitting for us to fulfill all justice [or righteousness], since we are both sons of the Earth."
I doubt it has anything to do with previous discussions above about the possible benefits of being doused with cold water, since John had complained to the Pharisees and Sadducees that he'd be able to baptize them into repentance only with water.
The Gospel of Matthew has the same "Let it happen so now" verse as does the TJ, except that it omits "since we are both sons of the Earth." This latter seems like it's meant to be an explanation. But what would it have to do with Jmmanuel insisting that he be baptized by John rather than vice versa?
In the past I've interpreted another meaning into it -- both Jmmanuel and John were born of Earth women, but of ET (Plejaren) fatherhood. But I don't see this as having any relevance to who should baptize whom.
With this possible meaning in mind, I've tended to think that it could mean they felt they should obey Earth customs of righteousness, even though having ET fathers. This might make some sense if there had been mention, e.g., that John was older than Jmmanuel and should therefore baptize him. But there is no such mention in the TJ (the Gospel of Luke has some invented text to this effect, however).
Again I look forward to whatever you might come up with!
Regards,
Jim |
Savio
Member
Post Number: 483
Registered: 07-2000
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 06, 2004 - 02:19 am: |
|
Hi Jim
On April 02 2004, Billy answered Truthseeker’s question regarding Jmmanuel’s baptism like this:
“It was a symbolic act, some form of initiation. It was no exorcism (driving out the devil) in the common sense as it is the case in Christianity.”
Billy’s answer makes good sense, for it was Jmmanuel who will start his mission afresh, so there is all good reasons that Jmmanuel has to be initialized/prepared through some ceremony.
In this case a baptism, water is always the best symbol in cleaning the old/dirt and get afresh, this is the major mission of Jmmanuel for the people.
John was Jmmanuel’s herald, hence it is perfectly fit for John to baptize/initialize Jmmanuel for the mission; John’s own mission has completed, he did not need any initialization (further, it may not proper for Jmmanuel to baptize his own self, a king usually will not crown himself, but someone should perform the ceremony).
Just some thoughts
Salome
Savio |
Jim
Member
Post Number: 30
Registered: 07-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 06, 2004 - 10:41 am: |
|
Hi Savio,
Yes, it makes sense that Jmmanuel would want John to baptize him, since John was his herald, and since John's career had about ended, while Jmmanuel's was just beginning.
However, I don't understand how this is conveyed by the statement "because it is fitting for us to fulfill all justice, since we are both sons of the Earth."
Jim |
Savio
Member
Post Number: 484
Registered: 07-2000
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 07, 2004 - 02:52 am: |
|
Hi Jim
Me too, having problem in understanding the statement: "because it is fitting for us to fulfill all justice, since we are both sons of the Earth."
Firstly, I try to think why was it that Jmmanuel stressed that they were both “sons of the Earth.”
The reason that I can think of is that they both should aware that their spirits were not of Earth origin, this life, they were born as Earth human, although they were more advanced than the general people, they should also observe and follow the way/customs of those Earth human.
Hence it is fitting for them to carry out ceremony/custom as if Earth human would do by that time.
However, I do not understand what is the connection between the baptism/ceremony and justice. Perhaps there is a translation problem in here?
The German word “Gerechtigkeit” could mean: “equity, fairness, justice, righteousness, justness, correctness, rightfulness, lawfulness, legitimacy, equitableness, appropriateness, properness.”
How about: “because it is fitting for us to fulfill all appropriateness, since we are both sons of the Earth” ?
Your comments please
Savio |
Jim
Member
Post Number: 31
Registered: 07-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 07, 2004 - 09:43 pm: |
|
Hi Savio,
Yes I suppose it just might be a translation problem. A trouble with "appropriateness," though, is that gebuhren already gives the meaning of "appropriate." So I prefer "righteousness." But I should think they would want to fulfill all righteousness whether their fathers were ETs or not.
It makes a bit of sense to me if both J and John were strongly aware of their ET fatherhood, often thinking about it, so that if they had considered themselves as being Plejarens they would have no need to follow any Earthly rituals. But since their mothers were of Earth, J & John were also Earthlings, so that J was perhaps reminding John of that. In that case the older of the two, and the one preparing the way for the other, should baptize the younger, rather than basing their ranking on who was more knowlegeable, as ETs might do. Hence, "sons of the Earth" entered in.
However, this still seems to have more to do with "appropriateness" than with justice or righteousness.
Jim |
Markc
Member
Post Number: 163
Registered: 06-2000
| | Posted on Friday, July 09, 2004 - 01:28 am: |
|
Hi Jim ;
I must have missed something . Can you tell me please where it's indicated that John was also the son of a Plejaren father ? Thanks for keeping this section active ,
Regards , Mark
Mark Campbell
|
Jim
Member
Post Number: 32
Registered: 07-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 09, 2004 - 09:48 am: |
|
Hi Mark,
That John the Baptist also had a Pl father is just an inference, a deduction I tend to believe but certainly can't prove. It comes from:
1) John's teachings include quite a few of Jmmanuel's teachings and prophecies, in TJ 3:14-23.
2) Jmmanuel refers to both himself and John as sons of the Earth, which could well imply that both had similar parentages.
3) Jmmanuel respected John very highly.
Regards,
Jim |
Markc
Member
Post Number: 164
Registered: 06-2000
| | Posted on Saturday, July 10, 2004 - 02:12 pm: |
|
Hi Jim ;
I see . It's at least apparent that he had previous lives on the same line , which is also speculative .
Thanks , Mark
Mark Campbell
|
Savio
Member
Post Number: 486
Registered: 07-2000
| | Posted on Friday, July 16, 2004 - 11:18 pm: |
|
Hi Jim
I will ask Billy about the relationship between “baptism” and “justice” in this round of Q&A.
Perhaps it really is a translation inaccuracy
Regards
Savio |
Joseph_emmanuel
Member
Post Number: 23
Registered: 05-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 01:24 pm: |
|
I have a question to ask.
Why was it necessary for the three wise men from the Orient to visit Jmmanuel at his birth? Why did the Plejarens at the time allow this to happen? It seems totally unnecessary from the TJ's perspective. The Gospel used this to signal the birth of the Son of God, which from a religious perspective can be understood if the idea is to convince a following. But this is not the case with the TJ. So why did it happen? |
Memo00
Member
Post Number: 66
Registered: 03-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 06:49 am: |
|
hi J. E.
the plejarans not only allowed "the three wise men from orient" to visit Jmmanuel at his birth, but they specifically guided them to the place, (the star of Bethelem was a Beamship, stars do not speak in your head giving explanations, stars do not produce "singing sounds" and of course do not guide you to this or to that place, and then warn you, etc)
i think this have to do with the fact that Jmmanuel was later educated in many places of the world including India, maybe they became his teachers later. |
Jim
Member
Post Number: 39
Registered: 07-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 08:58 am: |
|
Hi Joseph,
I think the reason was largely to endow Joseph and Mary with enough capital so that Jmmanuel could be raised well and receive a good early education. Perhaps another reason was to impress upon them the importance of this newly born one. |
Joseph_emmanuel
Member
Post Number: 25
Registered: 05-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 12:59 pm: |
|
Thanks Jim
Excellent thinking! I hadn't thought of that. It's practical and logical (typical Virgo). I'm happy with that answer. It's realistic.
Kind regards
Joseph |
Joseph_emmanuel
Member
Post Number: 36
Registered: 05-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, August 29, 2004 - 02:05 pm: |
|
Chapter 9, verse 20, a community leader says to Jmmanuel, "My daughter has just died, but come and lay your hand on her so she will live." Then Jmmanuel goes to his house and said to all the people around, mourning the girl, "Depart, because the maiden is not dead but is asleep." And he orders her to get up and walk, which she does.
I find this a little confusing as to what is happening. Firstly, wouldn't the father know if his daughter was dead or not? I've never seen a dead person myself. But I imagine it would be obvious to tell if someone is dead or not by checking their pulse and seeing if they are still breathing, or maybe even giving them a good kicking to see if they move (somewhat like the spear test). Could it be, however, that the girl was in a state of near death, rather than asleep, as Jmmanuel put it? Otherwise, what could he have meant by saying this? She couldn't literally have been asleep. That would have made the father look a right fool. So what could have been wrong with her if she wasn't dead, seeing as it doesn't actually say anything besides her being dead or asleep?
Joseph |
Jay
Member
Post Number: 343
Registered: 01-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, August 29, 2004 - 10:39 pm: |
|
Joseph,
I do have an understanding that the girl and many others at that time may have been poisoned or suffering from a coma like fever in which paralyses you to near death. I am sure that this was a type of desease or fever in which Jmmannuel was given the right techniques or even technology to cure the problem.
Saalome and BE WELL to ALL
|
Jim
Member
Post Number: 41
Registered: 07-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 30, 2004 - 09:39 pm: |
|
Joseph,
My take on it is that the girl was most likely in a state of clinical death as you suggest. Then by the time that Jmmanuel said she was just asleep, she had indeed recovered from the state of clinical death and was asleep, as Jmmanuel said. I wouldn't be able to guess if this outcome was due to Jmmanuel's spiritual powers, or if her recovery was natural and it was through Jmmanuel's prophetic powers that he knew she was just asleep. |
Jim
Member
Post Number: 51
Registered: 07-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 25, 2005 - 06:21 pm: |
|
Joseph,
Regarding "manu," in looking this over once again myself, I've now noticed that an Aramaic word for "knowledge" is "mandu." Do you suppose that could possibly be close enough? I've also noticed that the Hebrew/Aramaic letter "Daleth" for the "d" sound rather closely resembles the letter "Vav," which was sometimes used for a vowel sound rather than for "v". (And in Latin, "u" and "v" are written alike, if that's at all relevant.) What do you think? |
Joseph_emmanuel
Member
Post Number: 84
Registered: 05-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, May 26, 2005 - 02:03 pm: |
|
Hello Jim
I think it is close enough to determine for ourselves that a large part of the name `Immanuw'el (transliteration of the Hebrew word lawnmml [pronounced: im-maw-noo-ale), namely "manuw" is completely left uninterpreted. With this knowledge I can certainly say with confidence to anyone who tells me the name Immanuel means "God with us" that it isn't true, and offer some proof for my argument. What intrigues me, however, is that this name is taken from the Aramaic language. So surely it's literal meaning can still be deciphered? I mean, it's one thing changing the interpretation of a name, but entirely another to change the language itself, although I understand a language does develop over the centuries. |
Jim
Member
Post Number: 52
Registered: 07-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 26, 2005 - 02:17 pm: |
|
A correction in the above:
The Aramaic word for "knowledge" given by the lexicon is "manda," not "mandu."
The Hebrew form is "madda." I wonder if the Aramaic "mana" or "manu" could have been Hebredized a bit over the centuries B.C., with the "d"s creeping in but the "n" persisting. |
Joseph_emmanuel
Member
Post Number: 86
Registered: 05-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, May 28, 2005 - 08:50 am: |
|
Verse 5 of this chapter, where Jmmanuel recieved the arcanum of knowledge, the TJ says: "During this instruction period he spent his days with the wise saints of god and the guardian angels, the celestial sons."
Also, the first commandment of the original twelve commandments given to Moses, it states: "You shall have no powers and gods, idols and saints other than Creation."
Common to the two above statements is the word "saint". I've always thought that this was a word invented by Christians. It seems anachronistic when used prior to the Christian era. But is it? In the third chapter of the TJ, John the Baptist is said to preach in accordance with the old laws of god. I suspect this means he would have recounted the twelve commandments in their original wording. Is it possible, therefore, that the Pharisees and Sadducees exalted certain individuals to a state of sainthood? I don't any reason, otherwise, why the first commandment refers to saints.
Another I'd like to point out, which I think is somewhat contradictory, is that the first commandment also says "You shall have no gods..." I think this is open to interpretation, as it can either mean that you shall have no creator-gods or no human-gods, as the plejarens have. But why would this first commandment say this when throughout the TJ we are constantly informed about the human-god who rules over three human lineages? |
Jim
Member
Post Number: 54
Registered: 07-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 28, 2005 - 11:07 pm: |
|
Hello Joseph,
I presume that in "wise saints of god" in TJ 4:5, "saints" refers to ETs who are very highly respected for their wisdom. Heiligen can mean "venerable ones" as well as "saints." |
Jim
Member
Post Number: 56
Registered: 07-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 29, 2005 - 04:36 pm: |
|
More on this question: Could "manu" within "Jmmanuel" derive from "manda" which means "knowledge" in Aramaic? I've been in email communication with a Harvard professor of Semitic philology, and he explains below why the answer is negative.
"The form manda' is good Aramaic, derived from madda', a regular base-form verbal noun of the root y-d-' 'to know' (the third radical is 'ayin) with doubling of the medial -dd- as happens often in this root in most Aramaic dialects. The noun pattern maR1R2aR3 thus yields the form *madda'. This form occurs in Syriac (with regular reduction of the 2nd vowel before the final -a ending: madd'a 'knowledge') and other Aramaic dialects; already in some 5th c BCE Aramaic documents from Egypt we find the form with nasalization of the doubled medial -dd-, i.e., -dd- becomes -nd-, thus manda'. This nasalization happens frequently with voiced consonants in the Aramaic of this period, even in finite forms of this root in Biblical Aramaic, e.g., tinda' 'you know' for earlier *tidda'. You can find references to earlier and contemporary occurrences of the word in the fifth volume of Koehler-Baumgartner's Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the OT (3rd ed); the 5th volume is the Aramaic part.
"Since the doubling of the medial radical -d- is not attested otherwise with this root in Hebrew, it is quite likely that Hebrew madda' is in fact a loan from Aramaic rather than the other way around (note that it only occurs in a few late texts in biblical Hebrew). The standard work on Aramaic loans in Hebrew (M. Wagner, 1966) concurs.
"So, in short, the form manda' has an excellent Aramaic pedigree. Hope this is helpful."
Then I asked him about the "manu" within Immanuel, and he explained it thus:
"'imm- is "with"; -anu is the 1st person plural suffix on prepositions; so 'immanu is "with us". 'el is god; so, literally, "with-us god" as you suggest; can't really be anything else."
So it very much appears that "Immanuel" or "imm anu el" in Aramaic means "with us god," as stated in the Gospel of Matthew. |
Mario
Member
Post Number: 17
Registered: 03-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 10, 2007 - 11:15 pm: |
|
TJ (5:29, 1996 ed)
"If, however, your right or left eye causes annoyance, tear it out and throw it away..."
This seems like a barbarian primitive act, in the sense christian religion and sects had used it (Matthew 5:30, though this verse refers to a hand), but I think "annoyance" really means that when an eye is sick or in a bad condition, the person must tear it, before the sickness infects the healthy eye or spreads to the rest of the body, an hygienic measure to avoid further problems.
I think so, because of the analogy Jmmanuel makes about a thought causing annoyance; hence a sick, bad, perverted thought, a false belief or a thought out of control caused by a strong emotion that can lead or degenerate to a whole sick thinking process.
So maybe could it be: "If, however, your right or left eye becomes/gets sick..."?
Just wondering...
Kind regards
Mario |
Edward
Member
Post Number: 726
Registered: 05-2002
| | Posted on Monday, January 15, 2007 - 02:29 am: |
|
Hi Mario....
You got me laughing here on this side.. Love the way you put it.
You have the idea!
Of course, it should be removed with the use of the technologies that are at
our present time disposal.
Your THINKING process is doing well...
Pleasant Studying...
Edward. |
Mqhassan
Member
Post Number: 25
Registered: 06-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 26, 2007 - 11:11 am: |
|
The genealogy of Jmmanuel
mentions Henoch to be the son of Jared,
wheas the in predictions of Prophet Jeremia, his birth is given as Feb 3 9308 BC and death 1 Jan 8942 BC as being son of Kretan the Plejaren.
Was Jared a nickname for Kretan ??
Salome
Mohammed (mqhassan) } |
Jim
Member
Post Number: 81
Registered: 07-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 26, 2007 - 02:32 pm: |
|
I guess that's a question Billy needs to be asked, and perhaps he'll ask Quetzal.
Jim |
Indi
Member
Post Number: 138
Registered: 06-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 26, 2007 - 04:54 pm: |
|
Mohammed
you may notice that the genealogy of Jmmanuel, is really that of Joseph.
I would offer that the Henoch mentioned in that genealogy, is not the prophet Henoch. You will notice that none of the other prophet's names are included in that list, and of course, there is not reason to expect that.
The lineage for the prophets that is referred to is a 'spiritform' lineage rather than a genetic one.
This is my understanding -- so I hope I am not misleading you :-)
in peace
Robjna |
JAY
| | Posted on Friday, February 15, 2002 - 12:36 pm: |
|
Greetings to you Jim,
I greatly understand where your Black Muslim friend is coming from since we do have a great majority of humans on earth (Red Race & Black) down to lightest skinned humans who would disassociate themselves from this information. So it is best for him to have an open mind when coming to TJ material such as I have come to many readings and history of Blacks in America or other races of black descent else where in our great planet. . I for one am an American Indian descent (Light Brown complexion) from my Caribean Grandparents and I dont feel very out of touch with the metarial since I have known the Great American indian experience thru its Spiritual as well cultural existence which from what I see if left alone by Europeans would have evolved spiritually to a higher level and who knows, they may have gone farther into space before NASA had and evolved like the PLEJARANS have.
I do believe and feel that sometimes it has alot to do with the Planet in which humans were created wether they are from the Pleaides(ERRA)or here on our planet. I also strongly believe it has alot to do with the Sun type in which we are from that will be the kind of human which will evolve and other space races are from as well. The Celestial suns may have come from an environment where the sun, atmosphere and chemicals may have been slightly different to make them evolve to physical appearances like ones described in the TJ. I am not an expert of the Talmud (only read it once so far) and I do understand the Black American experience to see the greater picture and why he feels like this.
Hope this helps understanding the race ussue a bit better
BE WELL Jim |
Jim Deardorff
| | Posted on Monday, April 22, 2002 - 08:12 am: |
|
Hello Savio,
I see I'm a year late in replying! (The year isn't specified in the previous summary-topic screen.)
What was it that has puzzled New Testament Gospel scholars? It's whether "Nazarene" refers to Nazareth, or to the Nazarites (e.g., like Samson was), or perhaps to the "branch" growing out of the roots of the "shoot from the stump of Jesse," the father of David (from Isaiah 11:1). The Hebrew word that sounds like "netser" means "branch."
Jim Deardorff |
Savio
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 23, 2002 - 10:32 pm: |
|
Hi Jim
Thanks a lot for your explanation
Regards
Savio |
Savio
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 29, 2002 - 12:11 am: |
|
Hello
I am comparing the information regarding Adam between 1996 TJ 1-3 and 49 Questions page 27 Q30.
TJ 1-3 quoted "Adam took for himself an earth wife and begot Seth."
49 Questions Q30 quoted " Semjase: ........ This sexual act produced an attractive humanmale, whom Semjasa Called Adam, which means EARTH HUMAN. Another, similar copulation resulted in a female child. Many years later, Semjasa determined that these two Adams should mate. ........."
I wonder if there is more details on:
1. Would it be possible that the "earth wife" mentioned in the TJ was Adam's younger sister?
2. Did Semjasa want the two Adams to get married?
3. Is it a natural law that brothers & sisters should not engage into a marriage?
Grateful for any comments
Regards
Savio |
Anthea Cossette
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 29, 2002 - 05:35 am: |
|
Hi Savio
If you read the segment from 49 Questions again carefully it only states "Another, similar copulation resulted in a female child." To my understanding, these words do not imply that a female child was then born to Adam's own parents also. The keywords in this sentence are "another" and "similar" -- this is not meaning the "same parents" -- only the "same method."
There is a whole detailed history which is attached to the begetting of "Adam," and the human races which were created by the ancient Lyrians. The verses in the TJ, and explanations in 49 Questions are vastly over-simplified and don't give the full picture. Compare the information in Contact 251 for example:
"From our previous explanations, it should now be apparent that various human races and their skin colors originated throughout the most diverse planetary systems of our galaxy, the Milky Way. The regions of Sirius, however, played a specific role too, at least with respect to the actual Ur-Ur-origin, before the Old Lyrians came to Earth where they later merged with terrestrial human beings. (Implying more than one such mating was performed.)
I do not remember the specific contact, but I do recall Semjase speaking about these same origins in some of the earlier contacts with Billy.
Regards and Salome,
Anthea |
Savio
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 29, 2002 - 06:54 am: |
|
Hi Anthea
Thanks for the explanation
Now the last question is :Is it a natural law that brothers & sisters should not engage into a marriage?
I have the impression that this kind of marriage was quite common back in the ancient times.
Regards
Savio |
Anthea Cossette
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 29, 2002 - 07:58 am: |
|
Hi Savio,
You're welcome. As for your second question, I don't know if this is specifically a natural law. For me the logical answer would be lie in the fact that one only has to look at children borne from such unions (it is still happening today) to see that there is a very high incidence of retardation and other abnormalities in these offspring.
Regards and Salome,
Anthea |
Savio
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 29, 2002 - 08:19 am: |
|
Hi Anthea
I am not sure about this as well
I think it might not be a big problem in ancient times, when the human genes containted less defects
than we have nowadays (if this was the case).
Regards
Savio |
Edward
| | Posted on Thursday, May 30, 2002 - 02:21 pm: |
|
Hi Savio...
Hope you are doing fine...
Your question:"Is it a natural law that brothers &
sisters should not engage into a marriage?
Well, One should think..with Common-Sence and Logic..
that it Is/Should sound like a Natural Law of Creation
Not to engage into marriage with one's Own brother or
sister. As Anthea has stated..the Results of such
marriages. This is very well know.
So, when these born/child Defects manifest...there Is
a Reason! Again...as you have acknowledged..."They
will have to Face The Consequences!"
"There is an UnBalancement."
As the Physical bodies of brothers and sisters consist
of Genes and other Building-Blocks...that may be
identical...and which will Clash...when they are
"Fused" together. As "Incest" as it is called...
was a Way of Life...in a small part of some religions.
As in some western religions...it seemed to be a
Normal/Natural way of "Multiplying"...if you will...
cause of the fact...that Their Bible Told them so.
Or in other words....; That's just How They 'Translated/
Interpreted' the parts when God...said to them to Go...
and Multiply..yourselves.
I myself..have hear this face to face in the past from
a religious groep.
So we can Conclude here...again..what Fals Teachings
can make One do.
I've come across religious societies that live-up
to this way of life...by their Bible interpretations..
and they DO....Have The Biggest Count Of Retardations
and Mental-dicorders and Body defects.
When you Trace these groeps of Defects...you will trace
them back to the Very Religious groeps/societies.
(If not done by smoking or drinking or drug use when
being pregnant)
It is not known to me....that animals Act to Incest..
unless they are Forced...to interbreed in that manner..
for Dog-shows...and to create new types of animals..
(the dogs in this case). I would think here too..
the owner would Not Cross his Dogs with brother/sister.
My Common-Sence and Logic..."Knows"...that animals..
born as True Creatures of Creation...Live According
to The Laws of Nature and Creation. But Now...they
are "Picking-up"..Our Unbalanced ways of live..and
act in a Similar way/manner as we do. Helaas. As they
are sencetive to our Vibrations.
Like the saying goes: "The dog is like his master."
I hope my Input is some use for you Savio?
Take Care...Be Healthy...Savio...
Edward... |
Edward
| | Posted on Thursday, May 30, 2002 - 02:34 pm: |
|
Hi Savio again...
I would like to add...: as you may know...that the
Plejarans have to have a very Stricked Health Check-up...before getting married...for their offspring.They too...would only want Good and Healthy children..
So, Incest..indeed...is here "Not In The Game!"
And as we know...They live according to the Laws of Nature and Creation...
And will do Nothing to UnBalance the Laws of
Nature and Creation.
"Healthy children....is a Healthy Creation"
Take Care...Be Healthy...Savio...
Edward... |
Savio
| | Posted on Friday, May 31, 2002 - 02:05 am: |
|
Hi Edward
Thanks for your detailed explanation
Our logic so far is based on the possible defects among the offsprings .....
What about when no offspring is involved? Or, only healthy offspring is selected through technology
(say within 21days)?
Would it be possible that it is only a directive rather than a law of nature?
More comments please
Regards
Savio |
Edward
| | Posted on Monday, June 03, 2002 - 03:01 am: |
|
Hi Savio...
Nice to hear from you...
I'm glad you understond what I was trying to clearify to you...
Well, as being married...without having offspring...was your question?
Well, I myself could Not really say...if it is a Law of Nature...or Directive. I just "Analize" with Common-Sence and Logic. And a Great Deal of "Feeling" too. Feeling can play a Great Part here too. Or "Intuition"...if you will.
So even marriage Without...offspring...would still
be a Directive 'Against' this/that matrimony...I would Still say. To myself....it would be like: Man laying with Man...and Woman...laying with Woman. Not that I have anything against that...to be Frank and Clear. Everyone their "Free-Will and Choice". The Conseqences and Learning-Process are for them.
But one may ask:" But as long as it is Love..why not let them go in matrimony eventhough they are brother and sister?"
Well, I would have a very Smiple answer Savio.
"There is Love...and Love!"
I would say:...One can Love One's brother and sister As brother and sister...where No matrinoy is needed. Which is "True Love"(platonic=Spiritual(ly)..).
And then brotherly and sisterly matrimoy Love would be...a "Useless Love"...if I may say. As Why should you marry one and other...when One does Not have to marry to encounter that "True" Love...towards one and other.
One can still encounter "True Love"...without having bind one and other.
So we must/do have to make distinction here..between "Love and Love"...Savio.
"There is True Love....and False Love..."
So...to be honest....I Would see it as a "True
Directive" Savio. In order to Keep "True" Balance
in The Laws of Nature and Creation. To even let
Creation(Our part of Creation) Evolve in True Balance. And Not Hindering it...in any way. And when One hinders it...we have to Balance-Out the Conseqences. And this will just "Slow-down" the Evolution Process.
But here too: "You have Freedom....and Freedom!"
Well...I don't think I have to explain this to you
either? After you have read the above written.
The Idea and Explanation-Definition resemble each
other.
If I may come back to the religious groep/society I mentioned in my previous posting; they even Ac-
knowledge...Incest..because...when Their God created Adam(1 man) and Eva(1 woman)...they had to multiply...and so when Adam and Eva gotten their children...They Too...had to multiply...and so They Had To Have Incest to create their offspring. So here again, it is Their Interpretations/
Translations...of their religion.
I hope I've shed more light on these subjects Savio?
Take Care...Be Healthy...
Edward... |
Edward
| | Posted on Monday, June 03, 2002 - 03:47 am: |
|
Hi Savio Again...
Your question about "High-Tech" Offspring....
If I may put it that way.
Well eventually..We Will come to that part of evolution of Genetical-Enginering...as we have Already done. As Cloning is being done with animal...that ofcourse will manifest Also with Human beings...as Billy mentioned.
Well, if we had the chance to create offspring through technology...I would say that that Is a Part of evolution and it is indeed...a Direction/Course that is being taken at that Stage of evolution. And that it is a Law of Nature....
that we Take that Direction/Course/Path...if you will.
As Billy has made very clear...it is inevitable we
cross this evoultion process.
But again, it is How we Utilze the technologies.
In a 'Negaitve' or 'Positive' manner.
If there is offspring that is created.., we will
evetually reach that stage of evolution, it Too..
will be inevitable...and we will have to take care
of these New-born High-Tech living beings. Just as
any other New-born babies.
So, it will be a Directive and Law of Nature And...Creation for Us to Nurish and Take Care of these New-Born(s).
As in the Far Future it will be possible to "Order" any kind of New-born to One's likings! And indeed Savio...you will have "Perfect" beings walking around.
This is indeed the Direction to "Perfection" and
"Perfecting" ourselves. As Creation is Also Perfecting ...Itself! As We are Helping Creation....and as Creation Is Helping Us....
Again, It Is How...we Utilze the techology.
Take Care...Be Healthy...Savio...
Edward... |
Savio
| | Posted on Monday, June 03, 2002 - 08:44 am: |
|
Hi Edward
Thank you again for your time and kind explanation
Yes, I see your point and feeling about love and true love, man and man, woman and woman.
As for man and man, woman and woman, we have very logical explanation within the FIGU materials
and also within the TJ. However, there is nothing about incest (as far as I know).
I would think that our world forbid the act of incest is because our distant ancestors practiced that and
carried defective offsprings, they learned from the bad results and hence made laws to stop that act.
Now comes the time when defective offsprings can be completley prevented, I cannot think of any logic
in preventing such a marriage.
It does not mean that I am encouraging the act of incest, however it is only a logic thinker at work
As time goes by when technology is more advanced, I think our view against moral will have to be
adjusted somehow.
Regards
Savio |
Savio
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 05, 2002 - 03:29 am: |
|
Hello
I have a question on 6/1 TJ(1996)
Quoted
"1. "Take care regarding your piety, that you practice it before the people with correct words, lest you be
accused of lying, thereby finding no reward from them. "
What is the"piety"?
What would be the "correct words"?
And what would be the "reward" mentioned?
Thanks
Savio |
Lonnie Morton
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 05, 2002 - 06:40 am: |
|
Hi Savio,
My take on this is: Just thinking about the meaning, and visualizing who Jmmanuel was speaking to, and comparing what he said with perhaps what Billy would say today, helps to make it clear.
First of all "piety" is defined in the dictionary as religious devotion, but more appropriately in this case as devotion to spiritual or sacred duties, or being virtuous.
When Jmmanuel's disciples were carrying out their duties (which often involved speaking the truth to people by instructing and answering questions), they had to be careful to teach the Creational teachings with "correct words" (unlike Peter and others who later taught a falsified version of Jmmanuels teachings and received no real reward). The next verse in TJ 6 goes on to explain more about these correct words, saying: "Choose your words using natural logic, and draw upon the knowledge and behaviour of nature. This is self explanatory, as you can see.
The reward would likely have been in the form of spiritual connectedness, peace and continued evolution as well as the satisfaction of successfully accomplishing the mission, and seeing positive results.
This was said during Jmmanuel's sermon on the mount. Unfortunately, many did not heed this wise counsel, including the disciples, who could not comprehend many of the teachings. However, Jmmanuel's words live on for us today. My observation and thoughts only.
Kind regards,
Lonnie
PS - This verse, as with many others in the TJ can be greatly expounded on. |
Savio
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 05, 2002 - 08:10 am: |
|
Hi Lonnie
Thanks for your swift response
Your explanation is logical and reasonable! I've got a better pictue now.
Regards
Savio |
Edward
| | Posted on Thursday, June 06, 2002 - 02:55 am: |
|
Hi Savio...
I Always would like to help out if it is in my knowledge.
Yes, you are very correct as you stated. I agree
Fully with you.
The near future can Only bring us the Real Truth
when it comes to realization.
Yes, I have not found anything about Incest either
in the TJ. Maybe...if somuch of the TJ was not lost there may of been more intereseting subjects and topics...we could have learned about/from.
But this just leaves "Room" for us to "Think" as
Jmmanuel made clear to us.
"What is the use of Learning...if a Teacher Tells
ALL the Answers."...I always say.
So this is "Our Space"...to Unravel and to Learn!
Take Care..Be Healthy...Savio...
Always Nice talking to you...
Edward... |
Dee Hanson
| | Posted on Thursday, June 06, 2002 - 07:06 am: |
|
Hi Edward,
In one of Billy's book he says incest is not allow unless the world is in danger of losing its population. He gave a percentage of what the population should be before incest would be acceptable. I don't remember which book this is in. It also say incest is interbreeding through the 7th generation. |
Savio
| | Posted on Thursday, June 06, 2002 - 08:54 am: |
|
Hello
Here is another question on 6/8 TJ (1996).
Quoted
" 8. If you do not know how to pray directly to the almighty power of the spirit, make use of something sacred by which to reach the spirit. "
Does "pray to the almighty power of the spirit" equal to "pray to the spirit that with almighty power" ?
It seems it is not the same to me, English is not my mother language however 
What is a "sacred" thing?
Is there any sacred thing exist any more?
Or, does FIGU has any sacred thing in hand?
Thanks
Savio |
Scott B.
| | Posted on Thursday, June 06, 2002 - 10:37 am: |
|
Dee
I think the incest idea was mentioned in the OM.
Scott |
Anthea Cossette
| | Posted on Thursday, June 06, 2002 - 12:47 pm: |
|
Hi Savio,
To answer your first question, I would say "No" ... you pray to your spirit because it has "almighty power" -- you don't pray with almighty power (meaning with extra-ordinary effort). In other words, the first part of TJ 6:8 means exactly what it says, "to pray directly to the almighty power of the spirit."
To answer your 2nd question. I had asked the same question to a Core Group member some time back, and the explanation given to me was that the "something sacred" does not refer to an actual material object (such as beads, stones, idols, etc.) rather it refers to "meditation." There are several different types of meditation that Billy speaks about in his books, for example in the book "The Psyche" (only available in German at present) he teaches how to do concentration exercises, which are very important to learn before being able to do true and effective meditation. By learning correct meditation one then might also learn how to pray correctly in order to "reach" the spirit. In addition, if you read TJ 6:9-21 then the correct way to pray becomes self-explanatory.
Kind regards and Salome,
Anthea |
Savio
| | Posted on Thursday, June 06, 2002 - 09:11 pm: |
|
Hi Anthea
Thanks for the explanation
I am still a little bit confused because of the sentence structure.
To me, "pray to the almighty power of the spirit" is equal to "pray to the almighty power..."
Hence, if the sentence were to meant "pray to your spirit because it has almighty power",
would it be better written as " pray to the almighty spirit" or "pray to the spirit which has almighty power" ?
Yes, I am sure that it should be understood as you explained, it is reasonable & logical
It is just the sentence structure confused me, my poor English again.
Regards
Savio |
Savio
| | Posted on Thursday, June 06, 2002 - 09:29 pm: |
|
Hi Edward, Dee & Scott
It is a surprise to learn that there is a situation that incest is considered acceptable, especially it is from Billy. I think he is being very logical
Hence it is understandable that "incest" could be a common practice in the "very early" stage of human
evolution, it turned out to be an evil act later because of defective offsprings were observed due to
more and more defective human genes.
Regards
Savio |
Scott B.
| | Posted on Thursday, June 06, 2002 - 10:15 pm: |
|
Hello Savio & Dee
I think this is what Dee was referring to. This excerpt can be found on page 71 line #161 of the OM. Please understand this is an unofficial translation:
"But it is given, no falliability exists in the endeavor toward sleeping together and in the procreation of children, that is between mother
and son, between father and daughter or between brother and sister and between relatives up to the seventh generation, if a need exists to the
degree of urgency that a new nation has to be created, or if it is in danger of dying out in any way according to the correct number of generations of Man on a planet."
Salome
Scott Baxter |
Savio
| | Posted on Thursday, June 06, 2002 - 11:52 pm: |
|
Hi Scott
Thanks for the information
It is really nice to know German!
Regards
Savio |
Anthea Cossette
| | Posted on Friday, June 07, 2002 - 07:26 am: |
|
Hi Savio,
An additional explanation which might help you further: To say "to pray directly to the almighty power of the spirit" means in other words to pray with the understanding (knowledge) that it is one's own spirit which has almighty power, because It is a partpiece of Creation.
The power to "answer prayers" does not lie outside of oneself; in false idols or other "holy" objects, or some invisible almighty God as is believed in religion today, and likewise in Jmmanuel's time.
Perhaps this helps to explain the sentence structure a bit. German is not an easy language and because absolute accuracy is of paramount importance, it does become tricky to convey the correct meanings in a translation into English, or any other language for that matter.
Kind regards and Salome
Anthea |
Savio
| | Posted on Friday, June 07, 2002 - 08:57 am: |
|
Hi Anthea
Thanks for the further details
Yes, I believe you are right in your explanation.
Regards
Savio |
Savio
| | Posted on Thursday, June 13, 2002 - 04:10 am: |
|
Hello
I have a question on 8/27-28 TJ 1996
Quoted
"27. One of his disciples spoke to him,"Master, permit me to go and bury my father who just died."
"28. But Jmmanuel said to him "Follow me and let the dead bury their dead." "
What would Jmmanuel intended to say when he said "let the dead bury their dead"?
What would be the reason that Jmmanuel did not let his disciple go? A little bit unusual isn't it?
Thanks
Savio |
Scott B.
| | Posted on Thursday, June 13, 2002 - 05:27 pm: |
|
Hello Savio
I have wondered about that quotation myself also.
I think Jmmanuel may have been trying to say, let the walking dead, or spiritually ignorant, continue to believe in their false ideas, because even death will not change them. Maybe, let those that hold false ideas about truth, life etc, live and die with others that hold similiar ideas, because it does no good to try and teach them or change them until they are ready to listen.
He could also be implying that even though people are related by blood, does not mean the wise one has an obligation to other blood relatives who may be ignorant or non-thinking, if they are not in search of truth and knowldege. And therefore we have no real alliance to those that don't support the truth or the search for truth whether related by blood or not.
Im just guessing at some of these ideas,,if anyone else has further ideas I would like to hear them also
Salome
Scott Baxter |
Lonnie Morton
| | Posted on Thursday, June 13, 2002 - 06:34 pm: |
|
Hi Savio,
I agree with Scott's explanation. Further, what Jmmanuel may have been referring to when he said, "Let the dead bury there dead", was that it may not be appropriate for one who has true spiritual knowledge and understanding to take responsibility for burying a blood relative who did not appreciate such knowledge.
It seems that this would place one under negative pressure from relatives, who may have there own ideas or customs for handling funerals, such as wakes or viewings, cremation or burial, eulogies and so forth.
However, from what Jmmanuel said, there doesn't seem to be any objection to just attending the funeral. As far as I am concerned, I would rather see them when they are alive then when they are dead. Of course, this would be a personal decision.
Regards,
Lonnie |
Savio
| | Posted on Thursday, June 13, 2002 - 09:45 pm: |
|
Hi Scott & Lonnie
Thanks for your explanations
I like Scott's idea on "let the walking dead to bury their dead", and I think Lonnie is right in saying that
handling funerals with different customs may have negative effects to one.
Just before his diciple asked, Jmmanuel said in 8/26:
"I have the mission to preach wisdom and knowledge, therefore I am moving through the lands, restless."
Would it be possible that Jmmanuel stressed that his mission is of first priority? As for the dead, the
life time learning session is completed where a funeral is not going to help further spiritual learning
hence should be of lower priority.
Within the Chinese history, a mighty man was assigned to fix the flooding problem of the country, it
took him many many years. During all these years away from home, he has the chance to walk by his
home 3 times, but he did not go in for a family reunion, because of the awareness of his unfinished
mission. He became a king after that.
Both cases reflected the attitude of a person who has a mission to complete that is of first priority.
Just some thoughts.
Regards
Savio |
Jean Pierre Lagasse
| | Posted on Friday, June 14, 2002 - 09:49 pm: |
|
A "correct" relationship between the mind/physical and spirit would produce a condition of synchronization between the two.
Without this relationship between the physical/mind and spirit, a person could be termed as "dead".
I suspect that "Billy's" Spirit Lessons would have lots of really good data on this, and would also enable the process of mind/physical/spirit synchronization.
JP |
Jim Deardorff
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 17, 2001 - 09:51 am: |
|
I have a question regarding TJ 2:29, where it reads "Jmmanuel should (or "shall", 1992 version) be called the Nazarene." This verse made it into the Gospel of Matthew as well, and has puzzled scholars for a long time. Does the new information we have on the whole subject shed any light on the meaning of the verse?
One interpretation has been that "Nazarene" is related to the basic meaning of the word, which relates to "root." So perhaps it refers to Jmmanuel being the offshoot that came forth from the stump of Jesse (father of David), with a branch growing out of its roots, as in Isaiah 11:1-2.
Lately I've wondered if it may be related, also(?) to the word "Nazarite," which is explained in Numbers 6. There, a Nazarite is a special person who has vowed, among other things, not to shave or cut his hair. (E.g., Samson was a Nazirite.) Since Jmmanuel had a beard, according to Semjase's sketch of him, and rather long hair, there might be a connection here.
Any thoughts on this?
Regards,
Jim |
Savio
| | Posted on Saturday, April 21, 2001 - 12:01 am: |
|
Hi Jim
I read through the TJ 2:29. It seems to me that Jmmanuel was called Nazarene just becasue he lived in Nazareth (for quite some time?).
Of course, this is only a straight forward impression according to the surface meaning of the text.
Why/what was it that puzzled scholars for a long time?
Please share your point view
Regards
Savio |
Mario
| | Posted on Monday, August 20, 2001 - 01:37 pm: |
|
TJ, 1996, ed.
"9. As Jmmanuel left there, he saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax office."
Then in chapter 10, verse 2, Matthew is called the tax collector.
Is it possible that a tax collector was not able to read and write?
Mario |
Scott B.
| | Posted on Sunday, November 25, 2001 - 10:13 am: |
|
Moderator: This message was moved from the section "Your Questions to Billy Meier--Answered" in "The Mission:'Billy' Eduard Albert Meier" section in response to a question there; the reason is to maintain a clean list of only questions and answers to/from Billy Meier in that section.
Hello Savio
I know that this is not the place to answer your question, but this very question came up last year.
In the times of Jmmanual people barely understood what the Spirit was or the Psyche. People did not understand the importance of learning to think in a more neutral way. Therefore a person who was thinking in a very negative way or bad way would eventually experience the results of this bad thinking. If this person believed in demons or the idea of evil spirits he would to some extent believe these ideas were true.
Jmmanual realizing this, had to teach on the level that the people would understand. When he cured the people of the "possessed spirits" what he really did was through the power of his own consciousness help correct the "bad" thinking of these two people. Because the people still believed in the idea of being possessed by "spirits" he told them that he had removed these "bad" spirits and placed them into the swine. Therefore the people believed that they had been freed of these bad spirits.
This is how I understand this story and if anybody has a more correct understanding of this passage please share it.
Salome
Scott |
Savio
| | Posted on Sunday, November 25, 2001 - 08:30 pm: |
|
Hi Scott
Thanks for your explanation Yes, I do aware that this question came up last year, and I think I participated in the discussion as well. However, no definite or logical answer was achieved.
Your understanding may be correct; but if I were to explain the case, this is my assumption:
There were two spirits in each processed man. (one of the spirits was a intruder, this exceptional case has been described in this forum) Hence those two were confused and looked like processed.
And, that was why the "'evil spirits" begged Jummanuel to help solving this confusion and difficult situation hence "cast them out" using his spiritual power.
Why the herd of swine were drown? May be it was necessary for the "evil spirits" to see dead bodies so
as to convince them that they were truly dead and should go to the beyond.
This is only my assumption, surely it would be nice to hear from Billy.
Regards
Savio |
Jean Pierre Lagasse
| | Posted on Monday, November 26, 2001 - 08:15 pm: |
|
Simply thoughts...
Jmmanuel probably was able to "see" or "understand" or "communicate" with these (so called) "evil" spirits...
That they should NOT have inhabited "vulnerable people" was a given... perhaps understood by both Jmmanuel & the "spirits" simply by acknowledgement of the above awareness... also the "power" of Jmmanuel was considerable...!
Most likely, this was understood (or recognized) by these "evil spirits".
Amongst the possibilities...
Perhaps their choice was simple... be "cast out" & face exactly what they had faced before... (before taking over the "possessed") or take a chance in an "animal form"...
Perhaps the (so-called evil) spirits did not anticipate the reaction the swine would have...??
The question(s) would be...:
What happened to the "evil spirits" after the swine drowned?
And... is it more "permissible" for these (so called evil) spirits to inhabit animal forms... in terms of "Natural or Creative" laws... than human physical forms???
There are lots more questions after (& beyond) this... eh? (!!) |
Jim Deardorff
| | Posted on Monday, November 26, 2001 - 11:29 pm: |
|
Hello Jean Pierre,
In reply to your questions, I can only say that it would be good to hear Billy's interpretation of this incident, in TJ 8:29-34. After we discussed it a year ago, we learned that Billy doesn't think that the spirits of deceased persons that may be "floating around" and not yet returned to the "other world" can occupy or possess a person. He doesn't think that anyone is ever "possessed" by one or more foreign spirits.
Yet, I doubt that Jmmanuel was making this all up as an explanation that the people of that time could understand. He was too strongly opposed to teaching of untruths for that, I think.
If there were possessing spirits that got driven out of the two men and into the swine, I suppose that they were only in them a few minutes at most. After the swine drowned, they may have been shocked into going into the spiritual world (into the "light"), rather than drifting around looking for other human bodies to possess.
There were witnesses to this incident, probably including the disciples, and so I also don't think that Judas Iscariot would have written the incident down, with the possessed men (or their possessing spirits) asking Jmmanuel to drive them into the swine in the first place, if it hadn't happened.
Regards,
Jim Deardorff |
Savio
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 27, 2001 - 07:15 am: |
|
Hi Jim
I look the same as your comments, your reasoning is logical.
Further, I located the part of discussion posted by Scott regarding the possibility of two spirits in one person:
Quoted
"A discussion between Billy and Semjase during the 7th contact (Feb. 25, 1975) regarding when a person dies and what happens to the spirit: ......
182. When a guestframe but gets destoyed by force under any circumstances, then can happen, the spirit searching for himself quickest another guest body and inhabits in this.
183. He even often penertrates into frames, which are already habitated, under such circumstances.
184. This consequences then, that two spirit effect heavy confusion in one single guest-body."
Perhaps this exceptional case would make a person heavily confused and look like processed.
Regards
Savio |
Linda Williams
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 27, 2001 - 08:46 pm: |
|
Hello Jim and all,
I, too, will be interested in hearing Billy's interpretation of this passage. From what I recall from my own seminary training (albeit some time ago! and my exegetical skills are now quite rusty)"possession" was an unfortunate term for those afflicted with the condition known as epilepsy, a "stigma" that endured for a long time, even to this present lifetime.
I'm wondering if it is possible that the swine, as lowly and sacrifice-able beings, were chosen to bear the affliction and drown as a result.
Also waiting on Billy's response,
Linda |
Savio
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 27, 2001 - 08:56 pm: |
|
Hello all
Correction! All "processed" in my postings above should read as "possessed".
My careless mistake. please excuse me.
Regards
Savio |
Jim Deardorff
| | Posted on Sunday, December 02, 2001 - 03:46 pm: |
|
Hello Savio and All,
Thanks for correcting me on what I had thought was Billy's opinion. I've forgotten where I got that opinion now, perhaps from someone having quoted from some Contact Report? So, anyway, it seems that he affirms that a person can indeed be possessed. From modern literature I've read, more than one spirit can possess a person. Perhaps it had been that way with the two possessed men, with many possessing spirits suddenly rushing into the swine. But then again, perhaps only two possessing spirits could leave their human hosts and go into a herd of swine and affect them all, I don't know.
Regards,
Jim |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page
