tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14392192.post4994909389422797696..comments2019-07-20T12:04:50.989-07:00Comments on TJ Comments: Jim Deardorffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04517653430586348063noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14392192.post-73667027866044449642009-12-29T07:27:32.356-08:002009-12-29T07:27:32.356-08:00I fully agree that there is no way that the inform...I fully agree that there is no way that the information given by Quetzal has any chance of being true in any form. For Matthew to have dictated a story to a scribe who freely chose to distort the story as he saw fit and for the resulting work to match so closely with that of the TJ - a document that neither the scribe nor Matthew could have possibly had in his hands at the time, given that the story of the origin of the TJ, as given by the Plejarens, is true - goes beyond the realm of possibility. Nevertheless, I post this so that reasoning individuals will be cautious not to believe everything that the Plejarens have to say concerning the origin of the TJ, even though the Plejarens would have everyone believe that all that they say is true and would ridicule those who would challenge them. Thus, the Plejarens actually want people to accept the idea that Matthew dictated a story to a person who changed it as he freely chose and that so many words in the falsified version happened to line up very well with another writing that was independently created and that was never consulted, even though the writings have opposite purposes when compared to each other. And this is precisely what they want people to accept as being “logical.”Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17969996116976539686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14392192.post-22262103952886678702009-12-29T06:51:56.981-08:002009-12-29T06:51:56.981-08:00Thanks for that information, Ben. I would blame th...Thanks for that information, Ben. I would blame the gross inconsistency here on "imaginative story telling" by Quetzal, or, some more plausible deniability. Their purpose would seem to be to cast doubt on the veracity of the TJ so that there will be very little chance of any sudden revelation of TJ truths that would take hold and force millions of Christians to disbelieve what they had been brought up to believe. I.e., not violating people's free will has a higher priority than not telling lies.<br /><br />They would prefer that any such revelation come very gradually through our own institutions, as I see it.Jim Deardorffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04517653430586348063noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14392192.post-73408421606590589762009-12-28T17:11:11.418-08:002009-12-28T17:11:11.418-08:00I’ve found a statement from Quetzal that throws a ...I’ve found a statement from Quetzal that throws a monkey wrench into the theory that the Gospel of Matthew first appeared around A.D. 120. In the 212th Contact, which occurred on Thursday, November 6, 1986, Meier asked Quetzal about who wrote the book of Matthew. Quetzal’s response, which appears as line 12 of the contact, reads:<br /><br />“Das Matthäus-Evangelium wurde von Matthäus einem Schriftkundigen namens Josua diktiert, der das Ganze in freiem Ermessen auslegte und niederschrieb und folglich also auch verfälschte.”<br /><br />I have translated it into English as:<br />“The Gospel of Matthew was dictated by Matthew to a scribe named Joshua, who interpreted and wrote down the whole thing in his free discretion and, consequently, also falsified it.”<br /><br />Earlier in the contact, Quetzal explained to Meier that he had consulted all of the Plejaren historians and had studied all the historical records that he had at his disposal in order to discover the true origins of the books of the Bible. He was confident that this was the means by which the book of Matthew came into existence. Given that Quetzal firmly stated that the person named Matthew, one of J’s 12 disciples, dictated the book to the scribe Joshua, there is no way that the origin of book of Matthew being around the year A.D. 120 can be consistent with the information that is attested by the Plejarens and that is agreed upon by Meier. Matthew would have already been dead before the year A.D. 100. Therefore, if it is true that the TJ could have only formed the basis for the first gospel after the year A.D. 115, as the blog states, then the book of Matthew could not have been based on the TJ if Quetzal’s explanation concerning the origin of the book of Matthew is to be accepted.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17969996116976539686noreply@blogger.com