Topics Topics Edit Profile Profile Help/Instructions Help Member List Member List FIGU-Website FIGU-Website
Search Last 1 | 3 | 7 Days Search Search Tree View Tree View FIGU-Shop FIGU-Shop

Archive for 2001 - 2007

Discussionboard of FIGU » Books and Booklets Area » "The Talmud Jmmanuel" » Chapter 10-19 » Archive for 2001 - 2007 « Previous Next »

  Thread Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post
  ClosedClosed: New threads not accepted on this page        

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

JAY
Posted on Wednesday, July 10, 2002 - 10:42 am:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hi and Greetings to you Jim,

I have a question for you regarding the Talmud and Jmmanuels teaching according to the Talmud and how Jmmanuel states Creation. As I have been reading the Talmud two to three times already it came to mind the question of the Spiritual knowledge given to Jmmanuel according to this phrase:

The Talmud 1992 Edition.
Chapter 11-81 - "PRAISE OF THE SPIRIT AND KNOWLEDGE"
Verses 30

30. "And all things have now been given over to me by god, whose guardian angels taught me the laws and knowledge of nature and the laws emanating from creation"

Jmmanuel states that he has been given all this knowledge of creation and my question here is this, since this is the case for him and he was able to do all those things which Christians called miracles, why is it that the details of all this knowledge was never added to the Talmud??... in other words why does the Talmud or Jmmanuel give all this truth without giving us more details to the Creational laws and spiritual teachings for us to know more about what he knows (ex. how to heal the sick) and other sciences which pertain to developing our society. Instead it gives us a very general idea and that is about all it is given to us, did he not go up into the heavens with them to receive more knowledge and certain technologies that enable him to do the things he did for 40 days and 40 nights?? or is just not in this book because the rest of the chapters were lost in the raid in 1974??

I am trying to grasp and understand why Judas Iscariot wrote this in the scrolls in this manner and not any other details pertaining to details of this knowledge unless Jmmanuel did give all this information out just in small general quantities.


Kind Regards,

JAY
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Jean Pierre Lagasse
Posted on Thursday, July 11, 2002 - 11:29 am:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Once upon a time, there was at tribe (somewhere) who had never seen a lake or a river and had never experienced rain.
One of their members, wanting to know more, walked a long distance until he came upon a river.

He jumped into the water & found it cool and refreshing, not to mention he was able to wash himself clean !!
He found that his skin turned a slightly different colour when he did so, and certain skin markings disappeared. His hair changed also.

When he returned to his tribe, he explained to them what he had done and his experiences with the river of water. His tribe saw how his hair and skin markings had changed.

Some members of his tribe could not understand, how the knowledge of the river did not make them clean also... & some of them thought he was holding something back by not telling them the whole truth.

regards,
JP
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

JAY
Posted on Thursday, July 11, 2002 - 02:31 pm:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hi Jean,

Very funny Jean :).... that is something to think about but I do believe is hard for all just take the knowledge or the glimpse of this knowledge without knowing what to do with it since there is not enough for us to go by and follow the laws of creation. Jmmanuel did not just get the creational theory but he also received the more likely scientifical information as well. I do understand the implications of our spiritual development and how it still lacks and I love reading the Talmud a few times over but in my case when I read lines like the ones on my first question above it does not take me to another level of understanding. In over all the Talmud and contents it contains should be highly praised.

BE WELL Jean :)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Jim Deardorff
Posted on Friday, July 12, 2002 - 12:07 pm:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hello Jay, JP,

I guess JP's above answer is that some things can't very well be explained until you have experienced certain things for yourself. Or, they can't be explained well by words, such as the benefits of meditation. Is that right, JP?

My own off-forum answer to Jay had been that there may be things we just aren't evolved enough, or knowledgeable enough, to be able to understand or accept even if a written explanation were attempted. But Jmmanuel was evolved enough.

Perhaps an example of this is given in the TJ 34:23-24 (1996 or 2001). This is where Jmmanuel says the secret of Creation is based on the number seven. OK, there's the answer! But do you understand it? Not I!

Regards,
Jim
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

James the truthseeker
Posted on Friday, July 12, 2002 - 09:16 pm:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Greetings JP, Jim D. and Jay.

Jay, I think what you are actually looking for is the teachings of "Tibaten Zdogchen". If you're really interested to know its sercets, I can share these with you, but keep in mind, this is a lifetime study and practice. Most people of the western world are to busy with themselves or lack the patients to really learn and experience it. I think this is why Jmmanuel didn't go into his own practices because people just aren't interested in doing the work. I find this true even today, as I find it's next to impossible to get any kind of group together regarding this. It's difficult for people to comprehend, yet the techniques are quite simple. As an indivudual, it's a liftime practice. As a large group however, well the sky is the limit as their is no limit to spirit and creation.

Greetings Jim,

The secret of creation is found in the number 7, because everything in creation works in octaves of 7, such as light, sound, matter, energy, consciousness, space-time and evolution. There are also 7 subgroups within the 7 groups etc. Creation is a spectrum of 7, and much more.

Enjoy,
James the truthseeker
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Lars
Posted on Friday, July 12, 2002 - 09:58 pm:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hi guys

The secret of Creation is based on the sound current of "OM"or AUM"

It is this sound of Om and the Light together
which began, sustains and destroys all creation.
the Om sound current pulses itself in 7 waves in order to form solid material creations.

Isn't this taught in Billys book "OM" ?

Salome, Lars
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Savio
Posted on Saturday, July 13, 2002 - 05:59 am:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hello all

I refer to TJ Chapter 11...

27. "......... that it has kept hidden the knowledge and power of the spirit from the unwise and
imprudent who spread the false teachings, and is now revealing it to sincere seekers.

29. "All things have now been given over to mankind, and no one knows the secret of Creation,
not even one person, and so neither god nor his followers.


According to Jmmanuel, it is the knowledge and power of the spirit is being revealed, however
no human will ever know the secret of Creation, that is the secret of secrets that can never be solved.

Regards

Savio
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Howard
Posted on Saturday, July 13, 2002 - 09:47 am:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The "total nothing" which are the peace and rest of creation, must, after my opinion be like this; if you imagine that the number zero, 0, exist, you wont find it out. zero only exist because there are negatives, minus, and positives, plus. As I said, the number zero does not really exist. But if we think about positives and negatives, it does.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Jean Pierre Lagasse
Posted on Saturday, July 13, 2002 - 11:05 am:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hi all,
Interesting thoughts !!

Although lots is being said about Creation, Seven etc. I still can't say I really understand much of this ?? I read and can "intellectually process" the words, however.

I really like portions of JamesTT's comments...
Savio's observations (quotes) are very relevant also.
Jim's "off-forum" comments (etc.) also are "right on".

When one meditates, one's mind/being "changes" according to the manner & intent (etc.) of the meditation (??). To try to describe this in words to another person would be extremely difficult, if not impossible. Anything described would be from within a different mind space (including spirit also???) which would not be directly understandable by someone who has never meditated. The meanings associated with the words used would become different.

The same basic situation applies to the (story above) tribe, who's members are trying to figure out what it's like or how to get "clean" without getting wet, or even traveling (themselves) to the river !!

As Jim said, Jmmanuel was/is very evolved.
I suspect that the "40 days" & the "crucifixion" were processes which "changed him" and not just something he went through to get "knowledge & information".
As such, the "knowledge" alone, as described verbally to another person, would not be enough to produce the same results (state of evolution), especially without having experienced the same "evolutionary process".
Keep in mind that each person would require different experiences and thoughts for their own evolution, depending on what they require at their own stage of evolution.

I'm still trying to figure this stuff out according to what I've read & my own experiences so I'm not saying anything authoritive here with any of this, eh?
Could be "out to lunch" on any or all of this ! :)
Also, we all must find our own "reality/truth" with all this stuff for ourselves, as nobody else can (or should) "evolve" (or think) for us !!
"Billy's" Spirit lessons would have some really excellent info on all this.
If inclined, Best to go through that route, instead of trying to figure it out from anything I say !!

Just my 2cents...
JP
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

mark G
Posted on Friday, July 19, 2002 - 12:56 pm:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Im confused as how everyone says Jammanuel was very evolved.. Maybe the ones who taught him were very evolved(from Jeans article), not so much Jammanuel since he was human. What if Billy or Jammanuel would have never been taught by the PL's in their lifetime?? Would they have been able to evolve spiritually on their own here on earth? Or would they be the average human walking around in a daze? If being evolved takes knowledge, then many people could become what Billy or Jammanuel was or is if they take the time to think.

Now obviously Jammanuel had to be taught before he could go out and teach Creation as it was stated by him in The TJ. And Billy from a child stage was taught by the PL's to know what he knows now. So why couldn't anyone else be able to do it??? I guess another question is, how much can one evolve in ones life if they follow the laws of creation?? Would you or I be able to move stoves with our mind or would I be able to heal the sick with a touch? Just a thought.

I see many people stating that it would take several lifetimes to be able to do what Billy or Jammanuel can do. Why?? Couldn't one hypothetically be catapulted forward in learning and in turn spirit wise?? Jammanuel said in the TJ to one of his diciples to walk on the water and trust in yourself to do it. You can't tell me that the diciple was just as advanced as Jammanuel.. But he did until he stopped believing in himself and his abilities and then Jammanuel had to help him.

So is evolved just a higher belief(or no doubt) in ones ability and knowledge??
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

JAY
Posted on Friday, July 19, 2002 - 02:29 pm:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

HI Mark,

I believe it is a state of mind and ones own spiritual energy (spirit Form)which makes you feel evolved. I also believe in the idea of how you view your dimensional reality to be able to do these things, is an inner energy within which made Jmmanuel do what he did as well as Billy. So therefore it makes them spiritually evolved and a breakthrough for themselves as well. :)

Spirit forms must take many lifetimes to accomplish a high level, therefore passing through many life times of growing or as long as it takes.

This it the kind of knowledge which has been lost and changed which we are now paying for in this here and now. We could have been living in a better world of high power and technology as ONE ...and not many groups of humans.

BE WELL Mark :)

JAY
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Savio
Posted on Sunday, July 28, 2002 - 09:12 am:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hi Scott

Thanks for your response along the thread - Plejaren women bi-sexual?

Regarding that "a male could get pregnant" as a result of a man on man relationship, Michael Uyttebroek above also expressed some information similar to those you shared on 26th.

I read through the TJ12 6-11 again, on the surface, I cannot imagine that Jmmanuel was talking about
some Hi Tech issue here.

Rather, it seems to me that Jmmanuel was just talking about the un-natural relationship/sexual intercourse between males.

Your comments please :)

Regards

Savio
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Jim Deardorff
Posted on Monday, August 26, 2002 - 10:25 am:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

On a different topic within chapter 12, 1996 or 2001 edition, I wonder what forum-frequenters' thoughts are concerning the word "sterilized" as a punishment for adulterous or fornicating women. The German word "entweibt" means "de-womanized," for which "sterilized" is the obvious meaning.

The problem is, as far as we know, there was no known means to sterilize women until a century or two ago, through surgery.

My guess on this is that Jmmanuel was speaking this chapter to Judas Iscariot to write down, some years after the crucifixion, probably without having taught publicly on it. And so he was speaking to the future people (us), since he knew Judas's writings would become falsified until our own era. And through his long-range prophetic ability, if not through his 40 days of learning from the Pl's, he became aware that sterilization of women would become a future eventuality.

I notice that nowhere in that chapter, beginning or end, is there any mention that he was speaking to any particular group of people, or any mention of where he was when speaking it. So he may have just spoken it to Judas, who had to slip it in somewhere into his TJ writing, most of which Jmmanuel must have dictated to him.

Are there any other speculations?

BTW, Savio, my e-mail address is still the same; now and then my ISP is down, however.

Regards,
Jim
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Linda
Posted on Monday, August 26, 2002 - 09:21 pm:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hello Jim,

Yes, it would be interesting to pin point the exact time of this historical writing. Then, language, specific words, etc. would be more translatable. As you seem to be an exegetical expert, I'm sure you understand the importance of the "historical language" component of any document.

I've spent some time with the online translator and the word "entweibt" and arrive at the same synonyms as you, i.e. "de-womanized or "sterilized."
Since, as you say, the procedure for sterilizing a woman was not known at the time of the TJ, my guess is that the "punishment" for men and women who were "adulterous and fornicating" was the castration of men and the castration of women. The only female organ capable of being cut out would be the female clitoris, homologous to the male penis.

I think of this possibility as I not too long ago read in an issue of LIFE magazine about the "rites of passage" throughout the world, e.g. baptism, bar mitzfah, marriage, death and burial.
One segment and photograph graphically depicted a young African girl in a primitive tribe screaming in pain as she was being subjected to the cutting of her clitoris without the benefit of pain killers or a local anesthetic. The "rite of passage" explained that these girls, when they reach puberty, learn to be deprived of sexual pleasure and learn to be maritally faithful.

Could these ancient "punishments" and primitive "rites" be related?

Linda
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Jim Deardorff
Posted on Tuesday, August 27, 2002 - 09:54 am:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hello Linda,

Yes, that's the sort of possibility I considered, too. It's just that I know of no evidence that this sort of procedure was ever done in the Mideast or Asian areas back then. Nothing in the Bible about it, or scholarly studies that I know of.
Jim
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Hampton Hsien-Ting Chiu
Posted on Tuesday, August 27, 2002 - 11:34 am:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hi Mr. Deardorff and Linda:

Yes, I can confirm that in East Asia, China, Taiwan, Korea and Japan, we never practice anything to punish woman by performing procedures mentioned by Lidna.

Hampton Chiu
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Linda
Posted on Tuesday, August 27, 2002 - 02:11 pm:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hello Hampton and Jim,

Hampton, I'm so very glad that women in Asian cultures are not subjected to such barbaric cruelty!

Jim,if you haven't done so already, wouldn't it help to compare the original Aramaic for "entweibt"?
Do you know what word Immanuel would have used and what its meaning would be? Secondly, what evidence does exist during Immanuel's time for the punishment of "adulterous and fornicating women"?

Linda
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Jim Deardorff
Posted on Wednesday, August 28, 2002 - 09:29 am:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hello Linda,

I can only guess that the Aramaic word used was one that meant "unfruitful" -- or, to be made unfruitful.

I don't know of any punishments meted out to the harlots, though the Bible, Old Testament and New, over and over speaks disparagingly of them.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Linda
Posted on Wednesday, August 28, 2002 - 08:40 pm:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hello again, Jim,

"Unfruitful," or incapable of bearing fruit sounds similar to not being capable of child bearing, or "entweibt," i.e. de-womanized.

As you are saying that no evidence exists for the "punishment" of harlots during Immanuel's time, I am momentarially stymied by the TJ chapter and wonder now if your futuristic theory may not be worthy of consideration.

I personally am not familiar with sterilization procedures of women for the purpose of "punishment." I am familiar with sterilization procedures of women considered to be either mentally ill or developmentally disabled. A recent article in the Oregonian divulged these practices, (much to the embarrassment of the state of Oregon!), where women in state institutions were subjected to these procedures.

Do you know when and where the sterilization of women began for the purpose of punishement?

Linda
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Jim Deardorff
Posted on Thursday, August 29, 2002 - 11:49 am:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hi Linda,

No, I just don't know of any punishment other than society (and writers of books of the bible) looking down upon the harlots.

The writer of Matthew went out of his way to insert the harlots Tamar and Rahab into his version of Jesus' genealogy, along with two other women who were in disgrace for other reasons. I think he did this so that Mary would have the genealogical company of these other women, because Mary was in great disgrace being a witness to Jmmanuel having survived the crucifixion, and even traveling with him afterwards. Either that, or Mary was in disgrace for having begot Jmmanuel out of wedlock. Either way, I see the writer of Matthew as despising harlots.

No, I don't know where or just when sterilization of women was first used as punishment. Perhaps not before the 19th century.

Regards,
Jim
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Linda
Posted on Friday, August 30, 2002 - 11:38 am:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hello Jim,

Going back to your original post that raises the issue of sterilization of women as punishment, I find I have more questions than answers at the moment. I've been doing some online research into the matter and do find cases where some judges have, in fact, imposed sterilization sentences on some women and other cases where this practice is deemed unconstitutional. I really don't yet have a clear handle on just exactly how the law reads.

I was thinking last evening that perhaps the
meaning of "entweibt" could also mean "forced abortion," possibly induced by poisonous herbs or through some other means. But once, again, if there is no evidence of this practice taking place in and around Immanuel's time, then aren't we once again looking at future practices?

I'm very interested in women's issues and the treatment of women in different cultures throughout history to our present time. I think you raise a very thought-provoking question about this particular TJ chapter and wonder if you would consider framing a question for Billy? Perhaps he can clarify this matter.

Thanks for bringing this to light,
Linda
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Savio
Posted on Friday, August 30, 2002 - 09:17 pm:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hi Jim and Linda

I think I have heard that in ancient China, there was a preparation of herbs that could sterilize
a woman, that is, the one who took that preparation could never have babies again.

I think this cruel practice was for the harlot houses but usually not for a punishment.

Would there be similar practice during Jmmanuel's time?

Regards

Savio
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Edward
Posted on Saturday, August 31, 2002 - 07:34 am:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hi Savio, Jim and Linda...and All...:)

Savio, I Fully agree with you!

Knowing from my Asian background...it is Known that Men aswel as Women can Utilze Herbs...for Temperary or for Permanent...Sterilization. This was in the past also how they kept 'Birth-Control'.
It is Also Known...in some parts of Afrika.

I would think this is the most common and satisfiying manner.
If I am correct...the herbs are still being ultized today.

I did once hear that these herbs are not always mentioned...becuase...it is a 'Whole In The Market'...and One may Misuse...it Financially...for One's own benifit...and Gain. Just like with other herbs. Just as I once saw a documentary of an Amizone Indian that showed that...he knew the Herbs...that could Stop Aids.
But he did not say which plants it was...because he Knew how it could Financially be Misued...for...again...Financial gain.

Take Care...Be Healthy.

Edward...:)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Jim Deardorff
Posted on Monday, September 02, 2002 - 07:54 am:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hello Savio, Linda, and Edward,

If you could find anywhere in some honest literature where the use of some herb could induce permanent sterilization in women, and that this was known to certain persons 2000 years ago, this would be the most obvious solution to the puzzle. Jmmanuel could well have learned about it on his travels along the Silk Road.

Regards,
Jim
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Edward
Posted on Monday, September 02, 2002 - 11:09 am:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hi Jim...:)

Hope you are doing Fine.

Well, I can only speak as what I have hear from my parents...and surroundings.
As before the 1st and 2de world war in asia in many places (small villages) where they came from, One would utilze the Herbs for Temperary or Permanent. As Birth-Control..and Good Planing. So, Temperary herbs were utilzed mostly.
But as the Wars came about...ofcourse..this medical way of suppressing birth..had gotten lost. So, thats how I understood the Ones that knew
about the herbs did not want to make it known...
anymore.(just as many other herbs)

Concerning the use in Afrika;..I once show on a tv documantary. There also...it was mostly utilized in small villiages. There, just like in asia..by a village Medicine-man or woman. And they Keep some great Secrets...concerning may types of herbs.

I can not mention anything concerning the findings in our daliy Trusted literature. I would think it would be very difficult finding anything. Only thing One can do is go on a Search-Trail to small
villages and ask. Which would take many months...
ofcourse. Or One may be lucky in the Public Libraries there?
Yes, it would indeed be most interesting if there would be findings and that could Verify what Jmmanuel had learned about it.

Take Care...Be Healthy...Jim.

Edward...:)

PS: I admire you Great work...:)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Linda
Posted on Monday, September 02, 2002 - 03:37 pm:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hello Jim and all,

Okay, "teach," looks like our homework is cut out for us J

I've continued to do some online research, but the best source I can think of is the local herbologist in the little beach town where I live. He's truly a walking encyclopedia of information and somewhat of a legend here. I'll bet if anyone can direct me to the information, he can!

I'll get back with the results of my research. I haven't done focused exegetical work since my days in seminary, which was almost thirty years
ago. This is fun!

Linda
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Savio
Posted on Monday, September 02, 2002 - 09:13 pm:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hi Jim and all

I think many Chinese traditional(herb) doctors will know this kind of preparation, or, at least,
they should have heard of it as this is not much a sercet.

They will not issue the preparation even if they know it, because it is immoral and will have
strong side effect to the female. Anyhow, for discussion or study will be ok.

Do you have a Chinese traditional doctor nearby?

Perhaps I come back to you if I can find out anything :)

Regards

Savio
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Linda
Posted on Monday, September 02, 2002 - 10:08 pm:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hi again,

Yes, the "medicine man" says that herbs exist and have existed for thousands of years that, if ingested, can cause permanent sterilization. Two that he mentioned are spotted cowbane and stone seed.

Both herbs have been used in Native American cultures, according to his quick reference in American Indian Medicine and footnoted by Anals of New York Academy of Science, May 2, 1952.

It is interesting to note that an additional statement was made to the effect that "using these herbs is considered no less than a crime."

He certainly believes that herbs existed in the Mideast during Immanuel't time that could effect permanent sterilization but had no specific source reference.

Just a start,
Linda
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Jim Deardorff
Posted on Tuesday, September 03, 2002 - 02:55 pm:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hello again, Linda, Edward, Savio,

There are a few good web sites relating to ancient herbal contraception: http://www.unc.edu/courses/rometech/public/content/special/Stephanie_Doerfler/Contraception.html

I didn't have any luck with "spotted cowbane," that is, taking just a slightly larger does of that than what produces any clinical effect causes death! With "stone seed," one of its many effects was mentioned to be a contraceptive effect. But I didn't find any mention of a one-time dose of an herb producing a permanent effect (other than death).

Edward, whereabouts in what country (somewhere in Asia?) do you think that the herbal folklore knows about an herb producing permanent sterilization in a woman?

But I wonder about that line of thought as any solution. The punishment should be something akin to castration in males, i.e., something that greatly reduces sexual desire. The various contraceptive-type herbs would only make it more convenient for a woman to be a harlot.

I'll stay tuned here in case any practical ideas bear fruit!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Linda
Posted on Tuesday, September 03, 2002 - 09:37 pm:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hi Jim,

". . .the punishment should be something that greatly reduces sexual desire."

That's why I suggested the terrible and brutal rite of puberty with young tribal girls. Are we now back to the possiblity that this practice was something of the future?

As an aside issue, I'm having difficulty with these "punishing messages" from Immanuel that sound more like "themes" from the Old Testament.
We recently dealt on the forum with Immanuel's "punishing messages" regarding homosexuals. Was Immanuel really this harsh regarding issues of sexuality? Billy certainly is not, so it seems.

Linda
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Edward
Posted on Tuesday, September 03, 2002 - 11:47 pm:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hi Jim...and Linda..:)

Nice to hear from you again Jim.

Well, I am speaking of the Indonisian Land & Islands.

Well, concening it being made easy for a woman to become a Harlot..I would say...it was just up to the persoon utilizing the herbs.
It's just 'How' the One that utilizes it in One's daily life.
Sure...I would not doubt that it would be utilized by harlots...as well as the average women. Again, it is just in Who's Hands it falls...so to speak.

'A 'Gun' One can Utilize as a Defensive weapon...but One can Also utilize it as a Off-fensive weapon.'

Linda, Well speaking of that Punishment...I would say a Woman's Greatest Gift is to Bear Children. If that is taken away from her.. she...in this case...of punishment....would be Half a Woman...so
to speak...just as the Man would also be...Half a Man.

It is a Gift for Both Man and Woman...to Create Offspring. As This IS...the Creational-Force Within us. A Very Costly Gift...given by
Creation to us.
Jmmanuel states this very Clear also.

But if One...Consciously wants to Sterillize One's self..that is One's Own Choice. With that..One has to accept the Consequences it brings along/about.

Take Care...Be Healthy.

Edward...:)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Jim Deardorff
Posted on Thursday, September 05, 2002 - 08:51 am:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hi Linda, Edward, Savio,

For the present we may need to just consider the matter totally unresolved. The solution might be that Jmmanuel was speaking to a future audience, or he may have known of some herb that could be given to a woman just once and then cause infertility from then on, or he might have been referring to a primitive means of clitorectomy.

I'll see if Christian Frehner of FIGU finds the problem interesting enough to pose to Billy in the next month or two.

Regards,
Jim
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Edward
Posted on Thursday, September 05, 2002 - 10:43 am:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hi Jim...:)

Yes, it is abit difficult to resolve.

Good idea to ask Christian Frehner of FIGU.

Take Care...Be Healthy.

Edward...:)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Linda
Posted on Thursday, September 05, 2002 - 11:11 am:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hi Jim,

I agree. I'm just plain stumped at the moment.
I'll look forward to your question to Billy.

Thanks again,
Linda
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Edward
Posted on Friday, September 06, 2002 - 12:12 pm:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hi Linda....:)

Don't be So Hard on yourself!

BTW: did my e-mail attachment work out this time?

Take Care...Be Healthy.

Edward...:)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Jim Deardorff
Posted on Tuesday, September 10, 2002 - 06:08 pm:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hello Linda et al.,

Christian Frehner replied to my query about this problem, and it seems that Billy discussed the solution to it not too long ago. Here is what Christian said:
[Beginning of quote.] Only a couple of months ago we discussed chapter 12 within the Core Group. Contrary to what we thought was correct (namely entweibt/entmannt =castrated/ sterilized), Billy told us that our "understanding/opinion" was erroneous/false.
Apart from the fact that in those days the people were not able to sterilize women (through an operation), "entmannt/entmannen" and "entweibt/entweiben" means the same as "to expel/banish from the community".
According to our "modern" understanding the verses #5 and #6 in chapter 12 should read as follows:

5. “If unbetrothed men and women bed down with one another in prostitution, they shall be punished also, for the fallible are unworthy of life and its laws; thus they shall be expelled/banished before (from) the people/society/community.
6. “And if two men bed down with each other, then they shall be punished, for those fallible are unworthy of life and its laws and behave heretically; thus they shall also be expelled and banished before the people. (In German this would read: 6: "... so sie entmannt werden sollen, also ausgestossen und verbannt vor dem Volke."

The use of "castrated" and "sterilized" is, therefore, a false translation and must be corrected in the next printing of the TJ.
[End of quote.]

So there you have it. Needless to say, it makes no sense to me, especially for verse TJ 12:11, which contains both the words "entmannt" and "entweibt" and also, immediately following, the words for "expelled" and "banished before the people."

I would predict that the TJ critics will have a good laugh over that.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Savio
Posted on Wednesday, September 11, 2002 - 12:24 am:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hi Jim

An online translator does translate entmannt = sterilized, is it possible that some where it can be
translated or understood as "to expel/banish from the community"?

Would it be possible to ask Christian regarding the repeated wording in TJ 12:11?

Regards

Savio
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Linda
Posted on Wednesday, September 11, 2002 - 09:19 am:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hi Jim,

An interesting follow up! Thanks for getting back to us so quickly.

It appears, then, that the whole unresolved issue really boiled down to translation errors or word misunderstandings, correct?
And, it seems that the only way to avoid punishment, would be to engage in heterosexual matrimony.

Were heterosexual men in those days really punished equally along with the prostitute they bedded down with? It is clear that homosexual men were punished.

Thanks,
Linda
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Jim Deardorff
Posted on Wednesday, September 11, 2002 - 11:25 am:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hi Savio, Linda,

Savio, I've already asked Christian for whatever clarifications and amplifications he might be able to give. My German dictionary doesn't give anything else but "castrated" and "emasculated" for "entmannt," and the root of the word indicates the same. Billy's explanation suggests that Rashid was at fault, in translating whatever Aramaic words caused the problem. but one certainly wonders how he, or possibly Judas Iscariot, could have gone so far wrong, and written verse 12:11 so redundantly.

Linda, you wrote: "It appears, then, that the whole unresolved issue really boiled down to translation errors or word misunderstandings, correct?" Yes, according to Billy.

And you wrote, "And, it seems that the only way to avoid punishment, would be to engage in heterosexual matrimony." Well, TJ 12:5 (2001 edition) seems to allow a bit of an exception if a couple is in love and intend to get married.

And you wrote, "Were heterosexual men in those days really punished equally along with the prostitute they bedded down with?" I really don't know. I suppose that oftentimes neither were punished.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Edward
Posted on Friday, September 13, 2002 - 11:11 am:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hi Jim...:)

Very good of you clearifing concerning some Mistakes in some of
the translations in the TJ.

Well Being Banished from the people I did understand.
This I did acknowledge.

Thanks...Clears up very much..:)

Some Guessing-game we had...:)

Take Care...Be Healthy.

Edward...:)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Edward
Posted on Friday, September 13, 2002 - 11:57 am:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hi Jim again...:)

I was just Thinking; 'Entmannt' is in my language 'Ontmannen' which means 'take away the strength of...or take One's Power of becoming a
Father'...and the correct english word would be 'Emasculated'.
Ontmannen='UnManned'. So you 'Unman' them! From their Procreating offspring.
So...it indeed does Not have to do with Castration(s) or Sterilization(s).

One can just be Banned from the people as it is written. Which means..'No Intercourse' with the Female gender. As being with No Females around the Banished One(s). Thus, He/they can Not Create Offspring. This is all done then...in a Natural way/manner.
This same can be applied to the female gender. And she can Not Become a mother. As there is No males in her/their surroundings.

So the male and females werd banned Apart from eachother. And Not together.

No use for Operations or Herbs...etc..!

This is how I would see/interpret it.

Take Care...Be Healthy.

Edward...:)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Jim Deardorff
Posted on Friday, September 13, 2002 - 03:57 pm:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hello Edward,

Your solution doesn't take into account that TJ 12:12-14, involve just one person, not both male and female, and so it isn't just a matter of separating them.

Also, the one(s) that are banished from the community due to fornication or adultery would be free to continue their sexual promiscuity in the next community. So they might continue to procreate offspring.

I notice that in Leviticus 18:20-29 the punishment for adultery, male homosexuality, and bestiality is to be "cut off from among their people." So Meier's solution to what Jmmanuel taught agrees with the Bible on those matters.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Edward
Posted on Saturday, September 14, 2002 - 01:08 am:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hi Jim...:)

Well as you mentioned "cut off from among their people" ...that is how I also mean.(But incase there are More than One persoon(s).. involved in these acts.) You do have to make Sure where He/they are banned to..and Not populated with the other gender and people. So He/they can not procreate. And if they Do continue there acts..when they are cut off from the people...and their acts will not manifest in the surroundings of the people...and hinder them. So they are under their soort.
As you may know in the middles-ages..when men were banished..in some cases they were banished to an island...and had to labour and live the rest of their lives there. This is more how I mean.

But ofcourse...we can just leave it to Billy. I agree with this.

Take Care...Be Healthy.

Edward...:)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Jim Deardorff
Posted on Sunday, September 15, 2002 - 05:21 pm:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hi Edward,

After thinking over Billy's solution to the problem a bit longer, I tend to agree more with it. In the German words "entmannt" and "entweibt," the prefix "ent" could take on one of its very frequent meanings, which refers to "removal." So the guilty man or woman would be a man-to-be-removed or a woman-to-be-removed, and the implementation of this removal would consist of removing him or her from the community through expelling and banishing them in front of the people.

This would make most sense to me if Aramaic also had a prefix rather like the "ent" in German.

Regards,
Jim
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Edward
Posted on Tuesday, September 17, 2002 - 09:59 am:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hi Jim...:)

Yes, I do agree with what you have posted.

The prefix of 'Ont' in my language is 'Undo or Remove'. So as you can see the Similarity to the words. That was my presumption also.
'Undo/Remove the Man/Woman from people' and as you posted 'Man-to-be-Removed'.(And at the same time they can Not Procreate. As this right is being taken away from them.)
So I do agree with the man-to-be-removed or a woman-to-be-removed as you stated. Or 'Undo/Remove the Man/Woman from people'.
And yes, it would be most interesting if Aramic had a prefix then 'Ent'(Ont).

Tell you what has been Eating me...so to speak.

I keep thinking that the word 'Castration' is indeed a Wrong word of use and being used. The word 'Cast' keeps Flashing in my head.
Just like in 'Cast(away) from the people'. So like 'Cast(away) the Man/Woman from the people'.
It could be?
Could be nothing though. Thought I might tell you this. And that the word Castration was just the Wrong word. And it was also made Related to Sterilization? Just by Error of finding the appropriate words. Linking it by accident.


Take Care...Be Healthy.

Edward...:)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Jim Deardorff
Posted on Wednesday, September 18, 2002 - 01:16 pm:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Yet, I don't know how far fetched this may seem to an expert in the Aramaic language. Take TJ 12:12, whose structure reads like:

...and shall therefore be punished, that he become "entmannt" or "entweibt", and be deprived of freedom ... . Here "er" (he) seems to be used in the he/she sense, and one wonders why a word or phrase for "removed from the community" couldn't have been used for either sex.

Perhaps one must presume that a single word or two for "a person to be removed from the community" was used all along, and Rashid misinterpreted it as meaning "to be removed of his manhood" and so had to say it a second time to include the case of a woman. The one thing going for this possible solution is TJ 12:4, where it says, "It is written" pertaining to punishment for adultery and fornication. But that's Leviticus 18:20-29, where the punishment is to "be cut off from among their people." It doesn't say anything about castration or sterilization. So perhaps Rashid assumed the wrong thing would be "cut off."
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Edward
Posted on Thursday, September 19, 2002 - 12:33 pm:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hi Jim...:)

Hope you are doing fine...:)

Yes, I Truely and Fully would agree with what you have posted.
This is also how I presumed it to be. I may have had a problem trying to make it all come across to you. As I do sometimes have problems translating from my language to english.
So, I would also think Rashid did by accident misinterpret the mentioned.
So, the "entmannt=OntMan=Undo/Remove/Cut Off/Cast Man" or "entweibt=OntVrouw=Undo/Remove/Cut Off/Cast Woman" from the community(banished before
the people)... would indeed be related as we have stated.
One can even just utilize the word 'Cast'=throw/
throwdown/throwout/throwoff/dismiss/disband.(One can go on...if there is more definitions..)

And the word 'Cast(away)' was just something I just thought to mention.
So it did not concern 'Castrate'...but 'Castaway', as both words seem to almost look and sound alike. But Castaway than not One who has come to land from a wrecked ship...but Castaway One who has come to land from a wrecked Directive.

So, concerning Leviticus would indeed be best in it's place...I would also think. I agree it does not mention castration or sterilization.

You've explained it very clear.

Well, then we must keep it hereby...:)
I have further nothing to ad. Your clearification suits the whole context.

Take Care...Be Healthy.

Edward...:)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Jim Deardorff
Posted on Monday, September 30, 2002 - 03:38 pm:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hello Edward,

One correction. I did not mean to imply that because "castrate" and "cast away" start out with the same 4 letters, in English, that this would explain anything. I was thinking that when Rashid saw the Aramaic word for "cut off," not followed by "from their community," he assumed that "cut off" referred to the penalty for fornication being to cut off the guilty man's testicles.

The question this raises is: why weren't the words "from the community" present in TJ 12:4, if it was quoting from Leviticus, in which case Rashid wouldn't have made that incorrect assumption (if he did)? I suggested that perhaps the "cut off" penalty was so well known in those days that they didn't always bother to state or write "from the community" after it.

The only new thought I have is a second possible answer to this question. According to Billy, in the TJ Foreword, when they looked at the scrolls, various pieces of them "were completely illegible and decayed." Perhaps this was one of those places -- "from the community" was so illegible that Rashid didn't guess it had been what was written there.

Regards,
Jim
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Edward
Posted on Monday, September 30, 2002 - 04:08 pm:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hi Jim.

Yes, very interesting what you have mentioned.
That was what I was Thinking also. And concerning the scrolls...etc.. this would indeed explane the Misunderstaning(s). Without a doubt!

I would agree with Jim. Very good result.


Edward.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Savio
Member

Post Number: 432
Registered: 07-2000
Posted on Friday, August 22, 2003 - 12:09 am:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hello

7. "..... and the power of the Creational spirit within humans embodies life."

I would like to ask:

1. What is the meaning of "Creational spirit" in simple English?

2. What is the meaning of this sentence?

Thanks :-)

Savio
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Jim
New member

Post Number: 3
Registered: 07-2003
Posted on Tuesday, September 16, 2003 - 10:40 am:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hello Savio,

1. I presume it means one's individual spirit, which derives from Creation.

2. Each of our spirits is embodied, and life is impossible without an embodied spirit.

So I think the meaning is that simple. The disciples could probably be entrusted to preach only the simplest or most basic things. Otherwise, 2.) might be interpreted as also meaning that awareness of one's spirit leads to life as it is meant to be lived.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Savio
Member

Post Number: 436
Registered: 07-2000
Posted on Tuesday, September 16, 2003 - 09:12 pm:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hi Jim

Thanks for the explanation :-)

I was thinking Creational might mean universal or something creative.... which is not quite meaningful.

Yes, I have a better picture now.

Regards

Savio
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Joseph_emmanuel
Member

Post Number: 28
Registered: 05-2004
Posted on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 07:39 am:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hello

This is with reference to chapter 4, verse 57 and chapter 10, verse 2. Maybe someone can help clear this up.

Chapter 4, verse 57 says: “As he went on, he saw two other brothers, Jacob, the son of Zebedee, and John, his brother…”

In the German translation of this verse it says: “Und als er von dannen weiterging, sah er zwei andere Bruder, Jakobus, den Sohn des Zebedaus, und Johannes, seinen Bruder.”

While in chapter 10, verse 2, it says: “These are the names of the twelve disciples: Simon called Peter, and Andrew, his brother; James, the son of Zebedee, and John, his brother.”

And in the German translation it says: “Die namen aber der zwolf junger sind diese: Simeon, genannt Petrus, und Adreas, sein Bruder; Jakobus, des Zebedaus Sohn, hund Johannes, sein Bruder.”

Clearly in chapter 4, verse 57 it refers to Jacob the son of Zebedee in both the English and the German translation. But it chapter 10, verse 2 it refers to James the son of Zebedee in the English translation and Jacob in the German translation. My question is, therefore, is James a variation of Jacob, or is this a mistranslation?


Also in chapter 10, verse 2 the names of all the twelve disciples are given, while in the preceding chapters only five are given, whom Jmmanuel comes upon and asks to follow him. They are Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew, his brother; Jacob, the son of Zebedee, and John, his brother; and Matthew. Why isn’t there mention of the other disciples whom Jmmanuel had clearly met by chapter 10? It gives the impression as though some large part of the story is missing.

It is also interesting to note that by the time Jmmanuel gave his sermon on the mount in chapter 5, there were only four disciples with him.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Jim
Member

Post Number: 40
Registered: 07-2003
Posted on Wednesday, August 25, 2004 - 12:56 pm:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hello Joseph,

Your guess is correct--James is an English version of Jacob, of which the German is Jacobus or Jakobus in the TJ. The English translation failed to be consistent in which to use. "Jacob" is closer to the German, but "James" is what all the bibles use.

It seems likely that the other seven disciples were recruited at the end of TJ 9, in 9:47. This was the great harvest. Jmmanuel needed more than 5 and he got them. And remember, there were no chapter divisions or anything within the original Aramaic, and so the mention and naming of the twelve occurs immediately after this acquisition of the rest of the disciples.

Yes, at the time of the Sermon on the Mount, Judas Iscariot was apparently not yet a disciple. So Jmmanuel had to dictate that to him later, along with his genealogy and much else in the TJ's earlier chapters, as well as later ones. However, it might be that Judas Iscariot became a disciple some time before the great harvest; the placement of his name at the end of the twelve in TJ 10:4 might only have been due to writer's modesty. Similar modesty then may explain why he didn't say just when he himself became a disciple.

Regards,
Jim
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Joseph_emmanuel
Member

Post Number: 88
Registered: 05-2004
Posted on Sunday, May 29, 2005 - 02:05 am:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Since we know Satan to be a delusional personality, why does Jmmanuel make reference to him in this chapter, verse 31:

“But he turned to Peter, became angry and said, "Get away from me, Satan, for you are an annoyance, because you are thinking not in spiritual but in human terms.”
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Jim
Member

Post Number: 55
Registered: 07-2003
Posted on Sunday, May 29, 2005 - 08:56 am:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"Satan" was a term long known within Judaism, which meant "the adversary" or its personification. So Jmmanuel here was just using a derogatory term for Peter to shock him and wake him up to the magnitude of his ignorance.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Memo00
Member

Post Number: 138
Registered: 03-2004
Posted on Sunday, May 29, 2005 - 07:07 pm:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

hi Joseph

some time ago i made myself that question,

after reading the Talmud and other FIGU material (49 questions) in which it is said that the "devil" is the result of the distortion of the story of a man called Teubel (Teufel means devil in german) who really existed and used the powers of the consciousness to help his people (and had "horns" in his skull)

i thought that with Satan there could be something similar, so i asked Billy and he said:

"Satan wasn't a real person. It was the personification of "evil", a term he used like "heaven" and "hell", which are no places/locations, but inner states of mind."

so in this case Satan is used like an adjective, like ignorant

take care
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Jim
Member

Post Number: 63
Registered: 07-2003
Posted on Saturday, July 08, 2006 - 02:14 pm:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Here's a different couple of questions, concerning TJ 15:67-83, and especially 15:67-72 (1992, 1996 and 2001 versions of the TJ).

1. Why would some people in the synagogue need to ask how Jmmanuel came by such wisdom and deeds, if they knew that his father had been a guardian angel?

2. Why would people in the synagogue be appalled or horrified at what Jmmanuel taught, if they knew his teachings stemmed from his great wisdom?

About the only partial answer I have is that perhaps the people who asked the questions were being derisive rather than sincere, and didn't believe the oral tradition that said Jmmanuel had been fathered by a guardian angel.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Savio
Senior Member

Post Number: 551
Registered: 07-2000
Posted on Sunday, July 09, 2006 - 03:03 am:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hi Jim

Yes, I would agree with you that it would be normal for those people not to believe that Jmmanuel was fathered by a guardian angel, anyway, it was then a 30 years old legend.

On the other hand, Jmmanuel’s brothers and sisters were just ordinary people that everyone knew too well, as a rule, as common people, they would not even know how to read or write.

Now, Jmmanuel suddenly stood among them after running away from home for 18 years, it would be quite horrifying to see that the knowledge/wisdom gap between them and Jmmanuel had been so huge.

Perhaps, out of the feeling of inferiority, plus a bit jealousy, they took offense of Jmmanuel.

It is still quite common nowadays that people would take offense of their neighbors if they suddenly become rich.

Just some thoughts

Savio
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Jim
Member

Post Number: 64
Registered: 07-2003
Posted on Sunday, July 09, 2006 - 10:50 am:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hi Savio,

Those are all interesting thoughts. Yes, the gap between Immanuel and his family members would loom large and seem unexplainable for those who didn't take any stock in the guardian-angel story.

It wouldn't have been as long as 18 years, though, that he was away. Recall, he was born in the time of Herod the Tetrarch, not King Herod as the writer of Matthew falsified it. So it was more like 12 years or so he had been away.
Jim
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Norm
Member

Post Number: 1041
Registered: 02-2000
Posted on Tuesday, November 14, 2006 - 04:25 pm:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Should the mistakes between the various TJs be archived on a website? It could be used to avoid confusion for newbies.
My Website
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Jim
Member

Post Number: 69
Registered: 07-2003
Posted on Tuesday, November 14, 2006 - 09:38 pm:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I should think that using the latest edition of the TJ would produce the least confusion. To examine mistakes or differences between the different versions, one can, with some effort, look at copies of the various editions of the TJ itself, and compare them.

Jim
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Junior
Member

Post Number: 127
Registered: 12-2004
Posted on Tuesday, November 14, 2006 - 10:16 pm:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Salome Norm,

I guess it would be a good idea to have it documented, I could imagine it should be some where, I guess the person to ask is the one that was responsible for the correction of the English translations of the TJ, most probably its just notes. But then again the notes might have been thrown away. Instead of starting from scratch by comparing the various corrected editions.
Salome,
Badr
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Mqhassan
Member

Post Number: 7
Registered: 06-2006
Posted on Saturday, December 23, 2006 - 11:54 am:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hello Badr, Jim,

Could you please inform me when the latest 2006 promised edition of TJ is to appear ?

I have seen the Steelmark website and it seems that it wasnt updated for some time.

I am waiting eagerly to make a purchase of TJ and hopefully OM when it gets the English translation approved

Salome

Mohammed
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Jim
Member

Post Number: 70
Registered: 07-2003
Posted on Saturday, December 23, 2006 - 09:33 pm:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hello Mohammed,

All previous estimates of when the 4th edition of the TJ would appear have failed the past two years. So you will just have to email the addresses on the Steelmark web site and ask them, and perhaps also email Christian Frehner and ask him, and then cross your fingers!

This topic has not belonged in this spot on the Forum, but rather under the TJ general section.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Junior
Member

Post Number: 135
Registered: 12-2004
Posted on Saturday, December 23, 2006 - 09:50 pm:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hi Mohammed,

I am sorry I don't know when it is going to be released... I am sure someone on the forum could help out with your enquiry, if not try to send an email to FIGU...
Salome,
Badr
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Mario
Member

Post Number: 15
Registered: 03-2004
Posted on Tuesday, January 09, 2007 - 04:18 pm:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hi all,

Regarding this matter:

Posted by James Deardorff on Monday, August 26, 2002 - 10:25 am:

"...concerning the word "sterilized" as a punishment for adulterous or fornicating women. The German word "entweibt" means "de-womanized," for which "sterilized" is the obvious meaning.
"The problem is, as far as we know, there was no known means to sterilize women until a century or two ago, through surgery".

And then, also by James Deardorff, Posted on Tuesday, September 10, 2002 - 06:08 pm:

"Christian Frehner replied to my query about this problem, and it seems that Billy discussed the solution to it not too long ago. Here is what Christian said:
[Beginning of quote.] Only a couple of months ago we discussed chapter 12 within the Core Group. Contrary to what we thought was correct (namely entweibt/entmannt =castrated/ sterilized), Billy told us that our "understanding/opinion" was erroneous/false.
Apart from the fact that in those days the people were not able to sterilize women (through an operation), "entmannt/entmannen" and "entweibt/entweiben" means the same as "to expel/banish from the community".

In spanish is a little bit easier to translate as "to keep (a woman) away from men (so she can't have a chance to become pregnant)", which is consistent with Billy's clarification, though Billy's is more severe.

In english, I found that the term "womanize" is (from Wordnet 2.0, Princeton University) "to give a (more) feminine, effeminate, or womanly quality or appearance to" or "have amorous affairs; of men; "He has been womanizing for years". So it seems then that the term de-womanize should be the contrary just like the spanish translation...

Just my thoughts.

Kind regards

Mario
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Indi
Member

Post Number: 52
Registered: 06-2006
Posted on Tuesday, January 09, 2007 - 08:24 pm:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hi Mario

I guess that if one was raised in a society where one of the values was monogomy, with the flip side being that adultery was 'wrong' --- then if one was captured/caught/exposed, there would at the very least be guilt and ostracisation, and rejection by the society which is a form of metaphoric castration, whether male or female.

When one is shunned, one loses their role within the group thus are demasculinised, defeminised. And I wouldn't be surprised if physiologically, there would be a reaction within the genitals of the 'offenders', creating a form of castration in the form of a blockage of some kind.

Just a thought

Robjna
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Mario
Member

Post Number: 16
Registered: 03-2004
Posted on Tuesday, January 09, 2007 - 10:58 pm:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hello, Robjna,

Yes, I agree, though Billy clarified that it was not a punishment of a physiological nature, but a moral one, so the men and women who committed these kind of wrongdoings had the chance to think and ponder so they could be able to recognize the truth and change their minds and hearts.

At the time when Jmmanuel was active in Palestine, many people were ignorant and/or perverted and his mission was to lead those people to the right path according to the Laws of Creation and the Natural Laws and Directives.

This situation reminds me of that one discussed once on this forum where it was said that when some E.T's gone bad were caught, they were not imprisoned, but left alone on a unhabited planet so they have the time to think about their wrong actions.

What do you think?

Best regards

Mario
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Peter_brodowski
Member

Post Number: 267
Registered: 01-2004
Posted on Friday, January 19, 2007 - 10:28 am:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

hello,
i was wondering if there is a tj verse 12:27 and 12:26.
and if there is, can somebody please offer me the english translation of those verses?
thanks.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Mario
Member

Post Number: 20
Registered: 03-2004
Posted on Friday, January 19, 2007 - 01:53 pm:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hello, Peter

I have TJ (1996 edition) and in Chapter 12, verses 26 and 27, it reads:

26. But when a man marries a woman, he should pay to her most trusted steward of her possessions a price as security, so that she will not suffer from lack or necessities.

27. The price should be calculated whereby a hundred pieces of silver will be required for each year of the woman's age, if her health is not lacking. Thus she will be measured in accordance with her knowledge, abilities and strength.

You know, this got me thinking very seriously as most of our women now won't marry before they're 30 and many of them have Ph.D's, go to gym... :-)
Bad joke, I know, no offense, I deeply love and respect women.

Best regards

Mario
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Peter_brodowski
Member

Post Number: 268
Registered: 01-2004
Posted on Friday, January 19, 2007 - 09:18 pm:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

hello mario,
me too, i also love and respect women. :-)
although, i think it's just as great being a man.

now that you mention it, about your last paragraph...
the impression i get is that many women still cant wait to start a family,they are almost brainwashed to think once they hit 21 they should have a boyfriend soon to marry and get children by 24 or 25. but on the flipside more and more are becoming less dependant on men.
and more and more like you say, are furthering their education and taking much deserved advantage of what this male dominated society offers them. have you ever seen the u.s. congress? what a nightmare.

yes,i too noticed that they do go to the gym :-)
much respect to anybody that works out (it's a lot lot lot of effort to get a physique of a body builder like in the magazines)

but to keep on topic...
i wonder what can be said for these times, in regards to jmmanuels 11:26 and 11:27?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Mario
Member

Post Number: 21
Registered: 03-2004
Posted on Saturday, January 20, 2007 - 11:17 am:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hi Peter,

Yes, you say it well. Women are taking their own place in a male dominated society. Jmmanuel's words from TJ 11:26 and 11:27 were meant for that time, according to what was considered "right" back then because of the low education level, and I think it was a measure to protect and dignify women as human beings, even though it is mentioned a transaction-like action, it was evidently for protection and to avoid abuse.

For these times we're living, I think it's better to listen to our present prophet and teacher... though I think this issue we can solve for ourselves as we're men that love and respect women, don't you agree?

Kind regards

Mario
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Peter_brodowski
Member

Post Number: 269
Registered: 01-2004
Posted on Saturday, January 20, 2007 - 12:27 pm:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

true. i agree.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Jakes
Member

Post Number: 59
Registered: 10-2006
Posted on Saturday, January 20, 2007 - 01:25 pm:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

If a piece of silver is an “ounce”, then the price to pay for a woman’s security, in today’s US dollars, is 100 x $12.81 x years in age. So the price to pay when marrying a 30 year old woman is $38,430 USD. A little more pricey than the typical engagement ring. Think of all the women that have been cheated!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Jakes
Member

Post Number: 60
Registered: 10-2006
Posted on Saturday, January 20, 2007 - 02:04 pm:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Today they may not get you up front while the hormones of lust are raging, but they’ll still get you in the end with divorce, alimony, community property rights… That’ll make 100 pieces of silver look like chump-change.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Markc
Member

Post Number: 427
Registered: 06-2000
Posted on Saturday, January 20, 2007 - 09:05 pm:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The currency values have changed in 2000 years .

That says it all .
Mark Campbell
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Leann
Member

Post Number: 15
Registered: 08-2006
Posted on Friday, February 02, 2007 - 03:18 pm:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

You guys make me smile. The only copy of the TJ that I've read is the one that Dyson pointed out online. It says it's the 3rd edition. I noticed a typo in Eduard on page 3 and wanted to bring it to someone's attention in case it hasn't been caught before. My question is regarding page 155, the warrior women of the North, do you know who they were? Thanks.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Jim
Member

Post Number: 71
Registered: 07-2003
Posted on Friday, February 02, 2007 - 09:22 pm:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hello Leann,

This belongs under TJ 35 rather than under chapter 12. Look for a brief response there.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Markc
Member

Post Number: 440
Registered: 06-2000
Posted on Friday, February 02, 2007 - 10:16 pm:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hi Leann ;

They were the Nordic women whose husbands were killed in wars .Historically documented and corroborated by archaeological finds ( women with one breast removed for marksmanship) who had nothing to do with the Brazilian jungle .

Mark
Mark Campbell
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Markc
Member

Post Number: 441
Registered: 06-2000
Posted on Friday, February 02, 2007 - 10:19 pm:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I forgot to mention that they were referred to as Amazons .

Mark
Mark Campbell

Administration Administration Log Out Log Out   Previous Page Previous Page Next Page Next Page