| Author | Message | ||
    Jim Deardorff |
Chris, But do you know of any reliable written source that mentions this or describes it? Jim | ||
Philip_george Member Post Number: 11 Registered: 03-2003 |
The three Races of Earth humans mentioned by Jmmanuel are the brown race from India, still there today, the white race in Scandinavia and the red race in North America. There are other races like the Latin race that were also created and served other gods but they were all under one god at the time. The Hebrews were never a race but a collection of arch-criminals from different tribes of humans from India across to Africa and the Middle East. In their smugness and conceit they assumed themselves to be a "chosen" people and superior to all others and elected a new god who said they were the favourite of god's people, which is a joke. Each city had walls surrounding it and the most deplorable criminals were kicked outside these walls. They were called "Hebraon" or "the scum of scum". These joined forces with other Hebraon-ites and wandered the deserts looking for weak cities to conquer and invade. The Old Testament covers these stories somewhat. Likewise today the present-day Israelis continue to act in this manner, stealing land and murdering their neighbours out of a bood-lust emotions. One of these days they will get their due.... | ||
Norm Member Post Number: 608 Registered: 02-2000 |
Philip_george, Today Jews are not even the same people. Most of todays Jews are converts from Khazaria, Russia. | ||
Markc Member Post Number: 65 Registered: 06-2000 |
Hi Philip ; You know , there seems to be something essentially wrong with a line of thinking like that . Certainly it follows a line of logic historically , and people generally get "bit" by their previous inclinations of past lives as I understand it . But bear with me for this : It seems to follow an illogical path of hatred to wait or expect an entire race of people to "get their dirty reward" or to fall ill by the deceit of their ancestors . The constant terror that the Israelis live under is enough , don't you think ? To expect that they haven't suffered enough seems hateful to me .It doesn't seem to have an end to it does it ? So it's substantial suffering already. I think it needs to be said , partially because this website does not condone anti-semitism , however accurate the information may be .Also , stating things as you have can only initiate defensiveness ; and what is preferred is to reveal truth , and thereby learning and improvement . We can only hope that responsible people will be touched by the information contained in these webpages . Thank you . | ||
Howard Member Post Number: 54 Registered: 05-2003 |
The reason why other people will not use the information by billy for their own negative goals is because they are so hopelessy addicted to their own beliefs. Nazis would be a danger though. | ||
Norm Member Post Number: 609 Registered: 02-2000 |
I would like to elaborate on my last statement about today's Jews. Since most of today's Jews are not related to the Jews of the past. I feel that today's Jews are not the ones responsible for past problems associated with the old Hebrews/Hebraon. Today's Jews are only suffering because they follow the false religious beliefs of the old Hebrews/Hebraon. | ||
Jim New member Post Number: 1 Registered: 07-2003 |
I'd welcome some opinions on TJ 27:38 (and perhaps also TJ 31) when Jmmanuel told his disciples that he wouldn't eat or drink with them again until some time after his ordeal (crucifixion) -- TJ2001 edition. His first meeting with his disciples afterwards was on Sunday evening, but it seems to have been brief and there is no mention of anyone having any food or drink. The next meeting was the following day on the road to Galilee. But again no eating involved. Then it was only long afterwards that he met with his disciples, or some of them, at Lake Galilee and ate a fish meal with them. Surely he had to eat and drink before then. So how is TJ 27:38 to be best interpreted? Perhaps literally -- he ate and drank afterwards, but sustenance other than bread or wine? Regards, Jim | ||
Jim New member Post Number: 2 Registered: 07-2003 |
Regarding Philip's post on the three race/cultures of Earth mentioned in this chapter and elsewhere in the TJ, TJ 28:54 mentions them as being 1) the people right there in the Palestinian area (Semitic and Arab), 2) those in India, and 3) those to the north (Scandinavians and more probably). The Amerindians must have been one of the other seven lineages mentioned in TJ 28:55. I'm not sure if the Europeans and Aryans are to be considered as in category 2 or 3. | ||
Yusuf Member Post Number: 7 Registered: 07-2003 |
Jim I don’t think this is meant to be interpreted lilterally. If I am correct, “drinking of the fruit of the vineyard” is in reference to the parable “The Weeds among the Good Fruit”; and that he says he will no longer be able to drink of it, I think, means his spirit will be hindered for a time from growing, or he will not be able to use the power of his spirit, because of the overwhelming nature of his ordeal. Also, if I am correct, “eating the grain of the bread” is in reference to the prayer “Give me today my daily bread, that I may recognize my wrongdoings and the truth,” where bread in this instance, I believe, is cognisance. The “grain of the bread”, therefore, I would assume, is the knowledge that precedes cognisance. And so not being able to eat the grain seems to me to mean not being able to learn or gain knowledge, although his ordeal was to give him a special insight, TJ 27:2. But this was not until after he recovered from his ordeal, when he was able to drink and eat again with his disciples: meaning to resume his self-government. I’m not certain that this is correct. It is just my interpretation. But the use of the phrases “drink of the fruit of the vineyard” and “eat the grain of the bread” seem to me to be symbolic. | ||
Jim Member Post Number: 5 Registered: 07-2003 |
Yusuf, I find that interpretation rather improbable, but perhaps not. I find it improbable that Jmmanuel's spirit wouldn't be subject to growth during many days before his final meeting with the disciples. And I do think that the drink of the fruit of the vineyard simply means wine. Here's another literal interpretation, perhaps too modern: He needed to stay off of wine until his internal wounds could heal up, otherwise the wine would thin his blood more than would be advisable to keep internal bleeding from springing up. And he needed to stay off of bread from grains, as it is hard to digest if you have a stomach injury. Perhaps the spear thrust to his loins injured his stomach or digestive system, so that he had to eat just soft foods and honey and such, for a couple weeks. Just a wild speculation! | ||
Savio Member Post Number: 437 Registered: 07-2000 |
Hi Jim I would take it literally, as Jmmanuel seldom spoke to his disciples with very deep spiritual meaning. I think, since Jmmanuel was so badly injured, it would have adverse effect if he drank wine, as for the wound at his loin, it might hurt his stomach as well, hence it was no good to eat something solid like bread until he was fully recovered. Perhaps Jmmanuel had to live on something like congee or the like before he was fully recovered again? Regards Savio | ||
Jim Member Post Number: 6 Registered: 07-2003 |
OK, Savio, I'm glad you find the literal possibility to make sense. What is congee? In the dictionary it has an entirely different meaning than of any food. | ||
Savio Member Post Number: 438 Registered: 07-2000 |
Hi Jim Me too, glad to see that we share the same point of view  Congee is a kind of thin/thick soup made of rice, very easy to digest and especially suitable for patients with stomach problems and/or recovering patients that normal food is too hard for them. Usually, minced meat is added to offer more nutrient to the patient. More information here: http://www.inmamaskitchen.com/RECIPES/RECIPES/Soups/Congee.html Regards Savio | ||
Jim Member Post Number: 7 Registered: 07-2003 |
Hi Savio, Perhaps he subsisted for awhile mainly on liquid sustenance such as broths. That congee URL says it's made up primarily from rice, which isn't grown in the Middle East. | ||
Savio Member Post Number: 439 Registered: 07-2000 |
Hi Jim Yes, I agree with you Just anything creamy with nutrient will do. | ||
Markc Member Post Number: 76 Registered: 06-2000 |
Hi Jim and Savio; Awhile ago "Meramie" was brought up in reference to Jmmanuel . Wasn't this an herb that was used for it's health benefits ? Perhaps the Indian friends that assisted his recovery brought some rice with them . A good substitute would be barley which I believe is abundant in the region , or wheat . Oats would aid in the recovery of his nervous system as well as the healing of skin . Regards , Mark | ||
Der_beobachter Member Post Number: 11 Registered: 05-2003 |
Hello MarkC and everyone, Regarding Meramie plant mentioned in this Discussion: Read about Meramie,((Salvia Fruticosa=Marva Meshuleshet in Hebrew)=Marammiye=Marmariya=Meramehin plant that is mentioned in TJ 24:28 here in this old posting of mine. I researched about about this "misterious" plant 2 yrs ago by inquiring an Israeli botanics expert in a University in Middle East then gave the info to Dr. Jim Deardorff. You can see also a picture of real plants in this posting too. Dr Jim Deardorff thinks maybe they used this plant as medicine in the past. See here about Meramie plant with photo: http://forum.figu.org/us/messages/2200/1303.html#POST6862 Saalome Der Beobachter Edelweiß | ||
Jim Member Post Number: 8 Registered: 07-2003 |
Hello MarkC and "The Observer", Were you, Mark, speaking of barley and other grains as items Jmmanuel might have eaten while recovering the next few weeks after the crucifixion? The original question was his statement that he would not eat the grain of the bread (or drink wine) until later when he did so with his disciples, and this wasn't apparently until long afterwards (TJ 31:49). | ||
Markc Member Post Number: 77 Registered: 06-2000 |
Hi Jim ; Yes I was referring to ther possibilty of a congee-like porridge that could be made from those grains , which could contain none of the grain fiber . Mark | ||
Savio Member Post Number: 442 Registered: 07-2000 |
Dear all I refer to TJ chapter 20/11 1996 version 11. "But I say to you: Whoever divorces, except for fornication or other stipulated errors made by the others, and marries someone else, is breaking a marriage." 2001 version 11"But I say to you, whosoever divorces, except for fornication or the other stipulated transgressions, and marries someone else, commits adultery." As we can see that "breaking a marriage" is very much different from "commits adultery". I tried to find the meaning of the text in the German version, it seems that breaking a marriage is the original meaning. Comments are welcome Savio | ||
Edward Member Post Number: 327 Registered: 05-2002 |
Hi Savio.... I Always LOVE your "Sharp" Postings... Yes, here is a very good example of the Changes in the two editions. Well, as what I can make-up of your posting; is that, if One Divorces Because of "fornication or the other stipulated transgressions, And Marries Someone Else(Anew)"... - You Comment Adultery -. OK. But if One Does Not "Re-Marry".., One Is Not Commiting Adultery. Thus, One can try to "Reconcile" in marriage and ask "Forgiveness"..and, thus Not make the Divorce-Procedure come into reality. Thus, this marriage can still be Saved..by Forgiveness and Good Reason. Thus in plain old Practise or English - Give it Another Try -. Thus, a Re-marriage is the Last Think One should Think of! "Mistakes" can be made in marriages...which is Very Human. But there is Always a Time To "Reason" and to try to make the marriage work again. Thus, a Divorce should Not Be...- The Easy Way Out - ! Thus if One wants to Divorce...for No Good Reason...One Is Truely Commiting Adultery...in it's True Meaning. Thus as you may Know...Marriage is a Bond of Two Spirit-forms that should try a "Fuse" into One Unity. Thus, "Sacred" as a Unity with Much "Responsiblity"...when the couple take the Oath of Matrimony. And when there are Offspring...the Responsiblity is even Greater! TJ-20:5 "Truely, a person will leave father and mother for the sake of marriage and will cling to their spouse, as to become one flesh and blood. TJ-20:6 "So they are now no longer two, but one flesh and blood, which is uniquely theirs. TJ-20:7 "From one flesh and blood they bring forth offspring, who again are of the same flesh and blood as their father and mother. TJ-20:8 "What has been joined together in this way, man shall not part, because it is against the laws of nature." Thus, this would be my interpretation. Edward. | ||
Jim Member Post Number: 10 Registered: 07-2003 |
Hi Savio, and Edward, In German, adultery is given by the word Ehebruch, if you look it up in a German dictionary. To commit adultery is given by ehebrechen. An adulterer is an Ehebrecher. That's how their word for adultery came into being, by combining the word for marriage (Ehe) and "to break"--brechen. So the 2001 translation is the best one. The 1996 translation might be considered more literal, in a sense, but leads to uncertainty. | ||
Savio Member Post Number: 443 Registered: 07-2000 |
Hi Edward Thanks for your detailed explanation Yes I agree ! Savio | ||
Savio Member Post Number: 444 Registered: 07-2000 |
Hi Jim Your explanation of the German words give me the real meaning of what the sentence would have intended, yes, I would agree that the 1996 translation is a bit literal. On the other hand, I have found that on the whole, the 2001 version is better translated and more meaningful than the 1996 one, I am aware of the great effort that you and the other members have put in during the translation and proof reading, a job well done! Thank you Savio | ||
Jim Member Post Number: 19 Registered: 07-2003 |
TJ 28:54 (any version) is a verse that mentions the three regions of Earth under the supervision of El or god. One of them is "in the north from the land of the king with horns to the sea where icy mountains drift in the water." I have a fresh thought about who this king with horns was. In the German, it is worded "the horned king." Now, around the 1st century A.D. and for some time before, there was a great god in Celtic regions, which lay considerably to the north of Palestine, who was known as the "horned one." The books on mythology and history call him Cernunnos, which is the Roman name for "horned one" (Cern = horn as in cornucopia (horn of plenty) and unos being "one"). He is described from images on icons as being bearded, sometimes sitting in a cross-legged position, and wearing a helmet with horns. He was evidently well known. Well, I tend to believe now that he was no "god," but just a dominant ruler or king who posed as a god by wearing horns. The tradition of certain gods, like Pan, having horns, goes way back. And in that same time era, we know that the Roman emperors were considered gods. The horned kingship, with helmet, might have been passed down from father to son for a few generations before the time of Jmmanuel. So I think the TJ has provided information on the topic of Cernunnos not previously known. 1st century A.D. seems rather late for a genuine "god" to have been visiting extensively. Does anyone else have additional thoughts on this? One can find Cernunnos on the web. Jim | ||
Edward Member Post Number: 376 Registered: 05-2002 |
Hi Jim.. Concerning: One of them is "in the north from the land of the king with horns to the sea where icy mountains drift in the water." I take it, that this means The Vikings. Up in the Northern European countries. As their GOD and Ruler was "Thor", King of Thunder. Thor always shown with his Hammer which when he struck it, or points it in any direction...it shoot off beams of thunder. Thus, the Hammer is called "The Hammer of The Gods", which is imaged in all their GODLY figures. As I can remember, that the Vikings also "Identified" themselves as direct offspring of the True Blonde/Red haired Blue/Green eyed Germanic Race. Which through endless wars with Christian invaders and occupiers caused their "Extinction". Thor is the Norse god of thunder. He is a son of Odin and Jord, and one of the most powerful gods. He is married to Sif, a fertility goddess. His mistress is the giantess Jarnsaxa ("iron cutlass"), and their sons are Magni and Modi and his daughter is Thrud. Thor is helped by Thialfi, his servant and the messenger of the gods. Thor was usually portrayed as a large, powerful man with a red beard and eyes of lighting. Despite his ferocious appearance, he was very popular as the protector of both gods and humans against the forces of evil. He even surpassed his father Odin in popularity because, contrary to Odin, he did not require human sacrifices. In his temple at Uppsala he was shown standing with Odin at his right side. This temple was replaced by a Christian church in 1080. This is what I found concening "Cernunnos": Cernunnos, The Celtic Horned God of Fertility "The Horned One" is a Celtic god of fertility, life, animals, wealth, and the underworld. He was worshipped all over Gaul, and his cult spread into Britain as well. Cernunnos is depicted with the antlers of a stag, sometimes carries a purse filled with coin. The Horned God is born at the winter solstice, marries the Goddess at Beltane, and dies at the summer solstice. He alternates with the Goddess of the moon in ruling over life and death, continuing the cycle of death, rebirth and reincarnation. Paleolithic cave paintings found in France that depict a stag standing upright or a man dressed in stag costume seem to indicate that Cernunnos' origins date to those times. Romans sometimes portrayed him with three cranes flying above his head. This was the image that was used to symbolize Satan in the Christian religion. To the Celts, Cernunnos (or Herne, as he is also known) was the the Lord, the consort of the Lady, and not even remotely a symbol of evil. He is one of the principle Gods worshipped today among Pagans. (source:http://www.dutchie.org/Tracy/cern.html) "The Celtic fascination with deer came to a focus in the great Antlered God Cernunnos. Though his name is not recorded anywhere until historic times, Cernunnos may well have been worshipped and followed by mystics, hunters and magicians since Paleolithic times (c. 40,000 – c. 10,000 BCE). Thus his cult and the mysticism surrounding him pre-date the advent of Celtic culture and religion." See further: http://www.isisbooks.com/cernunnos.asp) Also interesting: http://fantalov.tripod.com/Gaulish.htm Yes, I would also agree Jim..that the TJ indeed has provided information on the topic of Cernunnos not previously known. So, in this chapter that the Norweigian lands with Icy Mountains was mentioned was very interesting to read about...I found it. And that this God was even mentioned in the north of Palestine regions even. He must have really gotten around! Yes, surely he was just a Man-made God and not of ET origin...I would think? Good that you have brought this up. Edward. | ||
Jim Member Post Number: 20 Registered: 07-2003 |
Hi Edward, I've been hoping to find some literary mention of "the horned king", but so far haven't succeeded. One place I looked was in the commentaries of Julius Caesar, who wrote about his many years of battles against the Gauls, in _The Gallic Wars_, around 58-52 B.C. It's very interesting reading, but doesn't speak of any of the the Gallic leaders (tribal chieftains and such) as having been king, except for one Veringetorix who was eventually defeated. But no mention that he ever wore horns. Caesar did confirm that the chief god of the Gauls was Mercury, who was also known as Cernunnos. Also, I did notice one website mention of Cernunnos being "the horned king," where the title "king" was evidently used rather loosely. So as of now, I see no better solution to "the horned king" question of TJ 28:54 than that Jmmanuel, or Judas, or Isa Rashid (but probably Jmmanuel) used the word "king" loosely, when the more correct word would have been deity or god. But Cernunnos evidently was the king of the Gauls' or Celts' gods. | ||
Pureharmony Member Post Number: 113 Registered: 08-2002 |
This is all very interesting, especially because i am married to a Gaul. *pureharmony* | ||
Monday New member Post Number: 1 Registered: 04-2004 |
Sir, Can any one please expain this for me. Thanks. In chapter 25, point 56 of the Talmud of Jmmanuel said "Creation alone rises far above all human races, and it alone deserves honor ad praise as it renders honor and praise to te absolute power above it." my question is: does it mean that there is another absolute power above Creation for which the Creation must also give honor and praises? Hello Monday, I think your post would be better suited in the "Books and Booklets/Talmud of Jmmanuel" topic area. Thanks-Moderator | ||
Memo00 Member Post Number: 25 Registered: 03-2004 |
hi monday the creation above all creations is called the absolute absolutum which created all the other creations (universes) (you can find more about this in the interview, in the spiritual teachings section) | ||
Eric_drouin Member Post Number: 21 Registered: 05-2004 |
Hi all: When reading the the Talmud of Jmmanuel, i have been amazed by the following passage, 24:50: "...yet, not by accident, will you have a fortuitous chance in the new age when my teachings ... will again be disseminated, so you may be then seize the opportunity to end and settle the world`s hatred against you my means of a honest peace." This is a direct reference to the Oslo accord and the Camp David agreement!! (you maybe recall when Clinton had Rabin and Arafat shook their hands, it seems such a long time ago unfortunately...) The TJ was first issued in 1978. Amazing, eh? Peace Eric | ||
Jim Member Post Number: 26 Registered: 07-2003 |
Hello Eric, That verse, plus about 8 other adjacent verses, were added to the TJ around 1990 to appear in its 1992 German-English edition. It wasn't in the original German 1978 version. (Meier had obtained updates and corrections to the TJ from Ptaah around 1990, and perhaps also from the Akashic Records.) The explanation has been that the typist who prepared Billy's manuscript for publication had left out quite a lot of things, as well as getting a few things wrong, or else perhaps Rashid was responsible for part of it, or perhaps some of the omissions were due to the crumbling-text condition that the original Schriftrolle were said to have been in. If the latter, it will be viewed suspiciously that the crumbled-away sections did not occur in those parts of the TJ for which the Gospel of Matthew has parallels. Of course, the other explanations will also be viewed suspiciously by any scholars who might look into the TJ. The fact that the Oslo Accords did not occur until 1993, however, might make this seem like a successful prophecy of about 1 year, if not one of over 1900 years. However, I wonder if there was some newspaper discussion, a year or two in advance, that the Oslo Accords were scheduled to take place in 1993. Regards, Jim | ||
Janimetso New member Post Number: 1 Registered: 11-2003 |
Hello all, This concerns the 1992 Edition of the TJ. I possibly may be feebleminded and poor in wisdom, but there is one point in this chapter that I just maybe don't understand. Namely, verses 24-29, when Jmmanuel asks the question from the priests etc.: 24. "But what do you think? A man had two sons and went to the first one and said, 'My son, go and work today in the vineyard.' 25. "He answered, 'Yes father, I will go.' Yet he did not go. 26. "So he went to the other son and said, 'My son, go and work today in the vineyard.' 27. "But he answered and said, 'I don't want to do it and therefore I will not go.' However, he soon felt remorse and went. 28. "Now I ask you: Which of the two did the will of the father?" They said, "The latter, of course." 29. Jmmanuel spoke to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you: The publicans and prostitutes will understand the wisdom of knowledge before you do." As I, too, understand that the latter did the will of his father. But is it not so? Or does this mean that Jmmanuel is saying them that even though they understood the teachings of John and the prophets, they didn't trust them? As Jmmanuel says in verse 30. "John and the prophets came to you and taught you the right way and you didn't trust them; but the publicans and prostitutes trusted them. And even though you understood it, you did not repent and change your mind, so that you would have believed them from that time on." Thanks! Salome, Jani Metso Hi Jani, This question has come up before, but it is not listed in Talmud Book section of the forum. I can't recall at this point what the answer was if any. Maybe someone will be able to help you on this one-Moderator Jani Metso | ||
Jim Member Post Number: 44 Registered: 07-2003 |
Hi Jani, It seems to me that Jmmanuel here is criticizing the chief priests, scribes and elders for professing a supposedly right way for Israelites to live and behave, while actually professing the wrong way, which did not incorporate John's teachings. Though they understood what John preached, they didn't repent and follow it. The second son, however, did repent and then follow his father's instruction. So I think your latter interpretation is on the right track. | ||
Sleestak Member Post Number: 5 Registered: 11-2004 |
Hello Jani, I have thought about this particular verse for a long time; and here is my understanding. The father did not go to work in the vineyard himself. So the will of the father was to quit, or not do the work himself. The first son said yea I'll go; but then quit too and did not do the work. This son was weak in spirit and followed his father's will, not his own. However, the second son told his father to go "fly a kite", and refused to succomb to his fathers will. Yet after reflection, the second son used his own will to change his mind and to then go work in the vineyard. He did not do this for his father, this second son did this for himself. This son followed his own will. So to answer part of your question. Prostitution is outcasted or illegal. Yet a prostitute breaks the law to follow his own will...For better or worse. I'm still trying to figure if the politician is on top or the bottom. ------ Hey star fire, how opportune. Just what I needed for #5. | ||
Edward Member Post Number: 439 Registered: 05-2002 |
Hi Janimetso... Yes, I would have the same point of view as Jim mentioned. And would like to add that the Publicans(Cafe/Inn Owners) and the Prostitutes are in most cases, as even today, more "Opened Minded" in their ways of Thinking than people that would be integrated into their usual daily lives and be mislead by todays Religions and Politics..etc. Thus, knowing that the Publicans and Prostitutes, do, have much in common, as the Prostitutes are part of a Publicans daily link for income(Rooms being rented for their work and what not). Thus, they lead a much more "Open Life" and Ways Of Being..by their daily experiences. And thus, not pay any attention to the High priest, Scribes...etc...which is certainly not in their ways of thinking...etc. Thus, the Publicans and the Prostitutes were "Opened Minded" and Trusted the words of John and the Prophets, simply said. Than the Mass, that is being Mislead and lead astray. As even today. Edward. | ||
Joseph_emmanuel Member Post Number: 52 Registered: 05-2004 |
Hello Friends I would like to share my opinion on this. I think what Jmmanuel is saying is very simple: the publicans and the prostitutes, and those whose lifestyles orthodox religion, the social norm and traditional family values would consider nonconforming are the ones who, though they openly contradict and defy authority, responsibility, duty, rules and regulations, will come to embrace a truer way of life; while those who steadfastly conform to their own false beliefs and self-misconceptions will for a long time to come continue to reject it. The key words here are “steadfastly conform”, something to which those who follow religion will adapt. The publicans and the prostitutes, although they also have false beliefs and self-misconceptions, do not necessarily steadfastly conform to them. This is because, as Edward pointed out, many of them are open-minded and are not consciously hindered by religious doctrine. Were religion to favour them as it favours the “meek”, maybe they wouldn’t have cause to embrace non-religious beliefs in order to justify their lifestyles. But I think Jmmanuel’s parable is not a very good one because, if one didn’t know how to read into it, it could be understood as the Christians understand it: that one must do the will of the father to live a truer way of life (father, as we know, meaning God). But it isn’t saying this. And neither do I think it is saying that one must do the will of his biological father to live correctly. It is simply suggesting that the father, being a figure of authority, has the knowledge of what needs to be done to maintain his household, and that his sons would be wise to do as he says. The father represents the wisdom of knowledge as presented by Jmmanuel, or revealed by Creation; the first son represents the Scribes and Chief Priests, religious folk who have a complete disregard for truth and instead conform to their own false beliefs and self-misconceptions; and the second son represents the publicans and the prostitutes who, having their own false-beliefs and self-misconceptions, to which they initially conform, eventually reason with themselves and do as the father says because they know it is the right thing to do. This is what I think Jmmanuel is saying. I don’t think he is necessarily criticizing the Chief Priests and Scribes for not trusting the teachings of John and the prophets. I think here he is now making a distinction between them and the publicans and the prostitutes, whom they wrongfully judge. | ||
Joseph_emmanuel Member Post Number: 80 Registered: 05-2004 |
Why does Jmmanuel say to Saul: "Hereafter you shall be named Paul," when throughout the remaining chapters of the TJ he is called Saul, even by Jmmanuel? Does anyone know what the name Paul means, as he seems to imply that calling him Paul is synonymous with his character? | ||
Jim Member Post Number: 48 Registered: 07-2003 |
Joseph, I think we have to allow that Jmmanuel may not have spoken quite precisely enough there. If he had said, "In the future you shall be named Paul," that would have been correct, as it doesn't require that that future start right then. But we don't know just what word or phrase was used in the Aramaic there, which was translated into "Fortan (Hereafter)" in the German. E.g., there's not much difference between "in the future" and "hereafter." Jim | ||
Jim Member Post Number: 49 Registered: 07-2003 |
Joseph, as to the meaning of Paul, it seems to come from the Greek "pau" which means to "cease." I don't think its root has any similar Aramaic meaning, but Jmmanuel knew Greek (probably from having been on the Silk Road for 3 or 4 years to and from India). So the thought is that Saul would cease his persecution of Jmmauel's followers. A possibility I think less likely, which I've seen in Christian sources, is that Saul would cease his activities in Israel and concentrate on evangelizing the gentiles. Jim | ||
Joseph_emmanuel Member Post Number: 83 Registered: 05-2004 |
Hello again Jim I did a little searching myself and found another interpretation to the name Paul, namely "small". I don't know if this is a true interpretation, but it would be easy to apply it to his character if it is. Why would Jmmanuel call Saul Paul as a reference to his ceasing to persecute his followers? As the founder of Christianity, he began the most mindless persecution of the world. Maybe it refers to his ceasing to call himself and be known as Saul after his encounter with Jmmanuel at Demascus? While on this subject, do you know what Paul was? In the Bible he claims that he was a Jew and a Pharisee. But this is disputed. Why did he take such a personal interest in Jmmanuel's mission? | ||
Joseph_emmanuel Member Post Number: 85 Registered: 05-2004 |
I am currently intrigued by who exactly was Saul. There are many speculations about him among scholars. Some agree he was a Pharisee who studied under Gamaliel, as he claims in Acts; others say he was a Pagan, or a Gnostic; and still others say he may have been an informer to the Romans, or someone of high standing, for how else could he have obtained the warrants for the arrests of Jmmanuel’s disciples from the High Priest after Jmmanuel’s crucifixion? Also why did he take such a personal interest in Jmmanuel’s mission? Who exactly was Saul? What was he? After having done some research on this matter (very little, mind you, and not as in depth as it ought to be), I have drawn some conclusions of my own as to who he may have been, none of them original, except that I see Saul as an opportunist, and as someone who had his own agenda, separate from both the Pharisees and Jmmanuel. Coming from Tarsus, which during Saul’s day was a Hellenized city in Asia Minor, it is likely that Saul was himself a Hellenized Jew (that is, a Pagan). Yet being a Jew, and possibly someone who was deeply religious, he journeyed to Jerusalem to understand his roots, and there, as an adult, studied under Gamaliel the Pharisee. Hearing Jmmanuel’s teachings of Creation and spiritual evolution (this is the mystery) he then joins forces with Juda Ihariot and his father Simeon the Pharisee to capture Jmmanuel and kill him. (Why such personal interest? As a Hellenized Jew he would have been more liberally-minded than the Pharisees and not as shocked as they at hearing Jmmanuel preach. I get the feeling he may have been somewhat fanatical and unbalanced.) After his encounter with Jmmanuel on the road to Damascus, he misinterprets his experience and, when Jmmanuel sends one of his disciples to him in Damascus to preach the new teachings to him (Why did Jmmanuel do this? It doesn’t make any sense considering that he knew the damage Saul would do to his teachings and to the world), he invents his own theology and founds Gnostic Christianity. Of course, this doesn’t happen over night. He seems beforehand to have had some dealings with James, Immanuel’s brother, who is referred to as the Teacher of Righteousness in the Dead Sea Scrolls, which scholars say belonged to the Essenes. They even suggest that Saul is referred to as The Liar in the Scrolls, and that he may have been under their tutelage for three years, which would suggest that he had become a member of the Essenes for a time, breaking away from the Pharisees, just as he had broken away from Greek Paganism, and possibly also from the Sadducees in order to capture the disciples, then finally the Essenes to become a Christian Gnostic. A truly confused man, but one who was almost certainly out for himself. I would love to hear some opinions on this. | ||
Jim Member Post Number: 53 Registered: 07-2003 |
Joseph, I'll comment on this portion, where you wrote, "After his encounter with Jmmanuel on the road to Damascus, he misinterprets his experience and, when Jmmanuel sends one of his disciples to him in Damascus to preach the new teachings to him (Why did Jmmanuel do this? It doesn’t make any sense considering that he knew the damage Saul would do to his teachings and to the world), he invents his own theology and founds Gnostic Christianity." You could just as well ask, why did Jmmanuel bother to teach his disciples, knowing that some of them were inclined towards turning them into false teachings (TJ 32:47). Or why did he bother with his mission, having been advised by ETs whom he trusted, that he would be misunderstood, denounced and slandered? The answer there (TJ 4:37-48) was to fulfill his mission anyway, which implies the belief that doing so would be better in the long run than not. So, it appears to me that Jmmanuel believed or knew that Saul would do worse things to his mission had he not taken any action to turn around his persecutions of his followers. I do sometimes wonder, however, did Jmmanuel do some things because he could prophesy that that is what he would do? And so he didn't want to destroy his own prophecy? I don't regard Saul/Paul as having been any gnostic. In founding Christianity as we know it even today, he was anything but a Gnostic. | ||
Joseph_emmanuel Member Post Number: 87 Registered: 05-2004 |
Jim You’re right! I may as well ask “Why did Jmmanuel bother to teach his disciples, knowing that some of them were inclined towards turning them into false teachings”? And also “Why did he bother with his mission, having been advised by ETs whom he trusted, that he would be misunderstood, denounced and slandered? And I do ask these questions too, because his actions seemed to have defeated the purpose considering the direction history took as a result of them. On the other hand, who knows what direction history might have taken hadn’t he acted upon his will; or hadn’t the Plejarens bothered with his mission? I doubt that Christianity would have existed, since this was inspired by Jmmanuel’s life and teachings. But who knows? Maybe it’s as you say: that it was better in the long run to have acted in such a way than to have done nothing. I guess if Jmmanuel hadn’t intervened at Damascus Paul would most likely have killed all his disciples. I think that much is certain. But I’m going to be somewhat calculating here and say: Wouldn’t it have been better in the long run to have allowed a handful of individuals who distorted the teachings anyway to die than to have allowed millions of people be persecuted to their deaths? Those Who Lie About Contacts singles out Jmmanuel’s brother Jacob (James), Saul and the disciples Luke, Matthew, Mark and John as being the main culprits who distorted Jmmanuel’s teachings of Creation. If Jmmanuel’s disciples were killed, Saul might not have instigated a Christian movement. I think you’ll find that Saul-Paul didn’t found Christianity as we know it today. Literalist Christianity, which is the Christianity with which we are familiar, was founded by the Early Church Fathers. I have read some compelling literature that suggests Paul may have been a Gnostic, namely The Gnostic Paul by Elaine Pagels, The Jesus Mysteries by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy, The Nag Hammadi Collection, and The New Testament itself. Traditionally Saul-Paul is pictured as a Literalist, but he is claimed by the Gnostics as the great inspiration of Gnosticism. Furthermore, modern scholars now regard many of the letters attributed to Paul as forgeries, particularly the Pastoral letters, in which Paul is made to appear anti-Gnostic. In the letters considered to be genuine Pauline letters, Paul used many Gnostic metaphors and phrases, and never considered the figure of the resurrecting Christ as historical but as a mystical experience. It is only later that the Early Church Fathers turn Paul to a Literalist Christian, for in the same way that Jmmanuel and his teachings could not be completely disregarded, neither could they disregard the important personality of Paul. It is even believed that because Gnostic Christianity is the earliest form of Christianity of which we have evidence, and that Paul himself was the first Christian, it is likely that he was a Gnostic. Another thing that we must consider is that it was Paul who created the personality of Jesus Christ. Are we to assume that the Gnostics stole the idea of Christ from him and exalted Paul as their founder? Or that they came by it because Paul taught it to them? Personally I believe that Paul was a Gnostic, as the evidence in support of this is far greater than the evidence in support of Paul as a Literalist, since the letters that portray him as such are regarded as forgeries and mere Christian propaganda. | ||
Jim Member Post Number: 59 Registered: 07-2003 |
Regarding Schweissblut discussed above, under TJ 28:17 (2001 edition), new information I've come across is that this is a medical condition known as hematidrosis. Look it up in some medical dictionary, such as that of Dorland's. It can occur during great stress, due to breakage of tiny capillaries in the sweat glands. Regarding "the land of the horned king," I now believe this was the region around Macedonia and also that of the Medes and Persians, which all came under the control of Alexander the Great. He was depicted on some coins with rams' horns on the sides of his head or helmet. And the Seleucid kings who succeeded him in the Medo-Persian region were depicted likewise. A key finding for me is that in verses 7-8,24 of the book of Daniel, chap. 8, he speaks of the horns as being kings, in his prophecy or supposed prophecy. And these kings are generally regarded as being the Seleucid kings, which grew out of a goat with a single large horn (Alexander), and this goat spread over the face of the earth. In the prophecy the "little horn" is usually regarded as being Antiochus IV, the somewhat later Seleucid king who ruled over the Medes and Persians, including Syria. This is the interpretation given to it by the historian Josephus around mid-1st century A.D. (That's in _Antiquities_, book X, Chap. XI, para 7.) So I now regard "from the land of the horned king to the sea where icy mountains drift in the water" as being the land extending from just north of Israel all the way over Europe to the North Atlantic. | ||
Scott Moderator Post Number: 726 Registered: 12-1999 |
Hi Jim, Thanks for that information, I will look it up. Scott | ||
Newinitiation Member Post Number: 95 Registered: 07-2005 |
dear jim Could the land of the horned kings be a reference to the vikings? peace be with you | ||
Edward Member Post Number: 562 Registered: 05-2002 |
Hi Jim... Yes, I can remember the Struggle we went to, to find its interpretation. Sounds good. Could be a question to Billy, maybe? To confirm? Edward. | ||
Jim Member Post Number: 60 Registered: 07-2003 |
Newinitiation: No, the vikings wouldn't make sense to me. First, Norwegian and Swedish historians vehemently insist that they didn't wear horns. However, that idea has become rather widespread, thanks the comic strip Hagar. Second, they didn't have any governing king, as far as I know. Third, the sentence in question spoke of the land extending FROM the land of the horned king TO the chilly waters of the north. Edward, please do submit it as a question to Billy if you wish. I just noticed, most of the discussions in this section should have appeared under TJ 27, not 28. Jim | ||
Edward Member Post Number: 565 Registered: 05-2002 |
Hi Jim... Yes, will do so. Edward. | ||
Scott Moderator Post Number: 727 Registered: 12-1999 |
Hi Jim, You mentioned most of the discussion in this section should have appeared under TJ 27, not 28. Are you talking about the conversations regarding the sweaty blood etc.? In the 1992 and 2001 editions both mention this in Chapter 28? Thanks Scott | ||
Jim Member Post Number: 61 Registered: 07-2003 |
Hi Scott, My mistake -- I got off by one chapter. | ||
Jim Member Post Number: 73 Registered: 07-2003 |
Are there any opinions on TJ 23:53-54? Why would David speak of Jmmanuel being his lord? | ||
Thomas Member Post Number: 399 Registered: 03-2004 |
Lord could be meant as master, as in master in the way of knowledge similar to how monks are called master by their students. Just a guess though... | ||
Jim Member Post Number: 74 Registered: 07-2003 |
OK, but how could David say that Jmmanuel was his lord/master when David lived centuries before Jmmanuel did? | ||
Kaare Member Post Number: 56 Registered: 03-2003 |
Hi Jim, As I understand it Jmmanuel is here referring to Psalms 110 which I understand was originally written in Hebrew. The first "Lord" is fully capitalized. In Hebrew it is also written as YHVH. Which in TJ would translate into JHWH or King of wisdom – ET human with rank as leader The second "Lord" has only the first letter capitalized. The second "lord" in the original Hebrew is an entirely different word which is often transliterated into English as ADONI. In modern Jewish translations into English the second "lord" is written with no capital letters because this kind of "lord" in Hebrew is thought to be a human and not divine being. As I understand it the term my lord was used to describe both prophets and Kings at that time. Sombody with high rank. But since David already had the status of being a King, for him to call somebody a lord , they would have to be over and above his king status. But a son of a celestrial son would then be somebody he would be able to call lord since I imagine he would see this human elevated above his King status. I would think that King David wrote his Psalms from information he received from the extraterrestrials. If this information was not given direct, then I would think the ET Gods would have communicated through a Prophet. For the purpose of telling a future event the ET Gods migh have made use of advanced technology such as holographic projection, mixing sound and pictures to create an easy understandable futuristic vision. Regards Kaare | ||
Indi Member Post Number: 116 Registered: 06-2006 |
Hi Jim my understanding is that David as part of the lineage from ADAM, had handed down to him the knowledge of the truth as did all in that lineage -- this has been mentioned by Billy and/or Christian. This knowledge contained also prophesies etc.... and one of the prophesies was that a child would be fathered by a celestial son, and would be called Jmmanuel, and would be a prophet. As Semjasa as the 'god' who made ADAM, was the highest ranking here on earth 13,500 yrs ago, and knowing that Semjasa was in charge of overseeing his colonisation, interbreeding and the progress thereof, of this planet, it could be thought that he would be considered the Overlord or Master as Thomas put it. Also, it may be supposed that any progeny of a spirit form which inhabits personalities such as Semjasa/Rasiel/Gabriel/Quetzal etc...... would be endowed with more than the average progeny produced by the coupling of two ordinary terrestrials one would think, and also, we know and maybe David also knew that the spirit form that would take the body of Jmmanuel was likely to be a highly evolved one, more so that David and any other terrestrial, then it would be understandable that David would refer to this future child/prophet as 'lord'. Notice that there is 'LORD' and 'lord'. Jmmanuel may be the little lord in that sentence. These are just my thoughts though and may be off the mark. I have seen articles on the net about this particular sentence as well -- there was one that was using this sentence to discredit the Christian doctrine, saying that the other lord other than GOD, was Muhammed. Also, that sentence had been mentioned in a handful of places, including Matthew and Psalms, and maybe Luke? and another? Robjna | ||
Jim Member Post Number: 75 Registered: 07-2003 |
Hi Kaare and Robjna, Thanks for all the ideas and suggestions. If "David as part of the lineage from ADAM, had handed down to him the knowledge of the truth as did all in that lineage -- this has been mentioned by Billy and/or Christian," I suppose this is mentioned somewhere in Billy's long list of answers to questions over the years? It would be good if we could find that reference. But it seems quite speculative, as to how David got the information, he himself not being a prophet in the line of Henoch, Isaiah, Elijah, Jeremiah.... Though it might have been handed down to David and others before him from Henoch, this would have been 41 generations earlier. This seems to ask way too much of oral tradition to achieve. But I guess that Henoch wrote things down, some of which made it into the book of 1 Enoch. In that case, a good version of it should be somewhere in the OM. David may have had access to part of Henoch's writings. The TJ sentence that's in Matthew 22:44 and in Psalm 110:1 is also in Acts 2:34, where the writer of Luke-Acts has it come from the mouth of Peter, in a passage where David is referred to as a prophet. Jim | ||
Indi Member Post Number: 117 Registered: 06-2006 |
Jim here is a reference from this forum on it as written by Christian: "....Up to Jmmanuel's father Joseph all descendants of the Adam lineage were without belief/faith and didn't belong to Jewry/Judaism. Their knowledge was based on the ancient traditional Spirit Teachings which led back to Nokodemion and which were transmitted by Semjasa's people. Therefore, they were not faithful ones, but knowledgeable ones. With a clear conscience one could call them as persons who did not belong to any denomination/religion." It comes from this passage which was a question from someone named Christina: http://forum.figu.org/us/messages/12/3451.html#POST10554 Jmmanuel was a 'foster' child to David's lineage, as he did not have genes passed down from Adam, unless they came through Mary's lineage. Instead Jmmanuel had the genes of an ET and the spirit form of Nokodemjon. It can get a little confusing at times with physical genetic lineage and spiritual lineage and ET fathering all in the mix :-) Robjna | ||
Jim Member Post Number: 76 Registered: 07-2003 |
Thanks very much for looking that up, Robjna. I do suspect that Henoch, being one of Semjasa's people or descendants, had a key hand in transmitting, in writing, the Immanuel prophecy that David was aware of. Jim | ||
Jim Member Post Number: 79 Registered: 07-2003 |
Thanks to the recent input on this subject, I've now revised the discussion I previously had at www.tjresearch.info/mt22.htm (scroll down to Mt 22:43-46 and TJ 23:52-56). I think it's more plausible now, although it may need further revisions. Jim |
