DISCUSSION OF TJ 14
In response to a suggestion of Ben, I’ll place my response to one of Ben’s comments that refers to TJ 14 here, and he can further respond under the same thread. Others besides Ben are of course also invited to contribute here and above. There are no Matthean parallels to TJ 14.
In response to a suggestion of Ben, I’ll place my response to one of Ben’s comments that refers to TJ 14 here, and he can further respond under the same thread. Others besides Ben are of course also invited to contribute here and above. There are no Matthean parallels to TJ 14.
posted by Jim Deardorff @ 11:24 AM
8 Comments:
At 12:11 PM ,
Jim Deardorff said...
In discussing TJ 14-15, Ben wrote:
Deardorff said:
However, the phrase "that same day" [occurring at TJ 15:1] is probably not to be taken literally, as Beare inferred when saying it was a stock phrase of introduction. In the TJ's story, Jmmanuel had just previously been in Bethlehem and in the desert nearby (with Judas Iscariot) [in TJ 14] . Thus it would have been more than a day's walk from there back to the Sea of Galilee, or even down to the Dead Sea.
Ben’s Response: To be more precise, it was over 70 miles to the Sea of Galilee from Bethlehem and fifteen miles from Bethlehem to the Dead Sea. So here, we see Deardorff having to make an excuse for the TJ. Not only do the other two gospel writers have the event with the "mothers and brothers" at an earlier time, but they all have the event right next to the Sea of Galilee. Thus, J's walking out of a place in Bethlehem and coming to a sea makes it highly suspect of a TJ manipulation of events and misunderstanding of chronological progression. But J's walking out in Matthew and seeing a sea makes perfect sense and there is only a "problem" if the conviction that J was in Bethlehem cannot be removed.
Deardorff’s reply of 3/20:
We have already discussed that the events in the TJ may not all be in correct chronological order, because they were written down some 5(?) or 10(?) years after the fact. Thus “that same day” may in that case have been used just as a stock phrase of introduction, just as Francis Beare had surmised for Mt 13:1. Even though J is believed to have had an exceptionally good memory, it is often easier to recall that various events occurred than to recall their correct order of occurrence.
Ben opened the possibility, declared unlikely, that perhaps J had traveled from Bethlehem just to the Dead Sea, some 15 miles away, then spoke his parables there the same day. It seems especially unlikely to me that all 12 disciples would have been there at the Dead Sea, with no explicit mention of their having gone there.
So I’ll stick with F. Beare’s solution, which can apply to the TJ as well as to Matthew, as being the more likely. I’m not one who insists that the TJ’s order of events has to be chronologically correct.
The writer of Matthew had obvious reasons to omit TJ 14, since its prophecy about Judas, and statement of Judas having repented of his wrongdoings and then become a faithful follower, being at total odds with the believed rumor that made him out to be the detested guy who had betrayed his Lord.
At 6:39 AM ,
Ben said...
Mt 11:14 "And if you are willing to accept it, he [John the Baptist] is Elijah who is to come."
TJ 11:19 "And if you wish to accept it, he is Elisa (Elisha), who was to come again in his next life."
In regards to the fact that prior to 1992 the Talmud of Jmmanuel read “Elijah,” not “Elisha,” it has been said: "In this case, the error was probably occasioned by familiarity with the Matthean verse and its use of Elijah rather than Elisha, reinforced perhaps by the similarity in the two names."
This statement could actually be used as evidence that the Talmud of Jmmanuel was originally created using the Gospel of Matthew. It can be surmised that the author of the TJ, when originally changing the book of Matthew, had just read the name "Elijah" as found in the book of Matthew and copied it the same way into the Talmud of Jmmanuel. This manipulator either didn't know of the incarnation lineage that was later going to be given to Meier or didn't realize at the time of document manipulation that this would contradict the alleged reincarnation lineage that would be given to Meier who was supposed to be the reincarnation of both Jmmanuel and Elijah.
When J said that John was “Elijah who is to come,” J was simply citing the prophetic passage of Malachi which said “I will send you Elijah the prophet.” Thus, J’s statement shows that John the Baptist was this character who was foretold to come, given the prophetic name of “Elijah.” There was no better way to cite a passage at the time than to make direct reference to the saying itself since chapter and verse divisions of the scriptures were not made until a much later date. This shows not only that the prophetic name of John the Baptist was “Elijah” but also that the ministry of John the Baptist would parallel the ministry of the Old Testament prophet by the same name since the name of a person in the Bible usually describes the personage himself.
For the TJ to appear genuine on this matter, one would have to adequately explain how both Malachi and Matthew happened to both have the name “Elijah” in relation to each other, being documents that were written over four centuries apart, and also how John quotes those of the day in search of an “Elijah” who was to come, not an “Elisha” in John 1:21. Since the TJ does not make reference to the Malachi statement concerning John the Baptist which identifies him as “Elijah,” are we to conclude that Malachi was also distorted simply on the name of “Elijah” by some fallible human manipulator prior to Matthew picking up the book? Why and how could such a masterful conspiracy simply on the matter of the name “Elijah” have taken place across more than 400 years and fit together as it has? There are no prophetic passages that state that J would be called “Elijah”, but rather that the “Elijah” who was to come was to prepare the way of J since J is prophetically referred to as “the Lord” on many occasions.
It was also said, "it is furthermore quite unlikely that a hoaxer would have thought of reasonable arguments why John's past life was Elisha rather than Elijah or have had motivation to make the change."
The motivation to make the change in the Billy Meier case is rather evident. The Plejarens have told Billy Meier that he was both Elijah and Jmmanuel in his past lives. That Billy Meier was Elijah and Jmmanuel in his past lives contradicts the idea of Jmmanuel living at the same time of the reincarnation of “Elijah” since the same spirit form cannot occupy two different bodies during the same time period unless one traveled through time to meet the other. This "correction" to the TJ raises a strong suspicion that the contradiction was discovered long after the original document distortion so that the name “Elijah” had to be changed to "Elisha" to clear up the mistake. Of course, one could also say that this was all a part of the plausible deniability plan all along to make critics not believe what they are not prepared to believe.
At 7:17 PM ,
Jim Deardorff said...
Ben said:
"When J said that John was “Elijah who is to come,” J was simply citing the prophetic passage of Malachi which said “I will send you Elijah the prophet.” Thus, J’s statement shows that John the Baptist was this character who was foretold to come, given the prophetic name of “Elijah.” There was no better way to cite a passage at the time than to make direct reference to the saying itself since chapter and verse divisions of the scriptures were not made until a much later date. This shows not only that the prophetic name of John the Baptist was “Elijah” but also that the ministry of John the Baptist would parallel the ministry of the Old Testament prophet by the same name since the name of a person in the Bible usually describes the personage himself."
The TJ suggests a different interpretation of Malachi. In the saying that John was Elisha who was to come again in his next life, in the TJ's corrected version, this of course leaves open the possibility that Jmmanuel had been Elijah. Then Malachi 3-4 is interpreted differently but straightforwardly as referring to the day when the Lord of hosts will appear. Who would the Lord of hosts be? From what Meier has experienced and reported, if the Malachi prophecy has validity, he would be a leading Plejaren in our day and age, perhaps Ptaah. His hosts would be other Plejarens and their ET allies. They would appear in their aerial vehicles, perhaps flying saucers or beamships, on the "terrible day" when the LORD comes (Mal 4:5). His messenger on Earth would be Meier or his next-life spiritual successor, who had once been Elijah.
This would be consistent with TJ 25:46,48-49; in the Mt 24:30-31 parallel the LORD is equated to Jesus (Son of man) himself.
That Immanuel had been Elijah is consistent with TJ 18:18 & Mt 16:14.
At 7:56 AM ,
Ben said...
MT 16:14
So they said, “Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
TJ 18:18
They said, "Some say that you are John the Baptist, others that you are Elijah and still others that you are Jeremiah or one of the old prophets:”
The difficulty in affirming that the identity of Jmmanuel, being the reincarnated form of Elijah, is consistent with what is recorded in the above two passages lies in the fact that some in that day thought that J was John the Baptist, a fact which both Matthew and the Talmud of Jmmanuel record. Now, anybody who had seen both John the Baptist and J together would not have been the ones thinking that J was John the Baptist. But those who originally had only heard of John the Baptist and not J but later heard of J who was gathering a following even greater than John the Baptist would have been the ones thinking that this was John the Baptist. The major problem, however, is that they could not have possibly thought that J was the REINCARNATED spirit of John the Baptist. If they knew about reincarnation at all, surely they would have realized that the spirit could not have possibly had enough time to be reborn and grow into a full adult in such a short time after John the Baptist had been executed. Thus, those who were falsely supposing that J was John the Baptist believed that J was the RESURRECTED form of John the Baptist, not the reincarnated form.
It would be difficult, then, to suppose that the first group had resurrection in mind, while the other two groups had reincarnation in mind. It stands to reason that all 3 suppositions referred to resurrection or some other form of return of the original individual himself and not reincarnation.
Most of the people who would have been supposing such things were likely Jews. There is much evidence to support that the Jews had knowledge of resurrection. The very scriptures that they had access to, even if they had been falsified, taught of such things. Some passages in the Hebrew Bible traditionally interpreted as referring to resurrection include: Ezekiel’s vision of the valley of dry bones being restored as a living army (Ezekiel 37); Daniel's vision, where a mysterious angelic figure tells Daniel, "Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake; some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt." (Daniel 12:2); 1 Samuel 2: 6 - "he bringeth down to the grave, and bringeth up"; Job 19: 26 - "after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God"; Isaiah 26: 19 - "Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise"; Ezekiel 37: 12 - "I will open your graves, and cause you to come up." The Pharisees themselves believed in and taught of a future resurrection. There does not seem to be any passages in the Hebrew scriptures that would strongly suggest reincarnation as opposed to resurrection. The few passages in the New Testament that have been misconstrued to imply reincarnation seem to deal, instead, with resurrection, a teaching that, admittedly, could be slanted to resemble reincarnation. It could be argued that the author of the TJ, in desiring to teach reincarnation, played the role of the opportunist on these passages.
A possible reasoning that some may have had that J was the resurrected form of John the Baptist was that he came back from the dead to exact vengeance upon his executioners.
The reasoning that some had that J was the resurrected (or possibly returned from having been translated and never having seen death) form of Elijah was, again, as a result of one prevailing interpretation of the prophecy of Malachi. Scholars have noted that it was a prevailing notion among the Jews that “Elijah” was to come BEFORE the Messiah and would not be the Messiah Himself.
The reasoning that some may have had that J was the resurrected form of Jeremiah was because some Jews thought that he was the prophet spoken of in Deuteronomy 18:15 that should be raised up from among them like unto Moses. Many have noted the similarities between Moses and Jeremiah: one prophesied forty years, the other prophesied forty years; one prophesied concerning Judah and Israel, the other prophesied concerning Judah and Israel; against one those of his own tribe stood up, and against the other those of his own tribe stood up; one was cast into a river, and the other into a dungeon; one was delivered by means of an handmaid, and the other by the means of a servant; one came with words of reproof, and the other came with words of reproof, etc.
All of these notions came from misunderstandings of resurrection and the identity of the Messiah.
At 8:58 AM ,
Jim Deardorff said...
My comments of Ben's are prefixed by ***.
MT 16:14
So they said, “Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
TJ 18:18
They said, "Some say that you are John the Baptist, others that you are Elijah and still others that you are Jeremiah or one of the old prophets:”
The difficulty in affirming that the identity of Jmmanuel, being the reincarnated form of Elijah, is consistent with what is recorded in the above two passages lies in the fact that some in that day thought that J was John the Baptist, a fact which both Matthew and the Talmud of Jmmanuel record. Now, anybody who had seen both John the Baptist and J together would not have been the ones thinking that J was John the Baptist.
***Perhaps, but not necessarily. At the time the question was asked, "Who do the people say that I am?", John was dead, and so it could have been thought, by some, that he had possessed the body of Jmmanuel. And that after that time many of J's miraculous deeds were performed. Belief in "possession" existed then, as I think you know. That's what all those exorcisms were about.
But those who originally had only heard of John the Baptist and not J but later heard of J who was gathering a following even greater than John the Baptist would have been the ones thinking that this was John the Baptist. The major problem, however, is that they could not have possibly thought that J was the REINCARNATED spirit of John the Baptist. If they knew about reincarnation at all, surely they would have realized that the spirit could not have possibly had enough time to be reborn and grow into a full adult in such a short time after John the Baptist had been executed. Thus, those who were falsely supposing that J was John the Baptist believed that J was the RESURRECTED form of John the Baptist, not the reincarnated form.
***Not so, I say, because the resurrected form is supposed to have the very same physical appearance as previously. We have no reason to suspect that John the Baptist was just like Jmmanuel in physical appearance, height, age and sound of voice. Instead, those few people more likely believed John's spirit had taken over, or possessed, Immanuel.
Most of the people who would have been supposing such things were likely Jews. There is much evidence to support that the Jews had knowledge of resurrection. The very scriptures that they had access to, even if they had been falsified, taught of such things. Some passages in the Hebrew Bible traditionally interpreted as referring to resurrection include: Ezekiel’s vision of the valley of dry bones being restored as a living army (Ezekiel 37); Daniel's vision, where a mysterious angelic figure tells Daniel, "Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake; some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt." (Daniel 12:2); 1 Samuel 2: 6 - "he bringeth down to the grave, and bringeth up"; Job 19: 26 - "after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God"; Isaiah 26: 19 - "Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise"; Ezekiel 37: 12 - "I will open your graves, and cause you to come up." The Pharisees themselves believed in and taught of a future resurrection.
***That's the key: a FUTURE resurrection, in the end days.
***In the Daniel passage, this resurrection is supposed to take place in the era of the great prince Michael. Did this Michael appear in the early 1st century?
There does not seem to be any passages in the Hebrew scriptures that would strongly suggest reincarnation as opposed to resurrection. The few passages in the New Testament that have been misconstrued to imply reincarnation seem to deal, instead, with resurrection, a teaching that, admittedly, could be slanted to resemble reincarnation. It could be argued that the author of the TJ, in desiring to teach reincarnation, played the role of the opportunist on these passages.
***But have you forgotten that Jmmanuel taught reincarnation? Some of those teachings occurred prior to the main teachings in the TJ (23:12-on), e.g., at TJ 11:19. He could well have taught rebirth also at other earlier times without the content being recorded in the TJ. Word of his new teachings spread, so that some in Caesarea Philippi must have known or learned of reincarnation then if not before.
The reasoning that some had that J was the resurrected (or possibly returned from having been translated and never having seen death) form of Elijah was, again, as a result of one prevailing interpretation of the prophecy of Malachi. Scholars have noted that it was a prevailing notion among the Jews that “Elijah” was to come BEFORE the Messiah and would not be the Messiah Himself.
***So those scholars were wrong on that latter point. No surprise there. That's what scholarship is all about, correcting false notions in arriving at conclusions closer to the truth.
The reasoning that some may have had that J was the resurrected form of Jeremiah was because some Jews thought that he was the prophet spoken of in Deuteronomy 18:15 that should be raised up from among them like unto Moses.
***Could be.
***We should keep in mind that Immanuel was known as a wisdom teacher, and a genuine wisdom teacher teaches truth, not falsehood. It's only been in the past several decades that we've learned of the truth (reality) of reincarnation, thanks to the confimred identities of all those hundreds of past lives of young children, plus of some past lives of adults who underwent hypno-regression back to times before their own birth (e.g., see www.tjresearch.info/rebirth.htm).
At 8:59 AM ,
Jim Deardorff said...
My comments of Ben's are prefixed by ***.
MT 16:14
So they said, “Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
TJ 18:18
They said, "Some say that you are John the Baptist, others that you are Elijah and still others that you are Jeremiah or one of the old prophets:”
The difficulty in affirming that the identity of Jmmanuel, being the reincarnated form of Elijah, is consistent with what is recorded in the above two passages lies in the fact that some in that day thought that J was John the Baptist, a fact which both Matthew and the Talmud of Jmmanuel record. Now, anybody who had seen both John the Baptist and J together would not have been the ones thinking that J was John the Baptist.
***Perhaps, but not necessarily. At the time the question was asked, "Who do the people say that I am?", John was dead, and so it could have been thought, by some, that he had possessed the body of Jmmanuel. And that after that time many of J's miraculous deeds were performed. Belief in "possession" existed then, as I think you know. That's what all those exorcisms were about.
But those who originally had only heard of John the Baptist and not J but later heard of J who was gathering a following even greater than John the Baptist would have been the ones thinking that this was John the Baptist. The major problem, however, is that they could not have possibly thought that J was the REINCARNATED spirit of John the Baptist. If they knew about reincarnation at all, surely they would have realized that the spirit could not have possibly had enough time to be reborn and grow into a full adult in such a short time after John the Baptist had been executed. Thus, those who were falsely supposing that J was John the Baptist believed that J was the RESURRECTED form of John the Baptist, not the reincarnated form.
***Not so, I say, because the resurrected form is supposed to have the very same physical appearance as previously. We have no reason to suspect that John the Baptist was just like Jmmanuel in physical appearance, height, age and sound of voice. Instead, those few people more likely believed John's spirit had taken over, or possessed, Immanuel.
Most of the people who would have been supposing such things were likely Jews. There is much evidence to support that the Jews had knowledge of resurrection. The very scriptures that they had access to, even if they had been falsified, taught of such things. Some passages in the Hebrew Bible traditionally interpreted as referring to resurrection include: Ezekiel’s vision of the valley of dry bones being restored as a living army (Ezekiel 37); Daniel's vision, where a mysterious angelic figure tells Daniel, "Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake; some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt." (Daniel 12:2); 1 Samuel 2: 6 - "he bringeth down to the grave, and bringeth up"; Job 19: 26 - "after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God"; Isaiah 26: 19 - "Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise"; Ezekiel 37: 12 - "I will open your graves, and cause you to come up." The Pharisees themselves believed in and taught of a future resurrection.
***That's the key: a FUTURE resurrection, in the end days.
***In the Daniel passage, this resurrection is supposed to take place in the era of the great prince Michael. Did this Michael appear in the early 1st century?
There does not seem to be any passages in the Hebrew scriptures that would strongly suggest reincarnation as opposed to resurrection. The few passages in the New Testament that have been misconstrued to imply reincarnation seem to deal, instead, with resurrection, a teaching that, admittedly, could be slanted to resemble reincarnation. It could be argued that the author of the TJ, in desiring to teach reincarnation, played the role of the opportunist on these passages.
***But have you forgotten that Jmmanuel taught reincarnation? Some of those teachings occurred prior to the main teachings in the TJ (23:12-on), e.g., at TJ 11:19. He could well have taught rebirth also at other earlier times without the content being recorded in the TJ. Word of his new teachings spread, so that some in Caesarea Philippi must have known or learned of reincarnation then if not before.
The reasoning that some had that J was the resurrected (or possibly returned from having been translated and never having seen death) form of Elijah was, again, as a result of one prevailing interpretation of the prophecy of Malachi. Scholars have noted that it was a prevailing notion among the Jews that “Elijah” was to come BEFORE the Messiah and would not be the Messiah Himself.
***So those scholars were wrong on that latter point. No surprise there. That's what scholarship is all about, correcting false notions in arriving at conclusions closer to the truth.
The reasoning that some may have had that J was the resurrected form of Jeremiah was because some Jews thought that he was the prophet spoken of in Deuteronomy 18:15 that should be raised up from among them like unto Moses.
***Could be.
***We should keep in mind that Immanuel was known as a wisdom teacher, and a genuine wisdom teacher teaches truth, not falsehood. It's only been in the past several decades that we've learned of the truth (reality) of reincarnation, thanks to the confimred identities of all those hundreds of past lives of young children, plus of some past lives of adults who underwent hypno-regression back to times before their own birth (e.g., see www.tjresearch.info/rebirth.htm).
At 1:34 PM ,
Ben said...
Matthew 14:1-2
“At that time Herod the tetrarch heard the report about Jesus and said to his servants, “This is John the Baptist; he is risen from the dead, and therefore these powers are at work in him.”
Talmud Jmmanuel Chapter 16: 1-2
“At the time when Jmmanuel was staying in Nazareth, news about him reached Herod. And he spoke to his people, "Surely this is John the Baptist, who has arisen from the dead and who therefore possesses such mighty powers.”
In regards to my statement:
“Now, anybody who had seen both John the Baptist and J together would not have been the ones thinking that J was John the Baptist.”
It was said:
***Perhaps, but not necessarily. At the time the question was asked, "Who do the people say that I am?", John was dead, and so it could have been thought, by some, that he had possessed the body of Jmmanuel. And that after that time many of J's miraculous deeds were performed. Belief in "possession" existed then, as I think you know. That's what all those exorcisms were about.
My question:
Can you refer me to literature where it is shown that Jews believed that dead descendents of Adam could possess others once dead? While belief in possession did exist, it was largely thought that only demons could possess people. While I am aware that some hold that demons once had physical bodies, I am not aware of those who think that any demons were descendents of Adam.
In regards to my statement:
“Thus, those who were falsely supposing that J was John the Baptist believed that J was the RESURRECTED form of John the Baptist, not the reincarnated form.”
It was said:
***Not so, I say, because the resurrected form is supposed to have the very same physical appearance as previously. We have no reason to suspect that John the Baptist was just like Jmmanuel in physical appearance, height, age and sound of voice. Instead, those few people more likely believed John's spirit had taken over, or possessed, Immanuel.
My question:
Are you saying, then, that both Matthew and The Talmud of Jmmanuel recorded false statements from Herod, statements that were likely held by others who either influenced Herod or else received such thoughts from Herod? Does either account show that the spirit of John the Baptist possessed J?
At 11:55 AM ,
Jim Deardorff said...
...While I am aware that some hold that demons once had physical bodies, I am not aware of those who think that any demons were descendents of Adam.
***Those that held that demons once had physical bodies probably held also that the same persons (bodies) had descended from Adam. (Those who were not good Jews may have believed they had descended from someone else than Adam.)
In regards to my statement:
“Thus, those who were falsely supposing that J was John the Baptist believed that J was the RESURRECTED form of John the Baptist, not the reincarnated form.”
It was said:
***Not so, I say, because the resurrected form is supposed to have the very same physical appearance as previously. We have no reason to suspect that John the Baptist was just like Jmmanuel in physical appearance, height, age and sound of voice. Instead, those few people more likely believed John's spirit had taken over, or possessed, Immanuel.
My question:
Are you saying, then, that both Matthew and The Talmud of Jmmanuel recorded false statements from Herod, statements that were likely held by others who either influenced Herod or else received such thoughts from Herod?
***One doesn't know how Herod came to this false belief. Probably from others, but possibly it was his own independent interpretation. The main question would seem to be, how did J, and hence the writer of the TJ, come to learn what Herod had thought at this time?
Does either account show that the spirit of John the Baptist possessed J?
***No. The passage in Mark about J being beside himself is a redaction, IMO. In TJ 28:12 (and Mt 26:41) J speaks of "the spirit" in the context of his own spirit and not of some other spirit possessing him.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home