The Late Great Urantia Revelation

[freelight]

theosophical aspects in the UB?

theosophical aspects in the UB?

I tried reading this book once and could not get into it. Seems like a bunch of Theosophically-derived nonsense to me. I prefer a good myth that relates universal truth to a book whose truths are too heavily dependent upon the historical context in which they are made.

The first 5 papers (you can skip the Foreward if you like, but it is an excellent preface covering fundamental terms and their meanings within the context of the total-cosmology being consistent therein) is a relatively easy read, and is actually at its core-essence the same description of 'Deity' as held in classical traditional orthodox Christian theology, with an expanded update on the nature of the 'Paradise Trinity' and other wonderful dimensions and aspects of the Supreme Being, in its relation to the whole of creation taking on an evolutional aspect as 'God' inter-acts, responds and involved Himself with all living things and beings in space-time, the infinite relating, coordinating, inter-acting with the finite. This aspect of 'The Supreme Being' is a special insight shared in the papers, among many other concepts and relationships in the divine hierarchy.

In any case, I don't see any Theosophical connection ( hence no 'nonsense' in that direction unless you have your own concept or definition of 'theosphical') as you note, unless you can specify such, as I've some knowledge of Theosophy and have put deeper studies in its primary texts (Isis Unveiled, The Secret Doctrine, etc.) on hold for the time being. The theology and philosophical principles in Theosophy differ from the UB in many ways, although the ethical/moral precepts are upheld with the same import, focusing on the common unity of all life, the unity of Creation itself, and its progressive evolution, man ultimately advancing in the spirit of cooperation and brotherhood, recognizing the divine presence or principle within, to unfold and realize his true purpose and immortality.

So,...if you'd like to take a challenge (shared here earlier) and read the first 5 papers (as a refresher course), you can show me where there is any correlation to theosophy there, or indicate where in the papers such correlaries exist - the UB is unique unto itself in many ways, and it does not advocate or teach any of the common theosophical principles such as 'reincarnation' as is understood from an eastern philosophical perspective. In any case, I see a lot of mis-impressions or premature assumptions going on, based on limited data and knowledge of the entire UB, which leaves more to be desired or learned. (lots of fragmented puzzle pieces being lumped together but not fitting). I may do a special thread on Theosophy in the future, since philosophically I agree with many of its precepts, in principle.



pj

 

[freelight]

goo goo theology......

goo goo theology......

You seen to assume that the only one that has "done the research" is you.

Far from it, since I'm ever continuing to learn, continually researching my own views, opinions, beliefs, knowing that all conditional knowledge or assumptions are subject to change, revision, modification.

The writings in MML&J about what Jesus taught were NOT written long after His death and resurrection. This is a bogus claim made by those that try to discredit the Word of God. There were many thousands of people that heard Jesus speak and there is no record any complaints about the authenticity or accuracy of these writings AT THAT TIME. This story of their late dates is just a feeble attempt to twist the facts.

Well,....the subject of the actual dates of the gospels would merit its own thread since there is quite a debate among scholars, but later dates seem to be more supported by the evidence, the gospels (particularly Mark first) being written at least 3 decades after Jesus death (65 - 80 A.D.), the other gospels at least 4 decades after. Some date the gospels to the mid to late 2nd century giving the later date as most concurrent to historical records when the gospels were even mentioned among early church fathers, etc. This may or may not affect the 'authenticity' or 'correctness' of the records, but the evidence or lack thereof is open to research.

This UB was written many, many decades later by who knows who and we're just supposed to believe that it's true?

Once again as I wrote here, its what is being communicated that matters, as far as religious principles and philosophy is concerned. Whether the context or story-line in which the teachings are 'couched' in are 'religious fiction', 'mythology' or an actual 'historical event' is ringside speculation.

Since you give no evidence at all for its authenticity, I'll leave it.

The evidence of a teaching-concept, principle or doctrine, will be found within its own meaning, value or merit. That's what counts, not necessarily one's theological formula or dogmatic theorem which might be more of an 'idol' than any true living principle. The teachings of Jesus presented in the UB record stand on their own principle. If you want to argue or question the 'epistemology' involved in how we can prove something is 'authentic' or not, that's ultimately ascertained subjectively, and still....we are left with the teaching itself being valid or not based on its own meaning or value. (let that sink in).

At the end of the day anyways, all you have is an image, concept, idea, belief, figure of Jesus in your own mind, existing there by which you relate to him, an incorporeal form within consciousness that has no value or meaning beyond what it itself actually imparts or conveys. You can put 'Jesus' into any story-line or cultural context, with various words attributed to him, and the same criteria or proofs for judging those words applies.

Things become more amusing since many evangelical Christians put more stock into the teachings of Paul than Jesus anyways, but we've been over that before



pj

 

[freelight]

Image and substance.......

Image and substance.......

But you're assertion that the Urantia has some authority in the spiritual realm is based on your belief that it has, Many kids see Santa and swear by it because the idea was planted in their minds by their authority figures.

- its all a story. Such is life; such is creation....a moving picture of images, impressions and appearances. We can look at all the stories and interpretations out there, and find which serves as teachers of the best principles, those that are most important and essential to our well-being, relationships and progress. This is all these language-symbols can be to us anyways, if they have any value whatsoever.

And is no different than the literal assertions made by christians that the Bible is historically viable, so Right or wrong, divider has a point even though his own assertions dance to the same tune of emotional speculation that have no tangible proof, other than being another version of the same motif that plagiarized from the past ones it still points to OZ for the solution when it should point at you being the Jesus that saves you, know one else can do that for you.

Yep, more or less. Thing is, few of the fundies here even attempt to have a go at 'creative dialogue' using the UB as a wonderful platform to explore, expand their own consciousness in the art of discussion, taking the opportunity it provides. Some are just shooting from the sidelines, with a 'vacancy' sign on their foreheads, shooting blanks actually, while thinking they are doing God a favor, as his armchair apologists...but ignorance in the end is not bliss, but self-defeating.



pj

 

[Caino]

I see it as the same story line of making one dependent on something outside yourself, giving it authoritative control that belongs to you, If you are actually reaching for a state of freedom the truth is said to provide then one has to be their own master of the house.

Something is true, I am in search of it.

 

[Zeke]

Something is true, I am in search of it.

That would be where the only conscience you know exist.

 

[freelight]

One primal reality at heart................

One primal reality at heart................

Something is true, I am in search of it.

A beautiful thing it is. Truth itself, as we're reflecting...is innate to itself, being intuited in the very heart of our being, non-different from it.....something recognized even faintly within, because it exists. The mind looking back at it...or from it...is its own reflection.




pj

 

[Caino]

That would be where the only conscience you know exist.

At times I'm not sure what you are saying. Is this Ayn Rand's philosophy you are onto m8?

 

[Caino]

We now know who he was, Melchizedek, the visible representative of God, he made the agreement with Abraham on behalf of God.​

..."Without father or mother, without genealogy"....​

Hebrews 7 New International Version (NIV)

Melchizedek the Priest

7 This Melchizedek was king of Salem and priest of God Most High. He met Abraham returning from the defeat of the kings and blessed him, 2 and Abraham gave him a tenth of everything. First, the name Melchizedek means “king of righteousness”; then also, “king of Salem” means “king of peace.” 3 Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, resembling the Son of God, he remains a priest forever.

4 Just think how great he was: Even the patriarch Abraham gave him a tenth of the plunder! 5 Now the law requires the descendants of Levi who become priests to collect a tenth from the people—that is, from their fellow Israelites—even though they also are descended from Abraham.

Paper 93


Machiventa Melchizedek​

(1014.1) 93:0.1 THE Melchizedeks are widely known as emergency Sons, for they engage in an amazing range of activities on the worlds of a local universe. When any extraordinary problem arises, or when something unusual is to be attempted, it is quite often a Melchizedek who accepts the assignment. The ability of the Melchizedek Sons to function in emergencies and on widely divergent levels of the universe, even on the physical level of personality manifestation, is peculiar to their order. Only the Life Carriers share to any degree this metamorphic range of personality function.

(1014.2) 93:0.2 The Melchizedek order of universe sonship has been exceedingly active on Urantia. A corps of twelve served in conjunction with the Life Carriers. A later corps of twelve became receivers for your world shortly after the Caligastia secession and continued in authority until the time of Adam and Eve. These twelve Melchizedeks returned to Urantia upon the default of Adam and Eve, and they continued thereafter as planetary receivers on down to the day when Jesus of Nazareth, as the Son of Man, became the titular Planetary Prince of Urantia.

1. The Machiventa Incarnation​

(1014.3) 93:1.1 Revealed truth was threatened with extinction during the millenniums which followed the miscarriage of the Adamic mission on Urantia. Though making progress intellectually, the human races were slowly losing ground spiritually. About 3000 B.C. the concept of God had grown very hazy in the minds of men.

(1014.4) 93:1.2 The twelve Melchizedek receivers knew of Michael’s impending bestowal on their planet, but they did not know how soon it would occur; therefore they convened in solemn council and petitioned the Most Highs of Edentia that some provision be made for maintaining the light of truth on Urantia. This plea was dismissed with the mandate that “the conduct of affairs on 606 of Satania is fully in the hands of the Melchizedek custodians.” The receivers then appealed to the Father Melchizedek for help but only received word that they should continue to uphold truth in the manner of their own election “until the arrival of a bestowal Son,” who “would rescue the planetary titles from forfeiture and uncertainty.”

(1014.5) 93:1.3 And it was in consequence of having been thrown so completely on their own resources that Machiventa Melchizedek, one of the twelve planetary receivers, volunteered to do that which had been done only six times in all the history of Nebadon: to personalize on earth as a temporary man of the realm, to bestow himself as an emergency Son of world ministry. Permission was granted for this adventure by the Salvington authorities, and the actual incarnation of Machiventa Melchizedek was consummated near what was to become the city of Salem, in Palestine. The entire transaction of the materialization of this Melchizedek Son was completed by the planetary receivers with the co-operation of the Life Carriers, certain of the Master Physical Controllers, and other celestial personalities resident on Urantia.

2. The Sage of Salem​

(1015.1) 93:2.1 It was 1,973 years before the birth of Jesus that Machiventa was bestowed upon the human races of Urantia. His coming was unspectacular; his materialization was not witnessed by human eyes. He was first observed by mortal man on that eventful day when he entered the tent of Amdon, a Chaldean herder of Sumerian extraction. And the proclamation of his mission was embodied in the simple statement which he made to this shepherd, “I am Melchizedek, priest of El Elyon, the Most High, the one and only God.”

(1015.2) 93:2.2 When the herder had recovered from his astonishment, and after he had plied this stranger with many questions, he asked Melchizedek to sup with him, and this was the first time in his long universe career that Machiventa had partaken of material food, the nourishment which was to sustain him throughout his ninety-four years of life as a material being.
​

 

[Aimiel]

Something is true, I am in search of it.

If that were true: you would find Him. He promised, and He doesn't lie.

But if from thence thou shalt seek the Lord thy God, thou shalt find him, if thou seek him with all thy heart and with all thy soul.

 

[Caino]

"Sympathy is a worthy attribute of the male as well as the female. It is not necessary to be calloused in order to be manly."​

​

The Urantia Book, (1575.1) 140:5.16​

 

[God's Truth]

"Sympathy is a worthy attribute of the male as well as the female. It is not necessary to be calloused in order to be manly."​

​

The Urantia Book, (1575.1) 140:5.16​

You act as if that is scripture.

How about Jesus' word saying for a man to love his wife as Jesus loves the church?

See Ephesians 5:25.

 

[Caino]

You act as if that is scripture.

How about Jesus' word saying for a man to love his wife as Jesus loves the church?

See Ephesians 5:25.

(1736.5) 156:2.8 Jesus greatly enjoyed the keen sense of humor which these gentiles exhibited. It was the sense of humor displayed by Norana, the Syrian woman, as well as her great and persistent faith, that so touched the Master’s heart and appealed to his mercy. Jesus greatly regretted that his people — the Jews — were so lacking in humor. He once said to Thomas: “My people take themselves too seriously; they are just about devoid of an appreciation of humor. The burdensome religion of the Pharisees could never have had origin among a people with a sense of humor. They also lack consistency; they strain at gnats and swallow camels.”​

 

[God's Truth]

(1736.5) 156:2.8 Jesus greatly enjoyed the keen sense of humor which these gentiles exhibited. It was the sense of humor displayed by Norana, the Syrian woman, as well as her great and persistent faith, that so touched the Master’s heart and appealed to his mercy. Jesus greatly regretted that his people — the Jews — were so lacking in humor. He once said to Thomas: “My people take themselves too seriously; they are just about devoid of an appreciation of humor. The burdensome religion of the Pharisees could never have had origin among a people with a sense of humor. They also lack consistency; they strain at gnats and swallow camels.”​

lol

 

[freelight]

You act as if that is scripture.

I dont think Caino acts as if that passage is 'scripture', its just a quote from the UB. Any writing can be regarded as 'scripture' by personal opinion, cult-ural acceptance, consensus, traditional assumptions, etc. Writings are only held sacred by the individual or cult who accepts them. Perhaps you give too high a veneration to your 'concept' of 'scripture'.

How about Jesus' word saying for a man to love his wife as Jesus loves the church?

See Ephesians 5:25.

Your referring to Paul's word and assuming its Jesus. I dont see what this correlates to. The former saying was simply referring to a man being sympathetic, caring, loving, nurturing....as a sign of real strength and humility.

~*~*~

102:3.12 The pursuit of knowledge constitutes science; the search for wisdom is philosophy; the love for God is religion; the hunger for truth is a revelation. But it is the indwelling Thought Adjuster that attaches the feeling of reality to man’s spiritual insight into the cosmos.

 

[God's Truth]

I dont think Caino acts as if that passage is 'scripture', its just a quote from the UB. Any writing can be regarded as 'scripture' by personal opinion, cult-ural acceptance, consensus, traditional assumptions, etc. Writings are only held sacred by the individual or cult who accepts them. Perhaps you give too high a veneration to your 'concept' of 'scripture'.



Your referring to Paul's word and assuming its Jesus. I dont see what this correlates to. The former saying was simply referring to a man being sympathetic, caring, loving, nurturing....as a sign of real strength and humility.

~*~*~

I definitely understand what you are saying; however, I do not agree.

You would know the truth about the scriptures, if you obey the scriptures.

I tell you, that if you do what Jesus says in the New Testament, you will find out if it is truly God's Word.

Please try it. What do you have to lose?

See John 7:17.

 

[Caino]

I definitely understand what you are saying; however, I do not agree.

You would know the truth about the scriptures, if you obey the scriptures.

I tell you, that if you do what Jesus says in the New Testament, you will find out if it is truly God's Word.

Please try it. What do you have to lose?

See John 7:17.

I already do obey Jesus and the Father, Jesus is the Word, the living word.

 

[God's Truth]

I already do obey Jesus and the Father, Jesus is the Word, the living word.

If you obeyed Jesus, you would not have another book.

You have another testament from celestial beings.

 

[God's Truth]

Galatians 1:8


But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God's curse!

 

[Caino]

If you obeyed Jesus, you would not have another book.

You have another testament from celestial beings.

That's strange, because Christianity itself is a different gospel about the cross. Jesus taught the gospel of the kingdom of heaven......before the rise of self righteous Christians who have taken it upon themselves to judge everyone's salvation. Maybe God will consult with you?

 

[Aimiel]

The false gospel of UB wipes it's feet in Jesus' Blood, the most sacred thing there is.