Refutation of Robert Price's Claims Against the Talmud of Jmmanuel
by J. W. Deardorff, April 2008, Jan. 2009, May 2014

Robert M. Price is a liberal theologian turned atheist, and a prolific author of articles, books and book reviews that are critical of various aspects of Christianity. In chapter 9 of his 2007 book, Jesus is Dead, Price lashes out against the Talmud of Jmmanuel (here abbreviated TJ), perhaps because its teachings are incompatible with an atheist's beliefs, or because its story reveals more that is wrong with Christianity than he has been able to do. However, the solutions the TJ leads to, for many longstanding problems regarding the origins of Christianity, fall out quite naturally, though the truths they reveal may be unacceptable to atheists and fundamentalists alike. [Note added in 2014: This refutation refers to the early editions of the TJ, and not the the 2011 edition. The latter contains voluminous "explanbations" added throughout by Meier apparently at the urgingg of his respected Plejaren contactor, Ptaah. Pieces of the text have been altered, too. The apparent intention was to ensure that the TJ be easily debunkable by those who do not study its earlier editions and do not carefully compare them against Matthew for themselves.]

A charge against the TJ that Price starts out with (with red font denoting Price's statements) on p.123 is:

There is the usual pack of lies about an underlying Aramaic document being discovered in 1963, imbedded, somehow, in resin since the first century when Jesus’ loyal disciple, a guy named Judas Iscariot, wrote it down.
Price is implying that the basic facts underlying the TJ's discovery involve lies, but he gives no substantive support for this charge here or later in his chapter. He makes no comment upon, nor mention of, the analysis that cumulatively, but conclusively, finds the Gospel of Matthew to have been based upon the TJ, not vice versa. When the original evidence is no longer available, the serious investigator studies reasons for its absence, and if these are plausible, studies the indirect evidence, just as is done with the New Testament Gospels whose autographs have long been gone.

Price's wording here indicates either puzzlement or skepticism that the TJ would have been embedded in resin. Upon quizzing its co-discoverer and editor, Eduard Meier, circa 1995, for more detail than what he presented in the TJ's Foreword, we students of the TJ have learned that it had consisted of four rolls of sheets or leaves of Aramaic writing, along with a couple small artifacts, all wrapped in animal skin, which in turn was encased in resin. (The procedure of coating linen with hot liquid resin, for embalming and preservation purposes, had already been known for centuries in Egypt.) Despite this precaution that had been taken, Meier mentioned in the TJ's Foreword that some pieces of the writings were decayed and illegible. To deny any of this is to claim that Meier is a liar, but the very large number of credible and sincere first-hand witnesses who have come forward to attest to the genuineness of his UFO/ET contacts over the years also attest to his honesty and lack of deceit. Price makes no reference to these character witnesses. The testimony of multiple first-hand witnesses should be given much more weight than the claims of a disgruntled non-witness.

Since the Gospels, in following the TJ, speak of witnessed events in the first person, it is to be expected that a disciple had written it. The TJ lets the reader know who the disciple was through its textual content, unlike any of the canonical Gospels. That he was Judas Iscariot, wrongly accused of being J's betrayer and of committing suicide thereafter, is a possibility that does not suffer the problems of the orthodox scenario, as discussed here. Price does not mention the problems with the Gospels' version.

Price slipped up on another fact about the TJ's background. Its writing was not finished until shortly after Jmmanuel's death in northern India (Kashmir) in early 2nd century, probably around A.D. 115, after which its packaged original and presumably a transcription of it were carried back to the Mideast. Hence the original did not lie hidden in its Jerusalem tomb site since the first century, but rather since early second century. We can now understand why there is no trustworthy evidence for the Gospels to have existed until decades into the second century.

In Price's charge of "There is the usual pack of lies about an underlying Aramaic document being discovered," his adjective "usual" may partially reflect the theme of a 1993 book of fiction called The Celestine Prophecy by James Redfield, which Price has since reviewed within a chapter of his own book called Top Secret. Redfield's book involves an ancient Aramaic manuscript that had recently been translated, espousing insights that were opposed by the Catholic Church. Thus some similarities occur between the theme of The Celestine Prophecy and the TJ's story, the latter having been told in my own (1990) book called Celestial Teachings. Price may thus have placed the TJ's story in the same category as The Celestine Prophecy.

Seems that an improbably named Greek Orthodox priest bearing the moniker Isa (= Jesus!) Rashid discovered Jesus’ burial cave, and Eduard Albert 'Billy' Meier spelunked further, finding the present gospel. What we are reading represents, we are told with forked tongue in cheek, only the first quarter of the very long text, the rest being destroyed, or so Father Rashid figured, by Israeli troops who were violently pursuing him.
No clue is given why Price thinks "Isa Rashid" is an improbable name. "Isa" is a common enough first name in the Arab world, as is "Jesus" in Mexico, and "Rashid" is common as either an Arab first or second name. Indeed, if his name were not so common, there would be a better chance of acquiring independent background information on him (he and his family were assassinated in Baghdad in 1976, from what Meier learned). And it appears that Price was unaware that at the time of the discovery Rashid had already been an ex-priest for a few years, and that there are a number of Greek-Orthodox churches in the Palestinian area.

"Forked tongue in cheek"? Such derision is totally wrong to apply to the man, Meier, who describes things as they are without trying to soften up a harsh truth. The person who studies the TJ and compares it against the Gospel of Matthew, and who then realizes that the TJ had come first and Matthew second, will understand the great heresies the TJ in its original Aramaic form presented for both the Christian and Judaic faiths. It would be unrealistic to suppose that top officials within these religions would not have taken any action necessary to destroy the TJ. In my opinion, had Rashid soon handed over the original Aramaic TJ to a New Testament scholar or paleographer for study, none of its contents would ever have come to light.

The investigator of the TJ may read the copy of the letter from Rashid to Meier that includes mention of the Israeli attack upon the refugee camp in Lebanon to which he and his family had temporarily escaped. Although it is not known for certain, it was probably an air raid, not a ground strike. At this time, in 1974, the Aramaic TJ was destroyed, but the equivalent of one of its four rolls of writing had already been translated into German by Rashid and the translation mailed to Meier in Switzerland circa 1970. Price's abbreviated version of this background leaves far too many unanswered questions. Meier and Rashid had earlier, in 1963, made an agreement that Rashid, being the translator of the document, could retain possession of it, and Meier would be the one recipient of his translation of it.

    Meier anticipates that the orthodox and the obscurantists will alike denounce his discovery as a hoax (p. xv). Well, let me tell you, you don’t have to be particularly orthodox to denounce this thing as what we theologians like to call Bullgeschichte.
Here Price resorts to derisive bombast rather than evidence and logic in attempting to put across his view. One with a theologian's background should do better than this. But as we shall continue to see, his complaints say nothing against the TJ's authenticity. Meier's prediction, in the TJ's Foreword, that the TJ would be attacked and "probably taken out of circulation" may well have helped maintain the current situation in which it is still in circulation, as authorities would be less likely to attempt an action that would validate Meier's prediction.
    What does the title mean? Talmud is just a Hebrew word referring to a deposit of learning. We are more familiar with its use referring to the massive collection of Rabbinical law, lore, and commentary, the Talmud of Jerusalem and the Talmud of Babylon. So here it just denotes 'the teaching of Jmmanuel.'
It was refreshing to see that in the short segment above Price does give a valid summary.
Of whom? Have you ever noticed something strange in Matthew’s nativity story in which Matthew says Isaiah 7:14 was fulfilled by the advent of baby Jesus, and that though Isaiah says the child will be called Emmanuel, in Matthew’s story Jesus is called, well, Jesus? That is pretty odd. I’ve never heard a good explanation. But Meier tries to harmonize the two names, producing the weird hybrid Jmmanuel.
The obvious explanation that does not occur to Price is that the name given to the child was indeed Immanuel, just as prophesied by Isaiah, and that some years after the crucifixion the name was altered into "Jesus." As to by whom altered, Paul is the leading candidate. As any theologian should know, the name "Jesus" stems from Yeshua = Joshua, and means "God saves (us from our sins)" (see also Mt 1:21.) We all know how concerned Paul was with sin and for its forgiveness by God and the "Son of God." This name would appeal much more to him than would "Immanuel." We know how instrumental Paul was in establishing and nurturing the early churches in Asia Minor and Greece. And we all know that Saul did not mind altering his own name, into Paul. His strong influence can then plausibly be seen as having largely effected the name change from Immanuel to Jesus. This can explain the absence of writings in the latter half of the first century about Immanuel, and near absence then of writings about "Jesus." Except for Paul's epistles, the earliest writings would have been about Immanuel. It makes sense that any and all such writings about Immanuel had to be destroyed after he became known as "Jesus" by late first century. However, a few gnostic writings that indicate his real name was not "Jesus" have survived. And in the latter half of the 2nd century Irenaeus twice referred to Jesus as "Him who was born Immanuel of the virgin," and once referred to Immanuel as "who it was that was worshipped" by the magi.

The Matthean passage quoting from Isaiah further lets us know that the messiah prophecy had survived intact into the 2nd century, and had not been regarded as fulfilled centuries earlier.

Somehow Price overlooked the explanation given in the Front Pages of the TJ as to why "Immanuel" is written starting with a "J" symbol (not the letter J found in the English alphabet, and not the first letter of "Jesus"). It was to honor the Pleiadian/Plejaren ETs who planned his life and mission, as a J-shaped symbol had stood for the i,j,y sounds in an alphabet of their forefathers. Thus it is in no way a harmonization with the name "Jesus." The "J" symbol substitutes for the "Ayin" in the Hebraic spelling of Immanuel, with "Jmmanuel" being pronounced the same as "Immanuel."

    Meier says 'Jmmanuel' means 'man of godly wisdom,' but any Bible reader knows it does not. It means God with us. At least Emmanuel does, but then I guess if you’re making up a name, you can say it means whatever the hell you want.
In the TJ (1:87) the meaning of "Immanuel" is given as "the one with godly knowledge." It was god-the-ET's knowledge that was "with us," not the ET "god" himself. The addition of "knowledge" to the literal translation here is akin to the addition of "us" and "from our sins" to the literal meaning of Yeshua = Jesus = "God saves"; i.e., God saves whom? God saves us. God saves us from what? God saves us from our sins (see Mt 1:21). Thus most bible readers probably understand that a Hebrew or Aramaic name can be a short rendering of a lengthier implied meaning. So it is with "Jmmanuel," according to Meier's ET contactors.
    Another improbability about the frame story: how, pray tell, did the mythical Father Rashid “discover” the cave-tomb of Jesus since the book tells us Jesus was buried in the now-notorious tomb in Srinagar, Kashmir? This old structure has been promoted since the nineteenth century as Jesus’ tomb by the Ahmadiyya sect of Islam. Orthodox Muslims believe Jesus was raptured to heaven before the crucifixion, with someone else put to death in Jesus’ place. But the Ahmadiyya believe he was crucified and survived, then left the Holy Land to preach for decades longer, eventually winding up in Kashmir, where he died at a ripe, old age (110 or 120, Jmmanuel says). This site, though fraudulent, is well known. What was there for Rashid to discover?
Price's perplexity here is strange, as the Ahmadiyyas were correct in much of this. Rashid and Meier discovered the site of Joseph of Arimathea's tomb, which is often referred to as J's tomb since J had spent three days and nights there. (I've used "J" to stand for either Jmmanuel or Jesus when applicable to either.) It is not clear if his final resting place, many decades later, was actually in the well known tomb in Srinagar -- the Roza Bal, or elsewhere nearby. That Jmmanuel lived to a ripe old age in Kashmir was learned by Meier from Rashid back in 1963, while Meier was still in the Jerusalem area and after Rashid had read cursorily through the TJ's rolls of writing to pick up the highlights of Jmmanuel's life, which he relayed to Meier. Meier states in his Epilogue that Jmmanuel had been buried in Srinagar without indicating whether or not it was at the Roza Bal site. Meier also learned from Rashid that it was the TJ's writer at the time of Jmmanuel's death (not Jmmanuel!) who initiated this information. From this advance read-through, Rashid learned that this latter writer was Jmmanuel's older son, Joseph, who had taken over the continued writing of the TJ after Judas Iscariot had died in Kashmir. So from Joseph's continuation of the TJ, near its end, Rashid was informed of Jmmanuel's death. Only after that time, acting upon the previous instructions of his father, did Joseph package it for preservation and journey with it and its assumed transcription back to the Mideast area, where he buried the specially packaged original in the tomb site on the south side of the Old City. It is presumed that Joseph gave the TJ's transcription to whomever in Palestine or Anatolia seemed most capable of honestly promulgating it, but that it soon fell into the possession of the writer of Matthew. All this involves important information (as well as some deductions), as it establishes that the earliest complete Gospel could not have appeared until well into the 2nd century.

I refer to both Meier and Rashid as co-discoverers of the Jerusalem tomb site. From a conversation between Meier and his leading ET contactor in 1975, one learns that Rashid had been telepathically directed by the ETs to this tomb site, circa 1960, but that he was not bold enough to start unearthing it himself and after a while forgot its precise location. A few years later, in 1963 when Meier was walking with him past this same site, Meier was then directed, subtly via telepathy, to a small crevice in the hillside, which he enlarged to discover the half buried tomb, and after some excavation (mostly at night, apparently), found the buried TJ packet underneath a flat stone. By not being aware of this information, Price leaves far more open to speculation than what is necessary.

    And did I really say the book is supposed to be the work of Judas Iscariot? The disciple who betrayed Jesus? No, dear reader, as we soon find out, it was not Judas Iscariot who turned Jesus over to the G-men, but rather the similarly named Juda Ihariot! You see, it’s pretty easy to mix up a couple of guys with names that close. This is just unintentionally hilarious!
Although precise coincidences are quite rare, near coincidences are not so uncommon. Here Price avoids telling his readers the TJ's more complete explanation: that a rumor was initiated by certain chief priests to the effect that it was Judas Iscariot, rather than a young Pharisee, Juda Ihariot, who pointed Immanuel out to the arresting party. Perhaps Price substituted ridicule here for the written information in order to discourage readers from looking into the TJ's following explanatory discourse for themselves:
TJ 27: 27"While we are here together, Juda Ihariot, the son of the Pharisee in Jerusalem, is hatching an evil plot against me so he can betray me to the chief priests. 28At this very moment as we are gathered here, he is asking the chief priests for the blood money they are offering for my capture. 29Thirty pieces of silver are being offered to him if they capture me through his help. 30While they are forging this plan, they are also designing a plot against one among you, since they want to present a culprit to the people. 31As Juda Ihariot, the son of the Pharisee, will turn me over to the henchmen, my disciple Judas Iscariot will be considered the traitor, 32so that the message to the people will be, 'Behold, these fools are divided among themselves, so that one betrays the other. How, then, can the teachings of Jmmanuel contain any truth?' 33But since Juda Ihariot, the son of the Pharisee, and my disciple, Judas Iscariot, have almost identical names, the lie of the chief priests will be accepted from the beginning."
However, it is understood that this explanation will not satisfy those who cannot allow for the possibility that Jmmanuel was actually a true prophet, who could foresee in real time (remote view) as well as see into the future. He was in Bethany when he spoke the above words, while Juda Ihariot was in Jerusalem. It was because this true prophet wanted his teachings to be available in the distant future, when mankind would be better prepared to receive and accept them, that years later he arranged with his elder son for the original Talmud of Jmmanuel to be packaged and secreted away so as to survive the passage of centuries.
     The Talmud of Jmmanuel is structurally just the same as other long-winded gospels like The Aquarian Gospel. It builds on a harmony of the four canonical gospels, picking and choosing favorite episodes and elements from them, then adding new bits of its own.
Price is not a careful New Testament scholar, else he would not have erred so greatly here. It is the Gospel of Matthew, not any of the other three, which follows the TJ's order very closely, with its writer retaining material that was acceptable to him, substituting for or omitting words, sentences and more that were unacceptable, and inserting words and passages of his own. Usually the writers of Luke-Acts and John avoided extracting from the TJ what the writer of Matthew had already utilized; in all, their gospels contain only a tiny fraction of the TJ material that Matthew contains. Mark contains none (except indirectly via Matthew), probably because its writer was situated in Rome. Thus the TJ is in no way a harmony of the four canonical gospels. Price continued to avoid mention of the hundreds of comparisons between Matthean and TJ verses that point towards Matthean dependence upon the TJ rather than the opposite. And of course the TJ is totally different from the Aquarian Gospel, as the latter was channeled, while the TJ was a historical find whose co-discoverer, Meier, is still alive, as of 2014, to vouch for the reality of its discovery and genuineness of its updated contents. However, I can only agree that his acceptance of the earlier TJ editions--1992, 1996, 2001--were reasonable and proper, but not the latest 2011 edition.
... But he [the author of a false gospel] fails to see that the only reason we take seriously the words attributed to Jesus in the traditional Gospels is that they carry their own weight. By far the most of it has the ring of truth to it, whoever said it.
"Whoever said it"? I believe it matters a good deal whether or not the writer of a gospel is dishonest, as by replacing the name "Jmmanuel" by "Jesus" everywhere in his text and then placing his own words into the mouth of Jesus. It means that one cannot trust the teachings of the resulting religion to be truthful.

And many of the teachings in the Gospel of Matthew, for example, do not have the ring of truth or logic. Are we to believe that Joseph and the Magi took the actions they did because of what an angel said to them in dreams (Mt 1:20, 2:12, 2:19-20)? Are we to believe that Jesus survived fasting for 40 days and nights while under the influence of the devil (4:1-11)? Are we to believe that a wisdom teacher taught that becoming angry will make one liable to judgment, that whoever says "You fool!" will go to a place called Hell (5:21-22), that looking at a woman lustfully is equivalent to having committed adultery (5:27), that you should not resist one who is evil, that if struck on the right cheek you should turn the other cheek in order to invite another blow (5:39), give to whomever begs from you and would borrow from you no matter the circumstances (5:42), and love your enemies even while they may be persecuting you (5:44)? Where is the ring of truth or reality?

And continuing, would a wisdom teacher advise you not to save up any money (Mt 6:19), not to take care for the next day (6:25-31,34), and not to make any judgments (7:1)? Would a wisdom teacher teach that whoever finds his life will lose it (Mt 10:39, 16:25), or imply that it's OK to enter a strong man's house to plunder it if one first binds the strong man (12:29)? Would a wisdom teacher preach that many who are first shall be last and the last first (19:30), and imply that each person is either totally righteous or totally evil so that evil persons can be identified and thrown into the furnace of fire (13:49-50)? Would a wisdom teacher in A.D. 32 (years before there were any churches) advise you to tell the church about the problems you have with a sinner (Mt 18:17)? Would a wisdom teacher suggest that workers who put in long hours should receive no more pay than those who work only briefly (Mt 20:1-15); would he curse a fig tree for not having fruit and cause it to wither at once (21:20); would he speak a parable about a king who, having invited people off the streets to a wedding party, spotted an attendee with improper garments and so had him bound hand and foot and cast into the outer darkness? Is this "good stuff?" Where is the ring of truth? No such inanity is present in the Talmud of Jmmanuel; it was all due to the writer of Matthew, who was no wisdom teacher.

In fact, that’s how some of it came to be in the gospel in the first place! Someone heard some good saying and said, “Wow! That’s good stuff! Worthy of Jesus!” as when we say, “It ain’t in the Bible but it ought to be!” Believe me, no one is going to find himself saying that of the soporific gibberish (and worse) in this book, which 'Billy' dares to equate with the real, true, original teaching of Jesus before the fiendish churchmen, beginning with the nefarious fisherman himself, distorted the living daylights out of it.
As we proceed, we shall see that Price has done his best, through misunderstandings, omissions, distortions and mistruths, combined with ridicule, to make the TJ out to be "soporific gibberish." Hopefully no one after reading and studying the TJ's enlightening and practical teachings will say that they are "worthy of Jesus," as the latter character is so different from Jmmanuel in his message as to be considered fictional. However, one will find a small number of TJ sayings that were acceptable to the writer of Matthew and his early church and were therefore copied faithfully into his gospel.

The reader who takes the time to carefully go over the comparisons between TJ verses and their Matthean parallels, and who fairly examines the most probable direction in which redaction took place in each verse comparison (did the writer of Matthew copy from the TJ or vice versa?), can scarcely avoid the conclusion that the real, true and original verses resided in the TJ.

It is true that in the TJ Jmmanuel got after Peter for being almost incapable of understanding just who he, Immanuel, was (i.e., not the son of the leading ET god). The exchange in TJ 18:28-35 is one instance of Jmmanuel's displeasure over this, from which the Matthean parallel (16:15-19) departs radically.

     The teaching here is warmed-over Theosophy, but very poorly expressed. We learn that there is a “god” who rules the earth but is essentially a long-lived mortal much like ourselves (16:55-56; 28:59).
Price's word "essentially" promotes a strong distortion, because he has here omitted the great difference the TJ describes between this "god" and ourselves:
TJ 28 (3rd edition): 58"Just as you are human like I am, so god is human, except that in spirit and consciousness he is very much more advanced than the human lineages procreated by him; 59god and his celestial sons are other human lineages who have come from the stars out of the depths of space in their machines of metal. 60Creation stands immeasurably higher than god and his celestial sons, who are the guardian angels. 61Creation alone is the incalculable mystery that begets life and, thus, stands immeasurably far above god and indeed all life."
To ignore the spiritual-evolution side of the TJ's teachings is to ignore one of its key essences. It of course is not "warmed over theosophy," having been set in writing some 1900 years ago, if Price here is referring to the theosophy or philosophy of Madam Blavatsky of just over a century ago. But it is the same philosophy that many ETs have known for eons, parts of which may have been taught to humans by visiting ETs a few millennia ago, judging from what Meier has learned from his ETs.
Above him [above god] is the 'supreme' entity, called “Creation” (16:52) which sounds something like unchanging Brahman (18:44). But then we are told that it, too, is incomplete and changing (18:43; 21:28) and defers to a still superior being (25:56).
The TJ verse 18:44 speaks of Creation (and the human spirit) as being "timeless," which means immortal, not unchanging. Through a distortion Price has generated a false contradiction here. TJ 18:43 speaks of Creation as also evolving, on a very long time scale. And the idea that even Creation (25:26) knows and reveres a higher power above itself is an interesting concept, which in retrospect is no more improbable than that there is but one high spiritual entity -- Creation or the Universal Consciousness. Why should the scientific concept of evolution be restricted only to the physical side of life, if one recognizes that there is a spiritual side also? There may be no end to the extent which knowledge & wisdom can improve upon itself. The advances of astrophysics further into concepts of multiple universes, multiple dimensions and branes make less surprising to me that there could be a hierarchy of seemingly omnipotent spiritual entities.
It [Creation] is one without division (21:27), and yet it possesses parts (34:39).
Price seems to be inferring that there is a contradiction here, but is there really, if neighboring verses are studied?
TJ 21:25"The spirit of each person is created specifically for the task of perfecting itself and gaining wisdom. 26This is so as to become one with Creation as destined by the laws, whereby Creation grows and expands within, and thus perfects itself. 27And as the spirit within a person is a unity, so is Creation a unity within itself, and no other powers exist besides it. 28Within itself, Creation is pure spirit and therefore infinite power, because it is one within itself, and nothing exists outside of it."

TJ 34:39"Since the spirit in a person is part of Creation, it is one with Creation; consequently it is not two. 40And since the body is a part of the spirit in a different form and matter, it is therefore one with the spirit; consequently it is not two. 41The teachings state that there is a unity and not, in any way or form, a duality or trinity."
Granted, this is heady material. As I understand it, Creation includes all the physical and spiritual components within its realm of universe(s), and thus is one within itself. No other power or entity within this realm can compare with it. At the other end of the scale is each person's human spirit, which is independent of the spirit of others, and so is a unity within itself. The innumerable individual spirits are nevertheless components of Creation, from which they originated and to which they are linked.

Study of the whole TJ is to be encouraged for fuller understanding. However, if one knows little or nothing about the existence of the individual human spirit, one is apt to hold an attitude like that shown here by Price. Therefore the interested reader is encouraged to read up on the research on past lives that has occurred over the past 40 years. This research includes studies of thousands of childhood "cases of the reincarnation type" wherein an occasional child, as early as he/she can speak, spontaneously talks about being someone else and how he/she died; a sufficient number of detailed remarks are sometimes made and remembered by parents or relatives such that the identity of the child's most recent past life can be discovered and proven beyond any reasonable doubt. And through hypno-therapy, many proven past lives of adults have come to light. These studies dovetail with the findings on near-death experiences. I would recommend this bibliography.

But while Billy/Jmmanuel is calling it [Creation] infinite, he says we are part of it, so that what is true of it is ipso facto true of us, too. And if we tap into that fact by enlightened knowledge, we can do pretty much anything (16:44).
    That is a prime case of the Division Fallacy in logic: what is true of an entity as a whole is not necessarily true in the same way of its parts. ...
    Anyway, when Peter succeeded momentarily in walking on water it was because he had a fleeting grasp of this 'knowledge' and was able to suspend/defy gravity. But what sort of knowledge is it that refuses to reckon with elementary physics?
Here, Price's question would have been largely answered if he had not been so selective in his choice of TJ verses. With the inclusion of a verse before and two verses following TJ 16:44, we read:
"...16:43You [Peter] trusted in my words before the thunder came, but then you were frightened and began to doubt, and so the power of knowledge left you and your ability [to walk on water] disappeared. 44Never doubt the power of your spirit, which is a part of Creation itself and therefore knows no limits of power. 45Behold, there was a little bird that circled at great heights and sang, rejoicing about life, when a strong gust of wind came and made it waver. It then suddenly doubted its power to fly, plummeted down and was killed. 46Therefore, never doubt the power of your spirit and never doubt your knowledge and ability when logic proves to you the law of Creation in truth and correctness."
The teaching here is that absolute knowledge of the power of the spirit is to be combined with knowledge of the law or laws of Creation, using logic. Only then is the knowledge "enlightened," or fully empowering. Upon searching the TJ for statements about just what the laws of Creation are, one finds that they are to be learned largely through studying nature, which suggests using the scientific method, but also including the spiritual side through study of life in general, as with recognition of the past-life evidence. I would also gather that training on spiritual matters is helpful (e.g., practicing meditation) if not essential for the capability of using the power of one's spirit/consciousness. All this goes along with spiritual evolution, Jmmanuel being highly evolved spiritually. In the TJ he continually encourages the evolution of one's spirit/consciousness. However, logic dictates that even if one has the capability of utilizing the power of one's spirit -- such as even to temporarily and locally suspend an ordinary law of nature, one use it only sparingly and for good purpose. Jmmanuel was using his spiritual capabilities for teaching purposes as well as for healing. The TJ confirms that most, though not all, of the miracles reported in the Gospel of Matthew did actually occur.
    So what are we supposed to be doing about it? Well, it is our mission to realize our potential by efforts at self-perfection over the course of many lifetimes. Even Creation (a Him? Her? It?) experiences a kind of reincarnation, a series of eons-long periods of dormancy alternating with equal periods of life and activity (34:27-34), all the coin of Theosophy, borrowed from Hinduism.
I think Price actually understands that Creation is pure spirit, and therefore is an "It" and not a "he" or "she." His assumption that it is from Hinduism that the TJ borrows its teachings on Creation's eons-long alternating periods of dormancy and activity may hold some truth, however. Both Jmmanuel and Meier learned it from their contacting ETs, with Jmmanuel perhaps having learned it earlier during the so-called "lost years" of his youth in India. Meier probably learned it also from his participatory studies in Buddhism and Hinduism in the 1960s. However, the ancient Hindu writings that tell of this mystery may well have originated from the same type of ET source -- from some of the gods and goddesses that visited India several millennia ago.

It may be mentioned that the information on reincarnation received by Meier from his contactors, and that which is written in the TJ, does not support the Hindu concept that rebirth could be into a lower animal rather than just into a human.

What’s most ridiculous about The Talmud of Jmmanuel is its espousal of Flying Saucer religion. To get things straight here: I consider it plausible that extra-terrestrials have visited the earth. But the possibility, even the plausibility, of it does not entitle us forthwith to believe it is true. There does not yet appear to be compelling evidence for contact with Flying Saucers.
Price evidently realizes that the evidence indicating the reality of UFO-sighting reports is too strong and voluminous to reject. But by his rejection of "contact with flying saucers" he evidently means contact with the aliens or ETs within these craft. Thus he rejects the idea that some UFO/alien contactees are genuine, as does the mainstream ufological community, although since the 1980s, the latter have been forced to acknowledge the reality of many UFO/alien abductees. The reality of many abductees could finally be tolerated, since they were taken against their will, whereas all contactees are rejected since their experiences can be uplifting, which then arouses the suspicions of ufologists for a hoax.

The Billy Meier contactee case, however, has been overwhelmingly authenticated through study of the many clear "beamship" photos and 8mm movie-film footage he -- a one-armed man since 1964 -- was allowed to take in 1975-76 and 1980-81, by the metal samples he was given and let Marcel Vogel analyze, from the analyzed audio recordings (click on "Scientific Experts' Comments On Meier's Evidence" and on "UFO sounds" in right-hand column) of the beamship sounds he was allowed to tape (heard by many), by the prophecies he learned from his ET contactors and reported, and from the many first-hand witnesses who observed remarkable events either when with Meier or during his departure to or return from contacts. It was no lucky accident that Meier was permitted to gather all this evidence, as his contacting ETs would know he would need evidence with which to back up his experiences. Yet they apparently also act under a guideline of providing the negative skeptic with a piece of evidence here and there that can seem less than convincing. But would ETs who are ethical enough to present themselves to us only gradually over a 60-year period, never leaving enough evidence behind that would force sudden disclosure upon the world, also be ethical enough to implement a strategy of plausible deniability for skeptics?

A history of the early debunkings of Meier's experiences by certain ufologists, and of the later maintenance of this debunking, is presented here.

The reader will find that Price omits mention of any of the voluminous and convincing evidence of the genuineness of the Meier contactee case, apparently so that Meier will not seem credible and Price can then more easily denigrate the TJ and call it a "Flying Saucer" religion. However, the TJ is not rightly called a religion, but rather a source of knowledge about the human (and ET) spirit and its overlying spiritual architect, Creation, which many already would speak of as "true God." It does not involve worship of the UFO contactee involved, or of Jmmanuel, or of any ET.

    Well, “Billy” Meier belongs in the same ranks. That’s for damn sure. [Same ranks as those who tell of:] ... the Black Muslim 'Mother Plane' orbiting the earth with Elijah Muhammad in the captain’s chair, .... to the Raelian belief that aliens mutated apes to produce the first humans, to Heaven’s Gate lemmings believing a spaceship hidden in a comet’s tail was telling them to castrate themselves, to the Aetherius Society, to Unaria, etc.
From statements like the above, the reader who has seriously looked into the irrefutable material on Meier that Price wrongfully omitted to even mention will have no problem calling Price's chapter on the TJ for what it is: unsubstantiated claims having no bearing on the TJ's genuineness, dished out by one who seems lacking in perceptivity. The vast amount of supportive evidence for the reality of Meier's experiences places it in a wholly different and unique context from the claims of the Raelians, Heavens-Gaters, etc. Although the beliefs of the latter groups could be called Flying Saucer Theology, Price seems unable to detect the distinction here with the validation of Meier's experiences. Does he expect everyone else also to ignore the voluminous validating evidence behind the Meier contactee case extending from 1963 into the 2000s?
Nursing classic delusions of grandeur, including the persecution complex, Billy predicts his own eventual assassination: “the editor is even more endangered because he is the contact man for extraterrestrial intelligences and very highly developed spiritual entities on exalted planes who transmit to him true spiritual teachings that he disseminates without modification, thereby exposing the lies of the cult religions, which will lead to their slow but certain eradication” (p. xix). The “cult religions” are the major faiths.
Here we see more of Price's penchant for drawing unjustified conclusions. In saying that he, Billy Meier, is even more endangered than other followers of Jmmanuel's teachings, one reads above that Meier did not predict his own assassination, just its possibility (being "even more endangered"). Price failed to mention that at the time of Meier's writing of the TJ's Foreword, circa 1977, there had already been three assassination attempts against him. By 1990 there had been some 18 described and verified assassination attempts (see And Yet -- They Fly! by Guido Moosbrugger, 1991, 2001, or Zeugenbuch: zu Erlebnissen mit 'Billy' Eduard Albert Meier, seinen Fähigkeiten und Kontakten mit Menschen der Plejaren und ihrer Föderation, 1959-2001 [Book of Witnesses: To Events involving "Billy" Albert Eduard Meier, his Capabilities and Contacts with Plejarens and Beings from their Federation], Hinterschmidrüti: FIGU, 2001). One of the long-term key investigators of the Meier case (Wendelle Stevens) was right there sitting on the porch with Meier at his Hinterschmidrüti residence at the time of the assassination attempt of May 1980, when a bullet barely missed Meier's head.

It is not clear that Meier regards all the major faiths as cult religions. His definition, not mentioned by Price, is "Cult Religion: The most sordid pretext of maximum power in the name of false and mendacious love that literally walks over dead bodies without hesitation or scruple." The Christian religion was definitely included here, with reference to the Inquisition.

    Not surprisingly, The Talmud of Jmmanuel embodies UFO theology. Its Jesus (Jmmanuel) is the result of Mary’s impregnation by the angel Gabriel who is an alien arriving in a space ship for their date.

The TJ of course does not speak of "an alien arriving in a space ship." It instead speaks of the aliens as "the voyagers who traveled here through vast expanses of the universe," and its descriptions of "space ship" are: "bright light in the sky," "metallic light," "radiant light" and "great light."

Concerning Gabriel's "date" with Mary, Price has evidently given up all pretense of presenting an accurate or truthful account. We do not know if Mary had any forewarning of Gabriel's arrival, as in a date, or of the circumstances under which the impregnation took place. Far too much is unknown here to venture any safe claims. From comparing the TJ with the Gospel of Luke, we do know that the writer of the latter did have some access to the TJ before writing or finishing his gospel, in which he wrote: "...the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David, and the virgin's name was Mary. And he came to her and said, " will conceive in your womb and bear a son..." (Luke 1:26-31). This was evidently that writer's way of explaining and sanctifying the TJ's account, upon adding that the "holy Spirit" would come upon Mary.

Jesus is eventually taken aboard the same craft, much like Brian of Nazareth in the Monty Python movie. When he 'ascends' he is stepping aboard the spacecraft, though only for a couple of stops down the line, getting off in Damascus. Why bother with Spielbergianism? Simply because Bill wants to combine the usual props of UFO-Jesus-ism (beam-up ascension) with the Asian travels/Srinagar tomb scenario. He likes ‘em both.
Again, without a shred of evidence, Price falsely implies that the TJ was composed by Billy Meier, whom he here calls "Bill," rather than being edited by him. He seems to be propagating a further myth, that flying-saucer type, beam-em-up movies preceded the UFO phenomenon rather than being based upon it.
    All science fiction reinterpretation of Christianity, the stock in trade of Flying Saucer religions, entails a dusting off of old eighteenth-century Rationalism: what looked like miracles to the ancients must have been advanced technology, at least as we, their far-superior pseudo-intellectual descendents, imagine it. Such science fiction, too, becomes dated and laughable after a while. Thus UFO theology starts looking even more ridiculous than the supernaturalism it hopes to replace.
It is but common sense to postulate that some of what looked like miracles to the ancients could have been the advanced technology of ETs, considering the hindsight we possess today upon recognition of the reality of the UFO phenomenon (which even Price found plausible, earlier). The further science progresses, from the ability to clone to the discovery of planets around other stars, the more sense it makes that "angels" were ETs. Consider that 30 years ago the scientific consensus was on the side of humans being alone in the galaxy as intelligent beings or even as life, while by now the consensus has swung the other way. Sufficient progress in physics and astrophysics has now occurred to permit scientists to begin speculating, within peer-reviewed journals, on novel means of interstellar travel that could circumvent the speed-of-light limitation. Science-fiction need not enter into the discussion, except as it helps prepare the public for the eventual shock of full revelation of the UFO/alien presence.
In this case, the resurrection of Jesus is treated with a technique borrowed from old-time Rationalism rather than its twentieth-century sci-fi counterpart, though. Jesus does not die on the cross, but is taken down in a coma, then placed in Joseph of Arimathea’s tomb, where he is given medical care and recovers. Usually the eighteenth-century Rationalists had Joseph call upon the Essenes to nurse Jesus back to health, but for some reason they are not good enough this time around. ...
    Joseph even somehow contacts Jesus’ colleagues in India and summons them to come and treat him! Would there really have been time for this?

Nowhere in the TJ does it say that the Indian friends of Jmmanuel and Joseph involved in Jmmanuel's recovery were located anywhere else than in Jerusalem. Jerusalem was on the trade routes that connected to the Silk Road. So it is likely that there were merchants from India there in Jerusalem for considerable periods of time, along with their Hindu helpers and fellow Silk Road travelers. Jmmanuel himself had taken the Silk Road caravan route back from India only a few years before, and had had ample time to make friends with some of the accompanying Hindus. Joseph may have had to travel a mile from the tomb site just south of the Old City to contact one or more of them.

I guess Gabriel could have picked them up in his space ship and rushed them into the OR, but then we’d have to wonder why the aliens didn’t just revivify Jmmanuel like Gort did Klaatu in The Day the Earth Stood Still. Well, anyway, Joseph gets away with the scheme, despite Jewish and Roman guards at the tomb because he had taken the precaution of designing his tomb with a hidden back entrance! Why? How could he have known this day would come? It’s all just so stupid.
As far as we know, the only guards at the tomb at the time Jmmanuel exited it were Roman guards.

It is interesting that Jmmanuel's aliens did not apparently directly interfere by aiding in his recovery, and almost certainly Joseph of Arimathea had had no inkling that the second entrance to his tomb would ever be used for the important purpose it did serve. One of the aliens might, however, have earlier telepathically prompted Joseph to have the second, side entrance to his tomb carved out during its construction. There are examples from Meier's contactee experiences that indicate that these ETs have those capabilities of prophetic foresight and telepathic prompting. Much UFO literature itself attests to the latter capability of UFO aliens to telepathically prompt witnesses from a distance.

A question I have pondered on, however, is this: These aliens, not just Jmmanuel, are known for their ability to prophesy years in advance of the event. Is there much detail in what they can prophesy? How do they decide to what extent, if any, they should either take or avoid actions that would help make a prophecy come true?

In any case, it's not totally unheard of for a 1st-century tomb in Jerusalem to have a second entrance (see Rosenthal, E. S., "The Giv'at ha-Mivtar Inscription," Israel Exploration Journal 23 (1973), pp. 72-78). This was not the temporary tomb of Jmmanuel.

Although Price avoids quoting from the TJ's many inspiring passages, and educational passages, on pp. 129-130 he extensively quotes its harsh statements against chief priests, Pharisees, scribes, and other adherents to Judaism, some of which found their way into the Gospel of Matthew.

The Talmud of Jmmanuel is blood-curdlingly anti-Semitic. Its appropriation of the familiar Jewish title Talmud is offensive, but that is the least of it. Here are a few choice passages:

“Do not go into the streets of Israel, and do not go to the scribes and Pharisees, but go to the cities of the Samaritans and to the ignorant in all parts of the world. Go to the unenlightened, the idol worshippers and the ignorant after I have left you, because they do not belong to the house of Israel, which will bring death and bloodshed into the world.” (10:5-6)
The TJ may well be the earliest known writing to make use of the word "talmud." It greatly predates the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds.

The above quote by Price, and his others, stem from the TJ's 1992 edition (most of my own quotes will be from the 2002 edition). It is clear that Jmmanuel regarded the Jewish religious leaders -- their scribes, the Pharisees and chief priests -- with great distaste. This is even clear from Matthew, whose chapter 23 (which came from the TJ's chapter 24), calls the scribes & Pharisees "hypocrites" six or seven times, "blind guides" twice, "blind fools" once, and "You serpents, you brood of vipers" once. Although the writer of Matthew omitted some of the TJ's excoriations against the Jewish clergy, he retained many, probably because of his disappointment that the Jewish religious leaders had not, even by early 2nd century, come around to acceptance of the new Messianic form of Judaism that he had converted to, with "Jesus" as Messiah.

The above TJ quotation finds its parallel in Mt 10:5-6, where the disciples are instructed to "go nowhere among the Gentiles, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." The contradiction between this and the opposite command in Mt 28:19-20 has long baffled New Testament scholars. The TJ allows the undesired solution to be understood: the writer of Matthew altered whatever in the TJ he wished in writing his gospel, in this case changing the meaning around by 180 degrees because of his typical anti-gentile attitude, as in Mt 16:24 where we read Jesus said, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." In the study of Gospel priorities, a modified Augustinian hypothesis (MAH) finds it very plausible that it was the translator of Hebraic Matthew into Greek, after the other Gospels had come out, who added in some pro-gentile passages such as Mt 28:19-20 in order to "soften" its anti-gentile passages and phrases.

For further understanding of the above passage, one needs to bear in mind that Jmmanuel was a true prophet, capable of general but accurate prophecies centuries ahead. A substantial part of the prophecy may have dealt with the Israel-Arab wars since 1948, forcing several million Arabs to flee for exile in neighboring countries. However, the prophecy may refer also to wars still in our future. Hopefully such will turn out to be a false prophecy. But judging from U.S. foreign policy in the Mideast, which has seemed based almost entirely upon (a) protection of Israel against her potential enemies, and (b) maintaining our interest in access to Mideast oil at an affordable cost in U.S. dollars, the prophecy has not yet been derailed. Should a dire prophecy pertaining to a particular nation or people, made by a person with a good track record as a prophet, be considered to be of the same nature as anti-Semitism?

In other statements, however, Jmmanuel came out strongly against the Israeli people themselves for having willingly gone along with their leaders' wishes, as in TJ 15:22-26, which Price quotes below:

“For the people of Israel are unfaithful to the laws of Creation and are accursed and will never find peace. Their blood will be shed, because they constantly commit outrages against the laws of Creation. They presume themselves above all the human races as a chosen nation and thus as a separate race. What an evil error and what evil presumption, for inasmuch as Israel never was a nation or a race, so it was never a chosen race. Unfaithful to the laws of Creation, Israel is a mass of people with an inglorious past, characterized by murder and arson.”
Here Jmmanuel combines prophecy with his sense of Israeli history, the sordid details of which he apparently acquired largely through his ability, as a true prophet, to remember events from his own past lives. Judging from Mt 16:14 and by what Meier was told by his ET contactors, these past lives included Isaiah, Elijah and Jeremiah. Hence, Jmmanuel's disgust for Israel's "inglorious past" may have singled out Israel from other nations' inglorious pasts for this reason. We cannot expect that Price would understand this, however, as he has shown no indication of having studied any of the evidence of the existence and capabilities of the individual human spirit, nor of its evolution over eons, with no inkling that Jmmanuel's spirit was highly evolved. Perhaps he would equate a highly evolved spirit with excessive meekness, or with blithe acceptance of evil, or with the desire to spend all one's time in meditation. Jmmanuel was simply not the kind of man that the Gospels in general portray as "Jesus," starting with the alterations in the TJ made by the writer of Matthew. However, a bit of Jmmanuel's penchant for speaking out the harsh truth as he saw it, and for taking non-violent action against evil, made it from the TJ into Matthew in the temple-cleansing event, when he drove out the money changers and merchants with a donkey whip (TJ 22:12, Mt 21:12, Jn 2:15), though in Matthew no mention is made of the whip.

It seemingly does not occur to Price that there is any problem with Jesus being portrayed as a meek peacemaker who does not resist evil, as in Mt 5 & 6, and yet taking the action he did in purging the Temple. And so, Price speaks as if it were inconceivable that Jmmanuel would have spoken out in harsh anger against those he saw as responsible for evil deeds of the past and of the prophesied future. No, just call it anti-Semitism! Should Jmmanuel have prophesied also that such harsh language would in the future be politically incorrect, and so have avoided its use?

In the TJ we find repeated occurrences of Jmmanuel's anger at having the truth be flouted, whether by scribes, Pharisees or even one of his own disciples. Yet he never inflicted violence upon any person, and he taught non-violence. It seems there's an important difference between use of the threat of violence (as by brandishing a donkey whip) and actual infliction of bodily violence.

It is understandable that the writer of Matthew, when penning his gospel, would omit the TJ passages that were more offensive to Israelis in general. After all, he was still trying to recruit Jewish converts (the lost sheep of the house of Israel) into the new Messianic Judaism (also called Jewish Christianity), so he wouldn't wish to be too harsh on them. The most blatant of these omitted passages is displayed by Price below:

10:26“Truly, I say to you: the nation of Israel was never one distinct people and has at all times lived with murder, robbery and fire. They have acquired this land through ruse and murder in abominable, predatory wars, slaughtering their best friends like wild animals. 27May the nation of Israel be cursed until the end of the world and never find its peace.”
Much of TJ 10:26 is confirmed from Old Testament passages in Joshua (8:18-29, 10:7-11,18-20,26, 28-42, 11:6-23, 16:10, 24:8-13) and Deuteronomy (20:10-18). In considering Jmmanuel's prophetic thoughts that led to his outburst in 10:27, two previous verses ought not be omitted. They are:
10:24"Throughout the world there will be wailing and chattering of teeth when the blood flows from all those who have made my teachings of wisdom and knowledge into false teachings, and when the blood flows from all of those who, in their false belief and through evil seduction, believe and advocate these false teachings--teachings which certainly are not mine. 25Many of these false believers will lose their lives, including many Israelites, who will never find their peace until the end of the world, because they are ignorant and unwise and deny the power of the spirit, of love and of knowledge.
The prophecy of 10:25 is seen to be restated two verses later in 10:27 above as a curse. Much as supporters of the TJ wish Jmmanuel had stayed silent here, there it is. My take on it is that his knowledge of horrors of the past which he had experienced in his past lives as a prophet, and his confidence of being capable of prophesying with certainty a dire future which would in particular include Jerusalem, along with foreknowledge that his own teachings would be suppressed, was itself a curse for him that he could scarcely cope with, leading to an utterance that we all would agree was a mistake for him to have spoken.

That Jmmanuel was capable of making mistakes and misspeaking should not be thought to be inconsistent with his own teachings. Consider these verses, indicating he realized he himself needed to continue to learn:

19:14 "Search for the meaning and truth in my teachings. Since I am human like you, I, too, have had to search and perceive."

26:46 Once Saul had departed, Jmmanuel called together his disciples and said to them, "You know that Passover comes after two days, when I shall be turned over to the courts to be crucified, as it is destined, so that I will continue to learn."

29:21-22 Jmmanuel spoke, "Behold, aeons ago, I returned from the realm of a higher world in order to fulfill a difficult task; and now I was begotten by a celestial son to be a prophet in this life. This came to pass according to destiny and the desire of god, the ruler over the three lineages of terrestrial humans procreated by him. Through his kindness, I have added to my knowledge in this incarnation by gaining great insight and learning true wisdom, which was imparted to me by his teachers over a period of forty days and forty nights."
Unlike Christians, followers of the TJ are under no obligation to treat its main personage like a "lamb of God without sin." Jmmanuel, the son of an ET father, was continuing to learn and was thus not incapable of making mistakes.

And what about the outburst below, what prompted it?

10:39“Therefore, beware of Israel, because it is like an abscess.”(1992 TJ edition)

The three prior verses below suggest that J's exasperation with the Israelites was responsible.

10:35"Do not go to too much trouble with the cities of Israel, for truly, I say to you, you will get nowhere with the people of Israel until the end of the world. 36The disciple is never above the teacher, nor the servant above the master. 37It is enough for the disciple to be like his teacher and the servant like his master. 38If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more will they malign those of his household? 39Therefore, beware of Israel because it is like a festering boil. 40However, do not be afraid of them, because there is nothing hidden that will not be revealed and nothing secret that will not be known." (2002 & 2007 editions)
(The underlined portions are parallels with Mt 10:24-26.) So here Jmmanuel was talking to his disciples, and letting them know the conclusion he drew from his own experience with trying to get Israelites to take his teachings to heart. The "festering boil" analogy thus stood for the intransigence of the Israeli people, as viewed from Jmmanuel's perspective. It seems that 80-90 years later the writer of Matthew didn't have any better success with the Jews, in trying to put across his Messianic form of Judaism, judging from his editorial behavior and from his infamous "His blood be on us and on our children" of Mt 27:25, not in the TJ. If the TJ were a literary hoax written by Meier, as assumed by Price, and if Meier were anti-Semitic, he surely would not have omitted Mt 27:25 from his supposed fabrication, nor have bothered to include all of Jmmanuel's healings of the Jews. One may visit Meier's website and notice the absence of any anti-Semitism stemming from him or any others in the F.I.G.U. organization.

Price continued with:

“For the people of Israel are unfaithful to the laws of Creation and are accursed and will never find peace. Their blood will be shed, because they constantly commit outrages against the laws of Creation. They presume themselves above all the human races as a chosen nation and thus as a separate race. What an evil error and what evil presumption, for inasmuch as Israel never was a nation or a race, so it was never a chosen race. Unfaithful to the laws of Creation, Israel is a mass of people with an inglorious past, characterized by murder and arson.” (15:22-26)
The content of the 2nd and last sentences we have already discussed some under TJ 10:26 above, with Jmmanuel's outrage against Israelis probably referring to some of what the writer of Matthew let slip through in Mt 23:34-35, the original TJ version of which is in this passage:
TJ 24:41"Thus you bear witness against yourselves that you are the children of those who killed the prophets and falsified their teachings. 42Well then, fill up the measure of your forefathers and fathers; thus you will end your lives without understanding and will have difficulty learning until the distant future. 43You brood of snakes and vipers, how can you aspire to be great in spirit and in consciousness when you don't possess any understanding yet? 44All the righteous blood that was shed by your doing on Earth will befall you, beginning with the first prophet your fathers and forefathers murdered, to the blood of Zacharias, the son of Barachias, whom you killed between the temple and the altar, as well as all the blood that will be shed in the future because of your guilt.
The underlined portions above may be recognized as having Mt 23:31-33,35, below, as their parallel:
Mt 23:31Thus you witness against yourselves, that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. 32:"Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers. 33You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell? 34Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from town to town, 35that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of innocent Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar."
Price evidently knew he should not show the above TJ passage as an example of supposed anti-Semitic text, since it was carried into (occurs in) Matthew. As a matter of interest, we may note that the writer of Matthew omitted TJ content here, as elsewhere, that deals with spiritual evolution. However, his substitution for it — of Jesus sending them prophets — has raised many a scholar's eyebrow, as the era of Jewish prophets had by then essentially ended, except for Jesus himself.

Price quotes the last portion (27:12b) of another TJ verse, but it is illuminating to add the first portion:

27:12a"You [disciples] are struck with blindness, like the legitimate people of this land who are held in darkness and oppression by the Israelites, just as the prophets predicted for these people, because they have forsaken the tenets of truth,12bjust like the Israelites who plundered this land and have dominated and oppressed the legitimate owners of the land.”
Here Jmmanuel is likening the ignorance of his disciples to that of the true inhabitants of Palestine due to their long-term oppression and occupation by the Israelis. Portion 12b again refers to some of what can be read in the book of Joshua. Next, Price selects TJ 30:8b,
“I am the true prophet of all human races on earth: but in all truth I am not the prophet of those confused Israelites who call themselves sons and daughters of Zion.”
This Jmmanuel spoke to the high priest Caiphas at the Sanhedrin "trial," not long after the chief priests and elders had him flogged. There is a good deal of Old Testament text concerning the sons, daughters and inhabitants of Zion. From its inception, Zionism has sought to strongly maintain the connections between the land of the covenant, the people of Israel and the Torah. Jmmanuel must have found those Israelites to be least receptive of all to his teachings.

The last TJ passage chosen by Price to demonstrate Jmmanuel's bitterness against the Israelites was spoken right after the above:

“And the time will come in five times 100 years when you will have to atone for this, when the legitimate owners of the land enslaved by you will begin to rise against you into the distant future. A new man will rise up in this land as a prophet and will rightfully condemn and persecute you and you will have to pay with your blood. […] Even though, according to your claim, he will be a false prophet and you will revile him, he will nevertheless be a true prophet, and he will have great power, and he will have your race persecuted throughout all time in the future. His name will be Mohammed, and his name will bring horror, misery and death to your kind, which you deserve. Truly, truly, I say to you: His name will be written for you with blood, and his hatred against your kind will be endless.” (30:10-11, 13-15; 1992 edition)
This simply has to be rejected outright by anyone who does not accept the existence and evolution of the human spirit, one who cannot allow that there could be such a thing as a highly evolved spirit-consciousness that periodically incarnated into a human infant, and with a degree of spiritual evolution that permitted valid prophecy into the distant future, and in particular this specific a prophecy. Although Matthew mentions that Jesus was a prophet and wisdom teacher, and reports his ability to prophesy over short time periods, even many Christians doubt he had the capability of correctly prophesying over long time periods. However, one long-range prophecy from the TJ did barely manage to survive the transformation into the Gospel of Matthew, where its long-range aspect is little known. It occurs in the anointing of J by the woman of Bethany (with underlining again indicating portions that made it into Matthew):
TJ 27:23"This woman has become wise and lives according to the laws of Creation. Therefore she thanks me with the precious water. 24Her gratitude will be lasting, and from now on her deed shall be known throughout the world. 25Truly, I say to you, wherever my teachings will be preached in all the world, whether falsified or true, the people will remember what she has done."

Mt26:10b"For she has done a beautiful thing to me. 11For you always have the poor with you, but you will not always have me. 12In pouring this ointment on my body she has done it to prepare me for burial. 13Truly, I say to you, wherever this gospel is preached in the whole world, what she has done will be told in memory of her."
In looking for the direction of redaction here, one may ask if this woman would have been told that Jesus was going to die when even the disciples could not accept his prophecy that he would have to undergo a crucifixion. And, were these words from Jesus already a "gospel" at this time?

Price continued with this observation:

    It seems anticlimactic to scrutinize this miserable travesty further. But it may be worth it after all, in case anything else is needful to discourage any adolescents who may still be interested in it. There are historical errors that would just not be possible in a writing from someone who lived in the period. Jesus is said to be born in the reign of Herod Antipas (2:1). Actually it was Herod the Great.
The reader of Matthew scarcely need be told the latter supposed fact. However, we may wonder why Price does not mention that scholars have for decades puzzled over why key verses in the Gospel of Luke place J's birth in A.D. 6 (Lk 2:1-2), those verses being in regard to the decree from Caesar (the census for the 5% inheritance taxation of the Roman world in A.D. 6), and the reign of Quirinius, governor of Syria, commencing then (he could call for a needed Judeo-Syrian census at the same time). It happens that Antipas attained the dynastic title of "Herod" also in A.D. 6. In addition, Acts 5:37 has Judas the Galilean initiating his uprising "in the days of the census"; this uprising is believed to have occurred in A.D. 6, and the mentioned census must have been that of A.D. 6. On the other hand, there are ample reasons to explain why the writer of Matthew would have wanted to alter Herod Antipas in his TJ source into Herod the Great, who died in 4 B.C. However, the earlier 4 B.C. birth date (or 4-6 B.C.) is preferred by most scholars, despite the better evidence otherwise, largely because of reluctance to admit that the writer of Matthew could have made such a fraudulent change, and also because it means J was as young as 25 at the start of his ministry. Obviously, no New Age literary hoaxer would be knowledgeable enough to have figured this out if Price couldn't, or would desire to if he wished his hoax to receive scholarly support.
    Humble fellow that he is, Billy the Evangelist has Jesus predict him: “Not until two thousand years will an insignificant man come who will recognize my teaching as truth and spread it with great courage” (14:18). See also 15:75-81. But Jesus seems to underestimate just how insignificant the man will prove to be.
Price again has it all wrong. Billy Meier didn't write the Talmud of Jmmanuel, as we have already seen repeatedly here and from unrefuted research that Price evidently has had no desire to look into. It was Jmmanuel, not "Jesus," who made the prediction of TJ 14:18 and 15:75-81 as written down by Judas Iscariot. Although Meier perhaps hasn't attracted as much attention as had Jmmanuel alias "Jesus" the first 25 years after his Palestinian ministry, he was in the UFO limelight for several years (1975-1981 and longer, and eventually worldwide) due to the great clarity, number, and variety of his "beamship" photos, until misguided debunkings by "mainstream" ufologists marginalized the first-hand investigations of W. Stevens, Lee & Brit Elders, G. Moosbrugger, G. Kinder and M. Hesemann (references given here), all of which concluded that "the Meier case" could not be any hoax.

Regarding humbleness or lack of it, Jmmanuel abided by his own advice, given in TJ 24:13,

"Let those who are great in consciousness consider themselves great, and those who are small in consciousness consider themselves small and those who are in between in consciousness consider themselves in between."
Next, Price tries to ridicule the idea that Jmmanuel had an ET father:
    Jesus’ audience in the Nazareth synagogue asks, “Is he not the son of the carpenter, Joseph, whose wife became pregnant by the son of a guardian angel? From where does he get all this wisdom and the power for his mighty works?” (15:18, 72). Oh, I don’t know… could it have anything to do with his being the son of an angel?!
Being the son of Gabriel was just the starting point. Jmmanuel had to devote himself to arduous learning from an early age -- traveling with the caravans on the long treks to and from India, learning much during his travels in India, and receiving intensive instruction from his ET contactors during the 40 days and nights early in his Palestinian ministry. Those in the synagogue likely didn't know anything about all that, they just recalled the story of Jmmanuel's birth that Mary and Joseph must have circulated around a bit and which must have persisted a while, likely being revived after news of his miraculous healings became known to many.

On p. 131 Price continues by presenting:

    “A prophet is never esteemed less than in his own country and in his own house, which will prove true for all the future, as long as humanity has little knowledge and is enslaved by the false teachings of the scribes and the distorters of true scripture” (15:74). This nonsensical inflation of Mark 6:4 sounds like the rambling, bogus Ezekiel quote Samuel L. Jackson repeats again and again in Pulp Fiction!
It was the writer of Matthew who utilized this TJ verse for his own at Mt 13:57b. The writer of Mark merely followed Matthew, though adding "among his own kin" to those who did not esteem Jesus. There is no nonsense here for those who can understand that it embodies a prophecy of how Jmmanuel's teachings would be long shunned in Israel and by all humanity due to those who did and would distort the teachings of truth.
But The Talmud of Jmmanuel doesn’t mind taking Christian morality down a peg:

TJ 5:42“Give to them who ask of you, if they make their requests in honesty, and turn away from them who want to borrow from you in a deceitful way”.

In accord with the Rabbis, Jesus seems uncritical in his counsel to give to any beggar.

Jmmanuel wouldn't have been known as a wisdom teacher if his teachings had been like most of those of Matthew's Jesus. The writer of Matthew was an all-or-nothing extremist. Common sense tells us that it is not wise to keep giving to beggars until you yourself are one of them. Some criticality is required, which, however, is ruled out for those who think that Matthew's "Judge not lest you be judged" was also what the wisdom teacher had actually spoken. Some NT scholars of Matthew have deduced that its writer was likely once a rabbi himself.

    Everybody recognizes that, if it comes right down to it, it is noble to give your life for your country and what it stands for. Religious martyrdom is the same, as long as one does not seek it out as some kind of fanatic. In the last analysis, you have to preserve your integrity at whatever price. But not according to this gospel:

TJ 10:21“Flee from the unbelieving, because you should not lose your life for the sake of truth and knowledge. No law requires that of you, nor is there one that admits to such recklessness”.
The above was Jmmanuel's advice to his disciples, which he himself followed when danger grew too near (until he felt the time had come to undergo a crucifixion, which he was confident he would survive). This was not advice to soldiers in an army. And it is advice from a talmud, not from a gospel.

Price next selected the following verse from the TJ's 1st authorized English edition (1992):

TJ 13:10“No Sabbath is holy and no law dictates that on the sabbath no work may be done”

—or at least no law that an anti-Semite would take seriously, I guess.
A couple words from the German had been omitted here in that 1992 English version. The TJ's 3rd and 4th editions read:
TJ13:10"Truly, I say to you, no Sabbath is holy and no law of Creation dictates that no work may be done on the Sabbath."
The correction doesn't affect Price's remark, except to emphasize that Jmmanuel was a follower of the laws of Creation and nature, not generally of Judaism. Nature doesn't distinguish between days of the week. The writer of Matthew (in Mt 12:6-8) strongly revised this part of the TJ, since he was a strong believer in the Torah as well as in the Messiah.
Jmmanuel saith: “Do not suppose that prayer is necessary, because you will also receive without prayer if your spirit is trained through wisdom” (21:15). And yet Jmmanuel prescribes a prayer [the Prayer to One's Spirit, below, is here rendered in the language of the TJ's 3rd (2002) edition]:
'My spirit, you exist within omnipotence.
'May your name be holy.
'May your kingdom incarnate itself within me.
'May your power unfold itself within me, on Earth and in the heavens.
'Give me today my daily bread, that I may recognize my wrongdoings and the truth.
'And lead me not into temptation and confusion, but deliver me from error.
'For yours is the kingdom within me and the power and the knowledge forever. Amen.' (TJ 6:12-18)
But what’s the difference, I guess, since you’d be praying to your own self?
The above Prayer to One's Spirit, as mentioned in TJ 6:6-7, has a key purpose of reminding us how powerful one's spirit really is. And reminding us that a prime reason we're here is to evolve spiritually and therefore to learn from our wrongdoings, which we need to seek to minimize and not repeat. The later verse, TJ 21:15, has a narrower context, and speaks for itself.
    At first, one might be tempted to think this Talmud of Jmmanuel is a progressive, with-it kind of gospel for the new age:

“Do away with the enforcement of the old law that woman should be subject to man, since she is a person like a man, with equal rights and obligations” (12:25) .

But, Liberals, you may want to shield your eyes from this one. It looks like grief for Gays, though leniency for Lesbians:

“And if two men bed down with each other, they should also be punished, because the fallible are unworthy of life and its laws and behave heretically; thus they should be castrated, expelled and banished before the people. If, however, two women bed down with one another, they should not be punished, because they do not violate life and its laws, since they are not inseminating, but are bearing” (12:6-7).

How’s that again?

First, it should be pointed out that the "castration" punishment has, since about 2002, been believed by Meier to be a mistranslation or misinterpretation by Rashid, here and elsewhere in the TJ's chapter 12. The original Aramaic is now believed to have utilized a brief phrase that meant for the guilty person simply to "be removed or cut off (from the community)". This then involved the guilty man or woman being expelled and banished from the community.

This opinion receives some support from the TJ's first verse that introduces this penalty. It is:

TJ 12:4 (3rd and earlier editions):      "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'." [Underline added.]
The writing this must refer to is in Leviticus. We see below from Lv 18:20-29, however, that the penalty for such sexual offenses was for the guilty persons to "be cut off from among their people" (emphasis added):
Lv 18:29      For whoever shall do any of these abominations, the persons that do them shall be cut off from among their people.

There is no mention of castration. So my own conjecture is that the translator, Isa Rashid, thinking within the context of a male fornicator while not rereading Leviticus, wrongly interpreted an Aramaic verb meaning "cut off," to mean "castrated." Then, for completeness and consistency on this point, he had to introduce a similar phrase for women fornicators, who were also to be cut off (from the community), causing him to write "sterilization" for their case. The Leviticus penalty must have been well known in Old Testament days and commonly applied, so that the TJ's writer, Judas, might not in every instance have bothered to add "from the community" after "cut off." This conjecture allows that the translator, Rashid, being human, was subject to making an occasional mistake, even a gross mistake, in translation. Possibly contributing to this suspected error, the phrase "from the community" at TJ 12:4 might have been among the various pieces of the TJ's papyrus rolls that Meier reported he observed in 1963 were illegible and decayed.

Price's above remark, however, does not pertain to this, but rather, apparently, to "inseminating" gays strangely being sexual offenders while "bearing" lesbians are not. I can't help Price on this, but it is clear that Jmmanuel was very much against male cohabitation. One doesn't expect, therefore, that many gays would be attracted to the TJ.

In summary, none of Price's numerous remarks give any substantive arguments pertaining to the TJ's genuineness. They instead consist mainly of sarcasm and derision, which seem to stem from an initial misbelief that the TJ and the story of its discovery and translation just couldn't be true. Accompanying this is the total absence of indication by Price that he's aware of the overwhelming amount of indirect evidence that says the Gospel of Matthew was formed out of the Talmud of Jmmanuel rather than vice versa, and the massive amount of physical evidence and eye-witness reports that say Eduard "Billy" Meier is a genuine UFO contactee.

Parent Page  Contents