The Late Great Urantia Revelation

Status
Not open for further replies.

Caino

BANNED
Banned
I've read the entire Bible, more times than I like to recall. I get more revelation from His Holy Word every time I read It.That is a lie.Without Jesus' Blood, neither she nor even Abraham, Elijah, Enoch or anyone else will have eternal life. Jesus knew that she would be one of His lambs, and would eat His Flesh and drink His Blood in holy communion. There's nothing passive about eating His Flesh and drinking His Blood. It takes a sombre act of your will. Without discerning His Body and His Life in the elements, there is no life in you. You want to teach demonic doctrine, which ALWAYS tramples Jesus' Blood underfoot and tries to bring Christ down from His Throne. It doesn't work. You're missing the most important part of Christianity. Your false religion is powerless, without His Precious Blood.

You have quite nicely made my point (not that's it has been lost by anyone else following my argument) by demonstrating Peter and Paul’s post resurrection interpretation of Jesus through their Jewish religion of an "eye for an eye", through blood sacrifice. I demonstrated through Jesus own words where he said that someone was already saved, he used present tense without adding Paul’s misinterpretation.

You say I m missing the most important part of Christianity, to the contrary, I’m not your kind Christian. I’m saying the most important part of your brand of Christianity is a primitive misinterpretation of Jesus' original gospel.


Jesus contradicts you from the cross: Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing."


Anyway, I proved the point, you are dishonest with yourself and are frustrated that you have no control over me with your demonology, vampire stuff.


Caino
 

Aimiel

New member
I demonstrated through Jesus own words where he said that someone was already saved...
You've only demonstrated your own darkened understanding. No one was saved without the shedding of His Blood.
You say I m missing the most important part of Christianity, to the contrary, I’m not your kind (of) Christian.
There is only one kind: a believer. You don't believe Jesus' Words. You have to re-interpret Them and then go find words from a demon, and claim that THOSE are Jesus' Words. That isn't Christianity, it's false religion.
I’m saying the most important part of your brand of Christianity is a primitive misinterpretation of Jesus' original gospel.
Jesus' Gospel is alive. Your pretending that it is in error doesn't make It any less The Truth than what It is. His Gospel is the cross. His Gospel is that The Son of Man gave birth to a new form of creation: the born-again man, a Christian, a believer in redemption, which is only available through Jesus' Blood.
Jesus contradicts you from the cross: Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing."
Again, no one's sins can be forgiven without Jesus' Blood.
Anyway, I proved the point, you are dishonest with yourself and are frustrated that you have no control over me with your demonology, vampire stuff.
Drinking wine, and thinking of Jesus' Blood while doing so isn't vampirism, it is worship. We show His sacrifice of His Life to be worthwhile by drinking His Blood. We honor His Ministry by doing so. We are only forgiven if we partake of His Blood. Because you reject His Blood, there is NO LIFE in you!!!

John 6:53
Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
 

Caino

BANNED
Banned
Jesus did not achevive his earthly goal even upon his so rising from the dead.
Can it be seen that men just kept up with the arrogant faith' adding whatsoever they please to continue on an keep people misitfied, every imagination imagined every further excuse under the sun as to create a further hope for their Narion to boggy on past death do us part..

When the immediate followers of Jesus recognized their "partial failure" to realize his ideal of the kingdom of heaven in the hearts of mankind by spiritual transformation, they tried to save his teaching from being completely lost by substituting the creation of a "visible social organization", the Christian church. When they had done so, in order to maintain consistency with Jesus teaching they set the kingdom off into the future at a second coming.

From a UB perspective:


Charity:

"Jesus did not achieve his earthly goal even upon his son rising from the dead".


Caino:

You are correct as concerns "the kingdom of heaven".



Mistake not! there is in the teachings of Jesus an eternal nature which will not permit them forever to remain unfruitful in the hearts of thinking men. The kingdom as Jesus conceived it has to a large extent failed on earth; for the time being, an outward church has taken its place; but you should comprehend that this church is only the larval stage of the thwarted spiritual kingdom, which will carry it through this material age and over into a more spiritual dispensation where the Master's teachings may enjoy a fuller opportunity for development. Thus does the so-called Christian church become the cocoon in which the kingdom of Jesus' concept now slumbers. The kingdom of the divine brotherhood is still alive and will eventually and certainly come forth from this long submergence, just as surely as the butterfly eventually emerges as the beautiful unfolding of its less attractive creature of metamorphic development.

Jesus founded the religion of personal experience in doing the will of God and serving the human brotherhood; Paul founded a religion in which the glorified Jesus became the object of worship and the brotherhood consisted of fellow believers in the divine Christ. In the bestowal of Jesus these two concepts were potential in his divine-human life, and it is indeed a pity that his followers failed to create a unified religion which might have given proper recognition to both the human and the divine natures of the Master as they were inseparably bound up in his earth life and so gloriously set forth in the original gospel of the kingdom.



Charity:

"Can it be seen that men just kept up with the arrogant faith' adding whatsoever they please to continue on an keep people misitfied, every imagination imagined every further excuse under the sun as to create a further hope for their Narion to boggy on past death do us part.."?

Caino:

Yes, Jesus' liberal, liberating gospel was to become "the common heritage of all religions", but unfortunately the mechanisms of evolved religion hijacked the gospel, innocently changed it and YES, it became an arrogant faith of a new sort of "chosen people".





Caino
 
Last edited:

freelight

Eclectic Theosophist
Again, no one's sins can be forgiven without Jesus' Blood.


Asides from that being a 'belief'(a carry-over from Moses sacrificial system, mystery-religions, and other pagan notions), what is essential is that we are only forgiven as we extend forgiveness. This is Jesus teaching, and is the basis of salvation or freedom. Also of import here is recognizing what there is to forgive, to 'let go', to dismiss as a false belief or misperception.

Super-imposing ancient concepts of 'blood-sacrifice', 'vicarious-atonement', 'appeasing the gods', etc. is unnecessary, when the real Atonement is the absolution of Love and living its principle in our lives.


pj
 

Caino

BANNED
Banned
Stephen Hawking: God Has No Role in Universe


"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," the pair write, in an extract published in today's London Times. "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going."

Hawking, smart but unwise.


UB:

The First Source and Center is related to the universe as:
0:3.6 1. The gravity forces of the material universes are convergent in the gravity center of nether Paradise. That is just why the geographic location of his person is eternally fixed in absolute relation to the force-energy center of the nether or material plane of Paradise. But the absolute personality of Deity exists on the upper or spiritual plane of Paradise.

0:3.7 2. The mind forces are convergent in the Infinite Spirit; the differential and divergent cosmic mind in the Seven Master Spirits; the factualizing mind of the Supreme as a time-space experience in Majeston.

0:3.8 3. The universe spirit forces are convergent in the Eternal Son.

0:3.9 4. The unlimited capacity for deity action resides in the Deity Absolute.

0:3.10 5. The unlimited capacity for infinity response exists in the Unqualified Absolute.

0:3.11 6. The two Absolutes—Qualified and Unqualified—are co-ordinated and unified in and by the Universal Absolute.

0:3.12 7. The potential personality of an evolutionary moral being or of any other moral being is centered in the personality of the Universal Father.


41.9.2 Atoms and electrons are subject to gravity. The ultimatons are not subject to local gravity, the interplay of material attraction, but they are fully obedient to absolute or Paradise gravity, to the trend, the swing, of the universal and eternal circle of the universe of universes. ultimatonic energy does not obey the linear or direct gravity attraction of near-by or remote material masses, but it does ever swing true to the circuit of the great ellipse of the far-flung creation.



Caino
 

Aimiel

New member
Asides from that being a 'belief'(a carry-over from Moses sacrificial system, mystery-religions, and other pagan notions), what is essential is that we are only forgiven as we extend forgiveness.
You have to forgive mixed-up men who created mystery religions and other pagan notions, just as you have to understand that the wages of sin is death; in order to be able to come to The Blood of Christ in the communion cup, such that it cleanses you from your sin, otherwise you'll only be making an attempt at religion, and playing games with God.
This is Jesus teaching, and is the basis of salvation or freedom.
The basis of salvation is The Blood of The Lamb.
Super-imposing ancient concepts of 'blood-sacrifice', 'vicarious-atonement', 'appeasing the gods', etc. is unnecessary, when the real Atonement is the absolution of Love and living its principle in our lives.
If that were true, Jesus would have taught that, and been done with it. Since He didn't, and laid down His Life willingly, so that we might have access to His Blood, and be cleansed. Jesus' sacrifice was planned from the foundation of the world. There is no more ancient concept, anywhere.
 

One Truth

New member
We are not "saved" by symbolism. The partaking of the body and blood of Jesus (as performed in the Christian Church) is only a symbolic ritual, which some may need to cling to in organized and institutionalized religion (Christianity). Although, some sects of Christianity actually believe that the wine and bread used in the communion ritual is transmuted into actual blood and actual flesh (transubstantiation) yet still appearing as bread and wine. This is all extremely symbolic and Jesus did not teach this.

What He did teach in the Last Supper was to remember His incarnation in the flesh, how He lived and to what end He lived, and His life that He was about to give by the shedding of His blood. The actual Life that Jesus lived and His death were certainly for our salvation, but NOT for the remission of sins.

That is a remnant of the Hebrew religion (blood sacrifice to appease their angry, vengeful God) from which even Paul claimed that we were set free. As Paul said, (and he speaks the truth here), we are no longer under the law of sin and death, but now we are under the law of the Spirit which is life and love. Actually we have always been under the "law of the Spirit", but we needed to be set free from the law, "the consciousness", sin and death.

Remembering His life in the flesh and His death is indeed something Jesus taught, but not as a ritualistic, transubstantive act of cleansing of sins.

As long as one adheres to what the Bible teaches, they will not be able to get past the "blood of the Lamb."

The blood of the lamb has it's roots in Judaism which Christians believe is the foundation of their own religion and to "rip" that foundation out from under them is not our place to do so. Trust the Spirit of Truth to reveal the truth to them along the way. They won't "go to hell" for believing in the Blood. It is a difficult thing to let go of such a deep seated teaching. And if they are full of fear and superstition where theblood is concerned, it is even more so.

My prayer is that everyone be delivered from fear.
 

freelight

Eclectic Theosophist
That is a remnant of the Hebrew religion (blood sacrifice to appease their angry, vengeful God) from which even Paul claimed that we were set free. As Paul said, (and he speaks the truth here), we are no longer under the law of sin and death, but now we are under the law of the Spirit which is life and love. Actually we have always been under the "law of the Spirit", but we needed to be set free from the law, "the consciousness", sin and death.


However, Paul still held to a 'vicarious blood atonement' concept, even though his theology was a more spiritualized version of things. It goes without saying that physical blood has no power at all to cleanse sins, neither can the death or bloodshed of another atone for one's own sins. - the principle of 'self-responsibility' cannot be abrogated.



pj
 

Aimiel

New member
We are not "saved" by symbolism. The partaking of the body and blood of Jesus (as performed in the Christian Church) is only a symbolic ritual...
It is only symbolic, in the physical realm... but in the spiritual realm, our sins are actually washed away by the actual Blood of Jesus, and God looks upon us as if we have never sinned. The spiritual truth of our sin being cleansed is far more important than our physical symbolism or our mental understanding. It sets our account right with God. We not only have peace in our heart and mind because we have done as God told us, but we actually have peace with God, because He cannot abide sin. If your sins aren't under Christ's Blood, they are NOT forgiven and you have no life in you.
 

Aimiel

New member
However, Paul still held to a 'vicarious blood atonement' concept, even though his theology was a more spiritualized version of things. It goes without saying that physical blood has no power at all to cleanse sins, neither can the death or bloodshed of another atone for one's own sins. - the principle of 'self-responsibility' cannot be abrogated.
Actually, it can, and is. Since Jesus never sinned, and yet paid the price for sin (death) He can exchange His Life for our sin, if we only believe in Him. Without faith in Christ, you alone carry the responsibility for your sins. With faith in Christ, He has already paid your sin-debt, and you're allowed to have eternal life. But without His Blood, your sins are still yours, as is the punishment: death and then judgment.
 

Caino

BANNED
Banned
Jesus of the Bible pre voluntary submission to death (a shared human experience).Jesus, as an incarnate Son, has the power to lay down his life and to take it up again.

"I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life. I tell you the truth, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live. For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son to have life in himself. And he has given him authority to judge because he is the Son of Man.

"Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out—those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned. By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me.



* Those who heard his word were saved, no mention of the new post resurrection gospel.

* Even those who previously died have faith based salvation, no requirement to believe in Paul's new confused gospel.

Caino
 

Aimiel

New member
The ones He raised do so because they hear His Words the same as you and I hear Them...

John 6:53
Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

The ones He raises eat His Flesh and drink His Blood, or they would have no life in them, as He said.
 

Caino

BANNED
Banned
The context of John 6:16 is widely know to a common reading as "the bread of life" (the word of God made flesh) John 1:1

There is nothing about Paul’s human sacrifice to bridge the theology of Judaism with Jesus' spiritual kingdom in John 6 The new garment cannot be sown onto the old without contaminating the new (which is exactly what happened).

The cup or “blood” represented the outpouring of grace and truth in the incarnation of "the word that was with God in the beginning".

Paul was a Pagan from Tarsus, he understood Jesus through his Pagan beliefs.


C
 

Aimiel

New member
The context of John 6:16 is widely know to a common reading as "the bread of life" (the word of God made flesh) John 1:1
Those who don't eat The Manna from Heaven have no life in them.
There is nothing about Paul’s human sacrifice to bridge the theology of Judaism with Jesus' spiritual kingdom in John 6 The new garment cannot be sown onto the old without contaminating the new (which is exactly what happened).
Judaism sees sacrifices for sin as cleansing. God ONLY sees The Blood of Jesus as cleansing.
The cup or “blood” represented the outpouring of grace and truth in the incarnation of "the word that was with God in the beginning".
No, The Blood of Jesus represents Jesus' Life, which is given to those who partake of His death, burial and resurrection by faith in Him.
Paul was a Pagan from Tarsus, he understood Jesus through his Pagan beliefs.
Judaism isn't paganism. You're misinformed.
 

Caino

BANNED
Banned
For those following along i provided a list of varying opinions about Paul from scholars based on critical analysis if the writings that remain can see that the Urantia revelation of the early 1900's is in support of some of these contemporary findings.


Source wiki:

Elaine Pagels, professor of religion at Princeton University and an authority on Gnosticism, argues that Paul was a Gnostic [62] and that the anti-Gnostic Pastoral Epistles were "pseudo-Pauline" forgeries written to rebut this.

British Jewish scholar Hyam Maccoby contends that the Paul as described in the Book of Acts and the view of Paul gleaned from his own writings are very different people. Some difficulties have been noted in the account of his life. Paul as described in the Book of Acts is much more interested in factual history, less in theology; ideas such as justification by faith are absent as are references to the Spirit, according to Maccoby. He also points out that there are no references to John the Baptist in the Pauline Epistles, although Paul mentions him several times in the Book of Acts.

Others have objected that the language of the speeches is too Lukan in style to reflect anyone else's words. Moreover, some have argued that the speeches of Peter and Paul are too much alike, and that especially Paul's are too distinct from his letters to reflect a true Pauline source.[63] Despite these suspicions, historian-attorney Christopher Price concludes that Luke's style in Acts is representative of those ancient historians known for accurately recording speeches in their works. Examination of several of the major speeches in Acts reveals that while the author smoothed out the Greek in some cases, he clearly relied on preexisting material to reconstruct his speeches. He did not believe himself at liberty to invent material, but attempted to accurately record the reality of the speeches in Acts.[63]

F. C. Baur (1792–1860), professor of theology at Tübingen in Germany, the first scholar to critique Acts and the Pauline Epistles, and founder of the Tübingen School of theology, argued that Paul, as the "Apostle to the Gentiles", was in violent opposition to the original 12 Apostles. Baur considers the Acts of the Apostles were late and unreliable. This debate has continued ever since, with Adolf Deissmann (1866–1937) and Richard Reitzenstein (1861–1931) emphasising Paul's Greek inheritance and Albert Schweitzer stressing his dependence on Judaism.


Maccoby theorizes that Paul synthesized Judaism, Gnosticism, and mysticism to create Christianity as a cosmic savior religion. According to Maccoby, Paul's Pharisaism was his own invention, though actually he was probably associated with the Sadducees. Maccoby attributes the origins of Christian anti-Semitism to Paul and claims that Paul's view of women, though inconsistent, reflects his Gnosticism in its misogynist aspects.[64]

Professor Robert Eisenman of California State University, Long Beach argues that Paul was a member of the family of Herod the Great.[65] Professor Eisenman makes a connection between Paul and an individual identified by Josephus as "Saulus," a "kinsman of Agrippa."[66] Another oft-cited element of the case for Paul as a member of Herod's family is found in Romans 16:11 where Paul writes, "Greet Herodion, my kinsman." This is a minority view in the academic community.

Perhaps the most speculative argument is made by British author Ralph Ellis, whose recent book King Jesus identifies Saul with Flavius Josephus, the first-century historian. In order to achieve this, Ellis has to make Saul very young (14 yrs) on his first evangelical tour of the Mediterranean.[67]

Among the critics of Paul the Apostle was Thomas Jefferson who wrote that Paul was the "first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus."[68] Howard Brenton's 2005 play Paul takes a skeptical view of his conversion.

F.F. Powell argues that Paul, in his epistles, made use of many of the ideas of the Greek philosopher Plato, sometimes even using the same metaphors and language.[69] For example, in Phaedrus, Plato has Socrates saying that the heavenly ideals are perceived as though "through a glass dimly."[70] These words are echoed by Paul in 1 Corinthians 13:12.

Caino
 

Aimiel

New member
The biggest problem I see with your theories put forward against Paul is that the Christian experience so closely resembles Paul's own conversion, as well as the fact that The Gospel is made more clear and applicable by his epistles. I'm more sure of Paul being an apostle than I am of owning my own home or car (both of which are title in my name). His calling and election are sure, and God's Word is too.
 

Caino

BANNED
Banned
The biggest problem I see with your theories put forward against Paul is that the Christian experience so closely resembles Paul's own conversion, as well as the fact that The Gospel is made more clear and applicable by his epistles. I'm more sure of Paul being an apostle than I am of owning my own home or car (both of which are title in my name). His calling and election are sure, and God's Word is too.

Paul really was just the first great Charismatic preacher and author of Christian theology. There have been many, many others since that time yet they were not considered "the word of God" on par with Jesus. Scholars who are free to research these maters without fear of persecution, torture and death by the Christian Church, can now see the development of Pauline Christianity.

Source wiki:


Pauline Christianity, as an expression, first came into use in the twentieth century among those scholars who proposed different strands of thought within Early Christianity, wherein Paul was a powerful influence.[2] It has come into widespread use among non-Christian scholars and depends on the claim, advanced in different ages, that the form of the faith found in the writings of Paul is radically different from that found elsewhere in the New Testament, but also that his influence came to predominate. Reference is also made to the large number of non-canonical texts,[3] some of which have been discovered during the last hundred years, and which show the many movements and strands of thought emanating from Jesus's life and teaching or which may be contemporary with them, some of which can be contrasted with Paul's thought. Of the more significant are Ebionism and Gnosticism (see below). However, there is no universal agreement as to Gnosticism's relationship either to Christianity in general or the writings of Paul in particular, see Paul and Gnosticism.​

The revelation of the Urantia Papers was given to us by celestial or angelic beings who were on the earth during the times of Christ. We now have the true gospel and history of Christ aside from what scholarship has discovered by a close analysis of the scriptural accounts.

Caino
 

Aimiel

New member
The revelation of the Urantia Papers was given to us by celestial or angelic beings who were on the earth during the times of Christ. We now have the true gospel and history of Christ ...
No, you have demonic doctrine, since the demon(s) who dictated the Urantia Papers was pretending to be an angel of light.
 

One Truth

New member
The biggest problem I see with your theories put forward against Paul is that the Christian experience so closely resembles Paul's own conversion, as well as the fact that The Gospel is made more clear and applicable by his epistles. I'm more sure of Paul being an apostle than I am of owning my own home or car (both of which are title in my name). His calling and election are sure, and God's Word is too.

Actually, Aimiel, the only thing you can really be sure of is YOUR own EXPERIENCE. You cannot be sure of Paul's "experience" because you are not Paul and you were not there.

To live on someone else's "experience" is surely missing the "mark". No one can know, actually KNOW, God through or by someone else's experience. Knowing God requires personal experience. Knowing ABOUT God is not experience.

Paul's experience was his. His experience is not necessarily the same as yours or someone else's. Paul, just like you, brings his own bias, his own prejudice (preconceived judgment or opinion) to whatever he believes and it is from that which he derives some of his doctrines (such as blood sacrifice).

It makes sense only if you understand the evolution of religion.

Anytime you have a religion based on FEAR (which most religions, including Christianity are), you will find a doctrine of "atonement". The thing that Jesus tried to do was to teach a personal, fearless relationship with the Father that is not attained through "atonement", but through personal, living surrender of one's will in saying, "it is my will that Your Will be done".

Paul was a great teacher, but he was not able to let go of much of his preconceived opinions which came from his association with Judaism and some of the pagan religions. Once you see this, it becomes very clear.
 

Aimiel

New member
Actually, Aimiel, the only thing you can really be sure of is YOUR own EXPERIENCE. You cannot be sure of Paul's "experience" because you are not Paul and you were not there.
Apparently you misunderstood me... I meant that Paul's description of the 'Christian experience' is so well-described by Paul that the Wiki quote's dismissal of his writings is negated by the way that God re-enforces His Word on the inside of us, by His Personal Witness together with us, spiritually, that these things are true and good.
To live on someone else's "experience" is surely missing the "mark".
Amen.
No one can know, actually KNOW, God through or by someone else's experience. Knowing God requires personal experience. Knowing ABOUT God is not experience.
Amen.
Paul's experience was his. His experience is not necessarily the same as yours or someone else's. Paul, just like you, brings his own bias, his own prejudice (preconceived judgment or opinion) to whatever he believes and it is from that which he derives some of his doctrines (such as blood sacrifice).
But his deep and insightful soul-searching answers to the questions that most of us would never otherwise be able to put into words regarding working out our salvation (that is to say making sense of what our faith actually should look like in our daily lives) simply resonates with us and makes us so sure that Paul was sent by Christ that we have no more doubt about that fact than we do that 2+2=4. Attempting to attack his credibility is merely grasping at straws to try to break down a well-fortified castle.
Anytime you have a religion based on FEAR (which most religions, including Christianity are), you will find a doctrine of "atonement".
Christianity isn't based upon fear, it is based upon God's Love. If you don't realize that, then you're not familiar with Christianity at all, only someone's misguided opinion about it.
The thing that Jesus tried to do was to teach a personal, fearless relationship with the Father that is not attained through "atonement", but through personal, living surrender of one's will in saying, "it is my will that Your Will be done".
Hogwash. Without His Blood, the sins haven't been cleansed, and sin has no communion with righteousness.
Paul was a great teacher, but he was not able to let go of much of his preconceived opinions which came from his association with Judaism and some of the pagan religions.
Hogwash. He was a Jew of Jews. He knew the law and didn't follow any pagan religion and certainly didn't 'taint' Christianity with a pagan brush. You really don't know what you're talking about.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top