Note: This article is just my personal attempt at addressing immediate criticism I have received of the Talmud Jmmanuel. But my knowledge is still very limited. Any seriously interested readers will have to read the source material themselves. Such personal investment, as I understand it will be far more likely to promote their own spiritual journey anyway.
Answers to Some Criticisms from a Christian of the TALMUD JMMANUEL and "BILLY" MEIER Written by Vivienne Legg of gaiaguys.net See the introductory page to my articles. It is not sensible to make a judgment of Billy Meier based almost entirely on a reading of the Talmud Jmmanuel. Nor is it sensible to judge the Talmud Jmmanuel without studying the context in which it has been presented. We (Vivienne and Dyson) have judged the Talmud Jmmanuel largely based on our knowledge of Billy Meier. But not just on Meier, also on what the Plejarans have produced and also on Professor Deardorff's work, (which critics don't choose to look at) and also based on our own independently reached conclusions based on much other reading. Regarding our degree of acceptance I wrote in another recent article, (What the Extraterrestrials Are Telling Us: The Hard Language of Truth), "Why do we trust the Meier material? Well, we don't trust it unquestioningly. ...Happily the components of his material that we do find nonsensical or contrary to our own assessments serve to force us to arrive at conclusions about what is true through our own thought and reasoning. This is both a clever and necessary device and is not an intentional quality of deliberately deceptive material, which would aim to provide us with all the desired answers without raising suspicions." There are contradictions in the Meier material. We cannot help but question it.
Perhaps I didn't adequately explain this in my introduction to Billy Meier and the Talmud Jmmanuel. We see a large part of our job as being simply pointing to this material and saying, "Look! This has turned up!" We didn't produce it. Of course we have formed opinions about it and do have a lot of confidence in the source over-all. But since we are not automatically accepting everything that the TJ contains (or that the broader material contains) I don't feel obliged to attempt to justify every component of it. Also it's important to remember too that the TJ's authenticity as an ancient text does not rely on it's conclusions being truthful. We see the TJ as a historical document that may or may not contain errors or even malicious deception (although we believe the latter is very unlikely.) Semjase made the following statement about it in 1975, "It offers the truth to Earth Humans, though some speculations are in it." Jmmanuel, according to the TJ, is not a perfect being, and so he was also capable of being in error. Similarly, the celestial sons and god according to the TJ are not perfect beings and are also capable of being in error and being corrupt. And Meier and the Plejarans are too, although we see no evidence of them being corrupt. The Plejarans tell us that in earlier times the "gods" certainly were decieving us and that it was only after thousands of years (after Adam and Co. were brought into being under brutal rule) did the "gods" gradually become more spiritual themselves and provide a (relatively) just leadership. But even then the actual truth about who was who would have been confused, as it appears to be in the TJ. Jmmanuel's Plejaran teachers may not themselves have known, or may not have presented the whole story to Jmmanuel. Now, on to some specific criticisms.
"The TJ is the result of someone (Meier?) jumping on the UFO bandwagon to push his own agenda." Readers may well judge the TJ to be false, but this implies that the rest of Meier's work is suspect. The two can’t be separated so easily. The context in which the TJ is presented cannot be ignored if a true understanding of Meier's opinions, motives and of those who have influenced him is to be had. Far from jumping on the ET bandwagon and merely being expert in unidentified flying objects, the UFO literature reveals that Meier and his visitors have been crucial to the whole ET educational process on Earth by getting more serious discussion going, providing photographic and other proof unavailable elsewhere and causing a great stir in the intelligence community because of Meier's unequaled contact with the craft‘s occupants and access to otherwise unknowable information. There was a big global media buzz when Meier first became known in the seventies and before the debunkers got busy with their lies. People are free to dispute all of that of course, but it takes a lot of looking into. There's an enormous amount of ground to cover.
We have been told by a Disclosure Project witness that the Meier case has been of extreme interest to the intelligence services and “everyone” knows about it. The Americans who investigated him in the seventies assessed him to be genuine, as apparently did intelligence bodies from other countries, including in Meier's home country Switzerland. Civilian UFO investigator, retired US Air force Colonel Wendell Stevens also investigated the case over a number of years in the 70s, as did others, and says he was frequently followed and dogged by intelligence people who were keen to learn what they could from Stevens. All this attention tends to suggest that Meier is not just another imaginative kook, but a threat to the establishment. So it's not merely a Meier delusion. Is it a Plejaran deception? We don't think so. The rest of their work reveals a very ethical and truthful mentality and in broad terms agrees with ET advice apparently coming through other sources, like via military encounters, as I explored in my aforementioned article. Also we know that the true military assessment is that these extraterrestrial people are not hostile, but are exceptionally advanced. (Regarding evidence, ethical values and intelligence interest, this case contrasts completely with the Raelian sect that attracted media interest recently because of its human cloning projects. Rael has a following of materialistic, sensuality seekers who donate frightening amounts of money to building an embassy for the Elohim who will supposedly come to claim their rightful place as our creators when it is built. Rael has no evidence, but in contrast to Meier does enjoy the "good" life with plenty of sex. He aims to have beautiful androids for this purpose, but I digress.)
"Meier's teaching appears to be based entirely on the Talmud Jmmanuel." Meier's work is not based on the TJ at all. It merely includes it's revival. Billy Meier's views and teaching is based on many years of exposure to several extraterrestrial teachers (from more than one planet and social group) over many years in this lifetime, starting in 1942 at the age of five, 21 yeas before the TJ was discovered. That exposure included not only guidance and instruction on how to proceed with the TJ but also direct spiritual teaching from Semjase, who is considered on her planet to be more knowledgeable than most. The introduction to those spiritual teachings is similar but not the same as the Talmud Jmmanuel, the main difference being that Semjase's spiritual teachings (as far as we have seen them) are more advanced and speak to a more advanced human and are not full of prophecy and specifics. We have only seen a small part of all the broader material they have jointly produced but that small part is still very substantial and comprehensive. It provides much political, scientific, religious and spiritual background to Billy's political, religious, scientific and spiritual advice and is supported also by information that can be accessed elsewhere. In addition Meier traveled extensively in his earlier years intensively studying world religions and spiritual disciplines. This experience provided a foundation for much of the knowledge he acquired since.
"There seems no proof that the TJ is genuine." ( proof 1. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.- Macquarie Dictionary, 3rd edition.) There is proof. The man who found the cave and did the translation of the scrolls is dead. (He was reportedly murdered along with his family. You have to wonder why?) But Billy was co-discoverer of the scrolls and is still alive to be asked about it. (I'll clarify here that although it was carelessness on Isa Rashid's part, according to Semjase, that he "lost" the scrolls, this did occur while he and his family, along with other refugees in Lebanon, were fleeing attack from the Israelis. The scrolls were thought to have burned in the resulting conflagration. It does seems harsh for Semjase to call it carelessness, but also harsh to discount the circumstances of the loss, unless you have substantial evidence that it didn't happen.)
The results of the work of Professor Deardorff constitutes proof, since it is not only original scrolls (papyrus rolls in this case) that scholars study for proof of authenticity but the content. To quote Deardorff, "..This is much more than scholars have to go on with respect to their studies of the New Testament gospels, for example, for which neither the originals nor their first translations or copies, nor their second copies...exist, and for which of course no eye-witness testimony exists. Thus the genuineness of the TJ has to be determined through indirect means". Until I read Deardorff's work some months ago, I could not imagine very well how the book of Matthew could have been derived from it. Now it seems very clear.
"The forward reads like the work of a paranoid person." (So does our gaiaguys website if you don't believe it.) If you frequently have illicit intelligence bodies and others (including Neo Nazis) trying to kill you then that can hardly be called paranoia. It's not paranoia if you are really being persecuted. Meier has witnesses to some of these 19 murder attempts on him. Even his daughter was almost kidnapped once.
"It is full of hate and fear". I think hate and fear can be read into the TJ introduction by people who don't make the distinction between criticism and hate and fear. I see Meier’s introduction as being primarily warnings and predictions based on a lot of insider knowledge and experience. Meier is a flawed human, but with a special task. It is not surprising that Christian readers reject Meier's extremely harsh criticisms. Whether they are correct or not is one very important issue, of course. But making criticisms of something is not in and of itself an expression of hate, nor of fear. Most people I know believe otherwise. I'll deal more with this further on, because, it is a recurring issue and readers will have noticed that Jmmanuel, according to the TJ, does condone despising and punishment, but only "where it is warranted".
"It has only condemnation of the Christian Church, not praise." Yes, sadly. All religion is seen as the distortion of true teachings, the remnants of which can still be recognised to a greater or lesser extent. This clearly implies that more good could have been done had the teachings been promulgated without the distortions. There is no denying that not just Billy Meier - but the Talmud Jmmanuel, the Plejarans, their associates the Timars and others are very down on religion in general, not just Christianity. It is said to be something quite peculiar to Earth and which was used by power hungry advanced humans to suppress us.
"Large parts of this teaching are straight copies of the Biblical texts with certain words changed." The overwhelming evidence tells us that it's the other way around. It is in the detail of Deardorff's analysis that this is best demonstrated. The TJ doesn't claim to be completely different from Matthew. It appears to be the text from which Matthew was derived, so the shared sections are to be expected. Deardorff says of the writer of Matthew, "He only altered what was heretical for him and the early church, or was otherwise unacceptable to a Jewish scribe converted to Christianity in the early 2nd century."
'Replacing “Jesus” with “Jmmanuel” means nothing'. Deardorff naturally explains better than I can why this difference certainly does mean something and how it was Jmmanuel that was "replaced" with Jesus. His argument is available to read for those who are interested, the main point being that the name Jesus would not have likely been given to someone who does not preach salvation through himself or through Yahweh ("God"), since Jesus means "Yahweh saves". The contention is that soteriology (the religious doctrine of salvation through a saviour) was not a teaching originated by Jesus and that the concept of Jesus's divinity and salvation through him first arose with the early Church. Regarding the J in Jmmanuel, Deardorff reports that in the TJ's original Old Aramaic text, 'Immanuel was spelled with a "J" symbol supplying the "i" sound in place of the Aramaic/Hebrew letter "Ayin"'. This indicates that the J was not an Aramaic letter. It isn't German either. We are told it is Lyrian. (Lyra/Vega star system)
"It stresses reliance on humanity rather than on God despite humanity constantly being described as depraved and misguided." I refer the reader to the excerpts in my last article regarding spiritual potential. A few points need to be made here. Most importantly what the TJ does is explain that it is because we have not learned to look within and develop our own spiritual capacity that we are depraved and misguided. It follows then that if we look within and develop our spiritual capacity the reverse will be true. Also, the TJ and Jmmanuel are addressing Earth humans. They assert that humanity inhabits many places throughout the universe and is not confined to Earth, and many of these humans are far more advanced than us, which implies our potential for growth as well. Also the focus on Earth humanity's shortcomings is due to a need to get us to change rather than self destruct. The Plejarans explain that harsh prophecies are delivered, and only negative ones because they are intended as warnings in the hope that we can change our behaviour. We apparently are in need of a wake up call, so it's got to be loud.
'The replacement of "God" by "Creation" is insignificant.' Whether you accept the "Creation" idea or not the difference between these is fundamental. Although the Christian "God" is seen by Christians as the Creator, in the TJ "Creation" is not "God" and god, an extraterrestrial, is incapable of creating the world and is not omnipotent. He is merely a ruler above emperors and kings. Many Christians naturally see "God" as a spirit rather than a giant human with robes and a beard, and would argue that such a spirit is hardly different from the "Creation" concept. But there is still a profound difference, as I understand it. Most importantly there is still the remnant of the original deception in the title alone which continues (insidiously) to hold all the false teaching that that original deception brought with it. Also those Christians who see "God" as a non-anthropomorphic spirit, if they are indeed still Christians, see him as a personal advisor, judge and father figure, which is not how "Creation" is to be understood. In this we at least have the concepts of humanness, patriarchy and individuality (as opposed to Creation's oneness which is experienced by our whole being and from which we form our own instructions for life). To even say the word "God" to mean "Creation" would remind us, at least at a subconscious level, of these things. If some of these advanced ET ruler characteristics weren't still there, even at a really subtle level, in someone's understanding of God then that someone could not really be called a Christian any more.
"It panders to atheism." The Meier/Plejaran material teaches that there have been many gods or advanced people who have set themselves up as "God(s)" and we should not worship them. That is not atheism but polytheism, if either. Meanwhile it teaches that a real, living, omnipotent, all-pervasive sentient and infinitely loving and enigmatic greater Cosmic Consciousness (of which our enlivening spirits are tiny fragments) exists. It unifies us all and demands respect and understanding and from it everything flows. This would not appeal to any atheists I have known.
"It is confused about who Jmmanuel's father is." The reader's confusion may come from the passage after Jmmanuel's baptism where a metallic light descends and an anonymous voice says, "This is my beloved son with whom I am well pleased. He will be the king of truth, through which terrestrial ones will rise as wise ones." In the TJ we assume this was the angel Gabriel since he was mentioned consistently elsewhere as being Jmmanuel's father. From all that we have learned about extraterrestrials and their craft it would have been nothing strange for Gabriel to have had his own flying vehicle, or access to one, especially considering his apparently important role in the mission.
"It seems to deny the importance of the spiritual dimension now and yet contradicts this with its' inclusion of the angel Gabriel" The TJ repeatedly emphasises the importance of recognising and exercising the spiritual reality or dimension now.
Ch 6:52, "First seek the realm of your spirit and it's knowledge. "
Perhaps one thing that makes the TJ seem lacking to some people in this regard is the repeated use of the word knowledge rather than faith. According to the TJ knowledge is not separate from spirit or anything else. The following passages may spell out the TJ position more clearly.
Ch 36:27, "Initially only a few will know that humans live not only on the Earth but also in the endless expanses of the universes, and that they live not only in the material world but their spirits reach into another world that can not be grasped by the ordinary physical senses.
28, This other one, the ethereal world, is the true home of the spirit. Therefore humans should try without ceasing to broaden and deepen their knowledge, love, truth, logic, true freedom, genuine peace, harmony and wisdom, so that the spirit may be perfected and lifted up into it's true home, becoming one with Creation."
Angels, god's messengers in the TJ, were advanced human beings, not a separate kind of purely spiritual being. And so their presence itself did not indicate the importance of spirituality any more than did the presence of "ordinary" humans.
"There's a corny passage about Jmmanuel using magic, deciet and trickery to fool Paul/Saul, an act not befitting a spiritually advanced teacher." (First, it's worth remembering that Jmmanuel was not a perfect being according to the TJ, only a prophet. He was warned by the teachers from "the seven stars" that he should beware of abusing his spiritual powers. This implies that it was thought that the potential was there for him to do that.) But does this explain the Saul incident? The "magic" Jmmanuel employed was a little understood use of explosives. To enhance the "trick" he took advantage of Saul's existing corrupted thinking which included that Jmmanuel was dead as a result of the crucifixion. Consider the circumstances. According to the story Saul was on his way to capture Jmmanuel's disciple and brother, probably to kill them. Maybe a bit of pragmatism (in the purest sense of the word) and justice was in order. Maybe this was the most constructive/creative way to demonstrate to an unseeing (metaphorically) Saul the folly of his thinking while preventing a very damaging murder/capture to take place. Also there is nothing to indicate that Jmmanuel was preparing Paul for his ministry in the TJ. The result of the trick was that Saul went from persecuting Jmmanuel's followers to teaching a distorted version of the teachings. So it wasn't really a conversion in the biblical sense.
"Jmmanuel condemns his own disciples." Yes, for predicted future distortions of his teachings. This is consistent with the rest of the text which says that Jmmanuel was there to present the teachings anew to a group of people who had absorbed and passed on corrupted teachings. Such was the force of the resistance to these newly revealed teachings that he even had severe problems with his disciples. But he also says this of some of his disciples, TJ Ch 20:28, ...truly, I say to you, some of you who have followed me will embrace the wisdom of my teachings, so you will be spiritually great in reincarnations to come....
'Reffering to "two times a thousand" and "five times a hundred" seems like an attempt to make the text seem truly archaic.' I don't have an explanation for why these phrases were used in the Talmud Jmmanuel but I am looking into it. Anyone capable of organising what would be an elaborate hoax, requiring knowledge of old Aramaic etc. (Meier is a brilliant man but with only a sixth grade formal education) would realise that you'd need more than one or two isolated archaic seeming phrases to be convincing. It does stick out. But I see nothing sinister here.
"The greatest commandment loses meaning." This sums up one of the major disagreements between the TJ and New Testament. Jmmanuel according to the TJ taught that as god was just an advanced extraterrestrial he should be honoured and recognised for his position as ruler, but not seen as perfect and worshiped. As long as this idea is unacceptable then the reader is not likely to agree with the importance and supreme value of what Jmmanuel delivers instead. TJ 23.35 "...Achieve the wisdom of knowledge, so that you may wisely follow the laws of Creation" and 39 "But the other directive, equal to the first, is this: You shall consider only Creation as omnipotent, for it alone is constant in all things and therein is timeless." I imagine that one of the Christian objections is that this "God"lessness seems to take the soul out of it so to speak. It might seem cold, clinical or materialistic and impersonal. But that's a misunderstanding. This teaching says that love and Creation are one and that wisdom and Creation are one and Creation is omnipotent, and so this is what is considered to be the ultimate source of all things. All the love and awe and respect and obedience previously directed at God is transferred back to Creation. And we are directed to do to others as we would have them do to us, in love. The result of all this is a profound knowing and feeling of wholeness, completeness and peace, not loneliness or separateness.
( I am sure some people are concerned by what can appear to be an absence of teaching about love in the TJ. Firstly, much is implied in the above understanding of Creation. ie. true understanding is love. We are all fragments of Creation. I wonder if Christians would see correct judgment as being an act of love. etc. It's worth remembering again that what we have seen is just one quarter of the text. In Semjase's introduction to spiritual teaching, which is very similar to the last part of the TJ, the concept of love and it's ultimate value and association with Creation is elaborated on extensively. Semjase teaches that a human who is filled with love is also rich in wisdom, and a human who is rich in wisdom is also full of love. Love and wisdom belong together, because Creation and it's laws are love and wisdom at the same time. "Wisdom and love increase this dedication for the fulfillment of the given Creative-natural laws, because spirit and Creation are one."
"It encourages prejudice." Not at all. TJ Ch 36:30, "When people are honest and seek, they will not hold any preconceived opinions or prejudices." The Talmud Jmmanuel does not encourage opinions that are not based on reason or actual experience, nor does it encourage actions based on preconceived opinions not based on reason or actual experience, which is what prejudice is. Firstly, as mentioned, it teaches us to think for ourselves, so taken as a whole this means that if something in the TJ seems wrong then we should not accept it. In the TJ, Jmmanuel does make damning criticisms of certain groups of people and individuals as do Billy Meier and the Plejarans now. The important question to my mind is are these things true or not? Critics seem sure that they are not. But do they have the definitive evidence they demand of Meier and associates to support their own contention. I'm waiting to see as more sources make themselves available.
"It condemns homosexuals." It certainly does judge homosexuality among men as being wrong and against the laws of nature (thus Creation). We don't currently understand why this would be so and it seems an extreme assessment. It also includes what appears to be an inconsistency between the standards for men and women, as does the Plejaran practice of polygamy, as described by Guido Moosbrugger. (Actually the word polygamy applies to both sexes whereas the Plejarans only allow polgny which is the practise of having several wives). I have been vocal in promoting the rights of homosexuals, transsexuals, transvestites and unmarried couples and I have spoken with my feet. Most of my close friends over the years have fallen into these categories. I am not about to change my position, unless I become aware of some still obscure (to me) reason why we have made a mistake about that. It seems that we have only just achieved a level of civilized acceptance for sexual diversity.
Importantly, as I understand it, Billy Meier tolerates homosexuality and believes that Jmmanuel wasn't quite right about it.
"It promotes castration." Taking the above into consideration there are some further points. It has been argued that if I say that castration no longer applies then "that could apply to the whole text". Well, yes it could, but there is no logical reason why it should. Surely we accept that there are some laws and standards that are universal and apply throughout the ages, and others that must be tailored somewhat to the collective level of spiritual evolution of the people. The New Testament provides examples according to Christian beliefs. According to the aforementioned assertion a Christian could not accept the validity of Jesus's teachings about love and healing because of the presence of, for example, Paul's instruction in Titus 2.9. Slaves are to submit themselves to their masters and please them in all things. and in Ephesians 5.22 Wives, submit yourselves to your husbands as to the Lord.
There is a much better explanation than the above.
Deardorff has explained on his web page http://www.tjresearch.info/Eldberg2.htm#castrate , "Meier believes that the words translated as "entmannt" (castrated) and "entweibt" (sterilized) were mistranslations by Isa Rashid of the original Aramaic. He suggests that the Aramaic had utilized a phrase like "cut off" or "cast out" for the penalty; hence the guilty ones were to be expelled and banished.
This is actually a plausible explanation for the appearance of "sterilized" in these verses. TJ 12:4 reads, "It is written, however, 'Whosoever commits adultery and fornication shall be punished, because the fallible are unworthy of life and its laws; thus they shall be castrated or sterilized.'" But where is anything like this written? The closest one comes to it in the Scriptures is at Lv 18:20-29. There, however, the penalty is for the guilty ones to be cut off from their people. It seems that Rashid, reading of the punishment for a fornicator, having male fornicators in mind, assumed that "cut off" (krt or karath in Hebrew) meant castrated here. He evidently did not take the time to review Lv 18:29. So for offenses that could involve women as well, he had to add "or sterilized" for completeness. Thus, not only was "sterilized" incorrect, but also "castrated."
"The all embracing condemnation of Israelites is suspect. It is anti-Semitic." Not at all! First, for perspective, here is some New Testament all embracing condemnation of Cretans, (the Cretan paradox) Titus 1.12-13 It was a Cretan himself, one of their own prophets, who spoke the truth when he said, "Cretans are always liars, wicked beasts, and lazy gluttons." Paul is very condemning of "the heathen", Ephesians 4.17 "do not continue to live like the heathen, whose thoughts are worthless. Jesus has nothing good to say about Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees. ( the reader's assertion was that everyone has good and bad qualities.) and condemns them to a life of sin and punishment.
Remember the context in which the TJ criticisms are given. Jmmanuel was sent to try to preach to the three human lineages that god is said to have brought into being. He wasn't there to deliver broadsides about the Greeks, Romans and whoever else. Had that been his job perhaps they would have received a similar tongue lashing. Also we should not lose sight of the disproportional influence the Israelites have had on shaping the politics and religion of the now dominant West. Since prophecy was seemingly no big deal for Jmmanuel he (or his teachers) would have seen what was coming. And if the Israelite leaders did knowingly distort the teachings, that is all the more serious because of the world wide ramifications, especially if those distortions then assisted them in increasing their political power.
In the TJ, Jmmanuel's condemnation is based on the assertion that the Israelite leaders knowingly corrupted the true teachings of Jmmanuel and of previous prophets, that they came by their land though robbery, murder and fire and that they were never specially chosen by "God". And if you do not accept that this could be true, of course this will seem unjustified. It is only anti-Semitic (in the common understanding of the word) if it is malicious lies to oppose Jews or Israelites entirely and mindlessly. Actually the word anti-semitic more strictly applies to the Arabs and others as well as the Jews. (It might be more accurate to discuss if it is anti-Judaistic.) But if the aforementioned charges turns out to be true then it is history. We should question all of this, but that includes asking where is the authentification of the material on which people rely to back their contention that this is false. The Old Testament is full of story after story of how the Israelites, under the direction of God, attacked land after land unprovoked in order to reach the promised land, leaving a trail of blood behind.
So if the charges are true should the Israelis be condemned for it? My understanding is that such an outcome would be nothing more than an example of, "As ye sow, so shall ye reap." How is this different to Jesus's teachings? Matthew 7:2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
Christians generally take this to be referring to the afterlife, I assume. In the TJ there is no such distinction, but I think it's the same principle.
In the TJ, Jmmanuel does indicate that there are exceptions to his judgment of Israelites and ... TJ 24: 50, "...Yet not by accident will you have a fortuitous chance in the new age when my teachings on Creation's justice and laws will again be disseminated, so you may then seize the opportunity to end and settle the world's hatred against you by means of an honest peace.
51, Therefore, in the new age, heed my teachings ... this will be the sign of the times...the power of the mighty and tyrants will crumble, so that the peoples of all humankind become free."
This is hardly total damnation.
It is easy to be distracted by the severity of the admonitions and interpret it as hate rather than urgent warnings based on knowledge about how cause and effect really works. Here it is also important to raise again the clarification that the Plejarans made about prophecy. That is, it is necessarily negative in order to promote the necessary changes for the better, but that it is not certain and can be altered if those changes are made. Since it is done for this purpose they do not deliver positive prophecy just to balance it out. I think the important thing is to find out how accurate or inaccurate these assessments are by looking elsewhere. It is also important to recognise these are generalisations and so there are exceptions, but also to recognise that any grouping of people is like a body. If the head is infected with disease then, no matter how great the skin on the arms looks the whole body is effected by that disease to a greater or lesser extent. As I see it that applies to the whole of Earth humanity.
It is not only the Israelites who are criticized. Here's what Jmmanuel says about the "legitimate people of this land". TJ 27:12, "You are struck with blindness like the legitimate people of this land...they have forsaken the tenets of truth... 13, ...their thinking is irrational." The broader Meier/Plejaran material is absolutely condemning of the Nazis, as is appropriate, also scathing of Americans and many others. But the whole of Earth humanity is assessed as being terribly dysfunctional and almost hopelessly in error. Like I said, context is important.
This brings me to the point that any criticism of the Jews regardless of merit is often automatically associated with Hitler and the holocaust. To criticize people does not mean you wish them harm. It certainly doesn't imply you want to throw them in gas chambers or rid the world of them or even that you bear them a grievance. Nor does it mean that you have no criticism for anyone else, or that you see yourself as without error. But these are all common knee jerk assumptions. It is just as harmful to avoid acknowledging destructive faults as it is to falsely judge. We need only to see the double standard being applied with Israel now as it's army bulldozes houses and their occupants (and protesters). Why is it so immune? When will it agree to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, as the United States should do also?
"It has racist, right wing overtones." The TJ explanations about extraterrestrial input into human lineages does not imply racism on the part of Jmmanuel or Billy Meier or the present day Plejarans. Here is one of the sections of concern, TJ 1 .89 "...; he is the true originator of the white, and coloured Earth humans,... "The criticism is that this implies that these people are the only ones worth saving. That isn't implied at all. Firstly, according to this teaching nobody gets saved at all in the Christian way. It's up to each individual to explore the path of enlightenment leading to peace and oneness with Creation. So there is no favoritism in that regard. There is also nothing here that implies that because god was the said creator of three lineages that those three were superior to the others (and they include both white and coloured). TJ 1:90, "Except for him there is nothing equal in form... people should have no other gods who created other human lineages in other parts of the Earth." This indicates that other lineages were created by gods (advanced humans) too. And later we learn that all the races eventually mixed to some extent anyway. If anything, it tells us that god feels himself to be superior to the other contemporary gods, who may have been any number of colours and races. But we read in the broader Meier/Plejaran material that the particular leader whose sub leaders brought human lineages into being (without god's knowledge and against his will) was killed by his son well before Jmmanuel's time. So god himself may have been both a racist and his successor a liar.. that doesn't mean Jmmanuel was a racist. Nor does it mean Meier is. This is intended as an historical account just as much as is the New Testament, which, by contrast, by this critic's reasoning, favours Jews. What I mean is that while the TJ doesn't favour Jews (above the other people "God" rules over anyway), the New Testament, as well as the Old Testament has given Jews the honor of being God's chosen people, through whom the rest of the world can find God. They also have the honor of having Jesus as their King. This special role given to the Jews should surely be seen as favoritism by the people who see the TJ as favoring white people.
TJ 4:28, "Behold, humans begotten by the celestial sons were different in a unique way from other people on Earth." (According to the story this was just a statement of fact.)The Plejarans have told Billy Meier that there were still other people, decendents of previous settlements of cosmic migrants, who remained in a very primitive state, presumably until interbreeding increased.)
29, "They were not like Earth humans but like the children of the celestial angels, and of a different kind." (Again this is just telling it like it is. Genetics )
30, "Their bodies were white as snow and red as the rose blossom, their hair at the top of the head white as wool and their eyes beautiful." (This is descriptive but it does not in itself imply racism.) Remember that god was said to be ruler over three lineages, white and coloured. Whether they all started out white because of genetic factors, or whether Jmmanuel's teachers are only referring to the lineage for which Adam was the father, is not clear. Now think about Adam according to the Bible. What colour was he? He couldn't have been white, brown and black, yellow and red all at once. Does his possible whiteness imply racism? What about speciesism? It sounds like there are other intelligent non-human creatures out there too. Are they discriminated against because they don't feature here?
31, "Earth humans will now retain their inherited beauty and propagate it further." This may or may not imply a racial bias or merely a genetic truth. But the TJ does tell us that god and his celestial sons were not perfect and the broader Meier material tells us that those in charge of bringing about these human lineages were criminals. Again the broader Meier material needs to be considered before judging what Meier supports since he tells us about all kinds of advanced extraterrestrial races with all kinds of skin colours, - including blue, grey and green! It's worth noting also that the Plejarans tell us that skin colour is not what determines race. It is other factors, like how many arms you have, the slant of the eyes, etc.
For the above reasons I reject the claim that the TJ has right wing fundamentalist overtones. But it does seem to reveal some racism or speciesism on the part of god.
Christians should address the potential racism of having the Jews as God's chosen people. There is a double standard often applied when it comes to prejudice or judgment or racism. We tend to think it applies only to negative criticism. But it works the other way too. What about this? New Testament Revelations 7:4," And I was told that the number of those who were marked with God's seal on their foreheads was 144,000. They were from the 12 tribes of Israel." What does this mean for everyone else? Are we inferior?
"Mohammed is put forward as superior to Jmmanuel". Just as the Meier material says that Jmmanuel's true teachings were distorted it tells that the same, only worse (I think), happened with Mohammed. So a discussion about who between them was actually superior is a bit pointless unless we have evidence of Mohammed's uncorrupted teaching. It is also difficult to assess one prophet's ability or spiritual advancement over another's since the circumstance into which he was born would cloud the issue. That is, it could be that, hypothetically, Mohammed had a bigger job on his hands at which point he is not going to shine as much as one (the same spirit form) who came before who may have had a lesser task, for instance. According to the TJ the whole mission was a very imperfect project with very unsatisfactory results on the whole, but necessary and progressive all the same.
"There is nothing new or enlightening in it." If you don't accept that some or all of this material might be true then you're obviously not going to find the story of extraterrestrial ancestry and interference and leadership very enlightening. Similarly the news of the original teachings being distorted is not going to be enlightening if you don't believe it. The TJ doesn't pretend to have new teachings. It claims to reveal old ones that have been distorted repeatedly over millennia. I would have thought that TJ Ch.12:25, was fairly enlightened compared to the New Testament which reinforces the Judeo/Christian patriarchy. "Do away with enforcing the old law that subjects woman to man, since she is a person like the man, with equal rights and obligations."
"It encourages religious, racial and cultural prejudice." It does not encourage prejudging, which is what prejudice is. Prejudice can be overcome by employing wisdom and correct judgment in love and through education. The TJ does not preach incorrect or false judgment. If the objection here is more about the unfavorable judgments of others that these teachings may lead us to, that’s another matter. Then it is judging that is seen to be objectionable or the judgments themselves. I'll deal with judging next . This is clearly a major topic of concern and is especially problematic.
"It encourages judging." Yes indeed, but only correct judging in wisdom through knowledge, which discourages prejudging. Judging does inevitably result in some unfavourable assessments of others (as well as oneself) but should be constructively instructive and result in good acts. Wise judgment enables an appropriate judgment of cruel dictators and malicious hypocritical lies (as well as lesser things) so that these things will not be encouraged and allowed to destroy us.
"It encourages war." (This was implied in the criticism. ie. TJ encourages prejudice. Prejudice leads to war.) Unthinking people may use distortions of the TJ to fuel their prejudice, just as they may misuse other texts. The TJ says, Ch 27:2, "You shall not kill out of degeneration." Ch 28:29, anyone taking a sword without being in danger will perish by the sword." Ch 32:38, "There may be no limits to love, peace and joy, because the present state must always be exceeded. 39, "Truly I say to you, a love that is unlimited, constant and unfailing is unconditional and is a pure love, in whose fire all that is impure and evil will burn."
Billy Meier says, "...tolerance among and between people is essential if we hope to live and exist in a world of love and harmony. To this end, we don’t need any form of belief structure, we only need to know the truth and certainty that by nature and in sight of Creation’s omnipotence, all human beings are created equal regardless of what and how they are, regardless of their race, skin color or nationality, whether they are rich or poor, or whether they are Christians, Moslems, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Confucians, or belong to some freaky sect."
The following spells out how those who are guiding Billy Meier see war and other conflict. From, What the Plejarans Wish for the Earth Humans - presented by Quetzal in Contact Report #215 on Saturday, February 28, 1987, at 2:09 AM.
1. "For the earth humans, we wish that they, in all love and reason, tend toward bringing an end to all aggression, acts of violence and wars, as well as all criminality, all hate, all discord, every bondage as well as any craving for vengeance and retaliation."
9. "True peace as well as true love and freedom should finally prevail on Earth and among all human beings regardless of skin colour, race and faith, without hate, revenge, jealousy, craving for retaliation, privation, misery, murder, homicide, terror and wars."
"Love your enemies, do good to them that persecute you, forgive so that you will be forgiven seem to be sadly lacking in this teaching."
The TJ says, "Offer your love wherever it is warranted, and punish wherever the law of nature demands punishment."
I don't think there is any reason to be sad about this. The best I can do is to try to explain how I think the TJ is intended to be understood. That is, love is always implied at a profound level, since love is understanding. Through knowledge and profound unconditional love we can make sane and just judgments about people and things. Sometimes punishment is necessary and appropriate as it is sometimes necessary for loving parents to punish a child and that punishment must be chosen wisely. Sometimes it is going to seem very harsh to the child. But she has to learn. If the matter is left unattended no-one benefits.
And we have to recognise when something and even someone is hateful, as we would surely judge those who torture people to be. That's an extreme example. But that is an appropriate recognition of the act and associated mentality. Lesser examples of wrong can be hateful too. It doesn't imply that we act in a destructive way towards that person or go to war. Punishment and recognition of knowingly destructive, thus hateful, acts (on one hand) and love (on the other) are not mutually exclusive. What these teachings hope to correct, I believe, is the belief that it is destructive and loveless to draw attention to faults at all ("you shall not judge") when really there is nothing to fear from this if it is done in love and reason and we learn not to condemn mistakes but promote creative change, which is healing. There is a distinction to be made between ignorant or foolish mistakes and knowing breaches of what the Meier people call Creational law. (Creational /natural law is not the law of the jungle which is for monkeys, but something more profound.)
Now for a personal case study. Because the public system is very corrupt in Northern NSW people like Member for Parliament Ian Causley are free to knowingly exploit their positions of power at great expense to the greater public, at terrible personal cost to particular victims and largely without the public's knowledge. In an ideal world the police and corruption fighting bodies would have stopped him once he was reported. But since they are themselves deeply infected by the corruption too, some untrained, unprepared whistleblowers wade in to try to fill the gap. Creational law demands this of capable people, I believe. Because the system is corrupt they have to work around the system and virtually become outlaw themselves since the law says that rich, corrupt people may not be criticised, and in reality, police often harass whistleblowers. Meanwhile these whistleblowers are copping flak from good people for being negative and judging people, where in fact their actions are very positive. This is a serious problem. Now, while it is essential to document the ugly detail of what is really going on in this society in order to promote constructive action, other people, good people, see these whistleblowers, who would be pleased to see Ian Causley a happy, peaceful and reformed man, as being unloving and harsh. This is the problem. Documenting evil does not mean there is no prayer or love or compassion. All these things come together. Now, if people understand this it doesn't show. This is why I argue that the aforementioned teachings are necessary.
The TJ does not encourage maintaining grievances, and we are told to understand that the Creational force and spirit is in everyone.
Regarding doing good to those who persecute you. On one hand stopping, punishing and reforming persecutors is doing good to them. Now for the New Testament instruction that if the invading forces ask you to carry their pack one mile carry it two miles, and if someone asks for your shirt give him your coat as well. Now who is this going to serve? The invading army of course! Tell it to the poor Iraqis. What about turn the other cheek? Let him slap you again! That only rewards people who unjustly rip off others.
Jmmanuel of the TJ, in contrast, says give to those who ask in honesty.
This article is just my personal attempt at addressing immediate criticism I have recieved of the Talmud Jmmanuel. But my knowledge is still very limited. Any seriously interested readers will have to read the source material themselves. Such personal investment, as I understand it will be far more likely to promote their own sprirtual journey anyway.
Written by Vivienne Legg of gaiaguys.net See the introductory page to my articles.
Back to Homepage