TJ Comments

Comments are welcomed on the comparisons between the verses or passages shown from the Gospel of Matthew and their TJ parallels. TJ stands for Talmud of Jmmanuel, discovered in 1963 by Eduard Meier and Isa Rashid.

Saturday, June 30, 2012


Recent argumentation, leaving aside the Talmud of Jmmanuel, shows this. It goes as follows:

A.) Isaiah’s Immanuel prophecy (Isa 7:14) could be true and verified only if the would-be Messiah had been named “Immanuel” at birth. (It was to be his name, at birth, not just a title or characterization or symbology.)

B.) John the Baptist probably thought the prophecy had come true (Matthew 11:3-4); Paul definitely thought Isaiah’s prophecy had come true (Rom 15:12); the writer of Matthew definitely thought it was true (Mt 1:23) although he wrote that his name at birth was to be “Jesus” (Mt 1:21,25); Justin Martyr definitely believed it had come true (Dialogue with Trypho, Chaps. 43,66); and Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, definitely believed it had come true (Adv. Haer. III.9.2, 19.1, 20.3, 21.4).

C.) If these persons were correct in believing that Isaiah’s Immanuel prophecy had come true, then the messiah had indeed been named “Immanuel” at birth and during his life, until someone somehow had renamed him “Jesus.”

Supporting clues for this from Gnostic Gospels and elsewhere, along with a scenario of how it could all have come about, are given here.

If the prophesied messiah had been named "Immanuel" at birth, John the Baptist would have known this, of course, and would not have been confronted with any contradiction. But how could Paul have ignored this contradiction (and never ever mentioned "Immanuel" in his Epistles), and so also the writer of Matthew, Justin and Irenaeus? The latter even emphasized "the name Emmanuel" and "born Emmanuel of the virgin." One may also ask, how could NT scholars have ignored the contradiction for so long? Just because modern science has no clue how a particular long-range prophecy could be fulfilled is no reason for ignoring the fact that 4 or 5 important personages of that era believed it had been fulfilled and thereby accepted the contradiction.


  • At 2:33 AM , Blogger Rose Ann said...

    Pardon me but this is an off-topic comment. it's about the Synoptic Gospel Priority.. link on your site and the following is what shows up on my pc windows 7 when opened: <�!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> <�html> <�head> <�title>THE GOSPEL PRIORITY PROBLEM REEXAMINED<�/title> <�/head> <�body link="#0000ff" vlink="#0000ff" lang="EN-US" style=""> <�center> <�h1 style="text-align: center;"><�a name="Prior"><�/a>THE GOSPEL PRIORITY PROBLEM REEXAMINED:<�/h1> <�/center> <�center> <�h4 style="text-align: center;">INVESTIGATING THE VERBAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN PARALLEL TEXTS,<�br> UTILIZING THE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF STRINGS OF IDENTICAL CONSECUTIVE WORDS <�/h4> <�/center> <�center>A Paper by <�a href="">James W. Deardorff<�/a> <�br> Dec. 1997; Revised Aug. 1999, June 2004, Nov. 2004<�/center> <�div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"> <�center> <�hr size="2" width="100%" align="center"><�/center> <�/div> <�div class="MsoNormal"><�b>Abstract:<�/b><�/div> The strong role that theological commitment played in bringing about the present consensus on Gospel priorities (Mark-Q hypothesis) is reviewed in Part I. A key point against the present consensus, noted by various scholars, is the apparent interdependence of Greek wording between Matthew and Luke's "Q" verses,....
    though there's a slit chance that you could read this I really am hoping that if not you could modify the site, in your deepest availability i'll be delighted if you could send the "normal" texts supposedly shown on the site to my archiving mail
    I may be a complete stranger to you though but there's nothing more I can say but thank you for your research in tj. in a lot of ways that would add up to my and others' necessary learning and analysis

  • At 8:13 AM , Blogger Jim Deardorff said...

    Hello Rose Ann,

    That web file reads OK in my browser, Internet Explorer, using my PC and Windows 7.

    You may somehow have gone to "View" and then under its drop-down menu clicked on "Source". At some stage years ago I think some microsoft program automatically took over my own html coding and added a little bit of its own coding.

  • At 4:38 AM , Blogger bineesh as said...

    I strongly believe Isias is the true christ and the jesus of 1st century is only an Alexandrian made messiah in the hellenistic period by some scholers like philo,lycimachus,marcus julious alexander etc

  • At 4:43 AM , Blogger asifalikhassan said...

    i think isaiah is the true jesus

  • At 6:51 AM , Blogger Jim Deardorff said...

    You both could be on the right track, if Isaiah had been one of Immanuel's past lives.

  • At 4:27 AM , Blogger Bruce said...

    "The Gospel of Judas, a text dated to about A.D. 280, tells the story of Judas as a collaborator with Jesus instead of a betrayer. Scientists recently revealed how they authenticated the age of the text. The discovery gave the researchers the confidence to declare the document consistent with a date of approximately A.D. 280."

  • At 2:57 PM , Blogger Jim Deardorff said...

    Thanks, Bruce. It may be appealing to trust the National Geographics' translation of the Gospel of Judas, which yielded a favorable Judas, since that could support the TJ's story. However, the translation by Dr. April DeConick seems more trustworthy to me. Her translation of the Coptic yielded a demonic Judas, in keeping with the Gospels. See e.g.,

    A date for it circa 280 does not seem unreasonable. That is still some 8 generations away from the time of Immanuel in Palestine.

  • At 3:56 PM , Blogger Bruce said...


    - "These Gnostics equated Ialdabaoth with the Hebrew Yahweh, whom they saw as a jealous and wrathful deity and an opponent of the supreme God whom Jesus came to earth to reveal."

    Yahweh sounds like the malicious Ishwisch Jehova and the supreme God must be the Creation.

    If you think about some legends, you can see how they spun & twisted the facts into the stories that are the basis for religious belief today. i.e. Jesus descending from heaven for our sins = Nokodemion leaving spiritual existence to return to material existence to get his peoples back on track and instruct them in the spiritual teaching.

    have you seen this one?

    some interesting stuff in there .. too bad the other few scrolls of the TJ won't be available. I wonder how much would overlap with the stories of Jesus in India. Probably a fair amount.

  • At 3:48 PM , Blogger Jim Deardorff said...

    Thanks for that URL, Bruce. Abbot George Burke had a lot of interesting things to say there. I wonder if he's related to Marie L. Burke, who wrote _Swami Trigunatitananda: His Life and Works_. This book seems to be unavailable, but supposedly includes, within it, something about this swami's trip to Himis monastery where he verified the writing that Notovitch brought to light. If correct, he verified it a couple decades before Swami Adhedananda did.

    And Abbot Burke made interesting referneces to Basilides.

    Abbot Burke evidently knew nothing about the Talmud of Jmmanuel, and so didn't know that the name was Immanuel, not Jesus. And he incorrectly assumed that "Jesus" was an Essene. Plus quite a few other errors based on incorrectly assuming that certain Gospel verses were true.

  • At 3:49 AM , Blogger Duane L said...

    jim thanks,and praise immanuel


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home